# Planned Parenthood videos were NOT tampered with



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

That was an accusation by PP and their supporters but it turns out it was a lie. What you saw was what they said in the order they said it. It was not taken out of context. The only editing done was for things like bathroom breaks.

Forensic Analysis of Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood Finds âNo Evidence of Manipulationâ
National Steven Ertelt Sep 29, 2015 | 10:27AM Washington, DC


A new forensic analysis of the 10 videos the Center for Medical Progress released exposing the Planned Parenthood abortion business apparently illegally selling aborted babies and their body parts for profit finds âno evidence of manipulationâ despite claims from the abortion company and Democrats that they were heavily edited.

The multiple videos have horrified millions of Americans and the most recent video catches the nationâs biggest abortion business selling specific body parts â including the heart, eyes and âgonadsâ of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.

Now, a legal group Alliance Defending Freedom has obtained the services of cybersecurity and forensic analysis company Coalfire Systems to examine each of the 10 videos CMP released to determine if they were manipulated in any way. According to a news report, the extensive report finds answer is no and the only edits in the videos consisted of bathroom breaks and time eating meals.

âThis conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme,â the report states. âThe uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1âs camera and Investigator 2âs camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.â The report also confirms that âedits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation.â

âThe Coalfire forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by Center for Medical Progress are authentic and have not been manipulated,â ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox said in a statement.

âAnalysts scrutinized every second of video recorded during the investigation and released by CMP to date and found only bathroom breaks and other non-pertinent footage had been removed. Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a smokescreen of false accusations and should now answer for what appear to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP investigation.â

âAmerican taxpayer money should be redirected to fund local community health centers and not subsidize a scandal-ridden, billion-dollar abortion business,â Kerri Kupec, legal communications director for Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement.

âPlanned Parenthood is an organization that cares about one thing: making a profit at the expense of womenâs health,â she added. âThe investigative videos, whose authenticity was confirmed by the report, show that Planned Parenthood is an abortion-machine whose top executives and doctors haggle and joke about the harvesting and selling of baby body parts. Women deserve far better.â

According to its website, âCoalfire has been listed on the Cybersecurity 500, a directory of the worldâs hottest and most innovative cybersecurity companies to watch in 2015â and serves âthousands of client organizations across the United States and the U.K.,â including 3M, Amazon, CenturyLink, IBM, Intel, Intuit, Sharp, Netgear, and Toshiba. Coalfireâs website lists 17 separate accreditations.

Last month, after 8 videos had been released, Planned Parenthoodâs own experts admitted that there was no evidence of any manipulation of the audio in any of the eight shocking videos. A biased report in Politico also confirmed there was no audio manipulation:

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue. â¦

But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no âwidespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.â
Meanwhile, as the Weekly Standard reports, the private research company Planned Parenthood hired to defend itself by analyzing the videos is a political ship with ties to the pro-abortion Democratic private, not an independent non-partisan organization.

The Center for Medical Policy responded to the story in a statement released to LifeNews.com.

âPlanned Parenthoodâs desperate, 11th-hour attempt to pay their hand-picked âexpertsâ to distract from the crimes documented on video is a complete failure,â David Daleiden of CMP said. âThe absence of bathroom breaks and waiting periods between meetings does not change the hours of dialogue with top-level Planned Parenthood executives eager to manipulate abortion procedures to get high-quality baby parts for financially profitable sale.â

Daleiden continued: âWhile even Planned Parenthoodâs âexpertsâ found âno evidence of audio manipulationâ in the recordings, it is telling that Planned Parenthood is trying so hard to pretend that their staff did not refer to a dismembered fetus as âa babyâ and âanother boy.â Planned Parenthoodâs abortion providers are far more honest about the brutal reality of their work than the paid political consultants at the national office.â

âIf Planned Parenthood really wants to disprove the now-overwhelming body of evidence that their affiliates traffic in baby body parts, they should release their fetal tissue contracts with the for-profit company StemExpress for law enforcement, Congress, and all the world to see,â he concluded.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/29/f...-manipulation/


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

No don't go confusing those who jumped on the abortion bandwagon with facts.
ETA: Maybe that was a little harsh, I should have said those who believed the falsehood that the videos were edited.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

And still no evidence of any kind to support the claims made against PP, not in short clips nor the full versions, not even by the investigations prompted by these propaganda vids. :shrug:


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Website has pulled the link.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That was an accusation by PP and their supporters but it turns out it was a lie. What you saw was what they said in the order they said it. It was not taken out of context. The only editing done was for things like bathroom breaks.


The FULL videos weren't edited, and no one ever said they were

The *first videos released* to the public on Youtube were shorter, edited versions.
The originals were released later, along with the transcripts.

This "report" was commissioned by another anti abortion group and released in conjunction with the Congressional hearings.

They are playing word games, and there is still no evidence of any crimes.



> Now, a legal group* Alliance Defending Freedom* has obtained the services of cybersecurity and forensic analysis company Coalfire Systems to examine each of the 10 videos CMP released to determine if they were manipulated in any way. According to a news report, the extensive report finds answer is no and the only edits in the videos consisted of bathroom breaks and time eating meals.


ADF is just another activist/anti-abortion group

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

They even admit there were two versions of the videos, with one version being edited:



> The report also confirms that &#8220;edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation.&#8221;


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> No don't go confusing those who jumped on the abortion bandwagon with facts.
> ETA: Maybe that was a little harsh, I should have said those who believed the falsehood that the videos were edited.


I know you're trying but I think we need to send you to Canadian Finishing School :rotfl:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> I know you're trying but I think we need to send you to Canadian Finishing School :rotfl:


Is that code for "feed him to a Grizzly Bear?"


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> I know you're trying but I think we need to send you to Canadian Finishing School :rotfl:


Really:drillsgt: as close to a rmp


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Is that code for "feed him to a Grizzly Bear?"


I was thinking more along the lines of getting him hooked on Timmie's double doubles, timbits, teaching him how to spell colour, feeding him Turkey in October ........... yeah, okay, maybe the bear is a better option


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

So all we have now is one group who investigated the videos and said they were edited and manipulated and another that says they weren't. Since the group that says yea was hired by PP and the one that says nay was hired by the Right to lifers we basically know nothing. We need them to be analyzed by someone completely neutral. Let me know when that happens.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, a professional forensic of video has studying every second per them and has determined that there was no adulation of the video ... no heinous attempt to distort the video..

Just the facts.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of getting him hooked on Timmie's double doubles, timbits, teaching him how to spell colour, feeding him Turkey in October ........... yeah, okay, maybe the bear is a better option


I think you need to explain why that last part is not an insult to a member. Is it Canadian code for something funny?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> I think you need to explain why that last part is not an insult to a member. Is it Canadian code for something funny?


I think you're reaching pretty hard if you're going to get all fired up over some good natured ribbing between old friends but Cornhusker feels he has been put upon in some way, I'll be quite happy to apologize in a very public way. 

I do think you're missing the point in the day's events though. It's not intended to destroy friendships, camaraderie, exchange of ideas or even a bit of humour once in a while.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I want to know what a "Timmies double double" is, you Canadians have such weird names for stuff.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I want to know what a "Timmies double double" is, you Canadians have such weird names for stuff.


Mediocre quality coffee with 2 cream and 2 sugar. Nobody knows for sure why people who drink Timmies coffee must have it with 2 cream and 2 sugar but even if you happen to order something confusing like double cream, you get a double double. 

Timbits are just the little donut holes and tend to be incredibly sweet. 

For some reason, Timmies has been come quite well known for random acts of kindness or pay it forwards so there is about a 50% chance that when you hit the drive through window, somebody ahead has already paid for your coffee and if they haven't, it's probably your turn to buy coffee for somebody else in line. 

A Timmies franchise is such a big deal that it is assumed that you will pay for your business within the first year.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> I want to know what a "Timmies double double" is, you Canadians have such weird names for stuff.


I think it's a northern version of a "Doveys double dipped", served up to thousands here in s. Central ky. Think about a burger made with the greasiest meat available and double dipping it in grease before it hits the bun...... Yummy stuff right there.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Timbits sound good. The only coffee I put 2 creams and 2 sugars in is bad coffee.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think it's a northern version of a "Doveys double dipped", served up to thousands here in s. Central ky. Think about a burger made with the greasiest meat available and double dipping it in grease before it hits the bun...... Yummy stuff right there.


Wish I had known about that when we lived in KY. It wouldn't have been too far out of our way driving down to TN.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think it's a northern version of a "Doveys double dipped", served up to thousands here in s. Central ky. Think about a burger made with the greasiest meat available and double dipping it in grease before it hits the bun...... Yummy stuff right there.


We have a drive in that may be close to the same but the burger are cooked in an BBQ sauce. They aren't really good but nobody has had the nerve to tell their friends that the stood in line for over an hour just to get an auction sale burger and the best milkshake in the province.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> No, a professional forensic of video has studying every second per them and has determined that there was no adulation of the video ... no heinous attempt to distort the video..
> 
> Just the facts.


The facts are CMP complained about PP's report not being done by an "unbiased source":



> Meanwhile, as the Weekly Standard reports, the private research company Planned Parenthood hired to defend itself by analyzing the videos is *a political ship with ties to the pro-abortion Democratic private, not an independent non-partisan organization*.


I already posted a link proving the ones who paid for the CMP study was an anti-abortion group. 

If CMP wants "honesty" they can turn all their "evidence"
over to the police so both sides can be investigated


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Wish I had known about that when we lived in KY. It wouldn't have been too far out of our way driving down to TN.


Seems most every small town here has some delicacy it's known world wide for. Just a few miles south of doveys when you cross the Tennessee line was Dumas Walkers place of Ky head hunters fame. Next town north of us was the slawburger fries and bottle of ski also made famous by the same boys.... Who incedentaly are from our little town.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

major thread drift, can't help myself

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTBWiUkR69w[/ame]


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I forgive you for the drift.... Haven't seen Fred without the "burns" in a lotta years!  well that and it ain't my thread!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The facts are CMP complained about PP's report not being done by an "unbiased source":
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you saying that the group that did the study were unbiased?

Oh, they've done so...

Investigations are forthcoming...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Are you saying that the group that did the study were unbiased?
> 
> Oh, they've done so...
> 
> Investigations are forthcoming...


As I understand it some have been completed.... Results? No wrong doing by PP.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

No illegalities.
Wrong doing?
My stomach turned on the first clip months ago and I haven't watched another one.
As we all know, that is in the eye of the beholder.........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *Are you saying* that the group that did the study were unbiased?
> 
> Oh, they've done so...
> 
> Investigations are forthcoming...


You can read what I'm saying, since I stated it quite plainly

The group that did the report you're so excited about was financed by another anti-abortion group. 

It's more meaningless spin that "refutes" an argument no one made.

All the "investigations" in the world won't make those videos truthful, and if they contained any real evidence, charges would have already been filed.

Get back to me when there are convictions for "selling baby parts"
I'm betting CMP will be the ones convicted of fraud and tax evasion


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As I understand it some have been completed.... Results? No wrong doing by PP.


 It may very well be true that there was no illegal action by PP, but, there is nothing, on this Earth, that will convince me that there was no wrong doing by PP.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> It may very well be true that there was no illegal action by PP, but, there is nothing, on this Earth, that will convince me that *there was no wrong doing by PP*.


One would think that if there was no confusion over what was said, there would be no investigations. So obviously, something in those videos was enough to cause investigations, people to change their opinions of PP and the abortion industry relative to tissue research.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> One would think that if there was no confusion over what was said, there would be no investigations. So obviously, something in those videos was enough to cause investigations, people to change their opinions of PP and the abortion industry relative to tissue research.


The elections coming up had a great deal to do with the outrage over the edited videos. Conservative candidates had to look like they were doing something to appease the anti abortion constituents. A good indication that they are using the videos is that Jindal cut off funding to the PP's in LA and neither performed abortions. 

All in all, the only people that really believed those videos were the ones that only read the headline or _wanted_ to believe them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> The elections coming up had a great deal to do with the outrage over the edited videos. Conservative candidates had to look like they were doing something to appease the anti abortion constituents. A good indication that they are using the videos is that Jindal cut off funding to the PP's in LA and neither performed abortions.
> 
> All in all, the only people that really believed those videos were the ones that only read the headline or _wanted_ to believe them.


It is pretty easy to tell who they are as well. They keep quoting the talking points.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> The elections coming up had a great deal to do with the outrage over the edited videos. Conservative candidates had to look like they were doing something to appease the anti abortion constituents. A good indication that they are using the videos is that Jindal cut off funding to the PP's in LA and neither performed abortions.
> 
> All in all, the only people that really believed those videos were the ones that only read the headline or _wanted_ to believe them.


Why do you keep insisting that people are only reading the headlines? That would imply that only people who support fetal tissue research are intelligent enough to read and comprehend the news.

You couldn't be more wrong. I've read discussions even in my local newspaper and, believe me, people know the full details. Regardless of whether PP is cleared of any wrongdoing, the issue of tissue research using aborted fetal tissue is changing attitudes about abortion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

With the White House controlling and obfuscating major news outlets, how can anybody believe anything they hear?
Knowing how the left operates in this country, I'd be more inclined to believe they are selling baby pieces than to believe they are innocent.
Just my opinion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> The elections coming up had a great deal to do with the outrage over the edited videos. Conservative candidates had to look like they were doing something to appease the anti abortion constituents. A good indication that they are using the videos is that Jindal cut off funding to the PP's in LA and neither performed abortions.
> 
> All in all, the only people that really believed those videos were the ones that only read the headline or _wanted_ to believe them.


Let's see.... last election cycle... we're we as Americans lie too even during the debates... think of the middle east.....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> It may very well be true that there was no illegal action by PP, but, there is nothing, on this Earth, that will convince me that there was no wrong doing by PP.


Please clarify. Are you referring to the fact that PP performs abortions, or do you think they are selling tissue illegally? Or some other wrongdoing?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Why do you keep insisting that people are only reading the headlines? That would imply that only people who support fetal tissue research are intelligent enough to read and comprehend the news.
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong. I've read discussions even in my local newspaper and, believe me, people know the full details. Regardless of whether PP is cleared of any wrongdoing, the issue of tissue research using aborted fetal tissue is changing attitudes about abortion.


There are people that only read the headline, "Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts!" It's not opinion on my part, the proof is that it's been totally refuted and yet people _still_ believe that PP sells fetal tissue. 

This is only an issue because there is an election next year, in my opinion. The conservative candidates need talking points. If people want to have their emotions manipulated they will believe anything.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Please clarify. Are you referring to the fact that PP performs abortions, or do you think they are selling tissue illegally? Or some other wrongdoing?


 The fact that they perform abortions. I really don't have a problem with the tissue research. You and I agree on most things. One of the few differences, that I see, is our separate beliefs as to what constitutes a victim.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> It may very well be true that there was no illegal action by PP, but, there is nothing, on this Earth, that will convince me that there was no wrong doing by PP.


"Wrong" is a subjective term.
You don't have to partake of any of their services that you think are "wrong"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why do you keep insisting that* people are only reading the headlines*? That would imply that only people who support fetal tissue research are intelligent enough to read and comprehend the news.


Because most don't get far past the headlines
They stop at "selling baby parts" and start ranting.

They can have factual information placed right in front of them, and they will say it's not there, because all they see is "selling baby parts"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> One would think that if there was no confusion over what was said, there would be no investigations. So obviously, something in those videos was enough to cause investigations,* people to change their opinions of PP* and the abortion industry relative to tissue research.


You keep repeating that, while polls are showing about 66% want to keep funding PP

The "investigations" have nothing to do with illegal acts.
It's all politics and anti-abortion hype.

