# Draw the line



## Irish Pixie

The link is to The Center for Reproductive Rights and has video of actresses telling the real life story of women that have had an abortion. 

http://www.drawtheline.org/?s_src=d...social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=dtlFB


----------



## Shine

...and on the other side of that same coin...

"... I am afraid that I cannot afford this baby..."

http://www.babycenter.com/400_is-it-wrong-to-think-i-cannot-afford-this-baby_6791465_44.bc


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> ...and on the other side of that same coin...
> 
> "... I am afraid that I cannot afford this baby..."
> 
> http://www.babycenter.com/400_is-it-wrong-to-think-i-cannot-afford-this-baby_6791465_44.bc


Exactly. Which is why I am pro choice. I actually read the link you put up, did you watch the videos? The one that bothered me the most was the woman that was miscarrying at 15 weeks and the hospital wouldn't perform an abortion because they were afraid of the ruining their reputation [due to abortion terrorists]. She labored for 17 hours to deliver a non viable baby.

The nurse with epilepsy that had to hide her abortion from her coworkers because she was afraid of their judgement was terrible too.


----------



## Shine

There are some in every crowd. If someone that I knew was going to have an abortion, I would sincerely try to find an alternative but in the end, it is not my choice.


----------



## Shine

The term "abortion terrorists" just rang a bell. I do not think that anyone should treat anyone differently because they had this process or that process. While the act of having a "process" done might have some side effects, there are other factors to take into consideration, many of which we might never know of. So to agree with you, the "abortion terrorists" need to go away. As long as this process is legal, I will do no more that try to help to find an alternative, if I am not successful then I have done what I could/should. It does not color my thoughts that someone has had an abortion in the past nor does it color my thoughts if my best effort is disregarded.


----------



## OffGridCooker

I am pro choice up to a point, more like the way Europe does it.
But I would not arrest someone for a late term abortion.
It may be time to start paying women to have and raise children. We are having a population decline.


----------



## watcher

I'm very confused. How many other body parts have their own distinctive DNA which is different than all the DNA in the rest of the body?


----------



## mreynolds

watcher said:


> I'm very confused. How many other body parts have their own distinctive DNA which is different than all the DNA in the rest of the body?



_Rant begins_


And there's the rub. Its personal to me but the law is the law and not much we can do about it right now. If you have a wanna be responsible father he has absolutely no say in the matter because _she_ may not want to carry that child. Its her body right? But his rights are not subject to debate (or so I was told). 

But what can you do?


_Rant over_

Other than that, I am all for people having the freedom to choose what they will do to or for themselves.


----------



## wr

mreynolds said:


> _Rant begins_
> 
> 
> And there's the rub. Its personal to me but the law is the law and not much we can do about it right now. If you have a wanna be responsible father he has absolutely no say in the matter because _she_ may not want to carry that child. Its her body right? But his rights are not subject to debate (or so I was told).
> 
> But what can you do?
> 
> 
> _Rant over_
> 
> Other than that, I am all for people having the freedom to choose what they will do to or for themselves.


I actually agree with you to a certain degree but in granting blanket rights to fathers can create another mess. 

My kids father developed an addiction after a fairly routine surgery and I was pregnant with a planned 3rd child and when I refused to tolerate the effect that the addiction had on our family, he obviously realized that child support on that planned 3rd child may be an expense he didn't want so he demanded I have an abortion if I wanted to stay married and even went so far as to try to use the courts to force my decision by various legal maneuvers. 

I'm pretty aggressively pro choice simply because I had to fight awful hard for that right and I know how horrible it is to have someone try and control my reproductive decisions.


----------



## mreynolds

wr said:


> I actually agree with you to a certain degree but in granting blanket rights to fathers can create another mess.
> 
> My kids father developed an addiction after a fairly routine surgery and I was pregnant with a planned 3rd child and when I refused to tolerate the effect that the addiction had on our family, he obviously realized that child support on that planned 3rd child may be an expense he didn't want so he demanded I have an abortion if I wanted to stay married and even went so far as to try to use the courts to force my decision by various legal maneuvers.
> 
> I'm pretty aggressively pro choice simply because I had to fight awful hard for that right and I know how horrible it is to have someone try and control my reproductive decisions.


Yes, and I am pro choice too. But it is not a blanket policy for all. No matter what you do some one gets hurt. But the someone that gets hurt usually doesn't have any say or if he/she does they are labeled a pariah. It was long ago for me but it doesn't go away to this day. What would nine months of trial compare to thirty years of wondering "what if" compare to? 

But I digress. I agree there are many many (_too_ many) reasons for yes it is the right choice. But there can be times that the law is totally wrong. I have no biological children to this day. I do have three wonderful step children that love me beyond belief. Your situation warrants a definite look see into the why though. Is it monetary? Is it just don't want the hassle? or is it really warranted? There are all kinds of reasons and to say they are all warranted is just to be.....how to say in a nice way.

having blinders on? 

But Kudos to you for sticking to your guns.* I totally respect that*. That's one of the reasons the law is in effect. There are many fathers that cant be bothered with "another mouth to feed". BUT, there are those that _will_ feed another mouth and relish the thought. 

Always two sides to every coin and I have said too much perhaps. But after all these abortion threads I just couldn't help myself.

Have a good night. See you soon.


----------



## wr

mreynolds said:


> Yes, and I am pro choice too. But it is not a blanket policy for all. No matter what you do some one gets hurt. But the someone that gets hurt usually doesn't have any say or if he/she does they are labeled a pariah. It was long ago for me but it doesn't go away to this day. What would nine months of trial compare to thirty years of wondering "what if" compare to?
> 
> But I digress. I agree there are many many (_too_ many) reasons for yes it is the right choice. But there can be times that the law is totally wrong. I have no biological children to this day. I do have three wonderful step children that love me beyond belief. Your situation warrants a definite look see into the why though. Is it monetary? Is it just don't want the hassle? or is it really warranted? There are all kinds of reasons and to say they are all warranted is just to be.....how to say in a nice way.
> 
> having blinders on?
> 
> But Kudos to you for sticking to your guns.* I totally respect that*. That's one of the reasons the law is in effect. There are many fathers that cant be bothered with "another mouth to feed". BUT, there are those that _will_ feed another mouth and relish the thought.
> 
> Always two sides to every coin and I have said too much perhaps. But after all these abortion threads I just couldn't help myself.
> 
> Have a good night. See you soon.


I suspect that in my case, the reason so much effort was put into trying to force the abortion came down to money (child support) because back then it was calculated per child not a percentage of income. Ultimately, I have never received any child support. 

It wasn't an easy journey and I couldn't have done it without family support and a lot of macaroni but all three are good people and I feel my fight to be allowed to have my son was well worth the battle and it's my fondest hope that nobody should have to put up with the public defamation of character and ill treatment I did no matter what choice they make.


----------



## City Bound

The only video I ever needed or need to see was a video of an abortion from inside of a woman's womb. It was all abstract before that point and then when I saw them ripping the limbs off a living child, crushing it's skull, and then tossing the child into a garbage can it became a little clearer to me that it really was horrific and against life.


And yes, it is hypocritical of liberals to exclude the father and his rights from the conversation.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> I suspect that in my case, the reason so much effort was put into trying to force the abortion came down to money (child support) because back then it was calculated per child not a percentage of income. Ultimately, I have never received any child support.
> 
> It wasn't an easy journey and I couldn't have done it without family support and a lot of macaroni but all three are good people and I feel my fight to be allowed to have my son was well worth the battle and it's my fondest hope that nobody should have to put up with the public defamation of character and ill treatment I did no matter what choice they make.


When I had the wherewithal - I agreed to $1200 dollars a month[2006], more than what the State mandated, to a working mother to raise our 2 children. Once she was receiving this money she went off the grid, meaning that she worked under the table. This harmed me when I was laid off[2008]. At that point she appeared to be a person that was without any support... Guess who had to pay her something similar to what she had been receiving when my salary got sliced by more than half.

Justice, my eye.


----------



## MDKatie

Very powerful videos. I'm not sure there was a single one that didn't give me chills and make me tear up.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Yes, and I am pro choice too. But it is not a blanket policy for all. No matter what you do some one gets hurt. But the someone that gets hurt usually doesn't have any say or if he/she does they are labeled a pariah. It was long ago for me but it doesn't go away to this day. What would nine months of trial compare to thirty years of wondering "what if" compare to?
> 
> But I digress. I agree there are many many (_too_ many) reasons for yes it is the right choice. But there can be times that the law is totally wrong. I have no biological children to this day. I do have three wonderful step children that love me beyond belief. Your situation warrants a definite look see into the why though. Is it monetary? Is it just don't want the hassle? or is it really warranted? There are all kinds of reasons and to say they are all warranted is just to be.....how to say in a nice way.
> 
> having blinders on?
> 
> But Kudos to you for sticking to your guns.* I totally respect that*. That's one of the reasons the law is in effect. There are many fathers that cant be bothered with "another mouth to feed". BUT, there are those that _will_ feed another mouth and relish the thought.
> 
> Always two sides to every coin and I have said too much perhaps. But after all these abortion threads I just couldn't help myself.
> 
> Have a good night. See you soon.


In my experience, for every responsible man (like yourself) there are at least four that will not support their children or will do so sporadically as long as it's not a burden on them or too inconvenient. 

Ultimately it is the woman's responsibility to care for her children, and she is the only person on which she can completely rely.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> In my experience, for every responsible man (like yourself) there are at least four that will not support their children or will do so sporadically as long as it's not a burden on them or too inconvenient.
> 
> Ultimately it is the woman's responsibility to care for her children, and she is the only person on which she can completely rely.


I've known men who raised their kids alone, my brother included.
They receive $0 child support because the courts won't force deadbeat women to pay up.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> I've known men who raised their kids alone, my brother included.
> They receive $0 child support because the courts won't force deadbeat women to pay up.


I know one as well. You're not trying to say that the father raising kids without support from the mother is in any way as common as a man not paying support for his children, are you? If so, I call complete and total BS.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> I know one as well. You're not trying to say that the father raising kids without support from the mother is in any way as common as a man not paying support for his children, are you? If so, I call complete and total BS.


No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying women are at least as likely, or more likely to be deadbeats than men in the same situation.
Now I can't speak for inner cities, etc, but where I come from, men are raised to support their families, absent or present.
women seem to expect men to take care of everything.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying.
> *I'm saying women are at least as likely, or more likely to be deadbeats than men in the same situation.*
> Now I can't speak for inner cities, etc, but where I come from, men are raised to support their families, absent or present.
> women seem to expect men to take care of everything.


Not in my experience, woman simply want men to help pay for the children they fathered. 

I don't live, and never have, in the inner city yet I know at least a dozen women that have never received a dime of child support, and dozens that had to fight tooth and nail to get a minimum amount. I know three women that didn't have custody of their children and paid child support. I know of one woman that didn't have custody of her children, never paid child support, and went to jail because of it. She never did pay a dime. 

*BS.* *Most women have custody of their children and provide the majority, or all, of their support. *


----------



## wr

I doubt if child support issues are much different in the US than Canada and in my opinion, it's not a good system men or women and in turn the real losers are children. 

Men deal with the system at their level and feel they have been treated like deadbeats and assume that women are favored but in reality, women will tell you the same system treats them like gold diggers looking for a free ride. 

In my opinion, there's a lot of good men and women supporting kids and I don't think we should assume that because they're crappy parents out there, that all either gender is worse than the other.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> In my experience, for every responsible man (like yourself) there are at least four that will not support their children or will do so sporadically as long as it's not a burden on them or too inconvenient.
> .


Wait, I am confused. So, when a woman is pregnant and she wants to have an abortion then the baby is magically considered not to be he father's child and he has no say in whether his child lives or dies but if the child is born then then at that point the child, who in the womb was magically considered not his child, is now magically considered his child and he has to pay for a child that he will not even be able to raise unless he fights tooth and nails in the courts for the right to visit his child (who at the same time is not his child)?

Which one is it? Is the only time the father considered the father when there is a bill to pay and other then those times he is nothing? 

It is nonsense.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Wait, I am confused. So, when a woman is pregnant and she wants to have an abortion then the baby is magically considered not to be he father's child and he has no say in whether his child lives or dies but if the child is born then then at that point the child, who in the womb was magically considered not his child, is now magically considered his child and he has to pay for a child that he will not even be able to raise unless he fights tooth and nails in the courts for the right to visit his child (who at the same time is not his child)?
> 
> Which one is it? Is the only time the father considered the father when there is a bill to pay?
> 
> It is all hypocritical nonsense.


It's a woman's body and her choice to terminate or carry a pregnancy to term. When men can become pregnant they'll have a choice too.

Birth control, while not 100% reliable, is a great way to avoid a woman becoming pregnant. Wrap it up.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a woman's body and her choice to terminate or carry a pregnancy to term. When men can become pregnant they'll have a choice too.


Well, using that conclusion then the child was never the man's in the first place and he has to pay nothing. 

The thing is that it is not her body, it is the child's body. if a person can not accept that then at least they can not argue the fact that the child is half of the father's dna, so it is not entirely her body.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a woman's body and her choice to terminate or carry a pregnancy to term.


When does it become stealing the rights to life of the unborn child? Only after the baby is born? 

The whole argument is never logically approached. Society determines many individual choices are unacceptable. The choice to murder being a big one. So you must establish a agreement for when the developing embryo is considered a life form of it's own. After that point it is no longer a choice without repercussions just like committing any crime against another is unacceptable. A person as a individual can not make the determination because people are flawed. They will choose things that they believe are to their benefit regardless of how it impacts others. 

Using loaded terms like "choice" are simply emotional appeals and have little validity to a logical argument pro or con.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> When does it become stealing the rights to life of the unborn child? Only after the baby is born?
> 
> The whole argument is never logically approached. Society determines many individual choices are unacceptable. The choice to murder being a big one. So you must establish a agreement for when the developing embryo is considered a life form of it's own. After that point it is no longer a choice without repercussions just like committing any crime against another is acceptable. A person as a individual can not make the determination because people are flawed. They will choose things that they believe are to their benefit regardless of how it impacts others.
> 
> Using loaded terms like "choice" are simply emotional appeals and have little validity to a logical argument pro or con.


You don't think a woman has the right to control her own body? Why is that? All male Americans do, why would it be different for female? The bottom line is that it's a legal procedure. 

I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. I have no problem with abortion up to 21 weeks as the fetus is not viable. I disagree with later term abortion (unless it's for fetal abnormality or the woman's health) but it's none of my business, not my decision to make, and I certainly won't judge a women for having one.


----------



## Elevenpoint

On the local news this morning a man was charged with killing a woman who was seven weeks pregnant....yep...two counts of murder.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Well, using that conclusion then the child was never the man's in the first place and he has to pay nothing.
> 
> The thing is that it is not her body, it is the child's body. if a person can not accept that then at least they can not argue the fact that the child is half of the father's dna, so it is not entirely her body.


Which is why so many women have to fight to get men to pay for the children they fathered. Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## Shine

CB does bring into focus the irony regarding a man's position. When the woman has the right to abort what is the product of two people's actions then the "right" that she "executes" which is totally legal at this point in time would seem to violate the right of a man to become a parent. The action that created the "child to be" is generally a consensus from both people, right? Two people are involved, one should have the exact same rights as the other - right?

I see three ways to look at it, one way is not realistic at this current point in time but it needs to be brought out for discussion to level the playing field.

With the female having the absolute right to have the child or abort the child then, if the two parties are going to have "Equal Rights" in my opinion there should be the opportunity for the two people to come to a decision to :
1. To have and raise the child together
2. If the female decides to have the child against the will of the male person then he should have the "right" to abort that child from his life meaning that, as with the right of the woman to end the pregnancy, the male should have the right to not have to bear the burden of that child if it is not in his intention to do so.
[this is exactly where the woman is with her ability to decide the fate of the child to be]
3. [this is not generally possible now but I do believe that it will be possible at some point] If the woman decides to not have the child then if the male wants to raise and care for the child, he should have the right to have the "child to be" placed in some form of incubator to continue it's life and allow the woman to go her way without any responsibilities towards that child whatsoever.

If the right of the woman to care for her body includes the right to eliminate a "clump of cells" that would normally become a child if no action is taken then a similar set of rights should exist for the father.

You are seeking to insure that both parties are indeed equal - correct?


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> On the local news this morning a man was charged with killing a woman who was seven weeks pregnant....yep...two counts of murder.


Link?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> CB does bring into focus the irony regarding a man's position. When the woman has the right to abort what is the product of two people's actions then the "right" that she "executes" which is totally legal at this point in time would seem to violate the right of a man to become a parent.
> 
> I see two ways to look at it, one way is not realistic at this current point in time but it needs to be brought out for discussion to level the playing field.
> 
> With the female having the absolute right to have the child or abort the child then, if the two parties are going to have "Equal Rights" in my opinion there should be the opportunity for the two people to come to a decision to :
> 1. To have and raise the child together
> 2. If the female decides to have the child against the will of the male person then he should have the "right" to abort that child from his life meaning that, as with the right of the woman to end the pregnancy, the male should have the right to not have to bear the burden of that child if it is not in his intention to do so.
> [this is exactly where the woman is with her ability to decide the fate of the child to be]
> 3. [this is not generally possible now but I do believe that it will be possible at some point] If the woman decides to not have the child then if the male wants to raise and care for the child, he should have the right to have the "child to be" placed in some form of incubator to continue it's life and allow the woman to go her way without any responsibilities towards that child whatsoever.
> 
> If the right of the woman to care for her body includes the right to eliminate a "clump of cells" that would normally become a child if no action is taken then a similar set of rights should exist for the father.
> 
> You are seeking to insure that both parties are indeed equal - correct?


Nope. Both parties aren't equal, only one of them is pregnant.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Which is why so many women have to fight to get men to pay for the children they fathered. Thank you for proving my point.


 No, just trying to show how absurd the logic of your point is. While in the womb it is not the father's, out of the womb it is the father's. It is a senseless and self serving conclusion that the woman is making.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> No, just trying to show how absurd the logic of your point is. While in the womb it is not the father's, out of the womb it is the father's. It is a senseless and self serving conclusion that the woman is making.


It's _her_ body and _her_ choice either terminate the pregnancy or allow it to continue. Why is that so hard to understand?

Why do you feel that you have the right to control what a woman does with her body? Can you explain?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Link?


No...has to be thousands of this type of scenario...just the irony of two different endings for a seven week old which one is murder and one legal.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> No...has to be thousands of this type of scenario...just the irony of two different endings for a seven week old which one is murder and one legal.


I'll comment on your fictional situation- the difference is if the pregnancy was wanted and would be allowed to go to term. Wanted pregnancy (the woman had decided to carry to term) means murder. Unwanted pregnancy (the woman decides to abort) means no murder.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't think a woman has the right to control her own body? Why is that? All male Americans do, why would it be different for female? The bottom line is that it's a legal procedure.
> 
> I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. I have no problem with abortion up to 21 weeks as the fetus is not viable. I disagree with later term abortion (unless it's for fetal abnormality or the woman's health) but it's none of my business, not my decision to make, and I certainly won't judge a women for having one.


