# Time for a complete Ban!



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

> A total of 37,133 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2017


If it were not for cars, 37,133 people from last year alone would still be alive!

End the madness, we need better laws! Get cars off the road, NOW!



https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

We only need to ban the fast. scary looking ones with large gas tanks.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Set the example get rid of your car first.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

At least reduce speed limits. You know "55 saves lives".....well heck, wouldn't 45 save more ? and 5mph a WHOLE LOT more ?? Why do things half way ?


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

From your link

Although the U.S. population has been growing steadily since 1975, the rate of crash deaths per 100,000 population in 2017 is about half of what it was four decades ago. In 2017, the overall per capita death rate decreased 3 percent compared with 2016.

So, things are getting better....ever wonder if any "better laws" have anything to do with it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Just ban roads.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Forget about cars. Doctors are what we need to ban. Roughly 684 people a day die from medical malpractice. Third leading cause of death. Forget that tired old "doctors save lives" argument. We need them off the streets now. If we could save one child it would be worth it.


----------



## crehberg (Mar 16, 2008)

Y'all just can't behave can you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doozie said:


> From your link
> 
> Although the U.S. population has been growing steadily since 1975, the rate of crash deaths per 100,000 population in 2017 is about half of what it was four decades ago. In 2017, the overall per capita death rate decreased 3 percent compared with 2016.
> 
> So, things are getting better....ever wonder if any "better laws" have anything to do with it.


I'd say most of the death rate reduction is due to safer vehicle design rather than safer drivers.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I remember being on vacation as a child in the back of my mom and dads 60's Mercury Monterey.
No seat belts, and the rear window behind me was electric. You could lay on the rear dash while the window was down heading along the highway.
Big tuna boat of a car with narrow bias ply tires, loose front suspension/steering and drum brakes.
This at a time when many interstates were still two lane without merging/exit ramps; meaning cars running 75 mph would come to a complete stop to turn into a roadside diner, motel, house or side road constantly.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I'm still trying to figure out why I have to wear a seatbelt in my car while there's guy (no helmet)passing me on a motorcycle.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Because there is always someone else that knows what is best for you; 
sometimes it is your neighbor
sometimes it is a group or association
sometimes it is your government
sometimes it is a lobbyist
Sooner or later most of us realize that it isn't about what is best for us...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> Set the example get rid of your car first.


I haven't owned a car since 1972.


----------



## ticndig (Sep 7, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't owned a car since 1972.


 yea I drive a truck too


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Ban cars, but let the elected officials keep their cars and drivers. Their cars aren't the problem, just yours.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Don't most people die in hospitals?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Best discussion thread I've read in a long time. 

Thank for the smile this morning, you witty people you....


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Dihydrogen Monoxide still remains the number 1 killer.

100% of people - men, women, children - who even touch this naturally occurring substance which exists everywhere are guaranteed to die.

Why is there no outcry, no concerted effort to rid mankind of this disaster?


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'd say most of the death rate reduction is due to safer vehicle design rather than safer drivers.



Yes, some of the vehicle design is required by "better laws" now.

I know people that have claimed their air bags probably saved their life.

*Safety features: standard equipment*
Some important safety features are now required on new vehicles. These include front airbags, electronic stability control, safety belts, and the LATCH child safety seat system. Side-curtain airbags, while not required by regulation, have become standard on many new cars in recent years. Review additional safety features at Safercar.gov.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Don't most people die in hospitals?


Yep, but death by firearms sell, and there are folks willing to instigate, manipulate and push their "outrage" despite walking right past the deaths and murders from gangs, drunks, illegals, infanticide, medical malpractice, elder abuse, opioids, crack, and on...
Must be a lot of spouses killing each other from the prolific spread of new shows on the crime channels.
I'm thinking a thread search for the above would be quite sparse.

Kind of sort of like very few people make whoopie like the movies portray it, yet it also sells and is depicted it as others intend for you to believe that it should be.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

.


GTX63 said:


> Yep, but death by firearms sell, and there are folks willing to instigate, manipulate and push their "outrage" despite walking right past the deaths and murders from gangs, drunks, illegals, infanticide, medical malpractice, elder abuse, opioids, crack, and on...
> Must be a lot of spouses killing each other from the prolific spread of new shows on the crime channels.
> I'm thinking a thread search for the above would be quite sparse.
> *
> Kind of sort of like very few people make whoopie like the movies portray it*, yet it also sells and is depicted it as others intend for you to believe that it should be.


What kind of movies are you watching?!?


----------



## ticndig (Sep 7, 2014)

doozie said:


> What kind of movies are you watching


 Must be rated triple whoopy


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Where have all the moderates gone? Fanatics of any sort scare me!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

ydderf said:


> Where have all the moderates gone? Fanatics of any sort scare me!


Me and the other two are having coffee.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> Kind of sort of like very few people make whoopie like the movies portray it, yet it also sells and is depicted it as others intend for you to believe that it should be.


So it's not just me doing it all wrong?


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

I advocate for banning chocolate in all of its forms; after all, it's what made me fat. Therefore, it is dangerous and needs to be kept from everyone. Think of the children!


----------



## ticndig (Sep 7, 2014)

need to ban the internet ,I'm getting a flat spot on my butt


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Still in for banning Hospitals...just googled it...its number one place to die...and followed by "home"...must be a scary place this "home"....maybe we should at least save our children from 'home" and make sure they dont die in Hospitals...why is noone thinking of the kids...


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

nehimama said:


> I advocate for banning chocolate in all of its forms; after all, it's what made me fat. Therefore, it is dangerous and needs to be kept from everyone. Think of the children!


Please stop spreading fake news, nehimama. Pound for pound, it's the ice cream that does it.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

Please stop spreading fake news, nehimama. Pound for pound, it's the ice cream that does it.

LOL! Looks like a total ban on ice cream is next, then.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Cornhusker said:


> So it's not just me doing it all wrong?


I wouldn't know without seeing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ydderf said:


> Where have all the moderates gone?


They are all still there.
They just aren't that vocal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> I wouldn't know without seeing.


I had no idea you were into such things...


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

georger said:


> Dihydrogen Monoxide still remains the number 1 killer.
> 
> 100% of people - men, women, children - who even touch this naturally occurring substance which exists everywhere are guaranteed to die.
> 
> Why is there no outcry, no concerted effort to rid mankind of this disaster?



They collected many signatures and I think everyone who signed it should be denied that dangerous chemical.

I think we need to make cars illegal, so we can spawn more cartels and criminals, to keep laws rollin, the jail full and police funded,.....plus its a nice source of money for the feds.

Prohibition has never worked for anything, it has always made it worse. Maybe they want to make it worse...….


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

No, no, no! You're all wrong. We need to ban babies! If we ban babies then about 100 years from now there will be no one around to die from anything! And when the last one dies, no will be left around to care.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> No, no, no! You're all wrong. We need to ban babies! If we ban babies then about 100 years from now there will be no one around to die from anything! And when the last one dies, no will be left around to care.


You can't get more green than that. You get to save the planets ecosystem, solve all the political problems worldwide, without harming a single person!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

georger said:


> Dihydrogen Monoxide still remains the number 1 killer.
> 
> 100% of people - men, women, children - who even touch this naturally occurring substance which exists everywhere are guaranteed to die.
> 
> Why is there no outcry, no concerted effort to rid mankind of this disaster?


 That’s why I drink coke. 
Ever hear of anyone dying in coke ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nehimama said:


> I advocate for banning chocolate in all of its forms; after all, it's what made me fat. Therefore, it is dangerous and needs to be kept from everyone. Think of the children!


 No don’t think of the children! When they ban chocolate you might eat them!!!!

Had a scary aunt that always pinched my cheeks and said she wanted to eat me all up. 
Say witch and she’s what I think of. 

Nice lady just scary choice of words for a little kid


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We don't need to ban cars.
We need to do an extensive background check each and every time you buy a car, and if that doesn't work, we'll make you do a background check to buy gas.
An I.Q test wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Of course, if we do a universal background check, you'll have to have one every time you borrow or loan a car to someone, and if you are on a trip with other people, they won't be able to drive unless you transfer title of your car to them....of course, that will require another background check and possibly a 2 week waiting period while the government decides if they really need to drive your car.
After all, driving is a privilege.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> We don't need to ban cars.
> We need to do an extensive background check each and every time you buy a car, and if that doesn't work, we'll make you do a background check to buy gas.
> An I.Q test wouldn't be a bad idea either.
> Of course, if we do a universal background check, you'll have to have one every time you borrow or loan a car to someone, and if you are on a trip with other people, they won't be able to drive unless you transfer title of your car to them....of course, that will require another background check and possibly a 2 week waiting period while the government decides if they really need to drive your car.
> After all, driving is a privilege.


You bring up a good point. A driver's permit is required while learning to drive a car, and one must pass both a written and driving test to get a license. You have to carry some sort of liability insurance, you must have title to the car to prove ownership, the car must have periodic inspections in most states, be registered in the state where you live, and if you have medical and/or mental conditions your driving privileges can be removed. 

I agree with you, thanks for bringing this up.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Oh oh...you guys know, that an IQ and or background check would render at least 60% of the people car less?
The US driver license tests and inspections are by far the most funny thing i have ever seen in terms of getting access to such a machine...multiple choice until you pass...driving around the block and being trained by ma and pa who prob teach by the telephone game method...just recently, i saw a driving school teacher, practicing passing right with he student...all included, look into mirror, signal and all...hysterical...i instantly called the driving school, what they are doing in front of me...hope he lost his license


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You bring up a good point. A driver's permit is required while learning to drive a car, and one must pass both a written and driving test to get a license. You have to carry some sort of liability insurance, you must have title to the car to prove ownership, the car must have periodic inspections in most states, be registered in the state where you live, and if you have medical and/or mental conditions your driving privileges can be removed.
> 
> I agree with you, thanks for bringing this up.


Again, driving is a privilege, not a right.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Also, every time a drunk driver kills someone, or someone rents a truck and runs into a crowd of people, we should severely limit the rights of all drivers, even the good ones with excellent driving records.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Again, driving is a privilege, not a right.


I agree, and so are many other things. The right is not guaranteed to all now, and can be changed as it was for those citizens. 

Again, I agree with your comparison regarding cars and driving. You made excellent common sense points. Thank you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, and so are many other things. The right is not guaranteed to all now, and can be changed as it was for those citizens.
> 
> Again, I agree with your comparison regarding cars and driving. You made excellent common sense points. Thank you.


You are welcome.
Just don't confuse a privilege with a right.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> You are welcome.
> Just don't confuse a privilege with a right.


And you shouldn't confuse the fact that rights can be modified, and have been.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> And you shouldn't confuse the fact that rights can be modified, and have been.


No, they can only be violated.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> No, they can only be violated.


That would be a personal opinion and not one backed by the courts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> That would be a personal opinion and not one backed by the courts.


The courts are obligated to follow the laws.

The laws say some rights "shall not be infringed", meaning any law that attempts to change that is in itself illegal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Courts are only obligated to follow the laws if the laws don't go against the constitution. The courts have decided that constitutional rights can be taken away and restricted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Courts are only obligated to follow the laws *if the laws don't go against the constitution*. The courts have decided that constitutional rights can be taken away and restricted.


That's pretty much what I said, since the Constitution is also "the law".



> For example, the death penalty.


That's not an "example" of anything.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> That would be a personal opinion and not one backed by the courts.


The courts are not averse to violating our rights, especially when we have so many Obama appointees on the bench.
Judges are not immune from corruption, after all, until someone appoints or elects them, they are just lawyers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pretty much what I said, since the Constitution is also "the law".
> 
> 
> That's not an "example" of anything.


Not really. Laws are different than the constitution. Laws are passed and are to be within constitutional limits. The constitution is what gives our government the right to make laws.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Courts are only obligated to follow the laws if the laws don't go against the constitution. The courts have decided that constitutional rights can be taken away and restricted.


Which rights have been taken away or restricted?
I can think of a few that have been violated.
I guess if you are OK with changing rights, we might as well go ahead and do the common sense voter ID.
That way Democrats can only vote once, and can't vote after they are dead.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Not really. Laws are different than the constitution. Laws are passed and are to be within constitutional limits.


What are the Constitutional limits on the Bill of Rights?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, and so are many other things. The right is not guaranteed to all now, and can be changed as it was for those citizens.
> 
> Again, I agree with your comparison regarding cars and driving. You made excellent common sense points. Thank you.


The better analogy would be computers and smart phones. 

How would you feel about background checks and metal health screenings for purchasing a phone, computer, paper or printer? What about one before you can sign up for an Internet forum where you can go free-speech up thousands of innocent people without any government oversight?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Which rights have been taken away or restricted?
> I can think of a few that have been violated.
> I guess if you are OK with changing rights, we might as well go ahead and do the common sense voter ID.
> That way Democrats can only vote once, and can't vote after they are dead.


Don't start telling me what I think or am okay with because you don't like the facts.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The better analogy would be computers and smart phones.
> 
> How would you feel about background checks and metal health screenings for purchasing a phone, computer, paper or printer? What about one before you can sign up for an Internet forum where you can go free-speech up thousands of innocent people without any government oversight?


I prefer Cornhusker's analogy, it's just good common sense.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> What are the Constitutional limits on the Bill of Rights?


No rights are absolute. How do I know that? Constitutional amendments.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Had a discussion the other day regarding limits on free-speech, and some interesting points came out; namely about the limitation that “you can’t yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre”.

That argument gets used a lot as an analog to restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but I don’t think the analogy is used appropriately. If it were, I don’t think it would work in favor of those for more gun control.


The analogy is that you can’t yell fire in a theatre because people could get hurt, and, likewise, it’s constitutional to restrict certain types of firearms because they have the capability of firing faster and hurting a bunch of people.

The problem with that logic is that you are NOT prohibited from yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theatre.

What if the theatre really is on fire, and you’re just alerting people to get out? That would be the equivalent to having that extra-killy gun, and using it to defend yourself or others.

What if the play is an interactive one, and part of the script has the audience yelling ‘FIRE’? That would be equivalent to you taking your Killmaster 15 to a competition, and shooting it into the designated targets.


What CAN get you in trouble is yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre that is not on fire, and getting a bunch of people trampled. That is the equivalent of firing your 30round, high velocity clipazine-equipped .9mm AR-Glocktine into a crowd of people.


You ARE allowed to have the word “fire” in your vocabulary. You ARE allowed to take it with you into a theatre. You ARE allowed to use it responsibly in the defense of others, even in said theatre.

You WILL be held liable if you use it to hurt people.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I prefer Cornhusker's analogy, it's just good common sense.


It’s just easier to use in advance of your position, even if it’s not really apt.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It’s just easier to use in advance of your position, even if it’s not really apt.


He presented it, I agreed with his analogy and added to it. The fact that you prefer something else is irrelevant.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You bring up a good point. A driver's permit is required while learning to drive a car, and one must pass both a written and driving test to get a license. You have to carry some sort of liability insurance, you must have title to the car to prove ownership, the car must have periodic inspections in most states, be registered in the state where you live, and if you have medical and/or mental conditions your driving privileges can be removed.
> 
> I agree with you, thanks for bringing this up.


I am sure you think there is a point about something in there. What is it? 

Are you trying to equate gun ownership with owning a car?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, and so are many other things. The right is not guaranteed to all now, and can be changed as it was for those citizens.
> 
> Again, I agree with your comparison regarding cars and driving. You made excellent common sense points. Thank you.


Are you suggesting the right to own a gun should be diminished further? For what reasons?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I am sure you think there is a point about something in there. What is it?
> 
> Are you trying to equate gun ownership with owning a car?


Ask Cornhusker, he started the discussion with his post. Or actually, ask the OP what his point was for the entire thread.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Ask Cornhusker, he started the discussion with his post. Or actually, ask the OP what his point was for the entire thread.


So you had no point?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Had a discussion the other day regarding limits on free-speech, and some interesting points came out; namely about the limitation that “you can’t yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre”.
> 
> That argument gets used a lot as an analog to restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but I don’t think the analogy is used appropriately. If it were, I don’t think it would work in favor of those for more gun control.
> 
> ...


When an anti-freedom zealot uses the ole "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" I simply say that you also can't shoot up a crowded theater. The word "fire" is not banned. You don't have to be a certain age, or, have a background check to use the word "fire".


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Don't start telling me what I think or am okay with because you don't like the facts.


I didn't mean to tell you what you think, But that's pretty much what you said.
You didn't answer my question though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Not really. Laws are different than the constitution.


The Constitution is "law".
You're talking about "statutes".



painterswife said:


> *No rights are absolute*. How do I know that? Constitutional amendments


That's your personal opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Don't start telling me what I think or am okay with because you don't like the facts.


SSDD
You already implied you're ok with it since you're here arguing it can be done.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> No rights are absolute. How do I know that? Constitutional amendments.


I will have to disagree.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I prefer Cornhusker's analogy, it's just good common sense.


What analogy are you referring to?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Ask Cornhusker, he started the discussion with his post. Or actually, ask the OP what his point was for the entire thread.


I was just dreaming up silly rules for buying a car..


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I didn't mean to tell you what you think, But that's pretty much what you said.
> You didn't answer my question though.


And I won't. You going off on a tangent is not my problem.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> And I won't. You going off on a tangent is not my problem.


Nice dodge....again.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Constitution is "law".
> You're talking about "statutes".
> 
> 
> That's your personal opinion.


If it can be given in a constitutional amendment it can be taken away in a constitutional amendment. Therefore not absolute.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> SSDD
> You already implied you're ok with it since you're here arguing it can be done.


You inferred. I did not say it. I did not even imply it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Ask Cornhusker, he started the discussion with his post. Or actually, ask the OP what his point was for the entire thread.


Why are you trying to make this about guns?
Are you trying to get this sent to the dark rooms?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Nice dodge....again.


Changing the goal posts as you did is a dodge. I don't have to follow you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> If it can be given in a constitutional amendment it can be taken away in a constitutional amendment. Therefore not absolute.


The Bill of Rights were not "given" by Constitutional amendments, they were "Guaranteed" by Constitutional amendments.
We already had those rights.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Changing the goal posts as you did is a dodge. I don't have to follow you.


Nope, you don't.
Yet here we are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You inferred. *I did not say it*. I did not even imply it.


That's what I said. 



Cornhusker said:


> Are you trying to get this sent to the dark rooms?


That would fit the pattern.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> If it can be *given* in a constitutional amendment it can be taken away in a constitutional amendment. Therefore not absolute.


Not all rights are "given" by the Constitution.
Many are recognized as being pre-existing, even if you don't like them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> If it can be given in a constitutional amendment it can be taken away in a constitutional amendment. Therefore not absolute.


It is not "given" it is enumerated. The constitution is largely a limit on government (suppose to be) and the opposition to the BOR, by certain founders, is not because they didn't agree with the rights enumerated within, but, because the BOR was redundant as the Constitution didn't give the Federal Government power to regulate said rights.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> It is not "given" it is enumerated. The constitution is largely a limit on government (suppose to be) and the opposition to the BOR, by certain founders, is not because they didn't agree with the rights enumerated within, but, because the BOR was redundant as the Constitution didn't give the Federal Government power to regulate said rights.


