# Slippery Slope: Allow Infacticide



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

According to the arguments I've seen here, including some of my own, it would never become morally permissible to kill a baby because once born, the baby is considered a human entity. Ergo, abortion is acceptable and killing a baby is not. 

However, a recent piece by prominent ethicists haas people agitated. Interestingly, this is not a new concept. The slippery slope is defined as a logical fallacy. Just because A > B, does not mean B > C. In this case, however, the slippery slope certainly applies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...opose-after-birth-abortion-law_n_1309985.html

This is a non-opinion piece by the HP, the least emotional article I could find.



> A medical journal has called for the acceptance of âafter-birth abortionâ (killing a newborn baby), causing outrage among pro-life campaigners and raising an array of ethical questions.
> 
> Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Alberto Giubilini from the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva from Melbourne University argue that foetuses and newborns âdo not have the same moral status as actual personsâ.
> 
> The authors say that killing a newborn baby should be âpermissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabledâ. They add that âthe fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevantâ.





> That the Journal of Medical Ethics should give space to such a proposition illustrates not a slippery slope, but the quagmire into which medical ethics and our wider society have been sucked, â Lord Alton, the co-chairman from the charity, said as reported by the Catholic Herald.
> 
> âPersonal choice has eclipsed the sacredness, or otherness, of life itself. It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the traditional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defence of child destruction.â
> 
> Responding to the backlash, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, has defended the article, claiming that the arguments presented are not new and have been presented repeatedly in academic literature for years.


Infacticide has been common in China, but has made people consider them a backwater and immoral society. Despite being a moral relativist, I value life and do not believe there is any argument for leeway in the manner of infacticide.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I believe that once the baby can be given into the care of another there should be no ending of life therefore there is not reason for infanticide. Extreme medical reasons could be a mitigating circumstance and that is between the parents and their doctor.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I believe that once the baby can be given into the care of another there should be no ending of life therefore there is not reason for infanticide. Extreme medical reasons could be a mitigating circumstance and that is between the parents and their doctor.


Maybe so, but it seems in some cases, people can often save those handicapped children and they may grow into functional adults.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe so, but it seems in some cases, people can often save those handicapped children and they may grow into functional adults.


That is an entire conversation. I think there are limits on quality of life and what levels of handicap you are talking about. Where those limits are is even questioned right now with regards to religion. Parents get to decide if a child gets certain medical care because of their religion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That is an entire conversation. I think there are limits on quality of life and what levels of handicap you are talking about. Where those limits are is even questioned right now with regards to religion. Parents get to decide if a child gets certain medical care because of their religion.


Yes, but if we determine that infants can be euthanized, we can determine that humans can be euthanized as wel perhaps. I would not have wanted to have been aborted or euthanized as an infant. Where would I be? Would I exist in a different form, somewhere else? What is I?

Infanticide violates not only the golden rule, but the nature of existentialism itself.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

This topic has been discussed on multiple threads, I suggest you do a search on the authors.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, but if we determine that infants can be euthanized, we can determine that humans can be euthanized as wel perhaps. I would not have wanted to have been aborted or euthanized as an infant. Where would I be? Would I exist in a different form, somewhere else? What is I?
> 
> Infanticide violates not only the golden rule, but the nature of existentialism itself.


True existentialism does not exist. We decide in a uncountable ways to take away peoples free choice every day.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I find the discussion of this among so called medical and ethical professionals beyond frightening. It is a sick mind that would ever think killing a new born reasonable. It is a slippery slope. It also sounds like an attempt to de-humanize infants.

As to the pro choice, pro life I am pro choice.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I just found this: http://www.snopes.com/after-birth-abortion/


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I just found this: http://www.snopes.com/after-birth-abortion/


Glad the authors didn't actually mean what they were saying. I guess we just go forward with a mental barrier:
Abortion acceptable. Infanticide unacceptable. 
Even reading that wrong results in a brief mental swap before you correct yourself:
Right, abortion good, infanticide bad. 
Next:
Because fetuses aren't infants. 
And how have we come to this conclusion?

Moral relativism. The problem with it is that it's possible to justify just about anything. Maybe not us, but the next generation.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> That is an entire conversation. I think there are limits on quality of life and what levels of handicap you are talking about. Where those limits are is even questioned right now with regards to religion. Parents get to decide if a child gets certain medical care because of their religion.


That's not entirely true. Parents can be forced to allow medical treatment against their will, but you already knew that!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> True existentialism does not exist. We decide in a uncountable ways to take away peoples free choice every day.


Yes; the bathroom debate is a perfect example. Thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes; the bathroom debate is a perfect example. Thanks for mentioning it.


I am all for free choice is which bathroom you use. You also get to choose not to use a bathroom. That is how fee choice works. You get to choose for yourself but not for others.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I am all for free choice is which bathroom you use. You also get to choose not to use a bathroom. That is how fee choice works. You get to choose for yourself but not for others.


Fine, but how does that affect existentialism?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Fine, but how does that affect existentialism?


You can't figure that out for yourself?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> You can't figure that out for yourself?


I'm asking your opinion on existentialism. If you're going to devolve to your usual snark, I guess it's not going to work.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm asking your opinion on existentialism. If you're going to devolve to your usual snark, I guess it's not going to work.


How about you start and explain your position.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> How about you start and explain your position.


The most important thing is to exist. The nature of existence itself dictates that we are all indivuals, capable of individual thought and movement. No matter what happens, it's not possible for someone to change someone's mind against their will. Violation of the existence is another person, either through death or other means, is the "ultimate violation." Hence infanticide, and arguably viable-abortions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> The most important thing is to exist. The nature of existence itself dictates that we are all indivuals, capable of individual thought and movement. No matter what happens, it's not possible for someone to change someone's mind against their will. Violation of the existence is another person, either through death or other means, is the "ultimate violation." Hence infanticide, and arguably viable-abortions.


Does that mean you are against wars and the death penalty? Does that mean you are against all birth control? Do you give away all the money you earn except the bare needs to be alive?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Does that mean you are against wars and the death penalty? Does that mean you are against all birth control? Do you give away all the money you earn except the bare needs to be alive?


You're not very good at this whole philosophy thing, are you? Stop reading stuff into my posts that I didn't install. 
For any being that is capable of continuing to live, terminating that life qualifies as a violation of existence. For anything that stands a chance of continuing in a straight path of existing, ie living, the violation is death. 
To make it even simpler for you, killing is wrong. Were you not taught that in school?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> You're not very good at this whole philosophy thing, are you? Stop reading stuff into my posts that I didn't install.
> For any being that is capable of continuing to live, terminating that life qualifies as a violation of existence. For anything that stands a chance of continuing in a straight path of existing, ie living, the violation is death.
> To make it even simpler for you, killing is wrong. Were you not taught that in school?


Did you miss the question marks? Painterswife was asking questions to ascertain your view, possibly to make sure she wasn't reading into your posts. 

Do you realize that most people aren't pro abortion, don't you? I'm pro choice, I don't care if a woman decides to abort or carry to term as long as she has a _choice_.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> You're not very good at this whole philosophy thing, are you? Stop reading stuff into my posts that I didn't install.
> For any being that is capable of continuing to live, terminating that life qualifies as a violation of existence. For anything that stands a chance of continuing in a straight path of existing, ie living, the violation is death.
> To make it even simpler for you, killing is wrong. Were you not taught that in school?


I was asking for clarification on your opinion. The snarky remark about what I learned in school was not needed. I am not looking for a fight so I think I will let you have fun trying to put down other people.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you miss the question marks? Painterswife was asking questions to ascertain your view, possibly to make sure she wasn't reading into your posts.
> 
> Do you realize that most people aren't pro abortion, don't you? I'm pro choice, I don't care if a woman decides to abort or carry to term as long as she has a _choice_.


Yes, and I agree with you. It would help if certain people weren't trying to read things into my posts that weren't there. Questions can be statements when phrased incorrectly.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Obfuscation is a favorite tactic of those who have no answer and the uninformed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bjba said:


> Obfuscation is a favorite tactic of those who have no answer and the uninformed.


No comment on the subject of the thread just jabs at the members and your view on their posts? Productive.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> No comment on the subject of the thread just jabs at the members and your view on their posts? Productive.


And so very typical.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Abortion, killing infants, kicking religion..this thread had potential. No reason for anyone to pick up their toys, stomp off, and not play anymore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *No reason* for anyone to pick up their toys, stomp off, and not play anymore.


You mean aside from the fact the OP is false, and abortion has been done to death without changing anyone's minds.

There's no point in "playing" stupid games


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You mean aside from the fact the OP is false, and abortion has been done to death without changing anyone's minds.
> 
> There's no point in "playing" stupid games


"Slippery Slope: Allow Infanticide"

Where do you get the idea this thread is about abortion? It's about whether or not it's moral to kill an infant just born. In case you think it's not realistic, it's allowed in the Netherlands or somewhere.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> No comment on the subject of the thread just jabs at the members and your view on their posts? Productive.


Says the person who asked me if I "couldn't figure it out for myself."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> "Slippery Slope: Allow Infanticide"
> 
> *Where do you get the idea this thread is about abortion?*
> 
> It's about whether or not it's moral to kill an infant just born. In case you think it's not realistic, it's allowed in the Netherlands or somewhere.


I can read

You made it through *one* complete sentence before the word appeared for the first time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Says the person who asked me if I "couldn't figure it out for myself."


Says the one who said:



> If you're going to devolve to your usual snark, I guess it's not going to work.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can read
> 
> You made it through *one* complete sentence before the word appeared for the first time.


Care to get another thread locked with your childish games? People just sit back and watch your train wreck occur. It's human nature. Just sit back, everyone. They watch you, so often. Maybe you'll say something they agree with. Maybe not, but then you tick someone off, and they applaud you. 
Clap. 

Clap. 

Clap. 

You bring out the best in everyone. I hope you're proud of yourself.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

painterswife said:


> No comment on the subject of the thread just jabs at the members and your view on their posts? Productive.


My observation of the tactics of those involved in the so called "debate".
Most threads are long on opinion and short on fact and logic. Win at any cost is a shallow, failed, closed minded doctrine. 
This thread like most has become like the line from For What It's Worth
"People singing and carryin' signs mostly say hooray for our side" The moral high ground was lost before the thread started.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> My observation of the tactics of those involved in the so called "debate".
> Most threads are long on opinion and short on fact and logic. Win at any cost is a shallow, failed, closed minded doctrine.
> This thread like most has become like the line from For What It's Worth
> "People singing and carryin' signs mostly say hooray for our side" The moral high ground was lost before the thread started.


No one cares about your opinion about our opinions. If you'd like to offer something related to the OP, feel free. It's a valid issue as has philosophical and moralistic underpinnings that EVERYONE seems to have missed.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> No one cares about your opinion about our opinions. If you'd like to offer something related to the OP, feel free. It's a valid issue as has philosophical and moralistic underpinnings that EVERYONE seems to have missed.


As Fats sang Ain't that a shame. Since the thread is opinion based and opinion driven opinion is all there is. If you don't like another opinion of your opinion perhaps you should keep your opinion to your self and you won't be subjected to opinions you have a poor opinion of.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I have often heard folks claim that a child will have a life "not worth living", and I guess it may be true sometimes, but WHEN it is true they seem to find their own way out of it pretty quick. Most who do not willfind a measure of happiness.

Many of the happiest folks I have known seem to have the least going for them, and some of the most miserable have within their grasps lives that would make a king weep in jealosy.

In observing folks who are militantly pro-choice, I have tried to understand those very strong feelings, and ( correct me if I am wrong, please) I believe that it is because they feel that any other belief violates a woman's LIBERTY, and I am all about liberty, so I have at least a glimmer of understanding.

My opposition is that I believe that it violates a child's life AND liberty. Now, since, as it has been pointed out to me many times, there is nothing in this world I can do about it, I am requesting, in a non-hostile, non threatening way, that somebody explain how they resolve this conflict, morally.....Thank you ......Joe


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I'm sure you know I've posted a lot of studies & articles by several liberal psychologists who favor infanticide. ALWAYS non-conservatives. Its ALWAYS gotten the ire of the non-conserves on HT. But it IS a 'movement' on the left to allow this. Some say up to 2 mo. Some say 6 mo. All about babies not being 'persons' yet. Ya know, like in the womb. No matter that they hear, feel pain, respond to Mom's voice, etc, Bethovan & 'remember' the music after birth, etc.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> "Slippery Slope: Allow Infanticide"
> 
> Where do you get the idea this thread is about abortion? It's about whether or not it's moral to kill an infant just born. In case you think it's not realistic, it's allowed in the Netherlands or somewhere.


Can't find anywhere its legal, still happens.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> As Fats sang Ain't that a shame. Since the thread is opinion based and opinion driven opinion is all there is. If you don't like another opinion of your opinion perhaps you should keep your opinion to your self and you won't be subjected to opinions you have a poor opinion of.


So are you saying philosophy is opinions based and therefore useless? I'm sure the founding fathers would disagree with that sentiment. As I've said before, you seem to have an unhealthy fear of "opinions."


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sure you know I've posted a lot of studies & articles by several liberal psychologists who favor infanticide. ALWAYS non-conservatives. Its ALWAYS gotten the ire of the non-conserves on HT. But it IS a 'movement' on the left to allow this. Some say up to 2 mo. Some say 6 mo. All about babies not being 'persons' yet. Ya know, like in the womb. No matter that they hear, feel pain, respond to Mom's voice, etc, Bethovan & 'remember' the music after birth, etc.


Yes and there are a few on the right advocating killing doctors doing abortions. Every side has its nuts.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> That's not entirely true. Parents can be forced to allow medical treatment against their will, but you already knew that!


What is the point of being snipy?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I was asking for clarification on your opinion. The snarky remark about what I learned in school was not needed. I am not looking for a fight so I think I will let you have fun trying to put down other people.



Dishes it out but cannot take it...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Care to get another thread locked with your childish games? People just sit back and watch your train wreck occur. It's human nature. Just sit back, everyone. They watch you, so often. Maybe you'll say something they agree with. Maybe not, but then you tick someone off, and they applaud you.
> Clap.
> 
> Clap.
> ...


I commented on the actual topic

Are you going to deny the OP mentions *fetuses and abortions* multiple times, and other posters have also talked about it?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Concerning infantacide, considering the severe reality of postpartum depression and OCD, any law, anywhere, any time, that legalizes it is serving to take advantage of someone in their most confused and distressed state of mind. Little doubt that the same folks who would promote such a thing would also be agahst at the death penalty for axe murderers and believe the zoo folks should have shot the kid instead of the ape.

There is no requirement that one has to believe in Satan to believe in Evil......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> Can't find anywhere its legal, still happens.


http://www.domesticviolenceservices.com/female-infanticide.html

I'm sure most peopl have a problem with the way China has handled their population problem. Whether or not it would even be a problem is debatable.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I commented on the actual topic
> 
> Are you going to deny the OP mentions *fetuses and abortions* multiple times, and other posters have also talked about it?


I have been trying to figure out what your goal is, because you seem to have something to say about everything, but it is only that everyone else is wrong, uninformed, foolish.

Please check back and see if anybody but you thought you had anything of value to contribute anywhere.

None of my business, of course, but I recall the guys in highschool whose sole contribution was to crap in the punchbowl at JR. prom, because they wanted to be noticed and remembered. They got that, but never respected. I guess it's a matter of what you are willing to settle for.

Rotsa Ruck......Joe


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> No one cares about your opinion about our opinions. If you'd like to offer something related to the OP, feel free. It's a valid issue as has philosophical and moralistic underpinnings that EVERYONE seems to have missed.





Heritagefarm said:


> So are you saying philosophy is opinions based and therefore useless? I'm sure the founding fathers would disagree with that sentiment. As I've said before, you seem to have an unhealthy fear of "opinions."


Obfuscation seems to be the stock in trade of those who have no fact or answer for reply. Ethics not philosophy is the subject of the OP and ethic is a matter of opinion. Merriam Webster defines ethic:*ethics* : an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior : a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

We got pushed down the slippery slope a long time ago. If you can make the case that life is defined as not relying on another human being, then you can rationalize killing anyone.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Obfuscation seems to be the stock in trade of those who have no fact or answer for reply. Ethics not philosophy is the subject of the OP and ethic is a matter of opinion. Merriam Webster defines ethic:*ethics* : an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior : a branch of *philosophy* dealing with what is morally right or wrong.


I believe you just refuted your own argument.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I believe you just refuted your own argument.


Sorry Charlie, I was mistaken that you offered an intellectual challenge, this like the last discussion I tried to have with you has become deadly boring.
Bonsoir ma petite chou


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Sorry Charlie, I was mistaken that you offered an intellectual challenge, this like the last discussion I tried to have with you has become deadly boring.
> Bonsoir ma petite chou


it seemed like in your other post, you attempted to say that I was not using philosophy, but ethics. You then offered a dictionary definition that said ethics was a branch of philosophy. This was contradictory. 

I'll offer you an intellectual challenge: if it is possible to moralize abortion, can we then moralize killing infants of a certain age? Most people would disagree, especially those already opposed to abortion. 

Also, using the ethics argument, if infanticide is wrong, because it violates existence i.e. terminates a life, we can conclude viable abortion that would result in a live birth is also wrong.

How's that's?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

joebill said:


> I have been trying to figure out what your goal is, because you seem to have something to say about everything, but it is only that everyone else is wrong, uninformed, foolish.
> 
> Please check back and see if anybody but you thought you had anything of value to contribute anywhere.
> 
> ...


My "goal" here is nothing more than *my* personal entertainment.

I've stated that quite often, the same way I've stated people should just stick to what I say instead of searching for hidden meanings.

To claim that I only say "everyone else is wrong, uninformed, foolish" is a lie that can easily be disproven.

If you think my posts have no value though, don't bother to read them.
It makes no difference to me at all.

Can you show where what I said *about the topic* was incorrect?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> My "goal" here is nothing more than *my* personal entertainment.
> 
> I've stated that quite often, the same way I've stated people should just stick to what I say instead of searching for hidden meanings.
> 
> ...


Nope, totally correct and utterly pointless, as always....  ....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> I have often heard folks claim that a child will have a life "not worth living", and I guess it may be true sometimes, but WHEN it is true they seem to find their own way out of it pretty quick. Most who do not willfind a measure of happiness.
> 
> Many of the happiest folks I have known seem to have the least going for them, and some of the most miserable have within their grasps lives that would make a king weep in jealosy.
> 
> ...


The unborn have no rights unless it's a wanted pregnancy, and then only if it's unlawfully terminated. For example: A woman is beaten and miscarries, etc. 

The crux of the matter is when to determine a fetus is viable (can sustain life outside the womb). Science tells us that it's between 20-23 weeks. Most abortions occur prior to 12 weeks. I don't agree with late term abortion unless there are fetal abnormalities or the life of the woman is in jeopardy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The unborn have no rights unless it's a wanted pregnancy, and then only if it's unlawfully terminated. For example: A woman is beaten and miscarries, etc.
> 
> The crux of the matter is when to determine a fetus is viable (can sustain life outside the womb). Science tells us that it's between 20-23 weeks. Most abortions occur prior to 12 weeks. I don't agree with late term abortion unless there are fetal abnormalities or the life of the woman is in jeopardy.


Why do the unborn have no rights when they will soon turn into a viable entity?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why do the unborn have no rights when they will soon turn into a viable entity?


As you just stated, they aren't a viable entity, yet.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The fetus is not a viable entity until it can do it's own laundry, feed itself, and prepare it's taxes. Until then it will rely on others for it's care. If you can perform an abortion, then it is OK to kill children up until they are 14 or so. If you can end a life for convenience's sake, then the time that you end that life is irrelevant, when justifying your morality.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> The fetus is not a viable entity until it can do it's own laundry, feed itself, and prepare it's taxes. Until then it will rely on others for it's care. If you can perform an abortion, then it is OK to kill children up until they are 14 or so. If you can end a life for convenience's sake, then the time that you end that life is irrelevant, when justifying your morality.


We differentiate between animals who we can make life and death decisions and humans based on cortical activity. We do it for humans as well. I base my opinion on when someone has rights on that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> The fetus is not a viable entity until it can do it's own laundry, feed itself, and prepare it's taxes. Until then it will rely on others for it's care. If you can perform an abortion, then it is OK to kill children up until they are 14 or so. If you can end a life for convenience's sake, then the time that you end that life is irrelevant, when justifying your morality.


You have a rather bizarre definition of viability. Do you really think it's OK to kill children up to the age of 14? Or is your rant just rhetoric?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why do the* unborn* have no rights when they will soon turn into a viable entity?


I thought this was about "infacticide" (sic)


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You have a rather bizarre definition of viability. Do you really think it's OK to kill children up to the age of 14? Or is your rant just rhetoric?


It seems to me a comparison of the "ethics" involved in the decision to terminate what is otherwise a human being in work. Many here want to say - "Oh, it is OK to do away with that life at this point in time because..." 

That idea is now presented as "if it was OK then, why is it not OK now? - Same outcome in reality."


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I thought this was about "infacticide" (sic)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You have a rather bizarre definition of viability. Do you really think it's OK to kill children up to the age of 14? Or is your rant just rhetoric?





Irish Pixie said:


> As you just stated, they aren't a viable entity, yet.


Ah yes, but that is the crux of the issue, no? "Viability," the state of being stable, viable. A fetus that is viable, i.e. capable of existing outside the womb, cannot generally be aborted. This is a relative definition. With enough future technology, we will soon be able to incubate a human from conception to birth. In that case, viability can be extended back quite a ways.

And in our current argument form, the child has no rights until it becomes a human outside the mother's body. But if the infant/fetus/person was viable in utero, or if it was in fact not viable, then once outside, viability might be considered relative. If it is relative, maybe the infant can be killed. If it is not relative, and there is nothing wrong with the infant, it would be argued it could be allowed to live. Why?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


>


Urban dictionary definition of "ban hammer" :hysterical:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ban Hammer

I like the first definition.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ah yes, but that is the crux of the issue, no? "Viability," the state of being stable, viable. A fetus that is viable, i.e. capable of existing outside the womb, cannot generally be aborted. This is a relative definition. With enough future technology, we will soon be able to incubate a human from conception to birth. In that case, viability can be extended back quite a ways.
> 
> And in our current argument form, the child has no rights until it becomes a human outside the mother's body. But if the infant/fetus/person was viable in utero, or if it was in fact not viable, then once outside, viability might be considered relative. If it is relative, maybe the infant can be killed. If it is not relative, and there is nothing wrong with the infant, it would be argued it could be allowed to live. Why?


Why what? Yes? No? Maybe?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


>


Wasn't it *you* who accused *me* of "childish games"?
What do you call your games?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why what? Yes? No? Maybe?