It is not about a right to control your body once you determine the child is a independent life. Nor does saying it is legal mean much since at one point it was illegal. As to whether it is your business as to what another does, Is it your business to be against the murder of one person by another if they are not personally connected to your life? Rights are not unlimited. 

The terms pro choice is a emotional political argument having little logical validity. 

I do judge people when they break the compacts we have with each other established by history.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> CB does bring into focus the irony regarding a man's position. When the woman has the right to abort what is the product of two people's actions then the "right" that she "executes" which is totally legal at this point in time would seem to violate the right of a man to become a parent.
> 
> I see three ways to look at it, one way is not realistic at this current point in time but it needs to be brought out for discussion to level the playing field.
> 
> With the female having the absolute right to have the child or abort the child then, if the two parties are going to have "Equal Rights" in my opinion there should be the opportunity for the two people to come to a decision to :
> 1. To have and raise the child together
> 2. If the female decides to have the child against the will of the male person then he should have the "right" to abort that child from his life meaning that, as with the right of the woman to end the pregnancy, the male should have the right to not have to bear the burden of that child if it is not in his intention to do so.
> [this is exactly where the woman is with her ability to decide the fate of the child to be]
> 3. [this is not generally possible now but I do believe that it will be possible at some point] If the woman decides to not have the child then if the male wants to raise and care for the child, he should have the right to have the "child to be" placed in some form of incubator to continue it's life and allow the woman to go her way without any responsibilities towards that child whatsoever.
> 
> If the right of the woman to care for her body includes the right to eliminate a "clump of cells" that would normally become a child if no action is taken then a similar set of rights should exist for the father.
> 
> You are seeking to insure that both parties are indeed equal - correct?


If you agree that my ex husband should have had the right to force me to abort my youngest, which was a planned pregnancy, I'm wondering how long you would allow for them to make that decision? In my case, after all the legal maneuvers I would have been forced to have a late term abortion that I strongly disagree with. 

Would you also agree that if the father could insist on a woman carrying to term, he be responsible for covering her expenses when she was no longer able to work late term and what should happen if the father subsequently changes his mind before delivery?


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> It's _her_ body and _her_ choice either terminate the pregnancy or allow it to continue. Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> Why do you feel that you have the right to control what a woman does with her body? Can you explain?


 We are worlds apart. I try to respect the rights of the mother, the father, and the child. All people born and unborn have rights and deserve to be treated humanely. From you posts here in this thread I feel that you do not feel the same way.

You are mistaken when you think that the child is the woman's body. Are you your mothers body? Could your mother have killed you at 15 yo and argue that you are her body and that she can do whatever she wants with you? That is silly you think? Well, it is the same logic you are using.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> I'll comment on your fictional situation- the difference is if the pregnancy was wanted and would be allowed to go to term. Wanted pregnancy (the woman had decided to carry to term) means murder. Unwanted pregnancy (the woman decides to abort) means no murder.


Quick Google search brings many cases on the first page as I mentioned. Fictional only in your mind.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> If you agree that my ex husband should have had the right to force me to abort my youngest, which was a planned pregnancy, I'm wondering how long you would allow for them to make that decision? In my case, after all the legal maneuvers I would have been forced to have a late term abortion that I strongly disagree with.
> 
> Would you also agree that if the father could insist on a woman carrying to term, he be responsible for covering her expenses when she was no longer able to work late term and what should happen if the father subsequently changes his mind before delivery?


Not being snippy here but it seems that both you and Pixie glossed over my observation.

No, your ex-husband should not have the ability to force you to do anything except that which is legally acceptable in today's current legal structure. 

However, if you decided to have the abortion you would have prevented yourself from having to raise that child and all the responsibilities associated with that. 

If you did that then he would also not have any responsibilities with regards to the aborted child.

The point that I am trying to make is thus:
If you didn't want that child but you both decided to have sex understanding that a child might be the result of that child, what if he joined with you because he did want that child? [I know, there's not an incubator scenario available at this point, but if there was...] Should he have the right to a procedure that removes the "Child to be" at his cost, to be placed in this fantasy incubator to continue growing?

On the flip side, if you were married when you had sex then he's on the hook for that child. If you were not and you both were just having a romp in the hay, why should he not have the same ability to "walk away" as you have should you get an abortion?

No, this is why I added the "incubator" suggestion. In this current time, he could not force you to carry that child full term because you have the option to abort. Until there is a viable "incubator" option then this option is not available for the father. It is the principle that I am identifying. You can walk away if you so chose, many people in this world do not want the man to have that opportunity. That is not equal. 

[PS, I do not personally advocate that a man should have this "right", I am just tossing this out there to show the inequality]


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> It is not about a right to control your body once you determine the child is a independent life. Nor does saying it is legal mean much since at one point it was illegal. As to whether it is your business as to what another does, Is it your business to be against the murder of one person by another if they are not personally connected to your life? Rights are not unlimited.
> 
> The terms pro choice is a emotional political argument having little logical validity.
> 
> I do judge people when they break the compacts we have with each other established by history.


OK. What are you going to do to stop a woman from having an abortion? You can judge all you want, and I can think that all anti abortion supporters are control freaks that have no problem harming anyone that disagrees with them.  And abortion is still legal.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> We are worlds apart. I try to respect the rights of the mother, the father, and the child. All people born and unborn have rights and deserve to be treated humanely. From you posts here in this thread I feel that you do not feel the same way.
> 
> You are mistaken when you think that the child is the woman's body. Are you your mothers body? Could your mother have killed you at 15 yo and argue that you are her body and that she can do whatever she wants with you? That is silly you think? Well, it is the same logic you are using.


It really doesn't matter if the fetus is part of the mother or not, but I believe it is until it's viable. The viability point is about 21 weeks, before that and a fetus can't survive outside the uterus. 

Nope. The unborn have no rights. The woman who is pregnant has rights tho.

Saying that my mother could have killed me at 15 is just ridiculous, why ever would you think that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Not being snippy here but it seems that both you and Pixie glossed over my observation.
> 
> No, your ex-husband should not have the ability to force you to do anything except that which is legally acceptable in today's current legal structure.
> 
> However, if you decided to have the abortion you would have prevented yourself from having to raise that child and all the responsibilities associated with that.
> 
> If you did that then he would also not have any responsibilities with regards to the aborted child.
> 
> The point that I am trying to make is thus:
> If you didn't want that child but you both decided to have sex understanding that a child might be the result of that child, what if he joined with you because he did want that child? [I know, there's not an incubator scenario available at this point, but if there was...] Should he have the right to a procedure that removes the "Child to be" at his cost, to be placed in this fantasy incubator to continue growing?
> 
> On the flip side, if you were married when you had sex then he's on the hook for that child. If you were not and you both were just having a romp in the hay, why should he not have the same ability to "walk away" as you have should you get an abortion?
> 
> No, this is why I added the "incubator" suggestion. In this current time, he could not force you to carry that child full term because you have the option to abort. Until there is a viable "incubator" option then this option is not available for the father. It is the principle that I am identifying. You can walk away if you so chose, many people in this world do not want the man to have that opportunity. That is not equal.
> 
> [PS, I do not personally advocate that a man should have this "right", I am just tossing this out there to show the inequality]


The bottom line is that the woman is the one pregnant, yes? It's her body and she decides if she wants to continue the pregnancy or terminate. When men get pregnant they'll have the same choice as it will be their body. 

I'm not glossing over your observation, it's just not relevant.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> You can judge all you want, and I can think that all anti abortion supporters are control freaks that have no problem harming anyone that disagrees with them.


 I guess you can say the same exact thing about hard core prochoice people. If having a child disagrees with your lifestyle then murder your child for convenience.
If a teenage girl gets pregnant and the parents disagree with abortion well, just take the parents out of the picture and let minors have dangerous medical surgery without parental consent.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> I guess you can say the same exact thing about hard core prochoice people. If having a child disagrees with your lifestyle then murder your child for convenience.
> If a teenage girl gets pregnant and the parents disagree with abortion well, just take the parents out of the picture and let minors have dangerous medical surgery without parental consent.


Abortion is not murder, to say it is is ridiculous. In many states a minor can't have have an abortion without parental consent, but you're just getting emotional and irrational now. 

Do you understand that pro choice means it's up to the individual woman to decide if she'll abort? There is no "hard core" about it, pro choice is not pro abortion. Dang.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not glossing over your observation, it's just not relevant.


...and here I thought that you were a champion for equal rights.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. What are you going to do to stop a woman from having an abortion? You can judge all you want, and I can think that all anti abortion supporters are control freaks that have no problem harming anyone that disagrees with them.  And abortion is still legal.


Killing of slaves was legal at one time also. I judge that as violating a humans right to life. 

Try as you might you have a cognitive dissonance going on. Unless you truly believe that a baby has no human rights until after birth (incidentally babies are not able to live after birth without support for many years) than your argument is logically defunct. Now some religious groups did believe that the soul only enters the baby at birth time. Not being religious I fail to buy into souls as having a scientific basis for determining someone as being human. 

Believing in laws and society strictures is not being a control freak. Unless you think that rape, murder, theft and other crimes against another are simply personal choice. 

Incidentally, I do not consider it harming someone by disagreeing with their line of thinking.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Killing of slaves was legal at one time also. I judge that as violating a humans right to life.
> 
> Try as you might you have a cognitive dissonance going on. Unless you truly believe that a baby has no human rights until after birth (incidentally babies are not able to live after birth without support for many years) than your argument is logically defunct. Now some religious groups did believe that the soul only enters the baby at birth time. Not being religious I fail to buy into souls as having a scientific basis for determining someone as being human.
> 
> Believing in laws and society strictures is not being a control freak. Unless you think that rape, murder, theft and other crimes against another are simply personal choice.
> 
> Incidentally, I do not consider it harming someone by disagreeing with their line of thinking.


Slaves were human beings with rights, yes? Please point out where the unborn have rights in the United States. Thanks.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> ...and here I thought that you were a champion for equal rights.


I'm a feminist, women's rights are my priority.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> It really doesn't matter if the fetus is part of the mother or not, but I believe it is until it's viable. The viability point is about 21 weeks, before that and a fetus can't survive outside the uterus.
> 
> Nope. The unborn have no rights. The woman who is pregnant has rights tho.
> 
> Saying that my mother could have killed me at 15 is just ridiculous, why ever would you think that?


 Why is it ridiculous? If you use the logic that you were part of her body to do what she like with while in womb, then why not out of womb? You are still the same organism that was in her womb so why would being out of the womb change that? 

What is the difference between a late term abortion and the killing of a premature child in it's crib? Does the same act of killing a child become a medical function in one context and murder in another context simply because the reality of what is taking place is ether seen or unseen with the naked eye? Does the light of day make it murder and hidden darkness of the womb make it not murder? 

If you have never seen a video from inside a woman's womb during an abortion then I suggest you watch one.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm a feminist, women's rights are my priority.


 Sounds sexist. What if the child murdered in the womb was a female?


----------



## City Bound

Yes. Abortion is murder.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Why is it ridiculous? If you use the logic that you were part of her body to do what she like with while in womb, then why not out of womb? You are still the same organism that was in her womb so why would being out of the womb change that?
> 
> What is the difference between a late term abortion and the killing of a premature child in it's crib? Does the same act of killing a child become a medical function in one context and murder in another context simply because the reality of what is taking place is ether seen or unseen with the naked eye? Does the light of day make it murder and hidden darkness of the womb make it not murder?
> 
> If you have never seen a video from inside a woman's womb during an abortion then I suggest you watch one.


Her body, her choice. My mother chose to carry me to term. Do you understand now? Choice. Choice. Choice. and Choice. 

In most states late term abortion is illegal. I don't agree with late term abortion except in the case of fetal abnormality or mother's health. My opinion and a buck will buy a cheap cup of coffee, yours to for that matter.  http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

The difference is abortion is legal and infanticide is not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Yes. Abortion is murder.


Find a legal definition of murder that includes abortion, and link it. Please.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Find a legal definition of murder that includes abortion, and link it. Please.


laws change. Ethically and morally only the hardest of hearts and thickest of heads would say it is not murder. 

Obviously you disagree. Funny thing is that you do not believe in late term abortions unless the child is ill or deformed, so that would mean that you endorse the murder of the handicapped because you disagree with killing a healthy late term baby but not a sick one.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> Slaves were human beings with rights, yes? Please point out where the unborn have rights in the United States. Thanks.


Good lord there is tons of laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Do you seriously have no knowledge of the history of this? New laws are being passed all the time on the subject. 

And no, slaves were not considered having human rights. They were property until such time they were made "Freemen" and granted rights. Which, if you think about it, is a bit like your stance on abortion. Babies have no rights until the mother says it does. This might be at conception or it might be when the kid is 18 years old. Rather hard to pin down something so vague since you leave it up to the woman to choose when the baby is a human being.


----------



## City Bound

MattB4 said:


> And no, slaves were not considered having human rights. They were property until such time they were made "Freemen" and granted rights. Which, if you think about it, is a bit like your stance on abortion. Babies have no rights until the mother says it does. This might be at conception or it might be when the kid is 18 years old. Rather hard to pin down something so vague since you leave it up to the woman to choose when the baby is a human being.


 :clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Good lord there is tons of laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Do you seriously have no knowledge of the history of this? New laws are being passed all the time on the subject.
> 
> And no, slaves were not considered having human rights. They were property until such time they were made "Freemen" and granted rights. Which, if you think about it, is a bit like your stance on abortion. Babies have no rights until the mother says it does. This might be at conception or it might be when the kid is 18 years old. Rather hard to pin down something so vague since you leave it up to the woman to choose when the baby is a human being.


Links to laws giving the unborn rights over that of the mother, please. Since there are so many you should have no problem. 

Abortion is legal. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> laws change. Ethically and morally only the hardest of hearts and thickest of heads would say it is not murder.
> 
> Obviously you disagree. Funny thing is that you do not believe in late term abortions unless the child is ill or deformed, so that would mean that you endorse the murder of the handicapped because you disagree with killing a healthy late term baby but not a sick one.


I understand. If you can't reasonably articulate your argument, just get emotional and insult the other person.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> Links to laws giving the unborn rights over that of the mother, please. Since there are so many you should have no problem.
> 
> Abortion is legal. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.


The argument is not about the legality as I already said. The argument is about when the fetus has human rights and legal protection. 

Here is a simple link from Wikipedia about Abortion laws, since your Google search is not working for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States 

Educate yourself so that your argument is better.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> The argument is not about the legality as I already said. The argument is about when the fetus has human rights and legal protection.
> 
> Here is a simple link from Wikipedia about Abortion laws, since your Google search is not working for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
> 
> Educate yourself so that your argument is better.


Why? I'm not wrong. BTW, the topic was a link to videos about real women and their abortion story. 

You said: "Good lord there is tons of laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Do you seriously have no knowledge of the history of this? New laws are being passed all the time on the subject." Please link said laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Thanks.


----------



## watcher

wr said:


> I actually agree with you to a certain degree but in granting blanket rights to fathers can create another mess.
> 
> My kids father developed an addiction after a fairly routine surgery and I was pregnant with a planned 3rd child and when I refused to tolerate the effect that the addiction had on our family, he obviously realized that child support on that planned 3rd child may be an expense he didn't want so he demanded I have an abortion if I wanted to stay married and even went so far as to try to use the courts to force my decision by various legal maneuvers.
> 
> I'm pretty aggressively pro choice simply because I had to fight awful hard for that right and I know how horrible it is to have someone try and control my reproductive decisions.


We don't care about your reproductive decision. Try to reproduce or not if you wish. But once that action is taken we care about the individual you are carrying. That "mass of tissue" inside you is not just a part of your body. It has its own unique DNA that makes it an unique individual human. 

Here's my view on abortion, it should be legal the same way taking any other human life is. If there has been due process via the courts or if it poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the mother.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Why? I'm not wrong. BTW, the topic was a link to videos about real women and their abortion story.
> 
> You said: "Good lord there is tons of laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Do you seriously have no knowledge of the history of this? New laws are being passed all the time on the subject." Please link said laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Thanks.


Here ya go.........

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ212/html/PLAW-108publ212.htm


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> Why? I'm not wrong. BTW, the topic was a link to videos about real women and their abortion story.
> 
> You said: "Good lord there is tons of laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Do you seriously have no knowledge of the history of this? New laws are being passed all the time on the subject." Please link said laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Thanks.


Roe v Wade. 



> Roe established a "trimester" (i.e., 12 week) threshold of state interest in the life of the fetus corresponding to its increasing "viability" (likelihood of survival outside the uterus) over the course of a pregnancy, such that states were prohibited from banning abortion early in pregnancy but allowed to impose increasing restrictions or outright bans later in pregnancy.


Also Abortion is not legal in many ways. Look up Kermit Gosnell who was found guilty of murdering 3 babies in his abortion clinic. 

You really are arguing without understanding what the present or past situation is. 

My responses to you are not based on your link to a video. They were to the first post I quoted.


----------



## wr

[No message]


----------



## wr

watcher said:


> We don't care about your reproductive decision. Try to reproduce or not if you wish. But once that action is taken we care about the individual you are carrying. That "mass of tissue" inside you is not just a part of your body. It has its own unique DNA that makes it an unique individual human.
> 
> Here's my view on abortion, it should be legal the same way taking any other human life is. If there has been due process via the courts or if it poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the mother.


But by handing over equal rights to the courts, you also open things up for more women, like myself, who had to go to court to defend their right to carry a child to term. 

Essentially, you are assuming that women chose abortions and men want them to carry to term, which isn't completely factual. Most young men faced with the option of finishing college or supporting a child are quick to offer to help make arrangements at the nearest abortion clinic.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Roe v Wade.
> 
> 
> 
> Also Abortion is not legal in many ways. Look up Kermit Gosnell who was found guilty of murdering 3 babies in his abortion clinic.
> 
> You really are arguing without understanding what the present or past situation is.
> 
> My responses to you are not based on your link to a video. They were to the first post I quoted.


Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Kermit Gosnell is a murderer because he performed late term abortions and three were delivered alive. He killed them, and was convicted for it. What is your point?

I think you are the one that lacks a basic understanding of abortion.

Next. I don't mind educating you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Here ya go.........
> 
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ212/html/PLAW-108publ212.htm


Which doesn't come into play unless it's a wanted pregnancy that will be carried to term.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Which doesn't come into play unless it's a wanted pregnancy that will be carried to term.


I know.
I read the statute.

You asked for any law giving rights to the unborn, which is what I posted.
I'm not sure if there are ANY rights that don't have exceptions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> I know.
> I read the statute.
> 
> You asked for any law giving rights to the unborn, which is what I posted.
> I'm not sure if there are ANY rights that don't have exceptions.


