# Death of the fetus a homicide



## JeffreyD

Well now, this will be interesting to see how this plays out.

WILKINSBURG, Pa. -- Two gunmen working as a team fatally shot five people including a pregnant woman and critically wounded two others at a backyard cookout, with one attacker using a rifle to shoot the victims in the head as they were driven in his direction, a prosecutor said Thursday.

"The murders were planned. They were calculated, brutal," District Attorney Stephen Zappala said of the Wednesday nighttime shootings.

*The medical examiner officially ruled the death of the fetus a homicide Thursday afternoon, bringing the official count of fatalities in the late Wednesday night ambush attack to six.*

The gunmen appeared to have targeted one or two of the victims, said Zappala, who added that they hadn't ruled out drugs as a motive.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gunmen-...to-kill-6-at-pittsburgh-pennsylvania-cookout/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

It's common for fetal deaths to be rule homicides unless it's a legal abortion.
I'm not sure why you act surprised when it's the law in many states, and has been discussed here often


----------



## Irish Pixie

The death of a _wanted_ fetus is illegal so it's always a homicide.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's common for fetal deaths to be rule homicides unless it's a legal abortion.
> I'm not sure why you act surprised when it's the law in many states, and has been discussed here often


I know, right?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's common for fetal deaths to be rule homicides unless it's a legal abortion.
> I'm not sure why you act surprised when it's the law in many states, and has been discussed here often


Im not surprised and not sure whatever gave you that idea, just posted a link.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Im not surprised and not sure *whatever gave you that idea*, just posted a link.


I could have sworn you said:



> Well now, this will be interesting to see how this plays out.


Was that part of the report?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I could have sworn you said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that part of the report?


Sure, i said that, but im not surprised you took it that way, you usually do take things the wrong way.

"Well now, this will be interesting to see how this plays out." Sounds surprising to you, really? You just appear to be over reacting again. Maybe you should stick to the subject at hand.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Sure, i said that, but im not surprised you took it that way, you usually do take things the wrong way.
> 
> "Well now, this will be interesting to see how this plays out." Sounds surprising to you, really? You just appear to be over reacting again.


ound:


----------



## Elevenpoint

JeffreyD said:


> Im not surprised and not sure whatever gave you that idea, just posted a link.


You know the hand wringing the pro abortion group goes through with these situations.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Are there any pro-abortionists here? 

I'm pro-choice, it doesn't matter to me which choice a woman makes only that she has one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> You know the hand wringing the pro abortion group goes through with these situations.


Which "pro-abortion group"?
What "situation"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Sure, i said that, but im not surprised you took it that way, *you usually do take things the wrong way.*
> 
> "Well now, this will be interesting to see how this plays out."* Sounds surprising to you, really? *You just appear to be over reacting again. Maybe you should stick to the subject at hand.


You seem confused.
I didn't say what you said "sounds surprising" *to me*

I said it sounds like *you* were surprised, based on your statement:



> "Well now, this will be interesting to see how this plays out."


The "subject at hand" appears to be a gang/drug related shooting with several victims killed, one of which was a fetus. 

Beyond that there's not much to discuss for now


----------



## roadless

How sad for the families and friends of those who lost their life....
I grew up a few towns away from there, and still have family in the area.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Are there any pro-abortionists here?
> 
> I'm pro-choice, it doesn't matter to me which choice a woman makes only that she has one.


Pro abortionists here?
Don't know.
Pro choice does sound better if that's the claim. 
For those that support abortion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Pro abortionists here?
> Don't know.
> Pro choice does sound better if that's the claim.
> For *those that support abortion*.


More imaginary people?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> More imaginary people?


Sure...just like kinda racist.


----------



## Nevada

With such a high body count, I kind of doubt that the fetus charge will have any realistic impact on the sentence.


----------



## DJ in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> The death of a _wanted_ fetus is illegal so it's always a homicide.





Irish Pixie said:


> Are there any pro-abortionists here?
> 
> I'm pro-choice, it doesn't matter to me which choice a woman makes only that she has one.


If it is homicide because it is wanted, why can't we excuse killing an unwanted 1 month old?

You determine rightness by something being legal. If society decides killing 1 month olds is legal, would you support that?

Why is it a "choice" 1 second before birth and a homicide 1 second after?


----------



## Lisa in WA

DJ in WA said:


> If it is homicide because it is wanted, why can't we excuse killing an unwanted 1 month old?
> 
> You determine rightness by something being legal. If society decides killing 1 month olds is legal, would you support that?
> 
> Why is it a "choice" 1 second before birth and a homicide 1 second after?



Is abortion legal anywhere "one second before birth"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DJ in WA said:


> If it is homicide because it is wanted, why can't we excuse killing an unwanted 1 month old?
> 
> You determine *rightness *by something being legal. If society decides killing 1 month olds is legal, would you support that?
> 
> Why is it a "choice" 1 second before birth and a homicide 1 second after?


No one but you said "rightness".
This is about "legal".

They are not the same thing
One is subjective, the other is not


----------



## Irish Pixie

DJ in WA said:


> If it is homicide because it is wanted, why can't we excuse killing an unwanted 1 month old?
> 
> You determine rightness by something being legal. If society decides killing 1 month olds is legal, would you support that?
> 
> Why is it a "choice" 1 second before birth and a homicide 1 second after?


The legal killing of a one month old infant will never happen, but it's great inflammatory rhetoric to bandy about, isn't it?


----------



## mmoetc

DJ in WA said:


> If it is homicide because it is wanted, why can't we excuse killing an unwanted 1 month old?
> 
> You determine rightness by something being legal. If society decides killing 1 month olds is legal, would you support that?
> 
> Why is it a "choice" 1 second before birth and a homicide 1 second after?


The simple answer is that it isn't. Current law doesn't allow what you postulate. The more complex answer is that many actions, including those that harm another, are judged differently by the law depending on the conditions and timing of the action.


----------



## FarmerKat

If it all this hinges on whether the child is "wanted" ... is it still a homicide if the woman was planning to have an abortion?


----------



## Irish Pixie

FarmerKat said:


> If it all this hinges on whether the child is "wanted" ... is it still a homicide if the woman was planning to have an abortion?


I dunno the absolute legality of it, but she had time to change her mind until she actually had the abortion, so I'd say yes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FarmerKat said:


> If it all this hinges on whether the child is "wanted" ... is it still a homicide if the woman was planning to have an abortion?


Yes because shooting the mother isn't a legally acceptable abortion method.
It's not hinged on just "want", but also on following proper procedures


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Is abortion legal anywhere "one second before birth"?


Being that there are examples of people who have survived abortion attempts (slipping out of the birth canal before the "doctor" could stab the fetus in the brain) I would say yes.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Being that there are examples of people who have survived abortion attempts (slipping out of the birth canal before the "doctor" could stab the fetus in the brain) I would say yes.


Um. So there was no abortion done, correct? Abortion is the _termination_ of a pregnancy.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Um. So there was no abortion done, correct? Abortion is the _termination_ of a pregnancy.


That is why I used the word "attempt". :idea:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> That is why I used the word "attempt". :idea:


And again, it wasn't an abortion, correct? It was a live birth.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> And again, it wasn't an abortion, correct? It was a live birth.


Yes it was a live birth, resulting from an attempted abortion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Yes it was a live birth, resulting from an attempted abortion.


Whatever you say....


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Whatever you say....


I get what you are trying to say. If the baby survives, it was not an abortion because the goal of abortion is the death of the baby. I get that. But, for every one who survives there are likely thousands where the "doctor" was able to scramble the brain of the child prior to birth, so, the answer to the original question "Is abortion 1 second prior to birth legal anywhere?" would be yes.


----------



## Lisa in WA

********


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I get what you are trying to say. If the baby survives, it was not an abortion because the goal of abortion is the death of the baby. I get that. But, for every one who survives there are likely thousands where the "doctor" was able to scramble the brain of the child prior to birth, so, the answer to the original question "Is abortion 1 second prior to birth legal anywhere?" would be yes.


The best stats I could find state that only about 100 third trimester( after 24) weeks abortions are performed in the US each year. It's not a common procedure. It's also a decision made between a woman and her doctor, something I don't wish to insert myself into. Nor do I wish government to insert itself any further than it has. I have no problems with limiting abortions. I do have a problem with trying to make a medically neccessary procedure illegal.


----------



## MDKatie

basketti said:


> Where is that legal?


She's trying to use the illogical argument that if an abortion procedure fails and the child is "born" or somehow magically slips out of the mother, that it would have been legal for the abortion 1 second prior to the "birth" of the pre-term child. :doh:


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> The best stats I could find state that only about 100 third trimester( after 24) weeks abortions are performed in the US each year. It's not a common procedure. It's also a decision made between a woman and her doctor, something I don't wish to insert myself into. Nor do I wish government to insert itself any further than it has. I have no problems with limiting abortions. I do have a problem with trying to make a medically neccessary procedure illegal.


But, is a third trimester abortion ever medically necessary? Is it any safer to perform an abortion as it is to simply deliver the child?


----------



## Farmerga

MDKatie said:


> She's trying to use the illogical argument that if an abortion procedure fails and the child is "born" or somehow magically slips out of the mother, that it would have been legal for the abortion 1 second prior to the "birth" of the pre-term child. :doh:


Are you familiar with the procedures involved with late term abortions? Sure, as mmoetc stated, they are rare, but, they do happen. There are times when these procedures are "botched" resulting in the birth of a child. The goal is to kill the child prior to it exiting the birth canal. There can be literally a second between a legal abortion and a live birth.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> But, is a third trimester abortion ever medically necessary? Is it any safer to perform an abortion as it is to simply deliver the child?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the woman and her medical team. As I said, it's not a decision I want to insert myself into or have the government insert itself into further. What medical decisions would you be comfortable having the government decide for you?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I don't know. You'd have to ask the woman and her medical team. As I said, it's not a decision I want to insert myself into or have the government insert itself into further. What medical decisions would you be comfortable having the government decide for you?


 
There should be no government interference when the only one in danger is me. That does not describe abortion.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Are you familiar with the procedures involved with late term abortions? Sure, as mmoetc stated, they are rare, but, they do happen. There are times when these procedures are "botched" resulting in the birth of a child. The goal is to kill the child prior to it exiting the birth canal. There can be literally a second between a legal abortion and a live birth.


I've found no actual account of this happening. I have seen statistics that show some number of fetuses were delivered after 24 weeks and allowed to die. This is different than a botched abortion leading to a live birth. It's also not much different than fetuses with severe developmental problems being carried to term and the parents deciding extraordinary life saving measures shouldn't be done leading to the death of the infant within hours or days. Or even a parent signing a do not resuccitate order for a terminally ill infant. Many have great sympathy for women in the later cases but would vilify the woman for terminating a pregancy that her doctors and she know would have that outcome. What is the difference there.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I've found no actual account of this happening. I have seen statistics that show some number of fetuses were delivered after 24 weeks and allowed to die. This is different than a botched abortion leading to a live birth. It's also not much different than fetuses with severe developmental problems being carried to term and the parents deciding extraordinary life saving measures shouldn't be done leading to the death of the infant within hours or days. Or even a parent signing a do not resuccitate order for a terminally ill infant. Many have great sympathy for women in the later cases but would vilify the woman for terminating a pregancy that her doctors and she know would have that outcome. What is the difference there.



I found a transcript of some testimony, before a congress sub-committee of a survivor of a botched abortion. I remember when she offered testimony, it was powerful: http://www.abortionfacts.com/stories/gianna-jessen


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I found a transcript of some testimony, before a congress sub-committee of a survivor of a botched abortion. I remember when she offered testimony, it was powerful: http://www.abortionfacts.com/stories/gianna-jessen


The testimony is compelling but laws have changed since 1996 when it was offered. Laws have changed that would seem to make the procedure and decision this young woman's mother went through undoable today. And that's not a change in law I disagree with.

Now, do me the courtesy of answering my question of why allowing a baby to die in her mothers arms is met with compassion yet that same mother making the same decision to let a life not proceed is met with contempt if done a few months earlier?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> The testimony is compelling but laws have changed since 1996 when it was offered. Laws have changed that would seem to make the procedure and decision this young woman's mother went through undoable today. And that's not a change in law I disagree with.
> 
> Now, do me the courtesy of answering my question of why allowing a baby to die in her mothers arms is met with compassion yet that same mother making the same decision to let a life not proceed is met with contempt if done a few months earlier?


 Because you almost never really know, with absolute certainty, the outcome. I am for self directed euthanasia. I don't see that we have the right to decide that for others.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Because you almost never really know, with absolute certainty, the outcome. I am for self directed euthanasia. I don't see that we have the right to decide that for others.


You seem to have answered the part of the question you found easiest. Should the mother who goes full term and denies the baby extraordinary measures or the parents who sign that DNR also give up their rights to make that decision for another?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I get what you are trying to say. If the baby survives, it was not an abortion because the goal of abortion is the death of the baby. I get that. But, for every one who survives there are likely thousands where the "doctor" was able to scramble the brain of the child prior to birth, so, the answer to the original question "Is abortion 1 second prior to birth legal anywhere?" would be yes.


In *most* places abortions aren't legal once the fetus reaches viability at around 20-24 weeks. The vast majority are performed in the first 6 weeks.

You're describing "partial birth abortions" which are now illegal


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Because you almost never really know, with absolute certainty, the outcome. I am for self directed euthanasia. *I don't see* that we have the right to decide that for others.


It doesn't require you to "see" it for it's existance.
The issue was decided decades ago in the courts.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You seem to have answered the part of the question you found easiest. Should the mother who goes full term and denies the baby extraordinary measures or the parents who sign that DNR also give up their rights to make that decision for another?


No, that baby would die from natural causes. It is the act of killing it that I find horrific.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> The death of a _wanted_ fetus is illegal so it's always a homicide.


It seems to fly in the face of common sense that an unwanted baby is so much more disposable. 

Killing a wanted or unwanted baby is still killing a baby.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> It seems to fly in the face of common sense that an unwanted baby is so much more disposable.
> 
> Killing a wanted or unwanted baby is still killing a baby.


Nope. The key here is legal.


----------



## HDRider

Think about that statement. If your stomach does not churn with the thought it being legal to kill a baby there is something missing in your evaluator.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

HDRider said:


> Think about that statement. If your stomach does not churn with the thought it being legal to kill a baby there is something missing in your evaluator.


You're entitled to your opinions

There are many people who don't share them

That makes them no better *nor* worse than you, but only different.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> Think about that statement. If your stomach does not churn with the thought it being legal to kill a baby there is something missing in your evaluator.


I support a woman's right to control her own body. I have absolutely no right, and neither does anyone else, to tell another human being what he or she can do with their body. 

When you get pregnant you can make what has to be horrible decision for your self until then it's none of your business. 

If all you are going to do is insult my opinion on a legal medical procedure, I'm done discussing this with you.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I find it interesting that the same people who say it's immoral to kill fetuses don't bat an eye at the rate of species extinction going on. Got your priorities real straight, doncha?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> The death of a _wanted_ fetus is illegal so it's always a homicide.


So if a person is wanted they are a person but if they are not wanted they are not a person? Now that there is some fine logic. 

I'd think people would live in fear when they realize with a small change in law if they were declared "unwanted" they could be legally killed. And history has shown this is not a baseless fear.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So if a person is wanted they are a person but if they are not wanted they are not a person? Now that there is some fine logic.
> 
> I'd think people would live in fear when they realize with a small change in law if they were declared "unwanted" they could be legally killed. And history has shown this is not a baseless fear.


You're confusing legal terms with emotional rhetoric, and falsely thinking it's all "logical"

If history has shown anything, it's that women will have abortions, legal or not, and only they can choose

Even the majority of people on this site said they want abortions to be legal with about a 60% majority if I remember correctly


----------



## MDKatie

I bet a great many of the people who are against the Affordable Care Act don't want the gov't to be involved in our medical decisions. Amiright? Anyone see the irony there?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing legal terms with emotional rhetoric, and falsely thinking it's all "logical"


The "law" (general term meaning the legal system not this specific law) is supposed to be based on logic and the idea of equality. You are not supposed to be able to have one law for one situation and another law for another.

You can't call a fetus a human in one case but call it a mass of tissue in another. It is one or the other always.

It'd be like the law saying if you hit a moving car it was a motor vehicle and its value was based on the amount of money needed to replace it but if you hit a parked car it was just a pile of metal and its value was based on the price of scrap metal at the time of the accident.




Bearfootfarm said:


> If history has shown anything, it's that women will have abortions, legal or not, and only they can choose


And history has shown us that people will kill others, do drugs, take things and more (legal or not) and only they can choose. What's your point? 

Mine was that once the government is given the power to decided when someone is a human and when they are not bad things have happened.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Even the majority of people on this site said they want abortions to be legal with about a 60% majority if I remember correctly


My view on abortion is the same as any other homicide. You have the full right to kill another human if they are posing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to you or others. You do not have the right to kill another human just because they are an inconvenience or bother to you or just because you don't want them.


----------



## Elevenpoint

HDRider said:


> Think about that statement. If your stomach does not churn with the thought it being legal to kill a baby there is something missing in your evaluator.


See...you have to make your mind believe it is a legal medical procedure...then you can stomach it. Just try not to think about the brains vacuumed out and limbs torn off.


----------



## Alaska

Heritagefarm said:


> I find it interesting that the same people who say it's immoral to kill fetuses don't bat an eye at the rate of species extinction going on. Got your priorities real straight, doncha?


 Do you also find it interesting that the same people who fight for the womans right to abort a child also believe that a person should be jailed for breaking an eagle egg, cutting down an a nesting tree, protesting on government property about government taking property.
I am pro choice, I just pray that everyone makes the right choice.* Life is always the right choice


*


----------



## Lisa in WA

Alaska said:


> Do you also find it interesting that the same people who fight for the womans right to abort a child also believe that a person should be jailed for breaking an eagle egg, cutting down an a nesting tree, protesting on government property about government taking property.
> I am pro choice, I just pray that everyone makes the right choice.* Life is always the right choice
> 
> 
> *


I also find it interesting that the same people who fight to keep women from having a choice about their bodies are also the same people screeching about WIC, food stamps, free school lunches, medicaid, etc. which help children after they are born.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> The "law" (general term meaning the legal system not this specific law) is supposed to be based on logic and the idea of equality. You are not supposed to be able to have one law for one situation and another law for another.
> 
> You can't call a fetus a human in one case but call it a mass of tissue in another. It is one or the other always.
> 
> *It'd be like* the law saying if you hit a moving car it was a motor vehicle and its value was based on the amount of money needed to replace it but if you hit a parked car it was just a pile of metal and its value was based on the price of scrap metal at the time of the accident.
> 
> And history has shown us that people will kill others, do drugs, take things and more (legal or not) and only they can choose. What's your point?
> 
> Mine was that once the government is given the power to decided when someone is a human and when they are not bad things have happened.
> 
> My view on abortion is the same as any other homicide. You have the full right to kill another human if they are posing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to you or others. *You do not have the right to kill another human just because they are an inconvenience or bother to you or just because you don't want them*.


That's still just *your* opinion.
It's not everyone's. You have the right to yours as they have a right to theirs


----------



## Heritagefarm

MDKatie said:


> I bet a great many of the people who are against the Affordable Care Act don't want the gov't to be involved in our medical decisions. Amiright? Anyone see the irony there?


According to everything I've read the ACA is a dismal failure. Everyone I know has had higher insurance I rates as a result. I do not know a single person who has had them go down. 



Alaska said:


> Do you also find it interesting that the same people who fight for the womans right to abort a child also believe that a person should be jailed for breaking an eagle egg, cutting down an a nesting tree, protesting on government property about government taking property.
> I am pro choice, I just pray that everyone makes the right choice.* Life is always the right choice
> 
> 
> *


Can't argue with that. Everything and everyone deserves a chance to experience this life. It is a wonderful opportunity; why should we deny anyone or anything the chance?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> No, that baby would die from natural causes. It is the act of killing it that I find horrific.


But in the cases I cited the baby could be kept alive almost indefinitely with feeding tubes, respirators and and a wide variety of modern medical intervention. Yet parents who make the concious decision to withhold such treatment and allow that baby to die are treated differently than if they had made the decision based genetic testing and imaging to terminate the pregnancy earlier. Both are decisions that lead to death but are treated quite differently. Only one causes the death of a living, breathing, human being.

If you were walking in the forest and came across an person suffering a heart attack could you justify walking by and not rendering or calling for aide because they were going to die from natural causes, anyway? By not helping you didn't kill them, right?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> The "law" (general term meaning the legal system not this specific law) is supposed to be based on logic and the idea of equality. You are not supposed to be able to have one law for one situation and another law for another.
> 
> You can't call a fetus a human in one case but call it a mass of tissue in another. It is one or the other always.
> 
> It'd be like the law saying if you hit a moving car it was a motor vehicle and its value was based on the amount of money needed to replace it but if you hit a parked car it was just a pile of metal and its value was based on the price of scrap metal at the time of the accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And history has shown us that people will kill others, do drugs, take things and more (legal or not) and only they can choose. What's your point?
> 
> Mine was that once the government is given the power to decided when someone is a human and when they are not bad things have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My view on abortion is the same as any other homicide. You have the full right to kill another human if they are posing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to you or others. You do not have the right to kill another human just because they are an inconvenience or bother to you or just because you don't want them.


One of the few things I agree with you on is that fetal homicide laws make little sense. They should be done away with.

Is withholding treatment leading to death killing and how does that fit your view? Should the right to make such decisions for infants be removed from parents? Who should it be given to? Is it always wrong?


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> I also find it interesting that the same people who fight to keep women from having a choice about their bodies are also the same people screeching about WIC, food stamps, free school lunches, medicaid, etc. which help children after they are born.


Ding Ding Ding We have a winner folks. 

The pro-unborn don't give a fat rat's behind about children _after_ birth.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Ding Ding Ding We have a winner folks.
> 
> The pro-unborn don't give a fat rat's behind about children _after_ birth.


For generally being anti-science, they sure spout Darwinism a lot.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> I also find it interesting that the same people who fight to keep women from having a choice about their bodies are also the same people screeching about WIC, food stamps, free school lunches, medicaid, etc. which help children after they are born.


It would appear that if you offer the whole swath of humanity something that a few genuinely need that there will be a higher percentage of people that will take advantage of it when they really are not at a point where they absolutely need it. This counts for all of the items mentioned above. 

I really wonder what the actual percentage is for the unnecessary use of many of the benefits that government provides or protects.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Ding Ding Ding We have a winner folks.
> 
> The pro-unborn don't give a fat rat's behind about children _after_ birth.


We care about them and work to take care of them. We just don't want someone sticking a gun in your face and demanding you do the same if you don't want to. 

The government has no right nor power to use the threat of force to take money from one citizen and give it directly to another just because it thinks the second citizen 'needs' it more than the first.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> One of the few things I agree with you on is that fetal homicide laws make little sense. They should be done away with.
> 
> Is withholding treatment leading to death killing and how does that fit your view? Should the right to make such decisions for infants be removed from parents? Who should it be given to? Is it always wrong?


Each case must be dealt with individually through the due process of law not with a blanket policy. There are times when the government should use its power to protect the rights of individuals and there are times when the rights of the individual trumps the governments power.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Each case must be dealt with individually through the due process of law not with a blanket policy. There are times when the government should use its power to protect the rights of individuals and there are times when the rights of the individual trumps the governments power.


One of your more interesting non-answers especially considering your general mistrust of government and their intrusions. And I'll add, the rights of the individual should always trump governments power.


----------



## Lisa in WA

watcher said:


> We care about them and work to take care of them. We just don't want someone sticking a gun in your face and demanding you do the same if you don't want to.
> 
> The government has no right nor power to use the threat of force to take money from one citizen and give it directly to another just because it thinks the second citizen 'needs' it more than the first.


If you don't want the responsibility of taking care of other people's offspring as dictated by government, then don't try to use government to deny them the choice of terminating pregnancy through abortion.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> One of your more interesting non-answers especially considering your general mistrust of government and their intrusions. And I'll add, the rights of the individual should always trump governments power.


So one person refusing to sell their land should be able to stop the building of a port, dam or freeway? 

I answered. If I were asked if it were ok stab someone to death I'd say about the same thing, it depends on the circumstances.


----------



## watcher

basketti said:


> If you don't want the responsibility of taking care of other people's offspring as dictated by government, then don't try to use government to deny them the choice of terminating pregnancy through abortion.


Apples and kumquats. 

The government has no right to the power to take money from you and give it to me just because it thinks I need it more than you do.

The government does have the right to use its power to protect my right to life from being removed by your action. 

If you disagree with the first statement then you have NO personal property rights because the government has the power to take anything it wishes from you and give it to me if it thinks I need it an you do not.

If you disagree with the second statement then the there should be no law preventing your neighbor from killing you if you play your music too loud.


----------



## Lisa in WA

watcher said:


> Apples and kumquats.
> 
> The government has no right to the power to take money from you and give it to me just because it thinks I need it more than you do.
> 
> The government does have the right to use its power to protect my right to life from being removed by your action.
> 
> If you disagree with the first statement then you have NO personal property rights because the government has the power to take anything it wishes from you and give it to me if it thinks I need it an you do not.
> 
> If you disagree with the second statement then the there should be no law preventing your neighbor from killing you if you play your music too loud.


Your argument is so disjointed and illogical it's not worth trying to reason with you. Sorry I even tried. I usually ignore your tomes.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So one person refusing to sell their land should be able to stop the building of a port, dam or freeway?
> 
> I answered. If I were asked if it were ok stab someone to death I'd say about the same thing, it depends on the circumstances.


They should be able to until that due process you speak of works its magic and proper compensation is awarded to them for their property. 

"It depends" ( quotes mine) is technically an answer. It is just an incomplete and vague one. Under what circumstances should the right to deny treatment and cause the death of a living, breathing human being be given to another? Or more appropriately, when would you take this right from a parent? If that right exists ( and it's a decision made in hospitals every day in this country) why doesn't the same right exist to terminate the pregancy earlier? Both actions would seem to have the same result in your eyes. Ending a human life? Why is one allowed and accepted and the other not. If all life is precious shouldn't everything possible be done to preserve it for as long as possible? If one opposes all abortions and seeks legislation banning them shouldn't one logically oppose every instance of allowing a living breathing baby to die if that life can be extended even one hour?


----------



## mmoetc

To be clear, the questions I posed, including why the parents that withhold treatment and allow an infant to pass are viewed differently than the same parents who choose to terminate a pregancy whose outcome would lead to that, are for anyone to answer. Especially those who are adamant that all abortion a be outlawed without exception and that life is always the best choice. I do thank watcher for answering.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> To be clear, the questions I posed, including why the parents that withhold treatment and allow an infant to pass are viewed differently than the same parents who choose to terminate a pregancy whose outcome would lead to that, are for anyone to answer. Especially those who are adamant that all abortion a be outlawed without exception and that life is always the best choice. I do thank watcher for answering.


 The difference is as clear as the difference between allowing a possibly terminally ill patient to die as opposed to shooting him in the head. (against his wishes)


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> The difference is as clear as the difference between allowing a possibly terminally ill patient to die as opposed to shooting him in the head. (against his wishes)


My scenarios involve exactly the same people making a decision that has exactly the same consequence ( in your words, loss of a life). You seem to judge the actions differently? What makes them different? Why judge the fetus capable if making the decision to want to live but remove that same decision from the the living, breathing baby? How do you know the fetus's wishes? How do you know the baby's? Is it really up to you to decide? Or is it the parent's?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> My scenarios involve exactly the same people making a decision that has exactly the same consequence ( in your words, loss of a life). You seem to judge the actions differently? What makes them different? Why judge the fetus capable if making the decision to want to live but remove that same decision from the the living, breathing baby? How do you know the fetus's wishes? How do you know the baby's? Is it really up to you to decide? Or is it the parent's?


Once the baby is born, and we can see that the prenatal tests were either accurate, or, not accurate, then other decisions can be made. As most abortions are done for reasons of birth control, this is largely an exercise in "what if" scenarios and I have been told, several times, that those type of things have no place here.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Once the baby is born, and we can see that the prenatal tests were either accurate, or, not accurate, then other decisions can be made. As most abortions are done for reasons of birth control, this is largely an exercise in "what if" scenarios and I have been told, several times, that those type of things have no place here.


Why don't they have a place? Absolute statements have been made that all abortion is wrong and all life is precious and the choice must always be life. Those statements must be defendable under all circumstances to remain absolutes and valid. What I propose aren't "what if" scenarios. They are actual events with actual people that play out every day across this country. If you don't know someone, or know of someone, who has made this sort of decision count yourself lucky. It's easy to make statement, rules and laws that cover most things. It much harder, almost impossible, to cover all things with absolutes. It is those outliers that test the validity of the absolute.

With modern technology, genetic testing, and advanced imaging that outcome can be known days, weeks, even months prior to a live birth. Modern technology can sustain life almost indefinitely. Yet the decision to end that life is viewed differently depending on when that decision is made. If you wish to remove the right for a parent to make that decision prior to birth why does it seem so difficult for you to say those same parents shouldn't have the right to make such a decision after there is an actual living breathing baby ?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Why don't they have a place? Absolute statements have been made that all abortion is wrong and all life is precious and the choice must always be life. Those statements must be defendable under all circumstances to remain absolutes and valid. What I propose aren't "what if" scenarios. They are actual events with actual people that play out every day across this country. If you don't know someone, or know of someone, who has made this sort of decision count yourself lucky. It's easy to make statement, rules and laws that cover most things. It much harder, almost impossible, to cover all things with absolutes. It is those outliers that test the validity of the absolute.
> 
> With modern technology, genetic testing, and advanced imaging that outcome can be known days, weeks, even months prior to a live birth. Modern technology can sustain life almost indefinitely. Yet the decision to end that life is viewed differently depending on when that decision is made. If you wish to remove the right for a parent to make that decision prior to birth why does it seem so difficult for you to say those same parents shouldn't have the right to make such a decision after there is an actual living breathing baby removed?


 I tend to like "What if" scenarios myself, but, I have been told, on these boards, on this subject matter, that they have no place. 

To your point. There is a difference between not doing something and allowing nature to take its course and acting in a way that is against nature. Again take your heart attack victim. Is there a difference, in your mind, between leaving him to die, or, not die of the heart attack, and taking out a gun and shooting him in the head?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I tend to like "What if" scenarios myself, but, I have been told, on these boards, on this subject matter, that they have no place.
> 
> To your point. There is a difference between not doing something and allowing nature to take its course and acting in a way that is against nature. Again take your heart attack victim. Is there a difference, in your mind, between leaving him to die, or, not die of the heart attack, and taking out a gun and shooting him in the head?


Sure. But it might depend on how far from help we are. I could stand there and watch him die knowing no help would reach him in time or I could end his suffering. Legally I would be guilty of murder if I shot him even if he begged me. Morally it might be the best thing to do. We make the same decision with animals all the time.

But you haven't answered my question. There is no need to "let nature take its course". We thwart nature's course every day in treating a variety of maladies. Its a conscious decision not to alter that course to favor life. If all life is precious and life should always be the choice , as many have stated here, shouldnt any choice made always be to preserve life? Nature's course could be thwarted. That living breathing being could be kept alive. But you would say watching that being struggle for breath or starve is the allowable course. A bullet to the head is often quicker and more humane than watching a living breathing being suffer and die. 
Or is it all about timing?

I'm all for people being able to legally make the choice to decide when their life should end and not be forced to allow nature to take its course.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Sure. But it might depend on how far from help we are. I could stand there and watch him die knowing no help would reach him in time or I could end his suffering. Legally I would be guilty of murder if I shot him even if he begged me. Morally it might be the best thing to do. We make the same decision with animals all the time.
> 
> But you haven't answered my question. There is no need to "let nature take its course". We thwart nature's course every day in treating a variety of maladies. Its a conscious decision not to alter that course to favor life. If all life is precious and life should always be the choice , as many have stated here, shouldnt any choice made always be to preserve life? Nature's course could be thwarted. That living breathing being could be kept alive. But you would say watching that being struggle for breath or starve is the allowable course. A bullet to the head is often quicker and more humane than watching a living breathing being suffer and die.
> Or is it all about timing?
> 
> I'm all for people being able to legally make the choice to decide when their life should end and not be forced to allow nature to take its course.


 If the child has no chance of meaningful survival, we should let nature take its course. If the child can have meaningful survival with intervention, we should intervene. We should not euthanize a child, either pre-birth, or, post birth, because we feel that their life is not worth living. 