Ok, so I'll rephrase it... If a fetus is viable, and can be aborted at the discretion of the parent... because it would not be viable outside the parent... and it is all right to abort the fetus even if it can survive outside the fetus... what is wrong with infanticide?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ah yes, but that is the crux of the issue, no? "Viability," the state of being stable, viable. A fetus that is viable, i.e. capable of existing outside the womb, cannot generally be aborted. This is a relative definition. With enough future technology, we will soon be able to incubate a human from conception to birth. In that case, viability can be extended back quite a ways.
> 
> And in our current argument form, the child has no rights until it becomes a human outside the mother's body. But if the infant/fetus/person was viable in utero, or if it was in fact not viable, then once outside, viability might be considered relative. If it is relative, maybe the infant can be killed. If it is not relative, and there is nothing wrong with the infant, it would be argued it could be allowed to live. Why?


An incubator doesn't change "viability"
It just exchanges a real womb for one that's artificial


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ok, so I'll rephrase it... If a fetus is viable, and can be aborted at the discretion of the parent... because it would not be viable outside the parent... and it is all right to abort the fetus even if it can survive outside the fetus... what is wrong with infanticide?


I'm not a proponent of late term abortion, I thought I indicated that already? So what gestational age is the fetus? "Viable" isn't indicative of age.

ETA: I'm actually not a proponent of any type of abortion, I am pro-choice.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> An incubator doesn't change "viability"
> It just exchanges a real womb for one that's artificial


Isn't the nature of the viability argument that if the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is "viable?" An incubator changes that - if any fetus can be incubated outside the womb, defects aside, the nature of the viability argument changes radically. 



Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not a proponent of late term abortion, I thought I indicated that already? So what gestational age is the fetus? "Viable" isn't indicative of age.
> 
> ETA: I'm actually not a proponent of any type of abortion, I am pro-choice.


Yes, I know. This is an almost completely hypothetical argument anyways.



> According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.


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


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Isn't the nature of the viability argument that if the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is "viable?" *An incubator changes that *- *if *any fetus can be incubated outside the womb, defects aside, the nature of the viability argument changes radically.
> 
> Yes, I know. This is an almost *completely hypothetical* argument anyways.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability


I don't know why you think repeating the same thing will have a different result. 

You're attempting to redefine "viability" to suit your scenario, and you're pretending it's possible to take an non viable fetus from a womb to an incubator


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

Not relevant to the subject, but I am glad I read this post. One person once told me I was using my "older" age to be rude--and I felt bad because after so many years here, to recieve such a uncalled for remark. Glad i read it so i can understand some are rude to all. Carry on, People--


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

With modern technology, a fetus could be taken from someone that didn't want it and put in someone that did. Embryonic transfer, it's done in cattle all the time. They even freeze them for later. So they are basically viable outside the mothers womb at conception. Of course there is a window of non-viability, but clinically speaking, they would be viable outside the woman's body at conception.


I'm not convinced that two poor choices make a good choice. By the time abortion is one of the choices, there have already been numerous poor choices made. Are there health departments somewhere that don't have depo shots? Are their gas stations that don't have condoms? I'm sure someone will bring up rape. Somewhere along the way, someone chose not to exercise their 2cnd amendment rights, or chose not to practice situational awareness, chose to not keep an eye on their drink, in the vast majority of those situations. Sure there are some that probably couldn't be prevented, sure it's horrible, but is murdering a fetus really going to make it better? But we are not really talking about abortion in cases of rape here.

Most abortions are for convenience. Raising kids is an inconvenience. Most moms with kids look a lot more inconvenienced than they did when they were simply pregnant. Kids need to be at least 4 before they can even begin to feed themselves without making a huge mess. If you, as a society are OK with performing an abortion for convenience sake, then it should be perfectly acceptable to keep doing it up through age 4, or maybe even if they are just inconvenient adults, different politics or whatever. The precedent has been set, everything else is just semantics at this point.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

All this talk about fetuses, and when does life begin and so on. Itâs all a smokescreen. The issue of being pro-choice or anti-choice comes down to one, simple, straightforward question:

*Do you believe women have rights? *

The most fundamental right a person has is to control what happens to their own body. Pro-choice people believe women have rights. Anti-choice people are stating that women do not have rights. 

Did you go out and donate bone marrow yesterday? Have you donated your spare kidney? Guess what? Several children died because you failed to use your body to support their lives. If some politicians passed laws mandating that all adult women be forced to donate a kidney and donate bone marrow every year in order to save children's lives, everyone (at least I hope everyone) would be truly outraged by this massive violation of women's rights. 

There is absolutely no difference between mandating that women use their kidneys and bone marrow to save lives and mandating that women be forced to use their uteruses to "save lives."

Do women have rights, or not? That is the only honest question in this debate.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Yes and there are a few on the right advocating killing doctors doing abortions. Every side has its nuts.


I think you'll have to prove that one, ALL have declared that wrong. NO ONE has written articles in pediatric journals/'ethic' journals condoning or calling for that. But continue on trying to make analogies about something that doesn't exist.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Dishes it out but cannot take it...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

A human baby INSIDE a woman's womb is NOT HER BODY.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> A human baby INSIDE a woman's womb is NOT HER BODY.


No one argued whether it was or wasn't. The issue is whether or not the actual, living woman has any rights to choose what to do with her own body -- including choose to not donate the use of her uterus to "save" someone else's "life."

Did you donate your kidney today to save someone else's living child?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know why you think repeating the same thing will have a different result.
> 
> You're attempting to redefine "viability" to suit your scenario, and you're pretending it's possible to take an non viable fetus from a womb to an incubator


If you weren't so narrow minded, you might actually be capable of something coming close to intellectual. But the stars are very far away.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> All this talk about fetuses, and when does life begin and so on. It&#8217;s all a smokescreen. The issue of being pro-choice or anti-choice comes down to one, simple, straightforward question:
> 
> *Do you believe women have rights? *


I disagree. I believe there are two, simple, straightforward questions that must be asked:

Do you believe women have rights AND do you believe the unborn have rights?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> No one argued whether it was or wasn't. The issue is whether or not the actual, living woman has any rights to choose what to do with her own body -- including choose to not donate the use of her uterus to "save" someone else's "life."
> 
> Did you donate your kidney today to save someone else's living child?


Clearly women have the right to make this choice. This isn't a pro-choice vs. pro-life discussion despite what BFF "thinks." This was a philosophical endeavor into the moralistic ramifications of deeming certain life not life. 



Raeven said:


> All this talk about fetuses, and when does life begin and so on. Itâs all a smokescreen. The issue of being pro-choice or anti-choice comes down to one, simple, straightforward question:
> 
> *Do you believe women have rights? *
> 
> ...


Umm, I don't get that analogy at all. If I donate too many body organs, I am harmed. If someone gives birth, they are not harmed either. (NOW IF THEY WOULD BE HARMED by an abortion, I believe that is a perfectly morally acceptable situation, and just about everyone probably agrees with me on that.)

Also, 75% of abortions are convenience abortions. This means they were aborted for financial, unplanned, spousal argument, etc. Likely as not, no one forced the fetus to develop. I'm differentiating between rape cases here. 

I see a world of difference between mandating organ donations and abortion.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

No. You have a threshold question about the woman, and then you can talk about the "unborn."

Does the woman have rights to decide about her own body, or do the rights of the "unborn" supersede her rights? And if you say they do, then at what point is the man who made her pregnant expected to take some responsibility for the outcome? And how will you enforce it?

I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Raeven said:


> No. You have a threshold question about the woman, and then you can talk about the "unborn."
> 
> Does the woman have rights to decide about her own body, or do the rights of the "unborn" supersede her rights? And if you say they do, then at what point is the man who made her pregnant expected to take some responsibility for the outcome? And how will you enforce it?
> 
> I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators.


:bow:


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Clearly women have the right to make this choice. This isn't a pro-choice vs. pro-life discussion despite what BFF "thinks." This was a philosophical endeavor into the moralistic ramifications of deeming certain life not life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've never seen any statistics offered of any kind to support this oft-repeated notion that "75% of abortions are convenience abortions." Please cite me to some. Also, please define "inconvenience." Raising a child you can't afford and with no support is something more than an "inconvenience."

You clearly have never studied how much more dangerous it is for women to give birth than to abort. Perhaps you should. While you're at it, I think you owe your incendiary thread a better citation about infanticide than, "it's allowed in the Netherlands, or somewhere." This is a complete non-issue.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I believe that women have the right to choose not to get pregnant if they don't want to get pregnant. After that, they have an obligation to their child. Yes, men do play a role in this, and if I'm not mistaken, we have the technology available to prove paternity and hold men financially responsible for the child. If a man has to pay child support if the woman that allowed him to impregnate her chooses to carry to term, why doesn't he have any recourse in cases that the woman chooses to abort? Is it his or isn't it?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

barnbilder said:


> I believe that women have the right to choose not to get pregnant if they don't want to get pregnant. After that, they have an obligation to their child. Yes, men do play a role in this, and if I'm not mistaken, we have the technology available to prove paternity and hold men financially responsible for the child. If a man has to pay child support if the woman that allowed him to impregnate her chooses to carry to term, why doesn't he have any recourse in cases that the woman chooses to abort? Is it his or isn't it?


We sure do have that technology. And there are an awful lot of single moms raising children they already had alone, with men who are the actual fathers, and those women have no hope of getting any support whatsoever. Don't believe me? Go look at the number of court cases brought against deadbeat dads by your local Family Court Services trying to collect support from men who skipped out on their responsibilities. You'll find there are hundreds of them.

At least be intellectually honest and admit that one half of the "making baby" equation pays a far, far higher price for a "mistake" than the other one does. 

Women are going to choose abortion irrespective of whether it is legal. They will choose it even when it's dangerous. Infanticide is already murder and murder is already unlawful. *No one* is arguing to the contrary. This is just another stupid way to attempt to bootstrap heinous, illegal activities to the abortion debate. One thing simply has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Umm, I don't get that analogy at all. If I donate too many body organs, I am harmed. If someone gives birth, they are not harmed either. (NOW IF THEY WOULD BE HARMED by an abortion, I believe that is a perfectly morally acceptable situation, and just about everyone probably agrees with me on that.)
> 
> I see a world of difference between mandating organ donations and abortion.


Do you? You could easily donate bone marrow once a year and you wouldn't be "harmed" by it. It hurts like hell, but hey, that's just an "inconvenience" you'd have to live with once a year -- unlike raising a child, which is every day for... what... at least 18 years and maybe longer? No big deal, right? So you won't mind if Congress mandates bone marrow donation for everyone, to save the lives of living children not your own? Maybe we could make it for just 18 years of your life instead. I'm glad to learn you'd be ok with that. Remember; it's for the living children.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I have no bone to pick with anyone. I am now throughly insulted by the constant insinuations that I'm making a jab at women when what I want is an honest, moralistic debate. If everyone could stop pretending they think they actually know better about what my thread is than me, maybe I'll chime in again. So if any of you would actually like a 0 emotion debate, here's your chance. Otherwise, I'm not biting again.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> According to the arguments I've seen here, including some of my own, it would never become morally permissible to kill a baby because once born, the baby is considered a human entity. Ergo, abortion is acceptable and killing a baby is not.
> 
> However, a recent piece by prominent ethicists haas people agitated. Interestingly, this is not a new concept. The slippery slope is defined as a logical fallacy. Just because A > B, does not mean B > C. In this case, however, the slippery slope certainly applies.


Come on. Do not pretend you didn't mean to invoke the abortion debate in this thread. The very thread title implies otherwise: "Slippery Slope: Allow Infacticide (sic)," and then you went on to say that "the slippery slope certainly applies."

Where did you think this thread was going to end up? You are never going to get an "honest, moralistic debate" starting with such a premise, and you're plenty smart enough to know that.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> No. You have a threshold question about the woman, and then you can talk about the "unborn."
> 
> Does the woman have rights to decide about her own body, or do the rights of the "unborn" supersede her rights? And if you say they do, then at what point is the man who made her pregnant expected to take some responsibility for the outcome? And how will you enforce it?
> 
> I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators.


Those "anti choice folks" are standing in line, shoulder to shoulder, many with their $20K in their hands waiting to adopt those kids sight unseen as soon as they pop out. Hardly the description of "never caring a whit".....Joe


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Sure thing... that's why roughly 30,000 kids a year age out to 18 without ever having been adopted.

https://davethomasfoundation.org/news_story/national-adoption-month-foster-care-adoption-statistics/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Raeven said:


> Sure thing... that's why roughly 30,000 kids a year age out to 18 without ever having been adopted.
> 
> https://davethomasfoundation.org/news_story/national-adoption-month-foster-care-adoption-statistics/


No one should be able to adopt an infant until they have already adopted an older child.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Come on. Do not pretend you didn't mean to invoke the abortion debate in this thread. The very thread title implies otherwise: "Slippery Slope: Allow Infacticide (sic)," and then you went on to say that "the slippery slope certainly applies."
> 
> Where did you think this thread was going to end up? You are never going to get an "honest, moralistic debate" starting with such a premise, and you're plenty smart enough to know that.


I stand by what I said.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Sure thing... that's why roughly 30,000 kids a year age out to 18 without ever having been adopted.
> 
> https://davethomasfoundation.org/news_story/national-adoption-month-foster-care-adoption-statistics/


Different subject.

By the time those kids are "owned" by the state for a few years, gone through 3 or 4 foster homes, who are often in it for the bucks, they are quite often a royal mess. I agree that it is a wonderfull thing to adopt them, but it often takes a very special couple to mitigate the damage that has been done.

All that does not change the simple fact that there are nearly unlimited opportunities for infants to be adopted and given wonderfull lives with fully vetted parents who are more than qualified to raise them. The people who "don't give a whit" about them are the ones who kill them before birth....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

painterswife said:


> No one should be able to adopt an infant until they have already adopted an older child.


Seriously?

How about we just make it a law that nobody can become pregnant without first adopting a 14 year old from foster care who has been exposed to God knows what all of those years?

We tried, ONCE years ago, to help a young man in that situation, and found that although we did just fine with our own 5 kids, were were truly not up to the job of cancelling out the insanity that the "system" had installed in the lad.

No way would I have brought a younger sibling into a home where he was.

Folks have to pass enough tests to be adoptive parents, no need to test them to see if they are willing to live in a loony bin for several years before they can get a baby......not everything is a social issue......Joe


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

joebill said:


> Seriously?
> 
> How about we just make it a law that nobody can become pregnant without first adopting a 14 year old from foster care who has been exposed to God knows what all of those years?
> 
> ...


No one is guaranteed a perfect child even when you have them yourself. If you are not up to doing your best with what you get then I don't believe you get to choose what you think is easier.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> Different subject.
> 
> By the time those kids are "owned" by the state for a few years, gone through 3 or 4 foster homes, who are often in it for the bucks, they are quite often a royal mess. I agree that it is a wonderfull thing to adopt them, but it often takes a very special couple to mitigate the damage that has been done.
> 
> All that does not change the simple fact that there are nearly unlimited opportunities for infants to be adopted and given wonderfull lives with fully vetted parents who are more than qualified to raise them. The people who "don't give a whit" about them are the ones who kill them before birth....Joe


 Not a different thing, at least not entirely. *All* those kids started as infants, and surely you can agree that at least a percentage of them were infants who were born into foster care and never adopted. My research showed that 14,000 infants are adopted each year, and thatâs a number that has remained flat for the past 20 years. 

The number of abortions performed each year is around a million. Think you and others who are willing to adopt infants will be able to make up the difference? I donât. Youâd each have to adopt 71 kids. Somehow I doubt thatâs going to happen. 

So every year, a million additional kids raised in foster care will age out. Wait. That's assuming there will be an additional million foster homes available to them. What are the odds? I guess we could go back to orphanages. Group homes, they call them now. Iâm sure there wonât be any repercussions for that, though.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

We could go back to personal responsibility but that's asking a bit much.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

elevenpoint said:


> We could go back to personal responsibility but that's asking a bit much.


Yeah, well... there are people who like to hold themselves out as superior to everyone else, and there is reality. I know which one I prefer to deal with.

Do keep us posted on your progress to get those deadbeat dads to step up and take some personal responsibility for their part in the baby-making.

By the way, how did your bone marrow donation go? There are children dying, you know. Or is that asking a bit much?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Raeven said:


> Yeah, well... there are people who like to hold themselves out as superior to everyone else, and there is reality. I know which one I prefer to deal with.
> 
> Do keep us posted on your progress to get those deadbeat dads to step up and take some personal responsibility for their part in the baby-making.
> 
> By the way, how did your bone marrow donation go? There are children dying, you know. Or is that asking a bit much?


I got a gal pregnant, I stood up and married her and raised those two children. I believe that gives me ground to talk.

The donation of body matter or parts does not fly for this argument. The argument is if abortion is killing what would be a living life, why draw a line using the "viable" rational? Some people are happy saying that it is OK because the fetus could not survive outside the womb, some are including the argument that a child cannot survive by itself until 12 or 14. 

Where do you draw the line? What are you comfortable with? This is what I believe is being asked, not specifically abortion as you would like to steer the argument to, but when>? and why>?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Raeven said:


> Yeah, well... there are people who like to hold themselves out as superior to everyone else, and there is reality. I know which one I prefer to deal with.
> 
> Do keep us posted on your progress to get those deadbeat dads to step up and take some personal responsibility for their part in the baby-making.
> 
> By the way, how did your bone marrow donation go? There are children dying, you know. Or is that asking a bit much?


I understand, you do have problems grasping reality at times.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

elevenpoint said:


> I understand, you do have problems grasping reality at times.


A personal attack not worthy of a response. If you have an actual position to state and defend, now would be the time.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Raeven said:


> A personal attack not worthy of a response. If you have an actual position to state and defend, now would be the time.


No I have nothing to defend, I made a simple truthful statement and knew it would not be long before someone came back with a shot. I just wanted a good laugh before bed. Thanks and good night.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Shine said:


> I got a gal pregnant, I stood up and married her and raised those two children. I believe that gives me ground to talk.
> 
> The donation of body matter or parts does not fly for this argument. The argument is if abortion is killing what would be a living life, why draw a line using the "viable" rational? Some people are happy saying that it is OK because the fetus could not survive outside the womb, some are including the argument that a child cannot survive by itself until 12 or 14.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? What are you comfortable with? This is what I believe is being asked, not specifically abortion as you would like to steer the argument to, but when>? and why>?


Sorry, but the donation of body organs is *exactly* the issue. If society can force women to use their bodies to carry children to term against their will on the basis that it preserves a living human being, then surely society can require all citizens to donate part of their non-essential body matter to save *actual living children*. You merely waving your hand and saying it "doesn't fly" is just your opinion. It is binding on no one. There is an exact parallel here, even if you want to turn away from it because it makes you uncomfortable.

As for the subject at hand, first show that there is *anyone, anywhere* in the entire country arguing in favor of infanticide. In the absence of that, it's just mental masturbation about a non-existent issue, in the hope of demonizing those who support choice for women in the abortion debate. I look forward to reading your actual statistics. I could find none. Neither could the OP, so far as I could tell, because instead of presenting evidence of it when asked, he bowed out of the debate -- even though he drew a direct connection in his OP by making his "slippery slope" assertion, which he opined (but never presented evidence supporting it) applied in abortion to infanticide.

I admire you very much for marrying your wife and raising your 2 children. If there was more of that, I feel sure that far fewer women would seek abortions. This is a worthy goal for us all.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Raeven said:


> Sorry, but the donation of body organs is *exactly* the issue. If society can force women to use their bodies to carry children to term against their will on the basis that it preserves a living human being, then surely society can require all citizens to donate part of their non-essential body matter to save *actual living children*. You merely waving your hand and saying it "doesn't fly" is just your opinion. It is binding on no one. There is an exact parallel here, even if you want to turn away from it because it makes you uncomfortable.
> 
> As for the subject at hand, first show that there is *anyone, anywhere* in the entire country arguing in favor of infanticide. In the absence of that, it's just mental masturbation about a non-existent issue, in the hope of demonizing those who support choice for women in the abortion debate. I look forward to reading your actual statistics. I could find none. Neither could the OP, so far as I could tell, because instead of presenting evidence of it when asked, he bowed out of the debate -- even though he drew a direct connection in his OP by making his "slippery slope" assertion, which he opined (but never presented evidence supporting it) applied in abortion to infanticide.
> 
> I admire you very much for marrying your wife and raising your 2 children. If there was more of that, I feel sure that far fewer women would seek abortions. This is a worthy goal for us all.


It is my understanding that life is special. Two adults enter into intimate relations knowing the possible results. They either take interest in protecting against procreation or they do not. From judging the simple minded men that I have seen to be in a higher number as opposed to those that operate in an honest and honorable fashion, it would seem that women are at a disadvantage and should be those that practice situational awareness. For the most part, I have not seen the women utilize this useful tactic, they are just as simple minded as the men that seek them out.

So, here we are. People in this country, and I am sure other countries, both sexes, refuse to step up and do that which is honorable. They find themselves in a situation of their choosing, and operate as if there is no chance of the act creating a life. 

Wrong. 

What happens then? - Oh, it's OK, I'll just dispose of the child.... No problem.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shocking-case-for-legalizing-infanticide-2012-2

Yes... the mindset is out there. Shall we just start throwing our children into the volcano or off the cliff to appease the gods?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

OK, Im new to this thread and have only browsed through it.

At what age was it determined to kill the child?

Newborn? Six months? six years? 18 years?

I assume by the time they are six years old it can be determined if they are a burden or not.

Do they go to an euthanasia clinic or do we just put a bullet in their head like a sick dog and bury them in the yard?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> OK, Im new to this thread and have only browsed through it.
> 
> At what age was it determined to kill the child?
> 
> ...


Is this something that you would consider? I wouldn't, and I don't anyone that would.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Raeven said:


> Do you? You could easily donate bone marrow once a year and you wouldn't be "harmed" by it. It hurts like hell, but hey, that's just an "inconvenience" you'd have to live with once a year -- unlike raising a child, which is every day for... what... at least 18 years and maybe longer? No big deal, right? So you won't mind if Congress mandates bone marrow donation for everyone, to save the lives of living children not your own? Maybe we could make it for just 18 years of your life instead. I'm glad to learn you'd be ok with that. Remember; it's for the living children.