What was your point? The discussion is about abortion, if a woman aborts it's not a wanted pregnancy, correct?


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> What was your point? The discussion is about abortion, if a woman aborts it's not a wanted pregnancy, correct?


What if the father wants it? Is it not wanted then?


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Kermit Gosnell is a murderer because he performed late term abortions and three were delivered alive. He killed them, and was convicted for it. What is your point?
> 
> I think you are the one that lacks a basic understanding of abortion.
> 
> Next. I don't mind educating you.


Abortion is restricted in many states. I don't mine educating you but it does not seem to reach you. I even gave you a simple link to do some reading about it. 

The person that argued that rights should be granted when conception happens because of a unique DNA I don't agree with personally but at least it is a logical argument. You have no logic to your stance other than chanting "choice" which has no true meaning. It is simply a appeal to emotion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Abortion is restricted in many states. I don't mine educating you but it does not seem to reach you. I even gave you a simple link to do some reading about it.
> 
> The person that argued that rights should be granted when conception happens because of a unique DNA I don't agree with personally but at least it is a logical argument. You have no logic to your stance other than chanting "choice" which has no true meaning. It is simply a appeal to emotion.


What state doesn't allow abortion? Can you name it? Please? 

Anyone can argue anything but that doesn't make them right, does it? Sigh. Choice is the only correct response, Roe v. Wade (which was decided 43 years ago today BTW) made law that a woman has control over her own body- the choice to abort a pregnancy if she so chooses. Anything else is simply opinion.

More questions?


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> ...
> 
> More questions?


No. No point. I think we established all that can be established with logic and reasoning by this juncture.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> No. No point. I think we established all that can be established with logic and reasoning by this juncture.


OK. You're welcome.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Please link said laws and legal precedents giving rights to the unborn. Thanks.





Irish Pixie said:


> What was your point? The discussion is about abortion, if a woman aborts it's not a wanted pregnancy, correct?





farmrbrown said:


> Here ya go.........
> 
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ212/html/PLAW-108publ212.htm


I guess my point would be, not all of the unborn are aborted and those that aren't have rights.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> What state doesn't allow abortion? Can you name it? Please?
> 
> Anyone can argue anything but that doesn't make them right, does it? Sigh. Choice is the only correct response, Roe v. Wade (which was decided 43 years ago today BTW) made law that a woman has control over her own body- the choice to abort a pregnancy if she so chooses. Anything else is simply opinion.
> 
> More questions?


Only one question....who would have thought 43 years ago today that SC decision would have led to 50 million innocent lives lost. Shameful.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> What state doesn't allow abortion? Can you name it? Please?
> 
> Anyone can argue anything but that doesn't make them right, does it? Sigh. Choice is the only correct response, Roe v. Wade (which was decided 43 years ago today BTW) made law that a woman has control over her own body- the choice to abort a pregnancy if she so chooses. Anything else is simply opinion.
> 
> More questions?


Sigh! The SC has been wrong many times in the past. This issue could certainly be revisited. Remember they ruled that tomatoes were vegetables! Hold on to your beliefs, things change, just sayin!


----------



## painterswife

I am steadfastly pro choice. I however have no real problem with having laws that limit third term abortions to medical reasons only. I can also see that being lowered in the future as viability lowers due to medical progress.

Until then it is and will always be the mothers choice. I just hope that medical advancements and medical care make it possible to know with in days of conception so that if an abortion is wanted it can be done with in weeks.

Abortion in the first trimester will never be outlawed.


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> I am steadfastly pro choice. I however have no real problem with having laws that limit third term abortions to medical reasons only. I can also see that being lowered in the future as viability lowers due to medical progress.
> 
> Until then it is and will always be the mothers choice. I just hope that medical advancements and medical care make it possible to know with in days of conception so that if an abortion is wanted it can be done with in weeks.
> 
> Abortion in the first trimester will never be outlawed.


With a thorough cleaning in the 2016 elections...some state's will not allow abortions by the year 2020 except for rape or the mothers health.


----------



## City Bound

These conversations are a great birth control. Shows how many awful men and women people could be tangled up with if they make a bad choice.

Watching all the baby mommas and baby daddys on jerry springer was also great birth control also. Who could get in the mood after watching those living nightmares. 

When they give sex Ed classes in school I think they should include info on all this real life drama so that kids can get a sense of the Interpersonal and ideological politics that go with sex. I am sure it would scare a lot of kids straight and we would have a lot less unplanned and unwanted children which also translates into less abortions.


----------



## painterswife

elevenpoint said:


> With a thorough cleaning in the 2016 elections...some state's will not allow abortions by the year 2020 except for rape or the mothers health.


Not likely unless they change the constitution.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Sigh! The SC has been wrong many times in the past. This issue could certainly be revisited. Remember they ruled that tomatoes were vegetables! Hold on to your beliefs, things change, just sayin!


Don't hold your breath. 

Why do you want to control women?


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> Why do you want to control women?


Do i? Where did I ever say that? Your projecting your own opinion again, sigh! Why do you not care about the unborn?
I am curious though as to why you didn't answer my question posed to you in post 70?


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> Why do you want to control women?


The government gives you the "control" right to distroy yourself (and a baby). Isn't that special. And libs try to pretend hitler was a bad guy , all that control he allowed people...

,


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> Not likely unless they change the constitution.


The constitution is fine...you will find the top legal scholars and law professors in the nation...and many favor abortion rights...that don't agree that the decision has no legal foundation. The Framers did not give woman a right to abort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> Well, using that conclusion then the child was never the man's in the first place and he has to pay nothing.
> 
> The thing is that *it is not her body*, it is the child's body. if a person can not accept that then at least they can not argue the fact that the child is half of the father's dna, so it is *not entirely her body*.


It's not yours either, so *she* gets to choose since she is the one who is pregnant. It's not rocket science, and it's nothing new


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not yours either, so *she* gets to choose since she is the one who is pregnant. It's not rocket science, and it's nothing new


What about the father? Did he not have a part in the creation of this life? Maybe he doesn't want to see the child he fathered murdered?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MattB4 said:


> The argument is not about the legality as I already said. *The argument is about when the fetus has human rights and legal protection.
> *
> Here is a simple link from Wikipedia about Abortion laws, since your Google search is not working for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
> 
> Educate yourself so that your argument is better.


That's already been decided
They have no "rights" prior to birth


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> What about the father? Did he not have a part in the creation of this life? Maybe he doesn't want to see the child he fathered murdered?


That's been answered countless times


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> I guess you can say the same exact thing about hard core prochoice people. If having a child disagrees with your lifestyle then *murder your child for convenience.*
> If a teenage girl gets pregnant and the parents disagree with abortion well, just take the parents out of the picture and let minors have dangerous medical surgery without parental consent.


Now you're just being ridiculous.
It doesn't help your credibility if you use irrational arguments


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been decided
> They have no "rights" prior to birth


At what time does the unborn child have legal protection?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I know.
> I read the statute.
> 
> You asked for any law giving rights to the unborn, which is what I posted.
> I'm not sure if there are ANY rights that don't have exceptions.


That gives no rights to anyone
It punishes a crime


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> At what time does the unborn child have legal protection?


That depends on state laws


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Only one question....who would have thought 43 years ago today that SC decision would have led to 50 million innocent lives lost. Shameful.


You're making the mistake of assuming that making abortions legal causes them

Reality is they happened anyway, and fewer lives are lost when they are legal


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's been answered countless times


Link please....


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're making the mistake of assuming that making abortions legal causes them
> 
> Reality is they happened anyway, and fewer lives are lost when they are legal


You mean adult lives. 50+ million children were murdered, how many adults lost their lives before r vs w?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> The constitution is fine...you will find the top legal scholars and law professors in the nation...and many favor abortion rights...that don't agree that the decision has no legal foundation. The Framers did not give woman a right to abort.


They didn't "give" anyone any rights


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> *You mean* adult lives. 50+ million children were murdered, how many adults lost their lives before r vs w?


I mean what I said.
If you want more numbers, feel free to look them up


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I mean what I said.
> If you want more numbers, feel free to look them up


I'm sure you did, you just don't care about the murdered children, only the "right" of a woman to kill. Got it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> The government gives you the "control" right to distroy yourself (and a baby). Isn't that special. And libs try to pretend hitler was a bad guy , all that control he allowed people...
> 
> ,


You lose. Godwin's Law. :hysterical:

"Godwin&#8217;s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes &#8220;if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you&#8217;ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.&#8221;

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> You lose. Godwin's Law. :hysterical:


Not when its the truth. ound:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're making the mistake of assuming that making abortions legal causes them
> 
> Reality is they happened anyway, and fewer lives are lost when they are legal


1973...a bit over 600K...1996...1.4 million...an increase well over 100%. Repeat abortions..166% increase. Women still die from abortion the same as before.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> I'm sure you did, you just don't care about the murdered children, only the "right" of a woman to kill. Got it.


When words like "murdered" and "the right of a woman to kill" are used it weakens the argument because it's simply not true. It is hard to take anything said seriously after such emotional outbursts, or at least it is for me.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> That gives no rights to anyone
> It punishes a crime



By that standard, no laws give rights, only punishment.
If you're in the habit of only reading half of everything, I can see how that would happen.

Can you say the unborn have at least been given the right to be called "human?
(The oddsmakers say 2:1 the answer will be "NO") lol


``*(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child 
in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' 
means a member of the species **** sapiens, at any stage of development, 
who is carried in the womb.*''.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> They didn't "give" anyone any rights


The 5-4 decision gave someone a "right" to something that is presumed to be "what the framers intended" in that there is no specific statement that restricts the government from meddling in your health care affairs. It is quite outside the bounds of reasonable to stretch that over the killing of unborn children. 

The statute that Farmer Brown supplied gave a right to the unborn, "at any stage of development" and that is quite odd in as far as the statute is something that protects the unborn from all whom would cause it harm except for the mother, I find that to be in contradiction with itself.


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're just being ridiculous.
> It doesn't help your credibility if you use irrational arguments


 Really? So you are saying that there are women who do not have abortions for convenience? They sure do. 

Saying that you are going to abort a child because it is financially inconvenient for you is saying that you are killing a child for your convenience. Right? 

Having an abortion because the timing is not right for you in your life because of work, school, or because you want to have fun is murdering a child because the time of the birth is not convenient for you. Right? 

It is about convenience for some people.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> When words like "murdered" and "the right of a woman to kill" are used it weakens the argument because it's simply not true. It is hard to take anything said seriously after such emotional outbursts, or at least it is for me.


Well, if the unborn child continued to exist after the abortion it would not be murder. Which term do you prefer? 

Murder is the intentional killing of another.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> The 5-4 decision gave someone a "right" to something that is presumed to be "what the framers intended" in that there is no specific statement that restricts the government from meddling in your health care affairs. It is quite outside the bounds of reasonable to stretch that over the killing of unborn children.
> 
> The statute that Farmer Brown supplied gave a right to the unborn, "at any stage of development" and that is quite odd in as far as the statute is something that protects the unborn from all whom would cause it harm except for the mother, I find that to be in contradiction with itself.


It's not a contradiction, the law was made for Laci and Connor Peterson. It's so that anyone that kills a pregnant woman can be charged with a double murder. The caveat is that it has to be a wanted pregnancy, the woman made the choice to take the pregnancy to term.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Well, if the unborn child continued to exist after the abortion it would not be murder. Which term do you prefer?
> 
> Murder is the intentional killing of another.


I'm confused. Continued to exist as in delivered alive? It couldn't have been aborted if it continued to exist.


----------



## City Bound

Hey pixie you are a self proclaimed feminist and you keep on saying that murder is not murder unless the law says it is murder. You seem to think law is fact, so I guess you agree with middle eastern countries where it is illegal for a woman to leave her house without a male chaperone? It is the law so it must be a fact and women should not have that freedom, right? It is law.


----------



## painterswife

City Bound said:


> Hey pixie you are a self proclaimed feminist and you keep on saying that murder is not murder unless the law says it is murder. You seem to think law is fact, so I guess you agree with middle eastern countries where it is illegal for a woman to leave her house without a male chaperone? It is the law so it must be a fact right?


It is a fact.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Hey pixie you are a self proclaimed feminist and you keep on saying that murder is not murder unless the law says it is murder. You seem to think law is fact, so I guess you agree with middle eastern countries where it is illegal for a woman to leave her house without a male chaperone? It is the law so it must be a fact right?


I'm an American feminist, so I can only worry about what I can change my corner of the world. Abortion is not murder in the good ol US of A. Law _is_ fact, it is absolutely definitive at that point in time. Opinion, not so much. 

I will say I don't like that women are treated like second class citizens in other countries, including the middle east.


----------



## Elevenpoint

City Bound said:


> Hey pixie you are a self proclaimed feminist and you keep on saying that murder is not murder unless the law says it is murder. You seem to think law is fact, so I guess you agree with middle eastern countries where it is illegal for a woman to leave her house without a male chaperone? It is the law so it must be a fact and women should not have that freedom, right? It is law.


Doubt abortion is legal there...not that it's needed. If we had that law here with the male chaperone...that would prevent the woman from going around the corner and dropping her pants...no pregnancy...no abortion. Sometimes my genius floors me.


----------



## City Bound

painterswife said:


> It is a fact.


It is a fact that it exists but is it a fact that women are not worthy of the freedom to come and go as they please? 

I was trying to show that much of law is at heart just opinion. The Muslims are in opinion that women are not worthy of freedom. The prochoice liberals are of the opinion that abortion is not murder. Prolife people are of the opinion that abortion is murder. The law reflect the opinions of the people who write them. 

Choosing law as ones ultimate authority on truth is silly because laws change. Abortion was once illegal. At some point it may be illegal again. Then it may be legal again. Just because something is legal or illegal does not make it right or wrong.


----------



## painterswife

City Bound said:


> It is a fact that it exists but is it a fact that women are not worthy of the freedom to come and go as they please?
> 
> Trying to show that much of law is at heart just opinion. The Muslims are in opinion that women are not worthy of freedom. The prochoice liberals are of the opinion that abortion is not murder. Prolife people are of the opinion that abortion is murder. The law reflect the opinions of the people who write them.
> 
> Choosing law as ones ultimate authority on truth is silly because laws change. Abortion was once illegal. At some point it may be illegal again. Then it may be legal again. Just because something is legal or illegal does not make it right or wrong.


You asked if it was a fact. It is obvious it is. Feelings about that fact are another matter that you did not bring up in that post.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> It is a fact that it exists but is it a fact that women are not worthy of the freedom to come and go as they please?
> 
> I was trying to show that much of law is at heart just opinion. The Muslims are in opinion that women are not worthy of freedom. The prochoice liberals are of the opinion that abortion is not murder. Prolife people are of the opinion that abortion is murder. The law reflect the opinions of the people who write them.
> 
> Choosing law as ones ultimate authority on truth is silly because laws change. Abortion was once illegal. At some point it may be illegal again. Then it may be legal again. Just because something is legal or illegal does not make it right or wrong.


Tell you what, the next time you're pulled over for speeding tell the police officer that the law is only opinion and he can't ticket you. Please let us know how that goes for you, OK?


----------



## City Bound

painterswife said:


> You asked if it was a fact. It is obvious it is. Feelings about that fact are another matter that you did not bring up in that post.


 I meant to say that it is fact that the law exists but what the law professes to be fact is not always fact. Law is opinion. All laws are opinion.


----------



## painterswife

City Bound said:


> I meant to say that it is fact that the law exists but what the law professes to be fact is not always fact. Law is opinion. All laws are opinion.


Maybe how we get laws is opinion. The fact is laws are rules that have legal consequences.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Tell you what, the next time you're pulled over for speeding tell the police officer that the law is only opinion and he can't ticket you. Please let us know how that goes for you, OK?


he would just be enforcing the opinions of the community he was hired by to enforce those opinions. 

If the law makers change their opinion on the speed limit and then the next day raise the speed limit then that would mean that one day I am a criminal and the next day I am not a criminal for doing the same exact thing. What changed? The opinion on the law.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> he would just be enforcing the opinions of the community he was hired by to enforce those opinions.
> 
> If the law makers change their opinion on the speed limit and then the next day raise the speed limit then that would mean that one day I am a criminal and the next day I am not a criminal for doing the same exact thing. What changed? The opinion on the law.


I hope this helps.

oÂ·pinÂ·ion
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"
synonyms:	belief, judgment, thought(s), (way of) thinking, mind, (point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint; More
the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
"the changing climate of opinion"
an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.
"I had a higher opinion of myself than I deserved"

fact
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"she lacks political experienceâa fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"
synonyms:	reality, actuality, certainty; More
used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.
noun: the fact that
"the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut"
a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
synonyms:	detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, ingredient, circumstance, aspect, facet; information
"every fact was double-checked"

"A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven. Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and sometimes they are meant to deliberately mislead others."

http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/lrc/studyskills/factsandopinions.pdf


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> he would just be enforcing the opinions of the community he was hired by to enforce those opinions.
> 
> If the law makers change their opinion on the speed limit and then the next day raise the speed limit then that would mean that one day I am a criminal and the next day I am not a criminal for doing the same exact thing. What changed? The opinion on the law.


And I said, "Law is fact, it is absolutely definitive *at that point in time*. Opinion, not so much."

Law _can_ be changed, but it is absolute fact at that point in time.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not a contradiction, the law was made for Laci and Connor Peterson. It's so that anyone that kills a pregnant woman can be charged with a double murder. The caveat is that it has to be a wanted pregnancy, the woman made the choice to take the pregnancy to term.


Which child did not deserve to live their life?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm confused. Continued to exist as in delivered alive? It couldn't have been aborted if it continued to exist.


No, as in "continued to live their life". 

The mother, of all persons, takes away the possibility for the child to live.

Remember? Murder = The intentional killing of another.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No, as in "continued to live their life".
> 
> The mother, of all persons, takes away the possibility for the child to live.
> 
> Remember? Murder = The intentional killing of another.


Abortion isn't murder. I'm not having a moral debate with you. If you can find a legal definition of murder that includes abortion I'll read it though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I'm sure you did, *you just don't care* about the murdered children, only the "right" of a woman to kill. Got it.


You're right.

I don't care about many things over which I have no control, and no business trying to control.

I don't believe there have been any "murders" though.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> I hope this helps.
> 
> oÂ·pinÂ·ion
> noun
> a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> "I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"
> synonyms: belief, *judgment*, thought(s), (way of) thinking, mind, pe*(point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective,* *rsuasion, standpoint; More
> the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
> *"the changing climate of opinion"
> an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.
> "I had a higher opinion of myself than I deserved"
> 
> fact
> noun
> a thing that is indisputably the case.
> "she lacks political experience&#8212;a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"
> synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More
> used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.
> noun: the fact that
> "the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut"
> a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
> synonyms: detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, ingredient, circumstance, aspect, facet; information
> "every fact was double-checked"
> 
> "A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven. Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and sometimes they are meant to deliberately mislead others."
> 
> http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/lrc/studyskills/factsandopinions.pdf


Yes, it is a fact that a laws exist. But what that law professes is not always based on fact. 


