# Kansas proposed constitutional amendment - a complete failure.



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

It looks like when put up for a vote even in a state that voted with an overwhelmingly GOP majority in the last election people realize that allowing the GOP to control abortion is a mistake. With 96.7% of the vote in so far we have 534,134 votes Against and 374,611 for. It's safe to say the measure failed. This little crusade the GOP is having in regards to abortion might end up biting them hard in the midterms especially in areas that are prone to flip.









Abortion rights shockwave rocks the midterms and 3 other takeaways from primaries


Kansas voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have opened the door to abortion restrictions. Elsewhere, Trump showed strength in GOP races again. Both outcomes will impact the midterms.




www.npr.org


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

No one controls abortion but the individual that makes that choice. NPR should have told you that.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Well look at that. The tenth amendment works. What a surprise......


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

I agree with The Rancher-- the hard right of the GOP over-played this card, just like the hard left of the Dems isn't what the average left-of-center voter wants.

The GOP supposedly stands for individual freedoms & responsibilites-- except for our bedrooms. That doesn't make sense.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

GTX63 said:


> No one controls abortion but the individual that makes that choice. NPR should have told you that.


Yes, a woman should ultimately have that right. Even people who take an unfavorable view on abortion tend to express that. I am fine with putting in restrictions on abortion that happen after the thalamo-cortical complex is developed and consciousness is feasible (as are most people.) But to take a generally unapproving/unpopular view of abortion as a mandate to outright ban it? Seems a step too far.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Fortunately, morals and values aren't according to popularity.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

I agree with the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade, this should not be a Federal issue. Let the state decide, and if each state decides differently so be it.

I agree with the Repubs to the extent that I do not want my tax money spent on abortions. Though I am generally in favor of abortions. If you can not take responsibility to use Birth Control, then at least pay for your own abortion.

I do not see the reason why the Repubs have been so fanatical about banning all abortions.

My daughter-in-law is against abortion. When she was pregnant the sonograms showed her fetus had no brain in its skull. We reasoned with her to abort, but she wanted to give birth and keep the child. Our grandson has cerebral palsy, just barely enough brain tissue to keep his heart and lungs working. He can not see or hear, or swallow. He is fed by a tube directly into his stomach, and each week he grows bigger. He is five years old now. He requires 24/7 care, eventually he will be too big for his mother to lift. She decided to put herself through all of this [which is a huge burden and will continue to be a burden as long as he lives], rather than wait and try again hoping for a healthy child. 

There are times when an abortion makes complete sense, except for some religions that remain against it.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

GTX63 said:


> Fortunately, morals and values aren't according to popularity.


The laws that govern them are though.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

ET1 SS said:


> I agree with the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade, this should not be a Federal issue. Let the state decide, and if each state decides differently so be it.
> 
> I agree with the Repubs to the extent that I do not want my tax money spent on abortions. Though I am generally in favor of abortions. If you can not take responsibility to use Birth Control, then at least pay for your own abortion.
> 
> ...


I have a family member in Houston who ended up having a miscarriage July,1 for a planned pregnancy. She was prescribed medication by the hospital to help clear out remaining tissue and the pharmacy she uses refused to give her the medication because it can be used for abortion. She typically votes right of center but she is PISSED at the right now. Same for her mother. Sorry to hear about the DIL's story, that's rough but I think you're right in the end.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

ET1 SS said:


> I do not see the reason why the Repubs have been so fanatical about banning all abortions.


It isn't "the" it is "some". 
And some might replace the word "fanatical" with "firm".
But beyond all of that, most of those elected representatives against abortion aren't having them performed on themselves, just as most legislatures against firearm ownership either don't own them or have armed security.
Expecting the government to be our guide is expecting too much.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doc- said:


> I agree with The Rancher-- the hard right of the GOP over-played this card, just like the hard left of the Dems isn't what the average left-of-center voter wants.
> 
> The GOP supposedly stands for individual freedoms & responsibilites-- except for our bedrooms. That doesn't make sense.


It makes a lot of sense. The Kansas Supreme Court found a right to abortion in the state constitution, just like a previous US Supreme Court found it in the US Constitution. The state legislature had to pass an Amendment to take the right out of the Constitution before they could pass any laws regulating abortion. The amendment did not ban abortion but gave the legislature the right to make laws affecting abortion.

“*Kansas does not require government funding of abortion” and that people, through their elected officials, “may pass laws regarding abortion*, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”​​Money flooded into the state to support opposing the amendment which drove a higher than expected vote. The mistake the legislature made was rushing the amendment through before they were sure they had the votes to pass it.

It has nothing to do with the bedroom. It is about whether you believe abortion is murder or not.

This is not meant as an anti or pro-abortion position on my part.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Free Choice state
Kansas guvnr..democrat.
Voted for cruz in the primary against trump.
Had another democrat guvnr before brownbut.

The state shows signs of sanity on occasion.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

MoonRiver said:


> It makes a lot of sense. The Kansas Supreme Court found a right to abortion in the state constitution, just like a previous US Supreme Court found it in the US Constitution. The state legislature had to pass an Amendment to take the right out of the Constitution before they could pass any laws regulating abortion. The amendment did not ban abortion but gave the legislature the right to make laws affecting abortion.
> 
> “*Kansas does not require government funding of abortion” and that people, through their elected officials, “may pass laws regarding abortion*, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”​​Money flooded into the state to support opposing the amendment which drove a higher than expected vote. The mistake the legislature made was rushing the amendment through before they were sure they had the votes to pass it.
> 
> ...


Sure it didn't outright ban abortion if passed but the writing was on the wall.

Their intention was clear. Just look at the crap they were pushing like SB 2746. Make abortions a class 1 felony (10 year sentence.) A complete ban on IVF... At the end of the day even people who don't like abortion voted to keep their rights as-is.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> It was a low turnout election


Not really. 50% is very high turnout for an August election in a non-presidential year. They only get about 60-65% turnout for a hot presidential election.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Not really. 50% is very high turnout for an August election in a non-presidential year. They only get about 60-65% turnout for a hot presidential election.


I had already taken that out. It was supposed to be a low turnout election, but the out-of-state money drove up the number of ads which motivated both sides to vote.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> It was supposed to be a low turnout election


Which is why they got it on this ballot rather than November. They thought low turnout would benefit them, and they were probably correct to think that. During a presidential election, it would likely have been defeated by an even wider margin.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

These threads typically end poorly. There will be no endless cleanups before it gets closed so I strongly suggest keeping it civil.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Expecting the government to be our guide is expecting too much.


And stupid.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

kinderfeld said:


> And stupid.


Kansas already has laws regarding abortion on the books and in our constitution, and this new amendment would have conflicted with what is already in the Kansas Constitution. 

Kinderfeld called it: this was stupid.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

I don't really think this has anything to do with republicans or democrats. I know plenty of conservative people who don't care one way or the other about abortion and think it is a medical issue not a government one. And you will never make me believe that 100% of the liberals are all in favor of limitless abortion availability. 

I think it is an issue that is split along religious lines not political ones. Although the Dems are trying hard to make it an "us against them" issue. If nothing else, a lot of Catholics are quite liberal and their church is 100% against abortion, if you want one example.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Its not an issue that I care too much about. It seems to be pretty much a woman's issue.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

I am morally opposed to killing an innocent child.
But, that is between the mother, the doctor, and God.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Yes, a woman should ultimately have that right. Even people who take an unfavorable view on abortion tend to express that. I am fine with putting in restrictions on abortion that happen after the thalamo-cortical complex is developed and consciousness is feasible (as are most people.) But to take a generally unapproving/unpopular view of abortion as a mandate to outright ban it? Seems a step too far.


Nope.

No one - man or woman - has the right to murder another human being for their own convenience.

If it is morally wrong to kill a baby outside the womb, then it is morally wrong to kill that baby when it is in its mother's womb. 

Is it a step to far to stop the murder of children?


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Big_Al said:


> I am morally opposed to killing an innocent child.
> But, that is between the mother, the doctor, and God.


If you saw a woman holding a gun to the head of her 6 year old child, would you say, "Well, that a matter between her and God?" Or would you stop her from killing that child?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

@ET1 SS, I am sorry to hear about that child. That would be a tough decision for many people.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Pony said:


> Nope.
> 
> No one - man or woman - has the right to murder another human being for their own convenience.
> 
> ...


Pony, sometimes a woman is unable to carry a child to term: she would die first and the infant would die with her. This bill would have put the mother's life in the hands of the politicians, and politicians are not competent doctors.

I am pretty sure the amendment would have passed if it were not for the last sentence that says the politicians can decide whether the woman lives or dies

And I mean that literally: I read the bill with great care


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

Pony said:


> Nope.
> 
> No one - man or woman - has the right to murder another human being for their own convenience.
> 
> ...


Without consciousness, thought and the ability to exist outside of the mother it's not a child. It's a fetus/embryo with the potential to develop into something more. The potential for that distinction lies at around 22-24 weeks of development and that is still nowhere near where a 6 year old would be. I am curious where you draw this distinction between a human and a fetus/embryo.

Do you specifically think that IVF treatment is the mass murder of children in order to produce viable children? Why or why not? That is the position one must logically take if they believe human life begins at conception and I frequently find most will make an exception for this.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Without consciousness, thought and the ability to exist outside of the mother it's not a child. It's a fetus/embryo with the potential to develop into something more. The potential for that distinction lies at around 22-24 weeks of development and that is still nowhere near where a 6 year old would be. I am curious where you draw this distinction between a human and a fetus/embryo.
> 
> Do you specifically think that IVF treatment is the mass murder of children in order to produce viable children? Why or why not? That is the position one must logically take if they believe human life begins at conception and I frequently find most will make an exception for this.


But there are other places for the line to be drawn, and it can be drawn quite precisely, unlike the standard you wish to apply involving developed thought and consciousness. There are many who believe that life begins at implantation. That’s the point at which growth and development begins, and still leaves the door open for most pregnancy-control measures.

Further, six-weeks is where the development of the brain and central nervous system kicks off, and the brain begins firing almost immediately. That is, largely, where the six-week standard comes from. By 12 weeks, the brain is about half the weight of the entire unborn baby, so our biology is clearly programmed to begin building the person very early.

There are measurable brain functions occurring at that time, and pain is proven to be an early development. A brain-dead person on a gurney may not react if you stick a Dremel in their eye, but an unborn baby does try to get away from the Phd’d Executioner’s chop-vac.

So, the person’s brain begins developing at about six-weeks after conception, and isn’t fully developed until somewhere around 25 years (plus nine months). That’s an incredibly wide, gray line, and hardly a place to try to draw a hard line as to when someone is developed enough to be a human being.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> But there are other places for the line to be drawn, and it can be drawn quite precisely, unlike the standard you wish to apply involving developed thought and consciousness. There are many who believe that life begins at implantation. That’s the point at which growth and development begins, and still leaves the door open for most pregnancy-control measures.
> 
> Further, six-weeks is where the development of the brain and central nervous system kicks off, and the brain begins firing almost immediately. That is, largely, where the six-week standard comes from. By 12 weeks, the brain is about half the weight of the entire unborn baby, so our biology is clearly programmed to begin building the person very early.
> 
> ...


Do you have cites for that? Everything I can find shows that pain is a third trimester brain activity and that early recoil reaction is a nociception not pain reaction.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

I congratulate Kansans. It would seem the points I made in my treatise on abortion a while back are quite sensible. Kansans also proved quite strongly that everyday Republicans have the capacity to think about issues and make informed choices, whilst elite Republicans and all Democrats not so much.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Do you have cites for that? Everything I can find shows that pain is a third trimester brain activity and that early recoil reaction is a nociception not pain reaction.











Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain - Charlotte Lozier Institute


The idea that unborn and newborn babies cannot feel pain is obsolete, refuted by an extensive and growing body of scientific evidence. The myth that unborn babies cannot feel pain comes from a bygone era when newborns were strapped down for surgery without pain relief.




lozierinstitute.org







> The old, uninformed notions that unborn and newborn babies cannot feel pain are refuted by a growing body of scientific evidence. The published scientific literature shows that unborn babies can experience pain at 20 weeks gestational age (20 weeks LMP, since Last Menstrual Period, the fetal age estimate used by most obstetricians) or earlier. Two common methods are used to measure the age of an unborn baby: Probable post-fertilization age (PPF, used by embryologists) measures the age of the unborn baby from the actual date of conception, while gestational age measures from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period (LMP, approx. two weeks before conception). Medical practitioners have been using the latter method as standard medical practice for decades, and for the purpose of this paper ages refer to gestational age unless otherwise indicated.
> A comprehensive review of the scientific literature[1] including neural development, psychology of pain sensation, and moral implications of fetal pain, concludes that unborn babies may experience pain as early as 12 weeks.
> The review notes that neural connections from periphery to brain are functionally complete after 18 weeks.
> “Nevertheless, we no longer view fetal pain (as a core, immediate, sensation) in a gestational window of 12–24 weeks as impossible based on the neuroscience.”
> ...


Now that you see how a citation works, you got “a cite” of an ad from Remington saying their guns can kill more people more quickly than other guns? Or is intellectual honesty and transparency just for you to demand of others?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain - Charlotte Lozier Institute
> 
> 
> The idea that unborn and newborn babies cannot feel pain is obsolete, refuted by an extensive and growing body of scientific evidence. The myth that unborn babies cannot feel pain comes from a bygone era when newborns were strapped down for surgery without pain relief.
> ...


I provided the ad. You just don't agree with me on it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain - Charlotte Lozier Institute
> 
> 
> The idea that unborn and newborn babies cannot feel pain is obsolete, refuted by an extensive and growing body of scientific evidence. The myth that unborn babies cannot feel pain comes from a bygone era when newborns were strapped down for surgery without pain relief.
> ...











Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks? - FactCheck.org


A number of Republican House members say scientific research proves a 20-week-old fetus can feel pain. But the ability to feel pain at that specific point in gestation is unproven.




www.factcheck.org





" He responded: “No. There is — that is not my opinion. And I really don’t have any data to suggest that that could be true, or the other way.” He explained that there is some data suggesting a lower pain threshold in preterm newborns than in full-term newborns or older children, but extrapolating that back to the gestation period is not possible. "


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I provided the ad. You just don't agree with me on it.


You provided an ad, but it didn’t say anything about it being able to kill better or faster than any other gun. You specifically said that Remington advertised that their gun could kill more people faster. You provided a Remington ad that didn’t say anything at all about killing.

If that’s the ad you based your statement on, then your statement was a lie.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Being so anti gun is certainly rare on a Homesteading forum but it happens and thats ok. Everyone has their feels.
The lying and blatant misrepresentations about it to the point of cringe is sort of odd.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks? - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> A number of Republican House members say scientific research proves a 20-week-old fetus can feel pain. But the ability to feel pain at that specific point in gestation is unproven.
> ...


That “fact check” is wholly based on opinion. It even says so in their analysis:


> In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as *most neuroscientists believe* that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.


Note the words “most” and “believe”, and what they’re basing it on. They don’t argue that the peripheral architecture isn’t there, and they don’t deny that the adverse reaction to stimulus occurs. They only _believe_ that pain can’t be felt, by definition, until the development and connection to the cerebral cortex is made… allowing for the feeling of emotional reaction to the pain stimulus.

That argument hedges back to the personhood argument that the activist justices used when writing the “right” to abortion into the Constitution. They created a definition for “personhood” and are using that in a circular argument to say that pain can’t really be felt, despite all of the fundamental actions of pain occurring, because the victim hasn’t achieved the ability to emote over their pain, in “personhood”.

But, much like the cop-out the left so often uses to try to dodge the debate altogether, this is far from a case where “_scientists agree_”:




__





You are being redirected...






acpeds.org







> Some argue that for pain to be experienced it requires two components, a sensory _and_ an emotional/conscious component.2 If this is true, then human beings’ ability to experience pain is limited from conception through the first two years after birth due to neurological immaturity. Others argue against the need for a mature conscious awareness and claim that this same population of children is pain capable. Since the ability of unborn children, infants, and toddlers to communicate the nature of their distress is limited, surrogate markers of pain need to be considered. Such markers are demonstrated in an increasing body of scientific research and include stress and withdrawal responses as well as measurable physiologic changes. Therefore, despite debate over the definition of pain, the medical standard of care currently practiced by pediatricians, neonatologists, and anesthesiologists, is to treat all children, infants, and premature babies (including those still in-utero), as though they are pain capable.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That “fact check” is wholly based on opinion. It even says so in their analysis:
> 
> Note the words “most” and “believe”, and what they’re basing it on. They don’t argue that the peripheral architecture isn’t there, and they don’t deny that the adverse reaction to stimulus occurs. They only _believe_ that pain can’t be felt, by definition, until the development and connection to the cerebral cortex is made… allowing for the feeling of emotional reaction to the pain stimulus.
> 
> ...