Excellent point, but does anyone really think that the pro unborn would really do it? I don't for a second, most of them don't support benefit programs once the woman delivers. Once that baby is born it's a "mooch" "freeloader" and "sucking off the system". The only time they support a poor woman and her children is when they are still in the womb. My opinion of course.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Raeven said:


> Yeah, well... there are people who like to hold themselves out as superior to everyone else, and there is reality. I know which one I prefer to deal with.
> 
> Do keep us posted on your progress to get those deadbeat dads to step up and take some personal responsibility for their part in the baby-making.
> 
> By the way, how did your bone marrow donation go? There are children dying, you know. Or is that asking a bit much?


There are some that don't realize that birth control fails, and the types of birth control available vary in effectiveness. All they do is blather about "keeping your pants on" and "anyone that wants an abortion is an immoral whore that couldn't keep her legs together."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> It is my understanding that life is special. Two adults enter into intimate relations knowing the possible results. They either take interest in protecting against procreation or they do not. From judging the simple minded men that I have seen to be in a higher number as opposed to those that operate in an honest and honorable fashion, it would seem that women are at a disadvantage and should be those that practice situational awareness. For the most part, I have not seen the women utilize this useful tactic, they are just as simple minded as the men that seek them out.
> 
> So, here we are. People in this country, and I am sure other countries, both sexes, refuse to step up and do that which is honorable. They find themselves in a situation of their choosing, and operate as if there is no chance of the act creating a life.
> 
> ...


What your link failed to mention is that the Groningen protocol isn't often used and when it is only under strict guidelines and *then only in the Netherlands*. The US isn't the Netherlands. 

"The Groningen protocol allows for the euthanasia of severely ill newborns with a hopeless prognosis and unbearable suffering. We understand the impetus for such a protocol but have moral and ethical concerns with it. Advocates for euthanasia in adults have relied on the concept of human autonomy, which is lacking in the case of infants. In addition, biases can potentially influence the decision making of both parents and physicians. It is also very difficult to weigh the element of quality of life on the will to live. We feel an important line has been crossed if the international medical community consents to the active euthanasia of severely ill infants and are concerned about the extension of the policy to other at risk groups."

"As practising physicians with an interest in bioethics we were disturbed after reading the article by Verhagen and Sauer on the Groningen protocol for euthanasia in severely ill newborns with a hopeless prognosis and unbearable suffering.1 In the Netherlands all reported cases of infant euthanasia have involved patients with a severe form of spina bifida. We understand the impetus for the protocol and have no reason to doubt that the originators believe that they are acting in the best interests of the infant. We certainly empathise with the parents of these children and recognise the personal tragedy of each child born with this disease but take issue with the Groningen protocol for a number of reasons."

But spewing out the correct information would never be as inflammatory and shocking, would it? Can't draw attention to your agenda that way.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> No one argued whether it was or wasn't. The issue is whether or not the actual, living woman has any rights to choose what to do with her own body -- including choose to not donate the use of her uterus to "save" someone else's "life."
> 
> Did you donate your kidney today to save someone else's living child?


I would donate a kidney if I could & had the chance. 
A woman has the right to 'donate' her uterus also. She doesn't have the right to kill the innocent.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> No. You have a threshold question about the woman, and then you can talk about the "unborn."
> 
> Does the woman have rights to decide about her own body, or do the rights of the "unborn" supersede her rights? And if you say they do, then at what point is the man who made her pregnant expected to take some responsibility for the outcome? And how will you enforce it?
> 
> I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators.


I'm looking forward to the time that women have a way to prevent pregnancies they do not want. Have a way to obtain that protection. Oh...wait...they do! Gee, are women too ignorant to use this quite often free service?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I have no bone to pick with anyone. I am now throughly insulted by the constant insinuations that I'm making a jab at women when what I want is an honest, moralistic debate. If everyone could stop pretending they think they actually know better about what my thread is than me, maybe I'll chime in again. So if any of you would actually like a 0 emotion debate, here's your chance. Otherwise, I'm not biting again.


I'm sorry I got caught in the abortion part. But its the mindset of those who think women should have the right to kill the unborn that has sprung forth the notion-by SCHOLARS no less-that they should have the right to kill a child up to a certain age that is unwanted as well.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Sure thing... that's why roughly 30,000 kids a year age out to 18 without ever having been adopted.
> 
> https://davethomasfoundation.org/news_story/national-adoption-month-foster-care-adoption-statistics/


So, how many have you fostered or adopted?
Want a list of all the orgs. who help w/this? Not many are liberal or pro choice.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No one should be able to adopt an infant until they have already adopted an older child.


Who would determine this? Sounds like a communist rule to me, defintely.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Yeah, well... there are people who like to hold themselves out as superior to everyone else, and there is reality. I know which one I prefer to deal with.
> 
> Do keep us posted on your progress to get those deadbeat dads to step up and take some personal responsibility for their part in the baby-making.
> 
> By the way, how did your bone marrow donation go? There are children dying, you know. Or is that asking a bit much?


We could also start in the minority communities. Where 72% are born into single mom households. If you don't think that is what is the root of most of the country's problems w/welfare, young men in prison, I'll sell ya ocean front in AZ.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Sorry, but the donation of body organs is *exactly* the issue. If society can force women to use their bodies to carry children to term against their will on the basis that it preserves a living human being, then surely society can require all citizens to donate part of their non-essential body matter to save *actual living children*. You merely waving your hand and saying it "doesn't fly" is just your opinion. It is binding on no one. There is an exact parallel here, even if you want to turn away from it because it makes you uncomfortable.
> 
> As for the subject at hand, first show that there is *anyone, anywhere* in the entire country arguing in favor of infanticide. In the absence of that, it's just mental masturbation about a non-existent issue, in the hope of demonizing those who support choice for women in the abortion debate. I look forward to reading your actual statistics. I could find none. Neither could the OP, so far as I could tell, because instead of presenting evidence of it when asked, he bowed out of the debate -- even though he drew a direct connection in his OP by making his "slippery slope" assertion, which he opined (but never presented evidence supporting it) applied in abortion to infanticide.
> 
> I admire you very much for marrying your wife and raising your 2 children. If there was more of that, I feel sure that far fewer women would seek abortions. This is a worthy goal for us all.


Again, your rant seems to indicate you think women either are too ignorant to know, find, use contraceptives or are too ignorant to know what causes pregnancy. Only ones who are raped are not responsible for THEIR OWN BODIES.
I guess I'm more of a feminist than you are b/c I think most women can do these things just fine.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Who would determine this? Sounds like a communist rule to me, defintely.


Communist rule? :hysterical:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Come on. Do not pretend you didn't mean to invoke the abortion debate in this thread. The very thread title implies otherwise: "Slippery Slope: Allow Infacticide (sic)," and then you went on to say that "the slippery slope certainly applies."
> 
> Where did you think this thread was going to end up? You are never going to get an "honest, moralistic debate" starting with such a premise, and you're plenty smart enough to know that.


I'm so glad you know more about my thread than I do! You should become a tarot card reader. 



Raeven said:


> Do you? You could easily donate bone marrow once a year and you wouldn't be "harmed" by it. It hurts like hell, but hey, that's just an "inconvenience" you'd have to live with once a year -- unlike raising a child, which is every day for... what... at least 18 years and maybe longer? No big deal, right? So you won't mind if Congress mandates bone marrow donation for everyone, to save the lives of living children not your own? Maybe we could make it for just 18 years of your life instead. I'm glad to learn you'd be ok with that. Remember; it's for the living children.


Well, quite frankly, I didn't know about that, so maybe I just might look into it and go "inconvenience" myself. Have they considered that part of our problem IS the moral degeneracy of our society? If we didn't have so many teen pregnancies and dead-beat dads, or people who just plain can't handle responsibility, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

Further, I think your logic is evidence of the Black or White fallacy:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white



Raeven said:


> We sure do have that technology. And there are an awful lot of single moms raising children they already had alone, with men who are the actual fathers, and those women have no hope of getting any support whatsoever. Don't believe me? Go look at the number of court cases brought against deadbeat dads by your local Family Court Services trying to collect support from men who skipped out on their responsibilities. You'll find there are hundreds of them.
> 
> At least be intellectually honest and admit that one half of the "making baby" equation pays a far, far higher price for a "mistake" than the other one does.
> 
> Women are going to choose abortion irrespective of whether it is legal. They will choose it even when it's dangerous. Infanticide is already murder and murder is already unlawful. *No one* is arguing to the contrary. This is just another stupid way to attempt to bootstrap heinous, illegal activities to the abortion debate. One thing simply has nothing to do with the other.


Well, if no one can argue for infanticide being acceptable, there's really nowhere for this discussion to go. I was hoping someone thought it was all right. Oh, wait, the Chinese have sometimes done it extensively:

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

It's outlawed today, but obviously it was morally admissible, by some one, at some point.



Raeven said:


> No. You have a threshold question about the woman, and then you can talk about the "unborn."
> 
> Does the woman have rights to decide about her own body, or do the rights of the "unborn" supersede her rights? And if you say they do, then at what point is the man who made her pregnant expected to take some responsibility for the outcome? And how will you enforce it?
> 
> I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators.


How come if I disagree with a certain point, or express the feeling that abortion is wrong for convenience, suddenly I hate women and want to outlaw abortion? That is not the case. I wanted to determine if it was morally possible to justify late-term abortions, or very young infanticide, on the basis of family planning or morally justifiable means. Apparently, that requires too many emotions on everyone's part to actually discuss the matter. Also I'm just as aggravated that Republicans constantly try to cut family funding, so again, don't believe for one moment, just because I can entertain an idea without accepting it, that I do not agree with you on EVERY point, that I actually disagree with you. What, do you actually know anyone who agrees with you on every point? I imagine some come close, but not completely. DO you accuse people of hating fruit if they say they don't like bananas?



Raeven said:


> I've never seen any statistics offered of any kind to support this oft-repeated notion that "75% of abortions are convenience abortions." Please cite me to some. Also, please define "inconvenience." Raising a child you can't afford and with no support is something more than an "inconvenience."
> 
> You clearly have never studied how much more dangerous it is for women to give birth than to abort. Perhaps you should. While you're at it, I think you owe your incendiary thread a better citation about infanticide than, "it's allowed in the Netherlands, or somewhere." This is a complete non-issue.


http://www.webmd.com/women/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion

Of these six reason, I find the first 3 reasons a poor excuse for an abortion. Who is to deem what "unable to care for" means? If it was financial, no one in Africa would ever reproduce again.

Oh, and if you think we're talking about abortion here, it's because someone won't stop yapping about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> With modern technology, a fetus could be taken from someone that didn't want it and put in someone that did. Embryonic transfer, it's done in cattle all the time. They even freeze them for later. So they are basically viable outside the mothers womb at conception. Of course there is a window of non-viability, but clinically speaking, they would be viable outside the woman's body at conception.
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced that two poor choices make a good choice. By the time abortion is one of the choices, there have already been numerous poor choices made. Are there health departments somewhere that don't have depo shots? Are their gas stations that don't have condoms? I'm sure someone will bring up rape. Somewhere along the way, someone chose not to exercise their 2cnd amendment rights, or chose not to practice situational awareness, chose to not keep an eye on their drink, in the vast majority of those situations. Sure there are some that probably couldn't be prevented, sure it's horrible, but is murdering a fetus really going to make it better? But we are not really talking about abortion in cases of rape here.
> ...


Moving it from one womb to another has nothing to do with "viability"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ceresone said:


> Not relevant to the subject, but I am glad I read this post. One person once told me I was using my "older" age to be rude--and I felt bad because after so many years here, to recieve such a uncalled for remark. Glad i read it so i can understand some are rude to all. Carry on, People--


Some seem to think anything aside from nodding in agreement is "rude".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> A human baby INSIDE a woman's womb is NOT HER BODY.


It's not your decision either


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> If you weren't so narrow minded, you might actually be capable of something coming close to intellectual. But the stars are very far away.


As usual, when you can't refute what I said with facts, you just try to make it personal.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Moving it from one womb to another has nothing to do with "viability"


The non-viability argument works because the fetus con at exist outside the womb. If it can, it is no longer non-viable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I have no bone to pick with anyone.* I am now throughly insulted* by the constant insinuations that I'm making a jab at women when *what I want is an honest, moralistic debate*. If everyone could stop pretending they think *they actually know better about what my thread is than me*, maybe I'll chime in again. So if any of you would actually like a 0 emotion debate, here's your chance. Otherwise, I'm not biting again.


If you didn't constantly contradict yourself, maybe someone would believe all that



> Otherwise, I'm not biting again.


I bet even you don't believe that one


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> The non-viability argument works because the fetus con at *exist *outside the womb.* If it can*, it is no longer non-viable.


But it can't, so your argument is nothing but a fantasy, as has been pointed out several times now.

"Viability" doesn't mean simply "exist".
It means survive


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you didn't constantly contradict yourself, maybe someone would believe all that
> 
> 
> I bet even you don't believe that one


It looked like it was calming down in here, which I specified. I'm sure you'll take care of that problem, though.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But it can't, so your argument is nothing but a fantasy, as has been pointed out several times now.


I guess you missed the part where I said this discussion was hypothetical.

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



> Artificial uteri may expand the range of *fetal viability,* raising questions about the role that fetal viability plays within abortion law


Someone else said it, so go argue with them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I guess you missed the part where I said this discussion was hypothetical.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus
> 
> Someone else said it, so go argue with them.


It's still not "viable" if it can't live without the artificial uterus, and it's still a fantasy (Did you notice the patent is dated 1955?)



> An artificial uterus (or artificial womb) is *a theoretical device* that would allow for extracorporeal pregnancy or extrauterine fetal incubation (EUFI)[1] by growing an embryo or fetus outside of the body of a female organism that would normally internally carry the embryo or fetus to term.





> According to Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, viability of a fetus means having reached such a stage of development as to be *capable of living, under normal conditions*, outside the uterus.


Inside an artificial uterus is hardly "normal conditions"


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Congratulations, Heritage!

If you were actually runing an experiment to determine if it were possible have a rational debate about ethics with people who think the only value ethics have is to defend women's right to abortion, I believe you can claim to have an ironclad conclusion.

I'm pretty sure that the star of the show so far has been the conclusion that nobody should be able to adopt an infant without first adopting a mentally scarred adolescent who may well murder the entire family with rat poison, so as, I assume, to make sure that the infant will have a home most likely to leave him or her scarred as well. After all, this is certainly no planet for well adjusted infants in safe, rational homes without fear or major conflicts.

If, on the other hand, you really DID believe that you could have such a discussion, although we often disagree on things, i have to say that I agree, you got, Oh, better not say that.

The tactics that make it your fault if there is a single child suffering anywhere are a nice cover up, but only to those who believe that man OR government can wipe out suffering. Somebody told us we could do that back in the Johnson administration, and the war on poverty has been waged steadily ever since, with no visible effect on the percentage of the poor in our society, but results are not really important, are they? It's the SHOW that must go on.

if results were important, we'd give the money to the Salvation Army, not the government.....Joe


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I would donate a kidney if I could & had the chance.
> A woman has the right to 'donate' her uterus also. *She doesn't have the right* to kill the innocent.


Yes she does
It's legal in most places around the world


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes she does
> It's legal in most places around the world


Legal don't mean good.
That "slippery slope" we're already down, at the bottom, in the ditch, ain't no way out of.
That hillside has 50+ million dead kids on it...really something to stand back and call good.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Legal don't mean good.
> That "slippery slope" we're already down, at the bottom, in the ditch, ain't no way out of.
> That hillside has 50+ million dead kids on it...really something to stand back and *call good*.


I didn't say anything about "good" or "bad".

That's a matter of opinion.

"Legal" has nothing to do with opinion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Congratulations, Heritage!
> 
> If you were actually runing an experiment to determine if it were possible have a rational debate about ethics with people who think the only value ethics have is to defend women's right to abortion, I believe you can claim to have an ironclad conclusion.


So it would seem. I stated numerous times that I wanted a hypothetical, philosophical discussion. Instead I got bashed for obviously being a misogynistic jerk. :stars:


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

How is a fetus surviving outside it's mother's uterus a fantasy? It happens all the time. I can have embryos shipped in all day long.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> How is a fetus surviving outside it's mother's uterus a fantasy? It happens all the time. I can have embryos shipped in all day long.


The process in that case is egg extraction then fertilization. Not fertilization and then extraction. I don't believe the fetus can be moved after it has attached to the uterus.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The process in that case is egg extraction then fertilization. Not fertilization and then extraction. I don't believe the fetus can be moved after it has attached to the uterus.


I believe he was speaking of frozen livestock embryos. If he were, they are, in fact, usually fertilized, in utero, then extracted, frozen, shipped, implanted in another recipient animal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I believe he was speaking of frozen livestock embryos. If he were, they are, in fact, usually fertilized, in utero, then extracted, frozen, shipped, implanted in another recipient animal.


I got that. That is a process that I don't believe can be used on someone that finds themself pregnant after their birth control failed. Maybe in the future but not now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I got that. That is a process that I don't believe can be used on that finds them self pregnant after their birth control failed. Maybe in the future but not now.


And you would be correct.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I believe he was speaking of frozen livestock embryos. If he were, they are, in fact, usually fertilized, in utero, then extracted, frozen, shipped, implanted in another recipient animal.


That's still not the same thing as "viable", no matter how it gets spun and twisted


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's still not the same thing as "viable", no matter how it gets spun and twisted


Didn't say it was, did I?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Didn't say it was, did I?


The poster you're supporting did, and trying to prove that has been the intent of several of his posts.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The poster you're supporting did, and trying to prove that has been the intent of several of his posts.


Who said I was supporting him? I was replying to Painter to attempt to clarify what he said, nothing more. 

Before this really starts, I am not interested in another days long, "what the definition of is, is" discussion with you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *Who said I was supporting him?* I was replying to Painter to attempt to clarify what he said, nothing more.
> 
> Before this really starts, I am not interested in another days long, "what the definition of is, is" discussion with you.


I said that, as you well know.

No one forces you to reply if you don't want to
Unwad your panties and just stick to the topic


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I wouldn't expect BFF to be able to add anything but vitriol. They clearly have a low comprehension of biology. This is the person that thought goats and turkeys had cohabited for thousands of years, and when called on it, suggested that goats had inhabited South America although no turkeys live there. So to expect for them to grasp the finer points of when life begins is casting seed upon the rock.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> I wouldn't expect BFF to be able to add anything but vitriol. *They clearly have a low comprehension of biology.* This is the person that thought goats and turkeys had cohabited for thousands of years, and when called on it, suggested that goats had inhabited South America although no turkeys live there. So to expect for them to grasp the finer points of when life begins is casting seed upon the rock.


You can run me down as much as you like but it won't change the definition of "viability" enough to make it fit what you are claiming.



> Quote:
> According to Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, viability of a fetus means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, *under normal conditions*, outside the uterus.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can run me down as much as you like but it won't change the definition of "viability" enough to make it fit what you are claiming.


You know, quoting the dictionary doesn't make you look smart. It just makes it look like you have to look stuff up too often. And "under normal conditions" is a relative statement.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I said that, as you well know.
> 
> No one forces you to reply if you don't want to
> Unwad your panties and just stick to the topic


Whatever, carry on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> You know, quoting the dictionary doesn't make you look smart. It just makes it look like you have to look stuff up too often. And "under normal conditions" is a relative statement.


"Normal conditions" doesn't mean "frozen", in an "artificial uterus" or in and "incubator".

Trying to make it about me again just shows you can't really refute what I said, so you go to your fall-back diversionary tactics


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

If an incubator is capable of providing an environment similar to a uterus then it can be considered "Normal Conditions". 

However, some people will see this differently so that they are able to argue their point until the end of time.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Not surprisingly, there are TWO definitions side by side on Wiki, and everyone is free to choose his own, just as BFF did. The FIRST one goes like this;

"As the word is used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, viability is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine. Fetal viability depends largely on the fetal organ maturity, and environmental conditions.[2] Another definition for viability, as used in the medical phrase limit of viability, is the expectation that a fetus has an equal chance of surviving and not surviving outside his or her mother's womb."

BFF alreadey gave you the webster definition.

There is MUCH more here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

which is quite informative, much of which begs to differ with what has been said here about viability, amongst other things......Joe


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> If an incubator is capable of providing an environment *similar to a uterus* then it can be considered "Normal Conditions".
> 
> However, some people will see this differently so that they are able to argue their point until the end of time.


Viability means being able to survive conditions that are normally found* outside the womb. *

But you already know that, as does everyone else


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

According to the law, it means outside the womb, in a MODERN MEDICAL FACILITY, doing it's best work.....Joe


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

joebill said:


> According to the law, it means outside the womb, in a MODERN MEDICAL FACILITY, doing it's best work.....Joe


And since there's no such thing as an artificial uterus, that means some time after 21-24 weeks, just as it's always been
Notice your definition also says "*after birth*".

Note the statement about organ maturity too, since the lungs aren't fully formed before 21 weeks or so



> "As the word is used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, viability is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus *after birth*, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine. Fetal viability *depends largely on the fetal organ maturity*, and environmental conditions.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

All right, here's a blaster for all of you: *WHAT PART OF HYPOTHETICAL DON'T YOU GET!?!*


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

People are discussing what they want to, not what you decide they should.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Declaring life begins at *any* moment other than the moment of conception is a slippery slope.

Humans have a unique and inherent dignity. Thinking that humans have the authority to define when other humans can and cannot be killed is not becoming of a compassionate, rational society. We don't have that authority. We cannot override the dignity of another. We have no right to decide when someone else should die. That's the sort of thing that dictatorships, fascist regimes, and 

If life doesn't begin at conception, then it's all rhetoric, and eventually (like other social issues), the rhetoric will be tweaked and obscured so that it'll be OK to kill anyone for any reason _du jour_.

Unwanted fetus? Not viable? Mentally challenged? Quality of life concerns? Jew? To the murderer, they're all just words.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bubba1358 said:


> Declaring life begins at *any* moment other than the moment of conception is a slippery slope.
> 
> Humans have a unique and inherent dignity. Thinking that humans have the authority to define when other humans can and cannot be killed is not becoming of a compassionate, rational society. We don't have that authority. We cannot override the dignity of another. We have no right to decide when someone else should die. That's the sort of thing that dictatorships, fascist regimes, and
> 
> ...


Most fertilized eggs are reabsorbed. People don't even notice. But I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. Another issue is, do we believe the woman or the fetus have more rights/?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> Most fertilized eggs are reabsorbed. People don't even notice. But I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. Another issue is, do we believe the woman or the fetus have more rights/?


I'll quote the liberals, " equal rights for all". That's been screamed here repeatedly.
Except kids. But transgenders do. So much for equal rights for all screaming anymore.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> I'll quote the liberals, " equal rights for all". That's been screamed here repeatedly.
> Except kids. But transgenders do. So much for equal rights for all screaming anymore.