The opinions expressed in a law are* "Judgment"* they are "*(point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective,* *persuasion, standpoint" *and more often then not they are* "the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing" *in that society, unless the laws are composed by a king or queen and in that case then they are the beliefs or legal opinions of a minority. 


Facts do not change. So, if what a law professes is a fact then that law would never change, but because public opinion changes and points of view change then laws change to reflect those changes whether they are right or wrong. The supreme court is charge of checking the legality of proposed laws in the context of the constitution. The constitution is a statement of opinion also.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion isn't murder. I'm not having a moral debate with you. If you can find a legal definition of murder that includes abortion I'll read it though.


It is a logical conclusion and for me, it is as simple as that.

The unborn child only gets to experience life inside the womb due to the decision of others. It is inside the womb that their life is terminated by another.

That is what I would call murder.

When and if enough people believe that then the legalities will change.

You can tell who a "people" are by what they do to those that are unable to protect themselves. 

Society is nothing but a group of people that decides to go by the rules that have the most "likes". It is an ever evolving flux. We will just have to wait and see. 

This forum and others like it are an ideal environment to enlighten others, while I do not necessarily agree with your stance, your staunch support of it allows me and others to identify the problems with this process and in turn, that allows those that read our words to become better aware of both sides of the issue. And for that you have my thanks.

While I've got probably a dozen reasons why it is wrong, I think that I've only heard you postulate two, it's legal and it's a woman's body to do with what she will. Both of which I accept as it is the way it is currently.

So, while you continue to stick to your guns, I and others will stick to ours. It is what it is...


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Not in my experience, woman simply want men to help pay for the children they fathered.
> 
> I don't live, and never have, in the inner city yet I know at least a dozen women that have never received a dime of child support, and dozens that had to fight tooth and nail to get a minimum amount. I know three women that didn't have custody of their children and paid child support. I know of one woman that didn't have custody of her children, never paid child support, and went to jail because of it. She never did pay a dime.
> 
> *BS.* *Most women have custody of their children and provide the majority, or all, of their support. *


Well there ya go, an excuse to kill the baby.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> It is a logical conclusion and for me, it is as simple as that.
> 
> The unborn child only gets to experience life inside the womb due to the decision of another. It is inside the womb that their life is terminated by another.
> 
> That is what I would call murder.
> 
> When and if enough people believe that then the legalities will change.
> 
> You can tell who a "people" are by what they do to those that are unable to protect themselves.
> 
> Society is nothing but a group of people that decides to go by the rules that have the most "likes". It is an ever evolving flux. We will just have to wait and see.
> 
> This forum and others like it are an ideal environment to enlighten others, while I do not necessarily agree with your stance, your staunch support of it allows me and others to identify the problems with this process and in turn, that allows those that read our words to become better aware of both sides of the issue. And for that you have my thanks.
> 
> While I've got probably a dozen reasons why it is wrong, I think that I've only heard you postulate two, it's legal and it's a woman's body to do with what she will. Both which accept as the way it is currently.
> 
> So, while you continue to stick to your guns, I and others will stick to ours. It is what it is...


Why the drastic change from last night when you said this:

Yesterday, 09:19 PM
Shine's Avatar	
Shine Shine is online now

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,290
The term "abortion terrorists" just rang a bell. I do not think that anyone should treat anyone differently because they had this process or that process. While the act of having a "process" done might have some side effects, there are other factors to take into consideration, many of which we might never know of. So to agree with you, the "abortion terrorists" need to go away. As long as this process is legal, I will do no more that try to help to find an alternative, if I am not successful then I have done what I could/should. It does not color my thoughts that someone has had an abortion in the past nor does it color my thoughts if my best effort is disregarded.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Yes, it is a fact that a laws exist. But what that law professes is not always based on fact.
> 
> 
> The opinions expressed in a law are* "Judgment"* they are "*(point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective,* *persuasion, standpoint" *and more often then not they are* "the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing" *in that society, unless the laws are composed by a king or queen and in that case then they are the beliefs or legal opinions of a minority.
> 
> 
> Facts do not change. So, if what a law professes is a fact then that law would never change, but because public opinion changes and points of view change then laws change to reflect those changes whether they are right or wrong. The supreme court is charge of checking the legality of proposed laws in the context of the constitution. The constitution is a statement of opinion also.


Again, next time you have broken a law please tell the officer that you can't be given a ticket because the law is opinion, not fact. Please, let us know how that goes for you.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> And I said, "Law is fact, it is absolutely definitive *at that point in time*. Opinion, not so much."
> 
> Law _can_ be changed, but it is absolute fact at that point in time.


 So if we change the abortion laws to prolife then you will conform your opinions and beliefs to the revised law because you take law as the ultimate authority? You would have to accept the facts then right because law, regardless of what it states, is fact? 

If the law eventually does come to legally view life as beginning at conception then I guess you will have to change sides and join the prolife people because legally it would be murder and you hold the law in such high regard.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Why the drastic change from last night when you said this:


I do not think that this is any sort of change - both are complementary.

I have my stance, it is strong and firm, but I am not willing to do any harm and will only attempt to evolve the situation though my contact with others.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> In my experience, for every responsible man (like yourself) there are at least four that will not support their children or will do so sporadically as long as it's not a burden on them or too inconvenient.
> 
> Ultimately it is the woman's responsibility to care for her children, and she is the only person on which she can completely rely.


I hear you and agree. I have seen it with my own eyes fathers that couldn't be bothered with their kids. Out of sight, out of mind. But it's that one in five that I worry about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> 1973...a bit over 600K...1996...1.4 million...an increase well over 100%. Repeat abortions..166% increase. Women still die from abortion the same as before.


What does that have to do with what I said?

Before they were legal, they just weren't reported.
They still happened

The population also increased by a couple of million people during those years so it's no big surprise the number of reported abortions went up


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> So if we change the abortion laws to prolife then you will conform your opinions and beliefs to the revised law because you take law as the ultimate authority? You would have to accept the facts then right because law, regardless of what it states, is fact?
> 
> If the law eventually does come to legally view life as beginning at conception then I guess you will have to change sides and join the prolife people because legally it would be murder and you hold the law in such high regard.


I don't understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## mreynolds

City Bound said:


> I guess you can say the same exact thing about hard core prochoice people. If having a child disagrees with your lifestyle then murder your child for convenience.
> If a teenage girl gets pregnant and the parents disagree with abortion well, just take the parents out of the picture and let minors have dangerous medical surgery without parental consent.


Good or bad that's what could happen. Once a girl becomes pregnant she becomes an emancipated minor. This means she doesn't need consent from anyone else while she is pregnant. In the eyes of the law she can be eleven years old but be an adult. Once the baby is born she becomes a child again in the eyes of the law. Of course once that baby wakes her up at three in the morning she will grow up pretty fast.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Link please....


http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/


----------



## mreynolds

JeffreyD said:


> What if the father wants it? Is it not wanted then?


That law was set in stone in 1992 I believe. Working out of town with no pc net so I am on my phone. No links from me today. Basically it stated the father had no say in the matter whatsoever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> By that standard, no laws give rights, only punishment.
> If you're in the habit of only reading half of everything, I can see how that would happen.
> 
> Can you say the unborn have at least been given *the right to be called "human?*
> (The oddsmakers say 2:1 the answer will be "NO") lol
> 
> ``(d) *As used in this section*, the term `unborn child' means a child
> in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero'
> means a member of the species **** sapiens, at any stage of development,
> who is carried in the womb.''.


Laws don't give rights
They tend to take them away

It's not a "right" to be called what you are.
It's just a statement of fact in the *context* of that law


----------



## City Bound

mreynolds said:


> Good or bad that's what could happen. Once a girl becomes pregnant she becomes an emancipated minor. This means she doesn't need consent from anyone else while she is pregnant. In the eyes of the law she can be eleven years old but be an adult. Once the baby is born she becomes a child again in the eyes of the law. Of course once that baby wakes her up at three in the morning she will grow up pretty fast.


Sticky situation. Can you legally kick her out of the house once she is emancipated? When she has the baby and goes back to being a child do yo legally have to let them stay in your house?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> The 5-4 decision gave someone a "right" to something that is presumed to be "what the framers intended" in that there is no specific statement that restricts the government from meddling in your health care affairs. It is quite outside the bounds of reasonable to stretch that over the killing of unborn children.
> 
> *The statute that Farmer Brown supplied gave a right to the unborn*, "at any stage of development" and that is quite odd in as far as the statute is something that protects the unborn from all whom would cause it harm except for the mother, I find that to be in contradiction with itself.


I don't know why you would think repeating all that changes the fact no "rights" were granted to anyone


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/


Um, OK! Which thread?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Laws don't give rights
> They tend to take them away
> 
> It's not a "right" to be called what you are.
> It's just a statement of fact in the *context* of that law


OK... let me try a different way. I think what Farmer Brown is alluding to is the fact that a legislative body, through this statute, has granted a "right to life" or better said, "the right to not be harmed" to an unborn child in ANY stage of development. This, in itself, says a whole lot about the rights of an unborn child and when they begin.

It then contradicts itself and excludes the mother from any punishment if she takes the right to not be harmed away from that unborn child and extinguishes that life. Herein lies the contradiction. The unborn child may not be harmed by anyone else but the mother.

So, it has a "right" in any stage of development but that right is immediately restricted.


----------



## mreynolds

City Bound said:


> Sticky situation. Can you legally kick her out of the house once she is emancipated? When she has the baby and goes back to being a child do yo legally have to let them stay in your house?


not sure really. I don't know his far legally this goes. As a volunteer EMT/FF they teach us that we can not touch a child under 17 unless certain situations are present. They can't give us consent to treat them. Only under implied consent like if they are unconscious or in shock and no adult family member is around. You can thank lawsuits for that but an imancipated minor can just say go ahead and treat me. Even if her parents are against it it won't matter. Her word trumps theirs.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say.


 I am saying that you keep on saying that abortion is not murder because abortion is not mentioned as murder in the legal definition of murder. Ok, fare enough but if one day the legal definition of murder does include abortion as murder will you then consider it murder also? In that case it would be law and as you say "fact" so wouldn't you have to accept the "facts" the same way you think we should accept the "facts" now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Doubt abortion is legal there...not that it's needed. If we had that law here *with the male chaperone*...that would prevent the woman from going around the corner and dropping her pants...no pregnancy...no abortion. Sometimes my genius floors me.


Every woman I've ever known about was with a male when she got pregnant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Um, OK! Which thread?


This one


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OK... *let me try a different way.* I think what Farmer Brown is alluding to is the fact that a legislative body, through this statute, has granted a "right to life" or better said, "the right to not be harmed" to an unborn child in ANY stage of development. This, in itself, says a whole lot about the rights of an unborn child and when they begin.
> 
> It then contradicts itself and excludes the mother from any punishment if she takes the right to not be harmed away from that unborn child and extinguishes that life. Herein lies the contradiction. The unborn child may not be harmed by anyone else but the mother.
> 
> So, it has a "right" in any stage of development but that right is immediately restricted.


You can reword it 100 times but it's still not giving anyone any rights.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> This one


Post number? Why didn't you link to it then and provide a post number?

Eta...don't say 138 either.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know why you would think repeating all that changes the fact no "rights" were granted to anyone


You lost me. Where did the "right to privacy" that allowed abortions to be legal come from then? There is only a thinly guised presumption that this is what the framers meant when they wrote the 4th Amendment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Post number? *Why didn't you* link to it then and provide a post number?
> 
> Eta...don't say 138 either.


Why didn't you find it yourself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You lost me. Where did the "right to privacy" that allowed abortions to be legal come from then? There is only a thinly guised presumption that this is what the framers meant when they wrote the 4th Amendment.


Rights don't come from any laws


----------



## Elevenpoint

5 years probation...40 hours community service...anger management classes...reimbursment ...for a man that threw his ex girlfriends dog out the window and killed it.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Rights don't come from any laws


Ah... The old Rope a Dope ploy.... Muhammed Ali was the boss at that one.

Then there's no sense in replying. 

It is obvious that abortion is not a "natural right" and most certainly not a right ordained by our Creator but I'll let you go on with your ploy...


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> I am saying that you keep on saying that abortion is not murder because abortion is not mentioned as murder in the legal definition of murder. Ok, fare enough but if one day the legal definition of murder does include abortion as murder will you then consider it murder also? In that case it would be law and as you say "fact" so wouldn't you have to accept the "facts" the same way you think we should accept the "facts" now?


I don't play "what if" games, never have. They are pointless and frustrating. Get back to me when Roe v. Wade is overturned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Ah... The old Rope a Dope ploy.... Muhammed Ali was the boss at that one.
> 
> Then *there's no sense in replying. *
> 
> It is obvious that abortion is not a "natural right" and most certainly not a right ordained by our Creator but I'll let you go on with your ploy...


 I said before there's no need to repeat what was already stated, thinking the end result would change.

All true rights are "natural" whether you happen to agree or not.
They aren't dependent on "laws"

In the case of abortion, if it's not your immediate family, it's really none of your business


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Rights don't come from any laws





Bearfootfarm said:


> I said before there's no need to repeat what was already stated, thinking the end result would change.
> 
> All true rights are "natural" whether you happen to agree or not.
> They aren't dependent on "laws"
> 
> In the case of abortion, if it's not your immediate family, it's really none of your business


No, that's NOT true.
I can list volumes of laws granting rights, starting with property rights.
There's a whole governmental department just for copyrights and patents.
What you are calling "true" rights are defined in law as "natural rights", not granted by government.
Those aren't the only rights that exist on earth or in the country.
There are lots more.

Where you ARE correct, is feeding you and posting you fact after fact only gets and ignorant, childish, obstinate, "I'm never wrong" response.
This happens *particularly* in discussions on the law. If you can find one or two words in a 1,000 word statute that match what your opinion is, you post and bold that ONE phrase and tell everyone the rest of the law is "irrelevant".
I'm so glad my parents taught me not to be a fool...........and that I heeded their advice.
:bdh:


----------



## Cornhusker

I wonder why we need so many multi page threads promoting abortion?
Nobody is going to change their minds.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

If a law doesn't specifically *say* it's "granting a right", then it doesn't.
Unless you're intentionally trying to shut down the thread, you should keep to just the topic, which* isn't * me *or* you


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> I wonder why we need so many multi page threads promoting abortion?
> Nobody is going to change their minds.


They are multi-page because people keep posting, like you just did .

No one is forced to read nor post, and I didn't hear complaints about "too many" when the CMP videos were being posted every few days :shrug:


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> If a law doesn't specifically *say* it's "granting a right", then it doesn't.
> Unless you're intentionally trying to shut down the thread, you should keep to just the topic, which* isn't * me *or* you


WRONG.:bdh:
(I think it's time to get a new mule, huh?)


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't play "what if" games, never have. They are pointless and frustrating. Get back to me when Roe v. Wade is overturned.


abortion was illegal until someone played a "what if" game. "hey, what if abortion was legal?" says one pro-abortionist to another. "Yeah, how about we make a stink about it and fight to change the laws?" Replies the second pro-abortionist to the first.

And so, eventually "what if" become "it is so" and the law changes. 

You can't use the fact that something is legal as proof that it is correct. Slavery was legal and slavery is fundamentally wrong. Many laws are wrong.
In some states you can force you kids to work and take all their money. Sounds like slavery to me. In some states you can beat your kids. Sounds like a law that could be abused and taken too far by some people who feel they have now been given the right to beat their kids as much as they like. In some states it is illegal to spank your kids and that law prevents many people from raising their children properly. In some states a husband owns his wife's hair and can sell it if he likes. 

Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. You seem to be saying that abortion is right simply because it is legal.

Abortion needs to stay legal so that women who need an abortion for legitimate medical reasons can have easy access to the health care they need without going through tons of legal red tape. With that said though, as a medical procedure that most humane and kind hearted persons would regrettably perform due to their sense of love and responsibility to their unborn child and to all life, it should be used with extreme caution and consideration for medical reasons. 

The reasons women get abortions differ and all reasons are not morally or ethically equal. The woman who has an abortion because she loves getting high on the weekend and having lots of unprotected sex is in a different class then the woman who had an abortion because the pregnancy would kill her. Trying to make all reasons equal is where I think many prochoice people fail to gain sympathy from people who ether sit on the fence or who oppose abortion.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't play "what if" games, never have. They are pointless and frustrating. ...


Do not kid yourself. Your entire line of reasoning is based on "What if". That is why I found discussing it with you a pointless endeavor (not much frustrating because I am well aware of human frailties and simply shrug mentally when I encounter them). If the mother wants the baby you than say it has the right to be protected, but if the mother does not want the baby up to the moment of birth (perhaps beyond) you than say it does not have protection rights. 

Totally illogical and thus impossible to ague. Just like your stance that abortion is legal. When I replied that it is restricted by laws, you can not seem to understand what that means. You respond back with it is legal like you have delivered some form of trump card. You entirely fail to understand laws and that laws change. Though I expect you would vote against any change. 

So you indeed use, "what ifs". But only when they suit you and you rationalize them with thinking you are right. This is cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> This is cognitive dissonance.


So is calling abortion "murder" when it's legal, and murder isn't.
Mr Pot, meet Ms Kettle


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> abortion was illegal until someone played a "what if" game. "hey, what if abortion was legal?" says one pro-abortionist to another. "Yeah, how about we make a stink about it and fight to change the laws?" Replies the second pro-abortionist to the first.
> 
> And so, eventually "what if" become "it is so" and the law changes.
> 
> You can't use the fact that something is legal as proof that it is correct. Slavery was legal and slavery is fundamentally wrong. Many laws are wrong.
> In some states you can force you kids to work and take all their money. Sounds like slavery to me. In some states you can beat your kids. Sounds like a law that could be abused and taken too far by some people who feel they have now been given the right to beat their kids as much as they like. In some states it is illegal to spank your kids and that law prevents many people from raising their children properly. In some states a husband owns his wife's hair and can sell it if he likes.
> 
> Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. You seem to be saying that abortion is right simply because it is legal.
> 
> Abortion needs to stay legal so that women who need an abortion for legitimate medical reasons can have easy access to the health care they need without going through tons of legal red tape. With that said though, as a medical procedure that most humane and kind hearted persons would regrettably perform due to their sense of love and responsibility to their unborn child and to all life, it should be used with extreme caution and consideration for medical reasons.
> 
> The reasons women get abortions differ and all reasons are not morally or ethically equal. The woman who has an abortion because she loves getting high on the weekend and having lots of unprotected sex is in a different class then the woman who had an abortion because the pregnancy would kill her. Trying to make all reasons equal is where I think many prochoice people fail to gain sympathy from people who ether sit on the fence or who oppose abortion.