Your link is based on opinion. It provides no proof of it's assertions. It is not a scientific study.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

It's also a far right institute with an agenda to make the facts fit their beliefs.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

robin416 said:


> It's also a far right institute with an agenda to make the facts fit their beliefs.


I would suggest that both sides are somewhat guilty of sharing information that aligns with their beliefs.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

wr said:


> I would suggest that both sides are somewhat guilty of sharing information that aligns with their beliefs.


Not saying they're not. I hate either side that stretch facts to fit agendas.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Your link is based on opinion. It provides no proof of it's assertions. It is not a scientific study.


So was the one you posted. “Fact check . Org”? Seriously. You could have just wrote, “But, but, but CNN says.”


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

robin416 said:


> It's also a far right institute with an agenda to make the facts fit their beliefs.


…and fact check dot org is a far left outlet crafting a narrative specifically to align with the left’s marching orders. What’s your point?


robin416 said:


> Not saying they're not. I hate either side that stretch facts to fit agendas.


The only facts presented by the authors of the link I provided was the assertion that the “_science of when an unborn baby feels pain is settled_”. That is not a stretched fact. It’s just a fact. There is legitimate science that disagrees with “the” science presented by the pro-abortion industry.

Fact Check postured as having debunked the first assertion, but had to caveat their own claim with “most” and “believe”. If you’d actually read the link I posted from the _far right wing_ group, they start out by acknowledging that the ingrained belief is that pain doesn’t happen until Roe-defined “personhood”, and went on to point out that that wasn’t the end of the story, as the other side’s agenda-generated narrative would have you believe, and that there is legitimate scientific evidence to support an alternate view. That’s not a “stretching” of fact, unless you believe science is “_settled_” when “_most_” scientists “_believe_” it is.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

LOL. You provide an opinion piece you get one in return.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> LOL. You provide an opinion piece you get one in return.


No, I provided my opinion on when pain can be felt, you asked for “cites”, which I provided scientific opinion that supports my view. You provided dissenting opinion.

It’s not like when you blatantly lied about Remington’s advertisement, saying something they never said, and could never manage to come up with the “cites”.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No, I provided my opinion on when pain can be felt, you asked for “cites”, which I provided scientific opinion that supports my view. You provided dissenting opinion.
> 
> It’s not like when you blatantly lied about Remington’s advertisement, saying something they never said, and could never manage to come up with the “cites”.


Okay, it was your opinion about when they feel pain. I get it now. Okay, the majority of science does not back you up. Yes, that is my opinion.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Okay, it was your opinion about when they feel pain. I get it now. Okay, the majority of science does not back you up. Yes, that is my opinion.


Yes. Opinions are valid as it is not settled science. Just like your opinion that it is the “majority of science” (whatever that means) that toes the line in defining pain as a function of “personhood”, as the activist justices in Roe commanded.

That’s entirely different than having an “opinion” that someone said something when you can’t produce any evidence that they did. That’s called a lie.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Abortion is not a right, it is a medical procedure, which in rare cases can save the life of a pregnant woman or child, but results in the death of an unborn child, is allowed by some states, and not by others. Evidently, Kansas is a state that allows abortion -- I assume for any reason or none? 

It never ceases to amaze me, that so many people are so determined to kill unborn children, without a medical reason for abortion, instead of just taking some personal responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. 

My body my choice would apply if it was only my body ... but once conception occurs, it is no longer just about me and my body. Abortion involves not just a pregnant woman, but the pregnant woman (or child), the man who impregnated her, an unborn child, and everyone that participates in the abortion (if it occurs).


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

How does anyone _prove_ they feel pain? What hurts you might not be a blip on my pain meter or vice versa. But neither of us can _prove_ we are feeling pain. Since intelligent adults haven't figured out how to prove they feel pain, how can we expect to prove another person feels pain?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> if they believe human life begins at conception.


Life began many thousands of years ago. Conception is just one small step in the continuation of that life.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Terri said:


> Pony, sometimes a woman is unable to carry a child to term: she would die first and the infant would die with her. This bill would have put the mother's life in the hands of the politicians, and politicians are not competent doctors.
> 
> I am pretty sure the amendment would have passed if it were not for the last sentence that says the politicians can decide whether the woman lives or dies
> 
> And I mean that literally: I read the bill with great care


I see what you are saying, and I understand that. Completely different set of circumstances than those to which I referred. 

Politicians have their irons in fires where they do not belong.

Thank you for sharing with me the glaring fault of the proposed bill.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Okay, it was your opinion about when they feel pain. I get it now. Okay, the majority of science does not back you up. Yes, that is my opinion.


The smartest thing you said was that it is your opinion.
Here is something CNN or UKDailyMail won't tell you.

As we never stop learning, science is never settled.
The scientific consensus is frequently wrong.
Scientists are human and biased.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Do you have cites for that? Everything I can find shows that pain is a third trimester brain activity and that early recoil reaction is a nociception not pain reaction.


Any definitons along this line are purely arbitrary...There's a difference in complexity between a simple withdrawal reflex from a stimulation (pain reflex) vs "sufferring" which involves complex synaptic interactions in a cerebral cortex and the poorly defined state of "conscious.". Even earhtworms with no discernable "brain" at all can be taught to run a T-maze that is bright & hot on one arm & cool and damp on the other....and of course there's the one-celled Amoeba that with draws from a needle point....

Why should a beating heart define "life?" Only vertebrates have hearts and maybe a few more complex crustaceans have something vagely resembling a heart. Are the other life forms not "alive?"

One could argue that a baby is not a true individual until age 6 or so when they become fully aware of their interactions with other individuals. ..There's a reason Kindergrten starts at age 5.....Before that, kids don't "learn to play with others," they are merely put around other kids and learn to play while others are there.

All you Anti-Choice people have to be honest-- your opinion is based on religious beliefs that not all people share, and the only "right" involved is our Constitutional prohibiton against the govt from making rules favoring religion. 

*Separartion of Church and State.*


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> Any definitons along this line are purely arbitrary...There's a difference in complexity between a simple withdrawal reflex from a stimulation (pain reflex) vs "sufferring" which involves complex synaptic interactions in a cerebral cortex and the poorly defined state of "conscious.". Even earhtworms with no discernable "brain" at all can be taught to run a T-maze that is bright & hot on one arm & cool and damp on the other....and of course there's the one-celled Amoeba that with draws from a needle point....
> 
> Why should a beating heart define "life?" Only vertebrates have hearts and maybe a few more complex crustaceans have something vagely resembling a heart. Are the other life forms not "alive?"
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said, except for the last paragraph ('All you anti-choice people ...'). All people who care about the lives of unborn children 1. are not necessarily against the choice of people having the right to do what they want with their own bodies (which is not the same as what people do to the body and life of others, such as unborn children), 2. may or may not be basing their opinions about abortion on their religion (some people base their pro-life opinions on laws and ethics, whether or not their religion plays a part in their opinions), and 3. the abortion issue is not based on religion, any more than laws against murder are based on religion.

Pro-choice: belief in the right of all people to choose what they do with their own bodies.
Pro-abortion: belief in the right to kill unborn children, whether or not there is a medical reason to do so.
Pro-life: belief in the right of all people, including unborn children, to live.

Based on the descriptions above, I would consider myself pro-choice and pro-life, although I do believe that medical reasons for abortions should be allowed.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I'm pretty sure Indiana decided to ban unnecessary abortions, but to allow abortions for rape, incest, and medical reasons, which may not be perfect for pro-abortionists or pro-lifers, but I think it is basically fair. 

The only problem with allowing abortions for rape though, is that well ... couldn't anyone claim to have been raped, without that actually being true, in order to get an abortion(s) for any reason or none? And if proving that a rape actually occurred is required, wouldn't that take too long? Incest can be proven rather quickly, but rape?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ET1 SS said:


> I do not see the reason why the Repubs have been so fanatical about banning all abortions.


We think of it much like being fanatical about liberating NAZI concentration camps. 10's of millions have already died and if we can close even a few of those "camps" it is a good thing.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Do babies feel pain during birth? I don't know, but I would guess yes. Not really a point, just a random thought.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doc- said:


> All you Anti-Choice people have to be honest-- your opinion is based on religious beliefs that not all people share, and the only "right" involved is our Constitutional prohibiton against the govt from making rules favoring religion.
> 
> *Separartion of Church and State.*


A. I am not anti choice..… I am prolife.
B. My opinion has nothing to do with religion.
C. No one shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

doc- said:


> All you Anti-Choice people have to be honest-- your opinion is based on religious beliefs that not all people share, and the only "right" involved is our Constitutional prohibiton against the govt from making rules favoring religion.
> 
> *Separartion of Church and State.*


I am aware of quite a few women that are prolife yet either agnostic or non believers. Yvonne says it is not about religion with him and Gunmonkey's previous statements align him somewhere akin to a godless heathen.
Just as you can find numerous pointy headed non believers online who espouse the need for spirituality in society, they can also be found in defense of the unborn.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Farmerga said:


> We think of it much like being fanatical about liberating NAZI concentration camps. 10's of millions have already died and if we can close even a few of those "camps" it is a good thing.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> A. I am not anti choice..… I am prolife.
> B. My opinion has nothing to do with religion.
> C. No one shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process.


I'm nor pickiing on you, EH, but your post is a well orgnized summary of what others have objeced to concerning my previous post--

A) You may prefer to think of yourself as Pro-Life, but it really boils down to Anti-Choice. We can't pick and choose our laws. We need to analyze for the general case....Is it Constitutional to pass a law insisting all people "cross themselves" before meals or shooting a free-throw?

B) Don't kid yourself. You may not go to church and even cosider yourself an atheist, but your thought process is imbedded in a basically Judeo-Christian society. Natural Law is based on the extincts that make us avoid murder & incest, for instance, but infanticide of imperfect newbornes was a routine act among aboriginal society members. No such natural aversion there. Quite the opposite. It had survival value under those primitive living conditions in The Jungle....
...Legal abortion may now have had"survival value" for our society. In the last 50 yrs there have been 25 million abortions here. Had those not been performed, we'd now have an additional 25M people who had grown up obviously unwanted by their mothers and suffering all the psych damage of such a childhood, and passing those lousy mothering experiences on to their children now.

c) You're equating a fetus with a living individual....Does a tumor have rights? Is it living?..Yiou may argue the fetus is a potential life, and the tumor has no potential for life on its own-- bad logic becaue that implies all "potential life" should have rights-- like every single human ovum or sperm cell....

BTW-- should every fetus be assigned a Social Security Number?..If you remember the movie _Miracle on 34th St_, Kris Kringle's lawyer proved he was Santa Claus by having the Post Office deliver all those Santa letters to him. If you don't have a SSN, you're not legal. QED (I'm being facetious here.)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doc- said:


> A) You may prefer to think of yourself as Pro-Life, but it really boils down to Anti-Choice. We can't pick and choose our laws. We need to analyze for the general case....Is it Constitutional to pass a law insisting all people "cross themselves" before meals or shooting a free-throw?


actually I am all for “choice” and all of the other freedoms that we enjoy…. Such as crossing ourselves before meals or shooting a free throw. And we should never pass any laws that infringe upon those rights…. They are constitutionally protected. People’s right to life Liberty and pursuit of happiness are also protected. That why we do have laws against murder, robbery, putting people in jail without due process and a host of others. I’m prolife because I’m apposed to the taking of innocent human life. I’m apposed to abortion in general because that’s exactly what it does.



doc- said:


> B) Don't kid yourself. You may not go to church and even cosider yourself an atheist, but your thought process is imbedded in a basically Judeo-Christian society. Natural Law is based on the extincts that make us avoid murder & incest, for instance, but infanticide of imperfect newbornes was a routine act among aboriginal society members. No such natural aversion there. Quite the opposite. It had survival value under those primitive living conditions in The Jungle....
> ...Legal abortion may now have had"survival value" for our society. In the last 50 yrs there have been 25 million abortions here. Had those not been performed, we'd now have an additional 25M people who had grown up obviously unwanted by their mothers and suffering all the psych damage of such a childhood, and passing those lousy mothering experiences on to their children now.


Im hoping that mankind in general has made some progress above that of the primitive barbaric jungle dwellers of the past. Call me damaged if you please but even though my mother opted to spare my aborted sister all those horrible damages I’d prefer my sister had been allowed to live and be abandoned by our mom like the rest of us.



doc- said:


> c) You're equating a fetus with a living individual....Does a tumor have rights? Is it living?..Yiou may argue the fetus is a potential life, and the tumor has no potential for life on its own-- bad logic becaue that implies all "potential life" should have rights-- like every single human ovum or sperm cell....


Im not “equating” anything…. A fetus is indeed a living human being… it has the potential to live a long and healthy life… same as any of us. 
As to the sperm and ova…. They are the potential living human being, but also are living and human and therefore should enjoy the right to find each other if they can.


doc- said:


> BTW-- should every fetus be assigned a Social Security Number?..If you remember the movie _Miracle on 34th St_, Kris Kringle's lawyer proved he was Santa Claus by having the Post Office deliver all those Santa letters to him. If you don't have a SSN, you're not legal. QED (I'm being facetious here.)


im still not sure of the constitutionality of anyone being required a SSN! Or the existence of the SS retirement program. Not being facetious… the tenth amendment should apply.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

KC Rock said:


> View attachment 113095


Only in the minds of those desperate to defend the mass killing.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

doc- said:


> A) You may prefer to think of yourself as Pro-Life, but it really boils down to Anti-Choice. We can't pick and choose our laws. We need to analyze for the general case....Is it Constitutional to pass a law insisting all people "cross themselves" before meals or shooting a free-throw?


It is constitutional to pass laws against homicide. 


doc- said:


> B) Don't kid yourself. You may not go to church and even cosider yourself an atheist, but your thought process is imbedded in a basically Judeo-Christian society. Natural Law is based on the extincts that make us avoid murder & incest, for instance, but infanticide of imperfect newbornes was a routine act among aboriginal society members. No such natural aversion there. Quite the opposite. It had survival value under those primitive living conditions in The Jungle....
> ...Legal abortion may now have had"survival value" for our society. In the last 50 yrs there have been 25 million abortions here. Had those not been performed, we'd now have an additional 25M people who had grown up obviously unwanted by their mothers and suffering all the psych damage of such a childhood, and passing those lousy mothering experiences on to their children now.


Our primitive forefathers did many other things that we would find disgusting today.



doc- said:


> c) You're equating a fetus with a living individual....Does a tumor have rights? Is it living?..Yiou may argue the fetus is a potential life, and the tumor has no potential for life on its own-- bad logic becaue that implies all "potential life" should have rights-- like every single human ovum or sperm cell


The fetus isn't potential life it is an existing individual life. It eats metabolizes resperates, etc.. It simply has different environmental requirements than a born human. A tumor is part of an individual as are sperm and egg cells. The fetus is a living human being.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Big_Al said:


> I am morally opposed to killing an innocent child.
> But, that is between the mother, the doctor, and God.


Exactly!!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Big_Al said:


> I am morally opposed to killing an innocent child.
> But, that is between the mother, the doctor, and God.


Does that go for born AND unborn innocence?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

doc- said:


> I'm nor pickiing on you, EH, but your post is a well orgnized summary of what others have objeced to concerning my previous post--
> 
> A) You may prefer to think of yourself as Pro-Life, but it really boils down to Anti-Choice. We can't pick and choose our laws. We need to analyze for the general case....Is it Constitutional to pass a law insisting all people "cross themselves" before meals or shooting a free-throw?
> 
> ...


You’re still arguing from anti-abortion=religious-zeal standpoint, and that’s simply not the case. For MANY of us it’s entirely an issue of protecting the most vulnerable from harm, in this case murder.

The entire abortion debate boils down to when a fetus becomes a human being. Science dictates that it occurs shortly after implantation, or maybe even right at that moment. Prior to that, an argument could be made that a fertilized egg is a human being, as its DNA has been crafted, and maybe that’s so, but, at the very least, the implanted fetus is entirely human, and on a path of growth and development that won’t wrap up for another 25 years or so. Religious beliefs may be the motivation for some to recognize a baby at that stage as such, but that’s not necessary. Biology, by itself, tells us that much.

