# A question for pro-choice supporters



## nchobbyfarm

The other thread raised my curiousity on another subject.

Do those that are pro-choice also support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or similar state laws?

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

If so, I cannot understand how you can call an aborted fetus tissue in one instance and then call the exact same aged fetus a human being in the other. Doesn't this create a bit of a moral dilemma?

The definition of murder is the killing of a human being or person depending on the dictionary.

And please understand, this is not start another abortion war as there are enough of those. I understand abortion is legal and an internet argument won't change the laws or others minds. I am truly just interested in learning the rationale.


----------



## Irish Pixie

nchobbyfarm said:


> The other thread raised my curiousity on another subject.
> 
> Do those that are pro-choice also support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or similar state laws?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
> 
> If so, I cannot understand how you can call an aborted fetus tissue in one instance and then call the exact same aged fetus a human being in the other. Doesn't this create a bit of a moral dilemma?
> 
> The definition of murder is the killing of a human being or person depending on the dictionary.
> 
> And please understand, this is not start another abortion war as there are enough of those. I understand abortion is legal and an internet argument won't change the laws or others minds. I am truly just interested in learning the rationale.


To what end? You've used the definition of murder in conjunction with abortion so you've made your intent absolute. 

No. I'm not wasting my time and explaining my personal opinion to you.


----------



## mreynolds

nchobbyfarm said:


> The other thread raised my curiousity on another subject.
> 
> Do those that are pro-choice also support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or similar state laws?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
> 
> If so, I cannot understand how you can call an aborted fetus tissue in one instance and then call the exact same aged fetus a human being in the other. Doesn't this create a bit of a moral dilemma?
> 
> The definition of murder is the killing of a human being or person depending on the dictionary.
> 
> And please understand, this is not start another abortion war as there are enough of those. I understand abortion is legal and an internet argument won't change the laws or others minds. I am truly just interested in learning the rationale.


While I cant speak for others I would think it would be more about peoples individual choices and their rights to those choices. IE, it would be a personal choice to have an abortion but to be beat on and lose a baby that they wanted to keep would not have been their choice.


----------



## kasilofhome

Daddies don't have a say about their baby....wonder why women complain when a baby is born daddies might not be involved... 

Abort... Daddies are shut out.


----------



## 7thswan

Maybe that saying about some people being more equal than others comes into effect.


----------



## painterswife

nchobbyfarm said:


> The other thread raised my curiousity on another subject.
> 
> Do those that are pro-choice also support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or similar state laws?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
> 
> If so, I cannot understand how you can call an aborted fetus tissue in one instance and then call the exact same aged fetus a human being in the other. Doesn't this create a bit of a moral dilemma?
> 
> The definition of murder is the killing of a human being or person depending on the dictionary.
> 
> And please understand, this is not start another abortion war as there are enough of those. I understand abortion is legal and an internet argument won't change the laws or others minds. I am truly just interested in learning the rationale.


This could be a good discussion but the judgement has started and leaves no room for a good exchange of information.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> This could be a good discussion but the judgement has started and leaves no room for a good exchange of information.


Maybe you could turn the tide of the discussion by giving a well thought out and logical answer?


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe you could turn the tide of the discussion by giving a well thought out and *logical answer*?



You have already judged responses wanting when you don't even know what I or others would say. Not a good basis for a discussion on a very sensitive a personal situation for most people..


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

painterswife said:


> a discussion on a very sensitive a *personal situation* for most people..


Thank you PW. Post of the day right there.

I really don't get people... Why is it we must stick our pig noses into other peoples business? What ever happened to "mind your own business"?

It is rather simple - If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T DO IT, shut yer yap and move on. If you do believe in abortion, get one if necessary, shut yer yap and move on. Personal choice, not public.

To the OP - Baited question beggin' for an argument.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> You have already judged responses wanting when you don't even know what I or others would say. Not a good basis for a discussion on a very sensitive a personal situation for most people..


I was being sincere
I do agree it's a personal situation for a lot of people.
Remember, it may be the mother's decision, but she's not the only one affected.
The death of a baby ripples and touches many lives.


----------



## 7thswan

Cornhusker said:


> I was being sincere
> I do agree it's a personal situation for a lot of people.
> Remember, it may be the mother's decision, but she's not the only one affected.
> The death of a baby ripples and touches many lives.


As does having a Baby and giveing it up for adoption. 
Strangely , that hardly ever is thought of as an alternative.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> As does having a Baby and giveing it up for adoption.
> Strangely , that hardly ever is thought of as an alternative.


How would you have a clue about that? have you interviewed every person who has had an abortion? That kind of blanket statement hurts any discussion that could take place.


----------



## FutureFarm

If you don't like abortions, don't have an abortion. If you don't like murder, don't murder anyone. If you don't like defamation don't defame anyone. 
Would you want all immoral activity treated the same as abortion. To me someone who has an abortion is the same as a person who rapes an unconscious person. In both instances a person takes advantage of the weaker person's inability to make a decision. In both cases the aggressor commits the immoral act for personal gain or concurrence. Both immoral acts are irreversible. 
The one difference is that the victim of rape has an opportunity to heal from the trauma.
ETA: Another difference, one is a crime and the other isn't.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> How would you have a clue about that? have you interviewed every person who has had an abortion? That kind of blanket statement hurts any discussion that could take place.


Because I gave up a Child. I could not bear to have him grow up in the hell I was liveing in at the time. Funny huh, I thought about the Baby more than myself.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> Because I gave up a Child. I could not bear to have him grow up in the hell I was liveing in at the time. Funny huh, I thought about the Baby more than myself.


So you can speak for yourself. You cannot know what others consider before they make a decision for themselves.


----------



## FutureFarm

We stick our "pig noses" into the whole world's business defending human rights. We send our military men and women to die for human rights overseas. We fought a whole Civil War about human rights. As a nation we decided that we would not stand idly by as atrocities happen across the world, yet we let the atrocities continue in our own country? The right to life is a human right. Anyone denying another their right to life without just cause ought to be stopped and face justice.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> So you can speak for yourself. You cannot know what others consider before they make a decision for themselves.


Can you?
Why not discuss instead of the constant lashing out?


----------



## AmericanStand

painterswife said:


> So you can speak for yourself. You cannot know what others consider before they make a decision for themselves.



That's why we have discussions. 
This question is a big one that people of wisdom may not agree on but still want to understand the other sides logic. 

It's hard to change some one views even your own but it is posable sometimes when people of honesty and goodwill exchange ideas. 
You seem to be against the idea of open honest exchange simply because others may not agree with you.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

painterswife said:


> This could be a good discussion but the judgement has started and leaves no room for a good exchange of information.


A good discussion was my intent. I tried to lay out the reasons I asked by giving as much info as possible including a definition. I thought civil, intellectual discussion was the goal. Maybe someone else could ask it better. But I agree, this thread is already to far off the rails.

I will ask that the thread be locked because we have enough going for the bickering. I give up on actual exchange of ideas. I had hoped to understand the other side of the issue so that I might question my stance. Oh well.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Can you?
> Why not discuss instead of the constant lashing out?


Do you not understand that discussing that kind of personal decision with people that have already judged someone's morals without ever knowing the real reasons they made a decision one way or another is neither productive or safe?


----------



## painterswife

nchobbyfarm said:


> A good discussion was my intent. I tried to lay out the reasons I asked by giving as much info as possible including a definition. I thought civil, intellectual discussion was the goal. Maybe someone else could ask it better. But I agree, this thread is already to far off the rails.
> 
> I will ask that the thread be locked because we have enough going for the bickering. I give up on actual exchange of ideas. I had hoped to understand the other side of the issue so that I might question my stance. Oh well.


I know you had great intentions. It is sad because this could have been very eye opening for some.


----------



## MDKatie

The easiest way to put it is this:

1. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Pro-choice simply means one thinks one should be able to make a choice, that it's not anyone else's decision what she does with her body.

2. A legit medical procedure is not at all the same as a violent crime committed on an unwilling victim.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Do you not understand that discussing that kind of personal decision with people that have already judged someone's morals without ever knowing the real reasons they made a decision one way or another is neither productive or safe?


Why yes, I do understand, especially since you already judged me.


----------



## FutureFarm

1. I understand that pro choice does not equal pro abortion, but it allows for the possibility. I believe in everyone's right to do whatever the want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. In the example of abortion, the mother's right to do what she wants with her body should not interfere with the baby's right to life. I support an individual's right to do whatever they want with their property, but in the example of murder, an individual's right to use their property how they want should not allow them to bury a knife in their neighbor's throat. 
2. A medical procedure is sometimes required to save a woman's life. In most abortion cases a non essential medical procedure is the same as a crime on an unwilling victim from the baby's perspective. 
I think abortion should only be done in instances of self defense. If the baby is trying to kill you, then and only then, it is morally allowable. If you're in a position to take another person's life, your own life had better be threatened.


----------



## my3boys

MDKatie said:


> The easiest way to put it is this:
> 
> 1. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Pro-choice simply means one thinks one should be able to make a choice, that it's not anyone else's decision what she does with her body.
> 
> 2. A legit medical procedure is not at all the same as a violent crime committed on an unwilling victim.


1. Except that it's not just her body. She's also deciding what happens to the baby's body. Two completely separate individuals.

2. It may be a medical procedure, but it's one that involves crushing and dismembering the baby. Those are extremely violent acts and not one the unborn child has any say in.

3. The fact that it's legal doesn't make it ok. Slavery was perfectly legal at one time also. Did that make it right?

If someone is on the fence regarding abortion, they should go look at 3D ultrasounds of unborn babies. They are readily available for viewing online. Look at those and then say that isn't a living human being.


----------



## watcher

GREEN_ALIEN said:


> Thank you PW. Post of the day right there.
> 
> I really don't get people... Why is it we must stick our pig noses into other peoples business? What ever happened to "mind your own business"?
> 
> It is rather simple - If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T DO IT, shut yer yap and move on. If you do believe in abortion, get one if necessary, shut yer yap and move on. Personal choice, not public.
> 
> To the OP - Baited question beggin' for an argument.


The problem comes in when your business has an effect on another. Should I mind my own business if someone chooses to beat their spouse? What if they are sexually molesting their kids?

Now if a fetus is nothing but a mass of tissue then neither abortion nor causing a woman to miscarry is homicide. But if it is considered a human then it is.

Here's another thing abortionist don't want us to think about. The 'mass of tissue', aka fetus, has a different DNA than the mother making it a different being.


----------



## watcher

Here's my view/stand on abortion with all religious objections removed.

The fetus has different DNA than the mother it should not be considered nothing more than a mass of tissue growing in her.

Science has shown us that we do NOT know just when a fetus can be considered a person. Many people alive today would have been "still born" even a decade ago. When in doubt we should always err on the side of life.

Because a fetus is or will be a person ending its development artificially should be considered homicide. There are times when homicide is legally and morally justified. This applies to all humans. One of those times is if a human is causing grievous bodily harm to another. If carrying a fetus to term places the mother in danger then killing it is legally and morally justified.


----------



## wiscto

nchobbyfarm said:


> The other thread raised my curiousity on another subject.
> 
> Do those that are pro-choice also support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or similar state laws?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
> 
> If so, I cannot understand how you can call an aborted fetus tissue in one instance and then call the exact same aged fetus a human being in the other. Doesn't this create a bit of a moral dilemma?
> 
> The definition of murder is the killing of a human being or person depending on the dictionary.
> 
> And please understand, this is not start another abortion war as there are enough of those. I understand abortion is legal and an internet argument won't change the laws or others minds. I am truly just interested in learning the rationale.


To be honest, I don't really agree with the unborn victims act, but I do agree that it points out a moral dilemma. And I think it was created to do just that, without regard for the debate or the current legal status of the unborn, or regard for the sensible discussion that we desperately need to have in this country...which is why I don't agree with it.

But I'm not really a typical pro-choicer. I do believe that we need to define (very carefully and thoroughly) the point in time when that unborn fetus becomes a self aware human being who can be afraid, who can feel the fundamental need to survive. So I do believe that if a person murders a woman who is carrying a fetus who has reached that point in development, that murderer has committed a double homicide. 

I just think that the unborn victims act needs to reflect whatever the current laws regarding the rights of the unborn are. While I do want those laws to change, I'm not really willing to circumvent them.


----------



## wr

OP has requested this thread be locked down because they were looking to understand and learn something so please keep conversation civil and refrain from personal attacks.


----------



## BlackFeather

I was just musing, we place a great value on unborn animal life. We hunt deer in the fall because the male is searching to get the female pregnant, but after rutting season, no hunting. We are allowed 2 doe with a permit here in NY. No hunting while the female is pregnant or when she has a small fawn. We protect the unborn and young animal. Same with turkey, Female can only be hunted in the fall when her young are grown. But not in the spring when she is ready to lay and set on eggs. I'm sure this applies to most animals hunted. Yet as people we care less for the preservation of the unborn of our own species.

Or as my daughter has mused, we will spend billions to send probes to Mars to look for a single celled organism and call it life, and be over joyed to find it. Yet if we have a miniature human developing inside a mother's body and if it is inconvenient for us, we'll just dispose of it. Something doesn't add up.


----------



## Oxankle

Leave morality out of it. What ARE the reasons for killing a child? To many? Why conceive then--tubal ligations have been around quite a while, as have vasectomies. 

Conceived out of wedlock, shame? You'd kill a child to spare yourself embarrassment?

To save the mother's life when continuing the pregnancy might kill her? Society decided this was moral many years ago. Not even a hard choice now. (Might KILL her, not embarrass her.)

Spina bifida, no brain, some other awful defect? Incestuous or other rape? These are the hard cases that make bad law--I cannot explain these any more than you can. 

Are there any other reasons for abortion? The medical reasons and those of incest and rape are very few--most of the others are to spare someone embarrassment.


----------



## my3boys

BlackFeather said:


> I was just musing, we place a great value on unborn animal life. We hunt deer in the fall because the male is searching to get the female pregnant, but after rutting season, no hunting. We are allowed 2 doe with a permit here in NY. No hunting while the female is pregnant or when she has a small fawn. We protect the unborn and young animal. Same with turkey, Female can only be hunted in the fall when her young are grown. But not in the spring when she is ready to lay and set on eggs. I'm sure this applies to most animals hunted. Yet as people we care less for the preservation of the unborn of our own species.
> 
> Or as my daughter has mused, we will spend billions to send probes to Mars to look for a single celled organism and call it life, and be over joyed to find it. Yet if we have a miniature human developing inside a mother's body and if it is inconvenient for us, we'll just dispose of it. Something doesn't add up.



Radical environmentalists, who make up a significant part of the liberal coalition represented largely by the Democratic Party, regards man as bad for "Mother Earth". Hence the protection of the environment and animal and plant life that does not extend to unborn humans.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Leave morality out of it. What ARE the reasons for killing a child? To many? Why conceive then--tubal ligations have been around quite a while, as have vasectomies.
> 
> Conceived out of wedlock, shame? You'd kill a child to spare yourself embarrassment?
> 
> To save the mother's life when continuing the pregnancy might kill her? Society decided this was moral many years ago. Not even a hard choice now. (Might KILL her, not embarrass her.)
> 
> Spina bifida, no brain, some other awful defect? Incestuous or other rape? These are the hard cases that make bad law--I cannot explain these any more than you can.
> 
> Are there any other reasons for abortion? The medical reasons and those of incest and rape are very few--most of the others are to spare someone embarrassment.


Yet you haven't left _your_ morality out of anything. Just sayin'.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> So you can speak for yourself. You cannot know what others consider before they make a decision for themselves.


Sure I can , all kinds of diffrent thoughts go thru most peoples minds before they make a final descion. I know some people don't think things out. Some regret it later ,some don't. I'd say, as probably exactly why the OP asked the question-I'm guessing men would have a hard time imagineing what it's like to have a little person inside themselves. I think many would have been like me-very protective.I bet many women won't even let themselves think they have a Being inside themsleves because it's better to not think of it that way, if they are going to abort. But when that baby is a baby to the person carrying it, and suddenly one is holding that baby, things can change 100%. I've heard people asked ,why not have the baby and give it up for adoption-they say, I couldn't do it then. But it's acceptable to abort. I guess they have to have that mindset to protect themselves from the "what if" or the guilt. 
Saying it's a womans choice,her body, sure sounds selfish/shallow to people that think of the Baby. I don't know how people that are ok with abortions are going to get over that hurdle,but being defensive or insenctive doesn't help a thing. Pro life people are simply not going to feel for the woman when they first think of the baby, and that is nature.

The reason I mention the changeing 100% after the birth. I had never thought of giveing up my baby, until I held him. Everything changed in that moment, I knew I wanted so much more for him than the kind of life he would have,in mine.


----------



## my3boys

Oxankle said:


> Leave morality out of it. What ARE the reasons for killing a child? To many? Why conceive then--tubal ligations have been around quite a while, as have vasectomies.
> 
> Conceived out of wedlock, shame? You'd kill a child to spare yourself embarrassment?
> 
> To save the mother's life when continuing the pregnancy might kill her? Society decided this was moral many years ago. Not even a hard choice now. (Might KILL her, not embarrass her.)
> 
> Spina bifida, no brain, some other awful defect? Incestuous or other rape? These are the hard cases that make bad law--I cannot explain these any more than you can.
> 
> Are there any other reasons for abortion? The medical reasons and those of incest and rape are very few--most of the others are to spare someone embarrassment.


Inconvenience. Probably the biggest reason, IMO. Just another method of birth control.


----------



## wr

7thswan said:


> As does having a Baby and giveing it up for adoption.
> Strangely , that hardly ever is thought of as an alternative.


I'm not sure about American statistics but it seems there is a high demand in Canada for healthy white babies but not so much for those that have birth defects, FAC, biracial or just non white.


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

watcher said:


> The problem comes in when your business has an effect on another. Should I mind my own business if someone chooses to beat their spouse? What if they are sexually molesting their kids?
> 
> Now if a fetus is nothing but a mass of tissue then neither abortion nor causing a woman to miscarry is homicide. But if it is considered a human then it is.
> 
> Here's another thing abortionist don't want us to think about. The 'mass of tissue', aka fetus, has a different DNA than the mother making it a different being.


There is no problem. We have laws against spousal abuse, we have laws against molestation and the law of this land is for abortion. Thus we can mind our own business.

Keep in mind that I don't believe in nor would ever advocate for non medically necessary abortion. I would however defend someones legal rights.

If it doesn't affect me or mine, or the laws of the land, I mind my own business.


----------



## wr

Oxankle said:


> Leave morality out of it. What ARE the reasons for killing a child? To many? Why conceive then--tubal ligations have been around quite a while, as have vasectomies.
> 
> Conceived out of wedlock, shame? You'd kill a child to spare yourself embarrassment?
> 
> To save the mother's life when continuing the pregnancy might kill her? Society decided this was moral many years ago. Not even a hard choice now. (Might KILL her, not embarrass her.)
> 
> Spina bifida, no brain, some other awful defect? Incestuous or other rape? These are the hard cases that make bad law--I cannot explain these any more than you can.
> 
> Are there any other reasons for abortion? The medical reasons and those of incest and rape are very few--most of the others are to spare someone embarrassment.


It's interesting you brought up tubal ligation because doctors won't perform the procedure on women who have had no children, even when those same women indicate that they do not ever want to have children. 

If you're okay with abortion for birth defects like spina bifida, where do you draw the line? What about organs outside the body (which can often be surgically corrected) or Down's Syndrome or the Thalidomide babies of years past? Beyond legal reasons, why would you condone abortion for rape or incest since it's still morally considered killing? 

Do you condone abortion for women who are crack or alcohol addicted because their children are born addicted and suffer severe challenges. 

I don't see your comments as being much different than those who advocate choice. You've simply set different parameters that you agree with as making it all okay.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

MDKatie said:


> The easiest way to put it is this:
> 
> 1. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Pro-choice simply means one thinks one should be able to make a choice, that it's not anyone else's decision what she does with her body.
> 
> 2. A legit medical procedure is not at all the same as a violent crime committed on an unwilling victim.


Thank you for a direct answer.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

wiscto said:


> To be honest, I don't really agree with the unborn victims act, but I do agree that it points out a moral dilemma. And I think it was created to do just that, without regard for the debate or the current legal status of the unborn, or regard for the sensible discussion that we desperately need to have in this country...which is why I don't agree with it.
> 
> But I'm not really a typical pro-choicer. I do believe that we need to define (very carefully and thoroughly) the point in time when that unborn fetus becomes a self aware human being who can be afraid, who can feel the fundamental need to survive. So I do believe that if a person murders a woman who is carrying a fetus who has reached that point in development, that murderer has committed a double homicide.
> 
> I just think that the unborn victims act needs to reflect whatever the current laws regarding the rights of the unborn are. While I do want those laws to change, I'm not really willing to circumvent them.


Thank you for a direct answer.


----------



## 7thswan

wr said:


> It's interesting you brought up tubal ligation because doctors won't perform the procedure on women who have had no children, even when those same women indicate that they do not ever want to have children.
> 
> If you're okay with abortion for birth defects like spina bifida, where do you draw the line? What about organs outside the body (which can often be surgically corrected) or Down's Syndrome or the Thalidomide babies of years past? Beyond legal reasons, why would you condone abortion for rape or incest since it's still morally considered killing?
> 
> Do you condone abortion for women who are crack or alcohol addicted because their children are born addicted and suffer severe challenges.
> 
> I don't see your comments as being much different than those who advocate choice. You've simply set different parameters that you agree with as making it all okay.


Yes, there is a big desire for newborns here as in Canada. I also had a tubal at a young age for reasons I don't want to talk about, I have no children.

I think there would be far less abortions if dr exams/scripts were taken out of the mix for women.BC should be ava. over the counter. It is my beleif that abortions are far more harmful in many ways than Birth Control meds. I know that is not what those in the public that hang on every word of the Medical world want to hear, but there are many reasons why women /young women don't/won't go to a DR.


----------



## wr

7thswan said:


> Yes, there is a big desire for newborns here as in Canada. I also had a tubal at a young age for reasons I don't want to talk about, I have no children.
> 
> I think there would be far less abortions if dr exams/scripts were taken out of the mix for women.BC should be ava. over the counter. It is my beleif that abortions are far more harmful in many ways than Birth Control meds. I know that is not what those in the public that hang on every word of the Medical world want to hear, but there are many reasons why women /young women don't/won't go to a DR.


I don't know if birth control pills can be sold over the counter because a single dose or brand will work for every individual but I do see your point. 

I look at young women working just to make ends meet and they often can't afford to take a day off work to go see a doctor to get a prescription. 

A lot of babies I see going into the system are those that were born with FAC and addictions that generate lifelong challenges and in many cases, they won't go on to become productive adults either but that's a topic for another time and place.


----------



## Tiempo

A poor minority woman

Folks don't want to help her have access to affordable, reliable contraception

Folks don't want her to have an abortion

Folks say, "give it up for adoption" but there aren't enough adoptive homes for unwanted minority babies

Folks don't want her to have access to public assistance to feed the child and brand her a welfare leech.

She's pretty much knackered any way you look at it.


----------



## painterswife

130,000.00 children waiting to be adopted out of foster care Another 20,000.00 age out of the system every year. Lets put another 3/4 to a million children a year into that system when we all ready have children who can't find homes that want them.


----------



## 7thswan

Tiempo said:


> A poor minority woman
> 
> Folks don't want to help her have access to affordable, reliable contraception
> 
> Folks don't want her to have an abortion
> 
> Folks say, "give it up for adoption" but there aren't enough adoptive homes for unwanted minority babies
> 
> Folks don't want her to have access to public assistance to feed the child and brand her a welfare leech.
> 
> She's pretty much knackered any way you look at it.


BC is like 4 bucks at wally world. I can even buy bulk bc for the feral cats arround here. PP takes women based on how much they make/have for exams and Bc, it has been that way for 30 years.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> 130,000.00 children waiting to be adopted out of foster care Another 20,000.00 age out of the system every year. Lets put another 3/4 to a million children a year into that system when we all ready have children who can't find homes that want them.


Bad Parents? In foster system because why?


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> Bad Parents? In foster system because why?


Why would it matter?


----------



## Tiempo

7thswan said:


> BC is like 4 bucks at wally world. I can even buy bulk bc for the feral cats arround here. PP takes women based on how much they make/have for exams and Bc, it has been that way for 30 years.


Available with a prescription form a doctor, which costs money.



> PP takes women based on how much they make/have for exams and Bc, it has been that way for 30 years


Not for long if the anti abortion contingency gets their way and they are de-funded.


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> Why would it matter?


Bad parenting should be the issue. Like I said it's more important to keep these people from getting preggers in the first place. But that goes back to a pregnancy become a way to make dollars and then they fail on BEING a parent.

Pay them to get fixed. It would be less expensive and harmfull to the children in the end.


----------



## Jokarva

Pregnancy and childbirth are not totally benign conditions, women still die of complications in first world countries. Hormones in pregnancy fuel certain cancers, one specific cancer only occurs after a woman has been pregnant. Pregnancy can worsen preexisting conditions like renal and cardiac disease. Post partum issues, including depression, can be life altering for the woman and her family.

Those are just some of the reasons I believe a woman should have a choice in continuing, or not, an unintended pregnancy.


----------



## 7thswan

Tiempo said:


> Available with a prescription form a doctor, which costs money.
> 
> 
> 
> Not for long if the anti abortion contingency gets their way and they are de-funded.


Ya, like it's going to get defunded, that's a joke,just like haveing abortion go away is.


----------



## Tiempo

7thswan said:


> Ya, like it's going to get defunded, that's a joke,just like haveing abortion go away is.


But people are trying nevertheless.


----------



## watcher

The problem becomes a major legal issue. I'm very surprised it hasn't been taken to the appellate court system yet.

If a person was arrested and charged with murder because he assaulted a pregnant woman and caused her to lose the fetus I would think his lawyer would demand the charge be thrown out because the courts have ruled that a fetus is not a human based on the USSC rulings on abortion.

A case like this would throw the entire system in an uproar. Because you can not have a two laws which are opposed to each other stand the courts would have to make a clear ruling on just what a fetus is.

If a fetus is nothing more than a mass of tissue he should not be charged any more than if he caused her to lose a finger nail, after all both can be regrown.

But if a fetus is a human then any person who knowingly causes or contributes to the death of a fetus must be charged with murder or conspiracy to commit murder.


----------



## 7thswan

Tiempo said:


> But people are trying nevertheless.


I realize that. Can you blame them? I've made many suggestions, but the left wants voters,come hell or high water,that is all they really care about to the detrement of children, it's always about the $.
How about-any person that goes on any kind of gov. assistance like welfare, food stamps housing...never ever gets one more single dime for haveing another child-the rest of their life,on off,on off, gov $ forever. Zip. You are 16 and have a baby,sign up-that's it. EVEN if you have 8 more kids, zip no more $ notdda.Make it perfectly clear-no more babies,no more $.


----------



## Tiempo

7thswan said:


> I realize that. Can you blame them? I've made many suggestions, but the left wants voters,come hell or high water,that is all they really care about to the detrement of children, it's always about the $.
> How about-any person that goes on any kind of gov. assistance like welfare, food stamps housing...never ever gets one more single dime for haveing another child-the rest of their life,on off,on off, gov $ forever. Zip. You are 16 and have a baby,sign up-that's it. EVEN if you have 8 more kids, zip no more $ notdda.Make it perfectly clear-no more babies,no more $.


Then let's help them get birth control.


----------



## poppy

wiscto said:


> To be honest, I don't really agree with the unborn victims act, but I do agree that it points out a moral dilemma. And I think it was created to do just that, without regard for the debate or the current legal status of the unborn, or regard for the sensible discussion that we desperately need to have in this country...which is why I don't agree with it.
> 
> But I'm not really a typical pro-choicer. I do believe that we need to define (very carefully and thoroughly) the point in time when that unborn fetus becomes a self aware human being who can be afraid, who can feel the fundamental need to survive. So I do believe that if a person murders a woman who is carrying a fetus who has reached that point in development, that murderer has committed a double homicide.
> 
> I just think that the unborn victims act needs to reflect whatever the current laws regarding the rights of the unborn are. While I do want those laws to change, I'm not really willing to circumvent them.


That is a rational argument but it is more difficult than that IMO. This part" *I do believe that we need to define (very carefully and thoroughly) the point in time when that unborn fetus becomes a self aware human being who can be afraid, who can feel the fundamental need to survive.* would seem to be fine except using that standard could be used as a reason to let a lot of old people with things like dementia be euthanized.


----------



## poppy

Tiempo said:


> Then let's help them get birth control.


Help them? Good grief, it is everywhere and inexpensive.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Oxankle said:


> Leave morality out of it. What ARE the reasons for killing a child? To many? Why conceive then--tubal ligations have been around quite a while, as have vasectomies.
> 
> Conceived out of wedlock, shame? You'd kill a child to spare yourself embarrassment?
> 
> To save the mother's life when continuing the pregnancy might kill her? Society decided this was moral many years ago. Not even a hard choice now. (Might KILL her, not embarrass her.)
> 
> Spina bifida, no brain, some other awful defect? Incestuous or other rape? These are the hard cases that make bad law--I cannot explain these any more than you can.
> 
> Are there any other reasons for abortion? The medical reasons and those of incest and rape are very few--most of the others are to spare someone embarrassment.



It doesn't matter what a woman's reasons are for aborting. Her body, her decision.


----------



## Tiempo

poppy said:


> Help them? Good grief, it is everywhere and inexpensive.


Do you want fewer abortions or not?


----------



## gapeach

7thswan said:


> Because I gave up a Child. I could not bear to have him grow up in the hell I was liveing in at the time. Funny huh, I thought about the Baby more than myself.


Swan, I have always thought a lot of you because you are so kind and always caring for others as well as for yours and others' animals.

You gave the ultimate gift of life to someone who could not. This is the best possible thing that you could have done.&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;


----------



## 7thswan

Jokarva said:


> Pregnancy and childbirth are not totally benign conditions, women still die of complications in first world countries. Hormones in pregnancy fuel certain cancers, one specific cancer only occurs after a woman has been pregnant. Pregnancy can worsen preexisting conditions like renal and cardiac disease. Post partum issues, including depression, can be life altering for the woman and her family.
> 
> Those are just some of the reasons I believe a woman should have a choice in continuing, or not, an unintended pregnancy.


These issues are a small speck of issues in relation with what we are talking about. You really think women that can't afford to go to PP know anything about hormones and cancer-no.It's a nonsence nothing arguement.


----------



## Cornhusker

Tiempo said:


> A poor minority woman
> 
> Folks don't want to help her have access to affordable, reliable contraception
> 
> Folks don't want her to have an abortion
> 
> Folks say, "give it up for adoption" but there aren't enough adoptive homes for unwanted minority babies
> 
> Folks don't want her to have access to public assistance to feed the child and brand her a welfare leech.
> 
> She's pretty much knackered any way you look at it.


She has access to affordable contraception
She can have an abortion
Lots of people are adopting babies
Public assistance? A career choice for many, and easily available, especially if you are a minority or a woman.
She's pretty much got it all her way don't she?


----------



## 7thswan

gapeach said:


> Swan, I have always thought a lot of you because you are so kind and always caring for others as well as for yours and others' animals.
> 
> You gave the ultimate gift of life to someone who could not. This is the best possible thing that you could have done.&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;


Thank You Peach. I have only my animals and it breakes my heart that even people act as if even babys don't get the love that animals recive in this Country.I've never mentioned, and I will here sinse I've found out,never mind.I'll PM You.


----------



## Cornhusker

Tiempo said:


> Available with a prescription form a doctor, which costs money.
> 
> 
> 
> Not for long if the anti abortion contingency gets their way and they are de-funded.


Well we sure wouldn't want them to miss out on a little dope, cigarettes, fingernail polish, booze, shoes to buy $20 worth of BC.
Seems personal responsibility is not expected from some


----------



## gapeach

I have not been in a bar in quite some time but there used to be condom machines on the walls even in the women's restooms with all colors available for $1 each, sometimes $2.
It is pure laziness not to be prepared if you are going to have sex. :facepalm:


----------



## MDKatie

Ew, who would rely on shady birth control forms like bar condoms?


----------



## gapeach

MDKatie said:


> Ew, who would rely on shady birth control forms like bar condoms?


It is better than nothing! Think about stds!


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> These issues are a small speck of issues in relation with what we are talking about. You really think women that can't afford to go to PP know anything about hormones and cancer-no.It's a nonsence nothing arguement.


No. It's not nonsense. It's her body and her choice. It simply doesn't matter if you think it's a small speck of an issue or not. 

PP screens for cancer, teaching and health screening is a large part of what it does.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> It is better than nothing! Think about stds!


Think about the quality of a condom that comes out of a machine at a bar. Just no. 

All the sexually active, not long term monogamous women I know carry their own condoms. High quality condoms, not usually novelty colored or glow in the dark ones either.


----------



## JeffreyD

Tiempo said:


> But people are trying nevertheless.


People are trying to cut public funding of abortions. Clinics are free to raise their own funds to continue to provide those services. Not everyone wants to pay for someone to murder another human being. They can pay for it themselves or family or the dad!

It's freedom of choice and they get to choose!


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> No. It's not nonsense. It's her body and her choice. It simply doesn't matter if you think it's a small speck of an issue or not.
> 
> PP screens for cancer, teaching and health screening is a large part of what it does.


BS.PP is nothing but a sex hack clinic. They do not teach, inform, ect. Hormanal issues are a speck, you don't need to make it a big issue when it's not. Woman can kill babys because it's "her body". I did not argue with you, so what's your point. Kill Babys, Kill Babys away, except when it gets you a vote or some more government cash right?

anymore excuses......


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> BS.PP is nothing but a sex hack clinic. They do not teach, inform, ect. Hormanal issues are a speck, you don't need to make it a big issue when it's not. Woman can kill babys because it's "her body". I did not argue with you, so what's your point. Kill Babys, Kill Babys away, except when it gets you a vote or some more government cash right?
> 
> anymore excuses......


You don't have a clue what Planned Parenthood really does, do you?


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> People are trying to cut public funding of abortions. Clinics are free to raise their own funds to continue to provide those services. Not everyone wants to pay for someone to murder another human being. They can pay for it themselves or family or the dad!
> 
> It's freedom of choice and they get to choose!


The government doesn't pay for abortions... It's against the law, specifically the Hyde Amendment. 

http://womensissues.about.com/od/abortion/tp/HydeAmendmentHub.htm


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't have a clue what Planned Parenthood really does, do you?


Ya, I do, I was sexualy abused by a dr there. I mentioned it a long time back here on this site if you don't belive me. They only have hacks as drs there. low life money sucking hacks that can't get a better paying job anywhere else. Probably why now we have to have a witness in the exam rooms with any gyno dr.


----------



## Txsteader

basketti said:


> It doesn't matter what a woman's reasons are for aborting. Her body, her decision.


And that baby, who has it's own unique human DNA, has no rights?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> And that baby, who has it's own unique DNA, has no rights?


Does anyone with unique DNA have the right to take what they need to live from another human because they might die otherwise? Why would a fetus have that right and I don't have the right to force my neighbor to provide me with nutrition and protection?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> The government doesn't pay for abortions... It's against the law, specifically the Hyde Amendment.
> 
> http://womensissues.about.com/od/abortion/tp/HydeAmendmentHub.htm


http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...arina-o-grossu
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/10/chur...verage_mandate
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/27/c...und-abortions/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...ed-110990.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...-transparency/

And some states do fund abortions via Medicaid.


----------



## Lisa in WA

painterswife said:


> Does anyone with unique DNA have the right to take what they need to live from another human because they might die otherwise? Why would a fetus have that right and I don't have the right to force my neighbor to provide me with nutrition and protection?


Post of the day.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> Does anyone with unique DNA have the right to take what they need to live from another human because they might die otherwise? Why would a fetus have that right and I don't have the right to force my neighbor to provide me with nutrition and protection?


OMG you just wrote that and you are a lefty that agrees with government payouts like welfare,foodstamps,housing,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## poppy

Tiempo said:


> Do you want fewer abortions or not?


What I want is personal responsibility. Virtually no one is getting pregnant due to lack of access to birth control. It's even available for free in schools.


----------



## FutureFarm

So we can stop all welfare immediately? The poor therefore have no right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered by the taxpayers.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Does anyone with unique DNA have the right to take what they need to live from another human because they might die otherwise? Why would a fetus have that right and I don't have the right to force my neighbor to provide me with nutrition and protection?


The child didn't ask to be created, had no say about it's conception.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> OMG you just wrote that and you are a lefty that agrees with government payouts like welfare,foodstamps,housing,,,,,,,,,,,


Actually were are talking about basic human rights and when a fetuses rights superced that of the owner of the womb.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> The child didn't ask to be created, had no say about it's conception.


Does the fetus have the right of conception and incubation and forcing the use of anothers womb?


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Does the fetus have the right of conception and incubation and forcing the use of anothers womb?


That's a very bizarre way of looking at it.

How can the child force the use of the mother's womb when it had no say in it's own conception? You sound as if the child _demanded_ to be created.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> That's a very bizarre way of looking at it.
> 
> How can the child force the use of the mother's womb when it had no say in it's own conception? You sound as if the child _demanded_ to be created.


I am looking at this with regards to individual rights. Whose rights win out. The person who owns the body needed to incubate or the fetus who requires a womb to make it to their first breath.

Can I as an individual take from another human what I need to survive under force just because I require it to live? Food, shelter, medical care being just a few things I might require.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> I am looking at this with regards to individual rights. *Whose rights win out.* The person who owns the body needed to incubate or the fetus who requires a womb to make it to their first breath.
> 
> Can I as an individual take from another human what I need to survive under force just because I require it to live? Food, shelter, medical care being just a few things I might require.


And that is where your logic is flawed. 

Are you putting forth the argument that certain individuals have greater rights than others? That some individuals have NO rights???

Do you _really_ want to make that argument?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> And that is where your logic is flawed.
> 
> Are you putting forth the argument that certain individuals have greater rights than others? That some individuals have NO rights???
> 
> Do you _really_ want to make that argument?


I am asking who's right wins out ? Does that fetus have enough right to life to force the neighbors to feed the person incubating it ? Or provide blood transfusions ?

Do I have the right if the fetus does to foid and shelter from someone else?


----------



## Lisa in WA

painterswife said:


> I am asking who's right win out ? Does that fetus have enough right to life to force the neighbors to feed the person incubating it ? Or provide blood transfusions ?


Or if the technology is developed, maybe we can pick people like we do for juries, and force them to carry transplanted embryos and fetuses to term if the mother can't.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> The government doesn't pay for abortions... It's against the law, specifically the Hyde Amendment.
> 
> http://womensissues.about.com/od/abortion/tp/HydeAmendmentHub.htm


There are no stipulations on the federal money given to pp. They can use those funds for anything. You do understand that don't you?


----------



## painterswife

basketti said:


> Or if the technology is developed, maybe we can pick people like we do for juries, and force them to carry transplanted embryos and fetuses to term if the mother can't.


Maybe we have to force women to carry all those fertilized eggs in cold storage because those embryo's have rights that supercede those who own the wombs.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> I am asking who's right wins out ? Does that fetus have enough right to life to force the neighbors to feed the person incubating it ? Or provide blood transfusions ?
> 
> Do I have the right if the fetus does to foid and shelter from someone else?


I thought everyone had equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that only applies if you manage to avoid being killed by your mother before even having a chance to live. 

IMO, the parents are responsible for the creation of life and are thus responsible for it's right to life.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> I thought everyone had equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that only applies if you manage to avoid being killed by your mother before even having a chance to live.
> 
> IMO, the parents are responsible for the creation of life and are thus responsible for it's right to life.


Okay, go with we all have equal rights. That means the womb owner does not have to grant rights of occupancy to the fetus. Her body her rights.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Okay, go with we all have equal rights. That means the womb owner does not have to grant rights of occupancy to the fetus. Her body her rights.


If that's what you have to believe in order to sleep at night....


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> If that's what you have to believe in order to sleep at night....


I am exploring the premise that others here have stated, that a fetus has different DNA and therefore rights. I am asking who's rights are dominant. The owner of the womb or the fetus? I am exploring how those opinions of rights then impact everyone elses rights.

Not about me sleeping, it is about the OP's original question and others responses.


----------



## Valmai

So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either. 
In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter or prison.


----------



## poppy

Valmai said:


> So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either.
> In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter or prison.


No, the GREATEST crime is conceiving a child you don't want when birth control is readily available and not having sex when you have no birth control handy in no way affects your health or well being.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> I am exploring the premise that others here have stated, that a fetus has different DNA and therefore rights. I am asking who's rights are dominant. The owner of the womb or the fetus? I am exploring how those opinions of rights then impact everyone elses rights.
> 
> Not about me sleeping, it is about the OP's original question and others responses.


Relative to the OP's question, how can someone be sentenced for murder by assaulting a pregnant woman that results in the death of her unborn child if the unborn child did not have the same rights as the mother or any other human being?

Equal rights.


----------



## Evons hubby

Valmai said:


> So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either.
> In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter or prison.


An interesting point considering our prisons overfloweth with those who grew up in that unwanted, unloved environment.


----------



## Txsteader

Valmai said:


> So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. *Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either.*
> In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter or prison.


That is precisely the answer. 

It's called contraception. It's simple, inexpensive and, depending on the method used, can prevent a whole range of unwanted problems and burdens.

Taking responsibility. It's what adults do. :thumb:


----------



## Fennick

As long as poor people are being paid to have babies they're going to keep on having babies. That is what is happening right now.

If you want them to stop producing babies without having to get an abortion then you need to stop paying them to produce babies and instead pay them to not get pregnant at all.

Another alternative for those who are so concerned about single welfare mothers staying perpetually on welfare by producing more babies (in other words being paid to be baby mills producing many babies) is to resort to what some other countries do with their welfare recipients. 

An able-bodied single mother who applies for welfare gets to stay on welfare only for the length of time it takes for her youngest child to reach school age (grade 1) or if her children are all school age already she qualifies for assistance and skills training for 1 year. During that period of time the mother is provided with skills training. Once she's completed her training and/or the youngest child reaches school age the mother must become gainfully employed. If she doesn't become employed she risks losing custody of her child/children and she will be kicked off welfare. She will have to fend for herself and if she wants her children she won't get them back until she's become gainfully employed and demonstrated her sincerity to stay employed and support her own children. 

If she tries to beat the system by getting pregnant again during the period of time while she's on welfare (before her youngest child reaches school age) she loses custody of all of her children including losing the unborn child she's carrying as soon as it's born. Then she gets booted out of the system, she loses her children, she loses financial assistance and won't qualify for any other kind of financial assistance in the future. Likewise with her, if she wants her kids back she will have to demonstrate that she's keeping a job and can support a family.

A disabled mother who is on welfare or disability assistance because she cannot work cannot produce any more children once she starts receiving assistance. If she gets pregnant while she's on welfare/disability assistance she loses her children and risks losing her financial assistance for herself.

Take away the incentive that has poor unemployed people producing babies for their own personal gain, profit and convenience and you end up with a lot less able-bodied lazy people living off the government tit and producing more babies that would end up just like the parents. You also end up with no more 2nd, 3rd, 4th generations welfare familes (baby mills) because they cease to be able to exist.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> *What I want is personal responsibility*. Virtually no one is getting pregnant due to lack of access to birth control. It's even available for free in schools.


That means worrying about yourself instead of everyone else


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> There are no stipulations on the federal money given to pp. *They can use those funds for anything*. You do understand that don't you?


You are mistaken, since Federal funds for abortions have been illegal since 2003.


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> Ya, I do, I was sexualy abused by a dr there. I mentioned it a long time back here on this site if you don't belive me. They only have hacks as drs there. low life money sucking hacks that can't get a better paying job anywhere else. Probably why now we have to have a witness in the exam rooms with any gyno dr.



I'm sorry that you were sexually assaulted at PP. Truly.

Most Dr's have another person in the exam room when a pelvic exam is being done. It has nothing to do with PP. The are a non profit organization so they aren't gong to only have the best and brightest. But that's OK, right? Cuz it's mostly the poor, the young, and those with questionable immigration status that go there. :that was sarcasm for those so impaired:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...arina-o-grossu
> http://www.worldmag.com/2014/10/chur...verage_mandate
> http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/27/c...und-abortions/
> http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...ed-110990.html
> http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...-transparency/
> 
> And some states do fund abortions via Medicaid.


*State*, right? We are discussing federal (as in everyone that pays taxes contributes) funding. If I pay for abortion in NY it's none of your concern. My money, my taxes.

The are are some insurance plans through Obamacare that will pay for abortions. The funding is minimal but it's there.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> There are no stipulations on the federal money given to pp. They can use those funds for anything. You do understand that don't you?


Nope, nope, nope. No federal funding goes for abortions at Planned Parenthood. It can be used for anything other than abortion.

Do you understand that now?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Relative to the OP's question, how can someone be sentenced for murder by assaulting a pregnant woman that results in the death of her unborn child if the unborn child did not have the same rights as the mother or any other human being?
> 
> Equal rights.


An abortion is the choice of terminating an _unwanted_ pregnancy, getting beat until you lose a _wanted_ pregnancy is not. 

I don't see how there is any confusion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> That is precisely the answer.
> 
> It's called contraception. It's simple, inexpensive and, depending on the method used, can prevent a whole range of unwanted problems and burdens.
> 
> Taking responsibility. It's what adults do. :thumb:


If we lived in a perfect world, yes. A perfect utopia where everyone was responsible about everything, but we don't and never will. 

The real world, come join us.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> An abortion is the choice of terminating an _unwanted_ pregnancy, getting beat until you lose a _wanted_ pregnancy is not.
> 
> I don't see how there is any confusion.


:hammer:

The assailant is sentenced for murdering the child. The unborn child....who apparently has the right to life before it's born.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> :hammer:
> 
> The assailant is sentenced for murdering the child. The unborn child....who apparently has the right to life before it's born.


The key word here is wanted. The mother chose to continue the pregnancy. 

I feel you're being deliberately obtuse this morning. Perhaps more coffee?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> If we lived in a perfect world, yes. A perfect utopia where everyone was responsible about everything, but we don't and never will.
> 
> The real world, come join us.


No thanks, your world is far too macabre for me......a world where the most helpless and vulnerable are murdered and now harvested for sale, just because 'it's legal', where the court has replaced the conscience.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> No thanks, your world is far too macabre for me......a world where the most helpless and vulnerable are murdered and now harvested for sale, just because 'it's legal', where the court has replaced the conscience.


My world is the real world where terrible things happen, not all people are responsible, and it's not sunshine and fluffy bunny rabbits all the time. You can cocoon yourself in whatever world you create but that doesn't mean it's the real world. 

Fetuses are not murdered nor are they harvested, that's something that people now believe because some extremist heavily edited a video and it was swallowed hook, line, and sinker. That doesn't make it the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> No thanks, *your world *is far too macabre for me......*a world *where the most helpless and vulnerable are murdered and now harvested for sale, just because 'it's legal', where the court has replaced the conscience.


The only difference is you pretend not to live in the same world as all the rest


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Fetuses are not murdered
> /QUOTE]
> 
> This is not to pick on you directly nor take your words out of context but I am unable to highlight specific words from this device.
> 
> This is the reason for my original question about the additional murder charge for a suspect. I see it as a legal dilemma where two laws conflict with one another. It was summed up pretty well on page two by Wiscto.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I see it as a legal dilemma where *two laws conflict* with one another


Legal *elective* abortions are generally limited to the first 12 weeks

The laws protecting a fetus cover the entire 9 months

Past 12 weeks it usually requires a medical reason to terminate a pregnancy


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Legal *elective* abortions are generally limited to the first 12 weeks
> 
> The laws protecting a fetus cover the entire 9 months
> 
> Past 12 weeks it usually requires a medical reason to terminate a pregnancy


And the first 12 weeks are part of the nine months. So they conflict during this overlap.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> And the first 12 weeks are part of the nine months. So they conflict during this overlap


It's been explained more than once that an abortion is a legal choice by the Mother, with her consent, and the second is an illegal assault by a third party.


----------



## Irish Pixie

nchobbyfarm said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses are not murdered
> /QUOTE]
> 
> This is not to pick on you directly nor take your words out of context but I am unable to highlight specific words from this device.
> 
> This is the reason for my original question about the additional murder charge for a suspect. I see it as a legal dilemma where two laws conflict with one another. It was summed up pretty well on page two by Wiscto.
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of murder excludes abortion, but the beating death of a fetus isn't an abortion in the legal sense. It could be murder depending on the intent of the assailant.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> The key word here is wanted. The mother chose to continue the pregnancy.
> 
> *I feel you're being deliberately obtuse this morning.* Perhaps more coffee?


Funny, I was thinking the same about you.


----------



## no really

Bearfootfarm said:


> That means worrying about yourself instead of everyone else


What exactly are you saying as I can't grasp the correlation.


----------



## Tiempo

poppy said:


> No, the GREATEST crime is conceiving a child you don't want when birth control is readily available and not having sex when you have no birth control handy in no way affects your health or well being.


Birth control fails quite often. Condoms break, diaphragms are notorious..almost everyone knows a 'diaphragm' baby. The pill fails some women.

Just two weeks ago, a woman I know from a tiny FB page (57 members who mostly know each other in real life too) went to the ER with severe abdominal pain. Turned out that despite having a Mirena IUD she was pregnant with an ectopic pregnancy that had already ruptured her fallopian tube. Three other women said that Mirena had failed them too. Four out of 57 women most of whom don't even use Mirena..those are some really crappy odds.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nchobbyfarm,

Well I'm pro-choice because I support people having the freedom to make all kinds of decisions for themselves and what is the right choice for them. They have to make an accounting for their life with God, is my belief and that is between each person and God individually.

So, I believe ultimately I have to respect that a mother has to make the decisions that she believes are best for her children.

I absolutely, personally hate abortions. But, with grief can understand that perhaps they are the lesser of two evils sometimes. I might be wrong, but all I can do is say that is my thoughtful answer, and I pray to god for his forgiveness, if I am wrong.

It's also why I accept that hospice care and even elective euthanasia are sometimes the lesser of two evils.

But, what I have a huge problem with the fact that frequently healthcare decisions, abortions and many many other decisions, are not what I'd consider informed decisions. That's what frustrates me.

Our society has done an appalling job in my opinion of maintaining a couple of things at a sufficient level.

One is personal responsibility by patients and their kin. Too many people do not insist on making healthcare providers disclose all of their options and all of the information about what the risks are of each. And, too many people walk around happy to just do whatever a Dr says and pay whatever the insurance says. Life is complicated, and you don't always know what the right answer is and I think people have lost the will to own their choices and be sure they have spent due time to process their options and actually choose for themselves or on behalf of their kin what is the best choice.

Again, I think that is applicable across the board though, the full spectrum of healthcare decisions, for anything from taking a rx from a doc, to abortion and many things in between.

I also think that the bureaucracy of healthcare is conditioning people to do this. Like it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Between the time constraints, limits put in place by what insurances cover, and because of the constantly growing parameters that liability insurance companies and lawyers advice that doctors get, the drs are absolutely failing to just lay it all out to patients and their families, and say this is my best advice. Please tell me what you would like to do and how we can help.

It's astonishing how many people go receive treatment and leave and have very little idea of what their diagnosis is, or what they're treatment should do. Very often, people don't even end up being much a part of the decision with a doctor about what was decided, even if they try.

So, I find the process that people go through with their doctors very lacking. I think there's just a lot of room for improvement.

As far as abortions go, it's very serious to me because it does mean ending another person's life, or even ending the potential for their to be a life (depending on who you ask). I really think that women are not being treated holistically when they seek abortion care. There should be far more information and resourves made available and far more discussed and reviewed that would at least improve ensuring that a mother has had time and opportunity to understand more than many women do now. 

Too often, I see abortions just processed through as though it were as routine as a tetanus shot or filling a cavity. It's not. It's a rather serious and final thing. And, it does carry real health risks for the mother long and short term. Mothers who are repeat customers sometimes face even simpler processing and later abortions are even riskier than first ones.

I've done hospice care and even in that life and death decision venue, I think there is a lot of room to improve. In my experience, the hospice care givers are pretty good. But, the acute or chronic care givers that have to pass the ball to the hospice people have a long way to go in laying out the options to patients and their kin to help allow them to really make informed decisions. It's not awful, but it's not great, how I've seen that process play out. And, I think there's a lot of room for improvement.

With abortions, I think it's not as good as a process as even hospice care. And, I really feel it's not going to improve until both sides can get past having to be right, and find away to work together to improve a mother's chance of making the most informed decision possible.

Neither side is going to win and force it to be an all or nothing rule, ever. But, both sides could claim a victory if they were willing to allow the other to have their say, so that mothers would have access to both sides. I think a lot of mothers are also hesitant to even ask or discuss options, because most realize that they're either going to accepted or rejected if they don't ultimately do what other people want. And, that's no way to improve things IMO.


----------



## Fennick

Wow! Gibbsgirl, well said! Now THAT gets post of the millenium award. :thumb:


----------



## where I want to

Gibbsgirl- a thoughtful post. I find myself in a similar place. I find the idea that someone, who is not sharing the risk, else can force a woman to take risks with her health and well being repugnant . Yet a baby is of great value to me too.
I have known at least two women whose pregnancies killed them. And at least one woman literally driven insane out of the inability to cope with the many small children she had. And I know a few women with chronic health issues left from pregnancies. And at least one person who risked her health trying to get pregnant even once.
It is not a simple thing. People are right that pregnancies can be prevented in most cases but are also right when they say that is so far from a sure thing.
Maybe it is never going to be an easy balance despite people lining up on one side or the other.


----------



## FeralFemale

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, nope, nope. No federal funding goes for abortions at Planned Parenthood. It can be used for anything other than abortion.
> 
> Do you understand that now?


Fungibility. Look it up.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FeralFemale said:


> Fungibility. Look it up.


Grandiloquent. Look it up.

The fungibility dog don't hunt. 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/04/14/172027/planned-parenthood-funding-fungible/


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> That is precisely the answer.
> 
> It's called contraception. It's simple, inexpensive and, depending on the method used, can prevent a whole range of unwanted problems and burdens.
> 
> Taking responsibility. It's what adults do. :thumb:


Contraception doesnt always work either. Many a pregnancy has occurred while a woman was on the pill, using an IUD or other methods to prevent that unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## susieneddy

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Contraception doesnt always work either. Many a pregnancy has occurred while a woman was on the pill, using an IUD or other methods to prevent that unwanted pregnancy.


That is the truth. Even condoms aren't 100% safe for birth control. If you think condoms stop STD's you had better think again. Believe me I know on both accounts they don't.


----------



## Evons hubby

susieneddy said:


> That is the truth. Even condoms aren't 100% safe for birth control. If you think condoms stop STD's you had better think again. Believe me I know on both accounts they don't.


Yeppers, I had a good friend who raised two boys, both the result of condom failure.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Nchobbyfarm,
> 
> Well I'm pro-choice because I support people having the freedom to make all kinds of decisions for themselves and what is the right choice for them. They have to make an accounting for their life with God, is my belief and that is between each person and God individually.
> 
> So, I believe ultimately I have to respect that a mother has to make the decisions that she believes are best for her children.
> 
> I absolutely, personally hate abortions. But, with grief can understand that perhaps they are the lesser of two evils sometimes. I might be wrong, but all I can do is say that is my thoughtful answer, and I pray to god for his forgiveness, if I am wrong.
> 
> It's also why I accept that hospice care and even elective euthanasia are sometimes the lesser of two evils.
> 
> But, what I have a huge problem with the fact that frequently healthcare decisions, abortions and many many other decisions, are not what I'd consider informed decisions. That's what frustrates me.
> 
> Our society has done an appalling job in my opinion of maintaining a couple of things at a sufficient level.
> 
> One is personal responsibility by patients and their kin. Too many people do not insist on making healthcare providers disclose all of their options and all of the information about what the risks are of each. And, too many people walk around happy to just do whatever a Dr says and pay whatever the insurance says. Life is complicated, and you don't always know what the right answer is and I think people have lost the will to own their choices and be sure they have spent due time to process their options and actually choose for themselves or on behalf of their kin what is the best choice.
> 
> Again, I think that is applicable across the board though, the full spectrum of healthcare decisions, for anything from taking a rx from a doc, to abortion and many things in between.
> 
> I also think that the bureaucracy of healthcare is conditioning people to do this. Like it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Between the time constraints, limits put in place by what insurances cover, and because of the constantly growing parameters that liability insurance companies and lawyers advice that doctors get, the drs are absolutely failing to just lay it all out to patients and their families, and say this is my best advice. Please tell me what you would like to do and how we can help.
> 
> It's astonishing how many people go receive treatment and leave and have very little idea of what their diagnosis is, or what they're treatment should do. Very often, people don't even end up being much a part of the decision with a doctor about what was decided, even if they try.
> 
> So, I find the process that people go through with their doctors very lacking. I think there's just a lot of room for improvement.
> 
> As far as abortions go, it's very serious to me because it does mean ending another person's life, or even ending the potential for their to be a life (depending on who you ask). I really think that women are not being treated holistically when they seek abortion care. There should be far more information and resourves made available and far more discussed and reviewed that would at least improve ensuring that a mother has had time and opportunity to understand more than many women do now.
> 
> Too often, I see abortions just processed through as though it were as routine as a tetanus shot or filling a cavity. It's not. It's a rather serious and final thing. And, it does carry real health risks for the mother long and short term. Mothers who are repeat customers sometimes face even simpler processing and later abortions are even riskier than first ones.
> 
> I've done hospice care and even in that life and death decision venue, I think there is a lot of room to improve. In my experience, the hospice care givers are pretty good. But, the acute or chronic care givers that have to pass the ball to the hospice people have a long way to go in laying out the options to patients and their kin to help allow them to really make informed decisions. It's not awful, but it's not great, how I've seen that process play out. And, I think there's a lot of room for improvement.
> 
> With abortions, I think it's not as good as a process as even hospice care. And, I really feel it's not going to improve until both sides can get past having to be right, and find away to work together to improve a mother's chance of making the most informed decision possible.
> 
> Neither side is going to win and force it to be an all or nothing rule, ever. But, both sides could claim a victory if they were willing to allow the other to have their say, so that mothers would have access to both sides. I think a lot of mothers are also hesitant to even ask or discuss options, because most realize that they're either going to accepted or rejected if they don't ultimately do what other people want. And, that's no way to improve things IMO.


I would agree with your points and perhaps a lot of the miscommunication comes into it when people believe that pro choice means pro abortion. 

I am pro choice but when I was told I was faced with the decision of carrying my youngest or aborting, based on life threatening complications of my previous deliveries, the right choice for me was advise my doctors to make sure they had sufficient blood for transfusions available and carry to term. I'm happy I made my decision, couldn't imagine life without him but remain thankful that I was able to make that choice without pressure.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Contraception doesnt always work either. Many a pregnancy has occurred while a woman was on the pill, using an IUD or other methods to prevent that unwanted pregnancy.


I'm well aware. My oldest grandson would be included in that category. Pill + antibiotics = pregnancy. 

But of those failures of contraceptive methods, there are several statistics showing the rate of failure w/ 'typical' consistency use is far higher vs. 'perfect' consistency use.

IOW, the majority of contraceptive failures is due to improper use/inconsistency rather than failure of the contraceptive itself. 

Interesting, no? Again, that would point back to personal responsibility.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Valmai said:


> So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either.
> In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter or pris.


I have a big problem with welfare mothers and the welfare system. If there were not so many easily accessible resources and so many programs trying to taut that people had a right to so much support, people on a large scale would figure it out on their own a heck of a lot more than they do now.

Why bother doing whatever it takes to get along with someone on child rearing decisions if you can get free $$ from the govt and do what you want? Why bother doing whatever you have to to raise your kids without the other parent if that's your situation, when you can get free $$. It's the kazy option, so obviously the road more travelled, and there's no honor in it.

Women would be more careful about who they had kids with if the lazy options weren't there for the taking as easily as they are now. And, they would have to work harder at compromising with the fathers and their kin about things to do with raising their children. Fathers might actually have a battle they could win, when the mothers didn't have the govt as their sugar daddies. The dads could have a shot at getting the mothers to respect their input into parenting work and decisions if the mothers needed the fathers. But, they don't with the govt sugar daddy interfering. And, the real loss is then the kids don't have their fathers around. And, kids really do need both parents.

I'm sorry, but a huge portion of people who are on welfare, and who file for court ordered support, with children tobsupport do so because they have that as an option instead of being forced to exhaust every effort to get along, compromise, and make due.

I don't allow such behavior from my children, and I resent the govt allowing and encouraging such behavior from adults and forcing everyone to chip in to pay for it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Again, that would point back to personal responsibility.


And again I would have to say that personal responsibility is difficult to teach when the parent is clueless to that concept. We now live in a country that insists no one be responsible for themselves.... even our elderly have been taught to depend on the government for their livelihood. How is our youth suppose to learn?


----------



## Marshloft

Txsteader said:


> But of those failures of contraceptive methods, there are several statistics showing the rate of failure w/ 'typical' consistency use is far higher vs. 'perfect' consistency use.
> 
> IOW, *the majority of contraceptive failures is due to improper use/inconsistency rather than failure of the contraceptive itself. *
> 
> Interesting, no? Again, that would point back to personal responsibility.


 So what are you saying? All those years of sex ed, showing and explaining how to put a condom on a banana isn't working?
Even as the bell rings, the teacher yells:
Class, don't forget your condomints!


----------



## Evons hubby

Marshloft said:


> So what are you saying? All those years of sex ed, showing and explaining how to put a condom on a banana isn't working?
> Even as the bell rings, the teacher yells:
> Class, don't forget your condomints!


Back in the day when I was raising two teenage girls I always drove them to school. I recall a lot of mornings that I had to turn around and take them back to the house because one of them had forgotten to take that little pill that morning. Not all young girls have a responsible parent to remind them.