Yet, the government does regulate those said rights that are all in amendments.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> He presented it, I agreed with his analogy and added to it. The fact that you prefer something else is irrelevant.


Right. I saw your point, and _added_ to it the all-too-obvious reason why one would prefer a flawed analogy over a more apt one.


But, while we’re on the topic, there is an obvious flaw in your analysis of the analogy:


Irish Pixie said:


> ...A driver's permit is required while learning to drive a car, and one must pass both a written and driving test to get a license. You have to carry some sort of liability insurance, you must have title to the car to prove ownership, the car must have periodic inspections in most states, be registered in the state where you live, and if you have medical and/or mental conditions your driving privileges can be removed...


One doesn’t need a permit to learn to drive, nor a license to own and drive a car. No one is required to have insurance simply for owning a car, and no medical conditions can be used as a reason to make someone give up their car.

You can buy as big, fast, and unsafe a car as you want, and drive it to your heart’s content without a bit of government oversight.

The license, registration, and insurance are not requirements for owning and driving a car. They’re requirements for using the public roadways for certain means of transportation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Right. I saw your point, and _added_ to it the all-too-obvious reason why one would prefer a flawed analogy over a more apt one.
> 
> 
> But, while we’re on the topic, there is an obvious flaw in your analysis of the analogy:
> ...


If all you want to do is sit in your driveway or drive around your property, I agree. The minute you are off your property you are required to have a license, insurance, and registration for that vehicle or you are in violation of the law. The same can be done as easily for other things as well, common sense. And there are many medical and mental conditions that can be used to revoke your license to operate a vehicle off your property.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> If all you want to do is sit in your driveway or drive around your property, I agree. The minute you are off your property you are required to have a license, insurance, and registration for that vehicle or you are in violation of the law. The same can be done as easily for other things as well, common sense. And there are many medical and mental conditions that can be used to revoke your license to operate a vehicle off your property.


But they can't take your car.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Yet, the government does regulate those said rights that are all in amendments.


And that should anger every freedom loving American because the government is acting in a way that is contrary to our Constitution.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> If all you want to do is sit in your driveway or drive around your property, I agree. The minute you are off your property you are required to have a license, insurance, and registration for that vehicle or you are in violation of the law. The same can be done as easily for other things as well, common sense. And there are many medical and mental conditions that can be used to revoke your license to operate a vehicle off your property.


Agreed. There are requirements and recourse against your use of the public roads for transportation- but there are NONE on your keeping and bearing an auto. 

That said, the part about leaving your property with your car is not really true, either. You can carry your car on public roads without any such licensing or restrictions. You are free to load your car up on a flatbed and have a licensed driver drive you and your car anywhere you’d like to go. 

So, as to the analogy of the drivers license, if the legislature would like to implement licensing to restrict who can and cannot shoot their guns on the public roadways, then have at it.... I guess.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> But they can't take your car.


I don't believe any said they could, or even wanted to take your car. I certainly didn't, I agree with your common sense analogy, remember?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Agreed. There are requirements and recourse against your use of the public roads for transportation- but there are NONE on your keeping and bearing an auto.
> 
> That said, the part about leaving your property with your car is not really true, either. You can carry your car on public roads without any such licensing or restrictions. You are free to load your car up on a flatbed and have a licensed driver drive you and your car anywhere you’d like to go.
> 
> So, as to the analogy of the drivers license, if the legislature would like to implement licensing to restrict who can and cannot shoot their guns on the public roadways, then have at it.... I guess.


You are absolutely correct, except I have never once mentioned ****. I don't agree with your last sentence either, it's rather silly if you ask me.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are absolutely correct, except I have never once mentioned ****. I don't agree with your last sentence either, it's rather silly if you ask me.


What’s the blanked out part? You never once mentioned what?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't believe any said they could, or even wanted to take your car. I certainly didn't, I agree with your common sense analogy, remember?


Which analogy was that?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> But they can't take your car.


Yes they can. Use it to commit a crime or drive while drunk and the govt can seize your vehicle. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html
It's also a possible penalty for driving without a license or insurance.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Wow...amazing how fast a fun/joke threat can go down the drain...i liked the original topic better


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yet, the government does regulate those said rights that are all in amendments.


That doesn't mean it's always legal.
That just means they get away with it sometimes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> And there are many medical and mental conditions that can be used to revoke your license to operate a vehicle off your property.


So what's your point?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are absolutely correct, except I have never once mentioned ******. I don't agree with your last sentence either, *it's rather silly* if you ask me.


I totally agree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Use it to commit a crime or drive while drunk and the govt can seize your vehicle.


That's not "taking your rights."
That's punishment for your actions.
It's not being arbitrarily applied to everyone.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, and so are many other things. The right is not guaranteed to all now, and can be changed as it was for those citizens.
> 
> Again, I agree with your comparison regarding cars and driving. You made excellent common sense points. Thank you.




I think it should be applied to abortion too, how many mentally ill people, upset people, so we need a waiting period to end the circle of life.

Without the circle all life ends, a power to end humanity should be heavily regulated right ?

I think women should have special insurance too and make it mandatory,...….forced inspections of how that have that device stored as they might get drunk and leave it laying anywhere. Maybe lock it away in a safe...….and make it mandatory.

After all school kids have gotten their hands on it before...…….it has certainly caused murders and all kind of harm,......it is a very dangerous device and should be heavily regulated …. the power to give life is just as serious as the power to take life and that device has both,.....we should leave it up to a bunch of people who do not own that device to determine how it will be locked away and where and when you can use it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> I think it should be applied to abortion too, how many mentally ill people, upset people, so we need a waiting period to end the circle of life.
> 
> Without the circle all life ends, a power to end humanity should be heavily regulated right ?
> 
> ...


Actually, wouldn't it be better for all men to have a vasectomy at a certain age? That way it would take care of pregnancies due to incest and rape. Vasectomies are totally reversible, virtually symptom free, and minimally invasive, at least compared to tubal ligation. Or we could just let all people have control over their own bodies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Actually, wouldn't it be better for all men to have a vasectomy at a certain age? That way it would take care of pregnancies due to incest and rape. Vasectomies are totally reversible, virtually symptom free, and minimally invasive, at least compared to tubal ligation. Or we could just let all people have control over their own bodies.


Even if better. They can store semen and not have to worry a reversing it. Then all pregnancies would be deliberate.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Actually, wouldn't it be better for all men to have a vasectomy at a certain age? That way it would take care of pregnancies due to incest and rape. Vasectomies are totally reversible, virtually symptom free, and minimally invasive, at least compared to tubal ligation. Or we could just let all people have control over their own bodies.


I have always suspected you wanted to cut it off.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I have always suspected you wanted to cut it off.


How odd. You think the penis is cut off during a vasectomy? It isn't, it cuts and ties off the vas deferens so sperm can't be ejaculated.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> How odd. You think the penis is cut off during a vasectomy? It isn't, it cuts and ties off the vas deferens so sperm can't be ejaculated.


You seem to struggle understanding things.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Vasectomies are totally reversible


While they have gotten better in the past few years, no they are not 100% reversible.

This is not going to be popular, but a major problem is that responsible people are having fewer and fewer babies but irresponsible people are having more.
I am also one Conservative that does NOT want to make abortion illegal, I never want to go back to the days of back alley abortions and coat hangers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> While they have gotten better in the past few years, no they are not 100% reversible.
> 
> This is not going to be popular, but a major problem is that responsible people are having fewer and fewer babies but irresponsible people are having more.
> I am also one Conservative that does NOT want to make abortion illegal, I never want to go back to the days of back alley abortions and coat hangers.


I have often wondered how many abortions we would have if they were only done to save the mother's life.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Even if better. They can store semen and not have to worry a reversing it. Then all pregnancies would be deliberate.


It is even better. Thank you.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Even if better. They can store semen and not have to worry a reversing it. Then all pregnancies would be deliberate.


I like the way you think but even deliberate pregnancies get reversed when just one changes their mind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Then all pregnancies would be deliberate.


They could be now, but this thread isn't (or wasn't) about fantasies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I like the way you think but even deliberate pregnancies get reversed when just one changes their mind.


The only excuse then would be health of either the fetusand or mother.

No failed birth control possible.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They could be now, but this thread isn't (or wasn't) about fantasies.


Pregnancy resulting from rape and incest are not deliberate, and are not fantasy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Pregnancy resulting from rape and incest are not deliberate, and are not fantasy.


There you go misunderstanding things again.
It's beginning to appear you do it intentionally.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Even if better. They can store semen and not have to worry a reversing it. Then all pregnancies would be deliberate.


 I store mine just fine,.....there are NO accidents when it comes to this...……..it can be forced, which is different, then cutting off is fine with me......


I am for anything that works,...diddle a kid or rape, cut it off...….its a sure fire cure and assurance it will never do that again.

We could pass more laws, but it is already illegal and criminals don not follow laws,....so, no, I am not for more laws.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

You can`t stop gun violence with your soy latte,...…..


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I thought we were talking about the dangers of cars, now we are back to killing babies.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

How 'bout them Cowboys'!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I thought we were talking about the dangers of cars, now we are back to killing babies.


And some of the ones that always say "you can't tell others what to to with their bodies" are now wanting to promote forced genital mutilation.

It just goes to show patterns never change.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

How about we make it illegal to drink and drive, shoot innocent people, AND kill a fetus for any reason other than life of the mother?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> How about we make it illegal to drink and drive, shoot innocent people, AND kill a fetus for any reason other than life of the mother?


The first few things have been illegal for decades. And the last- sure, if men can be forced to give up control of their bodies and have a vasectomy at puberty. No sperm, no unplanned pregnancies, no abortion. I do believe that some think women get pregnant all on their own. Perhaps we need a refresher in biology.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The first few things have been illegal for decades. And the last- sure, if men can be forced to give up control of their bodies and have a vasectomy at puberty. No sperm, no unplanned pregnancies, no abortion. I do believe that some think women get pregnant all on their own. Perhaps we need a refresher in biology.


For the vast majority, the choice was made when she invited the man to enter her body, after conception it is not about her body anymore.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> For the vast majority, the choice was made when she invited the man to enter her body, after conception it is not about her body anymore.


Not so much. Sex does not need to be about conception, it can be about pleasure. Conception is fertilized eggs. It is not a baby.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I do believe that some think women get pregnant all on their own. Perhaps we need a refresher in biology.


Exactly
It takes 2
One from each gender. (2)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> For the vast majority, the choice was made when she invited the man to enter her body, after conception it is not about her body anymore.


There would be no conception if men had a vasectomy at puberty. That way there would be no pregnancy from incest or rape, and any other pregnancy would be deliberate. 

Are you balking at having your body controlled?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Not so much. Sex does not need to be about conception, it can be about pleasure. Conception is fertilized eggs. It is not a baby.


It's a chicken?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> There would be no conception if men had a vasectomy at puberty. That way there would be no pregnancy from incest or rape, and any other pregnancy would be deliberate.
> 
> Are you balking at having your body controlled?


Seems like forced sterilization is something Democrats learned from Nazis. (among other things)
I can't really see how you compare forced sterilization with not murdering someone.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Exactly
> It takes 2
> One from each gender. (2)


To be technical, one from each sex. But it seems you understand how it works. 



Cornhusker said:


> It's a chicken?


Is a chicken egg a chicken? Or does it have the potential to become a chicken?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> There would be no conception if men had a vasectomy at puberty. That way there would be no pregnancy from incest or rape, and any other pregnancy would be deliberate.
> 
> Are you balking at having your body controlled?


Not the same thing. If we were saying that women should be forcibly bred, or forcibly sterilized, you would have a point, but, that is not what we are saying at all. We are saying that the unborn child's right to life outweighs the woman's right to not be inconvenienced. 
BTW, if that vasectomy law was enacted tomorrow, I wouldn't notice. Been there done that.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is a chicken egg a chicken? Or does it have the potential to become a chicken?


Depends on if it is fertilized or not.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Seems like forced sterilization is something Democrats learned from Nazis. (among other things)
> I can't really see how you compare forced sterilization with not murdering someone.


The point was that if a woman can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, why can't men be forced to have a vasectomy? A vasectomy is reversible, minimally invasive, with virtually no side effects, and the recovery time is a couple days. No sperm, no pregnancy. Where does sperm come from?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Sex does not need to be about conception,


Yes, but, it has the potential to be and everyone knows that going in. 



painterswife said:


> Conception is fertilized eggs. It is not a baby.


A fertilized egg is a genetically unique human being.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Not the same thing. If we were saying that women should be forcibly bred, or forcibly sterilized, you would have a point, but, that is not what we are saying at all. We are saying that the unborn child's right to life outweighs the woman's right to not be inconvenienced.
> BTW, if that vasectomy law was enacted tomorrow, I wouldn't notice. Been there done that.


So you know it works nearly perfectly to prevent pregnancy. Good. Now, if the option to terminate is removed, a woman will be *forced* to carry to term. That's OK with you? If so, why is forced vasectomy not? There cannot be a pregnancy without sperm.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, but, it has the potential to be and everyone knows that going in.
> 
> 
> A fertilized egg is a genetically unique human being.


All true but no women should be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, but, it has the potential to be and everyone knows that going in.
> 
> 
> A fertilized egg is a genetically unique human being.


It's a group of cells that could someday, maybe, become a human being. Just like the chicken egg could someday, maybe, become a chicken. 

And if we gave vasectomies to all men at puberty, there would be no sperm, no sperm no pregnancy.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you know it works nearly perfectly to prevent pregnancy. Good. Now, if the option to terminate is removed, a woman will be *forced* to carry to term. That's OK with you? If so, why is forced vasectomy not? There cannot be a pregnancy without sperm.


It is simple. I am for people being responsible for their own actions. In the vast majority of cases, the woman was a willing participant in the creation of that unborn child. She should not be allowed to kill the result of that choice because it may be a bother to her. The man who made that baby with her should be forced to take responsibility for his actions as well. A Third Reich inspired blanket sterilization is not the answer.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> To be technical, one from each sex. But it seems you understand how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> Is a chicken egg a chicken? Or does it have the potential to become a chicken?


When you get a pipe fitting, you'll choose one of 2 genders, male or female. (they don't call it sex)
Yes, I think once a chicken starts to develop in the egg, it's a chicken (in an egg).
I for one am against chickens driving cars.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> All true but no women should be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want.


The choice was made with the risks known. Choices have consequences. They should no more be able to kill the unborn child than they should be able to kill their toddler when parenthood doesn't turn out like they thought it would.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> It is simple. I am for people being responsible for their own actions. In the vast majority of cases, the woman was a willing participant in the creation of that unborn child. She should not be allowed to kill the result of that choice because it may be a bother to her. The man who made that baby with her should be forced to take responsibility for his actions as well. A blanket, Third Reich inspired blanket sterilization is not the answer.


The woman is being responsible. She is terminating a pregnancy she does not wish to continue.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The choice was made with the risks known. Choices have consequences. They should no more be able to kill the unborn child than they should be able to kill their toddler when parenthood doesn't turn out like they thought it would.


You can terminate a pregnancy. That is a fact and therefore a fertilized egg does not have to end in a birth. Therefore an accidental fertilized egg does not mean that a child is a final consequence.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The woman is being responsible. She is terminating a pregnancy she does not wish to continue.


She is killing a genetically unique human being. She is taking from him/her everything they are and everything they were ever going to be. That is not responsible, that is sadistic.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> You can terminate a pregnancy. That is a fact and therefore a fertilized egg does not have to end in a birth. Therefore an accidental fertilized egg does not mean that a child is a final consequence.


You can kill a toddler. That is a fact and therefore a tiny human doesn't have to end with an adult.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> She is killing a genetically unique human being. She is taking from him/her everything they are and everything they were ever going to be. That is not responsible, that is sadistic.


Your rhetoric is your own and but does not change the facts. I get that this is important to you. Control of my own body is important to me.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> The only excuse then would be health of either the fetusand or mother.
> 
> .


I could go for that too.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I knew I shouldn't have worn my good clothes in here.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I knew I shouldn't have worn my good clothes in here.


I've learned to keep mine in a separate closet. It's better than getting banned...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The point was that if a woman can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, why can't men be forced to have a vasectomy? A vasectomy is reversible, minimally invasive, with virtually no side effects, and the recovery time is a couple days. No sperm, no pregnancy. Where does sperm come from?


An abortion is not reversible.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It is simple. I am for people being responsible for their own actions. In the vast majority of cases, the woman was a willing participant in the creation of that unborn child. She should not be allowed to kill the result of that choice because it may be a bother to her. The man who made that baby with her should be forced to take responsibility for his actions as well. A Third Reich inspired blanket sterilization is not the answer.


A vasectomy is not forced _permanent_ sterilization. The rhetoric is morning is incredible. A woman can be forced to carry to term, but a man can't be forced to have a office procedure that can be reversed to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> I knew I shouldn't have worn my good clothes in here.


They brought up abortion and guns to make it political, hoping to get it locked or flushed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> When you get a pipe fitting, you'll choose one of 2 genders, male or female. (they don't call it sex)


Pipe fittings aren't human beings. 



Cornhusker said:


> An abortion is not reversible.


I don't believe any one has said, or believes that, but you're right. And without sperm there is no pregnancy, correct?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Who brought up abortion and guns?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> A vasectomy is not forced _permanent_ sterilization. The rhetoric is morning is incredible. A woman can be forced to carry to term, but a man can't be forced to have a office procedure that can be reversed to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?


If you are in favor of forced sterilization, then that must make you in favor of a forced abortion whether the woman wants it or not?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> They brought up abortion and guns to make it political, hoping to get it locked or flushed.


Yep! This dead horse has been beaten too many times...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> They brought up abortion and guns to make it political, hoping to get it locked or flushed.


I never brought up **** or terminating a pregnancy. Perhaps you should reread the thread.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> If you are in favor of forced sterilization, then that must make you in favor of a forced abortion whether the woman wants it or not?


Nope, I'm pro choice. I have no right to tell another person what they can do with their body. I believe (theoretically) a forced vasectomy at puberty is as viable an option as forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term. If you can force women to do something with their body, why not men?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never brought up **** or terminating a pregnancy. Perhaps you should reread the thread.


I didn't say it was you did I?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, I'm pro choice. I have no right to tell another person what they can do with their body. I believe (theoretically) a forced vasectomy at puberty is as viable an option as forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term. If you can force women to do something with their body, why not men?


I know you'll find this hard to believe, but some people think it's not about the woman, it's about the right to live. 
I understand some people think they are the only thing that counts, and probably shouldn't be parents anyway, but there are real couples looking for babies to adopt.
Can't adopt a dead baby, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I didn't say it was you did I?





Cornhusker said:


> *They* brought up abortion and guns to make it political, hoping to get it locked or flushed.