On the other side of the argument, the pro-abortionists found inconvenience in that scientific fact, so they have crafted a bunch of gates through which a growing human being must pass in order to achieve “personhood”. Each and every one of those tests is nothing more than a caveat placed on the humanity of the child.

It’s no different than how prior ideologies determined that people with brown skin or mental deficiencies weren’t really people. In each case, instead of forcing themselves to deal with the perceived-inconvenient truth that the human was not a “person”, they wove a distorted logic that allowed them to do what they wanted to do without guilt over having treated a fellow human-being in such a way.

It’s only a religious issue if you believe that humanity and morals do not exist without religion. I, and many others, believe we’re better than that.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re still arguing from anti-abortion=religious-zeal standpoint, and that’s simply not the case. For MANY of us it’s entirely an issue of protecting the most vulnerable from harm, in this case murder.
> 
> The entire abortion debate boils down to when a fetus becomes a human being. Science dictates that it occurs shortly after implantation, or maybe even right at that moment. Prior to that, an argument could be made that a fertilized egg is a human being, as its DNA has been crafted, and maybe that’s so, but, at the very least, the implanted fetus is entirely human, and on a path of growth and development that won’t wrap up for another 25 years or so. Religious beliefs may be the motivation for some to recognize a baby at that stage as such, but that’s not necessary. Biology, by itself, tells us that much.
> 
> ...


OK. Let's look at it this way-- If Jim really thinks he's a Sally, is he really a woman? Just because you think a fetus is a human being, is it really a human being? Are all of us then required to think Jim is a woman and a fetus is a human being?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doc- said:


> OK. Let's look at it this way-- If Jim really thinks he's a Sally, is he really a woman? Just because you think a fetus is a human being, is it really a human being? Are all of us then required to think Jim is a woman and a fetus is a human being?


The difference here is that a fetus “is” a live innocent human being whereas Jim merely perceives himself to be a woman. Follow the science in either case.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You have to have a mind to perceive you are anything. A fetus does not have a mind for much of the pregnancy. It si just a growing collection of parts that may or may not make it to birth.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You have to have a mind to perceive you are anything. A fetus does not have a mind for much of the pregnancy. It si just a growing collection of parts that may or may not make it to birth.


It’s not about perception. It’s about a human being. A whole lot of adults don’t have much going in the mind department either. As proven by the need for this discussion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> It’s not about perception. It’s about a human being.


A body may be a human but it is not necessarily a human being until late in the pregnancy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> A body may be a human but it is not necessarily a human being until late in the pregnancy.


Science says otherwise. But never fear… I’m certain some states will still allow the most selfish to murder the most helpless.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nah, just not worth my time arguing this with you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Nah, just not worth my time arguing this with you.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)




----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> The difference here is that a fetus “is” a live innocent human being whereas Jim merely perceives himself to be a woman. Follow the science in either case.


You claim it's alive. I claim it is not. Who is right? Please prove your POV in absolute terms, not arbitrary assumptions. 
Jim claims he's really Sally. Is he right, and should we all honor his assumptions?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doc- said:


> You claim it's alive. I claim it is not. Who is right? Please prove your POV in absolute terms, not arbitrary assumptions.
> Jim claims he's really Sally. Is he right, and should we all honor his assumptions?


Science backs me up. Some interesting reading for you here.








Life


Life definition, characteristics of a living thing, evolutionary history, and more. Test your knowledge - Life - Biology Quiz!




www.biologyonline.com





jim is a fool. Lots of those around.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

doc- said:


> OK. Let's look at it this way-- If Jim really thinks he's a Sally, is he really a woman? Just because you think a fetus is a human being, is it really a human being? Are all of us then required to think Jim is a woman and a fetus is a human being?


That’s a false-equivalency. If we’re to assume that Jim is a human, it is nothing but a quibble to argue about whether he’s a man, woman, has green eyes or blonde hair. I can choose not to participate in any delusions that Jim may have, but the moment I deny him his humanity, I’ve crossed a line; his actual humanity, not the woke re-definition of it- which, incidentally, is the same philosophy where we got “personhood” and the justification for brown humans to be property and vagina-bearing humans to be insufficient to vote or own property.

What I’m talking about is the caveats that are placed on humanity that somehow allow people to not consider other humans “persons” when it comes to using and abusing them.

Funny that those caveats always seem to come from the same side of the table…


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> I'm nor pickiing on you, EH, but your post is a well orgnized summary of what others have objeced to concerning my previous post--
> 
> A) You may prefer to think of yourself as Pro-Life, but it really boils down to Anti-Choice. We can't pick and choose our laws. We need to analyze for the general case....Is it Constitutional to pass a law insisting all people "cross themselves" before meals or shooting a free-throw?
> 
> ...


A. Pro-life is the belief in the right of all people, including unborn children, to live. Pro-choice is the belief in the right of all people, to do what they want with their own bodies ... which has nothing to do with any right of anyone to do what they want with or to the bodies of others, such as unborn children. The US Constitution also says nothing about abortion, but the 10th Amendment does specify that whatever is not addressed in the Constitution is for each state or the people in each state to decide for themselves:

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.'

The 14th Amendment also includes mention of the right of every person (which does not exclude unborn children) to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness:

'... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

B. Some people base their opinions on their religious beliefs, others don't. That's just one great thing about the ability of people to think for themselves ... or to participate in group think or newspeak or whatever floats your boat. 

People who were here before this country became America were certainly not Judeo-Christian, and many people that live here now, are likewise not Judeo-Christian ... so feel free to speak for yourself, but others are capable of speaking for themselves, thanx.

Humanity is also no longer in cave man days, and hopefully most of us are no longer a primitive or barbaric people.

Many people who were unwanted by their parents have found other people who want them. Just because a pregnant woman doesn't want her unborn child, doesn't mean the man who impregnated her doesn't want the unborn child, or that no one else would.

C. A fetus is a living person. A tumor is abnormal cancerous or benign tissue, which if allowed to continue growing will do nothing more than grow until it no longer can, and possibly kill the host, but it would never continue to grow outside of the body it resides in, and would never grow into anything but a tumor, no matter how long it is allowed to grow. A fetus on the other hand, is not abnormal or cancerous, and if allowed to continue to grow, would be born, and able to live outside of the body of the pregnant woman. If a fertilized egg, fetus, or unborn child, was not alive, it would not grow into anything ... in which case, what purpose would there be in abortion? If it isn't alive it won't grow, so abortions would be irrelevant. An egg and sperm have the potential to grow, but not without one another, and not if removed from the body of a person(s). Without both a sperm and egg, there is no body of a person.

An egg and a sperm each contain half of what is needed to become the body of a person, neither cause death, but neither can live without a host ... are they alive? I think so.

A virus contains DNA or RNA but not both, can cause infection, illness and death, but cannot live without a host ... is it alive? IDK. What say you?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> OK. Let's look at it this way-- If Jim really thinks he's a Sally, is he really a woman? Just because you think a fetus is a human being, is it really a human being? Are all of us then required to think Jim is a woman and a fetus is a human being?


If Jim thinks he's a Sally, he likely has gender dysphoria ... which would be between him and his healthcare providers. Believing, saying, or identifying as something that you are not, does not mean that you really are what you really are not. He is free to continue to believe whatever he wants, just as everyone else is free to believe the facts, and to treat him as the man that he is. A human fetus IS in fact a human being, and a person, at the beginning of their human life.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You have to have a mind to perceive you are anything. A fetus does not have a mind for much of the pregnancy. It si just a growing collection of parts that may or may not make it to birth.


No one can prove the existence or non-existence of a mind, at any stage of growth ... which is irrelevant anyway. A fertilized egg is a person at the beginning of their life. If allowed to continue growing, the fertilized egg will become a fetus, which if allowed to continue growing, will become a baby. Everything is a collection of parts, and anything that is alive will live and grow if allowed to.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> A body may be a human but it is not necessarily a human being until late in the pregnancy.


A human body is the body of a human being, at all stages of growth, from conception to death of the body.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

doc- said:


> You claim it's alive. I claim it is not. Who is right? Please prove your POV in absolute terms, not arbitrary assumptions.
> Jim claims he's really Sally. Is he right, and should we all honor his assumptions?


Test the fetus, is it alive? Is it growing? Is it taking in food and expelling waste? Taking in O2 and expelling CO2? Etc.?
Test Jim, does he have XY chromosomes? A twig and two berries (Or ever has). It is not rocket surgery.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> If Jim thinks he's a Sally, he likely has gender dysphoria ... which would be between him and his healthcare providers. Believing, saying, or identifying as something that you are not, does not mean that you really are what you really are not. He is free to continue to believe whatever he wants, just as everyone else is free to believe the facts, and to treat him as the man that he is. A human fetus IS in fact a human being, and a person, at the beginning of their human life.


How will you start identifying them to call them out? Do you simply accuse someone because you 'think' they may be trans or are they expected undergo some test to satisfy you?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wr said:


> How will you start identifying them to call them out? Do you simply accuse someone because you 'think' they may be trans or are they expected undergo some test to satisfy you?


No. There is a difference between a discussion of the science of gender and calling someone out. I don't care if someone wants to call themselves a cat and poop in a litter box, as long as they are an adult and they don't expect me to join in to their delusion, I say call yourself whatever you want.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> You claim it's alive. I claim it is not. Who is right? Please prove your POV in absolute terms, not arbitrary assumptions.
> Jim claims he's really Sally. Is he right, and should we all honor his assumptions?


Human life begins at conception and ends at death. To prove it you need only to learn more about biology. 

Jim can claim he is a Sally all he wants, but biology could easily prove him wrong. Hell, a simple look see could prove that. He would be wrong, but he would be free to pretend otherwise all he wants, just as others would (or should) be free to not play into his fantasy, and to treat Jim as the Jim that he really is.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> How will you start identifying them to call them out? Do you simply accuse someone because you 'think' they may be trans or are they expected undergo some test to satisfy you?


I try to treat everyone with respect, no matter what they look like. If a person appears to be a male, I will treat and address that person as a male. If a person appears to be a female, I will treat and address that person as a female. If a person tells me their name, I will address them by their name. If a person tells me they are a male, I will treat and address that person as a male. If a person tells me they are a female, I will treat and address that person as a female. If a person tells me they are a male, but I find out later that really that person was born into the body of a female, I will treat and address her as a female. If a person tells me they are a female, but I find out later that really that person was born into the body of a male, I will treat and address him as a male. People are free to pretend whatever they want, or to not pretend and participate in the fantasy of others.

I wouldn't ask a person if they are male or female if I didn't know, because it seems like doing so would be offensive and embarrassing for him / her and me both. I don't want to offend of hurt people if I can avoid it, but free speech applies to everyone equally.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> No. There is a difference between a discussion of the science of gender and calling someone out. I don't care if someone wants to call themselves a cat and poop in a litter box, as long as they are an adult and they don't expect me to join in to their delusion, I say call yourself whatever you want.


Bu there is no way to prove anything and since people have decided to 'out' trans people, my friend who is absolutely not trans but is masculine in appearance has suffered a great deal of abuse. 

People deliberately refuse to call her by her name in favor of terms like It, some have demanded her employer fire her, lest they catch the trans cooties from a woman who has never transitioned and others demand to see her birth certificate as a way to 'out the tranny,' and heads explode when she walks into the women's washroom. 

The problem as I see it, is that while everyone insists that they don't have to accept the theory of science, is also suggesting that it's okay to play 'out the tranny' and it's a cruel game.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> Bu there is no way to prove anything and since people have decided to 'out' trans people, my friend who is absolutely not trans but is masculine in appearance has suffered a great deal of abuse.
> 
> People deliberately refuse to call her by her name in favor of terms like It, some have demanded her employer fire her, lest they catch the trans cooties from a woman who has never transitioned and others demand to see her birth certificate as a way to 'out the tranny,' and heads explode when she walks into the women's washroom.
> 
> The problem as I see it, is that while everyone insists that they don't have to accept the theory of science, is also suggesting that it's okay to play 'out the tranny' and it's a cruel game.


I am sorry that your friend, or anyone in her predicament, is treated so poorly. No one deserves that. I don't believe that anyone should be treated differently (better or worse than others) because of their physical appearance ... or due to their race, religion, gender, age, wealth or lack of wealth ... that would be really difficult, to have to explain to so many others so often, that you are a female, and then for others to not treat you as a female, or even just as a person with the same human value as everyone else.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> I am sorry that your friend, or anyone in her predicament, is treated so poorly. No one deserves that. I don't believe that anyone should be treated differently (better or worse than others) because of their physical appearance ... or due to their race, religion, gender, age, wealth or lack of wealth ... that would be really difficult, to have to explain to so many others so often, that you are a female, and then for others to not treat you as a female, or even just as a person with the same human value as everyone else.


It's also against the law for her employer to fire a 20+ year employee because someone thinks she may be transgendered.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> Science backs me up. Some interesting reading for you here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is a virus living? It doesn not fit the definition given in your citation.

Read about the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction. It's a pure;ly inorganic system that is living according to that definiton given by your source.

Jim is using the same logic as you. He is assuming he's right without supporting evidence other than his "feelings."

You folks who are so self assured you're right don't allow for the possibilites that others are right. The govt has to govern all fairly, and not all share your unsupported beliefs.

Prior to birth, the fetus follows a timeline that is only defined at it's beginning and it's end (mathematicians would call that boundary cojditions. Inbetween fertilazation (the beginning) and birth (the end) everything is arbitrary-- no clearly defined point that we can conclude represents "the beiginning..therefoe, we are forced to chose either conception or birth as the beginning of life.

In the rwal world, it's estimated that 10-25% of all human concepotions result in spontanous abortion before implantation occurs ~2weeks after conception.. How often does a woman find that she was 2 weeks late, and then the flow was just a little spot in her shorts? That was a spontaneous miscarriage... God Himself must be OK with abortion, so I'll agree with Him.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> Test the fetus, is it alive? Is it growing? Is it taking in food and expelling waste? Taking in O2 and expelling CO2? Etc.?
> Test Jim, does he have XY chromosomes? A twig and two berries (Or ever has). It is not rocket surgery.


My comment was rhetorical...The cells of a fetus are living. The fetus is not an independent human being until birth....Is a human liver a human being? Is a human tumor a human being? They are livng, and genetically human. Diagrammatically, a liver, a tumor and a fetus are the same-- dependent parts of a human being, not themselves an individual.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

doc- said:


> n the rwal world, it's estimated that 10-25% of all human concepotions result in spontanous abortion before implantation occurs ~2weeks after conception..


100% of people born eventually die, does that mean that genocide is excused?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

doc- said:


> Is a virus living? It doesn not fit the definition given in your citation.
> 
> Read about the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction. It's a pure;ly inorganic system that is living according to that definiton given by your source.
> 
> ...


You contradicted yourself irretrievably in your last two paragraphs, for whatever reason.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

doc- said:


> My comment was rhetorical...The cells of a fetus are living. The fetus is not an independent human being until birth....Is a human liver a human being? Is a human tumor a human being? They are livng, and genetically human. Diagrammatically, a liver, a tumor and a fetus are the same-- dependent parts of a human being, not themselves an individual.


A liver is part of a human being, as is a tumor. The fetus is an entire human being that has differing environmental needs from an infant just like an infant has different environmental needs than an adult. They are living until they die of either natural death, or, are killed by another, be that right after conception by a "doctor", or, 36 by a home invader, or, 90 by a care giver who doesn't want the bother of it anymore.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

doc- said:


> In the rwal world, it's estimated that 10-25% of all human concepotions result in spontanous abortion before implantation occurs ~2weeks after conception.. How often does a woman find that she was 2 weeks late, and then the flow was just a little spot in her shorts? That was a spontaneous miscarriage... God Himself must be OK with abortion, so I'll agree with Him.


And of course it's even higher if you look at the whole term. Something like 40-60% of embryos don't make it to birth. Most of them probably never even known about to be grieved.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doc- said:


> Prior to birth, the fetus follows a timeline that is only defined at it's beginning and it's end (mathematicians would call that boundary cojditions. Inbetween fertilazation (the beginning) and birth (the end) everything is arbitrary-- no clearly defined point that we can conclude represents "the beiginning..therefoe, we are forced to chose either conception or birth as the beginning of life.