I don't call the right for women to control their own bodies a game. It was wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy she did not want, and SCOTUS made sure it wouldn't happen again.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Do not kid yourself. Your entire line of reasoning is based on "What if". That is why I found discussing it with you a pointless endeavor (not much frustrating because I am well aware of human frailties and simply shrug mentally when I encounter them). If the mother wants the baby you than say it has the right to be protected, but if the mother does not want the baby up to the moment of birth (perhaps beyond) you than say it does not have protection rights.
> 
> Totally illogical and thus impossible to ague. Just like your stance that abortion is legal. When I replied that it is restricted by laws, you can not seem to understand what that means. You respond back with it is legal like you have delivered some form of trump card. You entirely fail to understand laws and that laws change. Though I expect you would vote against any change.
> 
> So you indeed use, "what ifs". But only when they suit you and you rationalize them with thinking you are right. This is cognitive dissonance.


I've never said that beyond delivery anyone has the right to terminate anything. Don't imply I did. 

The law is fact, and fact is the law. Abortion is legal, and has been for 43 years. A woman has complete control over her body. Not a single "what if"... and there is nothing you can do about it. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> So is calling abortion "murder" when it's legal, and murder isn't.
> Mr Pot, meet Ms Kettle


 Not exactly. Murder is murder. When we go to war we murder our enemies but we do not call it murder. It is still murder.

Would you call the deaths of war murder?


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Not exactly. Murder is murder. When we go to war we murder our enemies but we do not call it murder. It is still murder.
> 
> Would you call the deaths of war murder?


I've asked several times for you to link a definition of murder than includes abortion. Have you found one?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> So is calling abortion "murder" when it's legal, and murder isn't.
> Mr Pot, meet Ms Kettle


Not ALL abortion is legal, and when it's done illegally there are laws that provide punishment up to the level of felony murder or 1st degree murder.
In some states a legal abortion cannot even be done by the mother to herself.
Most states have a prohibition on abortion after 24 weeks.
Care to guess what this procedure is called when it falls out side the limits of the law?
The same thing it's called when it isn't a "state sanctioned" execution.
Hint: It starts with an "M".


It's the exact same procedure, don't try to deny it. The "legality" of it is a far different matter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> Not exactly. Murder is murder. When we go to war we murder our enemies but we do not call it murder. It is still murder.
> 
> Would you call the deaths of war murder?


"Murder" is a legal term.
Abortion doesn't fit the definition


----------



## Irish Pixie

I just want to reiterate that the reason I started this thread is because of the these videos:

http://www.drawtheline.org/?s_src=d...social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=dtlFB


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> I've asked several times for you to link a definition of murder than includes abortion. Have you found one?


 
Do you need links and man made laws to tell you what is right and wrong? Look deep down in your heart and tell me what your compassion for life says is right or wrong. Not your mind and its ideology, but your heart.
If your compassion does not run deep, then dig deeper in your heart to find clearer answers and deeper compassion. 

If you or anyone have taken time and the effort to do rigorous soul searching on the issue of abortion then I do not see how you or anyone could support abortion in all good conscience.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Not ALL abortion is legal, and *when it's done illegally* there are laws that provide punishment up to the level of felony murder or 1st degree murder.
> In some states a legal abortion cannot even be done by the mother to herself.
> Most states have a prohibition on abortion after 24 weeks.
> Care to guess what this procedure is called *when it falls out side the limits of the law?*
> The same thing it's called when it isn't a "state sanctioned" execution.
> Hint: It starts with an "M".
> 
> 
> It's the exact same procedure, don't try to deny it. The "legality" of it is a far different matter.


We are discussing legal abortion, not criminal acts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> Do you need links and man made laws to tell you *what is right and wrong?* Look deep down in your heart and tell me what your compassion for life says is right or wrong. Not your mind and its ideology, but your heart.
> If your compassion does not run deep, then dig deeper in your heart to find clearer answers and deeper compassion.
> 
> If you or anyone have taken time and the effort to do rigorous soul searching on the issue of abortion then I do not see how you or anyone could support abortion in all good conscience.


You don't get to decide what is "right or wrong" for anyone other than yourself.
I don't "support abortion"
I support minding your own business and not trying to control others


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Murder" is a legal term.
> Abortion doesn't fit the definition


 You evaded my question though. 
The context of the "definition" is what I am getting at.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.


----------



## City Bound

OOOoOOOOOOO delete


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Do you need links and man made laws to tell you what is right and wrong? Look deep down in your heart and tell me what your compassion for life says is right or wrong. Not your mind and its ideology, but your heart.
> If your compassion does not run deep, then dig deeper in your heart to find clearer answers and deeper compassion.
> 
> If you or anyone have taken time and the effort to do rigorous soul searching on the issue of abortion then I do not see how you or anyone could support abortion in all good conscience.


We _have_ law because not everyone's morality is the same. What I find moral is not necessarily what you do. So, yes we need law. You can't make it up as you go, abortion is not murder, that isn't opinion, it's fact based on the law. 

I dug deep, and decided that what another woman does with her body is none of my business. It's none of yours either, that's a fact too.


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to decide what is "right or wrong" for anyone other than yourself.
> I don't "support abortion"
> I support minding your own business and not trying to control others


I am sorry but isn't abortion the controlling of others? So, you are saying mothers should mind their own business and not interfere with their child's right to life?


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> We are discussing legal abortion, not criminal acts.


 No we are discussing if abortion is fundamentally right or wrong regardless of legality.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> No we are discussing if abortion is fundamentally right or wrong regardless of legality.


That's opinion. You can "discuss" it until you're blue in the face and you'll never convince me that anyone has the right to control what a woman can do with her own body.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> We _have_ law because not everyone's morality is the same. What I find moral is not necessarily what you do. So, yes we need law. You can't make it up as you go, abortion is not murder, that isn't opinion, it's fact based on the law.
> 
> I dug deep, and decided that what another woman does with her body is none of my business. It's none of yours either, that's a fact too.


Dig deeper and I think you will change your mind. 

Law is made up as we go along. Law is constantly evolving and regressing. 
laws are made up by the society that makes them and they usually reflect the values and morality of that society.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> That's opinion. You can "discuss" it until you're blue in the face and you'll never convince me that anyone has the right to control what a woman can do with her own body.


You can do what you want with your body. it is the body of a separate and unique individual living in your womb that I am concerned about.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Dig deeper and I think you will change your mind.
> 
> Law is made up as we go along. Law is constantly evolving and repressing.
> laws are made up by the society that makes them and they usually reflect the values and morality of that society.


That's like me telling someone that I think they're gay, and they would be happier with a guy than a woman if they just dug deeper and thought about it more. Silly, huh?


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> I've never said that beyond delivery anyone has the right to terminate anything. Don't imply I did.
> 
> The law is fact, and fact is the law. Abortion is legal, and has been for 43 years. A woman has complete control over her body. Not a single "what if"... and there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


Once again you are wrong. A women does not have complete control over her body. There are many laws concerning this. If you do not believe this explain illegal drug laws. Law is law. Not facts. Just try taking off all your clothes at the elementary school and wander about while yelling cuss words. Better yet take a bag of heroin down to your local police station and shoot up. Get back to me about the complete control you are experiencing. 

All learning involves what if. All changing of views have genesis in asking ourselves what if my present beliefs are wrong? 

You also have a great day. Hope it is not snowed in.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> We _have_ law because not everyone's morality is the same. What I find moral is not necessarily what you do. So, yes we need law.


You said a mouthful there.


----------



## wr

Please keep discussion civil.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Once again you are wrong. A women does not have complete control over her body. There are many laws concerning this. If you do not believe this explain illegal drug laws. Law is law. Not facts. Just try taking off all your clothes at the elementary school and wander about while yelling cuss words. Better yet take a bag of heroin down to your local police station and shoot up. Get back to me about the complete control you are experiencing.
> 
> All learning involves what if. All changing of views have genesis in asking ourselves what if my present beliefs are wrong?
> 
> You also have a great day. Hope it is not snowed in.


Focus. We're discussing abortion, not drugs and nudity. 

I'm upstate, the blizzard/snow storm is the City and surrounding area, there aren't even any flurries here.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Cornhusker said:


> I wonder why we need so many multi page threads promoting abortion?
> Nobody is going to change their minds.


Exactly...the lines are drawn. However..once this thread dies out expect a new one within days with a different twist.


----------



## painterswife

If you don't like these type of threads than don't post in them or read them. It is pretty simple.


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> If you don't like these type of threads than don't post in them or read them. It is pretty simple.


That is the best advice I could give to the majority that see that carrot dangling...just say no.


----------



## wr

elevenpoint said:


> Exactly...the lines are drawn. However..once this thread dies out expect a new one within days with a different twist.


I would suspect that the subject will arise again simply because PP is in the news right now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> *You evaded my question though*.
> The context of the "definition" is what I am getting at.
> A rose by any other name is still a rose.


I answered your question.
You're using incorrect terms for different actions
Abortion isn't murder
War isn't murder
Executions aren't murder.

Words have specific meanings and aren't always interchangeable even if the describe things with similar end results.

You only want to call it murder for the emotional effect


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> I am sorry but isn't abortion the controlling of others? *So, you are saying* mothers should mind their own business and not interfere with their child's right to life?


No, because the mothers have to right to decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to full term as long as they make the decision within the legal guidelines.



> No we are discussing if abortion is fundamentally right or wrong regardless of legality.


Many have decided it's "right" for them.

You have no say so in *their *choices, and there is no need for further discussion on that aspect.

If you would simply read what I say, you wouldn't have to keep repeating "so you are saying", because there are no hidden meanings in my posts


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> Dig deeper and I think you will change your mind.
> 
> Law is made up as we go along. Law is constantly evolving and regressing.
> laws are made up by the society that makes them and they usually reflect the *values and morality of that society*.


There's really no such thing as "society" the way you're using the term.

There are just humans, and they are all different and all have their own ideas of what is right for themselves


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> If you don't like these type of threads than don't post in them or read them. *It is pretty simple*.


It's funny how some will post in a thread just to complain about the subject matter when all they have to do is exercise a little self-discipline


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> Focus. We're discussing abortion, not drugs and nudity.
> 
> ...


I thought we were talking about complete control over your body that you claimed to have legally established. Especially since it has already been established that your right to a abortion is not a absolute. I have now established your rights to your body have restrictions placed on it also though you twist and deflect rather than acknowledge it. Trying using crack while pregnant. 

Just like you have the right to get a speeding ticket I guess you have the right to break any law you want. Strange right that is. 

Obviously your love for the law is dependent on if you agree with it or not. Funny how that is. I imagine you were upset when certain states banned partial birth abortions by law. Not to mention that it has been upheld by the SC


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> I answered your question.
> You're using incorrect terms for different actions
> Abortion isn't murder
> War isn't murder
> Executions aren't murder.
> 
> Words have specific meanings and aren't always interchangeable even if the describe things with similar end results.
> 
> You only want to call it murder for the emotional effect


Your definition is like business men who do crooked and dishonest things and say "its just business". The person would not act that way in their private life because they know it is wrong but some how or other since "its business" the same wrong action magically becomes right.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> I thought we were talking about complete control over your body that you claimed to have legally established. Especially since it has already been established that your right to a abortion is not a absolute. I have now established your rights to your body have restrictions placed on it also though you twist and deflect rather than acknowledge it. Trying using crack while pregnant.
> 
> Just like you have the right to get a speeding ticket I guess you have the right to break any law you want. Strange right that is.
> 
> Obviously your love for the law is dependent on if you agree with it or not. Funny how that is. I imagine you were upset when certain states banned partial birth abortions by law. Not to mention that it has been upheld by the SC


Please name the states where abortion isn't legal. Women have the right to terminate a pregnancy in any state in the US. Are there regulations? Yes, in some states there are. Late term abortion is legal in all states for the mother's life, physical and mental health. 

I see you need more education. I have to go to the barn but here's some material to read. I'll answer questions when I come back. 

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf


----------



## watcher

wr said:


> But by handing over equal rights to the courts, you also open things up for more women, like myself, who had to go to court to defend their right to carry a child to term.


Can't have your legal cake and eat it too. Either father's have as much responsibility and therefore rights when it comes to children or they do not. If the court has the power to force a father to support a child they do not want but the mother does it should also have the right to force a mother to carry that same child to term they don't wan it but the father does.




wr said:


> Essentially, you are assuming that women chose abortions and men want them to carry to term, which isn't completely factual. Most young men faced with the option of finishing college or supporting a child are quick to offer to help make arrangements at the nearest abortion clinic.


What if they would like to stop paying child support they are now so they can buy a new boat, should they be able to just pay the mother to kill the child?

The point is a fetus is not like that sixth toe you want to have removed to make your life easier. It is, as the courts have ruled, a separate individual human with rights. Otherwise you could not charge someone for murder if their actions caused the death of a fetus.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Kermit Gosnell is a murderer because he performed late term abortions and three were delivered alive. He killed them, and was convicted for it. What is your point?
> 
> I think you are the one that lacks a basic understanding of abortion.
> 
> Next. I don't mind educating you.


Ok, so what's the big deal? Malpractice for botching the abortions? If the fetus is nothing but a mass of the mother's tissue what does it matter that the doc screwed up? If he was supposed to amputate your foot and he amputated your entire leg he wouldn't be charged with murdering your leg would he?


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> The person that argued that rights should be granted when conception happens because of a unique DNA I don't agree with personally but at least it is a logical argument. You have no logic to your stance other than chanting "choice" which has no true meaning. It is simply a appeal to emotion.


How can you not agree? Is it not an accepted fact that different DNAs mean different people? Courts have accepted this for years.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> Why do you want to control women?


Do you support government forced child support payment from fathers? Why do you want to control men?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been decided
> They have no "rights" prior to birth


Things change. With the DNA evidence its hard to debate that the fetus is not a unique life form not just a part of the mother's body.

A mother can not demand a doctor "pull the plug" on a sick child just because she doesn't want the child, if there is a strong medical certainty that the child will be able to live w/o medical support some time in the future.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's funny how some will post in a thread just to complain about the subject matter when all they have to do is exercise a little self-discipline


That is exactly what we're asking from a woman that aborts on a whim...


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> When words like "murdered" and "the right of a woman to kill" are used it weakens the argument because it's simply not true. It is hard to take anything said seriously after such emotional outbursts, or at least it is for me.


Change murder to homicide then. The fact is a unique human life form is being removed from existence when a fetus is aborted. There is no way you can say it is not. No matter how much you chant to yourself "its just a tissue mass, its just a tissue mass" science tells us that you are wrong.


----------



## watcher

City Bound said:


> Really? So you are saying that there are women who do not have abortions for convenience? They sure do.
> 
> Saying that you are going to abort a child because it is financially inconvenient for you is saying that you are killing a child for your convenience. Right?
> 
> Having an abortion because the timing is not right for you in your life because of work, school, or because you want to have fun is murdering a child because the time of the birth is not convenient for you. Right?
> 
> It is about convenience for some people.


Its about convenience for almost every one. The number of medically necessary abortions is a rounding error in the stats.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not a contradiction, the law was made for Laci and Connor Peterson. It's so that anyone that kills a pregnant woman can be charged with a double murder. The caveat is that it has to be a wanted pregnancy, the woman made the choice to take the pregnancy to term.


So if someone shoots a woman who is on her way to get an abortion they can not be charged with double murder?


----------



## watcher

City Bound said:


> Hey pixie you are a self proclaimed feminist and you keep on saying that murder is not murder unless the law says it is murder. You seem to think law is fact, so I guess you agree with middle eastern countries where it is illegal for a woman to leave her house without a male chaperone? It is the law so it must be a fact and women should not have that freedom, right? It is law.


Its not murder if the law says it isn't. The Japanese military didn't murder tens of thousands of Chinese citizen in the 30s and 40s because it was legal to kill them under the law at the time.

The "war crimes" trials of the Japanese were, in todays view, illegal because they were imposing a law which did not exist at the time of the crime.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm an American feminist, so I can only worry about what I can change my corner of the world. Abortion is not murder in the good ol US of A. Law _is_ fact, it is absolutely definitive at that point in time. Opinion, not so much.
> 
> I will say I don't like that women are treated like second class citizens in other countries, including the middle east.


Killing someone who is trying to kill you is not murder either but it IS homicide, i.e. the taking of a human life.


----------



## watcher

Shine said:


> No, as in "continued to live their life".
> 
> The mother, of all persons, takes away the possibility for the child to live.
> 
> Remember? Murder = The intentional killing of another.


I will have to support pixie here. Your definition of murder is incorrect. If you shoot someone who is trying to kill you, you have not committed murder. 

The word you should be using is homicide.


----------



## City Bound

watcher said:


> I will have to support pixie here. Your definition of murder is incorrect. If you shoot someone who is trying to kill you, you have not committed murder.
> 
> The word you should be using is homicide.


 Abortions are not premeditated?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> We _have_ law because not everyone's morality is the same. What I find moral is not necessarily what you do. So, yes we need law. You can't make it up as you go, abortion is not murder, that isn't opinion, it's fact based on the law.
> 
> I dug deep, and decided that what another woman does with her body is none of my business. It's none of yours either, that's a fact too.


You have just punched the ******** here. Laws are based on what someone thinks is moral. Currently the majority of people agree with your moral view on abortion therefore we have the laws we have now. But that was not in the past and it may not be true in the future. It is quite possible that as science continues to progress more and more people will start viewing the fetus as a human live than see it as a mass of tissue. At that time the laws will change to meet the new moral views. If you think the USSC doesn't change with the political winds and will always keep abortion legal you are more navie than I thought.


----------



## watcher

City Bound said:


> Abortions are not premeditated?


Doesn't matter. Murder is a legal definition and to be murder the killing must meet that definition and that definition is made by the government.

A homicide is not a murder unless the government says it is. In the past you could kill a human in the US and could not be charged with murder, as long as that human was an Indian. The same if that human was a slave.


----------



## MattB4

watcher said:


> How can you not agree? Is it not an accepted fact that different DNAs mean different people? Courts have accepted this for years.


Because something has different DNA does not make it a life form. It is just a mass of cells until independent brain activity begins. If, by some scientific advance they could clone you from a skin sample, your skin sample is not a independent human life. 

Thus abortion after brain activity begins is a ending of that separate human life. The question now is is there reasonable justification for ending a life? Perhaps in the case of serious birth defect or danger to the mothers life.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Because something has different DNA does not make it a life form. It is just a mass of cells until independent brain activity begins. If, by some scientific advance they could clone you from a skin sample, your skin sample is not a independent human life.
> 
> Thus abortion after brain activity begins is a ending of that separate human life. The question now is is there reasonable justification for ending a life? Perhaps in the case of serious birth defect or danger to the mothers life.