How so?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> All right, here's a blaster for all of you: *WHAT PART OF HYPOTHETICAL DON'T YOU GET!?!*


I don;t think infanticide has any place in human society. NOT hypothetical. Didn't really take much time or ink to cover. Anybody else?.....Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It has had a place in many societies, throughout history. People just have to believe very strongly that it's the right thing to do. To be hip, or make the rains come, or what have you.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> It has had a place in many societies, throughout history. People just have to believe very strongly that it's the right thing to do. To be hip, or make the rains come, or what have you.


Nearly everything is a matter of beliefs. Someone's attempt to label everything as legal/illegal not only fails to miss the point, it's like trying to nail a flashlight into a lamp when you're trying to nail a nail into a wall.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> All right, here's a blaster for all of you: *WHAT PART OF HYPOTHETICAL DON'T YOU GET!?!*


Your topic was "infacticide"
We're discussing fetal viability


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Nearly everything is a matter of beliefs. Someone's attempt to label everything as legal/illegal not only fails to miss the point, it's like trying to nail a flashlight into a lamp when you're trying to nail a nail into a wall.



Beliefs, that which one person understands to be the truth. 

What is it from one person to the next?

We will never know.

A serial killer has "beliefs"

So does a pedophile.

What is real and what is make believe?

Does anyone really know?

Is "Honor" real? 

How does it factor into "Reality" ?

Who is right? Who is wrong?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Most fertilized eggs are reabsorbed. People don't even notice. But I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. Another issue is, do we believe the woman or the fetus have more rights/?


It is not a question of more rights it is what rights over ride other rights. For example, I have property rights and can decide who can and cannot come onto my property. That doesn't mean that I have the right to shoot otherwise peaceful squatters. Their right to live outweighs my property rights.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> Beliefs, that which one person understands to be the truth.
> 
> What is it from one person to the next?
> 
> ...


When did we evolve morality anyways, and become higher creatures? Other highly social creatures such as wolves will kill each other if they need to. What barricades us from murdering?
It may actually have more to do with social disruption than anything. When someone murders, it can set off a chain reaction of bad events, and if you murder the right person, it might set off a small war. So why do we have morals at all? As a non-Christian, it dictates I must find morality for myself. If I choose the wrong set, I wind up believing some weird things.

https://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Interesting read. 

What possible social, survival, evolutionary benefit does caring for old people have? Anyone who loves their parents will care for them, especially in countries like Russia and japan. Where did that come from? Clearly, love transcends normal rules.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

_If you have to ask the survival benefits of keeping old people around, you haven't been connected to an agrarian or hunting based lifestyle. At least not well enough to truly ponder the inner workings of human culture as set forth by that lifestyle. That is a big part of our problem today, the great disconnect from the basis of our existence. Much of the bible uses analogies of sheep and shepherds, nobody has a clue what they are talking about anymore.

Now our old people are off playing shuffle board in Florida, and not setting on the porch shucking beans. Is it any wonder we are stupid enough to believe some of the stuff people are coming up with now?
_


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> _If you have to ask the survival benefits of keeping old people around, you haven't been connected to an agrarian or hunting based lifestyle. At least not well enough to truly ponder the inner workings of human culture as set forth by that lifestyle. That is a big part of our problem today, the great disconnect from the basis of our existence. Much of the bible uses analogies of sheep and shepherds, nobody has a clue what they are talking about anymore.
> 
> Now our old people are off playing shuffle board in Florida, and not setting on the porch shucking beans. Is it any wonder we are stupid enough to believe some of the stuff people are coming up with now?
> _


In Japan, elders are respected because they have a lot of knowledge. It's logical to keep them around to learn from them. Again, I'm using logical examples, which fails to explain why so many people go out of their way to help others. Cooperation vs. competition - help your friends or kill them?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> In Japan, elders are respected because they have a lot of knowledge. It's logical to keep them around to learn from them. Again, I'm using logical examples, which fails to explain why so many people go out of their way to help others. Cooperation vs. competition - help your friends or kill them?


I would guess that it comes down to whatever is advantageous to you. If there is advantage in cooperation, we will cooperate, if there is advantage in competition, we will compete. 

The advantage wouldn't have to be tangible to affect our actions.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> The non-viability argument works because the fetus con at exist outside the womb. If it can, it is no longer non-viable.


Well, it WILL probably die. I guess in case of 'botched' abortion, the "fetus" (out of the womb can a BABY still be called "FETUS"?) can only survive so long w/o intervention like most premies. Or it will not survive a scissors thru the head either.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm so glad you know more about my thread than I do! You should become a tarot card reader.
> 
> Well, quite frankly, I didn't know about that, so maybe I just might look into it and go "inconvenience" myself. Have they considered that part of our problem IS the moral degeneracy of our society? If we didn't have so many teen pregnancies and dead-beat dads, or people who just plain can't handle responsibility, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
> 
> ...


 Look, I wasnât one of those who called you a âmisogynistic jerk,â and I'm not sure anyone did. Your assumption that this is a personal attack just because I called you on your attempt to link abortion to infanticide is just wrong. Iâm not saying you did it deliberately, but you did do it. If you hadnât used your âslippery slopeâ language (a logical fallacy if there ever was one, but more on that later), I might have given you a pass. *But itâs the first thing you said*. What other way is there to interpret that language other than, âHey, folks! If we can get *this* far down the abortion track, what might be coming next?â If you had not included the slippery slope discussion and merely raised infanticide as a topic for discussion, your hands would be a little cleaner.

But you did include it. Not only did you include it, but you failed to even present a link that indicated a basis for your âphilosophical discussion.â I called you on that and asked that you present some evidence that this is in fact a legitimate issue for concern, and you didnât. *Shine* at least presented one link â and it was one about which I was already aware, because I did actually do some digging around on this subject before I ever made a single response in your thread. Youâll notice that when I asked for evidence of any movement toward infanticide, I specified â*in this country*.â The reason for that was I already knew *there wasnât any*. *Shineâs* link indicates a very limited, controversial practice of infanticide in the Netherlands. Kudos to him for at least trying. Your vague, âpracticed somewhere in the Netherlandsâ was a feeble attempt to create an impression that infanticide is being routinely practiced in a first world country for people who never question underlying assertions. You finally submitted the Wiki link about the practice which discussed the Netherlandsâ policies, then weakly mentioned that China *used* to practice it *but doesnât today*. It looks like infanticide has become a non-issue in China, too. So tell me; how does that support your proposition, again? Seems like the entire world is turning away from the practice of infanticide. You had the answer to your question pages ago in the discussion.

And admit it. If youâd been presented with a link like that in the climate change debate, youâd have laughed. Itâs weak sauce. Why discuss what isnât an actual, factual concern? The *only* reason I can think of is to attempt to draw a parallel between infanticide and abortion, and demonize those who support choice in the abortion debate. You can keep saying you wanted an honest, intellectual hypothetical discussion, but I donât buy it. That does not translate into me calling you a misogynistic jerk. But your discomfort with abortion is well known on this site, and I think you need to examine that as a potential factor in your choice to raise this issue at all â even if it was unconsciously done.

Now, getting back to your accusing me of engaging in the logical fallacy of black and white. Itâs not a logical fallacy when the choices are, *in fact*, black and white. People keep saying that women should not be permitted to have abortions and must be forced to have a child. *Thatâs not a choice. Either a woman has rights to decide what happens with her own body, or she doesnât*. For those who say the rights of both the woman and the âunbornâ can be respected, thatâs simply idiotic. The rights of one completely supersede the rights of the other, whatever choice is made. Doesnât get more black and white than that.

You, on the other hand, raised the âslippery slopeâ logical fallacy as your *underlying premise*. That is an *actual* logical fallacy, because it assumes that because one thing happens it logically follows that the other will, too. You used the language, *but you didnât show how one thing naturally and could only follow the other*. Thatâs the very nature of the slippery slope logical fallacy.

As for the rest of your post, who are you or anyone else to judge the personal circumstances of any woman to decide for herself whether she wants to sign up for having and raising an unwanted child? Others in this thread are already complaining in one breath about supporting single mothers, and then in the next insisting they have more kids they can't support. (???) Not really sure how that works.

Failure of birth control does happen a lot more often than people want to admit. Maybe your situation and that of others would allow for another child if it happens. Many others do not. *The point is, you don't get to decide for me, and I won't decide for you*. Even if I find a woman's choice reprehensible, it is not my right to impose my morality on her. Yours, either.

I'll reiterate an argument I've previously made in other abortion threads: If you truly believe that abortion is murder, better get busy changing the laws so that all women who have an abortion are tried for murder. Otherwise, you're just another hypocrite. And if you think it's ok to force women to donate the use of their bodies to facilitate the birth of unwanted children, then sign up for that bone marrow donation while you're at it.

I have nothing to add to your infanticide discussion. It's just shadowboxing and I don't have time for it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> So, how many have you fostered or adopted?
> Want a list of all the orgs. who help w/this? Not many are liberal or pro choice.


I'm not the one arguing they should be born.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Communist rule? :hysterical:


So you think its ok like you said, to limit those who want to adopt to only adopting an older child 1st? That sounds like communism. But I'm not surprised coming from anyone who supports socialism.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> I would guess that it comes down to whatever is advantageous to you. If there is advantage in cooperation, we will cooperate, if there is advantage in competition, we will compete.
> 
> The advantage wouldn't have to be tangible to affect our actions.


Indeed. Intangible things like honor and respect can essentially increase the odds that someone will live, survive, thrive better. Thus, or sociological programming can be viewed as the thing that helps keep us alive. Ergo, is morality actually necceary for survival?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Indeed. Intangible things like honor and respect can essentially increase the odds that someone will live, survive, thrive better. Thus, or sociological programming can be viewed as the thing that helps keep us alive. Ergo, is morality actually necceary for survival?


I believe morality necessary for us, as individuals, to survive long term and, at our current level of technology, for us, as a species, to survive at all. Morality, as we know it, extends lifespans., but, would a "society" without a strong moral fiber, breed a stronger species assuming that a single, or, small group of individuals were not capable of killing off the entire human race?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

OK, I'll bite.

To me, it was clear in the beginning that the "slippery slope" of infantacide was that it takes no imagination whatsoever to "slip" our way up to elders, Downs syndrome young adults, the "high maintenence" ill, and then from defective children to those who tend to sire and bear them without permission. Not everything is about abortion. Time to relax a bit. It's 5 oclock SOMEWHRE!

HF has stated more than once that he votes pro-choice, so I think he is solidly enough in your corner to call him a win, and reading threats of abnortion prohibition into everything starts to look like obsession after a whiile.

As to morality, I do not believe for an instant that the EXISTANCE of morality is an aritificial construct. You may decide to label it as a thing that has evolved through survival of the fittest, or as a gift from God, but most of us know without being told that, for instance, incest is a bad idea, and holds no attraction to normal folks. Children will certainly lie and steal, but they are already aware that they need to hide what they have done.

Even those without the slightest hint of a religious scruple, for the most part, understand that it they get caught cheating on a spouse, things are going to be difficult for them. The most low-grade thief anywhere holds it against his partner when the guy steals from HIM.

Of course, there are always those who take great pride in discarding or ignoring the prevailing moral code of the time and place they exist in, but they never pretend that code does not exist.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Probably, the person who has written as much as anyone of non-religious morality is Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.

An EXCELLENT classic novel that I reccomend to everyone, despite the fact that she was an atheist and I'm not. Very hard book to put down, whether you are interested in her philosopy or not....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Look, I wasnât one of those who called you a âmisogynistic jerk,â and I'm not sure anyone did. Your assumption that this is a personal attack just because I called you on your attempt to link abortion to infanticide is just wrong. Iâm not saying you did it deliberately, but you did do it. If you hadnât used your âslippery slopeâ language (a logical fallacy if there ever was one, but more on that later), I might have given you a pass. *But itâs the first thing you said*. What other way is there to interpret that language other than, âHey, folks! If we can get *this* far down the abortion track, what might be coming next?â If you had not included the slippery slope discussion and merely raised infanticide as a topic for discussion, your hands would be a little cleaner.


I used the slippery slope argument on purpose. Merely because it is fallacious thinking does not render the argument moot, which then translates into the fallacy-fallacy. You've said because my logic is flawed, so is my argument. In what way, therefore, is my argument flawed? I already admitted that "just because A > B, does not mean that B > C." Despite that, it does not means that "A _will not_ > C." The more I entertain the idea that abortion is moral, the m ore I cannot figure out why infanticide is immoral.



Raeven said:


> But you did include it. Not only did you include it, but you failed to even present a link that indicated a basis for your âphilosophical discussion.â I called you on that and asked that you present some evidence that this is in fact a legitimate issue for concern, and you didnât. *Shine* at least presented one link â and it was one about which I was already aware, because I did actually do some digging around on this subject before I ever made a single response in your thread. Youâll notice that when I asked for evidence of any movement toward infanticide, I specified â*in this country*.â The reason for that was I already knew *there wasnât any*. *Shineâs* link indicates a very limited, controversial practice of infanticide in the Netherlands. Kudos to him for at least trying. Your vague, âpracticed somewhere in the Netherlandsâ was a feeble attempt to create an impression that infanticide is being routinely practiced in a first world country for people who never question underlying assertions. You finally submitted the Wiki link about the practice which discussed the Netherlandsâ policies, then weakly mentioned that China *used* to practice it *but doesnât today*.


I knew from the beginning that it was in the Netherlands, and the article linked in the OP mentions it. Just because I used vague wording does not render my argument moot when I was in fact correct. Sometimes I simply am too busy to post a link. I will attempt to rectify this behavior in the future.



Raeven said:


> It looks like infanticide has become a non-issue in China, too. So tell me; how does that support your proposition, again? Seems like the entire world is turning away from the practice of infanticide. You had the answer to your question pages ago in the discussion.


Yes, and that would seem to be a good thing. The age of supplements from ground baby parts in China may well be past. (Perhaps that is another thing I should look up. I'll defend by saying my college professor told me.) 



Raeven said:


> And admit it. If youâd been presented with a link like that in the climate change debate, youâd have laughed. Itâs weak sauce. Why discuss what isnât an actual, factual concern? The *only* reason I can think of is to attempt to draw a parallel between infanticide and abortion, and demonize those who support choice in the abortion debate. You can keep saying you wanted an honest, intellectual hypothetical discussion, but I donât buy it. That does not translate into me calling you a misogynistic jerk. But your discomfort with abortion is well known on this site, and I think you need to examine that as a potential factor in your choice to raise this issue at all â even if it was unconsciously done.


I have not attempted to demonize abortion. Now, I have almost no vested interest in this topic aside from the fact that it's merely interesting to me. I cannot control anyone's actions, it's unlikely I could repeal Roe, nor would I, so to the extend it concerns us on this forum, everything is hypothetical. To assume we can any of us accomplish anything with any of these discussion is laughable at best. If the quality of conversation is thus too low for you, you are not obligated to further a reply.



Raeven said:


> Now, getting back to your accusing me of engaging in the logical fallacy of black and white. Itâs not a logical fallacy when the choices are, *in fact*, black and white. People keep saying that women should not be permitted to have abortions and must be forced to have a child. *Thatâs not a choice. Either a woman has rights to decide what happens with her own body, or she doesnât*. For those who say the rights of both the woman and the âunbornâ can be respected, thatâs simply idiotic. The rights of one completely supersede the rights of the other, whatever choice is made. Doesnât get more black and white than that.


But the choices are not black and white. Why is early abortion more moral than late abortion? I fail to see the difference. The baby is more developed? Why is less developed better? It's easier on the mother, of course. It easier to say it wasn't a person yet. Why is the cutoff anything other than arbitrary moralism?



Raeven said:


> You, on the other hand, raised the âslippery slopeâ logical fallacy as your *underlying premise*. That is an *actual* logical fallacy, because it assumes that because one thing happens it logically follows that the other will, too. You used the language, *but you didnât show how one thing naturally and could only follow the other*. Thatâs the very nature of the slippery slope logical fallacy.


I have attempted to make the connection now. Who knows, maybe I'm actually advocating after-birth abortion. In my animal thread, I've raised the issue of self-awareness. If it's not self-aware, is it fully a person yet? Why or why not?



Raeven said:


> As for the rest of your post, who are you or anyone else to judge the personal circumstances of any woman to decide for herself whether she wants to sign up for having and raising an unwanted child? Others in this thread are already complaining in one breath about supporting single mothers, and then in the next insisting they have more kids they can't support. (???) Not really sure how that works.


I'm not judging anything or anyone. That is you running with an accusation again. As joebill pointed out, it's obvious because I've previously stated, several times, that I'm pro-choice. I can support something when I don't entirely agree with it.



Raeven said:


> Failure of birth control does happen a lot more often than people want to admit. Maybe your situation and that of others would allow for another child if it happens. Many others do not. *The point is, you don't get to decide for me, and I won't decide for you*. Even if I find a woman's choice reprehensible, it is not my right to impose my morality on her. Yours, either.


This is the crux of the argument. Who has more rights; the woman or the fetus, and why? The main ability to decry the rights of the fetus, which will soon turn into a human entity, is that it is not actually a person yet. This is where our relativistic moralism comes into play. WHo sets the rules for what we deem moral, and why? 



Raeven said:


> I'll reiterate an argument I've previously made in other abortion threads: If you truly believe that abortion is murder, better get busy changing the laws so that all women who have an abortion are tried for murder. Otherwise, you're just another hypocrite. And if you think it's ok to force women to donate the use of their bodies to facilitate the birth of unwanted children, then sign up for that bone marrow donation while you're at it.


So, in order to support abortion, I have to fully embrace the idea that fetuses are not people? If I disagree with your position, I'm a hypocrite? This is not quality discussion material - it is emotional rhetoric.



Raeven said:


> I have nothing to add to your infanticide discussion. It's just shadowboxing and I don't have time for it.


And yet you turned most of the discussion into an abortion tangent. And now I'm a hypocrite for falling down that rabbit hole. So no matter what I do, it will always be my fault. This is most intriguing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And yet you turned most of the discussion into* an abortion tangent*


You did that yourself, in the second sentence of the OP, so long long ago.
You slipped on your own slope


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Most fertilized eggs are reabsorbed. People don't even notice. But I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. Another issue is, do we believe the woman or the fetus have more rights/?


Your 1st sentence is why I don't believe life begins at conception. I don't fault others who do believe that, its just not my belief.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> I'm not the one arguing they should be born.


You were the one slamming conservatives, wrongly I might add.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> You were the one slamming conservatives, wrongly I might add.


You'll have to show me where I slammed conservatives. I never have, and I never will. I know conservatives whose views I respect and I don't stereotype. I take people as I find them, one individual at a time. If you choose to personalize something I say generally about people who think a certain way, that's on you.

As for your opinion about the things I say being right or wrong, it would be hard for me to think of anything about which I care less.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> You'll have to show me where I slammed conservatives. I never have, and I never will. I know conservatives whose views I respect and I don't stereotype. I take people as I find them, one individual at a time. If you choose to personalize something I say generally about people who think a certain way, that's on you.
> 
> As for your opinion about the things I say being right or wrong, it would be hard for me to think of anything about which I care less.


Here's your quote from page 4 I think.

"I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators."

It is a lie. There are "HUNDREDS" of right leaning orgs that help & care for babies, as well as adoptions.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's your quote from page 4 I think.
> 
> "I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators."
> 
> It is a lie. There are "HUNDREDS" of right leaning orgs that help & care for babies, as well as adoptions.


And... the word, "conservatives" appears where?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

This conversation is going to continue until methods of birth control are improved, including male birth control. According to the stats on effectiveness there are some very good methods available but those stats are for optimum conditions. So that lowers the rates in the real world. IMHO


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's your quote from page 4 I think.
> 
> "I'm looking forward to that time when those mechanical incubators can take the place of women who don't choose to have another child. Then the anti-choice folks can take all those "unborn" they're so worried about but never seem to care one whit over after they're actually born, instead of treating women like incubators."
> 
> *It is a lie*. There are "HUNDREDS" of right leaning orgs that help & care for babies, as well as adoptions.


From what I can see the "lie" is yours.
She never said anything about "conservatives"
You're the one who can't post without applying labels to those with whom you don't agree


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

no really said:


> This conversation is going to continue until methods of birth control are improved, including male birth control. According to the stats on effectiveness there are some very good methods available but those stats are for optimum conditions. So that lowers the rates in the real world. IMHO


What on earth does birth control have to do with baby murder? Birth control would require people to be personally responsible. Won't work. Much easier to get other people to pay for your mistakes, and then call it exercising your right to choose, poorly, multiple times.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Easy if you don't get pregnant you don't need an abortion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Are we about to get the speech about no sex or you must continue the pregnancy again?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Are we about to get the speech about no sex or you must continue the pregnancy again?


Were you talking to me?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> Were you talking to me?


No. The person you responded to.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Are we about to get the speech about no sex or you must continue the pregnancy again?


Or the speech "if you want an abortion you're an immoral whore who can't keep her legs together" it's a toss up which will come first.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Top it off with, you are irresponsible because you can't get yourself to the clinic for birth control and and becauce you don't use it properly.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Top it off with, you are irresponsible because you can't get yourself to the clinic for birth control and and becauce you don't use it properly.


So what are the people in underdeveloped and poor areas supposed to do? I'm thinking global here. You sock them with empowerment, expect them to use it, and then complain when they don't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> So what are the people in underdeveloped and poor areas supposed to do? I'm thinking global here. You sock them with empowerment, expect them to use it, and then complain when they don't.


I agree. My post was sarcasm.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Top it off with, you are irresponsible because you can't get yourself to the clinic for birth control and and becauce you don't use it properly.


Or it fails, which is pretty common.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> So what are the people in underdeveloped and poor areas supposed to do? I'm thinking global here. You sock them with empowerment, expect them to use it, and then complain when they don't.


Granny always said, "If you don't want butter, pull the dasher out of the churn."


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> Granny always said, "If you don't want butter, pull the dasher out of the churn."


then keep your dasher out of women's churns and you won't have to worry about your butter being aborted. Personal responsibility on your dasher's part and leaving the churn's rights over her own body to her. 

Or switch to olive oil or margarine and your dasher won't have the option of producing butter.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

basketti said:


> then keep your dasher out of women's churns and you won't have to worry about your butter being aborted. Personal responsibility on your dasher's part and leaving the churn's rights over her own body to her.
> 
> Or switch to olive oil or margarine and your dasher won't have the option of producing butter.


You know, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to butter my toast for a few days now. :yuck:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

What'cha mean male birth contol don't work? Never saw a male get pregneant yet!......  ....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> What'cha mean male birth contol don't work? Never saw a male get pregneant yet!......  ....Joe





> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...rus-transplant-fails-amid-sudden-complication


This one failed, but a couple in Sweden have been successful. Perhaps men having babies will become a reality soon.:bash:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or the speech "if you want an abortion you're an immoral whore who can't keep her legs together" it's a toss up which will come first.