I disagree and here’s why. The beginning of life transpired hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of years ago and is continuing on it merry way via the reproductive process. While a new individual begins at conception the life was there long before. Conception itself is merely one tiny step in the very long process of continuing life. At no point in that process is life not present. The gametes are alive, the zygote is alive, the fetus is alive, the baby is alive, the child is alive, the adults are alive.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Hiro said:


> You contradicted yourself irretrievably in your last two paragraphs, for whatever reason.


Not contradctions-- just showing examples that don't fit the definition stated earlier. Many things in science require "operational definitons"-- definitons set for the specoifically for a specific doscusion/experiment that may or may not be universally true....While we may use the tautological definiton (circular argument) that something is alive if it carries out life processes, that still doesn;t clarify whethr or not a fetus (certainly living) represents an individual person yet....Nobody will argue that a liver isn't alive, but who will claim it's an individual human being?..or better example-- a kidney. We commonly remove a failing kidney. Is it murder?


Evons hubby said:


> I disagree and here’s why. The beginning of life transpired hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of years ago and is continuing on it merry way via the reproductive process. While a new individual begins at conception the life was there long before. Conception itself is merely one tiny step in the very long process of continuing life. At no point in that process is life not present. The gametes are alive, the zygote is alive, the fetus is alive, the baby is alive, the child is alive, the adults are alive.


The contnuity of life deserves attention...I've joked here before about buying George Washington's cherry tree hatchet. The head has been replaced twice and the handle three times-- Is it the same hatchet young George used? He never touched either part of this one, yet in a sense, it's the same hatchet.

Our skin cells, for instance, only live for about three days before they are sloughed off. Is your skin the same skin you had a week ago?

I'm not arguing that a fetus isn;t alive. I'm suggesting the POV that it isn't an individual person can be justified, just as you've suggested that it is...There doesn't seem to be a unviersally correct, absolute defintion, therefore, picking a defintion to satisfy one POV may not be a wise thing for a legislature (notoriously wrong in so many instances) to do.

Decriminalizing a medical procedure doesn't mean you are required to have it done. You can still exercise your philsophial beliefs without imposng them on everyone else...St Peter is not going to eventuallly ask you if you supported Pro-Choice or not. He's gong to ask you if you had an abortion done, if in fact he even cares.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doc- said:


> Our skin cells, for instance, only live for about three days before they are sloughed off. Is your skin the same skin you had a week ago?


and yet a tattoo remains for years.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doc- said:


> Decriminalizing a medical procedure doesn't mean you are required to have it done. You can still exercise your philsophial beliefs without imposng them on everyone else.


So rape and robbery should be decriminalized?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> So rape and robbery should be decriminalized?


Are either of them medical procedures?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Are either of them medical procedures?


Does it make any difference?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

doc- said:


> The contnuity of life deserves attention...I've joked here before about buying George Washington's cherry tree hatchet. The head has been replaced twice and the handle three times-- Is it the same hatchet young George used? He never touched either part of this one, yet in a sense, it's the same hatchet.


I've never heard that one but I like it. A version of the Ship of Theseus.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

doc- said:


> The contnuity of life deserves attention...I've joked here before about buying George Washington's cherry tree hatchet. The head has been replaced twice and the handle three times-- Is it the same hatchet young George used? He never touched either part of this one, yet in a sense, it's the same hatchet.


Ah. From Terry Pratchett? I found his books just before he passed!


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You have to have a mind to perceive you are anything. A fetus does not have a mind for much of the pregnancy. It si just a growing collection of parts that may or may not make it to birth.


About three months into the pregnancy, the baby feels pain and reacts to outside stimulus. I would say it has a mind well before its born. I've been kicked in my belly by my own unborn children, they definitely have a mind and react to things well before they are born. 

As for the argument that a woman can do what she wants with her own body, to some extent it has merit, but the fetus is not her body, it has it's own body, it's own genetics and it's own life. I would say that if a woman dies late in her pregnancy, it's entirely possible to save her unborn child because the baby is alive and not its mother. It doesn't somehow come into being the instant it leaves the womb, that's just silly.

I've read arguments that a fetus is a parasite and unwanted babies a drain on society, one that no one will take care of. If they should be killed before birth because of that fear, where does that lead us? Killing them right after birth or during it? It happens. Perhaps unwanted children should just be euthanized to save us from having social programs to help them? Maybe it would remove a huge drain on society to euthanize drug addicts? Homeless? The elderly that have little to offer? 

If nothing else, even if a woman should want to have an abortion, she needs to know it is a human being that she is killing, not a lump of flesh (and there is NO way to call it lifeless if it is a properly growing fetus). Any DNA test would verify it's human status. BTW, life does not require a brain, plants are alive, for example. To say that the fetus is not alive and not a human being is just just trying to avoid the issue of abortion being killing human children. Yes, we have laws against murder and I would hope we'd all be glad for it! Yes, there are more nuanced problems involved with possible affects on the mother's health, rape, incest, pregnancies that can't come to term, etc., that do need to be worked out. We just need to know it is a human life we are dealing with while those are determined!


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I use to be totally anti-abortion but I've now come to the conclusion that those seeking abortion should go for it. I don't want them reproducing anyway. Humans think way too much of themselves.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> and yet a tattoo remains for years.


Inking the Immune System: How Macrophages Make Tattoos Last | Bio-Rad Even the macrophages that surround the ink live and die, with cyclic re-uptake of the ink by the next generation.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

GrannyCarol said:


> About three months into the pregnancy, the baby feels pain and reacts to outside stimulus. I would say it has a mind well before its born. I've been kicked in my belly by my own unborn children, they definitely have a mind and react to things well before they are born.
> 
> As for the argument that a woman can do what she wants with her own body, to some extent it has merit, but the fetus is not her body, it has it's own body, it's own genetics and it's own life. I would say that if a woman dies late in her pregnancy, it's entirely possible to save her unborn child because the baby is alive and not its mother. It doesn't somehow come into being the instant it leaves the womb, that's just silly.
> 
> ...


Very thoughtful post.

You have made two assumptions that are not supported by factual data-- that the fetus "feels" pain-- that word implies consciousness and suffering. All we know for a fact is that a fetus reacts to a stimulus. So does an amoeba, ...and that a fetus is an individual, not part of the mother's body. As I said, that's not all that clear during the first trimester. After that, it becomes less and less doubtful ...Hence the position of many of us that elective abortion should be limited to the 1st trimester.

Your point about abortion before birth vs euthanasia after birth is a good argument. Certainly a good argument against late term abortion....But then, what about Indiana's new law allowing abortion only for instances of rape, fetal genetic problems or mother's health---If abortion is murder, are they not allowing murder if "properly" qualified? Who's doing the qualifying? What about if I decide to kill my good-for-nothing, lazy, foul brother-in-law? Could that be justified? What about the death penalty?...

The point is- - even "murder" is not absolutely defined, but relatively defined....About half of Americans believe that line should be drawn only after the 1st trimester.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> Is a virus living? It doesn not fit the definition given in your citation.
> 
> Read about the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction. It's a pure;ly inorganic system that is living according to that definiton given by your source.
> 
> ...


I am unsure as to whether a virus is alive, but I'm pretty sure it does not eat, drink, breath, urinate, defecate, grow, reproduce (it can replicate, but not without a host), and would never live for long if it did not have a host to live off of like a parasite. Offspring is not parasitic. Offspring is the result of reproduction, which does not infect anyone.

Life in a human body simply begins at conception and ends at death. I have my opinions about what happens before and after that, but these are very different topics. A seed is dormant but alive, or it could never grow into anything. The same could be said for sperm and eggs ... alive but dormant until fertilization and conception occurs, or they could never come together to grow into anything. If a fertilized egg grows into a fetus that grows into a baby, then it is alive the entire time, or it would not grow into anything. No one chooses or plans for spontaneous abortion (miscarriage or stillbirth) to occur, whereas medical abortion is chosen, planned, and usually unnecessary ... if it was necessary, it would happen naturally. People die of natural causes all the time -- such a thing is unavoidable. Choosing and planning to kill someone before their inevitable natural death is very different than death due to natural causes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I am unsure as to whether a virus is alive, but I'm pretty sure it does not eat, drink, breath, urinate, defecate, grow, reproduce (it can replicate, but not without a host), and would never live for long if it did not have a host to live off of like a parasite. Offspring is not parasitic. Offspring is the result of reproduction, which does not infect anyone.
> 
> Life in a human body simply begins at conception and ends at death. I have my opinions about what happens before and after that, but these are very different topics. A seed is dormant but alive, or it could never grow into anything. The same could be said for sperm and eggs ... alive but dormant until fertilization and conception occurs, or they could never come together to grow into anything. If a fertilized egg grows into a fetus that grows into a baby, then it is alive the entire time, or it would not grow into anything. No one chooses or plans for spontaneous abortion (miscarriage or stillbirth) to occur, whereas medical abortion is chosen, planned, and usually unnecessary ... if it was necessary, it would happen naturally. People die of natural causes all the time -- such a thing is unavoidable. Choosing and planning to kill someone before their inevitable natural death is very different than death due to natural causes.


Nah. You can take blood or an organ from one person and put it in someone else and it can still be alive. So until a fetus makes it to a certain point of development it is still a parasite that might become a person but is not yet. We can keep many things alive in a lab. Being alive does not make it a person.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> My comment was rhetorical...The cells of a fetus are living. The fetus is not an independent human being until birth....Is a human liver a human being? Is a human tumor a human being? They are livng, and genetically human. Diagrammatically, a liver, a tumor and a fetus are the same-- dependent parts of a human being, not themselves an individual.


A human liver is part of a human body, which would never live outside of the human body ... except maybe in a lab. A tumor is an abnormal growth of tissue, which could never grow outside of the body. A fetus is a separate individual human person, who is the offspring of a male and female. A fetus is connected to and lives within the body of a pregnant woman, until it is time to be born. After birth, a baby is no longer physically connected to his or her mother, and could live and continue to grow into adulthood, although he or she would still require help until adulthood.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> Not contradctions-- just showing examples that don't fit the definition stated earlier. Many things in science require "operational definitons"-- definitons set for the specoifically for a specific doscusion/experiment that may or may not be universally true....While we may use the tautological definiton (circular argument) that something is alive if it carries out life processes, that still doesn;t clarify whethr or not a fetus (certainly living) represents an individual person yet....Nobody will argue that a liver isn't alive, but who will claim it's an individual human being?..or better example-- a kidney. We commonly remove a failing kidney. Is it murder?
> 
> 
> The contnuity of life deserves attention...I've joked here before about buying George Washington's cherry tree hatchet. The head has been replaced twice and the handle three times-- Is it the same hatchet young George used? He never touched either part of this one, yet in a sense, it's the same hatchet.
> ...


If a fetus wasn't a separate individual person, it could never grow into a baby, which is born, then lives outside of the body of his or her mother, who becomes an adult. In all cases, this is a living, individual human person.

We have laws against the murder of people, to protect the lives of people from being murdered by other people. Such laws should apply to all people, including unborn children.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We don't know what a woman is.

We don't know what a baby is.

What a world we live in today


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

doc- said:


> Very thoughtful post.
> 
> You have made two assumptions that are not supported by factual data-- that the fetus "feels" pain-- that word implies consciousness and suffering. All we know for a fact is that a fetus reacts to a stimulus. So does an amoeba, ...and that a fetus is an individual, not part of the mother's body. As I said, that's not all that clear during the first trimester. After that, it becomes less and less doubtful ...Hence the position of many of us that elective abortion should be limited to the 1st trimester.
> 
> ...


If abortion is allowed for medical reasons, it is to prevent permanent damage or death of the mother ... to protect the life of the mother. The result is one life saved and one life lost. Abortion for any other reason results in the loss of life, but no life is saved. No life lost is best. One life saved and one life lost is better than one life lost and no life saved.

All killings are not classified as murder, because different killings occur due to different circumstances. Murder, manslaughter, homicide, and justifiable homicide (self defense), are all different words to describe different kinds of killings. A health care provider (such as an OBGYN) would be the ones who decide whether or not abortion is necessary to protect the life of a pregnant woman. If you kill your brother in law for any reason other than self defense, or to defend the life of another from him, it would be an unjustified murder. Using the death penalty to kill someone would be murder, because it is pre-planned, scheduled, and would not qualify as self-defense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> We don't know what a woman is.
> 
> We don't know what a baby is.
> 
> What a world we live in today


Most do know, many just refuse to admit it.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Nah. You can take blood or an organ from one person and put it in someone else and it can still be alive.


True -- some organs can be removed from one person and transplanted into another, and both people can still live.



painterswife said:


> So until a fetus makes it to a certain point of development it is still a parasite that might become a person but is not yet. We can keep many things alive in a lab. Being alive does not make it a person.


Parasites include parasitic microbes, viruses, and parasites that live outside of a host (such as parasitic insects). Offspring on the other hand, is not parasitic, but rather, the result of reproduction. A fertilized egg is a human person at the beginning of their lifetime as a human, who grows into a fetus, which if allowed to continue to grow, will become a baby, who is born, and continues to grow into adulthood. From conception to death, he or she is a living human person.

Dehumanizing a living human person does not justify the killing of unborn babies, but it does make it easier to do without guilt or consequences.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A fertilized egg is not a human person. A fetus is not a human person for much of the gestation. It is still human so not dehumanizing. Just not a person with more rights than the pregnant person.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> A fertilized egg is not a human person. A fetus is not a human person for much of the gestation. It is still human so not dehumanizing. Just not a person with more rights than the pregnant person.


Are you glad you weren't aborted?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> A fertilized egg is not a human person. A fetus is not a human person for much of the gestation. It is still human so not dehumanizing. Just not a person with more rights than the pregnant person.


Actually, a living human person is a living human person, at all stages of life (from conception to death), whether or not some people are willing to admit it. Pretending otherwise is simply a method of dehumanizing, to make it easier to kill unborn children without guilt or consequences ... which is the same method used by militaries to justify the killing of enemies, slave owners to justify slavery, and Nazis to justify the murdering of Jews. It's easier to justify harming, enslaving, and killing people, if they are not considered people. Unborn children do not and should not have more rights than pregnant women, but they should have equal rights ... such as the same right to live as all people ... because like all people, unborn children are people too.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Actually a fetus is not a person for much of the gestation. It has no mind.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Actually a fetus is not a person for much of the gestation. It has no mind.


A fetus is a living human person at the beginning of their lifetime as a human. He or she does have a mind, but his or her brain is still developing, and will continue to develop until he or she is about 26 years old. 

Just curious, feel free to answer or not, but ... painterswife, have you ever had children of your own, or at least allowed any unborn children in your own body to be born? I assume you are a female who is able to get pregnant, but I could be wrong ... no offense intended.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> A fetus is a living human person at the beginning of their lifetime as a human. He or she does have a mind, but his or her brain is still developing, and will continue to develop until he or she is about 26 years old.
> 
> Just curious, feel free to answer or not, but ... painterswife, have you ever had children of your own, or at least allowed any unborn children in your own body to be born? I assume you are a female who is able to get pregnant, but I could be wrong ... no offense intended.


No higher brain activity, no mind. No person, just a body.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No higher brain activity, no mind. No person, just a body.


There you go dehumanizing living human people again. From conception to death, all people are living human beings, and each has a mind, and by about 26 years of age, people have a fully developed brain. So not just a body. 

A body alone cannot and will not do anything, let alone live, think, feel, grow, eat, drink, breathe, defecate, urinate, reproduce, or do anything else that living beings do. 

Are you a living human person? Do you have a mind -- and if so, how will you prove it? How are we to know whether or not you are even a real human person vs a fake person or AI like so many seem to be at Tik Tok?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A living human body is not always a living human person. Not dehumanizing, just dealing with the reality of each situation. 

A body can live with no higher brain activity.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> A living human body is not always a living human person. Not dehumanizing, just dealing with the reality of each situation.
> 
> A body can live with no higher brain activity.


All people are living human people, from conception to death. Pretending otherwise is dehumanizing. 

What exactly do you consider higher brain activity? Of course a living human person can live without a fully developed brain, or a damaged brain. So? If that wasn't true, no human brain would ever be fully developed.

You still haven't answered my questions. Are you a real living human person, or are you a fake / synthetic / AI not living human person, like so many of the fake people at Tik Tok? Are you a real female human person? Have you ever been pregnant or given birth to any children? Do you have a mind -- and if so, can you prove it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A living human body is not always a person. It is just a body. It is pretty simple. No higher brain activity, no person. That is why we allow people to be taken off of life support and their parts transplanted.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> A living human body is not always a person. It is just a body. It is pretty simple. No higher brain activity, no person. That is why we allow people to be taken off of life support and their parts transplanted.