I apologize for my assumption. To whom were you referring?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I think we should get back to the subject of this post..car control.
You should have to be 21 to operate a car, and they should be governed to no more than 35 mph.
If you are caught with a car that goes faster than 35 MPH, it would be considered a felony and you'll lose your privelege to own or operate any motor vehicle.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I apologize for my assumption. To whom were you referring?


You know..."them"
I know who mentioned it, but who was it that blew it all up?
Or is it "whom"?
What do you think of limiting all gas tanks to 7 gallons or less?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I know you'll find this hard to believe, but some people think it's not about the woman, it's about the right to live.
> I understand some people think they are the only thing that counts, and probably shouldn't be parents anyway, but there are real couples looking for babies to adopt.
> Can't adopt a dead baby, right?


OK. You must support vasectomies at puberty, correct? No sperm, no pregnancy. 

There are "Of the over 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S., 114,556 cannot be returned to their families and are waiting to be adopted. Among these children, males outnumber females, African American children are disproportionately represented, and over half are 6 years old or older.2" https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

If abortion is banned, and no forced vasectomies, do you think that number will double or triple?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> You know..."them"
> I know who mentioned it, but who was it that blew it all up?
> Or is it "whom"?
> What do you think of limiting all gas tanks to 7 gallons or less?


Hey now hold on. I'm keeping my 30 gallon tanks. lol


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. You must support vasectomies at puberty, correct? No sperm, no pregnancy.
> 
> There are "Of the over 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S., 114,556 cannot be returned to their families and are waiting to be adopted. Among these children, males outnumber females, African American children are disproportionately represented, and over half are 6 years old or older.2" https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics
> 
> If abortion is banned, and no forced vasectomies, do you think that number will double or triple?


Did I say I wanted to ban all abortions?
And no, I don't favor forced sterilization, that's just evil.
Well, I guess if one were in favor of a master race, that might be an option one could come up with.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TripleD said:


> Hey now hold on. I'm keeping my 30 gallon tanks. lol


Nope, sorry, 7 gallons is enough to get you to a gas station, you don't need more than that


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Nope, sorry, 7 gallons is enough to get you to a gas station, you don't need more than that


Nope, I don't care to stop every 50 miles. 7 MPG here....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Did I say I wanted to ban all abortions?
> And no, I don't favor forced sterilization, that's just evil.
> Well, I guess if one were in favor of a master race, that might be an option one could come up with.


Which terminations are OK with you? It's plenty evil to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she does not want, in my opinion.

Do you think the number of unwanted children on adoption lists will double or triple if a woman couldn't terminate an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> A vasectomy is not forced _permanent_ sterilization. The rhetoric is morning is incredible. A woman can be forced to carry to term, but a man can't be forced to have a office procedure that can be reversed to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?


According to my Doctor, vasectomy MAY be reversible, but, there is no guarantee. Like others have said Abortion is not reversible. That unborn human being is gone forever. All he/she was ever going to be is snuffed out. That is not rhetoric, that is fact. I am all for forced male sterilization if the particular male makes poor choices that necessitate said action.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Your rhetoric is your own and but does not change the facts. I get that this is important to you. Control of my own body is important to me.


This isn't about control of YOUR body. It is about holding the life of an unborn human being in your hand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> This isn't about control of YOUR body. It is about holding the life of an unborn human being in your hand.


It is completely about my body and my choice on whether to carry a pregnancy to term.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> According to my Doctor, vasectomy MAY be reversible, but, there is no guarantee. Like others have said Abortion is not reversible. That unborn human being is gone forever. All he/she was ever going to be is snuffed out. That is not rhetoric, that is fact. I am all for forced male sterilization if the particular male makes poor choices that necessitate said action.


Most vasectomies are reversible (and they're only getting more easily reversed), and even if they aren't, no sperm means no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no termination.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which terminations are OK with you? It's plenty evil to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she does not want, in my opinion.
> 
> Do you think the number of unwanted children on adoption lists will double or triple if a woman couldn't terminate an unwanted pregnancy?


Rape, incest and health of the mother.
I would prefer just health of the mother, because executing a child for the crimes of another seems barbaric.
Now let me ask you something:
At what point do you consider a "fetus" turns to a baby and deserves life?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> It is completely about my body and my choice on whether to carry a pregnancy to term.


Your body is likely to survive no matter what. The unique human being inside your body will almost certainly be killed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Your body is likely to survive no matter what. The unique human being inside your body will almost certainly be killed.


Likely. It is still my body, my decision.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Most vasectomies are reversible (and they're only getting more easily reversed), and even if they aren't, no sperm means no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no termination.


Again, I lived 40 years with my vas deferens fully intact and never fathered a child that wasn't intentional. I made choices, I was willing to live with those choices. No one died as a result of my choices. This silly notion of compelled sterilization is just that, silly. We are talking about a living being dying when we speak of abortion.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Likely. It is still my body, my decision.


Can I legally take my body and stab an annoying neighbor? My body, my choice correct?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Can I legally take my body and stab an annoying neighbor? My body, my choice correct?


Now you are just posting things that are not at all related.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Again, I lived 40 years with my vas deferens fully intact and never fathered a child that wasn't intentional. I made choices, I was willing to live with those choices. No one died as a result of my choices. This silly notion of compelled sterilization is just that, silly. We are talking about a living being dying when we speak of abortion.


It's no more silly than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Everyone has the right to control their own body.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's no more silly than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Everyone has the right to control their own body.


Again, abortion isn't just about YOUR body. It is about the body of the unique human being that is being scraped out of your body.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Now you are just posting things that are not at all related.


Why? Both choices end in the death of another human being. Why are they so different?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Why? Both choices end in the death of another human being. Why are they so different?


A better example would be forcing that neighbor to let you have their liver or bone marrow so you won't die. I also don't agree that is the death of a human being. Until there is higher brain function there is no unique human being just a body.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> How about we make it illegal to drink and drive, shoot innocent people, AND kill a fetus for any reason other than life of the mother?


If laws stopped crime those things wouldn't be a problem.
But they don't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> A better example would be forcing that neighbor to let you have their liver or bone marrow so you won't die. I also don't agree that is the death of a human being. *Until there is higher brain function* there is no unique human being just a body.


There seems to be a lot of "bodies" posting on the internet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps we need a refresher in biology.


Do we need to ask Jolly to come back and share his medical expertise?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I knew I shouldn't have worn my good clothes in here.


Waders would be a good choice, along with a good PFD.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If laws stopped crime those things wouldn't be a problem.
> But they don't.


Sometimes things need to be crimes because they are wrong. Killing the unborn is one of them. Murder, robbery, rape, etc. are illegal, yet they still occur. I don't believe many are wanting to do away with the prohibitions on those acts.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> A better example would be forcing that neighbor to let you have their liver or bone marrow so you won't die. I also don't agree that is the death of a human being. Until there is higher brain function there is no unique human being just a body.


So it is a living human body? Better than the euphemism of it being a "clump of cells" I guess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> This silly notion of compelled sterilization is just that, silly.


It's just another Red Herring being used for the sake of argument, the same as pretending some weren't trying to refer to guns earlier.

Some simply can't bring themselves to be honest, even with themselves.

It's just another day in GC
SSDD


----------



## rzrubek (May 13, 2004)

doozie said:


> From your link
> 
> Although the U.S. population has been growing steadily since 1975, the rate of crash deaths per 100,000 population in 2017 is about half of what it was four decades ago. In 2017, the overall per capita death rate decreased 3 percent compared with 2016.
> 
> So, things are getting better....ever wonder if any "better laws" have anything to do with it.


Like higher speed limits now. People not dozing off as they crawl along at 55. I remember those days, they were horrible.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> So it is a living human body? Better than the euphemism of it being a "clump of cells" I guess.


It is the truth. I don't consider a person in a hospital bed with no brain activity to be a person either.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> A better example would be forcing that neighbor to let you have their liver or bone marrow so you won't die. I also don't agree that is the death of a human being. Until there is higher brain function there is no unique human being just a body.





painterswife said:


> It is the truth. I don't consider a person in a hospital bed with no brain activity to be a person either.


Call Fish and Wildlife about breaking some Bald Eagle eggs and see what they have to say about it... No brain function there either.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> A vasectomy is not forced _permanent_ sterilization. The rhetoric is morning is incredible. A woman can be forced to carry to term, but a man can't be forced to have a office procedure that can be reversed to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?


So we don't ban cars we just don't allow the sale of gasoline?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TripleD said:


> Call Fish and Wildlife about breaking some Bald Eagle eggs and see what they have to say about it... No brain function there either.


? Bald eagle eggs in this discussion? Maybe we should discuss killing cows as well.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Now you are just posting things that are not at all related.


Like forced sterilization being compared to not having an abortion?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Like forced sterilization being compared to not having an abortion?


Maybe you could explain what you mean?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mnn2501 said:


> So we don't ban cars we just don't allow the sale of gasoline?


Think of the lives it will save!!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Maybe you could explain what you mean?


I mean they aren't related


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> ? Bald eagle eggs in this discussion? Maybe we should discuss killing cows as well.


You said brain function . I did have to put down a cow last week ...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> ? Bald eagle eggs in this discussion? Maybe we should discuss killing cows as well.


I'm in favor of killing cows.
In fact, my lunch depends on it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I mean they aren't related


They are related. It is a way of preventing abortions.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It is the truth. I don't consider a person in a hospital bed with no brain activity to be a person either.


Babies have brain activity very early on


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Babies have brain activity very early on


Fetuses or embryos don't have higher brain activity early on.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Babies don't have higher brain activity early on.


Neither do most adults, but we protect them anyway.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Neither do most adults, but we protect them anyway.


You got me I used the wrong word.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You got me I used the wrong word.


Young person, fetus, baby.... Makes little difference. Human life is supposedly precious to many.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Young person, fetus, baby.... Makes little difference. Human life is supposedly precious to many.


Do you think that someone having an abortion means they don't believe human life is precious? I could say that someone who does not live like Mother Teresa and only work for the betterment of other humans does not think human life is precious. Which one are you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Do you think that someone having an abortion means they don't believe human life is precious? I could say that someone who does not live like Mother Teresa and only work for the betterment of other humans does not think human life is precious. Which one are you?


I don't see any life as being more precious than the next. If karma is a valid player in the game..... Hitler may well have been needed as balance for mother Teresa. I'm a live and let live kinda guy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't see any life as being more precious than the next. If karma is a valid player in the game..... Hitler may well have been needed as balance for mother Teresa. I'm a live and let live kinda guy.


Do you agree that women have should have the choice to decide whether to carry a fertilization to term?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> A better example would be forcing that neighbor to let you have their liver or bone marrow so you won't die. I also don't agree that is the death of a human being. Until there is higher brain function there is no unique human being just a body.


Absolutely. Bone marrow, blood, plasma, platelets, liver sections, etc. should all be mandatory to keep born children alive.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> painterswife said:
> 
> 
> > A better example would be forcing that neighbor to let you have their liver or bone marrow so you won't die. I also don't agree that is the death of a human being. Until there is higher brain function there is no unique human being just a body.
> ...


Agreed. 
If you gave your neighbor bone cancer, you should have to give them your marrow. If you poured a bunch of booze down their throat, and ruined their liver, you should have to give them your.

Likewise, if you somehow manage to stuff your neighbor in your uterus, you should have to let them stay until they’re good and ready to come out. 



You guys don’t really get analogies, do you?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Agreed.
> If you gave your neighbor bone cancer, you should have to give them your marrow. If you poured a bunch of booze down their throat, and ruined their liver, you should have to give them your.
> 
> Likewise, if you somehow manage to stuff your neighbor in your uterus, you should have to let them stay until they’re good and ready to come out.
> ...


My point, apparently I wasn't clear, is that if the unborn are so important, than born kids (adults as well? They were fetuses at one point) must be as important, correct? And it should be mandatory to give them what they need to live- blood, plasma, bone marrow, liver portions, anything that can be given and not end one's life. After all, requiring what they need can keep them alive because they're human beings, and they actually have higher brain function.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Agreed.
> If you gave your neighbor bone cancer, you should have to give them your marrow. If you poured a bunch of booze down their throat, and ruined their liver, you should have to give them your.
> 
> Likewise, if you somehow manage to stuff your neighbor in your uterus, you should have to let them stay until they’re good and ready to come out.
> ...


You crack me up sometimes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Do you agree that women have should have the choice to decide whether to carry a fertilization to term?


Of course, women have always had that choice. At least as far back as to when they learned how.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course, women have always had that choice. At least as far back as to when they learned how.


So you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> So you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion?


After years of stating so I have to wonder why you feel the need to ask me again? I think it's a mighty poor choice, and I don't recommend it to anyone but yes, it's a woman's burden to bear.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> doozie said: ↑
> From your link
> Although the U.S. population has been growing steadily since 1975, the rate of crash deaths per 100,000 population in 2017 is about half of what it was four decades ago. In 2017, the overall per capita death rate decreased 3 percent compared with 2016.
> 
> So, things are getting better....ever wonder if any "better laws" have anything to do with it.


No.
The "laws" haven't done anything at all.
They are words on paper.

It's the added safety equipment that has made the real difference, along with more advanced medical treatments.

The crime rates have dropped to about the same levels as the 60's even though there are millions more guns now. Obviously guns aren't causing an increase in crimes.

I know you will now feel compelled to say " well, without the laws there would be no safety equipment", but that still won't change the fact that passing a law really accomplishes very little in and of itself. People will either follow it or not. Most safety features would have been added regardless of the laws.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> My point, apparently I wasn't clear, is that if the unborn are so important, than born kids (adults as well? They were fetuses at one point) must be as important, correct? And it should be mandatory to give them what they need to live- blood, plasma, bone marrow, liver portions, anything that can be given and not end one's life. After all, requiring what they need can keep them alive because they're human beings, and they actually have higher brain function.


Yes. Born kids are important as well, as are adults, and old people.

If you put someone in a situation, then you are liable for them throughout that situation, at least until they are able to take control of it for themselves.

That is why we’ve always held the parents responsible for the needs of their children though to adulthood. There is an avenue for one to abscond their liability, and turn the child over to the state for care.

To the point of my (only) semi-tongue-in-cheek reply a couple posts back, if you put your neighbor in some life-threatening situation, you are liable for it. If you somehow wreck a part of your neighbor’s body, and yours is a suitable substitute, I would have no problem with laws that include donating your own as part of the restitution.

However, if your neighbor gets themself in some life-threatening situation, or nature does it for them, then you don’t owe anything to them.

If you put another human in your womb, either intentionally or inadvertently, you remain responsible for them either until they reach adulthood, or you transfer your liability of them over to the state.


This really isn’t that hard.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Yes. Born kids are important as well, as are adults, and old people.
> 
> If you put someone in a situation, then you are liable for them throughout that situation, at least until they are able to take control of it for themselves.
> 
> ...


You're right, it's not that hard. My right to terminate a pregnancy is legal nationally right now, and some states will never ban it. I have the right to control my own body, even if you don't like it. It's that simple. 

I'll never understand why the unborn are more important to some people than the already born. There are segments of our society that begrudge the food, shelter, medical treatment, and education of a born kid, but their wrath at a woman that wants to terminate a pregnancy is incredible. 

I still think the mandatory vasectomies at puberty is fine and dandy, after all, no sperm no pregnancy. No choice.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're right, it's not that hard. My right to terminate a pregnancy is legal nationally right now, and some states will never ban it. I have the right to control my own body, even if you don't like it. It's that simple.
> 
> I'll never understand why the *unborn are more important to some people than the already born*. There are segments of our society that begrudge the food, shelter, medical treatment, and education of a born kid, but their wrath at a woman that wants to terminate a pregnancy is incredible.
> 
> I still think the mandatory vasectomies at puberty is fine and dandy, after all, no sperm no pregnancy. No choice.


Would you object if we started killing the "already born"?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're right, it's not that hard. My right to terminate a pregnancy is legal nationally right now, and some states will never ban it. I have the right to control my own body, even if you don't like it. It's that simple.


You do have the right to kill your unborn baby right now, and the limitations on those rights do vary by state.

There was also a time when the right to own another human being varied by state, as well.

It took us a while, but we corrected that error, and we’re working on this one.




Irish Pixie said:


> I'll never understand why the unborn are more important to some people than the already born. There are segments of our society that begrudge the food, shelter, medical treatment, and education of a born kid, but their wrath at a woman that wants to terminate a pregnancy is incredible.


I don’t understand why the unborn would be held as more important than the already born, either. Of course, I’ve never spoken with anyone who felt that way.

I have, however, met a lot of folks who believe in protecting the innocent from harm, and doing for those who can’t possibly do for themselves.

I’ve also met a bunch of folks that feel that stuff should come from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Not sure I agree with that last group.



Irish Pixie said:


> I still think the mandatory vasectomies at puberty is fine and dandy, after all, no sperm no pregnancy. No choice.


Given your stance on guns, it does not surprise me in the least that you would find placing restrictions on all, due to the actions of a few, “dandy”. I happen to disagree with you, but I commend your consistency and integrity when it comes to such issues.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Abortion was illegal, and women could be criminally charged for it. Due to Roe V. Wade, which was based on the 14th Amendment which (ironically) made freed slaves US citizens with all the rights thereto, was made legal via a Supreme Court decision on January 22, 1972. 

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body, and neither does anyone else. Choice. You're trying to place restrictions on what women can do with their bodies, do you have a problem with mandatory vasectomies? 

You've never read or heard anyone complain about the money spent for SNAP, WIC, medicaid, Aid to Families, special education etc.? Are you sure?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion was illegal, and women could be criminally charged for it. Due to Roe V. Wade, which was based on the 14th Amendment which (ironically) made freed slaves US citizens with all the rights thereto, was made legal via a Supreme Court decision on January 22, 1972.


Yes. You nailed that one. VERY ironic (and not in the way Alanis incorrectly used it).




Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body, and neither does anyone else. Choice. You're trying to place restrictions on what women can do with their bodies, do you have a problem with mandatory vasectomies?


I also believe in placing restrictions on women (or men) using their bodies to kill toddlers. So, while technically correct that it is a restriction on what women “can do with their bodies”, the underlying concern is restricting what they can do TO another person’s body.

No, I don’t support mandatory vasectomies any more than I support forcing a woman to become pregnant. As pointed out previously, your analogy between forcing a man to have a vasectomy and forcing an _already pregnant_ women to not kill the developing child is not apt.

If someone in the US were forcing women to become pregnant, I would donate half the saturdays I spend outside abortion clinics rallying to bring an end to the practice of forcing women to become pregnant.



Irish Pixie said:


> You've never read or heard anyone complain about the money spent for SNAP, WIC, medicaid, Aid to Families, special education etc.? Are you sure?


Of course I have heard plenty of people complain about their money being taken and given to someone else.