Y'know what? not only have I never said or written that, I have never heard it said or seen it written, except by you. It's really easy to defeat arguments that you make up for that purpose.

Easy to defeat enemies you create, custom made, to be defeated. How's about creating a pro-life monster who wants to put pregnant unmarried girls in stocks and use a ball bat on them? He can be anything you want, because he comes from your imagination.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the pro-life movement would really like to make the world better by saving lives and not pressuring mothers into killing their babies. Few folks believe that a mother who kills her baby feels like laughing and dancing afterwards. Neither of us are monsters. We just disagree on what is best for who.

I'll try to rememmber that if you will......Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> Y'know what? not only have I never said or written that, I have never heard it said or seen it written, except by you. It's really easy to defeat arguments that you make up for that purpose.
> 
> Easy to defeat enemies you create, custom made, to be defeated. How's about creating a pro-life monster who wants to put pregnant unmarried girls in stocks and use a ball bat on them? He can be anything you want, because he comes from your imagination.
> 
> ...


There are a few members on here that feel that any woman that wants an abortion is an immoral whore that couldn't keep her legs together. 

Sigh. For those hard of understanding people, I'm pro choice. I don't care if a woman has an abortion or carries to term as long as she has a choice. 

Finally, and this is the best part, in the real world any woman can get it an abortion because she has rights. There is also absolutely nothing you can do about it. Period. End of story. 

This thread contains a lot of information: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/549490-death-fetus-homicide.html


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Seeing it written is definitely revealing.

In its simplest terms, I can see two opposing camps.
One believes morality is more important than rights and the other believes rights are more important than morality.

I'm sure it my first encounter, but I think it will alter my perception about things in the future..........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> Granny always said, "If you don't want butter, pull the dasher out of the churn."


She probably said lots of other silly things too.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or the speech "if you want an abortion you're an immoral whore who can't keep her legs together" it's a toss up which will come first.


That one's all yours. Is that what you really think about women?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Nice job of vilifying people who have ideas contrary to your own. I see many proponents of abortion as not exactly being stakeholders in the abortion debate, some having no more chance of becoming pregnant than a man. Others, having exercised their choice consistently in the form of procreating, while advocating for other people to have abortions. When one looks at the demographics of abortions, one wonders if some of these advocates are carrying out a form of passive racism. 

Some of the things you never hear discussed, are the complications associated with abortion. If someone has an abortion, it can make it harder to conceive in the future. (Some birth control can do the same.) Suppose they reach a stable point in their life and decide to have kids. What does it do to their self esteem, to want a baby, and not be able to have one, and feel guilt and loss for the one they terminated? I knew someone in this situation, when things were looking up for once, this realization came, and it seemed to destroy that person's life. There are many first hand accounts of people that felt pressured at the time and dealt with a lifetime of remorse afterwards. If not outright mental breakdown, what are the effects on self esteem? Does poor self esteem impact life choices? Maybe, you are only an immoral whore if you think of yourself as an immoral whore. To think that abortion opponents are only concerned for the welfare of the fetus is rather flawed logic. We make people unable to choose not to wear a motorcycle helmet on public roads. We make people wear seat belts. It's their body. Where is the outrage?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> That one's all yours. Is that what you really think about women?


That's what many think.

They like to use the terms "pervert", "heathen" and "sinner", and they often speak about a lack or morality

A few have even mentioned they would (and should) go to hell for having abortions.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> Nice job of vilifying people who have ideas contrary to your own. I see many proponents of abortion as not exactly being stakeholders in the abortion debate, some having no more chance of becoming pregnant than a man. Others, having exercised their choice consistently in the form of procreating, while advocating for other people to have abortions. When one looks at the demographics of abortions, one wonders if some of these advocates are carrying out a form of passive racism.
> 
> Some of the things you never hear discussed, are the complications associated with abortion. If someone has an abortion, it can make it harder to conceive in the future. (Some birth control can do the same.) Suppose they reach a stable point in their life and decide to have kids. What does it do to their self esteem, to want a baby, and not be able to have one, and feel guilt and loss for the one they terminated? I knew someone in this situation, when things were looking up for once, this realization came, and it seemed to destroy that person's life. There are many first hand accounts of people that felt pressured at the time and dealt with a lifetime of remorse afterwards. If not outright mental breakdown, what are the effects on self esteem? Does poor self esteem impact life choices? Maybe, you are only an immoral whore if you think of yourself as an immoral whore. To think that abortion opponents are only concerned for the welfare of the fetus is rather flawed logic. We make people unable to choose not to wear a motorcycle helmet on public roads. We make people wear seat belts. It's their body. Where is the outrage?


Do you have a link to a reputable source that backs up your claims that legal and safe abortion makes it harder to conceive later?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> Nice job of vilifying people who have ideas contrary to your own. I see many proponents of abortion as not exactly being stakeholders in the abortion debate, some having no more chance of becoming pregnant than a man. Others, having exercised their choice consistently in the form of procreating, while advocating for other people to have abortions. When one looks at the demographics of abortions, one wonders if some of these advocates are carrying out a form of passive racism.
> 
> Some of the things you never hear discussed, are the complications associated with abortion. If someone has an abortion, it can make it harder to conceive in the future. (Some birth control can do the same.) Suppose they reach a stable point in their life and decide to have kids. What does it do to their self esteem, to want a baby, and not be able to have one, and feel guilt and loss for the one they terminated? I knew someone in this situation, when things were looking up for once, this realization came, and it seemed to destroy that person's life. There are many first hand accounts of people that felt pressured at the time and dealt with a lifetime of remorse afterwards. If not outright mental breakdown, what are the effects on self esteem? Does poor self esteem impact life choices? Maybe, you are only an immoral whore if you think of yourself as an immoral whore. To think that abortion opponents are only concerned for the welfare of the fetus is rather flawed logic. We make people unable to choose not to wear a motorcycle helmet on public roads. We make people wear seat belts. It's their body. Where is the outrage?


Women are not slaves, and we have rights.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> Nice job of vilifying people who have ideas contrary to your own. I see many proponents of abortion as not exactly being stakeholders in the abortion debate, some having no more chance of becoming pregnant than a man. Others, having exercised their choice consistently in the form of procreating, while advocating for other people to have abortions. When one looks at the demographics of abortions, one wonders if some of these advocates are carrying out a form of passive racism.
> 
> Some of the things you never hear discussed, are the complications associated with abortion. If someone has an abortion, it can make it harder to conceive in the future. (Some birth control can do the same.) Suppose they reach a stable point in their life and decide to have kids. What does it do to their self esteem, to want a baby, and not be able to have one, and feel guilt and loss for the one they terminated? I knew someone in this situation, when things were looking up for once, this realization came, and it seemed to destroy that person's life. There are many first hand accounts of people that felt pressured at the time and dealt with a lifetime of remorse afterwards. If not outright mental breakdown, what are the effects on self esteem? Does poor self esteem impact life choices? Maybe, you are only an immoral whore if you think of yourself as an immoral whore. To think that abortion opponents are only concerned for the welfare of the fetus is rather flawed logic. We make people unable to choose not to wear a motorcycle helmet on public roads. We make people wear seat belts. It's their body. Where is the outrage?


Women make choices every day that effect their own bodies and health. Abortion may the right decision or a bad decision for someone but it is still theirs to make.

Seat belts and helmets are all about protecting the financial well being of the insurance companies and the persons health is just a byproduct of that.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Seeing it written is definitely revealing.
> 
> In its simplest terms, I can see two opposing camps.
> One believes morality is more important than rights and the other believes rights are more important than morality.
> ...


Many also believe that the child's rights are at least as important as the mother's. Also, IF her rights are paramount, nobody should attempt to influence her TO get an abortion, which is VERY commonplace, and NEVER complained about by the "choice" crowd.

While some seem hung up on "there is nothing you can do about it", which is partially true, it is also true that there are a lot of folks making sure that ladies know that "choice" can include life. Nobody can MAKE them do it, either.

I would expect, in a rational world, everyone would be free to promote his or her point of view without demonizing the opposition, but the "choice" folks have created a steryotype "pro life" critter that they simply can't stop turning into virtual bumper stickers and plastering them all over everything they do. I havenever personally met the monster that they descibe, but maybe he is out there. Yeah, it's a real scuzzy thing to try and persuade mothers to not kill their babies, but I can't seem to help myself....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> Many also believe that the child's rights are at least as important as the mother's. Also, IF her rights are paramount, nobody should attempt to influence her TO get an abortion, which is VERY commonplace, and NEVER complained about by the "choice" crowd.
> 
> While some seem hung up on "there is nothing you can do about it", which is partially true, it is also true that there are a lot of folks making sure that ladies know that "choice" can include life. Nobody can MAKE them do it, either.
> 
> I would expect, in a rational world, everyone would be free to promote his or her point of view without demonizing the opposition, but the "choice" folks have created a steryotype "pro life" critter that they simply can't stop turning into virtual bumper stickers and plastering them all over everything they do. I havenever personally met the monster that they descibe, but maybe he is out there. Yeah, it's a real scuzzy thing to try and persuade mothers to not kill their babies, but I can't seem to help myself....Joe


Yes, it's a real scuzzy thing to tell a pregnant woman that she's a sinner, going to hell, and is an immoral whore for having the right to terminate her pregnancy. 

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it's a real scuzzy thing to tell a pregnant woman that she's a sinner, going to hell, and is an immoral whore for having the right to terminate her pregnancy.
> 
> If you don't like abortion, don't have one.


Do you have a link that proves that has been said by anyone but you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> Do you have a link that proves that has been said by anyone but you.


No, it's my opinion. I'm a bit concerned that you thought I was stating verifiable fact. :facepalm:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> Do you have a link that proves that has been said by anyone but you.


Mostly, it gets said by the "prolife decal critter" they invented. He is everywhere and nowhere. I believe he is brother to the chupacabra, cousin to the sasquatch, worships the spirit of Alley Oop. Prays to Hitler's ghost.

Obviously, there are all kinds of people who behave in all sorts of ways, but steriotyping ALL prolifers the same is hardly beliveable, let alone usefull. So let's try on some facts for a change.

Question; Who does and does not believe that a lady should engage in INFORMED CONSENT, when making the decision?

http://afterabortion.org/1999/abort...r-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/

LOTS more available, but that's about all I can handle today, and I have to go to town anyhow....Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I'm glad that I was able to get you to admit that it was your opinion that, "women who have abortions are immoral whores."

Now that we have that settled, here is a good place to look for links to studies that indicate that abortion impacts subsequent pregnancy and the health of the potential mother.
http://abortionrisks.org/index.php?title=Impact_on_Later_Pregnancies

This does not include the psychological effects of abortion. Abortion can cause all sorts of grief and guilt issues, sometimes even years later. The realization inevitably comes that there was a human being inside of them, and they contributed to it's demise. These effects can and do lead to increased health risk from risky behavior, and I'm sure your gutter dwelling mind just thought of the increase in STDs that life as a stripper might lead to, but what we are talking about here are things like smoking, diet, and alcohol and drug addiction.

Ask any veteran or law enforcement officer that has dealt with it, and they will tell you, that killing another human being can affect your psyche, sometimes permanently. Some people are clearly more affected than others, but these effects can sometimes become debilitating. In abortion, their is a human being being killed, even after the semantics, at least a potential human being. That realization will creep in regardless of how many bumper stickers you put on your car, or how much pretending you do.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> I'm glad that I was able to get you to admit that it was your opinion that, "women who have abortions are immoral whores."
> 
> Now that we have that settled, here is a good place to look for links to studies that indicate that abortion impacts subsequent pregnancy and the health of the potential mother.
> http://abortionrisks.org/index.php?title=Impact_on_Later_Pregnancies
> ...


You can't come up with any unbiased, non-crackpot sites or studies to back up your silly claims? Why am I not surprised? 

Let me guess: the drug companies won't fund them and are secretly pro-abortion so they can grind up fetal remains to put into fish anesthesia so you can't use clove oil?

Amiright?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

A philosophical quandary that no one has poked yet... who has more rights - the woman, or the fetus, and why?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> A philosophical quandary that no one has poked yet... who has more rights - the woman, or the fetus, and why?


The fetus is dependent upon the women's body. The woman has dominion over what resides in her body. If she doesn't want the fetus in there, it comes out. 

You don't give the rights over one persons body to another "person". Or as was discussed before, where does that stop? If you need a kidney and I'm a match, shall I be forced to give you a kidney because you need my kidney to live?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> A philosophical quandary that no one has poked yet... who has more rights - the woman, or the fetus, and why?


There is no such thing as "more rights", we are doing equal rights for all now, no exceptions.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

basketti said:


> The fetus is dependent upon the women's body. The woman has dominion over what resides in her body. If she doesn't want the fetus in there, it comes out.
> 
> You don't give the rights over one persons body to another "person". Or as was discussed before, where does that stop? If you need a kidney and I'm a match, shall I be forced to give you a kidney because you need my kidney to live?


Right... I get attacked for using the slippery slope argument, but this here, I can;t even FIND a logical fallacy for it. I'm going with the "so messed-up it's useless" fallacy.

Excepting that, your first argument makes a modicum of sense. So you are saying the woman has more rights than the fetus, which will soon become a person. You keep putting "" around the word "person," as if that makes it not a person.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Right... I get attacked for using the slippery slope argument, but this here, I can;t even FIND a logical fallacy for it. I'm going with the "so messed-up it's useless" fallacy.
> 
> Excepting that, your first argument makes a modicum of sense. So you are saying the woman has more rights than the fetus, which will soon become a person. You keep putting "" around the word "person," as if that makes it not a person.


The fetus can't survive without the woman's body and the woman has the right to decide if she wants the fetus to use her body. The fetus is not a person till viability or birth so the woman has more rights than the fetus does till then. 

Actually, after then too. Until women are prohibited legally from smoking, drinking and doing whatever that can prove detrimental to fetal health it would seem they have more rights than the fetus does till birth.

I put quotes around "person" when referring to the fetus because it's personhood is in question depending on age, viability, etc.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

basketti said:


> The fetus can't survive without the woman's body and the woman has the right to decide if she wants the fetus to use her body. The fetus is not a person till viability or birth so the woman has more rights than the fetus does till then.
> 
> Actually, after then too. Until women are prohibited legally from smoking, drinking and doing whatever that can prove detrimental to fetal health it would seem they have more rights than the fetus does till birth.
> 
> I put quotes around "person" when referring to the fetus because it's personhood is in question depending on age, viability, etc.


People who drink while pregnant can sometimes produce babies with FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). They usually can't function or learn from their mistakes. Unfortunately it's very hard to regulate what people do. but maybe making it outright illegal to get drunk while pregnant would help.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

As far as the slippery slope argument. There are already cases of parents with very sick children having additional siblings bioidentified before embryo transplantation to be matches for the sick child and using the new sibling for bone marrow and possibly organs. I haven't kept up on this and haven't time to look into it right now...out of town company arriving shortly. 

If this is still.happening that is a huge ethics question right there. A minor child unable to consent himself being used for body parts.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> A philosophical quandary that no one has poked yet... who has more rights - the woman, or the fetus, and why?


Again, to me, it is not a question of "more rights", it is a question of over riding rights. The right to life outweighs the right to property. Don't think so? Shoot a man, in the back, who is carrying out your TV, the Justice system would be very interested in putting you up for a few years. 

To me, it is obvious that the fetus' right to live, outweighs the mother's right to not be bothered. If the fetus was physically endangering the mother's life, a sacrifice must be made to save her life.

In most cases, the choice came when the woman decided to engage in sexual intercourse, failure of BC is irrelevant as it is a risk that one takes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> A philosophical quandary that no one has poked yet... who has more rights - the woman, or the fetus, and why?


The unborn have no rights. So the answer to your question is the woman.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Again, to me, it is not a question of "more rights", it is a question of over riding rights. The right to life outweighs the right to property. Don't think so? Shoot a man, in the back, who is carrying out your TV, the Justice system would be very interested in putting you up for a few years.
> 
> To me, it is obvious that the fetus' right to live, outweighs the mother's right to not be bothered. If the fetus was physically endangering the mother's life, a sacrifice must be made to save her life.
> 
> In most cases, the choice came when the woman decided to engage in sexual intercourse, failure of BC is irrelevant as it is a risk that one takes.


So if you believe the right to life overrides property rights to your own body, you would be okay with being forced to provide marrow, blood, a kidney, etc to save someone else's life?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> So if you believe the right to life overrides property rights to your own body, you would be okay with being forced to provide marrow, blood, a kidney, etc to save someone else's life?


If it were my child, who, through my choices, was created, yes, I believe one should have a legal responsibility provide such support. Of course, the legal aspect wouldn't come up, as I would gladly provide such assistance.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If it were my child, who, through my choices, was created, yes, I believe one should have a legal responsibility provide such support. Of course, the legal aspect wouldn't come up, as I would gladly provide such assistance.


Your child was wanted and aborted fetuses are not. 

And not necessarily created thru the mothers choices. 

No, I'm talking about the sanctity for life overall, not just for your own DNA child. Do you believe an interest in saving a persons life trumps another person's dominion over their own body parts?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

The argument being made about choice, that the mother made a choice ultimately by having sex: do you all believe then that if she didn't have a choice, if the pregnancy was caused by rape, then should she have the choice for abortion?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The unborn have no rights. So the answer to your question is the woman.


Why do unborn children have no rights until the instant they come out of the uterus?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why do unborn children have no rights until the instant they come out of the uterus?


Cause they weren't granted them by law would be my first guess.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Cause they weren't granted them by law would be my first guess.


And what is the legal justification for the unborn having no rights?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> And what is the legal justification for the unborn having no rights?


Because they aren't born? Where you going with this?

ETA: Here's a link that explains it: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> The argument being made about choice, that the mother made a choice ultimately by having sex: do you all believe then that if she didn't have a choice, if the pregnancy was caused by rape, then should she have the choice for abortion?


Personally, I don't think that is a reason to kill the child, but, if I were crafting legislation, or, an amendment to the Constitution, and that was the sticking point, it would be an area of compromise, sacrifice a few to save millions.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> Your child was wanted and aborted fetuses are not.
> 
> And not necessarily created thru the mothers choices.
> 
> No, I'm talking about the sanctity for life overall, not just for your own DNA child. Do you believe an interest in saving a persons life trumps another person's dominion over their own body parts?


 Oh, that belief would go for the father if he wanted the child, or, not. In my case I wanted my child, but, that is just my case. I do believe that a parent should be compelled to provide such live saving intervention, if needed. 

Again, just the ones were the person's choice resulted in the person existing, they have the responsibility. 

The vast majority of abortions are not because of rape.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Cause they weren't granted them by law would be my first guess.


Rights cannot be granted by law, only protected by law. Rights are a natural aspect of being human.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Rights cannot be granted by law, only protected by law. Rights are a natural aspect of being human.


Okay. Fetuses still don't have rights. 

The link states this: The Initial Roe v. Wade Standard:

The Roe majority ruling of 1973 holds that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting potential human life, but that this does not become a "compelling" state interest--overriding the woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy, and her subsequent right to terminate her pregnancy--until the point of viability, then assessed at 24 weeks. The Court did not state that viability is or is not when a fetus becomes a person; just that this is the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.

The Planned Parenthood v. Casey Standard:

In the Casey ruling of 1992, the Court scaled back the viability standard from 24 weeks to 22 weeks. Casey also holds that the state may protect its "profound interest" in potential life so long as it does not do so in a way that has the intent or effect of posing an undue burden on the woman's right to terminate pregnancy prior to viability.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, that belief would go for the father if he wanted the child, or, not. In my case I wanted my child, but, that is just my case. I do believe that a parent should be compelled to provide such live saving intervention, if needed.
> 
> Again, just the ones were the person's choice resulted in the person existing, they have the responsibility.
> 
> The vast majority of abortions are not because of rape.


You feel a woman doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy and that the someday child is more important than the mother. So you'd be fine with being forced to provide bone marrow to save my kid's life, right?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

basketti said:


> You can't come up with any unbiased, non-crackpot sites or studies to back up your silly claims? Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Let me guess: the drug companies won't fund them and are secretly pro-abortion so they can grind up fetal remains to put into fish anesthesia so you can't use clove oil?
> 
> Amiright?


I'm beginning to wonder if you know how to work a computer. That link was chock full of links to studies that have been done. There have been many. I don't know why I wasted my time anyway, your don't want a link, you just want to try to undermine opposing views. You really should install a search engine, google or Yahoo. This stuff is easy to search for, and you could find your own links.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Personally, I don't think that is a reason to kill the child, but, if I were crafting legislation, or, an amendment to the Constitution, and that was the sticking point, it would be an area of compromise, sacrifice a few to save millions.


I disagree with your conclusion but can admire your consistency. If people think a fetus is a person and has equal rights as the mother, I fail to see how the issue of how the fetus got there trumps the sanctity of its life. I would never value the child of a rape as less than another child.

However, I don't believe the fetus has right to reside in an unwilling person and is not fully a person with the rights of a person but has the potential to be. And that potential is borne out because of the willingness of the mother to carry it to term or till it reaches the ge of viability and is protected by law.

I don't think the two schools of thought will ever be able to sway each other and it will most likely be an ethical dispute for a good long time.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You feel a woman doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy and that the someday child is more important than the mother. So you'd be fine with being forced to provide bone marrow to save my kid's life, right?


I didn't say that in the least. I said that the unborn child's right to *LIVE*, outweighs the mother's right not to be *inconvenienced.* 

If I were a match to your child, there would be no need for force.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> I'm beginning to wonder if you know how to work a computer. That link was chock full of links to studies that have been done. There have been many. I don't know why I wasted my time anyway, your don't want a link, you just want to try to undermine opposing views. You really should install a search engine, google or Yahoo. This stuff is easy to search for, and you could find your own links.


Oh way better than you can apparently. Remember those clove oil studies you said didn't exist? Yep, it was me who found them online. 

Also, I specified REPUTABLE links. Science based. Not anti-choice propaganda. I'm surprised you didn't throw in the old saw about abortion and breast cancer.

And if you find anything that is actually science and medically based...then try weighing that risk against the risk of carrying a baby to term and delivery. Far more risk involved there than a safe, legal abortion done in a clinic.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> I disagree with your conclusion but can admire your consistency. If people think a fetus is a person and has equal rights as the mother, I fail to see how the issue of how the fetus got there trumps the sanctity of its life. I would never value the child of a rape as less than another child.
> 
> However, I don't believe the fetus has right to reside in an unwilling person and is not fully a person with the rights of a person but has the potential to be. And that potential is borne out because of the willingness of the mother to carry it to term or till it reaches the ge of viability and is protected by law.
> 
> I don't think the two schools of thought will ever be able to sway each other and it will most likely be an ethical dispute for a good long time.