In a few weeks you will hear they found no evidence of illegalities


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Wrong" is a subjective term.
> You don't have to partake of any of their services that you think are "wrong"


 No, just pay for them. And please don't insult us all by saying that "Federal funds don't go towards abortion". I mean, if I can't buy a new car because I must buy a new tractor, and someone buys me the tractor, allowing me to buy the car, In actually, they have subsidized my new car. 


Like a great many other things, the Federal government has no right, or, responsibility to fund PP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> No, just pay for them. *And please don't insult us all by saying that "Federal funds don't go towards abortion".* I mean, if I can't buy a new car because I must buy a new tractor, and someone buys me the tractor, allowing me to buy the car, In actually, they have subsidized my new car.
> 
> Like a great many other things, the Federal government has no right, or, responsibility to fund PP.


I don't know why you consider the truth an "insult".

About 80% of PP's "federal funding" is Medicaid reimbursements in payment of services rendered. 

The Feds don't just hand them a random amount of money to spend any way they like

The "federal funds subsidize abortions" is just fantasy rhetoric, since patients pay for all elective abortions themselves. 

PP isn't providing them free to the patients, as would be the case if the Govt were truly paying for them

Federal funds can only pay for medically necessary abortions, and most of those would be done in hospitals.

I get that you don't agree with the idea of abortions, but it's simply false to say the Govt is paying PP to perform them.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know why you consider the truth an "insult".
> 
> About 80% of PP's "federal funding" is Medicaid reimbursements in payment of services rendered.
> 
> ...


[Above quote parsed for brevity]

Just wanted to get this straight. Poor people are getting abortions, true? So if poor people are getting abortions then there is an "Abortion Provider", correct? So, it stands to reason that if people who cannot afford to pay for the procedure are having the procedure done by competent medical providers that it would seem that those providers would not be doing it for free, correct? Now, if the poor people are not paying for the procedure and the providers are not giving that service for free, where do they get their compensation from?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know why you consider the truth an "insult".
> 
> About 80% of PP's "federal funding" is Medicaid reimbursements in payment of services rendered.
> 
> ...


 Agreeing with Shine. Where does the money come from, for abortions performed on the poor? Don't think it could be from payments for "other services" paid for by the Federal Government? 

See, this is why the Feds have no business funding any part of PP. It is immoral to force me to pay for Abortions, or, one who has a problem with BC to pay for that, or, those opposed to most any medical procedure to pay for that. 

Our Federal government was designed to where such expenditures were and are unconstitutional. Too bad we no longer abide by the Constitution.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Planned Parenthood receives private donations to provide services for people that can not afford them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Planned Parenthood receives private donations to provide services for people that can not afford them.


 And they should be able to do without the unconstitutional federal funding that they currently receive.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> And they should be able to do without the unconstitutional federal funding that they currently receive.


They do it without that finding. The funding is for heath service and some research.

I guess maybe some people do not understand that they do provide reproductive health services and get paid for them from the government just like may other doctors, clinics and hospitals do. Service provide and reimbursed for. Just not elective abortions. Those are paid for by the person having the abortion or if they can not afford it they can get it paid for by donations. I do believe though most people pay for their own abortions.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> They do it without that finding. The funding is for heath service and some research.
> 
> I guess maybe some people do not understand that they do provide reproductive health services and get paid for them from the government just like may other doctors, clinics and hospitals do. Service provide and reimbursed for. Just not elective abortions. Those are paid for by the person having the abortion or if they can not afford it they can get it paid for by donations. I do believe though most people pay for their own abortions.


And I guess many don't understand that ANY Federal funding of medical care (and a great many other things that the Federal government is currently funding) is unconstitutional.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And I guess many don't understand that ANY Federal funding of medical care (and a great many other things that the Federal government is currently funding) is unconstitutional.


Just curious, is this according to you or SCOTUS?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> [Above quote parsed for brevity]
> 
> Just wanted to get this straight. Poor people are getting abortions, true? So if poor people are getting abortions then there is an "Abortion Provider", correct? So, it stands to reason that if* people who cannot afford to pay for the procedure are having the procedure done *by competent medical providers that it would seem that those providers would not be doing it for free, correct? Now, if the poor people are not paying for the procedure and the providers are not giving that service for free, where do they get their compensation from?


Show me your proof they aren't paying, or proof that Federal funds are being used.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just curious, is this according to you or SCOTUS?


 It is according to the Constitution which, in no way, enumerates such a power for the Federal government.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> And I guess many don't understand that ANY Federal funding of medical care (and a great many other things that the Federal government is currently funding) is unconstitutional.


I understand what you believe but that really has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I understand what you believe but that really has nothing to do with this thread.


 It is not a belief, it is a fact and Federal funding of PP is at the heart of this thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Agreeing with Shine. *Where does the money come from, for abortions performed on the poor?* Don't think it could be from payments for "other services" paid for by the Federal Government?
> 
> See, this is why the Feds have no business funding any part of PP. It is immoral to force me to pay for Abortions, or, one who has a problem with BC to pay for that, or, those opposed to most any medical procedure to pay for that.
> 
> Our Federal government was designed to where such expenditures were and are unconstitutional. Too bad we no longer abide by the Constitution.


Patients pay for their own *elective* abortions.
There are no Federal funds used

A simple 1st Trimester abortion with no complications is $300-500.

Repeatedly asking questions that have been answered is pointless.

Write your Congressman if you have problems with the Constitution.
They just passed a bill to continue funding PP in the last 24 hours


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show me your proof they aren't paying, or proof that Federal funds are being used.



I would assume that some of the same people, who provide abortions, also provide other services? Would that be a logical assumption? So, these people, who provide abortions would derive some of their salary from Federal funds, would they not?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Patients pay for their own *elective* abortions.
> There are no Federal funds used
> 
> A simple 1st Trimester abortion with no complications is $300-500.
> ...


 They simply do not have separate piles of money for this, and that, perhaps they do on paper, but, not in reality. And Congress, along with the rest of the Federal government, is pretty much criminal and largely useless.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> They simply do not have separate piles of money for this, and that, perhaps they do on paper, but, not in reality. And Congress, along with the rest of the Federal government, is pretty much criminal and largely useless.


Actually any good business or organization knows the breakdown of costs and hours to show where the money is being spent and earned. I do cost analysis all day long for employees that work on different jobs everyday. I have to know exact costs and revenue for every job. If you don't know what an employee makes you and costs you, breaking even is nearly impossible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *I would assume* that some of the same people, who proved abortions, also provide other services? Would that be a logical assumption? So, these people, who provide abortions would derive some of their salary from Federal funds, would they not?


You can assume anything you want. It's not evidence of anything you're trying to imply. This has been explained several times already. 

The "other services" have nothing to do with funding abortions.
Their salaries have nothing to do with who pays for abortions




> They simply do not have separate piles of money for this, and that, perhaps they do on paper, but, not in reality. And Congress, along with the rest of the Federal government, is pretty much criminal and largely useless.


If you want to rant about the Evil Immoral Govt, that's another thread.
This one is about Planned Parenthood


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can assume anything you want. It's not evidence of anything you're trying to imply. This has been explained several times already.
> 
> The "other services" have nothing to do with funding abortions.
> Their salaries have nothing to do with who pays for abortions
> ...


Again, the salaries of providers are part of the costs of providing abortions, that cannot be denied. Federal funds pay for part of their salaries. Or are you willing to deny that fact? So, the Federal government is funding some of the costs of abortions. 

Also, when the Evil Immoral Govt is funding the Evil Immoral PP, my ranting belongs on THIS thread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Again, the salaries of providers are part of the costs of providing abortions, that cannot be denied. Federal funds pay for part of their salaries. Or are you willing to deny that fact? So, the Federal government is funding some of the costs of abortions.
> 
> Also, when the Evil Immoral Govt is funding the Evil Immoral PP, my ranting belongs on THIS tread.


I can costs out salaries to the hour for all the overhead employees. Even easier for people that actually perform the services.

All departments usually have their own budgets and ours and employee works in them. Overhead costs are calculated and then added to that employees wage rate. All well run organizations crunch these numbers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I can costs out salaries to the hour for all the overhead employees. Even easier for people that actually perform the services.
> 
> All departments usually have their own budgets and ours and employee works in them. Overhead costs are calculated and then added to that employees wage rate. All well run organizations crunch these numbers.


 Like I said, money is money. You can say that this dollar bill from donor X is for Albert Abortionist and this dollar from Uncle Sam is for Patti Pap Smear all you want, but, money is money and just because one can give it a name doesn't really make it separate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Again, the salaries of providers are part of the costs of providing abortions, that cannot be denied. Federal funds pay for part of their salaries. Or are you willing to deny that fact? So, the Federal government is funding some of the costs of abortions.


Federal funds could pay for their entire salaries and still not be paying for *abortions*, since that's not included in "salaries". 

*Patients pay for their own elective abortions*

PP also has other revenue sources besides the Federal Govt.
It's not hard to look it up and figure it out



> Also, when the Evil Immoral Govt is funding the Evil Immoral PP, my ranting belongs on THIS tread


Not really, because whether or not you think something is "immoral" has nothing to do with the actual facts of the matter


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Like I said, money is money. You can say that this dollar bill from donor X is for Albert Abortionist and this dollar from Uncle Sam is for Patti Pap Smear all you want, but, money is money and just because one can give it a name doesn't really make it separate.


Sure you can. It is actually pretty easy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *Like I said*, money is money. *You can say* that this dollar bill from donor X is for Albert Abortionist and this dollar from Uncle Sam is for Patti Pap Smear all you want, but, money is money and just because one can give it a name doesn't really make it separate.


And just because you say it's NOT separate doesn't mean that's the case.
You have rhetoric and emotion to back your claims, and PP has Federal audits and detailed medical records to back theirs


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Federal funds could pay for their entire salaries and still not be paying for *abortions*, since that's not included in "salaries".
> 
> *Patients pay for their own elective abortions*
> 
> ...


 We can go around and around about this and you can say that the money is separate in reality, like it is on paper, all you want. You know and I know that isn't true. 

We all know that PP works off of a sliding payment scale, so, the claim that "patients pay for their own elective abortions" is not entirely true. There is some subsidizing going on. I know it, you know it. 

The fact that they get Federal funds helps them pay for equipment and personnel that are used for abortion, if it is nothing more than freeing up money from elsewhere. (Oh the funds from Medicaid go to pay for X equipment for non-lethal service, so, Donor money can all go to abortions) 

This is why our founders didn't want charity to be part of the Federal Government.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Sure you can. It is actually pretty easy.


 
You do realize that I am speaking of reality and not legality, correct?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You do realize that I am speaking of reality and not legality, correct?


In reality yes. I do it every day. Any good accountant or bookkeeper can.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It is according to the Constitution which, in no way, enumerates such a power for the Federal government.


So, according to you, right?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish... provide a link from the constitution....seems you found it I like farm haven't.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And just because you say it's NOT separate doesn't mean that's the case.
> You have rhetoric and emotion to back your claims, and PP has Federal audits and detailed medical records to back theirs


Facts rule all.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Irish... provide a link from the constitution....seems you found it I like farm haven't.


It's probably in the "good and welfare clause" one of our distinguished Congressmen mentioned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We can go around and around about this and you can say that the money is separate in reality, like it is on paper, all you want. You know and *I know that isn't true.*


You *believe *it's not true, no matter how many facts you are shown.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> In reality yes. I do it every day. Any good accountant or bookkeeper can.


I see. Cooking the books to show what you want. However you want to name it, Washington math, voodoo financing, whatever, the monies are subsidizing everything in the ledger. I can add it to whatever column I wish, but the fact remains that the monies end up in the same pot and actually pay across those lines of the accounting ledger no matter how hard others argue they don't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I see. Cooking the books to show what you want. However you want to name it, Washington math, voodoo financing, whatever, the monies are subsidizing everything in the ledger. I can add it to whatever column I wish, but the fact remains that the monies end up in the same pot and actually pay across those lines of the accounting ledger no matter how hard others argue they don't.


Proper cost accounting to know where your money is made and spent is cooking the books.

That is a pretty big insult you just leveled at me.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Proper cost accounting to know where your money is made and spent is cooking the books.
> 
> That is a pretty big insult you just leveled at me.


If you took it as a personal insult, that was not my intent. Sorry.

I have employed accountants and done some book keeping myself. I have also caught people using creative accounting while being on various Boards. Monies can and are spread to grey areas, miss appropriated and assigned to various misc. or catch all lines regularly. I guess your personal standards are above most others. But I hope you will atleast admit to yourself that others may not hold your high standards and may use whatever means necessary to protect millions in income for their employer so they can keep their cushy job or even advance their career.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I see. Cooking the books to show what you want. However you want to name it, Washington math, voodoo financing, whatever, the monies are subsidizing everything in the ledger. I can add it to whatever column I wish, but the fact remains that the monies end up in the same pot and actually pay across those lines of the accounting ledger no matter how hard others argue they don't.


So show us the proof PP is doing that with Federal funds to pay for abortions.
Otherwise it's just more repetition of the same empty rhetoric


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I know many don't like analogies, but, here we go:

If I have a bucket of water and I decide to give you some of it, on the condition that you don't water that mean ole pit bull, that bit me, with my water. I pour the water in your bucket, with your water, adding about a quarter of the volume of the bucket. You use a quarter of the bucket to water the sweet little lab puppy and give the rest to the mean ole pit bull. You give me an accounting that states that a quarter of the bucket was used to water sweet Lab. Did my water go to water the mean ole pit bull?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So, according to you, right?


No, I simply don't see the authorization, in the Constitution, for Federal funding of PP, or, any other charity. Did I miss it? If so, show me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I know many don't like analogies, but, here we go:
> 
> If I have a bucket of water and I decide to give you some of it, on the condition that you don't water that mean ole pit bull, that bit me, with my water. I pour the water in your bucket, with your water, adding about a quarter of the volume of the bucket. You use a quarter of the bucket to water the sweet little lab puppy and give the rest to the mean ole pit bull. You give me an accounting that states that a quarter of the bucket was used to water sweet Lab. Did my water go to water the mean ole pit bull?


If you take out exactly what you put in why does ot matter what portion got used for what. You are basically saying you have to use the water died red not the water died blue to prove you did not use the water for blue that was reds.

Ridicoulous. As long as they both got exavtly what they put in there is no fraud.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> If you took it as a personal insult, that was not my intent. Sorry.
> 
> I have employed accountants and done some book keeping myself. I have also caught people using creative accounting while being on various Boards. Monies can and are spread to grey areas, miss appropriated and assigned to various misc. or catch all lines regularly. I guess your personal standards are above most others. But I hope you will atleast admit to yourself that others may not hold your high standards and may use whatever means necessary to protect millions in income for their employer so they can keep their cushy job or even advance their career.


You said I cook the books. How else can I take it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> If you take out exactly what you put in why does ot matter what portion got used for what. You are basically saying you have to use the water died red not the water died blue to prove you did not use the water for blue that was reds.
> 
> Ridicoulous. As long as they both got exavtly what they put in there is no fraud.


 What if, without the added water, sweet lab would get 1/8th of a bucket? That would mean that there is 1/8 of a bucket unaccounted for.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> No, I simply don't see the authorization, in the Constitution, for Federal funding of PP, or, any other charity. Did I miss it? If so, show me.


According to you the federal government shouldn't be spending any money on medical care of this type - but - they are. That's why I asked if it was according to you or SCOTUS.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *What if*, without the added water, sweet lab would get 1/8th of a bucket? That would mean that there is 1/8 of a bucket unaccounted for.


What if we just stick to talking about reality and not some fantasy dogs?