The position you invented, to which I pointed out I’d never met anyone who held was that _”the unborn are more important than the already born”._


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion was illegal, and women could be criminally charged for it. Due to Roe V. Wade, which was based on the 14th Amendment which (ironically) made freed slaves US citizens with all the rights thereto, was made legal via a Supreme Court decision on January 22, 1972.
> 
> I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I *have no* *right to tell another woman what she can do with her body,* and neither does anyone else. Choice. You're trying to place restrictions on what women can do with their bodies, do you have a problem with mandatory vasectomies?
> 
> You've never read or heard anyone complain about the money spent for SNAP, WIC, medicaid, Aid to Families, special education etc.? Are you sure?


@Farmerga Can you get this one?


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

.


Bearfootfarm said:


> No.
> The "laws" haven't done anything at all.
> They are words on paper.
> 
> ...


No, now I'm compelled to say you can't really be serious....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Yes. You nailed that one. VERY ironic (and not in the way Alanis incorrectly used it).
> 
> I also believe in placing restrictions on women (or men) using their bodies to kill toddlers. So, while technically correct that it is a restriction on what women “can do with their bodies”, the underlying concern is restricting what they can do TO another person’s body.
> 
> ...


I invented nothing, it's true that a certain segment of society cares more about the unborn than the born. The proof is the protesting, donations, etc. for the unborn, and lack of simple care of born kids. 

What do think of the murder of abortion providers? Bombings of clinics? Do you intimidate the women and get in their face? Try to exert control over her to change her mind? How do you know what procedure each woman is there for? Do you have an issue with abortifacient birth control too?

I've decided that I will put my monthly Planned Parenthood donations in your name.

The commonality between denying women the choice to terminate a pregnancy and mandatory vasectomies is no pregnancy. I'm kinda surprised I had to explain that. No pregnancy, no abortion. That should make you happy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> No, now I'm compelled to say you can't really be serious....


I wouldn't expect you to say anything different.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I invented nothing, it's true that a certain segment of society cares more about the unborn than the born. The proof is the protesting, donations, etc. for the unborn, and lack of simple care of born kids.


No, you are inventing a position, a straw-man, based on how you assess a position.

People may carry both positions - that the lives of the unborn are sacred, and that government-mandated charity is not the answer to the problem- and not be at odds. You’re creating a motive for the collection of those two positions to suit an easier argument.

Were the stakes of the two situations the same, I don’t believe you’d find a single person not against both abortion, and locking toddlers in their room, storming in with a stump grinder to chop them up, then removing the evidence with a shop vac.

That’s not what we’re talking about with the debate over state-mandated charity, though, and you know that.




Irish Pixie said:


> I've decided that I will put my monthly Planned Parenthood donations in your name.


You should stand up for what you believe in. There were some quite convicted slave-owners who went to great lengths to stand up for their beliefs that some of us were less human than others. I disagree with their beliefs, but I do respect conviction and integrity.



Irish Pixie said:


> The commonality between denying women the choice to terminate a pregnancy and mandatory vasectomies is no pregnancy. I'm kinda surprised I had to explain that. No pregnancy, no abortion. That should make you happy.


Actually, that would be the _dissimilarity_, not “commonality”, which would be apt if we were talking about a discongruity rather than an analogous situation.

Much like your preferred approach to arms, you are proposing a solution that mandates that all must be subject to a certain restriction, whether they have done the thing we’re trying to mitigate or not, rather than selectively applying it those who are actually subject.

If all women were required to breed, yet, somehow, inexplicably, we didn’t want any children to bear from it, then a class-wide vasectomy requirement might make sense. What we’re talking about, though, is women who’s bodies have already created another human not being allowed to harm that other person.



Irish Pixie said:


> What do think of the murder of abortion providers? Bombings of clinics? Do you intimidate the women and get in their face? Try to exert control over her to change her mind? How do you know what procedure each woman is there for? Do you have an issue with abortifacient birth control too?


I moved this one to the end because it was perhaps the most complex, but I did try to answer each of your question marks.

I do believe that abortifacients are murder as well. Whether you kill a toddler with chemicals, or a wood chipper, the murder is the issue.

We don’t specifically know what any given women is coming to the clinic for. We don’t make any assumptions. We try to talk to them.

Exerting _control_ over any of the people entering the clinic would be illegal and counter-productive. Like I said, we talk to them. We try to explain away the euphemisms and lies that the pro-abortion camp has told them in an attempt to make it OK. 

Do we get in their faces? That depends. Several of us have found that we get much better results by not shouting, so we do get close to talk. It’s a very intimate subject matter, and often a trying time, so calm interaction is more appropriate.

“In their face”, maybe, depending on your definition. There have been lots of hugs, with faces very close, over the years. A dozen or so walks back to their car, and sitting in there talking privately with them. Even a handful that I’ve taken to breakfast or lunch for a longer, less venue-influenced discussion.

Not every woman going into a clinic to kill a baby does so with her burning-bra in one hand, and her RBG-autographed copy of _In My Own Words_ in the other. She’d be a lost-cause, and one we can only affect at the ballot box. 

Many, if not most, are desperate, scared, and depressed about what they see as a helpless, no-win situation. You know it once you get them to talk, if you’re really listening. Those are the ones who’s babies you have a chance at saving- and all it costs you is some words of encouragement, and maybe a little creative action.

I twice made deals with women that, if I couldn’t find her a job making at least $x, in one month’s time, I would not be at that Planned Parenthood four Saturday’s from then, and that she could lay her actions entirely on my soul. One time it worked in humanity’s favor, and the other I don’t know how it turned out, but I may have to answer for some day.

Murders and bombings to stop murders and shop-vaccings? No. I don’t support that.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

If a woman has her tubes tied, she can always opt for a test tube baby at a later date. Sterilization works both ways. Just saying.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion was illegal, and women could be criminally charged for it. Due to Roe V. Wade, which was based on the 14th Amendment which (ironically) made freed slaves US citizens with all the rights thereto, was made legal via a Supreme Court decision on January 22, 1972.
> 
> I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body, and neither does anyone else. Choice. You're trying to place restrictions on what women can do with their bodies, do you have a problem with mandatory vasectomies?
> 
> You've never read or heard anyone complain about the money spent for SNAP, WIC, medicaid, Aid to Families, special education etc.? Are you sure?


He never said anything regarding snap, wic, Medicaid etc.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Ok so let me get this straight to drive a car you have to get your tubes tied or a vasectomy or was that to own a gun or have a baby to drive a car???? Or was it the car that has to get its tubes tied? I hate when a topic rambles just so dang confusing.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nobody needs a Corvette.
It was designed to break the law.
They should all be confiscated and burned.
Especially the red ones. (They go faster because they are red)


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> If a woman has her tubes tied, she can always opt for a test tube baby at a later date. Sterilization works both ways. Just saying.


Doctors aren't interested in performing tubal ligations on young women or women who have not had children, with the belief that women change their minds later on and other birth control options are available. 

Not that many years ago, a woman had to have her husband sign consent for the procedure to be performed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No, you are inventing a position, a straw-man, based on how you assess a position.
> 
> People may carry both positions - that the lives of the unborn are sacred, and that government-mandated charity is not the answer to the problem- and not be at odds. You’re creating a motive for the collection of those two positions to suit an easier argument.
> 
> ...


Is it legal/ethical to offer a woman money via a job to change her mind regarding a medical procedure? I think it's a hazy area. Just sayin'. And did you ever follow up to be sure the born child was well cared for? As I've said, unborn- important, born- not so much. 

But thank you. I've been wanting to volunteer once we move, and I think I've found the perfect position for me. I'm going to become a Planned Parenthood escort, they need someone to shelter people from zealots.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is it legal/ethical to offer a woman money via a job to change her mind regarding a medical procedure? I think it's a hazy area. Just sayin'. And did you ever follow up to be sure the born child was well cared for? As I've said, unborn- important, born- not so much.


“Legal”? Really?
I wasn’t paying or hiring anyone to do anything. 

Ethical? Certainly. 
I used my time, connections, and experience to help a desperate person find an opportunity that they either didn’t know how to look for, or didn’t know they could find on their own. Her resume got her the interview, and her interview got her the job. I just helped her find the right target for her resume, and got someone to look at it. 

I’m not surprised that you think it’s “hazy”. 

I don’t know the particulars of how she is raising the child, but I do know that she’s still employed and that it’s a good enough job that someone who wanted their child (which she did, at the time, at least), could reasonably raise one. 



Irish Pixie said:


> But thank you. I've been wanting to volunteer once we move, and I think I've found the perfect position for me. I'm going to become a Planned Parenthood escort, they need someone to shelter people from zealots.


I think that’ll be a great educational experience for you. You’re going to see that those of us who work the clinic parking lots are not all sign-carrying, helfire-damnation screaming bullies. 

I appreciate that you’re going to voluntarily place yourself in position where you just might be exposed to the truth.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> Doctors aren't interested in performing tubal ligations on young women or women who have not had children, with the belief that women change their minds later on and other birth control options are available.
> 
> Not that many years ago, a woman had to have her husband sign consent for the procedure to be performed.


Our doctor had me do it.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wr said:


> Doctors aren't interested in performing tubal ligations on young women or women who have not had children, with the belief that women change their minds later on and other birth control options are available.
> 
> Not that many years ago, a woman had to have her husband sign consent for the procedure to be performed.


My wife had to consent to my having a vasectomy. There are crazy laws and rules everywhere.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

nchobbyfarm said:


> My wife had to consent to my having a vasectomy. There are crazy laws and rules everywhere.


I do know other men who had the same experience and in both cases, it's something a couple should discuss. My outrage stemmed from trying to find the husband who walked out and left no forwarding address, when I chose have a child he wanted aborted. Given the circumstances, I felt I had no legal right to inform him nor should he have any right to impact the decisions I made. 

While I had no interest in entering into another relationship, I was greatly inconvenienced because my parents were watching the other 2 while I was in hospital with my youngest and after the divorce was finalized (which takes quite a bit longer when you can't find someone to serve papers), I had to make arrangements for someone to watch the kids and help me for a few days after I could legally book the procedure. Because I was single at that point, it wasn't easy to find a doctor who would perform it because many believed that once I remarried, I'd change my mind about having kids.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Old drinking buddy had a woman break off the relationship when she discovered he had been vasectomized.
That right there was a deal breaker.
Of course I'm not sure she knew he was 55 either.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is it legal/ethical to offer a woman money via a job to change her mind regarding a medical procedure? I think it's a hazy area. Just sayin'. And did you ever follow up to be sure the born child was well cared for? As I've said, unborn- important, born- not so much.
> 
> But thank you. I've been wanting to volunteer once we move, and I think I've found the perfect position for me. I'm going to become a Planned Parenthood escort, they need someone to shelter people from zealots.


I don't think it's illegal to offer help anyone find a job and if financial reasons was the only thing leaving a woman feeling she had no options but to have an abortion, I'd rather see her have that opportunity. 

My kid's father left me with little in the way of choice when he insisted I have an abortion or he would leave me and two toddlers. Without the fantastic support of my family, friends and neighbors, I would have been left with no option but abortion and I'd rather not see any woman backed into that corner. 

I strongly support a woman's right to choice but I also support anyone who will stand up and help put a woman in a position when she feels she actually has choices. Leaving any woman to feeling she is backed into a corner with no options, really isn't about choice, it's about fear and desperation and really does nothing to further the pro choice cause.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> I don't think it's illegal to offer help anyone find a job and if financial reasons was the only thing leaving a woman feeling she had no options but to have an abortion, I'd rather see her have that opportunity.
> 
> My kid's father left me with little in the way of choice when he insisted I have an abortion or he would leave me and two toddlers. Without the fantastic support of my family, friends and neighbors, I would have been left with no option but abortion and I'd rather not see any woman backed into that corner.
> 
> I strongly support a woman's right to choice but I also support anyone who will stand up and help put a woman in a position when she feels she actually has choices. Leaving any woman to feeling she is backed into a corner with no options, really isn't about choice, it's about fear and desperation and really does nothing to further the pro choice cause.


Very good post. I think a lot of abortions are done because of bad circumstance. I see nothing wrong with giving more choices. 

That being said a woman has more choices legally than men.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think it is great to offer someone support or a job if they are on the fence about having an abortion.

I don't agree with you doing it the parking lot or on the way to have the abortion. If you have to rent the business next door and advertise in the window that they have options. Make a deal with the clinic to put brochures in the waiting area. It is intimidation to get in their face when they are making such a huge decision. You can even stand quietly with a sign letting them know you are willing to help.

Yes, I get it is your right to do whatever you can within the laws to stop what you don't agree with. I just don't agree with the guerrilla tactics. I have been at my friend's sides as they agonized with a decision to or not to. Love is the best thing to offer not hateful rhetoric.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I just don't agree with the guerrilla tactics.


Neither do I.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> I don't think it's illegal to offer help anyone find a job and if financial reasons was the only thing leaving a woman feeling she had no options but to have an abortion, I'd rather see her have that opportunity.
> 
> My kid's father left me with little in the way of choice when he insisted I have an abortion or he would leave me and two toddlers. Without the fantastic support of my family, friends and neighbors, I would have been left with no option but abortion and I'd rather not see any woman backed into that corner.
> 
> I strongly support a woman's right to choice but I also support anyone who will stand up and help put a woman in a position when she feels she actually has choices. Leaving any woman to feeling she is backed into a corner with no options, really isn't about choice, it's about fear and desperation and really does nothing to further the pro choice cause.


I do admire your strength and resolve.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I think it is great to offer someone support or a job if they are on the fence about having an abortion.
> 
> I don't agree with you doing it the parking lot or on the way to have the abortion. If you have to rent the business next door and advertise in the window that they have options. Make a deal with the clinic to put brochures in the waiting area. It is intimidation to get in their face when they are making such a huge decision. You can even stand quietly with a sign letting them know you are willing to help.
> 
> Yes, I get it is your right to do whatever you can within the laws to stop what you don't agree with. I just don't agree with the guerrilla tactics. I have been at my friend's sides as they agonized with a decision to or not to. Love is the best thing to offer not hateful rhetoric.


It sounded like he offered the furthest thing from "hateful rhetoric"


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither do I.
> View attachment 77336


Power hats


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> It sounded like he offered the furthest thing from "hateful rhetoric"


I offered my opinion. I did not direct it at anyone in particular. Hence no quote.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I offered my opinion. I did not direct it at anyone in particular. Hence no quote.


Your usual level of obfuscation and denial. Let's revisit this.

"I think it is great to offer someone support or a job if they are on the fence about having an abortion. *Who brought this up?*​
I don't agree with *you* doing it the parking lot or on the way to have the abortion. If *you* have to rent the business next door and advertise in the window that they have options. Make a deal with the clinic to put brochures in the waiting area. It is intimidation to get in their face when they are making such a huge decision. *You* can even stand quietly with a sign letting them know *you* are willing to help.​
Yes, I get it is *your* right to do whatever *you* can within the laws to stop what *you* don't agree with. I just don't agree with the guerrilla tactics. I have been at my friend's sides as they agonized with a decision to or not to. Love is the best thing to offer not hateful rhetoric."​


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I don't think it's illegal to offer help anyone find a job and if financial reasons was the only thing leaving a woman feeling she had no options but to have an abortion, I'd rather see her have that opportunity.
> 
> My kid's father left me with little in the way of choice when he insisted I have an abortion or he would leave me and two toddlers. Without the fantastic support of my family, friends and neighbors, I would have been left with no option but abortion and I'd rather not see any woman backed into that corner.
> 
> I strongly support a woman's right to choice but I also support anyone who will stand up and help put a woman in a position when she feels she actually has choices. Leaving any woman to feeling she is backed into a corner with no options, really isn't about choice, it's about fear and desperation and really does nothing to further the pro choice cause.


Actually it is a hazy area legally to even approach someone going to a clinic that offers abortion. North Carolina, which is where the protester is from, has quite a few restrictions. I thought the last one was particularly interesting.

I'll assume he followed all the legalities to actually approach.

"At the federal level in the United States, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), makes it an offense to use intimidation or physical force – such as forming a blockade – in order to prevent a person from entering a facility which provides reproductive healthcare or a place of worship. The law also creates specific penalties for destroying, or causing damage to, either of these types of building.

California, New York, and Washington have each established their own version of FACE.[17] Other states have instituted several different kinds of measures designed to protect clinics, their employees, and patients:[18]


11 states make it illegal to obstruct the entrance to a clinic: California, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington.
Six states prohibit making threats toward a clinic's staff or patients: California, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. Two states, Maine and Washington, also ban harassment by telephone.
Four states ban property damage to a clinic: California, Oregon, New York, and Washington.
One state, Maine, has enacted a noise regulation pertaining to activity outside of a clinic, and also made it an offense to intentionally release a substance with an unpleasant odor inside of it.
One state, North Carolina, prohibits weapon possession during a demonstration outside of a clinic."
I had to talk to our lawyer a bit ago anyway so I asked her if it was illegal/unethical to give a woman a job if she didn't abort her pregnancy. She said it's a legal grey area, and would need to know specifics.

There is absolutely no reason for a woman to only abort because she had no way to support the born child. Every state in the US (and I'm sure Canada) has programs to help support women with child(ren) who's spouse, partner, significant other has walked out on them. And the state government (at least in the US) will help track him or her down.

Every woman should have the choice to carry or terminate a pregnancy. You fought for your right to carry to term, and I fully support that choice.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wr said:


> I do know other men who had the same experience and in both cases, it's something a couple should discuss. My outrage stemmed from trying to find the husband who walked out and left no forwarding address, when I chose have a child he wanted aborted. Given the circumstances, I felt I had no legal right to inform him nor should he have any right to impact the decisions I made.
> 
> While I had no interest in entering into another relationship, I was greatly inconvenienced because my parents were watching the other 2 while I was in hospital with my youngest and after the divorce was finalized (which takes quite a bit longer when you can't find someone to serve papers), I had to make arrangements for someone to watch the kids and help me for a few days after I could legally book the procedure. Because I was single at that point, it wasn't easy to find a doctor who would perform it because many believed that once I remarried, I'd change my mind about having kids.


Sorry you had to endure such circumstances. You are brave and courageous.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Actually it is a hazy area legally to even approach someone going to a clinic that offers abortion. North Carolina, which is where the protester is from, has quite a few restrictions. I thought the last one was particularly interesting.
> 
> I'll assume he followed all the legalities to actually approach.
> 
> ...


Several interesting assumptions you’re making there.

Like I said before, and you’re trying so desperately to ignore, we talk to the women we see going into the clinics and see if there is any chance of finding out if they’re there for an abortion, and if there is anything we can do to change their mind.

Many, many women who get abortions do not want to, but feel like they’ve run out of options and support. We generally have about 10 seconds to set an interaction before those who aren’t interested in talking make it in the door.

Those who don’t want to talk don’t have a lot of time to feel intimidated, even if we weren’t trying so hard to be non-intimidating. Those who do stop and let us advance the conversation obviously aren’t so bent against having a second thought, or they wouldn’t stop.

Standing outside an abortion factory screaming, holding signs, and claiming to know the spiritual destination of complete strangers may make for interesting pro-abortion news snippets and article shots, but it is not the most fruitful approach if your goal is really to convince someone not to legally kill their baby.