----------



## kasilofhome

Valmai said:


> So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either.
> In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter
> 
> 
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/chartbook.cfm?id=15
> 
> https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/adoption_stats


----------



## Marshloft

Irish Pixie said:


> Grandiloquent. Look it up.
> 
> The fungibility dog don't hunt.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/04/14/172027/planned-parenthood-funding-fungible/


 Don't see why it won't hunt, or couldn't. Albeit, you're probably correct.
I did learn a new word today tho, thanks.
Also this I didn't know:

_Conservatives claim that they object to funding Planned Parenthood because it provides abortion services, even though they know that Planned Parenthood is barred from spending any federal money on abortion by a provision known as the Hyde Amendment, as well as numerous other laws. *The truth is that they want to cut off funding for family planning services because they oppose contraception *as much as they do abortion.

_It could be that this site is bias, well,,,,, no could be about it.
Either way, if that's true, I sure would be against it. Mostly because I'm conservative, as is most protestant churches. I have never heard of being against contraception of some kind.

In fact, I've learned a great deal the last couple days. Those of you who had very informative information about abortion and the why. I give you credit for putting that out there.
I was very bias on the subject, still am to a degree. Minds don't change over night.
That being said: I still believe its too easy to get an abortion on a whim.
Or to use abortion as a contraceptive.
But that's just me, I'm a guy,, who possibly shouldn't even have an opinion.
G.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Marshloft said:


> Don't see why it won't hunt, or couldn't. Albeit, you're probably correct.
> I did learn a new word today tho, thanks.
> Also this I didn't know:
> 
> _Conservatives claim that they object to funding Planned Parenthood because it provides abortion services, even though they know that Planned Parenthood is barred from spending any federal money on abortion by a provision known as the Hyde Amendment, as well as numerous other laws. *The truth is that they want to cut off funding for family planning services because they oppose contraception *as much as they do abortion.
> 
> _It could be that this site is bias, well,,,,, no could be about it.
> Either way, if that's true, I sure would be against it. Mostly because I'm conservative, as is most protestant churches. I have never heard of being against contraception of some kind.
> 
> In fact, I've learned a great deal the last couple days. Those of you who had very informative information about abortion and the why. I give you credit for putting that out there.
> I was very bias on the subject, still am to a degree. Minds don't change over night.
> That being said: I still believe its too easy to get an abortion on a whim.
> Or to use abortion as a contraceptive.
> But that's just me, I'm a guy,, who possibly shouldn't even have an opinion.
> G.


There are people and corporations (Hobby Lobby) that won't allow _some_ types of contraceptives. There are even pharmacists that won't release the morning after pill. All because of religion. I don't want to go there but you can Google "abortifacient" and read more than you ever wanted to know. 

Of course you should have an opinion on abortion. Everyone has opinions and someone else is always going to have a differing one.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Nchobbyfarm,
> 
> Well I'm pro-choice because I support people having the freedom to make all kinds of decisions for themselves and what is the right choice for them. They have to make an accounting for their life with God, is my belief and that is between each person and God individually.
> 
> So, I believe ultimately I have to respect that a mother has to make the decisions that she believes are best for her children.
> 
> I absolutely, personally hate abortions. But, with grief can understand that perhaps they are the lesser of two evils sometimes. I might be wrong, but all I can do is say that is my thoughtful answer, and I pray to god for his forgiveness, if I am wrong.
> 
> It's also why I accept that hospice care and even elective euthanasia are sometimes the lesser of two evils.
> 
> But, what I have a huge problem with the fact that frequently healthcare decisions, abortions and many many other decisions, are not what I'd consider informed decisions. That's what frustrates me.
> 
> Our society has done an appalling job in my opinion of maintaining a couple of things at a sufficient level.
> 
> One is personal responsibility by patients and their kin. Too many people do not insist on making healthcare providers disclose all of their options and all of the information about what the risks are of each. And, too many people walk around happy to just do whatever a Dr says and pay whatever the insurance says. Life is complicated, and you don't always know what the right answer is and I think people have lost the will to own their choices and be sure they have spent due time to process their options and actually choose for themselves or on behalf of their kin what is the best choice.
> 
> Again, I think that is applicable across the board though, the full spectrum of healthcare decisions, for anything from taking a rx from a doc, to abortion and many things in between.
> 
> I also think that the bureaucracy of healthcare is conditioning people to do this. Like it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Between the time constraints, limits put in place by what insurances cover, and because of the constantly growing parameters that liability insurance companies and lawyers advice that doctors get, the drs are absolutely failing to just lay it all out to patients and their families, and say this is my best advice. Please tell me what you would like to do and how we can help.
> 
> It's astonishing how many people go receive treatment and leave and have very little idea of what their diagnosis is, or what they're treatment should do. Very often, people don't even end up being much a part of the decision with a doctor about what was decided, even if they try.
> 
> So, I find the process that people go through with their doctors very lacking. I think there's just a lot of room for improvement.
> 
> As far as abortions go, it's very serious to me because it does mean ending another person's life, or even ending the potential for their to be a life (depending on who you ask). I really think that women are not being treated holistically when they seek abortion care. There should be far more information and resourves made available and far more discussed and reviewed that would at least improve ensuring that a mother has had time and opportunity to understand more than many women do now.
> 
> Too often, I see abortions just processed through as though it were as routine as a tetanus shot or filling a cavity. It's not. It's a rather serious and final thing. And, it does carry real health risks for the mother long and short term. Mothers who are repeat customers sometimes face even simpler processing and later abortions are even riskier than first ones.
> 
> I've done hospice care and even in that life and death decision venue, I think there is a lot of room to improve. In my experience, the hospice care givers are pretty good. But, the acute or chronic care givers that have to pass the ball to the hospice people have a long way to go in laying out the options to patients and their kin to help allow them to really make informed decisions. It's not awful, but it's not great, how I've seen that process play out. And, I think there's a lot of room for improvement.
> 
> With abortions, I think it's not as good as a process as even hospice care. And, I really feel it's not going to improve until both sides can get past having to be right, and find away to work together to improve a mother's chance of making the most informed decision possible.
> 
> Neither side is going to win and force it to be an all or nothing rule, ever. But, both sides could claim a victory if they were willing to allow the other to have their say, so that mothers would have access to both sides. I think a lot of mothers are also hesitant to even ask or discuss options, because most realize that they're either going to accepted or rejected if they don't ultimately do what other people want. And, that's no way to improve things IMO.


Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## mnn2501

> Do those that are pro-choice also support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or similar state laws?


Yes, one is wanted and one is not.

I'll get flamed for this next part, but the woman who would get an abortion probably is not the type to make a good mother, at least at this point in her life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> What exactly are you saying as I can't grasp the correlation.


I'm saying people need to get over the idea they have any right to dictate what others do, or what is "right" for them.

"Personal responsibility" means mind your *OWN* business, not anyone else's


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> There are people and corporations (Hobby Lobby) that won't allow _some_ types of contraceptives. There are even pharmacists that won't release the morning after pill. All because of religion. I don't want to go there but you can Google "abortifacient" and read more than you ever wanted to know.
> 
> Of course you should have an opinion on abortion. Everyone has opinions and someone else is always going to have a differing one.


Hobby Lobby doesn't allow or disallow anything, they just don't feel right about paying for certain kinds.
Of course the left has painted them as evil masters running baby mills


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm saying people need to get over the idea they have any right to dictate what others do, or what is "right" for them.
> 
> "Personal responsibility" means mind your *OWN* business, not anyone else's


Does that include people who dictate who has to pay for our birth control and abortions?


----------



## Evons hubby

Cornhusker said:


> Does that include people who dictate who has to pay for our birth control and abortions?


Yep, that's a given! Everyone should tend to their own business and pay for their own chow. If they did that they wouldn't have time nor energy to run other folks business.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Does that include people who dictate who has to pay for our birth control and abortions?


The "Govt" does that, not individuals.

It would cost much more overall to have a few million extra unwanted children


----------



## nchobbyfarm

mnn2501 said:


> Yes, one is wanted and one is not.
> 
> I'll get flamed for this next part, but the woman who would get an abortion probably is not the type to make a good mother, at least at this point in her life.


Thank you for your direct answer.

Are you pro choice?


----------



## Guest

Myself I am totally against elective abortion, I have no say in the woman's choice but have plenty of opinions. If you legally consider a fetus a life when prosecuting someone for its termination than it should be considered a life in all circumstances. Hypocrisy has been known to flourish in law and probably will not go away.


----------



## Oxankle

"the woman who would get an abortion probably is not the type to make a good mother"

Man, I'll agree with that, and she might make a pretty scary wife, too. A woman who kills is not one I'd like to go to sleep near.


----------



## Tiempo

Actually I do know some women who have had abortions who are excellent mothers.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> nchobbyfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of murder excludes abortion, but the beating death of a fetus isn't an abortion in the legal sense. It could be murder depending on the intent of the assailant.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be very interested in reading that definition.
Click to expand...


----------



## Irish Pixie

nchobbyfarm said:


> I would be very interested in reading that definition.


murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

From: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303


----------



## Marshloft

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm saying people need to get over the idea they have any right to dictate what others do, or what is "right" for them.
> 
> "Personal responsibility" means mind your *OWN* business, not anyone else's


 Just that statement alone could get you nominated for president.
Or governor, or mayor of NY. Pick your state.


----------



## Marshloft

Bearfootfarm said:


> *The "Govt" does that, not individuals.*
> 
> It would cost much more overall to have a few million extra unwanted children




Wait,, wait...,wait just a sec. Since when does the government actually have an income other than from us individuals?
And here I just gave you the nomination for president.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Yes, one is wanted and one is not.
> 
> I'll get flamed for this next part, but the woman who would get an abortion probably is not the type to make a good mother, at least at this point in her life.





Oxankle said:


> "the woman who would get an abortion probably is not the type to make a good mother"
> 
> Man, I'll agree with that, and she might make a pretty scary wife, too. A woman who kills is not one I'd like to go to sleep near.


Women that have had abortions are everywhere, the woman that works your bank, serves you food at restaurant, your doctor, your aunt, the cop that patrols your area. She also has a story about it that she's only told a few people. Unless she tells you you'll never know. It's not like she's going to say, "Hi, I'm Mary. I had an abortion 6 years ago when my birth control failed. Can I take your order?"

Women from all ages, colors, sizes, and walks of life have made that decision, you don't know her story or the heartbreak (or not) it caused her. Don't judge, you have no right. 

I am totally and completely pro choice. I have never had an abortion, I don't think I could have ever had an abortion so I am very happy I wasn't in that situation because it cannot be easy thing to do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Marshloft said:


> Wait,, wait...,wait just a sec. Since when does the government actually have an income other than from us individuals?
> And here I just gave you the nomination for president.


All I commented on was who was making the decisions.
I never said who paid the costs


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> All I commented on was who was making the decisions.
> I never said who paid the costs


The govt makes the decisions AND spends our money and puts us further into debt to pay for them. It's two hands on the same body, not separate neat and tidy things.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> murder
> n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.
> 
> From: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303


Interesting read. Thanks. 

But I find it interesting that this definition states that a fetus must be "quick" for a charge of murder. This is in complete contradiction to the Unborn Victims of violence Act. This Federal law makes no distinction of development. It states that a murder charge is applicable upon conception. I must research this term "quick" more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> The govt makes the decisions AND spends our money and puts us further into debt to pay for them. It's two hands on the same body, not separate neat and tidy things.


Proving once more you misinterpret nearly everything I say.
The point was the Govt makes all the decisions, *not individuals*

Context matters


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> murder
> n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.
> 
> From: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303


Upon further investigation, it appears that quickening begins at 16 to 18 weeks of development and has been used in Britsh law since the eighteenth century. So if the charge of murder of the fetus cannot stand until this time, there should be a long list of murderers that should have their additional charges or convictions dropped or overturned immediately. It should make the Unborn Victim of Violence Act unconstitutional. OR the Unborn Victim of Violence Act has changed the definition of murder to include a fetus at conception and we as a society must then reevaluate the acceptable abortion times if we are a first world society.


----------



## Txsteader

nchobbyfarm said:


> Interesting read. Thanks.
> 
> But I find it interesting that this definition states that a fetus must be "quick" for a charge of murder. This is in complete contradiction to the Unborn Victims of violence Act. This Federal law makes no distinction of development. It states that a murder charge is applicable upon conception. I must research this term "quick" more.


Quick, also called 'quickening, referred to the point of time when the mother first felt the baby's movements w/in her womb.


----------



## Jim Bunton

dlmcafee said:


> Myself I am totally against elective abortion, I have no say in the woman's choice but have plenty of opinions. If you legally consider a fetus a life when prosecuting someone for its termination than it should be considered a life in all circumstances. Hypocrisy has been known to flourish in law and probably will not go away.


By making the killing of an unborn fetus a homicide that does not make that same fetus a human life. It changes the definition of homicide to include the killing of unborn fetuses.

Jim


----------



## Valmai

Wow Just Wow.
9 pages of civilised reasonable debate and no personal attacks.
Everybody give yourself a pat on the back.
Thank you.


----------



## Guest

Jim Bunton said:


> By making the killing of an unborn fetus a homicide that does not make that same fetus a human life. It changes the definition of homicide to include the killing of unborn fetuses.
> 
> Jim


What ever you say, 

If it is not a life you can not kill it then.
Murder requires the taking of a life does it not?

Acts definition of victim:
(d) As used in this section, the term &#8220;unborn child&#8221; means a child in utero, and the term &#8220;child in utero&#8221; or &#8220;child, who is in utero&#8221; means a member of the species **** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.


----------



## FeralFemale

Oxankle said:


> "the woman who would get an abortion probably is not the type to make a good mother"
> 
> Man, I'll agree with that, and she might make a pretty scary wife, too. A woman who kills is not one I'd like to go to sleep near.


I've had an abortion. My husband sleeps quite fine next to me.

I won't go into the details except that I was in a long term relationship, the contraception failed, and I was young and broke. 

Something that folks forget -- the liberal media bombards women with 'information' about abortion being ok. Not just ok, but a 'right'. And it's not a baby, it's a fetus. It's just tissue, a blob of cells. You have the absolute right to control your body. It's a simple procedure, etc, etc.

When I had my abortion I believed all these things. I was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. After my abortion, I realized I had been lied to. I could go into a lot of details but would rather not (I actually have described my physical and emotional damage on this board. Maybe the posts are still available if you search?) 

The bottom line is that I realized if I was being lied to about something so physically invasive, painful and damaging as abortion, then maybe the Left was lying to me about other things as well. I became informed and found out that the Left was, indeed, lying to me about so much more. My abortion is the reason why I am a conservative today. 

Do not judge women who have had an abortion. What do you expect them to do when everything they hear is that it is just a blob of cells and that abortion is a god given right?


----------



## vicker

I am very sorry for your experience, FF. I can only imagine. We have a loving and understanding God. I would hope that any woman going through such a procedure would feel as you.Unfortunately, lots of women don't. I think it is hurtful to them far more than they acknowledge. Still, I support a woman's right to choose. I can never be in that place. It would be a tough place to be.


----------



## Irish Pixie

There are many women that have had abortions and then decided they had made a mistake. 

I had a friend who's sister had an abortion in her early 30s, had horrible remorse, and then "dedicated her life" to reversing Roe v. Wade. She became obsessed to the point where was admitted for psychiatric evaluations every few months, couldn't hold a job, and drove away all her friends and family. A state level group made her their martyr and began a campaign using her as the focal point. Once they made her the focal point it came out that she had had mental illness issues since she was a teenager, and the abortion was the "last straw" so to speak. Her family said that at that point she seriously tried to kill herself to make up for "what she had done" and she was involuntarily committed. I have no idea where she is now. 

I am sympathetic to women that have had an abortion and then had remorse, I truly am, but the issue is with them. They still have no right to demand what someone else can do with their body.


----------



## Riverdale

GREEN_ALIEN said:


> Thank you PW. Post of the day right there.
> 
> I really don't get people... Why is it we must stick our pig noses into other peoples business? What ever happened to "mind your own business"?
> 
> It is rather simple - If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T DO IT, shut yer yap and move on. If you do believe in abortion, get one if necessary, shut yer yap and move on. Personal choice, not public.
> 
> To the OP - Baited question beggin' for an argument.


GA, mind your own business is a great idea. I do not give a rodent's hindquarteers about abortion, *until* it requires tax money.

In other words, if you can't pay, you better not play.

Overly simplistic, I know, but then, so am I :gaptooth:


----------



## Riverdale

Irish Pixie said:


> There are people and corporations (Hobby Lobby) that won't allow _some_ types of contraceptives. There are even pharmacists that won't release the morning after pill. All because of religion. I don't want to go there but you can Google "abortifacient" and read more than you ever wanted to know.
> 
> Of course you should have an opinion on abortion. Everyone has opinions and someone else is always going to have a differing one.





Irish Pixie said:


> There are many women that have had abortions and then decided they had made a mistake.
> 
> I had a friend who's sister had an abortion in her early 30s, had horrible remorse, and then "dedicated her life" to reversing Roe v. Wade. She became obsessed to the point where was admitted for psychiatric evaluations every few months, couldn't hold a job, and drove away all her friends and family. A state level group made her their martyr and began a campaign using her as the focal point. Once they made her the focal point it came out that she had had mental illness issues since she was a teenager, and the abortion was the "last straw" so to speak. Her family said that at that point she seriously tried to kill herself to make up for "what she had done" and she was involuntarily committed. I have no idea where she is now.
> 
> I am sympathetic to women that have had an abortion and then had remorse, I truly am, but the issue is with them. They still have no right to demand what someone else can do with their body.



So I can do what I want with my body, but I cannot do what I want with my business? Got it :thumb::facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Riverdale said:


> GA, mind your own business is a great idea. I do not give a rodent's hindquarteers about abortion, *until* it requires tax money.
> 
> In other words, if you can't pay, you better not play.
> 
> Overly simplistic, I know, but then, so am I :gaptooth:


Then you don't give a rodent's hindquarters about abortion because in 1976 the Hyde Amendment was passed prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for abortion. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

Riverdale said:


> GA, mind your own business is a great idea. I do not give a rodent's hindquarters about abortion, *until* it requires tax money.
> 
> In other words, if you can't pay, you better not play.
> 
> Overly simplistic, I know, but then, so am I :gaptooth:


Couldn't agree more RD, unfortunately that would require personal responsibility... and that is in short supply these days.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Riverdale said:


> So I can do what I want with my body, but I cannot do what I want with my business? Got it :thumb::facepalm:


Where did you get that from my posts? I never said anything of the sort, please don't put words in my mouth. 

I'm completely baffled why you included the second post?


----------



## Jim Bunton

dlmcafee said:


> What ever you say,
> 
> If it is not a life you can not kill it then.
> Murder requires the taking of a life does it not?
> 
> Acts definition of victim:
> (d) As used in this section, the term &#8220;unborn child&#8221; means a child in utero, and the term &#8220;child in utero&#8221; or &#8220;child, who is in utero&#8221; means a member of the species **** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.


You are correct in your definition of an unborn child. It is a **** sapien. That does not show hypocrisy since the question isn't whether it is human, but whether it is a viable life. This is more closely compared to removing a patient from life support. If the family decides this it is legal for the doctor to have that decision carried out. On the other hand if some one just came in and unplugged the life support that would not be legal.
Jim


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jim Bunton said:


> You are correct in your definition of an unborn child. It is a **** sapien. That does not show hypocrisy since the question isn't whether it is human, but whether it is human, but whether it is a viable life. This is more closely compared to removing a patient from life support. If the family decides this it is legal for the doctor to have that decision carried out. On the other hand if some one just came in and unplugged the life support that would not be legal.
> Jim


There is a difference between removing somoneone from life support when drs are confident there is a strong chance they will not need the support indefinitely, and removing it because doctors feel the person will not ever improve or live without continued life support.


----------



## Patchouli

BlackFeather said:


> I was just musing, we place a great value on unborn animal life. We hunt deer in the fall because the male is searching to get the female pregnant, but after rutting season, no hunting. We are allowed 2 doe with a permit here in NY. No hunting while the female is pregnant or when she has a small fawn. We protect the unborn and young animal. Same with turkey, Female can only be hunted in the fall when her young are grown. But not in the spring when she is ready to lay and set on eggs. I'm sure this applies to most animals hunted. Yet as people we care less for the preservation of the unborn of our own species.
> 
> Or as my daughter has mused, we will spend billions to send probes to Mars to look for a single celled organism and call it life, and be over joyed to find it. Yet if we have a miniature human developing inside a mother's body and if it is inconvenient for us, we'll just dispose of it. Something doesn't add up.


If you kill all the pregnant deer eventually you won't have any deer to hunt..... It has nothing to do with caring for baby animals and everything to do with pragmatism. If you want food next year you don't kill it before it is born this year. 

As for the human species we are in no danger of extinction are we?


----------



## Evons hubby

Riverdale said:


> So I can do what I want with my body, but I cannot do what I want with my business? Got it :thumb::facepalm:


not quite.... You can do whatever you like with YOUR business, its other peoples business that you shouldnt involve yourself with.


----------



## Guest

Jim Bunton said:


> You are correct in your definition of an unborn child. It is a **** sapien. That does not show hypocrisy since the question isn't whether it is human, but whether it is human, but whether it is a viable life. This is more closely compared to removing a patient from life support. If the family decides this it is legal for the doctor to have that decision carried out. On the other hand if some one just came in and unplugged the life support that would not be legal.
> Jim


:
We can make up stories all day long, I just do not agree with you. If you make laws make them consistent simple language, but that will never happen. Someone once attempted that with the constitution and see what happened there. The hypocrisy in law is abundant to me. You can think what you wish.

The person you wish to let pass, by definition may not be viable to you, but it is a life neverless.


----------



## Jolly

What is life?

If we define life as the ability to grow to maturity and reproduce, then certainly a fetus is alive...If not, then untold generations of women who have felt their baby kicking in the womb are sadly mistaken.

Therefore, a fetus is alive. If the fetus be alive, does it have any protection under the law? Well, if you shoot a pregnant woman down here, and she survives, but her unborn child doesn't, a charge of murder is imminent.

Ok, so a fetus is alive and it has legal standing.

If that be the case, I think the "it's my body and I'll do what I want" argument is nothing more than a hyper-selfish statement. No, once a woman becomes pregnant, it isn't "her" body, it is "their" body. Killing should not be a matter of convenience. Don't want that problem, don't get pregnant.

IMO, abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life is in imminent danger, with the latter case to be decided by an ethics peer review panel.

Surprisingly enough, medical science has been the pro-life movement's best friend during the trend to wind down the age of the fetus where legal abortion can take place, even among abortion supporters. When you can save a child outside of the womb at a very early age, it makes a hard argument for those who would wish to kill it, in-utero.

Most attorneys will tell you that Roe v. Wade was bad law. I now hold out hope that one day, in the near future, we can put this bad law in the trash, where it belongs.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> IMO, abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life is in imminent danger, with the latter case to be decided by an ethics peer review panel.
> 
> Most attorneys will tell you that Roe v. Wade was bad law. I now hold out hope that one day, in the near future, we can put this bad law in the trash, where it belongs.


Ok, a couple points here. Why is it ok to "murder" an innocent child who had nothing to do with the crime of rape or incest? Are they not innocent victims? 

I think most attorneys understand that Roe v Wade is NOT a law, good bad or otherwise.... it is a ruling by the supreme court that struck down some pretty bad state laws.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, a couple points here. Why is it ok to "murder" an innocent child who had nothing to do with the crime of rape or incest? Are they not innocent victims?
> 
> I think most attorneys understand that Roe v Wade is NOT a law, good bad or otherwise.... it is a ruling by the supreme court that struck down some pretty bad state laws.


Nope not a law, but our court system does not rule on law as much as it rules on precedent.


----------



## mnn2501

nchobbyfarm said:


> Thank you for your direct answer.
> 
> Are you pro choice?


Yes, however that does not mean I am pro-abortion. 
I do not want to go back to the days where women had use use coat hangers and got little to no medical care.

What I really wonder is, with the great number of birth control options there are, why any woman would have an unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## mnn2501

Tiempo said:


> Actually I do know some women who have had abortions who are excellent mothers.


Which is why I qualified the statement with "at this point in her life"


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, a couple points here. Why is it ok to "murder" an innocent child who had nothing to do with the crime of rape or incest? Are they not innocent victims?
> 
> I think most attorneys understand that Roe v Wade is NOT a law, good bad or otherwise.... it is a ruling by the supreme court that struck down some pretty bad state laws.


The first question is a very good one. While I agree it is the killing of an innocent, I don't equate the killing with murder. The child is an act of coercion or force, and while Irecognize the right of the child to live, I also recognize the right of the mother, who does not wish to bear a child from such an act.

I think the most debateable point would be at what age would we not sanction the killing of the child? If you have a 14 year-old girl walk into the police station, 20 weeks pregnant with her father's child, do you make her carry it to term?

For the second point, here is what John Ely wrote in the Yale Law Review:

_âWhat is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded â¦ a protection more stringent, I think it is fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framersâ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nationâs governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interests that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe â¦ is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.â_


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> The first question is a very good one. While I agree it is the killing of an innocent, I don't equate the killing with murder. The child is an act of coercion or force, and while Irecognize the right of the child to live, I also recognize the right of the mother, who does not wish to bear a child from such an act.
> 
> I think the most debateable point would be at what age would we not sanction the killing of the child? If you have a 14 year-old girl walk into the police station, 20 weeks pregnant with her father's child, do you make her carry it to term?


Ok, how is the mothers right to terminate a "rape" pregnancy so very different than a mother wishing to terminate any other pregnancy due to a bad relationship? 

as to the incest/time frame issue.... I see no difference in a 20 day and a 20 week pregnancy.... its the same potential for a live birth, and little differnce between it being her fathers child as opposed to some strangers child... what am I missing here?


----------



## Patchouli

Txsteader said:


> I'm well aware. My oldest grandson would be included in that category. Pill + antibiotics = pregnancy.
> 
> But of those failures of contraceptive methods, there are several statistics showing the rate of failure w/ 'typical' consistency use is far higher vs. 'perfect' consistency use.
> 
> IOW, the majority of contraceptive failures is due to improper use/inconsistency rather than failure of the contraceptive itself.
> 
> Interesting, no? Again, that would point back to personal responsibility.


What kind of birth control do you routinely use? I am guessing you are a man and like the other men here you like to natter on about personal responsibility and consistent BC use when you mean the woman should have taken care of it. Last time I checked it takes 2 people to create a pregnancy and 2 people have the option to use birth control. I don't see anyone here ranting about the men. 

BC pills are easy to miss. Life happens. It's also easy to improperly insert, apply or put on various forms of contraception in the heat of the moment. And even if you get it 100% correct you still sometimes get an unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## Tiempo

mnn2501 said:


> Which is why I qualified the statement with "at this point in her life"


A lot of women who have abortions are already mothers who know that another would reduce the quality of life of her existing children and do it for them.


----------



## Patchouli

nchobbyfarm said:


> The other thread raised my curiousity on another subject.
> 
> Do those that are pro-choice also support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or similar state laws?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
> 
> If so, I cannot understand how you can call an aborted fetus tissue in one instance and then call the exact same aged fetus a human being in the other. Doesn't this create a bit of a moral dilemma?
> 
> The definition of murder is the killing of a human being or person depending on the dictionary.
> 
> And please understand, this is not start another abortion war as there are enough of those. I understand abortion is legal and an internet argument won't change the laws or others minds. I am truly just interested in learning the rationale.



I read the link about the Act and one thing I found very interesting was that it was nicknamed Laci and Connor's law. Laci Peterson was 7.5 months pregnant. Their story was all over the news at the time. The pic below was on a huge poster in front of everyone who voted. It's pretty obvious that the people voting were thinking along the lines of much wanted almost full term babies. 

From the Wiki page: 
 A photo of Tracy Marciniak, holding the body of her son Zachariah. Ms. Marciniak was seriously injured, and Zachariah was killed, by an assault during the ninth month of the pregnancy. This photo was on display as Ms. Marciniak testified at a televised hearing in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, on July 8, 2003. It was also displayed, in poster size, on the floors of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate during the subsequent debates on the legislation.[7]




*








*

Since the vast majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks gestation I wonder how many people would have voted the same if the photo above had been stuck up there instead? Simple fact is while Laci Peterson and Tracy Marciniak's losses were used as the emotional push to get this law passed the real reason it was written was to try and create exactly the question we are debating here. And the hope was it would lead to knocking down Roe vs. Wade. That hasn't happened but it was a pretty weaselly thing to do.

Unfortunately it would appear that the pro-life movement has reduced itself these days to lying and trying to trick people through emotional manipulation to get laws passed to end abortion. We see it in everything from Texas' recent legislation that supposedly cared about women's health by shutting down clinics that didn't meet requirements they didn't care enough to apply to any other healthcare clinic.

So my personal opinion as someone who is pro-choice is that all laws concerning abortion and murder of unborn babies need to be tightened up and reflect each other. It should not be considered murder unless the unborn baby was actually viable. Once a baby is viable abortion should only be allowed under the very strictest of circumstances. 

I don't know how many people have been convicted of murder for the death of a fetus under 12 or even 20 weeks gestation. I would think a good lawyer could get that charge struck down since there is no proof that pregnancy would have actually produced a viable baby. Pregnancies are lost all the time due to nature.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> What kind of birth control do you routinely use? I am guessing you are a man and like the other men here you like to natter on about personal responsibility and consistent BC use when you mean the woman should have taken care of it. Last time I checked it takes 2 people to create a pregnancy and 2 people have the option to use birth control. I don't see anyone here ranting about the men.
> 
> BC pills are easy to miss. Life happens. It's also easy to improperly insert, apply or put on various forms of contraception in the heat of the moment. And even if you get it 100% correct you still sometimes get an unwanted pregnancy.


Actually, I'm a 'nattering' post-menopausal woman. Don't use BC anymore. But over the course of my fertile years during our marriage, DH and I each took responsibility for preventing my getting pregnant, using several different methods. After our DD was born, it was important that I not get pregnant again, as my pregnancy took a toll on my health. Not life-threatening, but difficult.

When we did decide to get pregnant, I was pregnant the month after I stopped taking the pill. I know whereof I speak.


----------



## mnn2501

Tiempo said:


> A lot of women who have abortions are already mothers who know that another would reduce the quality of life of her existing children and do it for them.


I really doubt there is more than a handful of current Mothers who abort, and I would bet good money that there is a whole lot more to their reason than "another would reduce the quality of life of her existing children and do it for them."


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> Unfortunately it would appear that the pro-life movement has reduced itself these days to lying and trying to trick people through emotional manipulation to get laws passed to end abortion. We see it in everything from Texas' recent legislation that supposedly cared about women's health by shutting down clinics that didn't meet requirements they didn't care enough to apply to any other healthcare clinic.


I, personally, am not trying to get laws passed to end abortion. I realize that there are circumstances where an abortion would/could be a medical necessity. 

The one problem I have w/ abortion laws today is public funding. Because it is such a controversial issue that, for some, is rooted in religious beliefs, I don't believe it's fair or proper that taxpayer money be used to pay for them. Add the selling of fetal tissue to the equation and I'm opposed to it even more.


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> I really doubt there is more than a handful of current Mothers who abort, and I would bet good money that there is a whole lot more to their reason than "another would reduce the quality of life of her existing children and do it for them."


Wrong on both counts. 



> About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.


http://www.guttmacher.org/datacenter/profiles/US.jsp



> Completed childbearing and responsibility to dependents.
> 
> Bivariate analysis of these reasons revealed some expected relationships: High proportions of older women, women with children and women who were currently married, as well as those formerly married and not cohabiting, cited completion of their childbearing or already having dependents as a reason for having an abortion (Table 5). The proportion citing these reasons increased with age. These reasons were more commonly given by black and Hispanic women, and by poorer and less educated women.
> 
> 
> 
> Combining all reasons that refer to other people or to future children,* we found that 74% of women, including at least two-thirds of women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category, identified concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision (not shown). *Nine in 10 of these women (66% of all women) cited their inability to care for a child at this stage in their life or the quality of life they could provide for a(nother) child, and 45% of them (33% of all women) reported concern for other individuals, most commonly their children.*


https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf


----------



## Patchouli

Txsteader said:


> I, personally, am not trying to get laws passed to end abortion. I realize that there are circumstances where an abortion would/could be a medical necessity.
> 
> The one problem I have w/ abortion laws today is public funding. Because it is such a controversial issue that, for some, is rooted in religious beliefs, I don't believe it's fair or proper that taxpayer money be used to pay for them. Add the selling of fetal tissue to the equation and I'm opposed to it even more.


It's been stated here a ton of times that tax payers do not pay for abortions. Google the Hyde Amendment. Talk about a common lie spread by pro-lifers. I need to make a top ten list..... 

And then of course fetal tissue is illegal to sell and is only donated.


----------



## gibbsgirl

If a group that performs abortions receives any funding from the govt, it is funding abortions with tax dollars. Assigning things to separate line items in a budget does not negate that.


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> If a group that performs abortions receives any funding from the govt, it is funding abortions with tax dollars. Assigning things to separate line items in a budget does not negate that.



That is seriously stretching it.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> It's been stated here a ton of times that tax payers do not pay for abortions. Google the Hyde Amendment. Talk about a common lie spread by pro-lifers. I need to make a top ten list.....
> 
> And then of course fetal tissue is illegal to sell and is only donated.


You do realize that there are states that fund abortions, aren't you?

You do realize that Obamacare subsidies are used to pay for plans that cover abortion-on-demand, aren't you?

Regardless of how many times it's been denied, the truth is the truth.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Patchouli said:


> That is seriously stretching it.


Naw, it's just recognizing it as the conflict of interest it is when the govt should remain neutral and claims it is, but what's happening indicates perhaps it's not.

It's no different to me than seeing a conflict when the govt funds campaign financing or news organizations or any other number of things. By doing so, it creates conflicts and of interest because it is taking sides where it is supposed to play no role at all.


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> Naw, it's just recognizing it as the conflict of interest it is when the govt should remain neutral and claims it is, but what's happening indicates perhaps it's not.
> 
> It's no different to me than seeing a conflict when the govt funds campaign financing or news organizations or any other number of things. By doing so, it creates conflicts and of interest because it is taking sides where it is supposed to play no role at all.


The government funds healthcare for the poor. That includes gynecological care for women. They can't exclude every clinic, hospital and Dr. that performs abortions. It's part of healthcare.


----------



## Patchouli

Txsteader said:


> You do realize that there are states that fund abortions, aren't you?
> 
> You do realize that Obamacare subsidies are used to pay for plans that cover abortion-on-demand, aren't you?
> 
> Regardless of how many times it's been denied, the truth is the truth.





> Under the ACA, no plan is compelled to cover abortion. If a plan issuer does opt to cover abortion care beyond the narrow circumstances of rape, incest and life endangerment (the limited conditions the federal government adheres to for its own employees and others eligible for federally subsidized health care or coverage), then the ACA expressly requires the issuer to establish specific accounting mechanisms. They must create two separate accounts into which enrolleesâ premium payments are deposited: one from which any abortion claims (beyond instances involving rape, incest or life endangerment) would be paid, and another comprising the vast majority of enrolleesâ premium dollars, from which all other claims would be paid. *Congress devised this arrangement as part of a compromise to ensure that any federal subsidies received by eligible enrollees would not mix with dollars used to cover abortion care for which federal funding is prohibited.*


https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170115.html

I suppose you can use the same spin that GG used but the government goes to great lengths to not pay for abortions just to keep pro-lifers happy.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170115.html
> 
> I suppose you can use the same spin that GG used but the government goes to great lengths to not pay for abortions just to keep pro-lifers happy.


You're not paying attention.

http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/abortion-under-medicaid/
http://www.fundabortionnow.org/get-help/medicaid
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf
https://www.aclu.org/public-funding-abortion


> Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV)


Do I need to post a link proving where the funds for Medicaid come from?


----------



## watcher

FutureFarm said:


> So we can stop all welfare immediately? The poor therefore have no right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered by the taxpayers.


Yes and true but stopping it cold turkey would cause all kinds of problems. What we should do is wean those sucking on the government teat off it. We should cut the funding by 5-10% per year until the amount we are spending is equal or less than 5% of what we are spending today then cut it to zero.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Does the fetus have the right of conception and incubation and forcing the use of anothers womb?


Its called accepting responsibility. I'm guessing you have no problem with the government forcing a man to pay child support. If you make the choice to have sex you should be willing to be held responsible for any results of it.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Its called accepting responsibility. I'm guessing you have no problem with the government forcing a man to pay child support. If you make the choice to have sex you should be willing to be held responsible for any results of it.


Responsibility is taken by discontinuing the pregnancy.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Okay, go with we all have equal rights. That means the womb owner does not have to grant rights of occupancy to the fetus. Her body her rights.


I think you have just trapped yourself. The womb owner granted the right of occupancy when she KNOWINGLY and WILLING had sex. Just as I have said I'm willing to bet you think a man should be held responsible if he impregnates a woman. Are you now saying there is another double standard for women so they can choose what they wish to be responsible for?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I think you have just trapped yourself. The womb owner granted the right of occupancy when she KNOWINGLY and WILLING had sex. Just as I have said I'm willing to bet you think a man should be held responsible if he impregnates a woman. Are you now saying there is another double standard for women so they can choose what they wish to be responsible for?


How can that be so? I know that I can evict the occupant if they try to take up residence with several different options.


----------



## watcher

Valmai said:


> So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either.
> In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter or prison.


Shall we apply your "quality of life" to other? If a child is living a poor "quality of life" should we be kind and just give them a bullet behind the ear? And which of us get to pick which child is living a poor "quality of life"? There are some who would say just being born black leads to a poor "quality of life" and would be willing to make sure such children do not have to suffer so. Think about that long and hard before you start talking about preventing someone from suffering by killing them.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Shall we apply your "quality of life" to other? If a child is living a poor "quality of life" should we be kind and just give them a bullet behind the ear? And which of us get to pick which child is living a poor "quality of life"? There are some who would say just being born black leads to a poor "quality of life" and would be willing to make sure such children do not have to suffer so. Think about that long and hard before you start talking about preventing someone from suffering by killing them.


I dont think you will find many who do not recognize the killing of a born child as being murder. That is not the issue at hand. What is up for question is a womans right to prevent a pregnancy coming to full term. She either has that right or she doesnt. If she does, then any further discussion becomes moot. If she does not then we have to decide which forms of birth control can or should be used. It could be argued that ANY method used to prevent that potential child from being born is inherently wrong or as some would say "murder". Including abstinence!! Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## mnn2501

CDC data doesn't show what the pro-abortion Guttmacher group claims

Women give an average of 3.7 reasons why they are seeking an abortion including the following:
â¢ 21% Inadequate finances
â¢ 21% Not ready for responsibility
â¢ 16% Womanâs life would be changed too much
â¢ 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried
â¢ 11% Too young and/or immature
â¢ 8% Children are grown; she has all she wants
â¢ 3% Baby has possible health problems
â¢ <1% Pregnancy caused by rape/incest
â¢ 4% Other
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/


----------



## MDKatie

I surely hope that every single pro-lifer on here is against the death penalty.


----------



## FeralFemale

MDKatie said:


> I surely hope that every single pro-lifer on here is against the death penalty.


I am, but not for any reasons having to do with my view of abortion. The two circumstances are completely different.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> How can that be so? I know that I can evict the occupant if they try to take up residence with several different options.


Providing life support is a lot different than providing housing. A doctor can not remove life support if the patient does not wish it to be removed. Nor can he stop providing life supporting care if he believes that if the patient continues to receive that care he will recover.

You started providing life support for the child the second it attached to you. At that point you have no more right to remove life support from it because you want to than a doctor does pulling the plug on you just because he wants to.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Providing life support is a lot different than providing housing. A doctor can not remove life support if the patient does not wish it to be removed. Nor can he stop providing life supporting care if he believes that if the patient continues to receive that care he will recover.
> 
> You started providing life support for the child the second it attached to you. At that point you have no more right to remove life support from it because you want to than a doctor does pulling the plug on you just because he wants to.


This is not a doctor/patient relationship. A doctor has no say in when the life support is pulled. A parent would.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont think you will find many who do not recognize the killing of a born child as being murder. That is not the issue at hand. What is up for question is a womans right to prevent a pregnancy coming to full term. She either has that right or she doesnt. If she does, then any further discussion becomes moot. If she does not then we have to decide which forms of birth control can or should be used. It could be argued that ANY method used to prevent that potential child from being born is inherently wrong or as some would say "murder". Including abstinence!! Be careful what you wish for.


You do indeed have the right to kill someone. As long as that person is a threat to you.

IMO a woman can end a pregnancy if that pregnancy is a threat to her. Otherwise she is killing another human with a different DNA w/o justification. You can't kill someone just because they are causing you problem in your life.

My question is how can you say that something which has a different DNA is part of someone?


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> This is not a doctor/patient relationship. A doctor has no say in when the life support is pulled. A parent would.


That is 100% exactly right. It is all on the the mother, the parent.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> I surely hope that every single pro-lifer on here is against the death penalty.


Why? Should every single pro-lifer stand by while someone is murdered if their only option is to kill the murder? That sounds silly doesn't it?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> This is not a doctor/patient relationship. A doctor has no say in when the life support is pulled. A parent would.


Is the mother providing life support to the child or not? If so then the doctor pulling the plug on a patient is the same as him removing the child from its life support in the womb.

As pointed out there are THREE people involved here. The doc, the mother and the child. Just as a doctor and mother can not decided that new born is going to be too much trouble to raise and kill it they should not be able to make that decision just because the child is in utero.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Responsibility is taken by discontinuing the pregnancy.


No that's running from your responsibility. If you run over your neighbor's and breaking its leg would shooting it be taking responsibility? Or would the responsible thing to do be take it to the vet and pay for its care? Both options 'solve' the problem of the inured dog don't they?


----------



## Lisa in WA

watcher said:


> You do indeed have the right to kill someone. As long as that person is a threat to you.
> 
> IMO a woman can end a pregnancy if that pregnancy is a threat to her. Otherwise she is killing another human with a different DNA w/o justification. You can't kill someone just because they are causing you problem in your life.
> 
> My question is how can you say that something which has a different DNA is part of someone?


If it's not a part of you, then take it out and put it somewhere else. How is that murder? Are you fine with that if the embryo can be removed in one piece?


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> Why? Should every single pro-lifer stand by while someone is murdered if their only option is to kill the murder? That sounds silly doesn't it?


What are you talking about? I'm asking if pro-lifers think it is ok to kill someone by legal means such as lethal injection or electric chair.


----------



## kasilofhome

Would that be for fun, entertainment, because they are an inconvenience, can't support themself, because they are non producers, because they have killed to get what they refused to work and earned?


----------



## Txsteader

MDKatie said:


> What are you talking about? I'm asking if pro-lifers think it is ok to kill someone by legal means such as lethal injection or electric chair.


You're comparing fetuses to criminals?????

:stars:


----------



## MDKatie

Txsteader said:


> You're comparing fetuses to criminals?????
> 
> :stars:


But I thought ALL lives were created equal and it's not our decision to decide who gets to live and who doesn't???


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> I think you have just trapped yourself. The womb owner granted the right of occupancy when she KNOWINGLY and WILLING had sex. Just as I have said I'm willing to bet you think a man should be held responsible if he impregnates a woman. Are you now saying there is another double standard for women so they can choose what they wish to be responsible for?


If you want to play silly word games with little real meaning, "knowingly and willingly" having sex is NOT the same thing as "knowingly and willingly" *getting pregnant*.

Why not stick to realistic arguments, since you won't be changing anyone's mind anyway? 

It's a womb, not a rental property


----------



## kasilofhome

All fetuses the commit murder should face a firing squad. Well, after a trial by their peers.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> How can that be so? I know that I can evict the occupant if they try to take up residence with several different options.


Serve the fetus with a thirty day eviction notice remember the notice need to be public and posted at the last know place of residence should they refuse to leave go to court. Once the count hearing on the case get a sheriff to assist.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Serve the fetus with a thirty day eviction notice should they refuse to leave go to court. Once the count hearing on the case get a sheriff to assist.


No lease contract , no need for the sherrif or the courts.


----------



## Txsteader

MDKatie said:


> But I thought ALL lives were created equal and it's not our decision to decide who gets to live and who doesn't???


Nah, you're just being silly.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> No lease contract , no need for the sherrif or the courts.


Squatter rights ...still court and sheriff.


----------



## kasilofhome

Or how about a trial with a jury to approve the death sentence.
That should liven up the court section of the newspapers and more might want to serve on juries.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Squatter rights ...still court and sheriff.


Roe versus wade already determined that not to be the case. Courts and sheriifs have no jurisdiction.


----------



## kasilofhome

Squatter rights have little things do with roe vs wade.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Squatter rights have little things do with roe vs wade.


Just like sherris and courts have nothing to do with a women's right to choose


----------



## kasilofhome

Ain't about the woman that fetus is squatting.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Ain't about the woman that fetus is squatting.


That would be for the women to decide. Not your choice.


----------



## kasilofhome

I not on the jury..


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I not on the jury..


Exactly


----------



## kasilofhome

Duh the court doesn't have the case. Thus far you expressed to do and illegal eviction.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Duh the court doesn't have the case. Thus far you expressed to do and illegal eviction.


Not illegal. The owner of the womb is the only authority. The squatter does not have the dominant rights.


----------



## kasilofhome

Check state laws

Five Basic Adverse Possession Requirements
First, the trespasser must take actual possession of the land (i.e., that the squatter must enter and occupy the property). Usually, the trespasser does not have to be physically present on the property at all times to meet the actual possession requirement. Continuous use of the property such as through farming, hunting, or building structures is often enough.

Second, the adverse possessor must take exclusive possession of the land (meaning that the true owner and all other people are denied occupancy and use of the land being adversely possessed). Most states do not allow more than one person to claim adverse possession to the same piece of land, but a few do allow this where one adverse possessor has color of title or some other superior claim. This means that in most states, the presence of another adverse occupant prevents the limitation period from beginning to run, or resets it to zero if a newcomer comes to the property at a later date.

Third, the possession must be &#8220;open and notorious,&#8221; in that the squatter does not conceal his or her actions. This means that the adverse possessor blatantly and obviously uses the land for his or her own purposes, thereby giving actual or constructive notice to the true owner. Actual notice amounts to delivering notice directly to the owner, either by mail or orally, while constructive notice is given when the adverse possessor&#8217;s acts are so visible and obvious that an alert owner of property would have reason to know of their presence. Actual notice is not usually required for a valid adverse possession claim; constructive notice is enough.

Fourth, the possession must be adverse or hostile to the true owner&#8217;s property interest, meaning that the squatter occupies the land without the true owner&#8217;s permission and with an intention to remain. A tenant&#8217;s occupancy is not hostile to the owner&#8217;s title to the property, and hence in our original scenario he or she is unlikely to acquire title by adverse possession. However, if the tenant were to overstay the lease (i.e., become a &#8220;holdover tenant&#8221 he or she may become &#8220;hostile&#8221; and the limitations period may begin. Some jurisdictions require that a holdover tenant must vacate the property and then re-enter to start the adverse possession.

Fifth, the adverse possession must be continuous for the entire time period required by the law of the state in which the property is located. Check your local laws to determine the statutory time period required for adverse possession in your state. Keep in mind that even a brief departure from the property can be enough to end the prior occupancy and start the limitations period anew. For instance, if the trailer had been removed from the land for a few weeks beginning in the eighth year, upon reentry to the land you would be back at year one in terms of the adverse possession time requirements. 



Read more: http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.c...enant/ownwer_propertyRental.htm#ixzz3gOVHOLl2 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution 
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Check state laws
> 
> Five Basic Adverse Possession Requirements
> First, the trespasser must take actual possession of the land (i.e., that the squatter must enter and occupy the property). Usually, the trespasser does not have to be physically present on the property at all times to meet the actual possession requirement. Continuous use of the property such as through farming, hunting, or building structures is often enough.
> 
> Second, the adverse possessor must take exclusive possession of the land (meaning that the true owner and all other people are denied occupancy and use of the land being adversely possessed). Most states do not allow more than one person to claim adverse possession to the same piece of land, but a few do allow this where one adverse possessor has color of title or some other superior claim. This means that in most states, the presence of another adverse occupant prevents the limitation period from beginning to run, or resets it to zero if a newcomer comes to the property at a later date.
> 
> Third, the possession must be âopen and notorious,â in that the squatter does not conceal his or her actions. This means that the adverse possessor blatantly and obviously uses the land for his or her own purposes, thereby giving actual or constructive notice to the true owner. Actual notice amounts to delivering notice directly to the owner, either by mail or orally, while constructive notice is given when the adverse possessorâs acts are so visible and obvious that an alert owner of property would have reason to know of their presence. Actual notice is not usually required for a valid adverse possession claim; constructive notice is enough.
> 
> Fourth, the possession must be adverse or hostile to the true ownerâs property interest, meaning that the squatter occupies the land without the true ownerâs permission and with an intention to remain. A tenantâs occupancy is not hostile to the ownerâs title to the property, and hence in our original scenario he or she is unlikely to acquire title by adverse possession. However, if the tenant were to overstay the lease (i.e., become a âholdover tenantâ) he or she may become âhostileâ and the limitations period may begin. Some jurisdictions require that a holdover tenant must vacate the property and then re-enter to start the adverse possession.
> 
> Fifth, the adverse possession must be continuous for the entire time period required by the law of the state in which the property is located. Check your local laws to determine the statutory time period required for adverse possession in your state. Keep in mind that even a brief departure from the property can be enough to end the prior occupancy and start the limitations period anew. For instance, if the trailer had been removed from the land for a few weeks beginning in the eighth year, upon reentry to the land you would be back at year one in terms of the adverse possession time requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.c...enant/ownwer_propertyRental.htm#ixzz3gOVHOLl2
> Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
> Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook


Your opinions are entertaining.


----------



## Guest

kasilofhome, you lightened my day. :buds:


----------



## kasilofhome

I have an opinion about your opinions too.


----------



## kasilofhome

dlmcafee said:


> kasilofhome, you lightened my day. :buds:




Then it was worth it.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> You do indeed have the right to kill someone. As long as that person is a threat to you.
> 
> IMO a woman can end a pregnancy if that pregnancy is a threat to her. Otherwise she is killing another human with a different DNA w/o justification. You can't kill someone just because they are causing you problem in your life.
> 
> My question is how can you say that something which has a different DNA is part of someone?


You missed my point entirely, but I will respond to this issue in order to be polite. You say it's ok to kill if a person threatens you. An unwanted pregnancy quite often threatens the mothers life in ways you or I cannot begin to comprehend. You need to remember that there is far more to life than drawing a breath.


----------



## watcher

basketti said:


> If it's not a part of you, then take it out and put it somewhere else. How is that murder? Are you fine with that if the embryo can be removed in one piece?


Sure, if you can move it and have it live I'm fine with it. The murder comes in when you end a human life, even if that life needs support to continue. Is killing a child in utero that much different than killing someone in a hospital bed who is recovering but is still on life support? Each are viable humans which only need time and care until they can support themselves.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Sure, if you can move it and have it live I'm fine with it. The murder comes in when you end a human life, even if that life needs support to continue. Is killing a child in utero that much different than killing someone in a hospital bed who is recovering but is still on life support? Each are viable humans which only need time and care until they can support themselves.


I've often wondered why docs will refuse to pull the plug on a patient...... Until the insurance runs out?


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> I think you have just trapped yourself. The womb owner granted the right of occupancy when she KNOWINGLY and WILLING had sex. Just as I have said I'm willing to bet you think a man should be held responsible if he impregnates a woman. Are you now saying there is another double standard for women so they can choose what they wish to be responsible for?


So in the cases of rape or incest you believe she has the right to evict?


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> What are you talking about? I'm asking if pro-lifers think it is ok to kill someone by legal means such as lethal injection or electric chair.


I'm just taking your point to its logical end. If you think pro-lifers should not support killing someone for an action they took because killing is wrong then you should think they should never support any killing.

It shows the flaw in your logic. Murdering someone because allowing them to live would inconvenience is no where near taking the life of someone who has knowingly and willingly taken an action which could result in their death.

Personally I don't think we should have the death penalty. I much rather see someone live a nice long live in a very harsh prison environment then released when they are too old to pose a threat to anyone. Which is the worse penalty, death or 40+ years of spending 23 hrs a day in an 8X8 cell?


----------



## Jolly

> Ok, how is the mothers right to terminate a "rape" pregnancy so very different than a mother wishing to terminate any other pregnancy due to a bad relationship?


Ok, I'll play silly bugger with you...

On a molecular level, none. OTOH, that's not quite how society and law works, is it?

Are you arguing that rape is not such a heinous act, that we should afford no sympathy, recourse or justice to the victim? Even if it involves the taking of an innocent life, albeit the object of a forced union?



> as to the incest/time frame issue.... I see no difference in a 20 day and a 20 week pregnancy.... its the same potential for a live birth, and little differnce between it being her fathers child as opposed to some strangers child... what am I missing here?


I think you are missing quite a bit. Life does begin at conception, but the potential for live birth for a fetus at conception and a 20 week-old fetus, are in excess of a 1000% better chance for the 20 week-old.

While it is unknown if a week old fetus can feel pain, a twenty week fetus can certainly feel pain.

Lastly, are you defending the act of incest? I know you are in favor of gay marriage, but do you also consider having sex with one's children to be within the scope of normal human activity?

Do you not consider that criminal acts require additional consideration, in terms of justice?

Or is it so important for "your side" to "win" an argument, that you do not care what happens to other people?


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> But I thought ALL lives were created equal and it's not our decision to decide who gets to live and who doesn't???


All lives are created equal but people make choices which result in them facing consequences. If that were not so then we would not put people in prisons because the value of their life would be the same as their victim's lives.


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> CDC data doesn't show what the pro-abortion Guttmacher group claims
> 
> Women give an average of 3.7 reasons why they are seeking an abortion including the following:
> â¢ 21% Inadequate finances
> â¢ 21% Not ready for responsibility
> â¢ 16% Womanâs life would be changed too much
> â¢ 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried
> â¢ 11% Too young and/or immature
> â¢ 8% Children are grown; she has all she wants
> â¢ 3% Baby has possible health problems
> â¢ <1% Pregnancy caused by rape/incest
> â¢ 4% Other
> http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/



First your link is from Operation Rescue. Is it still run by Randall Terry Christian terrorist? (Google his comments on the gunning down of Dr. George Tiller)

They have no footnotes for their statistics. The first factoid on their page comes from the CDC. The rest comes from who knows where because the CDC does not collect information like why women choose abortion. Oh wait down at the bottom of the page they have this rather vague statement:

[Sources: www.census.gov, www.guttmacher.org, www.foxnews.com.
Graphs generated by Operation RescueÂ® unless otherwise noted.] 



So it would appear at least some of their facts came from my source. Maybe they tweaked them to fit their agenda? Pro-lifers have been known to do that....


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Ok, I'll play silly bugger with you...
> 
> On a molecular level, none. OTOH, that's not quite how society and law works, is it?
> 
> Are you arguing that rape is not such a heinous act, that we should afford no sympathy, recourse or justice to the victim? Even if it involves the taking of an innocent life, albeit the object of a forced union?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing quite a bit. Life does begin at conception, but the potential for live birth for a fetus at conception and a 20 week-old fetus, are in excess of a 1000% better chance for the 20 week-old.
> 
> While it is unknown if a week old fetus can feel pain, a twenty week fetus can certainly feel pain.
> 
> Lastly, are you defending the act of incest? I know you are in favor of gay marriage, but do you also consider having sex with one's children to be within the scope of normal human activity?
> 
> Do you not consider that criminal acts require additional consideration, in terms of justice?
> 
> Or is it so important for "your side" to "win" an argument, that you do not care what happens to other people?


I am in favor of hanging the rapist by the neck until he stops twitching..... Add another thirty days just for the buzzards to have their fill wouldn't upset me in the least. I am not so sure we should sentence an innocent bystander to a similar fate.

You also seem to have mistaken my stance on gay marriage,,,,, it's not that I approve of it, it's a matter of constitutional rights guaranteed to ALL our citizens that I feel are vastly more important than my personal feelings.

As to incest..... That falls in the same category as gay lifestyles.... It's not my cup of tea but I see no harm in it as long as both parties are consenting adults. 

Now, as to my side winning..... Yes I do believe our constitution comes ahead of what happens to any individual.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Okay, go with we all have equal rights. That means the womb owner does not have to grant rights of occupancy to the fetus. Her body her rights.


Are you speaking of the mentally challenged who were raped? Who are you speaking of? Do you think there are women who do not know what makes a baby? Are you saying fertilized eggs jump right in there?
Anyone out there who is not aware of birth control, cvs, free b.c. And how to get pregnant?
Anyone willfully having sex is responsible for their own bodies.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Valmai said:


> So many people seem to have very strong opinions on the "act" of abortion, but no-one appears to be considering the quality of life all these children would have. Saying 'they can be adopted' is not an answer. Those of you who are pro life would you be willing to adopt several of these unwanted minority/disabled children and give them a good life? Will you stop complaining about welfare mothers? After all they chose not to abort. Saying they need to take reponsiblity is not an answer either.
> In case anyone is missing my point I believe it is a greater crime to bring unwanted unloved children into the world where their only future is most likely to be in the gutter or prison.


So are you saying the amount of child abuse has dropped since abortion became prevalent?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An interesting point considering our prisons overfloweth with those who grew up in that unwanted, unloved environment.


That cannot be since abortion has been legal for 45 yrs, women aborted all those unwanted criminals.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> There are people and corporations (Hobby Lobby) that won't allow _some_ types of contraceptives. There are even pharmacists that won't release the morning after pill. All because of religion. I don't want to go there but you can Google "abortifacient" and read more than you ever wanted to know.
> 
> Of course you should have an opinion on abortion. Everyone has opinions and someone else is always going to have a differing one.


I have to respectfully say you are wrong. Wrong. Seems the non-conserves enjoy this 'misstatement'. HL has NO power to 'disallow' anything. They just won't buy you abortitives. 
Did you know that HL PAYS for dozens of contraceptives? But you & many on the left keep up w/this fallacy, including some politicians, Pelosi, etc, all should know better.
How many cases of Rphs refusing & that person doesn't have sense enuf to go to the next cvs? More dummies who don't know there's more than 1 store?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, I had a good friend who raised two boys, both the result of condom failure.


Huh, no abortion? Didn't want them, huh? Are they abused? In jail?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tiempo said:


> Birth control fails quite often. Condoms break, diaphragms are notorious..almost everyone knows a 'diaphragm' baby. The pill fails some women.
> 
> Just two weeks ago, a woman I know from a tiny FB page (57 members who mostly know each other in real life too) went to the ER with severe abdominal pain. Turned out that despite having a Mirena IUD she was pregnant with an ectopic pregnancy that had already ruptured her fallopian tube. Three other women said that Mirena had failed them too. Four out of 57 women most of whom don't even use Mirena..those are some really crappy odds.


So, are all these b.c. failures abused? Criminals? Did their moms give them up for adoption?
I know several parents who admitted kids were 'accidents' and they ALL say the kids were great blessings.


----------



## Tricky Grama

FeralFemale said:


> I've had an abortion. My husband sleeps quite fine next to me.
> 
> I won't go into the details except that I was in a long term relationship, the contraception failed, and I was young and broke.
> 
> Something that folks forget -- the liberal media bombards women with 'information' about abortion being ok. Not just ok, but a 'right'. And it's not a baby, it's a fetus. It's just tissue, a blob of cells. You have the absolute right to control your body. It's a simple procedure, etc, etc.
> 
> When I had my abortion I believed all these things. I was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. After my abortion, I realized I had been lied to. I could go into a lot of details but would rather not (I actually have described my physical and emotional damage on this board. Maybe the posts are still available if you search?)
> 
> The bottom line is that I realized if I was being lied to about something so physically invasive, painful and damaging as abortion, then maybe the Left was lying to me about other things as well. I became informed and found out that the Left was, indeed, lying to me about so much more. My abortion is the reason why I am a conservative today.
> 
> Do not judge women who have had an abortion. What do you expect them to do when everything they hear is that it is just a blob of cells and that abortion is a god given right?


Post of the decade award.

I'm so sorry for your pain, FF.

I have a friend w/nearly the same circumstances. As well as 2 friends who used to work in abortion clinics.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jim Bunton said:


> You are correct in your definition of an unborn child. It is a **** sapien. That does not show hypocrisy since the question isn't whether it is human, but whether it is a viable life. This is more closely compared to removing a patient from life support. If the family decides this it is legal for the doctor to have that decision carried out. On the other hand if some one just came in and unplugged the life support that would not be legal.
> Jim


And this is the SAME...how? Someone brain dead &not going to live is comparable to a brand new healthy viable living being with a beating heart, needing to grow a few more months?
I'm surprised no one has brought up the death penalty as an analogy. Or did the idiocy of that comparison finally soak in.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> If you kill all the pregnant deer eventually you won't have any deer to hunt..... It has nothing to do with caring for baby animals and everything to do with pragmatism. If you want food next year you don't kill it before it is born this year.
> 
> As for the human species we are in no danger of extinction are we?


Nah. So let's off G'pa too, he's sure not producing. Even ol' Ezekial thinks you should just die at 70. Like I said b/4, czar Holgren thought b.c. in the drinking water would be a great idea. And figured most societies should do forced abortions in certain cases.
Those progressives, what next. But protect the deer population.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> I think you have just trapped yourself. The womb owner granted the right of occupancy when she KNOWINGLY and WILLING had sex. Just as I have said I'm willing to bet you think a man should be held responsible if he impregnates a woman. Are you now saying there is another double standard for women so they can choose what they wish to be responsible for?


Wait, got the impression a few pages back that this was just a blob of cells that jumped up into a womb & demanded to be fed.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MDKatie said:


> I surely hope that every single pro-lifer on here is against the death penalty.


Ah! There it is!
Please, please tell us how this is the same. How.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MDKatie said:


> But I thought ALL lives were created equal and it's not our decision to decide who gets to live and who doesn't???


We have a judicial system. There is evil in the world who have murdered. Recently Boston was bombed & that piece of crap will die for it.
There's thousands of other examples, none of which are anything like killing an innocent.
See, that is what the boston bomber did.
There is no comparison.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah! There it is!
> Please, please tell us how this is the same. How.