I too am all for people being able to legally make the choice to decide when their life should end. We should not have the right to make that choice for anyone else. If they are unable to make that choice, we should have the option to withhold life extending technology, but, we should not have the right to act to end their life.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> If the child has no chance of meaningful survival, we should let nature take its course. If the child can have meaningful survival with intervention, we should intervene. We should not euthanize a child, either pre-birth, or, post birth, because we feel that their life is not worth living.
> 
> I too am all for people being able to legally make the choice to decide when their life should end. We should not have the right to make that choice for anyone else. If they are unable to make that choice, we should have the option to withhold life extending technology, but, we should not have the right to act to end their life.


And now you bring in a new, subjective term- meaningful. Who gets to decide what is meaningful and when can they make that decision? Why is that decision valid thirty seconds after birth but not thirty seconds before? Isn't deciding to withhold life saving technology an act? Doesn't that act end their life? And who is this "we" you speak of? 

I do understand what you're saying. But I see little difference between acting to end a life and not acting allowing that same life to end. Both result in the same outcome. Both are choices that individuals must struggle with. Both can be seen as morally right and humane by different individuals. I promise never to work to take the freedom to make whatever choice you see fit from you.

I mostly try not to get too personal here. But I spent way too much time in a pediatric ICU unit not long ago and met too many people struggling with decisions just like this to not take such things personally. I know far too many people who might have to make the decision in the future whether to end a pregnancy or be right back in that unit making the same difficult choices again. I don't judge any of their choices right or wrong, good or bad. Just heartbreaking.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And now you bring in a new, subjective term- meaningful. Who gets to decide what is meaningful and when can they make that decision? Why is that decision valid thirty seconds after birth but not thirty seconds before? Isn't deciding to withhold life saving technology an act? Doesn't that act end their life? And who is this "we" you speak of?
> 
> I do understand what you're saying. But I see little difference between acting to end a life and not acting allowing that same life to end. Both result in the same outcome. Both are choices that individuals must struggle with. Both can be seen as morally right and humane by different individuals. I promise never to work to take the freedom to make whatever choice you see fit from you.
> 
> I mostly try not to get too personal here. But I spent way too much time in a pediatric ICU unit not long ago and met too many people struggling with decisions just like this to not take such things personally. I know far too many people who might have to make the decision in the future whether to end a pregnancy or be right back in that unit making the same difficult choices again. I don't judge any of their choices right or wrong, good or bad. Just heartbreaking.


 To me, "meaningful" would be anything beyond lower brain function. We have a right to live, we do not have a right to the use of life extending tech. There is a world of difference between making a choice to actively kill another and withholding life extending measures. 

"We" would be society. 

I would not presume to take freedom of choice away from you either, as long as that choice only pertains to you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I tend to like "What if" scenarios myself, but, I have been told, on these boards, on this subject matter, that they have no place.
> 
> To your point. There is a difference between not doing something and allowing nature to take its course and acting in a way that is against nature. Again take your heart attack victim. Is there a difference, in your mind, between leaving him to die, or, not die of the heart attack, and taking out a gun and shooting him in the head?


Nope. I said _I_ don't like to play "what if" games. If you're going to apply what I say to everything and everyone- I'm voting for Bernie- and now you must too.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I said _I_ don't like to play "what if" games. If you're going to apply what I say to everything and everyone- I'm voting for Bernie- and now you must too.


Actually, I wasn't talking about you. :gaptooth:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Actually, I wasn't talking about you. :gaptooth:


Who else has stated over and over that they don't like to play "what if" games?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Who else has stated over and over that they don't like to play "what if" games?


 Nobody. But others have stated that "what if" scenarios are irrelevant, on numerous occasions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Nobody. But others have stated that "what if" scenarios are irrelevant, on numerous occasions.


Sure... Sigh.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure... Sigh.


If you must know, my thought was of BFF, but, if you want to believe it was about you, feel free.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Nobody. But others have stated that "what if" scenarios are irrelevant, on numerous occasions.


That's because they are nothing more than fantasy scenarios.

You can "what if" any subject to death and most times the "what if's" are so extreme as to be pointless


----------



## watcher

basketti said:


> Your argument is so disjointed and illogical it's not worth trying to reason with you. Sorry I even tried. I usually ignore your tomes.


Its simple. You are the one who asked why I worry about if the government allows someone to kill a child when I don't worry about children after they are not killed.

The logic is simple. The government DOES have a right, power and duty to protect a person's life when that life is threatened by another. Which is why I only support abortion the same way I support homicide, i.e. when it can be proven that the person being killed is a threat to another


It does NOT have a right, power nor duty to take care of an individual person's needs. Which is why I do not support the government giving money directly to an individual unless that individual is directly providing a good or service in return.

The only way for the government to take care of an individual person needs is to give that individual what he needs. To do that it must FIRST take it from someone who, according to the government, does not need it. If it has the power to come into your house and take food out of your storage and bring it to my house because it thinks I need the food more than you do it means you do not have any personal property rights because the government can use your property any way it sees fit.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> They should be able to until that due process you speak of works its magic and proper compensation is awarded to them for their property.
> 
> "It depends" ( quotes mine) is technically an answer. It is just an incomplete and vague one. Under what circumstances should the right to deny treatment and cause the death of a living, breathing human being be given to another? Or more appropriately, when would you take this right from a parent? If that right exists ( and it's a decision made in hospitals every day in this country) why doesn't the same right exist to terminate the pregancy earlier? Both actions would seem to have the same result in your eyes. Ending a human life? Why is one allowed and accepted and the other not. If all life is precious shouldn't everything possible be done to preserve it for as long as possible? If one opposes all abortions and seeks legislation banning them shouldn't one logically oppose every instance of allowing a living breathing baby to die if that life can be extended even one hour?


In most things "it depends" is the true answer.

I'll try to cover some of these. First and foremost if the person had made it clear they do not wish to have such treatments then its not within the state's power to force it upon them. Unless, again via due process, they are found to have been incompetent when they made the decision.

You run into the biggest problem when there is a firm religious belief and children. But my POV is if it can be proven that the treatment will save the live of the child then the right to life of a legally mentally incompetent person (which a child is) overrides the religious beliefs of the parents.

As to making the decision to withhold treatment and allow an individual to die w/o out either due process or the individual's consent is only justified in extreme emergencies where there is a set triage protocol. If you have limited resources and withholding treatment from one individual to use those resources to save three others is proper.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> To be clear, the questions I posed, including why the parents that withhold treatment and allow an infant to pass are viewed differently than the same parents who choose to terminate a pregancy whose outcome would lead to that, are for anyone to answer. Especially those who are adamant that all abortion a be outlawed without exception and that life is always the best choice. I do thank watcher for answering.


As I have stated I don't think all abortions should be illegal. To me there's no moral or legal justification for it. To do so would be like making all other killings illegal. Would we charge a police officer who killed a mass murderer in the act with a crime? How about the guy in Seattle who killed a man who was attacking a store clerk with a hatchet?

But at the same time there is no moral or legal justification for abortion on demand. After all would we allow someone to kill their child because it was just too difficult to take a vacation with a kid? How about killing their child because they have three and think it would be easier finically if they only had two to raise?


----------



## watcher

Farmerga said:


> I tend to like "What if" scenarios myself, but, I have been told, on these boards, on this subject matter, that they have no place.
> 
> To your point. There is a difference between not doing something and allowing nature to take its course and acting in a way that is against nature. Again take your heart attack victim. Is there a difference, in your mind, between leaving him to die, or, not die of the heart attack, and taking out a gun and shooting him in the head?


 I love what ifs. Its what keeps engineers making better stuff. Plus its amazing how many times what if becomes what not.


----------



## watcher

Farmerga said:


> If the child has no chance of meaningful survival, we should let nature take its course. If the child can have meaningful survival with intervention, we should intervene. We should not euthanize a child, either pre-birth, or, post birth, because we feel that their life is not worth living.
> 
> I too am all for people being able to legally make the choice to decide when their life should end. We should not have the right to make that choice for anyone else. If they are unable to make that choice, we should have the option to withhold life extending technology, but, we should not have the right to act to end their life.


Then you get on that slippery slope. What is a meaningful life? Do we limit it physical or would mental issue be included? Is there an age limit on being able to kill them? What about an adult accident victim?


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> The death of a _wanted_ fetus is illegal so it's always a homicide.


So it depends on who kills the fetus as t whether it's a life or a "lump of tissue"?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> To me, "meaningful" would be anything beyond lower brain function. We have a right to live, we do not have a right to the use of life extending tech. There is a world of difference between making a choice to actively kill another and withholding life extending measures.
> 
> "We" would be society.
> 
> I would not presume to take freedom of choice away from you either, as long as that choice only pertains to you.


You see a difference, I don't. The outcome is the same. Did you ever answer my question about the heart attack victim? Are you guilty of killing him if you don't offer aid? Or did nature take its course?

I find it interesting that you are willing to let society decide which human life ( according to definitions you've used in the past) is worth saving and preserving. So not all life is equally precious and the choice shouldn't always be life? To me its not such a different choice than society deciding when human life begins and restricting abortion after that point.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You see a difference, I don't. The outcome is the same. Did you ever answer my question about the heart attack victim? Are you guilty of killing him if you don't offer aid? Or did nature take its course?
> 
> I find it interesting that you are willing to let society decide which human life ( according to definitions you've used in the past) is worth saving and preserving. So not all life is equally precious and the choice shouldn't always be life? To me its not such a different choice than society deciding when human life begins and restricting abortion after that point.


The outcome is the same for any homicide, versus letting nature take its course. Death finds us all. I have answered the question, no, you are not guilty of killing him if you don't offer aid. 

The concrete example of brain damage to the point of the body being "alive" but, with NO HOPE of recovery of the conciseness seems to be a logical point, as I have said, for others to make the choice to let the body die. There is no point, while the body lives, where I suggest it is ever OK for others to choose to actively kill the person, who is not a threat to another.


----------



## Farmerga

watcher said:


> Then you get on that slippery slope. What is a meaningful life? Do we limit it physical or would mental issue be included? Is there an age limit on being able to kill them? What about an adult accident victim?


I have answered what I believe to be meaningful life. That would be any life where there is any brain activity higher than lower brain functions. Those who are "brain dead" with no hope of recovery would not meet that standard.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> As I have stated I don't think all abortions should be illegal. To me there's no moral or legal justification for it. To do so would be like making all other killings illegal. Would we charge a police officer who killed a mass murderer in the act with a crime? How about the guy in Seattle who killed a man who was attacking a store clerk with a hatchet?
> 
> But at the same time there is no moral or legal justification for abortion on demand. After all would we allow someone to kill their child because it was just too difficult to take a vacation with a kid? How about killing their child because they have three and think it would be easier finically if they only had two to raise?


It becomes a matter of deciding when human life begins. Some would define it as the minute egg unites with sperm and any action by a woman after that which inhibits implantation is an abortion. That,to me, is a bridge too far. As technology has improved and we've gained knowledge my views have moderated. The current limits of 20 weeks in many places for abortion on demand seem reasonable. You may be convinced it is a child before then for whatever reasons. Society is not. Limiting them after viability also seems prudent to me.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> In most things "it depends" is the true answer.
> 
> I'll try to cover some of these. First and foremost if the person had made it clear they do not wish to have such treatments then its not within the state's power to force it upon them. Unless, again via due process, they are found to have been incompetent when they made the decision.
> 
> You run into the biggest problem when there is a firm religious belief and children. But my POV is if it can be proven that the treatment will save the live of the child then the right to life of a legally mentally incompetent person (which a child is) overrides the religious beliefs of the parents.
> 
> As to making the decision to withhold treatment and allow an individual to die w/o out either due process or the individual's consent is only justified in extreme emergencies where there is a set triage protocol. If you have limited resources and withholding treatment from one individual to use those resources to save three others is proper.


Thanks for expanding on "it depends". You're right that it is an answer but knowing on what it depends on makes all the difference.

So your answer , if I may parse it, is that parents don't have the right to withhold treatment or sign a DNR for their children who cannot make such a decision for themselves?


----------



## mmoetc

As to the "what if" scenario question. My only objections are to those who use it as their primary form of argument and who don't acknowledge answers to those questions which disprove or challenge them. I object to those who continually go back and tweak and modify their scenarios to make them more and more restrictive and unrealistic in an attempt to prove the point that was just disproven. I object to those who answer a question about a scenario by modifying it and answering that instead. I object to to those that are in no way based in reality. I'll answer questions. I won't play games.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> The outcome is the same for any homicide, versus letting nature take its course. Death finds us all. I have answered the question, no, you are not guilty of killing him if you don't offer aid.
> 
> The concrete example of brain damage to the point of the body being "alive" but, with NO HOPE of recovery of the conciseness seems to be a logical point, as I have said, for others to make the choice to let the body die. There is no point, while the body lives, where I suggest it is ever OK for others to choose to actively kill the person, who is not a threat to another.


And the law agrees you have no obligation to render aid. My morality disagrees.


And it's instructive that you can find a logical point for making such a decision as to hope. But pulling the plug does actively kill a being just as effectively as a bullet. It may rationalize the action but if the conscious decision is made to pull that plug a life that existed a moment ago will cease a moment from now. You're welcome to your views, they make little sense to me. In many places the law allows you to kill someone walking out your front door with your possessions. By the same standard that united egg and sperm pose a much greater threat than losing a television.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And the law agrees you have no obligation to render aid. My morality disagrees.
> 
> 
> And it's instructive that you can find a logical point for making such a decision as to hope. But pulling the plug does actively kill a being just as effectively as a bullet. It may rationalize the action but if the conscious decision is made to pull that plug a life that existed a moment ago will cease a moment from now. You're welcome to your views, they make little sense to me. In many places the law allows you to kill someone walking out your front door with your possessions. By the same standard that united egg and sperm pose a much greater threat than losing a television.


 My morality disagrees with that law as well. 

Again, once brain activity has ceased, other than lower brain function, the person is already dead, the body just hasn't received the memo. There is no hope for recovery or improvement.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> It becomes a matter of deciding when human life begins. Some would define it as the minute egg unites with sperm and any action by a woman after that which inhibits implantation is an abortion. That,to me, is a bridge too far. As technology has improved and we've gained knowledge my views have moderated. The current limits of 20 weeks in many places for abortion on demand seem reasonable. You may be convinced it is a child before then for whatever reasons. Society is not. Limiting them after viability also seems prudent to me.


You see a car crash and go into a pond. As its sinking you see the driver and he looks in bad shape and you think he might already be dead. Do you stand by and do nothing because he MIGHT be dead or do you take action because you can not be sure if there is a life in danger or not?

Seeing as how no one can tell when life starts don't you think we should take actions based on the fact there MAYBE life?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for expanding on "it depends". You're right that it is an answer but knowing on what it depends on makes all the difference.
> 
> So your answer , if I may parse it, is that parents don't have the right to withhold treatment or sign a DNR for their children who cannot make such a decision for themselves?


Again the answer is it depends, but usually no. A parent has the right to refuse treatment they feel is not needed. Society, via the state, has the right and duty to question that refusal and the power to override in individual cases in the courts.

To expand, no individual has the right to remove a right from an individual. A legally competent adult can sign over rights to another legally competent adult but even then society has the duty to make sure that transfer was freely done and not coerced in any way. You can't just write out a power of attorney, have you and the other person sign it then take it to the bank and start drawing out that person's money. It must be duly witnessed and in some cases filed with and/or authorized by the state.

But a legally incompetent person can not legally sign over their rights to another. To have a right given, taken or assigned to another requires following the legal due process which is in place to protect rights.


----------



## Lisa in WA

watcher said:


> Its simple. You are the one who asked why I worry about if the government allows someone to kill a child when I don't worry about children after they are not killed.
> 
> The logic is simple. The government DOES have a right, power and duty to protect a person's life when that life is threatened by another. Which is why I only support abortion the same way I support homicide, i.e. when it can be proven that the person being killed is a threat to another
> 
> 
> It does NOT have a right, power nor duty to take care of an individual person's needs. Which is why I do not support the government giving money directly to an individual unless that individual is directly providing a good or service in return.
> 
> The only way for the government to take care of an individual person needs is to give that individual what he needs. To do that it must FIRST take it from someone who, according to the government, does not need it. If it has the power to come into your house and take food out of your storage and bring it to my house because it thinks I need the food more than you do it means you do not have any personal property rights because the government can use your property any way it sees fit.



You'll have to forgive me. I tend to ignore posts from posters who "never met a word they didn't like". I guess I just don't have the attention span nor the time to sort through the reams of posts and the endless verbiage to want to answer, but I screwed up this time.

You may absolutely take this as a win for you, or at the very least...me giving up. .:surrender:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> You see a car crash and go into a pond. As its sinking you see the driver and he looks in bad shape and you think he might already be dead. Do you stand by and do nothing because he MIGHT be dead or do you take action because you can not be sure if there is a life in danger or not?
> 
> Seeing as how no one can tell when life starts *don't you think we should take actions* based on the fact there MAYBE life?


You love those fantasy scenarios, don't you.
An abortion is "taking actions".
You just don't like the action, but it's not your choice


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You love those fantasy scenarios, don't you.
> An abortion is "taking actions".
> You just don't like the action, but it's not your choice


Can you tell me the exact instant that blob of tissue becomes an independent human? If you can not then you have to admit that you do not know if you action, or inaction depending, is resulting in the death of a human or not. If you can't be sure most people would say it is better to err on the side of life.

Most people would take action, even to the point of placing their lives at risk, to save someone when there is even the smallest chance of that person being alive or capable of being saved. 

Talk to a long time EMT and ask them if they've ever seen someone they "knew" was dead and would never make it be resuscitated and be saved because someone refused to accept the "fact" they were dead. Or ask an ER doctor or nurse. 

You need to think of a growing fetus with a distinct DNA as nothing more than a blob of tissue which can be removed and destroyed fine. But remember you will never know if you supported the killing of millions of human children because you can not be sure at what point they actually became human children.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> You see a car crash and go into a pond. As its sinking you see the driver and he looks in bad shape and you think he might already be dead. Do you stand by and do nothing because he MIGHT be dead or do you take action because you can not be sure if there is a life in danger or not?
> 
> Seeing as how no one can tell when life starts don't you think we should take actions based on the fact there MAYBE life?


I would, of course, take action. But it's my choice to do so. I would do it based on the observation that a living, breathing human being was driving. If it was a google self driver with no one else visible I might act differently. But no law compels my action. 

Your own words give my answer. No. I don't want laws based on what may be. Neither should you. All things are possible thus any law based on that probability is possible. I doubt that's the world you want to live in.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Can you tell me the exact instant that blob of tissue becomes an independent human? If you can not then you have to admit that you do not know if you action, or inaction depending, is resulting in the death of a human or not. If you can't be sure most people would say it is better to err on the side of life.
> 
> Most people would take action, even to the point of placing their lives at risk, to save someone when there is even the smallest chance of that person being alive or capable of being saved.
> 
> Talk to a long time EMT and ask them if they've ever seen someone they "knew" was dead and would never make it be resuscitated and be saved because someone refused to accept the "fact" they were dead. Or ask an ER doctor or nurse.
> 
> You need to think of a growing fetus with a distinct DNA as nothing more than a blob of tissue which can be removed and destroyed fine. But remember you will never know if you supported the killing of millions of human children because you can not be sure at what point they actually became human children.


Sure I can. You'll disagree with what I claim to know just as I disagree with many of those who claim to know differently. Laws shouldn't be based on things that aren't known, that are only believed by some. 

And you'll never know that millions of human children are killed because you'll never know when human life begins. Why should laws for all be based on what youll never know?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> My morality disagrees with that law as well.
> 
> Again, once brain activity has ceased, other than lower brain function, the person is already dead, the body just hasn't received the memo. There is no hope for recovery or improvement.


You can decide when a human life isn't worth saving. You can draw a bright line. Yet you won't allow others to draw their own bright line as to when that life starts. There is no higher brain function in a conjoined egg and sperm yet you would call that human and worthy of legal protection. 

I know, you'll now argue that those two conjoined cells have the potential for higher brain function. There always exists the potential that tomorrow a way will be found to restore that brain function, that some god might perform a miracle cure, that space aliens will land and a give us the cure to all of our ills...... Potential's a terrible thing to base law on.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You can decide when a human life isn't worth saving. You can draw a bright line. Yet you won't allow others to draw their own bright line as to when that life starts. There is no higher brain function in a conjoined egg and sperm yet you would call that human and worthy of legal protection.
> 
> I know, you'll now argue that those two conjoined cells have the potential for higher brain function. There always exists the potential that tomorrow a way will be found to restore that brain function, that some god might perform a miracle cure, that space aliens will land and a give us the cure to all of our ills...... Potential's a terrible thing to base law on.


All of your scenarios are so far removed from probability as to be silly. On the other hand, a fertilized egg has a good chance of developing into a fully functional human. If the chances of a brain dead person, of whom I speak, regaining higher brain functions were one half of 1% of the chances of a fertilized egg has of developing into a fully functional human, I would protest every "pulling of the plug" with gusto. (unless, of course, the person in question left instructions to pull the plug in such instances)

Is not "potential" pretty much the only reason to have any sort of restrictive law? The laws against murder are against the potential of murder, etc.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> All of your scenarios are so far removed from probability as to be silly. On the other hand, a fertilized egg has a good chance of developing into a fully functional human. If the chances of a brain dead person, of whom I speak, regaining higher brain functions were one half of 1% of the chances of a fertilized egg has of developing into a fully functional human, I would protest every "pulling of the plug" with gusto. (unless, of course, the person in question left instructions to pull the plug in such instances)
> 
> Is not "potential" pretty much the only reason to have any sort of restrictive law? The laws against murder are against the potential of murder, etc.


The laws against murder punish people because they killed someone, not because they could potentially kill someone. Even conspiracy laws punish conspiriters differently than if they actually committed the act.

http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,20981907_20989016,00.html. Here's a story of that shows how "silly" my scenarios are. In her case the chance was 100%. Once the plug is pulled potential is taken out of the equation. Well never know what could potentially happen unless we allow all potentials to play out without interference. Again, it's instructive that you can out a number on the percentage of that threshold. It once again demonstrates that even you don't feel that all life is precious and must be preserved.

Just to add, it's always fun to see how quickly scenarios become "silly" and dismissed when they're just a little tough to answer.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> All of your scenarios are so far removed from probability as to be silly. On the other hand, a fertilized egg has a good chance of developing into a fully functional human. If the chances of a brain dead person, of whom I speak, regaining higher brain functions were one half of 1% of the chances of a fertilized egg has of developing into a fully functional human, I would protest every "pulling of the plug" with gusto. (unless, of course, the person in question left instructions to pull the plug in such instances)
> 
> Is not "potential" pretty much the only reason to have any sort of restrictive law? The laws against murder are against the potential of murder, etc.


Define "good chance". A fertilized egg only has about a 35% probability of successfully implanting. Another percentage of those that do implant will spontaneously abort (miscarry) further reducing the probability of any single fertilized egg developing into a fully functioning human to under 30%. So there's a much higher potential that the conjoined egg and sperm won't develop yet you wish to grant them all rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> *Can you tell me the exact instant that blob of tissue becomes an independent human?* If you can not then you have to admit that you do not know if you action, or inaction depending, is resulting in the death of a human or not. If you can't be sure most people would say it is better to err on the side of life.
> 
> Most people would take action, even to the point of placing their lives at risk, to save someone when there is even the smallest chance of that person being alive or capable of being saved.
> 
> Talk to a long time EMT and ask them if they've ever seen someone they "knew" was dead and would never make it be resuscitated and be saved because someone refused to accept the "fact" they were dead. Or ask an ER doctor or nurse.
> 
> You need to think of a growing fetus with a distinct DNA as nothing more than a blob of tissue which can be removed and destroyed fine. But remember you will never know if you supported the killing of millions of human children because you can not be sure at what point they actually became human children.


Under the law, that comes at birth.

All the talk about anyone older than a fetus is a distraction.
It's not your choice to make unless you are the one who is pregnant


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Under the law, that comes at birth.
> 
> All the talk about anyone older than a fetus is a distraction.
> It's not your choice to make unless you are the one who is pregnant


The law is irrelevant. It does not define morality or social decisions; the reverse is frequently true. However, science isn't sure when it becomes a person either, which is why many do "human-at-conception," which isn't very accurate because eggs are reabsorbed constantly. 
The only way to an answer the question is to take a hard look at the matter and determine whether we're willing to destroy something that, odds are, could become a viable human.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> The law is irrelevant. It does not define morality or social decisions; the reverse is frequently true. However, science isn't sure when it becomes a person either, which is why many do "human-at-conception," which isn't very accurate because eggs are reabsorbed constantly.
> The only way to an answer the question is to take a hard look at the matter and determine whether we're willing to destroy something that, odds are, could become a viable human.


And that's a decision society has made. It's one that societies throughout time have made and modified. It's a decision that will likely be modified in the future. And no matter how restrictive that modification there will be those who defy those restrictions. Always have been, always will be. The responsibility we have as a society while we struggle with these issues is to make these decisions as rare as possible and, even if the decision is one we don't morally approve of, as safe as possible. The law is relevant to everyone. Your morals are only relevant to you.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> And that's a decision society has made. It's one that societies throughout time have made and modified. It's a decision that will likely be modified in the future. And no matter how restrictive that modification there will be those who defy those restrictions. Always have been, always will be. The responsibility we have as a society while we struggle with these issues is to make these decisions as rare as possible and, even if the decision is one we don't morally approve of, as safe as possible. The law is relevant to everyone. Your morals are only relevant to you.


Yes, yes, quite right. But I must ask - when did killing become only relevant to an induvidual's morality? I don't profess to know very much about this subject, but I do know I'm not willing to kill anything that may live to be fine. Incest, rape, hazardous situation, sure - practicality. Convenience? No.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, yes, quite right. But I must ask - when did killing become only relevant to an induvidual's morality? I don't profess to know very much about this subject, but I do know I'm not willing to kill anything that may live to be fine. Incest, rape, hazardous situation, sure - practicality. Convenience? No.


To answer your question we must first agree on what "living" means and even what "killing" means. There are those who say the second egg unites with sperm life begins. Should we all agree with that definition? There are those who say that any interference, be it through drug or device , that prevents implantation is killing. Should we all be forced to live with that standard? The law tries to balance everyone's feelings and moralities and reach some balance. Morally you can disagree with that balance but I'll never force you to go against your morals and kill any life you don't wish to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> *The law is irrelevant*. It does not define morality or social decisions; the reverse is frequently true. However, science isn't sure when it becomes a person either, which is why many do "human-at-conception," which isn't very accurate because eggs are reabsorbed constantly.
> The only way to an answer the question is to take a hard look at the matter and determine whether we're willing to destroy something that, odds are, *could become a viable human*.


"Morality" is what is irrelevant, since it's arbitrary and varied depending upon who you ask.

As far as "viability" is concerned, no fetus under 21 weeks has been known to survive, and the majority of states outlaw abortions past 24 weeks


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Define "good chance". A fertilized egg only has about a 35% probability of successfully implanting. Another percentage of those that do implant will spontaneously abort (miscarry) further reducing the probability of any single fertilized egg developing into a fully functioning human to under 30%. So there's a much higher potential that the conjoined egg and sperm won't develop yet you wish to grant them all rights.


I would call 30% a good chance even 20%. That is better odds than many diseases where we spend lots of money and time fighting. Would you fight for life if you had a disease where you had a 25% chance of survival? I certainly would. Would your outlook change if the chance of dying was 99.999% and there would likely be suffering prior to death? Mine would.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I would call 30% a good chance even 20%. That is better odds than many diseases where we spend lots of money and time fighting. Would you fight for life if you had a disease where you had a 25% chance of survival? I certainly would. Would your outlook change if the chance of dying was 99.999% and there would likely be suffering prior to death? Mine would.


My choices might be different than yours. I wouldn't force mine on you. It might also depend on the disease and quality of life. Those are questions to which there is no right answer.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> My choices might be different than yours. I wouldn't force mine on you. It might also depend on the disease and quality of life. Those are questions to which there is no right answer.


And I wouldn't force mine on you, or, anyone else, born, or, unborn.


----------



## Raeven

Iâm so sick of this debate.

If you accept the Monty Python-ish assertion that every embryo is sacred and already a human life, then those who support this notion should hold fast to it. That means no abortion exceptions for any reason, including rape or incest. If abortion is homicide, then itâs killinâ, period. The source of the sperm that fertilized the egg is immaterial. Thereâs no convenient way around this inescapable conclusion. Force women to live with the consequences of being the vessel in which life grows in every manifestation, even if she can't afford it, doesn't want it and may despise it.

Donât be a hypocrite: Prosecute women who have abortions as having committed a homicide, to the full extent of the law. And donât stop there. Make sure you never, ever accept any medical breakthrough treatment that resulted from use of human embryos. Thatâs profiting from murder, you know. Stand tall for your principles.

Do you imagine taking the above approach will stop abortions? It wonât. Weâll just go right back to the days of back room abortions and all that that implies. This is already happening in parts of the country where access to abortion has become more restricted.

Maybe when enough wives, sisters, daughters and female friends of anti-abortion activists are severely injured or die from unsafe, unsanitary, furtive abortion procedures, opponents of choice will finally understand the real reason Roe v. Wade was enacted: To ensure that a private decision is made between a woman and her doctor alone, without outside influence from government or anyone else, about what her best choice will be in her particular situation; and to guarantee a safe procedure if she makes the choice to abort. It's not an imprimatur on the procedure, just an acknowledgement of reality.

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop abortions happening because they undermine Roe v. Wade is naive. It never did before. You merely do away with safe abortions â including for people you love. You may not like their choice, but theyâre still going to make itâ¦ and suffer the consequences for it. How bad do you want those consequences to be?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Raeven said:


> Iâm so sick of this debate.
> 
> If you accept the Monty Python-ish assertion that every embryo is sacred and already a human life, then those who support this notion should hold fast to it. That means no abortion exceptions for any reason, including rape or incest. If abortion is homicide, then itâs killinâ, period. The source of the sperm that fertilized the egg is immaterial. Thereâs no convenient way around this inescapable conclusion. Force women to live with the consequences of being the vessel in which life grows in every manifestation, even if she can't afford it, doesn't want it and may despise it.
> 
> Donât be a hypocrite: Prosecute women who have abortions as having committed a homicide, to the full extent of the law. And donât stop there. Make sure you never, ever accept any medical breakthrough treatment that resulted from use of human embryos. Thatâs profiting from murder, you know. Stand tall for your principles.
> 
> Do you imagine taking the above approach will stop abortions? It wonât. Weâll just go right back to the days of back room abortions and all that that implies. This is already happening in parts of the country where access to abortion has become more restricted.
> 
> Maybe when enough wives, sisters, daughters and female friends of anti-abortion activists are severely injured or die from unsafe, unsanitary, furtive abortion procedures, opponents of choice will finally understand the real reason Roe v. Wade was enacted: To ensure that a private decision is made between a woman and her doctor alone, without outside influence from government or anyone else, about what her best choice will be in her particular situation; and to guarantee a safe procedure if she makes the choice to abort. It's not an imprimatur on the procedure, just an acknowledgement of reality.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they are going to stop abortions happening because they undermine Roe v. Wade is naive. It never did before. You merely do away with safe abortions â including for people you love. You may not like their choice, but theyâre still going to make itâ¦ and suffer the consequences for it. How bad do you want those consequences to be?


Thank you for a very well thought out post.


----------



## JeffreyD

Raeven said:


> Iâm so sick of this debate.
> 
> If you accept the Monty Python-ish assertion that every embryo is sacred and already a human life, then those who support this notion should hold fast to it. That means no abortion exceptions for any reason, including rape or incest. If abortion is homicide, then itâs killinâ, period. The source of the sperm that fertilized the egg is immaterial. Thereâs no convenient way around this inescapable conclusion. Force women to live with the consequences of being the vessel in which life grows in every manifestation, even if she can't afford it, doesn't want it and may despise it.
> 
> Donât be a hypocrite: Prosecute women who have abortions as having committed a homicide, to the full extent of the law. And donât stop there. Make sure you never, ever accept any medical breakthrough treatment that resulted from use of human embryos. Thatâs profiting from murder, you know. Stand tall for your principles.
> 
> Do you imagine taking the above approach will stop abortions? It wonât. Weâll just go right back to the days of back room abortions and all that that implies. This is already happening in parts of the country where access to abortion has become more restricted.
> 
> Maybe when enough wives, sisters, daughters and female friends of anti-abortion activists are severely injured or die from unsafe, unsanitary, furtive abortion procedures, opponents of choice will finally understand the real reason Roe v. Wade was enacted: To ensure that a private decision is made between a woman and her doctor alone, without outside influence from government or anyone else, about what her best choice will be in her particular situation; and to guarantee a safe procedure if she makes the choice to abort. It's not an imprimatur on the procedure, just an acknowledgement of reality.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they are going to stop abortions happening because they undermine Roe v. Wade is naive. It never did before. You merely do away with safe abortions â including for people you love. You may not like their choice, but theyâre still going to make itâ¦ and suffer the consequences for it. How bad do you want those consequences to be?