The most productive approach has proven to be offering encouraging words and support options to anyone willing to look at them.




I honestly find it a little bit alarming that you seem so concerned about people using their free time to try to engage people who are at a high risk for desperation and trying to see if there is anything they can do to help.



ETA: and it sounds like you asked your lawyer the wrong question (sheesh, I sometimes feel sorry for you). You really should have asked her the legality of offering to help someone find a job if they reconsider. No small business owner is going to hire someone on agreement that they won’t have an abortion- assuming anyone would do that is just silly.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Several interesting assumptions you’re making there.
> 
> Like I said before, and you’re trying so desperately to ignore, we talk to the women we see going into the clinics and see if there is any chance of finding out if they’re there for an abortion, and if there is anything we can do to change their mind.
> 
> ...


The only assumption I made was that you approached the women legally according the laws in North Carolina. Isn't that a good thing?

It took me a couple minutes to find, copy and paste the laws on Google, and a few more to ask my lawyer if it was legal/ethical to give a woman a job if she wouldn't abort. All told maybe 10-12 minutes, and that's having a laugh at some of the other stuff the lawyer said about my question. What can I say? I'm working on paperwork and stuck at my desk right now.

Knock yourself out, I only care that it's done legally and the women aren't harassed or injured for their decision.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> *The only assumption I made* was that you approached the women legally according the laws in North Carolina. Isn't that a good thing?
> 
> It took me a couple minutes to find, copy and paste the laws on Google, and a few more to ask my lawyer if it was legal/ethical to give a woman a job if she wouldn't abort. All told maybe 10-12 minutes, and that's having a laugh at some of the other stuff the lawyer said about my question. What can I say? I'm working on paperwork and stuck at my desk right now.
> 
> Knock yourself out, I only care that it's done legally and the women aren't harassed or injured for their decision.


You are not honest. Further, you are malicious in your intent.

I quote you.
"I thought the last one was particularly interesting."
"One state, North Carolina, prohibits weapon possession during a demonstration outside of a clinic."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You are not honest. Further, you are malicious in your intent.
> 
> I quote you.
> "I thought the last one was particularly interesting."
> "One state, North Carolina, prohibits weapon possession during a demonstration outside of a clinic."


How is that an assumption when the poster's screen name is GunMonkeyIntl? LOL. Yer a hoot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Your usual level of obfuscation and denial.


Why would today be different?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I think it is great to offer someone support or a job if they are on the fence about having an abortion.
> 
> I don't agree with you doing it the parking lot or on the way to have the abortion. If you have to rent the business next door and advertise in the window that they have options. Make a deal with the clinic to put brochures in the waiting area. It is intimidation to get in their face when they are making such a huge decision. You can even stand quietly with a sign letting them know you are willing to help.
> 
> Yes, I get it is your right to do whatever you can within the laws to stop what you don't agree with. I just don't agree with the guerrilla tactics. I have been at my friend's sides as they agonized with a decision to or not to. Love is the best thing to offer not hateful rhetoric.


I sincerely appreciate that, Mrs. Painter. 

I obviously can’t speak for everyone who works the parking lots, but I don’t think anyone really thinks that shouting and intimidation is the most effective approach. 

My experience has been that those who are the loudest and carry the biggest signs are generally just there for their friends and the cameras, and never put in anywhere near as many hours as those of us who are honestly there for the babies. 

I’ve never once (not even one time, in years of doing this) seen one of the brimstone screamers get someone to not go inside. I’ve seen them delay a few (a literal FEW), but those were all ones who were willing to engage in a little “I’m not bad, you’re bad!! No, you’re bad.” shouting-match before going in. That almost never happens, and I don’t really see the point of it, anyway. 


I’ve found the most promising leads to be the ones who sit in their car just a little too long- especially when it manages to tick by the hour/half-hour. Also, the ones who appear fit but walk way too slowly to the door, or even keep going back to their car for things they “forgot”. 

I can’t read minds, but experience shows that they often want to talk to someone. My all time most-productive opening line is a simple, non-threatening “You alright?”

Do you consider that hateful rhetoric?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I sincerely appreciate that, Mrs. Painter.
> 
> I obviously can’t speak for everyone who works the parking lots, but I don’t think anyone really thinks that shouting and intimidation is the most effective approach.
> 
> ...


I don't. The problem is what those women are dealing with just getting there. More than likely the few that change their mind when you talk to them would have never gone through it in the the first place. The brochures or gentle signs would have worked just as well. I believe your time , energy and money should have been spent before. Providing birth control, educating about birth control. Free pregnancy tests early on. I could go on and on. Targeting women who have already made the hard decision to and traumatizing them is cruel in my experience.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *She said *it's a legal grey area, and would need to know specifics.


Lawyer speak for "I don't give free legal advice about internet trivia"


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> How is that an assumption when the poster's screen name is GunMonkeyIntl? LOL. Yer a hoot.


You assume he breaks the law. You a hoot too!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You assume he breaks the law. You a hoot too!





Irish Pixie said:


> *I'll assume he followed all the legalities to actually approach.*


Did you miss this in the post you quoted? That would include not carrying, correct? LOL. Dang.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I don't. The problem is what those women are dealing with just getting there. More than likely the few that change their mind when you talk to them would have never gone through it in the the first place. The brochures or gentle signs would have worked just as well. I believe your time , energy and money should have been spent before. Providing birth control, educating about birth control. Free pregnancy tests early on. I could go on and on. Targeting women who have already made the hard decision to and traumatizing them is cruel in my experience.


I get what you’re saying, but it’s also apparent to me that you haven’t put yourself in that interaction before. 

The women you have ANY chance of swaying haven’t made any decisions that they like. Some aren’t going to be swayed, and there’s nothing I can do to change that. I can’t stop them, and I can’t force them to do anything, so there’s no point in trying to argue. Some, many even, do _want_ to talk, though. 

I won’t pretend to know who all of their intimate influences are, but, based on the deeper conversations I’ve had, the most common seem to be a boyfriend who is either not there, or threatening not to be if she keeps the baby, a mother who remembers the challenges of having a baby at a young age, and an employer who has zero patience for an employee needing to take any time off. 

I know you won’t want to believe this, but a fair majority of my conversations I’ve had with these women have been focused on getting them to understand that what _they_ want does matter and is achievable, and that their life doesn’t have to be like someone else is telling them theirs was. 


You know, one of the most prevalent manipulations I’ve seen actually comes from the clinics, themselves. I’ve had a dozen or more women tell me that the clinic told them that they are just “so busy” that, once they’ve made their appointment, “they better not miss it”, or else they may not get another chance before the legal window closes. 

I’ve heard that so many times that I’ve started mentioning, early on, that they don’t have to do it today, if they don’t want to. 

I keep a list of where all the other clinics are within a 2-hour drive, and have offered a bunch of rides and/or Ubers to women if they change their minds later. Thankfully, I’ve never been taken up on that, but I’m pretty sure I’d follow through with it if I had to. It would hurt like hell, but I think I’d do it. 

Just knowing that they don’t HAVE TO use their scheduled appointment has helped a lot of women to go home and at least not do it that day. 

——————————————————

PW, what I’m trying to say is that a lot of people decide to do a lot of things that they don’t want to do. The making of the decision doesn’t necessarily change how they feel about it. 

If they’d found a option that was more palatable, they’d have taken it long before they made the appointment and drove to the clinic, but I can’t possibly know where they are until they did- so that’s where I have to go.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I get what you’re saying, but it’s also apparent to me that you haven’t put yourself in that interaction before.
> 
> The women you have ANY chance of swaying haven’t made any decisions that they like. Some aren’t going to be swayed, and there’s nothing I can do to change that. I can’t stop them, and I can’t force them to do anything, so there’s no point in trying to argue. Some, many even, do _want_ to talk, though.
> 
> ...


Sorry but you really don't know my experience. I can also tell you only know what they tell you, not what they are really feeling. I won't change your mind but maybe the next time you are inserting yourself in someone's life you will remember that you weren't there earlier when they needed help making the decision and you don't really know that you aren't doing more harm to them by you doing it at this time in the situation.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but you really don't know my experience. I can also tell you only know what they tell you, not what they are really feeling. I won't change your mind but maybe the next time you are inserting yourself in someone's life you will remember that you weren't there earlier when they needed help making the decision and you don't really know that you aren't doing more harm to them by you doing it at this time in the situation.


So I don’t know that I’m “doing more harm to them” by engaging them in a conversation and showing them options...


....but you do?


I only know what they’re telling me, not what they’re really feeling... but you do?

I wasn’t there when they made the appointment... but you were?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but you really don't know my experience. I can also tell you only know what they tell you, not what they are really feeling. I won't change your mind but maybe the next time you are inserting yourself in someone's life you will remember that you weren't there earlier when they needed help making the decision and you don't really know that you aren't doing more harm to them by you doing it at this time in the situation.


The example I gave earlier of helping a woman find a job that removed her false dependence on a boyfriend who’d threatened to leave her if she kept her baby, a baby that she wanted to keep, was somehow harming her?

You know her situation better than even she did?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Think of it this way. If a woman is agonizing over this decision then by the time she makes the appointment, she has seriously thought it through and tried to find an alternative that works for her before she scheduled the procedure. You should have found a way to help her then. Instead you are there at the last final minute where it is far more a mind game and far more damaging to her mental state. I know that you as a man have never been in the that situation and have no real understanding of what you are doing go her.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I know that you* as a man* have never been in the that situation and have *no real understanding* of what you are doing go her.


Are you *"Fem-splaining"* now?
I thought you were all about "equality" and stuff.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Think of it this way. If a woman is agonizing over this decision then by the time she makes the appointment, she has seriously thought it through and tried to find an alternative that works for her before she scheduled the procedure.
> 
> You should have found a way to help her then.


It took me a while to formulate a better reply than what I first thought, as you emphasized that criticism at what the man does.
And in a way you're right. Maybe a better idea is to open an alternative center where women can find good employment, cheap housing and most of all daycare.
That would take a large amount of money, but would be a cause worthy of that sum.
Perhaps you'll spark a fire in him to do just that.
But........




> Instead you are there at the last final minute where it is far more a mind game and far more damaging to her mental state. I know that you as a man have never been in the that situation and have no real understanding of what you are doing go her.


.........when one individual has a limited resource and no real way to intercede on these women's behalf *before* they meet that day, is the help offered and given so poor that he should be persuaded not to help at all?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is absolutely no reason for a woman to only abort because she had no way to support the born child. Every state in the US (and I'm sure Canada) has programs to help support women with child(ren) who's spouse, partner, significant other has walked out on them. And the state government (at least in the US) will help track him or her down.
> 
> Every woman should have the choice to carry or terminate a pregnancy. You fought for your right to carry to term, and I fully support that choice.


Those programs aren't nearly as effective as you may think. Maintenance enforcement programs can't seize joint bank accounts, can't put liens against joint assets and can't seize corporate assets if there is a business partner, and that doesn't account for those who are paid cash under the table, use someone else's SIN number, or simply find minimum wage jobs so child support is reduced to almost nothing. 

I do agree that every woman should have the choice to terminate or carry but I'd far rather see them able to make that choice based on reasons other than poverty.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Many, many women who get abortions do not want to, but feel like they’ve run out of options and support. We generally have about 10 seconds to set an interaction before those who aren’t interested in talking make it in the door.


More black babies in New York City are aborted than born alive. 
A mortality rate equal or worse than 200 years ago.

No threads lamenting the tragic and preventable loss of life.

"Did you hear about the latest school shooting?"
"Oh yes, so sad, so preventable. Thoughts and prayers and all that, you know."

"Did you hear about the number of children murdered at the clinics yesterday?"
"Eh, no...huh?"
What? No thoughts and prayers?

A child that has done nothing more than become the result of someone else's actions now has their entire existence hanging on the decision of one person and the possibility of a 10 second interaction with an advocate that cares.
You have 10 seconds to save the life of a child.
10 seconds.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> Those programs aren't nearly as effective as you may think. Maintenance enforcement programs can't seize joint bank accounts, can't put liens against joint assets and can't seize corporate assets if there is a business partner, and that doesn't account for those who are paid cash under the table, use someone else's SIN number, or simply find minimum wage jobs so child support is reduced to almost nothing.
> 
> I do agree that every woman should have the choice to terminate or carry but I'd far rather see them able to make that choice based on reasons other than poverty.


They are quite effective in the US, or there wouldn't be a segment of US society whining about how much of their money goes to feed, shelter, provide healthcare and educate *born *children. All the while some in that segment are trying to take away a women's right to choose, and trying to limit what types birth control she can use and force her to carry to term.

I'll stick to my side of the border and say, there's no reason why an American women only abort because she had no way to support the born child.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you miss this in the post you quoted? That would include not carrying, correct? LOL. Dang.


You think that covers your tracks?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You think that covers your tracks?


Yes, I do. And you're wrong, I assumed the legalities of North Carolina were followed during his protests at a clinic. I stated it in a post, and then pointed the statement out to you again. If you don't like I pointed out one of the specific to North Carolina laws, that's on you. 

It's annoying when you (collective you) won't admit when an error was made.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

An abortion survivor's story


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Are you *"Fem-splaining"* now?
> I thought you were all about "equality" and stuff.


BFF, I wish you would be part of the discussion instead of trying to push buttons and make this a fight. Gunmonkey and I may disagree on how to go about it but at least we are politely discussing our points of view in hopes that going forward we can all do what is best for the women in crisis and hopefully end up with fewer abortions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> It took me a while to formulate a better reply than what I first thought, as you emphasized that criticism at what the man does.
> And in a way you're right. Maybe a better idea is to open an alternative center where women can find good employment, cheap housing and most of all daycare.
> That would take a large amount of money, but would be a cause worthy of that sum.
> Perhaps you'll spark a fire in him to do just that.
> ...


Gunmonkey and I both want the same thing. Fewer abortions. I just want the help to be sooner so that it does not scar a woman who already made a decision that is so difficult.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> There would be no conception if men had a vasectomy at puberty. That way there would be no pregnancy from incest or rape, and any other pregnancy would be deliberate.
> 
> Are you balking at having your body controlled?


Why does the man have to get a vasectomy? How about that AND woman be forced to get their tubes tied since I hva seen way more woman act like a cat in heat than men committing rape and other atrocities? 

Or how about this: "The number of rapes that are falsely reported to the police each year vary greatly depending on the source of the statistics. Estimates across the U.S. often vary from 2 percent, which is the same nationally for other major crimes, to as high as 25 percent. The variations are often attributable to the fact that statistics can be self-serving in nature and thus open to interpretation by the prevailing political agenda."

Haws, Dick. "The elusive numbers on false rape." _Columbia Journalism Review_, vol. 36, no. 4, 1997, p. 16+. _Academic OneFile_, Accessed 7 June 2019.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> Why does the man have to get a vasectomy? How about that AND woman be forced to get their tubes tied since I hva seen way more woman act like a cat in heat than men committing rape and other atrocities?
> 
> Or how about this: "The number of rapes that are falsely reported to the police each year vary greatly depending on the source of the statistics. Estimates across the U.S. often vary from 2 percent, which is the same nationally for other major crimes, to as high as 25 percent. The variations are often attributable to the fact that statistics can be self-serving in nature and thus open to interpretation by the prevailing political agenda."
> 
> Haws, Dick. "The elusive numbers on false rape." _Columbia Journalism Review_, vol. 36, no. 4, 1997, p. 16+. _Academic OneFile_, Accessed 7 June 2019.


She is not really advocating for forced vasectomies. It is, however a much easier and less invasive procedure medically and hormonally to store semen and snip a man's vas deferen.The point she is making is that if we get to decide what a woman does with her body then we should also be able to decide what a man does with his body.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Grey Mare said:


> Why does the man have to get a vasectomy? How about that AND woman be forced to get their tubes tied since I hva seen way more woman act like a cat in heat than men committing rape and other atrocities?
> 
> Or how about this: "The number of rapes that are falsely reported to the police each year vary greatly depending on the source of the statistics. Estimates across the U.S. often vary from 2 percent, which is the same nationally for other major crimes, to as high as 25 percent. The variations are often attributable to the fact that statistics can be self-serving in nature and thus open to interpretation by the prevailing political agenda."
> 
> Haws, Dick. "The elusive numbers on false rape." _Columbia Journalism Review_, vol. 36, no. 4, 1997, p. 16+. _Academic OneFile_, Accessed 7 June 2019.


It was totally hypothetical, if a woman's right to control her own body is removed, then men shouldn't have an issue with their right to control removed via mandatory vasectomy. I am not, and have never, wanted men to have a mandatory vasectomy at puberty. The comparison was to make a point that everyone wants control of their own body.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's no more silly than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Everyone has the right to control their own body.


I have been a woman for 51 years, thanks to genetics and all that. WHERE does it say I HAVE to carry a pregnancy to term because while growing up that wasn't one of the lessons or talks I had with my Gram. I think I am missing something here.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Grey Mare said:


> I have been a woman for 51 years, thanks to genetics and all that. WHERE does it say I HAVE to carry a pregnancy to term because while growing up that wasn't one of the lessons or talks I had with my Gram. I think I am missing something here.....


It doesn't, and I've never said that. You're missing that I'm pro-choice, I don't care what choice a woman makes, only that she has one.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

That's just it...I am a woman and I have NEVER not been in control of my own body. This hogwash of were not in control is just that...hogwash. Then your twisting words to lead others to assume we have no control...we sure do and last I looked, you had the money for an abortion you could go get one. 

After going through nursing school and really getting down to genetics and cell formation, it IS murdering a living breathing being. It literally makes me cringe now, but I still feel, as you said, it is your body, you want to get it scraped and sucked out...your choice. But don't assume this should be paid for by anyone but yourself. With all the birth control out there, if you got pregnant still after all those choices are at both a man and a woman's disposal...shame on you!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> That's just it...I am a woman and I have NEVER not been in control of my own body. This hogwash of were not in control is just that...hogwash. Then your twisting words to lead others to assume we have no control...we sure do and last I looked, you had the money for an abortion you could go get one.
> 
> After going through nursing school and really getting down to genetics and cell formation, it IS murdering a living breathing being. It literally makes me cringe now, but I still feel, as you said, it is your body, you want to get it scraped and sucked out...your choice. But don't assume this should be paid for by anyone but yourself. With all the birth control out there, if you got pregnant still after all those choices are at both a man and a woman's disposal...shame on you!


I don't think you understand that this conversation is about others trying to take away a woman's right to have an abortion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Grey Mare said:


> That's just it...I am a woman and I have NEVER not been in control of my own body. This hogwash of were not in control is just that...hogwash. Then your twisting words to lead others to assume we have no control...we sure do and last I looked, you had the money for an abortion you could go get one.
> 
> After going through nursing school and really getting down to genetics and cell formation, it IS murdering a living breathing being. It literally makes me cringe now, but I still feel, as you said, it is your body, you want to get it scraped and sucked out...your choice. But don't assume this should be paid for by anyone but yourself. With all the birth control out there, if you got pregnant still after all those choices are at both a man and a woman's disposal...shame on you!


Prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was illegal and women had no (legal) choice over terminating a pregnancy. No federal money has paid for abortion due to the Hyde Amendment (except in the case of rape or incest), you have no control over which individual states will pay for abortion, and which insurance programs either. 

There are anti abortionists that want to limit what contraceptives are available as well due to their contention that some are abortifacients.

Plus murder is a legal term, and abortion is a legal medical procedure, thus it's not murder.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

As a woman and a tax payer, I DO NOT want to be paying for someone to have an abortion. You got pregnant, YOU pay for it. Simple and in easy text. Why should federal money go for paying for an abortion?! Again, with as much birth control out there, this shouldn't be such a hot topic and if you do get pregnant and don't want it, then you want total control over your body, you got it sister....YOU PAY FOR IT out of your own pocket. 

States have the right to vote on what they want in law and don't. If those states won't pay for an abortion, that is their right. You don't want to be told what to do, neither do the people of that state want to be told what to pay for either.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Grey Mare said:


> As a woman and a tax payer, I DO NOT want to be paying for someone to have an abortion. You got pregnant, YOU pay for it. Simple and in easy text. Why should federal money go for paying for an abortion?! Again, with as much birth control out there, this shouldn't be such a hot topic and if you do get pregnant and don't want it, then you want total control over your body, you got it sister....YOU PAY FOR IT out of your own pocket.
> 
> States have the right to vote on what they want in law and don't. If those states won't pay for an abortion, that is their right. You don't want to be told what to do, neither do the people of that state want to be told what to pay for either.


Hyde Amendment- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment 

"The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976, by the House of Representatives, by a 207–167 vote. It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. The measure represents one of the first major legislative gains by the United States pro-life movement, especially the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment led by lobbyist Mark Gallagher,[5] after the striking-down of anti-abortion laws following the 1973 Supreme Court case _Roe v. Wade_. Congress subsequently altered the Hyde Amendment several times. The version in force from 1981 until 1993 prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions "except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."[6]

On October 22, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994.[7] The Act contained a new version of the Hyde Amendment that expanded the category of abortions for which federal funds are available under Medicaid to include cases of rape and incest.[8]"

As a taxpayer you've never paid federal taxes for anyone's abortion, except for the cases of rape and incest. I don't know what states you've lived in but there are only 16 states that pay for abortion. "There are currently 16 *states* who use their own *state *funds to *pay* for elective *abortions* and similar services. These *states* include Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

And there are insurance policies that will pay for abortion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I have no problem with the Hyde amendment. I agree that you can pay for your own abortion and if you can't there are places that will help you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I also don' think they should pay for little blue man pills either.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Pixie...I am WELL aware of the Hyde Amendment, no need to quote it again for my benefit. I was merely expressing my own personal views on the matter. 

No, I don't think that we should pay for the little blue pill either but....medically speaking, having sexual relations with your partner or spouse does play into the mental and psychological health of a man. Many men who have sexual problems become depressed, angry, withdrawn, etc. So there is a reason for it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> Pixie...I am WELL aware of the Hyde Amendment, no need to quote it again for my benefit. I was merely expressing my own personal views on the matter.
> 
> No, I don't think that we should pay for the little blue pill either but....medically speaking, having sexual relations with your partner or spouse does play into the mental and psychological health of a man. Many men who have sexual problems become depressed, angry, withdrawn, etc. So there is a reason for it.


Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term could do the same things to a woman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> BFF, I wish you would be part of the discussion instead of trying to push buttons and make this fight.


I wish you would do the same, but I don't foresee the pattern changing. 



painterswife said:


> *I don't think you understand* that this conversation is about others trying to take away a woman's right to have an abortion.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term could do the same things to a woman.


HOW is a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy? I have yet to see proof that a woman is being told she HAS TO carry to term. If you mean she has to carry to term because she doesn't have the money to get an abortion, that is on HER not anyone else. Play on words is what it is...no one is forcing this onto a woman but herself...don't have the money for it, don't play...keep your legs together, say no, etc....same as what other woman are screaming for a man to do.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term could do the same things to a woman.


HOW is a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy? I have yet to see proof that a woman is being told she HAS TO carry to term. If you mean she has to carry to term because she doesn't have the money to get an abortion, that is on HER not anyone else. Play on words is what it is...no one is forcing this onto a woman but herself...don't have the money for it, don't play...keep your legs together, say no, etc....same as what other woman are screaming for a man to do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> HOW is a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy? I have yet to see proof that a woman is being told she HAS TO carry to term. If you mean she has to carry to term because she doesn't have the money to get an abortion, that is on HER not anyone else. Play on words is what it is...no one is forcing this onto a woman but herself...don't have the money for it, don't play...keep your legs together, say no, etc....same as what other woman are screaming for a man to do.


I don't know if you are watching the news these days but there are laws being passed just to make that happen.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I don't know if you are watching the news these days but there are laws being passed just to make that happen.


Again Painterswife....how? Explain...as at the moment, I am too busy setting my new job in place to support my family and help my husband with bills and life to watch the news. Too much crap on the news as it is...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> Again Painterswife....how? Explain...as at the moment, I am too busy setting my new job in place to support my family and help my husband with bills and life to watch the news. Too much crap on the news as it is...


No. I don't think I will. Maybe someone else will do the work for you.


----------



## ticndig (Sep 7, 2014)

no time for TV but have time for this ? ok carry on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No. I don't think I will.
> Maybe someone else will do the work for you.


Maybe someone else will prove what you claimed?
That doesn't seem quite right.



ticndig said:


> no *time for TV* but have time for this ? ok carry on.


Posting here can be done most any time, and often only takes a few minutes.

Watching the news on TV means being in front of one at the precise time it's on.

Then one would have to hope they were discussing whatever it is PW so vaguely alluded to, since no real details were given.

I have the TV news on now but I've heard no mention of abortions.
It's been on nearly 10 minutes already, and at least a third of that has been commercials.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have the TV news on now but I've heard no mention of abortions.
> It's been on nearly 10 minutes already, and at least a third of that has been *commercials*.


I'm sure half of those are advertising pills of some kind of other. I'm afraid to take any of those pills because I already have all the side effects anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I don't know if you are watching the news these days but there are laws being passed just to make that happen.


"Most of the new laws — known as early abortion bans — explicitly outlaw abortion when performed after a certain point early in the pregnancy. The laws vary, with some forbidding abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and some after eight weeks. Alabama's law is the most extreme: It aims to outlaw abortion at any point, except if the woman's health is at serious risk. So far in 2019, nine U.S. states have passed laws of this type, and more states are considering similar legislation."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...y-abortion-bans-which-states-have-passed-them

None of the laws have been enacted, judges have put them on hold or they have a future date.

All those poor states that can't pay for adequate healthcare, education, and good nutrition for their born citizens will now be paying millions to support the new laws that violate Roe v. Wade and will be overturned. It's sad.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> "Most of the new laws — known as early abortion bans — explicitly outlaw abortion when performed after a certain point early in the pregnancy. The laws vary, with some forbidding abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and some after eight weeks. Alabama's law is the most extreme: It aims to outlaw abortion at any point, except if the woman's health is at serious risk. So far in 2019, nine U.S. states have passed laws of this type, and more states are considering similar legislation."
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/health...y-abortion-bans-which-states-have-passed-them
> 
> ...


The goal is to go to the SC, to see if RvW gets overturned.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Truly sad. 

"Last time Alabama lost an abortion case, it paid the American Civil Liberties Union enough money for 33 classroom teachers. Or 41 state troopers. Or 50 prison guards." "Back in 2016, the state paid $1.7 million to the ACLU after federal courts struck down a 2013 law that required abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges."

https://www.al.com/politics/2019/05...on-paid-for-previous-failed-abortion-law.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I'm sure half of those are advertising pills of some kind of other. I'm afraid to take any of those pills because I already have all the side effects anyway.


I used to take pills just to GET the "side effects". 



Irish Pixie said:


> None of the laws have been enacted


That just needed to be repeated.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Gunmonkey and I both want the same thing. Fewer abortions. I just want the help to be sooner so that it does not scar a woman who already made a decision that is so difficult.


And that's the best alternative to offer, I think the same way.
It's so much better when you start from a position of mutual respect and agreement instead of strident hyperboles that often get thrown in like hand grenades in these debates.
Such as...... "*They* just want to subjugate women" or *"They* just want to murder babies".
I think there are few if any people that hold those actual positions in this issue. The real positions are not as callous or uncaring as that.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> And that's the best alternative to offer, I think the same way.
> It's so much better when you start from a position of mutual respect and agreement instead of strident hyperboles that often get thrown in like hand grenades in these debates.
> Such as...... "*They* just want to subjugate women" or *"They* just want to murder babies".
> I think there are few if any people that hold those actual positions in this issue. The real positions are not as callous or uncaring as that.


I agree. Both sides of the debate have gotten to the point where they simply shut down because nobody can get past labels and assumptions.


----------



## LeifNKC (May 26, 2017)

mreynolds said:


> I'm sure half of those are advertising pills of some kind of other. I'm afraid to take any of those pills because I already have all the side effects anyway.


LOL, always thought those commercials were hard to believe... 1/3 of all men over 35 have issues with ED? Turning 50 in a few weeks, and it was never an issue for me, since starting a carnivore/zero carb way of eating in January this year the solution to those blue pills is obvious to me... eat more meat! Works for the ladies too, as I’ve read the posts this year from several hundred on Facebook, and seen their pics before and after. Most are trying to convince their husbands or boyfriends to start eating more meat too!

My wife is slowly coming around, after seeing me sleeping better and about 21 pounds lighter without effort so far. Ban the pills! ;-)


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

LeifNKC said:


> LOL, always thought those commercials were hard to believe... 1/3 of all men over 35 have issues with ED? Turning 50 in a few weeks, and it was never an issue for me, since starting a carnivore/zero carb way of eating in January this year the solution to those blue pills is obvious to me... eat more meat! Works for the ladies too, as I’ve read the posts this year from several hundred on Facebook, and seen their pics before and after. Most are trying to convince their husbands or boyfriends to start eating more meat too!
> 
> My wife is slowly coming around, after seeing me sleeping better and about 21 pounds lighter without effort so far. Ban the pills! ;-)


Didn't know that. I guess it sucks being a vegan.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Actually, wouldn't it be better for all men to have a vasectomy at a certain age? That way it would take care of pregnancies due to incest and rape. Vasectomies are totally reversible, virtually symptom free, and minimally invasive, at least compared to tubal ligation. Or we could just let all people have control over their own bodies.


Yup, that way everybody can have all the sex that they want to, no one has to be responsible.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Yup, that way everybody can have all the sex that they want to, no one has to be responsible.


Is that a bad thing?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Is that a bad thing?


 Anytime we just don't care and throw consequences to the wind is a bad thing...……………..you will never convince me more than 1 percent of people who had sex was a accident.

A choice was made to disregard the well known side effects.


At some point, some one said, I just don't care.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

shawnlee said:


> Anytime we just don't care and throw consequences to the wind is a bad thing...……………..you will never convince me more than 1 percent of people who had sex was a accident.
> 
> A choice was made to disregard the well known side effects.
> 
> ...


Who said anything about not caring? I care a lot when I have sex.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

shawnlee said:


> Anytime we just don't care and throw consequences to the wind is a bad thing...……………..


True......but I wonder what the "accident report" looks like on this stat....


> you will never convince me more than 1 percent of people who had sex was a accident.


BTW, you're probably right.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're right, it's not that hard. My right to terminate a pregnancy is legal nationally right now, and some states will never ban it. I have the right to control my own body, even if you don't like it. It's that simple
> 
> I still think the mandatory vasectomies at puberty is fine and dandy, after all, no sperm no pregnancy. No choice.


The first statement above is correct. My efforts end where you do not consider my opinions to carry truth. I will only suffer if I let you go through this without the advise that I carry. Once provided, I carry no burden for the death of that unborn child.

How do you feel about forced Tubal Ligation's?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> But thank you. I've been wanting to volunteer once we move, and I think I've found the perfect position for me. I'm going to become a Planned Parenthood escort, they need someone to shelter people from zealots.


Or would it be zealot vs zealot?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Who said anything about not caring? I care a lot when I have sex.


LOL, we are paid in full now.


----------



## LeifNKC (May 26, 2017)

mreynolds said:


> Didn't know that. I guess it sucks being a vegan.


Well, I’m one more of those N=1 experiments, but when I’ve met dozens of others and read hundreds of cases that agree with my results, it’d be hard to convince me otherwise! lol

I never was a vegan, always knew my parents were just incorrect when they insisted I eat my veggies... but, like every other carnivore I’ve met so far that I’ve respected (which is virtually all), they all seem to be pretty ‘I’ll do me, you do you’ in attitude.

Giving info is fine, as I care about others, but I’m not interested in forcing vegans to put down the Oreos, or greens, or whatever they want to shove in their pie hole. (Should we ban veggies too, since our digestive systems were obviously designed to efficiently process meat, not plant matter? There is no reason our stomach ph would be so acidic if we were designed to primarily eat plants. Fiber doesn’t need acidic, meat does.)

But, just like I don’t want to be forced to pay for other men’s little blue pills, I don’t want to have to buy them a steak either... if they come over for dinner at my place, it’s voluntary. ;-)

If the vegans only knew our secret... lol


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

LeifNKC said:


> Well, I’m one more of those N=1 experiments, but when I’ve met dozens of others and read hundreds of cases that agree with my results, it’d be hard to convince me otherwise! lol
> 
> I never was a vegan, always knew my parents were just incorrect when they insisted I eat my veggies... but, like every other carnivore I’ve met so far that I’ve respected (which is virtually all), they all seem to be pretty ‘I’ll do me, you do you’ in attitude.
> 
> ...


I dont have issues with vegans but I want my meat. Being from old school Texas I will eat just about anything protein. Some of these young'uns I talk to say "Eeww, you eat chicken gizzards?" Yep and other stuff too. I also like wild stuff like poke salad and elderberries. But I have to throw some bacon sides in with the poke salad lol.


----------



## LeifNKC (May 26, 2017)

mreynolds said:


> I dont have issues with vegans but I want my meat. Being from old school Texas I will eat just about anything protein. Some of these young'uns I talk to say "Eeww, you eat chicken gizzards?" Yep and other stuff too. I also like wild stuff like poke salad and elderberries. But I have to throw some bacon sides in with the poke salad lol.


Not getting me to eat that green stuff... OR fake meat. Mostly ground beef for me, some steak, bacon and sausage, chicken if cooked in lots of butter or ghee, and definitely salt! Tons of good info and case studies back up my views on this, although some insist on grass finished ruminants only, others say organs, others say they haven’t noticed a difference even after 15-20 years of a Carnivore WOE.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Who said anything about not caring? I care a lot when I have sex.



Mee too,......enough so in fact, there are no "Accidents". I know how they happen, there fore I prevent them...…..


There is a reason if feels soo enjoyable,......its the act of creating life, some thing one should not take lightly...……...like the choice between greasy bacon and a BLT at 4 am after a night at the bar...….its a tad more serious than that,......yet here we are trying to come to grips with a solution to problem that has been allowed to escalate way out of hand.


We are approaching genocide levels each year,...…….apparently,...A LOT, of people have accidents,....like a WHOLE lot,...…...perhaps some better life choices need to be made, but at this level these are not accidents,...they are choices and blatant flagrance and disregard for the consequences.


Why, because there is a easy way out...………..like I said, your body, your choice.....I am all for freedoms, even if it is the freedom to make mistakes, but even though I support freedom, I still have a opinion and it is not a free pass.....its ok for me to call it butchery and barbaric...…...


Just like the stores out here that put up pictures of thief's from surveillance footage,......they were not caught or tried or arrested or charged,...….they found it a much more productive way to deal with theft, better than the slap on the hand law enforcement gives them.


Perhaps we need a creative way to discourage this,...….making things illegal never solves a thing, if anything it makes it worse. 


When a decision is that traumatic and devastating, its because it is wrong,...do you feel that way when helping a friend or after doing a good deed,...no,.....it is some good advice from the inside you are ignoring when it is traumatic like that, usually because it is wrong. Good things feel good and bad things feel bad,...….nice how that works, it helps us make good decisions.


I believe we are more than this, I seriously doubt it is Gandalf the gray peeking thru the clouds at us like many envision, but I believe there is much beyond our understanding......I am not black, but I read Roots,...….I am not a Indian but I read Geronimo......I also do not think Gandalf the grey is spying on me thru the clouds but I read the bible,...….beyond all the gibberish in it, there are a few good suggestions on the few things needed for a happy life and when I look around and see the people who are happy, they are following most of those suggestions and do not even know it, they have never set foot in a church.

Most solutions to a problem are the most simplistic,...…. that's what makes them hard to find. People like to pass over them and jump straight to crazy convoluted land.


----------



## ticndig (Sep 7, 2014)

Very well said Shawnlee .In my opinion the best explanation given.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Gibberish?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Gibberish?


OMD. We agree on something, did hell freeze over?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> OMD. We agree on something, did hell freeze over?


I doubt it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Think of it this way. If a woman is agonizing over this decision then by the time she makes the appointment, she has seriously thought it through and tried to find an alternative that works for her before she scheduled the procedure. You should have found a way to help her then. Instead you are there at the last final minute where it is far more a mind game and far more damaging to her mental state. I know that you as a man have never been in the that situation and have no real understanding of what you are doing go her.


Think of it this way:

Say someone, after spending weeks agonizing over how to afford to keep their home, came to the decision that they had no choice but to sign it over to the bank.

Do you think it would be a bad thing to catch them in the bank parking lot and show them some information on low interest-rate refinancing?

If that gave them what they needed to be able to keep the home they wanted, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

If the next person is there because they don’t want their home anymore, and really do want to sign it over to the bank; they’re going to ignore the refinance offers and go do what they’re there to do. 


I think it cheapens the issue to try to make it one of man vs. woman. It’s entirely about desperate people.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A woman who agonizing over about an abortion is not something that you can compare to losing a home. That alone shows me you don't get it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> A woman who agonizing over about an abortion is not something that you can compare to losing a home. That alone shows me you don't get it.


Every woman I've known that had an abortion didn't take the decision lightly, and it wasn't an easy decision for any of them.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Gibberish?


 Everyone begat some one and endless rehashing of examples of do not do bad stuff,...over and over and over as told over and over thru several people,...…...lots of disregard able material in there.

Some pretty basic stuff in there that anyone can understand mixed in with the gibberish,...….superfluous material might be a better term , all to set the stage, so I get it.

But for a handbook, it could be 100 pages or less,...…...I can see why people do not read it completely ……...lots of sifting to get to the gold.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> A woman who agonizing over about an abortion is not something that you can compare to losing a home. That alone shows me *you don't get it*.