I see a penalty as something earned, just like a reward.
A murderer has earned a certain penalty.
What has a baby earned?


----------



## Irish Pixie

From what I've read on a few threads about abortion most christians are fine with it as long as it's on their terms.

Doesn't this make you pro choice? You're choosing which fetuses live, and which die. Correct?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> We have a judicial system. There is evil in the world who have murdered. Recently Boston was bombed & that piece of crap will die for it.
> There's thousands of other examples, none of which are anything like killing an innocent.
> See, that is what the boston bomber did.
> There is no comparison.


If that's how you sleep at night.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Nah. So let's off G'pa too, he's sure not producing. Even ol' Ezekial thinks you should just die at 70. Like I said b/4, czar Holgren thought b.c. in the drinking water would be a great idea. And figured most societies should do forced abortions in certain cases.
> Those progressives, what next. But protect the deer population.


You realize that this has nothing to do with abortion of a fetus, right? 

Stop lumping all pro choice people in with progressives that want infanticide, extreme birth control methods etc. There is no logical link between the two.


----------



## Oxankle

Strange how the baby killers cannot see the difference between an innocent child and a psychopathic criminal. 

We all start with blank slates--at some point we reach the age of reason and determine our own future--some become angels, some become criminals, with most of us falling somewhere in between. 

Where is the dividing line between infanticide and extreme birth control? Killing babies IS infanticide. It is also national and personal suicide.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Strange how the baby killers cannot see the difference between an innocent child and a psychopathic criminal.
> 
> We all start with blank slates--at some point we reach the age of reason and determine our own future--some become angels, some become criminals, with most of us falling somewhere in between.
> 
> Where is the dividing line between infanticide and extreme birth control? Killing babies IS infanticide. It is also national and personal suicide.


Strange how people like to use inflammatory language just to give the pot a big ol' stir. Be sure not to get any on you.


----------



## Jolly

> As to incest..... That falls in the same category as gay lifestyles.... It's not my cup of tea but I see no harm in it as long as both parties are consenting adults.


The Constitution does not grant anarchy. I don't think it actually grants a right to abort one's child, nor do I think it contains a right to gay marriage. I don't think it allows fathers to have sex with their 19 year old daughters.

The Constitution is what it is. It's powers are enumerated and those not specifically held by the Federal government are reserved for the states.

But in the Bizarro World we currently live in, where common sense has taken a vacation and society celebrates debauchery, the Constitution's "intent" bears much resemblence to orgami, with it's multiple twists and folds of modern meaning.

As a nation, we should be ashamed, but I think we passed that milestone years ago...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I have to respectfully say you are wrong. Wrong. Seems the non-conserves enjoy this 'misstatement'. HL has NO power to 'disallow' anything. They just won't buy you abortitives.
> Did you know that HL PAYS for dozens of contraceptives? But you & many on the left keep up w/this fallacy, including some politicians, Pelosi, etc, all should know better.
> How many cases of Rphs refusing & that person doesn't have sense enuf to go to the next cvs? More dummies who don't know there's more than 1 store?


Calling me a "dummy" well, that's just not nice. 

HL only allows certain types of birth control to be paid for through it's insurance. I never said it didn't allow any birth control, perhaps you should read my post again? Maybe more slowly this time? They as a company are regulating what medication we can take by not paying for it? What's next? No open heart surgery? Blood transfusions? 

Lets say that I get all my medications from my local pharmacy, have for years and it's the only one for 25 miles. All the sudden the pharmacist decides that the birth control I've been on for 20 years is "bad" based only on his or her belief, no supporting medical information whatsoever. No problem, right? Just go to another pharmacy. To take this a step further- what if the pharmacist decided that insulin is "bad" and against his or her beliefs? Still OK, right? Or blood pressure medication? Or antibiotics? Still OK?


----------



## Guest

Now I am curious, has someone found a law or mandate requiring pharmacies to carry birth control pills and brands specifically reqested? Most all will order what you are prescribed if not stocked and some do refuse to stock certain medications, I know this from personal experience.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> All lives are created equal but people make choices which result in them facing consequences. If that were not so then we would not put people in prisons because the value of their life would be the same as their victim's lives.


Putting people in prison and killing a criminal are not the same at all. 



Tricky Grama said:


> We have a judicial system. There is evil in the world who have murdered. Recently Boston was bombed & that piece of crap will die for it.
> There's thousands of other examples, none of which are anything like killing an innocent.
> See, that is what the boston bomber did.
> There is no comparison.


Yes, we have a judicial system. We decided the rules, though. We decide who gets to live and who gets to die. Why? Why not keep the criminal in jail for the crime? Why kill that person? If all lives are created equal, it is not our job to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. The criminal can just rot in jail instead.


----------



## MDKatie

Oxankle said:


> Strange how the baby killers cannot see the difference between an innocent child and a psychopathic criminal.


That's funny. You're insinuating I'm a baby killer because I brought up the death penalty. I'm pretty sure you'd have to actually kill a baby to be called a baby killer. 

Strange how some people like to be hypocritical and talk about how awful it is to end a pregnancy....like it's so horrible to end a pregnancy at 12 weeks or less--that makes you an awful, despicable, rotten, no-good person....but it's totally ok to end a human life...a living, breathing, walking, human who has been on this earth for years. Totally ok! 

Yes, they committed a crime, but what gives us the right to kill them? 

"You killed someone and that's wrong, so we're going to kill you back!" ound: Hypocrites.


----------



## AmericanStand

Jolly said:


> The Constitution does not grant anarchy. I don't think it actually grants a right to abort one's child, nor do I think it contains a right to gay marriage. I don't think it allows fathers to have sex with their 19 year old daughters.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is what it is. It's powers are enumerated and those not specifically held by the Federal government are reserved for the states.
> ...



Um no ,
You left out a few words that totally change the meaning of the passage. 

"Or to the people "


----------



## AmericanStand

There needs to be a love/hate button for when you love half a comment and hate half !


----------



## Jolly

AmericanStand said:


> Um no ,
> You left out a few words that totally change the meaning of the passage.
> 
> "Or to the people "


Or to the people...but I shouldn't have to point that out, should I?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> If that's how you sleep at night.



The Boston bombers don't get the death penalty?

But the inconvenient unborn child does.
What logic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Now I am curious, has someone found a law or mandate requiring pharmacies to carry birth control pills and brands specifically reqested? Most all will order what you are prescribed if not stocked and some do refuse to stock certain medications, I know this from personal experience.


There probably are no such laws since most stores are free to choose the products they sell.

Most though will carry products for which there is a demand, and BC pills have medical uses beyond just birth control


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've often wondered why docs will refuse to pull the plug on a patient...... Until the insurance runs out?


This is not so.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Calling me a "dummy" well, that's just not nice.
> 
> HL only allows certain types of birth control to be paid for through it's insurance. I never said it didn't allow any birth control, perhaps you should read my post again? Maybe more slowly this time? They as a company are regulating what medication we can take by not paying for it? What's next? No open heart surgery? Blood transfusions?
> 
> Lets say that I get all my medications from my local pharmacy, have for years and it's the only one for 25 miles. All the sudden the pharmacist decides that the birth control I've been on for 20 years is "bad" based only on his or her belief, no supporting medical information whatsoever. No problem, right? Just go to another pharmacy. To take this a step further- what if the pharmacist decided that insulin is "bad" and against his or her beliefs? Still OK, right? Or blood pressure medication? Or antibiotics? Still OK?


I referred to the person who's pharmacist refused to give the 'abortion' pill a dummy. I'm sorry, I had no idea that was you, you did not indicate that. 
Seems to me, a handful of Rphs across the country have a problem w/that pill...if the pharm will not stock it-as well as some other things some stores won't/don't carry, other stores do.

What if the govt now decides all women of ages 45-55will be exterminated. I can come up w/what ifs all day too.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MDKatie said:


> Putting people in prison and killing a criminal are not the same at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we have a judicial system. We decided the rules, though. We decide who gets to live and who gets to die. Why? Why not keep the criminal in jail for the crime? Why kill that person? If all lives are created equal, it is not our job to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. The criminal can just rot in jail instead.


Huh. Seems some get out. And repeat. Happens a lot. Sometimes idiot administrations let over 100K illegal aliens loose. Sometimes they let them loose numerous times. Rotting in jail would be fine if that was guaranteed.

Growing in the womb should have a guarantee.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I referred to the person who's pharmacist refused to give the 'abortion' pill a dummy. I'm sorry, I had no idea that was you, you did not indicate that.
> Seems to me, a handful of Rphs across the country have a problem w/that pill...if the pharm will not stock it-as well as some other things some stores won't/don't carry, other stores do.
> 
> What if the govt now decides all women of ages 45-55will be exterminated. I can come up w/what ifs all day too.


Shouldn't the "what ifs" have a firm base in reality? Even you can see the difference between pharmacists denying someone a medication because of their beliefs and the government exterminating all women from 45-50, right? :facepalm:

Dang. It's going to be a two coffee press day.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> The Constitution does not grant anarchy. I don't think it actually grants a right to abort one's child, nor do I think it contains a right to gay marriage. I don't think it allows fathers to have sex with their 19 year old daughters.
> 
> The Constitution is what it is. It's powers are enumerated and those not specifically held by the Federal government are reserved for the states.
> 
> But in the Bizarro World we currently live in, where common sense has taken a vacation and society celebrates debauchery, the Constitution's "intent" bears much resemblence to orgami, with it's multiple twists and folds of modern meaning.
> 
> As a nation, we should be ashamed, but I think we passed that milestone years ago...


I agree that the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal government, no quarrel there. One of the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution, and not only a power but an obligation is to protect the citizens basic rights on an equal basis. That was clarified further with the bill of rights along with other amendments later.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Shouldn't the "what ifs" have a firm base in reality? Even you can see the difference between pharmacists denying someone a medication because of their beliefs and the government exterminating all women from 45-50, right? :facepalm:
> 
> Dang. It's going to be a two coffee press day.


Your what ifs were not realistic, you knew that. My analogy was 'bout as realistic as Rphs refusing to fill meds.

Btw, I DID go back and read your post, as you suggested I do: "slowly". You said: "...there are people and corporations (Hobby Lobby) that WON'T ALLOW certain types of contraceptives..."
The thread: "?s for pro choice supporters" page 7, post #138.
Give us all the same consideration and read it SLOWLY. Btw, I did the capital letters, in case someone would miss that part. It is NOT TRUE. HL cannot prevent anyone from buying anything. They can, however, refuse to buy something for someone else.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> This is not so.


Of course it is. I have seen it happen a couple of times in my own family... one was a cousin, the other was my uncle. I am quite sure these were not insulated icodents.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Your what ifs were not realistic, you knew that. My analogy was 'bout as realistic as Rphs refusing to fill meds.
> 
> Btw, I DID go back and read your post, as you suggested I do: "slowly". You said: "...there are people and corporations (Hobby Lobby) that WON'T ALLOW certain types of contraceptives..."
> The thread: "?s for pro choice supporters" page 7, post #138.
> Give us all the same consideration and read it SLOWLY. Btw, I did the capital letters, in case someone would miss that part. It is NOT TRUE. HL cannot prevent anyone from buying anything. They can, however, refuse to buy something for someone else.


Are you saying that pharmacists are NOT refusing to fill medications now? 

HL is refusing to allow it's employees to use their insurance, that they have paid for, to buy certain types of birth control. Do you deny that HL is going this?


----------



## FarmerKat

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It could be argued that ANY method used to prevent that potential child from being born is inherently wrong or as some would say "murder". Including abstinence!! Be careful what you wish for.


Abstinence cannot result in murder - as the egg has not been fertilized by a sperm. Once the egg is fertilized, it is a different story.



Irish Pixie said:


> HL only allows certain types of birth control to be paid for through it's insurance. I never said it didn't allow any birth control, perhaps you should read my post again? Maybe more slowly this time? They as a company are regulating what medication we can take by not paying for it? What's next? No open heart surgery? Blood transfusions?



Employers choose insurance companies to work with, the insurance companies decide what procedure they pay for. So in effect, the employer is limiting the employee's choices by selecting the insurance company. I have seen it many times - a doctor says "you need xyz procedure", insurance company will not pay for what your doctor says you need. Sometimes they offer to pay for a different type of treatment, sometimes you are just out of luck. They also pay for certain medications but not others. So what is the problem if they pay for one type of BC and not another?


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> There probably are no such laws since most stores are free to choose the products they sell.
> 
> Most though will carry products for which there is a demand, and BC pills have medical uses beyond just birth control


Not so for cake makers.. ....there no freedom to refuse a demand from a customer.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize that this has nothing to do with abortion of a fetus, right?
> 
> Stop lumping all pro choice people in with progressives that want infanticide, extreme birth control methods etc. There is no logical link between the two.


How does advocating forced abortions NOT have anything to do with abortion of a fetus?
I said nothing about lumping pro choice in w/progressives however, you will not find prolife in the infanticide group. Some Progressives are advocating infanticide. Conservatives do not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FarmerKat said:


> Employers choose insurance companies to work with, the insurance companies decide what procedure they pay for. So in effect, the employer is limiting the employee's choices by selecting the insurance company. I have seen it many times - a doctor says "you need xyz procedure", insurance company will not pay for what your doctor says you need. Sometimes they offer to pay for a different type of treatment, sometimes you are just out of luck. They also pay for certain medications but not others. So what is the problem if they pay for one type of BC and not another?


That's not what HL did. They denied that employees could use the insurance, that the employee pay for, for certain types of birth control. 

This was a SCOTUS ruling, it gave a corporation an individual's freedom of religion. Doesn't anyone remember it? 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> How does advocating forced abortions NOT have anything to do with abortion of a fetus?
> I said nothing about lumping pro choice in w/progressives however, you will not find prolife in the infanticide group. Some Progressives are advocating infanticide. Conservatives do not.


Who said anything about forced abortions? You brought up a progressive group (actually many times) that is OK with infanticide. The killing of infants after birth, does that help? NO ONE on this forum has advocated it yet you bring it up at every opportunity, why?

You, and others, are fine with abortion as long as it's on your terms.


----------



## Evons hubby

FarmerKat said:


> Abstinence cannot result in murder - as the egg has not been fertilized by a sperm. Once the egg is fertilized, it is a different story.


Does not abstinence deprive that egg the opportunity to be fertilized and produce a baby? A potential live baby doesnt get to be born.... just the very same result as if the mother had a late term abortion. The sperm fertilizing the egg is only one step in a rather lengthy multifaceted process that brings a child into the world. Any interference with that process that prevents the live birth gives us the same result.... a missing person.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I love bacon. I love bacon AND coffee sooo much.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course it is. I have seen it happen a couple of times in my own family... one was a cousin, the other was my uncle. I am quite sure these were not insulated icodents.


Thanks for the study of 2.
I, too, have examples of the opposite, a few yrs of hospital nursing showed me most docs will suggest "pulling the plug" FAR more often than relatives will. As well as upping the morphine doses for cancer patients in pain, f.i., whether relatives have said they are praying for an easy death or not.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not what HL did. They denied that employees could use the insurance, that the employee pay for, for certain types of birth control.
> 
> This was a SCOTUS ruling, it gave a corporation an individual's freedom of religion. Doesn't anyone remember it?
> 
> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/


:umno:

There is a difference in privately held and publicly held corporations. HL is privately held. As such, it is not subject to many of the laws which effect publicly traded companies.

Since health insurance is a benefit provided by the company, the policy is negotiated between the company and the insurance provider. HL can stipulate what it wants and what it doesn't. If they don't want to pay for certain drugs, that clause will be in there. If they wish to make sure their employees use cheaper generics, rather than name drugs, that clause will be in there.

Nobdoy's rights have been taken away. HL is not demanding its employees not buy or use birth control. HL is only stipulating what it will pay for, and will not.

Most of the gals who work for HL here, don't see it as that big of a deal, and go down to the Health Unit, where they can get the pills for free. If they wish to use a pill not on Public Health's formulary, such as Yasmin, they pay for it out of pocket.

And to reiterate a point: HL employees *do not* pay all of the cost of their health insurance. The typical HL entry level, full-time person makes approximately $30K/yr...If HL didn't pick up a large part of the premium, the average worker could not afford the insurance.

Of course, an alternative would be to discontinue health insurance as a benefit, and throw the workers onto the mercy of Obamacare.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Does not abstinence deprive that egg the opportunity to be fertilized and produce a baby? A potential live baby doesnt get to be born.... just the very same result as if the mother had a late term abortion. The sperm fertilizing the egg is only one step in a rather lengthy multifaceted process that brings a child into the world. Any interference with that process that prevents the live birth gives us the same result.... a missing person.


I'm just a dumb 'ol country boy, but a setting hen can nest on an unfertilized egg until Gabriel blows his horn and she won't get a biddy to hatch from that egg, will she?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that pharmacists are NOT refusing to fill medications now?
> 
> HL is refusing to allow it's employees to use their insurance, that they have paid for, to buy certain types of birth control. Do you deny that HL is going this?


HL is providing ins. 
HL is paying the bill.
HL provides nearly all forms of b.c.
HL does NOT forbid anyone to go buy anything.

I said if there's a handful of Rphs refusing to fill abortitives go somewhere else.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> :umno:
> 
> There is a difference in privately held and publicly held corporations. HL is privately held. As such, it is not subject to many of the laws which effect publicly traded companies.
> 
> Since health insurance is a benefit provided by the company, the policy is negotiated between the company and the insurance provider. HL can stipulate what it wants and what it doesn't. If they don't want to pay for certain drugs, that clause will be in there. If they wish to make sure their employees use cheaper generics, rather than name drugs, that clause will be in there.
> 
> Nobdoy's rights have been taken away. HL is not demanding its employees not buy or use birth control. HL is only stipulating what it will pay for, and will not.
> 
> Most of the gals who work for HL here, don't see it as that big of a deal, and go down to the Health Unit, where they can get the pills for free. If they wish to use a pill not on Public Health's formulary, such as Yasmin, they pay for it out of pocket.
> 
> And to reiterate a point: HL employees *do not* pay all of the cost of their health insurance. The typical HL entry level, full-time person makes approximately $30K/yr...If HL didn't pick up a large part of the premium, the average worker could not afford the insurance.
> 
> Of course, an alternative would be to discontinue health insurance as a benefit, and throw the workers onto the mercy of Obamacare.



It's still a company, yes? It still dictates what birth control it's employees can buy with the insurance they've paid for, yes? 

Not because of an agreement between itself and an insurance company, that's common, it's because HL doesn't agree with _how_ the birth control works. Huge difference. Huge. Absolutely nothing to do with generic drugs whatsoever.

It's a straw man that HL picks up part of the insurance or even offers it. Neither does Obamacare.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> HL is providing ins.
> HL is paying the bill.
> HL provides nearly all forms of b.c.
> HL does NOT forbid anyone to go buy anything.
> 
> I said if there's a handful of Rphs refusing to fill abortitives go somewhere else.


That's not what I asked you. 

"Are you saying that pharmacists are NOT refusing to fill medications now? 

HL is refusing to allow it's employees to use their insurance, that they have paid for, to buy certain types of birth control. Do you deny that HL is going this?"


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Who said anything about forced abortions? You brought up a progressive group (actually many times) that is OK with infanticide. The killing of infants after birth, does that help? NO ONE on this forum has advocated it yet you bring it up at every opportunity, why?
> 
> You, and others, are fine with abortion as long as it's on your terms.


Holgren, a czar in this administration said it, I mentioned that b/c he's a democrat, a progressive democrat, as is this administration, as are most pro choice. 
If we are going to suggest Rphs will stop filling insulin Rxs, we can suggest what can happen under progressive administrations who have such people for leaders.
As in "what could happen next"?

I've never read or heard of Rphs refusing insulin, yet I've read of progressives advocating infanticide & forced b.c. & forced abortions. Several of HUNDREDS of reasons I'm not a progressive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Holgren, a czar in this administration said it, I mentioned that b/c he's a democrat, a progressive democrat, as is this administration, as are most pro choice.
> If we are going to suggest Rphs will stop filling insulin Rxs, we can suggest what can happen under progressive administrations who have such people for leaders.
> As in "what could happen next"?
> 
> I've never read or heard of Rphs refusing insulin, yet I've read of progressives advocating infanticide & forced b.c. & forced abortions. Several of HUNDREDS of reasons I'm not a progressive.


My point is that no one on this forum has advocated anything that Holgren allegedly has said regarding infanticide. No one on this forum, progressive liberal Democrat whatever has advocated infanticide, forced birth control, or forced abortions yet you have no problem lumping them into the same group. Why do you do that? 

Have you heard of pharmacists refusing to fill the morning after pill and other forms of birth control?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Tricky grama, I don't think it's out of line or off topic to mention that here.

Every piece of information comes with bias. It shows wisdom to let people consider info about sources of info along with info.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still a company, yes? It still dictates what birth control it's employees can buy with the insurance they've paid for, yes?
> 
> Not because of an agreement between itself and an insurance company, that's common, it's because HL doesn't agree with _how_ the birth control works. Huge difference. Huge. Absolutely nothing to do with generic drugs whatsoever.
> 
> It's a straw man that HL picks up part of the insurance or even offers it. Neither does Obamacare.


Do you not know the difference between privately held and publicly traded companies?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> My point is that no one on this forum has advocated anything that Holgren allegedly has said regarding infanticide. No one on this forum, progressive liberal Democrat whatever has advocated infanticide, forced birth control, or forced abortions yet you have no problem lumping them into the same group. Why do you do that?
> 
> Have you heard of pharmacists refusing to fill the morning after pill and other forms of birth control?


Pretty sure I addressed this. Progressives have leaders who advocate some stuff that's pretty offensive to conservatives. These leaders have lots of followers. This admin prolly has the most Marxists, the most socialists and did have a self-avowed communist as a czar. This is foreign to conservatives as well as not acceptable, not compatible w/Constitution.

This thread is basically a progressive vs conservative ideas thread. Abortion on demand in a society is a slippery slope, a "what could come next" discussion. It's already been determined what could come next when you have an administration such as this. 

I have heard of a handful of Rphs not filling certain abortitives. Go elsewhere.
(Seems to be an echo in here)


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Pretty sure I addressed this. Progressives have leaders who advocate some stuff that's pretty offensive to conservatives. These leaders have lots of followers. This admin prolly has the most Marxists, the most socialists and did have a self-avowed communist as a czar. This is foreign to conservatives as well as not acceptable, not compatible w/Constitution.
> 
> This thread is basically a progressive vs conservative ideas thread. Abortion on demand in a society is a slippery slope, a "what could come next" discussion. It's already been determined what could come next when you have an administration such as this.
> 
> I have heard of a handful of Rphs not filling certain abortitives. Go elsewhere.
> (Seems to be an echo in here)


WHAT DOES THE PROGRESSIVE LEADERS OF THIS ADMINISTRATIONS FOLLOWERS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYONE ON HOMESTEADING TODAY? Has a single forum member advocated anything remotely like you attributed to them? If not, why do you insist on lumping pro choice advocates in with them? 

Oh, so there _are_ pharmacists _now_ that won't dispense medication that was lawfully prescribed by a licensed physician. It can't possibly go any further than birth control can it?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Do you not know the difference between privately held and publicly traded companies?


Yes, I do. Do you realize it's still a company? As in not an individual?

And I realize that this is why HL brought the case to the Supreme Court.


----------



## MDKatie

Tricky Grama said:


> This thread is basically a progressive vs conservative ideas thread. Abortion on demand in a society is a slippery slope, a "what could come next" discussion. It's already been determined what could come next when you have an administration such as this.


Ok, so then it'd be reasonable for me to say if fetus rights become more important than the mother's rights, then women will get arrested for potentially harming the fetus. If she smokes? Charge her with child abuse. If she gets in an automobile accident and has a miscarriage? Charge her with vehicular manslaughter. Pregnant women will be forbidden to do any potentially harmful activities, because it could harm the fetus.


----------



## MDKatie

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, so there _are_ pharmacists _now_ that won't dispense medication that was lawfully prescribed by a licensed physician. It can't possibly go any further than birth control can it?


Conservatives seem to be very opposed to anyone forcing their beliefs on them....but they seem just fine and dandy with forcing their beliefs on others. 

"Don't tread on me! But I want to be able to deny you certain medicines and medical procedures because I don't like them."


----------



## mnn2501

MDKatie said:


> I surely hope that every single pro-lifer on here is against the death penalty.


Completely different situations - there is no comparison between an innocent being murdered and a criminal who committed a heinous enough crime to cause a judge and jury (and there is always an automatic appeal)to give them the death penalty, being disposed of.


----------



## mnn2501

MDKatie said:


> I surely hope that every single pro-lifer on here is against the death penalty.





MDKatie said:


> But I thought ALL lives were created equal and it's not our decision to decide who gets to live and who doesn't???


You thought wrong.


----------



## kasilofhome

MDKatie said:


> Conservatives seem to be very opposed to anyone forcing their beliefs on them....but they seem just fine and dandy with forcing their beliefs on others.
> 
> "Don't tread on me! But I want to be able to deny you certain medicines and medical procedures because I don't like them."


Yea, we believe in the bill of rights, the constitution
As it was intended per supporting docs of the times.

People have the freedom to work where the want. Be self employed or work for a private company, or a public company or work for the government. This fully allows so much individualism. Progressives always start their own companies public or private per their own rights vs trying to control people freedoms.

Everyone should know that surely an educated person with a doctor degree has had some exposure to education.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Lets say that I get all my medications from my local pharmacy, have for years and it's the only one for 25 miles. All the sudden the pharmacist decides that the birth control I've been on for 20 years is "bad" based only on his or her belief, no supporting medical information whatsoever. No problem, right? Just go to another pharmacy. To take this a step further- what if the pharmacist decided that insulin is "bad" and against his or her beliefs? Still OK, right? Or blood pressure medication? Or antibiotics? Still OK?


Eventually the pharmacist will go out of business by his/her choices, but yes, they are allowed to make them, sorry if that inconveniences you.


----------



## kasilofhome

Doctors claim pharmacy chain refusing to fill pain meds
6:47 p.m. EDT, Thu September 13, 2012

COBB COUNTY, Ga. &#8212;

Top local surgeons are going after a major pharmacy chain for refusing to fill legitimate pain medication prescriptions. 

Investigative reporter Aaron Diamant talked with doctors who say the company is harassing their patients. 

The surgeon who tipped Diamant off to the situation said he was fuming mad and totally frustrated about what he said has been going on at Walgreens pharmacies all over our area for more than a year. 

Diamant spent two days trying to get answers from the company. 

Nationally-known Smyrna plastic surgeon Keith Jeffords said more of his patients keep running into the same problem. 

"This happens at least every other week in my practice," Jeffords said. 

Pharmacists are challenging, and in many cases refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions for post-operative narcotic pain medications such as Vicodin at Walgreens pharmacies. 

"It's a consistent finding through any metro Atlanta Walgreens that a patient is harassed," Jeffords said. 

Robin Haaland, who flew in from Utah for a procedure in August, got turned away at a Walgreens along Cobb Parkway, even after Jeffords spoke to the pharmacist himself. 

"At the time I was more embarrassed, because there were people standing around. I felt like I did something wrong," Haaland said. 

http://bcove.me/ixcm63fj

"We can't get to the bottom of it," said plastic surgeon Dr. Carmen Kavali. 

Kavali said Walgreens pharmacists routinely refuse to fill pain med prescriptions for her patients, too. 

"We called. Shut down. Can't get anywhere. There's no information to be had. The manager just says this is our policy. What's your policy? Tell me what it is so I can meet your policy and get these prescriptions filled for these patients who need them," Kavali said 

Unable to get answers, Jeffords has posted a warning for patients in his lobby and on his practice's Facebook page. 

"I'm not going to have any of my prescriptions go to Walgreens ever again," Jeffords said. 

The surgeons say their colleagues in our area are dealing with the same thing. 

After two days of investigating, Walgreens sent Diamant a statement, saying, "Our pharmacists use their professional judgment when evaluating and dispensing all prescriptions. They can consult with the prescriber or patient at any time if they feel a medication prescribed is not appropriate. We are looking into the concerns that were raised by these prescribers."



http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx

http://www.chrisjbritt.com/2013/08/cvs-is-refusing-my-valid-prescriptions.html


http://m.wisn.com/Pharmacist-Refuses-To-Fill-Prescriptions-For-Moral-Reasons/8039726


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not what HL did. They denied that employees could use the insurance, *that the employee pay for*, for certain types of birth control.


Sorry, Hobby Lobby pays the greater amount of their insurance -nearly 100% for the employee from what I have read and a lessor amount for the family - and the few times I've been into one I can't remember seeing a male working (I'm sure there are some, but not that I have seen)


----------



## gibbsgirl

Too funny kasilofhome.

I was just about to say that pharmacists risk their licenses to govt persecution if the govt finds that they are inappropriately dispensing rxs.

I don't agree with a lot of the controls put on citizens about what prohibitions there are for rx, otc, or street drugs anyway.

But, I do acknowledge that to keep their jobs under the system we have pharmacies have to make a lot of judgment calls about filling faje rxs, filling rxs from multiple providers, letting nonpatiemts pick up txs, and even risking robbery for rxs they stock.


----------



## kasilofhome

Liberals and progressives simply act like spoiled children.... and cannot connect dots.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Liberals and progressives simply act like spoiled children.... and cannot connect dots.


This kind of post is not representative of good adult conversation.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Sorry, Hobby Lobby pays the greater amount of their insurance - 100% for the employee from what I have read and a lessor amount for the family - and the few times I've been into one I can't remember seeing a male working (I'm sure there are some, but not that I have seen)


Do you have a link that supports that HL pays 100% of it's employee's health insurance? The closest I've found is 100% in network (no copays) on office visits but that isn't no premium cost to the employee.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you have a link that supports that HL pays 100% of it's employee's health insurance? I can't. The closest I've found is 100% in network (no copays) but that doesn't say no premium cost to the employee.


It does not really matter who pays. It is part of their employment compensation and an employer should have no right to dictate what the compensation pays for.

One day soon one of their employees will take them to court and this will change.


----------



## wr

kasilofhome said:


> Daddies don't have a say about their baby....wonder why women complain when a baby is born daddies might not be involved...
> 
> Abort... Daddies are shut out.


What about those daddies that want women to have abortions? Do you also feel that if daddy wanted an abortion the woman opts not to abort, he should be expected to pay support for a child he didn't want?


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Doctors claim pharmacy chain refusing to fill pain meds
> 6:47 p.m. EDT, Thu September 13, 2012
> 
> COBB COUNTY, Ga. &#8212;
> 
> Top local surgeons are going after a major pharmacy chain for refusing to fill legitimate pain medication prescriptions.
> 
> Investigative reporter Aaron Diamant talked with doctors who say the company is harassing their patients.
> 
> The surgeon who tipped Diamant off to the situation said he was fuming mad and totally frustrated about what he said has been going on at Walgreens pharmacies all over our area for more than a year.
> 
> Diamant spent two days trying to get answers from the company.
> 
> Nationally-known Smyrna plastic surgeon Keith Jeffords said more of his patients keep running into the same problem.
> 
> "This happens at least every other week in my practice," Jeffords said.
> 
> Pharmacists are challenging, and in many cases refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions for post-operative narcotic pain medications such as Vicodin at Walgreens pharmacies.
> 
> "It's a consistent finding through any metro Atlanta Walgreens that a patient is harassed," Jeffords said.
> 
> Robin Haaland, who flew in from Utah for a procedure in August, got turned away at a Walgreens along Cobb Parkway, even after Jeffords spoke to the pharmacist himself.
> 
> "At the time I was more embarrassed, because there were people standing around. I felt like I did something wrong," Haaland said.
> 
> http://bcove.me/ixcm63fj
> 
> "We can't get to the bottom of it," said plastic surgeon Dr. Carmen Kavali.
> 
> Kavali said Walgreens pharmacists routinely refuse to fill pain med prescriptions for her patients, too.
> 
> "We called. Shut down. Can't get anywhere. There's no information to be had. The manager just says this is our policy. What's your policy? Tell me what it is so I can meet your policy and get these prescriptions filled for these patients who need them," Kavali said
> 
> Unable to get answers, Jeffords has posted a warning for patients in his lobby and on his practice's Facebook page.
> 
> "I'm not going to have any of my prescriptions go to Walgreens ever again," Jeffords said.
> 
> The surgeons say their colleagues in our area are dealing with the same thing.
> 
> After two days of investigating, Walgreens sent Diamant a statement, saying, "Our pharmacists use their professional judgment when evaluating and dispensing all prescriptions. They can consult with the prescriber or patient at any time if they feel a medication prescribed is not appropriate. We are looking into the concerns that were raised by these prescribers."
> 
> http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx
> 
> http://www.chrisjbritt.com/2013/08/cvs-is-refusing-my-valid-prescriptions.html
> 
> 
> http://m.wisn.com/Pharmacist-Refuses-To-Fill-Prescriptions-For-Moral-Reasons/8039726


Thank you for proving my point, very kind of you. There are pharmacists that won't dispense birth control, pain meds, what's next?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Eventually the pharmacist will go out of business by his/her choices, but yes, they are allowed to make them, sorry if that inconveniences you.


It doesn't inconvenience me but it does worry me. Birth control, pain medication, what's next?


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> Now I am curious, has someone found a law or mandate requiring pharmacies to carry birth control pills and brands specifically reqested? Most all will order what you are prescribed if not stocked and some do refuse to stock certain medications, I know this from personal experience.


Some pharmacies carry birth control and it depends on which pharmacist is working that day as to whether or not you get your prescription filled. If the one who thinks it is evil is there too bad for you. If you get the one who just does their job and doesn't try to force their morals on you then you get the pills.


----------



## Patchouli

Here's what I don't get: you guys are all about personal responsibility and making sure you have birth control before you have sex. And then you happily toss roadblock after roadblock in the way of women actually getting birth control. Seems to me the personal responsibility angle it just a facade and what you really want is no one having sex outside of marriage. Marriage that approved by you of course. 

It's amazing to me how much Christians are willing to stuff themselves into other people's personal lives. You want final say on reproduction, healthcare, marriage, what kind of sex people can have, etc. You are incredibly intrusive.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> It doesn't inconvenience me but it does worry me. Birth control, pain medication, what's next?


As soon as you open a business you can decide what you'll carry.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> As soon as you open a business you can decide what you'll carry.


Lemme know when you want to get a script for pain meds filled because you've hurt your back if you think the same way. K?

Or if a family member needs something the pharmacist on duty decides they don't want to dispense.

ETA: Why are there so many "special" people that won't do their job?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> From what I've read on a few threads about abortion most christians are fine with it as long as it's on their terms.
> 
> Doesn't this make you pro choice? You're choosing which fetuses live, and which die. Correct?


Just as I have pointed out abortion is taking the life of a human and there is no problem with taking a life when it is to protect yourself or others. There IS a problem when you take a life just because allowing the human to continue living inconveniences you.

Putting a bullet into the heart of your neighbor as he is coming at you with an ax with the intent of harming you him is OK. But killing him because he's playing rap music at 2 a.m. when you have to get up at 5 to go to work is not.

In the same way aborting a fetus because carrying it to term places you in danger is ok. Aborting it because you don't want a fat belly and/or stretch marks when you go to the beach this summer isn't.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize that this has nothing to do with abortion of a fetus, right?
> 
> Stop lumping all pro choice people in with progressives that want infanticide, extreme birth control methods etc. There is no logical link between the two.


Funny but it seems to me that anytime someone wants to put any limit on abortion a vast majority of pro choice people support the court cases to stop it.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> Some pharmacies carry birth control and it depends on which pharmacist is working that day as to whether or not you get your prescription filled. If the one who thinks it is evil is there too bad for you. If you get the one who just does their job and doesn't try to forcerstad their morals on you then you get the pills.


I understand perfectly well, and have no problem with pharmacies in general, I just went to where they would fill it. Private business can practice as they want as far as I am concerned. If someone feels there is a moral problem go elsewhere or seek advice from the prescriber.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wr..... have you not understood my position on abortion.... really disappointed in your connection to my posted views...

Everyone is equal... Why is it that some ambition a belief of equality ....as longer as they are superior?...

Men have been abused by the control by some females who simply use men.
Women have faked pregnancy to gain cash for abortions that are never needed.
Women have deliberately gotten pregnant to gain financial support.
Women have aborted children out of spite.

Refusing to include the father is self serving.

There could be a claim if abuse was involved.. not please do not put word in my mouth as to what that means to me.


----------



## watcher

Jolly said:


> The Constitution does not grant anarchy. I don't think it actually grants a right to abort one's child, nor do I think it contains a right to gay marriage. I don't think it allows fathers to have sex with their 19 year old daughters.


I'm sorry but care to tell me how, especially after the latest USSC ruling, you can legally/constitutionally justify making it illegal for an adult to have sex with or even marrying any other adult?


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Just as I have pointed out abortion is taking the life of a human and there is no problem with taking a life when it is to protect yourself or others. There IS a problem when you take a life just because allowing the human to continue living inconveniences you.
> 
> Putting a bullet into the heart of your neighbor as he is coming at you with an ax with the intent of harming you him is OK. But killing him because he's playing rap music at 2 a.m. when you have to get up at 5 to go to work is not.
> 
> In the same way aborting a fetus because carrying it to term places you in danger is ok. * Aborting it because you don't want a fat belly and/or stretch marks when you go to the beach this summer isn't.*



Again, you're fine with abortion but it has to be on your terms, other killing as well. 

The bolded part of your post is beneath you. You will never know why a woman chose to terminate a pregnancy. I doubt you'd find many (if any) where that was the reason. It's a horrible way to marginalize an agonizing decision. The fact that you chose to publicize your opinion in that way says a lot about you.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Calling me a "dummy" well, that's just not nice.
> 
> HL only allows certain types of birth control to be paid for through it's insurance. I never said it didn't allow any birth control, perhaps you should read my post again? Maybe more slowly this time? They as a company are regulating what medication we can take by not paying for it? What's next? No open heart surgery? Blood transfusions?
> 
> Lets say that I get all my medications from my local pharmacy, have for years and it's the only one for 25 miles. All the sudden the pharmacist decides that the birth control I've been on for 20 years is "bad" based only on his or her belief, no supporting medical information whatsoever. No problem, right? Just go to another pharmacy. To take this a step further- what if the pharmacist decided that insulin is "bad" and against his or her beliefs? Still OK, right? Or blood pressure medication? Or antibiotics? Still OK?


Why not, it is their company is it not? 

How much power do you want the government to have? I find it funny you like the fact it has the power to force people (HL or a pharmacist) to do something it doesn't wish but you support (provide certain BC or drugs) but get upset with the thought of it having the power to force YOU to do something you don't support (making a woman carry her child to term). Sounds sort of like a double standard doesn't it?


----------



## kasilofhome

Dumb.... no I bet you can talk....People might not listen but?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that pharmacists are NOT refusing to fill medications now?
> 
> HL is refusing to allow it's employees to use their insurance, that they have paid for, to buy certain types of birth control. Do you deny that HL is going this?


If HL employees don't like the insurance they are provided they are free to buy their own are they not? Again I ask how much power do you want the government have to control YOU?


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> I understand perfectly well, and have no problem with pharmacies in general, I just went to where they would fill it. Private business can practice as they want as far as I am concerned. If someone feels there is a moral problem go elsewhere or seek advice from the prescriber.


Somewhere else is a minimum of 30 miles away for me.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I'm Christian, and I believe in personal responsibility, probably to the point that some would label me an extremist or anarchist. But, I don't think I am. I see that the lines or what's center vs extreme has moved.

I believe in personal freedoms and personal responsibility. Let people do what they want to a large degree. Let them deal with the consequences. And, let any interested or not interested in assisting them have the freedom to decide what they will and won't be part of.

I also see the role of appropriate govt control at different levels very critical. I can accept local and state govt being free to legislate all kinds of things that I do not believe the federal govt should be part of.

It drives me bonkers that the congress and potus and scotus act like they are dutifully steeping in to make a judgment call for the nation once enough states have opposing laws or rulings on similar cases. The states and local govts were supposed to be allowed to try different things and figure out what worked for them.

Then, if citizens didn't like something, they were free to move elsewhere for the life and community opportunities they wanted, without having to become expats and go abroad, because every state must be identical.

Issues like abortion, birth control, schooling, ag laws, drug and alcohol laws, welfare and universal healthcare, and many others.

If states and local communities es want to experiment with how to make those laws and what programs can run, that's great. Let them spend their time and money to do so. Each decision will make some citizens flock and some flee. 

But, the feds rule on these things whenever they can even though they were never given any authority by the founders to do so. And, they secure their power to do so, by funnuling state money into the federal system and back out and by borrowing execisively to offer states essentially bribes to bow to their will.

I don't know if that helps you understand Christians any better. Some believe as me. Some don't. So I don't want to pretend I speak of others or all. But, your not understanding Christians post didn't seem to reflect me IMO even though I'm a Christian.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, I do. Do you realize it's still a company? As in not an individual?
> 
> And I realize that this is why HL brought the case to the Supreme Court.


What is a company? Its like square root of -1, it exist in theory but not in reality. If a company violates the law can you arrest it? How do you do that, walk up and put the cuffs on the door and read the building its rights?


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Ok, so then it'd be reasonable for me to say if fetus rights become more important than the mother's rights, then women will get arrested for potentially harming the fetus. If she smokes? Charge her with child abuse. If she gets in an automobile accident and has a miscarriage? Charge her with vehicular manslaughter. Pregnant women will be forbidden to do any potentially harmful activities, because it could harm the fetus.


If someone can be charged for harming it why not the mother?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, you're fine with abortion but it has to be on your terms, other killing as well.


Does it have to an all-or-nothing proposition? IOW, if I'm understanding your implication, there should be NO restrictions on abortion?

Or are you and the others advocating abortion only on your terms?


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Conservatives seem to be very opposed to anyone forcing their beliefs on them....but they seem just fine and dandy with forcing their beliefs on others.
> 
> "Don't tread on me! But I want to be able to deny you certain medicines and medical procedures because I don't like them."


You ALMOST got it. We don't want the government having the power to force you or anyone else to do something you do not want especially if that action violates your beliefs.

If you don't want to bake a cake showing the lynching of a black man for a Klan rally the government shouldn't be able to force you to do so or you lose your freedom or business. OTOH if you want to have a bakery that makes nothing but Klan related goodies the government should not have to power to stop you from doing that either.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Does it have to an all-or-nothing proposition? IOW, if I'm understanding your implication, there should be NO restrictions on abortion?
> 
> Or are you and the others advocating abortion only on your terms?


There shouldn't be restrictions on an abortion. Her body, her choice.


----------



## wr

kasilofhome said:


> Wr..... have you not understood my position on abortion.... really disappointed in your connection to my posted views...
> 
> Everyone is equal... Why is it that some ambition a belief of equality ....as longer as they are superior?...
> 
> Men have been abused by the control by some females who simply use men.
> Women have faked pregnancy to gain cash for abortions that are never needed.
> Women have deliberately gotten pregnant to gain financial support.
> Women have aborted children out of spite.
> 
> Refusing to include the father is self serving.
> 
> There could be a claim if abuse was involved.. not please do not put word in my mouth as to what that means to me.


I didn't put words in your mouth at all. 

The question I asked was based on the fact that the father *was* consulted, made his wishes clear and according to the laws in place, he can be forced to pay child support. That child was conceived with the consent of both adults so ultimately both should be responsible for supporting it, including someone who wanted it aborted. 

A lot of those daddies just don't want the responsibility of supporting children for 18 years or so.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> If someone can be charged for harming it why not the mother?


The fetus requires permission of the womb owner to live. Could you be charged with murder for not providing a liver to someone who would die if you did not provide it?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, you're fine with abortion but it has to be on your terms, other killing as well.
> 
> The bolded part of your post is beneath you. You will never know why a woman chose to terminate a pregnancy. I doubt you'd find many (if any) where that was the reason. It's a horrible way to marginalize an agonizing decision. The fact that you chose to publicize your opinion in that way says a lot about you.


People vilify pregnant women and mothers all the time for not choosing abortions. There are women who make decisions to abort for the terrible reason of being frustrated with how others will treat them and even their children if they don't abort. It happens in communities and in the public sphere all the time. And, its unforgivable to let that be an unaddressed issue IMO.

If they choose to keep it, it is not in their imagination that some people will for years and years punish them socially and mentally for the choice to keep a child. And, that is a terrible choice to face because the mother is put between deciding which pressure she and her kids can bear and a life or death choice is required.

I seem to recall a thread here recently that was a free for all raking Bristol Palin through the coals for not choosing an abortion. It was like reading the words of the townspeople in the Scarlet letter. Couldn't be fun for her. And, she knows her future child has been tried and sentenced along with his mother by some of the public. And, those declarations will be found by him or her in the future and used by others to continue cruelties that are unneeded.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you have a link that supports that HL pays 100% of it's employee's health insurance? The closest I've found is 100% in network (no copays) on office visits but that isn't no premium cost to the employee.


Ah. . .I don't know what HL pays but your copay is not part of your insurance coverage. You can, or used to be able, to buy different insurance coverage. Some of them required you to pay a lot out of pocket while others you paid little or nothing other than the premiums


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> It does not really matter who pays. It is part of their employment compensation and an employer should have no right to dictate what the compensation pays for.
> 
> One day soon one of their employees will take them to court and this will change.


You think YOU have the right to demand what you are paid and if you don't get it you can sue for it? If you don't like your pay package then don't take the job.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for proving my point, very kind of you. There are pharmacists that won't dispense birth control, pain meds, what's next?


Complete governmental control of YOUR life to make sure you do what IT thinks is right?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> People vilify pregnant women and mothers all the time for not choosing abortions. There are women who make decisions to abort for the terrible reason of being frustrated with how others will treat them and even their children if they don't abort. It happens in communities and in the public sphere all the time. And, its unforgivable to let that be an unaddressed issue IMO.
> 
> If they choose to keep it, it is not in their imagination that some people will for years and years punish them socially and mentally for the choice to keep a child. And, that is a terrible choice to face because the mother is put between deciding which pressure she and her kids can bear and a life or death choice is required.
> 
> I seem to recall a thread here recently that was a free for all raking Bristol Palin through the coals for not choosing an abortion. It was like reading the words of the townspeople in the Scarlet letter. Couldn't be fun for her. And, she knows her future child has been tried and sentenced along with his mother by some of the public. And, those declarations will be found by him or her in the future and used by others to continue cruelties that are unneeded.


Where are those posts that rake Palin over the coals for not having an abortion? Please provide links to your claims.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> Somewhere else is a minimum of 30 miles away for me.


I travel 45 miles one way 5 days a week for radiation and chemo, so picking up a prescription once a month 30 miles away does not touch my feelings, I do not feel victimized at all, sorry. Try mail order, delivery, change meds if possible. Maybe just lobby hard enough and we will have a totally government ruled business society. There is a name that, I do not wish for us to get that far.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> People vilify pregnant women and mothers all the time for not choosing abortions. There are women who make decisions to abort for the terrible reason of being frustrated with how others will treat them and even their children if they don't abort. It happens in communities and in the public sphere all the time. And, its unforgivable to let that be an unaddressed issue IMO.
> 
> If they choose to keep it, it is not in their imagination that some people will for years and years punish them socially and mentally for the choice to keep a child. And, that is a terrible choice to face because the mother is put between deciding which pressure she and her kids can bear and a life or death choice is required.
> 
> I seem to recall a thread here recently that was a free for all raking Bristol Palin through the coals for not choosing an abortion. It was like reading the words of the townspeople in the Scarlet letter. Couldn't be fun for her. And, she knows her future child has been tried and sentenced along with his mother by some of the public. And, those declarations will be found by him or her in the future and used by others to continue cruelties that are unneeded.


I have never vilified a woman for her choice, that includes carrying a pregnancy to term. Her body, her choice.

I lambasted Bristol Palin for getting pregnant for *advocating abstinence* while having unprotected sex, certainly not for choosing not to abort. Her body, her choice. She choice to put herself in the spotlight, she chose to promote abstinence, she chose to have unprotected sex.

Try again.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> I didn't put words in your mouth at all.
> 
> The question I asked was based on the fact that the father *was* consulted, made his wishes clear and according to the laws in place, he can be forced to pay child support. That child was conceived with the consent of both adults so ultimately both should be responsible for supporting it, including someone who wanted it aborted.
> 
> A lot of those daddies just don't want the responsibility of supporting children for 18 years or so.


I personally am against forcing either parent to provide court ordered support of children.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Where are those posts that rake Palin over the coals for not having an abortion? Please provide links to your claims.


Or the posts that vilify women for carrying a pregnancy to term.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Lemme know when you want to get a script for pain meds filled because you've hurt your back if you think the same way. K?
> 
> Or if a family member needs something the pharmacist on duty decides they don't want to dispense.
> 
> ETA: Why are there so many "special" people that won't do their job?


Yes the government should have the power to force you to do what IT wants, no matter your belief system. That's the kind of nation we want isn't it.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Where are those posts that rake Palin over the coals for not having an abortion? Please provide links to your claims.


Find it yourself. That thread would not have existed if Bristol Palin had chosen to abort privately so that no one would have known she had been sexually active.

People can play the game of saying it was solely about her choosing to be sexually active even though she supports the value of abstinence.

But, the bottom line is once the pregnancy happened, she faced an enormous decision about whether aborting would have been easier than her and her kids and family facing the uproar. So, it was a factor she had to consider. And, that is what I have a problem with.

People can say all they want about how other people should butt out of a woman's right to choose. But, I find it funny that they won't acknowledge that other people's actions and words effect the mothers choice.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> I have never vilified a woman for her choice, that includes carrying a pregnancy to term. Her body, her choice.
> 
> I lambasted Bristol Palin for getting pregnant for *advocating abstinence* while having unprotected sex, certainly not for choosing not to abort. Her body, her choice. She choice to put herself in the spotlight, she chose to promote abstinence, she chose to have unprotected sex.
> 
> Try again.


I guess I just don't believe it's right to tell people they're getting what they deserve and kick them when they're down so easily.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Find it yourself. That thread would not have existed if Bristol Palin had chosen to abort privately so that no one would have known she had been sexually active.
> 
> People can play the game of saying it was solely about her choosing to be sexually active even though she supports the value of abstinence.
> 
> But, the bottom line is once the pregnancy happened, she faced an enormous decision about whether aborting would have been easier than her and her kids and family facing the uproar. So, it was a factor she had to consider. And, that is what I have a problem with.
> 
> People can say all they want about how other people should butt out of a woman's right to choose. But, I find it funny that they won't acknowledge that other people's actions and words effect the mothers choice.


You stated it as truth, you should provide the back-up otherwise it is more posts about your speculations with no substance. You should not accuse the good people of HT of things that are not true to back your opinion.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> Somewhere else is a minimum of 30 miles away for me.


And what if the pharmacy is merely out of your medication? The outcome is the same; you don't get your prescription filled.

What's to be done about that? How do you insist that they have a supply for when YOU come to get your Rx filled?


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> You stated it as truth, you should provide the back-up otherwise it is more posts about your speculations with no substance. You should not accuse the good people of HT of things that are not true to back your opinion.


If you don't like my thoughts or posts become a moderator or report me to one.

I wasn't attacking anyone here personally. I was citing that thread because I remember reading some of it and thinking, boy that's an example of how mob mentality can run amuck. And, I felt sad that conversations like that were flying around all over the internet, and those words and criticisms were things that were going to be pretty hurtful to real people wherever they encountered them.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> And what if the pharmacy is merely out of your medication? The outcome is the same; you don't get your prescription filled.
> 
> What's to be done about that? How do you insist that they have a supply for when YOU come to get your Rx filled?


I live very rurally and the pharmacy can have my medication by the next day. They never, ever say they just can't get it or won't get it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> And what if the pharmacy is merely out of your medication? The outcome is the same; you don't get your prescription filled.
> 
> What's to be done about that? How do you insist that they have a supply for when YOU come to get your Rx filled?


We have that happen quite frequently with one of the scripts my DH takes, the pharmacy simply orders it and it's usually in the next day. It's not the same as being told that a script will not be filled because of the personal belief of a pharmacist.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> If you don't like my thoughts or posts become a moderator or report me to one.
> 
> I wasn't attacking anyone here personally. I was citing that thread because I remember reading some of it and thinking, boy that's an example of how mob mentality can run amuck. And, I felt sad that conversations like that were flying around all over the internet, and those words and criticisms were things that were going to be pretty hurtful to real people wherever they encountered them.


Would you stop with the report this or become a moderator. Either choose to ignore me or back up your claims. You did not cite anything you expressed an opinion with no facts.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> I guess I just don't believe it's right to tell people they're getting what they deserve and kick them when they're down so easily.


What can I say? I have an issue with hypocrites. Especially with hypocrites that put themselves in the spotlight.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, you're fine with abortion but it has to be on your terms, other killing as well.


That's correct. Killing in defense of yourself or others I'm fine with.




Irish Pixie said:


> The bolded part of your post is beneath you. You will never know why a woman chose to terminate a pregnancy. I doubt you'd find many (if any) where that was the reason. It's a horrible way to marginalize an agonizing decision. The fact that you chose to publicize your opinion in that way says a lot about you.


Yes it says that I have seen/heard things I wish I could forget. Spend some time dealing with 'troubled' young people and you will hear a lot of things which can cause you to lose sleep.

The bolded part is based on what a crying teenager told me. The same teenager who had scars up and down both arms from cutting herself in an attempt to relieve the pain that had came after she realized she had killed her child all because she wanted to look good in a swimsuit. The one I spent hours trying to find a slot in the mental health system we work with so she could properly deal with her pain. 

That is not the only young woman I have had dealings with who have major mental problems either caused or aggravated by having abortions for non-medical reasons. 

Maybe its hearing these stories and seeing the damage done to young lives is one of the major reasons I am so strongly against abortion on demand.

BTW I have never met a woman who has had a medically necessary abortion. *NEVER!* I'm sure they are out there and they have no cause to talk to me about it. For one thing knowing you have had to take a life to save your own doesn't produce the same kind of emotional trauma as taking a life because you don't want to be inconvenienced. Although anyone who has to make a life or death decision can tell you there is emotional trauma involved.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Somewhere else is a minimum of 30 miles away for me.


Ah, so because its an inconvenience to you, you think the government should use force to make someone do something they do not want to.

What else would you like it to do to make life more convenient for you?


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Would you stop with the report this or become a moderator. Either choose to ignore me or back up your claims. You did not cite anything you expressed an opinion with no facts.


 No one here is under any obligation to be allowed to post their thoughts to others only if they are willing to provide links, etc.

If others don't like that, that's on them, not the poster.

I'm not stopping anyone from sharing their thoughts or requiring they do or don't post links. 

And, everyone is free to decide if they feel links provided or not provided help or hinder the points people make.


----------



## MDKatie

I have NEVER seen anyone vilified for choosing to not abort. That's just ludicrous.


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> I didn't put words in your mouth at all.
> 
> The question I asked was based on the fact that the father *was* consulted, made his wishes clear and according to the laws in place, he can be forced to pay child support. That child was conceived with the consent of both adults so ultimately both should be responsible for supporting it, including someone who wanted it aborted.
> 
> A lot of those daddies just don't want the responsibility of supporting children for 18 years or so.


18 years min max year judge picks... 22 and above not uncommon.
My views on abortion were not sexist in any way so since I am against abortion.... what does the sex of the person matter.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> There shouldn't be restrictions on an abortion. Her body, her choice.


Her body AND her child's body. Rights get sticky when there is more than one person involved.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> No one here is under any obligation to be allowed to post their thoughts to others only if they are willing to provide links, etc.
> 
> If others don't like that, that's on them, not the poster.
> 
> I'm not stopping anyone from sharing their thoughts or requiring they do or don't post links.
> 
> And, everyone is free to decide if they feel links provided or not provided help or hinder the points people make.


No obligation, that would be correct. I am under no obligation to do more than laugh at posts that pretend to be the truth but are not. It is just not right to accuse people here of such lies either.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> That's correct. Killing in defense of yourself or others I'm fine with.
> Yes it says that I have seen/heard things I wish I could forget. Spend some time dealing with 'troubled' young people and you will hear a lot of things which can cause you to lose sleep.
> 
> The bolded part is based on what a crying teenager told me. The same teenager who had scars up and down both arms from cutting herself in an attempt to relieve the pain that had came after she realized she had killed her child all because she wanted to look good in a swimsuit. The one I spent hours trying to find a slot in the mental health system we work with so she could properly deal with her pain.
> 
> That is not the only young woman I have had dealings with who have major mental problems either caused or aggravated by having abortions for non-medical reasons.
> 
> Maybe its hearing these stories and seeing the damage done to young lives is one of the major reasons I am so strongly against abortion on demand.
> 
> BTW I have never met a woman who has had a medically necessary abortion. *NEVER!* I'm sure they are out there and they have no cause to talk to me about it. For one thing knowing you have had to take a life to save your own doesn't produce the same kind of emotional trauma as taking a life because you don't want to be inconvenienced. Although anyone who has to make a life or death decision can tell you there is emotional trauma involved.


There is a huge difference between a woman saying something like what you stated "Aborting it because you don't want a fat belly and/or stretch marks when you go to the beach this summer" and a mentally ill teenager saying that same thing. You absolutely know that. 

Justify anything you want to yourself. It's none of my concern.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Her body AND her child's body. Rights get sticky when there is more than one person involved.


Nope. There is only one person involved. Her body, her choice.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> The fetus requires permission of the womb owner to live. Could you be charged with murder for not providing a liver to someone who would die if you did not provide it?


No but you could be charged with murder if you cut 'your' liver out of the person after it was transplanted because you changed your mind about giving it away.

Your turn. Can you be charged with murder if your refuse to feed your child and it starves?


----------



## watcher

basketti said:


> I live very rurally and the pharmacy can have my medication by the next day. They never, ever say they just can't get it or won't get it.


But if they did say that would it not be their right? Remember you have no right to anything which must be provided by another.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> We have that happen quite frequently with one of the scripts my DH takes, the pharmacy simply orders it and it's usually in the next day. It's not the same as being told that a script will not be filled because of the personal belief of a pharmacist.


I have to ask: Do you think you have a right to something which must be provided by another?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> No but you could be charged with murder if you cut 'your' liver out of the person after it was transplanted because you changed your mind about giving it away.
> 
> Your turn. Can you be charged with murder if your refuse to feed your child and it starves?


Yes, you could because you could easily have given that child to someone who could feed it. You can not give a fetus to someone else to put in their womb after it has attached. I think if you could do that easily abortions would be almost a thing of the past. I look forward to that day.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> I have to ask: Do you think you have a right to something which must be provided by another?


It depends on the nature of the business and/or if there was a contract. Your question is too vague to answer.


----------



## gibbsgirl

MDKatie said:


> I have NEVER seen anyone vilified for choosing to not abort. That's just ludicrous.


So you've never seen someone criticized for being a terrible parent or having to many kids or being frustrated that because they had kids it meant giving up options for schooling or employment that might not have been if they hadn't had kids? You've never seen people criticized for having one or more handicapped children? You've never seen people criticized for struggling with the costs of children or high medical pregnancy care? You've never seen people criticized for having one or more kids with the wrong person?

I have. And, since abortion is legal. It's not a far slide to say those things and by extension be telling a mother that it's her fault, she deserves what she gets, cause after all she had a choice in all this and could have just not had the kids/kids. I've even heard people be very blunt and say those direct words to people's faces and behind their backs, and just bypassing the veiled implied way of criticising them for not aborting.

It's not uncommon for women to choose to abort for economic reasons, and that's just sad.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> So you've never seen someone criticized for being a terrible parent or having to many kids or being frustrated that because they had kids it meant giving up options for schooling or employment that might not have been if they hadn't had kids? You've never seen people criticized for having one or more handicapped children? You've never seen people criticized for struggling with the costs of children or high medical pregnancy care? You've never seen people criticized for having one or more kids with the wrong person?
> 
> I have. And, since abortion is legal. It's not a far slide to say those things and by extension be telling a mother that it's her fault, she deserves what she gets, cause after all she had a choice in all this and could have just not had the kids/kids. I've even heard people be very blunt and say those direct words to people's faces and behind their backs, and just bypassing the vueked implied way of criticising them for not aborting.
> 
> It's not uncommon for women to choose to abort for economic reasons, and that's just sad.


Are you seriously trying to say that if someone criticizes a woman for being a bad parent they are vilifying her for not aborting? Seriously? SMH


----------



## MDKatie

gibbsgirl said:


> So you've never seen someone criticized for being a terrible parent or having to many kids or being frustrated that because they had kids it meant giving up options for schooling or employment that might not have been if they hadn't had kids? You've never seen people criticized for having one or more handicapped children? You've never seen people criticized for struggling with the costs of children or high medical pregnancy care? You've never seen people criticized for having one or more kids with the wrong person?
> 
> I have. And, since abortion is legal. It's not a far slide to say those things and by extension be telling a mother that it's her fault, she deserves what she gets, cause after all she had a choice in all this and could have just not had the kids/kids. I've even heard people be very blunt and say those direct words to people's faces and behind their backs, and just bypassing the vueked implied way of criticising them for not aborting.
> 
> It's not uncommon for women to choose to abort for economic reasons, and that's just sad.


What does any of that have to do with abortion? And no, I have NEVER heard someone criticized for having a handicapped child. None of the other stuff even remotely says "You should have had an abortion." 

I have heard MANY, MANY conservatives whine and complain about women who have kids while on welfare. Are they saying those mothers should have had abortions? Probably not. Probably what they're saying is don't get pregnant in the first place, right? Just like most of those examples you posted?

I really feel you're just grasping at straws now, and seeing things that just aren't there.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you seriously trying to say that if someone criticizes a woman for being a bad parent they are vilifying her for not aborting? Seriously? SMH


It is the only way she can back up her accusations that Homesteading Today members are vilifying women who don't have abortions.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you seriously trying to say that if someone criticizes a woman for being a bad parent they are vilifying her for not aborting? Seriously? SMH


I'm saying I have heard people say that very bluntly to people. And, while I might have thought those people had issues I had very little pity for. I found it really heartless to say that.