What a delusional post. Some reality, some fantasy, just wow.


----------



## Lisa in WA

JeffreyD said:


> What a delusional post. Some reality, some fantasy, just wow.


Wanna break that down and explain exactly what is delusional, Jeffrey? 

And while you're pondering that, maybe take a google image search of "Gerri Santoro" and imagine that happening to your daughter, or granddaughter or a woman whom you love? 

Just because you are anti-abortion doesn't mean they will be and if they don't have safe means to have one, what happened to Gerri Santoro can happen to someone you love.

Or maybe you think the Gerri Santoro's of the world deserve what they get for not abiding by your version of morality?


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> Wanna break that down and explain exactly what is delusional, Jeffrey?
> 
> And while you're pondering that, maybe take a google image search of "Gerri Santoro" and imagine that happening to your daughter, or granddaughter or a woman whom you love?
> 
> Just because you are anti-abortion doesn't mean they will be and if they don't have safe means to have one, what happened to Gerri Santoro can happen to someone you love.
> 
> Or maybe you think the Gerri Santoro's of the world deserve what they get for not abiding by your version of morality?


Here is a link to Gerri Santoro's story. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2007/06/08/the-woman-in-the-photo/


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> Here is a link to Gerri Santoro's story. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2007/06/08/the-woman-in-the-photo/


They won't click on it or Google the picture. Much easier and safer to sit smugly in their "moral" ivory tower and decide what is best for the rest of us.


----------



## Elevenpoint

basketti said:


> They won't click on it or Google the picture. Much easier and safer to sit smugly in their "moral" ivory tower and decide what is best for the rest of us.


Clicked and read.
Motel room...crude instruments...and a co-workers idea of an abortion?
What would you expect?
Anything but responsibility.
A woman's responsibility to steer clear of any man that does not believe the womb is to protect and nuture the child.
This is not rocket science how pregnancy happens.
Responsibility.
The same old stories from the abortion crowd about how it went very wrong for a woman that did not have legal access.
Dropping their pants has a price the same as walking into a bank and demanding all the money...choose wisely.


----------



## Lisa in WA

elevenpoint said:


> Clicked and read.
> Motel room...crude instruments...and a co-workers idea of an abortion?
> What would you expect?
> Anything but responsibility.
> A woman's responsibility to steer clear of any man that does not believe the womb is to protect and nuture the child.
> This is not rocket science how pregnancy happens.
> Responsibility.
> The same old stories from the abortion crowd about how it went very wrong for a woman that did not have legal access.
> Dropping their pants has a price the same as walking into a bank and demanding all the money...choose wisely.


Exactly what I would expect from someone like you.


----------



## Elevenpoint

basketti said:


> Exactly what I would expect from someone like you.


Of course.
Being responsible is a 24/ 7 adult job.
I know.


----------



## Lisa in WA

elevenpoint said:


> Of course.
> Being responsible is a 24/ 7 adult job.
> I know.


Responsible wasn't the word I was thinking of in regards to you. Since I don't want to be banned, I'll have to keep it to myself. Though I'm sure others can fill in the blank for themselves.


----------



## Elevenpoint

basketti said:


> Responsible wasn't the word I was thinking of in regards to you. Since I don't want to be banned, I'll have to keep it to myself. Though I'm sure others can fill in the blank for themselves.


Have at it Sparky.:banana:


----------



## MDKatie

Raeven said:


> Iâm so sick of this debate.
> 
> If you accept the Monty Python-ish assertion that every embryo is sacred and already a human life, then those who support this notion should hold fast to it. That means no abortion exceptions for any reason, including rape or incest. If abortion is homicide, then itâs killinâ, period. The source of the sperm that fertilized the egg is immaterial. Thereâs no convenient way around this inescapable conclusion. Force women to live with the consequences of being the vessel in which life grows in every manifestation, even if she can't afford it, doesn't want it and may despise it.
> 
> Donât be a hypocrite: Prosecute women who have abortions as having committed a homicide, to the full extent of the law. And donât stop there. Make sure you never, ever accept any medical breakthrough treatment that resulted from use of human embryos. Thatâs profiting from murder, you know. Stand tall for your principles.
> 
> Do you imagine taking the above approach will stop abortions? It wonât. Weâll just go right back to the days of back room abortions and all that that implies. This is already happening in parts of the country where access to abortion has become more restricted.
> 
> Maybe when enough wives, sisters, daughters and female friends of anti-abortion activists are severely injured or die from unsafe, unsanitary, furtive abortion procedures, opponents of choice will finally understand the real reason Roe v. Wade was enacted: To ensure that a private decision is made between a woman and her doctor alone, without outside influence from government or anyone else, about what her best choice will be in her particular situation; and to guarantee a safe procedure if she makes the choice to abort. It's not an imprimatur on the procedure, just an acknowledgement of reality.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they are going to stop abortions happening because they undermine Roe v. Wade is naive. It never did before. You merely do away with safe abortions â including for people you love. You may not like their choice, but theyâre still going to make itâ¦ and suffer the consequences for it. How bad do you want those consequences to be?


Post of the century award! And add to that they need to ban the death penalty. ALL life is sacred, right?



basketti said:


> They won't click on it or Google the picture. Much easier and safer to sit smugly in their "moral" ivory tower and decide what is best for the rest of us.


Post of the week award!


----------



## Txsteader

basketti said:


> Wanna break that down and explain exactly what is delusional, Jeffrey?
> 
> And while you're pondering that, maybe take a google image search of "Gerri Santoro" and imagine that happening to your daughter, or granddaughter or a woman whom you love?
> 
> Just because you are anti-abortion doesn't mean they will be and if they don't have safe means to have one, what happened to Gerri Santoro can happen to someone you love.
> 
> Or maybe you think the Gerri Santoro's of the world deserve what they get for not abiding by your version of morality?


Gerri Santoro was 6 1/2 months pregnant at the time of her death. It wouldn't have done her a darn bit of good if abortions had been legal back then.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> And I wouldn't force mine on you, or, anyone else, born, or, unborn.


Actually you would if the laws outlawing all abortions you wish and defining life as beginning at conception are ever passed. I'll even admit that the current laws which I support force my choices on others though it's far fewer and most of society seems to agree with those choices. But my choices don't make your choices illegal. My choices don't make you choose between following your conscience or breaking the law. My choices give you the right to follow whatever moral guidance you wish as to when life begins and carry any pregnancy you wish to term. My choices preserve your choices.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Gerri Santoro was 6 1/2 months pregnant at the time of her death. It wouldn't have done her a darn bit of good if abortions had been legal back then.


Yes, she was desperate, so were many many women prior to 1973. If abortions had been legal do you think she may have had one when she found out she was pregnant? They weren't tho, so she was forced to make a desperate decision and she died for her lack of choice.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Raeven said:


> ... assertion that every embryo is sacred and already a human life, then those who support this notion should hold fast to it. That means no abortion exceptions for any reason, including rape or incest. If abortion is homicide, then it&#8217;s killin&#8217;, period. The source of the sperm that fertilized the egg is immaterial. There&#8217;s no convenient way around this inescapable conclusion. Force women to live with the consequences of being the vessel in which life grows in every manifestation, even if she can't afford it, doesn't want it and may despise it.


I'm with you right up to here. That is exactly my view on abortion. I don't abhor it because of the direction of some religious institution. I abhor it because it is murder. 

I don't believe that it is any more right to kill a person one month into gestation than it is to kill a person one month after birth. Therefore, logical integrity prevents me from believing it is any more acceptable to kill a person brought into being as the result of rape, one month into gestation, than it is to kill a 4 year old because his mother was raped and no longer wants him. 

I realize we're never going to see eye to eye on the issue, but I didn't want you to go on thinking that there weren't any non-hypocrites on this side of the fence. There are plenty of us that share this view. 





Raeven said:


> ... Do you imagine taking the above approach will stop abortions? It won&#8217;t. We&#8217;ll just go right back to the days of back room abortions and all that that implies. This is already happening in parts of the country where access to abortion has become more restricted...


That, and the rest of your post, is a straw-man argument, in truth. I've yet to meet anyone who thinks that righting the abortion laws will do away with it altogether. Yet, you posit that argument as if it's being made by the other side, then proceed to argue against it as if you were somehow winning a point by proving it false.

I think anyone taking an honest look at the issue believes that the number of abortion will decrease, as will the "safety" of those that occur. In some cases, with illegal abortion, two deaths will occur where there would have only been one if conducted in a clean, structured clinic. The trade-off, if you want to call it that, is that fewer victims will die, at the cost of a few more perpetrators dying. Not desirable, but inevitable, and preferable to the staggering number of victims dying today.

Heroin is illegal in the US, as is consumption of alcohol by minors - yet both things still happen. To bring it out of the backrooms, and add an element of "safety", should we start putting loaded syringes in the condiment trays in highschool lunchrooms? How about serving booze at school dances, and putting a row of mattresses in the back hallway? 

I doubt anyone believes that, but, somehow, the mode of justification for the legal murder of innocent children is considered ridiculous when applied to other unsafe activities.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Married couples couldn't legally get the Pill until a year after Gerri Santoro died horribly in that motel room. The only birth control options were condoms and diaphragms, neither of which were very effective to prevent pregnancy.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> ...Gerri Santoro ..


and her unborn child


Irish Pixie said:


> ...died horribly in that motel room.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> and her unborn child


*They both died* because Gerri Santoro did not have the right to control her own body either through abortion or effective birth control. 

You don't like abortion? Don't have one. Easy peasy.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, she was desperate, so were many many women prior to 1973.* If abortions had been legal do you think she may have had one when she found out she was pregnant? *They weren't tho, so she was forced to make a desperate decision and she died for her lack of choice.


Apparently not. According to the story, the motive for attempting the abortion was because her estranged husband said he was coming to see her & their other children and she feared what he would do to her. Otherwise, it appears she was planning to have the child. 

Either way, legalized abortions wouldn't have helped her. That's why it makes no sense to use her as an example for legalizing abortions, then or now.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Married couples couldn't legally get the Pill until a year after Gerri Santoro died horribly in that motel room. The only birth control options were condoms and diaphragms, *neither of which were very effective to prevent pregnancy*.


Bull manure. According to the CDC, by 1965 the pill was the most popular and widely used form of birth control and the birth rate (family size) began to decrease after 1957.



> Family size increased from 1940 until 1957 (Figure 1), when the average number of children per family peaked at 3.7 (14,15; CDC, unpublished data, 1999). In 1960, the era of modern contraception began when both the birth control pill and intrauterine device (IUD) became available. These effective and convenient methods resulted in widespread changes in birth control (16). By 1965, the pill had become the most popular birth control method, followed by the condom and contraceptive sterilization (16). In 1965, the Supreme Court (Griswold vs. Connecticut) (17) struck down state laws prohibiting contraceptive use by married couples.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Bull manure. According to the CDC, by 1965 the pill was the most popular and widely used form of birth control and the birth rate (family size) began to decrease after 1957.


It wasn't even legal for Gerri to get the Pill in 1965, and that's only if you consider she was married and not separated from her husband. If you check the link *she died in 1964*. Single women couldn't legally get the Pill until 1972. Your link states, "In 1965, the Supreme Court (Griswold vs. Connecticut) (17) struck down state laws prohibiting contraceptive use by married couples." Thanks. 

Again, don't like abortion? Don't have one.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Apparently not. According to the story, the motive for attempting the abortion was because her estranged husband said he was coming to see her & their other children and she feared what he would do to her. Otherwise, it appears she was planning to have the child.
> 
> Either way, legalized abortions wouldn't have helped her. That's why it makes no sense to use her as an example for legalizing abortions, then or now.


If she was planning to carry the pregnancy to term why did she die of a do-it-yourself abortion in a motel room on June 8, 1964?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> If she was planning to carry the pregnancy to term why did she die of a do-it-yourself abortion in a motel room on June 8, 1964?


I explained it in the second sentence.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> I explained it in the second sentence.


Again, if she was planning to carry the pregnancy to term why did she die of a do-it-yourself abortion in a motel room on June 8, 1964? Obviously, at some point she decided she *couldn't* carry to term, correct?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> *They both died* because Gerri Santoro did not have the right to control her own body either through abortion or effective birth control...


In 1999, my cousin and his girlfriend died from a dose of bad heroin, in his car, in the school parking lot. 

If we could just get these restrictive laws cleared up, they would have been able to get clean dope, in sterilized syringes, from tax-payer-funded dispensers sitting right next to the pumps in the cafeteria that dispensed the ketchup for their tater tots. 

Take THAT to the US Supreme (Legislative) Court.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> To answer your question we must first agree on what "living" means and even what "killing" means. There are those who say the second egg unites with sperm life begins. Should we all agree with that definition? There are those who say that any interference, be it through drug or device , that prevents implantation is killing. Should we all be forced to live with that standard? The law tries to balance everyone's feelings and moralities and reach some balance. Morally you can disagree with that balance but I'll never force you to go against your morals and kill any life you don't wish to.


It's generally been accepted, throughout history, that killing is wrong. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but for the most part, humans try very hard to avoid killing each other, even in thereat of battle. (This changed notably during recent wars, when the US Military started priming soldiers with psychology to more readily kill. Now we just have a bunch of folks with PTSD.) Anyways, there are very easy definitions of living and dead; please don't try to redefine them. However, the _extent_ to which the fetus is alive is the debatable part. Many of them get reabsorbed into the body after a few weeks, and I don't know, but this I don't think is noticeable? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyways, my point is the body initiates abortions on it's own. The only abortions that I personally have a problem with are abortions that are performed with a high chance of viability, for financial or other convenience options. However, I've found misreporting can occur. This means a rape victim may report something less damning.

By the Numbers - Statistical Breakdown of Reasons 



> In a study released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, women were asked to provide reasons why they chose to have an abortion (multiple responses were permissible). Of those who gave at least one reason:
> 89% gave at least two
> 72% gave at least three
> Nearly three-quarters said they could not afford to have a baby.
> Of those women who gave two or more answers, the most common response -- inability to afford a baby -- was most frequently followed by one of three other reasons:
> 
> pregnancy/birth/baby would interfere with school or employment
> reluctant to be a single mother or experiencing relationship problems
> done with childbearing or already have other children/dependents


"Duty is heavier than mountain, death lighter than a feather."



Bearfootfarm said:


> "Morality" is what is irrelevant, since it's arbitrary and varied depending upon who you ask.
> 
> As far as "viability" is concerned, no fetus under 21 weeks has been known to survive, and the majority of states outlaw abortions past 24 weeks


Laws do not define morality. Typically, it is the other way around, at least to a certain extent. Prostitution is banned, mostly for moral reasons. (I'm opposed to it, by the way.) Morality does change from person to person, but the laws try to take this into account. 



basketti said:


> Wanna break that down and explain exactly what is delusional, Jeffrey?


That would require effort.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> In 1999, my cousin and his girlfriend died from a dose of bad heroin, in his car, in the school parking lot.
> 
> If we could just get these restrictive laws cleared up, they would have been able to get clean dope, in sterilized syringes, from tax-payer-funded dispensers sitting right next to the pumps in the cafeteria that dispensed the ketchup for their tater tots.
> 
> Take THAT to the US Supreme (Legislative) Court.


Your cousin and friend might be alive today had there been access to heroin from a government regulated source ensuring purity and quality. How many deaths or people going blind from bad alcohol do you read about on a daily basis? It wasn't an uncommon thing to hear of in days past. Many more people drink than use heroin yet deaths from alcohol overdose are quite rare. There are long term health consequences and other social costs from alcohol but they wouldn't disappear if alcohol were made illegal rather than being heavily regulated. 

You're argument fails your own tests on a couple of points. Government doesn't fund abortions, it regulates them. It could just as easily not fund heroin or other drugs but regulate them. And, as your own example shows, making something illegal doesn't eliminate it or make it safer. In fact, the opposite often happens. Prohibition didn't eliminate drinking or make it safer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> In 1999, my cousin and his girlfriend died from a dose of bad heroin, in his car, in the school parking lot.
> 
> If we could just get these restrictive laws cleared up, they would have been able to get clean dope, in sterilized syringes, from tax-payer-funded dispensers sitting right next to the pumps in the cafeteria that dispensed the ketchup for their tater tots.
> 
> Take THAT to the US Supreme (Legislative) Court.


Sorry for your loss. Heroin is illegal, abortion is not. I do not the have desire to decriminalize heroin, if that's your goal I wish you luck.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> It's generally been accepted, throughout history, that killing is wrong. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but for the most part, humans try very hard to avoid killing each other, even in thereat of battle. (This changed notably during recent wars, when the US Military started priming soldiers with psychology to more readily kill. Now we just have a bunch of folks with PTSD.) Anyways, there are very easy definitions of living and dead; please don't try to redefine them. However, the _extent_ to which the fetus is alive is the debatable part. Many of them get reabsorbed into the body after a few weeks, and I don't know, but this I don't think is noticeable? Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Anyways, my point is the body initiates abortions on it's own. The only abortions that I personally have a problem with are abortions that are performed with a high chance of viability, for financial or other convenience options. However, I've found misreporting can occur. This means a rape victim may report something less damning.
> 
> By the Numbers - Statistical Breakdown of Reasons
> 
> 
> 
> "Duty is heavier than mountain, death lighter than a feather."
> 
> 
> 
> Laws do not define morality. Typically, it is the other way around, at least to a certain extent. Prostitution is banned, mostly for moral reasons. (I'm opposed to it, by the way.) Morality does change from person to person, but the laws try to take this into account.
> 
> 
> 
> That would require effort.


I'll disagree on a lot of points. Humans have never been shy about killing as long as they could justify the reasons. Here's an early example. https://www.theguardian.com/science...-offers-earliest-evidence-human-warfare-kenya. I could point to more than a few examples in a famous holy book. 

I'm not trying to define living and dead. The definition of when human life begins is defined differently by different people. If you can find the definitive one agreed to by all I'd be interested in seeing it. Is it when egg and sperm unite as some espouse? Or is it when quickening happens as was the standard throughout much of history? Or is it, as I believe, when that fetus is advanced enough to survive outside the womb? Or is it somewhere else?

We do agree that laws do not define morality but adapt, or should, to it. Current laws allow you to act in accordance to your own morality. Laws defining life as beginning at conception and outlawing all abortions would not allow me to act on mine.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, if she was planning to carry the pregnancy to term why did she die of a do-it-yourself abortion in a motel room on June 8, 1964? Obviously, at some point she decided she *couldn't* carry to term, correct?


Would she have been able to get an abortion @ 6 1/2 months gestation, even IF it were legal?

Neither of us can say if she would have terminated the pregnancy early if the procedure was available.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry for your loss. Heroin is illegal, abortion is not. I do not the have desire to decriminalize heroin, if that's your goal I wish you luck.


But it's a decision that the addict makes with their body, and our choice, as a culture, to criminalize it puts those addicts at risk, just as the ban on abortion did when it was criminalized. 

How can one be for one, and not the other, and not be a hypocrite?





mmoetc said:


> You're argument fails your own tests on a couple of points. Government doesn't fund abortions, it regulates them. It could just as easily not fund heroin or other drugs but regulate them. And, as your own example shows, making something illegal doesn't eliminate it or make it safer. In fact, the opposite often happens. Prohibition didn't eliminate drinking or make it safer.


We've explored here before that taxpayer dollars ARE used for post-it notes, pens, and computers to schedule abortions, order supplies, etc.

BUT, the government funding was beside the point- chaff if the wheat, if you will. If quality, regulated heroin were made safe and cheaply available, my cousin might still be alive. 

I happen to, love him like a brother as I did, blame my cousin for the outcome of his choices. I don't support providing cheap, clean, legal heroin, but the parallel between that situation and the argument for safe, clean, legal abortion is only avoidable if you consciously choose to.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Would she have been able to get an abortion @ 6 1/2 months gestation, even IF it were legal?
> 
> Neither of us can say if she would have terminated the pregnancy early if the procedure was available.


The fact that she bled to death in a motel room after a botched do-it-yourself abortion doesn't mean she meant to terminate the pregnancy? Alrighty then... SMH


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> But it's a decision that the addict makes with their body, and our choice, as a culture, to criminalize it puts those addicts at risk, just as the ban on abortion did when it was criminalized.
> 
> How can one be for one, and not the other, and not be a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've explored here before that taxpayer dollars ARE used for post-it notes, pens, and computers to schedule abortions, order supplies, etc.
> 
> BUT, the government funding was beside the point- chaff if the wheat, if you will. If quality, regulated heroin were made safe and cheaply available, my cousin might still be alive.
> 
> I happen to, love him like a brother as I did, blame my cousin for the outcome of his choices. I don't support providing cheap, clean, legal heroin, but the parallel between that situation and the argument for safe, clean, legal abortion is only avoidable if you consciously choose to.


I am sorry for your cousin's death and your loss. But you also choose to ignore the examples, like alcohol, where regulation makes bad choices safer. It makes it safer for the individual who will inevitably make bad choices and it makes it safer for society. Without prohibition would we have had bathtub gin and white lightening, both of which often proved unsafe to consumers. Would we have had the likes of Al Capone and the death and mayhem brought about by those who supplied what some sector of the public wanted. What has the war on drugs accomplished? It certainly hadn't eliminated illegal drug use or made it safer or lessened crime surrounding it. Why would banning abortion make abortions safer or less common. Certain forms of contraception that are highly effective would also become illegal. That would likely lead to more pregnancies , not less. More pregnancies almost inevitably will lead to more women seeking a way to end them, not less. And with no legal, regulated way to do so where will they turn? You might be comfortable with that answer, I'm not.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> The fact that she bled to death in a motel room after a botched do-it-yourself abortion doesn't mean she meant to terminate the pregnancy? Alrighty then... SMH


You're talking in circles & I'm not going to keep repeating myself. 

What is your point?


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> I'll disagree on a lot of points. Humans have never been shy about killing as long as they could justify the reasons. Here's an early example. https://www.theguardian.com/science...-offers-earliest-evidence-human-warfare-kenya. I could point to more than a few examples in a famous holy book.
> 
> I'm not trying to define living and dead. The definition of when human life begins is defined differently by different people. If you can find the definitive one agreed to by all I'd be interested in seeing it. Is it when egg and sperm unite as some espouse? Or is it when quickening happens as was the standard throughout much of history? Or is it, as I believe, when that fetus is advanced enough to survive outside the womb? Or is it somewhere else?
> 
> We do agree that laws do not define morality but adapt, or should, to it. Current laws allow you to act in accordance to your own morality. Laws defining life as beginning at conception and outlawing all abortions would not allow me to act on mine.


Oh, well, when you kill in the name of a god, everything's OK.:rock:
Well, I did say in general. Most people are capable of murdering someone under the right circumstances. And it does strange things to the brain to be stuck in combat situations, where everything you learned previously ("be nice, don't kill") flies out the window. 
Same thing happens with calculus, when you learn geometry is actually based on nothing, but it works anyway. This is why math majors go postal so often. They're sitting there, calming cracking an equation for a student, when all of a sudden they've blown up the building.
Anyways, back to reality. We can debate endlessly when the life begins, but we can use some science:

Life definition:


> life
> l&#299;f/
> noun
> 1.
> the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
> "the origins of life"
> synonyms:	existence, being, living, animation; More


Clearly, a fetus exhibits all these traits except the capacity for reproduction. Technically, however, human capacity for reproduction doesn't matter until about age 11ish. Therefore, a fetus could be termed alive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> You're talking in circles & I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
> 
> What is your point?


Sigh. My point is: there were DIY abortions prior to 1973 and many women died. Gerri Santoro died an ugly death alone alone in a motel room because she didn't have the right to chose what she could do with her body, and she's just one example. 

I'm curious, did you see the pictures? If not, please look. Gerri Santoro was a real woman that made a devastating decision. Is that something you'd like to see more of? It absolutely will happen again if Roe v. Wade is overturned or if abortion is further restricted. 

Now imagine that picture was one of your granddaughter.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. My point is: there were DIY abortions prior to 1973 and many women died. Gerri Santoro died an ugly death alone alone in a motel room because she didn't have the right to chose what she could do with her body, and she's just one example.
> 
> I'm curious, did you see the pictures? If not, please look. Gerri Santoro was a real woman that made a devastating decision. Is that something you'd like to see more of? It absolutely will happen again if Roe v. Wade is overturned or if abortion is further restricted.
> 
> Now imagine that picture was one of your granddaughter.


Sigh.

Yes, I saw the picture. Yes, I read the story. And the point you keep missing is that, on that particular day, even if abortions were legal, she couldn't have had one. >>>*Not at 6 1/2 month gestation*.<<< 

Would she have had one earlier, if they were legal? Maybe, maybe not. I cannot say that she wouldn't and *you cannot say that she would*. Neither of us were there to know what she would have done. We're told, in the story, that she made the decision out of fear of what her estranged husband would do to her when he found out she was pregnant. 

She most certainly DID have a choice of what to do w/ her body. She *chose* to have intercourse out of wedlock. With the exception of rape, every person w/ normal brain functions has the ability to choose *when* they have intercourse.

Gerri Santoro *knew* the consequences of intercourse. And using even liberal standards, the only guaranteed method of birth control is abstinence.

Choices. Consequences. Responsibility.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Yes, I saw the picture. Yes, I read the story. And the point you keep missing is that, on that particular day, even if abortions were legal, she couldn't have had one. >>>*Not at 6 1/2 month gestation*.<<<
> 
> Would she have had one earlier, if they were legal? Maybe, maybe not. I cannot say that she wouldn't and *you cannot say that she would*. Neither of us were there to know what she would have done. We're told, in the story, that she made the decision out of fear of what her estranged husband would do to her when he found out she was pregnant.
> 
> She most certainly DID have a choice of what to do w/ her body. She *chose* to have intercourse out of wedlock. With the exception of rape, every person w/ normal brain functions has the ability to choose *when* they have intercourse.
> 
> Gerri Santoro *knew* the consequences of intercourse. And using even liberal standards, the only guaranteed method of birth control is abstinence.
> 
> Choices. Consequences. Responsibility.


What about the women who didn't have choices? Who were raped and sought back alley abortions in the first trimester and died? Did they deserve it? Are you denying women died or were mutilated before abortion was legalized because of botched abortions?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> I am sorry for your cousin's death and your loss..


Thank you.



mmoetc said:


> But you also choose to ignore the examples, like alcohol, where regulation makes bad choices safer. It makes it safer for the individual who will inevitably make bad choices and it makes it safer for society. Without prohibition would we have had bathtub gin and white lightening.....
> .... Why would banning abortion make abortions safer or less common. Certain forms of contraception that are highly effective would also become illegal. That would likely lead to more pregnancies , not less. More pregnancies almost inevitably will lead to more women seeking a way to end them, not less. And with no legal, regulated way to do so where will they turn? You might be comfortable with that answer, I'm not.


I didn't ignore any examples. From my first response on, I agreed that the criminalization of a thing, does not eliminate the thing. Criminalization normally reduces the numbers associated with the thing, but does not eliminate it. I also agreed that the continued activity of said thing is usually less safe, under criminalization, and the people who choose to continue to do it are put at a higher risk.

But, if you look at the post, by Raeven, that brought me back into the debate, was a statement that it was hypocritical for a person who opposes abortion, on the grounds that it is a life being killed and murder is wrong, to not also oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest.

I chimed in to point out that there are plenty of us, irrespective of any religious conviction, who don't support abortion in any form, and recognize the integral dilemma of excusing it in the case of rape or incest. 

My counter point was that, if you use defend the legalization of a woman's "choice" to kill her own unborn child using the rationale of proving a safer/cleaner way for her to do what she is going to do anyway, then only a hypocrite could, in turn, not also support clean/legal heroin, for example.


----------



## Txsteader

Txsteader said:


> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> She most certainly DID have a choice of what to do w/ her body. She *chose* to have intercourse out of wedlock. With the exception of rape, every person w/ normal brain functions has the ability to choose *when* they have intercourse.
> 
> Gerri Santoro *knew* the consequences of intercourse. And using even liberal standards, the only guaranteed method of birth control is abstinence.
> 
> Choices. Consequences. Responsibility.





basketti said:


> What about the women who didn't have choices? Who were raped and sought back alley abortions in the first trimester and died? Did they deserve it? Are you denying women died or were mutilated before abortion was legalized because of botched abortions?


Read it again.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I imagine all people wish they were as moral, upstanding, and understanding as those that have great clarity of vision while judging people from decades ago. I prefer to consider the old saying, "You never truly know someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes." Just that bit of empathy... A person would have to be some type of monster to see that picture and not feel at least some compassion for what Gerri Santoro went through in the last hours of her life. 

Thankfully, we don't have to worry as much about horrifying do-it-self abortion deaths since 1973 and a woman's right to control her body. Although they are on the rise in Texas, hopefully that will be rectified soon.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> What about the women who didn't have choices? Who were raped and sought back alley abortions in the first trimester and died? Did they deserve it? Are you denying women died or were mutilated before abortion was legalized because of botched abortions?


"Those" women don't count because they weren't moral enough to keep their legs together, apparently. Only _upstanding moral_ women practiced abstinence, the rest were just whores from what I can gather from the opinions I've read.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> What about the women who didn't have choices? Who were raped and sought back alley abortions in the first trimester and died? Did they deserve it? Are you denying women died or were mutilated before abortion was legalized because of botched abortions?


Prior to Roe V. Wade, 20 states allowed abortion for reasons such as rape.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> "Those" women don't count because they weren't moral enough to keep their legs together, apparently. Only _upstanding moral_ women practiced abstinence, the rest were just whores from what I can gather from the opinions I've read.


Nope. It's not about morals, it's about consequences of our actions. 

Gerri Santoro chose to have sex. She had a choice of what to do w/ her body.

Gerri Santoro chose to abort the pregnancy that resulted from that decision. Again, she had a choice of what to do w/ her body.

The end result was the consequence of *her* decisions & actions.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> Nope. It's not about morals, it's about consequences of our actions.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to have sex. She had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to abort the pregnancy that resulted from that decision. Again, she had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> The end result was the consequence of *her* decisions & actions.


And what about those who were raped?


----------



## Raeven

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I'm with you right up to here. That is exactly my view on abortion. I don't abhor it because of the direction of some religious institution. I abhor it because it is murder.
> 
> I don't believe that it is any more right to kill a person one month into gestation than it is to kill a person one month after birth. Therefore, logical integrity prevents me from believing it is any more acceptable to kill a person brought into being as the result of rape, one month into gestation, than it is to kill a 4 year old because his mother was raped and no longer wants him.
> 
> I realize we're never going to see eye to eye on the issue, but I didn't want you to go on thinking that there weren't any non-hypocrites on this side of the fence. There are plenty of us that share this view.
> 
> That, and the rest of your post, is a straw-man argument, in truth. I've yet to meet anyone who thinks that righting the abortion laws will do away with it altogether. Yet, you posit that argument as if it's being made by the other side, then proceed to argue against it as if you were somehow winning a point by proving it false.
> 
> I think anyone taking an honest look at the issue believes that the number of abortion will decrease, as will the "safety" of those that occur. In some cases, with illegal abortion, two deaths will occur where there would have only been one if conducted in a clean, structured clinic. The trade-off, if you want to call it that, is that fewer victims will die, at the cost of a few more perpetrators dying. Not desirable, but inevitable, and preferable to the staggering number of victims dying today.
> 
> Heroin is illegal in the US, as is consumption of alcohol by minors - yet both things still happen. To bring it out of the backrooms, and add an element of "safety", should we start putting loaded syringes in the condiment trays in highschool lunchrooms? How about serving booze at school dances, and putting a row of mattresses in the back hallway?
> 
> I doubt anyone believes that, but, somehow, the mode of justification for the legal murder of innocent children is considered ridiculous when applied to other unsafe activities.


It is precisely because you agreed with the first part of my post that I can't give you a pass on the straw man argument part. Otherwise, I'd concede it to an extent as a valid point. But you DO understand the incongruity and hypocrisy of both claiming abortion is homicide and then giving women who suffer incest or rape a pass. If one is going to make the 'homicide' argument, then I think those who subscribe to it must own it to its logical conclusion -- as you have.