The flaw in your analogy is PP doesn't get paid in advance for their services.
They are reimbursed after submitting the paperwork showing what they did.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> According to you the federal government shouldn't be spending any money on medical care - but - they are. That's why I asked if it was according to you or SCOTUS.


 
No, according to the Constitution, they shouldn't be spending any money on medical care (other than that which is involved with the maintaining of a navy/army) They are because the Federal government is criminal. Just because they are doing something doesn't mean it is legal. 

The Constitution is a relatively short document. If you can find where they are authorized to give to charity, please, put it forward.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You said I cook the books. How else can I take it.


 I apologized for the insult to you personally and do so again. It was not meant as a direct insult and I should have read back a page or two before jumping in. For that I was also wrong. And I tried to explain my larger point that i was speaking of accounting in general and not you specifically. So now you will have to take it however you wish.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> No, according to the Constitution, they shouldn't be spending any money on medical care (other than that which is involved with the maintaining of a navy/army) They are because the Federal government is criminal. Just because they are doing something doesn't mean it is legal.
> 
> The Constitution is a relatively short document. If you can find where they are authorized to give to charity, please, put it forward.


I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I don't think you are either, so I'm going to go along with SCOTUS on this one. 

And because I'm not going to argue/discuss if the federal government is "criminal" I'll just say goodnight.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What if we just stick to talking about reality and not some fantasy dogs?
> 
> The flaw in your analogy is PP doesn't get paid in advance for their services.
> They are reimbursed after submitting the paperwork showing what they did.


 
Ok, the fact is that PP is an immoral death factory that is being funded, in part, by money stolen from people who find the organization repulsive. It is also a fact that, the crimes of the Federal government not withstanding, the funding of PP, or, any other charity is illegal and to allow it to continue sets a dangerous precedent that must be resisted.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I apologized for the insult to you personally and do so again. It was not meant as a direct insult and I should have read back a page or two before jumping in. For that I was also wrong. And I tried to explain my larger point that i was speaking of accounting in general and not you specifically. So now you will have to take it however you wish.


Thank you. That explains it better. I thought that might be the case. No problem. No foul.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I don't think you are either, so I'm going to go along with SCOTUS on this one.
> 
> And because I'm not going to argue/discuss if the federal government is "criminal" I'll just say goodnight.


 It doesn't take a law degree to read the simple words and understand that if it is not listed, as a power of the Federal government, it is illegal for them to do it. Very simple.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Ok, the fact is that PP is an immoral death factory that is being funded, in part, by money stolen from people who find the organization repulsive. It is also a fact that, the crimes of the Federal government not withstanding, the funding of PP, or, any other charity is illegal and to allow it to continue sets a dangerous precedent that must be resisted.


No, I said *reality*.
I've heard all that other stuff before
If that's all you've got I won't waste any more time


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Remember when this first came out and I said it wasn't the federal money that should be looked at, but the private funds?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ed...ver-add-it-to-your-stemexpress-wish-list.html

That link gives some prices for livers, etc. from Stem Express.
Now, even though the first repudiations will be from those asking for "proof", take a moment and ask yourselves, "What might Planned Parenthood expect in return, for 'donating' such a valuable product to Stem Express?"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Remember when this first came out and I said it wasn't the federal money that should be looked at, but the private funds?
> 
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ed...ver-add-it-to-your-stemexpress-wish-list.html
> 
> ...


I have to think that preemptive assertion is due to the fact you don't have any proof, and your question is just more vague insinuations.

Posting spin from another anti-abortion site still isn't evidence of anything new.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have to think that preemptive assertion is due to the fact you don't have any proof, and your question is just more vague insinuations.


Very true.
There is quite a lot going on in the world right now, much of it very disturbing.
Sometimes I can barely keep up with current events as they unfold. Sometimes they take unexpected turns, with confounding revelations.
And rarely, are there documents in my possession that one would call, 100% concrete proof or evidence.

Of course, it doesn't take every piece of a jigsaw puzzle to be in place, before you can see the picture it portrays. 







Bearfootfarm said:


> Posting spin from another anti-abortion site still isn't evidence of anything new.



That would depend on your definition of "new".
For instance, the prices from 2 or 3 years ago compared to now could be considered new.
Also the company itself is new, started in 2010 with $800.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> We can go around and around about this and you can say that the money is separate in reality, like it is on paper, all you want. You know and I know that isn't true.
> 
> We all know that PP works off of a sliding payment scale, so, the claim that "patients pay for their own elective abortions" is not entirely true. There is some subsidizing going on. I know it, you know it.
> 
> ...


So you have no health insurance I take it? And you make sure that before you go see any doctor, go to any clinic or hospital that they are in no way connected to any group that does abortions of any sort correct? And you make sure their billing company doesn't bill for any doctors who also perform abortions right? I would sincerely hope you put double the effort into making sure your hard earned righteous dollars can't possibly support abortion of any sort that you put into worrying about the 3 cents out of your annual tax dollars that goes to PP.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I said *reality*.
> I've heard all that other stuff before
> If that's all you've got I won't waste any more time


Yup, over the top emotional rhetoric rather than logical discussion is simply a waste of time.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Actually any good business or organization knows the breakdown of costs and hours to show where the money is being spent and earned. I do cost analysis all day long for employees that work on different jobs everyday. I have to know exact costs and revenue for every job. If you don't know what an employee makes you and costs you, breaking even is nearly impossible.


Yet, in Congressional testimony, the President of PP could not tell the committee how much PP made from doing abortions.

Which is silly. Everybody in the room knew that the PP President had that knowledge and did not want to disclose it. Primarily because when the cat is out of the bag that abortion is a profitable enterprise, the federal dollars will immediately become harder to get.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> So you have no health insurance I take it? And you make sure that before you go see any doctor, go to any clinic or hospital that they are in no way connected to any group that does abortions of any sort correct? And you make sure their billing company doesn't bill for any doctors who also perform abortions right? I would sincerely hope you put double the effort into making sure your hard earned righteous dollars can't possibly support abortion of any sort that you put into worrying about the 3 cents out of your annual tax dollars that goes to PP.


 I am forced to hold health insurance, by the criminal government. My Doctor is Pro-life, as is her entire practice. If I go to an emergency room it is the Catholic hospital in the next town over. My child was born in that hospital. Nothing greater than that has come up, health wise, in my family as of yet. 

I do my best to insure that I don't support the horrid practice of abortion with my money, or, time. As the foul practice is ingrained throughout our society, I am sure that some of my money is used for it. When I find such an occurrence, I do my best to stop it. 

I believe it must have been similar for abolitionists who did their best to not support the practice of slavery in the early to mid. 1800's.

It makes no difference if it is 3 cents or thousands of dollars of my tax money. It is illegal for any of my tax money to go to any charity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Yet, in Congressional testimony, the President of PP could not tell the committee how much PP made from doing abortions.
> 
> Which is silly. *Everybody in the room knew* that the PP President had that knowledge and did not want to disclose it. Primarily because when the cat is out of the bag that abortion is a profitable enterprise, the federal dollars will immediately become harder to get.


If they all knew, why would they ask?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are playing word games, and there is still no evidence of any crimes.
> /QUOTE]
> The crime was they sold body parts. Their cover is they just charged for expenses. If that's the case, why were there different rates for different body parts? Why were they negotiating prices?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> > They are playing word games, and there is still no evidence of any crimes.
> ...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show me your proof they aren't paying, or proof that Federal funds are being used.


It was a question, I see you used your diversion skills again to avoid any attempt at answering that question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *It was a question*, I see you used your diversion skills again to *avoid any attempt at answering* that question.


It was a silly question based on a long string of other questions, false assumptions, and unproven allegations:



> Just wanted to get this straight. Poor people are getting abortions, *true?* So if poor people are getting abortions then there is an "Abortion Provider", *correct?*
> *
> So, it stands to reason* that if *people who cannot afford to pay for the procedure are having the procedure done* by competent medical providers that it would seem that those providers would not be doing it for free, *correct?*
> 
> Now, *if the poor people are not paying* for the procedure and the providers are not giving that service for free, *where do they get their compensation from?*


Any attempt at an "answer" to all that rambling would force a de facto agreement to those fabricated misconceptions, and unproven allegations.

The last question was answered before you asked, and now you're playing your silly old "You refuse to answer" game. Federal funds are not paying for elective abortions.

You need new material


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was a silly question based on a long string of other questions, false assumptions, and unproven allegations:
> 
> Any attempt at an "answer" to all that rambling would force a de facto agreement to those fabricated misconceptions, and unproven allegations.
> 
> ...


It's getting to the point where this information has been discussed and proven so many time it's ridiculous. At this point, when backed in a corner most anti abortion supporters will just start a diversion. 

It's ludicrous to think that something as highly regulated as medical care, and abortion in particular, that PP could "fudge" the paperwork. I'm sure the anti abortion people have full time investigators on it.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> I am forced to hold health insurance, by the criminal government. My Doctor is Pro-life, as is her entire practice. If I go to an emergency room it is the Catholic hospital in the next town over. My child was born in that hospital. Nothing greater than that has come up, health wise, in my family as of yet.
> 
> I do my best to insure that I don't support the horrid practice of abortion with my money, or, time. As the foul practice is ingrained throughout our society, I am sure that some of my money is used for it. When I find such an occurrence, I do my best to stop it.
> 
> ...


Seems to me a whole lot more private insurance dollars go to directly fund abortions. I would think you guys would start there especially since you know for sure you money is directly and willingly funding on demand abortion.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was a silly question based on a long string of other questions, false assumptions, and unproven allegations:
> 
> Which, if any of what I asked was a "False Assumption" or an "unproven allegation"? See this is how you deflect.
> 
> ...


So, here is another straightforward question: Does the receipt of Federal Funds place organizations like PP in a better position to perform on-demand abortions?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Which, if any of what I asked was a "False Assumption" or an "unproven allegation"? See this is how you deflect.


All of it, since you have offered no evidence of anything.



> No Rambling, the scenario was quite straightforward and without deception, just a simple question that you are afraid to answer in a straightforward fashion.


It took you a whole paragraph to ask "who pays for abortions?" when it's been answered.
That's "rambling"



> So, here is another straightforward question: Does the receipt of Federal Funds place organizations like PP in a better position to perform on-demand abortions?


No. 
Those funds still pay for other services, the same way they did the first 10 times that question has been put forth

You're mindlessly repeating the same questions that have been answered countless times.

If you truly want answers, read the threads again, read the video transcripts, and read the applicable statutes.

If you think those answers are incorrect, show your own answers and the evidence to support them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All of it, since you have offered no evidence of anything.
> 
> It took you a whole paragraph to ask "who pays for abortions?" when it's been answered.
> That's "rambling"
> ...


Please?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Seems to me a whole lot more private insurance dollars go to directly fund abortions. I would think you guys would start there especially since you know for sure you money is directly and willingly funding on demand abortion.


That's true, and some of us have indeed taken a stance regarding private insurance, although abortion funding wasn't my primary reason for refusing to carry it. The support of objectionable services funded by way of taxing incomes is another giant to slay. Voluntarily paying a sales tax on items you choose to buy affords you the right to decide what your money will ultimately finance. A weekly theft of your income does not.

As we have discussed before, this challenge is a two edged sword. While encouraging us to take a principled stand, I wonder if you would cheer us on in our battle, or cheer the government hand that wields the hammer that is sure to be used against us if we rebel?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> That's true, and some of us have indeed taken a stance regarding private insurance, although abortion funding wasn't my primary reason for refusing to carry it. The support of objectionable services funded by way of taxing incomes is another giant to slay. Voluntarily paying a sales tax on items you choose to buy affords you the right to decide what your money will ultimately finance. A weekly theft of your income does not.
> 
> As we have discussed before, this challenge is a two edged sword. While encouraging us to take a principled stand, I wonder if you would cheer us on in our battle, or cheer the government hand that wields the hammer that is sure to be used against us if we rebel?


You could find an insurance plan that did not cover abortion. Didn't they approve the Christian medical sharing plans for the ACA? I think it would be impossible though to make sure your insurance dollars never, ever went to a facility or clinic or doctor who performs abortions. Or even your own personal dollars. 

I would actually support your efforts in any way possible if you did not want your own money going to fund abortion in any way, shape or form. I really am 100% for your right to follow your own conscience so long as you aren't forcing anyone else to do so.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I appreciate that. The question wasn't meant to be as accusatory as it might have been towards others who take the view that the gov't should be used as tyrant instead of a servant.
I did look into a few of the religious medical groups and declined to join. There might be a few I overlooked but the ones I saw were zero tolerance on alcohol, tobacco and some, even caffeine.
If a few beers or glasses of wine a year and an occasional cigar are going to keep me out of their club, then we might as well not talk about my morning coffee, lol.
I'll stick with what and who I've got. 
As I said, the insurance mandate in general was where I drew the line, the specifics are only relevant to the individual.
By staying out of all doctor's offices, I think I can ensure where my money goes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> By staying out of all doctor's offices, I think I can ensure where my money goes.


And that Mortician will surely appreciate your business


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And that Mortician will surely appreciate your business


That's funny.

It's hard to pick an occupation that has more job security than a mortician, they appreciate *everyone's* business.:bouncy:



They'll probably get about $500 for cremating me, unless I can talk my wife into using the burn barrel and a can of gas I was gonna leave her......


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All of it, since you have offered no evidence of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You continue to spout your diatribe without participating in a back and forth discussion. I hope that I am able to avoid asking you anything in the future. For me, that is a worthless effort in the means of discussion. You would make a "good" politician.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> I appreciate that. The question wasn't meant to be as accusatory as it might have been towards others who take the view that the gov't should be used as tyrant instead of a servant.
> I did look into a few of the religious medical groups and declined to join. There might be a few I overlooked but the ones I saw were zero tolerance on alcohol, tobacco and some, even caffeine.
> If a few beers or glasses of wine a year and an occasional cigar are going to keep me out of their club, then we might as well not talk about my morning coffee, lol.
> I'll stick with what and who I've got.
> ...


I knew they had the tobacco and alcohol prohibitions, we never joined one because of the alcohol too. I have a problem with Christians prohibiting things scripture doesn't. Didn't know about the caffeine. That's really taking it to an extreme.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You continue to spout your diatribe without participating in a back and forth discussion. *I hope that I am able to avoid asking you anything in the future.* For me, that is a worthless effort in the means of discussion. You would make a "good" politician.


And you parrot the same tired lines in every thread

No one made you ask me anything, and all your questions were answered

If it bothers you , don't do it
If you do it, don't whine about it

See how simple things can be?

If you aren't "able to avoid asking", who's fault is that?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> You continue to spout your diatribe without participating in a back and forth discussion. I hope that I am able to avoid asking you anything in the future. For me, that is a worthless effort in the means of discussion. You would make a "good" politician.


Just to clarify: I hardly think BFF ever indulges in a diatribe. His arguments are almost always, cool, calm, and pointed. Might drive you crazy (for sure  ) but he's very consistent.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> Just to clarify: I hardly think BFF ever indulges in a diatribe. His arguments are almost always, cool, calm, and pointed. Might drive you crazy (for sure  ) but he's very consistent.


Thank you for your opinion. I see it differently. Substantially different.


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

Abortion is evil.

These folks are *unfortunately* lost. You are casting your pearls before swine...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

preparing said:


> Abortion is evil.
> 
> These folks are *unfortunately* lost. You are casting your pearls before swine...


Your *opinion*.

Other peoples opinion, including myself, is it's a legal, safe option that a woman has the right to choose for herself. Without *your* input. 

If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Easy. Peasy.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

preparing said:


> Abortion is evil.
> 
> These folks are *unfortunately* lost. You are casting your pearls before swine...


That's your opinion. 