I've also been part of discussions with women trying to decide if abortion should be chosen and heard their fears about if they didn't live happily ever after, would people say those things to or about them. It's a pretty rotten issue to work through.

I was not attempting to sensationalize these things being real or happening. I don't even claim it's common. I just chose to share it so others could here about it the same as some things other people have shared.

I hate that women contend with that. It's so petty and cruel in my opinion. It's not at all necessary as a consideration except for that other people can put a mother in that defensive position.

It's not all the same to me as when moms have to consider if they will be capable of handling an I'll child or how much an I'll child will suffer. Or when a mother considers she may orphan her children and not survive a pregnancy.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Lemme know when you want to get a script for pain meds filled because you've hurt your back if you think the same way. K?
> 
> Or if a family member needs something the pharmacist on duty decides they don't want to dispense.
> 
> ETA: Why are there so many "special" people that won't do their job?


Sorry, I work in the 'burbs and can stop at any one of about 100 pharmacy's on the way home.
You may have to drive your 25 miles -- same thing.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> There is a huge difference between a woman saying something like what you stated "Aborting it because you don't want a fat belly and/or stretch marks when you go to the beach this summer" and a mentally ill teenager saying that same thing. You absolutely know that.
> 
> Justify anything you want to yourself. It's none of my concern.


I find it strange that you assume she was mentally ill just because she could not handle the mental trauma when she realized she killed her child all because she wanted to look good that summer. Is someone who can not handle the mental trauma of killing a child in a auto accident mentally ill? How about the cop who needs help dealing with the mental trauma of having to kill an armed criminal, is he mentally ill?

Its thinking like that which keeps people from seeking help with their mental issues. "I can't seek help for this people will think I'm crazy!" So they wind up "self medicating" (booze, drugs, cutting, etc) or worse.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: Why are there so many "special" people that won't do their job?


Should a doctor be forced to do an abortion?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. There is only one person involved. Her body, her choice.


Really? So just when does a fetus more than "her body" and is given legal protection?


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> No one here is under any obligation to be allowed to post their thoughts to others only if they are willing to provide links, etc.
> 
> If others don't like that, that's on them, not the poster.
> 
> I'm not stopping anyone from sharing their thoughts or requiring they do or don't post links.
> 
> And, everyone is free to decide if they feel links provided or not provided help or hinder the points people make.


Thread drift here: I finally remembered why Gibbsgirl sounded so familiar. Are you a graduate of Katharine (Katie ) Gibbs College? I used to live in New England...I don't think Katie Gibbs is around any more. But their studentswere referred to as "Gibbsgirls"


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Really? So just when does a fetus more than "her body" and is given legal protection?


Are you asking when or are you asking when should it get legal protection?


----------



## Guest

Vilify, is such a harsh word, maybe the practice of shunning should return in greater practice. Why should anyone support anouthers practice if that practice is revolting to you. Turning your back may be less offensive to the thin skinned, or maybe (probably) not.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Vilify, is such a harsh word, maybe the practice of shunning should return in greater practice. Why should anyone support anouthers practice if that practice is revolting to you. Turning your back may be less offensive to the thin skinned, or maybe (probably) not.


It is a harsh word. Accusing people of harsh things that they did not do warrants such a word.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Vilify, is such a harsh word, maybe the practice of shunning should return in greater practice. Why should anyone support anouthers practice if that practice is revolting to you. Turning your back may be less offensive to the thin skinned, or maybe (probably) not.


It is a harsh word. Accusing people of harsh things that they did not do warrants such a word.

"People vilify pregnant women and mothers all the time for not choosing abortions"


----------



## kasilofhome

mnn2501 mnn2501 is online now
Dallas

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: N of Dallas, TX
Posts: 9,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
Lemme know when you want to get a script for pain meds filled because you've hurt your back if you think the same way. K?

Or if a family member needs something the pharmacist on duty decides they don't want to dispense.



Uh...when the government is doing it ....acceptance as it is for the greater good...ie
Sudafed..

When a business or private individuals chose what they will or not do or provide... the government because of control freaks demand to interfere with others personal freedoms.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> I find it strange that you assume she was mentally ill just because she could not handle the mental trauma when she realized she killed her child all because she wanted to look good that summer. Is someone who can not handle the mental trauma of killing a child in a auto accident mentally ill? How about the cop who needs help dealing with the mental trauma of having to kill an armed criminal, is he mentally ill?
> 
> Its thinking like that which keeps people from seeking help with their mental issues. "I can't seek help for this people will think I'm crazy!" So they wind up "self medicating" (booze, drugs, cutting, etc) or worse.





watcher said:


> The bolded part is based on what a crying teenager told me. *The same teenager who had scars up and down both arms from cutting herself* in an attempt to relieve the pain that had came after she realized she had killed her child all because she wanted to look good in a swimsuit. The one *I spent hours trying to find a slot in the mental health system we work with so she could properly deal with her pain.*
> 
> That is not the only young woman I have had dealings with who *have major mental problems* either caused or aggravated by having abortions for non-medical reasons.


Um, you said she was mentally ill. Doesn't "major mental health problems" sound like "mentally ill" to you?


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> Thread drift here: I finally remembered why Gibbsgirl sounded so familiar. Are you a graduate of Katharine (Katie ) Gibbs College? I used to live in New England...I don't think Katie Gibbs is around any more. But their studentswere referred to as "Gibbsgirls"


Who is Katie Gibbs? And, why would you think I have anything to do with new England?

Talk about laying your cards on the table. If you want to discount my thoughts in other people's eyes, its pretty weak tactic to try and do so by flinging unrelated accusations around about my identity.


----------



## gibbsgirl

MDKatie said:


> Um, you said she was mentally ill. Doesn't "major mental health problems" sound like "mentally ill" to you?


Mental illness from a biological condition is very different from mental illness from life experiences.

It's nature vs nurture.


----------



## mnn2501

Patchouli said:


> Somewhere else is a minimum of 30 miles away for me.


So, move then.


----------



## gibbsgirl

dlmcafee said:


> Vilify, is such a harsh word, maybe the practice of shunning should return in greater practice. Why should anyone support anouthers practice if that practice is revolting to you. Turning your back may be less offensive to the thin skinned, or maybe (probably) not.


Agreed. Of course people who are shunned are not seen as heroes, but villains. But, I'm absolutely in agreement that there could be better words to describe many things.


----------



## MDKatie

gibbsgirl said:


> Mental illness from a biological condition is very different from mental illness from life experiences.
> 
> It's nature vs nurture.


Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see where IP said, "mentally ill from a biological condition teenager." :smack I swear I feel like I'm in the twilight zone with some of these replies.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> It is a harsh word. Accusing people of harsh things that they did not do warrants such a word.
> 
> *"People vilify pregnant women and mothers all the time for not choosing abortions"*


Not that I have noticed, but I do not subscribe to the anti-opinion fighting society so I may not have received the memo.

I think you convinced me, yes shunning would be better.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Ah, so because its an inconvenience to you, you think the government should use force to make someone do something they do not want to.
> 
> What else would you like it to do to make life more convenient for you?


Not pointed at you Watcher but at those you are talking to.

I'd like a really good Pizza Place to be built within a mile or two of my home. 
Whats the difference between the government making a pharmacy sell you something and my example??? the government could force someone to build one and sell me pizza's -- I think the "pursuit of happiness" portion covers it.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Who is Katie Gibbs? And, why would you think I have anything to do with new England?
> 
> Talk about laying your cards on the table. If you want to discount my thoughts in other people's eyes, its pretty weak tactic to try and do so by flinging unrelated accusations around about my identity.


What are you talking about?

I just told you that a woman who attended one of the Katharine Gibbs Colleges in New England was commonly referred to as a Gibbsgirl. So I wondered if you might have attended there. 

What kind of accusation is that? I don't see any slur at all. And what cards did I lay on the table?

Sheesh.


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> I just told you that a woman who attended one of the Katharine Gibbs Colleges in New England was commonly referred to as a Gibbsgirl. So I wondered if you might have attended there.
> 
> What kind of accusation is that? I don't see any slur at all.


Well I have no idea who or what you were talking about. If it was not intended as a negative post or questioning if I was a sock then I apologize.

It struck me as an odd thing to question me about on here, because my thought was that if you thought we shared a connection in real life somehow, you would have pm'd me to ask me so.

Eta. Also, after I replied I saw your edit that said it was related to people being called gibbsgirls. If there is a college called Gibbs anything, I didn't get the reference or how it must apply to me.


----------



## FarmerKat

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Does not abstinence deprive that egg the opportunity to be fertilized and produce a baby? A potential live baby doesnt get to be born.... just the very same result as if the mother had a late term abortion. The sperm fertilizing the egg is only one step in a rather lengthy multifaceted process that brings a child into the world. Any interference with that process that prevents the live birth gives us the same result.... a missing person.


I think this argument is ridiculous. A female child at 16-20 weeks gestation has 6-7 million egg cells, by birth only 1-2 million remain. By puberty it is down to 300,000 - 400,000 and out of those, only about 400 ever mature. So even if a woman got pregnant immediately as soon as her body is capable of it at puberty and then again after each child is born, she can NEVER manage to use up all 400 matured eggs (let alone 400,000). Impossible. So the point of denying each egg the opportunity to produce a child is moot. 



Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, so there _are_ pharmacists _now_ that won't dispense medication that was lawfully prescribed by a licensed physician. It can't possibly go any further than birth control can it?


So should a pharmacist who has been robbed a few times at gunpoint have the right to refuse to carry pain meds or sudafed because that's what the robbers were after? 



MDKatie said:


> What does any of that have to do with abortion? And no, I have NEVER heard someone criticized for having a handicapped child. None of the other stuff even remotely says "You should have had an abortion."
> 
> I have heard MANY, MANY conservatives whine and complain about women who have kids while on welfare. Are they saying those mothers should have had abortions? Probably not. Probably what they're saying is don't get pregnant in the first place, right? Just like most of those examples you posted?
> 
> I really feel you're just grasping at straws now, and seeing things that just aren't there.


I have not seen anyone being told directly to their face that she should have had an abortion but I have heard someone make that comment about a mother of a child with Down Syndrome. She said "I bet she regrets not having an abortion."

My mother, who had polio as a child and is disabled from it (obviously, polio is not a genetic disease) has been told several times that it was irresponsible of her to have children "in her condition" (I have heard them say it myself). I am sure glad she did not listen to these people (my brother is too).

And - of course in a different day and age - my grandmother has been shunned by people because her children were "cripples". (One completely paralyzed, born premature and one born healthy and got polio later). Attitudes have improved since then, but I have witnessed those broken relationships with family and they lasted until my grandma died in late 1980s.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Well I have no idea who or what you were talking about. If it was not intended as a negative post or questioning if I was a sock then I apologize.
> 
> It struck me as an odd thing to question me about on here, because my thought was that if you thought we shared a connection in real life somehow, you would have pm'd me to ask me so.
> 
> Eta. Also, after I replied I saw your edit that said it was related to people being called gibbsgirls. If there is a college called Gibbs anything, I didn't get the reference or how it must apply to me.


Because of your username. Gibbsgirl. It kept sounding familiar to me and I finally remembered why. I didn't edit anything.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Are you asking when or are you asking when should it get legal protection?


Both. When do you consider a fetus a separate human and when do you think it should be covered by legal status as such?

If you are attacked and as a result you must have your leg amputated your attacker can not be charged with the crime of attacking you and killing/harming your leg. Therefore if the same thing happens but the result is you losing your 8.5 month fetus should the attacker also only face one charge because the fetus is, according to what you seem to be saying, nothing but a part of your body.


----------



## MDKatie

mnn2501 said:


> Not pointed at you Watcher but at those you are talking to.
> 
> I'd like a really good Pizza Place to be built within a mile or two of my home.
> Whats the difference between the government making a pharmacy sell you something and my example??? the government could force someone to build one and sell me pizza's -- I think the "pursuit of happiness" portion covers it.


No. Not exactly. Nobody is forcing anyone to _build_ something that doesn't already exist, nor sell something they don't already sell. It'd be like that pizza place refusing to sell you an anchovy pizza because they hate anchovies and don't think anyone else should be able to purchase an anchovy pizza. Yes, they sell anchovies, but that's not the point. Or better yet, they sell anchovy pizzas to only certain people, but not to other people who they decide they just don't like.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Um, you said she was mentally ill. Doesn't "major mental health problems" sound like "mentally ill" to you?


Sort of but not quite. As I have pointed out needing mental health counseling to help you deal with a traumatic event does not make you mentally ill in the classic sense. Someone who needs crutches to walk while their broken leg heals might be technically 'handicapped' but you would not call them a handicapped person would you?

Saying her statement was from a mentally ill person seems to be saying she had mental problems BEFORE the abortion or even the abortion was a result of her mental problems.

She chose to have an abortion because she had been told that it was nothing but a mass of tissue; her body, her choice; etc. and not wanting to have a pregnancy 'ruin her body' was a perfectly good reason for it. It was only after she came to realize that if that 'mass of tissue' had been allowed to live it would have been a child that she started having problems because she didn't know how to handle the trauma.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Both. When do you consider a fetus a separate human and when do you think it should be covered by legal status as such?
> 
> If you are attacked and as a result you must have your leg amputated your attacker can not be charged with the crime of attacking you and killing/harming your leg. Therefore if the same thing happens but the result is you losing your 8.5 month fetus should the attacker also only face one charge because the fetus is, according to what you seem to be saying, nothing but a part of your body.


It is not a separate human being until it is born with regards to legal rights. That distinction is because the mother needs to be able to have an abortion if she wishes to save her own life. The mother and only the mother gets to make that decision.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see where IP said, "mentally ill from a biological condition teenager." :smack I swear I feel like I'm in the twilight zone with some of these replies.


Its called reading for context. If you read what I post its clear that her mental issues were caused by a traumatic event as opposed to what you seemed to be implying, i.e. she had mental problems before the event.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> No. Not exactly. Nobody is forcing anyone to _build_ something that doesn't already exist, nor sell something they don't already sell. It'd be like that pizza place refusing to sell you an anchovy pizza because they hate anchovies and don't think anyone else should be able to purchase an anchovy pizza. Yes, they sell anchovies, but that's not the point. Or better yet, they sell anchovy pizzas to only certain people, but not to other people who they decide they just don't like.


Again what makes you think you, via governmental control, have the right to force them to sell you an anchovy pizza if they don't want to, even if they sold one to the person before you? Its their business, its their labor, its their pizza to sell or not sell to anyone they wish.

Do you have the right to something which must be provided by someone else?


----------



## FarmerKat

FarmerKat said:


> And - of course in a different day and age - my grandmother has been shunned by people because her children were "cripples". (One completely paralyzed, born premature and one born healthy and got polio later). Attitudes have improved since then, but I have witnessed those broken relationships with family and they lasted until my grandma died in late 1980s.


I was going to add that this family history contributes to my stance on abortion. I feel especially strongly about abortions justified because the child has a "defect". If my grandma could do it in 1938 and through WWII living in Europe, anyone can sure figure out in 2015 how to care for a disabled child. My grandparents were not wealthy - grandpa was a coal miner and grandma stayed home.


----------



## Guest

Ya'll are funny or you live in the middle of the Antarctic waste. Can't find Your brand of BC pills and your only pizza place refuses to add anchovies and you feel victimized because you may have to shop around. Try finding a kosher friendly anything in West Virginia, Seems the whole state can't function without some form of bacon grease.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> Again what makes you think you, via governmental control, have the right to force them to sell you an anchovy pizza if they don't want to, even if they sold one to the person before you? Its their business, its their labor, its their pizza to sell or not sell to anyone they wish.
> 
> Do you have the right to something which must be provided by someone else?


I simply don't think it's ok to deny a human being a product or service you provide, simply because you're a bigot. Get with the times. We're long past the days of discriminating based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. 

If you are in a customer service field (as in, you provide ANY service to the PUBLIC), but you hate people enough to deny them based on one of those things, perhaps you are in the wrong business and should work alone.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> It is not a separate human being until it is born with regards to legal rights.


Just to be clear. You have no problem with not charging someone for a separate crime when their criminal action results in a miscarriage? Nor abortions right up til delivery?

Hum. . .interesting questions come from that thinking. If a mother knowingly and willingly does something while pregnant which she knows will cause harm to her child when its born (such as heavy drinking resulting in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders) should any legal action be taken after the child is born? After all her actions clearly resulted in harm to another human. But because it was not a human at the time of her actions she should not be held responsible? After all you can't be charged with harming your liver if you drink enough to develop alcoholic liver disease can you?




painterswife said:


> That distinction is because the mother needs to be able to have an abortion if she wishes to save her own life.


As I have stated many times, I have no argument with that any more than if a mother needs to kill an attacker to save her or her child's life. Killing to save your life is and always has been a proper legal and moral right. Killing just to make your life easier is not.




painterswife said:


> The mother and only the mother gets to make that decision.


Should this line of logic hold in other cases of self defense? Should the killer be the only one who gets to decide if the killing was truly in self defense? Or do you think that there should be legal standards and each case reviewed by the court system to make sure the legal standards are met to prevent people from killing others for other reasons?


----------



## gibbsgirl

MDKatie said:


> I simply don't think it's ok to deny a human being a product or service you provide, simply because you're a bigot. Get with the times. We're long past the days of discriminating based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
> 
> If you are in a customer service field (as in, you provide ANY service to the PUBLIC), but you hate people enough to deny them based on one of those things, perhaps you are in the wrong business and should work alone.


That's a novel thought...we',re past those days of discrimination. The govt has an active hand in all kinds of discriminatory programs.

But, nowadays its to fix discrimination forcing certain levels of sharing based foundationally on race. The post had an interesting article just the other day trying to give people info onva broad array of programs that have launched. The ones about desegregating housing nationally was particularly interesting.

Discrimination is alive and well. It's just we've created newspeak and call it other words while we do it.


----------



## Evons hubby

FarmerKat said:


> I think this argument is ridiculous. A female child at 16-20 weeks gestation has 6-7 million egg cells, by birth only 1-2 million remain. By puberty it is down to 300,000 - 400,000 and out of those, only about 400 ever mature. So even if a woman got pregnant immediately as soon as her body is capable of it at puberty and then again after each child is born, she can NEVER manage to use up all 400 matured eggs (let alone 400,000). Impossible. So the point of denying each egg the opportunity to produce a child is moot.


I am well aware that not every egg is going to have the opportunity to become fertilized and develop into a live birth. The fact that there are so many lost to all of the natural variables however make it almost a sin not to do everything in a womans power to make sure those that do mature and manage to get in the position for fertilization get fertilized. The use of any method that prevents that outcome deprives that potential life of becoming a reality. It makes little difference to the child what the parents did to prevent them.... they still wont be hugging a teddy bear and watching cartoons on the tv.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Just to be clear. You have no problem with not charging someone for a separate crime when their criminal action results in a miscarriage? Nor abortions right up til delivery?
> 
> Hum. . .interesting questions come from that thinking. If a mother knowingly and willingly does something while pregnant which she knows will cause harm to her child when its born (such as heavy drinking resulting in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders) should any legal action be taken after the child is born? After all her actions clearly resulted in harm to another human. But because it was not a human at the time of her actions she should not be held responsible? After all you can't be charged with harming your liver if you drink enough to develop alcoholic liver disease can you?
> 
> It is a fine line but it is my opinion.
> 
> 
> As I have stated many times, I have no argument with that any more than if a mother needs to kill an attacker to save her or her child's life. Killing to save your life is and always has been a proper legal and moral right. Killing just to make your life easier is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should this line of logic hold in other cases of self defense? Should the killer be the only one who gets to decide if the killing was truly in self defense? Or do you think that there should be legal standards and each case reviewed by the court system to make sure the legal standards are met to prevent people from killing others for other reasons?


No you are making assumptions. If the mother has decided to carry a fetus to term then she is giving up her rights and giving the fetus rights. Therefore I believe that any one doing it harm is committing a crime. It could be her heavy drinking or someone purposely causing the fetuses death with out her approval.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Again what makes you think you, via governmental control, have the right to force them to sell you an anchovy pizza if they don't want to, even if they sold one to the person before you? Its their business, its their labor, its their pizza to sell or not sell to anyone they wish.
> 
> *Do you have the right to something which must be provided by someone else?*


Yes I do have the right to purchase any product or service provided by anyone to the public at large. No one has the right not to sell a product to an individual who has the price of admission and is of legal age to purchase said product. Those old signs "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" became moot years ago. It took a long time but someone somewhere managed to get that issue in front of the supreme court.... stood it side by side of our Constitution, and discovered it didnt sit well in that chair. Something about equal protections for everyone. If you have pizza for sale, and I want a slice, have the asking price.... I aim to be eating that pizza shortly. Even if I aint the color you like, or my religion dont happen to coincide with mine.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> I simply don't think it's ok to deny a human being a product or service you provide, simply because you're a bigot. Get with the times. We're long past the days of discriminating based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.


What you think is OK has very little to do with the rights of others. Just because you don't like something or think its not OK doesn't mean you should use force to stop it.

Again I have to ask where do you put the limits on governmental power over YOUR private property and YOUR private life? Once you give it the power to force you to sell to someone you do not want to sell to you have just given it the power to force you to NOT sell to someone you want to. In this wonderful day and age we would never think that the government would classify a group of people as 'unworthy' and force business to not sell to them. But as you noted times change and if this happens would you still be willing to tell people; "Get with the times." 

I'm a lover of freedom and as such I have to accept that people have the freedom to do things I don't like. I have no right/power to FORCE you to do anything you do not wish no matter how wrong I think it is and the government should not have that right/power either. Right up until what you are doing interferes with the rights of another. And like it or not you have NO RIGHT to anything which must be provided to you by another. As the classic line goes you have the right to speak but you have no right to force people to listen.




MDKatie said:


> If you are in a customer service field (as in, you provide ANY service to the PUBLIC), but you hate people enough to deny them based on one of those things, perhaps you are in the wrong business and should work alone.


So you are saying that the government has the right to force you to do anything it thinks is the 'correct' thing to do if you are providing a service to the public. Say you run a kennel and you have some pups to sell. Should the government have the right to force you to sell those pups to ANYONE who comes in with money to buy them? Or should you have the right to sell your private property only to people you wish to have it? Say the buyer is looking them over trying to find the fattest one because he is having friends over and he is planning on serving the pup as the main course and you find this totally reprehensible. Should you be forced to sell to him? After all would refusing to sell to him make you a bigot based on the buyer's cultural differences?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> No you are making assumptions. If the mother has decided to carry a fetus to term then she is giving up her rights and giving the fetus rights. Therefore I believe that any one doing it harm is committing a crime. It could be her heavy drinking or someone purposely causing the fetuses death with out her approval.


So you think someone who is such a heavy drinker they damage their liver should be charged with a crime? After all isn't a fetus nothing more than part of the mother's body and as some are fond of saying "her body, her choice."

How can you assign 'rights' to a body part?


----------



## wr

kasilofhome said:


> 18 years min max year judge picks... 22 and above not uncommon.
> My views on abortion were not sexist in any way so since I am against abortion.... what does the sex of the person matter.


You seem too busy looking for the trick question.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> So you think someone who is such a heavy drinker they damage their liver should be charged with a crime? After all isn't a fetus nothing more than part of the mother's body and as some are fond of saying "her body, her choice."
> 
> How can you assign 'rights' to a body part?


I did not mean that. I think if they are purposely doing harm and they are not the mother yes. With the mother there is not so hard a line. It is not cut and dried. What you might think is purposely harming ( a couple of glasses of wine) might not be to someone else. For example my best friend smoked through three pregnancies. She even saw the damage it was doing to the placenta. Those adult children are perfectly healthy. There is no hard and fast line.


----------



## kasilofhome

Can let a mom harm a fetus by maybe causing fas...but killing....that's a choice she can make.

Can a bartender refuse to sell alcohol to persons she thinks might be pregnant...
I know it has happened but there was a lot of support for the refusal.


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> You seem too busy looking for the trick question.


No, my answer is not to you liking, nor does it has to be.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Not pointed at you Watcher but at those you are talking to.
> 
> I'd like a really good Pizza Place to be built within a mile or two of my home.
> Whats the difference between the government making a pharmacy sell you something and my example??? the government could force someone to build one and sell me pizza's -- I think the "pursuit of happiness" portion covers it.


The fact that nobody has built a pizza store next door to you has nothing to do with your pursuit of happiness.... feel free to move next door to a pizza store in operation if thats what you need to be happy.... pursuit means "go find it if you can". Notice there is no guarantee on your success.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes I do have the right to purchase any product or service provided by anyone to the public at large. No one has the right not to sell a product to an individual who has the price of admission and is of legal age to purchase said product. Those old signs "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" became moot years ago. It took a long time but someone somewhere managed to get that issue in front of the supreme court.... stood it side by side of our Constitution, and discovered it didnt sit well in that chair. Something about equal protections for everyone. If you have pizza for sale, and I want a slice, have the asking price.... I aim to be eating that pizza shortly. Even if I aint the color you like, or my religion dont happen to coincide with mine.


Really. Care to point out to me where in the USC where you are given the right to take the property of another which they do not wish you to have even if you are offering a fair trade for it. AFAIK only the government is given that right and then they must have a justification more than it wants it and can afford to buy it.

Equal protection ONLY applies to the government, not private individuals. If the government is selling pizza then you are correct because that pizza is public property and anyone who meets the government set requirements has the right to obtain said pizza. But we are talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY not public property. The pizza is yours right up until the point you and the person wanting it agree to the deal. Until that point either of you have the full right to refuse the deal.

Should the government have the power to force anyone who enters a pizza place to buy something before they can leave even if they don't want any pizza? That sounds stupid doesn't it? Yet you willing accept that it has the power to force the seller to sell even if they do not want to. To me that sounds just as stupid.

As we see because we have accepted as fact that the government can force us to sell things we do not wish, it now has the power to force us to buy something even if we do not wish to have it, e.g. health insurance. Think about it, if a few years ago I had told you that if we didn't change things the government would be given the power to force you to buy something you'll call me nuts. Yet look where we are now.

Where is the limit on governmental control of private property going to end?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Someone who needs crutches to walk while their broken leg heals might be technically 'handicapped' but you would not call them a handicapped person would you?


Heavens no! That would be rude and inaccurate... I think the word you are looking for is "gimpy".


----------



## kasilofhome

Where is the limit on governmental control of private property going to end?

A very relevant question


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Really. Care to point out to me where in the USC where you are given the right to take the property of another which they do not wish you to have even if you are offering a fair trade for it. AFAIK only the government is given that right and then they must have a justification more than it wants it and can afford to buy it.
> 
> *Equal protection ONLY applies to the government, not private individuals.* If the government is selling pizza then you are correct because that pizza is public property and anyone who meets the government set requirements has the right to obtain said pizza. But we are talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY not public property. The pizza is yours right up until the point you and the person wanting it agree to the deal. Until that point either of you have the full right to refuse the deal.
> 
> Should the government have the power to force anyone who enters a pizza place to buy something before they can leave even if they don't want any pizza? That sounds stupid doesn't it? Yet you willing accept that it has the power to force the seller to sell even if they do not want to. To me that sounds just as stupid.
> 
> As we see because we have accepted as fact that the government can force us to sell things we do not wish, it now has the power to force us to buy something even if we do not wish to have it, e.g. health insurance. Think about it, if a few years ago I had told you that if we didn't change things the government would be given the power to force you to buy something you'll call me nuts. Yet look where we are now.
> 
> Where is the limit on governmental control of private property going to end?


I know you believe this so there is really no point in my arguing the issue with you. What might cause you to see the light is for you to advertise a good or service for sale and then refuse to sell it to a prospective buyer. Maybe when the judge opts to let you sit in his nice hotel for six months it will give you the opportunity to study this out a bit more carefully. 

ETA: you might want to scan the 14th amendment.
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I did not mean that. I think if they are purposely doing harm and they are not the mother yes.


Again how can you justify that with you logic that a fetus is not a human until after its born (I think that was not your statement if not sorry)? Again if you are attacked and you lose your leg as a result would you try to have the person charged with two separate crimes; assault on you and assault on your leg?

Or better yet the classic logic problem. A woman is sitting in the office waiting on her scheduled abortion to take place. While in the office she is attacked and as a result of that attack has a miscarriage. Should her attacker be charged with the death of her unborn child?




painterswife said:


> With the mother there is not so hard a line. It is not cut and dried. What you might think is purposely harming ( a couple of glasses of wine) might not be to someone else. For example my best friend smoked through three pregnancies. She even saw the damage it was doing to the placenta. Those adult children are perfectly healthy. There is no hard and fast line.


One of the reasons I picked heavy alcohol use. The line is fairly hard and fast there. There is a known direct link between heavy alcohol use and children being born damaged. So I again ask, if a mother continues her heavy alcohol use during pregnancy should she be charged when her child is born damaged? Using the logic of its not a human until after birth I would have to say she should not be because how can you damage someone when they are not really someone. It would be like charging her for damaging her liver through her drinking.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Who is Katie Gibbs? And, why would you think I have anything to do with new England?
> 
> Talk about laying your cards on the table. If you want to discount my thoughts in other people's eyes, its pretty weak tactic to try and do so by flinging unrelated accusations around about my identity.


I'm not sure how asking someone if they had attended a certain college is trying to discount your thoughts and there were no accusations. Just a simple question. 

I would think that with you having been a member for as long as you have, you would know that people do engage in friendly side conversation once in a while.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne',s hubby and watcher. You',re both making good points. And, while I agree that the govt is forcing us to do all kinds of increasing things by changing laws, etc. I also agree that it is wrong and they are doing so on violation of the legal principles we came from.

Sometimes, when people argue about issues and point out "well that's the law", I don',t know what else to do but shrug. Cause I don't believe we should just decide to accept what the law says as evidence that it is right or in keeping with our constitutional founding.

There's an awful lot of stuff on the books that needs to go IMO.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Again how can you justify that with you logic that a fetus is not a human until after its born (I think that was not your statement if not sorry)? Again if you are attacked and you lose your leg as a result would you try to have the person charged with two separate crimes; assault on you and assault on your leg?
> 
> Or better yet the classic logic problem. A woman is sitting in the office waiting on her scheduled abortion to take place. While in the office she is attacked and as a result of that attack has a miscarriage. Should her attacker be charged with the death of her unborn child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I picked heavy alcohol use. The line is fairly hard and fast there. There is a known direct link between heavy alcohol use and children being born damaged. So I again ask, if a mother continues her heavy alcohol use during pregnancy should she be charged when her child is born damaged? Using the logic of its not a human until after birth I would have to say she should not be because how can you damage someone when they are not really someone. It would be like charging her for damaging her liver through her drinking.


Where did I say it was ever not human?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I know you believe this so there is really no point in my arguing the issue with you. What might cause you to see the light is for you to advertise a good or service for sale and then refuse to sell it to a prospective buyer. Maybe when the judge opts to let you sit in his nice hotel for six months it will give you the opportunity to study this out a bit more carefully.


Just because a court has ruled that it is legal doesn't make it right nor even constitutional forever. I give you the old 'separate but equal' rulings.

The point is as long as people sit back and let the government use the USC as toilet paper they will be treated like the item most people use toilet paper to wipe away. And at some time all their rights will be flushed.

I'm convinced this nation as a the land of the free is lost. Too many people are like you seem to be, they accept whatever the government says is good and right. If the government says its good and right for you to have health insurance and it needs to use force to make sure you buy it then you seem to think that's fine. If the government says you must sell your private property to someone even though you don't want them to have it you say "Well it must be the right thing, the government says so." and sell it. If the government says this light bulb is 'bad' and we are going to ban it you shrug and just buy the proper government approved bulb. What's next? Maybe the government decides the good and right thing to do is ban the ownership of private autos because of the damage to the environment and the number of people killed by them?


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> I'm not sure how asking someone if they had attended a certain college is trying to discount your thoughts and there were no accusations. Just a simple question.
> 
> I would think that with you having been a member for as long as you have, you would know that people do engage in friendly side conversation once in a while.


Stalking comes to mind...kinda creeping


----------



## Evons hubby

gibbsgirl said:


> Yvonne',s hubby and watcher. You',re both making good points. And, while I agree that the govt is forcing us to do all kinds of increasing things by changing laws, etc. I also agree that it is wrong and they are doing so on violation of the legal principles we came from.
> 
> Sometimes, when people argue about issues and point out "well that's the law", I don',t know what else to do but shrug. Cause I don't believe we should just decide to accept what the law says as evidence that it is right or in keeping with our constitutional founding.
> 
> There's an awful lot of stuff on the books that needs to go IMO.


Yes, our state govenments have indeed put a lot of laws on their books that fly in the face of our Constitution. and so have the feds, but little at a time many of those laws are being struck down. The problem is that a great many people that have been affected by these "illegal" laws have not had the resources to fight the legal battle and get them put before the Supreme Court. Until that happens, there is no one to turn to for justice. The right to homeschool our own children was one such case. A couple who live one county over from me fought that battle, all the way to the supreme court back in the late seventies. Today there are thousands of kids being home schooled.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Where did I say it was ever not human?


I guess that wasn't you but if you do consider it a human how can you justify allowing it to be killed on a whim?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Just because a court has ruled that it is legal doesn't make it right nor even constitutional forever. I give you the old 'separate but equal' rulings.
> 
> The point is as long as people sit back and let the government use the USC as toilet paper they will be treated like the item most people use toilet paper to wipe away. And at some time all their rights will be flushed.
> 
> I'm convinced this nation as a the land of the free is lost. Too many people are like you seem to be, they accept whatever the government says is good and right. If the government says its good and right for you to have health insurance and it needs to use force to make sure you buy it then you seem to think that's fine. If the government says you must sell your private property to someone even though you don't want them to have it you say "Well it must be the right thing, the government says so." and sell it. If the government says this light bulb is 'bad' and we are going to ban it you shrug and just buy the proper government approved bulb. What's next? Maybe the government decides the good and right thing to do is ban the ownership of private autos because of the damage to the environment and the number of people killed by them?


Ok, we are in agreement here.... yep even the feds are guilty of passing unConstitutional laws... Ocare being a prime example, and the very sad part is the supremes opted to ignore our Constitution when it was put to them. 

As to when they take my cars? That will be the day they pry my cold dead carcass out of it!


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I guess that wasn't you but if you do consider it a human how can you justify allowing it to be killed on a whim?


It may be human but I don't believe it is a person until later in gestation. No one who carries a fetus up to 16 -20 weeks does this on a whim.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> I'm not sure how asking someone if they had attended a certain college is trying to discount your thoughts and there were no accusations. Just a simple question.
> 
> I would think that with you having been a member for as long as you have, you would know that people do engage in friendly side conversation once in a while.


At the moment it was put up I was talking rather quickly back and forth with some other members. There's no face to face talking here on threads. At first glance, I genuinely thought Katie Gibbs was perhaps some former member and basketti's was making some strangly worded accusation that I was that person and had rejoined using gibbagirl as a sock. And, it ticked me off. But, I apologized on the thread when it seemed I was wrong and they were talking about some college people that I had never heard of before from new England.

I get that I've been a member for awhile, and if you look through my posting history I think you'll see that I actually participate in friendly chats a lot. So I'm clearly aware that they happen on here.

You know, you've made a few comments directed at me recently that "as a not recent member, I'd think you should know". I don't get where you that's coming from.

You're a mod right? Well, no mods gave deleted anything i'v put up that I'm aware of anywhere on HT. No mods have ever edited my posts that I'm aware of. And, no mods have ever contacted me to say that something I've done is a problem. So, I don't get what you're getting at with what you think I'm not understanding or aware if to your satisfaction level. 

Are you wearing your mod hat saying these things or just typing posts that have nothing to do with moderating? If there's a problem or you actually feel I don't understand something, do you think maybe a mod should reach out and pm me to handle it if it's a real problem?

Maybe I might be a little more clued in to what I guess I'm missing if my thread about " your thoughts on gay marriage" ever got unlocked so we could all see what on earth was out of bounds here nowadays.

I was off here a lot after Xmas time and got back on again months later after whatever firestorm blew through HT. And, i have to say, even without knowing many details of that, I do see things seem somewhat different and unpredictable for what the rules and expectations are.

I don't consider most of my posts to be overly inflammatory, but I'm not a perfect person, and I get that. But, there's a lot of weird back and forth and deletions and such. Weird I say because not only are people's words gone, bit then readers can't really get what words were a problem. I don't think it helps much, IMO. And, a mod commenting about my exchange with basketti's after it was done, and I think reasonably resolved, doesn't read to me like you're wanting to fix an actual problem.

So please feel free to let me know if I'm misreading it to r not. I know sometimes I've read mods say if they're talking as a mod or not on certain posts.

I'd guess most are usually just chatting. But, when I see repeated mentions of you finding issue with me because I've been n a member for a certain amount of time, I'm basically being left with a couple thoughts. Does wr think there's a real problem and there's something they want me to understand that I don't about th house rules on here, or dies wr just not like some stuff I write and wants to just claim I'm ignorant of something as a response.

I freely admit I could be off track, so feel free to answer or pm me or ignore this either way. Just throwing this out hear since I'm continuing to be pulled into a thread drift that has little to do with the thread topic.

I thought this thread had actually been going pretty darn nicely for several pages too, with lots of people getting to toss out their ideas on a very hot topic. Sorry guys for this post. If'm done being off topic if it can be helped on here.


----------



## Shine

gibbsgirl said in part:
"Are you wearing your mod hat saying these things or just typing posts that have nothing to do with moderating? If there's a problem or you actually feel I don't understand something, do you think maybe a mod should reach out and pm me to handle it if it's a real problem?"

Another mod called me out on a thread in from of God and everyone else evidently explaining that something that I did was hypocritical and obviously in bad taste. I PM'ed the mod to discuss, they said they were making dinner and could not discuss it and that they would PM me before the next day... nothing has been received as yet.

In no situation should someone be admonished by a mod within that same thread unless the mods are openly taking sides.

I guess we've lost those that operate within proper protocols...


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> I have never vilified a woman for her choice, that includes carrying a pregnancy to term. Her body, her choice.
> 
> I lambasted Bristol Palin for getting pregnant for *advocating abstinence* while having unprotected sex, certainly not for choosing not to abort. Her body, her choice. She choice to put herself in the spotlight, she chose to promote abstinence, she chose to have unprotected sex.
> 
> Try again.



You don't seem to be supporting her for making her choices .


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, our state govenments have indeed put a lot of laws on their books that fly in the face of our Constitution. and so have the feds, but little at a time many of those laws are being struck down. The problem is that a great many people that have been affected by these "illegal" laws have not had the resources to fight the legal battle and get them put before the Supreme Court. Until that happens, there is no one to turn to for justice. The right to homeschool our own children was one such case. A couple who live one county over from me fought that battle, all the way to the supreme court back in the late seventies. Today there are thousands of kids being home schooled.


I agree with that. But, I think that citizens have a somewhat fairer fight on their hands when they can leave the jurisdictions they don't like or at least have easier access to fight the govt at state and local levels for justice and fair laws.

I see that the feds figured this out and in order to tip the scales further in their favor have inserted themselves into matters they have no business tackling. Abortions is one of those issues.

But, perhaps an even more timely example are the recent calls for the doj to get involved in the racial cop killing cases. I don't think they should. But, we've reached a boiling point where citizens in local areas are demanding without ceasing that their local govts look at and fix problems with racism and law enforcement. Some places I think really will not stop until there are changes. Citizens are pressuring local govt for justice and examination of potential or real ( depending on who you ask) problems. And, what hapoens? The feds start swooping in like never before to take the authority away from the locals people were dealing with. That stinks to me of a power play to take the average communities ability to access and change their local govt away by the feds.


----------



## gibbsgirl

AmericanStand said:


> You don't seem to be supporting her for making her choices .


Hey americanstand, I wonder if Bristol Palin had unprotected sex? I honestly don't know. Haven't read much in the news about her. Don't know if it was reported or even if reports are true.

But, I know lots of people have failures in birth control.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still a company, yes? It still dictates what birth control it's employees can buy with the insurance they've paid for, yes?
> 
> Not because of an agreement between itself and an insurance company, that's common, it's because HL doesn't agree with _how_ the birth control works. Huge difference. Huge. Absolutely nothing to do with generic drugs whatsoever.
> 
> It's a straw man that HL picks up part of the insurance or even offers it. Neither does Obamacare.


I believe the b.c. is free to the employees. HL has decided what ins. to offer to the employees. That ins. does not include 2 maybe 3 forms of abortitives. I suppose you are trying to say employees have a right to determine what ins. their employer will offer? 
Not likely.
But HL has no power to forbid their employees to buy anything. If the dozens of free b.c. Are not enuf to chose from, they can work somewhere else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Not so for cake makers.. ....there no freedom to refuse a demand from a customer.


No, they can't refuse to sell a product they have and sell to everyone else
Why do you keep pretending you don't understand the difference?


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they can't refuse to sell a product they have and sell to everyone else
> Why do you keep pretending you don't understand the difference?


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...s-who-declined-to-make-same-sex-wedding-cake/


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> It may be human but I don't believe it is a person until later in gestation.


Ok so now I know where you stand and I have a few more questions for you.

Who do we know just how old it is?

What scientific data did you use to determine that at one point it wasn't a person but in that magical one second POOF it is now a person? What if we misjudge its age are we now killing a person?

Do we really know when that mass of tissue actually becomes a person? Or do we pick the time that makes us feel good?




painterswife said:


> No one who carries a fetus up to 16 -20 weeks does this on a whim.


That's you opinion but was if you or someone else who said we can't know why a woman is having an abortion. Therefore it could have been on a whim. After all there is no requirement for a 'cooling off period' for abortions are there? Haven't the courts ruled those are illegal?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> My point is that no one on this forum has advocated anything that Holgren allegedly has said regarding infanticide. No one on this forum, progressive liberal Democrat whatever has advocated infanticide, forced birth control, or forced abortions yet you have no problem lumping them into the same group. Why do you do that?
> 
> Have you heard of pharmacists refusing to fill the morning after pill and other forms of birth control?


And no one here belongs to nor do the know anyone who does belong to WBC yet you keep bringing them up. In fact everyone here denounces them as well as some who go places to interfere w/them.

Why do you do that?

Many of the leaders of the dem progressives have advocated those atrocities, those ARE progressive dems. Those are leaders, policy makers, influential people in the democrat party, progressives.

A handful of Rphs have refused to fill a few, so what? What is your point there? No one here has advocated that.


----------



## watcher

gibbsgirl said:


> Hey americanstand, I wonder if Bristol Palin had unprotected sex? I honestly don't know. Haven't read much in the news about her. Don't know if it was reported or even if reports are true.
> 
> But, I know lots of people have failures in birth control.


I have first hand experience with that, our first was a surprise due to the failure of BC.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they can't refuse to sell a product they have and sell to everyone else
> Why do you keep pretending you don't understand the difference?


Again I must ask when did we completely lose our private property rights to the point the government can force us to buy or sell something if we wish to do neither?


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> Just as I have pointed out abortion is taking the life of a human and there is no problem with taking a life when it is to protect yourself or others. There IS a problem when you take a life just because allowing the human to continue living inconveniences you.
> 
> Putting a bullet into the heart of your neighbor as he is coming at you with an ax with the intent of harming you him is OK. But killing him because he's playing rap music at 2 a.m. when you have to get up at 5 to go to work is not.
> 
> In the same way aborting a fetus because carrying it to term places you in danger is ok. Aborting it because you don't want a fat belly and/or stretch marks when you go to the beach this summer isn't.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Just as I have pointed out abortion is taking the life of a human and there is no problem with taking a life when it is to protect yourself or others. There IS a problem when you take a life just because allowing the human to continue living inconveniences you.


If you think it's a problem, don't do it

You have no right to make those decisions for anyone else though


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Ok so now I know where you stand and I have a few more questions for you.
> 
> Who do we know just how old it is?
> 
> What scientific data did you use to determine that at one point it wasn't a person but in that magical one second POOF it is now a person? What if we misjudge its age are we now killing a person?
> 
> Do we really know when that mass of tissue actually becomes a person? Or do we pick the time that makes us feel good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's you opinion but was if you or someone else who said we can't know why a woman is having an abortion. Therefore it could have been on a whim. After all there is no requirement for a 'cooling off period' for abortions are there? Haven't the courts ruled those are illegal?


That is a a lot of what if's. Each women faced with the decision will have to figure it out for themselves with as much knowledge as they can gather. As I said before I hope that one day they will not have to make such a decision. Either birth control will be 100% or we will be able to know we are pregnant within hours of conception. Until then the only person deciding is the person who is carrying.


----------



## Tricky Grama

dlmcafee said:


> I travel 45 miles one way 5 days a week for radiation and chemo, so picking up a prescription once a month 30 miles away does not touch my feelings, I do not feel victimized at all, sorry. Try mail order, delivery, change meds if possible. Maybe just lobby hard enough and we will have a totally government ruled business society. There is a name that, I do not wish for us to get that far.


Hey, lookin' like the Socialist Sanders is closing in, what if he gets the 'nom'? We'd bring getting pretty close then...


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> At the moment it was put up I was talking rather quickly back and forth with some other members. There's no face to face talking here on threads. At first glance, I genuinely thought Katie Gibbs was perhaps some former member and basketti's was making some strangly worded accusation that I was that person and had rejoined using gibbagirl as a sock. And, it ticked me off. But, I apologized on the thread when it seemed I was wrong and they were talking about some college people that I had never heard of before from new England.
> 
> I get that I've been a member for awhile, and if you look through my posting history I think you'll see that I actually participate in friendly chats a lot. So I'm clearly aware that they happen on here.
> 
> You know, you've made a few comments directed at me recently that "as a not recent member, I'd think you should know". I don't get where you that's coming from.
> 
> You're a mod right? Well, no mods gave deleted anything i'v put up that I'm aware of anywhere on HT. No mods have ever edited my posts that I'm aware of. And, no mods have ever contacted me to say that something I've done is a problem. So, I don't get what you're getting at with what you think I'm not understanding or aware if to your satisfaction level.
> 
> Are you wearing your mod hat saying these things or just typing posts that have nothing to do with moderating? If there's a problem or you actually feel I don't understand something, do you think maybe a mod should reach out and pm me to handle it if it's a real problem?
> 
> Maybe I might be a little more clued in to what I guess I'm missing if my thread about " your thoughts on gay marriage" ever got unlocked so we could all see what on earth was out of bounds here nowadays.
> 
> I was off here a lot after Xmas time and got back on again months later after whatever firestorm blew through HT. And, i have to say, even without knowing many details of that, I do see things seem somewhat different and unpredictable for what the rules and expectations are.
> 
> I don't consider most of my posts to be overly inflammatory, but I'm not a perfect person, and I get that. But, there's a lot of weird back and forth and deletions and such. Weird I say because not only are people's words gone, bit then readers can't really get what words were a problem. I don't think it helps much, IMO. And, a mod commenting about my exchange with basketti's after it was done, and I think reasonably resolved, doesn't read to me like you're wanting to fix an actual problem.
> 
> So please feel free to let me know if I'm misreading it to r not. I know sometimes I've read mods say if they're talking as a mod or not on certain posts.
> 
> I'd guess most are usually just chatting. But, when I see repeated mentions of you finding issue with me because I've been n a member for a certain amount of time, I'm basically being left with a couple thoughts. Does wr think there's a real problem and there's something they want me to understand that I don't about th house rules on here, or dies wr just not like some stuff I write and wants to just claim I'm ignorant of something as a response.
> 
> I freely admit I could be off track, so feel free to answer or pm me or ignore this either way. Just throwing this out hear since I'm continuing to be pulled into a thread drift that has little to do with the thread topic.
> 
> I thought this thread had actually been going pretty darn nicely for several pages too, with lots of people getting to toss out their ideas on a very hot topic. Sorry guys for this post. If'm done being off topic if it can be helped on here.


You've been a member for about 2 years. Usually by that time, folks have seem most of the things you seem to get worked up over. 

I don't find you to be an issue at all but felt the need to clear something up from a mod standpoint. 

I can assure you that if wr thought there was something you needed to understand, other than the fact that things haven't changed that much since you joined, wr would have sent you a pm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> If someone can be charged for harming it why not the mother?


Because one is legal and one is not.
It's been explained several times in various threads.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you don't want to bake a cake showing the lynching of a black man for a Klan rally the government shouldn't be able to force you to do so or you lose your freedom or business.


No one has ever been forced to do any such thing, so why do you insist on fabricating these fantasies?


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> You've been a member for about 2 years. Usually by that time, folks have seem most of the things you seem to get worked up over.
> 
> I don't find you to be an issue at all but felt the need to clear something up from a mod standpoint.
> 
> I can assure you that if wr thought there was something you needed to understand, other than the fact that things haven't changed that much since you joined, wr would have sent you a pm.


Oh I see. So, I guess you've got me pegged for what and how much I get worked up over things based on posts. And, you've also determined I'm slower than the average bear? Lol. Thanks for at least explaining. Just in the interest of clarifying if I was truly worked up about something. I'd likely be contacting a mod with a question or a complaint by pm, if that was the case. If you check my stats, you can probably verify that I have done neither ever. So, perhaps I'm not as worked up as my posts have indicated to some.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Ah, so because its an inconvenience to you, you think the government should use force to make someone do something they do not want to.
> 
> What else would you like it to do to make life more convenient for you?


It's not about forcing anyone to do something they "don't want to do"
It's about making them do their jobs and not inserting their personal beliefs into the business


----------



## Tricky Grama

dlmcafee said:


> Ya'll are funny or you live in the middle of the Antarctic waste. Can't find Your brand of BC pills and your only pizza place refuses to add anchovies and you feel victimized because you may have to shop around. Try finding a kosher friendly anything in West Virginia, Seems the whole state can't function without some form of bacon grease.


BWHaha!
Dimcafee, ya gotta issue a spew alert!
Wow, what do you do? Mail order food?
And the smell of Virginia hams...I'm so sorry.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> And no one here belongs to nor do the know anyone who does belong to WBC yet you keep bringing them up. In fact everyone here denounces them as well as some who go places to interfere w/them.
> 
> Why do you do that?
> 
> Many of the leaders of the dem progressives have advocated those atrocities, those ARE progressive dems. Those are leaders, policy makers, influential people in the democrat party, progressives.
> 
> A handful of Rphs have refused to fill a few, so what? What is your point there? No one here has advocated that.


Are you going to actually say something or just rephrase and parrot back what I've said to you? 

Don't bother as it will be the same old crap- conservative good, liberal bad, ugg.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> No but you could be charged with murder if you cut 'your' liver out of the person after it was transplanted because you changed your mind about giving it away.
> 
> Your turn. Can you be charged with murder if your refuse to feed your child and it starves?


Ridiculous statements such as these really don't help you at all


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Ya'll are funny or you live in the middle of the Antarctic waste. Can't find Your brand of BC pills and your only pizza place refuses to add anchovies and you feel victimized because you may have to shop around. Try finding a kosher friendly anything in West Virginia, Seems the whole state can't function without some form of bacon grease.


You should take your buddy's advice and just move to where you can conveniently get what you want. Just that simple.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Who is Katie Gibbs? And, why would you think I have anything to do with new England?
> 
> Talk about laying your cards on the table. If you want to discount my thoughts in other people's eyes, its pretty weak tactic to try and do so by flinging unrelated accusations around about my identity.


Get a grip
She asked a simple question

Stop playing the victim all the time, because it's boring


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> Can let a mom harm a fetus by maybe causing fas...but killing....that's a choice she can make.
> 
> Can a bartender refuse to sell alcohol to persons she thinks might be pregnant...
> I know it has happened but there was a lot of support for the refusal.


They refuse to sell alcohol to someone they think may have had too much...judgement call on their part.
But they can lose their license if they do sell to a drunk.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> Again how can you justify that with you logic that a fetus is not a human until after its born (I think that was not your statement if not sorry)? Again if you are attacked and you lose your leg as a result would you try to have the person charged with two separate crimes; assault on you and assault on your leg?
> 
> Or better yet the classic logic problem. A woman is sitting in the office waiting on her scheduled abortion to take place. While in the office she is attacked and as a result of that attack has a miscarriage. Should her attacker be charged with the death of her unborn child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I picked heavy alcohol use. The line is fairly hard and fast there. There is a known direct link between heavy alcohol use and children being born damaged. So I again ask, if a mother continues her heavy alcohol use during pregnancy should she be charged when her child is born damaged? Using the logic of its not a human until after birth I would have to say she should not be because how can you damage someone when they are not really someone. It would be like charging her for damaging her liver through her drinking.


Have they not arrested crack moms? When their babies are born sooo addicted?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So should a pharmacist who has been robbed a few times at gunpoint have the right to refuse to carry pain meds or sudafed because that's what the robbers were after?


Only if they refuse to carry anything someone might steal.

When they carry the medications but refuse to dispense them that's a totally different scenario.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Its called reading for context. If you read what I post *its clear* that her mental issues were caused by a traumatic event as opposed to what you seemed to be implying, i.e. she had mental problems before the event.


It's clear you *think* she had no mental issues before, because that fits your agenda better than if she was off to begin with.

All we have to go by is your version


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> I have first hand experience with that, our first was a surprise due to the failure of BC.


Our 2nd.
Well, not exactly. We did use rhythm.
Know what they call people who use the rhythm method? 

"Parents".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> Not pointed at you Watcher but at those you are talking to.
> 
> I'd like a really good Pizza Place to be built within a mile or two of my home.
> *Whats the difference* between the government making a pharmacy sell you something and my example??? the government could force someone to build one and sell me pizza's -- I think the "pursuit of happiness" portion covers it.


You're kidding, right?


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> You should take your buddy's advice and just move to where you can conveniently get what you want. Just that simple.


I see your one of the funny ones. I make due, thank you, and would never demand anything from retailers to suit my religion, unlike some protected class individuals..


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you going to actually say something or just rephrase and parrot back what I've said to you?
> 
> Don't bother as it will be the same old crap- conservative good, liberal bad, ugg.


Did you ask a ? Or did you not? Progressives are the advocates for the things mentioned. LEADERS. If it is too painful for you, belong to a different group.

But it is progressives who believe in abortion on demand right up to the time of birth. Slippery slope. What's next? 
You never answered. you just kept asking if Rphs refused to fill Rxs. And I kept answering that all 4, 5 times. As if that is as horrendous as a scissors in the head of a baby being born.
And don't tell us again that it's the mothers body. It's the head of another living human.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...s-who-declined-to-make-same-sex-wedding-cake/


That's not an answer to my question
Why do you continue to pretend you don't understand?


----------



## gibbsgirl

dlmcafee said:


> I see your one of the funny ones. I make due, thank you, and would never demand anything from retailers to suit my religion, unlike some protected class individuals..


Enjoy your home. If it gets rough, I'll mail you some challah. My girl is getting pretty good at making it too. Just a little care package if things get too desperate, lol.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> So, move then.





dlmcafee said:


> I see your one of the funny ones. I make due, thank you, and would never demand anything from retailers to suit my religion, unlike some protected class individuals..


Not being funny, he said it. Apparently it's simple to just pull up stakes and move to find someone that will actually do their job. Who knew?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> And no one here belongs to nor do the know anyone who does belong to WBC yet you keep bringing them up. In fact everyone here denounces them as well as some who go places to interfere w/them.
> 
> Why do you do that?


It was an *illustration* of what you do all the time when you say "well so and so liberal progressive thinks..." and conclude it somehow applies to people here.

This really isn't that complicated unless you make it that way


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> I see your one of the funny ones. I make due, thank you, and would never demand anything from retailers to suit my religion, unlike some protected class individuals..


It's the retailers forcing their religious or moral views.

I don't get why you can't seem to understand your examples are totally different from the actual problem unless it's intentional


----------



## Guest

gibbsgirl said:


> Enjoy your home. If it gets rough, I'll mail you some challah. My girl is getting pretty good at making it too. Just a little care package if things get too desperate, lol.


Thank you, I enjoy it just fine, not a whole lot of whiny people here, mostly poor hard working straight up good people.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the retailers forcing their religious or moral views.
> 
> I don't get why you can't seem to understand your examples are totally different from the actual problem unless it's intentional


Can't help ya there, you not getting it is not a problem of mine.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Did you ask a ? Or did you not? Progressives are the advocates for the things mentioned. LEADERS. If it is too painful for you, belong to a different group.
> 
> But it is progressives who believe in abortion on demand right up to the time of birth. Slippery slope. What's next?
> You never answered. you just kept asking if *Rphs* refused to fill Rxs. And I kept answering that all 4, 5 times. As if that is as horrendous as a scissors in the head of a baby being born.
> And don't tell us again that it's the mothers body. It's the head of another living human.


I've been wondering why you use that abbreviation and it dawned on me. You used to be "Big Pharma" didn't you? They didn't yank your conservative card for that? I'm shocked.

Abortion on demand up to time of birth is illegal in most states.. but don't let facts get in the way. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Can't help ya there, you not getting it is not a problem of mine.


I get that you use scenarios that have nothing to do with some pharmacists refusing to dispense certain products even when the stores have them.

It's not about pizzas or anchovies


----------



## Jolly

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but care to tell me how, especially after the latest USSC ruling, you can legally/constitutionally justify making it illegal for an adult to have sex with or even marrying any other adult?


I find the latest ruling by SCOTUS to be only slightly more judicial than the Dred Scott decision.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> There shouldn't be restrictions on an abortion. Her body, her choice.


Partial birth? Late term? The child never has rights?


----------



## Jolly

Txsteader said:


> Partial birth? Late term? The child never has rights?


You can't use the term "child", you must say "fetus". Child implies too many things, best forgotten...


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you think it's a problem, don't do it
> 
> You have no right to make those decisions for anyone else though


And you have the right to decide when life begins and when it should end for those you don't think deserve to live?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Partial birth? Late term? The child never has rights?


Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


There's going to be a lot of shocked folks, when they find out an unborn child has no rights.

Especially those folks *in the 38 states that have Fetal Homicide laws!*

In Louisiana, this one's worth the Death Penalty:

_La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Â§ 14:32.6 (2006) defines first degree feticide as the killing of an unborn child when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm, and includes the killing of an unborn child when the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated escape, armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second degree cruelty to juveniles, terrorism, or simple robbery, even though he has no intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm._


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> That is a a lot of what if's. Each women faced with the decision will have to figure it out for themselves with as much knowledge as they can gather. As I said before I hope that one day they will not have to make such a decision. Either birth control will be 100% or we will be able to know we are pregnant within hours of conception. Until then the only person deciding is the person who is carrying.


The problem is the "ifs" and the "we don't knows". Until then are you willing to take the chance you are killing someone? As I have pointed out there are people alive today who not that long ago science would have said could not have survived outside the womb, could not be considered "viable" and therefore killing them in the womb was not actually killing a person.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


That's an interesting statement. I wonder then, if drs and kin of pregnant women who are dying, in a coma and being kept on life support in order to trying to save the woman's unborn child are doing wrong by the mother. Those situations do happen.

That's not that common, and the argument can be made that perhaps the mother wanted her child born. But, how can anyone know for sure if she would still want it when she's gone through a life ending trauma that likely put her unborn child at new unforseen health risks as well.

If the fetus has no rights then, and the mother can't consent, and sometimes is only being kept alive until delivery, who's rights are being decided or more important. How do you follow the rule of its the mothers call alone all the time and baby has no rights in that scenario?

Iife's complicated. And, I think the all or nothing answers are usually not doable in every scenario


----------



## Shine

Jolly said, in part:
"_specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm"

Kinda sounds like an abortion, doesn't it?
_


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because one is legal and one is not.
> It's been explained several times in various threads.


At one time it was legal to own other people did being legal make it right, proper or moral?

Also you can't have something that is legal and illegal at the same time.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has ever been forced to do any such thing, so why do you insist on fabricating these fantasies?


Its called making a point. If you want to such a cake or not you should not face government pressure one way or the other.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not about forcing anyone to do something they "don't want to do"
> It's about making them do their jobs and not inserting their personal beliefs into the business


So what you are saying that now government has total control of businesses and the owners of business must either tow the government line or face the music. IOW, private property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and such no longer exist.


----------



## watcher

Tricky Grama said:


> Have they not arrested crack moms? When their babies are born sooo addicted?


That's the flaw in their logic. I don't see how if a fetus isn't a person until after its born. I don't think the mother gave it crack then, do you?


----------



## Jolly

watcher said:


> So what you are saying that now government has total control of businesses and the owners of business must either tow the government line or face the music. IOW, private property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and such no longer exist.


They exist, but only for the best and brightest among us. The _hoi polloi_ need to be managed, as it is in their best interests.


----------



## Shine

OK, the whole argument could be summed up with "People cannot agree on when the "fetus" [safety word] is granted person-hood."

I cannot answer for anyone else but for me it is at the point of conception. I believe that God granted me this life as a supreme Gift. For me to do anything that is contrary to His will gives me grief. So to clarify, at conception I believe that the Gift is given. That Gift is the Gift of Life and it is completely in His hands. It is our charge to learn of Him and to go forth telling of the Good News. Thing of it is, telling by word of mouth is somewhat lame in His eyes, lest you do these things - you do not know Me.

When Christ called me, it was impossible for me not to seek out His answers, I could not resist. As He has opened the Book of answers with His Revelations, it seems that I want to do the things that He has compelled us to do in His Book, it makes me happy to do these things when before, I didn't take a second thought to attempt to glorify myself, I did it if it felt good.

Now it is different, I do not want to do anything to offend Him, and to me, killing something that has been given the Gift of Life offends Him.

There you have it...


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


So an assault which causes a miscarriage can not lead to a charge of harming a fetus?


----------



## watcher

Jolly said:


> They exist, but only for the best and brightest among us. The _hoi polloi_ need to be managed, as it is in their best interests.


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


This stance by someone outside of HT was the origin of the OP. All this arguing about abortion is noise because the law on the subject is clear. Until the law is changed by a legislative body, those arguments are a waste of time. But by using your stated position, the two laws are in complete opposition. That's why I asked the original question. It wasn't a gotcha question because I layed out the details as best as I could. Since I am a simple high school graduate, I am sure someone more eloquent could have done better. just sayin!