 I almost hate to bring this up and it is sure to draw criticism from BFF, but, what doesn't? So, here it goes. I see the fight for fetal rights to be much like other groups who have been added to the Full and equal rights rolls over the nearly 250 years of our Republic. Many truly believed that the Native Americans were not human and, therefore, could be destroyed, in their beds, for the resources they controlled. Many truly believed that African Americans were not human and could be bought, sold, and killed, at the will of the owner. Women had some of the same fights, in our history. It is my hope that, one day, we will look back on the slaughter of the fetal people with the same disgust as we now look upon things like The Trail of Tears, the Indian Wars, slavery and the like. 

I do, however, agree 100% with your last statement in this post.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I almost hate to bring this up and it is sure to draw criticism from BFF, but, what doesn't? So, here it goes. I see the fight for fetal rights to be much like other groups who have been added to the Full and equal rights rolls over the nearly 250 years of our Republic. Many truly believed that the Native Americans were not human and, therefore, could be destroyed, in their beds, for the resources they controlled. Many truly believed that African Americans were not human and could be bought, sold, and killed, at the will of the owner. Women had some of the same fights, in our history. It is my hope that, one day, we will look back on the slaughter of the fetal people with the same disgust as we now look upon things like The Trail of Tears, the Indian Wars, slavery and the like.
> 
> I do, however, agree 100% with your last statement in this post.



I disagree. Those groups were made up of people who were autonomous human beings, who were being discriminated against because of race and sex. 

Unborn fetuses are not autonomous but dependent upon the will and body of another person to fulfil their potential.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I didn't say that in the least. I said that the unborn child's right to *LIVE*, outweighs the mother's right not to be *inconvenienced.*
> 
> If I were a match to your child, there would be no need for force.


Thank you for being an honorable person, it's not common.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Now that we have that settled, here is a good place to look for links to studies that indicate that abortion impacts subsequent pregnancy and the health of the potential mother.
> http://abortionrisks.org/index.php?t...er_Pregnancies


One of the studies said smoking has more effect than prior abortions
I think you're grasping at straws


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> I disagree. Those groups were made up of people who were autonomous human beings, who were being discriminated against because of race and sex.
> 
> Unborn fetuses are not autonomous but dependent upon the will and body of another person to fulfil their potential.


How far does that go? Is it ok to kill someone who is on temporary life support? That is someone else's property and the will of other people keeping that person alive. 

To get back to the original thread topic, an infant is very similar. They are dependent on the will of others to keep them alive. They are not yet able to feed themselves, clothe themselves, fully regulate their body temperature, etc.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for being an honorable person, it's not common.


Thank you!!:grin:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> How far does that go? Is it ok to kill someone who is on temporary life support? That is someone else's property and the will of other people keeping that person alive.
> 
> To get back to the original thread topic, an infant is very similar. They are dependent on the will of others to keep them alive. They are not yet able to feed themselves, clothe themselves, fully regulate their body temperature, etc.


Not someone else's body. If they required someone else's body then that would be up to the person whose body was required.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I don't think you actually know what information is. And you didn't make any claims about fda approval in the other thread so stop already ...you're embarrassing yourself. You claimed there were NO studies about using clove oil as a fish anesthetic because big Pharma had suppressed research. And when I provided you with said study, you scratched your metaphorical butt and said something to the effect of "Oh yeah, that one..."

I don't fault you for your lack of reasoning and recall, but it's best not to flail around like a deranged guppy with your mouth opening and closing but nothing of any substance issuing forth.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The context of the discussion was that, as a state agency, we were handicapped by the fact that we could not use something that worked, that we knew how and why worked, that was also approved as a food additive, on fish destined for human consumption, because there was no FDA approval for using that substance as a drug, instead of a food additive. Thus showing some weaknesses in the logic that something not approved for use, or even studied, therefore does not work. I maybe didn't phrase the argument succinctly enough for you to understand, but that is a challenge not worth undertaking.

So, do you deny that there are health risks associated with abortion, and that some of those health risks could be conducive to lessened reproductive success?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Rights cannot be granted by law, only protected by law. Rights are a natural aspect of being human.


That can be debated. If humans have automatic rights, which I agree with, where did they come from? If we believe in God, the answer is obvious. If we do not believe in a God, them the rights must come from the government. Yet the verbiage we typically use is that the government "acknowledges rights," or "upholds them," not "creates them." Rights granted by our Consitution are quite different in the context of the global debate.



Irish Pixie said:


> Because they aren't born? Where you going with this?
> 
> ETA: Here's a link that explains it: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm


We've gone in a circle. They have no rights because they're not born; why do they have no rights; because they're not born... and so on. Where's the chicken?



Irish Pixie said:


> Okay. Fetuses still don't have rights.
> 
> The link states this: The Initial Roe v. Wade Standard:
> 
> ...


I like this part of the link:



> Most philosophies of natural rights would hold that fetuses have rights when they become sentient or self-aware, which presumes a neurophysiological definition of personhood. Self-awareness as we generally understand it would require substantial neocortical development, which seems to occur at or near week 23. In the premodern era, self-awareness was most often presumed to occur at quickening, which generally takes place around the 20th week of pregnancy.


This philosophy, and that's exactly what this entire debate is, is that it's immoral, wrong, unacceptable, take your pick of adjectives, to have an abortion after a certain period. This would also support my belief that a fetus is a person.



Irish Pixie said:


> You feel a woman doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy and that the someday child is more important than the mother. So you'd be fine with being forced to provide bone marrow to save my kid's life, right?


I still don't see how these situations are comparable.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> That can be debated. If humans have automatic rights, which I agree with, where did they come from? If we believe in God, the answer is obvious. If we do not believe in a God, them the rights must come from the government. Yet the verbiage we typically use is that the government "acknowledges rights," or "upholds them," not "creates them." Rights granted by our Consitution are quite different in the context of the global debate.
> 
> We've gone in a circle. They have no rights because they're not born; why do they have no rights; because they're not born... and so on. Where's the chicken?
> 
> ...


Abortions _are_ illegal after a certain date, except for fetal abnormalities or the health of the woman. 

Force is the operative word that make the situations comparable, in my opinion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortions _are_ illegal after a certain date, except for fetal abnormalities or the health of the woman.
> 
> Force is the operative word that make the situations comparable, in my opinion.


Yeah, but I've never argued for actually making abortion illegal, just that I consider it wrong. I'm allowed to support something without approving it, right? Or would you rather I became a deranged right-wing pro-lifer?

I want people to be responsible. I want them to have their children. But we kinda have enough people in the world, don't really need a whole lot more, and a lot of people are completely irresponsible imbeciles who should be barred from reproducing at all. 

Why do the intelligent people stop while the stupid people keep reproducing? Drives me nuts.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The point is, that abortions can be harmful, so allowing abortions allows women to be harmed. No different than allowing people to ride motorcycles without helmets allows people to be harmed. Sure, pregnancy is harmful, you could get an STD or get pregnant. That risk has already been taken. The touchy feely baby stompers like to make this an issue about women's health. What if abortion is not very healthy. There are loads of instances that emotional health is severely impacted, but all the research is more than a week old and not performed by researchers handpicked by Basketti, so it is invalid.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> That can be debated. If humans have automatic rights, which I agree with, where did they come from? If we believe in God, the answer is obvious. If we do not believe in a God, them the rights must come from the government. Yet the verbiage we typically use is that the government "acknowledges rights," or "upholds them," not "creates them." Rights granted by our Consitution are quite different in the context of the global debate.


 
We, as humans, have the right to do anything we wish. Government's roll is two fold. To enumerate and protect some, and to restrict others. The only viable reason to restrict a right is that it infringes on the right of another. That is not to say that there is not a scale of importance when conflicts arises. 

The right to kill my neighbor is restricted, and rightly so, by government. 

In Georgia, we have the enumerated right to hunt, when that comes into conflict with private property owners, the property rights of the owners outweigh my right to hunt.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yeah, but I've never argued for actually making abortion illegal, just that I consider it wrong. I'm allowed to support something without approving it, right? Or would you rather I became a deranged right-wing pro-lifer?
> 
> I want people to be responsible. I want them to have their children. But we kinda have enough people in the world, don't really need a whole lot more, and a lot of people are completely irresponsible imbeciles who should be barred from reproducing at all.
> 
> Why do the intelligent people stop while the stupid people keep reproducing? Drives me nuts.


Do what you want, I can't stop you from becoming a deranged right wing pro lifer. Abortion will still be legal and you'll be deranged.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> A philosophical quandary that no one has poked yet... who has more rights - the woman, or the fetus, and why?





basketti said:


> The fetus is dependent upon the women's body. The woman has dominion over what resides in her body. If she doesn't want the fetus in there, it comes out.
> 
> You don't give the rights over one persons body to another "person". Or as was discussed before, where does that stop? If you need a kidney and I'm a match, shall I be forced to give you a kidney because you need my kidney to live?





Farmerga said:


> Again, to me, it is not a question of "more rights", it is a question of over riding rights. The right to life outweighs the right to property. Don't think so? Shoot a man, in the back, who is carrying out your TV, the Justice system would be very interested in putting you up for a few years.
> 
> To me, it is obvious that the fetus' right to live, outweighs the mother's right to not be bothered. If the fetus was physically endangering the mother's life, a sacrifice must be made to save her life.
> 
> In most cases, the choice came when the woman decided to engage in sexual intercourse, failure of BC is irrelevant as it is a risk that one takes.





basketti said:


> So if you believe the right to life overrides property rights to your own body, you would be okay with being forced to provide marrow, blood, a kidney, etc to save someone else's life?





Irish Pixie said:


> You feel a woman doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy and that the someday child is more important than the mother. So you'd be fine with being forced to provide bone marrow to save my kid's life, right?



I don't know if it's possible to get a logical reason as to why this analogy is incorrect, but........I've been wrong _before_, LOL.
We'll see.


The comparison being made above, is that *saving* a life is the same as *not taking* one.
:umno:

While I can think of instances of Good Samaritan laws that have been to court, the main premise is that you can't be "forced" to save someone's life but taking a life comes with legal consequences that most of us realize and accept.
OK so far?

But in order to make this analogy congruent, it would mean that every pregnancy is automatically in peril.
But that isn't the case is it?
The majority of the time, if left nothing interferes for 9 months, mother and child both continue to live - no "saving" is necessary.

However, similar to shooting a burglar as in the example above, it is an action that has to be willfully done, that ends a life.
Not the same thing at all.

But we'll go one step further and say there IS a life in danger that requires an action, such as the bone marrow/organ donation to save a life in danger.
Nobody can think of any legal requirement that could withstand a court's scrutiny can they?
So the position seems to be that to force that on someone would be discrimination and illegal.
Looks like that means this issue ended in a tie.................unless of course there has been something like that, commonly known and legally accepted before.
:shrug:

Remember the military draft?
Overwhelmingly a burden on males (sex discrimination) and literally forced to risk one's life in order to "save" others, and with serious legal consequences if you refused with a few exceptions.


Tie breaker?

(Probably not, we'll get back to "that's not a person yet". But it may swing some undecided votes, who knows?)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> The point is, that abortions can be harmful, so allowing abortions allows women to be harmed. No different than allowing people to ride motorcycles without helmets allows people to be harmed. Sure, pregnancy is harmful, you could get an STD or get pregnant. That risk has already been taken. The touchy feely baby stompers like to make this an issue about women's health. What if abortion is not very healthy. There are loads of instances that emotional health is severely impacted, but all the research is more than a week old and not performed by researchers handpicked by Basketti, so it is invalid.


How about information less than 5 years old? Can you provide credible information within that time frame? 

You said, "If someone has an abortion, it can make it harder to conceive in the future." Just a reminder.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> The point is, that abortions can be harmful, so allowing abortions allows women to be harmed. No different than allowing people to ride motorcycles without helmets allows people to be harmed. Sure, pregnancy is harmful, you could get an STD or get pregnant. That risk has already been taken. The touchy feely baby stompers like to make this an issue about women's health. What if abortion is not very healthy. There are loads of instances that emotional health is severely impacted, but all the research is more than a week old and not performed by researchers handpicked by Basketti, so it is invalid.


It's more risky to carry a pregnancy to full term
Why pretend you're concerned with the mother's well-being?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know if it's possible to get a logical reason as to why this analogy is incorrect, but........I've been wrong _before_, LOL.
> We'll see.
> 
> 
> ...


:bow:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> The point is, that abortions can be harmful, so allowing abortions allows women to be harmed. No different than allowing people to ride motorcycles without helmets allows people to be harmed. Sure, pregnancy is harmful, you could get an STD or get pregnant. That risk has already been taken. The touchy feely baby stompers like to make this an issue about women's health. What if abortion is not very healthy. There are loads of instances that emotional health is severely impacted, but all the research is more than a week old and not performed by researchers handpicked by Basketti, so it is invalid.


Not all abortions are harmful. People make all kinds of descions daily that effect their emotional health. Getting married is a prime example. Are you going to outlaw that?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Not all abortions are harmful. People make all kinds of descions daily that effect their emotional health. Getting married is a prime example. Are you going to outlaw that?


Probably not.
And unless the stats have changed lately, it's not even a good suggestion for health reasons.
On average, married people are healthier and live longer, that's what the insurance companies base their rates on, partly.
:icecream:

And to bring that into the former comparison, it IS a choice - to marry, stay married, or not...........excluding widows/widowers.(See below)

But...........to get UNmarried, the legal way is with a divorce.
They frown on one spouse killing the other.
:croc:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do what you want, I can't stop you from becoming a deranged right wing pro lifer. Abortion will still be legal and you'll be deranged.


Just because the law is on your side doesn't make you right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Just because the law is on your side* doesn't make you right.*


Declaring yourself "right" doesn't make that so either.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Just because the law is on your side doesn't make you right.


You are right, it makes abortion legal.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Declaring yourself "right" doesn't make that so either.


I didn't say that either. Try to keep up - I know it must be hard sometimes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I didn't say that either. Try to keep up - I know it must be hard sometimes.


No, it's not hard at all when it just goes around in endless circles


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Apartheid was legal. So was slavery. Sending blankets infected with smallpox to Indian villages, cutting down sequoias and eating dodo burgers were all legal. Legality is a construct of the powerful, not of justice.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's not hard at all when it just goes around in endless circles


You know they have medication for that.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I think HFs comment, bemoaning the fact that certain groups are reproducing is very telling of the key players in the abortion debate. Most of the staunch advocates I see are either past child bearing age, or of the wrong gender to be a stakeholder in the abortion debate. The one thing that they do have in common is a certain air of superiority.The message seems to be, "Let's make sure that the commoners have access to abortion, while we ourselves are far too affluent and well educated to ever need an abortion, never mind the fact that we had our tubes tied after our sixth kid, but we are all for a woman's right to choose. (Especially if she is a minority, poor, uneducated, or of a different class or skill set than us.)"

It is not surprising that the democrat party has firmly attached itself to this issue. The party of slavery, once peopled with prominent KKK members, is now the champion of minorities, as long as they stay poor, keep their population in check with abortion, keep to the inner cities and show up on election day. Margaret Sanger would be proud.The party that is always in mayoral control in the slums, is always against creating jobs in those cities, because heaven forbid an INDUSTRY would make our city dirty, and the historic downtown businesses would fall by the wayside (meaning those four people that make a living selling coffee to each other would have to get real jobs or possibly work from their suburban homes.) Keep them poor and oppressed, keep the population in check so they don't start getting worked up and riot or something, and we will have jobs administering their entitlements in exchange for votes forever. So I can see the need for abortion, and I can see why planned parenthood doesn't build next to the country club, on that end of town.

So, it's going to be hard to find arguments against that, from the people that stand to profit from it. I can point you to a lot of studies, that show health and mental problems associated with abortion. I'm cool with a study from 1957 that tells me water is wet. I'm cool with a study in Finland from 1997 that says people that have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. I fully expect you to be able to find products of the modern education system that will refute those studies, with their dying breath rattling through their hipster beards and condensing on their hipster glasses.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> I think HFs comment, bemoaning the fact that certain groups are reproducing is very telling of the key players in the abortion debate. Most of the staunch advocates I see are either past child bearing age, or of the wrong gender to be a stakeholder in the abortion debate. The one thing that they do have in common is a certain air of superiority.The message seems to be, "Let's make sure that the commoners have access to abortion, while we ourselves are far too affluent and well educated to ever need an abortion, never mind the fact that we had our tubes tied after our sixth kid, but we are all for a woman's right to choose. (Especially if she is a minority, poor, uneducated, or of a different class or skill set than us.)"
> 
> It is not surprising that the democrat party has firmly attached itself to this issue. The party of slavery, once peopled with prominent KKK members, is now the champion of minorities, as long as they stay poor, keep their population in check with abortion, keep to the inner cities and show up on election day. Margaret Sanger would be proud.The party that is always in mayoral control in the slums, is always against creating jobs in those cities, because heaven forbid an INDUSTRY would make our city dirty, and the historic downtown businesses would fall by the wayside (meaning those four people that make a living selling coffee to each other would have to get real jobs or possibly work from their suburban homes.) Keep them poor and oppressed, keep the population in check so they don't start getting worked up and riot or something, and we will have jobs administering their entitlements in exchange for votes forever. So I can see the need for abortion, and I can see why planned parenthood doesn't build next to the country club, on that end of town.
> 
> So, it's going to be hard to find arguments against that, from the people that stand to profit from it. I can point you to a lot of studies, that show health and mental problems associated with abortion. I'm cool with a study from 1957 that tells me water is wet. I'm cool with a study in Finland from 1997 that says people that have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. I fully expect you to be able to find products of the modern education system that will refute those studies, with their dying breath rattling through their hipster beards and condensing on their hipster glasses.


Whoa, now I epically disagree with you again. In case you haven't been reading my posts, I'm OPPOSED to abortion. I think people should exercise abstinence, or that notwithstanding, really good birth control to avoid abortions. 

And I stand by what I said. It's a shame when idiots reproduce constantly while highly educated, intelligent people only have 1 or none. 

And this line makes absolutely no sense:

"we ourselves are far too affluent and well educated to ever need an abortion, never mind the fact that we had our tubes tied after our sixth kid, but we are all for a woman's right to choose."

What are you trying to say? You know almost no well educated, affluent family will have that many kids unless they're Mormons.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I'm sorry you haven't run into highly educated, smug people who have figured out that their children will be the masters of the next generation, and reproduce accordingly. It seems to be a popular theme at some of the events I go to.

Meanwhile, in the middle class, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...-rate-ever-down-600000-births/article/2593554


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> Apartheid was legal. So was slavery. Sending blankets infected with smallpox to Indian villages, cutting down sequoias and eating dodo burgers were all legal. Legality is a construct of the powerful, not of justice.


I have the right to personal freedom of my body. It's guaranteed me by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 

If I can forced to carry a pregnancy to term, you should be forced to provide blood marrow, blood, plasma, etc. to a kid that needs it to keep them alive. 

Agree with that?  Have a wonderful day, I know I will.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> I think HFs comment, bemoaning the fact that certain groups are reproducing is very telling of the key players in the abortion debate. Most of the staunch advocates I see are either past child bearing age, or of the wrong gender to be a stakeholder in the abortion debate. The one thing that they do have in common is a certain air of superiority.The message seems to be, "Let's make sure that the commoners have access to abortion, while we ourselves are far too affluent and well educated to ever need an abortion, never mind the fact that we had our tubes tied after our sixth kid, but we are all for a woman's right to choose. (Especially if she is a minority, poor, uneducated, or of a different class or skill set than us.)"
> 
> It is not surprising that the democrat party has firmly attached itself to this issue. The party of slavery, once peopled with prominent KKK members, is now the champion of minorities, as long as they stay poor, keep their population in check with abortion, keep to the inner cities and show up on election day. Margaret Sanger would be proud.The party that is always in mayoral control in the slums, is always against creating jobs in those cities, because heaven forbid an INDUSTRY would make our city dirty, and the historic downtown businesses would fall by the wayside (meaning those four people that make a living selling coffee to each other would have to get real jobs or possibly work from their suburban homes.) Keep them poor and oppressed, keep the population in check so they don't start getting worked up and riot or something, and we will have jobs administering their entitlements in exchange for votes forever. So I can see the need for abortion, and I can see why planned parenthood doesn't build next to the country club, on that end of town.
> 
> So, it's going to be hard to find arguments against that, from the people that stand to profit from it. I can point you to a lot of studies, that show health and mental problems associated with abortion. I'm cool with a study from 1957 that tells me water is wet. I'm cool with a study in Finland from 1997 that says people that have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. I fully expect you to be able to find products of the modern education system that will refute those studies, with their dying breath rattling through their hipster beards and condensing on their hipster glasses.


You have said you'll provide "a lot of studies that show health and mental problems associated with abortion" but in reality you provided one that is 26 years old with cites that are 40. Medical information changes quickly and the link you provided was woefully out of date. 

This is your original statement, ""If someone has an abortion, it can make it harder to conceive in the future." Do you credible information that supports this statement, or is it your opinion?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> And... the word, "conservatives" appears where?


I'm sure "anti-choice" does NOT mean non-conserves.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> What on earth does birth control have to do with baby murder? Birth control would require people to be personally responsible. Won't work. Much easier to get other people to pay for your mistakes, and then call it exercising your right to choose, poorly, multiple times.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Research and statistics suggest that there can be complications associated with abortion, those complications occur more frequently in later fetal ages. Some of these complications can impact the ease of getting pregnant, and more impact the chances of complication in later pregnancies. There is research that suggests that children born after previous abortions can have health impacts, lower birth weight and more recently links to increased chance of autism. Research stands until dis-proven, age of research is irrelevant. We still consider the earth round and that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius at sea level.
http://www.aul.org/womens-health-defense-actlate-term-abortion-limit/
http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/915/n/275
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1645.aspx?Categor---=60
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/expert-answers/abortion/faq-20058551
http://afterabortion.org/1990/abortion-complications/
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/ha...-diabetes-in-pregnancy-to-autism-risk-2011ar/

Even more concerning than the risks to women's health from abortion, are the increased risk to everyone brought on by the fact that abortion devalues the sanctity of human life. There is no more innocent a human life than an unborn baby. Make it OK to kill them and it sends a powerful message to the basest elements of humanity.
Are there, or are there not, more school shooting type scenarios since Roe/Wade?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

To begin with, you are not going to find abortion related suicide stats on pro-abortion sites, which seems to be the only sites that you recognise.