My opinion is that forcing a woman to be an incubator against her will and with no regard to the impact that it will have on her life is evil. Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure and it should remain so.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

preparing said:


> Abortion is evil.
> 
> These folks are *unfortunately* lost. You are casting your pearls before swine...


Yeppers abortion seems evil. I am usually kinda cautious about saying that too loud though,,,,,, considering how many of them God performs every single day. I would hate to offend Him.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers abortion seems evil. I am usually kinda cautious about saying that too loud though,,,,,, considering how many of them God performs every single day. I would hate to offend Him.


I'm pretty sure you know the difference between an abortion and a normal menstruation cycle. Regardless, the rest of us do, Him included.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm pretty sure you know the difference between an abortion and a normal menstruation cycle. Regardless, the rest of us do, Him included.


have you not heard of spontaneous abortions? Little different from a period.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> have you not heard of spontaneous abortions? Little different from a period.


Yes, otherwise known as a miscarriage.
Have you been following YH's viewpoint on monthly periods being the same as a fetus in previous threads?
I have.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, otherwise known as a miscarriage.
> Have you been following YH's viewpoint on monthly periods being the same as a fetus in previous threads?
> I have.


Maybe he was referencing that...maybe not. He didn't specify. 

At any rate... I'm sure there are plenty of folks who believe a miscarriage is an abortion decreed by God.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> Maybe he was referencing that...maybe not. He didn't specify.
> 
> At any rate... I'm sure there are plenty of folks who believe a miscarriage is an abortion decreed by God.


No he didn't. He was pretty adamant about those monthly discarding of eggs on other threads as the ending of a potential life, but I'm sure he can clarify what he meant, when he chimes back in.

As far as miscarriages go, I concede that would be in God's hands. He is after all, the Creator of all life and I recognize His authority over all of it.
There is the thought that some souls may be too precious to endure a lengthy stay on this earth and are returned to His hands, spared the suffering that some of us endure here. I'd like to think so.
At any rate, His will be done.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> No he didn't. He was pretty adamant about those monthly discarding of eggs on other threads as the ending of a potential life, but I'm sure he can clarify what he meant, when he chimes back in.
> 
> As far as miscarriages go, I concede that would be in God's hands. He is after all, the Creator of all life and I recognize His authority over all of it.
> There is the thought that some souls may be too precious to endure a lengthy stay on this earth and are returned to His hands, spared the suffering that some of us endure here. I'd like to think so.
> At any rate, His will be done.


i hope you understand then that not everyone else believes as you do, whether in God, or his will or whether abortion is a sin or not. Seems like it's best to leave it up to the individual and if it is indeed a mortal sin, they can deal with God when the time comes. Same with gay marriage.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Understood.
That's pretty much the way I see it, that's the marvel of free will.
One can give advice on matters, but no one is forced to follow it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> That's your opinion.
> 
> My opinion is that forcing a woman to be an incubator against her will and with no regard to the impact that it will have on her life is evil. Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure and it should remain so.


Hmmm.... I see now. A woman makes a choice to have un-protected sex. Then, when nature takes its course, she decides that she does not wish to be responsible anymore. She then decides to destroy what would be an individual's gift of life. Now she can walk away without looking back. Yes... this is a good thing for the irresponsible woman, there are no "repercussions" and she is free to ignore what she has done.

It all makes sense now, the right to chose for the woman takes away the life that would have been and releases her from being the responsible person that she should have been.

Come on now all of you people that wish to identify the people on birth control that got pregnant, I wonder, are the lion's share of people that get abortions?

All of you should be proud of being the ones that protect the irresponsible.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> No he didn't. He was pretty adamant about those monthly discarding of eggs on other threads as the ending of a potential life, but I'm sure he can clarify what he meant, when he chimes back in.
> 
> As far as miscarriages go, I concede that would be in God's hands. He is after all, the Creator of all life and I recognize His authority over all of it.
> There is the thought that some souls may be too precious to endure a lengthy stay on this earth and are returned to His hands, spared the suffering that some of us endure here. I'd like to think so.
> At any rate, His will be done.


In this discussion I was referring to those spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) that God performs thousands of daily, not those monthly events that women choose to deliberately interrupt natures course thus depriving a child it's right to carry on the life that began thousands of years ago. In the previous discussion I heard a lot of "that's just silly" and "that's not logical" and many other arguments..... What I did not hear was anything that contradicts my basic premise that life was started, thousands of years ago and is passed on to the next generation in a continuing cycle that has no "new beginning point".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Hmmm.... I see now. A woman makes a choice to have un-protected sex. Then, when nature takes its course, she decides that she does not wish to be responsible anymore. She then decides to destroy what would be an individual's gift of life. Now she can walk away without looking back. Yes... this is a good thing for the irresponsible woman, there are no "repercussions" and she is free to ignore what she has done.
> 
> It all makes sense now, the right to chose for the woman takes away the life that would have been and releases her from being the responsible person that she should have been.
> 
> ...


It really makes little difference when a woman chooses to deny natures course in the larger picture, although there are many who find it perfectly fine as long as it's done at the "right time". To me a life denied is a life denied.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It really makes little difference when a woman chooses to deny natures course in the larger picture, although there are many who find it perfectly fine as long as it's done at the "right time". To me a life denied is a life denied.


A life denied never existed & is not the same as a life that existed but was intentionally destroyed.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> Hmmm.... I see now. A woman makes a choice to have un-protected sex. Then, when nature takes its course, she decides that she does not wish to be responsible anymore. She then decides to destroy what would be an individual's gift of life. Now she can walk away without looking back. Yes... this is a good thing for the irresponsible woman, there are no "repercussions" and she is free to ignore what she has done.
> 
> It all makes sense now, the right to chose for the woman takes away the life that would have been and releases her from being the responsible person that she should have been.
> 
> ...



It appears that you are overly interested in other women's sex lives and their reproductive choices. If you don't want an abortion, no one is forcing you to have one. You get to choose what to do with the contents of your uterus.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> A life denied never existed & is not the same as a life that existed by was intentionally destroyed.


Yes, it's much better to force a crackhead mother to have the child she doesn't want, and that no one will adopt


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine
> Come on now all of you people that wish to identify the people on birth control that got pregnant, I wonder, are* the lion's share *of people that get abortions?


Once again you ask questions that were answered in countless other threads on this topic.

If you really wanted answers you could do some research yourself.

Your M.O. is is to ask a question, ignore all answers, and then complain that no one answered.

BC failure rates:
http://christiancontraception.com/failurerates.php

Top reasons for abortions:
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion-health/page2_em.htm



> The *most common reasons* women consider abortion are:
> 
> *Birth control (contraceptive) failure:*
> *Over half* of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
> ...


Now that the answers show your claims are false, will you once again pretend you didn't get an answer at all?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> It appears that you are overly interested in other women's sex lives and their reproductive choices. If you don't want an abortion, no one is forcing you to have one. You get to choose what to do with the contents of your uterus.


Yeah, if we follow your line of thought, then the woman is effectively the same as a slave owner and you are siding with the slave owner by stating that the lifeform inside her has no rights like when slavery was legal. They changed their idea about slavery didn't they? Maybe I and other like minded people do have more of a say than you might understand... We will just have to let this run its course, the same way that slavery ran its course. People finally became "enlightened" and agreed that "Oh, we shouldn't be doing that...".


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once again you ask questions that were answered in countless other threads on this topic.
> 
> If you really wanted answers you could do some research yourself.
> 
> ...


No, I will not. This is the first DIRECT link towards an answer to my question that I have seen. You are finally to be congratulated for doing so. See that wasn't hard. 

However, there seems to be a fly in the ointment that you provided. I sought to verify your numbers but could not do so using reputable sites,

From: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/10/why-do-women-have-abortions-new-study-provides-some-answers/

"These responses reflect a womenâs self-reported subjective assessment, not some independent analysis of her situation. As such, it is a good guide to her perceptions (or at least to her beliefs about what others will consider an acceptable justification). But they do not necessarily tell us the facts about her circumstances."

From: http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm

The top three reasons these women cite for not being able to continue their pregnancies and give birth are:

negative impact on the mother's life
financial instability
relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother
What is the rationale behind these reasons that would lead a woman to terminate a pregnancy? What are the challenges and situations women face that make giving birth and raising a newborn an impossible task?

A Dated Survey From:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3243347

Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four. Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems. A multivariate analysis showed young teenagers to be 32 percent more likely than women 18 or over to say they were not mature enough to raise a child and 19 percent more likely to say their parents wanted them to have an abortion. Unmarried women were 17 percent more likely than currently married women to choose abortion to prevent others from knowing they had had sex or became pregnant. Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71 percent attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or parents that they were pregnant. A multivariate analysis revealed that respondents under age 18 were 39 percent more likely than older women to have delayed because they were afraid to tell their parents or partner.

So like many subjects debated on the interwebs, you can find whatever data that you need to support your premise. It is not cut and dried, it appears that everyone is correct - lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> However, there seems to be a fly in the ointment that you provided. I sought to verify your numbers but could not do so using *reputable sites*,
> 
> From: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/10/w...-some-answers/


I specifically used a "Christian" source because I knew you'd whine about it, and you counter with an anti-abortion site, and figures from a "Right to Life Committee"



> The top three reasons these women cite for not being able *to continue* their pregnancies and give birth are:
> negative impact on the mother's life
> financial instability
> relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother


Those are reason to not "continue" an unplanned pregnancy.

It has nothing to do with what caused the pregnancy, which you claimed was "unprotected sex"



> So like many subjects debated on the interwebs, you can find whatever data that you need to support your premise.


If that were true you'd have supported your *original claim*, which you still haven't done. 



> Hmmm.... I see now. A woman makes a choice to have un-protected sex.


Again you fantasize, and when proven wrong, try to divert attention by rambling about something else

The abortion wouldn't need any other reasons if the BC hadn't failed.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> Yeah, if we follow your line of thought, then the woman is effectively the same as a slave owner and you are siding with the slave owner by stating that the lifeform inside her has no rights like when slavery was legal. They changed their idea about slavery didn't they? Maybe I and other like minded people do have more of a say than you might understand... We will just have to let this run its course, the same way that slavery ran its course. People finally became "enlightened" and agreed that "Oh, we shouldn't be doing that...".


That dog don't hunt.

A slave was an autonomous human being who could live outside of another humans host. An embryo cannot.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> A life denied never existed & is not the same as a life that existed by was intentionally destroyed.


Are you trying to say there is no life destroyed by neglecting to fertilize a very much alive egg?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Yeah, if we follow your line of thought, then the woman is effectively the same as a slave owner and you are siding with the slave owner by stating that the lifeform inside her has no rights like when slavery was legal. They changed their idea about slavery didn't they? Maybe I and other like minded people do have more of a say than you might understand... We will just have to let this run its course, the same way that slavery ran its course. People finally became "enlightened" and agreed that "Oh, we shouldn't be doing that...".


Actually I think you have this one backwards.... Like slavery abortions were practiced for thousands of years, the difference being abortions had been illegal, it has only been recently that people woke up and allowed women to have them legally.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> That dog don't hunt.
> 
> A slave was an autonomous human being who could live outside of another humans host. An embryo cannot.


You are mostly correct? Could a slave provide their own food or did they have to rely upon their owner? Could a slave do much of anything without permission from their owner?

I see parallels in that the mother treats that being inside of her as if it is her property, with her having the right to destroy something that would normally become a person if nature was allowed to run its course. The slave owner had the right to torture[punishment] or kill those slaves that they possessed.

For the hubby: The parallel that I was drawing with the morality was that, OK - you continue to state that abortions have continued for thousands of years, you further elaborate that it has recently been treated as a legal "right" to kill one's unborn, I aligned the right of the slave owner to kill his possessions to the "right" of the mother to kill her unborn. Makes sense to me.

Maybe, people will find that their ability to create a life form is more important than their figure, or having to give up this or that, maybe not taking this or that job, or maybe just sacrificing something of yourself so that another can live. Herein lies the crux of my protestations. 

I have said it before, I will repeat it again: I was a poster child for an abortion, my father was vehemently upset with my presence, if abortion would have been readily available, no Shine.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Shine said:


> Maybe, people will find that their ability to create a life form is more important than their figure, or having to give up this or that, maybe not taking this or that job, or maybe just sacrificing something of yourself so that another can live. Herein lies the crux of my protestations.


You do not know one single thing about the lives of women considering abortion. You do not know anything about their reasons for having an abortion. You do not know anything about their families, their finances or their health. You do not know anything about how an unwanted pregnancy would impact their lives. Yet, you somehow think that your judgement should supersede theirs.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> You do not know one single thing about the lives of women considering abortion. You do not know anything about their reasons for having an abortion. You do not know anything about their families, their finances or their health. You do not know anything about how an unwanted pregnancy would impact their lives. Yet, you somehow think that your judgement should supersede theirs.


You will never know what that child would grow to become, you will never know how the loss of their chance at loving or living will affect this world. You do not appear to care, well, except for the one who gets to keep on living.

I do, because I was allowed to live...

Think now upon what the world would be without you. What of those you've brought into this world? What if you had been aborted, ponder that for me.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Shine said:


> You will never know what that child would grow to become, you will never know how the loss of their chance at loving or living will affect this world. You do not appear to care, well, except for the one who gets to keep on living.
> 
> I do, because I was allowed to live...
> 
> Think now upon what the world would be without you. What of those you've brought into this world? What if you had been aborted, ponder that for me.


You are doing fine without my support.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Shine said:


> You will never know what that child would grow to become, you will never know how the loss of their chance at loving or living will affect this world. You do not appear to care, well, except for the one who gets to keep on living.
> 
> I do, because I was allowed to live...
> 
> Think now upon what the world would be without you. What of those you've brought into this world? What if you had have been aborted, ponder that for me.


Perhaps you should ponder the lives of the women you wish to force to continue unwanted pregnancies. You definitely don't appear to care one iota about them.

I had a long post typed in response to yours but then I realized it would be pointless to post it. You are so wrapped up in your own belief that an unwanted pregnancy is just an inconvenience that nothing I say would make a dent. The fact of the matter is that the woman who is pregnant is the only one qualified to make a decision about whether to continue the pregnancy or not. To suggest otherwise is hubris.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Perhaps you should ponder the lives of the women you wish to force to continue unwanted pregnancies. You definitely don't appear to care one iota about them.
> 
> I had a long post typed in response to yours but then I realized it would be pointless to post it. You are so wrapped up in your own belief that an unwanted pregnancy is just an inconvenience that nothing I say would make a dent. The fact of the matter is that the woman who is pregnant is the only one qualified to make a decision about whether to continue the pregnancy or not. To suggest otherwise is hubris.


People just need to be smarter. They do not know what it is that they are destroying. I would offer abstinence over discarding that child. If they are going to rely on a process that is so fallible then why would they even use it? That's quite a lame excuse, how about multiple defenses? Does a life mean so little to you that you can offer everyone the chance to kill at a mere whim? No, you are right, a long post would have not changed my mind at all, after all, wrong is wrong no matter if it were applied with a thousand words, it still is wrong to murder and in my opinion, that is all that elective abortions are, murder.

Paint that up real pretty when you trot that out in front of other people.

Unwanted Pregnancies, they should have thought about their actions beforehand.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> *You will never know what that child would grow to become*, you will never know how the loss of their chance at loving or living will affect this world. You do not appear to care, well, except for the one who gets to keep on living.
> 
> I do, because I was allowed to live...
> ...


It's still not your choice to make, no matter how many emotional fantasy arguments you present. 



> What if you had have been aborted, ponder that for me


What if Hitler had been?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's still not your choice to make, no matter how many emotional fantasy arguments you present.
> 
> 
> What if Hitler had been?