The reality is, society as a whole recognizes two things: First, that however uncomfortable we may be with attempting to determine a starting point for life, it is reasonable to many to value the life of an actual person above that of a maybe person. 

Second, it's a decision that must be left to the individual woman and her doctor. The reason for this is because it takes into account something I haven't seen anyone else here arguing against choice admit or address: Men have a hand in this, too, and to what extent should they be held accountable? Implicit in your argument and that of others is that it is solely the woman who is "at fault." Roe v. Wade agrees with you. If you're going to lay the responsibility for consequences solely on women, then I don't think men get to have much say in the choice a woman makes.

I am impressed that you are willing to own the extreme view you have. Few are. But you are right, we are never going to agree on this issue.


----------



## Raeven

Txsteader said:


> Nope. It's not about morals, it's about consequences of our actions.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to have sex. She had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to abort the pregnancy that resulted from that decision. Again, she had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> The end result was the consequence of *her* decisions & actions.


No man was involved, eh? I guess no consequences for him.

I tend to subscribe to the words of Florynce Kennedy, who said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."


----------



## Lisa in WA

Raeven said:


> No man was involved, eh? I guess no consequences for him.
> 
> I tend to subscribe to the words of Florynce Kennedy, who said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."


It seems like so many of these women who feel this way (like the poster you are responding to) are the kind of women who worshipfully center their lives around men and secretly despise other women.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> It seems like so many of these women who feel this way (like the poster you are responding to) are the kind of women who worshipfully center their lives around men and secretly despise other women.


Or, perhaps, just perhaps, women like that abhor the thought of killing the unborn and it is not simply a case of women hating other women, or, single minded worship of men.


----------



## Raeven

basketti said:


> It seems like so many of these women who feel this way the poster you are responding to) are the kind of women who worshipfully center their lives around men and secretly despise other women.


I don't agree with this. I understand the discomfort many have with the choice and I don't make judgments about their reasons. 

All the same, I don't believe anyone has the right to impose their morality or their choices on others, and that includes a hard determination about when life begins. It remains an ambiguous point. Otherwise, the solution would be simple: Just remove the fetus from the woman, give it to the man and let it "live."


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Or, perhaps, just perhaps, women like that abhor the thought of killing the unborn and it is not simply a case of women hating other women, or, single minded worship of men.


Then how come she only goes on about the women's responsibility?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Raeven said:


> I don't agree with this. I understand the discomfort many have with the choice and I don't make judgments about their reasons.
> 
> All the same, I don't believe anyone has the right to impose their morality or their choices on others, and that includes a hard determination about when life begins. It remains an ambiguous point. Otherwise, the solution would be simple: Just remove the fetus from the woman, give it to the man and let it "live."


I would agree with you if I hadn't had the experience of being one of the women here that this poster likes to dog. no men, she tends to agree with them, but she's always after the women. It's kind of creepy.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Then how come she only goes on about the women's responsibility?


 Because the woman's responsibility is the only one being discussed. We don't have information on the father. It wasn't stated that the father had anything to do with the choice to have a illegal abortion. If there is such information available, please bring it forward and we will discuss his responsibility in this.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Nope. It's not about morals, it's about consequences of our actions.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to have sex. She had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to abort the pregnancy that resulted from that decision. Again, she had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> The end result was the consequence of *her* decisions & actions.


That's not how I read the sanctimonious posts, yours included. I have interpreted many as "a woman is an immoral whore if she can't abstain from sex." No compassion, no empathy, just condemnation and the implication of "she got what she deserved."


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Because the woman's responsibility is the only one being discussed. We don't have information on the father. It wasn't stated that the father had anything to do with the choice to have a illegal abortion. If there is such information available, please bring it forward and we will discuss his responsibility in this.


If you don't know that men are half the equation here, I'm sorry. Men have the responsibility to not put their penis near the womb of a woman who doesn't intend to nurture or carry their offspring. If he's irresponsible that way, then the woman gets to make the decision I guess. And she does. All of your arguing aside...if you get a woman pregnant, she can abort your offspring whether you like it or not. Better watch where you put your penis.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Because the woman's responsibility is the only one being discussed. We don't have information on the father. It wasn't stated that the father had anything to do with the choice to have a illegal abortion. If there is such information available, please bring it forward and we will discuss his responsibility in this.


In the case of Gerri Santoro, her boyfriend Clyde Dixon- the father, performed the do-it-yourself abortion. 

"She and Clyde checked into a motel on June 8, 1964 with the intent that Clyde would perform the abortion, using surgical instruments and a textbook that he had obtained from a co-worker. But she started to hemorrhage and Clyde panicked, leaving her by herself in the hotel room. Gerri died alone and in pain, discovered by the motel cleaning woman."

From the original link.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how I read the sanctimonious posts, yours included. I have interpreted many as "a woman is an immoral whore if she can't abstain from sex." No compassion, no empathy, just condemnation and the implication of "she got what she deserved."


Yes...this is exactly it. You nailed it. No sense of "I'm sorry for your situation but I just don't believe we have the right to abort" just "now you get what you deserve, whore". It's ugly.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> In the case of Gerri Santoro, her boyfriend, Clyde Dixon- the father, performed the do-it-yourself abortion.
> 
> "She and Clyde checked into a motel on June 8, 1964 with the intent that Clyde would perform the abortion, using surgical instruments and a textbook that he had obtained from a co-worker. But she started to hemorrhage and Clyde panicked, leaving her by herself in the hotel room. Gerri died alone and in pain, discovered by the motel cleaning woman."
> 
> From the original link.


 He should have been tried and convicted of double murder.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> No, I was simply responding to a spiteful post written by you. Irish Pixie provided some information and I gave my opinion as to the responsibility of the man involved. That is how this is supposed to work.


I suggest you read the original link _and_ look at the picture.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Raeven said:


> It is precisely because you agreed with the first part of my post that I can't give you a pass on the straw man argument part. Otherwise, I'd concede it to an extent as a valid point. But you DO understand the incongruity and hypocrisy of both claiming abortion is homicide and then giving women who suffer incest or rape a pass. If one is going to make the 'homicide' argument, then I think those who subscribe to it must own it to its logical conclusion -- as you have.
> 
> The reality is, society as a whole recognizes two things: First, that however uncomfortable we may be with attempting to determine a starting point for life, it is reasonable to many to value the life of an actual person above that of a maybe person.
> 
> Second, it's a decision that must be left to the individual woman and her doctor. The reason for this is because it takes into account something I haven't seen anyone else here arguing against choice admit or address: Men have a hand in this, too, and to what extent should they be held accountable? Implicit in your argument and that of others is that it is solely the woman who is "at fault." Roe v. Wade agrees with you. If you're going to lay the responsibility for consequences solely on women, then I don't think men get to have much say in the choice a woman makes.
> 
> I am impressed that you are willing to own the extreme view you have. Few are. But you are right, we are never going to agree on this issue.


I'm glad you responded. It is nice to be able to have a discussion above the din of "but, nuh-uh". 

I'm not sure I'm tracking on your response about "can't give me a pass on the straw-man argument", though. The second half of your post was a straw-man. That's not really opinion or conjecture. You made several points, good as they may have been, about how banning abortion again won't stop them from happening. I've never heard anyone argue that it would. If you're debating someone, and then set up a point to argue against, that they never argued in the first place, that is a straw-man argument - by definition. You made some valid points in there, just nothing I did or would take issue with.

But, rhetorical water under the rhetorical bridge. 
Rhetorically speaking.

I think in your point regarding the value of a "person vs. a maybe person" is valid, I'm just not sure that we all agree on the "maybe" part. In my view, there is no such thing as a "maybe" person. They're either a person or they're not. I think that a lot of the world's injustices are perpetrated under the personal-morality shield of assigning less value to a person - the enemy, someone different than me, the unborn etc. 

To me, once conceived, they are a person, just in a very fragile state and lacking independence. With that viewpoint, I don't have a choice to consider abortion anything other than murder. Believing that life begins at conception, justifying abortion because they are just "kinda" or "maybe" a person would be nothing but a euphemistic dodge. 

God never told me that abortion is wrong, but He did tell me to question my views and always be honest with myself. This is where I landed.

The point about men's place in blame, as I read you, is another straw-man, but maybe I am missing your point. The only times I can recall the man's place coming up in the debate has centered around why it is unfair that he doesn't get a say. I don't recall ever seeing anyone make a point that he should be any less accountable for the couple's actions than the woman. Unfortunately, all to often, that is the case, as it is easier for a man to run off or eschew his financial commitments than it is for the mother to do, but I've never seen anyone try to excuse that behavior.

So, if I'm missing your point, I would like to see another whack at explaining it.

And I would also like to see your take on my point that it's hypocritical to argue in defense of abortion, using the logic that legalized abortion makes it safer for the mother, but not arguing, likewise, in support of legalized heroin etc. Taking dangerous drugs is a personal choice that someone makes with their body, and the criminalization of it puts the users at risk by restricting their access to clean, safe, legal sources. 

I would argue that heroin criminalization is even less conflicted than abortion, as, to those who believe like I do, the mother's choice DOES affect another person, whereas the heroin addict only trashes their own body, but I'll put that aside to hear and consider your argument as to why one is OK and the other is not.


----------



## Txsteader

basketti said:


> Then how come she only goes on about the women's responsibility?


Because YOU brought up the subject of Gerri Santoro. Apparently she was the poster child for legalizing abortion.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how I read the sanctimonious posts, yours included. I have interpreted many as "a woman is an immoral whore if she can't abstain from sex." No compassion, no empathy, just condemnation and the implication of "she got what she deserved."


Nope. She got the consequences of her actions. There's a difference. 

I never said she deserved it, so don't be putting words in my mouth. Thank you.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Raeven said:


> Second, it's a decision that must be left to the individual woman and her doctor. The reason for this is because it takes into account something I haven't seen anyone else here arguing against choice admit or address: Men have a hand in this, too, and to what extent should they be held accountable? Implicit in your argument and that of others is that it is solely the woman who is "at fault." Roe v. Wade agrees with you. If you're going to lay the responsibility for consequences solely on women, then I don't think men get to have much say in the choice a woman makes.


Re-reading the part about the man's place, I think I may get what you're trying to say. But I never placed any _blame_ on anyone, and certainly never limited responsibility to one person. 

You say right in your response to me that "implicit in your (my) argument....is that it is solely the woman who is at fault". I never implied such a thing.

I don't think that, in a pregnancy, anyone is "at fault", and I don't think that criminalizing abortion is a "punishment". I don't care who has sex, where or when they do it, how they do it, or who they have it with. But, once the conception occurred, the bed has been made, and the baby needs to be cared for. Once born, the mother can choose to raise it, give it up for adoption, or leave it at the door to the police station, and I wouldn't have a single thought in judgment of her. However, if she kills it, or harms herself with the intent of harming the baby, then I consider her a murderer, and believe that she should be tried by the courts of man.

Likewise, I believe the abortionist should be tried under the same statues as would a hitman, and a father who says "get an abortion or I'm leaving" should be tried as a conspirator. 

I realize these aren't views you share, but I don't see where you have grounds to say that I somehow excuse the man of any accountability.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Nope. She got the consequences of her actions. There's a difference.
> 
> I never said she deserved it, so don't be putting words in my mouth. Thank you.


I never said you did.

The utter lack of compassion for the death of another person makes me queasy.


----------



## MDKatie

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how I read the sanctimonious posts, yours included. I have interpreted many as "a woman is an immoral whore if she can't abstain from sex." No compassion, no empathy, just condemnation and the implication of "she got what she deserved."


Post of the day award!


----------



## painterswife

Conception does not mean there is a baby. There is not even a fetus for several weeks.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how I read the sanctimonious posts, yours included. I have interpreted many as "a woman is an immoral whore if she can't abstain from sex." No compassion, no empathy, just condemnation and the implication of "she got what she deserved."





Irish Pixie said:


> I never said you did.
> 
> The utter lack of compassion for the death of person makes me queasy.


Uh yeah, you said exactly that. 

And this discussion is getting too weird for my taste. Have a wonderful St. Paddy's Day, Irish.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Uh yeah, you said exactly that.
> 
> And this discussion is getting too weird for my taste. Have a wonderful St. Paddy's Day, Irish.


I said, "I have interpreted many [posts]" if you want to read into that your posts specifically, that's not my problem. 

Have the day you deserve, Txsteader.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> Because YOU brought up the subject of Gerri Santoro. Apparently she was the poster child for legalizing abortion.


Not to you. I was responding to JeffreyD. 

But you showed up like there was blood in the water, or maybe just a woman in need of being harshly judged. It's almost comical. I can predict where you will show up, either to dog me, etc. or "like" the posts of the person I might be arguing with.


You must sit around with your nose in the wind...just waiting to pounce.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how I read the sanctimonious posts, yours included. I have interpreted many as "a woman is an immoral whore if she can't abstain from sex." No compassion, no empathy, just condemnation and the implication of "she got what she deserved."





basketti said:


> Yes...this is exactly it. You nailed it. No sense of "I'm sorry for your situation but I just don't believe we have the right to abort" just "now you get what you deserve, whore". It's ugly.


Nobody said that.
Nobody called women whores.
Nobody has shown a lack of empathy or compassion for others.
You two did that all by yourselves.
Just how wide is that brush?


----------



## Lisa in WA

elevenpoint said:


> Nobody said that.
> Nobody called women whores.
> Nobody has shown a lack of empathy or compassion for others.
> You two did that all by yourselves.
> Just how wide is that brush?


No one said they did. We interpreted it that way. See...you just interpreted something your own way. Good job!:banana:

Now:


----------



## Elevenpoint

basketti said:


> No one said they did. We interpreted it that way. See...you just interpreted something your own way. Good job!:banana:
> 
> Now:


Mmmmm....that ice cream looks good.


----------



## Lisa in WA

elevenpoint said:


> Mmmmm....that ice cream looks good.


It's made with raw milk.


----------



## Elevenpoint

basketti said:


> It's made with raw milk.


Is there any other way?:gaptooth:


----------



## farmrbrown

Txsteader said:


> Nope. It's not about morals, it's about consequences of our actions.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to have sex. She had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> Gerri Santoro chose to abort the pregnancy that resulted from that decision. Again, she had a choice of what to do w/ her body.
> 
> The end result was the consequence of *her* decisions & actions.





Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how I read the sanctimonious posts, *yours included.* I have interpreted many as "a woman is an immoral whore if she can't abstain from sex." No compassion, no empathy, just condemnation and the implication of "she got what she deserved."







Txsteader said:


> Nope. She got the consequences of her actions. There's a difference.
> 
> I never said she deserved it, so don't be putting words in my mouth. Thank you.





Irish Pixie said:


> I never said you did.
> 
> The utter lack of compassion for the death of another person makes me queasy.





Irish Pixie said:


> I said, "I have interpreted many [posts]" if you want to read into that *your posts specifically,* that's not my problem.
> 
> Have the day you deserve, Txsteader.




Is *this* why some people need decoder rings?
:shrug:


A whole lot of "interpretation" goin' on. lol

And for the record IP, I CAN see how and why some comments made could lead to your conclusion. 

I can also see why denying a specific accusation would be preferable to sticking by what you originally said.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Oh, well, when you kill in the name of a god, everything's OK.:rock:
> Well, I did say in general. Most people are capable of murdering someone under the right circumstances. And it does strange things to the brain to be stuck in combat situations, where everything you learned previously ("be nice, don't kill") flies out the window.
> Same thing happens with calculus, when you learn geometry is actually based on nothing, but it works anyway. This is why math majors go postal so often. They're sitting there, calming cracking an equation for a student, when all of a sudden they've blown up the building.
> Anyways, back to reality. We can debate endlessly when the life begins, but we can use some science:
> 
> Life definition:
> 
> 
> Clearly, a fetus exhibits all these traits except the capacity for reproduction. Technically, however, human capacity for reproduction doesn't matter until about age 11ish. Therefore, a fetus could be termed alive.


But we're discussing something a bit deeper than just being alive. We're discussing human life. That benign tumor has all the things you claim denote being alive with the added benefit of having its own unique, human DNA yet you have no trouble removing and killing it. Others here have expressed the thought that it's acceptable to remove support and kill life that isn't "meaningful". It's definitely human life. 

You use the word fetus. Here's a standard definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/fetus. The conjoined egg and sperm aren't a fetus. The embryo isn't a fetus. They're alive, but are they human deserving of all human rights? We disagree. But my personal standard, and society's, doesn't negate yours or make yours illegal.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ignore any examples. From my first response on, I agreed that the criminalization of a thing, does not eliminate the thing. Criminalization normally reduces the numbers associated with the thing, but does not eliminate it. I also agreed that the continued activity of said thing is usually less safe, under criminalization, and the people who choose to continue to do it are put at a higher risk.
> 
> But, if you look at the post, by Raeven, that brought me back into the debate, was a statement that it was hypocritical for a person who opposes abortion, on the grounds that it is a life being killed and murder is wrong, to not also oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest.
> 
> I chimed in to point out that there are plenty of us, irrespective of any religious conviction, who don't support abortion in any form, and recognize the integral dilemma of excusing it in the case of rape or incest.
> 
> My counter point was that, if you use defend the legalization of a woman's "choice" to kill her own unborn child using the rationale of proving a safer/cleaner way for her to do what she is going to do anyway, then only a hypocrite could, in turn, not also support clean/legal heroin, for example.


Actually, in post 142 you stated that criminalization would lessen abortions and make them safer. That is part of what I responded to. I agree with you that those who argue for a ban from conception but allow any exception are being intellectually inconsistent. But I'm glad to know that since I support both the right to choose and decriminalizing drugs you wouldn't consider me a hypocrite.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I'm glad you responded. It is nice to be able to have a discussion above the din of "but, nuh-uh".
> 
> I'm not sure I'm tracking on your response about "can't give me a pass on the straw-man argument", though. The second half of your post was a straw-man. That's not really opinion or conjecture. You made several points, good as they may have been, about how banning abortion again won't stop them from happening. I've never heard anyone argue that it would. If you're debating someone, and then set up a point to argue against, that they never argued in the first place, that is a straw-man argument - by definition. You made some valid points in there, just nothing I did or would take issue with.
> 
> But, rhetorical water under the rhetorical bridge.
> Rhetorically speaking.
> 
> I think in your point regarding the value of a "person vs. a maybe person" is valid, I'm just not sure that we all agree on the "maybe" part. In my view, there is no such thing as a "maybe" person. They're either a person or they're not. I think that a lot of the world's injustices are perpetrated under the personal-morality shield of assigning less value to a person - the enemy, someone different than me, the unborn etc.
> 
> To me, once conceived, they are a person, just in a very fragile state and lacking independence. With that viewpoint, I don't have a choice to consider abortion anything other than murder. Believing that life begins at conception, justifying abortion because they are just "kinda" or "maybe" a person would be nothing but a euphemistic dodge.
> 
> God never told me that abortion is wrong, but He did tell me to question my views and always be honest with myself. This is where I landed.
> 
> The point about men's place in blame, as I read you, is another straw-man, but maybe I am missing your point. The only times I can recall the man's place coming up in the debate has centered around why it is unfair that he doesn't get a say. I don't recall ever seeing anyone make a point that he should be any less accountable for the couple's actions than the woman. Unfortunately, all to often, that is the case, as it is easier for a man to run off or eschew his financial commitments than it is for the mother to do, but I've never seen anyone try to excuse that behavior.
> 
> So, if I'm missing your point, I would like to see another whack at explaining it.
> 
> And I would also like to see your take on my point that it's hypocritical to argue in defense of abortion, using the logic that legalized abortion makes it safer for the mother, but not arguing, likewise, in support of legalized heroin etc. Taking dangerous drugs is a personal choice that someone makes with their body, and the criminalization of it puts the users at risk by restricting their access to clean, safe, legal sources.
> 
> I would argue that heroin criminalization is even less conflicted than abortion, as, to those who believe like I do, the mother's choice DOES affect another person, whereas the heroin addict only trashes their own body, but I'll put that aside to hear and consider your argument as to why one is OK and the other is not.


You may see having a line which must be crossed before life becomes human as a "euphemistic dodge" but I see it as the result of much thought and contemplation. I won't even claim that all put such thought in the decision but that is true of all who decide, no matter the decision.

If you can't consider abortion anything but murder I'll ask you to address my earlier question about the parents who choose to withhold treatment allowing the death of a baby being viewed and treated differently than if they had decided to abort that same fetus. Are they also guilty of murder? If parents have the right to make life and death decisions on what everyone can agree is an independent human life when can they begin to make those decisions?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> Actually, in post 142 you stated that criminalization would lessen abortions and make them safer. That is part of what I responded to. I agree with you that those who argue for a ban from conception but allow any exception are being intellectually inconsistent. But I'm glad to know that since I support both the right to choose and decriminalizing drugs you wouldn't consider me a hypocrite.


I invite you to re-read what I wrote @ #142 (below). I said that criminalization would _decrease_ both the numbers, and the safety. That is the trade-off inherent in the debate. 
For those who feel that the abortion takes a life, weigh the difference in total lives lost, and see criminalization as a 'win'. More mothers seeking illegal abortions will be injured or die, but many, many fewer innocent children will die. 

Before IP weighs in saying that that sounds like I'm calling the mothers worthless whores, or whatever - that's not what I'm saying at all. Even if you don't weigh the equity of the loss of an _innocent_ life vs one who is facing the outcome of their own choices, and goes on straight numbers alone, criminalization of abortion does reduce the overall loss of life. 



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I think anyone taking an honest look at the issue believes that *the number of abortion will decrease, as will the "safety" of those that occur*. In some cases, with illegal abortion, two deaths will occur where there would have only been one if conducted in a clean, structured clinic. The trade-off, if you want to call it that, is that fewer victims will die, at the cost of a few more perpetrators dying. Not desirable, but inevitable, and preferable to the staggering number of victims dying today.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I invite you to re-read what I wrote @ #142 (below). I said that criminalization would _decrease_ both the numbers, and the safety. That is the trade-off inherent in the debate.
> For those who feel that the abortion takes a life, weigh the difference in total lives lost, and see criminalization as a 'win'. More mothers seeking illegal abortions will be injured or die, but many, many fewer innocent children will die.
> 
> Before IP weighs in saying that that sounds like I'm calling the mothers worthless whores, or whatever - that's not what I'm saying at all. Even if you don't weigh the equity of the loss of an _innocent_ life vs one who is facing the outcome of their own choices, and goes on straight numbers alone, criminalization of abortion does reduce the overall loss of life.


I apologize for misinterpreting and misstating your words. 

I understood your words about the "trade off" in lives lost. But, since we won't agree on when human life begins I'd mourn the loss of the young woman who lost her life or her further reproductive ability to an unsafe abortion procedure because she couldn't get a morning after pill or have access to contraceptives that prevent implantation of a couple of cells who I don't consider human. I don't consider that a fair trade or justice. 

And your numbers only work if I accept your definition of "life". If I don't they change quite drastically.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> I apologize for misinterpreting and misstating your words.
> 
> I understood your words about the "trade off" in lives lost. But, since we won't agree on when human life begins I'd mourn the loss of the young woman who lost her life or her further reproductive ability to an unsafe abortion procedure because she couldn't get a morning after pill or have access to contraceptives that prevent implantation of a couple of cells who I don't consider human. I don't consider that a fair trade or justice.
> 
> And your numbers only work if I accept your definition of "life". If I don't they change quite drastically.


Exactly. Criminalized abortion will not stop occurring, history has proven it, it will just go back to unsafe unsanitary back alley and do-it-yourself. More dead and scarred women.

Not to mention that it would violate the rights of half the country's population to have control of her body.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> You may see having a line which must be crossed before life becomes human as a "euphemistic dodge" but I see it as the result of much thought and contemplation. I won't even claim that all put such thought in the decision but that is true of all who decide, no matter the decision.
> 
> If you can't consider abortion anything but murder I'll ask you to address my earlier question about the parents who choose to withhold treatment allowing the death of a baby being viewed and treated differently than if they had decided to abort that same fetus. Are they also guilty of murder? If parents have the right to make life and death decisions on what everyone can agree is an independent human life when can they begin to make those decisions?


My comment about the "euphemistic dodge" was strictly in relation to my view that life is life at conception. That much is self-evident to me at this point, and for me to refer to a life as "maybe" or "almost" or "kinda" life would be a rhetorical twisting of what I already know to be true. 

I hadn't considered your example about parents refusing to treat their sick child before, and I didn't see your previous point about it, but, based on what you posit above, I'd say that they are different.

The distinction is in action vs. inaction. A doctor is rarely in a position to say "this person WILL die in _x_ days/hours, unless we do _y_." That doesn't necessarily stop many from saying things like that, but a truly accurate statement would have to begin with "my learning/experience tells me that it is likely...."

So, armed with that information, the parent with a sick child has to, weigh the information in front of them and make a choice. Some parents are going to weigh Faith heavier than science, and make a choice that appears, to many, to be a death sentence, but it is not a known.

Likewise, if an expectant mother refuses to take pre-natal vitamins, believing they are hype or unsafe or whatever, and the baby dies or becomes injured because of it, she can't/shouldn't be _charged_ with anything. She weighed the information and made her choice.

On the other-hand, if that same expectant mother chooses to take something that she knows will harm the baby, with that being her intent, then I think she is guilty of causing the harm.

The next logical step in the path being ordering the abortion. 

In trying to draw a parallel between prosecution for abortion, and prosecution for the acts of the parent with their already-born children, refusal of some particular medical treatment is not accurate. A better parallel would be to compare the mother who aborts, and the parent who says their god told them to drown their child. In both of those cases, I believe the judgment (in man's court) should be the same.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> And your numbers only work if I accept your definition of "life". If I don't they change quite drastically.


And that is where our views take divergent paths. I don't have a choice but to see conception as the beginning of life. I've searched my soul, asked for guidance, and was told to go back and search my soul some more - the answer was there and I shouldn't need Him to tell me, so He wouldn't. 

I found my answer.

So, even if we can't agree, I'd hope you can be big enough to at least accept that when I say I am against abortion, in all forms, and fight against it in the political sphere and at rallies, it has NOTHING to do with me wanting to control a woman's body or restrict anyone's rights. It is ENTIRELY about me wanting to protect what I have no choice but to see as an innocent life in need of an advocate.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. Criminalized abortion will not stop occurring, history has proven it,...


And "criminalization will end abortion altogether" has been said by exactly no one. 

You're arguing against a claim that no one has ever made, in an attempt to win a point. It's meaningless.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> My comment about the "euphemistic dodge" was strictly in relation to my view that life is life at conception. That much is self-evident to me at this point, and for me to refer to a life as "maybe" or "almost" or "kinda" life would be a rhetorical twisting of what I already know to be true.
> 
> I hadn't considered your example about parents refusing to treat their sick child before, and I didn't see your previous point about it, but, based on what you posit above, I'd say that they are different.
> 
> The distinction is in action vs. inaction. A doctor is rarely in a position to say "this person WILL die in _x_ days/hours, unless we do _y_." That doesn't necessarily stop many from saying things like that, but a truly accurate statement would have to begin with "my learning/experience tells me that it is likely...."
> 
> So, armed with that information, the parent with a sick child has to, weigh the information in front of them and make a choice. Some parents are going to weigh Faith heavier than science, and make a choice that appears, to many, to be a death sentence, but it is not a known.
> 
> Likewise, if an expectant mother refuses to take pre-natal vitamins, believing they are hype or unsafe or whatever, and the baby dies or becomes injured because of it, she can't/shouldn't be _charged_ with anything. She weighed the information and made her choice.
> 
> On the other-hand, if that same expectant mother chooses to take something that she knows will harm the baby, with that being her intent, then I think she is guilty of causing the harm.
> 
> The next logical step in the path being ordering the abortion.
> 
> In trying to draw a parallel between prosecution for abortion, and prosecution for the acts of the parent with their already-born children, refusal of some particular medical treatment is not accurate. A better parallel would be to compare the mother who aborts, and the parent who says their god told them to drown their child. In both of those cases, I believe the judgment (in man's court) should be the same.


You know when life begins. I know something entirely different. Who's right? Only we each know. My knowledge doesn't interfere with you acting on what you know. Your knowledge does affect my abilities to act.

You talked all around my question without really answering it. Both actions cause the death of what you consider a living being. I'm asking why causing that death at one stage is different than causing it at another. We allow parents to remove life support based on doctor's recommendations and predictions of outcome. We allow them to refuse operations and treatments that might prolong life for a little longer and , who knows, miracles do happen. If they make that decision we show up at the funeral and help them mourn the loss. If they had aborted the same fetus six, nine, twelve months earlier you would throw them and the doctor in jail. Turning off the respirator or removing the feeding tubes kill just as effectively as a pill that prevents implantation.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And "criminalization will end abortion altogether" has been said by exactly no one.
> 
> You're arguing against a claim that no one has ever made, in an attempt to win a point. It's meaningless.


To be fair, the goal of criminalizing and banning abortions is to eliminate them. It is to save all those lives you recognize. If the goal isn't to stop all abortions why worry about what others do in the first place?


----------



## mmoetc

I'll take another tack. Many state that government has no right to take something from one citizen to give to another. Yet many of them would use government power to force a woman to give nutrients, hormones, and living space to another being she has no desire to. That being, even though many will say she invited it in, has become an unwelcome guest. Don't we all have the right to deny unwelcome guests access to our pantry or couch?


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And "criminalization will end abortion altogether" has been said by exactly no one.
> 
> You're arguing against a claim that no one has ever made, in an attempt to win a point. It's meaningless.


My opinion, I'm not refuting, arguing, discussing, debating, etc. anything. Perhaps you should read (and respond) to my statements in context. It is everything as they say.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> You talked all around my question without really answering it...


I think I answered your question directly and without spin, so I'd ask that you re-read my post again. The only reason I'm back participating in this discussion is because, for the first time in a long time, I saw Raeven's post as an honest advancement of the discussion, rather than just a pointless back/forth. I make a conscious effort to try to answer the questions directly, regardless how difficult.

So, I will try to answer both your restatement of the original, and your new-tack, as they are both valid questions in advancing the discussion.

*Your restatement of the original question* (re: parents choices with sick born-children) brought up angles I didn't consider the first time around, but I think my original answer is still congruous with.

In the case of medical decisions, whether spurred by the doctor or parent is irrelevant, where the action is _likely_ to end the life in question, I stand by my original point regarding the weighing of information and making of decisions. 

Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made, and life is, effectively, ended without guilt. A sick dog, a person with no more hope of any quality of life, a warrior with a retreating enemy soldier in their sights. Life is not always pretty. 

Your point, though, does bear mentioning one exception to the abortion restrictions that I hold, but hadn't thought to mention here until now: cases of safety to the mother. In cases where the death/great-harm of the mother is likely, if the pregnancy is continued, I think the terrible decision has to be made, and should be made without any implied guilt or resonance. 

The stubby-pencil parallel would be the person driving down the road when a hazard presents. No matter which way they swerve, they're going to run over someone else. They have to swerve, and no one should be able to judge them for the direction they took. 


*Regarding the new-tack* about forcing a mother to give up nutrients etc, being akin to a home invader, is not parallel because of the importance of intent. A baby does not _intend_ to steal anything from the mother. That is just the way that God designed the cycle of life, and the baby has no choice in the matter. The home-invader, on the other hand, does intend to take from another.

But, to fairly answer the logical extension of your question, equating state-sanctioning of home-invasion is more akin to the state attempting to force a mother to maintain financial responsibility for a child she has no connection with. I don't believe that the state has any standing to force a mother to keep or raise her child. _That_ is her choice. The baby using her body for the term of gestation is just an inescapable reality of biology.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> You know when life begins. I know something entirely different. Who's right? Only we each know. My knowledge doesn't interfere with you acting on what you know. Your knowledge does affect my abilities to act.


Consider the opposite angle:

My knowledge "interferes with you acting on what you know".

Your knowledge ends an innocent life.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And that is where our views take divergent paths. I don't have a choice but to see conception as the beginning of life. I've searched my soul, asked for guidance, and was told to go back and search my soul some more - the answer was there and I shouldn't need Him to tell me, so He wouldn't.
> 
> I found my answer.
> 
> So, even if we can't agree, I'd hope you can be big enough to at least accept that when I say I am against abortion, in all forms, and fight against it in the political sphere and at rallies, it has NOTHING to do with me wanting to control a woman's body or restrict anyone's rights. It is ENTIRELY about me wanting to protect what I have no choice but to see as an innocent life in need of an advocate.