A living human body is inhabited by a person. A non-living human body is a corpse. There's a difference. Yes, it is pretty simple. If a human body is alive, then a person lives within that body.

Abortion, life support, and organ transplants, are all separate subjects.

I've answered your questions many times, but you still haven't answered mine. Are you a real living human person, or are you a fake / synthetic / AI not living human person, like so many of the fake people at Tik Tok? Have you ever been pregnant or given birth to any children? Do you have a mind -- and if so, can you prove it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No a living human body is not always inhabited by a person. No mind no person.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No a living human body is not always inhabited by a person. No mind no person.


Yes, a living human body is always inhabited by a person, until that body dies and becomes a corpse.

You still haven't answered my questions. Are you male or female? Have you ever been pregnant or given birth to any children? Do you have a mind -- and if so, can you prove it? More importantly, were you born from the body of a living human person? Are you yourself a real, living, human person, or not? It shouldn't be so difficult to answer such a simple question, and if you can't or won't, it only makes it more obvious that the answer is no.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No a body can exist before and after there is a mind. Mechanical life support or human support makes that possible. Ain't science grand.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> No mind no person.


Another "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" slogan


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I have b


painterswife said:


> No a body can exist before and after there is a mind. Mechanical life support or human support makes that possible. Ain't science grand.


Mind is part of consciousness, which exists forever. Brain is part of a biological body, which lives for a limited amount of time. Consciousness, a mind, and a body, all take time to grow and develop all of their parts (such as thoughts, emotions, and a brain). A biological body cannot exist without consciousness (which includes a mind, psyche, soul, and spirit), but consciousness can exist without a biological body ... hence OBEs, NDEs, afterlife stuff, and a whole different rabbit hole.

I am a female human person, living in a human body, who was born from a living female human person. I have given birth to living human children, have been a programmer for over 25 years, and I wasn't born yesterday. You still haven't answered my questions about whether or not you were born from the body of a living human female, or about whether or not you yourself are a real, living, human person. I've asked several times and you keep dodging the questions. So I have come to the obvious conclusion that you yourself are not a real, living, human person.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I have b
> 
> *Mind is part of consciousness, which exists forever.* Brain is part of a biological body, which lives for a limited amount of time. Consciousness6, a mind, and a body, all take time to grow and develop all of their parts (such as thoughts, emotions, and a brain). A biological body cannot exist without consciousness (which includes a mind, psyche, soul, and spirit), but consciousness can exist without a biological body ... hence OBEs, NDEs, afterlife stuff, and a whole different rabbit hole.
> 
> I am a female human person, living in a human body, who was born from a living female human person. I have given birth to human children, has been a programmer for over 25 years, and I wasn't born yesterday. You still haven't answered my questions about whether or not you were born from the body of a living human female, or about whether or not you yourself are a real, living, human person. I've asked several times and you keep dodging the questions. So I have come to the obvious conclusion that you yourself are not a real, living, human person.


No mind, no consciousness. You believe that but can provide no scientific evidence of that. A biologic body can exist without it. Mechanical life support demonstrates that every day.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No mind, no consciousness. You believe that but can provide no scientific evidence of that. A biologic body can exist without it. Mechanical life support demon that every day.


Consciousness includes mind. Can you prove scientifically that you have a mind? A biological body requires consciousness to live. Can you prove otherwise?

Were you born from the body of a living human person or not? Are you a living human person or not? A simple yes or no to each question would be much appreciated.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No brain, no mind, no consciousness. A body can be kept alive without a brain by mechanical or human support .


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> I am a female human person


All this time I thought you were a guy. I don't know why. Oh well, good to know you're human. But wait a minute...what if you're AI trying to convince us you're human? This could get dicey!


CC Pereira said:


> I've asked several times and you keep dodging the questions.


She's not dodging the questions, she's ignoring them. Take the hint. The answers are not relevant to anything anyway.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> All this time I thought you were a guy. I don't know why. Oh well, good to know you're human. But wait a minute...what if you're AI trying to convince us you're human? This could get dicey!
> 
> She's not dodging the questions, she's ignoring them. Take the hint. The answers are not relevant to anything anyway.


Many people support the right of all people, including unborn children, to live -- regardless of their gender, religion, or even if they don't have children of their own.

If painterswife cannot or will not answer two simple questions (1. were you born from the body of a female woman, and 2. are you yourself a real living human person), then he / she / it must not be a real living human person. These are not intended to be offensive questions, and they certainly are simple enough to answer. These questions are relevant, because anyone who is not a real, living, human person, has never and will never experience life as a living human person, and is therefore, in no position to discuss or have any say at all, in topics such as abortion, biological life, or the human brain vs human mind vs human consciousness.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I can answer. There is no reason for me to. It is misdirection.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> These questions are relevant, because anyone who is not a real, living, human person, has never and will never experience life as a living human person, and is therefore, in no position to discuss or have any say at all, in topics such as abortion, biological life, or the human brain vs human mind vs human consciousness.


But how do we know YOU are really human? This is too important to take your word for it.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I can answer. There is no reason for me to. It is misdirection.


Then why won't you? It is not misdirection, and is not intended to be offensive, but it is absolutely relevant to our discussion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> But how do we know YOU are really human? This is too important to take your word for it.


 I could be a dolphin but it does not change my position. Even then me answering proves nothing.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> But how do we know YOU are really human? This is too important to take your word for it.


Good question. I can't prove it to you and painterswife digitally, but I answered the same questions that I asked painterswife. I am not asking painterswife any questions that I wouldn't be willing to answer, and I do not expect painterswife to prove that the answers given are true.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I could be a dolphin but it does not change my position. Even then me answering proves nothing.


If you were a dolphin, you would not be participating in this discussion at all, because you would be busy doing dolphin things, hopefully freely in the ocean.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> If you were a dolphin, you would not be participating in this discussion at all, because you would be busy doing dolphin things, hopefully freely in the ocean.


So have you then answered your own question to me to your own satisfaction?

I never asked it of you.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Good question. I can't prove it to you and painterswife digitally, but I answered the same questions that I asked painterswife. I am not asking painterswife any questions that I wouldn't be willing to answer, and I do not expect painterswife to prove that the answers given are true.


I'm sorry, but that is not sufficient. I am forced to conclude that you are not a real living human and thus have no position to discuss this matter.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So have you then answered your own question to me to your own satisfaction?
> 
> I never asked it of you.


I have. I informed you that I was born from a living human female, and that I am a real, living, human person. It was really quick and easy too. Didn't dodge or complicate the questions or answers either.

You didn't have reason to ask me those questions, but if you did anyway, I would have answered them, without dodging or avoiding them, and without feeling offended. You kept trying to use mind as the determining factor as to whether or not an unborn child is a living human person, which led to me to ask you if you could prove that unborn children or even you have a mind, which led to the questions, which led to this ... and you still haven't answered those two simple little questions. Why hide it?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> I have. I informed you that I was born from a living human female, and that I am a real, living, human person. It was really quick and easy too. Didn't dodge or complicate the questions or answers either.
> 
> You didn't have reason to ask me those questions, but if you did anyway, I would have answered them, without dodging or avoiding them, and without feeling offended. You kept trying to use mind as the determining factor as to whether or not an unborn child is a living human person, which led to me to ask you if you could prove that unborn children or even you have a mind, which led to the questions, which led to this ... and you still haven't answered those two simple little questions. Why hide it?


We're also not in court, you have not presented your law degree and badgering a witness is unacceptable. 

Make your point another way, before you get the thread locked.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Pigs are more intellectually developed than a child of 3. We eat them. So if we can kill a pig, can we kill a toddler?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> I'm sorry, but that is not sufficient. I am forced to conclude that you are not a real living human and thus have no position to discuss this matter.


I did not ask painterswife any questions that I would be unwilling to answer. I did not require proof of anything, but due the use of the existence or non-existence of a 'mind' as the determining factor as to whether or not unborn children are living human people, I did ask painterswife if painterswife could prove the existence or non-existence of a 'mind'.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> I did not ask painterswife any questions that I would be unwilling to answer. I did not require proof of anything, but due the use of the existence or non-existence of a 'mind' as the determining factor as to whether or not unborn children are living human people, I did ask if painterswife if painterswife could prove the existence or non-existence of a 'mind'.


Please read my previous comment.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> We're also not in court, you have not presented your law degree and badgering a witness is unacceptable.
> 
> Make your point another way, before you get the thread locked.


I know this is not court. I never claimed to be a lawyer, or to have a law degree. I know painterswife is not a witness, and I do not believe that I am badgering anyone.

My point is that unborn children are just as alive and human as any of us.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

There certainly were some well thought out posts in this thread.
And I read every one of them.
The bottom line is this - each one who posted has their own opinions, which will not be changed by any other poster.
I agreed with some, disagreed with others. Was my mind changed about abortion? No.

I personally believe that any woman who aborts their baby will have to answer for it when she stands before God for judgement. But, there are those too who do not believe in God. Am I right, or are they? There's no way to tell, on THIS side of our lives.

Anyway, thank you and a tip of the hat to everyone for keeping the thread reasonable, with no resorting to name calling, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I have. I informed you that I was born from a living human female, and that I am a real, living, human person. It was really quick and easy too. Didn't dodge or complicate the questions or answers either.
> 
> You didn't have reason to ask me those questions, but if you did anyway, I would have answered them, without dodging or avoiding them, and without feeling offended. You kept trying to use mind as the determining factor as to whether or not an unborn child is a living human person, which led to me to ask you if you could prove that unborn children or even you have a mind, which led to the questions, which led to this ... and you still haven't answered those two simple little questions. Why hide it?


Your questions don't matter to this topic. There is no need for you to have that personal information about me. I have stated my position on this topic and my reasons for it.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> I did not ask painterswife any questions that I would be unwilling to answer. I did not require proof of anything, but due the use of the existence or non-existence of a 'mind' as the determining factor as to whether or not unborn children are living human people, I did ask painterswife if painterswife could prove the existence or non-existence of a 'mind'.


That's nice, but none of it answers my questions of YOU to my satisfaction, and thus I cannot accept you as truly human.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Your questions don't matter to this topic. There is no need for you to have that personal information about me. I have stated my position on this topic and my reasons for it.


Whether or not unborn children have a mind, and whether or not that determines their life or humanity, would also therefore be irrelevant to this topic.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> That's nice, but none of it answers my questions of YOU to my satisfaction, and thus I cannot accept you as truly human.


What questions did you ask me?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Whether or not unborn children have a mind, and whether or not that determines their life or humanity, would also therefore be irrelevant to this topic.





CC Pereira said:


> Whether or not unborn children have a mind, and whether or not that determines their life or humanity, would also therefore be irrelevant to this topic.


Irrelevant to you saying a consciousness exists even with no brain.?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> What questions did you ask me?


I don't remember...I'm not really paying attention. Maybe how do we know you're human?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Irrelevant to you saying a consciousness exists even with no brain.?


You think my questions of you are irrelevant to this topic. I think your assumptions about whether or not unborn children have a mind (which is a part of consciousness, which exists eternally, before, during, and after brain development) are irrelevant to this topic ... unless 'mind' is used to determine whether someone is a living human person.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Irrelevant to you saying a consciousness exists even with no brain.?


What’s irrelevant is you taking the activist court position and arguing that the “personhood” they invented is what defines someone’s right to life. That’s exactly the same logic that was crafted to deny the brown-skinned folks and and vagina-bearing folks their full claim to humanity-status.

The patron saint of your death-cult religion, Margaret Sanger, ran out of runway when it came to making brown folk less-equal pigs, so her devotees had to settle for “de-personing” their unborn children.

If you can lead a mentally retarded person to an electric chair, strap them down, and get that first 1.5mA to PSA through their heart, without them knowing enough to be scared or suffer, you’ve aborted their life, not murdered them. It’s a ridiculous set of logical gymnastics performed for the sole benefit of your own conscious, but it can’t save your soul.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> I don't remember...I'm not really paying attention. Maybe how do we know you're human?


None of us know if any of us are real living human people, until physically proven. We cannot prove whether or not any of us have a mind, but whether or not any of us has a brain can be physically proven. Mind and brain are not the same thing. Biological brains can be proven to exist, but minds?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> You think my questions of you are irrelevant to this topic. I think your assumptions about whether or not unborn children have a mind (which is a part of consciousness, which exists eternally, before, during, and after brain development) are irrelevant to this topic ... unless 'mind' is used to determine whether someone is a living human person.


Then why are you try so hard to say that a consciousness exist without a brain?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Your questions don't matter to this topic. There is no need for you to have that personal information about me. I have stated my position on this topic and my reasons for it.


BTW, asking if you are human or not is really not personal at all ... it is only about your humanity, that is all.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Then why are you try so hard to say that a consciousness exist without a brain?


Saying consciousness exists with or without a brain isn't hard at all ... quite easy actually.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Saying consciousness exists with or without a brain isn't hard at all ... quite easy actually.


How can it exist if the brain activity is what allows it, if there is no brain?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> How can it exist if the brain activity is what allows it, if there is no brain?


This is one of those, which came first, the chicken or the egg kind of questions ... only in this case, which came first, the brain or the mind? Some people believe the brain produces consciousness (which includes mind), while others (including myself) believe that consciousness produces the brain -- but as far as I know, neither belief has as of yet, been scientifically proven.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> This is one of those, which came first, the chicken or the egg kind of questions ... only in this case, which came first, the brain or the mind? Some people believe the brain produces consciousness (which includes mind), while others (including myself) believe that consciousness produces the brain -- but as far as I know, neither belief has as of yet, been scientifically proven.


Can't have consciousness without a brain. I would love to see your proof.

The chicken and egg thing is another dodge. A false dichotomy. As false as consciousness without a brain.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Can't have consciousness without a brain. I would love to see your proof.
> 
> The chicken and egg thing is another dodge. A false dichotomy. As false as consciousness without a brain.


Can't have a brain without consciousness. I would love to see your proof that unborn children do not have a mind.

The chicken and egg thing is exactly the same kind of question as whether or not consciousness exists without a brain or vise versa. Can you prove that consciousness does not exist without a brain or vise versa? If someone loses half of their brain, but is still alive and not living on life support, did that person lose half of their consciousness? Nope.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Can't have a brain without consciousness. I would love to see your proof that unborn children do not have a mind.
> 
> The chicken and egg thing is exactly the same kind of question as whether or not consciousness exists without a brain or vise versa. Can you prove that consciousness does not exist without a brain or vise versa? If someone loses half of their brain, but is still alive and not living on life support, did that person lose half of their consciousness? Nope.


No, animals have brains but they have not reached the same biological stage as ours. Our biological brain is what allows consciousness. It does not fly in from somewhere in the atmosphere. Our brains grow and allow our minds to use sensory input to get to what we call consciousness.

No brain, no consciousness.

No human brain, no human being. A body is not enough. Higher brain activity is needed.

In your scenario can those free floating consciousness fly into a dolphin brain?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> None of us know if any of us are real living human people, until physically proven. We cannot prove whether or not any of us have a mind, but whether or not any of us has a brain can be physically proven. Mind and brain are not the same thing. Biological brains can be proven to exist, but minds?


Thanks, I'll use that one the next time my wife asks me if I've lost my mind. "I'm not sure if I ever had one to begin with. I'm not even sure I'm a real live human at this point."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No, animals have brains but they have not reached the same biological stage as ours. Our biological brain is what allows consciousness. It does not fly in from somewhere in the atmosphere. Our brains grow and allow our minds to use sensory input to get to what we call consciousness.
> 
> No brain, no consciousness.
> 
> No human brain, no human being. A body is not enough. Higher brain activity is needed.


according to you, and other selfish folks who’d rather kill our most helpless in order to avoid a bit of inconvenience.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Well then what about the elderly people or people who have enough of a brain to keep the body functioning but not enough to be conscious of their surroundings? Are they alive?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

"I think, therefore I am"
René Descartes


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Well then what about the elderly people or people who have enough of a brain to keep the body functioning but not enough to be conscious of their surroundings? Are they alive?


They currently hold the office of president and speaker of the house.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Danaus29 said:


> Well then what about the elderly people or people who have enough of a brain to keep the body functioning but not enough to be conscious of their surroundings? Are they alive?


That’s the ploy. The whole “personhood” definition is intentionally designed as an arbitrarily drawn line in a huge gray area. If a human can be a human, but not a person, and that line is drawn at consciousness (which is, itself, a large gray area) then that line can be shifted as necessary to exclude whoever needs to be excluded from humanity in order to serve today’s agenda.