I do not make choices for others. They make their own choices. I am showing them with words that they are not being smart. I am telling them that it is possible that I value life more than they do. I am telling those that do not think their actions through to where the only solution that is left is murder that this was because of their decisions. There is nothing that they can blame it on, they must seek to understand that this responsibility is on their shoulders. 

Someone else herein said that once you bring up Hitler, you lose the argument... I wonder who that was...

Oh... ETA. Fantasies... What about the "Fantasies" that the women tell themselves about how hard life will be if they are responsible for their actions? What about the fantasies where they think that they are doing a good thing about letting their babies be chopped up and sold in a marketplace for the cost of a procedure? What about the fantasy where they're told that it is not a child when it is actually an unborn child, how about them fantasies, do they count?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> I do not make choices for others. They make their own choices. I am showing them with words that they are not being smart. I am telling them that it is possible that I value life more than they do. I am telling those that do not think their actions through to where the only solution that is left is murder that this was because of their decisions. There is nothing that they can blame it on, they must seek to understand that this responsibility is on their shoulders.
> 
> Someone else herein said that once you bring up Hitler, you lose the argument... I wonder who that was...
> 
> Oh... ETA. Fantasies... What about the "Fantasies" that the women tell themselves about how hard life will be if they are responsible for their actions? What about the fantasies where they think that they are doing a good thing about letting their babies be chopped up and sold in a marketplace for the cost of a procedure? What about the fantasy where they're told that it is not a child when it is actually an unborn child, how about them fantasies, do they count?



All of your self aggrandizing fantasies aside, it still doesnt matter one iota what you think a woman should do with her body, because it's not your decision and none of your business. Not even if it was your embryo in her uterus.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> All of your self aggrandizing fantasies aside, it still doesnt matter one iota what you think a woman should do with her body, because it's not your decision and none of your business. Not even if it was your embryo in her uterus.


That's the excuse that people use... I understand. Many do not.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> That's the excuse that people use... I understand. Many do not.


That's not an excuse. It's reality. As much as you might want to control other people....you can't.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> That's not an excuse. It's reality. As much as you might want to control other people....you can't.


What is the difference if you can show people that they have taken a path that is less than moral, if they find your truth to be more reasonable, is that "controlling" them?

I will continue in my endeavor, you may do with your choice as you see fit.

I see killing unborn children as immoral, what is your opinion about the killing of unborn children? Would you kill your unborn child?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> You are mostly correct? Could a slave provide their own food or did they have to rely upon their owner? Could a slave do much of anything without permission from their owner?
> 
> I see parallels in that the mother treats that being inside of her as if it is her property, with her having the right to destroy something that would normally become a person if nature was allowed to run its course. The slave owner had the right to torture[punishment] or kill those slaves that they possessed.
> 
> For the hubby: The parallel that I was drawing with the morality was that, OK - you continue to state that abortions have continued for thousands of years, you further elaborate that it has recently been treated as a legal "right" to kill one's unborn, I aligned the right of the slave owner to kill his possessions to the "right" of the mother to kill her unborn. Makes sense to me.


I under stand the parallel you are making here and it makes perfect sense to me as well. I was merely pointing out the differences of when the two atrocities traded places in our court system.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> I have said it before, I will repeat it again: I was a poster child for an abortion, my father was vehemently upset with my presence, if abortion would have been readily available, no Shine.


If your father was that apposed to your presence he could have stopped the life cycle that brought you into the game quite easily without forcing your mother into an abortion. Abstinence, for whatever goofy reason, has been "acceptable" and legal by nearly all societies for hundreds of years. Of course it has to actually be practiced by the mother to be effective.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's still not your choice to make, no matter how many emotional fantasy arguments you present.
> 
> 
> What if Hitler had been?


Had hitler not been born? Someone every bit as evil may have been, and unlike hitler that person may have been a better military stratigest and won the war. 

Credit Robert A. Heinlein for that concept.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> What is the difference if you can show people that they have taken a path that is less than moral, if they find your truth to be more reasonable, is that "controlling" them?
> 
> I will continue in my endeavor, you may do with your choice as you see fit.
> 
> I see killing unborn children as immoral, what is your opinion about the killing of unborn children? Would you kill your unborn child?


Was wondering when the moral issue would be brought in. If it is immoral to kill an adult, how is it morel to kill a child? Or to destroy a fetus? Or the egg yet to be fertilized? From a moral point of view they are all the very same thing. The cycle of life has come to its end. Ok it might be a little more moral to kill the adult if they have already passed their gift of life on before you kill them.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I under stand the parallel you are making here and it makes perfect sense to me as well. I was merely pointing out the differences of when the two atrocities traded places in our court system.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Was wondering when the moral issue would be brought in. If it is immoral to kill an adult, how is it morel to kill a child? Or to destroy a fetus? Or the egg yet to be fertilized? From a moral point of view they are all the very same thing. The cycle of life has come to its end. Ok it might be a little more moral to kill the adult if they have already passed their gift of life on before you kill them.



That is the point where the internal discomfort boils to the surface isn't it?
"But it's legal! I did nothing wrong!" has but one, thin limitation - the day it becomes illegal and vice versa.
To depend on one judge in a black robe rendering a 5-4 decision rather than relying on eternal moral justice seems to be a precarious way to go thru life.
:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> What is the difference if you can show people that they have taken a path that is less than moral, if they find your truth to be more reasonable, is that "controlling" them?
> 
> I will continue in my endeavor, you may do with your choice as you see fit.
> 
> I see killing unborn children as immoral, what is your opinion about the killing of unborn children? Would you kill your unborn child?


You don't get to dictate "morality" for anyone else

Maybe you need to join ISIS if you're so set on forcing your morals on others, since that's their specialty


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Deleted double post


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That is the point where the internal discomfort boils to the surface isn't it?
> "But it's legal! I did nothing wrong!" has but one, thin limitation - the day it becomes illegal and vice versa.
> To depend on one judge in a black robe rendering a 5-4 decision rather than relying on *eternal moral justice* seems to be a precarious way to go thru life.
> :shrug:


According to whom?
Buddha?
Allah?
Krishna?
Ra?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to dictate "morality" for anyone else
> 
> Maybe you need to join ISIS if you're so set on forcing your morals on others, since that's their specialty


LOL... just as bad as including "Hitler" - now terrorists? You have lost it...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> According to whom?
> Buddha?
> Allah?
> Krishna?
> Ra?



Hmmm... tough one there... which of the above noted Religions dictate: "Go forth and kill thy unborn children?" of "Thy unborn children are worthy to live only at the behest of thy parent(s)"

OK... none? Then fine - all of the above are good with me...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> LOL... just as bad as including "Hitler" - now terrorists? You have lost it...


It's just reality, without the emotional hype.
Forcing your religion on someone else makes you just like them.



> Hmmm... tough one there... which of the above noted Religions dictate: "Go forth and kill thy unborn children?" of "Thy unborn children are worthy to live only at the behest of thy parent(s)"
> 
> OK... none? Then fine - all of the above are good with me...


Which one says force everyone to live by your rules?
The context was "morals" and "eternal moral justice"

It had nothing to do with "unborn" anything at all


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's just reality, without the emotional hype.
> Forcing your religion on someone else makes you just like them.
> 
> 
> ...


You have missed the boat big time... Show me anywhere in, oh... let's go with just the Bible, show me ANYWHERE that it forces anyone to do anything. You see, all of the teachings of the New Testament suggests a behavior, it does not "force" anyone to do anything. However, there are a number of caveats that go with certain behaviors. Christians are compelled to be the watchmen in the towers. We warn of dangers when we see them. 

So, you thinking that I am here to force my morals on someone else is misguided at best. I am using this forum to warn others about a behavour that could have substantial caveats connected.

If someone reads my words, says "meh" and goes to get an abortion, well hey... that's not on my neck. If someone asks me my opinion and I do not tell them and they go get an abortion then that's on my neck.

I wish you well...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> If someone reads my words, says "meh" and goes to get an abortion, well hey... that's not on my neck. If someone asks me my opinion and I do not tell them and they go get an abortion then that's on my neck.
> 
> I wish you well...


I feel pretty much the same way, if after reading my comments a woman still can't be bothered with doing everything possible to get that egg fertilized every time she ovulates it's not my fault. That's between her and God. She's been warned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You have missed the boat big time...


If people want preaching, they will go to church.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If people want preaching, they will go to church.


^^^ Proof you don't get it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> ^^^ Proof you don't get it.


I do get it
You want to tell people they have to follow your rules or they will be "punished"
It's about the control, because they aren't asking for your advice nor approval


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Meddlers meddle, it's what they do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Meddlers meddle, it's what they do.


I should have this stitched on a pillow.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I feel pretty much the same way,* if after reading my comments a woman still can't be bothered with doing everything possible to get that egg fertilized every time she ovulates* it's not my fault. That's between her and God. She's been warned.



I've been meaning to ask you a question regarding that stance and have forgotten until now.

I can't tell if you say that sincerely or tongue-in-cheek to get a rise out of folks or make them think about it.

But taking you at your word, would you say the same thing about a 12 or 13 year old girl entering puberty or a not so elderly widow, maybe mid 40's, who just lost her husband?

eep:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I've been meaning to ask you a question regarding that stance and have forgotten until now.
> 
> I can't tell if you say that sincerely or tongue-in-cheek to get a rise out of folks or make them think about it.
> 
> ...


the life cycle is what it is. It is something I think every one should think about before they try to impose their own moral codes on anyone else. If there is any other purpose we are here other than to reproduce like every other life form on the planet I have not heard of it. We do seem to be designed with that purpose in mind. Hormones, emotions, pheromones, and all those nerve endings in those particular places etc.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> the life cycle is what it is. It is something I think every one should think about before they try to impose their own moral codes on anyone else. If there is any other purpose we are here other than to reproduce like every other life form on the planet I have not heard of it. We do seem to be designed with that purpose in mind. Hormones, emotions, pheromones, and all those nerve endings in those particular places etc.


Forgive me, but I couldn't tell if that meant you'd want your 12 year old daughter to "fertilize her eggs" or not?
Hypothetically, of course, I don't know who's in your family.
eep:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Forgive me, but I couldn't tell if that meant you'd want your 12 year old daughter to "fertilize her eggs" or not?
> Hypothetically, of course, I don't know who's in your family.
> eep:


I have no children, but have raised four stepchildren, two girls and a boy with my first wife, one boy with my Yvonne. We had these discussions as they moved into their child bearing years. That way they knew exactly what was going on and were allowed to make their own decisions regarding such matters. Had they opted to bring children into the world at age 12 or 13 when they became physically capable I was ok with that, if not I was fine with whatever choice they made. The eldest of the first three happened to be the boy and the first to bring a beautiful granddaughter into my life the year I turned thirty.  

I think those decisions are best left to the people making them, as a parent my job was to give them the facts so they could decide for themselves.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no children, but have raised four stepchildren, two girls and a boy with my first wife, one boy with my Yvonne. We had these discussions as they moved into their child bearing years. That way they knew exactly what was going on and were allowed to make their own decisions regarding such matters. Had they opted to bring children into the world at age 12 or 13 when they became physically capable I was ok with that, if not I was fine with whatever choice they made. The eldest of the first three happened to be the boy and the first to bring a beautiful granddaughter into my life the year I turned thirty.
> 
> I think those decisions are best left to the people making them, as a parent my job was to give them the facts so they could decide for themselves.


So, are you placing this idea for your son(s) to consider as a good way to think about it? Are you OK with a 14 YO boy going out to try to fill the world with his children so that none of his seed goes to waste?

This really makes no sense and borders on an abusive tendency to even suggest such a thing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I do get it
> You want to tell people they have to follow your rules or they will be "punished"
> It's about the control, because they aren't asking for your advice nor approval


Um... this environment in this HT site is like having a conversation, is it not? If you think by my posting my opinion that I am expecting people to toe the line then you are just "out there".


Well, I would have to say that you certainly do not understand where I am coming from. This country, possibly this world has lost some of its "salt", the things that used to be important are not so important anymore. Can't you sense that in the core of your body?

Many things are way too simple anymore, there is too much convenience that is readily available so that people can take shortcuts. I have been given a glimpse at Glory, therefore, to enhance my own life it is required that I help others. Is it my doing? I do not feel that is 100% correct, in my growth as a Christian, things have become more pleasing to me, more acceptable where they once were unimportant to me.

Jesus said that the Kingdom belongs to the Children, that none are to keep the children from coming to sit on His lap, so to speak. Because of the experiences that I have been given, it points me directly to the service of trying to dissuade others from many of those shortcuts that are available to so many today. Abortion is but one of those shortcuts that I refer to. But it is one of the more serious shortcuts which makes it more important to me.

Now you keep telling me and others that I want to force others to be subjugate to "my" morals. That is not true. You seemingly adhere to the advent that the "law" is inherently pure, I do not. As one stated above [paraphrased] It is a risky gambit to hitch your wagon to a wagontrain based on a 5-4 decision. That is not a clearly defined position to put all your trust in its morality.

So, I will continue to argue against the "morality" of killing unborn children, you may go ahead and state that it is currently legal and stand behind that position all day long.

OK?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Um... this environment in this HT site is like having a conversation, is it not? If you think by my posting my opinion that I am expecting people to toe the line then you are just "out there".


Of course that's what you would like, or you wouldn't keep telling others how "wrong" they are. 

If it were up to you , no one would be able to have an abortion, so why pretend that's not what you want?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Meddlers meddle, it's what they do.


You've met my neighbor? 

I was leaving the house yesterday to hand off coffee to the big guy and my neighbor asked if we were having 'problems' because she hadn't seen him for quite a while. 

I probably shouldn't have told her I was on my way to identify his carcass because I've had an unusual amount of phone calls today from friends checking to see if I need anything :rotfl:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> So, are you placing this idea for your son(s) to consider as a good way to think about it? Are you OK with a 14 YO boy going out to try to fill the world with his children so that none of his seed goes to waste?
> 
> This really makes no sense and borders on an abusive tendency to even suggest such a thing.


Since when has factual education become considered abuse? It makes perfect sense to me to give actual information to our children. Properly informed decisions are usually better than those based upon myths and superstition don't you think?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> You've met my neighbor?
> 
> I was leaving the house yesterday to hand off coffee to the big guy and my neighbor asked if we were having 'problems' because she hadn't seen him for quite a while.
> 
> I probably shouldn't have told her I was on my way to identify his carcass because I've had an unusual amount of phone calls today from friends checking to see if I need anything :rotfl:


I have lived in several places over the years and there is always a Mrs. Grundy* in every neighborhood. 

* "Mrs. Grundy" can be credited to my all time fav author ... Robert Heinlein. She is the nosey neighborhood gossip that all neighborhoods have at least one of.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Why doesn't PP just do tubal ligations so that women would not be getting pregnant and having babies that they don't want? TL is just bandaid surgery now.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> Why doesn't PP just do tubal ligations so that women would not be getting pregnant and having babies that they don't want? TL is just bandaid surgery now.


It's not "band-aid" surgery, it requires general anesthesia and an operating room. 

It's outpatient surgery.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course that's what you would like, or you wouldn't keep telling others how "wrong" they are.
> 
> If it were up to you , no one would be able to have an abortion, so why pretend that's not what you want?


I would prefer that, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Please notice the use of the word "Expect" in my post. You do know what that means, correct? I don't "expect" anyone to do as I wish, but if they do and it was caused by a bit of advise that I rendered, then that's all gravy.

As to your last sentence - um.. I'm not pretending. If you've been comprehending my posts then you know what I WANT. Why beat around the bush?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Since when has factual education become considered abuse? It makes perfect sense to me to give actual information to our children. Properly informed decisions are usually better than those based upon myths and superstition don't you think?


I was referring to your contention that every egg needs to be fertilized. I've spoke the truth to my kids but I didn't tell them to go forth and populate the world, all the eggs must be fertilized...