And I've found a different answer. I won't question your faith in that answer or doubt what that answer means to you. I'll not call you names or question your motives. I'll point out what I think are inconsistencies in your arguments but I'll never deny you the opportunity to make them. I won't work to prevent you from practicing what you believe to be true. I will fight for the continued right to practice what I believe.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Consider the opposite angle:
> 
> My knowledge "interferes with you acting on what you know".
> 
> Your knowledge ends an innocent life.


But for that to be true I have to accept your knowledge as true. You can dismiss mine as false and never have or participate in ending that "innocent life" and I won't interfere with that decision.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I think I answered your question directly and without spin, so I'd ask that you re-read my post again. The only reason I'm back participating in this discussion is because, for the first time in a long time, I saw Raeven's post as an honest advancement of the discussion, rather than just a pointless back/forth. I make a conscious effort to try to answer the questions directly, regardless how difficult.
> 
> So, I will try to answer both your restatement of the original, and your new-tack, as they are both valid questions in advancing the discussion.
> 
> *Your restatement of the original question* (re: parents choices with sick born-children) brought up angles I didn't consider the first time around, but I think my original answer is still congruous with.
> 
> In the case of medical decisions, whether spurred by the doctor or parent is irrelevant, where the action is _likely_ to end the life in question, I stand by my original point regarding the weighing of information and making of decisions.
> 
> Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made, and life is, effectively, ended without guilt. A sick dog, a person with no more hope of any quality of life, a warrior with a retreating enemy soldier in their sights. Life is not always pretty.
> 
> Your point, though, does bear mentioning one exception to the abortion restrictions that I hold, but hadn't thought to mention here until now: cases of safety to the mother. In cases where the death/great-harm of the mother is likely, if the pregnancy is continued, I think the terrible decision has to be made, and should be made without any implied guilt or resonance.
> 
> The stubby-pencil parallel would be the person driving down the road when a hazard presents. No matter which way they swerve, they're going to run over someone else. They have to swerve, and no one should be able to judge them for the direction they took.
> 
> 
> *Regarding the new-tack* about forcing a mother to give up nutrients etc, being akin to a home invader, is not parallel because of the importance of intent. A baby does not _intend_ to steal anything from the mother. That is just the way that God designed the cycle of life, and the baby has no choice in the matter. The home-invader, on the other hand, does intend to take from another.
> 
> But, to fairly answer the logical extension of your question, equating state-sanctioning of home-invasion is more akin to the state attempting to force a mother to maintain financial responsibility for a child she has no connection with. I don't believe that the state has any standing to force a mother to keep or raise her child. _That_ is her choice. The baby using her body for the term of gestation is just an inescapable reality of biology.


If we wish to argue intent the woman may not have intended to invite the fetus in. Aren't her initial intentions important in subsequent decisions? Or what of the woman who was raped and had no intention of carrying and nourishing another. Should government force her to give up nine months of her life along with all the other effects on her body? The answer does all boil down to one thing. When one believes human life begins. We disagree on that so our answers will always disagree.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> If we wish to argue intent the woman may not have intended to invite the fetus in. Aren't her initial intentions important in subsequent decisions? Or what of the woman who was raped and had no intention of carrying and nourishing another. Should government force her to give up nine months of her life along with all the other effects on her body? The answer does all boil down to one thing. When one believes human life begins. We disagree on that so our answers will always disagree.


Or the women that through no fault of their own had their birth control fail. They were responsible and had no intention of carrying and nourishing another either. Should they be forced to carry an unexpected (unwanted) pregnancy to term?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> But for that to be true I have to accept your knowledge as true. You can dismiss mine as false and never have or participate in ending that "innocent life" and I won't interfere with that decision.


That rationale is moot, though. 
By logical extension, if my belief is that gingers are only "kinda" people, and I believe it my right to kill them, would you support me legislatively?

My decision to kill them wouldn't force you to participate.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That rationale is moot, though.
> By logical extension, if my belief is that gingers are only "kinda" people, and I believe it my right to kill them, would you support me legislatively?
> 
> My decision to kill them wouldn't force you to participate.


Nope, and neither would most of society. While I find some gingers annoying I find many of them attractive and I haven't seen one I wouldn't call human. And that is ultimately what we are discussing, what society finds acceptable and how society defines being human and is willing to make laws about. And to be clear it's not my belief that a conjoined egg and sperm prior to implantation is a "kinda" person. I don't believe that biological entity is a person at all. 

Laws shouldn't be based on your beliefs or my beliefs. They should be based on society's beliefs. Society doesn't always get it right the first, second or any subsequent time. But I have little faith any individual, except me , does either. And even I've been proven wrong before.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> But we're discussing something a bit deeper than just being alive. We're discussing human life. That benign tumor has all the things you claim denote being alive with the added benefit of having its own unique, human DNA yet you have no trouble removing and killing it. Others here have expressed the thought that it's acceptable to remove support and kill life that isn't "meaningful". It's definitely human life.
> 
> You use the word fetus. Here's a standard definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/fetus. The conjoined egg and sperm aren't a fetus. The embryo isn't a fetus. They're alive, but are they human deserving of all human rights? We disagree. But my personal standard, and society's, doesn't negate yours or make yours illegal.


The tumor example isn't particularly effective due to the fact that it will potentially harm or kill the person. This is when I find abortion to be perfectly acceptable -- when the person's life is at risk. But, as you've pointed out, everywhere's morality is different. On the other hand, laws routinely enforce morality. Murder is illegal, rape, etc. Also a whole host of other things that may or may not to be immoral are illegal. 
Let's combine the definition of life with that of an organism:
Life: "...the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
Organism: "...an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of [response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.] An organism consists of [one or more cells]; when it has one cell it is known as a unicellular organism; and when it has more than one it is known as a multicellular organism."

I looked at your link, and I've been using the words "fetus" and "embryo" interchangeably. It'd be more correct to just say "embryo." At what point is this a live organism?

This is based on a normally functioning embryo:

I think we agree that it's *alive*, based on the standard definition of life. The embryo is growing, the ability to reproduce is in the program, and it is definitely changing. Functional activity is sketchy for some time, but the fetus is very soon capable of it's own movements.

An embryo is capable of *response to stimuli*, especially auditory. Most real response is in the way of chemical responses, like a plant.

The *reproduction* aspect is again n/a.

*Growth and development - *definitely, at any given point.

Homeostasis: Temp is maintained by the parent, however, the embryo is largely responsible for it's own construction, maintenance of nutrients, absorption, etc.

Now we must deconstruct my argument to prove that embryos or fetuses are in fact not living organisms on their own. 

Further, we have the stat that 76% of abortions or convenience abortions. I hadn't realized it was so high. I am opposed to this action taken simply because it might impoverish or burden a family. They must accept responsibility.


----------



## Raeven

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And that is where our views take divergent paths. I don't have a choice but to see conception as the beginning of life. I've searched my soul, asked for guidance, and was told to go back and search my soul some more - the answer was there and I shouldn't need Him to tell me, so He wouldn't.
> 
> I found my answer.
> 
> So, even if we can't agree, I'd hope you can be big enough to at least accept that when I say I am against abortion, in all forms, and fight against it in the political sphere and at rallies, it has NOTHING to do with me wanting to control a woman's body or restrict anyone's rights. It is ENTIRELY about me wanting to protect what I have no choice but to see as an innocent life in need of an advocate.


*GunMonkeyIntl*, I apologize for abandoning the discussion. I was gradually crafting a reply as time allowed, but I see I am tardy in my response. No worries there -- I almost invariably consider *mmoetc's* opinions as he states them to be better than my own, and he says most of what I would have said in response with far fewer words and more elegance.

I would make a couple further points. First, with respect to the straw man. I agree my argument was a straw man to the extent that I argued against the state of the law as it presently is not. If I'd been arguing against my own position, your approach is exactly the one I'd have taken. But the reason I didn't excuse it entirely as a straw man is because you completely understood the hypocrisy of those who take the view that abortion is homicide, but then don't follow through to the logical conclusion as you did. So although I didn't tie it all up with a neat bow as I should have, you understood my point. In your world, there being no "maybe persons," there ought not be "sort-of homicide." Your conclusion has logical integrity, even if I don't agree with it.

Second, you say your opinion has nothing to do with wanting to control a woman's body or restrict anyone's rights. I am sure that is your true motivation. But surely you would concede that as a practical matter, imposing your views on others does exactly those things. I don't think you get to disregard this rather important consequence in forming your opinion. No matter how you parse it, imposing your perspective on society essentially means forcing half the population to have their bodies held hostage in circumstances where they alone suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

And that brings me to your last point about legalized heroin. With virtually no exception, drug use is something that one imposes on one's self. It doesn't result from the act of two people, only one. In making such a comparison, you and others fail to take into account that women don't get pregnant on their own -- yet all arguments made here about her choices appear to impose all consequences only on the woman.

Lastly, I'd like to dispel the endless, erroneous meme about irresponsible women being the ones seeking abortions. I actually know quite a few women who have availed themselves of the procedure through the years. A number of them are respectable married types who aborted because they and their husbands already had the number of children they wanted and did not wish to take on the responsibility or cost of an unplanned pregnancy. Two women were in fact willing to carry the pregnancy to term, but then sought abortions at the urging of their husbands who did not wish to support another child. Others were women who were using birth control but it failed.

So long as society imposes consequences for unwanted pregnancies solely on women, then women are going to fight to control their own bodies. That is the reality that Roe v. Wade attempts to address. 

We can argue endlessly about when life begins, but the question of viability will always enter into that discussion. Rightfully so, in my opinion. It's an open question. You have arbitrarily chosen the moment of conception as that beginning. I could just as arbitrarily view every female egg or every male sperm as the beginning. Each is a potential human being, is it not? I don't believe this, but I can make the same argument for it that you can about conception.

*mmoetc* has otherwise made the same points I would have regarding choice, so I'm happy to let his part of the discussion stand as my surrogate, if he'll permit me. This is all the time I have right now to discuss this.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> The tumor example isn't particularly effective due to the fact that it will potentially harm or kill the person. This is when I find abortion to be perfectly acceptable -- when the person's life is at risk. But, as you've pointed out, everywhere's morality is different. On the other hand, laws routinely enforce morality. Murder is illegal, rape, etc. Also a whole host of other things that may or may not to be immoral are illegal.
> Let's combine the definition of life with that of an organism:
> Life: "...the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
> Organism: "...an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of [response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.] An organism consists of [one or more cells]; when it has one cell it is known as a unicellular organism; and when it has more than one it is known as a multicellular organism."
> 
> I looked at your link, and I've been using the words "fetus" and "embryo" interchangeably. It'd be more correct to just say "embryo." At what point is this a live organism?
> 
> This is based on a normally functioning embryo:
> 
> I think we agree that it's *alive*, based on the standard definition of life. The embryo is growing, the ability to reproduce is in the program, and it is definitely changing. Functional activity is sketchy for some time, but the fetus is very soon capable of it's own movements.
> 
> An embryo is capable of *response to stimuli*, especially auditory. Most real response is in the way of chemical responses, like a plant.
> 
> The *reproduction* aspect is again n/a.
> 
> *Growth and development - *definitely, at any given point.
> 
> Homeostasis: Temp is maintained by the parent, however, the embryo is largely responsible for it's own construction, maintenance of nutrients, absorption, etc.
> 
> Now we must deconstruct my argument to prove that embryos or fetuses are in fact not living organisms on their own.
> 
> Further, we have the stat that 76% of abortions or convenience abortions. I hadn't realized it was so high. I am opposed to this action taken simply because it might impoverish or burden a family. They must accept responsibility.


It's why I specified benign tumor. No harm, no foul, just maybe inconvenient and uncomfortable. As for potential harm. You might ask the Menendez boys parents that question. We never really know do we?

Again, the argument isn't what is life but what is human life deserving of rights. And those embryos and fetuses cannot exist independently of the woman until after a certain point. What right have you to force a woman to provide these things. If she freely wishes to give them she'll get my full support. 

I agree that personally agree with your dislike of "convenience" abortions. But I know those aren't my decisions to make and I'll never know all that goes into another making such decisions. I'm not a big fan of legislating choices for others.


----------



## mmoetc

Raeven said:


> *GunMonkeyIntl*, I apologize for abandoning the discussion. I was gradually crafting a reply as time allowed, but I see I am tardy in my response. No worries there -- I almost invariably consider *mmoetc's* opinions as he states them to be better than my own, and he says most of what I would have said in response with far fewer words and more elegance.
> 
> I would make a couple further points. First, with respect to the straw man. I agree my argument was a straw man to the extent that I argued against the state of the law as it presently is not. If I'd been arguing against my own position, your approach is exactly the one I'd have taken. But the reason I didn't excuse it entirely as a straw man is because you completely understood the hypocrisy of those who take the view that abortion is homicide, but then don't follow through to the logical conclusion as you did. So although I didn't tie it all up with a neat bow as I should have, you understood my point. In your world, there being no "maybe persons," there ought not be "sort-of homicide." Your conclusion has logical integrity, even if I don't agree with it.
> 
> Second, you say your opinion has nothing to do with wanting to control a woman's body or restrict anyone's rights. I am sure that is your true motivation. But surely you would concede that as a practical matter, imposing your views on others does exactly those things. I don't think you get to disregard this rather important consequence in forming your opinion. No matter how you parse it, imposing your perspective on society essentially means forcing half the population to have their bodies held hostage in circumstances where they alone suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> And that brings me to your last point about legalized heroin. With virtually no exception, drug use is something that one imposes on one's self. It doesn't result from the act of two people, only one. In making such a comparison, you and others fail to take into account that women don't get pregnant on their own -- yet all arguments made here about her choices appear to impose all consequences only on the woman.
> 
> Lastly, I'd like to dispel the endless, erroneous meme about irresponsible women being the ones seeking abortions. I actually know quite a few women who have availed themselves of the procedure through the years. A number of them are respectable married types who aborted because they and their husbands already had the number of children they wanted and did not wish to take on the responsibility or cost of an unplanned pregnancy. Two women were in fact willing to carry the pregnancy to term, but then sought abortions at the urging of their husbands who did not wish to support another child. Others were women who were using birth control but it failed.
> 
> So long as society imposes consequences for unwanted pregnancies solely on women, then women are going to fight to control their own bodies. That is the reality that Roe v. Wade attempts to address.
> 
> We can argue endlessly about when life begins, but the question of viability will always enter into that discussion. Rightfully so, in my opinion. It's an open question. You have arbitrarily chosen the moment of conception as that beginning. I could just as arbitrarily view every female egg or every male sperm as the beginning. Each is a potential human being, is it not? I don't believe this, but I can make the same argument for it that you can about conception.
> 
> *mmoetc* has otherwise made the same points I would have regarding choice, so I'm happy to let his part of the discussion stand as my surrogate, if he'll permit me. This is all the time I have right now to discuss this right now.


Thanks for the kind words but I've often felt your words were far more eloquent than mine. Enough of the mutual admiration society already. Fight your own dang battles.

Spring is here, the weather warms and I too have more important things to do. I've enjoyed some of the discussion and responses and will check back in as time allows but it won't allow as much going forward. I'll try not to disappoint those of you wishing to continue but it may take me longer to get back to you.


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> Nope, and neither would most of society. While I find some gingers annoying I find many of them attractive and I haven't seen one I wouldn't call human. And that is ultimately what we are discussing, what society finds acceptable and how society defines being human and is willing to make laws about. And to be clear it's not my belief that a conjoined egg and sperm prior to implantation is a "kinda" person. I don't believe that biological entity is a person at all.
> 
> Laws shouldn't be based on your beliefs or my beliefs. They should be based on society's beliefs. Society doesn't always get it right the first, second or any subsequent time. But I have little faith any individual, except me , does either. And even I've been proven wrong before.


Exactly. And that's the point we're at right now. The conflict is within our society as a whole, it's a national debate because the government is involved, even though we argue it as individuals. 

To attempt to silence debate because some base their stance on moral beliefs is not only tyrannical but undemocratic as well.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Exactly. And that's the point we're at right now. The conflict is within our society as a whole, it's a national debate because the government is involved, even though we argue it as individuals.
> 
> To attempt to silence debate because some base their stance on moral beliefs is not only tyrannical but undemocratic as well.


No one is attempting to stifle debate. Debate just has to be within the rules of where you are debating it.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I never said you did.
> 
> The utter lack of compassion for the death of another person makes me queasy.


A fetus is a person......a human being with human DNA. Just because it's life is terminated before it can draw breath doesn't make it less human.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> A fetus is a person......a human being with human DNA.


The fetus is not a person. It does not even have a functioning brain for much of the pregnancy.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

It's so very sad to see those wanting to end life. And that is what you are fighting for. The right to kill. No other species in the earth would fight to kill their child. They die for them. And those who support are to blame for the evil and hate in the world. Simply because they have perpetrated the lie that life is insignificant. They have devalued life. Making it of no importance. That's why so many kill so easily today. Life means nothing. Eben for cases of rape. Which is miniscule. In s study done in 2014, 85% carry the child. When asked why they said because exchanging one violent senseless act for another is just continuing the evil. Killing a child that has zero fault is in my opinion a senseless act that could only be carried out by those with no heart. If we found a single cell on Mars it would be all over the world that we found life on Mars. But an infants cells with dna structures is considered nothing. What a backwards society we have today. And because of these stances things will only continue to get worse. And those who are to blame will never see the truth that they are the creators of this society.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> A fetus is a person......a human being with human DNA. Just because it's life is terminated before it can draw breath doesn't make it less human.


According to viability standards a fetus cannot sustain life until 20-23 weeks. This is the guideline I use, you can use any guide you'd like. You (collective you) don't have the right according to SCOTUS's decision in Roe v. Wade to force a women to carry a pregnancy to term. 

Just because something has human DNA doesn't mean it will become human. As has been referenced here, and elsewhere, a tumor contains human DNA and it will never become a human being.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> It's so very sad to see those wanting to end life. And that is what you are fighting for. The right to kill. No other species in the earth would fight to kill their child. They die for them. And those who support are to blame for the evil and hate in the world. Simply because they have perpetrated the lie that life is insignificant. They have devalued life. Making it of no importance. That's why so many kill so easily today. Life means nothing. Eben for cases of rape. Which is miniscule. In s study done in 2014, 85% carry the child. When asked why they said because exchanging one violent senseless act for another is just continuing the evil. Killing a child that has zero fault is in my opinion a senseless act that could only be carried out by those with no heart. If we found a single cell on Mars it would be all over the world that we found life on Mars. But an infants cells with dna structures is considered nothing. What a backwards society we have today. And because of these stances things will only continue to get worse. And those who are to blame will never see the truth that they are the creators of this society.


I'm curious, is this post being used to "stifle debate" or just the posts that are pro-choice? 

What _is_ perfectly clear is the extremely inflammatory rhetoric the poster has chosen to use excessively.


----------



## Lisa in WA

If the embryo/fetus could be removed from the uterus intact and still "alive" and handed over to someone else to go ahead and live, would that satisfy anti-choice people? 

Or do you all insist that the embryo remain inside the woman's uterus till birth?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> But we're discussing something a bit deeper than just being alive. We're discussing human life. That benign tumor has all the things you claim denote being alive with the added benefit of having its own unique, human DNA yet you have no trouble removing and killing it. Others here have expressed the thought that it's acceptable to remove support and kill life that isn't "meaningful". It's definitely human life.
> 
> You use the word fetus. Here's a standard definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/fetus. The conjoined egg and sperm aren't a fetus. The embryo isn't a fetus. They're alive, but are they human deserving of all human rights? We disagree. But my personal standard, and society's, doesn't negate yours or make yours illegal.





Heritagefarm said:


> The tumor example isn't particularly effective due to the fact that it will potentially harm or kill the person. This is when I find abortion to be perfectly acceptable -- when the person's life is at risk. But, as you've pointed out, everywhere's morality is different. On the other hand, laws routinely enforce morality. Murder is illegal, rape, etc. Also a whole host of other things that may or may not to be immoral are illegal.
> Let's combine the definition of life with that of an organism:
> Life: "...the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
> Organism: "...an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of [response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.] An organism consists of [one or more cells]; when it has one cell it is known as a unicellular organism; and when it has more than one it is known as a multicellular organism."
> 
> I looked at your link, and I've been using the words "fetus" and "embryo" interchangeably. It'd be more correct to just say "embryo." At what point is this a live organism?
> 
> This is based on a normally functioning embryo:
> 
> I think we agree that it's *alive*, based on the standard definition of life. The embryo is growing, the ability to reproduce is in the program, and it is definitely changing. Functional activity is sketchy for some time, but the fetus is very soon capable of it's own movements.
> 
> An embryo is capable of *response to stimuli*, especially auditory. Most real response is in the way of chemical responses, like a plant.
> 
> The *reproduction* aspect is again n/a.
> 
> *Growth and development - *definitely, at any given point.
> 
> Homeostasis: Temp is maintained by the parent, however, the embryo is largely responsible for it's own construction, maintenance of nutrients, absorption, etc.
> 
> Now we must deconstruct my argument to prove that embryos or fetuses are in fact not living organisms on their own.
> 
> Further, we have the stat that 76% of abortions or convenience abortions. I hadn't realized it was so high. I am opposed to this action taken simply because it might impoverish or burden a family. They must accept responsibility.



Biologically, the tumor comparison is close but differs significantly in terms of DNA and development.
I'll link the info on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) below. It was interesting research on cancer detection.

But to compare a mutated cell of a host to a 50/50 combination of chromosomes from two different organisms is to elevate things like blood and skin cells that we generate and expel regularly with the uniqueness of a new being.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24553385





painterswife said:


> The fetus is not a person. It does not even have a functioning brain for much of the pregnancy.


The medical definitions and timeline are found here, from the Mayo clinic.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...k-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

Something I learned from that link is that they count as much as two weeks of the pregnancy that may or may not have actually occurred yet.
They start the timeline from the last menstration, given the fact that the date of actual conception usually hard to pinpoint unless you were there for it, lol.

Taking that into consideration, the point at which the new life starts to be a living vertebrate is quite early.




mmoetc said:


> I'll take another tack. Many state that government has no right to take something from one citizen to give to another. Yet many of them would use government power to force a woman to give nutrients, hormones, and living space to another being she has no desire to. That being, even though many will say she invited it in, has become an unwelcome guest. Don't we all have the right to deny unwelcome guests access to our pantry or couch?



That's a valid point to address, and the closest I could find in legal precedent would be in eviction laws.
As landlords well know, evicting an unwanted guest can be done legally with the time it takes a big variable, as long as several months.
Given that an unwanted baby can be given up for adoption or "evicted" from the mother's home in approximately 6-9 months depending on when the decision is made that this guest is unwanted, I think you have your answer.

I can sympathize with landlords that think it's unfair and inconvenient, but the law is like that sometimes.


----------



## Lisa in WA

farmrbrown said:


> I can sympathize with landlords that think it's unfair and inconvenient, but the law is like that sometimes.


Yes, I can sympathize with those who think abortion is unfair and immoral, but the law is like that sometimes. Can't please everyone.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> The medical definitions and timeline are found here, from the Mayo clinic.
> http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...k-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302
> 
> Something I learned from that link is that they count as much as two weeks of the pregnancy that may or may not have actually occurred yet.
> They start the timeline from the last menstration, given the fact that the date of actual conception usually hard to pinpoint unless you were there for it, lol.
> 
> Taking that into consideration, the point at which the new life starts to be a living vertebrate is quite early.


Living does not mean a person. A cell is living but not a person.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> If the embryo/fetus could be removed from the uterus intact and still "alive" and handed over to someone else to go ahead and live, would that satisfy anti-choice people?
> 
> Or do you all insist that the embryo remain inside the woman's uterus till birth?


That would be perfectly acceptable. If the unborn child could be removed, safely and either transplanted to another person, or, reared in some sort of futuristic artificial womb, that would satisfy all of my objections.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> That would be perfectly acceptable. If the unborn child could be removed, safely and either transplanted to another person, or, reared in some sort of futuristic artificial womb, that would satisfy all of my objections.


no, even if there were no artficial womb available and no means of life support.

Because if you're saying that the parent has to be responsible for keeping the embryo alive, and that the embryo is a living person, then what if an adult person needs an organ transplant or bone marrow, etc. Can the parent of that person be legally obliged to give him what he needs to keep living?

Because now legally, the parent has the option of withholding their own organs or bone marrow even from their own child.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> no, even if there were no artficial womb available and no means of life support.
> 
> Because if you're saying that the parent has to be responsible for keeping the embryo alive, and that the embryo is a living person, then what if an adult person needs an organ transplant or bone marrow, etc. Can the parent of that person be legally obliged to give him what he needs to keep living?
> 
> Because now legally, the parent has the option of withholding their own organs or bone marrow even from their own child.


Once the child has been created (usually by choice of action, or, Choice #1) it is the parents responsibility to see that the child is given the opportunity to be born. At birth the parent can either give up rights and responsibilities to that child, or accept responsibility for that child. (Choice #2). If that parent chooses to take on that responsibility, he/she is responsible for raising that child through to age of majority, or, of course, they can choose to give up that child at any time along that continuum (Choice #3). After age of majority, they are no longer responsible for the well being of that child.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Once the child has been created (usually by choice of action, or, Choice #1) it is the parents responsibility to see that the child is given the opportunity to be born. At birth the parent can either give up rights and responsibilities to that child, or accept responsibility for that child. (Choice #2). If that parent chooses to take on that responsibility, he/she is responsible for raising that child through to age of majority, or, of course, they can choose to give up that child at any time along that continuum (Choice #3). After age of majority, they are no longer responsible for the well being of that child.


the age of majority is entirely a social construct. We could as easily say that the age of majority is 10, or 50...or that a parent's responsibility never ends.


----------



## farmrbrown

Vahomesteaders said:


> It's so very sad to see those wanting to end life. And that is what you are fighting for. The right to kill. No other species in the earth would fight to kill their child. They die for them. And those who support are to blame for the evil and hate in the world. Simply because they have perpetrated the lie that life is insignificant. They have devalued life. Making it of no importance. That's why so many kill so easily today. Life means nothing. Eben for cases of rape. Which is miniscule. In s study done in 2014, 85% carry the child. When asked why they said because exchanging one violent senseless act for another is just continuing the evil. Killing a child that has zero fault is in my opinion a senseless act that could only be carried out by those with no heart. If we found a single cell on Mars it would be all over the world that we found life on Mars. But an infants cells with dna structures is considered nothing. What a backwards society we have today. And because of these stances things will only continue to get worse. And those who are to blame will never see the truth that they are the creators of this society.



I will point out some known exceptions in the animal world.
Male lions and grizzlies routinely kill offspring in order to produce their own, which they may or may not protect afterward.......usually not. A lot of men fall into that last category as well, unfortunately. 
Many other lower species don't hold a high regard to offspring as much as they do a food source, but that's a topic that should put humans in a different tier anyway, if we consider ourselves better than the beasts......:grin:




Irish Pixie said:


> According to viability standards a fetus cannot sustain life until 20-23 weeks. This is the guideline I use, you can use any guide you'd like. You (collective you) don't have the right according to SCOTUS's decision in Roe v. Wade to force a women to carry a pregnancy to term.
> 
> Just because something has human DNA doesn't mean it will become human. As has been referenced here, and elsewhere, a tumor contains human DNA and it will never become a human being.


True, but do you acknowledge WHY that is?
It's the same reason embryonic stem cells are so coveted in medical research.





Irish Pixie said:


> I'm curious, is this post being used to "stifle debate" or just the posts that are pro-choice?
> 
> What _is_ perfectly clear is the extremely inflammatory rhetoric the poster has chosen to use excessively.


I did consider VH's posts "inflammatory" to the thought process, provoking others to consider their own positions in a deeper way.
Is that what you meant by inflammatory, or something else?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Once the child has been created (usually by choice of action, or, Choice #1) it is the parents responsibility to see that the child is given the opportunity to be born. At birth the parent can either give up rights and responsibilities to that child, or accept responsibility for that child. (Choice #2). If that parent chooses to take on that responsibility, he/she is responsible for raising that child through to age of majority, or, of course, they can choose to give up that child at any time along that continuum (Choice #3). After age of majority, they are no longer responsible for the well being of that child.


It is the women's responsibility to decide for herself if she wishes to have a baby. Sex is her choice and she does not have to have any child she does not want to.


----------



## Raeven

Vahomesteaders said:


> It's so very sad to see those wanting to end life. And that is what you are fighting for. The right to kill. No other species in the earth would fight to kill their child. They die for them. And those who support are to blame for the evil and hate in the world. Simply because they have perpetrated the lie that life is insignificant. They have devalued life. Making it of no importance. That's why so many kill so easily today. Life means nothing. Eben for cases of rape. Which is miniscule. In s study done in 2014, 85% carry the child. When asked why they said because exchanging one violent senseless act for another is just continuing the evil. Killing a child that has zero fault is in my opinion a senseless act that could only be carried out by those with no heart. If we found a single cell on Mars it would be all over the world that we found life on Mars. But an infants cells with dna structures is considered nothing. What a backwards society we have today. And because of these stances things will only continue to get worse. And those who are to blame will never see the truth that they are the creators of this society.


So to be clear, you advocate full prosecution of women who have an abortion as having committed a homicide, correct? If not, why not?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> It is the women's responsibility to decide for herself if she wishes to have a baby. Sex is her choice and she does not have to have any child she does not want to.


True, if she doesn't want a child she should not do the things that may result in a child. If she does do those things, and a child results, she can give said child up at birth. 

It is like owning a dangerous dog. If you let it run free and it chews on the neighbor kid, you are responsible for its actions. If you build a tall fence, that is all but impossible for the dog to escape, and yet, he does and chews on the neighbor kid, guess what? You are responsible for its actions. 

Where was the choice? The choice was owning the dog. After the kid has been chewed on, you can't decide differently.


----------



## farmrbrown

basketti said:


> Yes, I can sympathize with those who think abortion is unfair and immoral, but the law is like that sometimes. Can't please everyone.


Very true. Often it takes a long time to "get it right" and even then, the debate continues because as we agree, you can't please everyone.




painterswife said:


> Living does not mean a person. A cell is living but not a person.


That's correct.
Knowing the difference is important.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What a *backwards* society we have today.


Yes, it's sad the way some let emotional rhetoric override reality.
You don't get to choose for anyone but yourself


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> True, if she doesn't want a child she should not do the things that may result in a child. If she does do those things, and a child results, she can give said child up at birth.
> 
> It is like owning a dangerous dog. If you let it run free and it chews on the neighbor kid, you are responsible for its actions. If you build a tall fence, that is all but impossible for the dog to escape, and yet, he does and chews on the neighbor kid, guess what? You are responsible for its actions.
> 
> Where was the choice? The choice was owning the dog. After the kid has been chewed on, you can't decide differently.


An abortion is birth control. Yes it is more extreme if not before conception but still her prerogative especially in the early days. That is being responsible. She does not have to birth a child.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> An abortion is birth control. Yes it is more extreme if not before conception but still prerogative especially in the early days. That is being responsible. She does not have to birth a child.


I guess, if she didn't want to raise a child, she could just birth it and throw it into a dumpster. Is that being responsible? Or is that taking it to extremes? Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do something. Some of the worst crimes against humanity were "legal" when they were done.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Raeven said:


> So to be clear, you advocate full prosecution of women who have an abortion as having committed a homicide, correct? If not, why not?


Along these lines, do the anti-choice here believe in forcibly keeping a woman in a state or country that has banned abortion and not allowing her to travel to another state or country to have the procedure done? Or prosecuting her if she does this?

Not out of the realm of possibility. Ireland has tried this.


----------



## Lisa in WA

farmrbrown said:


> Very true. Often it takes a long time to "get it right" and even then, the debate continues because as we agree, you can't please everyone.


I think that abortion can be banned when it's possible to transplant the embryo into a man and he can carry it to term. If a man could be forced to do that, abortion access wouldn't be a right, it would be a sacrament.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I guess, if she didn't want to raise a child, she could just birth it and throw it into a dumpster. Is that being responsible? Or is that taking it to extremes? Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do something. Some of the worst crimes against humanity were "legal" when they were done.


Why birth a baby and throw it in a dumpster. Early term abortion is available and does not kill a baby. There is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy when the embryo is barely more than cells. No crime against humanity there.

Suggesting extremes like dumping full term babies does not really help your argument one little bit.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> I think that abortion can be banned when it's possible to transplant the embryo into a man and he can carry it to term. If a man could be forced to do that, abortion access wouldn't be a right, it would be a sacrament.


This! Absolutely.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Why birth a baby and throw it in a dumpster. Early term abortion is available and does not kill a baby. There is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy when the embryo is barely more than cells. No crime against humanity there.
> 
> Suggesting extremes like dumping full term babies does not really help your argument one little bit.