Kinda/sorta. I have no issue with abortion up to fetal viability, which is around 21 weeks. Prior to that there is no survival outside the womb even with heroic measures. Even after viability I won't judge another woman's decision. It has to a horrible decision to make and I won't make it worse. 

If you take away a woman's right to chose you're taking away the Constitutional right to privacy (on which Roe v. Wade was decided) and the right to control her own body. There is just no other way to look at it. A woman cannot be forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want. 

Do you want the choice of owning a gun taken away? How about the right to free speech? 

And we're back to legality and that is backed by the Constitution. You can't take a Constitutional right away from half the US population and expect to keep the ones you want and that suit your opinion.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown
This message has been deleted by wr. Reason: Not nice


wr said:


> Please keep discussion civil.


Yeah, I was waiting to see if that one would stand undeleted.
I guessed right.:indif:
It may not have been exactly nice, but it was the truth.
The OLD Testament verses that people like to throw at Christians about the killing of whole towns was for that very reason.




City Bound said:


> Not exactly. Murder is murder. When we go to war we murder our enemies but we do not call it murder. It is still murder.
> 
> Would you call the deaths of war murder?


I thought about that one too. There are individual cases of biblically defined "murder" in wars (to lie in wait and kill intentionally), but generally a war is declared and the enemies know who is coming after them so most of it would be self defense.




Irish Pixie said:


> I've asked several times for you to link a definition of murder than includes abortion. Have you found one?


I could, and have, but you won't accept it. Like some others, when I track down what you ask for and post it, then the bar is moved. Then it's moved again.
While I didn't post the statutes, I've already given a few examples where an abortion is some cases is classified as murder.
That's when you'll say, "No, I mean a *legal* abortion."
That's just it, the very same procedure that you say isn't murder, in fact is, when done outside certain time restrictions or by those not authorized to do it.
That makes saying "abortion isn't murder" not as solid of a "fact" as some would like it to be.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I answered your question.
> You're using incorrect terms for different actions
> Abortion isn't murder
> War isn't murder
> Executions aren't murder.
> 
> The terms used are different, the resulting action may be the same as the definition though.
> 
> *Words have specific meanings andaren't always interchangeable even if the describe things with similar end results.*
> 
> You only want to call it murder for the emotional effect



The terms used are different, the resulting action may be the same as the definition though.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> Its not murder if the law says it isn't.





watcher said:


> Doesn't matter. Murder is a legal definition and to be murder the killing must meet that definition and that definition is made by the government.
> 
> A homicide is not a murder unless the government says it is.


I'll have to disagree with you on that one.
I answer to a higher Authority than Uncle Sam.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Things change. With the DNA evidence its hard to debate that the fetus is not a unique life form not just a part of the mother's body.
> 
> *A mother can not demand a doctor "pull the plug" on a sick child* just because she doesn't want the child, if there is a strong medical certainty that the child will be able to live w/o medical support some time in the future.


What makes you think repeating the same tired arguments will make any difference?

You can "debate" all you like about whether or not a fetus is an individual, but it's not going to change anything at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> That is exactly *what we're asking* from a woman that aborts on a whim...


No one does it "on a whim"
You have no right to ask anything of them at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> Your definition is like business men who do crooked and dishonest things and say "its just business". The person would not act that way in their private life because *they know it is wrong *but some how or other since "its business" the same wrong action magically becomes right.


You don't get to decide what is "right or wrong" for anyone other than yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So if someone shoots a woman who is on her way to get an abortion they can not be charged with double murder?


Comparing *illegal acts* to legal abortion has been done to death.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> The terms used are different, the resulting action may be the same as the definition though.
> .


We've heard that double talk before.
It still doesn't make an abortion "murder"


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one does it "on a whim"
> You have no right to ask anything of them at all


So, you've polled all abortionees and you can speak with authority with your answer? 

The taking of a life is done on a whim when someone decides to do so for any other reason than it is a harm to them or it was an act that was forced upon them. If they choose to act in a certain fashion then there are dues to pay.

And I most certainly have an absolute right to ask them anything that I please. 

Why do you want to take away my rights? Why do you want to control me?
[see how silly that sounds?]


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to decide what is "right or wrong" for anyone other than yourself.


 
And you seem to think you do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> So, you've polled all abortionees and you can speak with authority with your answer?
> 
> The taking of a life is done on a whim when someone decides to do so for any other reason than it is a harm to them or it was an act that was forced upon them. If they choose to act in a certain fashion then there are dues to pay.
> 
> And I most certainly have an absolute right to ask them anything that I please.
> 
> Why do you want to take away my rights? Why do you want to control me?
> [see how silly that sounds?]


It's none of your business why a woman has an abortion, just as it would be no one's business if you had a hemorrhoidectomy. 

You think taking away someone's rights as a US citizen is silly? Which ones do you want to lose? Be specific, please.


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> Because something has different DNA does not make it a life form. It is just a mass of cells until independent brain activity begins. If, by some scientific advance they could clone you from a skin sample, your skin sample is not a independent human life.
> 
> Thus abortion after brain activity begins is a ending of that separate human life. The question now is is there reasonable justification for ending a life? Perhaps in the case of serious birth defect or danger to the mothers life.


In that case its justified homicide based on the defense of another, which is one of my standards for allowing abortions. But how many abortions do you think are done are done for that reason? I have never met a women who has had an abortion because it was a medical necessity, have you? Yet I know several who have had them because the child would have been an inconvenience to them.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Kinda/sorta. I have no issue with abortion up to fetal viability, which is around 21 weeks. Prior to that there is no survival outside the womb even with heroic measures. Even after viability I won't judge another woman's decision. It has to a horrible decision to make and I won't make it worse.
> 
> If you take away a woman's right to chose you're taking away the Constitutional right to privacy (on which Roe v. Wade was decided) and the right to control her own body. There is just no other way to look at it. A woman cannot be forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want.
> 
> Do you want the choice of owning a gun taken away? How about the right to free speech?
> 
> And we're back to legality and that is backed by the Constitution. You can't take a Constitutional right away from half the US population and expect to keep the ones you want and that suit your opinion.


No right is absolute especially when you have the right of one individual which infringes upon the right of another.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> I'll have to disagree with you on that one.
> I answer to a higher Authority than Uncle Sam.


So you think God is a murder? Seems to me I remember some places in there where He deliberately killed quite a few people. Isn't there something about a flood which killed everyone on earth but a few in a boat? Then I remember something about fire from the sky burning up some priest and didn't something like that also take a town or two?

The point still stands, murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another. Homicide is any killing of a human by another.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> What makes you think repeating the same tired arguments will make any difference?
> 
> You can "debate" all you like about whether or not a fetus is an individual, but it's not going to change anything at all.


Counter my argument then. Can a human have a body part which does not have the same DNA as the rest of the body?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> When words like "murdered" and "the right of a woman to kill" are used it weakens the argument because it's simply not true. It is hard to take anything said seriously after such emotional outbursts, or at least it is for me.





Bearfootfarm said:


> We've heard that double talk before.
> It still doesn't make an abortion "murder"


We can do the Innuendo...
We can dance and sing...
When it's said and done...
We haven't told you a thing...
We all know that Crap is King...
Give us dirty laundry.

Thanks Don...R.I.P.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to decide what is "right or wrong" for anyone other than yourself.


Sure we do. We do it every time we vote. When one side gets enough votes it can change what is "right". Look at smoking.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Comparing *illegal acts* to legal abortion has been done to death.


Isn't your stand point killing a fetus was NOT an illegal act if the mother wanted it dead? In this case the mother clearly wants the fetus dead, she's going for an abortion after all, then how can you charge the shooter with murdering the fetus? Practicing medicine w/o a license or malpractice maybe but clearly there's no murder based on the very point you use to say abortion is not murder.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> It's none of your business why a woman has an abortion, just as it would be no one's business if you had a hemorrhoidectomy.
> 
> You think taking away someone's rights as a US citizen is silly? Which ones do you want to lose? Be specific, please.


try rereading what I posted and get back to us please... Not what I meant at all...


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> We've heard that double talk before.
> It still doesn't make an abortion "murder"





Bearfootfarm said:


> Words have specific meanings and  aren't always interchangeable even if the describe things with similar end results.





farmrbrown said:


> The terms used are different, the  resulting action may be the same as  the definition though.


Yeah, I can see the similarity.




watcher said:


> So you think God is a murder? Seems to me I remember some places in there where He deliberately killed quite a few people. Isn't there something about a flood which killed everyone on earth but a few in a boat? Then I remember something about fire from the sky burning up some priest and didn't something like that also take a town or two?



No,God forbid.




watcher said:


> The point still stands, murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another. Homicide is any killing of a human by another.


Agreed.
I just put God's law and judgement of right or wrong as superior to man's.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> try rereading what I posted and get back to us please... Not what I meant at all...


I did read it at least three times, and you're still saying that you think taking away someone's rights as a US citizen is silly. 

Can you explain what you meant to say?


----------



## City Bound

There is an amendment that makes abortions a right?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I did read it at least three times, and you're still saying that you think taking away someone's rights as a US citizen is silly.
> 
> Can you explain what you meant to say?


Sure, I don't know about anyone else but until it is illegal - I'm not taking away anyone's rights nor am I trying to control them. It seems some feel all powerful when they accuse someone else of it and I think it is foolish for someone to accuse them of that. Plain silly.

When and if we as a people decide that killing unborn children is barbaric then I will allow the authorities to enforce that. 

See, the explanation fits the words that were written earlier.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, you've polled all abortionees and you can speak with authority with your answer?
> 
> *The taking of a life is done on a whim *when someone decides to do so for any other reason than it is a harm to them or it was an act that was forced upon them. If they choose to act in a certain fashion then there are dues to pay.
> 
> *And I most certainly have an absolute right to ask them anything that I please. *
> 
> Why do you want to take away my rights? Why do you want to control me?
> [see how silly that sounds?]


I'm not playing 20 questions with you.
You made a false statement based on your biased opinions.

You have no "right" to question what others do no matter how much you think you do.

It's really none of your business


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> And you seem to think you do.


If you think that you haven't understood anything I've posted


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> *Counter my argument* then. Can a human have a body part which does not have the same DNA as the rest of the body?


I have no need to counter silly arguments, and I never claimed a fetus was a "part of her body". 

I said the *choice* is hers to make, without interference from outsiders.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> We can do the Innuendo...
> We can dance and sing...
> When it's said and done...
> We haven't told you a thing...
> We all know that Crap is King...
> Give us dirty laundry.
> 
> Thanks Don...R.I.P.


You complain about the length and frequency of these threads, but you really must enjoy them if that's all you have to add


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Isn't your stand point killing a fetus was NOT an illegal act if the mother wanted it dead? In this case the mother clearly wants the fetus dead, she's going for an abortion after all, then how can you charge the shooter with murdering the fetus? Practicing medicine w/o a license or malpractice maybe but clearly there's no murder based on the very point you use to say abortion is not murder.


You're being purposely obtuse since what you are talking about is not a legal abortion.



watcher said:


> Sure we do. We do it every time we vote. When one side gets enough votes it can change what is "right". Look at smoking.


Now you're just rambling aimlessly.
I'm done with you


----------



## farmrbrown

elevenpoint said:


> We can do the Innuendo...
> We can dance and sing...
> When it's said and done...
> We haven't told you a thing...
> We all know that Crap is King...
> Give us dirty laundry.
> 
> Thanks Don...R.I.P.


I love the song, Don writes some killer lyrics.
But just a correction, Glen Frey is the one that passed a few days ago.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/don-henley-on-glenn-frey-he-changed-my-life-forever-20160118


----------



## mreynolds

elevenpoint said:


> We can do the Innuendo...
> We can dance and sing...
> When it's said and done...
> We haven't told you a thing...
> We all know that Crap is King...
> Give us dirty laundry.
> 
> Thanks Don...R.I.P.


Wait, Don is alive and a local to me. Stevie Nicks used to visit him at times. 

Leather and Lace them two.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Sure, I don't know about anyone else but until it is illegal - I'm not taking away anyone's rights nor am I trying to control them. It seems some feel all powerful when they accuse someone else of it and I think it is foolish for someone to accuse them of that. Plain silly.
> 
> When and if we as a people decide that killing unborn children is barbaric then I will allow the authorities to enforce that.
> 
> See, the explanation fits the words that were written earlier.


What do you call forcing a person to do what they don't want to do? Is that controlling them? If not, please explain what it is. 

My point all along has been that abortion is legal and there is nothing you (collective you) can do about it. Well, you can cry, whine and call pro choice people names like barbaric, immoral, murderers, etc. but there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from using her Constitutionally given right, is there? The name calling is just to belittle a woman (or pro choice supporter) and make the anti abortionist feel better about themselves. Sad, that. 

Please explain how "someone" is being "all powerful" by pointing out that you said that taking away someone Constitutional rights is silly? You said it, why don't you own your words?

You never did say which rights you have no problem with losing? Can you now?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Counter my argument then. Can a human have a body part which does not have the same DNA as the rest of the body?


Define "body part". Tumors share most of the DNA of their host but certain mutations cause them to grow, often uncontrollably. They actually share more DNA in common than a woman and embryo she is carrying. Both the tumor and the embryo extract nutrients from their host and cause metabolical and physical changes in them. One, I'm guessing, you have no problem agressively attacking. The other you say must be protected at all cost. Why the difference?


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> ...
> My point all along has been that abortion is legal and there is nothing you (collective you) can do about it. ...


Actually there is many things that others can do about it. For instance making it very difficult to obtain the abortion. Being legal does not imply availability. There is also imposing restrictions on when you can have your legal abortion. I suggest that should be when independent brain function begins. After which a abortion should be illegal. 

Preferably women would know enough to not have unprotected sex and if they did to immediately check the status of impregnation these days. It is not the dark ages where this knowledge did not exist and pregnancy was a function of the gods. 

But you continue with your whining and crying "choice" while others treat the matter in a rational way. I am sure that will help you once public funded abortion clinic stop receiving taxpayers money and insurance companies are no longer required to pay for the procedure.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Actually there is many things that others can do about it. For instance making it very difficult to obtain the abortion. Being legal does not imply availability. There is also imposing restrictions on when you can have your legal abortion. I suggest that should be when independent brain function begins. After which a abortion should be illegal.
> 
> Preferably women would know enough to not have unprotected sex and if they did to immediately check the status of impregnation these days. It is not the dark ages where this knowledge did not exist and pregnancy was a function of the gods.
> 
> But you continue with your whining and crying "choice" while others treat the matter in a rational way. I am sure that will help you once public funded abortion clinic stop receiving taxpayers money and insurance companies are no longer required to pay for the procedure.


Others (meaning other than the US government) can create law limiting abortion? How so, can you explain? Or do you mean abortion terrorists standing outside clinics and/or killing and violence directed toward women who want to abort and the people that work for abortion clinics? 

It's your _opinion_ (like bellybuttons every body has one) that there should be no abortion after "independent brain function begins". That's nice, but it and a buck will get you a crappy cup of coffee. Back to abortion is legal... As of right now a woman can have an abortion in every state. That is fact, not opinion. You don't have to like it. 

It's legal may be irrational to you, but the majority of the population understands it completely. Legal- good, illegal- bad. 

There are only a few states that use taxpayer money to fund abortion, and no federal taxpayer money does. You do realize that Planned Parenthood is not the only abortion provider in the country, don't you? It's not even the biggest. You really need to educate yourself, and since you're not being nice I will no longer help you.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> ... You really need to educate yourself, and since you're not being nice I will no longer help you.


I appreciate the help. It shows me where there are more opportunities to limit the abominable practice of abortions. Perhaps education to women contemplated abortion being a mandatory requirement? Maybe some horrendous videos of the practice would change their opinion?


I am not sure where you felt I was not being nice to you. Sorry you are feeling emotional about handling abortions in a rational manner. Perhaps you would prefer that abortions were not only legal but a requirement for unmarried women? There could be a rational argument made on that I suppose. Perhaps adopts China's "One child" policy and ruthlessly abort children to control overpopulation.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> I appreciate the help. It shows me where there are more opportunities to limit the abominable practice of abortions. Perhaps education to women contemplated abortion being a mandatory requirement? Maybe some horrendous videos of the practice would change their opinion?
> 
> 
> I am not sure where you felt I was not being nice to you. Sorry you are feeling emotional about handling abortions in a rational manner. Perhaps you would prefer that abortions were not only legal but a requirement for unmarried women? There could be a rational argument made on that I suppose. Perhaps adopts China's "One child" policy and ruthlessly abort children to control overpopulation.


Perhaps you should withdraw from the conversation? It seems to have made you just a tad hysterical, simply bringing up China's One Child (now two child) policy as something that that should be done in the US is a strong indication. 

Sigh. I am *pro choice. Pro choice. Pro Choice. Pro Choice.* I believe it is the *choice* of the pregnant woman to either terminate or carry a pregnancy to term. I've stated that I am *pro choice* since the beginning of this thread. What part of *pro choice* don't you understand? Since I am *pro choice* I would never want "abortions were not only legal but a requirement for unmarried women" would I?


----------



## arabian knight

MattB4 said:


> I appreciate the help. It shows me where there are more opportunities to limit the abominable practice of abortions. Perhaps education to women contemplated abortion being a mandatory requirement? Maybe some horrendous videos of the practice would change their opinion?
> 
> 
> I am not sure where you felt I was not being nice to you. Sorry you are feeling emotional about handling abortions in a rational manner. Perhaps you would prefer that abortions were not only legal but a requirement for unmarried women? There could be a rational argument made on that I suppose. Perhaps adopts China's "One child" policy and ruthlessly abort children to control overpopulation.


Someday this will change and no longer be a horrid abomination on the American people were killing a unborn IS classified as murder and will no longer be tolerated in America. This will be stopped at some point in time with the correct ones in the SC that are persuaded by the progressive liberal nuts patrol.


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> ..
> Sigh. I am *pro choice. Pro choice. Pro Choice. Pro Choice.* I believe it is the *choice* of the pregnant woman to either terminate or carry a pregnancy to term. I've stated that I am *pro choice* since the beginning of this thread. What part of *pro choice* don't you understand? Since I am *pro choice* I would never want "abortions were not only legal but a requirement for unmarried women" would I?


Uh... Duh. Just because you believe in fairy tales and superstitious nonsense does not mean anything to me. 

Saying you are Pro-choice (over and over) has no real meaning. What has meaning is what the society determines as acceptable. Through out the discussion I have tried to see if you could understand the concept. Evidently not. 


So back to the "no point in continuing". Hope your day is a good one.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Someday this will change and no longer be a horrid abomination on the American people were killing a unborn IS classified as murder and will no longer be tolerated in America. This will be stopped at some point in time with the correct ones in the SC that are persuaded by the progressive liberal nuts patrol.


Which Constitutional right are you willing to lose? You are advocating for half the country to lose one... So what will it be- the right to bear arms? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Religion? Which one?