It seems to me, from what you've posted on these past few threads, that this is your understanding...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> I was referring to your contention that every egg needs to be fertilized. I've spoke the truth to my kids but I didn't tell them to go forth and populate the world, all the eggs must be fertilized...
> 
> It seems to me, from what you've posted on these past few threads, that this is your understanding...


You have misunderstood my posts...... All I have said is there is no real moral difference between a pre conception and post conception abortion. I do think the only true prolife people are those who "choose" to give life every chance they can. This eliminates most....... Thus the thread title I chose "it looks a lot like choice to me". I have also stated there is no moral high ground to be had between birth control methods. One is morally no different than another.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> Why doesn't PP just do tubal ligations so that women would not be getting pregnant and having babies that they don't want? TL is just bandaid surgery now.


I imagine they do, for those who want the procedure


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As to your last sentence - um.. I'm not pretending. If you've been comprehending my posts then *you know what I WANT*. Why beat around the bush?


I've been pointing that out all along, and you keep denying it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You have misunderstood my posts...... All I have said is there is no real moral difference between a pre conception and post conception abortion. I do think the only true prolife people are those who "choose" to give life every chance they can. This eliminates most....... Thus the thread title I chose "it looks a lot like choice to me". I have also stated there is no moral high ground to be had between birth control methods. One is morally no different than another.


This a bizarre understanding that you have. There are way too many holes in it to even attempt to discuss it.

Pre-conception = no life
post conception = life has started

End of argument.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've been pointing that out all along, and you keep denying it.


You won't be able to find one post where I have denied that I am against abortion nor one where I say that no one can have an abortion in today's environment. What does that make you?

OK, here - I'll give you an out: What am I denying?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You won't be able to find one post where I have denied that I am against abortion nor one where I say that no one can have an abortion in today's environment. What does that make you?
> 
> OK, here - I'll give you an out: What am I denying?


Why does everything have to be repeated so many times?
Go back and figure it out, since all the posts are still there.
It's really very clear


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> This a bizarre understanding that you have. There are way too many holes in it to even attempt to discuss it.
> 
> Pre-conception = no life
> post conception = life has started
> ...


Thus far no one has been able to find any holes..... Or if so, they have not brought them forward. So far a few comments of obsurd or outrageous, and now bizarre. Like this comment, unless you honestly believe that an egg or sperm cell is not alive. Any biologist will assure you that both are very much alive prior to conception. Their is no such thing as "new" life on our planet... Just the same life that's been here all along repeating the same cycle it's been repeating for thousands of years.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why does everything have to be repeated so many times?
> Go back and figure it out, since all the posts are still there.
> It's really very clear


I did truly expect a worthless reply, so I gave you an out.

You have NEVER been clear. It is not of your nature.

Or better yet, just go away.

I explain things clearly and you hide behind your innuendos...

I find very little value with having any sort of intercourse with you.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thus far no one has been able to find any holes..... Or if so, they have not brought them forward. So far a few comments of obsurd or outrageous, and now bizarre. Like this comment, unless you honestly believe that an egg or sperm cell is not alive. Any biologist will assure you that both are very much alive prior to conception. Their is no such thing as "new" life on our planet... Just the same life that's been here all along repeating the same cycle it's been repeating for thousands of years.


Both the Sperm and the Ova are alive. Their livelihood ceases if they do not join, this is so for all primates. Their purpose has been served, to be there should the other side of the equation be present, if that equation is not fulfilled then it is pure nature that both the Ova and the Sperm die.

As far as "new life" - I suggest that each primate child that is born is, in fact, a new life for there has NEVER been an identical being on this spinning chunk of dirt, ever. Each new primate is different than the previous ones.

Do you wish to include plant species in your overall origin and continuation of life Theseus?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Both the Sperm and the Ova are alive. Their livelihood ceases if they do not join, this is so for all primates. Their purpose has been served, to be there should the other side of the equation be present, if that equation is not fulfilled then it is pure nature that both the Ova and the Sperm die.
> 
> As far as "new life" - I suggest that each primate child that is born is, in fact, a new life for there has NEVER been an identical being on this spinning chunk of dirt, ever. Each new primate is different than the previous ones.


Simple and concise, clearly understood. Very well said, good job! :goodjob:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Both the Sperm and the Ova are alive. Their livelihood ceases if they do not join, this is so for all primates. Their purpose has been served, to be there should there be the other side of the equation be present, if that equation is not fulfilled then it is pure nature that both the Ova and the Sperm die.
> 
> As far as "new life" - I suggest that each primate child that is born is, in fact, a new life for there has NEVER been an identical being on this spinning chunk of dirt, ever. Each new primate is different than the previous ones.


I do not deny that each flower, tree, primate, fish or bird is a unique individual, just as snowflakes and grains of sand on the beach are unique...... Just like every other snow flake and grain of sand is. Life however is not an individual.... Unlike grains of sand or snowflakes living beings have the ability reproduce itself passing that same ability on to its next generation. There is a continuum between every generation directly linking it to those preceding it. It's a continuous cycle.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Simple and concise, clearly understood. Very well said, good job! :goodjob:


Yep, simple, clear and easily understood..... A tad inaccurate but that doesn't seem to make much difference.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Both the Sperm and the Ova are alive. Their livelihood ceases if they do not join, this is so for all primates. Their purpose has been served, to be there should the other side of the equation be present


Their livelihood will also end if they are denied the required environment and nutrition required to live as well. What do you think their purpose is if not to continue the life cycle to yet one more generation?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, simple, clear and easily understood..... A tad inaccurate but that doesn't seem to make much difference.


I'm sorry YH, I don't see the inaccuracies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Both the Sperm and the Ova are alive. Their livelihood ceases if they do not join, this is so for all primates. *Their purpose has been served, to be there should the other side of the equation be present, *if that equation is not fulfilled then it is pure nature that both the Ova and the Sperm die.
> 
> As far as "new life" - *I suggest that each primate child that is born is, in fact, a new life *for there has NEVER been an identical being on this spinning chunk of dirt, ever. Each new primate is different than the previous ones.
> 
> Do you wish to include plant species in your overall origin and continuation of life Theseus?





JeffreyD said:


> I'm sorry YH, I don't see the inaccuracies.


I bolded them for you. The first is in error because their purpose is obviously to come together and continue the cycle. They serve no purpose other than that singular goal. The second is inaccurate due to its not a "new" life but rather the same life regenerating itself. Only life begets life.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> This a bizarre understanding that you have. There are way too many holes in it to even attempt to discuss it.
> 
> Pre-conception = no life
> post conception = life has started
> ...


Nope. BOTH = *POTENTIAL* life when viable


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> I find very little value with having any sort of intercourse with you.


Pretty sure he wouldn't either but at least you wouldn't have to worry about an abortion. (Snerk)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I did truly expect a worthless reply, so I gave you an out.
> 
> You have NEVER been clear. It is not of your nature.
> 
> ...


And yet you keep doing it intentionally.
If you dislike it so much, just stop.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Shine said:


> This a bizarre understanding that you have. There are way too many holes in it to even attempt to discuss it.
> 
> Pre-conception = no life
> post conception = life has started
> ...


 You might as well give up. They are working under the delusion that a fetus is not a genetically unique HUMAN life. They must. IT is not unlike the practice, among the military, of dehumanizing the enemy. If they were to admit the truth, the wholesale destruction of the unborn would be too unpalatable.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Remember when this first came out and I said it wasn't the federal money that should be looked at, but the private funds?
> 
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ed...ver-add-it-to-your-stemexpress-wish-list.html
> 
> ...


Farmer, you should know better. That's taken from-"gasp" christainity today! Of course they lie.

We were already told that PP "DOES NOT SELL" parts.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You might as well give up. They are working under the delusion that a fetus is not a genetically unique HUMAN life. They must. IT is not unlike the practice, among the military, of dehumanizing the enemy. If they were to admit the truth, the wholesale destruction of the unborn would be too unpalatable.


Genetically unique potential life when it becomes viable. Throw up all the straw men you like and put words in our mouths....doesn't change the simple facts. 

Your opinion doesn't get to engender the wholesale destruction of another human beings rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Farmer, you should know better. That's taken from-"gasp" christainity today! Of course they lie.
> 
> We were already told that *PP DOES NOT SELL parts*.


There's no proof they do, even after all the videos and investigations


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

That little horizontal white spot near the top of the picture is my band aid surgery mark.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> You do not know one single thing about the lives of women considering abortion. You do not know anything about their reasons for having an abortion. You do not know anything about their families, their finances or their health. You do not know anything about how an unwanted pregnancy would impact their lives. Yet, you somehow think that your judgement should supersede theirs.


I think you are unfairly judging Shine. You do not know anything about what Shine does, what counselling provided, what ass't is provided.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> View attachment 50509
> 
> That little horizontal white spot near the top of the picture is my band aid surgery mark.


That really has nothing to do with the fact that it's still a separate surgery requiring sedation and prep which is in addition to what was already being done for the C-section.

It adds more risk and more expense


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Sorry, it is in the wrong thead. It still fits though. The question was how large the band aid incision was.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> Nope. BOTH = *POTENTIAL* life when viable


well, if you look at it that way, then we are all POTENTIAL presidents, serial killers, OB/GYN doctors, firemen, etc, etc - does not pass the logic test.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That really has nothing to do with the fact that it's still a separate surgery requiring sedation and prep which is in addition to what was already being done for the C-section.
> 
> It adds more risk and more expense


My question was why not have it done at PP so that there will be no more pregnancies if women don't want babies rather than have abortions?
PA's can do these kind of surgeries. They can put in chest tubes, lung filters, and a lot of minor surgeries.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Ok. you asked how many incisions. As you can see there is one.
_

That's nice. How many incisions? How much Co2 did they use? Did they use ketamine? Local anesthesia as well? Did they really just use bandaids? 

You do realize that not all laparoscopic surgeries are the same for every person, right?_


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> My question was why not have it done at PP so that there will be no more pregnancies if women don't want babies rather than have abortions?
> PA's can do these kind of surgeries. They can put in chest tubes, lung filters, and a lot of minor surgeries.


PP can do it for anyone who wants it.
It doesn't help someone already pregnant, nor anyone not wanting a "permanent" form of BC


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> Genetically unique potential life when it becomes viable. Throw up all the straw men you like and put words in our mouths....doesn't change the simple facts.
> 
> Your opinion doesn't get to engender the wholesale destruction of another human beings rights.


 What? The opinion that a human embryo/zygote/fetus is a living, genetically unique, human? That is not opinion, that is fact. 

I mean, they are not dead, they are real, they eat, they breath, they metabolize, and they have unique human DNA. Help me out, which part of that is simply my opinion?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> What? The opinion that a human embryo/zygote/fetus is a living, genetically unique, human? That is not opinion, that is fact.
> 
> I mean, they are not dead, they are real, they eat, they breath, they metabolize, and they have unique human DNA. Help me out, which part of that is simply my opinion?


They can't exist outside the host. And you don't get to control the host.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

What do you think about all the frozen embryos stored at fertility clinics? Shall women be forced to have them implanted and carry them to term?
Are you upset about them being discarded after the couple uses what they need?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> They can't exist outside the host. And you don't get to control the host.


 Do you mean "outside the mother"?, or, is that more of the "dehumanizing" that I wrote of earlier?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Do you mean "outside the mother"?, or, is that more of the "dehumanizing" that I wrote of earlier?


You are diverting again. Just sayin'.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> What do you think about all the frozen embryos stored at fertility clinics? Shall women be forced to have them implanted and carry them to term?
> Are you upset about them being discarded after the couple uses what they need?


 There is always the option of adopting out those embryos to infertile women. It is a fairly common practice. As, in a frozen state, the embryos can survive indefinitely, there is no need to discard them


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Do you mean "outside the mother"?, or, is that more of the "dehumanizing" that I wrote of earlier?


It takes a whole lot more to be a mother than to possess a uterus, in my opinion. If a woman chooses not to be a mother than she isn't. Host is far more appropriate. Do you think every baby daddy running around impregnating and abandoning women is a "father". Because seems like you are giving positive qualities to a jerk if you do. Sperm Donor seems a better title.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are diverting again. Just sayin'.


Not diverting at all. She used the term "host" implying that the embryo/zygote/fetus is some sort of parasite, de-humanizing it. As that was what my original post was about, I simply pointed out the obvious example of same.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> There is always the option of adopting out those embryos to infertile women. It is a fairly common practice. As, in a frozen state, the embryos can survive indefinitely, there is no need to discard them


People have to pay for their continued existence. Do you propose forcing people to pay forever? Or maybe the government steps in to pay if the "parents" can't. 

They don't exist indefinitely. Ten years is the max. What then? Maybe force female prison inmates to carry them to term? Is it murder to let them expire in the freezer?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> It takes a whole lot more to be a mother than to possess a uterus, in my opinion. If a woman chooses not to be a mother than she isn't. Host is far more appropriate. Do you think every baby daddy running around impregnating and abandoning women is a "father". Because seems like you are giving positive qualities to a jerk if you do. Sperm Donor seems a better title.


 Semantics. I use the term "mother" to describe the female parent of any animal. I would not use the term "mother" to describe the host of a parasite.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> People have to pay for their continued existence. Do you propose forcing people to pay forever? Or maybe the government steps in to pay if the "parents" can't.
> 
> They don't exist indefinitely. Ten years is the max. What then? Maybe force female prison inmates to carry them to term? Is it murder to let them expire in the freezer?


 It would seem that the jury is still out on the survival rate of embryos under long term storage.

http://www.ivf1.com/long-term-embryo-freezing/

I have seen cattle embryos used after more than 25 years of frozen storage. 

The real costs of frozen storage are not that high.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> Lol.... But you don't engage in semantics. Lordy, no. ROFL


 Never said that, but, if my use of a word causes confusion, I will clarify.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> I think you are unfairly judging Shine. You do not know anything about what Shine does, what counselling provided, what ass't is provided.


Not so. Shine's own words declare his (if I am using the wrong gender pronoun here I apologize) opinion that women seeking abortion are irresponsible (post #129), equivalent to a slave owner (post #136) , more concerned with their figures, jobs or giving something up (post #142), that they should sacrifice (post #142), are not smart (post #147), are murderers (post #147), have abortions on a whim (post #147), don't value life (post #147) and are immoral (post #153). And, except for the last post, you have "liked" every one of these posts, implying that you are in support of these opinions. Hmm, those statements sound pretty judgmental to me so who's the one unfairly judging whom here?

You and Shine (among others) both seem to be wrapped up in your preconceived notions about what kinds of women seek abortions and the reasons they seek them. The plain fact of the matter is that you don't know. No one, except the woman involved, knows how an unplanned pregnancy will affect their lives. And what is true for one woman may not be true for the next woman. And no one, except the woman involved, is equipped to make the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy or not. No one.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> It would seem that the jury is still out on the survival rate of embryos under long term storage.
> 
> http://www.ivf1.com/long-term-embryo-freezing/
> 
> ...


A diversion. 