----------



## gibbsgirl

watcher said:


> All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.


Well timed reference my friend.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&



I'm so tired of that old saw. It's not her body the baby has different DNA from conception. 
Further more there are lots of things you can't do with your body.


----------



## Lisa in WA

AmericanStand said:


> I'm so tired of that old saw. It's not her body the baby has different DNA from conception.
> Further more there are lots of things you can't do with your body.


Then take the other DNA out of her body. Her body for her to decide what to carry within it.


----------



## Jolly

basketti said:


> Then take the other DNA out of her body. Her body for her to decide what to carry within it.


Except in the case of rape or incest, she made the decision to take in some extra DNA. 

Once a new life occurs, it is no longer her sole choice.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly said:


> Except in the case of rape or incest, she made the decision to take in some extra DNA.
> 
> Once a new life occurs, it is no longer her sole choice.


I can tolerate a lot of the idea of letting a mother be the right person to decide whether she should keep or abort a child. It's difficult, but I also feel strongly about parents having final say over laws and doctors when things like hospice are the right choice for their children.

What I don't tolerate well is that I feel many women do not have sufficient access to information and support before during and after to cope with whatever their feelings are or become so they can live as well as possible with the consequences of their decisions.

I also don't accept well the idea that a father should be allowed no rights in the decision to abort or not, but then are held to the full mercy of the law to have visitation, support, custody, and parental rights determined by the courts because they are the biological parent of the child.

The mother can have those rights in my opinion regarding abortion. But, its hypocritical to hold a father legally responsible when he has no rights to determine if his children will be born or aborted.


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> Find it yourself. That thread would not have existed if Bristol Palin had chosen to abort privately so that no one would have known she had been sexually active.
> 
> People can play the game of saying it was solely about her choosing to be sexually active even though she supports the value of abstinence.
> 
> But, the bottom line is once the pregnancy happened, she faced an enormous decision about whether aborting would have been easier than her and her kids and family facing the uproar. So, it was a factor she had to consider. And, that is what I have a problem with.
> 
> People can say all they want about how other people should butt out of a woman's right to choose. But, I find it funny that they won't acknowledge that other people's actions and words effect the mothers choice.



That is not what that thread was about at all. It was purely about the irony of her being an abstinence advocate and then getting pregnant not once but twice outside of marriage. She is living proof abstinence does not work. 

That should have been where all the people on here going on about personal responsibility, pay before you play, keep your legs together if you can't afford BC etc. come in. Except she got a pass for some reason. Go figure. 

So far as public opinion goes what is worse her getting a bit of ribbing for saying one thing and doing another or all of the good pro-lifers who blast a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock and then blasts her again if she gets an abortion. Or worse leaves her with the only choice to avoid their censure of quietly getting an abortion and then never being able to talk about it due to the fear of the crushing disapproval she will get and having to wear the scarlet letter of Baby Killer the rest of her life.


----------



## Patchouli

Txsteader said:


> And what if the pharmacy is merely out of your medication? The outcome is the same; you don't get your prescription filled.
> 
> What's to be done about that? How do you insist that they have a supply for when YOU come to get your Rx filled?


If they are out they are out, nothing to be done for it. But if they have it and the pharmacist that day refuses to give it to me because they don't believe it is right then yeah I am going to get seriously angry. Why should I have to drive out of my way or come back another day to suit their religious beliefs?


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> Ah, so because its an inconvenience to you, you think the government should use force to make someone do something they do not want to.
> 
> What else would you like it to do to make life more convenient for you?


Did I mention the government? I don't remember saying anything about that. I do think they should be fired by their pharmacy. But the pharmacy can't fire them because the government protects them. Are you cool with that government intervention in the free market system?


----------



## Patchouli

MDKatie said:


> What does any of that have to do with abortion? And no, I have NEVER heard someone criticized for having a handicapped child. None of the other stuff even remotely says "You should have had an abortion."
> 
> I have heard MANY, MANY conservatives whine and complain about women who have kids while on welfare. Are they saying those mothers should have had abortions? Probably not. Probably what they're saying is don't get pregnant in the first place, right? Just like most of those examples you posted?
> 
> I really feel you're just grasping at straws now, and seeing things that just aren't there.


I actually have seen people say things like that. Along with it's too bad your mother didn't abort you. People can be very ugly sometimes.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> I can tolerate a lot of the idea of letting a mother be the right person to decide whether she should keep or abort a child. It's difficult, but I also feel strongly about parents having final say over laws and doctors when things like hospice are the right choice for their children.
> 
> What I don't tolerate well is that I feel many women do not have sufficient access to information and support before during and after to cope with whatever their feelings are or become so they can live as well as possible with the consequences of their decisions.
> 
> I also don't accept well the idea that a father should be allowed no rights in the decision to abort or not, but then are held to the full mercy of the law to have visitation, support, custody, and parental rights determined by the courts because they are the biological parent of the child.
> 
> The mother can have those rights in my opinion regarding abortion. But, its hypocritical to hold a father legally responsible when he has no rights to determine if his children will be born or aborted.


Which brings me back to my previous question. If the father should be consulted and his opinions accepted, should they also have the right to insist or legally enforce a woman to have an abortion if they do not want the obligations associated with a child? 

It seems that if his opinion is going to hold legal weight, you may find that a lot more young men would rather see the woman have an abortion that be faced with child support payments.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> Which brings me back to my previous question. If the father should be consulted and his opinions accepted, should they also have the right to insist or legally enforce a woman to have an abortion if they do not want the obligations associated with a child?
> 
> It seems that if his opinion is going to hold legal weight, you may find that a lot more young men would rather see the woman have an abortion that be faced with child support payments.


If you're asking my opinion, I'm fine with the mother deciding to keep or abort.

But, I also believe the father, who has no say I n that decision, has no obligation to her or the child.

If the mother wants help, she's gonna have to hope she's chosen a good daddy and be willing to do what she needs to to get along and coparent or have the kid she decided to keep be raised by her own means.


----------



## kasilofhome

Patchouli said:


> If they are out they are out, nothing to be done for it. But if they have it and the pharmacist that day refuses to give it to me because they don't believe it is right then yeah I am going to get seriously angry. Why should I have to drive out of my way or come back another day to suit their religious beliefs?


Wake up call.... a pharmacist can and will withhold meds
They can withhold meds due to quiet government regs.

Such as....stolen special scripts brought in..
They will still till 911 comes by to say high

Such as.... the state computer shows that your scrip is not due to be refilled

Such as ....they note a drug interaction... over looked....thank God they do this.

Such as your insurance company says no they will not pay for it and you don't have the cash.

Such... you do not have I'd to their standards.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> If you're asking my opinion, I'm fine with the mother deciding to keep or abort.
> 
> But, I also believe the father, who has no say I n that decision, has no obligation to her or the child.
> 
> If the mother wants help, she's gonna have to hope she's chosen a good daddy and be willing to do what she needs to to get along and coparent or have the kid she decided to keep be raised by her own means.


I'm fine with the mother deciding to carry or abort as well but you previously stated that you did not accept the father not having any rights in the matter, which it is my understanding also applies to adoption laws. 

My question to yourself and another person was that if you feel fathers should have greater rights, would that also mean the father could legally force a woman to have an abortion by way of exercising his co-parental rights or should his rights only extend to refusing to allow a woman to have an abortion?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> And* you have the right to decide* when life begins and when it should end for those you don't think deserve to live?


Nope, and I never said nor implied I did

That decision has already been made by the Courts and Legislatures, and the choice to have the procedure is up to the woman having it done, and no one else.

You only get to decide for yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Except in the case of rape or incest, she made the decision to take in some extra DNA.
> 
> Once a new life occurs, it is* no longer her sole choice*.


You are entitled to that *opinion*, but don't confuse it with an actual fact, since it's easily proven false


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> I'm fine with the mother deciding to carry or abort as well but you previously stated that you did not accept the father not having any rights in the matter, which it is my understanding also applies to adoption laws.
> 
> My question to yourself and another person was that if you feel fathers should have greater rights, would that also mean the father could legally force a woman to have an abortion by way of exercising his co-parental rights or should his rights only extend to refusing to allow a woman to have an abortion?


I'm not sure what rights you think I was talking about or how I thought or said a father should have the right to force or block an abortion? I think it's fairly clear that I've said multiple times in the threads that I can accept a mother under most all circumstances having the right to choose to fe or death for her baby. And, that's even with me personally feeling that in almost all situations, abortion is not a good choice.

Fathers and mothers have lost a lot of their parental rights by being subject to the whims, decisions, and penalties, and restrictions that the family courts, attys, and other govt agents currently have the power to dictate them. And, I don't agree with those people or institutions having a say in the vast majority of family issues.


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> I'm fine with the mother deciding to carry or abort as well but you previously stated that you did not accept the father not having any rights in the matter, which it is my understanding also applies to adoption laws.
> 
> My question to yourself and another person was that if you feel fathers should have greater rights, would that also mean the father could legally force a woman to have an abortion by way of exercising his co-parental rights or should his rights only extend to refusing to allow a woman to have an abortion?


I am against abortion.
That includes females, males, transgender.
Thus I am against a male forcing an abortion on another, I am against a female forcing it on another female, and any other combo of genders at Baskin and robins 72 different genders.

That's call standing firm on a position.
Firm on abortion
Firm on equality.
Sorry if that is confusing.
Trust me I hope the message is clear enough it's not magic or a slight of hand.
It's steadfast and constant.


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> I'm so tired of that old saw. It's not her body the baby has different DNA from conception.
> Further more there are lots of things you can't do with your body.


I am pretty sure a tape worm has different DNA than she has too, but I don't hear anyone whining about offloading them asap. A parasite is a parasite.


----------



## Valmai

Tricky Grama said:


> So are you saying the amount of child abuse has dropped since abortion became prevalent?


Of course not. That is unprovable.
I am saying that, to me, logic suggests that there would be lot more disadvantaged people that your tax dollars will be supporting.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Except in the case of rape or incest, she made the decision to take in some extra DNA.
> 
> Once a new life occurs, it is no longer her sole choice.


I am curious as to what crime the fetus is guilty of that carries a death sentence in the rape/incest cases but fetuses from other parentage must be spared due to their "innocence"?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> There's going to be a lot of shocked folks, when they find out an unborn child has no rights.
> 
> Especially those folks *in the 38 states that have Fetal Homicide laws!*
> 
> In Louisiana, this one's worth the Death Penalty:
> 
> _La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Â§ 14:32.6 (2006) defines first degree feticide as the killing of an unborn child when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm, and includes the killing of an unborn child when the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated escape, armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second degree cruelty to juveniles, terrorism, or simple robbery, even though he has no intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm._


Have you read anything on this thread? Anything at all? Abortion is not unlawful so it's not a crime. Fetal homicide is a whole different ball of wax, it's unlawful because the fetus is wanted by the mother. Unwanted (abortion) = no crime, wanted (beaten until fetal death) = crime. 

If you are so outraged (confused?) by this law do something about it. If not, you're just whining. Abortion has been legal for over 40 years and had countless runs at it so I would suggest trying to change the fetal homicide law if you feel the two are incompatible. Just sayin'. 

Do you understand the difference?


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> That's an interesting statement. I wonder then, if drs and kin of pregnant women who are dying, in a coma and being kept on life support in order to trying to save the woman's unborn child are doing wrong by the mother. Those situations do happen.
> 
> That's not that common, and the argument can be made that perhaps the mother wanted her child born. But, how can anyone know for sure if she would still want it when she's gone through a life ending trauma that likely put her unborn child at new unforseen health risks as well.
> 
> If the fetus has no rights then, and the mother can't consent, and sometimes is only being kept alive until delivery, who's rights are being decided or more important. How do you follow the rule of its the mothers call alone all the time and baby has no rights in that scenario?
> 
> Iife's complicated. And, I think the all or nothing answers are usually not doable in every scenario


The fetus can never consent and neither can a non emancipated minor. In this very uncommon scenario the woman's next of kin would have medical power of attorney.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> So an assault which causes a miscarriage can not lead to a charge of harming a fetus?


It can depending on if the woman was planning on carrying the pregnancy to term.


----------



## Irish Pixie

nchobbyfarm said:


> This stance by someone outside of HT was the origin of the OP. All this arguing about abortion is noise because the law on the subject is clear. Until the law is changed by a legislative body, those arguments are a waste of time. But by using your stated position, the two laws are in complete opposition. That's why I asked the original question. It wasn't a gotcha question because I layed out the details as best as I could. Since I am a simple high school graduate, I am sure someone more eloquent could have done better. just sayin!


Nope. And absolutely not. The difference is if the fetus is wanted. How many times does the same statement have to be repeated?

Unwanted (abortion) = not a crime, wanted (beaten until fetal death) = crime. It's not complicated.

So you admit you were trolling with the original question. Good to know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How many times does the same statement have to be repeated?


I'll take "ad infinitum" for $1000


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


Not sure what that article has to do w/ your statement. It conflicts with your point that the fetus never has rights prior to birth.

But in an effort to clarify your statement, you don't consider late-term or partial-birth abortions as murder?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But in an effort to clarify your statement, you don't consider late-term or partial-birth abortions as murder?


Partial birth abortions are illegal

"Late term" is vague.

States have set their own limits on how "late" abortions can be performed unless it's a medical necessity.

Why are all the question being repeated when they've been answered multiple times?



> It conflicts with your point that the fetus never has rights prior to birth.


Could you please copy and paste the specific segment that refers to any "fetal rights?


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Partial birth abortions are illegal
> 
> "Late term" is vague.
> 
> States have set their own limits on how "late" abortions can be performed unless it's a medical necessity.
> 
> Why are all the question being repeated when they've been answered multiple times?
> 
> 
> *Could you please copy and paste the specific segment that refers to any "fetal rights?*


Even though the phrase isn't included in the article, why else place restrictions, besides fetal rights? What would be the purpose of placing those restrictions?


----------



## FarmerKat

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure a tape worm has different DNA than she has too, but I don't hear anyone whining about offloading them asap. A parasite is a parasite.


Wow! So an unborn child is no more than a parasite? Please tell me you are not serious. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am curious as to what crime the fetus is guilty of that carries a death sentence in the rape/incest cases but fetuses from other parentage must be spared due to their "innocence"?


The fetus did not commit any crime in case of rape/incest. I am not really sure why they are lumped together either. Incest can be completely consensual with 2 adults participating. In case of rape, the woman was a victim of a crime. But why make another victim? I personally don't believe there should be any exceptions (that includes life/health of the mother).

I know it is not a popular opinion but that's what I believe.

ETA: I know your question was not directed at me but I believe it is a valid question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Even though* the phrase isn't included* in the article, why else place restrictions, besides fetal rights? What would be the purpose of placing those restrictions?


To define what are the legal options for the mothers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> In case of rape, the woman was a victim of a crime. But why make another victim? I personally don't believe there should be any exceptions (that includes life/health of the mother).
> 
> I know it is not a popular opinion but that's what I believe.


If those are you beliefs, that is fine.

Just accept the fact they aren't everyone's beliefs, and you can't make moral decisions for anyone other than yourself.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> The fetus can never consent and neither can a non emancipated minor. In this very uncommon scenario the woman's next of kin would have medical power of attorney.


Obviously next of kin would have power of attorney, or medical staff would.

But, I find it interesting that it would somehow not be seen as cruel and outlawed to keep a brain dead mother alive artificially if her baby was j s a parasitic fetus with no real ght to life because it was unborn.

The entire reason to keep these mothers alive would be false then. Because no birth and no right to life means drs should be withdrawing life support, instead of extending it, since the use of life support is specifically being administered and withdrawn based around the future birth of a child.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Have you read anything on this thread? Anything at all? Abortion is not unlawful so it's not a crime. Fetal homicide is a whole different ball of wax, it's unlawful because the fetus is wanted by the mother. Unwanted (abortion) = no crime, wanted (beaten until fetal death) = crime.
> 
> If you are so outraged (confused?) by this law do something about it. If not, you're just whining. Abortion has been legal for over 40 years and had countless runs at it so I would suggest trying to change the fetal homicide law if you feel the two are incompatible. Just sayin'.
> 
> Do you understand the difference?


I can read. I can comprehend. Apparently, you have trouble with both. Let's try this again...

You wrote:



> Nope, the fetus never has rights prior to birth. Her body, her choice. I can't make it any simpler.


Now, my ignorant friend, you wrote "never". No rights. Nada. Zippola. Zilch.

You were then shown to have been in error. In 38 states, an unborn child, in your parlance a fetus, has enough rights that a person can go to jail for killing one. In some states, you can be executed for killing one, especially during the commission of a crime.

Them's pretty big rights, donchya think?

Is that why you are so outraged?


----------



## FarmerKat

Bearfootfarm said:


> If those are you beliefs, that is fine.
> 
> Just accept the fact they aren't everyone's beliefs, and you can't make moral decisions for anyone other than yourself.


I believe that saying "I know it is not a popular opinion" indicates that I understand these are not everyone's beliefs. That does not mean, however, that I cannot advocate for restrictions on abortions. 

On another thought .... I find it interesting that this thread appears to indicate that this is a difference between non-believers and Christians. The worst I have every been yelled at over my support for pro-life legislation was by a Christian woman. Among the the words I cannot repeat on this board, she told me that "God does not want those children to live anyway". She did not convince me to see it her way (I don't get how people can think that yelling obscenities would sway anyone their way but I guess they think they can bully one into agreement.)


----------



## Jolly

gibbsgirl said:


> I can tolerate a lot of the idea of letting a mother be the right person to decide whether she should keep or abort a child. It's difficult, but I also feel strongly about parents having final say over laws and doctors when things like hospice are the right choice for their children.
> 
> What I don't tolerate well is that I feel many women do not have sufficient access to information and support before during and after to cope with whatever their feelings are or become so they can live as well as possible with the consequences of their decisions.
> 
> I also don't accept well the idea that a father should be allowed no rights in the decision to abort or not, but then are held to the full mercy of the law to have visitation, support, custody, and parental rights determined by the courts because they are the biological parent of the child.
> 
> The mother can have those rights in my opinion regarding abortion. But, its hypocritical to hold a father legally responsible when he has no rights to determine if his children will be born or aborted.


Some nice points in there...


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> You are entitled to that *opinion*, but don't confuse it with an actual fact, since it's easily proven false


Courts and legislatures are ephemeral, as are countries.

What is right and what is wrong is sometimes hard to figure out, it can even be a bit grey, but it is eternal.

Put your faith in man. He most certainly will fail you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You were then shown to have been in error. In 38 states, an unborn child, in your parlance a fetus, has enough rights that a person can go to jail for killing one. In some states, you can be executed for killing one, especially during the commission of a crime.
> 
> Them's pretty big rights, donchya think?


Nothing you've shown says anything about "fetal rights"

If it does, please copy and paste those portions instead of calling others ignorant without evidence.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am curious as to what crime the fetus is guilty of that carries a death sentence in the rape/incest cases but fetuses from other parentage must be spared due to their "innocence"?


This is what bioethicist Andrew Varga wrote:


> It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman's mental health is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained that the fetus is an aggressor against the woman's integrity and personal life; it is only just and morally defensible to repel an aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend personal and human values. It is concluded, then, that abortion is justified in these cases.


I think the overriding factor in this scenario is justice. Nobody ever said justice was easy. Nobody ever said that justice does not sometimes harm innocents...Witness the number of times God has punished the innocent for acts committed by the wicked.

Do I like the taking of innocent life? No. But do I want to force a woman to carry a child conceived during a brutal rape? No. What is the lesser of those two evils?

If this were your daughter...Your daughter who has been brutally beaten and gang raped. Your daughter who is now a few weeks pregnant...What would you do?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing you've shown says anything about "fetal rights"
> 
> If it does, please copy and paste those portions instead of calling others ignorant without evidence.


Go back and study to show thyself approved. I even cut and pasted a portion of one of the laws.

Now, if you can't equate criminal penalty as being a result of rights violations (the right to be secure in one's person, etc.) you are being exceptionally and purposefully obtuse.

But then again, that's what got you thrown out of here the first time, isn't it?


----------



## mnn2501

MDKatie said:


> I simply don't think it's ok to deny a human being a product or service you provide, simply because you're a bigot. Get with the times. We're long past the days of discriminating based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
> 
> If you are in a customer service field (as in, you provide ANY service to the PUBLIC), but you hate people enough to deny them based on one of those things, perhaps you are in the wrong business and should work alone.


So should Jewish or Muslim restaurants be forced to sell bacon and ham dinners?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Partial birth abortions are illegal
> 
> "Late term" is vague.
> 
> States have set their own limits on how "late" abortions can be performed unless it's a medical necessity.
> 
> Why are all the question being repeated when they've been answered multiple times?
> 
> 
> Could you please copy and paste the specific segment that refers to any "fetal rights?


Are they illegal?

Perhaps not, not in all cases:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_BPBA.pdf


Secondly, it has been reported that doctors do have a loophole in the law, if they wish to pursue it...The baby can be chemically killed, in-utero, and then it can be disposed of in the "usual" way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Go back and study to show thyself approved. I even cut and pasted a portion of one of the laws.
> 
> Now, if you can't equate criminal penalty as being a result of rights violations (the right to be secure in one's person, etc.) you are being *exceptionally and purposefully obtuse.*
> 
> But then again, *that's what got you thrown out of here the first times, isn't it?*


You haven't shown anything in any law that *says* " fetal rights"

All you've shown is you can't resist the juvenile name calling and personal jabs when you know you can't prove what you claimed.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> You haven't shown anything in any law that *says* " fetal rights"
> 
> All you've shown is you can't resist the juvenile name calling and personal jabs when you know you can't prove what you claimed.


No personal jab. It's the truth.

You're the one, in your usual highly predictive and obstinate manner, that will deny pure truth, as long as it does not fit your debating purpose. Maybe you _do_ actually know-it-all. 

Most of the truly smart people I've ever met, do have some humility. It's just the ones who think they're smarter and better than everyone else that lack that quality.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Are they illegal?


Yes, they are illegal



> In its April 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and, in the process, set a major jurisprudential precedent.
> 
> The federal law includes no health exception. Moreover, although the law does not include a precise medical definition of what is banned, the Court found the federal law&#8217;s definition sufficient to pass constitutional muster.
> 
> *The federal law is currently in effect* and the Supreme Court precedent may bring consistency to state laws, which are still important as they allow for state and local law enforcement and, potentially, stiffer penalties.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, they are illegal


If you'd care to read the link I gave you, it's date is 7/1/15.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> No personal jab. It's the truth.
> 
> You're the one, in your usual highly predictive and obstinate manner, that will deny* pure truth*, as long as it does not fit your debating purpose. Maybe you _do_ actually know-it-all.
> 
> Most of the truly smart people I've ever met, do have some humility. It's just the ones who think they're smarter and better than everyone else that lack that quality.


The "pure truth" is you really haven't shown where any of those laws mention "fetal rights" at all, so you're now trying to make me the topic as a diversion.


----------



## AmericanStand

Patchouli said:


> That is not what that thread was about at all. It was purely about the irony of her being an abstinence advocate and then getting pregnant not once but twice outside of marriage. She is living proof abstinence does not work.
> 
> .



You seem to forget she already had a child when she be same a advocate for abstinence. 
It was one of those "I learned the hard way here is how to avoid my mistake " kinda things. 
Think back , it was much easier to do without sex before you have had it wasn't it ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> If you'd care to *read the link* I gave you, it's date is 7/1/15.


LOL

My quote came from your link

Maybe you should read it


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not about forcing anyone to do something they "don't want to do"
> It's about making them do their jobs and not inserting their personal beliefs into the business


So you spend the time and money to become a pharmacist.
You spend the time and money to own your own pharmacy.
Now little Mary Jane a local high school girl who got pregnant and wants the abortion pill RU486 (or whatever it's named) gets to sue you for hundreds of thousands (or more) of your hard earned cash because you refuse to carry it on moral grounds?

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> My quote came from your link
> 
> Maybe you should read it


Maybe you should look at the chart contained therein.


----------



## AmericanStand

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure a tape worm has different DNA than she has too, but I don't hear anyone whining about offloading them asap. A parasite is a parasite.



Very true and reasonable on the other hand a tape worm is not a human. 
PETA extremists are about the only ones I know that think they should have equal rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> So you spend the time and money to become a pharmacist.
> You spend the time and money to own your own pharmacy.
> Now little Mary Jane a local high school girl who got pregnant and wants the abortion pill RU486 (or whatever it's named) gets to sue you for hundreds of thousands (or more) of your hard earned cash because you refuse to carry it on moral grounds?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?


Not carrying a product isn't the same as refusing to dispense a product.

You want to only fabricate scenarios where the pharmacist owns the store, and the problems often arise in stores that carry items but SOME of their pharmacists refuse to dispense them


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Maybe you should look at the chart contained therein.


The chart doesn't preempt Federal law


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not carrying a product isn't the same as refusing to dispense a product.
> 
> You want to only fabricate scenarios where the pharmacist owns the store, and the problems often arise in stores that carry items but SOME of their pharmacists refuse to dispense them


 A couple have made the claim for their own little scenario. But no one here has proven that to be the case.

Besides, whats the difference to you?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> My quote came from your link
> 
> Maybe you should read it


Maybe you should read again.

From the link:

32 states have enacted bans on âpartial-birthâ abortions.
&#61607; 13 state laws have been specifically blocked by a court and are not in effect.
&#61607; 19 state laws are in effect; 7 of them remain unchallenged but, because of the broad nature of
their language, are presumably unenforceable under the Supreme Courtâs 2000 decision in
Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down a Nebraska ban.
&#61607; The definition of what constitutes a âpartial-birthâ abortion varies from state to state.
&#61607; 11 states laws mirror the definition in federal law, with 10 of these laws in effect.
&#61607; 21 state laws have definitions not patterned after federal law, but only 9 of these laws are in
effect.
&#61607; All 32 state laws include some sort of exception.
&#61607; 3 states have bans that include a health exception.
&#61607; 1 state includes a broad health exception that allows a physician to perform a âpartialbirthâ
abortion if necessary to protect against physical or mental impairment of the
pregnant woman.
&#61607; 2 states include a narrow health exception that allows a physician to perform a âpartialbirthâ
abortion to protect only against bodily harm to the pregnant woman.
&#61607; 29 states have bans that allow for an exception only when a womanâs life is in danger, with
16 of these bans in effect.


----------



## kasilofhome

The issue is that some transitioned from tantrum over bubble gum...to suing for control. 

I loved the gay baker in the video clip I posted..his view on homosexuals billing people is the same as my.

Used to be the old saying was...

Don't like the way I run my shop...start your own business to compete.
Now the self center pc crowd has warped lazy child adult won't do that they use social justice judges to be the bully... it works too offending and it ticks off bullies that the cake maker ain't a bend.....

Get over it learn the word no....I work for my pleasure and not your whims and and needs.... start your own business build it yourself... you get the education and compete ...


----------



## Guest

mnn2501 said:


> A couple have made the claim for their own little scenario. But no one here has proven that to be the case.
> 
> *Besides, whats the difference to you?*


If the truth be known, the followers wish for a society to follow their own state sponsored belief system, for they love to justify their beliefs on words written by their elected deities.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> A couple have made the claim for their own little scenario. But no one here has proven that to be the case.
> 
> Besides, whats the difference to you?


Proof is easy to find if one simply takes the time to look

http://www.bing.com/search?q=pharma...=-1&sk=&cvid=a8f22d032fda4f70bddd14a279f7b8af


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Maybe you should read again.


None of that preempts Federal law


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure a tape worm has different DNA than she has too, but I don't hear anyone whining about offloading them asap. A parasite is a parasite.


Maybe a lot of more eloquent things could be said to address this but....

That's just really messed up, man. Really messed up. Children = parasites?


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> Proof is easy to find if one simply takes the time to look
> 
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=pharma...=-1&sk=&cvid=a8f22d032fda4f70bddd14a279f7b8af


IF that is the case then that should be taken up by the company that employs them - no one else. Either the employer agrees, or they fire them - very simple, isn't it?


----------



## kasilofhome

States were not set up to be clones.... but rather distinct and different as the society that chose to live there.

Thus laws may be different in different states.

Live in a state that mirrors your views and values.


----------



## watcher

basketti said:


> Then take the other DNA out of her body. Her body for her to decide what to carry within it.


Interesting thought. Should we allow the fathers to "abort" their financial responsibility for a child if he really doesn't want it? Since we are saying that we can't force a woman to be responsible for it and keep it why should we be able to force a man to be responsible?


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> That is not what that thread was about at all. It was purely about the irony of her being an abstinence advocate and then getting pregnant not once but twice outside of marriage. She is living proof abstinence does not work.


Huh? Care to tell me how you get pregnant if you abstain from sex.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Did I mention the government? I don't remember saying anything about that. I do think they should be fired by their pharmacy. But the pharmacy can't fire them because the government protects them. Are you cool with that government intervention in the free market system?


So if it is pharmacy policy you have no problem with it?


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> I actually have seen people say things like that. Along with it's too bad your mother didn't abort you. People can be very ugly sometimes.


Back in my day it was "Your dad should have used a condom!"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> IF that is the case then that should be taken up by the company that employs them - no one else. Either the employer agrees, or they fire them - very simple, isn't it?


Yes, it's simple.
They should be fired and replaced by one who will do the job

The individual takes the action though, so it makes no sense to "take it up with the company". The company has already decided to sell the product


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> States were not set up to be clones.... but rather distinct and different as the society that chose to live there.
> 
> *Thus laws may be different in different states.*
> 
> Live in a state that mirrors your views and values.


Federal law still supersedes state law in the majority of cases, and abortion is one of those cases.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Have you read anything on this thread? Anything at all? Abortion is not unlawful so it's not a crime. Fetal homicide is a whole different ball of wax, it's unlawful because the fetus is wanted by the mother. Unwanted (abortion) = no crime, wanted (beaten until fetal death) = crime.
> 
> If you are so outraged (confused?) by this law do something about it. If not, you're just whining. Abortion has been legal for over 40 years and had countless runs at it so I would suggest trying to change the fetal homicide law if you feel the two are incompatible. Just sayin'.
> 
> Do you understand the difference?


The problem is you can't have the legal system look at the same item as two different things depending on what it wants at the time. Look at it this way. Say you and your neighbor buy identical pre-made sheds and put them on your properties. Each of you have the same cookie cutter subdivision lot and place it in the same spot on your property. One day a code enforcement officer shows up and informs you that your shed is illegal and you will have to remove it. As you are talking to him you happen to mention it stinks that you and your neighbor are going to have to get rid of their sheds. Then the officer says your neighbor isn't going to have to remove his because its legal, its not a shed its an outbuilding. 

Would you think it is logical that even though each shed is the same and placed in the same spot one is illegal and one is legal all based on what the code enforcement officer calls it?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> To define what are the legal options for the mothers.


So as long as something has government approval its ok?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So as long as something has government approval its ok?


I never said anything about "OK"

I said "legal". 

You can decide if it's OK *for you*, but not for anyone else


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Federal law still supersedes state law in the majority of cases, and abortion is one of those cases.


The question there is; what powers does the federal government have inside the individual states? 

For example there was an idea going around that a state could set up its on intrastate firearm system and state that all of said firearms are not legal outside their state. The theory being that because it was then be a purely single state issue federal gun control laws would not apply to those firearms.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said anything about "OK"
> 
> I said "legal".
> 
> You can decide if it's OK *for you*, but not for anyone else


The problem comes in when said legal thing violates the rights of someone. Years ago it was legal for the government to provide or not provide services to you based on your skin color. It was legal and even found constitutional. 

Because a fetus has a separate DNA and the courts have ruled them to be separate humans, via the special laws on criminal killing of them, abortion must be looked as taking the right to life from it.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it's simple.
> They should be fired and replaced by one who will do the job
> 
> The individual takes the action though, so it makes no sense to "take it up with the company". The company has already decided to sell the product


It's comical to me how some people say a customer shouldn't have to bend to another's will when the other person has faith or ethical issues because it's an unacceptable business practice. Cause that's requiring one person's rights to be trampled on by another. How impractical.

When I was pregnant and given a completely wrong rx by a CVS, the pharmacist who helped me the day before refused to report to work to identify the rx specifically because she said she was seventh day Adventist and working that day would violate her faith.

The compromise was that she got a coworker to come in and cover for her to I'd the pills so my Dr could decide if what I'd taken was a danger to me and the baby or not on that day instead of me having to go to the er or another pharmacy. But, I still could have done either of those if push came to shove.

I never thought she should have been fured. But, she also understood that not only did I need to find out what I'd been taking that was wrong, someone needed to open the pharmacy deot and get me the correct meds that I was supposed to be taking without delay.

But, that all played out wrong and she should have list her job for not wanting to work and violate her sabbath. What nonsense.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Federal law still supersedes state law in the majority of cases, and abortion is one of those cases.



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&

Explain how this is a fact and you are still correct... hint contradictions. Your position does not pass the mustard.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> The question there is; what powers does the federal government have inside the individual states?
> 
> For example there was an idea going around that a state could set up its on intrastate firearm system and state that all of said firearms are not legal outside their state. The theory being that because it was then be a purely single state issue federal gun control laws would not apply to those firearms.


That's a theory that hasn't been tested, and has nothing to do with abortion




> The problem comes in when said legal thing violates the rights of someone. Years ago it was legal for the government to provide or not provide services to you based on your skin color. It was legal and even found constitutional.
> 
> Because a fetus has a separate DNA and the courts have ruled them to be separate humans, via the special laws on criminal killing of them, abortion must be looked as taking the right to life from it.


The Courts disagree with your opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> When I was pregnant and given a completely wrong rx by a CVS, the pharmacist who helped me the day before refused to report to work to identify the rx specifically because she said she was seventh day Adventist and working that day would violate her faith.


If she got it wrong why would you think she could identify it the next day?

Any pharmacist should be able to identify any drug

That's why they have PDR's

That's not the same as refusing to provide a product


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&
> 
> Explain how this is a fact and you are still correct... hint contradictions. Your position does not pass the mustard.


None of those violate any Federal laws, so there are no contradictions

Your metaphors don't pass the muster nor cut the mustard, but should we ever dine together, I will happily pass any condiments you desire


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> If she got it wrong why would you think she could identify it the next day?
> 
> Any pharmacist should be able to identify any drug
> 
> That's why they have PDR's
> 
> That's not the same as refusing to provide a product


The pharmacy deot was closed, but recognised that they needed to open and get their mistake corrected. They wanted her to come do it since she was the pharmacist who had originally filled it. She refused because if religious reasons. But, we were able to get my needss met and hers by working around that conflict and having another staff pharmacist handle it.

Eta. It was also having to work together to get a product not refused, because I still needed the correct meds filled.


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it's simple.
> They should be fired and replaced by one who will do the job


I have no problem with that



Bearfootfarm said:


> The individual takes the action though, so it makes no sense to "take it up with the company". The company has already decided to sell the product


 Then you talk to the company to let them know what the individual is doing, they probably don't know.

Why does the government have to get involved in what is a free market decision?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But, we were able to get my needss met and hers by working around that conflict and having another staff pharmacist handle it.


Exactly.

You didn't need *her* at all, as long as there was another pharmacist who would provide what you needed.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Exactly.
> 
> You didn't need *her* at all, as long as there was another pharmacist who would provide what you needed.


I didn't care who fixed it. Her boss gave me her number to call and have her come in. She said no cause it would violate her rules of not working on certain days. We worked it out finding a coworker to come handle it.

According to what some people believe, her refusal to work should have gotten her fired.

I don't. Most things are fixable without someone having to lose their job if people are willing to work around conflicts.


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> Maybe a lot of more eloquent things could be said to address this but....
> 
> That's just really messed up, man. Really messed up. Children = parasites?


Look up the definition of parasite in your own dictionary.... a fetus definitely fits the description in mine.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> I didn't care who fixed it. Her boss gave me her number to call and have her come in. She said no cause it would violate her rules of not working on certain days. We worked it out finding a coworker to come handle it.
> 
> According to what some people believe, her *refusal to work* should have gotten her fired.
> 
> I don't. Most things are fixable without someone having to lose their job if people are willing to work around conflicts.


You're trying to compare making someone come in on *their day off* to someone already at work, and simply refusing to hand out the drugs that are there.

It's not even remotely the same


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Look up the definition of parasite in your own dictionary.... a fetus definitely fits the description in mine.


No it really doesn't, but I also don't see this as something that needs a real hard analysis. Some things are just basic and the requirement of an explanation in such a case probably means something needs "explained away". We all know better than this...we just do.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a theory that hasn't been tested, and has nothing to do with abortion


Is an interesting thought problem is it not?




Bearfootfarm said:


> The Courts disagree with your opinion.


You are saying that the courts have never convicted someone for the separate crime of harming a fetus? If they have and seeing as how you can't be charged with a separate crime of harming someone's leg it is clear the courts have ruled that a fetus has individual human rights.

As I said earlier it would be very interesting if someone convicted under one of these laws appealed it on the fact that you can't be charged with harming a specific part of a person.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Is an interesting thought problem is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that the courts have never convicted someone for the separate crime of harming a fetus? If they have and seeing as how you can't be charged with a separate crime of harming someone's leg it is clear the courts have ruled that a fetus has individual human rights.
> 
> As I said earlier it would be very interesting if someone convicted under one of these laws appealed it on the fact that you can't be charged with harming a specific part of a person.


They convict people of killing and hurting animals. Do they have rights?


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> This is what bioethicist Andrew Varga wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the overriding factor in this scenario is justice. Nobody ever said justice was easy. Nobody ever said that justice does not sometimes harm innocents...Witness the number of times God has punished the innocent for acts committed by the wicked.
> 
> Do I like the taking of innocent life? No. But do I want to force a woman to carry a child conceived during a brutal rape? No. What is the lesser of those two evils?
> 
> If this were your daughter...Your daughter who has been brutally beaten and gang raped. Your daughter who is now a few weeks pregnant...What would you do?


I would notify the next of kin of the assailants. They might want to plan proper burial arrangements.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're trying to compare making someone come in on *their day off* to someone already at work, and simply refusing to hand out the drugs that are there.
> 
> It's not even remotely the same


OK, you can see it that way. I don't. She was called back onto work as any other pharmacist would have been to deal with an error she made in patient care. The pharmacy was liable to me and my kid for what they had done. Even the bottle was labeled with what I was supposed to have, yet it was filled with completely wrong rx medication.

Her refusal to work, was based entirely on her faith. I actually think that's probably what protected her from losing her job ultimately. Because there's not a lot of tolerance for healthcare providers who are charged with patient abandonment. If she had just said she wasn't coming in cause it was supposed to be her day off, I could almost guarantee that she would have faced serious repercussions because the pharmacy manager was very clear with me that they absolutely needed to make sure that it was figured out immediately what on earth I had been taking and get me my correct meds. My obgyn said the same thing and was on standby to meet me at the hospital and admit me to labor and delivery so I could bypass the er if that was what the pharmacy forced me to do. He was right though. Because he said as long as I could actually reach someone in the store, they would find the pharmacy staff numbers to call and get the meds id'd and replaced. But, he was ready to go in case the meds u'd taken ended up be a problem.

But, you can see whatever facts you like. And, I can see what I like. And, everyone else here can see what they like.

Eta. Maybe you Missed it earlier, but the pharmacy deot was closed. So none of them were working. Someone had to come in, and the lady refused her boss, so he had to find a coworker to do it. The regular store mgr us who I contacted and they contacted the pharmacy mgr to get the ball rolling. There were no pharmacy staff in the store to deal with it when it happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You are saying that the courts have never convicted someone for the separate crime of harming a fetus? If they have and seeing as how you can't be charged with a separate crime of harming someone's leg it is clear the courts have ruled that a fetus has individual human rights.


If it's "clear" then show the statute that defines those "rights"
Otherwise you're just making assumptions with nothing to support them, and trying to twist what I said into something it's not.

Don't look for hidden meanings in my posts
Just read the words I use


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> So should Jewish or Muslim restaurants be forced to sell bacon and ham dinners?


Nope, but if they choose to do so they cannot refuse to sell them to anyone who wants one. There is a difference twixt not offering a product for sale at all and discriminating between those you will sell your product to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> OK, you can see it that way. I don't.* She was called back onto work as any other pharmacist would have been* to deal with an error she made in patient care. The pharmacy was liable to me and my kid for what they had done. Even the bottle was labeled with what I was supposed to have, yet it was filled with completely wrong rx medication.


No one would normally be called in on a day off

It has no relation to someone refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds, since she had already attempted to do that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by mnn2501 View Post
> So should Jewish or Muslim restaurants be forced to sell bacon and ham dinners?


Are you really going to recycle that lame ploy?
It's been beat to death

Can you show in the Bible where is states anything about dispensing prescriptions?

If not, there is no comparison


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> No it really doesn't, but I also don't see this as something that needs a real hard analysis. Some things are just basic and the requirement of an explanation in such a case probably means something needs "explained away". We all know better than this...we just do.


"parÂ·aÂ·site/&#712;per&#601;&#716;s&#299;t/
noun
an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense." 
This sounds like a fetus to me. what part misses the mark?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one would normally be called in on a day off
> 
> It has no relation to someone refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds, since she had already attempted to do that.


She absolutely outright refused to dispense me the correct medication. I had to have it. I didn't have an extra rx to go refill somewhere else, and my Dr said even if he called it into another pharmacy, my insurance would refuse to pay because I had just gotten the same rx filled, no refills for 30 days.

Not sure how you think that's not refusing to dispense medication based entirely on religious grounds. The only reason she refused her boss calling her in was because it was her sabbath.

She wasn't being called in to work for normal reasons. The pharmacy knew that if they ignored the issue I had, they would have an even more serious liability issue if it was found that the meds had hurt me or my kid. That's not normal everyday stuff. That's called an unexpected work place emergency and people do get called into work for those.


----------



## AmericanStand

Yvonne's hubby said:


> "parÂ·aÂ·site/&#712;per&#601;&#716;s&#299;t/
> 
> noun
> 
> an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
> 
> This sounds like a fetus to me. what part misses the mark?



Lol you pick a lousy definition and then crow like it's some sort of proof ?
Definitions seldom are the entire meaning and explanation of a real organism.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one would normally be called in on a day off
> 
> It has no relation to someone refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds, since she had already attempted to do that.


I've been called in on more days off than I can remember...I guess just call me no one...


----------



## painterswife

Thats right Yvonne's hubby. You can can't change the meanings of words as use them as you want. Meanings don't change!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I've been wondering why you use that abbreviation and it dawned on me. You used to be "Big Pharma" didn't you? They didn't yank your conservative card for that? I'm shocked.
> 
> Abortion on demand up to time of birth is illegal in most states.. but don't let facts get in the way.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0



I use the abbreviation b/c it's correct. Did you not know that was 'pharmacist'? Is someone 'Big Doctor' b/c they use the term 'M.D.'?
Where do you get the idea I was big pharma? If anyone was affiliated w/big pharms, why would their conservative card be 'yanked'? Why bring this up?

"Most states." 
Up to how many wks, generally?


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> Lol you pick a lousy definition and then crow like it's some sort of proof ?
> Definitions seldom are the entire meaning and explanation of a real organism.


Please feel free to bring forward a "good" definition if you dont like the one I presented.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> She absolutely outright *refused to dispense* me the correct medication.


No, she *refused to come in* on her day off.
She had already attempted to dispense the medication

It's not the same as a pharmacist already at work refusing to give you certain medications because they think it's "wrong".

No amount of repetition will make it the same thing



> *Not sure* how you think that's not refusing to dispense medication based entirely on religious grounds. The only reason she refused her boss calling her in was because it was her sabbath.


You should be sure since I've told you multiple times.


----------



## Tricky Grama

AmericanStand said:


> I'm so tired of that old saw. It's not her body the baby has different DNA from conception.
> Further more there are lots of things you can't do with your body.


Thank you for saying this, again. Some are still parroting that when the proof has been there all along.
The unborn child is NOT "her body"! The time to do whatever w/your own body was back when the clothing came off.
And, yes obviously, you cannot do what you want w/your body.
Suicide is still illegal in nearly all places.
You cannot cut off one of your limbs. 
You can't sell a kidney.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> "parÂ·aÂ·site/&#712;per&#601;&#716;s&#299;t/
> noun
> an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
> This sounds like a fetus to me. what part misses the mark?


Gee, do we get to kill you?

If you get Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, you're living and benefiting off of others.

See how much fun it is to play Silly Booger? :banana:

Now...no human worthy of the name would consider an unborn child a parasite. No one, except the lowest of the low or the vilest of the vile.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I've been called in on more days off than I can remember...I guess just call me no one...


The fact it happened to you doesn't make it "normal"


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, she *refused to come in* on her day off.
> She had already attempted to dispense the medication
> 
> It's not the same as a pharmacist already at work refusing to give you certain medications because they think it's "wrong".
> 
> No amount of repetition will make it the same thing
> 
> 
> You should be sure since I've told you multiple times.


Sure you couldn't tell us again? :facepalm: Surely with one more try you can convince us...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, she *refused to come in* on her day off.
> She had already attempted to dispense the medication
> 
> It's not the same as a pharmacist already at work refusing to give you certain medications because they think it's "wrong".
> 
> No amount of repetition will make it the same thing
> 
> 
> You should be sure since I've told you multiple times.


Well since it was everyone's day off but the mgr decided there was an emergency that required them to take action and open I guess I don't see it as the simple its her day off scenario you're trying to insist it is. But, whatever, to each their own.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Thank you for saying this, again. Some are still parroting that when the proof has been there all along.
> The unborn child is NOT "her body"! The time to do whatever w/your own body was back when the clothing came off.
> And, yes obviously, you cannot do what you want w/your body.
> Suicide is still illegal in nearly all places.
> You cannot cut off one of your limbs.
> You can't sell a kidney.


But you *can *have an abortion, so all the above is meaningless in this context


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Suicide is still illegal in nearly all places.
> You cannot cut off one of your limbs.
> You can't sell a kidney.


So, suicide is a crime? what is the penalty.... hanging or firing quad? 

Of course one can cut off a limb... my brother cut his thumb off a few years back, no complaints from the cops. Ok, thats only a twig, not a limb but its the same theory at work.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure a tape worm has different DNA than she has too, but I don't hear anyone whining about offloading them asap. A parasite is a parasite.


I'm appalled.mi mean, really. Have you seen pics of unborn babies? TAPEWORMS!
My God, YH.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Gee, do we get to kill you?


The way I am feeling today? sure, just be quick about it and try not to make too big a mess for my Yvonne to clean up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I've been called in on more days off than I can remember...I guess just call me no one...


That in no way changes what I said.



> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> No one would *normally* be called in on a day off


You have to pay attention to *all *the words


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm appalled.mi mean, really. Have you seen pics of unborn babies? TAPEWORMS!
> My God, YH.


Just makin a point Tricky.


----------



## Guest

gibbsgirl said:


> Well since it was everyone's day off but the mgr decided there was an emergency that required them to take action and open I guess I don't see it as the simple its her day off scenario you're trying to insist it is. But, whatever, to each their own.


I see the reference to Sabath was totally ignored. Great use of bolding though, I try but it's hard on this kindle with not having as much coordinated dexterity anymore.&#128513;


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> The fact it happened to you doesn't make it "normal"


Of course it's normal. Happens all the time. I had 26 guys in my crew and I kept their phone numbers in my wallet. Rolled more than one of them out of the bed in the middle of the night.

You do what you need to do to get the job done.


----------



## AmericanStand

I'm still trying to figure out what a day off is.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Of course it's normal. Happens all the time. I had 26 guys in my crew and I kept their phone numbers in my wallet. Rolled more than one of them out of the bed in the middle of the night.
> 
> You do what you need to do to get the job done.


Evidently not since she didn't come in


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> I see the reference to Sabath was totally ignored. Great use of bolding though, I try but it's hard on this kindle with not having as much coordinated dexterity anymore.&#128513;


It wasn't ignored
It just made no real difference since the pharmacy was closed.
The manager should have been able to handle it himself


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what a day off is.....


For me a day off was a day that I laid around home and did nothing, very much like a day at work, just a different location.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently not since she didn't come in


Stick to one subject, bub.

We're talking about whether coming in on one's day off is common. It is.
Especially in healthcare.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, suicide is a crime? what is the penalty.... hanging or firing quad?
> 
> Of course one can cut off a limb... my brother cut his thumb off a few years back, no complaints from the cops. Ok, thats only a twig, not a limb but its the same theory at work.



The penalty in financial on your estate.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wasn't ignored
> It just made no real difference since the pharmacy was closed.
> The manager should have been able to handle it himself


So, then should the pharmacist have been fired for refusing to do her job because of religious reasons? Because obviously, she'd made it clear that if her work obligations conflicted with her faith she'd choose her faith. Her employer seemed willing to yield to that, so I guess she must have been a good worker, despite the med mix up and refusal to report to work when her employer called. As I recall failure to do the tasks a job required because of faith or personal beliefs was supposed to be a disqualified for employment........at least according to some people.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> As I recall failure to do the tasks a job required because of faith or personal beliefs was supposed to be a disqualified for employment........at least according to some people...


It's still apples and oranges and the endless restating of the same things won't change that

She should have been fired for not doing her job correctly the first time


----------



## kasilofhome

Abortion Restrictions in States
Forty-one states have enacted abortion restrictions at different stages of pregnancy. The chart below shows at which point after a womanâs last menstrual period that state laws ban abortion. Each barâs height is proportional to the stateâs population


States were not set up to be clones.... but rather distinct and different as the society that chose to live there.

Thus laws may be different in different states.

Live in a state that mirrors your views and values.




kasilofhome said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&
> 
> Explain how this is a fact and you are still correct... hint contradictions. Your position does not pass the mustard.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Federal law still supersedes state law in the majority of cases, and abortion is one of those cases.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Abortion Restrictions in States
> Forty-one states have enacted abortion restrictions at different stages of pregnancy. The chart below shows at which point after a womanâs last menstrual period that state laws ban abortion. Each barâs height is proportional to the stateâs population
> 
> 
> States were not set up to be clones.... but rather distinct and different as the society that chose to live there.
> 
> Thus laws may be different in different states.
> 
> Live in a state that mirrors your views and values.


You already posted all this once before

It hasn't changed in the last few hours


----------



## kasilofhome

But have your read it or is it as you have remarked to others a reading issue?

States can and do have different takes on federal laws.... constitutionally sound practice.


Proof is right above..


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> But have your read it or is it as you have remarked to others a reading issue?
> 
> States can and do have different takes on federal laws.... constitutionally sound practice.
> 
> 
> Proof is right above..


That is until someone fights it and it goes all the way to Scotus. Just like the marriage laws.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> That is until someone fights it and it goes all the way to Scotus. Just like the marriage laws.


Yep, abortion could be over turn.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Wake up call.... a pharmacist can and will withhold meds
> They can withhold meds due to quiet government regs.
> 
> Such as....stolen special scripts brought in..
> They will still till 911 comes by to say high
> 
> Such as.... the state computer shows that your scrip is not due to be refilled
> 
> Such as ....they note a drug interaction... over looked....thank God they do this.
> 
> Such as your insurance company says no they will not pay for it and you don't have the cash.
> 
> Such... you do not have I'd to their standards.


Not sure what your point is here? All of those are perfectly valid reasons for withholding a prescription and have nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the Pharmacist. Care to give a pertinent example?


----------



## kasilofhome

Patch.
Just trying to help someone grasp that states don't have to have the same laws on the books..... someone can't accept that as a fact.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> Gee, do we get to kill you?
> 
> If you get Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, you're living and benefiting off of others.
> 
> See how much fun it is to play Silly Booger? :banana:
> 
> Now...no human worthy of the name would consider an unborn child a parasite. No one, except the lowest of the low or the vilest of the vile.


Hard to disagree w/simple definition. 
So, stands to reason you can get rid of a stinkin' parasite, huh. Just vacuum it out, if it hasn't been sucking your nutrients too many weeks & for sure if the organs are not sellable.
But if you waited too long to decide, then squirt in saline that burns the parasite, badly, then stick in a forcepts-be careful to preserve the sellable parts-& yank it to pieces.
Unless you've really waited too long & that stinkin' parasite has been nursing at your breast-will the robbing you of nutrients ever stop! 4mo now & you're sleep deprived too.
Harder to crush the head now but, hey, you're sick of that parasite!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, suicide is a crime? what is the penalty.... hanging or firing quad?
> 
> Of course one can cut off a limb... my brother cut his thumb off a few years back, no complaints from the cops. Ok, thats only a twig, not a limb but its the same theory at work.


If you survive suicide you are charged & mandatory that you are committed for treatment.
Accidents happen & appendages have had to come off to save someone at times. But I guarantee you wouldn't get away with sawing off a leg.
Or selling a kidney.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Just makin a point Tricky.


Ugly, YH, ugly.
I'm telling' Yvonne.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> They convict people of killing and hurting animals. Do they have rights?


Ironically, that comes under the heading of 'cruelty'.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it's "clear" then show the statute that defines those "rights"
> Otherwise you're just making assumptions with nothing to support them, and trying to twist what I said into something it's not.


No doubt you'll somehow manage to deny this but here it is anyway.....again.


> The *Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004* (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species _**** sapiens_, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]
> The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), Â§1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Â§919a (Article 119a).
> The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
> Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act


----------



## kasilofhome

Awaiting the...

That's old news,,.... we've gone over this... statements


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Patch.
> Just trying to help someone grasp that states don't have to have the same laws on the books..... someone can't accept that as a fact.


Yeppers the states are pretty much free to run their own business as they see fit.... As long as they play by the basic rules set forth in our Constitution. They are never supposed to make laws that infringe upon a citizens basic fundamental rights. They have done so numerous times and some times those illegal laws are struck down by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Ugly, YH, ugly.
> I'm telling' Yvonne.


I never said the world is pretty or nice... It is what it is.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers the states are pretty much free to run their own business as they see fit.... As long as they play by the basic rules set forth in our Constitution. They are never supposed to make laws that infringe upon a citizens basic fundamental rights. They have done so numerous times and some times those illegal laws are struck down by the Supreme Court.


Note the link 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&

Someone failed to accept.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Hard to disagree w/simple definition.
> So, stands to reason you can get rid of a stinkin' parasite, huh. Just vacuum it out, if it hasn't been sucking your nutrients too many weeks & for sure if the organs are not sellable.
> But if you waited too long to decide, then squirt in saline that burns the parasite, badly, then stick in a forcepts-be careful to preserve the sellable parts-& yank it to pieces.
> Unless you've really waited too long & that stinkin' parasite has been nursing at your breast-will the robbing you of nutrients ever stop! 4mo now & you're sleep deprived too.
> Harder to crush the head now but, hey, you're sick of that parasite!


Fer what it's worth,,, I am pretty sure that once the parasite has exited the host, this particular type parasite has graduated to legal protection status and therefor has equal protection under the law.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fer what it's worth,,, I am pretty sure that once the parasite has exited the host, this particular type parasite has graduated to legal protection status and therefor has equal protection under the law.


The problem is that many parasites are unable to survive outside their host organism for any length of significant time. A child (or fetus) actually must exit its host (mother) in order to continue is life cycle after gestating within the womb.

I see you sir, and I raise you.:croc::kiss:


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Note the link
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&
> 
> Someone failed to accept.


Yep like I said there are many laws in the various states that don't pass muster when stood side by side with our constitution. Sounds like some states are willing to have these new laws tested by the supremes again.... We will have to wait and see how these hold up.


----------



## Evons hubby

gibbsgirl said:


> The problem is that many parasites are unable to survive outside their host organism for any length of significant time. A child (or fetus) actually must exit its host (mother) in order to continue is life cycle after gestating within the womb.
> 
> I see you sir, and I raise you.:croc::kiss:


yeppers, once this parasite exits the host they are truly dependent upon said host for their survival. But they do have equal protection rights at that point which requires the host either provide their needs or find an alternate host to take over that job.


----------



## kasilofhome

At its core, Roe v. Wade is a decision that is explicitly defended on the basis of ignorance. Justice Blackmun stated in the majority opinion that, "at this point in the development of man's knowledge... [we cannot] resolve the difficult question of when life begins."10 He further states that "if this suggestion of (fetal) personhood is established, the [case in support of legal abortion] collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment."11 While the claim, we just don't know when life begins, was demonstrably false in 1973, it is even more nonsensical today. We do know when life begins. We are "at the point in the development of man's knowledge" where we can "resolve [this] difficult question." Nevertheless, the law remains the same. Abortion has become entrenched in American life, and the institution which was hoisted upon us without public debate has become a force to be reckoned with. John T. Noonan argues that, thanks to Roe, "human life has less protection in the United States today than at any time since the inception of the country [and] less protection... than in any country of the Western world."12 Like slavery before it, abortion is now central to the lives of many Americans, but no matter what the social cost may be, when laws victimize the weak and vulnerable (rather than protecting them), it is time for those laws to change


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> At its core, Roe v. Wade is a decision that is explicitly defended on the basis of ignorance. Justice Blackmun stated in the majority opinion that, "at this point in the development of man's knowledge... [we cannot] resolve the difficult question of when life begins."10 He further states that "if this suggestion of (fetal) personhood is established, the [case in support of legal abortion] collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment."11 While the claim, we just don't know when life begins, was demonstrably false in 1973, it is even more nonsensical today. We do know when life begins. We are "at the point in the development of man's knowledge" where we can "resolve [this] difficult question." Nevertheless, the law remains the same. Abortion has become entrenched in American life, and the institution which was hoisted upon us without public debate has become a force to be reckoned with. John T. Noonan argues that, thanks to Roe, "human life has less protection in the United States today than at any time since the inception of the country [and] less protection... than in any country of the Western world."12 Like slavery before it, abortion is now central to the lives of many Americans, but no matter what the social cost may be, when laws victimize the weak and vulnerable (rather than protecting them), it is time for those laws to change


This is strange,,, I think mankind has known for centuries when life began,,,, in the beginning! Ever since then it just keeps regenerating.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> But have your read it or is it as you have remarked to others a reading issue?
> 
> States can and do have different takes on federal laws.... constitutionally sound practice.
> 
> 
> Proof is right above..


They can have their own laws, but they still have to also obey the Federal laws.


----------



## kasilofhome

finally....:banana: bingo


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> finally....:banana: bingo


I'm not sure what you think has changed.

Federal law still takes precedent


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No doubt you'll somehow manage to deny this but here it is anyway.....again.


And you'll pretend it doesn't also say:



> The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, *if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.*


There's nothing there about legal abortions.
Repeating doesn't change the answers


----------



## kasilofhome

Your understanding has grow to know that the individual states do not have to have the same...clone laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Your understanding has grow to know that the individual states *do not have to have the same...clone laws*.


Actually they do about many things.

If your theory were true, many states wouldn't allow gay marriage, but I'm sure you've heard that's legal in all states now.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> And you'll pretend it doesn't also say:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing there about legal abortions.
> Repeating doesn't change the answers


Good grief. :facepalm:

It answers the question of whether the fetus has rights. 

No, it doesn't protect the fetus from being killed by abortion but it proves that in most other instances, the fetus has the legal right to life.

I agree, the double standard _is_ ridiculous.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Good grief.


On that we agree



> It answers the question of whether the fetus has rights.


It makes it a crime to kill a fetus under certain limited circumstances.

It *says* nothing about "rights"

Lots of acts are illegal, without conveying any "rights"


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> On that we agree
> 
> 
> It makes it a crime to kill a fetus under certain limited circumstances.
> 
> It *says* nothing about "rights"
> 
> Lots of acts are illegal, without conveying any "rights"


Why else would it be a crime, if they didn't have rights?

Why is murder a crime, if not for the right of the victim to live?

Either you're being belligerently obtuse or the feminazi koolaid has rendered you mindless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why else would it be a crime, if they didn't have rights?


It's a crime to steal a car, but a car has no rights

If a law doesn't SAY "rights" it conveys none



> Either you're being belligerently obtuse or the feminazi koolaid has rendered you mindless.


There's no need to act like that just because you don't agree


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a crime to steal a car, but a car has no rights
> 
> *If a law doesn't SAY "rights" it conveys none*
> 
> 
> There's no need to act like that just because you don't agree


:facepalm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> :facepalm:


Silly icons won't replace logical arguments and they often make people look childish and condescending


----------



## MDKatie

mnn2501 said:


> So should Jewish or Muslim restaurants be forced to sell bacon and ham dinners?


I'm not sure why you don't understand the difference between not selling a particular product, and deciding that you don't want to sell a product you carry to a person you choose to discriminate against because of race, religion, blah blah blah. 

This really has been explained several times now.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Silly icons won't replace logical arguments and they often make people look childish and condescending


Then by all means, let's ban silly icons.

As for logical arguments, that's difficult when one side insists on being illogical.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Then by all means, let's ban silly icons.
> 
> As for logical arguments, that's difficult when one side insists on being illogical.


I know, right? It's just illogical to argue about something that is perfectly legal and has been for decades.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a crime to steal a car, but a car has no rights
> 
> If a law doesn't SAY "rights" it conveys none
> 
> 
> There's no need to act like that just because you don't agree



You're somewhat right. A car has no rights. However, the person you stole the car from has a right to use their property as they see fit. You have denied that person the use of their property, violating their rights. When you kill an unborn child you deny them the ability to make decisions governing their life, violating their rights


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> No doubt you'll somehow manage to deny this but here it is anyway.....again.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act


You (collective you) are still beating this dead horse? Seriously?

What do you want the pro choice contingent to say? We didn't write the dang law, did we? If it is that confusing to you contact your Congress person and complain. The pro choice and pro life groups are fighting tooth and nail over this topic for years, and will be for many more. 

As it stands it's all a matter of a wanted fetus. If it's wanted, the assailant can be charged with a crime. If it's not wanted it can be legally aborted. 

The fetus has no rights in either case.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> I know, right? It's just illogical to argue about something that is perfectly legal and has been for decades.


And your government loves you for it, poster child for the subservient society who argues not against injustice of law.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> And your government loves you for it, poster child for the subservient society who argues not against injustice of law.