Mentally ill person’s perception of reality is flawed? They are no longer really a person.

The genetics of brown skin show a 0.000000001% statistical inferiority in cerebral cortex function? They are no longer a person.

Someone denies the truth, as defined by The Ministry? Their perception of reality and, therefore, consciousness is flawed. They are no longer a person.

We’ve seen the “personhood” test applied countless times throughout history and, every single time, it was created to enable the murder or mistreatment of the inconvenient.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Higher brain function. not a level of higher brain function. Science has made that possible. No brain then no higher brain function. That is why the laws allow people to remove life support and allow the body's parts to be transplanted.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No, animals have brains but they have not reached the same biological stage as ours. Our biological brain is what allows consciousness. It does not fly in from somewhere in the atmosphere. Our brains grow and allow our minds to use sensory input to get to what we call consciousness.
> 
> No brain, no consciousness.
> 
> ...


Humans are animals. Our finite biological brain processes our eternal consciousness, like a computer processes information. The brain uses sensory input to process information from and about consciousness.

No consciousness, no brain.

Like consciousness, the brain takes time to develop. The brain is not enough. Consciousness is needed.

If a dolphin brain is already inhabited by consciousness, I think it is unlikely that another quanta of consciousness would attempt to reside there.

Consciousness (including the mind) is a very interesting, but unprovable by current scientific means, and unrelated to this thread. The laws we have regarding various forms of murder are not based on whether or not someone believes people have consciousness or a mind.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Thanks, I'll use that one the next time my wife asks me if I've lost my mind. "I'm not sure if I ever had one to begin with. I'm not even sure I'm a real live human at this point."


Very funny Ryan. I was actually referring to the fact that no one on this forum can digitally prove to one another that we are real, living, human people.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Danaus29 said:


> Well then what about the elderly people or people who have enough of a brain to keep the body functioning but not enough to be conscious of their surroundings? Are they alive?


IMO, absolutely.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

gilberte said:


> "I think, therefore I am"
> René Descartes


"I am, therefore I think" ~ Socrates?

"ex nahilo, nahilo fit"


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Higher brain function. not a level of higher brain function. Science has made that possible. No brain then no higher brain function. That is why the laws allow people to remove life support and allow the body's parts to be transplanted.


Laws regarding the various forms of killing (such as abortions) are not based on brain function, or anyone's beliefs about consciousness (including the mind). Brain function, life support, and organ transplants, are certainly interesting topics, but are unrelated to this thread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Humans are animals. Our finite biological brain processes our eternal consciousness, like a computer processes information. The brain uses sensory input to process information from and about consciousness.
> 
> No consciousness, no brain.
> 
> ...


You can't have consciousness without a brain. It does not float around in the atmosphere waiting for a brain to develop so it can enter that brain. You are the one that said it exists before the brain does. Not possible. Science can prove it because it is something that grows with experience and knowledge that is gathered and stored in the brain.

Abortion is not murder. Neither is removing a brain dead body from life support.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

CC Pereira said:


> IMO, absolutely.


I agree.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You can't have consciousness without a brain. It does not float around in the atmosphere waiting for a brain to develop so it can enter that brain. You are the one that said it exists before the brain does. Not possible. Science can prove it because it is something that grows with experience and knowledge that is gathered and stored in the brain.
> 
> Abortion is not murder. Neither is removing a brain dead body from life support.


Neither my belief in consciousness, nor your disbelief in consciousness, is relevant to this thread ... but if you really insist on going there ... a brain is as useless without consciousness as a computer is without information to process. Yes. I believe that consciousness is eternal, and biological brains are not. Whether or not anything we say about consciousness is a fact has as of yet, not been proven or disproven by anyone. Every experience (including knowledge gained) is collected by DNA, and stored as light, in biophotons ... much as information is stored on a flash drive. Such information is continually updated and processed by the brain. You are not your body. You use your body to interact in this reality, much as we use cars to travel.

Abortions that occur with a legitimate medical reason are not murder, but abortions that occur without a legitimate medical reason are murder. Ending life support for someone who will never be able to live without it, is not murder, but does allow a person to die of natural causes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Neither my belief in consciousness, nor your disbelief in consciousness, is relevant to this thread ... but if you really insist on going there ... a brain is as useless without consciousness as a computer is without information to process. Yes. I believe that consciousness is eternal, and biological brains are not. Whether or not anything we say about consciousness is a fact has as of yet, not been proven or disproven by anyone. Every experience (including knowledge gained) is collected by DNA, and stored as light, in biophotons ... much as information is stored on a flash drive. Such information is continually updated and processed by the brain. You are not your body. You use your body to interact in this reality, much as we use cars to travel.
> 
> Abortions that occur with a legitimate medical reason are not murder, but abortions that occur without a legitimate medical reason are murder. Ending life support for someone who will never be able to live without it, is not murder, but does allow a person to die of natural causes.


*So you believe* consciousness is eternal. That is at least one of your reason for not having an abortion at any time. My line in the sand is different than yours and based on science and not religion or a belief in a higher power.

Your religious or spiritual beliefs should not have any impact on another woman's life and decision on whether to remain pregnant. Those who believe consciousness is eternal or starts at fertilization are a very small percentage of people. 

You can't have a human consciousness without a human brain. They don't exist separately You have to have the biological brain to receive, analyze and process the input to create consciousness. That is what consciousness is.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> *So you believe* consciousness is eternal. That is at least one of your reason for not having an abortion at any time. My line in the sand is different than yours and based on science and not religion or a belief in a higher power.
> 
> Your religious or spiritual beliefs should not have any impact on another woman's life and decision on whether to remain pregnant. Those who believe consciousness is eternal or starts at fertilization are a very small percentage of people.
> 
> You can't have a human consciousness without a human brain. They don't exist separately You have to have the biological brain to receive, analyze and process the input to create consciousness. That is what consciousness is.


My belief in the existence of eternal consciousness with or without a brain is irrelevant to this thread. I never said I do not support any abortion, just those that are done without a legitimate medical reason. I believe in the right of all people, including unborn children, to live. The right to live is constitutionally protected. The right to kill other people is not. Your line in the sand is based on the opinions of the groups that think for you, not on science.

Your beliefs about the right of women to kill their unborn children for any reason or none should not have any impact on the right of others, including unborn children, to live. There are a lot of people in the world, and I very much doubt that either of us knows enough of them to speak for them about their beliefs.

A biological brain receives, analyzes, and processes information it receives from the environment, and consciousness (which is not the product of a brain, but the source of it).

I am free to believe in the existence of consciousness and divinity with or without a brain, just as you are free to believe otherwise. But again, beliefs about consciousness (including the mind) and divinity are generally irrelevant to this thread. Abortion is about the killing of unborn children, not our beliefs about consciousness, divinity, the mind, what brains do or how they do it.

Regardless of your beliefs or mine, Roe vs Wade has thankfully been overturned, so it is up to the people of each state to make their own laws about abortions -- as it should have been the entire time. If we do not agree with the laws in the state(s) we live in regarding abortion, we are certainly free to participate in changing those laws ... and women are still free to kill their unborn children for any reason or none, in about half of the states ... and no amount of us arguing about abortion with one another will change that ... or my beliefs, or yours.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> My belief in the existence of eternal consciousness with or without a brain is irrelevant to this thread. I never said I do not support any abortion, just those that are done without a legitimate medical reason. I believe in the right of all people, including unborn children, to live. The right to live is constitutionally protected. The right to kill other people is not. Your line in the sand is based on the opinions of the groups that think for you, not on science.
> 
> Your beliefs about the right of women to kill their unborn children for any reason or none should not have any impact on the right of others, including unborn children, to live. There are a lot of people in the world, and I very much doubt that either of us knows enough of them to speak for them about their beliefs.
> 
> ...


Consciousness is not possible without a brain.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Consciousness is not possible without a brain.


According to you.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I've read some posts recently that would contradict PW's opinion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> According to you.


Yes, my opinion based on the science. You have no science to back up your opinon.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Experience often goes hand in hand with a well formed opinion. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yes, my opinion based on the science. You have no science to back up your opinon.


Back up YOUR science. Post away...


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Yes, my opinion based on the science. You have no science to back up your opinon.


So far, science has not proven the existence or non-existence of consciousness, let alone whether consciousness or the brain came first. This is irrelevant to this thread however, because laws about abortion are based on ethics, not beliefs, opinions, religion, or scientific evidence of consciousness.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> So far, science has not proven the existence or non-existence of consciousness, let alone whether consciousness or the brain came first. This is irrelevant to this thread however, because laws about abortion are based on ethics, not beliefs, opinions, religion, or scientific evidence of consciousness.


LOL, Did everyone read that? Consciousness is not proven even though you are reading and interacting with these written words.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> laws about abortion are based on ethics, not beliefs, opinions, religion, or scientific evidence of consciousness.


Ethics, but not beliefs or opinions? Where do ethics come from?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Consciousness and the brain are separate parts of an individual. The existence of a brain (biological part of a body) is easy to prove. Different states of consciousness can be indicated with EEGs and experienced subjectively, but consciousness itself (spirit, soul, mind, and psyche) ... not so easy to prove with objective science. Even the definition of consciousness could be different for different people. How would you define consciousness?

Laws about abortion are not based on the beliefs, opinions, or religion, of any one person, or a couple of people (like just painterswife and myself), but are generally agreed upon by the majority of the people where the laws apply. Scientific evidence of the existence of consciousness with or without a brain ... totally separate topic, which is not the basis of any laws regarding abortion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Consciousness and the brain are separate parts of an individual. The existence of a brain (biological part of a body) is easy to prove. Different states of consciousness can be indicated with EEGs and experienced subjectively, but consciousness itself (spirit, soul, mind, and psyche) ... not so easy to prove with objective science. Even the definition of consciousness could be different for different people. How would you define consciousness?
> 
> Laws about abortion are not based on the beliefs, opinions, or religion, of any one person, or a couple of people (like just painterswife and myself), but are generally agreed upon by the majority of the people where the laws apply. Scientific evidence of the existence of consciousness with or without a brain ... totally separate topic, which is not the basis of any laws regarding abortion.


Consciousness is proven every day with our complex interactions with our surroundings. Just the ability to write about it proves it. We know it exists in our brains not in the atmosphere around us because no brain no consciousness.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Many people, of both genders, all religions or none, and many backgrounds, including myself, believe that all people (including unborn children) have the right to live, and that killing any living human person (including unborn children) is unethical unless there is a legitimate and ethical reason to do so (such as self defense, or to defend and protect the life of another).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Many people, of both genders, all religions or none, and many backgrounds, including myself, believe that all people (including unborn children) have the right to live, and that killing any living human person (including unborn children) is unethical unless there is a legitimate and ethical reason to do so (such as self defense, or to defend and protect the life of another).


Many believe that the person carrying the fetus, rights are dominant in deciding whether her own body should be forced to carry a pregnancy.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Consciousness is proven every day with our complex interactions with our surroundings. Just the ability to write about it proves it. We know it exists in our brains not in the atmosphere around us because no brain no consciousness.


The human brain is one part of the biological body, that processes information, so that the consciousness of an individual can use their human body to interact and participate in this reality. The consciousness of an individual resides in all parts of their biological body during the lifetime of that body. The consciousness of an individual also exists before and after the existence of that body -- this is the part that may be very difficult to prove or disprove.

But again, laws about abortion are not based on our beliefs about consciousness. I don't mind discussing this with you or others at all, but maybe we should move this discussion to a related thread?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> The human brain is one part of the biological body, that processes information, so that the consciousness of an individual can use their human body to interact and participate in this reality. The consciousness of an individual resides in all parts of their biological body during the lifetime of that body. The consciousness of an individual also exists before and after the existence of that body -- this is the part that may be very difficult to prove or disprove.
> 
> But again, laws about abortion are not based on our beliefs about consciousness. I don't mind discussing this with you or others at all, but maybe we should move this discussion to a related thread?


Consciousness does not exist without the brain. The rest of the body just feeds the info to the brain. No living brain, no consciousness. It is very simple. The consciousness does not come from somewhere else nor does it go somewhere else when the brain is dead.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Many believe that the person carrying the fetus, rights are dominant in deciding whether her own body should be forced to carry a pregnancy.


The person 'carrying a fetus' is called a 'woman', 'girl', or 'female' -- because it is well known and scientifically proven that men and boys do not have periods, cannot get pregnant, cannot give birth, and cannot breast feed.

Many people fought and died for this country, so that ALL people could experience freedom, and equal rights (such as the right to live) for ALL people, regardless of their age, color, race, gender, etc. Many people believe in the equal right to live for all people, including unborn children. Some people still even believe in personal responsibility, such as preventing unwanted pregnancies, instead of expecting others to help you kill your unborn children (by teaching, enabling, legalizing, proving abortions and abortion pills, and paying for it).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> The person 'carrying a fetus' is called a 'woman', 'girl', or 'female' -- because it is well known and scientifically proven that men and boys do not have periods, cannot get pregnant, cannot give birth, and cannot breast feed.
> 
> Many people fought and died for this country, so that ALL people could experience freedom, and equal rights (such as the right to live) for ALL people, regardless of their age, color, race, gender, etc. Many people believe in the equal right to live for all people, including unborn children. Some people still even believe in personal responsibility, such as preventing unwanted pregnancies, instead of expecting others to help you kill your unborn children (by teaching, enabling, legalizing, proving abortions and abortion pills, and paying for it).


Equal rights does not mean that one person has the right to use the body of another. That is why transplants and blood are donations and not forced.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Consciousness does not exist without the brain. The rest of the body just feeds the info to the brain. No living brain, no consciousness. It is very simple. The consciousness does not come from somewhere else nor does it go somewhere else when the brain is dead.


Consciousness exists with or without the brain. The brain receives information from sensory input (from the rest of the body), from the environment, and from consciousness. No consciousness no brain. The existence of consciousness before, during, and after living a lifetime in a biological human body, has not as of yet been proven or disproven.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Consciousness exists with or without the brain. The brain receives information from sensory input (from the rest of the body), from the environment, and from consciousness. *No consciousness no brain*. The existence of consciousness before, during, and after living a lifetime in a biological human body, has not as of yet been proven or disproven.


You have that backwards. You can have a brain that is damaged and therefore there is no consciousness.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Equal rights does not mean that one person has the right to use the body of another. That is why transplants and blood are donations and not forced.


Unborn children do not ask to be conceived, nor do they force their conception, especially not into the body of a woman that is unwilling to protect the lives of her unborn children. 

Transplants, blood transfusions, and blood donations, are totally separate subjects.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Unborn children do not ask to be conceived, nor do they force their conception, especially not into the body of a woman that is unwilling to protect the lives of her unborn children.
> 
> Transplants, blood transfusions, and blood donations, are totally separate subjects.


Fetus and fertilized eggs are not children. They do not have more rights over the use of the body that they are in than the person carrying the pregnancy does. That is why late term abortions are dependent on the medical well being of the person carrying the pregnancy. That person's rights are dominant.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You have that backwards. You can have a brain that is damaged and therefore there is no consciousness.


Nope. A damaged brain may affect your state of consciousness, or your ability to use your brain to interact with the world within and around your body but does not damage or destroy your consciousness.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Nope. A damaged brain may affect your state of consciousness, or your ability to use your brain to interact with the world within and around your body but does not damage or destroy your consciousness.


Depending on the damage it sure does. No brain, activity. no ability to interact with your surrounding or even use your brain.

If the brain does not work, there is no consciousness. The structure may exist but still no consciousness. You need that working brain to have any sort of consciousness. When I said damaged I meant beyond working.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Fetus and fertilized eggs are not children. They do not have more rights over the use of the body that they are in than the person carrying the pregnancy does. That is why late term abortions are dependent on the medical well being of the person carrying the pregnancy. That person's rights are dominant.


Fetus and fertilized eggs are unborn children. A living human person is a living human person from conception to death. All people have the right to live, no matter what their stage of development and growth. The older a person gets, the more personal responsibility he or she is expected to accept, and rightly so. If you don't want to be pregnant or give birth, then simply accept some personal responsibility, by preventing unwanted pregnancies. It is true though, that allowing abortions to protect the life of a pregnant woman does put the life of the pregnant woman before that of the unborn child.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Fetus and fertilized eggs are unborn children. A living human person is a living human person from conception to death. All people have the right to live, no matter what their stage of development and growth. The older a person gets, the more personal responsibility he or she is expected to accept, and rightly so. If you don't want to be pregnant or give birth, then simply accept some personal responsibility, by preventing unwanted pregnancies. It is true though, that allowing abortions to protect the life of a pregnant woman does put the life of the pregnant woman before that of the unborn child.