What about just little native American babies, or, little black babies. The power that be once denied their humanity as well.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> What about just little native American babies, or, little black babies. The power that be once denied their humanity as well.


Are you suggesting that because I don't believe that a fetus of a certain term is a person that I am also racist?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> What about just little native American babies, or, little black babies. The power that be once denied their humanity as well.


Native American and African-American women have the same rights as all women. To terminate pregnancy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Are you suggesting that because I don't believe that a fetus of a certain term is a person that I am also racist?


Or that you support eugenics? 

I think no such thing, and the poster directed rhetoric is becoming ugly *again*.


----------



## farmrbrown

basketti said:


> I think that abortion can be banned when it's possible to transplant the embryo into a man and he can carry it to term. If a man could be forced to do that, abortion access wouldn't be a right, it would be a sacrament.





Irish Pixie said:


> This! Absolutely.


As the saying goes, "Be careful what you ask for..........."

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html


----------



## Irish Pixie

This is simply inhumane. It was actually passed briefly, insane. 

"Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) put forward an amendment that would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, even if a fetus âhas a severe and irreversible abnormality,â effectively forcing families with wanted, but unsustainable pregnancies to carry to term at the behest of the state and against the advice of their doctors or their own wishes."

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...s=10155516363510113&fb_action_types=og.shares


----------



## Lisa in WA

farmrbrown said:


> As the saying goes, "Be careful what you ask for..........."
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html


This would be good. Any male legislator who wishes to abridge women's abortion rights would have to voluntarily undergo a fetal transplant into his own body and carry it to term in order to have a say in whether abortion remains legal or not.


----------



## painterswife

basketti said:


> This would be good. Any male legislator who wishes to abridge women's abortion rights would have to voluntarily undergo a fetal transplant into his own body and carry it to term in order to have a say in whether abortion remains legal or not.


I wonder if a female get pregnant. Will she be able to force a man to carry the baby?


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Are you suggesting that because I don't believe that a fetus of a certain term is a person that I am also racist?





basketti said:


> Native American and African-American women have the same rights as all women. To terminate pregnancy.


I think you both know that was a reference to past laws and the eventual passage of the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments and the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.
Not everyone agrees to the definition of humanity at the same time.


----------



## farmrbrown

basketti said:


> This would be good. Any male legislator who wishes to abridge women's abortion rights would have to voluntarily undergo a fetal transplant into his own body and carry it to term in order to have a say in whether abortion remains legal or not.



That would take several hundred male pregnancies, a tall order to be sure, but again, be careful what you ask for.........



painterswife said:


> I wonder if a female get pregnant. Will she be able to force a man to carry the baby?


That could be possible.
The results on societal responsibility towards our children might be surprisingly good.
:idea:


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> I think you both know that was a reference to past laws and the eventual passage of the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments and the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.
> Not everyone agrees to the definition of humanity at the same time.


No believing something is human and believing something is a person are two different things. Humanity can be a cell. it does not make it a person.

I believe that being a person is about brain function. Skin color or race has nothing to do with brain function. No brain activity, no person. That is my line in the sand.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Raeven said:


> So to be clear, you advocate full prosecution of women who have an abortion as having committed a homicide, correct? If not, why not?


No I do not. Because it is an unfortunate law and they are within their right. I'm referring to how sad it is that we have reached the point of fighting tooth and nail to take life and that we have laws supporting it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> No I do not. Because it is an unfortunate law and they are within their right. I'm referring to how sad it is that *we have reached the point* of fighting tooth and nail to take life and that we have laws supporting it.


You're acting as if this is something new when reality is abortions have been done as long as humans have existed. 

It makes no difference if you "believe" it's right or wrong, unless you are the one who is pregnant.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> *No believing something is human and believing something is a person are two different things.* Humanity can be a cell. it does not make it a person.
> 
> I believe that being a person is about brain function. Skin color or race has nothing to do with brain function. No brain activity, no person. That is my line in the sand.


I can accept that is what you believe, but I struggle to see how you came to that conclusion.



That is one of the reasons I participate in these kinds of discussions, to find out what and how other people think.



Vahomesteaders said:


> No I do not. Because it is an unfortunate law and they are within their right. I'm referring to how sad it is that we have reached the point of fighting tooth and nail to take life and that we have laws supporting it.


That's true about many laws, sadly.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> I can accept that is what you believe, but I struggle to see how you came to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the reasons I participate in these kinds of discussions, to find out what and how other people think.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true about many laws, sadly.


I think it is pretty simple. No higher level brain activity no person. That is how I came to that conclusion.


----------



## farmrbrown

As I said, I can understand the words and accept that as your viewpoint.
I'm a little stunned that you don't see the slippery slope that presents, considering what past uses of that criteria has been used to do to "non-persons".

I'm not accusing you of having ill intentions, but I'm sure you're aware of others who did, and their similar reasons for doing it.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> As I said, I can understand the words and accept that as your viewpoint.
> I'm a little stunned that you don't see the slippery slope that presents, considering what past uses of that criteria has been used to do to "non-persons".
> 
> I'm not accusing you of having ill intentions, but I'm sure you're aware of others who did, and their similar reasons for doing it.


Are you replying to me? What slippery slope in this day and age can you be referring to? I am very sure I know where my line is and I don't see how anyone can smudge it . Go ahead and try.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> If the embryo/fetus could be removed from the uterus intact and still "alive" and handed over to someone else to go ahead and live, would that satisfy anti-choice people?
> 
> Or do you all insist that the embryo remain inside the woman's uterus till birth?


This will become the course of the future, with so many people worrying about what a pregnancy will do to their body, it makes me think that those will be the ones pushing for it...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> This will become the course of the future, with so many people worrying about what a pregnancy will do to their body, it makes me think that those will be the ones pushing for it...


So do you have any stats to back that up or is it just one of your personal fantasies?


----------



## Raeven

Vahomesteaders said:


> No I do not. Because it is an unfortunate law and they are within their right. I'm referring to how sad it is that we have reached the point of fighting tooth and nail to take life and that we have laws supporting it.


 But you&#8217;re working hard to fix this, right? Not just to overturn Roe v. Wade, but to actively pursue homicide charges against women who seek abortions? According to you, it&#8217;s killing &#8211; a word you threw around with comfortable abandon in your attempts to denigrate those who have an opinion different to yours. 

How do you excuse not making every effort to right this appalling wrong if you&#8217;re not doing everything possible to ensure that all women who "kill" an unborn embryo/fetus are prosecuted for murder to the full extent of the law? I mean, according to you, they're the most evil people in the world. No jail time for them? Or maybe even (irony of ironies) the death penalty? 

What reasons can you give for not working to make these evil women suffer the full consequences for this serious felony they're committing?


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> It's why I specified benign tumor. No harm, no foul, just maybe inconvenient and uncomfortable. As for potential harm. You might ask the Menendez boys parents that question. We never really know do we?
> 
> Again, the argument isn't what is life but what is human life deserving of rights. And those embryos and fetuses cannot exist independently of the woman until after a certain point. What right have you to force a woman to provide these things. If she freely wishes to give them she'll get my full support.
> 
> I agree that personally agree with your dislike of "convenience" abortions. But I know those aren't my decisions to make and I'll never know all that goes into another making such decisions. I'm not a big fan of legislating choices for others.


Every human is deserving of basic rights. I've read several comments after this post that make a botched comparison to racism. What I think they were getting at is sometimes we define other humans as somehow less than ourselves, as was done for so long to justify slavery and racial subjugation. Once we've defined the fetus as something less than a person, we can then treat it as something less than a person.

And, the fetus can function away from the parent if such a test-tube existed. We are very close to such technology. Further, interaction between organisms happen all the time. Some interactions are parasitic, but neither party notices. Some are symbiotic, such as gut micro flora.

And let me be clear that I am pro-choice. But I am worried, concerned, over the moral ramifications of being so callous towards life. It's truly not surprising, however. Many people do not bat an eye at immense environment degradation or species extinction. Why not an abortion?

But, as you state, legislating morality is a poor decision. I am just wondering what it indicates about us.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> No believing something is human and believing something is a person are two different things. Humanity can be a cell. it does not make it a person.
> 
> I believe that being a person is about brain function. Skin color or race has nothing to do with brain function. No brain activity, no person. That is my line in the sand.


There's severe difficulty with drawing a line there. Some people who are vegetables are still capable of perceiving and processing data. Also, the fetus brain develops slowly. When do we draw the line? When the neuro plate is first formed at 8 weeks, or much later, when brain activity starts? Or even later, when self-awareness begins? Arguably, many newborns are barely self aware. Goat kids have a better sense of self awareness than newborns!



Vahomesteaders said:


> It's so very sad to see those wanting to end life. And that is what you are fighting for. The right to kill. No other species in the earth would fight to kill their child.


Coyotes eat their puppies. Sheep abandon their lambs. Cows step on their young. The world, unfortunately, is not always a pleasant place.



Raeven said:


> Lastly, I'd like to dispel the endless, erroneous meme about irresponsible women being the ones seeking abortions. I actually know quite a few women who have availed themselves of the procedure through the years. A number of them are respectable married types who aborted because they and their husbands already had the number of children they wanted and did not wish to take on the responsibility or cost of an unplanned pregnancy. Two women were in fact willing to carry the pregnancy to term, but then sought abortions at the urging of their *husbands* who did not wish to support another child. Others were women who were using birth control but it failed.


Those men need to be castrated.


----------



## Raeven

Heritagefarm said:


> And let me be clear that I am pro-choice. But I am worried, concerned, over the moral ramifications of being so callous towards life. It's truly not surprising, however. Many people do not bat an eye at immense environment degradation or species extinction. Why not an abortion?
> 
> But, as you state, legislating morality is a poor decision. I am just wondering what it indicates about us.


If it makes you feel any better, abortion procedures have been falling since the 80s and leveled off as stable through the 2000s. 

In my discussions with women who have undergone the procedure for whatever reason, none of them ever undertook it lightly or casually. The meme is that some women practically view it like going to have their nails done or their hair cut. Based on conversations I've had with women who have made this choice, nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> There's severe difficulty with drawing a line there. Some people who are vegetables are still capable of perceiving and processing data. Also, the fetus brain develops slowly. When do we draw the line? When the neuro plate is first formed at 8 weeks, or much later, when brain activity starts? Or even later, when self-awareness begins? Arguably, many newborns are barely self aware. Goat kids have a better sense of self awareness than newborns!
> 
> 
> 
> .


It is my goal and hope that we eliminate the need for any abortions. That we can completely prevent unwanted pregnancies. That abortions can be confined to medical need or the first couple of weeks after conception. I wish that even now not one abortion happened after12 weeks at the latest. 

However until we can make all birth control perfect and provided it easily and quickly to all that want or need it with no obstacles in their way, we have no dominion over another persons reproductive choices.

I myself would be very hard pressesd to have an abortion later than 10 weeks for anything other than medical need.


----------



## romysbaskets

Such a tragedy that 6 lives were lost, so very sad. It seems more and more that we read of such acts of ruthless disregard for human life. A pregnant woman in her 8th month, on the brink of Motherhood, an innocent baby so close to being born losing life so violently with the other ladies and man... How senseless and cruel those two men were. I am a little confused on the abortion discussion that ensued. She was 8 months along so that doesn't seem like it would cause a derailing of the post towards abortion? The Mother was too far along for that to be even be a consideration when she was murdered. I must have missed something. Please understand I am not challenging nor engaging anyone. Just a little confused is all.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Raeven said:


> *GunMonkeyIntl*, I apologize for abandoning the discussion. I was gradually crafting a reply as time allowed, but I see I am tardy in my response. No worries there -- I almost invariably consider *mmoetc's* opinions as he states them to be better than my own, and he says most of what I would have said in response with far fewer words and more elegance.
> 
> I would make a couple further points. First, with respect to the straw man. I agree my argument was a straw man to the extent that I argued against the state of the law as it presently is not. If I'd been arguing against my own position, your approach is exactly the one I'd have taken. But the reason I didn't excuse it entirely as a straw man is because you completely understood the hypocrisy of those who take the view that abortion is homicide, but then don't follow through to the logical conclusion as you did. So although I didn't tie it all up with a neat bow as I should have, you understood my point. In your world, there being no "maybe persons," there ought not be "sort-of homicide." Your conclusion has logical integrity, even if I don't agree with it.
> 
> Second, you say your opinion has nothing to do with wanting to control a woman's body or restrict anyone's rights. I am sure that is your true motivation. But surely you would concede that as a practical matter, imposing your views on others does exactly those things. I don't think you get to disregard this rather important consequence in forming your opinion. No matter how you parse it, imposing your perspective on society essentially means forcing half the population to have their bodies held hostage in circumstances where they alone suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> And that brings me to your last point about legalized heroin. With virtually no exception, drug use is something that one imposes on one's self. It doesn't result from the act of two people, only one. In making such a comparison, you and others fail to take into account that women don't get pregnant on their own -- yet all arguments made here about her choices appear to impose all consequences only on the woman.
> 
> Lastly, I'd like to dispel the endless, erroneous meme about irresponsible women being the ones seeking abortions. I actually know quite a few women who have availed themselves of the procedure through the years. A number of them are respectable married types who aborted because they and their husbands already had the number of children they wanted and did not wish to take on the responsibility or cost of an unplanned pregnancy. Two women were in fact willing to carry the pregnancy to term, but then sought abortions at the urging of their husbands who did not wish to support another child. Others were women who were using birth control but it failed.
> 
> So long as society imposes consequences for unwanted pregnancies solely on women, then women are going to fight to control their own bodies. That is the reality that Roe v. Wade attempts to address.
> 
> We can argue endlessly about when life begins, but the question of viability will always enter into that discussion. Rightfully so, in my opinion. It's an open question. You have arbitrarily chosen the moment of conception as that beginning. I could just as arbitrarily view every female egg or every male sperm as the beginning. Each is a potential human being, is it not? I don't believe this, but I can make the same argument for it that you can about conception.
> 
> *mmoetc* has otherwise made the same points I would have regarding choice, so I'm happy to let his part of the discussion stand as my surrogate, if he'll permit me. This is all the time I have right now to discuss this.


At what point did these two women realize that they were married to complete losers?
Respectable married types? Sure they are.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Exactly. And that's the point we're at right now. The conflict is within our society as a whole, it's a national debate because the government is involved, even though we argue it as individuals.
> 
> To attempt to silence debate because some base their stance on moral beliefs is not only tyrannical but undemocratic as well.


And if you can show where I've tried to stifle any debate on this issue I'll apologize. What is tyrannical and undemocratic is to base laws on only one set of moral beliefs. I have some Hindu friends whose moral beliefs would interfere with your getting your next cheeseburger.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Biologically, the tumor comparison is close but differs significantly in terms of DNA and development.
> I'll link the info on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) below. It was interesting research on cancer detection.
> 
> But to compare a mutated cell of a host to a 50/50 combination of chromosomes from two different organisms is to elevate things like blood and skin cells that we generate and expel regularly with the uniqueness of a new being.
> 
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24553385
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The medical definitions and timeline are found here, from the Mayo clinic.
> http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...k-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302
> 
> Something I learned from that link is that they count as much as two weeks of the pregnancy that may or may not have actually occurred yet.
> They start the timeline from the last menstration, given the fact that the date of actual conception usually hard to pinpoint unless you were there for it, lol.
> 
> Taking that into consideration, the point at which the new life starts to be a living vertebrate is quite early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a valid point to address, and the closest I could find in legal precedent would be in eviction laws.
> As landlords well know, evicting an unwanted guest can be done legally with the time it takes a big variable, as long as several months.
> Given that an unwanted baby can be given up for adoption or "evicted" from the mother's home in approximately 6-9 months depending on when the decision is made that this guest is unwanted, I think you have your answer.
> 
> I can sympathize with landlords that think it's unfair and inconvenient, but the law is like that sometimes.


I'm aware of the biology and my tumor example was made not to claim that tumors are human but that simple definitions seldom tell the whole story.

Your tenant - landlord analogy fails because there is no agreement or contract between a woman and a fertilized egg. She gets no consideration from that entity in exchange for the use of her body and may well have done everything she could to keep it from taking up residency. The sheriff can remove such a squatter who broke locks to get in without a long legal battle. The law is sometimes like that.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> I'm aware of the biology and my tumor example was made not to claim that tumors are human but that simple definitions seldom tell the whole story.
> 
> Your tenant - landlord analogy fails because there is no agreement or contract between a woman and a fertilized egg. She gets no consideration from that entity in exchange for the use of her body and may well have done everything she could to keep it from taking up residency. The sheriff can remove such a squatter who broke locks to get in without a long legal battle. The law is sometimes like that.


Surely you jest.
One phone call to a mother from a child will eventually bring up the terms of your life long contract with her..........trust me, I know.


And unless it WAS a rape, there was no break-in, and even in that event, the break-in suspect has gone long ago and left behind an innocent "squatter".

You DO bear a certain amount of responsibility when you open the door to a guest to your womb......uh, .......room.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> I'm aware of the biology and my tumor example was made not to claim that tumors are human but that simple definitions seldom tell the whole story.
> 
> Your tenant - landlord analogy fails because there is no agreement or contract between a woman and a fertilized egg. She gets no consideration from that entity in exchange for the use of her body and may well have done everything she could to keep it from taking up residency. The sheriff can remove such a squatter who broke locks to get in without a long legal battle. The law is sometimes like that.


You're making it sound like a baby is similar to those round-headed things from Alien/s. Our species is driven to procreate. Maternal and paternal hormones are partially responsible for keeping people together in an effective relationship to care for the child. There is nothing alien about the fetus - the eggs where there to begin with anyways.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Surely you jest.
> One phone call to a mother from a child will eventually bring up the terms of your life long contract with her..........trust me, I know.
> 
> 
> And unless it WAS a rape, there was no break-in, and even in that event, the break-in suspect has gone long ago and left behind an innocent "squatter".
> 
> You DO bear a certain amount of responsibility when you open the door to a guest to your womb......uh, .......room.


No I don't. Ask Mrs. Menendez how that contract worked out for her. Or read all the various posts on this forum detailing the dissapointments and abuses parents and children inflict on each other. Many women have no desire to open their womb and many of the precautions they take not to would be explicitly outlawed by the laws proposed by many here. They do take responsibility, just not in a way you find acceptable. And it fundamentally comes down to what we'll never agree on- when human life begins. You've repeatedly stated that you don't understand how others draw their lines on this. Well, I don't understand those who draw the line at fertilization and object to laws based on their strict understanding. I don't object to them living by that understanding.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> You're making it sound like a baby is similar to those round-headed things from Alien/s. Our species is driven to procreate. Maternal and paternal hormones are partially responsible for keeping people together in an effective relationship to care for the child. There is nothing alien about the fetus - the eggs where there to begin with anyways.


Ever been around a baby? They are aliens leaking un identifiable and noxious fluids and speaking a language we largely don't understand. Ok- seriously.

And look where that drive to procreate has led us. Go to the slums of most third world countries and imagine that future for all of mankind. Part of the evolution of human thought and behavior that will, hopefully, ensure our future is being able to separate sex from procreation. Since time began men have walked away from babies. There's nothing magical about them to keep couples together. In fact, they often drive couples apart. I have no problem with you living by your beliefs. Want to procreate - go ahead.


----------



## mmoetc

The sun shines and work beckons. Have a good day, everyone.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Ever been around a baby? They are aliens leaking un identifiable and noxious fluids and speaking a language we largely don't understand. Ok- seriously.
> 
> And look where that drive to procreate has led us. Go to the slums of most third world countries and imagine that future for all of mankind. Part of the evolution of human thought and behavior that will, hopefully, ensure our future is being able to separate sex from procreation. Since time began men have walked away from babies. There's nothing magical about them to keep couples together. In fact, they often drive couples apart. I have no problem with you living by your beliefs. Want to procreate - go ahead.


Ah just to clarify I was describing evolutionary inducements that have driven the human population forward. Clearly, contraceptives for third world countries are a good idea, and I've also currently got no desire to procreate, but this isn't personal. :umno:


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> No I don't. Ask Mrs. Menendez how that contract worked out for her. Or read all the various posts on this forum detailing the dissapointments and abuses parents and children inflict on each other. Many women have no desire to open their womb and many of the precautions they take not to would be explicitly outlawed by the laws proposed by many here. They do take responsibility, just not in a way you find acceptable. And it fundamentally comes down to what we'll never agree on- when human life begins. You've repeatedly stated that you don't understand how others draw their lines on this. Well, I don't understand those who draw the line at fertilization and object to laws based on their strict understanding. I don't object to them living by that understanding.


Nope, it isn't me that is going to voice the objection in the end.
Biology isn't that hard to understand though. I see and can point out the flaws in that "understanding" easily.
It isn't a factual denial, it is based on emotions.




mmoetc said:


> Ever been around a baby? They are aliens leaking un identifiable and noxious fluids and speaking a language we largely don't understand. Ok- seriously.


:runforhills:

But I DO believe in aliens!





mmoetc said:


> The sun shines and work beckons. Have a good day, everyone.



Same here.


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> And if you can show where I've tried to stifle any debate on this issue I'll apologize. What is tyrannical and undemocratic is to base laws on only one set of moral beliefs. I have some Hindu friends whose moral beliefs would interfere with your getting your next cheeseburger.


I wasn't trying to imply that you, personally, were attempting to stifle debate. :grouphug:


----------



## keenataz

Heritagefarm said:


> You're making it sound like a baby is similar to those round-headed things from Alien/s. Our species is driven to procreate. Maternal and paternal hormones are partially responsible for keeping people together in an effective relationship to care for the child. There is nothing alien about the fetus - the eggs where there to begin with anyways.


I think most species are driven to reproduce not just humans. My rooster seemed very driven to do it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

keenataz said:


> I think most species are driven to reproduce not just humans. My rooster seemed very driven to do it.


Lol. Humans are just another species. Oops, that might start another Big Bang debate.


----------



## Shine

This argument will never end. When this world's god of science gets closer to the thinking of the God of Creation maybe some will get on board understanding the capacity and capability of life and the gift that it is. I don't think that this will be a point in my life but I know that as science finds out the workings of more things that the gift of life will one day be revered.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> This argument will never end. When this world's god of science gets closer to the thinking of the God of Creation maybe some will get on board understanding the capacity and capability of life and the gift that it is. I don't think that this will be a point in my life but I know that as science finds out the workings of more things that the gift of life will one day be revered.


I don't think very many people, even scientists, undervalue the gift of life. Contrary to popular belief, many scientists actually believe in God and are only slightly less religious than average. Indeed, an understanding of science has given me great appreciation of life and my participation in it.


----------



## romysbaskets

This is very confusing....The *8 months pregnant lady* was murdered... How does abortion figure into this? 15 pages of back and forth.... I read the story and all the pages that followed the OP.... The link in the OP brings one to a news article about murder and how horrific it was...5 people died and a BABY. The Mother being 8 months along, the baby was due to be *born* within a month. That doesn't put it in the realm of an abortion possibility and the worst part..the baby was MURDERED. I think both sides of this abortion discussion recognize her nearly full term baby was in fact a baby soon to be born. If the murdered pregnant lady was in her first few months, it would be more easily understood why folks would even bring up when a baby is recognized as a baby. Of course then it would go this direction of debating but at 8 months????


----------



## Shine

romysbaskets said:


> This is very confusing....The *8 months pregnant lady* was murdered... How does abortion figure into this? 15 pages of back and forth.... I read the story and all the pages that followed the OP.... The link in the OP brings one to a news article about murder and how horrific it was...5 people died and a BABY. The Mother being 8 months along, the baby was due to be *born* within a month. That doesn't put it in the realm of an abortion possibility and the worst part..the baby was MURDERED. I think both sides of this abortion discussion recognize her nearly full term baby was in fact a baby soon to be born. If the murdered pregnant lady was in her first few months, it would be more easily understood why folks would even bring up when a baby is recognized as a baby. Of course then it would go this direction of debating but at 8 months????


2 months makes a difference? You see, some people believe that because a life has not reached such an age that it is disposable. I am of a different perception. 

Simple.

You feel outrage at 8 months? Have you seen a fetus at 6 months, the baby is fairly much built and just needing to grow with the help of the mother...

When the mother says no, it breaks my heart about the life that came to nothing...

http://www.medicinenet.com/image-collection/second_trimester_24_weeks_picture/picture.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> 2 months makes a difference? You see, some people believe that because a life has not reached such an age that it is disposable. I am of a different perception.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> You feel outrage at 8 months? Have you seen a fetus at 6 months, the baby is fairly much built and *just needing to grow with the help of the mother..*.
> 
> When the mother says no, it breaks my heart about the life that came to nothing...
> 
> http://www.medicinenet.com/image-collection/second_trimester_24_weeks_picture/picture.htm


From *your* source, at 24 weeks:



> *The lungs are formed, but do not work.*


You once more rely on emotional hype and ignore reality


----------



## romysbaskets

Shine said:


> 2 months makes a difference? You see, some people believe that because a life has not reached such an age that it is disposable. I am of a different perception.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> You feel outrage at 8 months? Have you seen a fetus at 6 months, the baby is fairly much built and just needing to grow with the help of the mother...
> 
> When the mother says no, it breaks my heart about the life that came to nothing...
> 
> http://www.medicinenet.com/image-collection/second_trimester_24_weeks_picture/picture.htm


If you read my post, you will find I took no stand on when life begins as I didn't address it. To me, the OP is about the murder of 6 people, that is senseless, all murders are and yes, outrageous to be shot at a family gathering or at all! I am not sure what you meant about 2 months? Unless you are referring to the late term abortions which I don't reference. Again I wasn't taking a stance either way. This does not bring to my mind the abortion issue, not with an 8 month pregnancy. However, my niece just had a baby, who is 2 months old now who was born *a full month early with no complications*! She had only an extra 2 days in the hospital for observation. The lung development for the one month early born may need surfactant for the aveoli to properly inflate/deflate in the lungs for breathing. Very treatable I might add. There can obviously be further complications but this is all on a case by case basis per baby. In today's medicine, there is so much that is treatable and an 8 month pregnancy resulting in an early baby is not considered the same risk as before. 

There is evidence of babies surviving much much earlier than 8 months. Both sides of the abortion issue do refer to a baby born as a baby I think? How about one born at 21 weeks? A miracle but it happened! This grown man attended a university. 

James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 pound 6 ounces (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy. Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most premature baby.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> From *your* source, at 24 weeks:
> 
> 
> You once more rely on emotional hype and ignore reality


Yeah, Right... I rely on emotional hype and generally ignore reality. 

You're a hoot...

Let's revisit that - OK?

Almost two years ago this article was posted...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-week-old-babies-are-now-able-to-survive.html

You're still batting 1.000... Arrogance is one of the services that our staff offers for free...:hammer:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> I imagine all people wish they were as moral, upstanding, and understanding as those that have great clarity of vision while judging people from decades ago. I prefer to consider the old saying, "You never truly know someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes." Just that bit of empathy... A person would have to be some type of monster to see that picture and not feel at least some compassion for what Gerri Santoro went through in the last hours of her life.
> 
> Thankfully, we don't have to worry as much about horrifying do-it-self abortion deaths since 1973 and a woman's right to control her body. *Although they are on the rise in Texas, hopefully that will be rectified soon. *


Not soon enough- "The Rise of the DIY Abortion in Texas
A pill that revolutionized reproductive rights in Latin America is now gaining ground on the black market in South Texas."

In my opinion, Texas hates women... 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Not soon enough- "The Rise of the DIY Abortion in Texas
> A pill that revolutionized reproductive rights in Latin America is now gaining ground on the black market in South Texas."
> 
> In my opinion, Texas hates women...
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/


So... The "law" does not really matter after all...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> So... The "law" does not really matter after all...


Do you honestly think that this law doesn't matter? It forces woman to buy _black market drugs_ from Mexico- and that is _if_ they can find and pay for them.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you honestly think that this law doesn't matter? It forces woman to buy _black market drugs_ from Mexico- and that is _if_ they can find and pay for them.



...but... It's the law... You know that banner that you wave in our faces?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yeah, Right... I rely on emotional hype and generally ignore reality.
> 
> You're a hoot...
> 
> Let's revisit that - OK?
> 
> Almost two years ago this article was posted...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-week-old-babies-are-now-able-to-survive.html
> 
> You're still batting 1.000... Arrogance is one of the services that our staff offers for free...:hammer:


I quoted your source.
Is it not reliable?
Was the information there incorrect?

You keep wanting to post pictures of and talk about "*24* week" fetuses when nearly all abortions are done long before then.

That's one area where the emotional hype instead of fact comes in

You really don't read beyond the headlines of your source, do you?:



> The study concluded that babies born before 24 weeks who survived were still âunusualâ.


You only needed to read 2 paragraphs to find that fact, and the additional fact that *less than 1% survived*



> *Out of 4,001 births*, the first EPICure study (another study took place in 2006 and the latest, following the original children, now aged 19, is due to be finished next year) found that *311 babies survived* and were eventually discharged, including two babies born at 22 weeks, six at 23 weeks, 100 at 24 weeks and 186 babies at 25. The study concluded that *babies born before 24 weeks who survived were still âunusualâ*.


All hype, no substance


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...but... It's the law... You know that banner that you wave in our faces?


The restrictive laws pushed by the "religious" are causing the illegal drug problems.
It's been long proven that restrictions don't reduce the number of abortions, but only increases the risks


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> ...but... It's the law... You know that banner that you wave in our faces?


Yes, it is a law, Texas law. A law the women are breaking in order to use their right as an American citizen to chose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. By chancing black market drugs from Mexico because Texas has limited their access to a medical abortion.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I quoted your source.
> Is it not reliable?
> Was the information there incorrect?
> 
> You keep wanting to post pictures of and talk about "*24* week" fetuses when nearly all abortions are done long before then.
> 
> That's one area where the emotional hype instead of fact comes in
> 
> You really don't read beyond the headlines of your source, do you?:
> 
> 
> 
> You only needed to read 2 paragraphs to find that fact, and the additional fact that *less than 1% survived*
> 
> 
> 
> All hype, no substance


Yeah, you're right, just on principle those should have been killed too, Is that what you are saying? <sarc off>

I'm thinking that this is a wonderful science in that now premies younger than 24 weeks are able to survive. Don't you think that is wonderful?

You sure like to accuse people of stuff...


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it is a law, Texas law. A law the women are breaking in order to use their right as an American citizen to chose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. By chancing black market drugs from Mexico because Texas has limited their access to a medical abortion.


Alrighty then, Please don't wave the "it's the Law" banner in our faces anymore...

OK?

Don't like the law? Don't go to Texas - like you say -> easy peasy


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yeah, you're right, just on principle those should have been killed too, Is that what you are saying? <sarc off>
> 
> I'm thinking that this is a wonderful science in that now premies *younger than 24 weeks* are able to survive. Don't you think that is wonderful?
> 
> You sure like to accuse people of stuff...


You keep repeating that when your sources clearly said survival at that age is "unusual"

You really don't seem to read them at all, since your source said *only 6 out of 4000* less 24 weeks survived. I even quoted it for you.

I haven't "accused" you of anything that isn't true.
Stop pretending you're some sort of victim and stick to the real topic.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, she was desperate, so were many many women prior to 1973. If abortions had been legal do you think she may have had one when she found out she was pregnant? They weren't tho, so she was forced to make a desperate decision and she died for her lack of choice.


Desperate people do desperate things all the time. Remember Susan Smith? She was also desperate and also thought her best choice was to kill her kids.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't "accused" you of anything that isn't true.


OK, if you want to state that you are the absolute arbiter of what is the truth, you can say these things. I find more realistically that these truths are manufactured...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Alrighty then, Please don't wave the "it's the Law" banner in our faces anymore...
> 
> OK?
> 
> Don't like the law? Don't go to Texas - like you say -> easy peasy


As I've said before- this is my sacred cow- and I can admit it. 

Every women in the US has the *right* to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and it is the law. Texas is infringing on that *right* (law) by forcing women to travel long distance for effective birth control and abortion. To the possible determent of their health many Texas women are forced to buy questionable black market drugs because of the infringement on their *right* to an abortion. 

Have I explained it so it's easily understood this time?


----------



## Irish Pixie

"As many as 240,000 18- to 49-year-old women in Texas have attempted at-home abortions, according to survey data released this week from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project. The surveys in question, which were meant to help assess how the state's restrictive reproduction practices are working out for female Texans, asked a representative sample of nearly 800 women if they or their close friends had ever tried to self-administer an abortion. Roughly two to four percentâwhich amounts to 100,000 to 240,000 women in the stateâhad either tried it themselves or knew a friend who had. Many used the drug Misoprostol; others used herbs, hormonal pills, or illicit drugs or alcohol; a few settled for being punched or hit in the abdomen."