Second, it would be an event worth noting in 3" headlines if the abortion-related suicide rate reversed itself, even if it took 50 years. 

Third, why would anybody want to deny the completely believable and actually predictable fact that abortion increases the likelyhood of suicide? Anybody, that is, who is claiming to be looking out for the well-being of women?

Here is another study done in the UK after the finland study, which came to the same conclusions, but of course, it is not from a pro-abortion site, so it is invalid.

http://clinicquotes.com/the-abortion-suicide-link/

Something that is not said often enough (or maybe at all) is that I would certainly not be happy about being condemned to a 9 month case of the flu, let alone what my wife went through 5 times, if I didn't want to go there in the first place. I can certainly understand not being happy about it.

That said, though, I can't help but think that young women are being used as soldiers in a war that is not really to their benifit in many cases. Obviously, it is not always their CHOICE, because they are pressured by boyfriends, husbands, society, and in many cases their own doctors (you are 40 years old, and you probably should seriously consider abortion) to have abortions.

http://clinicquotes.com/the-abortion-suicide-link/

Some of the pro-abortion sites use phrases like "scientifically untestable" which is obviously untrue, but they do not want the answers, which, aparently, is the case with everybody on the "choice" side of the ledger.

I believe that if we truly want women to have CHOICES, we should try to make sure that they have all the honest answers we can give them, instead of concealing and discrediting studies that are probably quite valid. They have a right to know......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have the right to personal freedom of my body. It's guaranteed me by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
> 
> If I can forced to carry a pregnancy to term, you should be forced to provide blood marrow, blood, plasma, etc. to a kid that needs it to keep them alive.


Keep repeating that, you might actually believe it someday.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Research and statistics suggest that there can be complications associated with abortion, those complications occur more frequently in later fetal ages. Some of these complications can impact the ease of getting pregnant, and more impact the chances of complication in later pregnancies. There is research that suggests that children born after previous abortions can have health impacts, lower birth weight and more recently links to increased chance of autism. Research stands until dis-proven, age of research is irrelevant. We still consider the earth round and that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius at sea level.
> http://www.aul.org/womens-health-defense-actlate-term-abortion-limit/
> http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/915/n/275
> http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1645.aspx?Categor---=60
> ...


I don't know if the shootings have anything to do with how we value life. They've been occuring with greater frequency, but starting clear back in about 1930.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> Research and statistics suggest that there can be complications associated with abortion, those complications occur more frequently in later fetal ages. Some of these complications can impact the ease of getting pregnant, and more impact the chances of complication in later pregnancies. There is research that suggests that children born after previous abortions can have health impacts, lower birth weight and more recently links to increased chance of autism. Research stands until dis-proven, age of research is irrelevant. We still consider the earth round and that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius at sea level.
> http://www.aul.org/womens-health-defense-actlate-term-abortion-limit/
> http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/915/n/275
> http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1645.aspx?Categor---=60
> ...


It's still more risky to carry a pregnancy to full term.
If you don't agree with abortions, don't have one.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't know if the shootings have anything to do with how we value life. They've been occuring with greater frequency, but starting clear back in about 1930.


So, you are saying that when the flappers met the depression, there weren't abortions. Abortion has become much safer, thanks to modern medicine. One of the great lies of the pro choice movement is that people doing backyard, shade tree abortions with fence pliers and jumper cables would kill people right and left if it weren't for legalizing abortion. Fact is, there were abortions long before the supreme court condoned it. Death rates from abortion have gone down in a steady curve since long before Row v Wade, because modern medicine has steadily advanced. Things like sulfa drugs, blood transfusions, and later antibiotics have done more than any law. The shadetree abortionist idea is pure fantasy, there has always been a steady supply of shady doctors and med school dropouts to perform abortions with the same tools used in doctors offices that can be made by any lab instrument maker. As skilled as any modern practitioner. The difference in outcome has come from acceptance of sterile practices and supportive care with antibiotics or blood transfusion. But the curve of "mass shootings" has roughly followed a weakening moral state, of which devaluing human life by ending it in it's most innocent form is a key part.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Can you actually prove we're in a morally weakening state? I would tend to agree with that, but it's really hard to put numbers to the assertion.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

How do you want to measure it? Church attendance? Crime rate? Number of homes left unlocked? Willingness to cheat on tests? Write bad checks? Divorce rate? Number of swear words on TV? Willingness to burn your own street and steal all of your neighbor's TV sets from his store, because your sports team lost? Are you going to say that we are more moral because we abolished slavery? (Have we really abolished slavery?) Because we allowed women in the workplace? (Do we pay them as much as men?)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> So, you are saying that when the flappers met the depression, there weren't abortions. Abortion has become much safer, thanks to modern medicine. *One of the great lies of the pro choice movement is that people doing backyard, shade tree abortions with fence pliers and jumper cables would kill people right and left if it weren't for legalizing abortion.* Fact is, there were abortions long before the supreme court condoned it. Death rates from abortion have gone down in a steady curve since long before Row v Wade, because modern medicine has steadily advanced. Things like sulfa drugs, blood transfusions, and later antibiotics have done more than any law. *The shadetree abortionist idea is pure fantasy*, there has always been a steady supply of shady doctors and med school dropouts to perform abortions with the same tools used in doctors offices that can be made by any lab instrument maker. As skilled as any modern practitioner. The difference in outcome has come from acceptance of sterile practices and supportive care with antibiotics or blood transfusion. But the curve of "mass shootings" has roughly followed a weakening moral state, of which devaluing human life by ending it in it's most innocent form is a key part.


It's documented fact that death rates are higher where abortions are restricted. 

You seem to have little other than misinformation and biased opinions to offer


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's documented fact that death rates are higher where abortions are restricted.
> 
> You seem to have little other than misinformation and biased opinions to offer


which kind of death rates? What cause?...Joe


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's still more risky to carry a pregnancy to full term.
> If you don't agree with abortions, don't have one.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

joebill said:


> which kind of death rates? What cause?...Joe


Deaths to the mothers
The cause should be obvious, don't you think?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> How do you want to measure it? Church attendance? Crime rate? Number of homes left unlocked? Willingness to cheat on tests? Write bad checks? Divorce rate? Number of swear words on TV? Willingness to burn your own street and steal all of your neighbor's TV sets from his store, because your sports team lost? Are you going to say that we are more moral because we abolished slavery? (Have we really abolished slavery?) Because we allowed women in the workplace? (Do we pay them as much as men?)


Church attendance isn't a very good indiactaor. Let's start with crime as a general indicator.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Church attendance isn't a very good indiactaor. Let's start with crime as a general indicator.


Won't work. Crime involves law. More laws=more crime, the only guaranteed product of any law is crime.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

If you are going to quantify morality, you first have to decide about the goals we are pursuing as a society, and that is never going toi be agreed upon.

To the soviets, Chicoms, North Koreans, service to the state and loyalty to the state/party were the measure of morality.

Theocrocies measure by service to whatever God they believe in, for instance, a jihadist Muslim might measure morality by killing infidels and keeping his sister pure and without schooling.

I might find that I believe the highest virtue aside from service to God, which involves theocracy, not my thing, would be serving liberty, and someone else might believe it is serving nature.

The golden rule might be thought of as a "universal morality" except you treating me as you want to be treated might not sit well at all.

Perhaps easier to come up with a "universal immorality", which would be doing intentional and willfull harm to to others without just cause.

Near as I can come on the spur of the moment.....Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

basketti said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> > It's still more risky to carry a pregnancy to full term.
> ...


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Another way to look at the numbers, there is the fact that abortion is fatal to roughly half of the people involved.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> Another way to look at the numbers, there is the fact that abortion is fatal to roughly half of the people involved.


Life is fatal to 100%
Your "statistic" is a fabrication


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Keep repeating that, you might actually believe it someday.


Which part? The first is my right, Roe v Wade. The second is opinion but I think it's valid.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> basketti said:
> 
> 
> > Those numbers are flawed. By using "recent" figures, which are a construct of our abysmal C-section rate. We are above 30%, WHO says we should be at 10% no higher than 15%. C-section makes a woman roughly 3 times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy. This should be a real women's health issue, but it seems to draw little concern. Quite telling of the activists who claim to be champions of women's health.
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> Research and statistics suggest that there can be complications associated with abortion, those complications occur more frequently in later fetal ages. Some of these complications can impact the ease of getting pregnant, and more impact the chances of complication in later pregnancies. There is research that suggests that children born after previous abortions can have health impacts, lower birth weight and more recently links to increased chance of autism. Research stands until dis-proven, age of research is irrelevant. We still consider the earth round and that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius at sea level.
> http://www.aul.org/womens-health-defense-actlate-term-abortion-limit/
> http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/915/n/275
> http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1645.aspx?Categor---=60
> ...


First link is an anti abortion website. Not credible.

Second link contains this gem- "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."

Third link "In the UK, most women who have an abortion don't have any complications and their fertility isn't affected."

Fourth link "Generally, abortion isn't thought to cause fertility issues or complications in subsequent pregnancies."

Fifth link anti abortion site. Not credible.

Sixth link anti abortion site. Not credible. This one tries to link abortion and autism.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nice editing. You left out the parts in those links you liked that stated "HOWEVER", and went on to list a number of complications that can cause problems such as Barnbuilder described.

Cherrypicking links, then cherrypicking parts of the text.....yup, no bias there....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> Nice editing. You left out the parts in those links you liked that stated "HOWEVER", and went on to list a number of complications that can cause problems such as Barnbuilder described.
> 
> Cherrypicking links, then cherrypicking parts of the text.....yup, no bias there....Joe


Good try. All of the quotes I posted said complications from an abortion MAY cause fertility issues. So can endometriosis, uterine infections, all manner of Fallopian tube/ovary issues, congenital malformations, thyroid disease, and about a million other things. Unless there is a real complication of abortion such as a perforation or severe infection there is very little risk. 

Every woman that has an abortion in the US knows the risks, and if she terminated the pregnancy she accepted them. 

The bottom line is that this line of discussion is all fluff because women have rights (thank you Raeven).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

joebill said:


> Nice editing. You left out the parts in those links you liked that stated "HOWEVER", and went on to list a number of *complications* that can cause problems such as Barnbuilder described.
> 
> Cherrypicking links, then cherrypicking parts of the text.....yup, no bias there....Joe


It's cherry picking to leave those facts out also.
His own source refuted his claims, as so often happens.
That's why some refuse to post any links

Even you have admitted it's the *complications*, not the abortions, that cause later problems


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good try. All of the quotes I posted said complications from an abortion MAY cause fertility issues. So can endometriosis, uterine infections, all manner of Fallopian tube/ovary issues, congenital malformations, thyroid disease, and about a million other things. Unless there is a real complication of abortion such as a perforation or severe infection there is very little risk.
> 
> Every woman that has an abortion in the US knows the risks, and if she terminated the pregnancy she accepted them.
> 
> The bottom line is that this line of discussion is all fluff because women have rights.


And are smart enough to make a decision for themselves without the disingenuous and unctuous batpuckey that you just don't want them to have the option of abortion because a couple of ill informed and bloviating men know better about the risks and their bodies/health than the women and their doctors do.

The real problem is probably that they just get no say at all. If their wives or daughters want to terminate a pregnancy, they have the option to do so. Regardless of what the menfolk want.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> And are smart enough to make a decision for themselves without the disingenuous and unctuous batpuckey that you just don't want them to have the option of abortion because a couple of ill informed and bloviating men know better about the risks and their bodies/health than the women and their doctors do.
> 
> They real problem is probably that they just get no say at all. If even their wives or daughters want to terminate a pregnancy, they have the option to do so.


Exactly, and very well said.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Speaking for myself, my wife never wanted to stop having kids. One extra after the doc told her to stop.

I had no strong feelings about abortion one way or another until I married her. She educated ME. That will be 50 years and 5 daughters ago this November. I have never dominated her in any way, and in matters of child bearing, the very thought will give her a big chuckle when I inform her that I am an overbreeding bully.

She wanted as many kids as possible, and while I was considerably less enthusiastic, i have to admit that the large crew have made me a better man, more hard-working and responsible, less selfish, than I would have been without them. A true blessing beyond what I ever would have imagined.

Part of my "agenda" is that I have seen many other lives made more complete by children, and I hate to see that ruined by temporary fears. Two of my daughters became pregnant out of wedlock, and both those grandyoungsters are blessings to me and their mothers as well, and my daughters became better people because of them, too.

You can't bother me by getting personal. I'll give you all the history you want with my wife's blessing.....  .....Joe


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

joebill said:


> Speaking for myself, my wife never wanted to stop having kids. One extra after the doc told her to stop.
> 
> I had no strong feelings about abortion one way or another until I married her. She educated ME. That will be 50 years and 5 daughters ago this November. I have never dominated her in any way, and in matters of child bearing, the very thought will give her a big chuckle when I inform her that I am an overbreeding bully.
> 
> ...


Nice that your wife was able to choose and that other women are able to choose for themselves too. Or do you suppose your wife and you should be able to choose for other women too?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

No, I just believe that they are many times not fully informed and very often pressured to have abortions by husbands, boyfriends, parents, society in general, and folks who believe that anybody in their right mind would want one.

I dated a young lady who was pregnant when I met her, and she asked the doc for an abortion right off the bat, even though it was not legal at the time. Parents wanted it, not her. When he refused, she was relieved, had the baby, adopted it out, started her adult life over on a positive note, happy that she had given a couple a child and a child a life. She told me that holding her daughter for a few minutes before turning her over changed her life, and it was obviously so from looking at her.

Here's to you, Percy, wherever you are!......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Won't work. Crime involves law. More laws=more crime, the only guaranteed product of any law is crime.


Great. So how do you think we quantify our "declining morality?" I think some of the best evidence is entitlement complex, and selfishness.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

joebill said:


> No, I just believe that they are many times not fully informed and very often pressured to have abortions by husbands, boyfriends, parents, society in general, and folks who believe that anybody in their right mind would want one.
> 
> I dated a young lady who was pregnant when I met her, and she asked the doc for an abortion right off the bat, even though it was not legal at the time. Parents wanted it, not her. When he refused, she was relieved, had the baby, adopted it out, started her adult life over on a positive note, happy that she had given a couple a child and a child a life. She told me that holding her daughter for a few minutes before turning her over changed her life, and it was obviously so from looking at her.
> 
> Here's to you, Percy, wherever you are!......Joe


That's very nice and I know of wonderful adoption stories too...my cousins was a good one and I agree that women should know their options and make the best choice for themselves. However, crazy dogma from anti choice organizations like the baloney that Barnbilder is spewing is not truthful information and lies are never in the best interest of anyone.
And if you believe that women are uninformed simply because they make a choice that you vehemently disagree with....you're not dealing in reality. And it's still not your choice to make even if the woman chooses not to fully inform herself as long as she knows the medical risks that accompany the procedure.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which part? The first is my right, Roe v Wade. The second is opinion but I think it's valid.


You seem to believe that the law being on your side makes you right. It does not. It merely means the law is on your side. Slavery used to be legal. That didn't make it right. I'm not making a connection between those two aside from pointing out that laws are merely pieces of ethics formed into enforceable practices.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

joebill said:


> No, I just believe that they are many times not fully informed and very often pressured to have abortions by husbands, boyfriends, parents, society in general, and folks who believe that anybody in their right mind would want one.
> 
> I dated a young lady who was pregnant when I met her, and she asked the doc for an abortion right off the bat, even though it was not legal at the time. Parents wanted it, not her. When he refused, she was relieved, had the baby, adopted it out, started her adult life over on a positive note, happy that she had given a couple a child and a child a life. She told me that holding her daughter for a few minutes before turning her over changed her life, and it was obviously so from looking at her.
> 
> Here's to you, Percy, wherever you are!......Joe


They are "fully informed" since it's illegal to do an abortion with giving them certain information.

Often women don't have abortions due to "pressure", and then you hear about them murdering their kids.

The best thing to do is mind your own business and let everyone else do the same.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> You seem to believe that the law being on your side makes you right. It does not. It merely means the law is on your side. Slavery used to be legal. That didn't make it right. I'm not making a connection between those two aside from pointing out that laws are merely pieces of ethics formed into enforceable practices.


And you seem to be telling me what I think. You are not correct. I personally think that a woman has the right to control her own body, and that is a good thing. The fact that my opinion is backed by law is all gravy. Your mileage my vary.

Again, if I can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term to save the future child, shouldn't you be forced to donate bone marrow, blood, a spare organ, etc. to save a dying kid? (Thank you Raeven)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> And you seem to be telling me what I think. You are not correct. I personally think that a woman has the right to control her own body, and that is a good thing. The fact that my opinion is backed by law is all gravy. Your mileage my vary.
> 
> Again, if I can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term to save the future child, shouldn't you be forced to donate bone marrow, blood, a spare organ, etc. to save a dying kid? (Thank you Raeven)


I'm not trying to tell you what you think, and further, you seem to easily forget what I've point-blank told you I believe. Since you're going in circles, I'm off this jet plane...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not trying to tell you what you think, and further, you seem to easily forget what I've point-blank told you I believe. Since you're going in circles, I'm off this jet plane...


You're the one that pushed the merry go round to get it moving... and not just once. If you aren't going to engage once it's moving, simply don't push. Easy peasy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're the one that pushed the merry go round to get it moving... and not just once. If you aren't going to engage once it's moving, simply don't push. Easy peasy.


It's lost it's appeal.... Only so much of the same thing I can handle...


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

If women are to be allowed control over their own bodies, that should also include the creation of life....that later has to be killed because they didn't _really_ have control over their bodies.

IOW, creating life shouldn't be taken lightly. If you can't afford a reliable method of birth control, then abstain. If that's not possible, then you can't claim to have control over your own body.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> *If* women are to be allowed control over their own bodies, that should also include the creation of life....that later has to be killed because they didn't _really_ have control over their bodies.
> 
> IOW, creating life shouldn't be taken lightly. If you can't afford a reliable method of birth control, then abstain. If that's not possible, then you can't claim to have control over your own body.


Because women that want to terminate a pregnancy are immoral whores that couldn't keep their legs together, right? She was responsible, used birth control and it failed. Birth control failure just doesn't happen in your perfect little world, does it? Even tho it's a one of the top reasons for abortion. Perhaps she was in TX where effective birth control is hard to come by because the state shut down over half the clinics that provide it. 

There is no "if", woman ARE allowed control over their own bodies and have for over 40 years. Period.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because women that want to terminate a pregnancy are immoral whores that couldn't keep their legs together, right? She was responsible, used birth control and it failed.


She's only a "whore" if she's a prositute, and whether or not she's immoral is debateable. Your example is a red herring and you keep using it. Uncooked fish tends to stink after a while. ANyways, what the heck is wrong with abstinence? People seem to be complaining about failed birth control. Abstinence works. Trust me, as a virgin, I can guarantee, it works. :thumb:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> She's only a "whore" if she's a prositute, and whether or not she's immoral is debateable. Your example is a red herring and you keep using it. Uncooked fish tends to stink after a while. ANyways, what the heck is wrong with abstinence? People seem to be complaining about failed birth control. Abstinence works. Trust me, as a virgin, I can guarantee, it works. :thumb:


It's my opinion of what many posters posters have stated on this topic. You seem to get really upset by my posts, perhaps you'd feel better if you put me on ignore? Or should I run all my posts by you first to be sure they aren't "red herrings" or illogical? 

Abstinence only works until it doesn't. Bristol Palin (the ambassador of abstinence) is a perfect example. Don't you state quite often that we (and especially men) are programmed to have sex as often as possible?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's my opinion of what many posters posters have stated on this topic. You seem to get really upset by my posts, perhaps you'd feel better if you put me on ignore?
> 
> Abstinence only works until it doesn't. Bristol Palin (the ambassador of abstinence) is a perfect example. Don't you state quite often that we (and especially men) are programmed to have sex as often as possible?


We are indeed programmed for it, and as often as possible. I'm pretty sure that programming has done it's job. :facepalm:


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Sure, abstinence works, if that is your choice. However, as many folks on this board don't seem to understand based on the tenor of their posts, there are many more reasons to engage in sexual activity than reproduction. And the whole "abstain during your fertile periods" doesn't work. (My proof of that statement is now 19 and over 6 feet tall.)


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's my opinion of what many posters posters have stated on this topic. You seem to get really upset by my posts, perhaps you'd feel better if you put me on ignore? Or should I run all my posts by you first to be sure they aren't "red herrings" or illogical?
> 
> Abstinence only works until it doesn't. Bristol Palin (the ambassador of abstinence) is a perfect example. Don't you state quite often that we (and especially men) are programmed to have sex as often as possible?


>>I<< have never said that women that want abortions are whores. 

Never. 

Please don't put words in my mouth, don't even imply it. Thank you.

BTW, Bristol didn't have an abortion. She took responsibility for her actions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> >>I<< have never said that women that want abortions are whores.
> 
> Never.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you misunderstood, Bristol Palin was the ambassador for abstinence and had two unplanned children. I never said anything about her and abortion, only that abstinence only works until it doesn't.

You don't control my opinion. And my opinion is that there are posters that truly believe that women that who terminate their pregnancy are immoral whores that couldn't keep their legs together.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is no "if", woman ARE allowed control over their own bodies and have for over 40 years. Period.


Unless of course, they choose to carry to term. Then they MUST seek medical help and follow the doctors advice, up to the point of being gutted like a hog and dying of MRSA. If they question any of this, they will be vilified for harming what would be considered "tissue" if they wanted an abortion.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry you misunderstood, Bristol Palin was the ambassador for abstinence and had two unplanned children. I never said anything about her and abortion, only that abstinence only works until it doesn't.


Obviously, she wasn't abstaining. 

Abstinence *always* works.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> Unless of course, they choose to carry to term. Then they MUST seek medical help and follow the doctors advice, up to the point of being gutted like a hog and dying of MRSA. If they question any of this, they will be vilified for harming what would be considered "tissue" if they wanted an abortion.


You obviously haven't heard of all the DIY abortions that TX women are performing, have you? Most are medical abortions but they are still buying the medication on the black market and not under a Dr's care. 

Of course they can carry to term. I'm "pro-choice" remember? I don't care if a woman terminates her pregnancy or carries it to term only that she has that choice. 

You do realize that not all abortions become infected, or all infections are caused by MRSA, right? SMH. You seem to care so deeply about women's health issues, does it bother you that they are performing DIY abortions without a medical professional to assist them?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Obviously, she wasn't abstaining.
> 
> Abstinence *always* works.


Until it doesn't... :icecream:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Until it doesn't... :icecream:


Then it's not abstinence.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> Then it's not abstinence.