The fact you don't understand what he said shows you "don't get it" or simply refuse to admit it's true.



Irish Pixie said:


> Every woman that I've known that had an abortion didn't take the decision lightly, and it wasn't an easy decision for any of them.


No one said it was "easy".


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Every woman that I've known that had an abortion didn't take the decision lightly, and it wasn't an easy decision for any of them.


 Poor decisions are supposed to be hard/hurt, otherwise they would bring us joy and we would do it again,...…...its human nature/instinct ……….when you do what you know is wrong, its hard. 

When it causes depression/suicide and regret it was probably a poor choice. I do not need to even know what was done, the results tell me all I need to know.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

shawnlee said:


> Poor decisions are supposed to be hard/hurt, otherwise they would bring us joy and we would do it again,...…...its human nature/instinct ……….when you do what you know is wrong, its hard.
> 
> When it causes depression/suicide and regret it was probably a poor choice. I do not need to even know what was done, the results tell me all I need to know.


Sorry but many of the right decisions still cause regret, hurt and more. Your premise does not hold water.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *Sorry but *many of the right decisions still cause regret, hurt and more. Your premise does not hold water.


Sorry but your statement doesn't alter his in any way.
Your bucket has the same holes.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Thought we could use some information for this debate:

*WHO HAS ABORTIONS?*

In 2015, unmarried women accounted for 86% of all abortions (CDC).
Among married women, 4% of pregnancies currently end in abortion. Among unmarried women, 27% of pregnancies end in abortion (CDC).
Women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and had the highest abortion rates (CDC).
Adolescents under 15 years obtained .03% of all 2015 abortions; women aged 15–19 years accounted for less than 10% (CDC).
Percentage of 2015 Reported Abortions by Age of Mother (CDC):
*<15 years* *15–19 years* *20–24 years* *25–29 years* *30–34 years* *35–39 years* *≥40 years*
0.3% 9.8% 31.1% 27.6% 17.7% 10.0% 3.5%
Women living with a partner to whom they are not married account for 25% of abortions but only about 10% of women in the population (NAF).
In 2015, women who had not aborted in the past accounted for 56% of all abortions; women with one or two prior abortions accounted for 35%, and women with three or more prior abortions accounted for 8% (CDC).

Among white women, 10% of pregnancies currently end in abortion. Among black women, 28% of pregnancies end in abortion (CDC).
Black women were more than 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion in 2015 than white women (CDC).
The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties (NAF).
The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).
In 2014, 30% of aborting women identified themselves as Protestant and 24% identified themselves as Catholic (AGI).
*WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?*

89% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC).
In 2015, 8% of all abortions occurred between 14-20 weeks' gestation; 1.3% occurred ≥21 weeks' gestation (CDC).
*THE COST OF ABORTION*

In 2011-2012, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $480. The average cost of a medication abortions up to nine weeks of gestation was $504 (AGI).
*ABORTION AND PUBLIC FUNDS*
The U.S. Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman's life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest (AGI).
17 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds—virtually all from the state (AGI).
In 2014, 88,466 abortions in California were paid for with public funds. Public funds paid for 45,722 abortions in New York (AGI).


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but many of the right decisions still cause regret, hurt and more. Your premise does not hold water.


 I would guess many times it is misplaced regret and hurt...…..but I think people will believe whatever they want,......no matter if it is the truth or not. Most peoples perceptions have been skewed soo far out of whack I would not be shocked at what they perceive as good or bad,......right or wrong,......sad or happy. I would be more shocked when they get it right than when wrong.


Most people are soo far removed from life any decision cause confusion/regret/hurt......……..we have been insulated from the reality of life as a society for quite some time,...vegetarians out there would probably feel bad picking veggies because they were killing a plant, since most have never picked one before. I am going out on a limb and calling that misplaced feelings.

Misplaced understanding is rampant,...…….


One of the my Grandma`s few short pieces of advice boiled down from 90 plus years of life ,..... was make no regrets,....because it is a choice to make them and choice to not make them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

shawnlee said:


> I would guess many times it is misplaced regret and hurt...…..but I think people will believe whatever they want,......no matter if it is the truth or not. Most peoples perceptions have been skewed soo far out of whack I would not be shocked at what they perceive as good or bad,......right or wrong,......sad or happy. I would be more shocked when they get it right than when wrong.
> 
> 
> Most people are soo far removed from life any decision cause confusion/regret/hurt......……..we have been insulated from the reality of life as a society for quite some time,...vegetarians out there would probably feel bad picking veggies because they were killing a plant, since most have never picked one before. I am going out on a limb and calling that misplaced feelings.
> ...


Many do not regret having an abortion, that does not mean that it was a difficult and even agonizing decision.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

shawnlee said:


> I would guess many times it is misplaced regret and hurt...…..but I think people will believe whatever they want,......no matter if it is the truth or not. Most peoples perceptions have been skewed soo far out of whack I would not be shocked at what they perceive as good or bad,......right or wrong,......sad or happy. I would be more shocked when they get it right than when wrong.
> 
> 
> Most people are soo far removed from life any decision cause confusion/regret/hurt......……..we have been insulated from the reality of life as a society for quite some time,...vegetarians out there would probably feel bad picking veggies because they were killing a plant, since most have never picked one before. I am going out on a limb and calling that misplaced feelings.
> ...


I'll admit to that. No one in my family has had an abortion, so I have never agonized along with my family on that decision.

Regardless, still, hearing of anyone killing a baby hurts my soul.

I did have a beautiful young lady that worked for me. I am not sure if she could not take the pill or what. She enjoyed life, maybe drank a little too much. She aborted many times while I knew her, early in the pregnancy, as soon as she figured out she was pregnant. She had dead eyes.

Thoughts of her haunt me still, almost 40 years ago.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> A woman who agonizing over about an abortion is not something that you can compare to losing a home. That alone shows me you don't get it.


That’s a rhetorical cop-out, and I suspect you know it. You chose not to address the obvious analogy of the developing last-minute option. 

While the significance of a human life and a mortgage do not equate, its pretty obvious that the point was that people often have to make decisions that they don’t like. What does it matter when that extra option manifests?

Your hard line on that point strikes me as similar to the abortionists telling the women that they better not miss their appointment, else they may not get another one. It’s almost as if someone is trying to lock them in, once they feel like they make the decision they want them to make. 


If you’d witnessed any of the days we spend working the parking lots, you’d have no choice to admit that there are no bully tactics going on. We don’t even “demonstrate”. No one I work with has even carried a sign in years. 

Like I said, we generally try to focus on the ones who overtly don’t want to be there. If we approach a woman to talk, and she walks away, there’s not much more we can do. But if they stop and talk, it’s pretty obvious that she’s open to hearing other options. 

In any given year, several hundred women ignore us, or cut us short and go into the clinic, but a few dozen spend a few minutes or more with us, and don’t go through with their appointment (at least that day).


And over half of our group are women. Do they not understand either?
(I’d honestly like to know your answer to that one).


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Every woman I've known that had an abortion didn't take the decision lightly, and it wasn't an easy decision for any of them.


Do you know any who chose not to after getting into the room for their appointment?

I do.

Did they make their decision too late?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s a rhetorical cop-out, and I suspect you know it. You chose not to address the obvious analogy of the developing last-minute option.
> 
> While the significance of a human life and a mortgage do not equate, its pretty obvious that the point was that people often have to make decisions that they don’t like. What does it matter when that extra option manifests?
> 
> ...





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s a rhetorical cop-out, and I suspect you know it. You chose not to address the obvious analogy of the developing last-minute option.
> 
> While the significance of a human life and a mortgage do not equate, its pretty obvious that the point was that people often have to make decisions that they don’t like. What does it matter when that extra option manifests?
> 
> ...


It can not be compared. That is the truth of it. 

I have never said or implied you bullied. I just don't agree with your timing and its effect on women. There is really no way , I can explain to you what you are doing to women who have already agonized over their decision. You will never understand fully.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

I gave birth to a child at 23 weeks gestation. When he left the nicu there was a baby they saved born at 21 weeks. These babies automatically qualify for medicaid based on birth weight ( less than 2 1/2 lbs. ) so no hardship on the families for a nicu bill. in some states its possible to kill these babies still in the womb. 

Birth control isnt that expensive. There are billboards everywhere that point women to low and no cost BC. Abortion is not birth control. 

If a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer can be charged with the babies death aa well. So whats the difference? The fact that the fetus in question is wanted and loved????

So now we are going to start basimg the valie of life on wether or not that life is loves and wanted by its mother? 

Not the father...right. Cuz he gets no say evem though half of his genetic material made that baby. I get that they are protecring the very few instances where a woman is raped or incest is involved. But there has to be a better way.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

They played they paid...simple. Agonized over it? Do these woman not know how babies are made?! What about the one's who have several abortions, can't be that agonizing if they do it a few times. I know if I have something done that was agonizing, I sure won't be doing it a 2nd or 3rd time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Do you know any who chose not to after getting into the room for their appointment?
> 
> I do.
> 
> Did they make their decision too late?


I know several women that had app'ts for the procedure and changed their minds, and one that actually went, the nurse asked her if this is what she wanted because she was upset, she said no and left. And that was the right decision for all of them, including the women who terminated their pregnancies. 

As I've said all along, I don't care if a woman terminates or carries to term, as long she has the choice.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> So now we get down to the blame game. Good job. It was a good discussion and now that will cease.


So no one is to blame for aborting the baby?


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Some people believe No one is to be blamed for any of their actions....and they shouldnt have to suffer through any uncomfortable consequences. 

Some of these same people believe you ARE to blame for what your ancestors did hundred pf years ago though.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Is blame reducing the amount of abortions? No it is not. You rhetoric does nothing to help reduce or stop abortions.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Is blame reducing the amount of abortions? No it is not. *You rhetoric does nothing to help reduce or stop abortion*s.


Your's does?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Should be taught in every school.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Your's does?


They arent trying to. And anyone who does is wrong in their eyes. (General they)


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

*Abortion rates in US reach a decade low, CDC reports*

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/21/health/abortion-surveillance-cdc-2015-bn/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/


Someone is doing something right somewhere. Depending on your viewpoint.

Me personally, I see less fetuses killed as a good thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> *Abortion rates in US reach a decade low, CDC reports*
> 
> https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/21/health/abortion-surveillance-cdc-2015-bn/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/
> 
> ...


Do you believe others want more pregnancies terminated?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It can not be compared. That is the truth of it.


That's your personal opinion.
The fact it *was* compared proves you're incorrect.



painterswife said:


> You will never understand fully.


You say that about everything when anyone disagrees with you.
Maybe you don't understand as much as you like to believe.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> *Abortion rates in US reach a decade low, CDC reports*
> 
> https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/21/health/abortion-surveillance-cdc-2015-bn/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/
> 
> ...


Do you think that people who are pro-choice _want_ women to terminate their pregnancies? I certainly don't, and I don't know anyone who does.

In a perfect world there would no unwanted pregnancy, but this isn't a perfect world. Making abortion illegal won't stop it either, but it will stop safe abortions. Do pro-life supporters _want_ dead women?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It was a good discussion and now that will cease.


That ceased when it stopped being about cars.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do pro-life supporters _want_ dead women?


Anti gun people do.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I also don' think they should pay for little blue man pills either.


Wait..........who pays for those pills?


----------



## LeifNKC (May 26, 2017)

Cornhusker said:


> Wait..........who pays for those pills?


I’d rather they buy me steaks or burgers! Who the heck wants pills with them kinda side effects??? :-O


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

LeifNKC said:


> I’d rather they buy me steaks or burgers! Who the heck wants pills with them kinda side effects??? :-O


The wives of men who need them.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> It can not be compared. That is the truth of it.
> 
> I have never said or implied you bullied. I just don't agree with your timing and its effect on women. There is really no way , I can explain to you what you are doing to women who have already agonized over their decision. You will never understand fully.



Some do fully understand, some do not like understanding.

What it does is shatter their fragile self image/ego after long hours of justifications rationalizing it out so their mind can accept it.

Humans need to come to terms so to speak with decisions, it is well known process, the mind does not care if it operates with facts or if it is even real, as long as it can fill in all boxes with rationalizations. I see it all the time, the decision plays little role in it, it is always the same process the brain needs.


That's why some people can not accept the truth, because it shatters the idea of what they have based decisions on for years, it becomes too much for the self to take, so they reject even the most basic of truths to sustain the ego....self.


Most people live in very fragile worlds with their own concepts,...…..when reality is shattered many end up with psychiatric problems or worse, take their own lives. Ego death is something many never even know exists, even fewer have faced it and many never make it thru with permanent trauma/baggage/PTSD or whatever terminology you want to use to wrap your head around it. 

When you really understand a thing thru and thru, you spend a lot of time nodding your head and smiling, because it becomes perfectly clear that most people are parroting and regurgitating what they hear,....right or wrong...…..become a true expert in one thing and then go listen to people talk about it...…..you can`t know until you see it for yourself, no one can tell you.....but then you will understand once you see it for yourself.


With much knowledge comes much sorrow,.....the more you truly understand the sadder it gets,...…...it takes a strong person to know the truth and know it is useless to try and explain, to sit and just nod your head and smile and say,..." could be, could be",.....knowing fully well the truth and the answer. But after spending many frustrating attempts to educate the blind,....these people usually become recluses or hermits or live thru their work and have minimal social lives.


So when asked if I understand, the answer would be yes, but do you really understand would be my response as trying to explain would only confuse you more,....some people are just not able to get their heads around a thing.


Once you boil it down, humanity is pretty easy to grasp,....we all operate off a few basic emotions and think in the same way,.……....we are very much like computers in this way,....garbage in, garbage out...….good inputs lead to good outputs. There is really not much difference in that respect,....what makes a person really outstanding is to break with those norms as very few do......knowing a thing and doing a thing are very different,....many know, very few do.


It is up to you to do what you will with this short gift we call life, I do not have to live with your beliefs or choices, only you do. So by all means do what makes you happy......believe what it takes to get you thru the day, because in the end for most, it does not matter what you believed during this life.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> As I've said all along, I don't care if a woman terminates or carries to term, as long she has the choice.





Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think that people who are pro-choice _want_ women to terminate their pregnancies? I certainly don't, and I don't know anyone who does.
> 
> In a perfect world there would no unwanted pregnancy, but this isn't a perfect world. Making abortion illegal won't stop it either, but it will stop safe abortions. Do pro-life supporters _want_ dead women?





Irish Pixie said:


> As I've said all along, I don't care if a woman terminates or carries to term, as long she has the choice.


​
Sure, I am for more dead women,...45,000 people die each day and shockingly I have never met or do not know any of them, so I do not care about 45,000 times a day....well roughly 20,000 times a day as the question was about women....or about 600,000 times a month I do not care.

Before you get sand in yer craw, hear me out.

Consequences rendered are the best preventative measure,......how many people do you hear about accidentally walking of a cliff, jumping from a airplane with no chute, driving with their eyes closed, swimming underwater and not coming up for air or any of the other instant death scenarios that exist,...it is very rare ,unless they wanted to kill themselves.


Consequences are what keep people from doing that, so if millions of women were dead from it, it would be just as rare as accidentally jumping from a skyscraper is.


But with no consequences incurred, no lesson is learned...………...so if 45,000 people die a day, which they do and as long as you don`t know them, you don`t care, so I am all for these necessary deaths from a choice that needs to happen to learn different behavior. Years from now, just like the rare instant death accidents, it will also be rare for these scenarios of back alley abortions.


You can tell a child a million times, but until they burn their own hand the lessons never gets learned or they see some one else get burned bad, then they learn the lesson , but do not fully understand until they get burned.


Learning the lesson is good enough for most, after all most people know not to jump without a parachute, but none of them have done it themselves,...…..understanding is not a prerequisite of compliance. We/almost all have never fallen from 100 stories but we are very certain about what will happen if we do, so I would like to thank all that have fallen from buildings, jumped with no parachute and walked off cliffs, your deaths were not in vain, valuable life altering lessons were learned and to this day people know not to do it.


Now think about of they had been prevented, we would all jump and walk off about anything until a certain death level was reached until we learned our lesson,...…...how dare you stop these women from learning valuable lessons, you are depriving them of critical knowledge and holding them down.


But alas, is that not the human way, to meddle in things we do not fully understand how they work only to have the very thing we seek denied by our self….our very own decisions are the reason it never happens when we want it to happen. The nature of things is very perverse……..as is clearly shown by the example it takes deaths to prevent deaths,...nothing is free and everything including understanding has a price...….there is truly no free ride.


So take a second to think about that the next time you want to prevent some one from failing or correct some one, what you are doing is preventing them from learning critical understanding, that's a opportunity denied for learning,...you are stealing their opportunities to better themselves from them when you do this.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Text is such a poor way to convey things,...…..here is vid that covers it a tad better than text.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Some people just dont understand i guess.

But thats perfectly ok. Things always seem to balance themselves out when they are tipped to far one way or the other. We are seeing that all over the world now.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that having dead women due to unsafe, illegal abortion will be a deterrent to other pregnant women?


Not necessarily pregnant women...but maybe women who could become pregnant. Maybe it will be more of a concern to them. Getting pregnant is not like catching an STD that just needs to be treated. 

Teen pregnancy rated have already dropped. Hopefully that contiues and generations down the road those avenues of birth control become so rare the laws wouldnt be necessary.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> Not necessarily pregnant women...but maybe women who could become pregnant. Maybe it will be more of a concern to them. Getting pregnant is not like catching an STD that just needs to be treated.
> 
> Teen pregnancy rated have already dropped. Hopefully that contiues and generations down the road those avenues of birth control become so rare the laws wouldnt be necessary.


Do you consider yourself pro-life? Or pro-unborn? As I read your post, and the other I responded to, it doesn't seem to matter if women die, only the unborn. 

I agree, except for a segment of the people that identify as pro-life want certain types of effective and easily used birth control banned as well. I wish abortion wasn't necessary, but in the real world we live in right now, it is. And a woman should always have to right to make that choice.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you consider yourself pro-life? Or just pro rambling, mostly non nonsensical posting so it can be read back over and over to be amazed and delighted with the profoundness of the self proclaimed intellect?
> 
> Are you saying that having dead women due to unsafe, illegal abortion will be a deterrent to other pregnant women?
> 
> Delusions of grandeur are not well paired with coffee, and on an empty stomach.


I consider myself pro freedom, even if that means allowing people to make very poor choices and remain fairly uneducated in any real significant way....…….after all its their choice and they will reap the rewards , keeps life more interesting, after all,when the guards are removed some one is always willing to stick their hand in by choice.

Freewill and whatnot, if no poor choices existed, how could one do the right thing if the only choices were the right thing.


Arthur Clark said advanced technology would be undiscernible from magic to some.

So I completely understand how common sense reading could be deemed delusions of grandeur by some.


I agree it was mostly NON nonsensical...….but I do tend to ramble.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> A woman who agonizing over about an abortion is not something that you can compare to losing a home. That alone shows me you don't get it.