"Last week, SCOTUS agreed to re-hear a case challenging Texas laws that set unreasonable criteria for abortion clinics. For example, half of the state's abortion clinics closed after laws went into effect requiring that they comply with regulations for outpatient surgery centers, and demanding that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals."

Hopefully SCOTUS will rule soon and Texas will be forced to rescind the law.

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/the-re-ascension-of-the-diy-abortion


----------



## Txsteader

The law only says that women have the right to have abortions. It says nothing about how many clinics there should be, the minimum distance one should have to travel, etc. What, exactly, is a 'reasonable' distance?

I would also think that, if one _truly_ cared about women's health, they would support the requirements in the Texas law to ensure the health and safety of women having abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> The law only says that women have the right to have abortions. It says nothing about how many clinics there should be, the minimum distance one should have to travel, etc. What, exactly, is a 'reasonable' distance?
> 
> I would also think that, if one _truly_ cared about women's health, they would support the requirements in the Texas law to ensure the health and safety of women having abortions.


From the link (which clearly not everyone read) 

"Francie Diep reported in October, they seem pretty unnecessary:

One recent review found that only one-half of one percent of first-trimester, aspiration abortions (a popular type of surgical abortion) had complications serious enough that the woman had to visit a hospital. Laws like Texas' are "unlikely to improve the safety" of such abortions, that study's authors concluded. Meanwhile, the complication rate of mifepristone is 0.02 percent.

About nine percent of abortions in the U.S. are surgical abortions performed after the first trimester. These later abortions are riskier; the risk of death grows "exponentially" with each passing week. In 2010, the latest year for which such data is available, 10 women are known to have died from complications of legal abortions in the U.S. Pregnancy in the U.S. is comparatively much more dangerous, however: About 650 Americans die every year from complications of pregnancy and childbirth."

DIY abortions are inherently more dangerous than one performed by a Dr. Texas law is obviously endangering women. Fortunately, it doesn't sound like it will be law much longer.


----------



## Txsteader

IMO, the article is misleading.


> When asked about their best friends, 1.8% said they were sure their best friend had done this, and an additional 2.3% said they suspected she had done this. This gives us a high estimate of 4.1% of adult women of reproductive age who have ever attempted abortion self-induction. By applying these proportions to the 5,949,149 women aged 18-49 in Texas, we estimate that somewhere between 100,000 and 240,000 women in this age range have tried to end a pregnancy on their own without medical assistance (see Table 1)


They 'suspected' their best friend had attempted a self-induced abortion???? 

Also note that the respondents were aged 18-49. The question as to whether they had tried to end their own pregnancy didn't specify 'since HB2', but rather as 'ever'.....meaning that some could have attempted it 20 years ago.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> IMO, the article is misleading.
> 
> 
> They 'suspected' their best friend had attempted a self-induced abortion????
> 
> Also note that the respondents were aged 18-49. The question as to whether they had tried to end their own pregnancy didn't specify 'since HB2', but rather as 'ever'.....meaning that some could have attempted it 20 years ago.


Don't believe it, I couldn't care less. The Supreme Court of the United States will decide on it soon, and we've already heard about at least one Justice feels about the Texas abortion restriction laws. When it comes right down to it their decision is all that matters, isn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OK, if you want to state that* you are the absolute arbiter of what is the truth*, you can say these things. I find more realistically that these truths are manufactured...


I never said that
I said the things I stated were true, as you continue to prove by talking about me instead of the real topic


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> The law only says that women have the right to have abortions. It says nothing about how many clinics there should be, the minimum distance one should have to travel, etc. What, exactly, is a 'reasonable' distance?
> 
> I would also think that, if one _truly_ cared about women's health, they would support the requirements in the Texas law to ensure the health and safety of women having abortions.


"Reasonable" is not holding abortion clinics to higher standards than similar practices, since the only real goal is to limit access to abortions.

"Reasonable" is to let the free market decide


----------



## Txsteader

After the Kermit Gosnell incident, I would think that pro-choice advocates would applaud such regulations and higher standards.

What is so unreasonable about making abortion clinics meet that higher standard?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> After the Kermit Gosnell incident, I would think that pro-choice advocates would applaud such regulations and higher standards.
> 
> What is so unreasonable about making abortion clinics meet that higher standard?


Higher facility standards have nothing to do with what Kermit Gosnell did.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> After the Kermit Gosnell incident, I would think that pro-choice advocates would applaud such regulations and higher standards.
> 
> What is so unreasonable about making abortion clinics meet that higher standard?


Because they don't do the same type of surgeries that hospitals do, and there's no need to make hallways wider

All the things Gosnell did were already illegal, and still are, so he really has no relevance to this topic


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Higher facility standards have nothing to do with what Kermit Gosnell did.


The two are about as comparable as apples and Buicks.


----------



## Txsteader

After the Kermit Gosnell prosecution, Pennsylvania tightened regulations for abortion clinics. Five clinics closed. Are those who oppose the TX reform just as outraged about PA's reforms? 

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/15-274-bsac-Governor-of-Texas.pdf




> SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
> Laws like HB2 are aimed at improving the
> standard of care at abortion clinics. HB2 was
> enacted in response to
> recommendations from the
> grand j
> ury that indicted K
> ermit Gosnell
> . First, HB2
> reflects
> concerns of the grand
> jury and state
> lawmakers t
> hat certain abortion
> clinics
> are
> practicing outside of mainstream medicine,
> with
> insufficient supervision from medical colleagues or
> state regulators.
> Second, HB2 also reflects concerns
> of the grand jury and state lawmakers that
> government bureaucracies tend to underenforce
> regula
> tions against abortion clinics.
> By ensuring
> that doctors are affiliated with a local hospital and
> by
> raising the standard of care at clinics, laws like
> HB2 medicalize that practice of abortion and bring
> abortion clinics closer to mainstream medical
> practice.
> HB2 was passed with clinics like Petitioner
> Whole Woman&#8217;s Health in mind. The clinic has
> multiple locations in Texas with a long list of health
> and safety violations.


I'll ask again, what is so unreasonable about requiring higher standards for these clinics? All they have to do is come into compliance and they can remain open.


----------



## Irish Pixie

This map shows that there are only 10 clinics in Texas as of June 2015. Ten clinics in the entire state of Texas. 

So what if some women die of DIY abortions because they are unable to get to effective birth control or an abortion which is a right as a US citizen, they were immoral whores anyway, right?

http://fundtexaschoice.org/resources/texas-abortion-clinic-map/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> After the Kermit Gosnell prosecution, Pennsylvania tightened regulations for abortion clinics. Five clinics closed. Are those who oppose the TX reform just as outraged about PA's reforms?
> 
> *I'll ask again*, what is so unreasonable about requiring higher standards for these clinics? All they have to do is come into compliance and they can remain open.[/FONT]
> [/FONT]


Repeating the question won't change the answers



> *All they have to do* is come into compliance and they can remain open


Yes, all they have to do is spend a small fortune for no good reason
Or all the others have to do is mind their own business

This has nothing to do with "improving care"
It's all about trying to ban abortions by making them nearly impossible to obtain


----------



## Txsteader

There are 34 Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas.

There are, as a small sample, 19 Family Planning clinics w/in a 50 mile radius of San Antonio alone.

With all those family planning clinics available all over the state, one has to wonder why we have such a high abortion rate. In 2013, there were almost 62,000 abortions performed in Texas, with Harris county holding the distinguished honor for most abortions @ almost 16,000. In 2013 alone.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, all they have to do is spend a small fortune for no good reason
> Or all the others have to do is mind their own business


Women's health & safety is 'no good reason'? 

Was it for 'no good reason' when Pennsylvania tightened regulations as a result of the Gosnell scandal?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Women's health & safety is 'no good reason'?
> 
> Was it for 'no good reason' when Pennsylvania tightened regulations as a result of the Gosnell scandal?


The changes do nothing to actually increase their safety

The post-Gosnell changes were a knee-jerk reaction since everything he did was already illegal

Why do you think repeating yourself will change the answers?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> There are *34* Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas.
> 
> There are, as a small sample, 19 Family Planning clinics w/in a 50 mile radius of San Antonio alone.
> 
> With all those *family planning clinics* available all over the state, one has to wonder why we have such a high abortion rate. In 2013, there were almost 62,000 abortions performed in Texas, with Harris county holding the distinguished honor for most abortions @ almost 16,000. In 2013 alone.


You listed lots of "clinics", but somehow managed to overlook the fact not all of them offer *abortions*. 

*You have to actually read your sources:*



> Services Offered
> Birth Control
> HIV Testing
> Men's Health Care
> Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)
> Pregnancy Testing & Services
> STD Testing, Treatment & Vaccines
> Women's Health Care





> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/TX


*Only 5 *out of the entire list do abortions


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> There are 34 Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas.
> 
> There are, as a small sample, 19 Family Planning clinics w/in a 50 mile radius of San Antonio alone.
> 
> With all those family planning clinics available all over the state, one has to wonder why we have such a high abortion rate. In 2013, there were almost 62,000 abortions performed in Texas, with Harris county holding the distinguished honor for most abortions @ almost 16,000. In 2013 alone.


Of those 34 Planned Parenthood clinics only 5 offer abortion services, Most of them offer the morning after pill. My link showed there were 5 more non-PP clinics that will do abortion. For a total of ten clinics that offer abortion in a state the size of Texas... The right for a woman to have an abortion in Texas is definitely being infringed, sic 'em Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

No wonder so many women (up to 240K) are resorting to do-it-yourself abortions.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

PP founder was a racist who wanted to see blacks exterminated. Where are most PP located? Black and minority neighborhoods. Who had the highest rates of abortion? Blacks and minorities. Congratulations ms. Sanger. You accomplished your goal of ridding as many minorities as possible and even got an entire party of tolerant people to go along with the plan. Well played well played.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> PP founder was a racist who wanted to see blacks exterminated. Where are most PP located? Black and minority neighborhoods. Who had the highest rates of abortion? Blacks and minorities. Congratulations ms. Sanger. You accomplished your goal of ridding as many minorities as possible and even got an entire party of tolerant people to go along with the plan. Well played well played.


Yes, Sanger was a supporter of eugenics, but she eventually progressed from that idea to more efficient birth control for everyone. 

Planned Parenthood clinics are located where they are needed, and low income people live in poor areas of cities.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Vahomesteaders said:


> PP founder was a racist who wanted to see blacks exterminated. Where are most PP located? Black and minority neighborhoods. Who had the highest rates of abortion? Blacks and minorities. Congratulations ms. Sanger. You accomplished your goal of ridding as many minorities as possible and even got an entire party of tolerant people to go along with the plan. Well played well played.



It's like the "dog poop brownies".

A mom mixes in a little poop in the brownies and tells the kids "you'll never taste it".
Then mom adds more to the next batch.
and more
and more
Until the brownies are 100% dog poop, and the kids are gobbling it up like it's the best 'brownies' they have ever had.

Deception do that to you when it's fed to you a little bit at a time.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> It's like the "dog poop brownies".
> 
> A mom mixes in a little poop in the brownies and tells the kids "you'll never taste it".
> Then mom adds more to the next batch.
> and more
> and more
> Until the brownies are 100% dog poop, and the kids are gobbling it up like it's the best 'brownies' they have ever had.
> 
> Deception do that to you when it's fed to you a little bit at a time.


I don't understand your rather disgusting analogy, can you explain please? Are you saying that eugenics was the "little poop" in the brownies and abortion is "100% poop"? That is how I understand it, is that what you meant?

I don't think that many people realize that Margaret Sanger did not support abortion.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand your rather disgusting analogy, can you explain please? Are you saying that eugenics was the "little poop" in the brownies and abortion is "100% poop"? That is how I understand it, is that what you meant?
> 
> I don't think that many people realize that Margaret Sanger did not support abortion.


You are so right when you say disgusting.

Deception, is disgusting.

Deception, mental manipulation, equally, disgusting.

"Abortion is to save the mother's life"
"Abortion is so that coathangers are not used"
"Abortion is so a woman raped / incest / abused does not have to be violated again by carrying to term and birthing the child"
"Abortion is from conception until 12 weeks"
"Abortion is a woman's choice it's her body"
"Abortion is for choosing to live however you want w/ no consequences"
"Abortion is to get rid of defective babies"
"Abortion now is in a pill form you can take the next morning after having sex with anyone and everyone"
"Abortion is from conception to 6 months; viable living children have been born at 6 months"
"Abortion can be preformed by delivering 1/2 the baby and slitting his spine"

You don't see PP / abortion clinics in the wealthy sides of town; no, you only see them in impoverished neighborhoods, that are predominately black or latino. 
Coninsidence? I think not........

Some can say that the top half of my list are LEGITIMATE reasons.

What started out (it APPEARED) to 'help women' has turned into a monster.

Deception.
Women have been deceived.
If an abortion is being performed, then the room, the provider, etc. should mirror that of a hospital doing any other surgical procedure. 
To do anything less ENDANGERS THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
And isn't that what 'the right to have an abortion" was all about?
The life of the mother???


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You are so right when you say disgusting.
> 
> Deception, is disgusting.
> 
> Deception, mental manipulation, equally, disgusting.
> 
> "Abortion is to save the mother's life"
> "Abortion is so that coathangers are not used"
> "Abortion is so a woman raped / incest / abused does not have to be violated again by carrying to term and birthing the child"
> "Abortion is from conception until 12 weeks"
> "Abortion is a woman's choice it's her body"
> "Abortion is for choosing to live however you want w/ no consequences"
> "Abortion is to get rid of defective babies"
> "Abortion now is in a pill form you can take the next morning after having sex with anyone and everyone"
> "Abortion is from conception to 6 months; viable living children have been born at 6 months"
> "Abortion can be preformed by delivering 1/2 the baby and slitting his spine"
> 
> You don't see PP / abortion clinics in the wealthy sides of town; no, you only see them in impoverished neighborhoods, that are predominately black or latino.
> Coninsidence? I think not........
> 
> Some can say that the top half of my list are LEGITIMATE reasons.
> 
> What started out (it APPEARED) to 'help women' has turned into a monster.
> 
> Deception.
> Women have been deceived.
> If an abortion is being performed, then the room, the provider, etc. should mirror that of a hospital doing any other surgical procedure.
> To do anything less ENDANGERS THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
> And isn't that what 'the right to have an abortion" was all about?
> The life of the mother???


Why are Planned Parenthood clinics often on the wrong side of the tracks?
Because those on the wealthy side of town have always had access to doctors willing to do a little D&C and fix that annoying "women's problem" no one talked about back in the day.

Laws such as the Texas one and the one struck down by a Federal Court here in Wisconsin have nothing to do with enhancing the health of women. They have everything to with restricting access to safe, legal medical procedures which women have the right to get. They have everything to do with forwarding a religous agenda and politicians who will feed off of it. I wish that no woman ever felt the need to have an abortion. But I also wish that women who do make that often difficult and sometimes medically prudent decision weren't vilified by those who pretend to know their circumstances with great certainty.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

mmoetc said:


> Why are Planned Parenthood clinics often on the wrong side of the tracks?
> Because those on the wealthy side of town have always had access to doctors willing to do a little D&C and fix that annoying "women's problem" no one talked about back in the day.
> 
> Laws such as the Texas one and the one struck down by a Federal Court here in Wisconsin have nothing to do with enhancing the health of women. They have everything to with restricting access to safe, legal medical procedures which women have the right to get. They have everything to do with forwarding a religous agenda and politicians who will feed off of it. I wish that no woman ever felt the need to have an abortion. But I also wish that women who do make that often difficult and sometimes medically prudent decision weren't vilified by those who pretend to know their circumstances with great certainty.


Do you have a full copy of the law? 
Do you have a link, to the full description of this Law?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You are so right when you say disgusting.
> 
> Deception, is disgusting.
> 
> Deception, mental manipulation, equally, disgusting.
> 
> "Abortion is to save the mother's life"
> "Abortion is so that coathangers are not used"
> "Abortion is so a woman raped / incest / abused does not have to be violated again by carrying to term and birthing the child"
> "Abortion is from conception until 12 weeks"
> "Abortion is a woman's choice it's her body"
> "Abortion is for choosing to live however you want w/ no consequences"
> "Abortion is to get rid of defective babies"
> "Abortion now is in a pill form you can take the next morning after having sex with anyone and everyone"
> "Abortion is from conception to 6 months; viable living children have been born at 6 months"
> "Abortion can be preformed by delivering 1/2 the baby and slitting his spine"
> 
> You don't see PP / abortion clinics in the wealthy sides of town; no, you only see them in impoverished neighborhoods, that are predominately black or latino.
> Coninsidence? I think not........
> 
> Some can say that the top half of my list are LEGITIMATE reasons.
> 
> What started out (it APPEARED) to 'help women' has turned into a monster.
> 
> Deception.
> Women have been deceived.
> If an abortion is being performed, then the room, the provider, etc. should mirror that of a hospital doing any other surgical procedure.
> To do anything less ENDANGERS THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
> And isn't that what 'the right to have an abortion" was all about?
> The life of the mother???


Your reasons may be legitimate to you, but they may not be for others. It's not one size fits all. 

Why would PP clinics be found primarily in low income areas? Perhaps because they provide free or low cost treatment and birth control to low income people? 

Do you understand that making abortion harder to get is endangering the life of the woman? She will resort to do-it-yourself, and that is much much more dangerous than in any type of clinic overseen by medical personnel. 

Like mmoetc I wish no woman had to make what has to be an agonizing decision, but until there is no rape, incest, dangers in pregnancy, fetal anomaly, and birth control is 100% effective a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you understand that making abortion harder to get is endangering the life of the woman? She will resort to do-it-yourself, and that is much much more dangerous than in any type of clinic overseen by medical personnel.


I was under the impression, this law was to ENSURE that the clinic's that preformed abortions were meeting the same criteria as a hospital?

I would think that this is protecting women from sub standard care?


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Do you have a full copy of the law?
> Do you have a link, to the full description of this Law?


Sure do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I was under the impression, this law was to ENSURE that the clinic's that preformed abortions were meeting the same criteria as a hospital?
> 
> I would think that this is protecting women from sub standard care?


Nope, it doesn't. Statistics show that there are very few complications with an abortion. It's a very simple procedure. The Texas law isn't about the protection of women's health, it's about restricting abortion. The alarming increase in DIY abortions in Texas proves that if a woman truly wants to terminate a pregnancy she will.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I guess if I had the law (I searched and could not find it) I would better be able to speak to it?


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I guess if I had the law (I searched and could not find it) I would better be able to speak to it?


I believe it is already linked somewhere in this thread.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Here's another question: Considering the amount of babies up for adoption (I'm not sure), could it be possible that people who would abort, wouldn't be good parents to that child anyways? If they can't value it in the womb, do they value it as a child?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I can't find the link?


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I guess if I had the law (I searched and could not find it) I would better be able to speak to it?


Not to worry. Having knowledge of what you're talking about has never been a pre-requisite for offering an opinion. Some demonstrate their lack of knowledge with every post. Eta- it's good that you at least want to know.


----------



## mmoetc

https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2/2013/X2

Here's a link to the bill and it's legislative history.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> PP founder was a racist who wanted to see blacks exterminated. Where are most PP located? Black and minority neighborhoods. Who had the highest rates of abortion? Blacks and minorities. Congratulations ms. Sanger. You accomplished your goal of ridding as many minorities as possible and even got an entire party of tolerant people to go along with the plan. Well played well played.


Who cares?
She died long ago and mindless rhetoric adds nothing worthwhile to the discussion here


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I was under the impression, this law was to ENSURE that the clinic's that preformed abortions were meeting the same criteria as a hospital?
> 
> *I would think that this is protecting women from sub standard care*?


You'd be incorrect.
It's all about limiting access to affordable abortions.

There's no evidence the width of a hallway makes a clinic better in any way


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Yeah, VAhomesteaders, don't you dare inject facts into this conversation, especially if they are the ROOT of the problem. Shame all over you........(sarcasm off)


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd be incorrect.
> It's all about limiting access to affordable abortions.
> 
> There's no evidence the width of a hallway makes a clinic better in any way


You may not think so, until your daughter is the victim of a botched abortion and needs a stretcher ran down that hallway and it won't fit, and she bleeds out and dies........


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yeah, VAhomesteaders, don't you dare inject facts into this conversation, especially if they are the ROOT of the problem. Shame all over you........(sarcasm off)


I know. I love all the "rhetoric" ,"not your business", "who cares", lines. Especially when pesky facts get in the way. Lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I guess if I had the law (I searched and could not find it) I would better be able to speak to it?


It's easier to find than tantrum pictures :shrug:

Search for "TX hb2"


----------



## Laura Zone 5

mmoetc said:


> https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2/2013/X2
> 
> Here's a link to the bill and it's legislative history.


Thanks......


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You may not think so, until your daughter is the victim of a botched abortion and needs a stretcher ran down that hallway and *it won't fit*, and she bleeds out and dies........


Stretchers from an ambulance will fit through normal household doors.
Let's stick to reality


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> Stretchers from an ambulance will fit through normal household doors.
> Let's stick to reality


hmmmmmm
I would love for an emt chime in and tell me how they get a 600lb woman on a gurney, thru a regular 36 inch door frame.

Hmmm......I wonder if having narrow hallways is saying to the 600+lb woman 'sorry, abortions are for everyone except those over 600lbs"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> hmmmmmm
> I would love for an emt chime in and tell me how they get a 600lb woman on a gurney, thru a regular 36 inch door frame.
> 
> Hmmm......I wonder if having narrow hallways is saying to the 600+lb woman 'sorry, abortions are for everyone except those over 600lbs"


Once more reality eludes you
Show your data on the percentage of 600 lb women needing abortions


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once more reality eludes you
> Show your data on the percentage of 600 lb women needing abortions


I'm sorry, but I thought a woman's right to choose, is for ALL WOMEN.
Even if it's ONLY ONE 600lb woman, doesn't she have the right to choose?
AND doesn't she have the right to extra medical attention if something goes wrong during the procedure? 
So are you saying 600lb women, even if it's only 1 or 2 don't matter?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I just skimmed thru the bill and didn't see anything anywhere about the width of a hallway?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I'm sorry, but I thought a woman's right to choose, is for *ALL WOMEN*.
> Even if it's ONLY ONE 600lb woman, *doesn't she have the right to choose*?
> AND doesn't she have the right to extra medical attention if something goes wrong during the procedure?
> So are you saying 600lb women, even if it's only 1 or 2 don't matter?


You tell me if they have the right to choose.
It's the "religious" crowd trying to shut down the clinics.

Your example simply isn't realistic, although you already know that


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Um, we live in America.
A 600 lb woman iS MORE than realistic, they have a tv program about MULTIPLE 600+lb people (women included).

So, reality check doll, yeah, there are PLENTY of 600lb women.

THE LAW protects THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Um, little law, Roe v Wade......
Yeah, The Law protects the 600+lb womans right to choose.

That 600lb woman ALSO has the right to medical attention and the ability to get to it if her choice of abortion goes wrong.

AGAIN; can you show me where in the bill it gives the dimensions of the hallway???


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Um, we live in America.
> A 600 lb woman iS MORE than realistic, they have a tv program about MULTIPLE 600+lb people (women included).
> 
> So, reality check doll, yeah, there are PLENTY of 600lb women.
> 
> THE LAW protects THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
> Um, little law, Roe v Wade......
> Yeah, The Law protects the 600+lb womans right to choose.
> 
> That 600lb woman ALSO has the right to medical attention and the ability to get to it if her choice of abortion goes wrong.
> 
> AGAIN; *can you show me where in the bill it gives the dimensions of the hallway???*


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.243.htm



> Sec. 243.010. MINIMUM STANDARDS. (a) The rules must contain *minimum standards applicable* to an ambulatory surgical center and for:
> (1) the *construction and design*, including plumbing, heating, lighting, ventilation, and other design standards necessary to ensure the health and safety of patients;


http://www.bing.com/search?q=Tx+abo...+statutes&go=Submit&qs=bs&form=QBRE&scope=web

It's good to see, though, that you support a woman's right to choose for herself


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.243.htm
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=Tx+abo...+statutes&go=Submit&qs=bs&form=QBRE&scope=web
> 
> It's good to see, though, that you support a woman's right to choose for herself


Thank you for the link.
Looks like they want the facility to meet the same standards as any other facility that preforms invasive proceedures......it is for the protection of the patient.
The woman.

I do not support abortion.
I simply stated, that the LAW says, a 600lb woman has the right to choose, just like the 139lb woman has the right to choose that the right to choose is for ALL women, not just women under 600lbs.


> THE LAW protects THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
> Um, little law, Roe v Wade......
> Yeah, The Law protects the 600+lb womans right to choose.
> 
> That 600lb woman ALSO has the right to medical attention and the ability to get to it if her choice of abortion goes wrong.


Nice try though. You get a C+ for effort. It lacks originality but you did provide a good link.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I do not support abortion*.
> I simply stated, that the LAW says, a 600lb woman has the right to choose, just like the 139lb woman has the right to choose that *the right to choose is for ALL women*, not just women under 600lbs.


Then you contradict yourself.
Either you support the right or not, but it can't be both


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you contradict yourself.
> Either you support the right or not, but it can't be both


Bless your heart.
It's the law, and I am a law abiding citizen.
I hate abortion, but if by law, a woman chooses to have one, then by God, she better have a clean, safe place to do it. 
That's why I support what Texas is doing.

If it closes down shoddy dirty clinics. Good.
The woman who chooses to abort is burdened enough.
The last thing she needs is an infection from 'back alley' conditions that Roe V Wade claimed it was changing.......duh.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If it closes down shoddy dirty clinics. Good.


There were no problems with the clinics.
This is all agenda based

Closing the clinics is causing exactly what you say you don't want:



> The last thing she needs is an infection from 'back alley' conditions that Roe V Wade claimed it was changing.......*duh*.


Again, you can't support both sides at once.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Always playing the victim, huh? 
You've used this "gaslighting" rhetoric before.
Proving once more you just want an argument instead of a discussion.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> You tell me if they have the right to choose.
> It's the "religious" crowd trying to shut down the clinics.
> 
> Your example simply isn't realistic, although you already know that


I hate to tell you this but there are many athiest and humanist against abortion. Is not just Christians. 

http://www.secularprolife.org/


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Vahomesteaders said:


> I hate to tell you this but there are many athiest and humanist against abortion. Is not just Christians.
> 
> http://www.secularprolife.org/


And it is absolutely possible for a Believer, Athiest, Humanist to *love the woman* but hate the abortion.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> And it is absolutely possible for a Believer, Athiest, Humanist to *love the woman* but hate the abortion.


It is also possible to love a woman and not do right by them, hurting them in the process.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

painterswife said:


> It is also possible to love a woman and not do right by them, hurting them in the process.


I agree.
Putting women in the hands of an abortion provider that have shoddy buildings, shoddy services, and do not have a plan in place in case the abortion goes wrong? Yeah, that is definitely hurting the woman.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I agree.
> Putting women in the hands of an abortion provider that have shoddy buildings, shoddy services, and do not have a plan in place in case the abortion goes wrong? Yeah, that is definitely hurting the woman.


You are assuming they are shoddy building even though there is no proof of that. You don't even have proof that their is no plan in case of problems. They don't treat all doctors doing procedures that way. Men get vasectomies in the doctors office every day.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

painterswife said:


> You are assuming they are shoddy building even though there is no proof of that. You don't even have proof that their is no plan in case of problems. They don't treat all doctors doing procedures that way. Men get vasectomies in the doctors office every day.


AND if those offices are not up to code, or following the law, they should be shut down.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> AND if those offices are not up to code, or following the law, they should be shut down.


Those office were all up to code or they would not be open. If they don't change the code for the building that perform vasectomies why just for abortions? Get the picture?


----------



## Lisa in WA

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


----------



## Lisa in WA

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


----------



## Lisa in WA

I don't think BFF needs a spokesperson. He's pretty adept at holding up his end of an argument. Not sure why you insist he's a woman though.

I only posted because your line of argument has gotten incredibly disjointed and insulting. You might consider taking a breather.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> BFF is very much a woman.......


I believe you are wrong.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Laura Zone 5 said:


> BFF is very much a woman.......
> I have not called anyone a swine or pig, or told anyone I was taking my pearls elsewhere.......


I'll bet that's news to his wife.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> I hate to tell you this but there are many athiest and humanist against abortion. Is not just Christians.
> 
> http://www.secularprolife.org/


They make up a small minority.
The big push comes from religious backed organizations


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once more reality eludes you
> Show your data on the percentage of 600 lb women needing abortions


To be fair a 600 lb woman could be a ---- and need an abortion. Given the other underlying health issues associated with extreme obesity any procedure would probably be done in a full surgical suite rather than as an outpatient but even if she was just there for a morning after pill logic dictates if she could walk in the door she could fit through it on the way out.


----------



## Txsteader

Leroy Carhart. He's a good example of why doctors should have admitting privileges @ local hospitals. Jennifer Morbelli died because the good doctor left town after he sent her home in a 'weak and pale' condition. The hospital couldn't get in touch with him.

Requiring doctors to have admitting privileges @ local hospitals seems very reasonable. Requiring clinics to meet the same standards as any other clinic seems very reasonable......if one truly cares about women's health.

As a sidenote: it appears Carhart's at it again. He's sent 4 botched late-term abortion victims the hospital in as many months. He lives in Nebraska but flies to Maryland to perform late-term abortions.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> Leroy Carhart. He's a good example of why doctors should have admitting privileges @ local hospitals. Jennifer Morbelli died because the good doctor left town after he sent her home in a 'weak and pale' condition. The hospital couldn't get in touch with him.
> 
> Requiring doctors to have admitting privileges @ local hospitals seems very reasonable. Requiring clinics to meet the same standards as any other clinic seems very reasonable......if one truly cares about women's health.
> 
> As a sidenote: it appears Carhart's at it again. He's sent 4 botched late-term abortion victims the hospital in as many months. He lives in Nebraska but flies to Maryland to perform late-term abortions.


got a link about him other than from a fanatical, biased organization? I don't see anything from unbiased, reliable sources.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Leroy Carhart. He's a good example of why doctors should have admitting privileges @ local hospitals. Jennifer Morbelli died because the good doctor left town after he sent her home in a 'weak and pale' condition. The hospital couldn't get in touch with him.
> 
> Requiring doctors to have admitting privileges @ local hospitals seems very reasonable. Requiring clinics to meet the same standards as any other clinic seems very reasonable......if one truly cares about women's health.
> 
> As a sidenote: it appears Carhart's at it again. He's sent 4 botched late-term abortion victims the hospital in as many months. He lives in Nebraska but flies to Maryland to perform late-term abortions.


How is the incompetence of the doctor the fault of the facility the procedure was performed in? Anyone in critical need will be admitted through an emergency room to bypass the Dr. not having privileges at that hospital. 

Tell that to all the woman that have had to DIY because they couldn't get to a clinic to have an abortion with certified medical personnel. That is how much Texas cares about women. Perhaps MD will pull Dr. Carhart's license now, in my opinion it needs to be.


----------



## JeffreyD

painterswife said:


> Those office were all up to code or they would not be open. If they don't change the code for the building that perform vasectomies why just for abortions? Get the picture?


Nope, i don't get the picture.

Kermit Barron Gosnells office was open and approved! Do you believe that he's the only one?