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Uh... Duh. Just because you believe in fairy tales and superstitious nonsense does not mean anything to me.
> 
> Saying you are Pro-choice (over and over) has no real meaning. What has meaning is what the society determines as acceptable. Through out the discussion I have tried to see if you could understand the concept. Evidently not.
> 
> 
> So back to the "no point in continuing". Hope your day is a good one.


When you have no further relevant discussion (suggesting that the US adopt China's One child policy (in error, it's now two children) and that I prefer abortions for all pregnant unmarried women are cases in point) just fall back on insults. Got it. :facepalm:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You complain about the length and frequency of these threads, but you really must enjoy them if that's all you have to add


You are right...I can do better. Ready?









Thou shalt not kill.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> You are right...I can do better. Ready?
> 
> Thou shalt not kill.


Isn't it just a bit presumptuous to think that everyone believes the same things you do? I don't believe in the 10 commandments, god, heaven, hell, or anything else along those lines.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> You are right...I can do better. Ready?
> Thou shalt not kill.


Not everyone follows the same religion nor share the same ideas.
That "commandment" is only for those who choose to follow, not to be imposed by others.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't believe in the 10 commandments, god, heaven, hell, or anything else along those lines.



I believe you just said that.........and it is chilling to think about the fact that you aren't the only one.




Irish Pixie said:


> It's your _opinion_ (like bellybuttons every body has one) that there should be no abortion after "independent brain function begins". That's nice, but it and a buck will get you a crappy cup of coffee. Back to abortion is legal... As of right now a woman can have an abortion in every state. That is fact, not opinion. You don't have to like it.
> 
> 
> 
> It's legal may be irrational to you, but the majority of the population understands it completely. Legal- good, illegal- bad.


Unfortunately, I fear you are right. If most people stopped to really think about their laws, they would realize there is little correlation between the two.

Speaking of opinions on morality and legality, would you know who said this in a speech? It was many years ago and times HAVE changed, but the person who said it is quite relevant to the topic at hand.

*"Our first step is to have the backing of the medical profession so that our laws may be changed, so that motherhood may be the function of dignity and choice, rather than one of ignorance and chance. Conscious control of offspring is now becoming the ideal and the custom in all civilized countries. Those who oppose it claim that however desirable it may be on economic or social grounds, it may be abused and the morals of the youth of the country may be lowered. Such people should be reminded that there are two points to be considered. First, that such control is the inevitable advance in civilization. Every civilization involves an increasing forethought for others, even for those yet unborn. The reckless abandonment of the impulse of the moment and the careless regard for the consequences, is not morality. The selfish gratification of temporary desire at the expense of suffering to lives that will come may seem very beautiful to some, but it is not our conception of civilization, or is it our concept of morality.

In the second place, it is not only inevitable, but it is right to control the size of the family for by this control and adjustment we can raise the level and the standards of the human race. While Nature&#8217;s way of reducing her numbers is controlled by disease, famine and war, primitive man has achieved the same results by infanticide, exposure of infants, the abandonment of children, and by abortion. But such ways of controlling population is no longer possible for us. We have attained high standards of life, and along the lines of science must we conduct such control. We must begin farther back and control the beginnings of life. We must control conception. This is a better method, it is a more civilized method, for it involves not only greater forethought for others, but finally a higher sanction for the value of life itself."*





Irish Pixie said:


> There are only a few states that use taxpayer money to fund abortion, and no federal taxpayer money does. You do realize that Planned Parenthood is not the only abortion provider in the country, don't you? It's not even the biggest. You really need to educate yourself, and since you're not being nice I will no longer help you.



You might want to fact check those statements.
I just did................:umno:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone follows the same religion nor share the same ideas.
> That "commandment" is only for those who choose to follow, not to be imposed by others.


Yup. Exactly.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> snip rhetoric
> 
> 
> You might want to fact check those statements.
> I just did................:umno:


Which statements would they be, or am I to guess?


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> When you have no further relevant discussion (suggesting that the US adopt China's One child policy (in error, it's now two children) and that I prefer abortions for all pregnant unmarried women are cases in point) just fall back on insults. Got it. :facepalm:


Where is the insult? I will remind you that you brought up the terms that others could cry and whine. I do like your repeated miss-characterization and deflections as a debate tactic. They are quite amusing. Simplistic and easily countered. 

Show to me the law (or right) of Pro-choice and what it means and what limits it has. Saying you are Pro-choice is like me saying I am Pro-bacon. Now if you say you are Pro-abortion that actually would have meaning. It still would need qualifications as to when and how but it at least is a real action and not a nebulous "choice".


----------



## Irish Pixie

MattB4 said:


> Where is the insult? I will remind you that you brought up the terms that others could cry and whine. I do like your repeated miss-characterization and deflections as a debate tactic. They are quite amusing. Simplistic and easily countered.
> 
> Show to me the law (or right) of Pro-choice and what it means and what limits it has. Saying you are Pro-choice is like me saying I am Pro-bacon. Now if you say you are Pro-abortion that actually would have meaning. It still would need qualifications as to when and how but it at least is a real action and not a nebulous "choice".


Nope. You aren't being nice so I'm not educating you any further.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone follows the same religion nor share the same ideas.
> That "commandment" is only for those who choose to follow, not to be imposed by others.





Irish Pixie said:


> Isn't it just a bit presumptuous to think that everyone believes the same things you do? I don't believe in the 10 commandments, god, heaven, hell, or anything else along those lines.


8 and 11 minutes. Not bad. But I will retract that statement since it could be deemed offensive to some people. I will do...Do not kill. That statement cannot be linked to anything but being a rational human being.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Which statements would they be, or am I to guess?


I guess the fact that you are asking means you aren't sure about them yourself.

The only one that is factual is the statement that PP isn't the only abortion provider.
The rest are not accurate.
The funding issue has legal exceptions and accounting discrepancies that may be considered minor to some, but not 100% true.
The statement that PP ISN'T the largest is the one you may want to retract when you see enough convincing evidence for yourself.
I may be wrong to assume this, but I wouldn't think you would take my word or any links I provide as being credible enough for you to believe.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you call forcing a person to do what they don't want to do? Is that controlling them? If not, please explain what it is.
> 
> Sigh... Have you seen, heard, or read anywhere that I have "forced" anyone to do what they do not want to. This is a discussion, OK?
> 
> My point all along has been that abortion is legal and there is nothing you (collective you) can do about it. Well, you can cry, whine and call pro choice people names like barbaric, immoral, murderers, etc. but there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from using her Constitutionally given right, is there? The name calling is just to belittle a woman (or pro choice supporter) and make the anti abortionist feel better about themselves. Sad, that.
> 
> ...and the flip side of the name calling and innuendo is all OK? I will not be able to force anyone to do anything but it is within my right and intentions to get enough people aware of the harm done during an abortion to both the deceased and the survivor so as to possibly get the law changed, in any way.
> 
> Please explain how "someone" is being "all powerful" by pointing out that you said that taking away someone Constitutional rights is silly? You said it, why don't you own your words?
> 
> You are making no sense here. I will explain what I meant again in a slightly different fashion. You and the others that follow your line of posting do this as some kind of an insult. You seem all puffed up and you ask them "Why do you want to control women?" or "Why do you want to take away their rights" - It is this action that I am referring to as being silly not losing or giving up rights, the meaning is as plain as day.
> 
> You never did say which rights you have no problem with losing? Can you now?
> 
> There, I tried my best to help you understand my post.


Please see the above, itemized reply.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> 8 and 11 minutes. Not bad. But I will retract that statement since it could be deemed offensive to some people. I will do...Do not kill.
> 
> *That statement cannot be linked to anything but being a rational human being.*


Much like "Mind your *own* business"


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> I guess the fact that you are asking means you aren't sure about them yourself.
> 
> The only one that is factual is the statement that PP isn't the only abortion provider.
> The rest are not accurate.
> The funding issue has legal exceptions and accounting discrepancies that may be considered minor to some, but not 100% true.
> The statement that PP ISN'T the largest is the one you may want to retract when you see enough convincing evidence for yourself.
> I may be wrong to assume this, but I wouldn't think you would take my word or any links I provide as being credible enough for you to believe.


Here's a link that indicates that PP does 31.6% of abortions nationwide. It is from 2011 but I can't find anything more current. Is 32% (I'll round up) most or biggest? Obviously not. The link is even one from an anti abortionist site.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/06/...w-does-one-third-of-all-abortions-in-the-u-s/

No federal funding is used for abortion, well, unless you're a sub human that would force a woman to carry a rape and/or incest pregnancy, or to save the life of the mother. I didn't consider sub humans when I made the statement. 

Some states fund abortion, I believe there are 17, for low income women. Here's a link: http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/abortion-under-medicaid/


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Much like "Mind your *own* business"


Excellent point.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Much like "Mind your *own* business"





Irish Pixie said:


> Excellent point.


Thanks for the song and dance pre-game show before what may be the final showdown between Manning and Brady this afternoon. Knew you would not disappoint.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Thanks for the song and dance pre-game show before what may be the final showdown between Manning and Brady this afternoon. Knew you would not disappoint.


You are very welcome.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Here's a link that indicates that PP does 31.6% of abortions nationwide. It is from 2011 but I can't find anything more current. Is 32% (I'll round up) most or biggest? Obviously not. The link is even one from an anti abortionist site.
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/06/...w-does-one-third-of-all-abortions-in-the-u-s/
> 
> No federal funding is used for abortion, well, unless you're a sub human that would force a woman to carry a rape and/or incest pregnancy, or to save the life of the mother. I didn't consider sub humans when I made the statement.
> 
> Some states fund abortion, I believe there are 17, for low income women. Here's a link: http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/abortion-under-medicaid/



I'll see your bet and call.
The percentages I found were as low as 25%, and that was the finding of an anti-abortion link as well.

Now for the education on statistics.
Are you assuming, because PP accounts for only 25% of abortions (we'll go with the lowest to give you the best odds of being right) that any of the other providers individually, do a greater amount than 25% or that there is one other provider that does the other 75%?

IOW, as an example, If Trump gets 25% of the vote in Iowa and comes out #1, and all the rest split the other 75% of the vote, would you say that Trump DIDN'T get the largest share compared to all the others?

As far as your sub-human remark, I concur, although I wouldn't have phrased it in the form of an insult.
To acknowledge the fact that federal funds are used and SHOULD be used to save the life of a mother or reverse a rape pregnancy (restoring her "choice") is not in my view a sub-human opinion, just another fact allowed by law.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> I'll see your bet and call.
> The percentages I found were as low as 25%, and that was the finding of an anti-abortion link as well.
> 
> Now for the education on statistics.
> Are you assuming, because PP accounts for only 25% of abortions (we'll go with the lowest to give you the best odds of being right) that any of the other providers individually, do a greater amount than 25% or that there is one other provider that does the other 75%?
> 
> IOW, as an example, If Trump gets 25% of the vote in Iowa and comes out #1, and all the rest split the other 75% of the vote, would you say that Trump DIDN'T get the largest share compared to all the others?
> 
> As far as your sub-human remark, I concur, although I wouldn't have phrased it in the form of an insult.
> To acknowledge the fact that federal funds are used and SHOULD be used to save the life of a mother or reverse a rape pregnancy (restoring her "choice") is not in my view a sub-human opinion, just another fact allowed by law.


If PP does 32% of abortions, other providers must do 68%, which makes other providers the largest or performing the most abortions. PP does not perform the majority of abortions nationwide.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Thanks for the song and dance pre-game show before what may be the final showdown between Manning and Brady this afternoon. Knew you would not disappoint.


So you admit you're really just trolling?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Now *for the education* on statistics.
> Are you assuming, because PP accounts for only 25% of abortions (we'll go with the lowest to give you the best odds of being right) that any of the other providers *individually*, do a greater amount than 25% or that there is one other provider that does the other 75%?


The "largest provider" is the *group* that provides the most.

I realize you want to play word games to make it seem that PP has to be the "largest provider" because they own lots of clinics, but the truth is the *majority* of abortions are *not* provided by PP

They don't have to be taken "individually" except as a means to make your statement appear relevant.

It still remains that 75% aren't involving PP at all (Your numbers)


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "largest provider" is the *group* that provides the most.
> 
> I realize you want to play word games to make it seem that PP has to be the "largest provider" because they own lots of clinics, but the truth is the *majority* of abortions are *not* provided by PP
> 
> They don't have to be taken "individually" except as a means to make your statement appear relevant.
> 
> It still remains that 75% aren't involving PP at all (Your numbers)


I guess we should ignore grammar as well.
If one doesn't use an "s" at the end of the word "provider" making it "provider*s*, in the English language, that does in fact mean individual, not a group.

Then it should be a simple matter to prove me, and several well known organizations wrong then.
Who IS the largest provider of abortions if it isn't Planned Parenthood?


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

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/13/135354952/planned-parenthood-makes-abortion-foes-see-red

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all



Shoot, my fingers are getting tired, I'll just link them all........

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=largest+provider+of+abortions&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Just a reminder, to be wrong doesn't make you a terrible person, it's just a mistake.
Try and remember that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Then it should be a simple matter to prove me, and several well known organizations wrong then.
> Who IS the largest provider of abortions if it isn't Planned Parenthood?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2011/04/13/135354952/planned-parenthood-makes-abortion-foes-see-red
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all
> 
> Shoot, my fingers are getting tired, I'll just link them all........


It's the same *word game.*
They still only do 25% of the abortions

Your links prove lots of folks parrot the same buzzwords


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Just a reminder, to be wrong doesn't make you a terrible person, it's just a mistake.
> Try and remember that.


The same goes for you, doesn't it?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the same *word game.*
> They still only do 25% of the abortions
> 
> Your links prove lots of folks parrot the same buzzwords


I've heard that somewhere before............

You reckon they all came up with the same story and all of them are wrong too?
Sure glad you and Pixie are here to keep us all straight.:indif:


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> The same goes for you, doesn't it?


Absolutely, I couldn't say it honestly if I didn't think it were true, could I?

Did ya find the largest abortion provider yet, so I can admit my mistake?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Absolutely, I couldn't say it honestly if I didn't think it were true, could I?
> 
> Did ya find the largest abortion provider yet, so I can admit my mistake?


Both BFF and I explained it to you already. If you don't understand that PP does not perform the majority of abortions in the US that's on you. 

You won't admit it tho, and that's OK, no one can force you.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Both BFF and I explained it to you already. If you don't understand that PP does not perform the majority of abortions in the US that's on you.
> 
> You won't admit it tho, and that's OK, no one can force you.


Y'all think I needed "explaining" something that a 3rd grader can understand?
ound:
I'll take that to mean that even if the gov't, PP and every liberal media news source says that PP is the nation's largest provider of abortion,.........never mind, I'm pretty sure others have already pointed out the "Horse to the water" thing.

Yeah, Pixie.
I guess when I read all those links I must have made a mistake in what I read.
Lord knows I ain't perfect, but I do try hard.
Maybe if you showed me where all those links have the info saying PP is NOT the nation's largest provider of abortions, I can educate myself and see the error of my ways.
I AM humble enough to do that much, so I'll wait and be patient. I gotta get more wood in the house anyway right now.


Since there's no way (I hope) that I made a mistake on the post where I bolded an excerpt of a speech, I was also wondering if you had a chance to look at that and see if you recognized the author?
Post #258


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Both BFF and I explained it to you already. If you don't understand that PP does not perform the *majority of abortions* in the US that's on you.
> 
> You won't admit it tho, and that's OK, no one can force you.


Aaaahhhhh....... I see where you moved the bar, it was so quick I missed it.

Should I quote you again, for clarity?




Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that Planned Parenthood is not the only abortion provider in the country, don't you? It's not even the biggest. You really need to educate yourself, and since you're not being nice I will no longer help you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Anywho, did anyone other than me actually watch the videos that were the reason I started this thread?

Did any of them resonate with you?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you admit you're really just trolling?


No...from what I gather trolling is I see plenty here. Once the killing of our own ends there could be progress. The stain cannot be removed though. The needle and the damage done.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> I just put God's law and judgement of right or wrong as superior to man's.


So you say God is a murder?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have no need to counter silly arguments, and I never claimed a fetus was a "part of her body".
> 
> I said the *choice* is hers to make, without interference from outsiders.


You entire argument is based on the logic on the old 'her body, her choice' stand. If its NOT part of her body but a separate, unique individual due to have a separate, unique DNA then that logic fails and your entire argument collapses. 

Once you accept the FACT that the fetus is a separate, unique individual the mother becomes, in effect, the life support system for that individual. As long as that individual is connected to life support they will live and will eventually 'recover' to the point life support is no longer needed. So logic tells us an abortion is the same as removing life support from someone who is severally injured but will recover with time and support. I think everyone here would agree that removing life support from an individual in case would be equal to murder. Unless 1) that individual's right to life has been removed through due process or 2) that individual can be shown to pose an actual threat of grievous bodily harm or death to another individual. At which point it would be legal homicide.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're being purposely obtuse since what you are talking about is not a legal abortion.


Can't handle it when someone takes your 'logic' seriously? Remember you stated that it can not be murder if the mother wants the child dead. Using that logic it can not be murder no matter how it dies as long as the mother clearly wanted it dead. Please show me the fault in my view of your logic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Can't handle it when someone takes your 'logic' seriously? Remember *you stated that it can not be murder if the mother wants the child dead*. Using that logic it can not be murder no matter how it dies as long as the mother clearly wanted it dead. *Please show me* the fault in my view of your logic.


I already did, and you even quoted it:



> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> You're being purposely obtuse since *what you are talking about is not a legal abortion*


*Please show me* where I said:
"It can not be murder if the mother wants the child dead".


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Define "body part". Tumors share most of the DNA of their host but certain mutations cause them to grow, often uncontrollably. They actually share more DNA in common than a woman and embryo she is carrying. Both the tumor and the embryo extract nutrients from their host and cause metabolical and physical changes in them. One, I'm guessing, you have no problem agressively attacking. The other you say must be protected at all cost. Why the difference?


Because 1) one is posing a risk to the life of the woman and the other is not and 2) one is an individual on life support.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> So you say God is a murder?


Nope, same answer as I did before.......




farmrbrown said:


> No,God forbid.



Now, for those who wish to make that accusation to the Almighty, I'm sure He doesn't need my help in His defense.
But I will remind those of His admonishment to Job.
He IS after all the Creator.
Is there anyone else that WOULD have that authority to take a life?
A life that would not exist if it weren't for Him?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Because 1) one is posing* a risk to the life* of the woman and the other is not and 2) one is an individual on life support.


Birth carries more risk than an abortion


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Others (meaning other than the US government) can create law limiting abortion? How so, can you explain? Or do you mean abortion terrorists standing outside clinics and/or killing and violence directed toward women who want to abort and the people that work for abortion clinics?