The question is...do you think it's murder and shall people be forced to pay freezer stoage forever for them in your opinion? Like costs passed on to future generations?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I would like to point out that having a unique DNA code isn't really unique.... It is shared with nigh onto 7 billion other humans walking around today, and each and every one is a product of someone else's (actually 2 someone's) DNA that can be traced back through thousands of generations. If anyone can show me a single live human today that has come into being without being the result of live cells regenerating themselves I will immediately change my position and formally apologize to all here. Life began at some point in the beginning.... There has been no "new life" created or begun since.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Not so. Shine's own words declare his (if I am using the wrong gender pronoun here I apologize) opinion that women seeking abortion are irresponsible (post #129), equivalent to a slave owner (post #136) , more concerned with their figures, jobs or giving something up (post #142), that they should sacrifice (post #142), are not smart (post #147), are murderers (post #147), have abortions on a whim (post #147), don't value life (post #147) and are immoral (post #153). And, except for the last post, you have "liked" every one of these posts, implying that you are in support of these opinions. Hmm, those statements sound pretty judgmental to me so who's the one unfairly judging whom here?
> 
> You and Shine (among others) both seem to be wrapped up in your preconceived notions about what kinds of women seek abortions and the reasons they seek them. The plain fact of the matter is that you don't know. No one, except the woman involved, knows how an unplanned pregnancy will affect their lives. And what is true for one woman may not be true for the next woman. And no one, except the woman involved, is equipped to make the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy or not. No one.


I calls 'em like I sees 'em. However, you've misstated my position by changing them to generalizations. Isn't that dishonest?

Do *any* women that are seeking abortions fit *any* of those categories? You changed what I said about why some were getting them to be ALL who are getting them. You happy with yourself? 

You just sit back, going "all in" in your backing of a case in the SCOTUS that was just shy of going the other way. 5 to 4. If and when it gets overturned, will you respect that decision?

Let's face it... this is one of those things where people who do not want a child FAIL to take the necessary precautions. This is where our culture has removed the stigma of killing the unborn. If women wanted to have all the sex they wanted and not have an abortion then all they have to do is practice safe sex. Due to standard BC not being perfect then you would think that they would care enough to properly protect themselves by requiring multiple layers of protection, but sadly, they do not care enough, abortion is a quick process, it is a shortcut. It is killing an unborn child, you cannot change that ultimate end.

Oh... PS, love the sinner, hate the sin.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> I calls 'em like I sees 'em. However, you've misstated my position by changing them to generalizations. Isn't that dishonest?
> 
> Do *any* women that are seeking abortions fit *any* of those categories? You changed what I said about why some were getting them to be ALL who are getting them. You happy with yourself?
> 
> ...


on this there can be little argument, but then any form of successful BC results in that very same ultimate end.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would like to point out that having a unique DNA code isn't really unique....


OK, I will give you that. You can make a group out of everyone having unique DNA and say that they are similar in that fashion.

It is like saying The only thing that does not change is that everything changes.

Off on your way...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> OK, I will give you that. You can make a group out of everyone having unique DNA and say that they are similar in that fashion.
> 
> It is like saying The only thing that does not change is that everything changes.
> 
> Off on your way...


Well that's a start anyway. Now will you also agree that your not so unique DNA is a copy created by combining two other sets of equally not so unique DNA?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> A diversion.
> 
> The question is...do you think it's murder and shall people be forced to pay freezer stoage forever for them in your opinion? Like costs passed on to future generations?


They should be adopted out and yes, the costs should be paid by the persons, who produced them, until they are adopted out.

And, how can it be a diversion when it was an answer to a point YOU made?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

gapeach said:


> Why doesn't PP just do tubal ligations so that women would not be getting pregnant and having babies that they don't want? TL is just bandaid surgery now.


I'm thinking they do. They used to anyway.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would like to point out that having a unique DNA code isn't really unique.... It is shared with nigh onto 7 billion other humans walking around today, and each and every one is a product of someone else's (actually 2 someone's) DNA that can be traced back through thousands of generations. If anyone can show me a single live human today that has come into being without being the result of live cells regenerating themselves I will immediately change my position and formally apologize to all here. Life began at some point in the beginning.... There has been no "new life" created or begun since.


 So the fact that they are unique, isn't unique. By any chance, do you sell used cars, or, hold political office?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

gapeach said:


> Sorry, it is in the wrong thead. It still fits though. The question was how large the band aid incision was.


Holy carp, are we discussing 'bandaid surgery' in another thread too?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> So the fact that they are unique, isn't unique. By any chance, do you sell used cars, or, hold political office?


Nope, but there was a time that I sold used cows and used land, but I'm not quite sure how that affects this discussion.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> What? The opinion that a human embryo/zygote/fetus is a living, genetically unique, human? That is not opinion, that is fact.
> 
> I mean, they are not dead, they are real, they eat, they breath, they metabolize, and they have unique human DNA. Help me out, which part of that is simply my opinion?


Here's the thing. The crowd in favor of abortion believes there is NO human life til it breathes air. None of us are gonna convince them otherwise. 
No surgeries INSIDE the womb, I guess...what's the point? Its just a blob.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Not diverting at all. She used the term "host" implying that the embryo/zygote/fetus is some sort of parasite, de-humanizing it. As that was what my original post was about, I simply pointed out the obvious example of same.


Here's the thing. Some get to divert & some don't.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, but there was a time that I sold used cows and used land, but I'm not quite sure how that affects this discussion.



No, your statement about being un uniquely unique just reminded me of a great quote in American history:

"It depends on what the definition of "is" is."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's the thing. The crowd in favor of abortion believes there is NO human life til it breathes air. None of us are gonna convince them otherwise.
> No surgeries INSIDE the womb, I guess...what's the point? Its just a blob.


Sigh. Choice. It's the woman's choice. Choice. Choice. Choice. Understand? Choice. If a woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, she'd agree to in vitro surgery, right? Choice. The choice to carry to term or the choice to terminate. Choice.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Not so. Shine's own words declare his (if I am using the wrong gender pronoun here I apologize) opinion that women seeking abortion are irresponsible (post #129), equivalent to a slave owner (post #136) , more concerned with their figures, jobs or giving something up (post #142), that they should sacrifice (post #142), are not smart (post #147), are murderers (post #147), have abortions on a whim (post #147), don't value life (post #147) and are immoral (post #153). And, except for the last post, you have "liked" every one of these posts, implying that you are in support of these opinions. Hmm, those statements sound pretty judgmental to me so who's the one unfairly judging whom here?
> 
> You and Shine (among others) both seem to be wrapped up in your preconceived notions about what kinds of women seek abortions and the reasons they seek them. The plain fact of the matter is that you don't know. No one, except the woman involved, knows how an unplanned pregnancy will affect their lives. And what is true for one woman may not be true for the next woman. And no one, except the woman involved, is equipped to make the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy or not. No one.


So you've worked in an abortion clinic? Counselled women who were trying to make that decision? Adopted? Help pay for care of unwanted babies?
I'm wondering how you can make disparaging statements about Shine...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> So you've worked in an abortion clinic? Counselled women who were trying to make that decision? Adopted? Help pay for care of unwanted babies?
> I'm wondering how you can make disparaging statements about Shine...


Where are the disparaging comments? Can you point them out please?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's the thing. *The crowd in favor of abortion believes there is NO human life til it breathes air. *None of us are gonna convince them otherwise.
> No surgeries INSIDE the womb, I guess...what's the point? Its just a blob.


I've noticed that too, and many on the other side don't seem to understand there is life before conception either. :shrug:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where are the disparaging comments? Can you point them out please?


Well... this 'un takes the cake.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Well... this 'un takes the cake.


You can't either? That's because SLFarmMI didn't disparage you or anyone else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I calls 'em like I sees 'em. However, you've misstated my position by changing them to generalizations. *Isn't that dishonest?*
> 
> Do *any* women that are seeking abortions fit *any* of those categories? You changed what I said about why some were getting them to be ALL who are getting them. You happy with yourself?
> 
> ...


You made that claim once before, and data was shown that proves it's false, and yet here you are parroting it once more.

You complain about "not getting answers", then ignore those that show your claims are false. Answer your own question:



> Isn't that dishonest?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> They *should be adopted *out and yes, the costs should be paid by the persons, who produced them, *until they are adopted* out.
> 
> And, how can it be a diversion when it was an answer to a point YOU made?


So how many have you/will you adopt?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So how many have you/will you adopt?


Good point.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> They should be adopted out and yes, the costs should be paid by the persons, who produced them, until they are adopted out.
> 
> And, how can it be a diversion when it was an answer to a point YOU made?


You didn't answer my point at all. That's how it was a diversion.

So who has to carry the embryos....what uterus? And if they last indefinitely as you claim, when the original couple dies, who pays for the continued storage then? What if they have no estate? 

The taxpayers? Because you know...if you take them out of that freezer, it's like taking an embryo out of a uterus....it will die because it isn't viable. So do you equate both with murder?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> You didn't answer my point at all. That's how it was a diversion.
> 
> So who has to carry the embryos....what uterus? And if they last indefinitely as you claim, when the original couple dies, who pays for the continued storage then? What if they have no estate?
> 
> The taxpayers?


 You said that embryos last for no more than 10 years. I found evidence that was false. 

I have answered all of your questions. Yes, it is the responsibility of those who produce them to store them. In reality, the costs for storage are next to nothing. The embryos would likely be adopted prior to very long term storage, but, if they weren't they could be stored with other embryos that are being paid for, with no extra costs. (it costs almost the same to store 1 or 100 embryos.) Call it a cost of doing business for the fertility clinic. Tax payers need not be on the hook.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You made that claim once before, and data was shown that proves it's false, and yet here you are parroting it once more.
> 
> You complain about "not getting answers", then ignore those that show your claims are false. Answer your own question:


Um... which claim are you referencing or are you just repeating yourself?

Just on it's face your inaccurate presumption regarding the failure to go the full yard with regards to protecting one's self from the need of an abortion is easily provable so that cannot be what you claim to have been proven so - what is it?

And, again, you do not answer the question posed in the thread that you are replying to, always the same.

So, if all these people are doing what is necessary to protect themselves when they have sex but do not wish to have children, where is the disconnect? Immaculate Conception?

This just does not make sense, why abortion? Why not responsibility for one's self?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So how many have you/will you adopt?


I am not getting into this foolishness again. It is not difficult to adopt out embryos. There is a demand. The storage costs are cheap. 

Do you really want to kill the unborn so badly that you find more and more obscure ways to do it? 

These embryos are NOT in the uterus of an unwilling carrier, so, why do you all drool over the concept of disposing of them? Why?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You said that embryos last for no more than 10 years. I found evidence that was false.
> 
> I have answered all of your questions. Yes, it is the responsibility of those who produce them to store them. In reality, the costs for storage are next to nothing. The embryos would likely be adopted prior to very long term storage, but, if they weren't they could be stored with other embryos that are being paid for, with no extra costs. (it costs almost the same to store 1 or 100 embryos.) Call it a cost of doing business for the fertility clinic. Tax payers need not be on the hook.


The longest they've know to have lasted is 12. But that is beside the point and not the question I asked you. 

So is it murder to throw away the frozen embryos as is being done now? 

Curious. Do you have the cost breakdown of the storage?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I found this: http://www.reprotech.com/embryo-storage-costs.html


350 to 1000 dollars a year. So you are in favor of passing legislation dictating how people spend their money? And they never get to throw them out because you would make them pay in perpetuity even though 12 years is the longest they've been implanted and remained viable.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> The longest they've know to have lasted is 12. But that is beside the point and not the question I asked you.
> 
> So is it murder to throw away the frozen embryos as is being done now?
> 
> Curious. Do you have the cost breakdown of the storage?


 As life begins at conception, yes, IMO, it is murder to dispose of the embryos. 

Fertility clinics have the equipment to store embryos. Most have a capacity of hundreds, if not thousands. It costs the same to store one embryo as it does to store at capacity.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> I found this: http://www.reprotech.com/embryo-storage-costs.html
> 
> 
> 350 to 1000 dollars a year. So you are in favor of passing legislation dictating how people spend their money? And they never get to throw them out because you would make them pay in perpetuity even though 12 years is the longest they've been implanted and remained viable.


 
That is what they charge, not what it costs. And the study I have seen showed no loss of viability at 12 years. I don't believe they tried anything older.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Um... *which claim are you referencing* or are you just repeating yourself?
> 
> Just on it's face your inaccurate presumption regarding the failure to go the full yard with regards to protecting one's self from the need of an abortion is easily provable so that cannot be what you claim to have been proven so - what is it?
> 
> ...


I bolded the specific quote.

I'm not going to repeat everything simply because you always act as if you don't understand. 

You ask endless questions to keep from having to give real answers when the facts refute your statements.



> Why not responsibility for one's self?


Exactly
Worry about yourself, not everyone else.
They can make their own decisions


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> As life begins at conception, yes, IMO, it is murder to dispose of the embryos.
> 
> Fertility clinics have the equipment to store embryos. Most have a capacity of hundreds, if not thousands. It costs the same to store one embryo as it does to store at capacity.


Rather than adopting, as you said your health wouldn't allow it, why don't you take over the storage payment for the unwanted embryos?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *That is what they charge, not what it costs*.
> And the study I have seen showed no loss of viability at 12 years. I don't believe they tried anything older.


LOL
Seriously?
What the company charges isn't what it costs the customers?

How many are you willing to pay for, or carry to term and then adopt?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Seriously?
> What the company charges isn't what it costs the customers?
> 
> How many are you willing to pay for, or carry to term and then adopt?


You know exactly what I meant. You know what. I am done. The truth is that I see abortion supporters as evil people. When you (collective you) try to justify killing the unborn, that are not even inside some unwilling "host", the whole "choice" BS is shown to be just that. I honestly don't understand how people can be so cold. It is sick and shows a sickness in society that manifests itself through wholesale abortion, mass shootings, gang violence., etc. That sickness is a lack of respect for life. 

Good day and good riddance,


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You know exactly what I meant. You know what. I am done. The truth is that I see abortion supporters as evil people. When you (collective you) try to justify killing the unborn, that are not even inside some unwilling "host", the whole "choice" BS is shown to be just that. I honestly don't understand how people can be so cold. It is sick and shows a sickness in society that manifests itself through wholesale abortion, mass shootings, gang violence., etc. That sickness is a lack of respect for life.
> 
> Good day and good riddance,


Fair enough. I see those who would deny people their rights and who try to control women's bodies as evil too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Fair enough. I see those who would deny people their rights and who try to control women's bodies as evil too.


Yup, just trying to justifying their control over half the population and using nonsense to do it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *You know exactly what I meant*. You know what. I am done. The truth is that I see abortion supporters as evil people. When you (collective you) try to justify killing the unborn, that are not even inside some unwilling "host", the whole "choice" BS is shown to be just that. I honestly don't understand how people can be so cold. It is sick and shows a sickness in society that manifests itself through wholesale abortion, mass shootings, gang violence., etc. That sickness is a lack of respect for life.
> 
> Good day and good riddance,


No, I only know what you said.

How is what they charge not "what it costs", unless you mean business expenses only?

I see you offering lots of "solutions" but they all rely on others taking the incentive to make them happen.



> I honestly don't understand how people can be so cold.


Because it's none of my business what other people do whether I happen to think it's "moral" or not. 

You certainly don't let others make your moral choices for you, so why should anyone allow you to do so for them?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> As life begins at conception, yes, IMO, it is murder to dispose of the embryos.
> 
> Fertility clinics have the equipment to store embryos. Most have a capacity of hundreds, if not thousands. It costs the same to store one embryo as it does to store at capacity.


Life begins at conception?? :nono:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I bolded the specific quote.
> 
> I'm not going to repeat everything simply because you always act as if you don't understand.
> 
> ...


Look, I don't have a dog in that fight, however, the unborn child has no advocate for them, you will not stand for their rights so someone has to. Yes, again, you will say that they have no "rights" until they pop out, there we disagree. I cannot see how you can attempt to take the "moral" high ground by advocating killing a helpless being on a whim. 

But I've noticed that quite often you attempt to release yourself from being honest with the cookie cutter reply "You ask endless questions to keep from having to give real answers when the *facts *refute your statements."