All might have the right to live but they don't have the right to live at the expense of someone else's rights. A woman also has rights over her own body and having sex is part of that. It does not mean that she has to remain pregnant. If you don't like abortion then don't have one. Stay out of either women's personal health care decisions. Choosing to end a pregnancy is personal responsibility for her own health and life. You just don't like another's choices.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Depending on the damage it sure does. No brain, activity. no ability to interact with your surrounding or even use your brain.
> 
> If the brain does not work, there is no consciousness. The structure may exist but still no consciousness. You need that working brain to have any sort of consciousness. When I said damaged I meant beyond working.


Feel free to believe whatever floats your boat. Without consciousness, the brain is as useless as a computer with no information to process. Brain damage is biological damage, that can affect brain function, the ability to use the brain (and even the rest of the biological body), and the state of consciousness, but biological damage does not cause damage to consciousness itself. I stand by my previous statements:


Consciousness is eternal, but biological bodies (and their brains) are not.
Consciousness exists with or without a biological body (or brain).
No amount of brain damage will damage or destroy consciousness.

If the brain does not work at all, the rest of the body is unlikely to survive without life support. If this is the case, and there is no possibility of ever being able to live without life support, then ending life support allows the body to die naturally.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Feel free to believe whatever floats your boat. Without consciousness, the brain is as useless as a computer with no information to process. Brain damage is biological damage, that can affect brain function, the ability to use the brain (and even the rest of the biological body), and the state of consciousness, but biological damage does not cause damage to consciousness itself. I stand by my previous statements:
> 
> 
> Consciousness is eternal, but biological bodies (and their brains) are not.
> ...


You can't have consciousness without a brain. Saying that you can is fantasy. You can't provide evidence of that. 

Where do you think consciousness goes when the brain dies? Where do you think it is before the brain exists?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> All might have the right to live but they don't have the right to live at the expense of someone else's rights. A woman also has rights over her own body and having sex is part of that. It does not mean that she has to remain pregnant. If you don't like abortion then don't have one. Stay out of either women's personal health care decisions. Choosing to end a pregnancy is personal responsibility for her own health and life. You just don't like another's choices.


Yes. All people, including unborn children, have the equal right to live. All people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies ... but not with or to the bodies of others. People are free to have sex whenever and with whomever they want, so long as both participants are willing. But with free will comes responsibility ... such as preventing yourself from being infected by and sharing STDs, and preventing unwanted pregnancies. We have laws against murder, to protect the lives of people from being murdered by other people. Saying it is not anyone else's choice or business if someone else gets an abortion without a legitimate medical reason to do so, is like saying it is only a murderer's choice and business if they murder someone. That's just silly.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You can't have consciousness without a brain. Saying that you can is fantasy. You can't provide evidence of that.
> 
> Where do you think consciousness goes when the brain dies? Where do you think it is before the brain exists?


I can't prove the existence of consciousness before and after life in a biological body any more than you can disprove it. The location of consciousness before and after life in a biological body is a whole different rabbit hole.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Yes. All people, including unborn children, have the equal right to live. All people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies ... but not with or to the bodies of others. People are free to have sex whenever and with whomever they want, so long as both participants are willing. But with free will comes responsibility ... such as preventing yourself from being infected by and sharing STDs, and preventing unwanted pregnancies. We have laws against murder, to protect the lives of people from being murdered by other people. Saying it is not anyone else's choice or business if someone else gets an abortion without a legitimate medical reason to do so, is like saying it is only a murderer's choice and business if they murder someone. That's just silly.


Abortion is not murder, just as pulling life support is not murder. It is a woman's own body and her choice about remain pregnant.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I can't prove the existence of consciousness before and after life in a biological body any more than you can disprove it. The location of consciousness before and after life in a biological body is a whole different rabbit hole.


You can't prove it because it does not exist. You need your brain to get to consciousness. The rest about it existing before or after is just hope not reality.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Abortion is not murder, just as pulling life support is not murder. It is a woman's own body and her choice about remain pregnant.


Killing anyone intentionally is murder, unless the purpose and intention is to save, protect, or defend, the life of oneself or another ... or if it is an accident, or death is the result of natural causes. Abortion is not murder, if the purpose and intention is to save the life of a pregnant woman. Otherwise, yes, it is murder.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You can't prove it because it does not exist. You need your brain to get to consciousness. The rest about it existing before or after is just hope not reality.


You can't disprove that consciousness exists before, during, and after, a lifetime in a biological body, with or without a brain. So?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> You can't disprove that consciousness exists before, during, and after, a lifetime in a biological body, with or without a brain. So?


You are the one saying it exists without a brain. You can't provide any evidence it does. The only evidence I need is no one has ever existed without a human brain and you can be a human consciousness without a human brain. Can that consciousness exist in another animal? I think not because it will not be human.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> You are the one saying it exists without a brain. You can't provide any evidence it does. The only evidence I need is no one has ever existed without a human brain and you can be a human consciousness without a human brain. Can that consciousness exist in another animal? I think not because it will not be human.


Maybe she met my ex husband.......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I understand someone wanting to believe in consciousness or what they really mean "soul" existing before or after death but I am a realist. It does not exist unless the neurons are firing in a human brain. 

I am also a realist with regards to what a fetus or a fertilized ovum is depending on where it is in the gestational timetable. It may become a child but it is not until it can survive free of a woman's body. Just a medicine can keep a human body alive when the brain is dead, a woman,s body is needed to let a fetus reach a time where the fetus can be kept alive by medicine. A woman should not be forced to be an incubator if it is not what she wants. Having a baby should always be a choice never a requirement.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Laws about abortion are not based on the beliefs, opinions, or religion, of any one person, or a couple of people (like just painterswife and myself), but are generally agreed upon by the majority of the people where the laws apply.


They're based on the beliefs and opinions of many people rather than the beliefs and opinions of few people, but still based on beliefs and opinions.



CC Pereira said:


> Many people, of both genders, all religions or none, and many backgrounds, including myself, believe that all people (including unborn children) have the right to live, and that killing any living human person (including unborn children) is unethical unless there is a legitimate and ethical reason to do so (such as self defense, or to defend and protect the life of another).


So ethics _are_ based on beliefs?

It seems that more voters in Kansas believe it is ethical to terminate a pregnancy under a wider range of circumstances than those who believe it is only ethical in such limited circumstances as you describe. In other words, what you believe is not generally agreed upon in Kansas.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You are the one saying it exists without a brain. You can't provide any evidence it does. The only evidence I need is no one has ever existed without a human brain and you can be a human consciousness without a human brain. Can that consciousness exist in another animal? I think not because it will not be human.


We have already established that I cannot prove, and you cannot disprove, the existence of consciousness, before, during, and after, a lifetime in a biological body. Many individuals have existed and continue to exist without a human brain ... like plants, mushrooms, and other animals at the beginning of their lives as animals (before and during brain development).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> We have already established that I cannot prove, and you cannot disprove, the existence of consciousness, before, during, and after, a lifetime in a biological body_*. Many individuals have existed and continue to exist without a human brain ... like plants, mushrooms, and other animals at the beginning of their lives as animals (before and during brain development).*_


What?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I understand someone wanting to believe in consciousness or what they really mean "soul" existing before or after death but I am a realist. It does not exist unless the neurons are firing in a human brain.
> 
> I am also a realist with regards to what a fetus or a fertilized ovum is depending on where it is in the gestational timetable. It may become a child but it is not until it can survive free of a woman's body. Just a medicine can keep a human body alive when the brain is dead, a woman,s body is needed to let a fetus reach a time where the fetus can be kept alive by medicine. A woman should not be forced to be an incubator if it is not what she wants. Having a baby should always be a choice never a requirement.


Everything and everyone that exists does not require a human brain to exist. 

A fertilized human egg or fetus is an unborn human child at the beginning of his or her human life.

A woman can choose to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which kills no one, instead of choosing to kill an unborn child ... no force or requirements involved, either way.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Everything and everyone that exists does not require a human brain to exist.
> 
> A fertilized human egg or fetus is an unborn human child at the beginning of his or her human life.
> 
> A woman can choose to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which kills no one, instead of choosing to kill an unborn child ... no force or requirements involved, either way.


Everything is not a human person with a consciousness. They can grow. an ear in a petri dish. It is not a human person. A plant is not a human person. What elevates us above pieces and parts and other animals is our human brain and how it makes consciousness possible. No brain, no consciousness.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> They're based on the beliefs and opinions of many people rather than the beliefs and opinions of few people, but still based on beliefs and opinions.
> 
> 
> So ethics _are_ based on beliefs?
> ...


I was not talking about beliefs and opinions generally, but about PW and my beliefs and opinions specifically. Different states have different voters living there, who will make their own choices about the laws in their states, including laws regarding abortion. Although I disagree with abortions being allowed unless there is a medical reason to do so, it is not my choice or responsibility what laws people in Kansas vote for, because I do not live there.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Everything is not a human person with a consciousness. They can grow. an ear in a petri dish. It is not a human person. A plant is not a human person. What elevates us above pieces and parts and other animals is our human brain and how it makes consciousness possible. No brain, no consciousness.


I did not say that everything is a human person with a consciousness. I said, 'Everything and everyone that exists does not require a human brain to exist'.

An ear grown in a petri dish is part of a human person but will never be able to grow outside of the petri dish or separate from the body of a human or other animal. 

I did not say that a plant is a human person. I said, 'Many individuals have existed and continue to exist without a human brain ... like plants, mushrooms, and other animals at the beginning of their lives as animals (before and during brain development)'. Humans are not elevated above other animals ... such beliefs are based on egotistical fantasy with a side of superiority complex. Human brains do not make consciousness possible, but consciousness does make human brains possible.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I did not say that everything is a human person with a consciousness. I said, 'Everything and everyone that exists does not require a human brain to exist'.
> 
> An ear grown in a petri dish is part of a human person but will never be able to grow outside of the petri dish or separate from the body of a human or other animal.
> 
> I did not say that a plant is a human person. I said, 'Many individuals have existed and continue to exist without a human brain ... like plants, mushrooms, and other animals at the beginning of their lives as animals (before and during brain development)'. Humans are not elevated above other animals ... such beliefs are based on egotistical fantasy with a side of superiority complex. *Human brains do not make consciousness possible, but consciousness does make human brains possible.*


Explain how that happens. Consciousness slips in from the atmosphere and tells the brain to grow? Consciousness knows to choose a human brain instead of a cow brain to float into? Sorry but that theory has no basis in reality and you are spinning and wobbling out on that limb you crawled out on.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Explain how that happens. Consciousness slips in from the atmosphere and tells the brain to grow? Consciousness knows to choose a human brain instead of a cow brain to float into? Sorry but that theory has no basis in reality and you are spinning and wobbling out on that limb you crawled out on.


You explain how it doesn't. Like the brain, consciousness likely takes time and life experience to develop. Like I've said before, neither of us can prove the existence or non-existence of consciousness before, during, and after, a lifetime in a biological body. I believe that human consciousness resonates with that of a human brain -- but again, no one can prove or disprove that, and there is no requirement for anyone else to agree ... which is totally okay.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I'll just leave it at this for now:

Fear causes people to do what is best for themselves, without regard for others.

Love causes people to do what is best for others, without regard for themselves.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

CC Pereira said:


> A woman can choose to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which kills no one, instead of choosing to kill an unborn child ... no force or requirements involved, either way.


What about rape pregnancies? Should we require all females to use some sort of birth control to prevent pregnancy if that female is forced to have sex and bear a child she never wanted? While 2 wrongs don't make a right, it is not right for the female to play host to a life she never wanted.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> What about rape pregnancies? Should we require all females to use some sort of birth control to prevent pregnancy if that female is forced to have sex and bear a child she never wanted? While 2 wrongs don't make a right, it is not right for the female to play host to a life she never wanted.


Let's not forget that quite a few people felt that a very young girl should have been forced to carry to term after she was raped.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Danaus29 said:


> What about rape pregnancies? Should we require all females to use some sort of birth control to prevent pregnancy if that female is forced to have sex and bear a child she never wanted? While 2 wrongs don't make a right, it is not right for the female to play host to a life she never wanted.


You’re right. It’s not right. Nature is rarely fair, though. I don’t say that to mitigate the anguish of becoming impregnated by a rapist. That has to be one of the worst of all possible human experiences. The unfortunate reality is that intercourse is the path to creating new human beings, even when that intercourse is not consensual, and the females of the species are the ones who end up carrying that new human being until it’s ready to be born.

A man can readily be made to pay for raising a child that he didn’t want. It’s even conceivable that a woman take advantage of, or even rape a man to become pregnant, and then force him to pay to raise it. That’s as far as man has been able to come to making that facet of nature fair. It stinks that women got the heavier-lift when it comes to procreation, but that’s the hand we’re dealt.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Let's not forget that quite a few people felt that a very young girl should have been forced to carry to term after she was raped.


There was no realistic reason not to.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Danaus29 said:


> What about rape pregnancies? Should we require all females to use some sort of birth control to prevent pregnancy if that female is forced to have sex and bear a child she never wanted? While 2 wrongs don't make a right, it is not right for the female to play host to a life she never wanted.


Rape actually does involve force, and most if not all states, including most states that ban abortions, provide exceptions for things like legitimate medical reasons, rape, and incest. Rape is not the fault of the victim who is raped, and it is not the fault of unborn children that are conceived in such a way. Contraception is a responsible choice to make, and would in most cases prevent unwanted pregnancies, even if raped -- but I don't think that contraception should be required or prevented.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> Let's not forget that quite a few people felt that a very young girl should have been forced to carry to term after she was raped.


If a 10 year old girl is raped, not only was force involved, but it would be difficult if not impossible for a girl that age to raise a baby to adulthood, and many girls that age would not be able to complete the pregnancy without medical complications, or even death. When I was 10 years old, my body was way too small to go through with a pregnancy and give birth. This is an example as to why in most states that ban abortions, exceptions are provided for legitimate medical reasons, as well as rape and incest.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

15 states with new or impending abortion limits have no exceptions for rape, incest - Poynter


More than 75% of Americans support allowing legal abortions in cases of rape and incest, but many new or forthcoming laws include no such exceptions.




www.poynter.org





"Fifteen of the 22 states with new or forthcoming limits on abortion after Roe do not permit exceptions for rape and incest. This suggests that anti-abortion advocates are no longer willing to go along with such exceptions, despite their widespread adoption over decades. This position puts anti-abortion advocates and politicians on a collision course with public opinion, which strongly opposes forcing rape and incest survivors to carry pregnancies to term. "


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CC Pereira said:


> If a 10 year old girl is raped, not only was force involved, but it would be difficult if not impossible for a girl that age to raise a baby to adulthood, and many girls that age would not be able to complete the pregnancy without medical complications, or even death. When I was 10 years old, my body was way too small to go through with a pregnancy and give birth. This is an example as to why in most states that ban abortions, exceptions are provided for legitimate medical reasons, as well as rape and incest.


Yup, and if this is the case I think it is, Ohio makes such an exemption for medical reasons… but there were no such complications at the time.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

The problem with rape is -- anyone could accuse anyone of rape, but how does one prove they are raped, and how long would it take? If there is no requirement for proof, then a woman could claim she was raped and use that as a legal excuse to get an abortion, even if she wasn't raped. And how would the man who impregnated her feel if he found out later that he was accused of rape, he may have legal and other consequences for the alleged raped, and his unborn child was allowed to be killed as a result?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> 15 states with new or impending abortion limits have no exceptions for rape, incest - Poynter
> 
> 
> More than 75% of Americans support allowing legal abortions in cases of rape and incest, but many new or forthcoming laws include no such exceptions.
> ...


The people of those states have made their choice, and the people of other states have made theirs. Such laws can also be changed in the future, if the people living in those states choose to participate in such changes. In the meantime, some states ban abortions but provide exceptions for legitimate medical reasons, rape, and incest, while about half of the states allow abortions for any reason or none, so anyone who wants an abortion can go to one of those states to have it done. As of yet, people are still free to kill unborn babies -- they just might have to go to a different state to do it. Seems pretty fair to me. At least _some _lives will be saved.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> The people of those states have made their choice, and the people of other states have made theirs. Such laws can also be changed in the future, if the people living in those states choose to participate in such changes. In the meantime, some states ban abortions but provide exceptions for legitimate medical reasons, rape, and incest, while about half of the states allow abortions for any reason or none, so anyone who wants an abortion can go to one of those states to have it done. As of yet, people are still free to kill unborn babies -- they just might have to go to a different state to do it. Seems pretty fair to me. At least _some _lives will be saved.