WARNING....VERY DISTURBING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell (since most of you don't mind wiki)

Reports state that state officials had failed to visit or inspect Gosnell's practices since 1993.[40] The grand jury report noted that the medical examiner of Delaware County alerted the Pennsylvania Department of Health that Gosnell had performed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old who was thirty weeks pregnant;[50] it is also claimed the Pennsylvania Department of Health did not act when they became aware of Gosnell's involvement in the death of Karnamaya Mongar.[50]

When the team members entered the clinic, they were appalled, describing it to the Grand Jury as 'filthy,' 'deplorable,' 'disgusting,' 'very unsanitary, very outdated, horrendous,' and 'by far, the worst' that these experienced investigators had ever encountered. There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff â long before Gosnell arrived at the clinic â and staff members could not accurately state what medications or dosages they had administered to the waiting patients. Many of the medications in inventory were past their expiration datesâ¦ surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitaryâ¦ resembling 'a bad gas station restroom.' Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was neededâ¦"[30]

[F]etal remains [were] haphazardly stored throughout the clinicâ in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers... Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent... were probably older than 24 weeks [the legal limit]... In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls. The investigators found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. In the basement, they discovered medical waste piled high. The intact 19-week fetus delivered by Mrs. Mongar three months earlier was in a freezer. In all, the remains of 45 fetuses were recovered ... at least two of them, and probably three, had been viable."[30]


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> Nope, i don't get the picture.
> 
> Kermit Barron Gosnells office was open and approved! Do you believe that he's the only one?
> 
> WARNING....VERY DISTURBING
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell (since most of you don't mind wiki)
> 
> Reports state that state officials had failed to visit or inspect Gosnell's practices since 1993.[40] The grand jury report noted that the medical examiner of Delaware County alerted the Pennsylvania Department of Health that Gosnell had performed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old who was thirty weeks pregnant;[50] it is also claimed the Pennsylvania Department of Health did not act when they became aware of Gosnell's involvement in the death of Karnamaya Mongar.[50]
> 
> When the team members entered the clinic, they were appalled, describing it to the Grand Jury as 'filthy,' 'deplorable,' 'disgusting,' 'very unsanitary, very outdated, horrendous,' and 'by far, the worst' that these experienced investigators had ever encountered. There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff â long before Gosnell arrived at the clinic â and staff members could not accurately state what medications or dosages they had administered to the waiting patients. Many of the medications in inventory were past their expiration datesâ¦ surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitaryâ¦ resembling 'a bad gas station restroom.' Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was neededâ¦"[30]
> 
> [F]etal remains [were] haphazardly stored throughout the clinicâ in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers... Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent... were probably older than 24 weeks [the legal limit]... In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls. The investigators found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. In the basement, they discovered medical waste piled high. The intact 19-week fetus delivered by Mrs. Mongar three months earlier was in a freezer. In all, the remains of 45 fetuses were recovered ... at least two of them, and probably three, had been viable."[30]


And hospital quality facilities won't stop crimes.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> got a link about him other than from a fanatical, biased organization? I don't see anything from unbiased, reliable sources.


All I can find is the usual BS from pro-life groups too. I was caught accepting information as true on face value again, I must be more careful and do the proper research...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

basketti said:


> I'll bet that's news to his wife.


It came as quite a shock that I was able to hide the facts from her for over 45 years 

It's obviously due to my great powers of manipulation and deception as I force my will on everyone within sight


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Leroy Carhart. He's a good example of why doctors should have admitting privileges @ local hospitals. Jennifer Morbelli died because the good doctor left town after he sent her home in a 'weak and pale' condition. The hospital couldn't get in touch with him.
> 
> Requiring doctors to have admitting privileges @ local hospitals seems very reasonable. Requiring clinics to meet the same standards as any other clinic seems very reasonable......if one truly cares about women's health.
> 
> As a sidenote: it appears Carhart's at it again. He's sent 4 botched late-term abortion victims the hospital in as many months. He lives in Nebraska but flies to Maryland to perform late-term abortions.


What exactly does that have to do with the laws in TX?

How about providing links if you want to show examples, so we can see the whole story


----------



## Txsteader

LOL well, my first impulse was to say something about making your own sammich or that I'm not your google mommy, but I'll be nice & give you this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/woman-late-term-abortion-death/1935799/


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> LOL well, my first impulse was to say something about making your own sammich or that I'm not your google mommy, but I'll be nice & give you this.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/woman-late-term-abortion-death/1935799/


what is it you're giving us? It doesn't say anywhere that the doctor is guilty of malfeasance. And Operation Rescue is looking into her death? LMAO.

When you have an actual pathologist or CME crying foul that would be something.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> LOL well, my first impulse was to say something about making your own sammich or that I'm not your google mommy, but I'll be nice & give you this.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/woman-late-term-abortion-death/1935799/


I actually did do some research since you provided nothing but a name, and I never found anything that conclusively stated he did anything wrong.

The one death I saw that was investigated was ruled NOT his fault.

Mostly what I found was exactly what you provided, vague allegations and innuendo:



> Carhart, 69, of Nebraska, is one of just four doctors in the United States known to provide late-term abortions and *has been a major target of the anti-abortion movement for years*.


That leads me to believe most of what has been said about him is false, based on what I know about these groups and their methods


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> The one death I saw that was investigated was ruled NOT his fault.


You're missing (avoiding?) the point. 

Could Morbelli's death have been prevented if emergency room staff and/or her family had been able to get in touch w/ Carhart, had he had admitting privileges @ the hospital?

HB2 would, at least, require admitting privileges so that staff can *at the very least*, get in touch w/ the abortion doctor.

Would you support it if that had been YOUR wife or daughter?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> You're missing (avoiding?) the point.
> 
> Could Morbelli's death have been prevented if emergency room staff and/or her family had been able to get in touch w/ Carhart, had he had admitting privileges @ the hospital?
> 
> HB2 would, at least, require admitting privileges so that staff can *at the very least*, get in touch w/ the abortion doctor.
> 
> Would you support it if that had been YOUR wife or daughter?


How does not have admitting privileges disallow emergency staff from getting hold of a doctor or treating anyone?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Txsteader said:


> You're missing (avoiding?) the point.
> 
> Could Morbelli's death have been prevented if emergency room staff and/or her family had been able to get in touch w/ Carhart, had he had admitting privileges @ the hospital?
> 
> HB2 would, at least, require admitting privileges so that staff can *at the very least*, get in touch w/ the abortion doctor.
> 
> Would you support it if that had been YOUR wife or daughter?



Supporters of legal abortion said "get these women out of the alley, give them safe and clean options, give them doctors and nurses in clean facilities".

The Law allowed abortion, got women out of alleys.

Now we find out that there are clinics that are filthy, operating illegally, women ARE dying or being butchered. 
So Texas says "Not in this state, we care about our women".

And the same one's that said "get us out of the alley, make abortion legal and safe" are the SAME ONES now saying "it's ok that in 2016 there are still places operating like the alleys of the 60's".

That's unfortunate.
Abortion is legal in the United States of America.
I don't have to like it, or support it.
But, it is law.

So if indeed this is ALL about the woman, then for God's sake protect her.
Give her a clean, safe place.
Make sure there is a plan in place in case of an emergency.
Make sure that plan can be executed if there is an emergency. 

Either you want the alley or you don't. 
There is no such thing as a clean alley.
You cannot have it both ways.
Either you care about the woman, or you don't.
You cannot have it both ways.

I care about the woman. I hate her choice, I don't support the choice she makes, but the law allows her that choice; so no matter how much I disagree w/ her choice, I care for her and her life. She has enough of a burden coming to this decision and having to live with this decision for the rest of her life.
The last thing she needs is to have a shoddy procedure, in a shoddy clinic, by un or under qualified staff, with no emergency plan or ability to execute an emergency plan.


----------



## painterswife

Women had safe clean places. They did not need operating rooms just like men getting vasectomies don't need them.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Supporters of legal abortion said "get these women out of the alley, give them safe and clean options, give them doctors and nurses in clean facilities".
> 
> The Law allowed abortion, got women out of alleys.
> 
> Now we find out that there are clinics that are filthy, operating illegally, women ARE dying or being butchered.
> So Texas says "Not in this state, we care about our women".
> 
> And the same one's that said "get us out of the alley, make abortion legal and safe" are the SAME ONES now saying "it's ok that in 2016 there are still places operating like the alleys of the 60's".
> 
> That's unfortunate.
> Abortion is legal in the United States of America.
> I don't have to like it, or support it.
> But, it is law.
> 
> So if indeed this is ALL about the woman, then for God's sake protect her.
> Give her a clean, safe place.
> Make sure there is a plan in place in case of an emergency.
> Make sure that plan can be executed if there is an emergency.
> 
> Either you want the alley or you don't.
> There is no such thing as a clean alley.
> You cannot have it both ways.
> Either you care about the woman, or you don't.
> You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> I care about the woman. I hate her choice, I don't support the choice she makes, but the law allows her that choice; so no matter how much I disagree w/ her choice, I care for her and her life. She has enough of a burden coming to this decision and having to live with this decision for the rest of her life.
> The last thing she needs is to have a shoddy procedure, in a shoddy clinic, by un or under qualified staff, with no emergency plan or ability to execute an emergency plan.


And I'll agree with the last part of your statement. But in the case of the woman that died you haven't shown that any of those things didn't exist. Surgery of any kind is inherently dangerous. Even in the best of hospitals deaths happen. You've found one death from an abortion in which no evidence of wrongdoing has been presented and want to use that as justification to stop all such procedures. That would force some women into less safe arenas to recieve their care and likely lead to more complications and deaths, not fewer.

As for the Dr. in Philadelphia. It wasn't lack of regulation that led to the issues in his facility. It was his failure to follow the rules and authorities failure to inspect his facility and enforce the rules. If he wasn't going to follow the rules in place why would he follow stricter ones? And outlawing all abortions only means that there wil will be no licensed, supposedly regulated, facility to inspect.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> 6
> 
> How does not have admitting privileges disallow emergency staff from getting hold of a doctor or treating anyone?


According to everything I've read, it's pertinent. A working relationship between the abortionist and local hospital/emergency staff allows for quick communication, should the need arise.

Makes sense, no?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> According to everything I've read, it's pertinent. A working relationship between the abortionist and local hospital/emergency staff allows for quick communication, should the need arise.
> 
> Makes sense, no?


No it does not make sense to me. Would you like to provide some of those sources that you are using to base your opinion on?

My doctor treats me and does not have hospital privileges.I have yet to have a problem with that. They refer me when I need a doctor that does.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> According to everything I've read, it's pertinent. A working relationship between the abortionist and local hospital/emergency staff allows for quick communication, should the need arise.
> 
> Makes sense, no?


What allows for quick communications is modern technology like cell phones. Admitting privileges are no guarantee a phone will be answered. You've shown nothing that indicates admitting privileges would have prevented this, or any other death or complication, or that this Dr. not having them was causative in this woman's death. Perhaps if doctors in her area weren't afraid for their careers and their very lives for performing procedures like this one wouldn't have had to fly halfway across the country to provide medical care for her. That might be a first step in making things safer for patients and doctors.


----------



## painterswife

I think having to drive hundreds of mile to get an abortion and then driving hundreds more back home away from your treating doctor is more of a problem for the health of the women getting the abortion then making sure the doctor has hospital privileges.


----------



## mmoetc

As I was moving snow the thought came to me- whenever something like universal background checks for gun buyers gets mentioned we're all lectured about how we have plenty of laws and they just need to be enforced and that more gun laws won't make us safer because criminals will just buy guns on the black market and no law ever made any one safer. So why would more laws restricting a woman's right to choose be any different?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> As I was moving snow the thought came to me- whenever something like universal background checks for gun buyers gets mentioned we're all lectured about how we have plenty of laws and they just need to be enforced and that more gun laws won't make us safer because criminals will just buy guns on the black market and no law ever made any one safer. So why would more laws restricting a woman's right to choose be any different?


I've often thought that abortion restriction should be the same as gun restriction. If a state tried to restrict abortion, the exact same restriction should apply to guns. 

How fast would the abortion restrictive states repeal their abortion laws? The most pro-life states are also the most pro-gun. 

I don't shovel snow but I have zen moments like that cleaning horse stalls.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

mmoetc said:


> As I was moving snow the thought came to me- whenever something like universal background checks for gun buyers gets mentioned we're all lectured about how we have plenty of laws and they just need to be enforced and that more gun laws won't make us safer because criminals will just buy guns on the black market and no law ever made any one safer. *So why would more laws restricting a woman's right to choose be any different?*


That is an excellent point.

Gun laws say that you have to store your weapons in such a way that they are not accessible to children.
IF a child obtains a poorly stored weapon and discharges it, the gun owner is prosecuted.

Now, if the gun owner is a woman, and the law says "well that law/rule is only for men" then it would be discriminatory. 

So saying that a hospital has to adhere to rules and regulations for the safety of their patients BUT a clinic that preforms an invasive procedure does NOT have to adhere, is also, discriminatory.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That is an excellent point.
> 
> Gun laws say that you have to store your weapons in such a way that they are not accessible to children.
> IF a child obtains a poorly stored weapon and discharges it, the gun owner is prosecuted.
> 
> Now, if the gun owner is a woman, and the law says "well that law/rule is only for men" then it would be discriminatory.
> 
> So saying that a hospital has to adhere to rules and regulations for the safety of their patients BUT a clinic that preforms an invasive procedure does NOT have to adhere, is also, discriminatory.


Abortions are not operations. You do not cut into the women. You are removing something attached to the women like a large mole. That can be done in a clinic. 

My orthopedic surgeon can also remove screws from my ankle in an office. Does Texas require all those procedures to be done in hospital? When the rules are the same across the board then you can restrict abortions . Until then it is what you want to call discrimination.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That is an excellent point.
> 
> Gun laws say that you have to store your weapons in such a way that they are not accessible to children.
> IF a child obtains a poorly stored weapon and discharges it, the gun owner is prosecuted.
> 
> Now, if the gun owner is a woman, and the law says "well that law/rule is only for men" then it would be discriminatory.
> 
> So saying that a hospital has to adhere to rules and regulations for the safety of their patients BUT a clinic that preforms an invasive procedure does NOT have to adhere, is also, discriminatory.


Nice side step but you didn't answer the question asked. If all gun control laws are overreach, unconstitutional and ineffective in providing safety why are the type of laws trying to control a woman's right to choose reasonable, constitutional and effective and safer?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/915/n/275

*Abortion*
First trimester abortion is considered minor surgery. The risk of complications for the woman increases with advancing gestational age. To learn more about the methods of abortion and when each is used, click here.
*Below is a description of the risks that have been associated with abortion:
*
*Pelvic Infection: *Bacteria (germs) from the vagina or cervix may enter the uterus and cause an infection. Antibiotics may clear up such an infection. In rare cases, a repeat suction, hospitalization or surgery may be needed. Infection rates are less than 1 percent for suction curettage, 1.5 percent for D&E, and 5 percent for labor induction.

*Incomplete abortion: *Fetal parts or other products of pregnancy may not be completely emptied from the uterus, requiring further medical procedures. Incomplete abortion may result in infection and bleeding. The reported rate of such complications is less than 1 percent after a D&E; whereas, following a labor induction procedure, *the rate may be as high as 36 percent.*

* Blood clots in the uterus: *Blood clots that cause severe cramping occur in about 1 percent of all abortions. The clots usually are removed by a repeat suction curettage.

*Heavy bleeding: *Some amount of bleeding is common following an abortion. Heavy bleeding (hemorrhaging) is not common and may be treated by repeat suction, medication or, rarely, surgery. Ask the doctor to explain heavy bleeding and what to do if it occurs.

*Cut or torn cervix: *The opening of the uterus may be torn while it is being stretched open to allow medical instruments to pass through and into the uterus. This happens in less than 1percent of first trimester abortions.

*Perforation of the uterus wall: *A medical instrument may go through the wall of the uterus. The reported rate is 1 out of every 500 abortions. Depending on the severity, perforation can lead to infection, heavy bleeding or both. Surgery may be required to repair the uterine tissue, and in the most severe cases hysterectomy may be required.

*Anesthesia-related complications: *As with other surgical procedures, anesthesia increases the risk of complications associated with abortion. *The reported risks of anesthesia-related complications is around 1 per 5,000 abortions.*

* Rh Immune Globulin Therapy: *Genetic material found on the surface of red blood cells is known as the Rh Factor. If a woman and her fetus have different Rh factors, she must receive medication to prevent the development of antibodies that would endanger future pregnancies.*LONG-TERM MEDICAL RISKS*

*Future childbearing: *Early abortions that are not complicated by infection do not cause infertility or make it more difficult to carry a later pregnancy to term. Complications associated with an abortion or having many abortions may make it difficult to have children.
Because every person is different, one woman's emotional reaction to an abortion may be different from another's. After an abortion, a woman may have both positive and negative feelings, even at the same time. One woman may feel relief, both that the procedure is over and that she is no longer pregnant. Another woman may feel sad that she was in a position where all of her choices were hard ones. She may feel sad about ending the pregnancy. For a while after the abortion she also may feel a sense of emptiness or guilt, wondering whether or not her decision was right.
Some women who describe these feelings find they go away with time. Others find them more difficult to overcome. Certain factors can increase the chance that a woman may have a difficult adjustment to an abortion. One of these is not having any counseling before consenting to an abortion. When help and support from family and friends are not available, a woman's adjustment to the decision may be more of a problem. Other reasons why a woman's long-term response to an abortion can be poor may be related to past events in her life. For example, negative feelings could last longer if she has not had much practice making major life decisions or already has serious emotional problems. Talking with a professional and objective counselor can help a woman to consider her decision fully before she takes any action.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Let's make sure that if you are the 1 in 500, that the clinic is equipped to handle this emergency.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/


----------



## painterswife

Did you know that in Texas colonoscopies are not as regulated as abortions. The chance of perforation is there as well.

Sorry I did not bold and capitalize the word perforation but I bet you can still get the point.


----------



## painterswife

Did you know that if you are suffering a miscarriage in Texas you can go to your regular doctors office and get a D&C.


----------



## painterswife

Did you know that if you get Lasik eye surgery in a doctors office or clinic that clinic is not as regulated as an abortion clinic and the doctor does not need hospital privileges if he makes a mistake.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Apples, meet oranges.

I bet the doctor doing the DNC, Lasisk and Colon exam meet the criteria in the Law passed to protect women from shoddy abortion clinics.

I am concerned about the woman on the table making one of the most difficult and permenate decisions of her life.
I am concerned about the woman on the table that after the procedure might suffer PTSD; having a 'back alley' style abortion in a shoddy clinic will not help, but harm the woman even further.
I am concerned for the female on the table.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/915/n/275
> 
> *Abortion*
> First trimester abortion is considered minor surgery. The risk of complications for the woman increases with advancing gestational age. To learn more about the methods of abortion and when each is used, click here.
> *Below is a description of the risks that have been associated with abortion:
> *
> *Pelvic Infection: *Bacteria (germs) from the vagina or cervix may enter the uterus and cause an infection. Antibiotics may clear up such an infection. In rare cases, a repeat suction, hospitalization or surgery may be needed. Infection rates are less than 1 percent for suction curettage, 1.5 percent for D&E, and 5 percent for labor induction.
> 
> *Incomplete abortion: *Fetal parts or other products of pregnancy may not be completely emptied from the uterus, requiring further medical procedures. Incomplete abortion may result in infection and bleeding. The reported rate of such complications is less than 1 percent after a D&E; whereas, following a labor induction procedure, *the rate may be as high as 36 percent.*
> 
> * Blood clots in the uterus: *Blood clots that cause severe cramping occur in about 1 percent of all abortions. The clots usually are removed by a repeat suction curettage.
> 
> *Heavy bleeding: *Some amount of bleeding is common following an abortion. Heavy bleeding (hemorrhaging) is not common and may be treated by repeat suction, medication or, rarely, surgery. Ask the doctor to explain heavy bleeding and what to do if it occurs.
> 
> *Cut or torn cervix: *The opening of the uterus may be torn while it is being stretched open to allow medical instruments to pass through and into the uterus. This happens in less than 1percent of first trimester abortions.
> 
> *Perforation of the uterus wall: *A medical instrument may go through the wall of the uterus. The reported rate is 1 out of every 500 abortions. Depending on the severity, perforation can lead to infection, heavy bleeding or both. Surgery may be required to repair the uterine tissue, and in the most severe cases hysterectomy may be required.
> 
> *Anesthesia-related complications: *As with other surgical procedures, anesthesia increases the risk of complications associated with abortion. *The reported risks of anesthesia-related complications is around 1 per 5,000 abortions.*
> 
> * Rh Immune Globulin Therapy: *Genetic material found on the surface of red blood cells is known as the Rh Factor. If a woman and her fetus have different Rh factors, she must receive medication to prevent the development of antibodies that would endanger future pregnancies.*LONG-TERM MEDICAL RISKS*
> 
> *Future childbearing: *Early abortions that are not complicated by infection do not cause infertility or make it more difficult to carry a later pregnancy to term. Complications associated with an abortion or having many abortions may make it difficult to have children.
> Because every person is different, one woman's emotional reaction to an abortion may be different from another's. After an abortion, a woman may have both positive and negative feelings, even at the same time. One woman may feel relief, both that the procedure is over and that she is no longer pregnant. Another woman may feel sad that she was in a position where all of her choices were hard ones. She may feel sad about ending the pregnancy. For a while after the abortion she also may feel a sense of emptiness or guilt, wondering whether or not her decision was right.
> Some women who describe these feelings find they go away with time. Others find them more difficult to overcome. Certain factors can increase the chance that a woman may have a difficult adjustment to an abortion. One of these is not having any counseling before consenting to an abortion. When help and support from family and friends are not available, a woman's adjustment to the decision may be more of a problem. Other reasons why a woman's long-term response to an abortion can be poor may be related to past events in her life. For example, negative feelings could last longer if she has not had much practice making major life decisions or already has serious emotional problems. Talking with a professional and objective counselor can help a woman to consider her decision fully before she takes any action.


Still don't want to answer my question?


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Apples, meet oranges.
> 
> I bet the doctor doing the DNC, Lasisk and Colon exam meet the criteria in the Law passed to protect women from shoddy abortion clinics.


You keep responding with things you don't have any facts on. "You bet" shows that you don't know the facts.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

mmoetc said:


> Still don't want to answer my question?


Post 406?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

painterswife said:


> You keep responding with things you don't have any facts on. "You bet" shows that you don't know the facts.


I provided 2 links.
You have provided nothing.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Apples, meet oranges.
> 
> I bet the doctor doing the DNC, Lasisk and Colon exam meet the criteria in the Law passed to protect women from shoddy abortion clinics.
> 
> I am concerned about the woman on the table making one of the most difficult and permenate decisions of her life.
> I am concerned about the woman on the table that after the procedure might suffer PTSD; having a 'back alley' style abortion in a shoddy clinic will not help, but harm the woman even further.
> I am concerned for the female on the table.


And I'd bet you're wrong on many of your claims. I share the same concerns about women's' health but you still haven't shown any instances of where these new laws would have made a difference as opposed to enforcing laws already on the books. Supposition is fine. Supposition backed by fact has credibility.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I provided 2 links.
> You have provided nothing.


One Link that have nothing to do with Texas and one that has nothing to do with Texas discriminating (your word) against abortion clinics and not all outpatient procedures.

Your doing a great job of ignoring the real court case and throwing other crap at the fan.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-texas-clinics-idUSBRE96H1GE20130718

Plenty of other states have the same laws as Texas.
Few clinics closed.
Most cleaned up their acts and complied.
Those that closed, needed to, as they did not have the woman's health in mind; only the money.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-texas-clinics-idUSBRE96H1GE20130718


You need to look at the date of the stuff you google and then relate it to what has actually happened.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I provided 2 links.
> You have provided nothing.


You've provided links that show abortions have risks. No one has denied these risks or acted like they come as a surprise. What you haven't provided is any proof that these new laws will make any woman safer. If these laws will make women safer shouldn't we have the same laws protecting those who choose eye surgery or any of the other risky things done in doctor's offices and clinics every day that won't have to meet these standards?


----------



## oneraddad

Going through life angry and being negative about everything must be a heavy burden to carry.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

This thread is not about eye surgery.
It is about making women safe before, during and after an abortion procedure.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-texas-clinics-idUSBRE96H1GE20130718
> 
> Plenty of other states have the same laws as Texas.
> Few clinics closed.
> Most cleaned up their acts and complied.
> Those that closed, needed to, as they did not have the woman's health in mind; only the money.


That's a three year old article and TX has since closed many of the clinics that the article indicated would stay open. There are *10* clinics that provide abortion services in TX right now. 

http://fundtexaschoice.org/resources/texas-abortion-clinic-map/


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> This thread is not about eye surgery.
> It is about making women safe before, during and after an abortion procedure.


I think you should read the first post again.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

http://time.com/4242918/supreme-court-abortion/


 Marjorie Dannenfelser
 March 2, 2016 


https://www.sba-list.org/home/pro-life-womens-groups-file-amicus-brief-in-whole-womens-health-case

*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: *February 4, 2016


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833

*Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/health/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html

By JAN HOFFMANFEB. 26, 2016 




More recent articles. Some only weeks old.
I could not find anything written today.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://time.com/4242918/supreme-court-abortion/
> 
> https://www.sba-list.org/home/pro-life-womens-groups-file-amicus-brief-in-whole-womens-health-case
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/health/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html


Do you know the rules here on HT about links. You should be providing a short quotes from each link.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

painterswife said:


> Do you know the rules here on HT about links. You should be providing a short quotes from each link.


You asked for links.
I provided.
You said "not good enough too old"
I found recent links.

Now this?
Seriously?
There you go.......


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You asked for links.
> I provided.
> You said "not good enough too old"
> I found recent links.
> 
> Now this?
> Seriously?


Seriously. You can post endless links. Putting them in context is just good etiquette.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://time.com/4242918/supreme-court-abortion/
> 
> 
> Marjorie Dannenfelser
> March 2, 2016
> 
> 
> https://www.sba-list.org/home/pro-life-womens-groups-file-amicus-brief-in-whole-womens-health-case
> 
> *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: *February 4, 2016
> 
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/health/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html
> 
> By JAN HOFFMANFEB. 26, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recent articles. Some only weeks old.
> I could not find anything written today.


Googling and throwing links at a subject just because they use the word abortion really is not showing that you know about the subject in Texas.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

painterswife said:


> Googling and throwing links at a subject just because they use the word abortion really is not showing that you know about the subject in Texas.


Actually reading the link would show how they totally relate to the Texas ruling......


----------



## Shine

Someone asks for one specific thing, the recipient provides what was asked for, then get admonished for not following rules. In this case, the rules have become ritual to be used by the askers. While the intent of the rules is to provide the contributors the opportunity to decide whether to go to the linked site or not, in this particular case, citations were asked for, citations were provided, 'nuff said.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You asked for links.
> I provided.
> You said "not good enough too old"
> I found recent links.
> 
> Now this?
> Seriously?
> There you go.......


It's just what posters do- they establish creditably with fact. 

I'll help, your first link is legit, the second is pro life and therefore biased, the third is from *1992*, the the fourth is good link. I found this gem in it, "Medical groups note that other outpatient procedures with higher complication and mortality rates, like colonoscopy and liposuction, are not legislatively mandated to be performed at ambulatory surgical centers by physicians with hospital privileges."


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> It's just what posters do- they establish creditably with fact.
> 
> I'll help, your first link is legit, the second is pro life and therefore biased, the third is from *1992*, the the fourth is good link. I found this gem in it, *"Medical groups note that other outpatient procedures with higher complication and mortality rates, like colonoscopy and liposuction, are not legislatively mandated to be performed at ambulatory surgical centers by physicians with hospital privileges."*


Then the people of Texas need to again, rally and get the law changed.
But this thread is about how making abortion clinics safer for the women who use their services.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Shine said:


> Someone asks for one specific thing, the recipient provides what was asked for, then get admonished for not following rules. In this case, the rules have become ritual to be used by the askers. While the intent of the rules is to provide the contributors the opportunity to decide whether to go to the linked site or not, in this particular case, citations were asked for, citations were provided, 'nuff said.


Shine, it's biased and we all know it.
One member can say  and get infracted and deleted.
Two members can say the same  and the post stands.

This is not new. This is how it has been for months.
My link is 'dismissed' because it's 'pro-life'......but all their 'pro--abortion' sites are gospel. It is, my dear, what it is.......


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Then the people of Texas need to again, rally and get the law changed.
> But this thread is about how making abortion clinics safer for the women who use their services.


The state of TX wants to restrict abortion, it has no regard for Texas women. 

Uh, my quote was from YOUR (the fourth) link regarding abortion clinics.


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Shine, it's biased and we all know it.
> One member can say  and get infracted and deleted.
> Two members can say the same  and the post stands.
> 
> This is not new. This is how it has been for months.
> My link is 'dismissed' because it's 'pro-life'......but all their 'pro--abortion' sites are gospel. It is, my dear, what it is.......


Laura you have been ranting that women don't have clean safe well regulated places to have abortions if that is their choice. That is what I responded to. 

They had that until this new law. Fighting against that fact with things that don't pertain is getting your argument no where.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Someone asks for one specific thing, the recipient provides what was asked for, then get admonished for not following rules. In this case, the rules have become ritual to be used by the askers. While the intent of the rules is to provide the contributors the opportunity to decide whether to go to the linked site or not, in this particular case, citations were asked for, citations were provided, 'nuff said.


And in some cases the citations were decades old, not relevant, and/or had nothing to do with the current discussion.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> The state of TX wants to restrict abortion, it has no regard for Texas women.
> 
> Uh, my quote was from YOUR (the fourth) link regarding abortion clinics.


Um, I know the quote you made was from my link.
I agreed with you.
That if the other offices that do invasive procedures do not meet the same requirements as the abortion clinics, folks of Texas should rally once again, and get those laws changed to protect the public from shoddy offices and shoddy practices.

But this thread is not about lypo or colons'.
It's about protecting women seeking and obtaining abortions.
How the SAME laws are in MANY states, and they are doing just fine......
If so many clinics in TX shut down, well maybe that's because they were shoddy and didn't have the women's health in their best interest?

No back alleys.
Abortion on demand, legally.
Why allow clinics to go back to the 50's back alley facilities?
The doctors get rich on the backs of women making one of the hardest decisions of her life.......and he doesn't care if his clinic is safe for her???


----------



## Laura Zone 5

painterswife said:


> Laura you have been ranting that women don't have clean safe well regulated places to have abortions if that is their choice. That is what I responded to.
> 
> *They had that until this new law.* Fighting against that fact with things that don't pertain is getting your argument no where.


Clearly not, as so many clinics closed down due to lack of compliance?


----------



## painterswife

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Clearly not, as so many clinics closed down due to lack of compliance?


I give up. I see that you don't really know what the case is about. Discussing it with someone that does not want to bother with the facts is a waste of time.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Then the people of Texas need to again, rally and get the law changed.
> But this thread is about how making abortion clinics safer for the women who use their services.


And absolutely nothing you've posted had shown the clinics in Texas were unsafe to begin with or how these laws make anything safer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Um, I know the quote you made was from my link.
> I agreed with you.
> That if the other offices that do invasive procedures do not meet the same requirements as the abortion clinics, folks of Texas should rally once again, and get those laws changed to protect the public from shoddy offices and shoddy practices.
> 
> But this thread is not about lypo or colons'.
> It's about protecting women seeking and obtaining abortions.
> How the SAME laws are in MANY states, and they are doing just fine......
> If so many clinics in TX shut down, well maybe that's because they were shoddy and didn't have the women's health in their best interest?
> 
> No back alleys.
> Abortion on demand, legally.
> Why allow clinics to go back to the 50's back alley facilities?
> The doctors get rich on the backs of women making one of the hardest decisions of her life.......and he doesn't care if his clinic is safe for her???


All are "outpatient services" that's why the other procedures are relevant. Actually, there are less complications with abortion than other outpatient procedures yet TX (the state in discussion) is trying to restrict abortion by making it harder to run abortion clinics. 

If you've been following this, and other recent abortion posts, you have seen the links were do-it-yourself (back alley type) abortions have been on the rise since TX implemented the restrictive abortion laws. I've linked at least two credible articles that support my opinion of an increase in DIY abortions in TX, others have cited that neighboring states have a documented increases in abortion. Texas does not care about it's women, it only wants to restrict assess to a legal medical procedure. It will, or is by now, in front of SCOTUS so these laws should be over turned shortly.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I give up. I see that you don't really know what the case is about. Discussing it with someone that does not want to bother with the facts is a waste of time.


I'm beginning to think the same thing- plus there is a real possibly that knowledge simply isn't being sought by this poster.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Clearly not, as so many clinics closed down due to lack of compliance?


They were compliant and providing services with few problems until the law changed to make them non compliant. The procedure they did the day before the law was changed didn't differ from the procedure they would have done the day after. Both were equally safe. Wider doors or admitting privileges changed nothing. You've provided no evidence to the contrary and neither did the representatives of Texas in their testimony before various courts. The laws were designed to block access, not make women safer.

As an aside, I must congratulate you on your new found google research ability. Too bad I had to provide a link earlier to something that was easily found but unsupportive of your view. You must have some interesting filters on your search engine.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Laura, from one of your previous posts, your enlargement of the part about risk of uterine perforation leads me to believe this is of major concern to you.

IUD insertion always has carried this risk too and has always been done routinely in an dr. office setting, not usually ever equipped as well as a clinic that does abortions. 

Are you going to suggest everyone "rally" now and only allow IUDs to be inserted in a hospital setting?


----------



## oneraddad

[YOUTUBE]iCQ0vDAbF7s[/YOUTUBE]


----------