Isn't great to have an opinion? And if the government suddenly reversed Roe v. Wade. You'd be as happy as the proverbial pig, right?

You'd be the "poster child for the subservient society who argues not against injustice of law" then, wouldn't you?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Isn't great to have an opinion? And if the government suddenly reversed Roe v. Wade. You'd be as happy as the proverbial pig, right?
> 
> You'd be the "poster child for the subservient society who argues not against injustice of law" then, wouldn't you?


Hmmmm...I think an arrow found its mark....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Hmmmm...I think an arrow found its mark....


Why do you think that? I'm pro choice and abortion is legal. Everything else is just arguing on the internet, right? Pointless, but entertaining nevertheless.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> Isn't great to have an opinion? And if the government suddenly reversed Roe v. Wade. You'd be as happy as the proverbial pig, right?
> 
> You'd be the "poster child for the subservient society who argues not against injustice of law" then, wouldn't you?


Nah, my opinions on the hypocrisy of law after being immersed in it for decades are pretty well rooted. I think everyone has a right to their own life and property without interference from any form of government. I also feel everyone has the right to their opinions and can express them right up to the point but not crossing physical violence. Feelings mean nothing.

Where is the pig mentioned in proverbs?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Nah, my opinions on the hypocrisy of law after being immersed in it for decades are pretty well rooted. I think everyone has a right to their own life and property without interference from any form of government. I also feel everyone has the right to their opinions and can express them right up to the point but not crossing physical violence. Feelings mean nothing.
> 
> Where is the pig mentioned in proverbs?


Good to know. I still think you'd be happier than the proverbial pig if Roe v. Wade were overturned tho. Just my opinion.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Why do you think that? I'm pro choice and abortion is legal. Everything else is just arguing on the internet, right? Pointless, but entertaining nevertheless.


Nah, you're just very predictable when somebody starts to get under your skin.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Nah, you're just very predictable when somebody starts to get under your skin.


You're not under my skin, at all. But you'd know that better than I would, right?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) are still beating this dead horse? Seriously?
> 
> What do you want the pro choice contingent to say? We didn't write the dang law, did we? If it is that confusing to you contact your Congress person and complain. The pro choice and pro life groups are fighting tooth and nail over this topic for years, and will be for many more.
> 
> As it stands it's all a matter of a wanted fetus. If it's wanted, the assailant can be charged with a crime. If it's not wanted it can be legally aborted.
> 
> The fetus has no rights in either case.


What's confusing is how Congress/SCOTUS can make the determination that, merely based on the mother's whim, the fetus has the right to life...or not.

The law needs to be changed and you can bet I'll be contacting my Congress person. In fact, I think this has just become my latest life's mission.


----------



## Woolieface

dlmcafee said:


> Nah, my opinions on the hypocrisy of law after being immersed in it for decades are pretty well rooted. I think everyone has a right to their own life and property without interference from any form of government. I also feel everyone has the right to their opinions and can express them right up to the point but not crossing physical violence. Feelings mean nothing.
> 
> Where is the pig mentioned in proverbs?


I believe that's Proverbs 11:22 :thumb:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> What's confusing is how Congress/SCOTUS can make the determination that, merely based on the mother's whim, the fetus has the right to life...or not.
> 
> The law needs to be changed and you can bet I'll be contacting my Congress person. In fact, I think this has just become my latest life's mission.


Good for you, and I mean it. At least you're doing something other than whining on the internet. 

You may be able to get a mother's justice taken away for the beating death of her wanted fetus, but you're tilting at windmill's on Roe v. Wade. :thumb:


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Good for you, and I mean it. At least you're doing something other than whining on the internet.
> 
> You may be able to get a mother's justice taken away for the beating death of her wanted fetus, but you're tilting at windmill's on Roe v. Wade. :thumb:


 And you're whistling through the graveyard.

(What an apt metaphor...)


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually they do about many things.
> 
> If your theory were true, many states wouldn't allow gay marriage, but I'm sure you've heard that's legal in all states now.


Like this 

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/07/kentucky-marriage-license-2/

http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...-can-deny-marriage-licenses-religious-grounds


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> I believe that's Proverbs 11:22 :thumb:


Are christians supposed to use the bible to mock and belittle people? I thought that was against the rules?

Anyway, it's not nice. Even a godless heathen can see that.


----------



## Guest

Woolieface said:


> I believe that's Proverbs 11:22 :thumb:


I know just asking if she did. I actually like 26.11 better


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> Are christians supposed to use the bible to mock and belittle people? I thought that was against the rules?
> 
> Anyway, it's not nice. Even a godless heathen can see that.


So rules only apply to Christians, did not know that. Good thing I ain't a Christian nor a godless heathen.


----------



## kasilofhome

Remember it's freedom of religion....


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> I know just asking if she did. I actually like 26.11 better


That's just rude. Are jews supposed to use the bible to mock and belittle people? I thought they were supposed to use the torah? As a godless heathen I don't keep up with the woo...


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Are christians supposed to use the bible to mock and belittle people? I thought that was against the rules?
> 
> Anyway, it's not nice. Even a godless heathen can see that.


Nice? Just what he believes.

Most of the time , Christians bite their tongue a bit, so as not to offend. I think most (Christians) would readily agree with Scripture, that those who have been repeatedly exposed to the Word and have rejected it, are bound for Hell.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200, straight to Hell after death. Of course, there are some that think those folks may not go to Hell until after the Resurrection, but that's a theological debating point.

But hey, we might be wrong about the whole Jesus bit. If so, I guess we'll be very disappointed about that whole Eternal Life thing...or maybe not, since we will be just a piece of dead meat and not know anything, anyway. 

Oughta be fun to find out, donchya think?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) are still beating this dead horse? Seriously?
> 
> What do you want the pro choice contingent to say? We didn't write the dang law, did we? If it is that confusing to you contact your Congress person and complain. The pro choice and pro life groups are fighting tooth and nail over this topic for years, and will be for many more.
> 
> As it stands it's all a matter of a wanted fetus. If it's wanted, the assailant can be charged with a crime. If it's not wanted it can be legally aborted.
> 
> The fetus has no rights in either case.


So, if a pregnant mom is murdered, killer is charged w/2murders...how can that be? Mom is dead...how does she say baby was wanted or not?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Nice? Just what he believes.
> 
> Most of the time , Christians bite their tongue a bit, so as not to offend. I think most (Christians) would readily agree with Scripture, that those who have been repeatedly exposed to the Word and have rejected it, are bound for Hell.
> 
> Do not pass go, do not collect $200, straight to Hell after death. Of course, there are some that think those folks may not go to Hell until after the Resurrection, but that's a theological debating point.
> 
> But hey, we might be wrong about the whole Jesus bit. If so, I guess we'll be very disappointed about that whole Eternal Life thing...or maybe not, since we will be just a piece of dead meat and not know anything, anyway.
> 
> Oughta be fun to find out, donchya think?


Well, godless heathens don't need the threat of hell, or the promise of heaven for that matter, to be decent human beings. So there you are... 

Most of the time godless heathens bite their tongue as well, or just skip over posts, depending on what they're doing at the time. 

Yup, time will tell for everyone.


----------



## where I want to

Txsteader said:


> What's confusing is how Congress/SCOTUS can make the determination that, merely based on the mother's whim, the fetus has the right to life...or not.
> 
> The law needs to be changed and you can bet I'll be contacting my Congress person. In fact, I think this has just become my latest life's mission.


I'm afraid that the tension between the desire to protect the unborn child and the desire to not drive a mother into despair or death makes my head explode. For me there is no alternative but to leave the choice to the mother because no choice I make for her will avoid harm to her in many cases.
And I will not condemn a woman to death or injury to attempt to save a child from the same. Even if I consider her foolish or amoral. Valuing a child, who may be foolish or amoral too, over a woman is not something I can do.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Good for you, and I mean it. At least you're doing something other than whining on the internet.
> 
> You may be able to get a mother's justice taken away for the beating death of her wanted fetus, but you're tilting at windmill's on Roe v. Wade. :thumb:


Slavery was abolished. Prohibition was repealed. 

Roe v Wade is not immune.


----------



## Jolly

where I want to said:


> I'm afraid that the tension between the desire to protect the unborn child and the desire to not drive a mother into despair or death makes my head explode. For me there is no alternative but to leave the choice to the mother because no choice I make for her will avoid harm to her in many cases.
> And I will not condemn a woman to death or injury anymore to attempt to save a child from the same. Even if I consider her foolish or amoral. Valuing a child, who may be foolish or amoral too, over a woman is not something I can do.


Then follow the best rule in Medicine: *First, do no harm.*

In an abortion, _especially_ after the 20 week point, who is suffering from the most harm?

Does the convenience (and most abortions are a matter of convenience) of the woman override the right of the child to live?


----------



## Txsteader

where I want to said:


> I'm afraid that the tension between the desire to protect the unborn child and the desire to not drive a mother into despair or death makes my head explode. For me there is no alternative but to leave the choice to the mother because no choice I make for her will avoid harm to her in many cases.
> And I will not condemn a woman to death or injury anymore to attempt to save a child from the same. Even if I consider her foolish or amoral. Valuing a child, who may be foolish or amoral too, over a woman is not something I can do.


At the very least, PP can lose all federal funding. Let the states fund them or not as they see fit. They could even become for-profit and sell all the baby parts they want and/or that society will tolerate.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Slavery was abolished. Prohibition was repealed.
> 
> Roe v Wade is not immune.


Good luck and may the Force be with you. 

My guess is only godless heathens will mourn the women dead from back alley and DIY at home abortions if Roe v. Wade is repealed. Serves 'em right, huh?


----------



## mnn2501

MDKatie said:


> I'm not sure why you don't understand the difference between not selling a particular product, and deciding that you don't want to sell a product you carry to a person you choose to discriminate against because of race, religion, blah blah blah.
> 
> This really has been explained several times now.


The problem here is that there are 4 or 5 different arguments going on, I answer one argument and someone claims it doesn't apply to a different argument. Of course not, its for the argument I am discussing.

Here is the argument I am applying the above answer to:
The *owner *of a pharmacy decided not to carry RU486 on moral grounds.
Someone is inconvenienced in that now they have to drive 30 miles to get to a pharmacy that does carry it.
Too bad - drive the 30 miles, don't try to sue the owner of the first pharmacy and force them to carry the product.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> The problem here is that there are 4 or 5 different arguments going on, I answer one argument and someone claims it doesn't apply to a different argument. Of course not, its for the argument I am discussing.
> 
> Here is the argument I am applying the above answer to:
> The *owner *of a pharmacy decided not to carry RU486 on moral grounds.
> Someone is inconvenienced in that now they have to drive 30 miles to get to a pharmacy that does carry it.
> Too bad - drive the 30 miles, don't try to sue the owner of the first pharmacy and force them to carry the product.


From what I've read it's not the *owner* of the pharmacy, it's *one pharmacist* at that store. Why should I be inconvenienced because one pharmacist doesn't feel they should do their job?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Good luck and may the Force be with you.
> 
> My guess is only godless heathens will mourn the women dead from back alley and DIY at home abortions if Roe v. Wade is repealed. Serves 'em right, huh?


I'm fairly confident you'd be guessing wrong then.

Eta. All that comment says to me is that you have an extremely high opinion of some people and an extremely low opinion of all the rest. That says way more about you and far less about others, IMO.


----------



## where I want to

For me, anyone who finds themselves absolutely on one side of the argument or the other can only do this by dismissing or trivializing the pain of the other side.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> From what I've read it's not the *owner* of the pharmacy, it's *one pharmacist* at that store. Why should I be inconvenienced because one pharmacist doesn't feel they should do their job?


Again separate arguments.

In your case it needs to be taken up with the owner of the pharmacy and they get to decide to keep or fire the person refusing to do their job-- no need for any one else to be involved.

The sad thing here is that I am pro-choice, however the arguments being put forth by other pro-choicers are ridiculous.
And why someone wants the government (courts or legislation) to get involved in what should be an economic decision is beyond me. I thought we were homesteaders here with an independent attitude.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Good luck and may the Force be with you.
> 
> My guess is only godless heathens will mourn the women dead from back alley and DIY at home abortions if Roe v. Wade is repealed. Serves 'em right, huh?


I'd be satisfied if they lost federal funding. Laws that involve morality or religious beliefs are no business of the federal government & taxpayers should not be forced to pay for them. Let the states fund them, let state medicaid funds pay for them. Or they can pay w/ insurance @ for-profit clinics. There are options.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> From what I've read it's not the *owner* of the pharmacy, it's *one pharmacist* at that store. Why should I be inconvenienced because one pharmacist doesn't feel they should do their job?


Why should the smokers be inconvenienced when walgreen quit seeking cigarettes? Should we make them go back to seeing them too?


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> I'm fairly confident you'd be guessing wrong then.
> 
> Eta. All that comment says to me is that you have an extremely high opinion of some people and an extremely low opinion of all the rest. That says way more about you and far less about others, IMO.


You're right. I've seen what "the rest" are and most are not within a country mile of what their philosophy says they should be. "Some" people have more compassion than "the rest" will ever have. My humble opinion, ain't it great?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Why should the smokers be inconvenienced when walgreen quit seeking cigarettes? Should we make them go back to seeing them too?



ALL Walgreen's stores, right? Not just one employee at a Walgreen's store?


----------



## mnn2501

mreynolds said:


> Why should the smokers be inconvenienced when walgreen quit seeking cigarettes? Should we make them go back to seeing them too?


Actually it was CVS that stopped selling cigs


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> So, if a pregnant mom is murdered, killer is charged w/2murders...how can that be? Mom is dead...how does she say baby was wanted or not?


If she hadn't made arrangements for an abortion, it's assumed it is wanted.
Do you really have to ask that question?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> You're somewhat right. A car has no rights. However, the person you stole the car from has a right to use their property as they see fit. You have denied that person the use of their property, violating their rights. When you kill an unborn child you deny them the ability to make decisions governing their life, violating their rights


Children have no rights concerning "governing their lives" until they reach maturity. 

Parents alone get to make all the decisions, especially when the child is still in the womb.

When abortions are done, they have no "ability" to even survive outside the womb in the vast majority of cases.

It still comes back to the reality that you cannot make those decisions for anyone other than yourself


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> You're right. I've seen what "the rest" are and most are not within a country mile of what their philosophy says they should be. "Some" people have more compassion than "the rest" will ever have. My humble opinion, ain't it great?


Nah, you're just judging folks by your preconceived notions of the moment and feigning intellectual superiority when your arguments are swatted down.

I think sometimes you are so scared of what others think, you build a wall of nattering negativity against all viewpoints not your own.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> If she hadn't made arrangements for an abortion, it's assumed it is wanted.
> Do you really have to ask that question?


Of course it's a valid question. Because pregnant women die without declaring to others they've made a decision one way or the other. Pregnant women die who don't even know themselves they are pregnant.

So assumptions may not in fact be accurate. And, the defendant has a right to have the number of murders they are charged with be defined by some reasonable standard.

Say an innocent person is charged and it is found that the woman who died was pregnant and all evidence seems to suggest not even she knew. It would influence a jury quite a lot whether the defendant was charge with one or two murders. If it was only one murder, the defense could reasonably argue for the jury to never even be told of the pregnancy because it was irrekevent to determining the defendants guilt of the charges. 

The prosecution would obviously want the jury to know whether it was included as a murder charge because it would help sway the jury for a conviction.

So, its very relevant whether the assumption if the fetus was wanted or not us actually based on whether she already had an apot for abortion or not.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Children have no rights concerning "governing their lives" until they reach maturity.
> 
> Parents alone get to make all the decisions, especially when the child is still in the womb.
> 
> When abortions are done, they have no "ability" to even survive outside the womb in the vast majority of cases.
> 
> It still comes back to the reality that you cannot make those decisions for anyone other than yourself


I very much support the idea that parents should nearly always have the exclusive and final say regarding their dependent children.

I don't pretend that is at all reality.

Cps and an army of authorities have say in nearly every facets of children's lives whenever they deem appropriate to an extreme and excessive level.

Medical care, education, housing, disciplibe, custody or issues, etc.

Since we're doing such an aeful job, IMO, respecting parental authority out of the womb, I don't react with shock that within the womb it is also such an issue. Same as it doesn't shock me how many parents genuinely struggle for their children's respect and submission. The kids are told to do the opposite at every darned turn.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> So rules only apply to Christians, did not know that. Good thing I ain't a Christian nor a godless heathen.


Any religion's rules only apply to the followers of the religion.
Same thing with the "punishments and rewards"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Like this
> 
> http://www.towleroad.com/2015/07/kentucky-marriage-license-2/
> 
> http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...-can-deny-marriage-licenses-religious-grounds


Those states will still be required to issue a license to gay couples.

Those proposed laws simply allow an exemption for some individuals, but not for the state itself. 

The TX OPINION from the AG still leaves them open to civil suits and contempt of court charges


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So, its very relevant whether the assumption if the fetus was wanted or not us actually based on whether she already had an apot for abortion or not.


The *assumption* will be the same no matter what the circumstances IF there have been no arrangements made for an abortion.

All the speculation and fictional court cases won't change that 

The law will assume the baby was wanted if there is no evidence to the contrary


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Most of the time , Christians bite their tongue a bit, so as not to offend. I think most (Christians) would readily agree with Scripture, that those who have been repeatedly exposed to the Word and have rejected it, are bound for Hell.


No, if you're not actively playing the game, the rules don't apply.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Slavery was abolished. *Prohibition was repealed.*
> 
> Roe v Wade is not immune.


You seem to be confused

Roe V Wade was the *repeal* of the* prohibition* on abortion

It won't go in reverse


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Any religion's rules only apply to the followers of the religion.
> Same thing with the "punishments and rewards"


religion is a broad scoping word.... it is a system of belief.
A belief system defines ones political, social code, and morality standards.

Each persons views are valid period.... 
Reality will be known later or unknown if it's all for not.

Thus while you are correct that you do not feel that punishments and rewards impact only the believers the end results are still unknown to the living.

Reality may be different.

And in as much as your view is your view it in no way impacts another's view that the rewards and punishments will ultimately impact all.

That is my valid understanding in freedom of religion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> I'm fairly confident you'd be guessing wrong then.
> 
> Eta. All that comment says to me is that *you have an extremely high opinion of some people and an extremely low opinion of all the rest*. That says way more about you and far less about others, IMO.


I think that whenever you post about how "ignorant" and "uninformed" most women are if they consider abortions


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> The *assumption* will be the same no matter what the circumstances IF there have been no arrangements made for an abortion.
> 
> All the speculation and fictional court cases won't change that
> 
> The law will assume the baby was wanted if there is no evidence to the contrary



Oh I doubt that since the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think that whenever you post about how "ignorant" and "uninformed" most women are if they consider abortions


Oh I think ignorance and being uninformed is a very real issue for every single person, myself included.

I make no assumption about where everyone falls on that soectrum.

I only advocate that it's important to do whatever is reasonable and possible to improve what everyone has access to so everyone can be as informed as possible, especially about things that are relevant to someone's personal life, like women's health information for women.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Oh I doubt that since the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution.


You can doubt all you like.

You're still pretending it's about some court case when it's not.

It's about the actual charges

They don't have to prove whether or not it was "wanted"

They only have to show it died in the womb due to the criminal act of another


----------



## mnn2501

Jolly said:


> nattering negativity.


Have not heard that statement since Spiro Agnew called someone a nattering nabob of negativity.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Children have no rights concerning "governing their lives" until they reach maturity.
> 
> Parents alone get to make all the decisions, especially when the child is still in the womb.
> 
> When abortions are done, they have no "ability" to even survive outside the womb in the vast majority of cases.
> 
> It still comes back to the reality that you cannot make those decisions for anyone other than yourself


From _FindLaw_:

_Basic Rights for Every Child

Although children grow and mature at different rates, there are some rights that every child is born with. Children are entitled to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home. Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs.

Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection, which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process, which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government.

Children with disabilities also have rights under the federal Disabilities Education Act. The Disabilities Education Act provides children in need of special education with special accommodations to ensure they receive the same education as their peers.

Rights that Children Can Obtain as They Grow

Some rights are obtained as the child grows, depending on his or her age and level of maturity. For example, children have a limited right to free speech. In many instances, children are encouraged to form opinions and freely speak their mind. However, schools may limit the child's speech if they feel it could harm other students. This rule can have strikingly different applications for student bodies of different ages. For example, a student painting featuring nudity might be inappropriate in middle school, but cutting edge art in high school. For more information on students' rights, see FindLaw's Education section.

Teenagers tend to have more rights than younger children. Teenagers may work, although the exact age at which a minor can begin working and the hours he or she may work will vary by state. The Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws regulate the employment of minors. For general guidelines, see Findlaw's Hiring Minors article.

In the criminal justice system, older children receive more autonomy than younger delinquents. Findlaw's Juvenile Justice section has more information on youthful offenders.

If a child is particularly mature, he or she may qualify for emancipation. In some cases, emancipation is automatic. Otherwise, emancipation must be petitioned for in the appropriate state court.

- See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/emancipat...-rights-of-children.html#sthash.mpJuja1Q.dpuf_


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Nah, you're just judging folks by your preconceived notions of the moment and feigning intellectual superiority when your arguments are swatted down.
> 
> I think sometimes you are so scared of what others think, you build a wall of nattering negativity against all viewpoints not your own.


Bwahahahahaha Now you're telling me what I've experienced too?! Before it was just what I was feeling. You're a funny guy. 

No. I'm not afraid of anyone's opinion, why would I be? That's just daft.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> religion is a broad scoping word.... it is a system of belief.
> A belief system defines *ones* political, social code, and morality standards.


If you don't "belong" to a religion, it's rules do not apply to you

It's a very simple concept and doesn't require a long rambling explanation


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can doubt all you like.
> 
> You're still pretending it's about some court case when it's not.
> 
> It's about the actual charges
> 
> They don't have to prove whether or not it was "wanted"
> 
> They only have to show it died in the womb due to the criminal act of another


Well, I disagree. But, by your logic, then which is it. The prosecution can't bring charges if the kids had an apot to be aborted but wasn't yet? Or, it's irrelevant because it died in the womb due to the criminal act of another regardless of if it was going to die anyway?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> From FindLaw:
> 
> Basic Rights for Every Child


I didn't see anything about "governing their own lives" or "rights *before *birth"

You always forget *context* matters, and the topic here is abortion


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> *Well, I disagree*. But, by your logic, *then which is it*. The prosecution can't bring charges if the kids had an apot to be aborted but wasn't yet? Or, it's irrelevant because it died in the womb due to the criminal act of another regardless of if it was going to die anyway?


You always disagree so there's no surprise there 

Where you get confused is from all the rambling thoughts about simple concepts.

My first reply was an answer to a single *specific* question:



> how does she say baby was *wanted or not*?


It has nothing at all to do with the *legalities* of any criminal charges

You get lost searching for "deeper meanings" when all that is required is to just read what is stated


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you don't "belong" to a religion, it's rules do not apply to you
> 
> It's a very simple concept and doesn't require a long rambling explanation


Explain the unknown....because you have assumed the mantel of authority of what is reality at death.

Please explain what is after death and supply validation to support that information.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Explain the unknown....because you have assumed the mantel of authority of what is reality at death.
> 
> Please explain what is after death and supply validation to support that information.


I think you're very confused


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think you're very confused


How do you KNOW that at death there will be no consequences..simply asking because you have firmly stated that only believers will face them....

What do you know about that. Rewording it because you might not have understood the request.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to be confused
> 
> Roe V Wade was the *repeal* of the* prohibition* on abortion
> 
> It won't go in reverse


I'm referring to the 18th amendment. Prohibition.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Bwahahahahaha Now you're telling me what I've experienced too?! Before it was just what I was feeling. You're a funny guy.
> 
> No. I'm not afraid of anyone's opinion, why would I be? That's just daft.


I'm pretty good at pegging folks.

Sometimes, thou dost protest too much. Waaay too much. Shows emotional investment.

I think you sit around sometimes and wonder if what you think is actually quite as ironclad as you'd like to portray.

How'my doin'?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, if you're not actively playing the game, the rules don't apply.


That makes no sense.

If eternity actually exists, you're gonna play, whether you believe you will, or not.


----------



## kasilofhome

Jolly said:


> That makes no sense.
> 
> If eternity actually exists, you're gonna play, whether you believe you will, or not.


I agree.... seems like that is straight forward logic, but we should wait and hear from bear foot.. Explain what we are missing that that is known unto him/ her.


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you don't "belong" to a religion, it's rules do not apply to you
> 
> It's a very simple concept and doesn't require a long rambling explanation



But it's wrong. 
Only a ignorant simpleton would believe such a thing. 

I am deeply offended that you would think anyone here would be that ignorant or simple. 

Anyone I've ever seen post here would know of places where religious rules are being imposed on those that do not believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> How do you KNOW that at death there will be no consequences..simply asking because you have firmly stated that only believers will face them....
> 
> *What do you know about that*. Rewording it because you might not have understood the request.


I know as much as anyone alive knows about it.

A religions rules only apply to it's followers


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> I'm pretty good at pegging folks.
> 
> Sometimes, thou dost protest too much. Waaay too much. Shows emotional investment.
> 
> I think you sit around sometimes and wonder if what you think is actually quite as ironclad as you'd like to portray.
> 
> How'my doin'?



You do not know what I think, what I've experienced, or what I perceive. It's foolish, arrogant, and makes you look asinine when you tell me anything about myself. If that was your goal you're doing great. 

And to think you can do this all through a computer, you don't need to look at my palm or anything! Seriously impressive, or seriously disturbing? I just don't know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> But it's wrong.
> Only a ignorant simpleton would believe such a thing.
> 
> I am deeply offended that you would think anyone here would be that ignorant or simple.
> 
> Anyone I've ever seen post here would know of places *where religious rules are being imposed* on those that do not believe.


You're talking about religious OPPRESSION.

There's no need for the over reaction

Unwad your panties, stop the name calling, and think about context


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> I'm referring to the 18th amendment. Prohibition.


You're confused to think Roe V Wade will be reversed
You thought the repeal of prohibition was a good thing, and Roe V Wade IS a repeal of a prohibition


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I'm pretty good at pegging folks.
> 
> *Sometimes, thou dost protest too much. Waaay too much. Shows emotional investment.*
> 
> I think you sit around sometimes and wonder if what you think is actually quite as ironclad as you'd like to portray.
> 
> How'my doin'?


Not as good as you seem to think
I believe you're talking about yourself


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know as much as anyone alive knows about it.
> 
> A religions rules only apply to it's followers




Ignorance of regulations, laws, statues is going to be a valid defense if brought to judgment?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not as good as you seem to think
> I believe you're talking about yourself


Oh yes! You got that too? I'm glad others can see it as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> That *makes no sense.*
> 
> If eternity actually exists, you're gonna play, whether you believe you will, or not.


Maybe not to you

The "game" is religion

If eternity exists, it was there before religion, and will be there when religion is long gone


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Ignorance of regulations, laws, statues is going to be a valid defense if brought to judgment?


Allah won't mind if you're ignorant


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Allah won't mind if you're ignorant


Supporting links please...


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're talking about religious OPPRESSION.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need for the over reaction
> 
> 
> 
> Unwad your panties, stop the name calling, and think about context



Did I call someone a name ?
Or did I simply use accurate words. 
The post was yours. I simply pointed out it was only belivable to a select few , none of which I believe are capable of being in this conversation.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confused to think Roe V Wade will be reversed
> You thought the repeal of prohibition was a good thing, and Roe V Wade IS a repeal of a prohibition


And the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. Laws can be overturned or repealed.

:facepalm: 

Oh spit! I forgot....we're not supposed to use emoticons when talking to you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Did I call someone a name ?
> 
> Or did I simply use accurate words.
> 
> The post was yours. I simply pointed out it was only belivable to a select few
> , none of which I believe are capable of being in this conversation.


Yes

No

No

You're still confused about the actual discussion


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Supporting links please...


http://quran.com/



> The Noble Qur'an - &#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1585;&#1570;&#1606; &#1575;&#1604;&#1603;&#1585;&#1610;&#1605;
> quran.com
> The Noble Qur'an in many languages in an easy-to-use interface.


----------



## kasilofhome

In your post you find many people confused.... yet others comprehend them are you still comfortable with your assessment of others being the ones confused?


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://quran.com/


Explain it please... as you say you know and I am confused..


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> And the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. Laws can be overturned or repealed.
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> Oh spit! I forgot....we're not supposed to use emoticons when talking to you.


Thank you for the irrelevant history lesson


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> In your post you find many people confused.... *yet others comprehend them* are you still comfortable with your assessment of others being the ones confused?


That may be a false assumption.

I'm very comfortable with everything I've said, since their confusion on certain points is made obvious by their responses


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes
> 
> No
> 
> No
> 
> You're still confused about the actual discussion


No one that I can see is confused about the actual discussion. Discussions ebb and flow with people contributing what they want or feel as relevant.

You just seem to not like what some people contribute, so you accuse them of being confused, off topic, etc. Not liking what people say, doesn't mean they shouldn't be free to say it. You're under my obligation to agree, but none of us can predict or determine with authority whether someone's ideas aren't relevant.

If you want to play gate keeper to what is allowed as content and relevant on a topic, I suggest you pursue a different platform, perhaps a blog?

It's like recognizing the difference between a speech and a debate and how the content will be different platforms for communication.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> *Explain * it please... as you say you know and I am confused..


I gave you the link you asked for.

The rest is up to you


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> I gave you the link you asked for.
> 
> The rest is up to you


But.... you keep telling me I am confused.... so expand and share your vast knowledge as to what really is going to happen after death.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No one that I can see is confused about the actual discussion


I'm not surprised



> *If you want to play gate keeper* to what is allowed as content and relevant on a topic, I suggest you pursue a different platform, perhaps a blog?


It appears to me you want that role.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> But.... *you keep telling me* I am confused.... so expand and share your vast knowledge as to what really is going to happen after death.


No, I told you that once, after your very confused post in which you decided I had claimed some "vast knowledge"



> Originally Posted by kasilofhome View Post
> Explain the unknown....because *you have assumed the mantel* of authority of what is reality at death.
> 
> Please explain what is after death and supply validation to support that information.





> I think you're very confused


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> That's just rude. Are jews supposed to use the bible to mock and belittle people? I thought they were supposed to use the torah? As a godless heathen I don't keep up with the woo...


I was responding to a proverb woolly numbered and you started. Just to show your ignorance of the Jewish faith it is in the Tenahk, but that's ok it was not expected that you would know that.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Thank you for the irrelevant history lesson


:cowboy:

Knowledge is power. Glad to be of assistance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> :cowboy:
> 
> Knowledge is power. Glad to be of assistance.


It would only be assistance if I didn't already know, and I had a need to know.

Let's call it trivia in the interest of accuracy


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not surprised
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me you want that role.


I'm not surprised either.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://quran.com/


Dang it. I nearly drowned, a spew warning please!


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I told you that once, after your very confused post in which you decided I had claimed some "vast knowledge"


Oh, please, the fact that you rarely, from what I've seen include that your posts are your opinion, and present your thoughts and ideas as irrefutable fact, implies that you consider your posts to be vastly knowledgeable and superior to those you oppose.


----------



## kasilofhome

:facepalm: she's/he is not irrefutable:ashamed:


----------



## mreynolds

mnn2501 said:


> Actually it was CVS that stopped selling cigs


Ah yes that's right. I don't smoke and couldn't remember.

Man my post was weird. I hate the auto correct on my phone.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Are christians supposed to use the bible to mock and belittle people? I thought that was against the rules?
> 
> Anyway, it's not nice. Even a godless heathen can see that.


The words in the Bible aren't a mockery... even when they hit a nerve, and my response about the proverb isn't about you. The verse is about women with a lack of discretion... which I think fits the description of anyone aborting their baby for the sake of their convenience.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> The words in the Bible aren't a mockery... even when they hit a nerve, and my response about the proverb isn't about you. The verse is about women with a lack of discretion... which I think fits the description of anyone aborting their baby for the sake of their convenience.


I didn't think it was about me. You are using the bible to mock and belittle people, what does that say about you?


----------



## keenataz

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't think it was about me. You are using the bible to mock and belittle people, what does that say about you?


He likes to quote a book of myth, legends, parables and possibly some history?


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would only be assistance if I didn't already know, and I had a need to know.
> 
> Let's call it trivia in the interest of accuracy


If you already knew it, then I have to believe you were just being obtuse (again??) when you kept referring to Roe v Wade.

Why do you that?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> ALL Walgreen's stores, right? Not just one employee at a Walgreen's store?


Yes, but that is not for you or I to decide now is it? It would by the rules of freedom be up to his boss to settle.

Freedom is a funny thing. _Sometimes_ when you enable one's freedom you take another's away. I guess it just depends on which side your on when the chips fall doesn't it?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Yes, but that is not for you or I to decide now is it? It would by the rules of freedom be up to his boss to settle.
> 
> Freedom is a funny thing. _Sometimes_ when you enable one's freedom you take another's away. I guess it just depends on which side your on when the chips fall doesn't it?


Nope. It's called "do your job".

Would it be OK if a clerk wouldn't sell a pack of cigarettes because he or she believed it was wrong? Even though the store sold cigarettes?


----------



## Irish Pixie

keenataz said:


> He likes to quote a book of myth, legends, parables and possibly some history?


Yes. A fictional book written centuries after the myth, legends, parables, and possibly some history occurred.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't think it was about me. You are using the bible to mock and belittle people, what does that say about you?


I think what you're asking is "what does that say about God" ...or whomever you think authored the Bible. That verse wasn't written pointlessly....it was meant to be applied to those who lacked discretion. Sorry...the book is not PC. In fact, none of the Bible is going to particularly please anyone who can't handle having the many faults of the human race (including themselves) pointed out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> I think what you're asking is "what does that say about God" ...or whomever you think authored the Bible. That verse wasn't written pointlessly....it was meant to be applied to those who lacked discretion. Sorry...the book is not PC. In fact, none of the Bible is going to particularly please anyone who can't handle having the many faults of the human race (including themselves) pointed out.


No, you cherry picked a portion to shame, mock, belittle, whatever other human beings, ie. "The verse is about women with a lack of discretion... ". Not god, you. What does that say about you?


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you cherry picked a portion to shame, mock, belittle, whatever other human beings, ie. "The verse is about women with a lack of discretion... ". Not god, you. What does that say about
> 
> Love freedom OF religion
> 
> Not from.
> 
> It's the law of the land.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you cherry picked a portion to shame, mock, belittle, whatever other human beings, ie. "The verse is about women with a lack of discretion... ". Not god, you. What does that say about
> 
> Love freedom OF religion
> 
> Not from.
> 
> It's the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of religion does not mean you are free to use it to mock people on HT.
Click to expand...


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you cherry picked a portion to shame, mock, belittle, whatever other human beings, ie. "The verse is about women with a lack of discretion... ". Not god, you. What does that say about you?


It says that I take that verse as a true and apt statement concerning those who do not have discretion. Who do you suppose the author meant to reference? Nobody?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> Except in the case of rape or incest, she made the decision to take in some extra DNA.
> 
> Once a new life occurs, it is no longer her sole choice.


Well, actually. It is. Bummer for you.

Also, why is incest automatically not a choice. Do you know what it means?


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> kasilofhome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of religion does not mean you are free to use it to mock people on HT.
> 
> 
> 
> Which I haven't.... but here again, the perception of "mocking" by bringing up scripture is a sure an easy excuse to shut out that freedom whenever it's brought up.
Click to expand...


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes. A fictional book written centuries after the myth, legends, parables, and possibly some history occurred.


Thought you didn't mock my religion...


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you cherry picked a portion to shame, mock, belittle, whatever other human beings, ie. "The verse is about women with a lack of discretion... ". Not god, you. What does that say about you?


You don't believe in the Bible, so why do you care?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> You don't believe in the Bible, so why do you care?


The hypocrisy is seriously annoying.


----------



## keenataz

Shine said:


> Thought you didn't mock my religion...


Actually I am not. What I am saying I do not believe the bible is fact. If it was-where did the giants like Goliath go? Nor did Adam or Noah live to be 900 + years old? Or if there was a world wide flood-where did Noah get the polar bears from? There are many more-I believe they are legends, fables.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> The hypocrisy is seriously annoying.


Hypocrisy resides in one Biblical Scripture?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Hypocrisy resides in one Biblical Scripture?


Deliberately dense? The hypocrisy of cherry picking something out of the bible to shame, mock, and belittle.


----------



## Shine

Put it simple. Any abortion that is not to save the life of the mother violates every sense that I have in my body. Anyone who condones it is not a person I would want to be near. So it appears that Irish Blessing that I spoke of earlier is somewhat true, except replace "twisted ankle" with "supporter of abortions" and there you have it, now I understand better and can see things much more clearly, thank you Lord.

No one who trusts in the Lord would sink so low as to support such a thing.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Deliberately dense? The hypocrisy of cherry picking something out of the bible to shame, mock, and belittle.


Who did I shame, mock and belittle?

The definition of hypocrisy is to say that you believe something while your actions say otherwise. Like the rest of the bible, I hold That verse as an accurate statement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> If you already knew it, then I have to believe you were just being obtuse (again??) when you kept referring to Roe v Wade.
> 
> Why do you that?


Because we were talking about *3 *different things that were repealed
Slavery *repealed*
Prohibition *repealed*
Abortion Prohibition *repealed* =Roe V Wade

I really shouldn't have to explain all this in detail again


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Who did I shame, mock and belittle?
> 
> The definition of hypocrisy is to say that you believe something while your actions say otherwise. Like the rest of the bible, I hold That verse as an accurate statement.


 You shamed, mocked, and belittled "women with a lack of discretion". I didn't think christians were supposed to do that type of thing, isn't it frowned upon? Or is that something that is cherry picked?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> You shamed, mocked, and belittled "women with a lack of discretion". I didn't think christians were supposed to do that type of thing, isn't it frowned upon? Or is that something that is cherry picked?


The verse...which is In The Bible is about women without discretion. Do I think the bible contains any commands to not believe or quote that verse? No.......


----------



## Bearfootfarm

I used to think that too, then once while working at the gun shop a "preacher" tried to steal $100 from the counter top because he thought I wasn't watching him.

Some are more talk than action


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> Deliberately dense? You used the verse to shame, mock, and belittle women with a lack of discretion. You can obfuscate all you want.
> 
> I was taught (back when I was naive and believed such nonsense) that christians were told not to do that sort of thing. I guess the new christianity is less nice. Or maybe it's just you being a hypocrite?




Or
You might not have understood what you heard
Or you might not have heard what you thought you did

Or many other reasons that might not be kind to you.
But does it matter people have the freedom of speech...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. It's called "do your job".
> 
> Would it be OK if a clerk wouldn't sell a pack of cigarettes because he or she believed it was wrong? Even though the store sold cigarettes?


Of course, as long as the boss felt the employee was doing the work they were being paid for.

Do you think all strippers should be required to perform lap dances if a club offers them if they don't want to and their boss is happy with them just stripping?

What about a rural route nail carrier who wants to only service certain routes instead of any area in their zip because the feel their vehicle or driving skills can't handle it? If the boss is OK with it why not?

What about an exsmojer who wants to only serve the nonsmoking sections of diners because they don't want to be around the temptation? If the boss says OK, who cares?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Retail employees are there to sell *all* the products a store carries.



> Do you think all strippers should be required to perform lap dances if a club offers them


If it's part of the job description when they are hired, they should



> What about a rural route nail carrier who wants to only service certain routes instead of any area in their zip because the feel their vehicle or driving skills can't handle it? If the boss is OK with it why not?


What about realistic scenarios if you want to hop down all these rabbit trails?



> What about an exsmojer who wants to only serve the nonsmoking sections of diners because they don't want to be around the temptation? If the boss says OK, who cares?


Is there a point hiding anywhere nearby?

These scenarios have nothing to do with refusing to sell to customers based on sex or religion, and the thread is about abortion, so where did an exsmoker waitress come from?

Is she going to have to get an abortion because a druggist wouldn't sell her a pill?

Did she get cancer waiting on smokers tables , and can't get to the Dr because even the mail carrier won't come to her house?

Curiouser and curiouser


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. It's called "do your job".
> 
> Would it be OK if a clerk wouldn't sell a pack of cigarettes because he or she believed it was wrong? Even though the store sold cigarettes?


Yes, it would be ok if the owner does not care. Why do argue with this? Why is it your job to dictate what they do or don't do if it is kept in house? Why make it our business at all?

What if I ranted about what you may have done wrong on your job once upon a time? Would it matter to you then?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why is it your job to dictate what they do or don't do if it is kept in house?


Because when it's a case of discrimination based on sex, religion, age, race, etc, it's no longer "in-house" and no longer the boss's choice.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Retail employees are there to sell *all* the products a store carries.
> 
> 
> If it's part of the job description when they are hired, they should
> 
> 
> What about realistic scenarios if you want to hop down all these rabbit trails?
> 
> 
> Is there a point hiding anywhere nearby?
> 
> These scenarios have nothing to do with refusing to sell to customers based on sex or religion, and the thread is about abortion, so where did an exsmoker waitress come from?
> 
> Is she going to have to get an abortion because a druggist wouldn't sell her a pill?
> 
> Did she get cancer waiting on smokers tables , and can't get to the Dr because even the mail carrier won't come to her house?
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser


The post I quoted was talking about selling cigarettes not abortions. But, you knew that.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> I used to think that too, then once while working at the gun shop a "preacher" tried to steal $100 from the counter top because he thought I wasn't watching him.
> 
> Some are more talk than action


Would you please point out to me where anybody - ever -has said that Christians are perfect?

It's a sign of desperation, when somebody wants to take a single personal incident and transform it into canon law.

I saw a woman change lanes today without giving a signal. I now know, by your reasoning, that all women are bad drivers.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. :thumb:


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> Retail employees are there to sell *all* the products a store carries.
> 
> 
> If it's part of the job description when they are hired, they should
> 
> 
> What about realistic scenarios if you want to hop down all these rabbit trails?
> 
> 
> Is there a point hiding anywhere nearby?
> 
> These scenarios have nothing to do with refusing to sell to customers based on sex or religion, and the thread is about abortion, so where did an exsmoker waitress come from?
> 
> Is she going to have to get an abortion because a druggist wouldn't sell her a pill?
> 
> Did she get cancer waiting on smokers tables , and can't get to the Dr because even the mail carrier won't come to her house?
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser


Because peoples job description can change over time. Especially a Pharmacist. New pills are introduced almost daily. Those pills may not have been available when he started work. He may have even told the owner that he would not prescribe them as part of his job description. His job in his eyes is to do no harm. maybe that's his way of not doing harm. 

At any rate. It is _his_ and his_ boss's_ choice. Not ours.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because when it's a case of discrimination based on sex, religion, age, race, etc, it's no longer "in-house" and no longer the boss's choice.


Who said it was based on discrimination? Why are some seeing that everywhere? If all your problems are nails you tend to use a hammer often.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because when it's a case of discrimination based on sex, religion, age, race, etc, it's no longer "in-house" and no longer the boss's choice.


So by that reasoning I can petition the SC for not getting the senior citizen discount? I can petition the SC for the local store here called "La Raza Latina" because that means the race Latin. I can petition against the local Christian bookstore for not carrying occult books? Can I petition "Fredrick's of Hollywood" because I cant find anything to wear in there? 

Hmmm....interesting


----------



## Jolly

> Can I petition "Fredrick's of Hollywood" because I cant find anything to wear in there?












Hey, Mr. Bearfoot asked for them....


----------



## mreynolds

gibbsgirl said:


> Of course, as long as the boss felt the employee was doing the work they were being paid for.
> 
> Do you think all strippers should be required to perform lap dances if a club offers them if they don't want to and their boss is happy with them just stripping?
> 
> What about a rural route nail carrier who wants to only service certain routes instead of any area in their zip because the feel their vehicle or driving skills can't handle it? If the boss is OK with it why not?
> 
> What about an exsmojer who wants to only serve the nonsmoking sections of diners because they don't want to be around the temptation? If the boss says OK, who cares?


What's funny to me is that 90% of the time the Pharmacist _is_ the owner. 100% of the time he _has to_ by law control all of the meds in his care. So why would he even buy a med and stock it without ever having any intention to sell it? He wont. So being that simple fact, if its not stocked then it was never available for sale to the public in _*his*_ store. Therefore he has done nothing wrong. 

So much assumption for such a little dilemma. Don't you agree?


----------



## mreynolds

Jolly said:


> Hey, Mr. Bearfoot asked for them....


You'll never see me in Fredericks. Victoria's Secret has much better selection.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> The post I quoted was talking about selling cigarettes not abortions. But, you knew that.


None of your examples were really about selling anything, but you know that too


----------



## Jolly

Reminds me of The Thong Song..

google at your own risk...


----------



## mreynolds

Jolly said:


> Reminds me of The Thong Song..
> 
> google at your own risk...


HAH, I think I'll pass this time. near my bedtime anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> So by that reasoning I can petition the SC for not getting the senior citizen discount? I can petition the SC for the local store here called "La Raza Latina" because that means the race Latin. I can petition against the local Christian bookstore for not carrying occult books? Can I petition "Fredrick's of Hollywood" because I cant find anything to wear in there?
> 
> Hmmm....interesting


An age qualification for a discount isn't "discrimination" since the same rules apply to everyone

The name of a store isn't discrimination, it's just a name.

Not carrying books on the occult is not discrimination any more than a tire store not selling waterbeds 

I don't care about your crossdressing habits, so that doesn't apply either


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Because peoples job description can change over time. Especially a Pharmacist. New pills are introduced almost daily. Those pills may not have been available when he started work. He may have even told the owner that he would not prescribe them as part of his job description. His job in his eyes is to do no harm. maybe that's his way of not doing harm.
> 
> At any rate. It is _his_ and his_ boss's_ choice. Not ours.


His job is to leave his religion at home and provide all the products the store carries to all who have a prescription


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Who said it was based on discrimination? Why are some seeing that everywhere? If all your problems are nails you tend to use a hammer often.


It's about discrimination because that's a part of the original topic, and because it's becoming more and more common for those serving the public to think they get to personally approve of everything or they don't have to do it at all


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> An age qualification for a discount isn't "discrimination" since the same rules apply to everyone
> 
> The name of a store isn't discrimination, it's just a name.
> 
> Not carrying books on the occult is not discrimination any more than a tire store not selling waterbeds
> 
> I don't care about your crossdressing habits, so that doesn't apply either


Yes it is

They sell only to women so yes it is too

They only cater to Christian so yes

it was a joke. But you knew that didn't you.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> His job is to leave his religion at home and provide all the products the store carries to all who have a prescription


It's his store. He won't carry something here won't sell. It's his job to save lives not kill them. Many drs can perform abortions to but chose not to. . Are you saying since they are capable of it that all should? Even your proctologist?


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's about discrimination because that's a part of the original topic, and because it's becoming more and more common for those serving the public to think they get to personally approve of everything or they don't have to do it at all


Sounds like some people want to take personal responsibility for their actions 24 hours a day .... not willing to lower their morality so a to go a long to get a long.

Perhaps having learned to stand up for their rights from other prior groups who have done so.


----------



## gibbsgirl

mreynolds said:


> What's funny to me is that 90% of the time the Pharmacist _is_ the owner. 100% of the time he _has to_ by law control all of the meds in his care. So why would he even buy a med and stock it without ever having any intention to sell it? He wont. So being that simple fact, if its not stocked then it was never available for sale to the public in _*his*_ store. Therefore he has done nothing wrong.
> 
> So much assumption for such a little dilemma. Don't you agree?


Talk about fussing over a little dilemma. Did you read a few pages back the debated retelling of me vs a pharmacy error when i was preggers? It was on one of these two abortion threads. Too funny.


----------



## gibbsgirl

mreynolds said:


> You'll never see me in Fredericks. Victoria's Secret has much better selection.


Victoria has no secrets, lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> It's his store. He won't carry something here won't sell. It's his job to save lives not kill them. Many drs can perform abortions to but chose not to. . Are you saying since they are capable of it that all should? Even your proctologist?


We were discussing employees in retail businesses not owners

Dr's don't offer all services and aren't expected to do so

There's little point in trying to discuss a topic when the examples used aren't rational



> Yes it is
> 
> They sell only to women so yes it is too
> 
> They only cater to Christian so yes
> 
> it was a joke. But you knew that didn't you


No, it hasn't changed

A store that only carries women's clothes isn't a valid example

Christian book stores cater to *anyone* who wants to buy the products they sell They don't ask for your Christian membership card

I have no idea if it's a joke or not, and I don't care one way or the other
(and I do NOT want pictures)


----------



## arabian knight

Would not to do this at all if the kids would start taking the morning after pills. They are pretty cheap and no pregnancy no fertilization takes place.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> An age qualification for a discount isn't "discrimination" since the same rules apply to everyone
> 
> The name of a store isn't discrimination, it's just a name.
> 
> Not carrying books on the occult is not discrimination any more than a tire store not selling waterbeds
> 
> I don't care about your crossdressing habits, so that doesn't apply either


Of course age qualified discounts are discrimination. They exclude everyone who isn't born in the qualifying age range.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> His job is to leave his religion at home and provide all the products the store carries to all who have a prescription


That's funny, I'm pretty sure the duties of any job are prescribed by the person deciding who to employ and providing the paychecks.

I guess some of us didn't get a memo or tps report or something, lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Sounds like some people want to take personal responsibility for their actions 24 hours a day .... not willing to lower their morality so a to go a long to get a long.
> 
> Perhaps having learned to stand up for their rights from other prior groups who have done so.


There is no right to discriminate


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> Would not to do this at all if the kids would start taking the morning after pills. They are pretty cheap and no pregnancy no fertilization takes place.



First those pills are considered abortifacients by pro-lifers. Second they don't work like you think they work. Third there are pharmacists who will not dispense them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> That's funny, I'm pretty sure the duties of any job are prescribed by the person deciding who to employ and providing the paychecks.
> 
> I guess some of us didn't get a memo or tps report or something, lol.


You're correct, and those duties *in a retail setting* are to sell the products to the customers.

It's not complicated, and it's seldom a matter of an employee choosing what they will and won't sell.

Whether an owner "approves" or not is no excuse to discriminate, and can leave them open to lawsuits.


----------



## arabian knight

Patchouli said:


> First those pills are considered abortifacients by pro-lifers. Second they don't work like you think they work. Third there are pharmacists who will not dispense them.


Report: Teen Use of Morning-After Pill is Climbing.
And just because one pharmacy doesn't many do, just go to them. Cause someone is using these pills and at at near 90% effective I would say that ids a pretty high %.


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> Report: Teen Use of Morning-After Pill is Climbing.
> And just because one pharmacy doesn't many do, just go to them. Cause someone is using these pills and at at near 90% effective I would say that ids a pretty high %.


Let me try again: pro-lifers are AGAINST the morning after pill. They believe it causes an abortion. It can actually prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterine wall.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no right to discriminate




What your call discriminate.... May very well be a morality decision.
In as much as many will sit down and shut up and do as they are told....sometimes out of fear sometimes thinking that if asked to do something wrong they can pass the buck and say but but but.... I was told...everyone else...it was legal.

Well maybe not to you... but your not God... our society cross the line and discernment is needed.

Just like in the military....orders given need to be discerned by those receiving them because obeying an unlawful ....(per the government) make them accountable 


Well that make sense ....what should people people do when man- government deems something legal when it is sin.... follow man ....Or God ?






In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Well shoot then, I'm gonna need ya to school me then we're all the free volunteer strip clubs, mail services, and diners are, cause apparently I'm not as savvy a shopper as I thought.
> 
> Shucks, I'm down right frustrated now to think of all the free things I must been paying good, hard earned money for all these years!


Which part of "retail businesses" confuses you?
Strip clubs provide entertainment and sell some services, so I don't think you will find many with religious misgiving over lap dances

Mail carriers drive the route they are assigned, and sell nothing at all

A diner can't discriminate in who they serve without valid reasons, and an example about smokers isn't about discrimination in any form.

I also have no idea why you're now talking about getting anything free, or why you'd need a free stripper



> *They exclude everyone* who isn't born in the qualifying age range.


No one is "born in" the Senior discount age
But your statement shows why it's not discrimination.
*Everyone* is treated the by the same rules


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're correct, and those duties *in a retail setting* are to sell the products to the customers.
> 
> It's not complicated, and it's seldom a matter of an employee choosing what they will and won't sell.
> 
> Whether an owner "approves" or not is no excuse to discriminate, and can leave them open to lawsuits.


I still go back to in_* this*_ retail setting _*by law*_ the pharmacist has to call the shots and not any owner of any store. Unless that owner is licensed as a pharmacist too. There have been times my pharmacist has called my dr and gave him a piece of his mind about something I have been prescribed. The med is sometimes changed too. 

And I also go back to this. If you are pro choice then you believe in the freedom of choice. A woman can choose to do what she wants with her body even if her parents or the father of the baby and every other family member is against her decision. It is still her decision. I am ok with that too. Its none of my business after all. 

Why don't you feel the same about the pharmacist? Why cant he choose how he prescribes medicine? Why does everyone else get to dictate what he can and cant do? It doesn't matter the reasons of the woman or the pharmacist at the time of the decision. Either can rejoice or regret *their* personal decision later. Freedom is a double edged sword. It has to be applied *equally* to us all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> I still go back to in_* this*_ retail setting _*by law*_ the pharmacist has to call the shots and not any owner of any store. Unless that owner is licensed as a pharmacist too. There have been times my pharmacist has called my dr and gave him a piece of his mind about something I have been prescribed. The med is sometimes changed too.
> 
> And I also go back to this. If you are pro choice then you believe in the freedom of choice. A woman can choose to do what she wants with her body even if her parents or the father of the baby and every other family member is against her decision. It is still her decision. I am ok with that too. Its none of my business after all.
> 
> Why don't you feel the same about the pharmacist? Why cant he choose how he prescribes medicine? Why does everyone else get to dictate what he can and cant do? It doesn't matter the reasons of the woman or the pharmacist at the time of the decision. Either can rejoice or regret *their* personal decision later. Freedom is a double edged sword. It has to be applied *equally* to us all.


A pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions that a physician has written, correct? He or she is not a health provider, he or she dispenses medication. 

A pharmacist can call to *verify* what a MD has written but it's highly doubtful that one would "give an MD a piece of his mind". This hypothetical conversation could occur tho, "Dr. Soso, this is the pharmacist at CVS calling about Mr. Reynolds. I noticed you prescribed the highest mg dosage of viagra for Mr. Reynolds, were you aware that he also takes nitroglycerin? Do you still want me to dispense this medication to Mr. Reynolds?"

The question at hand is can a pharmacist at a chain drugstore (easiest scenario, certainly not the only one). The pharmacy provides a full range of birth control including the morning after pill for sale at all times (it's a 24 hour pharmacy). Susie came in at 7 am on a Saturday morning and asked to buy the morning after pill, pharmacist Tom said he can't sell her the pill because he's christian and it violates his faith. 

This is not acceptable. The morning after pill is OTC, Susie had the money to pay for it, and it's in stock. Pharmacist Tom is discriminating against Susie because of his religious belief. 

Do you understand?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Yes it is
> 
> They sell only to women so yes it is too
> 
> They only cater to Christian so yes
> 
> it was a joke. But you knew that didn't you.


You're kidding, right? Men, and not just gay men, buy stuff at Victoria's Secret and Fredrick's all the time! My husband shops at VS every February and several other times during the year for me (clarification for daft people). He'd probably prefer to shop at Fredrick's (again, clarification for people who are daft) but there isn't a local store. 

The VS at a mall near me has a cross dressing male associate and I'll wait in order for him to help me, he's hysterical. 

Men don't just shop at lingerie stores, they work there too.


----------



## Jolly

> A pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions that a physician has written, correct? He or she is not a health provider, he or she dispenses medication.


Currently, most pharmacist graduate with a PharmD. I'm sure the ones who see patients in clinical settings and adjust medicines such as coumadin, would be absolutely shocked at the notion they aren't health providers.

So would Medicare and private insurance, who pay them to see the patients.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> You're kidding, right? Men, and not just gay men, buy stuff at Victoria's Secret and Fredrick's all the time! My husband shops at VS every February and several other times during the year. He'd probably prefer to shop at Fredrick's but there isn't a local store.
> 
> The VS at a mall near me has a cross dressing male associate and I'll wait in order for him to help me, he's hysterical.
> 
> Men don't just shop at lingerie stores, they work there too.


Ma'am, what your husband wears at home should be y'alls business.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Currently, most pharmacist graduate with a PharmD. I'm sure the ones who see patients in clinical settings and adjust medicines such as coumadin, would be absolutely shocked at the notion they aren't health providers.
> 
> So would Medicare and private insurance, who pay them to see the patients.


Are you saying that a pharmacist can change a Dr's order for medication without approval?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Ma'am, what your husband wears at home should be y'alls business.


Fixed the post just for you, Jolly. Does that make you all warm and tingly?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that a pharmacist can change a Dr's order for medication without approval?


Parts of the order, yes.

For example, doctors will specify an INR range and prescribe a certain dosage of coumadin. The pharmacist will use a blanket order for a PT and then adjust the coumadin dosage as he sees fit. Since too much coumadin can cause excessive bleeding and death, and not enough can cause clotting or cardiac problems, the pharmacist has a large responsibility in such cases.

Those patients are seen in a clinical setting by the pharmacist and may not see a doctor or nurse practitioner for months on end.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Parts of the order, yes.
> 
> For example, doctors will specify an INR range and prescribe a certain dosage of coumadin. The pharmacist will use a blanket order for a PT and then adjust the coumadin dosage as he sees fit. Since too much coumadin can cause excessive bleeding and death, and not enough can cause clotting or cardiac problems, the pharmacist has a large responsibility in such cases.
> 
> Those patients are seen in a clinical setting by the pharmacist and may not see a doctor or nurse practitioner for months on end.


As I said, a pharmacist cannot change a physician's order for medication without approval from that physician.

The pharmacist in a clinical setting is much the same as a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner- all must be overseen by a physician.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Fixed the post just for you, Jolly. Does that make you all warm and tingly?


Ma'am, what y'all do at home is y'alls business.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Ma'am, what y'all do at home is y'alls business.


Aww. It did. You're welcome. It's probably the only warm tingle you'll get all day.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> As I said, a pharmacist cannot change a physician's order for medication without approval from that physician.
> 
> The pharmacist in a clinical setting is much the same as a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner- all must be overseen by a physician.


No, you said a pharmacist was not a health provider. He is. He exhibits independent knowledge and judgement, as do NP's and PA's.

And you might as well get used to it. Under Obamacare, there is a huge impetus to shift more and more patient care from the physician down to lower level practitioners. While you are technically right that those practitioners are overseen by a physician, in reality (and I worked in reality many years) oversight is cursory and minimal, at best.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> No, you said a pharmacist was not a health provider. He is. He exhibits independent knowledge and judgement, as do NP's and PA's.
> 
> And you might as well get used to it. Under Obamacare, there is a huge impetus to shift more and more patient care from the physician down to lower level practitioners. While you are technically right that those practitioners are overseen by a physician, in reality (and I worked in reality many years) oversight is cursory and minimal, at best.


Nope, not a health provider because they can't work without a physician's supervision. They're support staff (I never said they didn't have independent knowledge and judgement) on a lower level than PA's and NP's. I doubt that the physician thinks the oversight is "cursory and minimal" as it's his or her license/practice on the line. 

There has been a "huge shift" from physician's to other staff for years.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, not a health provider because they can't work without a physician's supervision. They're support staff (I never said they didn't have independent knowledge and judgement) on a lower level than PA's and NP's. I doubt that the physician thinks the oversight is "cursory and minimal" as it's his or her license/practice on the line.
> 
> There has been a "huge shift" from physician's to other staff for years.


Apparently, the U.S. government does not agree with you:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001933.htm


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Apparently, the U.S. government does not agree with you:
> 
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001933.htm


Good for you, Jolly. You searched until you found something that could support your answer. Good job for providing support that wasn't you own (often inflated) opinion. I concede that the government considers MD's, NP's, PA's primary care providers. 

Bottom line, and what was initially being discussed, is that a pharmacist cannot change a physician's (PA or NP either) order for medication without approval.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're correct, and those duties *in a retail setting* are to sell the products to the customers.
> 
> It's not complicated, and it's seldom a matter of an employee choosing what they will and won't sell.
> 
> Whether an owner "approves" or not is no excuse to discriminate, and can leave them open to lawsuits.


I see, and the boos is not in charge if the employee isn't working in what you consider a retail setting? How interesting.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Good for you, Jolly. You searched until you found something that could support your answer. Good job for providing support that wasn't you own (often inflated) opinion. I concede that the government considers MD's, NP's, PA's primary care providers.
> 
> Bottom line, and what was initially being discussed, is that a pharmacist cannot change a physician's (PA or NP either) order for medication without approval.


I thought we were discussing the orders not being changed, but not being filled?


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> I thought we were discussing the orders not being changed, but not being filled?


That too. It can be hard for some people to keep up.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Let me try again: pro-lifers are AGAINST the morning after pill. They believe it causes an abortion. It can actually prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterine wall.


This is my understanding as well. 
Should be used in absolutely every case of rape, IMHO. But my stance on when the soul enters is not the same as others, I've only described that "HUNDREDS" of Xs. Lol.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> Currently, most pharmacist graduate with a PharmD.
> 
> 
> Hey, Jolly, I know why you say that! You're big pharma, huh.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> You shamed, mocked, and belittled "women with a lack of discretion". I didn't think christians were supposed to do that type of thing, isn't it frowned upon? Or is that something that is cherry picked?


Didn't see the OP you are talking about but Christians are not forbidden to point out someone's sin. And we are not forbidden to use what some would call fairly harsh words when doing it. Being called a child of Satan or a snake would be considered harsh by many but if you check Christ used words like that.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I used to think that too, then once while working at the gun shop a "preacher" tried to steal $100 from the counter top because he thought I wasn't watching him.
> 
> Some are more talk than action


There are many out there who claim to be followers of Christ who are not. Many of them even believe they are but will be shocked when they are facing judgement. At least that's what Christ said.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Retail employees are there to sell *all* the products a store carries.