No, the politicians made their choice. It has not been put to a vote of the people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No, the politicians made their choice. It has not been put to a vote of the people.


But at least now it can be.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> But at least now it can be.


I doubt that those states creating those laws right now would take it to the people. I hope they will because it is obvious those laws will fail.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I doubt that those states creating those laws right now would take it to the people. I hope they will because it is obvious those laws will fail.


Well the people did elect those politicians now didn’t they?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I think this abortion thing will eventually work itself out in time. Everyone will never agree on everything, but I think when all is said and done on this one, there will be a balance to be had.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CC Pereira said:


> I think this abortion thing will eventually work itself out in time. Everyone will never agree on everything, but I think when all is said and done on this one, there will be a balance to be had.


And with luck all fifty states will ban this hideous monstrosity!


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> And with luck all fifty states will ban this hideous monstrosity!


Who needs luck when you have God on your side?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> Well the people did elect those politicians now didn’t they?


Somebody elected your president. Should you afford him the same courtesy?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

CC Pereira said:


> If a 10 year old girl is raped, not only was force involved, but it would be difficult if not impossible for a girl that age to raise a baby to adulthood, and many girls that age would not be able to complete the pregnancy without medical complications, or even death. When I was 10 years old, my body was way too small to go through with a pregnancy and give birth. This is an example as to why in most states that ban abortions, exceptions are provided for legitimate medical reasons, as well as rape and incest.





Evons hubby said:


> Yup, and if this is the case I think it is, Ohio makes such an exemption for medical reasons… but there were no such complications at the time.


And what 10 year old girl would think about the possibility that she was pregnant? She would be in 5th grade at the most and sex education is not always taught that early. When the pregnancy was discovered it was too far along for an abortion under Ohio law. Ohio law does not allow for abortion after a set time for any reason except the imminent threat to the *LIFE* of the mother. It doesn't matter that a 10 year old girl is not ready, physically or mentally, to endure pregnancy and childbirth. It doesn't matter that pregnancy and childbirth at such a young age would likely cause permanent damage to her body. All the legislators care about is the *LIFE* of the mother.

And no, the restriction was not ever put to vote. It was not open for public comment. Before Roe v Wade was overturned no one thought about it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Somebody elected your president. Should you afford him the same courtesy?


I’m not quite sure I understand? How does our president play into this? He has no say whatsoever in state laws. As is rightfully so according to our constitution.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Ohio law does not allow for abortion after a set time for any reason except the imminent threat to the *LIFE* of the mother. It doesn't matter that a 10 year old girl is not ready, physically or mentally, to endure pregnancy and childbirth. It doesn't matter that pregnancy and childbirth at such a young age would likely cause permanent damage to her body. All the legislators care about is the *LIFE* of the mother.


not exactly true. The exemption does include permanent damage to the mother’s body, it doesn’t have to lead to her demise. The doctors saw no such condition at the present time. Fear not, her parents got her to a state that allows convenience murder, killed the innocent child and will not be held accountable.

”a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.”


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

It does not allow an exception for her body, only for substantial impairment of a major bodily function. Major bodily functions are not spelled out and the legal challenges will take years to work out.





__





Section 2919.201 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws







codes.ohio.gov





No one said the parents will not have to account for their actions. Some had said the action might have been necessary for the health and well being of their child.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> No one said the parents will not have to account for their actions. Some had said the action might have been necessary for the health and well being of their child.


might have been? Not according to the attending physician. Not sure aunt mables diagnosis counts.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Either way, her parents made that choice. A delay of 3 days made this story public. 

The piece of poop that raped her has pled "not guilty"









Man accused of raping 10-year-old girl who then left Ohio for abortion pleads not guilty


The girl was 10 years old when she sought an abortion; the indictment says she was 9 years old when the rapes took place.




abc7chicago.com


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> might have been? Not according to the attending physician. Not sure aunt mables diagnosis counts.


So, you’re assumptions and pseudo opinions would also have been irrelevant. I believe you were pretty convinced that the child should have carried to term.

Perhaps abortion should be a decision between a woman and a qualified doctor.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Women who are less than 16 are more likely to have trouble giving birth. I shudder to think of the problems that a 10 year old would have. Not COULD have: WOULD have


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Terri said:


> Women who are less than 16 are more likely to have trouble giving birth. I shudder to think of the problems that a 10 year old would have. Not COULD have: WOULD have


She had turned 10 between the time she was raped and discovering she was pregnant according to one of the articles I read.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

wr said:


> Perhaps abortion should be a decision between a woman and a qualified doctor.


It’s already an issue between the mother and God, and the doctor and God. If we don’t do what we can to stop it, it becomes a matter between us and God as well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> So, you’re assumptions and pseudo opinions would also have been irrelevant. I believe you were pretty convinced that the child should have carried to term.


Unless the baby actually creates cause for concern, yes, it should have been allowed to live.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> Unless the baby actually creates cause for concern, yes, it should have been allowed to live.


But it did according to doctors and you are not a qualified medical professional nor had you read her medical file. Correct?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It’s already an issue between the mother and God, and the doctor and God. If we don’t do what we can to stop it, it becomes a matter between us and God as well.


That is your faith and I do understand. 

My faith is strongly against judging others and I don’t understand why I must conform my spiritual beliefs to accommodate someone else.

I was not the young girl’s doctor and neither were you so without seeing her medical records, I don’t believe any of us are in a position to make decisions on her behalf.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Whether or not abortion occurs is actually a decision that should involve not just a pregnant woman (or girl and parents), but also the man who impregnated a woman (unless he raped her), and a qualified health care provider (such as an OBGYN). Then of course, there are others involved in such a decision, such as those who make, enforce, and vote for or against state laws, regarding abortions in the applicable state(s), as well as those who provide abortions, and others who pay for abortions (such as insurance companies, government programs, NPOs, employers, etc.).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The decision on whether an abortion should happen is with the person who is pregnant. She may consult who ever she wishes but she decides.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> The decision on whether an abortion should happen is with the person who is pregnant. She may consult who ever she wishes but she decides.


If the woman or girl impregnated herself, and would be the only person involved or affected by an abortion, then sure, it would only be up to her. In reality however, all pregnancies involve a woman or girl who is impregnated, a man or boy who impregnates her, and their unborn child. Abortions also do not perform themselves or pay for themselves. People who vote for, create, and enforce abortion laws, are also necessarily involved.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

She must carry it, so it is her ultimate decision. Very simple


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> She must carry it, so it is her ultimate decision. Very simple


Nope. An abortion does not only affect or involve a pregnant woman, so others are necessarily involved -- which is why we have things like the overturning of Roe vs Wade, and state laws that regulate abortions in each state ... and rightly so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Nope. An abortion does not only affect or involve a pregnant woman, so others are necessarily involved -- which is why we have things like the overturning of Roe vs Wade, and state laws that regulate abortions in each state ... and rightly so.


Until someone else can carry it they only get a say if she allows it. You go-ahead and try to get a law passed that says different.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Until someone else can carry it they only get a say if she allows it. You go-ahead and try to get a law passed that says different.


Actually there are already laws in place, and that are still being made and voted for / against, in each state, which do and will continue to regulate abortions, in order to protect and defend the lives of pregnant woman _and their unborn children_.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

wr said:


> That is your faith and I do understand.
> 
> My faith is strongly against judging others and I don’t understand why I must conform my spiritual beliefs to accommodate someone else.
> 
> I was not the young girl’s doctor and neither were you so without seeing her medical records, I don’t believe any of us are in a position to make decisions on her behalf.


Understand, though, that it’s not my Faith that tells me I have to to what I can to stop abortion. I had Faith before I had an awakening on abortion, and I’ve been compelled to stop abortion at times in my life when I was without Faith.

Abortion is the abuse and murder of the weak. The moral consideration that would drive me to stand up for a frail old woman being physically attacked is the same one that drives me to stop abortion.

That I happen to believe that He will one day judge me for my action, or lack thereof, in both of those scenarios is only a tangentially related point.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Oh you conservatives have many things God will address at the pearly gates.
Such as wasting your time on conspiracy theories..









In bizarre move, recount requested in Kansas abortion amendment. What does it mean?


An election conspiracy theorist requested a recount of the defeated Kansas abortion constitution amendment, though it's unlikely to change the result.



www.cjonline.com





A private citizen who has promoted election conspiracy theories has requested a hand recount of the defeated Kansas abortion constitution amendment, even though it will almost certainly not change the final result.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Understand, though, that it’s not my Faith that tells me I have to to what I can to stop abortion. I had Faith before I had an awakening on abortion, and I’ve been compelled to stop abortion at times in my life when I was without Faith.
> 
> Abortion is the abuse and murder of the weak. The moral consideration that would drive me to stand up for a frail old woman being physically attacked is the same one that drives me to stop abortion.
> 
> That I happen to believe that He will one day judge me for my action, or lack thereof, in both of those scenarios is only a tangentially related point.


Understand though, I don’t feel that authorizes you to dictate my spiritual beliefs.

I have no problem with you stating that you feel abortion is sinful but I’ve always found extremely gracious in most conversations but in this case, you’re content to insult, belittle and degrade anyone you think stands in your way.

I have no desire to push my spiritual beliefs on anyone and expect not to be insulted for mine. I truly expect much different from you in discussion and generally enjoy my conversations with you even when we don’t always agree.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> But it did according to doctors and you are not a qualified medical professional nor had you read her medical file. TsCorrect?


The reports I read said she had been examined by qualified doctors and no such dangerous conditions existed, hence her parents, opted to take her out of state where they could have it done where no such requirements existed.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

wr said:


> Understand though, I don’t feel that authorizes you to dictate my spiritual beliefs.
> 
> I have no problem with you stating that you feel abortion is sinful but I’ve always found extremely gracious in most conversations but in this case, you’re content to insult, belittle and degrade anyone you think stands in your way.
> 
> I have no desire to push my spiritual beliefs on anyone and expect not to be insulted for mine. I truly expect much different from you in discussion and generally enjoy my conversations with you even when we don’t always agree.


You’re intentionally conflating my Faith with my morals. They are nearly always in alignment, but not necessarily driven by the same source. My stand against abortion is consistent with my Faith, but would be the same if I were absent Faith.

I don’t steal because I know it is wrong. That God will judge me accordingly if I do is not my only compunction against it.

I stand against the murder of the unborn because they are the most vulnerable amongst us, and it is right to try to protect them. That God will judge me accordingly if I do not is not my only compunction against it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Many believe that the person carrying the fetus, rights are dominant in deciding whether her own body should be forced to carry a pregnancy.


Many believe otherwise!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re intentionally conflating my Faith with my morals. They are nearly always in alignment, but not necessarily driven by the same source. My stand against abortion is consistent with my Faith, but would be the same if I were absent Faith.
> 
> I don’t steal because I know it is wrong. That God will judge me accordingly if I do is not my only compunction against it.
> 
> I stand against the murder of the unborn because they are the most vulnerable amongst us, and it is right to try to protect them. That God will judge me accordingly if I do not is not my only compunction against it.


My stance is also consistent and I welcome discussion but insults really don’t change people’s minds or foster constructive communication.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

wr said:


> My stance is also consistent and I welcome discussion but insults really don’t change people’s minds or foster constructive communication.


What in the world are you talking about? Show me where I insulted you.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> A man can readily be made to pay for raising a child that he didn’t want. It’s even conceivable that a woman take advantage of, or even rape a man to become pregnant, and then force him to pay to raise it. That’s as far as man has been able to come to making that facet of nature fair. It stinks that women got the heavier-lift when it comes to procreation, but that’s the hand we’re dealt.


Not always can men be forced to pay and if they don't want to they can be pretty creative about avoiding it. I would suggest that someone incarcerated for sexual assualt has absolutely no means to pay and there will be no support.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> The problem with rape is -- anyone could accuse anyone of rape, but how does one prove they are raped, and how long would it take? If there is no requirement for proof, then a woman could claim she was raped and use that as a legal excuse to get an abortion, even if she wasn't raped. And how would the man who impregnated her feel if he found out later that he was accused of rape, he may have legal and other consequences for the alleged raped, and his unborn child was allowed to be killed as a result?


Are you advocating to remove sexual assault laws as well? That seems fairly harsh.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

wr said:


> Not always can men be forced to pay and if they don't want to they can be pretty creative about avoiding it. I would suggest that someone incarcerated for sexual assualt has absolutely no means to pay and there will be no support.


You’re right. There are exceptions to every rule, in this case law, but the exceptions are less common than the norm. Even in just my small circle of influence, I had a couple friends who ended up shackled to child support for children they didn’t want. Illuminating the exceptions doesn’t wave away the problem.

Are you going to mention where I insulted you, or were you just talking crap because I disagreed with you?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re right. There are exceptions to every rule, in this case law, but the exceptions are less common than the norm. Even in just my small circle of influence, I had a couple friends who ended up shackled to child support for children they didn’t want. Illuminating the exceptions doesn’t wave away the problem.
> 
> Are you going to mention where I insulted you, or were you just talking crap because I disagreed with you?


My comment was directed at broad insults not just personal insults, which you have been quick with to anyone who disagrees, not personally. 

I do know men who are saddled with child support that isn't financially comfortable but I know more than a few who have figured out how to skirt payments. 

I just had a past employee demand he be paid in cash because he's deeply in arrears on child support and his daughter he does happen to want to support has Down's Syndrome and is an absolute sweetheart and he's not alone. 

Some hide behind incorporating small companies and others make sure they remain under employed but that's a whole discussion for another day.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

wr said:


> My comment was directed at broad insults not just personal insults, which you have been quick with to anyone who disagrees, not personally.
> 
> I do know men who are saddled with child support that isn't financially comfortable but I know more than a few who have figured out how to skirt payments.
> 
> ...


If I insult anyone, it’s only after they insult me personally or as a member of a group behind which they’re trying to level their ad hominem attacks. I know that I am frequently biting, but if you look at any of the posters that I take that approach with, you’ll find that they disrespected me first. That’s a fact. 

This is the second time in recent memory where you’ve taken a position of offense and accused me of something I didn’t do. In this most recent discussion, I didn’t say anything that could even be construed as a direct insult. I just had the gall to make solid arguments for a position with which you strongly disagree. A few weeks ago, it was accusing me of wanting to “out” your mentally disturbed friend who thinks he’s a woman. When I asked you to point out where I said I wished to “out” him, you didn’t because you couldn’t. 

If you think that I am uniquely insulting, which is obviously against the rules of this board, perhaps you should consider banning me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You do go out of your way to insult other posters.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You do go out of your way to insult other posters.


Why do you do it?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> You do go out of your way to insult other posters.


That was exactly my point. You’ve hurled more than your fair share of insults. If you ask the folks whom I’ve not gotten sharp with, you’ll find one common thread: they’ve never insulted or told lies about me or my friends.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That was exactly my point. You’ve hurled more than your fair share of insults. If you ask the folks whom I’ve not gotten sharp with, you’ll find one common thread: they’ve never insulted or told lies about me or my friends.


So because some hurled insults in the past, you are free to hurl them continuously and in perpatuatity even though they are not hurling them now.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> So because some hurled insults in the past, you are free to hurl them continuously and in perpatuatity even though they are not hurling them now.


You’re adding a bunch to what I said. 
I said exactly what I said, and it’s a few posts above this one if anyone wants to reference it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You do go out of your way to insult other posters.


It is about as offensive as lying, wouldn't you say?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I saw this posted on the office wall of an auctioneer's wife not long ago.

During a severe drought, the townspeople decided to come together and pray for rain. On the day that everyone gathered, only one young boy brought an umbrella. That is faith.

A baby tossed into the air will laugh while believing that you will catch them. That is trust.

We have no assurance when we go to bed that we will live to see another day. Yet we set the alarm clock. That is hope.

We plan tomorrow with no guarantees. That is confidence.

We see the suffering and injustices of the world, yet we marry and have children. That is love.

An 80 year old man wore a t-shirt that said. I am 16 years old with 64 years of experience. That is attitude.

Everyone is here because they were intended to be; not by us but by God. We may not always agree with our boss, our parents or the judge, but doing their job for them is not what we were meant to do.


----------