There IS something I don't get.
If it's just a clump of cells and simple medical procedure like removing a cyst, then I don't understand "agonizing" over it?
It would seem to me to be an easy decision to just remove this non-life that is harming MY life.
Why agonize over something as simple as that?

OR............is there really a lot more to it than this popular defensive statement that's used by many?
Now I CAN understand the agonizing over it, if it IS another life involved. It makes a helluva lot more sense that way.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> I consider myself pro freedom, even if that means allowing people to make very poor choices and remain fairly uneducated in any real significant way....…….after all its their choice and they will reap the rewards , keeps life more interesting, after all,when the guards are removed some one is always willing to stick their hand in by choice.
> 
> Freewill and whatnot, if no poor choices existed, how could one do the right thing if the only choices were the right thing.
> 
> ...


Thank you for pointing out my spelling error. It was meant to be mostly nonsensical, not non nonsensical. You misspelled indiscernible, BTW. Plus it's Arthur Clarke, and he said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

None of the pro-choice woman have responded to me that if it is so "agonizing" why do some woman get several abortions?! Can't be that agonizing if they do it a few times now is it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> There IS something I don't get.
> If it's just a clump of cells and simple medical procedure like removing a cyst, then I don't understand "agonizing" over it?
> It would seem to me to be an easy decision to just remove this non-life that is harming MY life.
> Why agonize over something as simple as that?
> ...


It's a hard, and I can imagine it to be agonizing for some, because the clump of cells could someday, maybe, become a human being. That's my opinion anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dmm1976 said:


> Teen pregnancy rated have already dropped.


That's because it's easier and much more acceptable to get birth control at an early age.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or just pro rambling, mostly non nonsensical posting so it can be read back over and over to be amazed and delighted with *the profoundness of the self proclaimed intellect?*


Go back and review who always says "you don't understand".


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a hard, and I can imagine it to be agonizing for some, because the clump of cells could someday, maybe, become a human being. That's my opinion anyway.


When? When does it become a human being? Whem its no longer just a clump? Thats pretty early on . since the heart is beating at 8 weeks.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> When? When does it become a human being? Whem its no longer just a clump? Thats pretty early on . since the heart is beating at 8 weeks.


For me it's viability, which is currently 21-24 weeks gestation. Prior to that point it can't support it's own life and depends completely (and is part of) the woman. My personal feeling is termination after that point is the health of the woman and compatibility with life of the fetus. 

I don't think I could have terminated a pregnancy, but I can't tell another woman what she can do with her body.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> For me it's viability, which is currently 21-24 weeks gestation. Prior to that point it can't support it's own life and depends completely (and is part of) the woman. My personal feeling is termination after that point is the health of the woman and compatibility with life of the fetus.
> 
> I don't think I could have terminated a pregnancy, but I can't tell another woman what she can do with her body.


It can't support its own life ( besided breathing) and is completely dependant on its parent for quite awhile after birth too.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

So then basically the difference between a 23 weeker being born and kept alive till it can breath on its own, and a 23 weeker that is partially born, killed , then delivered the rest of the way and sold for parts...is that the mother wished it to be?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> So then basically the difference between a 23 weeker being born and kept alive till it can breath on its own, and a 23 weeker that is partially born, killed , then delivered the rest of the way and sold for parts...is that the mother wished it to be?


My opinion, and yours can vary from it. Neither one of us is wrong, according to what we individually see as the truth.

Your statement, "sold for parts" is quite telling tho. And has been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Just because you don't understand a women agonizing over the decision not to carry a pregnancy to term and still believing in is still cells and genetic material does not mean it is not true.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> My opinion, and yours can vary from it. Neither one of us is wrong, according to what we individually see as the truth.
> 
> Your statement, "sold for parts" is quite telling tho. And has been thoroughly debunked.


No it hasnt....the only thing that was debunked was that they were profitting from it. The truth of it is a company that's in the business of needing "fetal tissue" can buy it .

"The CMP released edited videos of the discussions which made it appear as if Planned Parenthood intended to profit from fetal tissue, although the full unedited videos instead showed that Planned Parenthood requested only a fee to cover costs without any profit."

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

Just because you dont make a profit doesnt mean it isnt being sold.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> When? When does it become a human being? Whem its no longer just a clump? Thats pretty early on . since the heart is beating at 8 weeks.


It is always human. It is not a being until there is higher brain activity. Some where beyond 18 to 20 weeks. Most elective abortions that are not for medical reasons are long before that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> No it hasnt....the only thing that was debunked was that they were profitting from it. The truth of it is a company that's in the business of needing "fetal tissue" can buy it .
> 
> "The CMP released edited videos of the discussions which made it appear as if Planned Parenthood intended to profit from fetal tissue, although the full unedited videos instead showed that Planned Parenthood requested only a fee to cover costs without any profit."
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I said. You do realize that no profit means no sale? Labs pay for shipping and containers, it's the same with all medical tissue. 

The Center for Medical Progress has been sued by Planned Parenthood in California for a number of violations.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

So if i sell a dozen eggs at $2 a dozen. Even though it costs me $4 to produce it ...or heck even sold them at $4 a dozen....no profit means no sale? 

Sell: give or hand over (something) in exchange for money.

Doesn't say it has to be for a profit. 

They were charged with trying to purchase body parts right?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> So if i sell a dozen eggs at $2 a dozen. Even though it costs me $4 to produce it ...or heck even sold them at $4 a dozen....no profit means no sale?
> 
> Sell: give or hand over (something) in exchange for money.
> 
> ...


Maybe you should do some research and understand the law instead of throwing around accusations that are not true.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> So if i sell a dozen eggs at $2 a dozen. Even though it costs me $4 to produce it ...or heck even sold them at $4 a dozen....no profit means no sale?
> 
> Sell: give or hand over (something) in exchange for money.
> 
> ...


No, The Center for Medical Progress, and David Daleiden were charged with fraud, conspiracy, and wiretapping. David Daleiden was also charged with criminal acts. According to the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, it's illegal to sell body parts. Was Planned Parenthood charged with selling body parts?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction

This link might help.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

I guess i should clarify my position. I'm pro life...obviously but I'm not anti abortion. 
I'm all for people having the right to do what they wish...but I also think they shouldn't be shielded from consequences of those wishes. I feel in almost every political area that states should pass the laws that their citizens want. Of the states that passed "heartbeat bills" their citizens will decide if they agree come voting time. The minority that doesnt agree will have to travel to those states that they can get the service they need. Like california. Or new York. DC which does up to 36 weeks on case review or up to 26 weeks ( 2 weeks beyond vialbility) at just the wish of the mother. 

I recognize that the body parts that are sold for only the costs incurred for transferring...likely save other babies lives....or help in reseach. So again, the citizens of states will decide what they want to do.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

From your link:
"*Planned Parenthood receives reasonable reimbursement for its tissue donation services, as expressly permitted by law."

"This law prohibits the receipt of any “valuable consideration” for fetal tissue while expressly permitting “reasonable payments” for costs, including “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
*

*
*


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

I get that the people who made those videos were trying to entrap them into an illegal sale...while the planned parenthood employee was trying to keep it a legal sale. 

I understand what the CMP was trying to do was wrong and illegal. And what planned parenthood does is not illegal. 

Im not arguing that. 

A legal sale is still a sale.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> I get that the people who made those videos were trying to entrap them into an illegal sale...while the planned parenthood employee was trying to keep it a legal sale.
> 
> I understand what the CMP was trying to do was wrong and illegal. And what planned parenthood does is not illegal.
> 
> ...


They are not selling the tissue. They are charging for the costs associated.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Right . they are just the middle men. Might be more cost effective for the research companies or others that look for this "tissue" to open their own private clinics. Offer free services and get it directly from the supplier.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> Right . they are just the middle men. Might be more cost effective for the research companies or others that look for this "tissue" to open their own private clinics. Offer free services and get it directly from the supplier.


I get you don't like that aborted fetal tissue is used to make medical discoveries and save lives.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> From your link:
> "*Planned Parenthood receives reasonable reimbursement for its tissue donation services, as expressly permitted by law."
> 
> "This law prohibits the receipt of any “valuable consideration” for fetal tissue while expressly permitting “reasonable payments” for costs, including “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”*


That's exactly what was said. They are not profiting from fetal tissue. The key word is *reimbursement*.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

I


painterswife said:


> I get you don't like that aborted fetal tissue is used to make medical discoveries and save lives.


I already clarified my stance. Which is nuanced. Pro life also pro choice. For the woman and for the citizens of each state. I wouldnt be angry a woman decides to have an abortion but i would try and talk her out of it. I wouldnt try and stop her if she was sure. I wouldnt wish her to be arrested. Fortunately she would be able to travel to a state that cpuld help her if her current state didnt. It might be difficult and shed have to formuate a plan to get there. But its definitely possible. Or she cpuld make the choice to goto an illegal.clinic if there is one. Her choice. Not anyone elses job to make aure she knows whats right and wrong.

I'm also not upset the tissue is used for research and saving lives. Better that than being labeled waste and incinerated. I think each and every bit of aborted tissue should be used in the most positive way possible.



It seems its mostly the use of the world sold which chafes....

"...23 weeker that is partially born, killed , then delivered the rest of the way and given to a research company in return for reasonable compensation of costs incurred for parts."


Seems rather wordy.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

I never said they were profiting and that was never my argument.


If you were a research company and you needed to get tissue you would arrange a transaction between yourself and planned Parenthood. In which you give them money and they give you tissue. They ise that money to cover the costs tjeuve already incurred.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a hard, and I can imagine it to be agonizing for some, because the clump of cells could someday, maybe, become a human being. That's my opinion anyway.


We both know that, and it is hard, it shouldn't be as easy as a wart removal.

I was getting a little tired of the trash talking about us Neanderthals who lacked both scientific knowledge and any other motivation except to subjugate women, all the while claiming that there really isn't a baby or another life involved down there in that woman's belly.
I never thought you or PW or any other sane person really believes that, but it does come up as a feminist talking point sometimes even if stating it does more harm than good.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's exactly what I said. You do realize that no profit means no sale? Labs pay for shipping and containers, it's the same with all medical tissue.


Well that would be nice if it were true. Unfortunately there have been many bankrupt companies in history that can tell you they were selling, but not making a profit - 2 different things.



> The Center for Medical Progress has been sued by Planned Parenthood in California for a number of violations.





Irish Pixie said:


> No, The Center for Medical Progress, and David Daleiden were charged with fraud, conspiracy, and wiretapping. David Daleiden was also charged with criminal acts. According to the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, it's illegal to sell body parts. Was Planned Parenthood charged with selling body parts?


Yep.
And the charges against the were dropped.
And the grand jury that heard the charges against PP failed to indict, whether the Houston DA who sits on the PP board had anything to do with that..............?
They said, "No she didn't" if you believe that sort of thing.

The point is there is plenty of mud to throw, but few who want the dirty job of making it clean again.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> We both know that, and it is hard, it shouldn't be as easy as a wart removal.
> 
> I was getting a little tired of the trash talking about us Neanderthals who lacked both scientific knowledge and any other motivation except to subjugate women, all the while claiming that there really isn't a baby or another life involved down there in that woman's belly.
> I never thought you or PW or any other sane person really believes that, but it does come up as a feminist talking point sometimes even if stating it does more harm than good.


Reactionary. Also being accused of wanting to kill babies does not help.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Well that would be nice if it were true. Unfortunately there have been many bankrupt companies in history that can tell you they were selling, but not making a profit - 2 different things.
> 
> Yep.
> And the charges against the were dropped.
> ...


The lawsuit was never dropped, the PP suit against CMP continues. According to this link (which is dated April 2019), CMP was just rejected by the SCOTUS to narrow the scope of the PP lawsuit. Do you have anything more current to prove the lawsuit was dropped? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ists-in-planned-parenthood-suit-idUSKCN1RD2G8


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> Wheres my anger? Smart ass maybe , angry definitely not. Nice try though.
> 
> I cant make people understand that i can believe X and also believe Y and not necessarily believe Z but be fine with it if ita legal. My brain does not work in black and white .
> 
> Your inability to understand doesnt invalidate my beliefs or make them angry.


I am not questioning your beliefs. Your rhetoric speaks loud and clear. You are the one that posted the anatomy lesson for feminists.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I am not questioning your beliefs. Your rhetoric speaks loud and clear.


Ok. So you do understand then? Good. Thank you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> Ok. So you do understand then? Good. Thank you.


I can't even try. You have not explained them clearly. One minute your are saying it is not a woman's body and the next is you accept there will be abortions.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I am not questioning your beliefs. Your rhetoric speaks loud and clear. You are the one that posted the anatomy lesson for feminists.


Yup. And its what i believe. That argument my body my choice is silly. The baby is its own body. We try and to make it feel less icky to abort it by dehuminizing it. But it doesnt change the fact that if a heart is beating inside a being. It is living. If the heart stops it is no longer living. If it is caused by an unnatural source than it was killed. 

I believe thats wrong. I believe saying a baby is part of a womans bidy like any other organ is wrong. It is one being living within another being.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

But i wouldnt infringe on a womans right to do what is legally available to her. 

Its legal to do lots of things I wouldnt do.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I can't even try. You have not explained them clearly. One minute your are saying it is not a woman's body and the next is you accept there will be abortions.


It isn't a womans body...and abortion is legal so yes they will happen .


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

dmm1976 said:


> From your link:
> "*Planned Parenthood receives reasonable reimbursement for its tissue donation services, as expressly permitted by law."
> 
> "This law prohibits the receipt of any “valuable consideration” for fetal tissue while expressly permitting “reasonable payments” for costs, including “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
> *


Reminds me of herd sharing. 
That's within the law as well and skirts the legal issues of whatever the buyer's original intent.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> It isn't a womans body...and abortion is legal so yes they will happen .


It will happen regardless of if they are legal, and more women will die from unsafe, illegal abortions. Which is why I wonder if it's better for people that want to ban abortion to call themselves pro-unborn, rather than pro-life.

It's your opinion, and mine differs, that it isn't a woman's body. It is, until the point where the fetus is viable. No one is wrong for their opinion, and there doesn't need to be ugly rhetoric.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> Yup. And its what i believe. That argument my body my choice is silly. The baby is its own body. We try and to make it feel less icky to abort it by dehuminizing it. But it doesnt change the fact that if a heart is beating inside a being. It is living. If the heart stops it is no longer living. If it is caused by an unnatural source than it was killed.
> 
> I believe thats wrong. I believe saying a baby is part of a womans bidy like any other organ is wrong. It is one being living within another being.


I don't believe that. There is no person until the third trimester because there is no higher brain function. Just as when someone is brain dead there is no person left. Cells and a heart beat don't make person.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Just because *you don't understand* a women agonizing over the decision not to carry a pregnancy to term and still believing in is still cells and genetic material does not mean it is not true.





painterswife said:


> *Maybe you should* do some research and *understand* the law instead of throwing around accusations that are not true.





> Painterswife ↑
> I get you don't like that aborted fetal tissue is used to make medical discoveries and *save lives*.


That's sort of similar to the way you don't like that more guns save more lives.
*You don't understand.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dmm1976 said:


> it seems its mostly the use of the world sold which chafes....
> 
> "...23 weeker that is partially born, killed , then delivered the rest of the way and given to a research company in return for reasonable compensation of costs incurred for parts."


Most states don't allow abortions that late without it being a medical necessity.
"Partial birth" abortions are illegal since 2003.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The lawsuit was never dropped, the PP suit against CMP continues. According to this link (which is dated April 2019), CMP was just rejected by the SCOTUS to narrow the scope of the PP lawsuit. Do you have anything more current to prove the lawsuit was dropped? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ists-in-planned-parenthood-suit-idUSKCN1RD2G8


I wasn't referring to the civil suit, but the criminal charges.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Reactionary. Also being accused of wanting to kill babies does not help.


Yep.
Both sides seem to think being ugly to each other is somehow helpful.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> Both sides seem to think being ugly to each other is somehow helpful.


True


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> Both sides seem to think being ugly to each other is somehow helpful.





painterswife said:


> True


Some think it's ok to lie to get what they want, too.

Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> I wasn't referring to the civil suit, but the criminal charges.


The article indicates the criminal charges are still in force as well. "Daleiden and another activist also face criminal charges in California in connection with the videos." Do you have an update that indicates the charges were dropped?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I don't believe that. There is no person until the third trimester because there is no higher brain function. Just as when someone is brain dead there is no person left. Cells and a heart beat don't make person.


And if every woman believed that, there wouldn't be a painful, difficult choice to make, would there?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The article indicates the criminal charges are still in force as well. "Daleiden and another activist also face criminal charges in California in connection with the videos." Do you have an update that indicates the charges were dropped?


Nope, just the ones in Texas, but from what I've read on the Ca charges, they aren't going anywhere either.
That $78 million settlement out there, put a damper on things.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, just the ones in Texas, but from what I've read on the Ca charges, they aren't going anywhere either.
> That $78 million settlement out there, put a damper on things.


Just setting the record straight, the lawsuit and charges are still in place? What have you read on the CA criminal charges, do you have a link? I can't find anything current, and would like to read it.

ETA: Do you have a link to the 78 million dollar settlement as well? I can't find anything about it . Thanks.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> And if every woman believed that, there wouldn't be a painful, difficult choice to make, would there?


Why would you think it still wouldn't be painful? There are many reasons it would. Wanting to have a baby, the chance that you may become infertile and never again be able to carry a child. I could go on but you should be able able to understand from those examples.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most states don't allow abortions that late without it being a medical necessity.
> "Partial birth" abortions are illegal since 2003.


Ill stand corrected on that. But DC does allow elective abortion up to 26 weeks. And case reviewed abortion to 36. I dont know what procedure tjey now use to remove a baby at 26 weeks but it is a 2-3 day process. I'm guessing they just figured out a way to cease its life before any of its body parts reaches outside the vagina.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dmm1976 said:


> I'm guessing they just figured out a way to cease its life before any of its body parts reaches outside the vagina.


I think part of that time is to allow for dilation.
The fetus can be killed with an injection prior to extraction.
https://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I believe that 6 or 7 states allow elective abortion up until birth.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Some more facts that continue to be ignored:

*Early Medication Abortion:*
In September 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone to be marketed in the United States as an alternative to surgical abortion.

In 2008, 59% of abortion providers, or 1,066 facilities, provided one or more early medication abortions. At least 9% of providers offer only early medication abortion services.
Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all nonhospital abortions, and about one-quarter of abortions before nine weeks' gestation, in 2008.


*Safety of Abortion*:
Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal—less than 0.05%—risk of major complications that might not need hospital care.
Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of such problems as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.
Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.
*In repeated studies since the early 1980s, leading experts have concluded that abortion does not pose a hazard to women's mental health.*
The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16-20 weeks-and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.
58% of abortion patients say they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.
Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when the medical risks associated with abortion are significantly higher.



https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/health/healthcare/abortion-in-the-united-states


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Twice cleaned up and the insults have started so I will have to assume the subject has been fully explored.


----------