:bow:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Then it's not abstinence.


Point taken. Wouldn't effective birth control be a better option? 

Reality is another matter. Abstinence works until a women (usually young and from a faith based family) falls off the abstinence wagon, onto a penis, and because she isn't on birth control, becomes pregnant. Or if she truly is abstinent and is raped. In either case if she wants to terminate that pregnancy, is she an immoral whore that couldn't keep her legs together? Many posters that lack any type of empathy and compassion for others think that way. Oddly enough, many (most?) of them are christian. I remember Sunday school and the teachings were all about forgiveness, compassion, and empathy for others. Judging, IIRC, is bad and supposed to be left up to god. Are the people that feel that women who terminate are immoral whores just bad christians? Or not christian at all? Or playing god?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. Wouldn't effective birth control be a better option?
> 
> Reality is another matter. Abstinence works until a women (usually young and from a faith based family) falls off the abstinence wagon, onto a penis, and because she isn't on birth control, becomes pregnant. Or if she truly is abstinent and is raped. In either case if she wants to terminate that pregnancy, is she an immoral whore that couldn't keep her legs together? Many posters that lack any type of empathy and compassion for others think that way. Oddly enough, many (most?) of them are christian. I remember Sunday school and the teachings were all about forgiveness, compassion, and empathy for others. Judging, IIRC, is bad and supposed to be left up to god. Are the people that feel that women who terminate are immoral whores just bad christians? Or not christian at all?


Did ya miss the teachings about personal responsibility and consequences of actions? Did ya miss the teachings about the sacredness of human life?

Personal responsibility is an important aspect of freedom. 

As for the claim that Christians shouldn't judge, that pertains to judging whether someone is going to heaven or hell. *THAT* is left up to God. But knowing a tree by it's fruit is done by judging. Knowing if a preacher is teaching truth or a lie is done by judging. Heck, knowing if anyone is lying or telling the truth is done by judging. That is not a wrong thing to do.

But that's been explained ad nauseum. Some people just refuse to see it.

ETA: By all means, effective contraception would be a better option. And it is available. And......with the implementation of Obamacare, it should be easy enough for all to obtain.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. Wouldn't effective birth control be a better option?
> 
> Reality is another matter. Abstinence works until a women (usually young and from a faith based family) falls off the abstinence wagon, onto a penis, and because she isn't on birth control, becomes pregnant. Or if she truly is abstinent and is raped. In either case if she wants to terminate that pregnancy, is she an immoral whore that couldn't keep her legs together? Many posters that lack any type of empathy and compassion for others think that way. Oddly enough, many (most?) of them are christian. I remember Sunday school and the teachings were all about forgiveness, compassion, and empathy for others. Judging, IIRC, is bad and supposed to be left up to god. Are the people that feel that women who terminate are immoral whores just bad christians? Or not christian at all? Or playing god?


Once again, nobody around here uses the term "immoral whore" but you, and you rarely get through a day without using it. You have invented an enemy that suits you completely, because not only is he a heartless villian, but you have all the words and tools to defeat him every time you drag him out of his trunk like a ventriloquist's dummy.

Doesn't particualrly bother me, but it makes you look foolish....Just saying.....Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You obviously haven't heard of all the DIY abortions that TX women are performing, have you? Most are medical abortions but they are still buying the medication on the black market and not under a Dr's care.
> 
> Of course they can carry to term. I'm "pro-choice" remember? I don't care if a woman terminates her pregnancy or carries it to term only that she has that choice.
> 
> You do realize that not all abortions become infected, or all infections are caused by MRSA, right? SMH. You seem to care so deeply about women's health issues, does it bother you that they are performing DIY abortions without a medical professional to assist them?


You completely missed the point. Doctors kill pregnant women just as needlessly as women die from botched abortions.

You are still the only person that has voiced the opinion about the morality of those seeking abortion. I'm not necessarily opposed to the legality of abortion. I am opposed to the promotion of abortion, and the notion that we need to be held financially responsible for what many times, given the alternatives available, is a needless mistake. The girl that falls off the abstinence wagon, has every bit as much access to the knowledge of how to prevent pregnancy, as people livin' in the skreets. If she is free to get an abortion, she is also free to make her boyfriend stop by a CVS, maybe even hand him an instructional manual. Millions of pregnancies are successfully avoided every day. Why can't we have legal abortion, and at the same time, vilify it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Did ya miss the teachings about personal responsibility and consequences of actions? Did ya miss the teachings about the sacredness of human life?
> 
> Personal responsibility is an important aspect of freedom.
> 
> ...


Nope, I didn't miss any of the teachings. Compassion, empathy, and forgiveness were definitely the top three, yet they are the things that I see missing in many (most?) christians. The lack of any type of empathy, the overwhelming judgement on the part of many individual christians, and the intolerance of anyone that many christians deem unworthy is one of the reasons I'm an atheist. If that was being a "good" christian I couldn't have any part of it. 

How does personal responsibility figure into birth control failure? Back to women being "immoral whores who couldn't keep their legs closed" for wanting to terminate a pregnancy?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, I didn't miss any of the teachings. Compassion, empathy, and forgiveness were definitely the top three, yet they are the things that I see missing in many (most?) christians. The lack of any type of empathy, the overwhelming judgement on the part of many individual christians, and the intolerance of anyone that many christians deem unworthy is one of the reasons I'm an atheist. If that was being a "good" christian I couldn't have any part of it.
> 
> How does personal responsibility figure into birth control failure? Back to women being "immoral whores who couldn't keep their legs closed" for wanting to terminate a pregnancy?


I'm referring to the responsibility of choosing abstinence when effective b.c. is not an option. Or choosing to carry to term & adopt rather than abort. 

I'm sorry that you allow the faults and weaknesses of _people_ to prevent you from knowing Christ. That makes me very sad. 

Nobody is perfect.....not even Christians. Some are closer than others to what God wants us to be, but none are perfect. We are ALL sinners who fall short of the Glory of Christ. But we strive.

I hope you can understand that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> Once again, nobody around here uses the term "immoral whore" but you, and you rarely get through a day without using it. You have invented an enemy that suits you completely, because not only is he a heartless villian, but you have all the words and tools to defeat him every time you drag him out of his trunk like a ventriloquist's dummy.
> 
> Doesn't particualrly bother me, but it makes you look foolish....Just saying.....Joe


It's my _opinion_ gleaned from what I've read right here on Homesteading Today from (mainly) christian posters. 

It doesn't bother you but you took the time respond and say I look foolish?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> I'm referring to the responsibility of choosing abstinence when effective b.c. is not an option. Or choosing to carry to term & adopt rather than abort.
> 
> I'm sorry that you allow the faults and weaknesses of _people_ to prevent you from knowing Christ. That makes me very sad.
> 
> ...


I understand completely that some don't even try to be compassionate and empathetic, many (most?) use their religion to feel morally superior to others. That's ugly.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> You completely missed the point. Doctors kill pregnant women just as needlessly as women die from botched abortions.
> 
> You are still the only person that has voiced the opinion about the morality of those seeking abortion. I'm not necessarily opposed to the legality of abortion. I am opposed to the promotion of abortion, and the notion that we need to be held financially responsible for what many times, given the alternatives available, is a needless mistake. The girl that falls off the abstinence wagon, has every bit as much access to the knowledge of how to prevent pregnancy, as people livin' in the skreets. If she is free to get an abortion, she is also free to make her boyfriend stop by a CVS, maybe even hand him an instructional manual. Millions of pregnancies are successfully avoided every day. Why can't we have legal abortion, and at the same time, vilify it?


I miss the part where the guilt trip happens. Many conservative religions are so effective at producing a guilt trip that a young person might get pregnant when they can least afford to. That conservative young girl who fell off the bandwagon while wearing a dress and head-bobbin-thing suddenly feels incredibly guilty, and maybe makes a choice that makes her unhappy. Oh, and her conservative boyfriend didn't have birth control because he didnt't believe in it. :whistlin:



Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. Wouldn't effective birth control be a better option?
> 
> Reality is another matter. Abstinence works until a women (usually young and from a faith based family) falls off the abstinence wagon, onto a penis, and because she isn't on birth control, becomes pregnant. Or if she truly is abstinent and is raped. In either case if she wants to terminate that pregnancy, is she an immoral whore that couldn't keep her legs together? Many posters that lack any type of empathy and compassion for others think that way. Oddly enough, many (most?) of them are christian. I remember Sunday school and the teachings were all about forgiveness, compassion, and empathy for others. Judging, IIRC, is bad and supposed to be left up to god. Are the people that feel that women who terminate are immoral whores just bad christians? Or not christian at all? Or playing god?


I think you've run into a lot of bad Christians that give everyone else a bad name. What txsteader said if true; you should judge a religion based on it's components, not it's people. It's people will always be hypocritical, flawed, etc. I haven't allowed people to make my choice for me; I simply find the idea of a deity unprovable and unrealistic. But, so is my spirit-force-God, but hey.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I understand completely that some don't even try to be compassionate and empathetic, many (most?) use their religion to feel [morally superior] to others. That's ugly.


According to a certain poster, driving a Prius throws me into that category.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> And you seem to be telling me what I think. You are not correct. I personally think that a woman has the right to control her own body, and that is a good thing. The fact that my opinion is backed by law is all gravy. Your mileage my vary.
> 
> Again, if I can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term to save the future child, shouldn't you be forced to donate bone marrow, blood, a spare organ, etc. to save a dying kid? (Thank you Raeven)


And I thought I answered that question, although I noticed there was no response to it.
You're welcome, too.



farmrbrown said:


> I don't know if it's possible to get a logical reason as to why this analogy is incorrect, but........I've been wrong _before_, LOL.
> We'll see.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> Unless of course, they choose to carry to term. Then they MUST seek medical help and follow the doctors advice, up to the point of being gutted like a hog and dying of MRSA. If they question any of this, they will be vilified for harming what would be considered "tissue" if they wanted an abortion.


I carried to term, had a difficult delivery and spent over 28 days in hospital for MRSA as well as several months for daily treatments so it's not something that just happens in abortion clinics.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Abortion is a form of birth control. The majority of the time all you are removing is cells. It is a perfectly acceptable choice in the first 4 - 8 weeks when your primary birth control method fails. There is no baby yet just the possibility.

Yes that may not be what you and others believe but it is what many do believe. It is taking personal responsibility for the consequences of having sex.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Different subject... how does porn NOT degrade women? If we're all so concerned about women being held in a positive light, watching them used as sex toys isn't going to cut it. Of course I realize there's all types of porn, but I don't care to type that into google. :shocked:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Different subject... how does porn NOT degrade women? If we're all so concerned about women being held in a positive light, watching them used as sex toys isn't going to cut it. Of course I realize there's all types of porn, but I don't care to type that into google. :shocked:


You do realize that porn is fantasy, right? It's about as real as a cop show on TV. Do you think all movies are real? 

Porn is porn. A good female director can make porn that is erotic and sensual rather than degrading to women. Did you watch the TED talk I linked?

If you don't like it don't watch it. It's none of your business what consenting adults do in private. Pretty simple.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that porn is fantasy, right? It's about as real as a cop show on TV. Do you think all movies are real?
> 
> Porn is porn. A good female director can make porn that is erotic and sensual rather than degrading to women. Did you watch the TED talk I linked?
> 
> If you don't like it don't watch it. It's none of your business what consenting adults do in private. Pretty simple.


I don't have enough bandwidth to watch it - I have Hellsnet. Otherwise known as Hughesnet. 

OK, what about rape porn? If someone is a respecter of women, who can they honestly watch rape porn? Some rapists have reported watching too much rape porn before committing the acts. In other cases, porn stars have been raped on college campus because the students just assumed she'd be all right with it. It's not my problem separating reality from fantasy - it's others problem with it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't have enough bandwidth to watch it - I have Hellsnet. Otherwise known as Hughesnet.
> 
> OK, what about rape porn? If someone is a respecter of women, who can they honestly watch rape porn? Some rapists have reported watching too much rape porn before committing the acts. In other cases, porn stars have been raped on college campus because the students just assumed she'd be all right with it. It's not my problem separating reality from fantasy - it's others problem with it.


Rape is less about sex than it is about violence, power, and control. 

I'd never watch rape porn and neither would my husband, I don't know anyone that would. It's still fantasy tho.

No, porn stars weren't/aren't raped because it was assumed they'd go along with it, they were raped because of a rapist. The excuse of the porn made me do it? Nope, a man (or woman) rapes because they are a rapist that wants violence, power, and control.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Rape is less about sex than it is about violence, power, and control.
> 
> I'd never watch rape porn and neither would my husband, I don't know anyone that would. It's still fantasy tho.
> 
> No, porn stars weren't/aren't raped because it was assumed they'd go along with it, they were raped because of a rapist. The excuse of the porn made me do it? Nope, a man (or woman) rapes because they are a rapist that wants violence, power, and control.


Yes, I know the actual motivations of most rape. What I'm thinking is that such things help contribute, quite possibly, to the rape culture, the unfortunately common idea that it's all right to rape a woman. After all, the military switched to human-shaped targets after WWII in order to convince soldiers to more easily shot people. It worked. Very well.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

wr said:


> I carried to term, had a difficult delivery and spent over 28 days in hospital for MRSA as well as several months for daily treatments so it's not something that just happens in abortion clinics.


The point I was trying to make, is that if you had chosen to birth at home, you would have been treated worse than anyone having an abortion. (But probably wouldn't have got MRSA) C-section rates are entirely too high, and might be performed out of convenience to the doctor, (or his bank account depending on your insurance), instead of for the health of the woman or child.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> The point I was trying to make, is that if you had chosen to birth at home, you would have been treated worse than anyone having an abortion. (But probably wouldn't have got MRSA) C-section rates are entirely too high, and might be performed out of convenience to the doctor, (or his bank account depending on your insurance), instead of for the health of the woman or child.


I would not have been able to have a home birth because it was an extremely high risk pregnancy but I don't see too many people getting excited about hom births here.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's none of your business what consenting adults do in private. Pretty simple.



That drivel is some of the most ignorant claptrap ever spoken. 
Worse yet you don't even seem to support it yourself. 

For example would you support a mans right to beat his wife in private as long as she doesn't mention it to complain ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> That drivel is some of the most ignorant claptrap ever spoken.
> Worse yet you don't even seem to support it yourself.
> 
> For example would you support a mans right to beat his wife in private as long as she doesn't mention it to complain ?


Are you really comparing watching porn to beating your wife? And you think what I posted was drivel and ignorant claptrap? :facepalm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> That drivel is some of the most ignorant claptrap ever spoken.
> Worse yet you don't even seem to support it yourself.
> 
> For example would you support a mans right to beat his wife in private as long as she doesn't mention it to complain ?


If she *consents*, what is there to complain about?
Have you heard of a thing called "S&M"?



> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
> It's none of your business what *consenting* adults do in private. Pretty simple.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If she *consents*, what is there to complain about?
> Have you heard of a thing called "S&M"?


There are plenty of women who are brow-beaten into submission with physical abuse and mental brainwashing, mostly with highly "religious" people who think they have ultimate dominion over their spouse.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Different subject... how does porn NOT degrade women? If we're all so concerned about women being held in a positive light, watching them used as sex toys isn't going to cut it. Of course I realize there's all types of porn, but I don't care to type that into google. :shocked:


This is why they have the furry community or whatever it's called. Not degrading to women, maybe just degrading to fuzzy foxes and skunks and puppies and things.

I heard somewhere, not interested in looking it up, that there are some statistics emerging among some young males who are no longer interested in building human relationships for fulfilling their urges. Internet serves as a surrogate girlfriend. They might text a girl, but going over to her house is just too much effort. If there is anything to that, might be a good time to switch some stocks from pampers to kleenex. Seems that I also heard that young people are becoming less enthused about getting their driver's license. Sounds plausible, taking your face away from a phone for long enough to watch for a light to turn would be a real chore for some of these kids.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ha, I'm with you on that. Phones are a tool, but for many they've become a lifestyle. Eventually they'll grow up, after they move out of their parents basement of course.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> I heard somewhere, not interested in looking it up, that there are some statistics emerging among some young males who are no longer interested in building human relationships for fulfilling their urges. Internet serves as a surrogate girlfriend. They might text a girl, but going over to her house is just too much effort. If there is anything to that, might be a good time to switch some stocks from pampers to kleenex. Seems that I also heard that young people are becoming less enthused about getting their driver's license. Sounds plausible, taking your face away from a phone for long enough to watch for a light to turn would be a real chore for some of these kids.


I have no idea about the young males no longer interested in human relationships, but the driver's license thing is certainly accurate.

Apparently, my son is the minority, because as soon as he was eligible to get his permit, he did. Same thing for taking the test and getting his license - as soon as he could, he did.

However, many of his friends - some who are 17 & 18 - some have their permits, some haven't even gotten that far yet. But if Mom & Dad just drive them where they "need" to go, there isn't much incentive to get your driver's license.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Michael W. Smith said:


> I have no idea about the young males no longer interested in human relationships, but the driver's license thing is certainly accurate.
> 
> Apparently, my son is the minority, because as soon as he was eligible to get his permit, he did. Same thing for taking the test and getting his license - as soon as he could, he did.
> 
> However, many of his friends - some who are 17 & 18 - some have their permits, some haven't even gotten that far yet. But if Mom & Dad just drive them where they "need" to go, there isn't much incentive to get your driver's license.


Well, I also know a family that won't get any of their kids licenses or permits until they leave home, lest they jack up the insurance rate by, God forbid, $30.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> There are plenty of women who are brow-beaten into submission with physical abuse and mental brainwashing, mostly with highly "religious" people who think they have ultimate dominion over their spouse.


Yeah, all those guys beating their wives to the tune of "the old rugged cross"

I think I will just go ahead and ban myself, for the blissfull extravagance of telling you that you are a bleeding idiot. Have their been cases of religious fanatics beating their wives? of course!

Far more common that their only devotion is to a bottle. Ask your local cops if Christianity is a bigger risk factor for domestic violence or alcoholism. Or atheism, for that matter. I certainly never knew a wife beater who went to church. You have created your own little fantasy that bears no resemblance to reality, but since you believe you will never have to answer for the things you say and do, you might as well entertain yourself. For a guy who claims to have a superior intellect, you are as ignorant and small minded as any I have encountered in my life, and your arrogance o0nly serves to accent it. You obviously know nothing at all about that which you are prepared to ---- and denigrate, so proceed to wallow in your ignorance and bigotry. 

Yeah, I know, I'm out of here, so no need to serve notice.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

OK, I don't really intend to rail against Christian families. Many of my friends are Christians, fundamental family values. They're great, wonderful people that I often don't see eye -to-eye with. Butt almost universally, I get along very well with people who genuinely want to make the world a better place. I believe I have plenty of family values as well. One day, I'd like a family. It will be an exciting adventure.

It may come across that I pretend to know more than I do, but that's just me being spirited, possibly overbearing in my quest for the truth. I sometimes bounce from one topic to the next in an intellectual free-fall with no boundaries. Sometimes I wind up insulting people in the process. Sorry.

The only thing I find offensive in your post is your assertion that I won't have to answer for anything. Of course I'll have to answer. Do you think my accountability is any different than anyone else's? Sorry to say, but judging from certain stats, religious folk just do what they want to if they really want. 

What do you think tribes did before we had these Big God religions? You don't steal because it upsets the social balance and brings unrest. Unrest means it's harder to keep the tribe together. The harder it is to keep the tribe in harmony, the harder survival becomes. 

But absolutely I'm accountable for my actions. Me, only me. The devil didn't seduce me or make me do anything - I did. Everything I do is accounted for in this world. The greatest difference between me and immoral people is that I genuinely desire to better myself. Does the Christ-model work best for me? Let's try some Confucianism. What's the Dalai-Lama believe? Oh look, a weird island religion...

And to be perfectly, absolutely honest, so honest you could hurt me very badly if you wanted to right now... I haven't found my religion yet. I suspect it will be a life-long quest, but it is one I accept. It means trying to find the answers myself, steering through religious dogmas, quack quasi-spiritual religions, wildly fluctuating scientific atheism... You name it, it's up for grabs. I've rendered myself a life-long student of the world. 

I will never have all the answers, but maybe, just maybe, I will have some of the right ones.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> Yeah, all those guys beating their wives to the tune of "the old rugged cross"
> 
> I think I will just go ahead and ban myself, for the blissfull extravagance of telling you that you are a bleeding idiot. Have their been cases of religious fanatics beating their wives? of course!
> 
> ...


I've found that many of the most devoutly religious men are more often to assault (physically, verbally or emotionally) their wife and kids, demand complete obedience, _and_ be heads of their respective churches. Many people know it but since he's a "good church going guy" it's overlooked.

The religious are no better people than the agnostics or atheists. They like to think so but it's all part of the indoctrination. The proof is this post, the smug arrogance that someone is "ignorant and small minded" who doesn't agree with the dogma isn't flattering or surprising.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I've found that many of the most devoutly religious men are more often to assault (physically, verbally or emotionally) their wife and kids, demand complete obedience, _and_ be heads of their respective churches. Many people know it but since he's a "good church going guy" it's overlooked.
> 
> The religious are no better people than the agnostics or atheists. They like to think so but it's all part of the indoctrination. The proof is this post, the smug arrogance that someone is "ignorant and small minded" who doesn't agree with the dogma isn't flattering or surprising.


When my relative was married to a certain abusive man, he was a reasonably devout church goer. Everyone liked him, and he put on a good front. After a sequence of particularly bad abuse, she sought asylum at a neighbor's house. Knowing that the husband was a good, religious, church-goer, they of course did the responsible thing and called the husband, too come fetch his clearly mistaken, batty wife and they could work things out. Divorce still wasn't thought of very highly back then.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I've found that many of the most devoutly religious men are more often to assault (physically, verbally or emotionally) their wife and kids, demand complete obedience, _and_ be heads of their respective churches. Many people know it but since he's a "good church going guy" it's overlooked.
> 
> The religious are no better people than the agnostics or atheists. They like to think so but it's all part of the indoctrination. The proof is this post, the smug arrogance that someone is "ignorant and small minded" who doesn't agree with the dogma isn't flattering or surprising.


So is this just speculation based on personal, anecdotal evidence, or do you have any research to back it up?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

barnbilder said:


> So is this just speculation based on personal, anecdotal evidence, or do you have any research to back it up?


....just another opportunity...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> So is this *just speculation based on personal, anecdotal evidence*, or do you have any research to back it up?


Like this thread?

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/politics/554333-interesting-tidbit.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> So is this just speculation based on personal, anecdotal evidence, or do you have any research to back it up?


Your first clue are the words, "I've found". :hysterical:


----------