That is correct but if the store owner allows them to not sell anything they are not comfortable with then they should not face governmental action for not selling it.

Say you have a young female working at a gas-n-go type place which sales adult magazines. She tells her boss she rather not sell those. Let's look at the options.

#1 Boss says too bad you either sell them or find another job.

#2 Boss says no problem and tells her all she has to do when she comes in for her shift to put something in front of them so they can't be seen and if anyone ask just say there are none.

In the first case she has to decide between being uncomfortable or finding another job. Sounds fair right?

But what about the second case? You seem to be saying she and her boss should face governmental action for refusing to sell the mags. Does that sound fair?

Now change young female to devout Catholic, gas-n-go to pharmacy and adult mag to BC.


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because we were talking about *3 *different things that were repealed
> Slavery *repealed*
> Prohibition *repealed*
> Abortion Prohibition *repealed* =Roe V Wade
> 
> I really shouldn't have to explain all this in detail again


No, you've already made your claim a number of times. Lets move on, or did you want to repeat it a few more times? :facepalm: After all, if you repeat it often enough people may start believing it.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because when it's a case of discrimination based on sex, religion, age, race, etc, it's no longer "in-house" and no longer the boss's choice.


Again where does it say that you lose your personal property and religious rights when you open a business?

I've stood against racism probably for longer than you've been alive and think anyone who thinks they are better than another based on skin color is makes Forest Gump look like a Mensa member. 

But I believe in freedom and rights. Therefore if you want to refuse to sell your whatsit to someone because their skin is a different color than yours then that's your right and you are free to do so. The government has no business what so ever to force you to sell it to them.

Again if you give the government the power to force you to sell your product or service to people you do not want to have it you have also given it the power to force you to not sell it to those you want. Its just as wrong for the government to force you NOT to sell to a poka dotted person as it is to for it to force you to sell it to them.

The basic problem is people seem to think they have a "right" to something which another person must provide to them. They think they have a "right" to buy that person's gizmo just because the person is offering it for sale and they have the money. That's wrong. Do you have the "right" to have someone listen to what you have to say just because you are saying it and they have the ability to hear? Or do they have the right to refuse to listen?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> An age qualification for a discount isn't "discrimination" since the same rules apply to everyone


So if a business says it will only hire people who are younger than 40 they are not discriminating because the same rules apply to every one?


----------



## Guest

I can not find a federal statute or minor law where it states a retail person selling an item is required to sell items that conflicts with their religious views. Granted the customer can not be discriminated because of their (customers) protected status, but the discrimination is not being applied because of the customers status, only that of the retailer or employee.

The cake mess as far as I know is covered under a state statute and administrative laws, and has not been decided as yet concerning federal constitutionality.

There in lies the hypocrisy, one person can be discriminated against but the other is not considered.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no right to discriminate


Really? Why do you think that an individual has no right to his personal beliefs and no right to follow them?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> A pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions that a physician has written, correct? He or she is not a health provider, he or she dispenses medication.
> 
> A pharmacist can call to *verify* what a MD has written but it's highly doubtful that one would "give an MD a piece of his mind". This hypothetical conversation could occur tho, "Dr. Soso, this is the pharmacist at CVS calling about Mr. Reynolds. I noticed you prescribed the highest mg dosage of viagra for Mr. Reynolds, were you aware that he also takes nitroglycerin? Do you still want me to dispense this medication to Mr. Reynolds?"
> 
> The question at hand is can a pharmacist at a chain drugstore (easiest scenario, certainly not the only one). The pharmacy provides a full range of birth control including the morning after pill for sale at all times (it's a 24 hour pharmacy). Susie came in at 7 am on a Saturday morning and asked to buy the morning after pill, pharmacist Tom said he can't sell her the pill because he's christian and it violates his faith.
> 
> This is not acceptable. The morning after pill is OTC, Susie had the money to pay for it, and it's in stock. Pharmacist Tom is discriminating against Susie because of his religious belief.
> 
> Do you understand?


How is it discrimination? What right is he taking from her?


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Didn't see the OP you are talking about but Christians are not forbidden to point out someone's sin. And we are not forbidden to use what some would call fairly harsh words when doing it. Being called a child of Satan or a snake would be considered harsh by many but if you check Christ used words like that.


Are you saying that mocking, shaming, and belittling someone is christ like behavior?


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> I used to think that too, then once while working at the gun shop a "preacher" tried to steal $100 from the counter top because he thought I wasn't watching him.
> 
> Some are more talk than action


You are right, many who claim to be his followers do things they should not, thats the pesky thing about being human, none of the humans are perfect. That does not mean Gods message is invalid.

A Church is not a resting place for perfect people, its more like a hospital where people go to get well (paraphrased from Jeffrey R Holland)


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> So if a business says it will only hire people who are younger than 40 they are not discriminating because the same rules apply to every one?


No, it's because there is a federal law prohibiting age discrimination.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that mocking, shaming, and belittling someone is christ like behavior?


Here's the verse. You can only have a problem with it existing if there's a problem with referencing it:

_
As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion. - Pro 11:22_


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that mocking, shaming, and belittling someone is christ like behavior?


As I said I didn't see the OP so I don't know about that specific example but I would think being called a snake, e.g. a viper, in public would be considered mocking, shaming and belittling to some and if you check you will find that's just what Christ did. Therefore because Christ himself did it logic tells us that there are times when mocking, shaming and belittling someone is clearly Christ like behavior.

There are times when you must call a snake a snake.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> No, it's because there is a federal law prohibiting age discrimination.


Ok so how is giving someone over 50 a discount that younger people are not allowed NOT discrimination?

Let's change it. Say I have a business and I charge people 50+ MORE instead of less for the same stuff would that be illegal?


----------



## Guest

Woolieface said:


> Here's the verse. You can only have a problem with it existing if there's a problem with referencing it:
> 
> _
> As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion. - Pro 11:22_


If there was a problem referencing it she should have not referenced it first.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Ok so how is giving someone over 50 a discount that younger people are not allowed NOT discrimination?
> 
> Let's change it. Say I have a business and I charge people 50+ MORE instead of less for the same stuff would that be illegal?


That is something the store does internally, not based on law. A perk, if you will.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> As I said I didn't see the OP so I don't know about that specific example but I would think being called a snake, e.g. a viper, in public would be considered mocking, shaming and belittling to some and if you check you will find that's just what Christ did. Therefore because Christ himself did it logic tells us that there are times when mocking, shaming and belittling someone is clearly Christ like behavior.
> 
> There are times when you must call a snake a snake.


This is why the non religious have such an issue with christians. It's the blatant hypocrisy, the "I'm superior because I have faith and you don't" attitude, and the "I can say anything because I can judge you with my belief". 

I find the sanctimony disgusting.


----------



## wr

watcher said:


> That is correct but if the store owner allows them to not sell anything they are not comfortable with then they should not face governmental action for not selling it.
> 
> Say you have a young female working at a gas-n-go type place which sales adult magazines. She tells her boss she rather not sell those. Let's look at the options.
> 
> #1 Boss says too bad you either sell them or find another job.
> 
> #2 Boss says no problem and tells her all she has to do when she comes in for her shift to put something in front of them so they can't be seen and if anyone ask just say there are none.
> 
> In the first case she has to decide between being uncomfortable or finding another job. Sounds fair right?
> 
> But what about the second case? You seem to be saying she and her boss should face governmental action for refusing to sell the mags. Does that sound fair?
> 
> Now change young female to devout Catholic, gas-n-go to pharmacy and adult mag to BC.


From an employer's standpoint, I would have paid for inventory that needs to be sold so having an employee refuse to sell a single product would be more costly than just a single item. The person that goes to buy the adult magazine after being told the store doesn't carry them or a clerk won't sell them will shop elsewhere and will buy additional items (cigarettes, soft drink, gas, etc.) at the next location as well. They'll likely do the same thing the next time they want to purchase that item because my business has refused to sell that item. 

Even if you replace young girl with RC, it's still going to cost me money but as an employer, I am also obligated to ensure that candidates are comfortable with my business formula and should ask sufficient questions to ensure they are able to represent my business as needed. 

As an employer, I would find it odd that someone would come in for an interview, walk past the adult magazine rack, knowing they were for sale and then try and change my business formula but then again, if someone is that strong in their faith, why put themselves in a position that they're working someplace that compromises their values to begin with? The interview process is the perfect time to ask questions that might negatively affect their values.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> How is it discrimination? What right is he taking from her?


It's my opinion that she is being prevented from terminating a potential pregnancy, which is a right. 

There will be legislation on this because it is becoming more common. A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication. Period. It isn't to impart their judgement/religious belief on someone else. They should do their job or find another that does not conflict with their religion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> No, you've already made your claim a number of times. Lets move on, or did you want to repeat it a few more times? :facepalm: After all, if you repeat it often enough people may start believing it.


I was *asked* for an explanation
No one forces you to read anything I post


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Again where does it say that you lose your personal property and religious rights when you open a business?


Lots of anti-discrimination laws cover it.
Fabricating carefully structured scenarios don't negate the fact that discrimination based on religion happens, and is illegal, whether "the boss approves" or not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So if a business says it will only* hire* people who are younger than 40 they are not discriminating because the same rules apply to every one?


It depends on the business, but generally age can't be a criteria in *hiring*.
You keep wanting to change the scenarios when different rules apply 

Hiring isn't comparable to giving a discount based on age

I know you know this already


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> How is it discrimination? What right is he taking from her?


The right to buy a legal product in a retail store that sells the product


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> *I see*, and the boos is not in charge if the employee isn't working in what you consider a retail setting? How interesting.


No, you don't see at all, since I'm not talking about anything other than retail businesses that discriminate by refusing to sell certain products only based on an individuals religious objections.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> This is why the non religious have such an issue with christians. It's the blatant hypocrisy, the "I'm superior because I have faith and you don't" attitude, and the "I can say anything because I can judge you with my belief".
> 
> I find the sanctimony disgusting.


Of course, many people these days look for something to offend them.
Others see the court system as a lottery that they could win.
Common sense and integrity are in short supply these days


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Oh, please, the fact that you rarely, *from what I've seen* include that your posts are your opinion, and present your thoughts and ideas as irrefutable fact, implies that you consider your posts to be vastly knowledgeable and superior to those you oppose.


What you "see" is often quite different from what I *say*, because you keep searching for hidden meanings instead of reading the words


----------



## MDKatie

So why do so many Christians get offended when people say "happy holidays" or when nativity scenes are removed from public grounds? They get offended when others are uncomfortable with THEIR religion, and it's not ok. They whine and cry about it, yet they think it's perfectly ok with refusing medications and medical procedures for others. It can't go both ways.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Of course, many people these days look for something to offend them.
> Others see the court system as a lottery that they could win.
> Common sense and integrity are is short supply these days


What does this have to do with my post? I'm not offended, I'm sick of the hypocrisy. 

We have a court system to arbitrate disputes, are you saying we shouldn't use it?

I agree with your last statement, common sense is in short supply. Case in point, don't take a job that conflicts with your religion.


----------



## kasilofhome

Dot dot dot


----------



## painterswife

Square circle square


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Dot dot dot


S

Standing by for further transmission
Are we going to need our Secret Decoder Rings?


----------



## dixiegal62

There are usually more than one employee working at any given time. If one employee is uncomfortable selling you product why not ask to speak to a other one? It's really very simple.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that mocking, shaming, and belittling someone is christ like behavior?


_
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" _- Jesus (Matthew 23:33)

_"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."_ - Jesus (John 8:44)


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> This is why the non religious have such an issue with christians. It's the blatant hypocrisy, the "I'm superior because I have faith and you don't" attitude, and the "I can say anything because I can judge you with my belief".
> 
> I find the sanctimony disgusting.


The question is, is it Christ-like or not to recognize sin and call it what it is? Christ did that, so apparently it is Christ-like. Your issue is with what Jesus said, not His followers repeating Him.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> That is something the store does internally, not based on law. A perk, if you will.


Ok so I "internally" only hire people who are white then its just a "perk, if you will"?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> This is why the non religious have such an issue with christians. It's the blatant hypocrisy, the "I'm superior because I have faith and you don't" attitude, and the "I can say anything because I can judge you with my belief".
> 
> I find the sanctimony disgusting.


You have the same right. Judge me any way and with standard you wish, won't bother me. Why does it bother you when I use my standards to judge you if you don't believe they are the proper ones?


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> Ok so I "internally" only hire people who are white then its just a "perk, if you will"?


There is a difference in hiring an employee and offering a discount to customers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> There are usually more than one employee working at any given time. If one employee is uncomfortable selling you product why not ask to speak to a other one? It's really very simple.


If there is only *one *pharmacist working the shift that coincides with the time you are there, then it's a problem.

If there were always one willing to sell all the products, the issue wouldn't come up at all

Small drug stores often only have one pharmacist per shift, assuming they are open into the night also


----------



## watcher

wr said:


> From an employer's standpoint, I would have paid for inventory that needs to be sold so having an employee refuse to sell a single product would be more costly than just a single item. The person that goes to buy the adult magazine after being told the store doesn't carry them or a clerk won't sell them will shop elsewhere and will buy additional items (cigarettes, soft drink, gas, etc.) at the next location as well. They'll likely do the same thing the next time they want to purchase that item because my business has refused to sell that item.
> 
> Even if you replace young girl with RC, it's still going to cost me money but as an employer, I am also obligated to ensure that candidates are comfortable with my business formula and should ask sufficient questions to ensure they are able to represent my business as needed.
> 
> As an employer, I would find it odd that someone would come in for an interview, walk past the adult magazine rack, knowing they were for sale and then try and change my business formula but then again, if someone is that strong in their faith, why put themselves in a position that they're working someplace that compromises their values to begin with? The interview process is the perfect time to ask questions that might negatively affect their values.


Ok fine but you failed to answer the, at least implied, questions. Is it not the employer's right to allow his employees to sell or not sell the items in his store? If he's ok with losing a few dollars because of an employee's beliefs what right do you, or anyone else, have to demand he force said employee violate those beliefs?


----------



## wr

dixiegal62 said:


> There are usually more than one employee working at any given time. If one employee is uncomfortable selling you product why not ask to speak to a other one? It's really very simple.


I don't have a problem with that but the same doesn't always apply to smaller businesses in less urban areas. While I've never heard of mine refusing to sell anything, there is only one pharmacist. 

I'm certain that if they wouldn't sell me what I needed, I could go to the next nearest pharmacy in the next town over but they only have one pharmacist as well. 

I'd be more curious as to why someone would take a job that conflicted with their personal ethics and values.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> It's my opinion that she is being prevented from terminating a potential pregnancy, which is a right.


Giving, for now, the point she has the right to do that she has no right to force someone to help her do it if they do not wish to. The item she wants must be provided by a second person therefore she has no right to it. 




Irish Pixie said:


> There will be legislation on this because it is becoming more common. A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication. Period. It isn't to impart their judgement/religious belief on someone else. They should do their job or find another that does not conflict with their religion.


Again if the employer has no problem with losing the sale where do you get the right to force him force his employee to sell his product or fire him?


----------



## mnn2501

wr said:


> .
> 
> I'd be more curious as to why someone would take a job that conflicted with their personal ethics and values.


I'm more curious as to why someone would want to shop (ie give their hard earned cash) to a business that does not sell them what they want. I'd go out of my way to avoid giving them any more of my money.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Giving, for now, the point she has the right to do that she has no right to force someone to help her do it if they do not wish to. The item she wants must be provided by a second person therefore she has no right to it.
> 
> Again if the employer has no problem with losing the sale where do you get the right to force him force his employee to sell his product or fire him?


Your incessant "what if" posts are truly disturbing. 

Have a wonderful day, I am.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> The question is, is it Christ-like or not to recognize sin and call it what it is? Christ did that, so apparently it is Christ-like. Your issue is with what Jesus said, not His followers repeating Him.


No. My problem is definitely with his followers.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of anti-discrimination laws cover it.
> Fabricating carefully structured scenarios don't negate the fact that discrimination based on religion happens, and is illegal, whether "the boss approves" or not.


Being legal doesn't mean its correct, right nor constitutional. I could point out many things in our past which were legal but were not correct, right nor constitutional. I could also point out many things in other places which are legal that most people here would not consider correct nor right.

Again I ask why do you think its correct to use the government to force someone to violate their beliefs? Please show me how you can use the constitution to justify using governmental force on an individual to give up their personal property to another individual when the first doesn't want the second to have it?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> There are usually more than one employee working at any given time. If one employee is uncomfortable selling you product why not ask to speak to a other one? It's really very simple.


You think no one has thought of that?  The town I live in doesn't even have a pharmacy, the "big" city has one 24 hour pharmacy.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> It depends on the business, but generally age can't be a criteria in *hiring*.
> You keep wanting to change the scenarios when different rules apply
> 
> Hiring isn't comparable to giving a discount based on age
> 
> I know you know this already


Why is it different? You are giving one group preferred treatment over others in each case are you not?

But let's keep it to giving discounts. Can a business give discounts based on race?


----------



## kasilofhome

mnn2501 said:


> I'm more curious as to why someone would want to shop (ie give their hard earned cash) to a business that does not sell them what they want. I'd go out of my way to avoid giving them any more of my money.


Because they are throwing the grown up version of a childish temper tantrum and society is just about trained to pacify them.

Roiting and looting gets media and taxpayers funding.

But that makes get not be nice and hurt someone's feeling .....who hasn't been told no.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> The right to buy a legal product in a retail store that sells the product


Just where is that right given in the USC? Where does it say you have the right buy something that someone doesn't want to sell you?


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> So why do so many Christians get offended when people say "happy holidays" or when nativity scenes are removed from public grounds? They get offended when others are uncomfortable with THEIR religion, and it's not ok. They whine and cry about it, yet they think it's perfectly ok with refusing medications and medical procedures for others. It can't go both ways.


You got me.


----------



## dixiegal62

MDKatie said:


> So why do so many Christians get offended when people say "happy holidays" or when nativity scenes are removed from public grounds? They get offended when others are uncomfortable with THEIR religion, and it's not ok. They whine and cry about it, yet they think it's perfectly ok with refusing medications and medical procedures for others. It can't go both ways.


I've never heard of a Christian being offended by someone wishing them happy holidays. I have however seen them offended when people try to stop them from saying Merry Christmas as well they should be.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> There is a difference in hiring an employee and offering a discount to customers.


And speeding is different than changing lanes w/o signaling but they are both things that drivers do which could endanger others and therefore against the rules.

So if refusing to hire someone based on age is against the rules then why isn't charging someone more based on age against the rules? Do they not both 'harm' someone financially?

Or is this another case of all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Your incessant "what if" posts are truly disturbing.
> 
> Have a wonderful day, I am.


Am I to assume from the fact you didn't answer the question you realize that you can't logically support your point? 

My questions all boil down to one point. Why do you think you have the right to force others to do something they do not want to do?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> I'm more curious as to why someone would want to shop (ie give their hard earned cash) to a business that does not sell them what they want. I'd go out of my way to avoid giving them any more of my money.


Not everyone has unlimited choices as to where they buy prescription drugs


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I've never heard of a Christian being offended by someone wishing them happy holidays. I have however seen them offended when people try to stop them from saying Merry Christmas as well they should be.


How can anyone stop them from saying merry christmas?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Am I to assume from the fact you didn't answer the question you realize that you can't logically support your point?
> 
> My questions all boil down to one point. Why do you think you have the right to force others to do something they do not want to do?


Your first paragraph makes a false assumption, and is just a word game to make it appear you're correct simply because you say so. It's not working.

The second is funny, because you want to make someone do something they don't want to do 
(ie: hunt all over town for a pharmacist who isn't imposing his religion on others)

How can you logically support that point?


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone has unlimited choices as to where they buy prescription drugs


Yes, only a limited select group can order online:facepalm:


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone has unlimited choices as to where they buy prescription drugs


Sure you do, just because you have to drive a bit more is *not any ones problem but your own. *


----------



## kasilofhome

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1291106762001/merry-christmas-phrase-banned-by-school-board/

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061006135418AAvL0Mo

http://www.rochesterhomepage.net/st...-merry-christmas/26152/jIVSzrKMKEyOW9mPJ9LRxQ

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1336705701001/congress-banned-from-saying-merry-christmas/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ans-christmas-cards-from-students-for-troops/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/05/school-bans-christmas-trees-colors-red-green.html

http://mrconservative.com/2013/12/2...revent-school-kids-christmas-cards-to-troops/

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s6tQw1Wouc[/ame]

http://www.examiner.com/article/tex...-law-allowing-students-to-say-merry-christmas

https://rightpunditry.wordpress.com...lerance-say-merry-christmas-in-red-and-green/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Just where is that right given in the USC? Where does it say you have the right buy something that someone doesn't want to sell you?


Where does it say you have a right to discriminate?

If the business doesn't want to sell a product, they wouldn't have the product.

You want to keep changing the parameters in nearly every post


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> How can anyone stop them from saying merry christmas?


The same way some try to silence the growing list of words and phrases they don't consider PC


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Yes, only a limited select group can order online:facepalm:


Which does you no good if you need the medication NOW


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where does it say you have a right to discriminate?
> 
> If the business doesn't want to sell a product, they wouldn't have the product.
> 
> You want to keep changing the parameters in nearly every post


All other rights were left to the people... constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMEN GROWTH AND INVOLEMENT ...CREATING FREEDOM FOR INDIVIDUALS.


----------



## kasilofhome

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nd-a-purple-gender-unicorn-even-lends-a-hand/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> Sure you do, just because you have to drive a bit more is *not any ones problem but your own. *


Not everyone drives.
Not all drug stores accept all insurance.
A small town may only have one drug store

If you have to sell a product you don't like, it's no ones problem but your own


----------



## Irish Pixie

When posting links the source of the link is everything. If it has Fox, the blaze or conservative in the site name, it is almost certain to be biased. Just sayin'.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> How can anyone stop them from saying merry christmas?


Listen to the children. They're being taught that it's not a proper thing to say because 'someone' might be offended by it.

I've heard it from my grandkids, other people have heard it from their kids/grandkids. 

Google it.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which does you no good if you need the medication NOW


So....like we don't have deal deal with that.

1. Recurring meds remind store in advance... a week does it normally
2. Contact local hospital.... they have covered us for a few days ...Yes you will have to get another script.

Grownups need to teach child just how to deal with life's challenges.

Any of this helpful?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone drives.
> Not all drug stores accept all insurance.
> A small town may only have one drug store
> 
> If you have to sell a product you don't like, it's no ones problem but your own


This can go both ways, if you don't drive or choose to live in a town with one drug store it's no one's problem but yours


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> The same way some try to silence the growing list of words and phrases they don't consider PC


How do they DO that? Cover their mouths with duct tape? Threaten them? How?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> When posting links the source of the link is everything. If it has Fox, the blaze or conservative in the site name, it is almost certain to be biased. Just sayin'.


Biased in the eyes of the beholder... just sayin


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> All other rights were left to the people... constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMEN GROWTH AND INVOLEMENT ...CREATING *FREEDOM FOR INDIVIDUALS*.


That includes the freedom to shop in all stores open to the public, and the freedom to buy all legal products they sell, whether one individual objects to the product or not.


----------



## kasilofhome

Txsteader said:


> Listen to the children. They're being taught that it's not a proper thing to say because 'someone' might be offended by it.
> 
> I've heard it from my grandkids, other people have heard it from their kids/grandkids.
> 
> Google it.


School suspension... and detention... and permanent records

Look it up.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Listen to the children. They're being taught that it's not a proper thing to say because 'someone' might be offended by it.
> 
> I've heard it from my grandkids, other people have heard it from their kids/grandkids.
> 
> Google it.


Oh, I see. They're being taught to be polite at school because a classroom is secular. It's really very simple, send them to a religious school.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> So....like we don't have deal deal with that.
> 
> 1. Recurring meds remind store in advance... a week does it normally
> 2. Contact local hospital.... they have covered us for a few days ...Yes you will have to get another script.
> 
> Grownups need to teach child just how to deal with life's challenges.
> 
> Any of this helpful?


Hospitals aren't drug stores open to the public

Reminding a store in advance makes no difference if the guy behind the counter is the problem


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Biased in the eyes of the beholder... just sayin


Nah. Some of those links are just stupid. The only one that was above board was to the Rochester NY school district and it was referring to an internal memo, not school doctrine.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Nah. Some of those links are just stupid. The only one that was above board was to the Rochester NY school district and it was referring to an internal memo, not school doctrine.


How do you feel about links from msnbc and cnn?


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I see. They're being taught to be polite at school because a classroom is secular. It's really very simple, send them to a religious school.


Censorship....


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Hospitals aren't drug stores open to the public
> 
> Reminding a store in advance makes no difference if the guy behind the counter is the problem


They can and have dealt with lifesaving emergency meds for a first time filling of an unusual med.

They can and have filled meds that were needed monthly and the local places did not have it.

Been there done it... have you even checked it out?


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> Nah. Some of those links are just stupid. The only one that was above board was to the Rochester NY school district and it was referring to an internal memo, not school doctrine.


What was the memo....
Why the need for the memo

You might not like the facts that you do not like ..

Ps.... stupid is on the pc list of bad words... so why the hate.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> No. My problem is definitely with his followers.


Did I write that verse originally...or any of those I quoted from the New Testament?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> They can and have dealt with *lifesaving emergency meds* for a first time filling of an *unusual med*.
> 
> They can and have filled meds that were needed monthly and the local places did not have it.
> 
> Been there done it... have you even checked it out?


We're discussing *pharmacists at drug stores* that refuse to sell *birth control* even though the store carries the products

I imagine they do lots of things up there that aren't done here.


----------



## MDKatie

dixiegal62 said:


> I've never heard of a Christian being offended by someone wishing them happy holidays.


Really? It's all over the internet from November through January, every year the same old complaint. 



kasilof, most of those links were dealing with schools. Schools are not churches, therefor they have the right to be ALL inclusive, not just cater to Christians.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> How do they DO that? Cover their mouths with duct tape? Threaten them? How?


It's done with shame. 

I know. Ironic, huh?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> It's done with shame.
> 
> I know. Ironic, huh?


Oh, I see. It's perceived. Got it.


----------



## kasilofhome

Twist and shout 

Business in fear.... of not bowing to radical militant social engineering groups force employees to not say merry Christmas...

Fine the employers have that right 

But the reason that they are doing it.... is economically terrorism.

Think cake makers


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Did I write that verse originally...or any of those I quoted from the New Testament?


I don't know what chapter it came from, and I really don't care. You cherry picked it to shame, mock, and belittle women that have had abortions. Whether or not you admit, blame it on jesus, god, or little green martians is immaterial.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I see. They're being taught to be polite at school because a classroom is secular. It's really very simple, send them to a religious school.


But the poor kids think it's never appropriate....or at least, not in public. So they're coming home and chastising their family for saying it in public.

Here's an example:
http://www.chicagonow.com/cheaper-than-therapy/2013/12/you-cant-say-merry-christmas-anymore/

I've had the same experience.....'Nana! You're not supposed to say that!'. At the grocery store.
And we, too, had a little talk about it.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I see. It's perceived. Got it.


Actually, some retail stores and businesses have forbidden their employees from saying "Merry Christmas" to customers. I believe that's what upsets people, and it should...


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know what chapter it came from, and I really don't care. You cherry picked it to shame, mock, and belittle women that have had abortions. Whether or not you admit, blame it on jesus, god, or little green martians is immaterial.


Mind reader...

Your feelings don't matter nor do mine... we are equal


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know what chapter it came from, and I really don't care. You cherry picked it to shame, mock, and belittle women that have had abortions. Whether or not you admit, blame it on jesus, god, or little green martians is immaterial.


I didn't pick it at all, actually... it was in response to the post "where in Proverbs does it mention pigs". Do you really think that came from my sitting here searching the bible for a verse about women behaving badly?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Actually, some retail stores and businesses have forbidden their employees from saying "Merry Christmas" to customers. I believe that's what upsets people, and it should...


They can't say it anyway? If their faith is that strong it shouldn't matter if they're fired, right?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> They can't say it anyway? If their faith is that strong it shouldn't matter if they're fired, right?


That's right.... and I would say it anyway, but no one should have to lose their job for saying "Merry Christmas", for crying out loud...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> I didn't pick it at all, actually... it was in response to the post "where in Proverbs does it mention pigs". Do you really think that came from my sitting here searching the bible for a verse about women behaving badly?


It magically popped from the bible onto HT under your username? Huh. Is that a miracle?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> It magically popped from the bible onto HT under your username? Huh. Is that a miracle?


Someone asked "where in proverbs does it mention pigs?"

I responded with the book, chapter and verse number. I think you get it.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know what chapter it came from, and I really don't care. You cherry picked it to shame, mock, and belittle women that have had abortions. Whether or not you admit, blame it on jesus, god, or little green martians is immaterial.



ah... a perceived mocking eh? While perception is real should people be subjected to and punished by a misconceived perception?


----------



## keenataz

MDKatie said:


> Really? It's all over the internet from November through January, every year the same old complaint.
> 
> 
> 
> kasilof, most of those links were dealing with schools. Schools are not churches, therefor they have the right to be ALL inclusive, not just cater to Christians.


Most of the time it seems to come from Fox News and the annual "War on Christmas" specials. Starting just after Black Friday.

Now having said that "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" drive me nuts.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> How do you feel about links from msnbc and cnn?


Meh. I read everything I can and make my own decision. I don't like being spoon fed pablum but it's that's what you like...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> Isn't great to have an opinion? And if the government suddenly reversed Roe v. Wade. You'd be as happy as the proverbial pig, right?
> 
> You'd be the "poster child for the subservient society who argues not against injustice of law" then, wouldn't you?





dlmcafee said:


> Nah, my opinions on the hypocrisy of law after being immersed in it for decades are pretty well rooted. I think everyone has a right to their own life and property without interference from any form of government. I also feel everyone has the right to their opinions and can express them right up to the point but not crossing physical violence. Feelings mean nothing.
> 
> Where is the pig mentioned in proverbs?





Irish Pixie said:


> Good to know. I still think you'd be happier than the proverbial pig if Roe v. Wade were overturned tho. Just my opinion.





Woolieface said:


> I believe that's Proverbs 11:22 :thumb:





Woolieface said:


> Someone asked "where in proverbs does it mention pigs?"
> 
> I responded with the book, chapter and verse number. I think you get it.


And you came up with chapter and verse is very correct. Or was it magic like I said before that it just happened to mock, shame, and belittle women that have had an abortion? OH. And here we happen to be discussing abortion. OH. And you're pro life, well pro life on your terms anyway.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> They can't say it anyway? If their faith is that strong it shouldn't matter if they're fired, right?


Hmm...... would that come under the heading of religious persecution?


----------



## kasilofhome

MDKatie said:


> Really? It's all over the internet from November through January, every year the same old complaint.
> 
> 
> 
> kasilof, most of those links were dealing with schools. Schools are not churches, therefor they have the right to be ALL inclusive, not just cater to Christians.


And.......your point....it's a real holiday... Kwanzaa what should we call it?

Ramadan... hum...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Hmm...... would that come under the heading of religious persecution?


I have no idea. I really don't care either.


----------



## Txsteader

keenataz said:


> Most of the time it seems to come from Fox News and the annual "War on Christmas" specials. Starting just after Black Friday.
> 
> Now having said that "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" drive me nuts.


Not just Fox. It's become a mainstream discussion.
Here's Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pauljan...istmas-politically-correct-good-for-business/
And HuffPo (in Canada, no less):
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/christopher-stuart-taylor/saying-merry-christmas_b_4490555.html
Even a discussion on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Which-Stores-Say-Merry-Christmas-Which-Stores-Dont/163309487038279


----------



## mnn2501

MDKatie said:


> Really? It's all over the internet from November through January, every year the same old complaint.
> .


No, its not, no Christian is offended by "Happy Holidays", they're offended when businesses, schools, etc refuses to allow "Merry Christmas" to be said.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Meh. I read everything I can and make my own decision. I don't like being spoon fed pablum but it's that's what you like...


But you criticize & mock others for doing that very thing, just because their opinions differ from yours.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> And you came up with chapter and verse is very correct. Or was it magic like I said before that it just happened to mock, shame, and belittle women that have had an abortion? OH. And here we happen to be discussing abortion. OH. And you're pro life, well pro life on your terms anyway.


Yeah...that's what I said...I posted the book, chapter and verse.

If that verse inspires shame in a woman who elects to kill her child following her indiscretion, that's appropriate. Shame is a good response to doing something shameful.

I',m pro-life, period. Where would you get the idea that there's someone I'd like to see die?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> But you criticize others for doing that very thing, just because their opinions differ from yours.


Because I don't just read one side of a situation? When all someone does is parrot the buzzwords from a right wing blog, vlog or website, or Fox news it's fairly obvious that's all they've read.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> And you came up with chapter and verse is very correct. Or was it magic like I said before that it just happened to mock, shame, and belittle women that have had an abortion? OH. And here we happen to be discussing abortion. OH. And you're pro life, well pro life on your terms anyway.


Was it magic that you took it that way?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Yeah...that's what I said...I posted the book, chapter and verse.
> 
> If that verse inspires shame in a woman who elects to kill her child following her indiscretion, that's appropriate. Shame is a good response to doing something shameful.
> 
> I',m pro-life, period. Where would you get the idea that there's someone I'd like to see die?


No, you're pro life on _your_ terms. 

I can see that you will never admit that you just "happened" to come up with a cherry picked nugget from the bible that shamed and belittled woman that have had abortions. You first blamed it on jesus, and now your just obfuscating, so I'll just leave for others to form their own opinion. K?


----------



## mreynolds

Txsteader said:


> But you criticize & mock others for doing that very thing, just because their opinions differ from yours.


Noticed that.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you're pro life on _your_ terms.


Yes but you are pro choice on your terms too. You only believe in pro choice as long as you get to choose for everyone.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Yes but you are pro choice on your terms too. You only believe in pro choice as long as you get to choose for everyone.


Where did I ever say anything remotely like that? Please point it out or refrain from putting words in my mouth. 

I'll give you a hint, put "Irish Pixie and her body her choice" in the search box. I have never said I speak for everyone, I don't, it's *her* body, her *choice*. 

Would you like me to define choice for you?


----------



## MDKatie

mreynolds said:


> Yes but you are pro choice on your terms too. You only believe in pro choice as long as you get to choose for everyone.


The very definition of pro-choice is that each person gets to choose for herself. ound:


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Meh. I read everything I can and make my own decision. I don't like being spoon fed pablum but it's that's what you like...


Your news has to come from some source you can't pull it out of thin air. Perhaps you can enlighten as to where so I too can be as enlightened as you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MDKatie said:


> The very definition of pro-choice is that each person gets to choose for herself. ound:


I know! I didn't know if I should be appalled or just sad. :facepalm:


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your first paragraph makes a false assumption, and is just a word game to make it appear you're correct simply because you say so. It's not working.
> 
> The second is funny, because you want to make someone do something they don't want to do
> (ie: hunt all over town for a pharmacist who isn't imposing his religion on others)
> 
> How can you logically support that point?


Good point I worded it poorly. Here's my logic. 

You have the right and freedom to believe what you wish and you have a right and freedom to act upon those beliefs right up to the point your actions infringes upon another's right.

You have NO RIGHT to anything which must be provided by another person.

That means a person has a right to not sell a product he does not want to sell and exercising that right does not, because it can not, infringe upon your rights. Therefore he is free to not sell anything he wishes.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where does it say you have a right to discriminate?
> 
> If the business doesn't want to sell a product, they wouldn't have the product.
> 
> You want to keep changing the parameters in nearly every post


The parameters are the same. Simply put they are:

You have the right and freedom to believe what you wish and you have a right and freedom to act upon those beliefs right up to the point your actions infringes upon another's right.

You have NO RIGHT to anything which must be provided by another person.

That means a person has a right to sell or not sell a product or service he does or does not want to sell to anyone he wishes and exercising that right does not, because it can not, infringe upon the other's rights.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I ever say anything remotely like that? Please point it out or refrain from putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I'll give you a hint, put "Irish Pixie and her body her choice" in the search box. I have never said I speak for everyone, I don't, it's *her* body, her *choice*.
> 
> Would you like me to define choice for you?


No don't need you to. Its obvious you are just talking about abortion. I haven't even mentioned abortion on this thread until this very post. I don't have a dog in that hunt. It is a law and if I respect freedom then I have to respect their right to abort. I don't have to like it but I do respect it. I even agree that if the drug was available for sale it should have been sold. (betch ya didn't know that did ya? Might help to ask every once in a while instead of assuming and flaming.) BUT, I still have to respect the mans decision to not sell it for whatever reason. I don't like either of these peoples choices but I accept them anyway. You and Bear and a few others jump the gun and assume I am this or that. Your condescending posts to me and others shows. 

In order for freedom to be a reality it has to be available to all. Not just the ones you think deserve it. Even the freedoms you may hate.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you're pro life on _your_ terms.
> 
> I can see that you will never admit that you just "happened" to come up with a cherry picked nugget from the bible that shamed and belittled woman that have had abortions. You first blamed it on jesus, and now your just obfuscating, so I'll just leave for others to form their own opinion. K?



...my opinion about all of your spinning regarding this mocking and belittling verse???


Well... if the shoe fits...:shrug:


----------



## mreynolds

MDKatie said:


> The very definition of pro-choice is that each person gets to choose for herself. ound:


Yes I know this. It was a play on words. I didn't even chime in on this thread about abortion until someone who said that previously that a woman can choose then said the pharmacist could not. I'm not here to discuss the abortion topic I am discussing the underlying thread about discrimination and the hypocrisy thereof from the very people claiming about choice is a right then trying to take choices away from others.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you're pro life on _your_ terms.
> 
> I can see that you will never admit that you just "happened" to come up with a cherry picked nugget from the bible that shamed and belittled woman that have had abortions. You first blamed it on jesus, and now your just obfuscating, so I'll just leave for others to form their own opinion. K?





mreynolds said:


> Yes but you are pro choice on your terms too. You only believe in pro choice as long as you get to choose for everyone.





mreynolds said:


> No don't need you to. Its obvious you are just talking about abortion. I haven't even mentioned abortion on this thread until this very post. I don't have a dog in that hunt. It is a law and if I respect freedom then I have to respect their right to abort. I don't have to like it but I do respect it. I even agree that if the drug was available for sale it should have been sold. (betch ya didn't know that did ya? Might help to ask every once in a while instead of assuming and flaming.) BUT, I still have to respect the mans decision to not sell it for whatever reason. I don't like either of these peoples choices but I accept them anyway. You and Bear and a few others jump the gun and assume I am this or that. Your condescending posts to me and others shows.
> 
> In order for freedom to be a reality it has to be available to all. Not just the ones you think deserve it. Even the freedoms you may hate.


*bwahaha* HUH? What exactly did you mean by "pro choice" then? Great googly moogly. :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Yes I know this. It was a play on words. I didn't even chime in on this thread about abortion until someone who said that previously that a woman can choose then said the pharmacist could not. I'm not here to discuss the abortion topic I am discussing the underlying thread about discrimination and the hypocrisy thereof from the very people claiming about choice is a right then trying to take choices away from others.


Great spin! I am truly impressed. Great job! Perfect score. Blown away, a real 10.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Woolieface said:


> Actually, some retail stores and businesses have forbidden their employees from saying "Merry Christmas" to customers. I believe *that's what upsets people, and it should*...


Didn't you read all the earlier posts that said the business owners should have the right to do whatever they want?

They also said "If you don't like it, that's *your* problem"


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> *bwahaha* HUH? What exactly did you mean by "pro choice" then? Great googly moogly. :facepalm:


Let me break it down for you then. 


*Pro: an argument or evidence in affirmation

choice: the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities*

Its just two simple English words put together. Its not necessarily a buzzword or a proper noun. Or should I just see things your way from now on? 

BTW, LOVE me another condescending post from you? Got any more?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Great spin! I am truly impressed. Great job! Perfect score. Blown away, a real 10.


Thank you


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> Didn't you read all the earlier posts that said the business owners should have the right to do whatever they want?
> 
> They also said "If you don't like it, that's *your* problem"


And you would be correct. As long as it doesn't harm another. Merry Christmas will have to wait until you get home or find another job.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you're pro life on _your_ terms.
> 
> I can see that you will never admit that you just "happened" to come up with a cherry picked nugget from the bible that shamed and belittled woman that have had abortions. You first blamed it on jesus, and now your just obfuscating, so I'll just leave for others to form their own opinion. K?


In what situation am I not pro life? I really need to ask because I don't know.

I'm not even sure what cherry picking means to you. 

I have no problem with women who have elected to abort feeling shame about that.

I bet others would form their own opinions with or without your permission.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Let me break it down for you then.
> 
> 
> *Pro: an argument or evidence in affirmation
> 
> choice: the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities*
> 
> Its just two simple English words put together. Its not necessarily a buzzword or a proper noun. Or should I just see things your way from now on?
> 
> BTW, LOVE me another condescending post from you? Got any more?


Oh, I get it. It's like Woolieface's cherry picked bible thing, you just _happened_ to post it (accidentally? magic?) on a thread about abortion?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Hmm...... would that come under the heading of religious persecution?


It sounds more like "insubordination" to me

"Religious persectution" would be if someone refused to sell you something because of religion


----------



## MDKatie

mreynolds said:


> Yes I know this. It was a play on words. I didn't even chime in on this thread about abortion until someone who said that previously that a woman can choose then said the pharmacist could not. I'm not here to discuss the abortion topic I am discussing the underlying thread about discrimination and the hypocrisy thereof from the very people claiming about choice is a right then trying to take choices away from others.


The whole thing could be solved if the pharmacist (I'm really beginning to dislike this person) would realize that if he/she doesn't like the drug, he/she doesn't have to take it. Easy peasy! But instead, the pharmacist has to affect other people by using his/her own personal beliefs to butt into someone else's personal beliefs. 

Don't like abortions? Don't have one!
Don't like certain meds? Don't take them!
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't get married to a person of the same sex!


See? Very easy! You get to keep your morals and beliefs, and so does everyone else. 

Whew. Now that I've solved that problem, I'm going to work on the world hunger issue.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I get it. It's like Woolieface's cherry picked bible thing, you just _happened_ to post it (accidentally? magic?) on a thread about abortion? OK. I so believe that.  :facepalm:



And there it is. So now I am a liar? Show me one time I mentioned abortion before that post. In fact look up any of my post in GC and tell me how many are about discrimination or freedom. I care not one iota about your personal rants but I don't like discrimination. You cant even see what you are doing. 

I feel sorry for you really I do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MDKatie said:


> The whole thing could be solved if the pharmacist (I'm really beginning to dislike this person) would realize that if he/she doesn't like the drug, he/she doesn't have to take it. Easy peasy! But instead, the pharmacist has to affect other people by using his/her own personal beliefs to butt into someone else's personal beliefs.
> 
> Don't like abortions? Don't have one!
> Don't like certain meds? Don't take them!
> Don't like same sex marriage? Don't get married to a person of the same sex!
> 
> 
> See? Very easy! You get to keep your morals and beliefs, and so does everyone else.
> 
> Whew. Now that I've solved that problem, I'm going to work on the world hunger issue.


You rock. :rock:


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> And there it is. So now I am a liar? Show me one time I mentioned abortion before that post. In fact look up any of my post in GC and tell me how many are about discrimination or freedom. I care not one iota about your personal rants but I don't like discrimination. You cant even see what you are doing.
> 
> I feel sorry for you really I do.


I will delete that part of my post. I still think you're spinning this but it was wrong to accuse you of lying about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> No, its not, no Christian is offended by "Happy Holidays", *they're offended when businesses, schools, etc refuses* to allow "Merry Christmas" to be said.


Some are offended when a person in a store won't sell them a certain product, even when it's in the store.

Some might say "That's *your* problem"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Yes but you are pro choice on your terms too. You only believe in pro choice as long as you get to choose for everyone.


That's not possible

How can someone "choose" for you to have an abortion?

It's the anti's who want to force their choice on others.


----------



## mreynolds

MDKatie said:


> The whole thing could be solved if the pharmacist (I'm really beginning to dislike this person) would realize that if he/she doesn't like the drug, he/she doesn't have to take it. Easy peasy! But instead, the pharmacist has to affect other people by using his/her own personal beliefs to butt into someone else's personal beliefs.
> 
> Don't like abortions? Don't have one!
> Don't like certain meds? Don't take them!
> Don't like same sex marriage? Don't get married to a person of the same sex!
> 
> 
> See? Very easy! You get to keep your morals and beliefs, and so does everyone else.
> 
> Whew. Now that I've solved that problem, I'm going to work on the world hunger issue.


And I agree totally. 



I would help you on the world hunger but the floods got my garden this year.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You have the right and freedom to believe what you wish and you have a right and freedom to act upon those beliefs right *up to the point your actions infringes upon another's right*.


Then you have no right to refuse to sell a product the store carries, when your job is "selling".



> That means a person has a right to not sell a product he does not want to sell and exercising that right does not, because it can not, infringe upon your rights.


It does infringe on your rights to choose your own religion, and to have the medicine your Dr says you need.

It appears you only want rights for those with whom you agree.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> I will delete that part of my post. I still think you're spinning this but it was wrong to accuse you of lying about it.


Thank you for that. But I am really not. My first post in here was about the freedoms of the pharmacist. _Even though I disagreed with his choice at that time_.

But anyway. On to something else.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not possible
> 
> How can someone "choose" for you to have an abortion?
> 
> It's the anti's who want to force their choice on others.


Please read up. I have tried to explain twice. Not my best suit but there it is anyway.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Didn't you read all the earlier posts that said the business owners should have the right to do whatever they want?
> 
> They also said "If you don't like it, that's *your* problem"


Your point makes sense on the surface. But, most companies do that because they are under pressure to not offend anyone who may Sue them. It typically has nothing to do with a business owner being free to decide what they want to happen during the course of their employees conducting business. That's a defense decision, not an offensive decision.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Your point *makes sense on the surface


It's not "my point"

I just repeated the same arguments others used to support their claims about "rights" of a business.

If mine only makes sense "on the surface" that has to apply to them as well



> That's a defense decision, not an *offensive* decision


Yes, refusing to sell a product is the offensive action.


----------



## Shine

I guess we should all try just to go through life and when someone is about to step into a deep hole where they will hurt themselves and we see what's about to happen, I guess we should just let them fall into that hole without saying anything, right? We are not forcing anyone to do anything or to not do anything, we are warning them that they are about to do wrong.


----------



## Jolly

Something overlooked...

In all the argument about pharmacists and should they or should they not be forced to fill a scrip that goes against their religious beliefs...and how many have referenced the one-man shop, and lack of choice...Have any thought what is going to happen to that one man shop when you decide to storm the barricades of oppression, demanding your "right" to convenience?

It's hard enough to run a business in today's business climate, especially small, single proprietor shops.

In the case of the pharmacist, I know what I would do, if he. If I could not practice in line with my beliefs, I'd close my shop and let you whistle dixie for whatever you had to have. Down here, guys in the chain retail places make almost $60/hour, have nobody call them in the middle of the night wanting meds for a sick child, and if they choose not to fill a scrip on religious grounds, the company will have somebody else fill the scrip.

No, the companies do not fire them. They're too hard to get, in the first place.

So, a lot of this discussion is moot. In certain cases, you ain't gonna get, what you want, when you want it. And if you don't like it, tough.

You might win the battle, but you will lose the war (as in not having a local pharmacist for a whipping boy).


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We are not forcing anyone to do anything or to not do anything, we are warning them that they are about to do wrong.


You don't get to decide "right or wrong" for anyone else


----------



## Tricky Grama

dixiegal62 said:


> Biased in the eyes of the beholder... just sayin


Just another "kill the messenger" remark. 
Some cannot stand that FOX reports, covers & they can't find mistakes.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Woolieface said:


> Actually, some retail stores and businesses have forbidden their employees from saying "Merry Christmas" to customers. I believe that's what upsets people, and it should...


Wasn't it bloomies that did that one year?until they had most of their clientele jump all over 'em, reversed the policy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Just another "kill the messenger" remark.
> Some cannot stand that FOX reports, covers & they can't find mistakes.


Fox will lie like the rest of them
Don't pretend any of them give the whole stroy


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I see. It's perceived. Got it.


Not sure where you get news but it's pretty much been all over for several years. Not allowed to say Christmas or have Christmas parties in school anymore. I guess it was just too awful for a couple kids?
Kids can't bring candy canes to school, however that might have been overturned.
What is funny is the Feds get to celebrate Christmas-it's a national holiday, ya know.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> ah... a perceived mocking eh? While perception is real should people be subjected to and punished by a misconceived perception?


From hate crime to hate speech & now hate thoughts.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Woolieface said:


> _
> "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" _- Jesus (Matthew 23:33)
> 
> _"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."_ - Jesus (John 8:44)


Yep, Jesus did indeed say those words -- to the PHARASEES. Remember those guys? Religious leaders of the day who were so in love with their own holiness, lording their holiness over others and making rule after rule dictating how others should live that they missed the whole point of Jesus' coming. Might be food for thought for some folks.

No matter what anyone feels about abortion, the fact remains that, for as long as women have faced unwanted pregnancies, many have sought to end those pregnancies. The only thing that Roe v Wade changed was to make abortion safe and legal. And if that decision were to ever be overturned, the only thing that would change would be that abortion would again be illegal and unsafe. Do we really want to return to the days of back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger?


----------



## Lisa in WA

SLFarmMI said:


> Yep, Jesus did indeed say those words -- to the PHARASEES. Remember those guys? Religious leaders of the day who were so in love with their own holiness, lording their holiness over others and making rule after rule dictating how others should live that they missed the whole point of Jesus' coming. Might be food for thought for some folks.
> 
> No matter what anyone feels about abortion, the fact remains that, for as long as women have faced unwanted pregnancies, many have sought to end those pregnancies. The only thing that Roe v Wade changed was to make abortion safe and legal. And if that decision were to ever be overturned, the only thing that would change would be that abortion would again be illegal and unsafe. Do we really want to return to the days of back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger?



Agreed but I do believe that many (even here) would gleefully allow women to bleed to death via back alley abortion providers rather than provide safe, legal medical assistance to abort.


----------



## SLFarmMI

basketti said:


> Agreed but I do believe that many (even here) would gleefully allow women to bleed to death via back alley abortion providers rather than provide safe, legal medical assistance to abort.


I agree with you on that. And it makes me sad that we as a society are so hateful to one another.


----------



## wr

Tricky Grama said:


> Wasn't it bloomies that did that one year?until they had most of their clientele jump all over 'em, reversed the policy.


I can't grasp all the hoopla over Merry Christmas at all. I'm not Christian but I still wish my friends Merry Christmas because it's significant to them and when they or someone in a store wishes me the same, I appreciate it as a kind gesture in a society that's gotten quite cold.


----------



## Woolieface

SLFarmMI said:


> Yep, Jesus did indeed say those words -- to the PHARASEES. Remember those guys? Religious leaders of the day who were so in love with their own holiness, lording their holiness over others and making rule after rule dictating how others should live that they missed the whole point of Jesus' coming. Might be food for thought for some folks.
> 
> No matter what anyone feels about abortion, the fact remains that, for as long as women have faced unwanted pregnancies, many have sought to end those pregnancies. The only thing that Roe v Wade changed was to make abortion safe and legal. And if that decision were to ever be overturned, the only thing that would change would be that abortion would again be illegal and unsafe. Do we really want to return to the days of back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger?


Of all the hypocrisy that non believers lay at the feet of Christianity, I am not sure what would trump thumbing one's nose at "thou shalt not murder". If I were to ever feel that the killing of a child is supportable in my faith, I hope someone slaps the tar out of me.

Back alley abortions might qualify as suicide, but they surely don't qualify as murder.


----------



## Guest

wr said:


> I can't grasp all the hoopla over Merry Christmas at all. I'm not Christian but I still wish my friends Merry Christmas because it's significant to them and when they or someone in a store wishes me the same, I appreciate it as a kind gesture in a society that's gotten quite cold.


I wish everyone when the opportunity arises a merry Christmas, does not bother me when I received that greeting. I usually respond " Shalom, and a merry Christmas to you." I get raised eye brows but hey it is what it is.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Woolieface said:


> Of all the hypocrisy that non believers lay at the feet of Christianity, I am not sure what would trump thumbing one's nose at "thou shalt not murder". If I were to ever feel that the killing of a child is supportable in my faith, I hope someone slaps the tar out of me.
> 
> Back alley abortions might qualify as suicide, but they surely don't qualify as murder.


So would you be happy to see a woman who chose to abort die?


----------



## Woolieface

basketti said:


> So would you be happy to see a woman who chose to abort die?


Nope...


----------



## Guest

SLFarmMI said:


> Yep, Jesus did indeed say those words -- to the PHARASEES. Remember those guys? Religious leaders of the day who were so in love with their own holiness, lording their holiness over others and making rule after rule dictating how others should live that they missed the whole point of Jesus' coming. Might be food for thought for some folks.
> 
> No matter what anyone feels about abortion, the fact remains that, for as long as women have faced unwanted pregnancies, many have sought to end those pregnancies. The only thing that Roe v Wade changed was to make abortion safe and legal. And if that decision were to ever be overturned, the only thing that would change would be that abortion would again be illegal and unsafe. Do we really want to return to the days of back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger?


The parallel between your interpretation of the Pharisees in the day of Yeshua should remind you of your leaders and followers of government today, but probably not.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you have no right to refuse to sell a product the store carries, when your job is "selling".


Isn't that between the employee and his boss? If he agrees to allow someone to work for him but not sell a product what's it to you? After all its his business to run as he wishes. Oh wait you think that its the government's business and it should tell him how he should run it, after all that stupid idea of private property and the freedom to believe what you wish is so 1700s.


----------



## Patchouli

basketti said:


> Agreed but I do believe that many (even here) would gleefully allow women to bleed to death via back alley abortion providers rather than provide safe, legal medical assistance to abort.



I believe that is what they referred to as "karma" earlier in this thread wasn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Isn't that between the employee and his boss? If he agrees to allow someone to work for him but not sell a product what's it to you? After all its his business to run as he wishes. Oh wait you think that its the government's business and it should tell him how he should run it, after all that stupid idea of private property and the freedom to believe what you wish is so 1700s.


There's no point in asking the same question repeatedly when it's been answered more than once already

I understand you think only one side of this issue has rights.
That doesn't mean you *are* right.


----------



## AmericanStand

dlmcafee said:


> I wish everyone when the opportunity arises a merry Christmas, does not bother me when I received that greeting. I usually respond " Shalom, and a merry Christmas to you." I get raised eye brows but hey it is what it is.



I think that is a indication of the true holiday spirit!
Goodwill to men. 

Christians obviously don't have corner on it.

Shalom .


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> Agreed but I do believe that many (even here) would gleefully allow women to bleed to death via back alley abortion providers rather than provide safe, legal medical assistance to abort.


And happily believe it to be karma when she dies. Most probably chortle among themselves the next Sunday because "she got what was coming to her".


----------



## Jolly

SLFarmMI said:


> Yep, Jesus did indeed say those words -- to the PHARASEES. Remember those guys? Religious leaders of the day who were so in love with their own holiness, lording their holiness over others and making rule after rule dictating how others should live that they missed the whole point of Jesus' coming. Might be food for thought for some folks.
> 
> No matter what anyone feels about abortion, the fact remains that, for as long as women have faced unwanted pregnancies, many have sought to end those pregnancies. The only thing that Roe v Wade changed was to make abortion safe and legal. And if that decision were to ever be overturned, the only thing that would change would be that abortion would again be illegal and unsafe. Do we really want to return to the days of back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger?


The world has changed. it's not 1950, not anymore.

There are birth control options aplenty. There are morning after pills. there are hormone cocktails that will terminate a day or two old pregnancy.

So whether one agrees with the use of RU486 or the cocktail, why are people still defending abortions, especially those of more than just a few weeks gestation?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> And happily believe it to be karma when she dies. Most probably chortle among themselves the next Sunday because "she got what was coming to her".


Bless your heart, but that's just a nasty, unwarranted, blanket statement, about a lot of people you don't know at all.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> The world has changed. it's not 1950, not anymore.
> 
> There are birth control options aplenty. There are morning after pills. there are hormone cocktails that will terminate a day or two old pregnancy.
> 
> So whether one agrees with the use of RU486 or the cocktail, why are people still defending abortions, especially those of more than just a few weeks gestation?


If you are using birth control and it fails you might not know you are pregnant for 4 to 6 weeks depending on the regularity of your cycle. Then if you carefully consider the possibilities and get an appointment, it can easily be 8 weeks.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Jolly said:


> The world has changed. it's not 1950, not anymore.
> 
> There are birth control options aplenty. There are morning after pills. there are hormone cocktails that will terminate a day or two old pregnancy.
> 
> So whether one agrees with the use of RU486 or the cocktail, why are people still defending abortions, especially those of more than just a few weeks gestation?


Birth control can fail. Depending on what type of BC you're using, you may not realize it has failed until weeks afterward when you realize you're "late". Plus it takes time to weigh your options and then to get an appointment. It takes time for the pregnancy hormones to build up to detectable levels in your system. Unless they've recently come out with a new one, even the most sensitive home pregnancy test on the market advertises being able to only determine pregnancy within a day of your 1st missed cycle. And that usually isn't within a day of becoming pregnant.


----------



## Jolly

SLFarmMI said:


> Birth control can fail. Depending on what type of BC you're using, you may not realize it has failed until weeks afterward when you realize you're "late". Plus it takes time to weigh your options and then to get an appointment. It takes time for the pregnancy hormones to build up to detectable levels in your system. Unless they've recently come out with a new one, even the most sensitive home pregnancy test on the market advertises being able to only determine pregnancy within a day of your 1st missed cycle. And that usually isn't within a day of becoming pregnant.


There are now monoclonal mouse antibody kits on the market that will detect 10 miu/Ml HCG in serum.


----------



## painterswife

You do know that tests costs money and you don't take one everyday just in case your birth control might have failed.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Jolly said:


> There are now monoclonal mouse antibody kits on the market that will detect 10 miu/Ml HCG in serum.


Good to know.

But, realistically, how many women wake up the morning after an intimate encounter and think, "I should go get a test. I might be pregnant." Generally it goes something like this: I'm late. Better get to the drugstore for a test. Or: I feel awful. Wonder if I have the flu. Better make a doctor's appointment.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Bless your heart, but that's just a nasty, unwarranted, blanket statement, about a lot of people you don't know at all.


I don't want your blessings, remember? The whole disrespect my disbelief and I'll disrespect your belief? I'm asking you yet again not to do it. 

Oh my, this is just rich coming from you, "that's just a nasty, unwarranted, blanket statement, about a lot of people you don't know at all"! You've stated on many occasions you know my _personal_ feelings, perception, and experience. SMH.

Not to mention that a woman dying of a botched abortion has been referred to as "karma" and "what she has coming to her" on this thread. So, yes it may be a blanket statement but it's true based on what was actually posted on this thread.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> And happily believe it to be karma when she dies. Most probably chortle among themselves the next Sunday because "she got what was coming to her".


You really ought to be ashamed of that statement.


----------



## painterswife

mnn2501 said:


> You really ought to be ashamed of that statement.


Why should she be. A few members left no doubt that they feel exactly that way.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> You really ought to be ashamed of that statement.


I'm just repeating what has already been said on this thread and I should be ashamed? Do you disagree that posters have said a woman dying of a botched abortion is "karma" and "she got what is coming to her"?

I can quote the posts if you'd like.

ETA. The "karma" post is on the locked PP video thread. Dixiegal62 posts 938 and 942. Here's another "karma" poster- Oxankle post 971.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't want your blessings, remember? The whole disrespect my disbelief and I'll disrespect your belief? I'm asking you yet again not to do it.
> 
> Oh my, this is just rich coming from you, "that's just a nasty, unwarranted, blanket statement, about a lot of people you don't know at all"! You've stated on many occasions you know my _personal_ feelings, perception, and experience. SMH.
> 
> Not to mention that a woman dying of a botched abortion has been referred to as "karma" and "what she has coming to her" on this thread. So, yes it may be a blanket statement but it's true based on what was actually posted on this thread.


Oh, you have my blessings, nonetheless.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> You do know that tests costs money and you don't take one everyday just in case your birth control might have failed.


$4.25 at Dollar General. I have seen them for a dollar at some stores (Everything's A Dollar).

Those are 25 or 50 miu kits, which are for urine only and not as sensitive as the 10 miu kit done on serum.

OTOH, I used to buy the 10 miu kits for $0.67/test, box of 50. But that's for the trade, not for the public.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> $4.25 at Dollar General. I have seen them for a dollar at some stores (Everything's A Dollar).
> 
> Those are 25 or 50 miu kits, which are for urine only and not as sensitive as the 10 miu kit done on serum.
> 
> OTOH, I used to buy the 10 miu kits for $0.67/test, box of 50. But that's for the trade, not for the public.


Okay, say that a women takes a pregnancy test every day and finds out they are pregnant. They will still be having an abortion whether it is in 7 days or 8 weeks.

I can see that over 12 weeks and later is for most a much more serious decision and possibly procedure. However what is the difference between 3 days pregnant and 12 weeks. it is still an abortion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Oh, you have my blessings, nonetheless.


Keep your blessings from your imaginary friend to yourself please. It's your delusion, not mine.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Oh, you have my blessings, nonetheless.


What was that post for? It was not to bless the poster because you can do that without ever telling them. I will assume it was a dig. Why would you want to make a blessing a dig?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> I believe that is what they referred to as "karma" earlier in this thread wasn't it?


Karma is a synonym for gleeful? Who knew?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> And happily believe it to be karma when she dies. Most probably chortle among themselves the next Sunday because "she got what was coming to her".


This is the kind of uncalled for post that most have a problem with.
The attribution if meanness where none exists, for the sole purpose of demeaning, ridicule, MOCKING.

It truly makes me nauseated, you can, however, by your own words remain "nauseous".