I refuted your implication that the "facts" prove that all or most of the people who "need" abortions did, in fact, use adequate protection. It is ludicrous to think that they really gave a care about adequate protection if they find themselves standing in line for an abortion. More like they said - "who cares, if I being a being into existence then I'll just kill it, no problem."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Look, I don't have a dog in that fight, however, the unborn child has no advocate for them, you will not stand for their rights so someone has to. Yes, again, you will say that they have no "rights" until they pop out, there we disagree. * I cannot see how you can attempt to take the "moral" high ground by advocating killing a helpless being on a whim. *
> 
> But I've noticed that quite often you attempt to release yourself from being honest with the cookie cutter reply "You ask endless questions to keep from having to give real answers when the *facts *refute your statements."
> 
> I refuted your implication that the "facts" prove that all or most of the people who "need" abortions did, in fact, use adequate protection. It is ludicrous to think that they really gave a care about adequate protection if they find themselves standing in line for an abortion. More like they said - "who cares, if I being a being into existence then I'll just kill it, no problem."


At least we are in agreement on one point. Killing isn't cool, no matter the timing or method used.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Life begins at conception?? :nono:


According to scientists it does.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> Look, I don't have a dog in that fight, however, the unborn child has no advocate for them, you will not stand for their rights so *someone has to*


No, someone doesn't "have to".
It's none of your business



> *I refuted your implication* that the "facts" prove that all or most of the people who "need" abortions did, in fact, use adequate protection.


No, you didn't. I didn't "imply" anything. I showed you data. 
You then linked to an anti-abortion site that basically only said the women surveyed lied
That's not even close to "refuting" anything at all. 



> "You ask endless questions to keep from having to give real answers when the facts refute your statements."


That's still true


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> According to scientists it does.
> 
> https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


Did you bother to read past the headline? I did and there are numerous places where these science guys plainly state that life is a continuum. One states "although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because..." And goes on to talk about the process of developing a "new individual" human being. Same old life, being handed off to a new player. 
But thanks for finding verification of my "bizarre" thinking.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Did you bother to read past the headline? I did and there are numerous places where these science guys plainly state that life is a continuum. One even states plainly that "although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because..."


Yes I did read past the headline and can see plainly that scientists consider that a human life begins at fertilization. 

Let's read the rest of the quote that you cut short:



> "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed*.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the *embryonic genome is formed.* The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
> [O'Rahilly, Ronan and M&#65533;ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Yes I did read past the headline and can see plainly that scientists consider that a human life begins at fertilization.
> 
> Let's read the rest of the quote that you cut short:


Cut and paste is cool, wish I could do that! 

What I read tells me that life is an ongoing repetitive process, with several changes involved along the way, fertilization being one of them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I am not getting into this foolishness again. It is not difficult to adopt out embryos. There is a demand. The storage costs are cheap.
> 
> Do you really want to kill the unborn so badly that you find more and more obscure ways to do it?
> 
> These embryos are NOT in the uterus of an unwilling carrier, so, *why do you all drool over the concept of disposing of them*? Why?


I never mentioned them until after you did

I asked you a specific question about them and never gave any opinions as to what should be done


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Cut and paste is cool, wish I could do that!
> 
> What I read tells me that life is an ongoing repetitive process, with several changes involved along the way, fertilization being one of them.


Fertilization which results in a unique genetic makeup to begin a new life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Fertilization which results in a unique genetic makeup to begin a new life.


You are still not seeing the obvious here. There is no "new life", just a minor change in genetic makeup of the same old life that has been repeating this same cycle for thousands of years. When I see a rock or other inanimate object spring forth with a new life I will be happy to beleive in new life. Until then I will keep on believing as I do now. Only life begets life as part of a continuing cycle.

Any interruption of that cycle has the same result ultimately that being a lonely puppy with no child to play with.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are still not seeing the obvious here. There is no "new life", just a minor change in genetic makeup of the same old life that has been repeating this same cycle for thousands of years. When I see a rock or other inanimate object spring forth with a new life I will be happy to beleive in new life. Until then I will keep on believing as I do now. Only life begets life as part of a continuing cycle.
> 
> Any interruption of that cycle has the same result ultimately that being a lonely puppy with no child to play with.


"just a minor change in genetic makeup of the same old life"? Oh really? That's interesting because this "same old life" is completely unique and does not share it's exact genetic make-up with anyone. How is that the "same old life"?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> "just a minor change in genetic makeup of the same old life"? Oh really? That's interesting because this "same old life" is completely unique and does not share it's exact genetic make-up with anyone. How is that the "same old life"?


Ya have to wonder how DNA paternal testing works if you think your DNA is so unique. Where do you think your life came from, under a cabbage leaf? It came from the same place everyone else's comes from........ Their parents! It is just passed along from one generation to the next in what appears to be a never ending cycle unless that chain gets broken somewhere along the way.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ya have to wonder how DNA paternal testing works if you think your DNA is so unique. Where do you think your life came from, under a cabbage leaf? It came from the same place everyone else's comes from........ Their parents! It is just passed along from one generation to the next in what appears to be a never ending cycle unless that chain gets broken somewhere along the way.


Yes, DNA is so unique that no one else in the world has the same DNA. Study up on "familial DNA" and maybe that will help your understanding.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Shine said:


> I calls 'em like I sees 'em. However, you've misstated my position by changing them to generalizations. Isn't that dishonest?
> 
> Do *any* women that are seeking abortions fit *any* of those categories? You changed what I said about why some were getting them to be ALL who are getting them. You happy with yourself?
> 
> ...


Reread the posts I referenced. As you used neither numerical nor situational qualifiers in your statements, they read as generalizations. If you were not intending to make generalizations, then your statements need to be qualified. I misstated nothing. But I suspect you knew that. 

I think you're kidding yourself that safe, legal abortions are going to be going away. I forget the exact percentage but it's somewhere around 70% of Americans who do not want Roe vs Wade to be overturned. I foresee that percentage growing as the population includes more and more people who do not remember a time when women did not have reproductive freedom. I brought this topic up with some of the 20-something women I work with and none of them could conceive of a time when women weren't in charge of their own reproductive decisions. It was a totally alien concept to them. Today's women are not going to stand idly by while their reproductive rights are stripped from them. 

Let's face it -- you (global you) can practice safe sex and still become pregnant. And if a woman does become pregnant, than it should be her decision what to do about it. It is, and always should be, her choice.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where are the disparaging comments? Can you point them out please?


I'd be interested in seeing them myself. I disparaged no one.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> Reread the posts I referenced. As you used neither numerical nor situational qualifiers in your statements, they read as generalizations. If you were not intending to make generalizations, then your statements need to be qualified. I misstated nothing. But I suspect you knew that.
> 
> I think you're kidding yourself that safe, legal abortions are going to be going away. I forget the exact percentage but it's somewhere around 70% of Americans who do not want Roe vs Wade to be overturned. I foresee that percentage growing as the population includes more and more people who do not remember a time when women did not have reproductive freedom. I brought this topic up with some of the 20-something women I work with and none of them could conceive of a time when women weren't in charge of their own reproductive decisions. It was a totally alien concept to them. Today's women are not going to stand idly by while their reproductive rights are stripped from them.
> 
> Let's face it -- you (global you) can practice safe sex and still become pregnant. And if a woman does become pregnant, than it should be her decision what to do about it. It is, and always should be, her choice.


Thank you for an excellent post. :bow:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Yes, DNA is so unique that no one else in the world has the same DNA. Study up on "familial DNA" and maybe that will help your understanding.


I cannot argue that everyone's DNA is not different, but that's neither here nor there, what is important is that your "unique" DNA did not just magically appear.... It is a combination of two other sets of unique DNA which was passed down from two other sets etc etc. and can be traced back for generations. we are all just part of the continuing cycle of life. The very same life that either began in a dark corner of the sea as many would have us beleive or the result of Gods handiwork as others claim. There simply is no "new" life on this planet. All life, along with its own "unique DNA" comes from the preceding generation.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Annsni said:


> Yes, DNA is so unique that no one else in the world has the same DNA. Study up on "familial DNA" and maybe that will help your understanding.


Ya know, i keep hearing "the DNA of thedefendant matches the sample taken and proves that the defendant committed the crime". 

How can a crime be traced back through DNA if it is the same for everyone? 
How can someone be convicted using their DNA if it all the same?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I cannot argue that everyone's DNA is not different, but that's neither here nor there, what is important is that your "unique" DNA did not just magically appear.... It is a combination of two other sets of unique DNA which was passed down from two other sets etc etc. and can be traced back for generations. we are all just part of the continuing cycle of life. The very same life that either began in a dark corner of the sea as many would have us beleive or the result of Gods handiwork as others claim. There simply is no "new" life on this planet. All life, along with its own "unique DNA" comes from the preceding generation.


Your definition of "new life" is very different than science. You were not "you" before your father's sperm and your mother's egg came together. You became at that point and a new life was begun. That life was not existing before. Yes, cells were living before but when they came together, something new was created.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Ya know, i keep hearing "the DNA of thedefendant matches the sample taken and proves that the defendant committed the crime".
> 
> How can a crime be traced back through DNA if it is the same for everyone?
> How can someone be convicted using their DNA if it all the same?


Exactly. Even my children's DNA does not match mine. It will have similarities but it will not be mine. They have a "familial" match but only my own DNA matches my DNA.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Ya know, i keep hearing "the DNA of thedefendant matches the sample taken and proves that the defendant committed the crime".
> 
> How can a crime be traced back through DNA if it is the same for everyone?
> How can someone be convicted using their DNA if it all the same?


It's the way the genes are sequenced that make them unique.
The basic parts are all the same.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Your definition of "new life" is very different than science. You were not "you" before your father's sperm and your mother's egg came together. You became at that point and a new life was begun. That life was not existing before. Yes, cells were living before but when they came together, something new was created.


We were not who we are today the day after we were born either. We went through many changes and stages to become who we are. The DNA we carry today all began when life began thousands of years ago. Yes it goes thru changes as it replicates itself but there has never been a time there has been a gap in the chain. As I understand it an adult contains not one single cell we had when we were born, they have all been swapped out for new ones about every seven to ten years. 
It's also my understanding that our DNA today has made some changes since the day we were born. This is due to natural background radiation passing through our bodies tearing tiny bits of our DNA apart on its way. When the damaged DNA replicates these damaged areas are carried forward in the new strand. Pretty sure that is what causes the aging process.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for an excellent post. :bow:


Thanks. This is completely off topic but your new signature line is absolutely hysterical. I nearly spewed coffee all over my monitor when I first read it.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm betting CMP will be the ones convicted of fraud and tax evasion


Which would only go to show that Lois Lerner's legacy is still alive and well at the IRS and in all other ratholes of the Obama administration.

_(snort)
_


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> And if a woman does become pregnant, than it should be her decision what to do about it. It is, and always should be, her choice.


I think women should have to "self identify" as a _"It's my choice and nobody else's!"_ type of woman....and then if they ever get pregnant, they cannot force the father -or other citizens through their tax dollars- to pay any sort of child support to her or the child, at least not as long as she retains custody.

And if she has a child that she then hands over (or loses) custody to the state, she's sterilized. Bam! End of Discussion.

Then and only then would it truly be "her choice" since you can't really have a full and complete "choice" unless you fully and completely accept all of the consequences YOURSELF with no expectation of someone else bailing you out.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Is planned parenthood a misnomer.... shouldn't it be more like
Planned childlesshood?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Targe said:


> Which would only go to show that Lois Lerner's legacy is still alive and well at the IRS and in all other ratholes of the Obama administration.
> _(snort)
> _


It would show who really lied and committed crimes.

They haven't found any committed by PP, even though so many like to say the videos "prove" something.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would show who really lied and committed crimes.


You mean when they Take the Fifth like Lois Lerner? 'Cause like, innocent people do that, right?

That was sarcasm, by the way.



Bearfootfarm said:


> They haven't found any committed by PP, even though so many like to say the videos "prove" something.


LOL Yeah, the videos are so complimentary to Planned Parenthood, it's a wonder they don't use extracts for their propaganda campaign! I mean, what could be more endearing than hear a lab tech gleefully exclaim something to the effect of _"Oh goodie! Another boy (fetus)!"_ while a PP exec jokes about wanting a Lamborghini. 

The same exec then waffles around by it being an "argument" whether changing the abortion procedure to remove more intact fetuses (for the purpose of harvesting more intact organs to sell) and states that she has no problem with the concept even after she acknowledged that would violate _&#8220;...the protocol that says to the patient, &#8216;We&#8217;re not doing anything different in our care of you.&#8217;&#8221;_ and justifies it by saying _"I don&#8217;t think the patients would care one iota."_

Which of course, begs the question: If the patients would not care one iota then why would PP even consider lying to them and violating its own promise? Of course, when you can predict what the patients would/would not care about, then gosh! No need to even ask or inform them, right?

Hey if that's how you do business -you know, guessing what the patients wants, likes, cares about, etc.- then just put it in the brochure. Say something like _"And WE will make decisions for you since after all: we're mind readers who not only know what's best for you but know what you want or SHOULD want." _:thumb:

Otherwise, I see it as just like with Lois Lerner: if you always tell the truth, then you don't have remember what you said and you won't need to Take the Fifth...unless you think it could land you in jail, hmmm? :hrm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Targe said:


> You mean when they Take the Fifth like* Lois Lerner*? 'Cause like, innocent people do that, right?
> 
> That was sarcasm, by the way.
> 
> ...


Save all the lame, boring anti-Obama rhetoric. 
It has nothing to do with the topic, and Cornhusker provides more than enough to go around

You're just parroting the misinformation from the videos


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Save all the lame, boring anti-Obama rhetoric.
> It has nothing to do with the topic....


I didn't even mention Obama in my post to which you responded; but of course, you won't let FACTS get in the way of your rant, will you?




Bearfootfarm said:


> You're just parroting the misinformation from the videos


As expected, when you don't have any response to the question of why -_if she did nothing wrong- would Lois Lerner Take the Fifth? _you resort to ad hominem attacks.

On that expectation, you did not fail to deliver.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *I didn't even mention Obama* in my post to which you responded; but of course, you won't let FACTS get in the way of your rant, will you?


You don't care about facts
You just want to argue



> Originally Posted by Targe View Post
> Which would only go to show that *Lois Lerner's* legacy is still alive and well at the IRS and in all other ratholes of the *Obama *administration.
> (snort)





> As expected, when you don't have any response to the question of why -if she did nothing wrong- would Lois Lerner Take the Fifth? you resort to ad hominem attacks.
> 
> On that expectation, you did not fail to deliver.


And as expected you also deliver the same old spin.
It's too predictable to even be mildly entertaining.
If you want to discuss Lois, start a thread about her.

This one is about the lies told in some videos


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Targe said:


> I think women should have to "self identify" as a _"It's my choice and nobody else's!"_ type of woman....and then if they ever get pregnant, they cannot force the father -or other citizens through their tax dollars- to pay any sort of child support to her or the child, at least not as long as she retains custody.
> 
> And if she has a child that she then hands over (or loses) custody to the state, she's sterilized. Bam! End of Discussion.
> 
> Then and only then would it truly be "her choice" since you can't really have a full and complete "choice" unless you fully and completely accept all of the consequences YOURSELF with no expectation of someone else bailing you out.


So, let me understand what your plan is here. First we punish women who become pregnant by forcing them to continue the pregnancy. Because, after all, why allow the person who bears 95% of the consequences for an unwanted pregnancy to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy? Obviously, they need someone else to make that decision for them. Who exactly do you suggest should be making the decision? Then, we force her to raise the baby she never wanted and may not be able to support. If she surrenders the baby that she was forced into having in step one of your plan, she's forcibly sterilized. Oh yeah, great plan.

Whether you like it or not, women are fully capable of making our own decisions. We don't need your help making them.


----------