----------



## Tricky Grama

SLFarmMI said:


> Yep, Jesus did indeed say those words -- to the PHARASEES. Remember those guys? Religious leaders of the day who were so in love with their own holiness, lording their holiness over others and making rule after rule dictating how others should live that they missed the whole point of Jesus' coming. Might be food for thought for some folks.
> 
> No matter what anyone feels about abortion, the fact remains that, for as long as women have faced unwanted pregnancies, many have sought to end those pregnancies. The only thing that Roe v Wade changed was to make abortion safe and legal. And if that decision were to ever be overturned, the only thing that would change would be that abortion would again be illegal and unsafe. Do we really want to return to the days of back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger?


Do you have stats on # of abortions b/4 Roe & after? Wouldn't #s be quite a bit more that it's legal than b/4? That would be a 'change', wouldn't it?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> Bless your heart, but that's just a nasty, unwarranted, blanket statement, about a lot of people you don't know at all.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

SLFarmMI said:


> Birth control can fail. Depending on what type of BC you're using, you may not realize it has failed until weeks afterward when you realize you're "late". Plus it takes time to weigh your options and then to get an appointment. It takes time for the pregnancy hormones to build up to detectable levels in your system. Unless they've recently come out with a new one, even the most sensitive home pregnancy test on the market advertises being able to only determine pregnancy within a day of your 1st missed cycle. And that usually isn't within a day of becoming pregnant.


Those hormones are detectable at 4 wks.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> This is the kind of uncalled for post that most have a problem with.
> The attribution if meanness where none exists, for the sole purpose of demeaning, ridicule, MOCKING.
> 
> It truly makes me nauseated, you can, however, by your own words remain "nauseous".


Did you miss the part where I merely repeated what had already been said? Did you tell those posters how truly horrible they were? No? Why not?

I do believe your righteous indignation is forced, just my opinion.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Why should she be. A few members left no doubt that they feel exactly that way.


Yup, a few.
A few who know not how to distinguish b/w a post & posters. Same who cannot distinguish b/w celebrities & politicians & ordinary folks posting.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Tricky Grama said:


> Do you have stats on # of abortions b/4 Roe & after? Wouldn't #s be quite a bit more that it's legal than b/4? That would be a 'change', wouldn't it?


Obviously there aren't reliable stats for before Roe v Wade since most women seeking abortions were forced to do so covertly. You appear to have missed the point of my post. My point, in case you missed it, was that women have always sought to terminate unwanted pregnancies and will continue to do so even in the unlikely event that Roe is overturned. 

Now, since I answered your question, kindly answer mine: Do you really want a return of the illegal, back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger which threatened women's lives and/or fertility? Because making abortion illegal is not going to end abortion any more than making it legal started abortion.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you miss the part where I merely repeated what had already been said? Did you tell those posters how truly horrible they were? No? Why not?
> 
> I do believe your righteous indignation is forced, just my opinion.


I guess you are going to have to quote the "happily" part & the "gleeful at death" part. See, some yell the loudest when their posts are interpreted yet add in & change others posts when it suits the whim.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no point in asking the same question repeatedly when it's been answered more than once already
> 
> I understand you think only one side of this issue has rights.
> That doesn't mean you *are* right.


Simple question; do you think you have a right to something which someone else must provide to you?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Simple question; do you think you have a right to something which someone else must provide to you?


Simple answer.... Yes, as long as that somebody is offering that something for sale to the public at large and I have the price of admission.


----------



## Tricky Grama

SLFarmMI said:


> Obviously there aren't reliable stats for before Roe v Wade since most women seeking abortions were forced to do so covertly. You appear to have missed the point of my post. My point, in case you missed it, was that women have always sought to terminate unwanted pregnancies and will continue to do so even in the unlikely event that Roe is overturned.
> 
> Now, since I answered your question, kindly answer mine: Do you really want a return of the illegal, back alley abortions or abortion via coat hanger which threatened women's lives and/or fertility? Because making abortion illegal is not going to end abortion any more than making it legal started abortion.


There were a few estimated stats, I'll try to find them.

I'm obviously against abortion. In a perfect world people would take responsibility for their actions.

Abortion stops a beating heart. More & more are caring about this, more are educated on this, more now know that it is NOT "just a blob of cells", that it is NOT a woman's body, it is a living human separate inside the womb.

There were ALWAYS docs who would perform one, might've taken some investigating but I knew of many who had a D & C back in the day. So, NO, never have I advocated the old tired "back alley" term nor would I now.

Btw, abortion sometimes threatens fertility even if done correctly. As well as it not being totally safe.

I'll venture to guess the #s would decline considerably if there were more restrictions on abortion.
You know it was never totally illegal, don't you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> This is the kind of uncalled for post that most have a problem with.
> *The attribution if meanness where none exists, for the sole purpose of demeaning, ridicule, MOCKING.*
> 
> It truly makes me nauseated, you can, however, by your own words remain "nauseous".


Let's be realistic for a minute

If one of your friends had said something similar, it would get a "Post of the....." award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess you are going to have to quote the "happily" part & the "gleeful at death" part. See, some yell the loudest when their posts are interpreted yet add in & change others posts when it suits the whim.


Sure I will. When you point out where you told them they were horrible for saying that it's karma if a woman dies in a back alley abortion.

ETA: You even liked post 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Pixie 
Backpedal much? You said it, clearly meant it, just own it. You don't care what anyone thinks, right?

DixieGal62:Spin much. Did I stutter? No I don't care if she has to kill in a back alley. I don't care if any murderer dies. I certainly don't care what a person who supports murder of innocents thinks of me.
Like
kasilofhome, Tricky Grama and dlmcafee like this.

You also liked post 971

Old 07/22/15, 05:59 PM
Oxankle 

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,158
This thread has become a joke; the abortion crowd is twisting comments now to suit themselves. 

I too think that it is Karma if a woman dies undergoing a "convenience" abortion. That does not mean I wish death upon anyone, no matter how the painters wife or pixie twist my words. I would prefer that the woman have her baby and raise it to become a good human being. Mothers everywhere have faced the hard choices and done exactly that. 

And "legal" during the German operation of the death camps? How stupid do you have to be to insist that what the German high command put into operation was "illegal" in Germany at that time. Millions of marks, thousands of men were committed to these operations and millions of marks and tons of clothing, jewelry, shoes, personal possessions of all kinds were shipped back to Germany from those death camps. 

Does anyone think that what Hitler wanted done was "illegal" in the Germany of that day? 

Specious arguments from people either mendacious or ignorant cannot change those facts.
Like
kasilofhome, Tricky Grama, dixiegal62 and 2 others like this.

So much for righteous indignation, huh?

Are you still nauseous?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Simple question; do you think you have a right to something which someone else must *provide* to you?


Certainly

All they are "providing" is the *performance of their job* (and I don't want to hear again about the "boss's approval")

If they provide that service to the general public, they have no right to deny it to anyone, regardless of what the particular product might be.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure I will. When you point out where you told them they were horrible for saying that it's karma if a woman dies in a back alley abortion.
> 
> ETA: You even liked post 944
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie
> Backpedal much? You said it, clearly meant it, just own it. You don't care what anyone thinks, right?
> 
> DixieGal62:Spin much. Did I stutter? No I don't care if she has to kill in a back alley. I don't care if any murderer dies. I certainly don't care what a person who supports murder of innocents thinks of me.
> Like
> kasilofhome, Tricky Grama and dlmcafee like this.
> 
> You also liked post 971
> 
> Old 07/22/15, 05:59 PM
> Oxankle
> 
> Join Date: Jun 2003
> Location: Arkansas
> Posts: 4,158
> This thread has become a joke; the abortion crowd is twisting comments now to suit themselves.
> 
> I too think that it is Karma if a woman dies undergoing a "convenience" abortion. That does not mean I wish death upon anyone, no matter how the painters wife or pixie twist my words. I would prefer that the woman have her baby and raise it to become a good human being. Mothers everywhere have faced the hard choices and done exactly that.
> 
> And "legal" during the German operation of the death camps? How stupid do you have to be to insist that what the German high command put into operation was "illegal" in Germany at that time. Millions of marks, thousands of men were committed to these operations and millions of marks and tons of clothing, jewelry, shoes, personal possessions of all kinds were shipped back to Germany from those death camps.
> 
> Does anyone think that what Hitler wanted done was "illegal" in the Germany of that day?
> 
> Specious arguments from people either mendacious or ignorant cannot change those facts.
> Like
> kasilofhome, Tricky Grama, dixiegal62 and 2 others like this.
> 
> So much for righteous indignation, huh?
> 
> Are you still nauseous?


Thank you for the quotes, if you'll read them, NOWHERE are the words: happily, gleeful at death. NOWHERE. Thank you.
Perhaps one you will see that you put words into posts that are not there.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Thank you for the quotes, if you'll read them, NOWHERE are the words: happily, gleeful at death. NOWHERE. Thank you.
> Perhaps one you will see that you put words into posts that are not there.


Point out where you told them they were horrible for saying that it's karma if a woman dies in a back alley abortion? You can't, you liked the posts where they said it.

Um. I said happily and chortle in my post, my opinion. ETA: This is what I said, "And happily believe it to be karma when she dies. Most probably chortle among themselves the next Sunday because "she got what was coming to her".

Feigned outrage?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Thank you for the quotes, if you'll read them, NOWHERE are the words: happily, gleeful at death. NOWHERE. Thank you.
> Perhaps one you will see that you put words into posts that are not there.


Why nitpick over particular words when the *sentiments* were identical, and some of the comments were direct insults?


----------



## Woolieface

Tricky Grama said:


> Thank you for the quotes, if you'll read them, NOWHERE are the words: happily, gleeful at death. NOWHERE. Thank you.
> Perhaps one you will see that you put words into posts that are not there.


This, however, was in there.
_
"That does not mean I wish death upon anyone, no matter how the painters wife or pixie twist my words."_


----------



## Txsteader

SLFarmMI said:


> Obviously there aren't reliable stats for before Roe v Wade since most women seeking abortions were forced to do so covertly. You appear to have missed the point of my post. *My point, in case you missed it, was that women have always sought to terminate unwanted pregnancies and will continue to do so even in the unlikely event that Roe is overturned. *


Fine. Keep Roe v Wade in place, affirm that women have the right to terminate pregnancies.

But don't expect federal tax dollars to pay for it.

How's that for a compromise?


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Fine. Keep Roe v Wade in place, affirm that women have the right to terminate pregnancies.
> 
> But don't expect federal tax dollars to pay for it. Let the states choose to pay for them or not, according to taxpayers' votes.
> 
> How's that for a compromise?


That works for me..... Especially since that's how it is now and has been for a long time.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That works for me..... Especially since that's how it is now and has been for a long time.


Then defund PP.

I don't want my money keeping their lights on.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That works for me..... Especially since that's how it is now and has been for a long time.


I've given the links a couple of times proving otherwise, but in a nutshell, federal dollars pay for Medicaid that pays for abortions. Look it up for yourself.


----------



## Evons hubby

Fer what it's werth,,,, I am apposed to abortion... But I am even more apposed to denying anyone their choices. I would vastly prefer women would opt to carry those parasites to full term, but it ain't my choice to make.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Then defund PP.
> 
> I don't want my money keeping their lights on.


I am all for defunding all of the programs that are unconstitutional. Right down to social security.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am all for defunding all of the programs that are unconstitutional. Right down to social security.


Darn it. Where's that blasted double like button.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> I've given the links a couple of times proving otherwise, but in a nutshell, federal dollars pay for Medicaid that pays for abortions. Look it up for yourself.


Federal dollars account for a portion of Medicaid, the states provide the rest. Most likely it's the states dollars that pay for abortions freeing up federal dollars for all the other med bills. A dear friend of mine has had bills paid in excess of four hundred thousand bucks thanks to Medicaid. I am pretty sure that's where your fed dollars went.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Tricky Grama said:


> There were a few estimated stats, I'll try to find them.
> 
> I'm obviously against abortion. In a perfect world people would take responsibility for their actions.
> 
> Abortion stops a beating heart. More & more are caring about this, more are educated on this, more now know that it is NOT "just a blob of cells", that it is NOT a woman's body, it is a living human separate inside the womb.
> 
> There were ALWAYS docs who would perform one, might've taken some investigating but I knew of many who had a D & C back in the day. So, NO, never have I advocated the old tired "back alley" term nor would I now.
> 
> Btw, abortion sometimes threatens fertility even if done correctly. As well as it not being totally safe.
> 
> I'll venture to guess the #s would decline considerably if there were more restrictions on abortion.
> You know it was never totally illegal, don't you?


I'm fully aware of the history of abortion. 

We must have different definitions of personal responsibility. My definition is to weigh all the facts and to make the best decision for yourself. Your definition appears to be, on this issue, to let others decide for you. 

You state that there were doctors willing to perform abortions pre Roe. Sure, if you had means and if your reason for wanting an abortion was deemed to be acceptable. But if your reason was not deemed to be acceptable then it was "tough luck sister". That sure doesn't sound like women being in charge of their own bodies to me. I believe that the person qualified to make the decision about whether to continue a pregnancy is the pregnant person. You apparently disagree.

You want fewer abortions. So do I. I doubt there is a person around who wants more abortions. But in seeking to strip women of the decisions involving their bodies is, in my opinion, working the wrong end of the equation.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fer what it's werth,,,, I am apposed to abortion... But I am even more apposed to denying anyone their choices. I would vastly prefer women would opt to carry those parasites to full term, but it ain't my choice to make.


I firmly believe in the freedoms of choice..... I stop when the choice is murder.


----------



## Tricky Grama

SLFarmMI said:


> I'm fully aware of the history of abortion.
> 
> We must have different definitions of personal responsibility. My definition is to weigh all the facts and to make the best decision for yourself. Your definition appears to be, on this issue, to let others decide for you.
> 
> You state that there were doctors willing to perform abortions pre Roe. Sure, if you had means and if your reason for wanting an abortion was deemed to be acceptable. But if your reason was not deemed to be acceptable then it was "tough luck sister". That sure doesn't sound like women being in charge of their own bodies to me. I believe that the person qualified to make the decision about whether to continue a pregnancy is the pregnant person. You apparently disagree.
> 
> You want fewer abortions. So do I. I doubt there is a person around who wants more abortions. But in seeking to strip women of the decisions involving their bodies is, in my opinion, working the wrong end of the equation.


Personal responsibility means just that. Take off pantsputoncondom. Chose to have sex, be on pill or carry condoms. Schools been teaching how for yrs.

People I knew personally who had D & Cs were by no means women of $$. But that was back when you could pick a doc you wanted. And that cost no more than abortions of today, 'cept the ones our taxes pay for. So I guess you knew differently. Or have a study?

I also believe the more education, the better. More women are seeing abortion for what it is & rates are declining as well as #s of por choice.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Federal dollars account for a portion of Medicaid, the states provide the rest. Most likely it's the states dollars that pay for abortions freeing up federal dollars for all the other med bills. A dear friend of mine has had bills paid in excess of four hundred thousand bucks thanks to Medicaid. I am pretty sure that's where your fed dollars went.


If that's what you choose to believe. As many women as there are getting abortions these days and (statistics prove) are low-income, I tend to doubt your claim.


----------



## kasilofhome

I am logically aware that all people die. I know of the risk of dieting increase when operated on. There is a risk of death that comes. I do not personally fear death ...I expect it... so, we are to bow to a person demanding we do not bless her ....while she wished to attempt to control my beliefs.

Volunteers who wish to undergo any invasive none necessary or choose to behave in activities that increase their risks of death are on them and I do not feel sorry for them. Their life their choice. Freedom.

I feel sorrow for the bystanders and innocence victims of the above risk takers.

I stand firmly with that view... if it offends someone...I do not care... best to learn that being offended is your issue to deal with.... no government program will ever aid you.


----------



## Txsteader

Jolly said:


> Then defund PP.
> 
> I don't want my money keeping their lights on.


Yep, that's my other point of opposition.

1. Defund PP.

2. No federal dollars used to fund abortions.....whether via Obamacare subsidies or Medicaid dollars.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Tricky Grama said:


> Personal responsibility means just that. Take off pantsputonconcom. Chose to have sex, be on pill or carry condoms. Schools been teaching how for yrs.
> 
> People I knew personally who had D & Cs were by no means women of $$. But that was back when you could pick a doc you wanted. And that cost no more than abortions of today, 'cept the ones our taxes pay for. So I guess you knew differently. Or have a study?
> 
> I also believe the more education, the better. More women are seeing abortion for what it is & rates are declining as well as #s of por choice.


And when the birth control fails (because none of it is 100% effective) who do you want making the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy? Your previous posts indicate that you want it to be people other than the pregnant woman. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The bottom line is that if you think abortions are wrong, then you shouldn't have one. But you don't get to decide that for me, nor should you.


----------



## Tricky Grama

SLFarmMI said:


> And when the birth control fails (because none of it is 100% effective) who do you want making the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy? Your previous posts indicate that you want it to be people other than the pregnant woman. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The bottom line is that if you think abortions are wrong, then you shouldn't have one. But you don't get to decide that for me, nor should you.


Again, I want women to be reeeeally informed.

There are a multitude of failed b.c. methods daily, most likely. Or maybe not. Many of us here have stated that, personally or knowing of several. Did they all abort? Any that we all gave examples of? Don't think so. Assuming all or even a lot of failed b.c.s result in abortions is unrealistic.

So were speaking of relatively few, perhaps.
Worked out well for all the children who were the product of the failure, huh. W/o exception, no one I know aborted nor have they abused their originally unwanted child nor have they said they wish they'd aborted.

Don't think I ever said I'd make the decision. I just believe if it was more restricted, fewer abortions would take place.

Some progressives have papers, articles in 'respected' journals advocating 'abortion' up to several months after birth. So if that became legal would you have no problems? If you don't like it, don't kill your baby.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Simple answer.... Yes, as long as that somebody is offering that something for sale to the public at large and I have the price of admission.


So once you offer something for sale you lose your right to control it because you MUST sell it to anyone who has the money to buy it?

Therefore is someone is selling a potbellied pig and someone shows up with the advertised price amount in cash the owner can not refuse to sell it to him when it is discovered he plans to eat it rather than keep it as a pet. After all the buyer has a RIGHT to the pig now that it has been offered for sale and he has the money, to refuse to sell it could result in being charged with violating said buyer's civil rights, according to you that is.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Certainly
> 
> All they are "providing" is the *performance of their job* (and I don't want to hear again about the "boss's approval")
> 
> If they provide that service to the general public, they have no right to deny it to anyone, regardless of what the particular product might be.


So once you offer something for sale you lose your right to it. What you are saying private property rights end as soon as you offer the good or service for sale. I didn't realize that putting a 'for sale' ad in the paper was the same as signing a rights waiver.

You have said that before but I still would like to know just where you think this "right" comes from? 

Let me ask you another question; Do you have the right to give away, sell or trade your property to any one you wish?


----------



## SLFarmMI

"Don't think I ever said I'd make the decision. I just believe if it was more restricted, fewer abortions would take place."

Again you're missing the point. When you say you want more restrictions placed on abortion, you are in essence saying that the pregnant woman's decision to terminate the pregnancy should not be hers to make. That her reasons are not good enough. That your (collective your, not necessarily you personally) judgment is more valid than hers. 


Your efforts to reduce the abortion rate would be better served addressing the issues of why women get pregnant (not how -- we all know that) rather than attempting to strip women of full control over their own bodies.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> So once you offer something for sale you lose your right to control it because you MUST sell it to anyone who has the money to buy it?
> 
> Therefore is someone is selling a potbellied pig and someone shows up with the advertised price amount in cash the owner can not refuse to sell it to him when it is discovered he plans to eat it rather than keep it as a pet. After all the buyer has a RIGHT to the pig now that it has been offered for sale and he has the money, to refuse to sell it could result in being charged with violating said buyer's civil rights, according to you that is.


Yup, I guess all these Pet Rescue group that screen buyers are in big trouble.
Don't tell me its an adoption, if I have to pay $300 for a dog, its a sale.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> *So once you offer something for sale you lose your right to control it because you MUST sell it to anyone who has the money to buy it?*
> 
> Therefore is someone is selling a potbellied pig and someone shows up with the advertised price amount in cash the owner can not refuse to sell it to him when it is discovered he plans to eat it rather than keep it as a pet. After all the buyer has a RIGHT to the pig now that it has been offered for sale and he has the money, to refuse to sell it could result in being charged with violating said buyer's civil rights, according to you that is.


Now you're getting it.

The part about the pig is meaningless in this discussion about retail sales of prescription drugs



> Let me ask you another question; Do you have the right to give away, sell or trade your property to any one you wish?


Another scenario that has nothing to do with retail sales in a pharmacy

This isn't about the personal property of individuals


----------



## AmericanStand

basketti said:


> So would you be happy to see a woman who chose to abort die?



No. I wouldn't be happy to see someone die. 
But I would see it as a avoidable consequences of her actions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> Yup, I guess all these Pet Rescue group that screen buyers are in big trouble.
> Don't tell me its an adoption, if I have to pay $300 for a dog, its a sale.


They screen everyone by the same rules, and anyone who meets the requirements gets the animal.

They are not refusing animals to someone who *does* meet all the requirements based on the personal beliefs of whoever happens to be handing out the paperwork that day

It's yet another irrelevant scenario (But you knew that already)

I suspect the main reason for these scenarios is the lack of logical reasons to defend the one we're supposed to be discussing


----------



## gibbsgirl

mnn2501 said:


> Yup, I guess all these Pet Rescue group that screen buyers are in big trouble.
> Don't tell me its an adoption, if I have to pay $300 for a dog, its a sale.


Great example. If you have the money to pay for it, then there should be zero other requirements according to others here.

Nailed it, mnb2501.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Great example. If you have the money to pay for it, then *there should be zero other requirements according to others here*
> 
> Nailed it, mnb2501.


That's simply not true

There are other requirements that have to be met to get a prescription filled, and when they have been met, the sale should not depend on the whims of the pharmacist.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> And happily believe it to be karma when she dies. Most probably chortle among themselves the next Sunday because "she got what was coming to her".


Hmmm not quite enough bait on the hook..lol.... keep trying maybe you'll succeed next time


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> So once you offer something for sale you lose your right to control it because you MUST sell it to anyone who has the money to buy it?
> 
> Therefore is someone is selling a potbellied pig and someone shows up with the advertised price amount in cash the owner can not refuse to sell it to him when it is discovered he plans to eat it rather than keep it as a pet. After all the buyer has a RIGHT to the pig now that it has been offered for sale and he has the money, to refuse to sell it could result in being charged with violating said buyer's civil rights, according to you that is.


Exactly! I do believe yer catchin on to the idea. Once you sell an item you are no longer in control of it.... the buyer gets to pet it or eat it... their choice not yours.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> So once you offer something for sale you lose your right to control it because you MUST sell it to anyone who has the money to buy it?
> 
> Therefore is someone is selling a potbellied pig and someone shows up with the advertised price amount in cash the owner can not refuse to sell it to him when it is discovered he plans to eat it rather than keep it as a pet. After all the buyer has a RIGHT to the pig now that it has been offered for sale and he has the money, to refuse to sell it could result in being charged with violating said buyer's civil rights, according to you that is.


Happened to the animal shelter nearby! They refused to sell the pig.


----------



## Tricky Grama

SLFarmMI said:


> "Don't think I ever said I'd make the decision. I just believe if it was more restricted, fewer abortions would take place."
> 
> Again you're missing the point. When you say you want more restrictions placed on abortion, you are in essence saying that the pregnant woman's decision to terminate the pregnancy should not be hers to make. That her reasons are not good enough. That your (collective your, not necessarily you personally) judgment is more valid than hers.
> 
> 
> Your efforts to reduce the abortion rate would be better served addressing the issues of why women get pregnant (not how -- we all know that) rather than attempting to strip women of full control over their own bodies.


I regard it as protecting an UNborn baby same as a newborn. But, I guess that legality could be changed, given enuf progressive support.
It is certainly, for now, not a women's decision to kill her child. I do not think anyone has the right to kill an unborn child either. It is not her body, it is another persons body.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly! I do believe yer catchin on to the idea. Once you sell an item you are no longer in control of it.... the buyer gets to pet it or eat it... their choice not yours.


If your assertion is correct then this is no longer America. However you have made a misconception , your assertion should have stated "Once you place an item for sale..." if your are following her thought process...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> If your assertion is correct then this is no longer America. However *you have made a misconception* , your assertion should have stated "Once you place an item for sale..." if your are following her thought process...


Different rules apply to different scenarios.

There are few regulations regarding private party sales of personal property by individuals, so one can pretty much do what they want.

For retail stores open to the general public, the rules change, and they are only allowed to refuse for specific reasons, and NOT allowed to refuse for another set of specific reasons.

If you advertise a dwelling for sale to the general public, you cannot refuse to sell based on race, sex, religion, etc as long as they meet your advertised asking price.

That's why it's pointless in these discussions to change the parameters but compare them as if they are bound by the same rules


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> If your assertion is correct then this is no longer America. However you have made a misconception , your assertion should have stated "Once you place an item for sale..." if your are following her thought process...


It is true that if one wants to put restrictions on a sale they can do that.... but it needs to be advertised that way prior to the sale, and those restrictions have to apply to ANY buyer wishing to purchase. In America we are not allowed to discriminate based on the buyers race, religion, ethnicity, etc. I do not see what is so difficult there for people to understand. A muslim has just as much right to buy a pig as anyone else.... or a catholic, or a baptist, or an atheist.......


----------



## Guest

The only federal laws that set the rules for discrimination are focused on the status of the victim and their protected status, that I have found. The beliefs of the provider was upheld in the Hobby Lobby case, but I have yet to find anything else setting the rules for the provider other than not discriminating against the victims protected status. State laws vary and some do just that, but not consistently that I can find. I'm still looking, but maybe it's hidden in some less than straight forward language of the law. That would not surprise me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm still looking, but maybe it's hidden in some less than straight forward language of the law. That would not surprise me.


It's not hidden at all

You cannot discriminate based *on religion*

Plain and simple


----------



## Guest

Show me where it is in federal law where it is stated that it applies to someone other than the victim.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is true that if one wants to put restrictions on a sale they can do that.... but it needs to be advertised that way prior to the sale, and those restrictions have to apply to ANY buyer wishing to purchase. In America we are not allowed to discriminate based on the buyers race, religion, ethnicity, etc. I do not see what is so difficult there for people to understand. A muslim has just as much right to buy a pig as anyone else.... or a catholic, or a baptist, or an atheist.......


As a real estate person I have to wonder if you are looking at every sale thru the lenses of training of avoiding any hint or blatant discrimination charges mandated per government regulations on the sale of real estate.

Specific regulations do so and are spelled out in real estate training and practice.

I feel that the real estate market and regulations do not transfer to other markets of property sales and transfers. It may be ingrained deep in you but non real estate sales and transfers of personal property do not have the same regulations.


----------



## Guest

kasilofhome said:


> As a real estate person I have to wonder if you are looking at every sale thru the lenses of training of avoiding any hint or blatant discrimination charges mandated per government regulations on the sale of real estate.
> 
> Specific regulations do so and are spelled out in real estate training and practice.
> 
> I feel that the real estate market and regulations do not transfer to other markets of property sales and transfers. It may be ingrained deep in you but non real estate sales and transfers of personal property do not have the same regulations.


Real estate is covered under the civil rights act more specifically the Fair Housing act, And does not delve into retail as much as some might think from what I have read.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Show me where it is in federal law where it is stated that it applies to someone *other than the victim*.


You're not making sense
Who are you calling "the victim"?


----------



## Guest

The person an act is commented against, you must not have a dictionary. Google is filed with them, even Blacks Law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> The person an act is commented against, you must not have a dictionary. Google is filed with them, even Blacks Law.


If that's your answer, they are covered by all the anti discrimination laws
You cannot discriminate based on religion


----------



## Guest

Not that I have found. If that was so Hobby lobby would have been a slam dunk and the decision would have been decided on your definition.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Not that I have found. If that was so Hobby lobby would have been a slam dunk and the decision would have been decided on your definition.


That's a totally different situation than business/customer, which is why I asked who you were calling the "victim"

You have to define the scenario before you can determine which rules apply.

Hobby Lobby is still paying for the BC, and only *pretending* they aren't


----------



## Guest

Just opinion on your part that's ok, still have not shown the law and wording that proves your legal opinion.


----------



## Guest

You have not shown where or the wording, nor a legal opinion. I just asked, a got the standard BFF cherry picking logical fallacy argument. Consistent and equal application of the law is a base of your society, scenarios are made up.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> They screen everyone by the same rules, and anyone who meets the requirements gets the animal.
> 
> They are not refusing animals to someone who *does* meet all the requirements based on the personal beliefs of whoever happens to be handing out the paperwork that day
> 
> It's yet another irrelevant scenario (But you knew that already)
> 
> I suspect the main reason for these scenarios is the lack of logical reasons to defend the one we're supposed to be discussing


Hum. . .So if a company offered cakes for sale and had specific requirements that ALL the buyers had to meet it would be ok?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's simply not true
> 
> There are other requirements that have to be met to get a prescription filled, and when they have been met, the sale should not depend on the whims of the pharmacist.


Why not? Why do you think you have the right to tell the business owner how he should run his business? It his policy is to allow his employee to set their own list of requirements before they sell an item and they apply these requirements to ALL customers then would that not be the same as the dog sale we are talking about?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly! I do believe yer catchin on to the idea. Once you sell an item you are no longer in control of it.... the buyer gets to pet it or eat it... their choice not yours.


Notice something here. "Once you sell". A sell does not take place until the transaction is made. Up to that point the item belongs and is in the control of the prospective seller. The buyer has NO CLAIM to it.

Therefore if you offer to sell me a dog for $10 and I show up with my sawbuck and tell you I think he'll make a good entree for my party you have the right to refuse to trade YOUR dog for my money.

If it is only after the exchange then you are correct, you have no claim on the critter.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Different rules apply to different scenarios.
> 
> There are few regulations regarding private party sales of personal property by individuals, so one can pretty much do what they want.
> 
> For retail stores open to the general public, the rules change, and they are only allowed to refuse for specific reasons, and NOT allowed to refuse for another set of specific reasons.
> 
> If you advertise a dwelling for sale to the general public, you cannot refuse to sell based on race, sex, religion, etc as long as they meet your advertised asking price.
> 
> That's why it's pointless in these discussions to change the parameters but compare them as if they are bound by the same rules


The question is why you think the government has the power to take control of your private property once you offer it for sale to the public? Your private property is either yours to control or you are just being allowed to have some control of public/government property as long as you follow its rules.

This applies if you are talking about selling a puppy to your neighbor or if you are selling millions of dollars worth of stuff to thousands of people. Your property is either yours to do as you wish or it is not. There is no gray area to be had.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Hum. . .So if a company offered cakes for sale and had specific requirements that ALL the buyers had to meet it would be ok?


If they didn't include things like sex or religion that should be allowed, as long as it was advertised as such.

You're really having to stretch reality though


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is true that if one wants to put restrictions on a sale they can do that.... but it needs to be advertised that way prior to the sale, and those restrictions have to apply to ANY buyer wishing to purchase. In America we are not allowed to discriminate based on the buyers race, religion, ethnicity, etc. I do not see what is so difficult there for people to understand. A muslim has just as much right to buy a pig as anyone else.... or a catholic, or a baptist, or an atheist.......


But why do you not have the right to sell on not sell your private property to anyone based on what you want? Does the government have total control over private property so that it can tell you just who you can and can not sell it to even if it goes against your life's beliefs? If so then how can you consider it private property and how can you say you have any rights to your beliefs? 

While no right is absolute we must make sure that any restrictions on any right is as small as possible and that those restrictions ONLY apply when exercising that right would directly interfere with a right of another.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> You have not shown where or the wording, nor a legal opinion. I just asked, a got the standard BFF cherry picking logical fallacy argument. Consistent and equal application of the law is a base of your society, scenarios are made up.


Scenarios define the parameters of the question

You can't determine which laws apply without defining the situation first.

It seems you really don't want an answer because you haven't really defined the question


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're not making sense
> Who are you calling "the victim"?


I wonder who you are calling a victim. You say its not a crime if someone can not buy what they want in one store but it is when that same person can't buy it in another. I would think if you have the right to buy something then a store, any store, not having it would be a clear violation of your civil rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why not? Why do you think you have the right to tell the business owner how he should run his business? It his policy is to allow his employee to set their own list of requirements before they sell an item and they apply these requirements to ALL customers then would that not be the same as the dog sale we are talking about?


You've been rewording this identical question for a couple of days now

The answer isn't going to change, and unless the dog is in a retail store, the rules are different.

Why do you think you have a right to deny the customer any of the products you sell?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they didn't include things like sex or religion that should be allowed, as long as it was advertised as such.
> 
> You're really having to stretch reality though


Again the question becomes why? 

I assume you think its discrimination if someone doesn't want to sell a cake to someone because its going to be used in a way the baker doesn't think is "right", correct?

Then why would it not be discrimination if you refuse to sell your dog to someone just because they want to bar-b-que it and you don't think that's "right"?

Are you saying you can discriminate against one group but not another? Are all people equal but some people are more equal than others?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But why do you not have the right to sell on not sell your private property to anyone based on what you want?


You're the one who keeps changing from a retail business to private property

There are different rules for each situation

If you haven't gotten it by now, just scroll back and read it all again because nothing new has been added in the past day or two, and you just keep repeating yourself


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've been rewording this identical question for a couple of days now
> 
> The answer isn't going to change, and unless the dog is in a retail store, the rules are different.
> 
> Why do you think you have a right to deny the customer any of the products you sell?


I'll answer. 

1) The products are my private property.
2) No one has a 'right' to anything which must be supplied by a second party.
3) The government should no power to force an individual to sell his private property to another individual if he does not wish that individual to have it.

I suggest you read the 4th and 5th amendment to see why I think the government is overreaching here.

Now you answer my question. Where do you think the government gets the power to control personal property?


----------



## Guest

If you will, where in corporate law, federal law or otherwise (sense you believe sales are different for them) does your definition of the use and practice of the owners religion, show discrimination towards the buyer.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I wonder who you are calling a victim. You say its not a crime if someone can not buy what they want in one store but it is when that same person can't buy it in another. I would think if you have the right to buy something then a store, any store, not having it would be a clear violation of your civil rights.


No store is required to sell anything to anyone. If a store owner doesnt want to sell tires because he specializes in ice cream no one is being discriminated against.... as long as he sells his ice cream to whomever wants it and has cash in fist to purchase it. There was a time in this country when discrimination was not only allowed but a heavily defended practice. Those days went out when the government started passing laws against such practices and actually imposed equal treatment for all as had been spelled out quite clearly in our Constitution all along. Wanna discriminate? help yourself but you will quickly learn that federal laws now support the Constitution in this area. (as they should)


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I'll answer.
> 
> 1) The products are my private property.
> *2) No one has a 'right' to anything which must be supplied by a second party.*
> 3) The government should no power to force an individual to sell his private property to another individual if he does not wish that individual to have it.
> 
> I suggest you read the 4th and 5th amendment to see why I think the government is overreaching here.
> 
> Now you answer my question. Where do you think the government gets the power to control personal property?


where is that nonsense carved in stone? When you offer up your "private property" for sale to the public at large, anyone willing to pay your asking price has a right to purchase it! You do NOT have the right to pick and choose who buys it. If you do not want someone to buy it, dont put it on the market.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://consumer.findlaw.com/credit-banking-finance/equal-credit-opportunity-for-consumers.html


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the one who keeps changing from a retail business to private property
> 
> There are different rules for each situation
> 
> If you haven't gotten it by now, just scroll back and read it all again because nothing new has been added in the past day or two, and you just keep repeating yourself


I'm confused. Why does private property become public property to be controlled by the government when it is at a retail store? Say you have a bushel of apples and you want to sell them. You seem to be saying you can refuse to sell them to your <insert more equal group here> neighbor even if it your reason is you just don't like <insert more equal group here> because they are your privately owned apples to sell. But if you set up a fruit stand those apples suddenly become government property and you must sell them in the way the government orders, your personal beliefs be damned!


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> Yup, I guess all these Pet Rescue group that screen buyers are in big trouble.
> Don't tell me its an adoption, if I have to pay $300 for a dog, its a sale.


So are you saying that in promoting adoption pro-lifers are pushing selling children? Because if you think that doggie costs a lot try adopting a healthy white baby.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://www.lifescript.com/well-being/articles/t/the_right_to_refuse_service_or_discrimination.aspx



> Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public.
> 
> *They actively invite and seek the patronage of the public and therefore are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that protect workers seeking employment or promotion. *
> 
> Specifically, the *Civil Rights Act of 1964* prohibits discrimination and guarantees all persons the right to &#8220;full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.&#8221;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> I'm confused. Why does private property become public property to be controlled by the government when it is at a retail store? Say you have a bushel of apples and you want to sell them. You seem to be saying you can refuse to sell them to your <insert more equal group here> neighbor even if it your reason is you just don't like <insert more equal group here> because they are your privately owned apples to sell. But if you set up a fruit stand those apples suddenly become government property and you must sell them in the way the government orders, your personal beliefs be damned!


See the post above
That covers all your questions, and all my answers


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No store is required to sell anything to anyone. If a store owner doesnt want to sell tires because he specializes in ice cream no one is being discriminated against.... as long as he sells his ice cream to whomever wants it and has cash in fist to purchase it.


That can ONLY be true if you have a civil right to ice cream. The problem is no one can show me where an individual not being provided something by a second individual is a violation of any civil right. Its almost like you claiming someone walking out while you are giving a speech is violating your rights because they must provide you an audience. 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> There was a time in this country when discrimination was not only allowed but a heavily defended practice. Those days went out when the government started passing laws against such practices and actually imposed equal treatment for all as had been spelled out quite clearly in our Constitution all along. Wanna discriminate? help yourself but you will quickly learn that federal laws now support the Constitution in this area. (as they should)


I think if you check the USC is there to set the limits and rules the GOVERNMENT must follow. I fully agree that if the government offers a good or service then it must do so to all people. But that limit should not apply to individual citizens. As distasteful as I find racism I do not think, and no one has shown me in the USC, the government has nor should have the power to stop you as an individual from being a racist in your private life and/or business.

If you want to sell your whatsits to everyone and anyone then you should have that right. If you want to sell them to only one specific group then you should have that right. If you want to sell them to all BUT one specific group you should have that right as well.

Why should your neighbors or the government have the power to tell who you may or may not sell your individual private property to? Is that not a violation of one of the very basic rights and freedoms?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> That can ONLY be true if you have a civil right to ice cream. The problem is no one can show me where an individual not being provided something by a second individual is a violation of any civil right. Its almost like you claiming someone walking out while you are giving a speech is violating your rights because they must provide you an audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you check the USC is there to set the limits and rules the GOVERNMENT must follow. I fully agree that if the government offers a good or service then it must do so to all people. But that limit should not apply to individual citizens. As distasteful as I find racism I do not think, and no one has shown me in the USC, the government has nor should have the power to stop you as an individual from being a racist in your private life and/or business.
> 
> If you want to sell your whatsits to everyone and anyone then you should have that right. If you want to sell them to only one specific group then you should have that right. If you want to sell them to all BUT one specific group you should have that right as well.
> 
> Why should your neighbors or the government have the power to tell who you may or may not sell your individual private property to? Is that not a violation of one of the very basic rights and freedoms?


The 14th amendment requires that everyone, as in all of us, have equal treatment... That pretty much means anyone has the same or equal right to buy your icecream. This had also been stated in the main body of the Constitution when it was originally ratified, but the 14th made it a bit more clear. Thats where the feds derive their power to put in place laws to protect that equality we all now enjoy.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> where is that nonsense carved in stone? When you offer up your "private property" for sale to the public at large, anyone willing to pay your asking price has a right to purchase it! You do NOT have the right to pick and choose who buys it. If you do not want someone to buy it, dont put it on the market.


You keep saying that but you offer nothing to support it other than laws. You know as well as I do that laws don't make something correct. The very government discrimination we have discussed is an example. It wasn't that long ago in history when that was legal but it didn't make it correct.

What if I want to sell my property but only to someone I think will take approach care of it? Say I have a 64 T-bird I have restored to mint condition and I want to sell it to buy a sail boat. A guy shows up with cash in hand and says he's working for a movie studio and they want to buy my car and they plan on blowing it up in the final scene. Should I be force to sell it to him just because I put an ad in the paper? What if I have a business of restoring and selling cars? Or should I be able to tell him to get lost I've put too much effort in restoring it to have some bozo blow it up? 

Its MY CAR and I have the right to sell or not sell it right up to the point that either goods are exchanged or a contract is legally signed. My reason for selling or not selling is none of the governments concern because its PRIVATE PROPERTY not government goods.

And there is that one nagging fact people want to completely ignore. If the government has the power to tell an individual who he MUST sell to it also has the power to tell him who he MUSTN'T sell to.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> You keep saying that but you offer nothing to support it other than laws.


Laws count.... especially those written into our Constitution. Sorry if you dont like all of them, neither do I, but antidiscrimination laws do serve us well. ALL of us.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The 14th amendment requires that everyone, as in all of us, have equal treatment... That pretty much means anyone has the same or equal right to buy your icecream. This had also been stated in the main body of the Constitution when it was originally ratified, but the 14th made it a bit more clear.


Again you might want to read it a bit closer. Pay particular attention to the words "No state shall make or enforce any law" and "nor shall any state deprive". I maybe wrong but I don't think an individual nor even a business is a "state" do you? 

Hum. . .interesting, even goofy, thought. . .You could even say that state made laws which require someone to violate their beliefs could violate the 14th because it is not giving them the same protection as people w/o those beliefs. You believe you have the right to buy my ice cream, I believe you don't. The state passes a law forcing me to sell you my ice cream or face civil/criminal charges. It has now made a law which discriminates against my freedom to believe and live as I wish. How's that for confusing?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats where the feds derive their power to put in place laws to protect that equality we all now enjoy.


Now that's a good one. Seeing as how the feds have huge systems set up specifically to make things unequal, ever heard the term affirmative action? How about The Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract program? But again some animals *are *more equal than others.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Laws count.... especially those written into our Constitution. Sorry if you dont like all of them, neither do I, but antidiscrimination laws do serve us well. ALL of us.


Laws which reduce individual freedom when it is not necessary are wrong even if they tend to serve us well. BTW, that logic is the same I hear from the PC crowd and gun control people.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> So are you saying that in promoting adoption pro-lifers are pushing selling children? Because if you think that doggie costs a lot try adopting a healthy white baby.


lol...nice signature.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Laws which reduce individual freedom when it is not necessary are wrong even if they tend to serve us well.


Beliefs that make you treat people differently when it's not necessary are wrong even if they make you feel superior


----------



## Shine

Funny how some people are quick to surrender their freedom to the premise of "society"


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Funny how some people are quick to surrender their freedom to the premise of "society"


And it sad to see some people are still willing to deny others their freedom in hopes of maintaining their own sense of superiority.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And it sad to see some people are still willing to deny others their freedom in hopes of maintaining their own sense of superiority.


"By insuring MY Freedom you see me somehow denying some other's freedom?" You do not understand Freedom then.

Oh, wait, you think I said something about superiority.. OK I see... wow

Would not this fall into the category of twisting one's words?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> "By insuring MY Freedom you see me somehow denying some other's freedom?" You do not understand Freedom then.
> 
> Oh, wait, you think I said something about superiority.. OK I see... wow
> 
> Would not this fall into the category of twisting one's words?


I was not directing that at you as an individual.... but as a statement in general. I was sorta hoping that the "some people" part would have clarified that.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I was not directing that at you as an individual.... but as a statement in general. I was sorta hoping that the "some people" part would have clarified that.


Oh well, the failings of the written word rears its ugly head once again...

No offense taken.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Beliefs that make you treat people differently when it's not necessary are wrong even if they make you feel superior


A belief is only wrong when you believe differently. This nation was founded on the idea that we are all free to believe what we wish and the government should not have the power to force a belief upon someone.

As long as your belief doesn't interfere with my rights then I will fight for your right to believe it. As long as acting on your belief doesn't interfere with my rights I will fight for your right to act on them.

You, as an individual, thinking the color of your skin, religion or whatever makes you better or worse than someone with a different color doesn't interfere with my rights therefore I will fight to allow you believe that. You, as an individual, refusing to sell me your private property because my skin color, religion or whatever is different than yours doesn't interfere with my rights therefore I will fight for your right to do that as well. 

If you want the government to group me by my skin color, religion or whatever and to treat me different than you based on being in that group then the I will, and have for decades, fight AGAINST that. 

Freedom requires us to put up with some things we may feel are wrong because doing otherwise means we must take another's freedom from them. Do you really want to live in a nation where that is the way things work?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And it sad to see some people are still willing to deny others their freedom in hopes of maintaining their own sense of superiority.


What freedom do you lose if someone refuses to sell you their private property?

Now what freedom do you lose when the government has the power to control your private property rights?


----------



## Evons hubby

"What freedom do you lose if someone refuses to sell you their private property?"

I lose the freedom to purchase the exact same items being sold to everyone else. 

"Now what freedom do you lose when the government has the power to control your private property rights?"

I lose the right to be a stupid jerk.


----------



## Guest

U.S. Code &#8250; Title 42 &#8250; Chapter 21B
42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION

(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person&#8217;s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person&#8217;s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person&#8212;
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1

The Hobby Lobby case we based largely on the above law.

Related to the subject matter Illinois appellate case


Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich

[Now Morr-Fitz v. Quinn] The ACLU of Illinois is participating actively in a lawsuit raising the fundamental question of whether a private, for-profit business should be permitted to discriminate against some customers on the basis of the proprietor&#8217;s religious beliefs. We have acted as an amicus (friend of the court) in the case, brought by three Illinois pharmacies and their individual owners. The pharmacies are challenging a state rule requiring community pharmacies in Illinois to dispense, and otherwise facilitate patient access to, medication approved by the FDA, including contraception.
Particularly, the plaintiffs in this case object on religious grounds to the requirement that they dispense or otherwise assist patients in accessing contraception. We have urged the courts to consider the impact that such refusals have on women seeking constitutionally-protected health care.
Update: On September 21, 2012, an Illinois Appellate Court issued a ruling excusing the plaintiffs from the rule&#8217;s requirement but keeping the state rule in place for all other community pharmacies in Illinois. In so ruling, the Court expressly rejected the notion that the interests of women seeking access to lawful medication were at all relevant to its analysis. The State of Illinois has not yet said if it will seek leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
http://www.aclu-il.org/morr-fitz-v-blagojevich22/

I guess we shall see how it and other cases process through the system.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> A belief is only wrong when you believe differently. This nation was founded on the idea that we are all free to believe what we wish and the government *should not have the power to force a belief upon someone*.


But you want to force your beliefs on others, and would if the Govt didn't prevent it from happening.

If it's "wrong" for the Govt, it's wrong for you too



> Freedom *requires us to put up with some things we may feel are wrong* because doing otherwise means we must take another's freedom from them.


That's the very principle you are trying to argue against, and is what others have been trying to tell you from the start


----------



## JJ Grandits

Some years ago I lived near a pretty well known raw bar in Florida.
The food was really good and I ate there two or three times a week. Anyways they had all sorts of clams and oysters. They had steamed clams but not steamed oysters. I really wanted steamed oysters and asked for them almost every time. They had the steamer, and they had the oysters, but would not make me steamed oysters. Now I really love steamed oysters and they had the capacity to make them for me but refused.
Were my civil rights violated?


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> Some years ago I lived near a pretty well known raw bar in Florida.
> The food was really good and I ate there two or three times a week. Anyways they had all sorts of clams and oysters. They had steamed clams but not steamed oysters. I really wanted steamed oysters and asked for them almost every time. They had the steamer, and they had the oysters, but would not make me steamed oysters. Now I really love steamed oysters and they had the capacity to make them for me but refused.
> Were my civil rights violated?


Nope. They didn't make steamed oysters for anyone. In order for them to violate your rights they would have had to have them available but refuse to sell them to *you*.


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> Some years ago I lived near a pretty well known raw bar in Florida.
> The food was really good and I ate there two or three times a week. Anyways they had all sorts of clams and oysters. They had steamed clams but not steamed oysters. I really wanted steamed oysters and asked for them almost every time. They had the steamer, and they had the oysters, but would not make me steamed oysters. Now I really love steamed oysters and they had the capacity to make them for me but refused.
> Were my civil rights violated?


Nope, not unless they served steamed oysters to everyone else. You cant claim rights violation just because someone doesnt serve a specific item. I thought I was going to starve to death when I took a trip up nawth to get a Maine lobster. Nobody up there would serve me a biscuit, or gravy! They were not pickin on me.... they simply had no idea what biscuits or gravy was! Needless to say I havent gone back.


----------



## dixiegal62

A person is free to do many things. Let's use hate speech as an example.... they are protected they have a right to say but they don't have the right to be protected from public opinion or the outcome of thier actions. I read it on this board I don't know how many times. A women is free to abort but she's not protected from public opinion either. It looks to me that some want her to be protected from public opinion, not only that but they want people to pay to make it safe and easy for her and for her to be protected from any bad outcome of her actions. These same people who protect her are the ones that tell us over and over again that someone they don't agree with gets what they deserve. It's like getting your cake and eating it too. Pun intended.


----------



## Tricky Grama

I'll try to make this short...

DD's DH used to own an antique book store.

A customer asked for some rare book. John said he could get it/order it.

Every day this customer came in asking about the book. Sorta became a pest. John was pretty sure what day it would arrive but the customer kept coming every day anyway.

John said 'prolly tues' & tues came, John was 3-4 min late opening the store. The customer had been outside waiting for maybe 10 min, had a fit! "do you know how long I've waited for this book?" I can't believe you weren't here on time!

John said, "Know what? I'm not selling you the book."


----------



## Irish Pixie

If I'm understanding correctly, the post isn't completely clear, no one (pro choice) is saying that there can be no public opinion/judgement about women that choose to abort. But if a pro life person states they want (or don't care) if someone dies during the procedure, they can be judged for that as well, correct? 

If pro choice supporters can be judged for their actions so can pro life. Pretty simple, you can't have it one way only.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> If I'm understanding correctly, the post isn't completely clear, no one (pro choice) is saying that there can be no public opinion/judgement about women that choose to abort. But if a pro life person states they want (or don't care) if someone dies during the procedure, they can be judged for that as well, correct?
> 
> If pro choice supporters can be judged for their actions so can pro life. Pretty simple, you can't have it one way only.


Oh I don't care if I'm judged for my opinion not one bit. As an adult I understand all actions have reactions and im ok with that I'm not the ones calling people who don't agree with me hypocrites.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Oh I don't care if I'm judged for my opinion not one bit. As an adult I understand all actions have reactions and im ok with that I'm not the ones calling people who don't agree with me hypocrites.


I'm confused. If someone calls themselves "pro life" and in the next breath wants someone else to die for doing something completely legal but that they disagree with, what else would you call them? If you're pro life, it means you are "for life", right? Or are you for life for a special few? ETA: Wouldn't it be more clear to say you are anti-abortion?

hypocrite

: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

Just my opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> A person is free to do many things. Let's use hate speech as an example.... they are protected they have a right to say but they don't have the right to be protected from public opinion or the outcome of thier actions. I read it on this board I don't know how many times. A women is free to abort but she's not protected from public opinion either. It looks to me that some want her to be protected from public opinion, not only that but they want people to pay to make it safe and easy for her and for her to be protected from any bad outcome of her actions. These same people who protect her are the ones that tell us over and over again that someone they don't agree with gets what they deserve. It's like getting your cake and eating it too. Pun intended.


"Public opinion" has nothing to do with a business discriminating based on sex or religion.

You are the only one who has mentioned "public opinion" at all


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm confused. If someone calls themselves "pro life" and in the next breath wants someone else to die for doing something completely legal but that they disagree with, what else would you call them? If you're pro life, it means you are "for life", right? Or are you for life for a special few?
> 
> hypocrite
> 
> : a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs
> 
> From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
> 
> Just my opinion.


No matter how many times you say I 'wanted' someone to die it wont make it true. But you already know that. That only happened in your mind.  In my experience people who use the word hypocrite only do so to give themselves a false sense of superiority.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> John said, "Know what? I'm not selling you the book."


There are no laws against refusing to sell to someone acting in a disruptive manner, since that applies equally to all customers

This stuff is really not complicated


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> No matter how many times you say I 'wanted' someone to die it wont make it true. But you already know that. That only happened in your mind.  In my experience people who use the word hypocrite only do so to give themselves a false sense of superiority.


You're correct in that you didn't say you "wanted" anyone to die.

You said you want abortions banned and you don't care if someone dies while having one.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're correct in that you didn't say you "wanted" anyone to die.
> 
> You said you want abortions banned and you don't care if someone dies while having one.


You're funny


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> No matter how many times you say I 'wanted' someone to die it wont make it true. But you already know that. That only happened in your mind.  In my experience people who use the word hypocrite only do so to give themselves a false sense of superiority.


And in my experience the people who use "karma" want something to happen. Who is right? 

You didn't answer my questions from the prior post. You dragged this issue up from many many pages ago, don't you want to discuss it?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> And in my experience the people who use "karma" want something to happen. Who is right?
> 
> You didn't answer my questions from the prior post. You dragged this issue up from many many pages ago, don't you want to discuss it?


There is no right. Each persons right is their own experiance. 
I wasn't aware that I HAD to answer your questions or play by your rules to post in here. Did I miss the memo?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> But you want to force your beliefs on others, and would if the Govt didn't prevent it from happening.
> 
> If it's "wrong" for the Govt, it's wrong for you too


What belief do you see me trying to force on others?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> There is no right everyone persons right is their own experiance.
> I wasn't aware that I HAD to answer your questions or play by your rules to post in here.


You absolutely don't. So I don't understand why you dragged up a old subject if you didn't want to discuss it? Was it just to troll?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> You absolutely don't. So I don't understand why you dragged up a old subject if you didn't want to discuss it? Was it just to troll?


I spoke about my feelings on abortion in an abortion thread. Yeah, what was I thinking?


----------



## Tricky Grama

dixiegal62 said:


> No matter how many times you say I 'wanted' someone to die it wont make it true. But you already know that. That only happened in your mind.  In my experience people who use the word hypocrite only do so to give themselves a false sense of superiority.


I'll quote you so perhaps it will be read again...not that there will be comprehension but one can always hope.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> What belief do you see me trying to force on others?


Let's not do the silly games.
You know exactly what I'm talking about


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I spoke about my feelings on abortion in an abortion thread. Yeah, what was I thinking?


Don't obfuscate, it's unbecoming. I posted (on the current subject) and you brought up something that clearly upset you from _pages_ ago. 

If you didn't want to discuss the prior subject why did you post?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are no laws against refusing to sell to someone acting in a disruptive manner, since that applies equally to all customers
> 
> This stuff is really not complicated


No one was disruptive, only impatient.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Public opinion" has nothing to do with a business discriminating based on sex or religion.
> 
> You are the only one who has mentioned "public opinion" at all


If public opinion had nothing to do with abortion or any other hot topic these threads wouldn't exist.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll quote you so perhaps it will be read again...not that there will be comprehension but one can always hope.


You are going to have to try harder to keep up... Just sayin'.

*Nauseous*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> No one was disruptive, only impatient.


"Disruptive" is subjective.
It still has nothing to do with "discrimination"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> If public opinion had nothing to do with abortion or any other hot topic these threads wouldn't exist.


What I said has nothing to do with internet threads.

You have to follow the context instead of being so eager to just argue


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't obfuscate, it's unbecoming. I posted (on the current subject) and you brought up something that clearly upset you from _pages_ ago.
> 
> If you didn't want to discuss the prior subject why did you post?


If you felt my post wasn't to your standards you could have past it by. Perhaps you'd prefer if I sent you a quick pm before posting to make sure its up to snuff for you.


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> What belief do you see me trying to force on others?



FREEDOM
A concept the nanny state lovers abhor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> FREEDOM
> A concept the nanny state lovers abhor.


That's just your typical rhetorical answer, with the usual name calling and condesension.

You only want "freedom" for one side, but won't simply admit it


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> If you felt my post wasn't to your standards you could have past it by. Perhaps you'd prefer if I sent you a quick pm before posting to make sure its up to snuff for you.


C'mon. Don't try to make this about me. I'm not the one that dragged up an old subject, you are. 

Please don't pm me.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> C'mon. Don't try to make this about me. I'm not the one that dragged up an old subject, you are.
> 
> Please don't pm me.


Haha don't worry I have no plans to.  ok so some have a problem talking about abortion in this thread now. I'll bow out and let y'all back at it. No problem.


----------



## Jolly

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Since some folks have become uber-picky about the nature of other folk's posts, perhaps we should institute a policy of PM'ing the objecting poster before sharing one's thoughts?

Some folks are going to be in for a deluge...


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's just your typical rhetorical answer, with the usual name calling and condesension.
> 
> Awwwwwwwwwe, sorry did you belong to that class
> 
> You only want "freedom" for one side, but won't simply admit it
> 
> Nope, freedom for all even you.


You are so very astute, but so very sensitive it seems to me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Wouldn't that be a hoot?
> 
> Since some folks have become uber-picky about the nature of other folk's posts, perhaps we should institute a policy of PM'ing the objecting poster before sharing one's thoughts?
> 
> Some folks are going to be in for a deluge...


Is your post about abortion or discrimination or is it just about me? I guess it could be another troll post... 

Are you sad today?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> You are so very astute, but so very sensitive it seems to me.


And you are so transparent.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> And you are so transparent.


Thank you,


----------



## Shine

I sometimes wonder if some people herein have to go out in public wearing a Hasmat suit with big letters written on it - 

DON'T TRY TO TALK TO ME - I'M RIGHT


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> I sometimes wonder if some people herein have to go out in public wearing a Hasmat suit with big letters written on it -
> 
> DON'T TRY TO TALK TO ME - I'M RIGHT


Only those that are wrong need a hazmat suit. They wade in their own crap all day long.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I sometimes wonder if some people herein have to go out in public wearing a Hasmat suit with big letters written on it -
> 
> DON'T TRY TO TALK TO ME - I'M RIGHT


I sometimes wonder why you keep pretending that doesn't include people on both sides of any issue?


----------



## Guest

Shine said:


> I sometimes wonder if some people herein have to go out in public wearing a Hasmat suit with big letters written on it -
> 
> DON'T TRY TO TALK TO ME - I'M RIGHT


Hey Shine did you specify an aisle, did I miss it??????, never mind the "astute" word I wrote back a few, maybe presumptive would have been a better choice.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I sometimes wonder why you keep pretending that doesn't include people on both sides of any issue?


Oh... I get it... you are back on the "as if" kick. No, I am not pretending anything - there ARE those types of people on both sides. Did you attach YOUR meaning to MY statement again? Do you see any items specifically attached to the "some people" in my post that would identify any specific person or group or are you making an assumption that you know what I meant?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Only those that are wrong need a hazmat suit. They wade in their own crap all day long.


Amen.

..either side.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Oh... I get it... you are back on the "as if" kick. No, I am not pretending anything - there ARE those types of people on both sides. Did you attach YOUR meaning to MY statement again? Do you see any items specifically attached to the "some people" in my post that would identify any specific person or group or are you making an assumption that you know what I meant?


It was based on my observations.

I see who you tend to criticize, and who you tend to support, and have no logical reason to assume any of that changed in that one post.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Disruptive" is subjective.
> It still has nothing to do with "discrimination"


Absolutely does. the guy ordered a book. When it came in, he was denied purchase.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Absolutely does. the guy ordered a book. When it came in, he was denied purchase.


No, it was because of his *behavior*, not his religion, race, age, sex, etc.
One is legal, because the same rules apply to all

One is not, because it is selective

This has been explained multiple times in more than one thread


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it was because of his *behavior*, not his religion, race, age, sex, etc.
> One is legal, because the same rules apply to all
> 
> One is not, because it is selective
> 
> This has been explained multiple times in more than one thread


They have a hard time grasping that concept. You will likely have to keep on repeating it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

They grasp it
They just won't admit it


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> They have a hard time grasping that concept. You will likely have to keep on repeating it.


Any more than repeating things to y'all is going to make you grasp anything?
:bdh:


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Let's not do the silly games.
> You know exactly what I'm talking about


No really, how is someone refusing to sell you an apple forcing you to believe the way they do?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's just your typical rhetorical answer, with the usual name calling and condesension.
> 
> You only want "freedom" for one side, but won't simply admit it


You are the one who seems to only want the power to flow from one side, the side you support. You want the freedom to have your belief that all people are the same and should be treated as such by all individuals but you want to take the freedom from people who don't agree with you. All based on the fact you believe that the other belief is "wrong".

I OTOH believe that all people should be treated equal but am willing to allow someone who doesn't the freedom to believe otherwise.


----------



## seawulf

mreynolds said:


> While I cant speak for others I would think it would be more about peoples individual choices and their rights to those choices. IE, it would be a personal choice to have an abortion but to be beat on and lose a baby that they wanted to keep would not have been their choice.


I think that is confusion. On one hand, killing an unborn baby is murder. But if the mother chooses to do it, isn't. A murderer may choose to kill someone else. Why is that any different?


----------



## Evons hubby

seawulf said:


> I think that is confusion. On one hand, killing an unborn baby is murder. But if the mother chooses to do it, isn't. A murderer may choose to kill someone else. Why is that any different?


Mothers are special, they even have their own special day every year. Murderers? Nope they are just outlaws.


----------



## mreynolds

seawulf said:


> I think that is confusion. On one hand, killing an unborn baby is murder. But if the mother chooses to do it, isn't. A murderer may choose to kill someone else. Why is that any different?


Well, a murderer always chooses to kill someone while manslaughter is by accident. But you can be charged with murder even if it was unintentional according to the circumstance. 

But I wasn't referring to the moral side of the OP, I was referring to the _*legal as it is written now*_ side. And for the record, I am against abortion. I am also against taking away rights that a person has no matter if I like those rights or not. You have to fight your battles one at a time.


----------



## greenbean

We have heard many arguments on both sides. One that sticks in my mind was made by a police officer. He said he has seen so much horror on the streets that he does not want to bring a child into such a world.


----------