Its very simple, people elect representatives who agree with their view on abortion and they 1) pass laws limiting aborting and 2) appoint judges who will rule that those laws are constitutional. Its the same way that segregation and anti-abortion laws were done away with.




Irish Pixie said:


> There are only a few states that use taxpayer money to fund abortion, and no federal taxpayer money does. You do realize that Planned Parenthood is not the only abortion provider in the country, don't you? It's not even the biggest. You really need to educate yourself, and since you're not being nice I will no longer help you.


Let's us look at something. Say your kid had a part time job and you paid him an allowance. Using this money he is paying for his own car, buying most of his own clothes and such. But you discover he is also doing something you disagree with, how about buying booze and hookers for his friends. You tell him that you will cut off his allowance if he doesn't stop using the money you are giving him buying booze and hookers and he tells he isn't using any of his allowance money to buy the booze, only the money he earns. Would you keep giving him his allowance because after he isn't using your money? Or would you view your action of giving him money as contributing to his illegal activity? After all if he didn't have your money he'd have to spend his on his expenses and not have extra for the booze and hookers, right?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Birth carries more risk than an abortion


Not quite, abortion is 100% fatal to one individual every time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Not quite, abortion is 100% fatal to one individual every time.


Now you're not even reading your own claims



> Originally Posted by watcher View Post
> Because 1) one is posing a risk to the life *of the woman* and the other is not and 2) one is an individual on life support.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Birth carries more risk than an abortion


OK. Terminate all pregnancy based on your opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Now, for those who wish to make that accusation to the Almighty, I'm sure He doesn't need my help in His defense.
> But I will remind those of His admonishment to Job.
> He IS after all the Creator.
> Is there anyone else that WOULD have that authority to take a life?
> A life that would not exist if it weren't for Him?


I guess, if you believe that sort of thing... :bored:


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I guess, if you believe that sort of thing... :bored:



Yep.
God is definitely in the pro-choice column.
He believes you have the right to choose. 

Now, I'm done with my chores so I have time to read and learn and retract my earlier mistake.
Did you find out who the biggest provider of abortions is yet?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Double posted


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> OK. *Terminate all pregnancy *based on your opinion.


I have never terminated any and I'm not going to start now.
I will however terminate my responses to your ridiculous comments though, since they only have one purpose


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have never terminated any and I'm not going to start now.
> I will however terminate my responses to your ridiculous comments though, since they only have one purpose


In your mind...you say the same thinking I will say what you want to hear...not going to happen. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> So, you've polled all abortionees and you can speak with authority with your answer?
> 
> The taking of a life is done on a whim when someone decides to do so for any other reason than it is a harm to them or it was an act that was forced upon them. If they choose to act in a certain fashion then there are dues to pay.
> 
> And I most certainly have an absolute right to ask them anything that I please.
> 
> Why do you want to take away my rights? Why do you want to control me?
> [see how silly that sounds?]


Bernie understands completely, not silly at all.


----------



## Shine

watcher said:


> So you say God is a murder?


He cannot be sanctioned for "killing" that which He has created.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> I'll take that to mean that even if the gov't, PP and every liberal media news source says that PP is the nation's largest provider of abortion......
> 
> Maybe if you showed me where all those links have the info saying PP is NOT the nation's largest provider of abortions, I can educate myself and see the error of my ways.
> 
> I was also wondering if you had a chance to look at that and see if you recognized the author?
> Post #258



I think it's safe to say neither of these questions will be answered by Irish Pixie so I'll oblige.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all

The person who believed abortion was barbaric and immoral?
Margaret Sanger, the matriarch of Planned Parenthood.
My, ain't truth stranger than fiction?:shocked:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...ion-kills-the-life-of-a-baby-danger-to-mother


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Bernie understands completely, not silly at all.


Well, I'll leave it at that. You either refuse to understand or you are doing it on purpose. You still get it wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> I think it's safe to say neither of these questions will be answered by Irish Pixie so I'll oblige.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all
> 
> The person who believed abortion was barbaric and immoral?
> Magaret Sainger, the matriarch of Planned Parenthood.
> My, ain't truth stranger than fiction?:shocked:


You'd think after the first two or three times I ignored you would take the hint, but no, apparently everyone is supposed to jump to answer your questions. Why do you feel that I'm obligated to answer you at all? Can you explain? 

There has been a half truths and conjecture attributed to Mrs. Sanger. I'm not reading and researching what I'm sure is self serving BS in the link to see if it's true or not. Are you going to harass me to read your link too?


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> You'd think after the first two or three times I ignored you would take the hint, but no, apparently everyone is supposed to jump to answer your questions. Why do you feel that I'm obligated to answer you at all? Can you explain?
> 
> There has been a half truths and conjecture attributed to Mrs. Sanger. I'm not reading and researching what I'm sure is self serving BS in the link to see if it's true or not. Are you going to harass me to read your link too?


No ma'am.
When you asked a question or wanted a link to support a post, I answered it.
I didn't ignore, deflect, change the answer, or get defensive.
There's no need to read any links on Sanger, I posted part of her speech in bold letters on post #258.
I don't see a question as harassment, and if you can't or won't answer a question, you have no obligation to me.
Your obligation is only to yourself.
In other words, "To thine own self be true".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I think it's safe to say neither of these questions will be answered by Irish Pixie so I'll oblige.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all
> 
> The person who believed abortion was barbaric and immoral?
> *Margaret Sanger*, the matriarch of Planned Parenthood.
> My, ain't truth stranger than fiction?:shocked:
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...ion-kills-the-life-of-a-baby-danger-to-mother


I'm not sure why you think that matters.
She's just promoting population control more than freedom of choice.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> I think it's safe to say neither of these questions will be answered by Irish Pixie so I'll oblige.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all
> 
> The person who believed abortion was barbaric and immoral?
> Margaret Sanger, *the matriarch of Planned Parenthood.*
> My, ain't truth stranger than fiction?:shocked:
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...ion-kills-the-life-of-a-baby-danger-to-mother





Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure why you think that matters.
> She's just promoting population control more than freedom of choice.


The answer to your question?
The *rest* of the sentence, *in bold letters*.

And if you study the history of the rights of women in the 20th century, which I believe is one of the primary concerns of the OP, and in this century as well, you will find out much more to that answer........and why it matters.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I think it's safe to say neither of these questions will be answered by Irish Pixie so I'll oblige.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gest-abortion-provider-planned-pare/?page=all
> 
> The person who believed abortion was barbaric and immoral?
> *Margaret Sanger*, the matriarch of Planned Parenthood.
> My, ain't truth stranger than fiction?:shocked:
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...ion-kills-the-life-of-a-baby-danger-to-mother


I'm not sure why you think that matters.
She's just promoting population control more than freedom of choice.

She died 50 years ago, so she's not really relevant to today


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure why you think that matters.
> She's just promoting population control more than freedom of choice.
> 
> She died 50 years ago, so she's not really relevant to today


Really?
Just how much of everything and everyONE that is contained in our history, is irrelevant to you?
This may take a while, but let's start with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al.
Since they were involved in writing the document that has been referenced many times in this thread ( you know, like establishing that thing called the Supreme Court) ......... are they irrelevant too?

Is there anyone or anything that YOU can call relevant when someone else posts?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Really?
> Just how much of everything and everyONE that is contained in our history, is irrelevant to you?
> This may take a while, but let's start with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al.
> Since they were involved in writing the document that has been *referenced many times in this thread* ( you know, like establishing that thing called the Supreme Court) ......... are they irrelevant too?
> 
> *Is there anyone or anything that YOU can call relevant when someone else posts?*


Yes, but Sanger isn't in this context.
She was dead before abortions were legal, so it makes no difference what she thought



> This may take a while, but let's start with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al.


More irrelevance.
This isn't an American history thread.

Lots of things have been *mentioned* that really have no meaning, like killing dogs, murdering older children you don't want, and even Mohammed Ali.

You thought it was somehow "relevant" to point out not everyone has an abortion

We've had incorrect song lyrics and multicolored (much like a parrot, ironically) psychedelic posts

We are over 300 posts now, and easily 275 of them could be deleted without losing anything *of value* to the thread


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, but Sanger isn't in this context.
> She was dead before abortions were legal, so it makes no difference what she thought
> 
> 
> More irrelevance.
> This isn't an American history thread.
> 
> Lots of things have been *mentioned* that really have no meaning, like killing dogs, murdering older children you don't want, and even Mohammed Ali.
> 
> You thought it was somehow "relevant" to point out not everyone has an abortion
> 
> We've had incorrect song lyrics and multicolored (much like a parrot, ironically) psychedelic posts
> 
> We are over 300 posts now, and easily 275 of them could be deleted without losing anything *of value* to the thread



Everything you mentioned DOES in fact have a meaning and IS relevant in some way.
You may think you are the moderator on here and get to decide what is relevant, but I didn't see that office posted under your name.
If I wanted to post something absolutely ridiculous, moronic AND historically ignorant I would say, "Roe v. Wade was over *40 years ago*. It is not really relevant to today."


BTW, the lyrics WERE correct, the poster made a mistake on the author. I still don't think that makes him a terrible person.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> He cannot be sanctioned for "killing" that which He has created.


My dad used to say, often when I had vexed him in some way, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it!". He never followed through but based on your statement should he have been sanctioned if he had? I can prove his role in creating me. I can't prove your god's.


----------



## arabian knight

Nice quote from Bill Cosby's comedy routine his tv Show and the album is called. Bill Cosby Himself


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> Nice quote from Bill Cosby's comedy routine his tv Show and the album is called. Bill Cosby Himself


My dad may have appropriated it from Bill or Bill from those like my father. Not really the point of my statement. But thanks, anyway.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> My dad used to say, often when I had vexed him in some way, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it!". He never followed through but based on your statement should he have been sanctioned if he had? I can prove his role in creating me. I can't prove your god's.


Well, IF your father created you out of nothingness then yes, I should think that this would be reasonable.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Well, IF your father created you out of nothingness then yes, I should think that this would be reasonable.


A I said, I can prove my father's role in my creation. Prove your god's role in yours. I'm not interested in living by your beliefs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Everything you mentioned DOES in fact have a meaning and IS relevant in some way.
> You may think you are the moderator on here and get to decide what is relevant, but I didn't see that office posted under your name.
> If I wanted to post something absolutely ridiculous, moronic AND historically ignorant I would say, "Roe v. Wade was over *40 years ago*. It is not really relevant to today."


Roe V Wade is *still* law, and relevant to this topic
Sanger died before then, so her opinion carries no more weight than anyone else



> BTW, the *lyrics WERE correct*, the poster made a mistake on the author. I still don't think that makes him a terrible person.


They weren't "correct" for any Don Henly song were they?
I never said anything about anyone being a "terrible person".


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> A I said, I can prove my father's role in my creation. Prove your god's role in yours. I'm not interested in living by your beliefs.


Look around. There is so much proof that it is undeniable, in my opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *Look around*. There is so much proof that it is undeniable, in my opinion.


That's not proof *your* ideas about "creation" are correct.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not proof *your* ideas about "creation" are correct.



Feeling left out? I'm OK with my proof. How do you feel about your proof of His non-existence? Can you prove to me He doesn't?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Feeling left out? *I'm OK with my proof*. How do you feel about your proof of His non-existence? Can you prove to me He doesn't?


You've yet to offer any "proof", and I haven't made any claims that need to be proven.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've yet to offer any "proof", and I haven't made any claims that need to be proven.


I have been given the proof, I need not seek for any further proof. I've already offered my proof in another thread on this site, some people did not want to believe it, others were further convinced. 

It is possible that you will be given proof, maybe not. I do not know the plan of my Maker.

You will have to accept that.

You've claimed that there is no God like I understand there to be. I'm sure that you're not just making a guess, you must have some hard evidence that allows you your comfort in this matter, yes?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Roe V Wade is *still* law, and relevant to this topic
> Sanger died before then, so her opinion carries no more weight than anyone else


Ok, the originator of Planned Parenthood opinion carries no more weight than any other in a discussion on abortion.
Got it.
That still leaves me wondering where the level of relevancy kicks in, fro your point of view.
Perhaps it is random?




Bearfootfarm said:


> They weren't "correct" for any Don Henly song were they?
> I never said anything about anyone being a "terrible person".


Yes, the Don Henley lyrics posted (by eleven point I think) were to the song "Dirty Laundry" that came out in the 80's when they were all doing solo gigs.
They weren't *Glen Frey's* lyrics, who passed last week.

It's still ok to make a mistake though, and even better when you're big enough to own up to it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I have been given the proof, I need not seek for any further proof. I've already offered my proof in another thread on this site, some people did not want to believe it, others were further convinced.
> 
> It is possible that you will be given proof, maybe not. I do not know the plan of my Maker.
> 
> You will have to accept that.
> 
> *You've claimed that there is no God like I understand there to be.* I'm sure that you're not just making a guess, you must have some hard evidence that allows you your comfort in this matter, yes?


I never said that at all.
I don't think you really read what I post since you seldom seem to know what I said


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Links to laws giving the unborn rights over that of the mother, please. Since there are so many you should have no problem.
> 
> Abortion is legal. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.





Irish Pixie said:


> What state doesn't allow abortion? Can you name it? Please?
> 
> Anyone can argue anything but that doesn't make them right, does it? Sigh. Choice is the only correct response, Roe v. Wade (which was decided 43 years ago today BTW) made law that a woman has control over her own body- the choice to abort a pregnancy if she so chooses. Anything else is simply opinion.
> 
> More questions?





Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion isn't murder. I'm not having a moral debate with you. If you can find a legal definition of murder that includes abortion I'll read it though.





Irish Pixie said:


> I've asked several times for you to link a definition of murder than includes abortion. Have you found one?





Irish Pixie said:


> Please name the states where abortion isn't legal. Women have the right to terminate a pregnancy in any state in the US. Are there regulations? Yes, in some states there are. Late term abortion is legal in all states for the mother's life, physical and mental health.
> 
> I see you need more education. I have to go to the barn but here's some material to read. I'll answer questions when I come back.
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf






Irish Pixie said:


> What do you call forcing a person to do what they don't want to do? Is that controlling them? If not, please explain what it is.
> 
> My point all along has been that abortion is legal and there is nothing you (collective you) can do about it. Well, you can cry, whine and call pro choice people names like barbaric, immoral, murderers, etc. but there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from using her Constitutionally given right, is there? The name calling is just to belittle a woman (or pro choice supporter) and make the anti abortionist feel better about themselves. Sad, that.
> 
> Please explain how "someone" is being "all powerful" by pointing out that you said that taking away someone Constitutional rights is silly? You said it, why don't you own your words?
> 
> You never did say which rights you have no problem with losing? Can you now?





Irish Pixie said:


> Which Constitutional right are you willing to lose? You are advocating for half the country to lose one... So what will it be- the right to bear arms? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Religion? Which one?





Irish Pixie said:


> Which statements would they be, or am I to guess?





Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. You aren't being nice so I'm not educating you any further.





Irish Pixie said:


> You'd think after the first two or three times I ignored you would take the hint, but no, apparently everyone is supposed to jump to answer your questions. Why do you feel that I'm obligated to answer you at all? Can you explain?
> 
> There has been a half truths and conjecture attributed to Mrs. Sanger. I'm not reading and researching what I'm sure is self serving BS in the link to see if it's true or not. Are you going to harass me to read your link too?





farmrbrown said:


> No ma'am.
> When you asked a question or wanted a link to support a post, I answered it.
> I didn't ignore, deflect, change the answer, or get defensive.
> There's no need to read any links on Sanger, I posted part of her speech in bold letters on post #258.
> I don't see a question as harassment, and if you can't or won't answer a question, you have no obligation to me.
> Your obligation is only to yourself.
> In other words, "To thine own self be true".







There's a limit to the multi quote function, so I'll have to post this in pieces.......:viking:



*No particular comment, other than I was making sure I hadn't imagined what I thought I witnessed...........


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Ok, the originator of Planned Parenthood opinion carries no more weight than any other in a discussion on abortion.
> Got it.
> That still leaves me wondering where the level of relevancy kicks in, fro your point of view.
> Perhaps it is random?
> 
> Yes, the Don Henley lyrics posted (by eleven point I think) were to the song "Dirty Laundry" that came out in the 80's when they were all doing solo gigs.
> They weren't *Glen Frey's* lyrics, who passed last week.
> 
> It's still ok to make a mistake though, and even better when you're big enough to own up to it.


Why do you think repeating everything will make it turn out different?


----------



## farmrbrown

> Why do you think repeating everything will make it turn out different?


I'm not sure how to respond to that.
I wasn't trying to make anything turn out different.:shrug:

I know exactly who the Eagles are and which songs they wrote, that won't change.
I know how I feel about mistakes and that won't change.
And if something as significant as a mistaken name can't be admitted at your age, I doubt any changes will be forthcoming.
:bored:


----------



## Elevenpoint

farmrbrown said:


> Ok, the originator of Planned Parenthood opinion carries no more weight than any other in a discussion on abortion.
> Got it.
> That still leaves me wondering where the level of relevancy kicks in, fro your point of view.
> Perhaps it is random?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Don Henley lyrics posted (by eleven point I think) were to the song "Dirty Laundry" that came out in the 80's when they were all doing solo gigs.
> They weren't *Glen Frey's* lyrics, who passed last week.
> 
> It's still ok to make a mistake though, and even better when you're big enough to own up to it.


Don Henley wrote that song with Danny Kortchman...yes it was Glenn Frey that passed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I'm not sure how to respond to that.
> *I wasn't trying to make anything turn out different.:shrug:*
> 
> I know exactly who the Eagles are and which songs they wrote, that won't change.
> I know how I feel about mistakes and that won't change.
> And if something as significant as a mistaken name can't be admitted at your age, I doubt any changes will be forthcoming.
> :bored:


So you repeat things just for fun?



> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> Ok, the originator of Planned Parenthood opinion carries no more weight than any other in a discussion on abortion.
> Got it.
> That still leaves me wondering where the level of relevancy kicks in, fro your point of view.
> Perhaps it is random?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said that at all.
> I don't think you really read what I post since you seldom seem to know what I said


OK, I'll just wait for the next time... You may not have said that exact same statement but you have over and over implied it. I guess that doesn't count though?


----------



## farmrbrown

elevenpoint said:


> Don Henley wrote that song with Danny Kortchman...yes it was Glenn Frey that passed.



Yep.
During that period, Glen Frey wrote "Smuggler's Blues" and other hits, and Miami Vice was a TV hit show using his music, a natural fit.

I knew what you were thinking when you posted it.
"Dirty Laundry" summed up most of the latter 20th century tabloid press and people's obsession with it.
I get confused with Joe Walsh's stuff as he came and went, in his own haphazard way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OK, I'll just wait for the next time... You may not have said that exact same statement but you have over and over implied it. I guess that doesn't count though?


You should just read what I post, not what you think it means, because they are almost never the same things


----------



## Elevenpoint

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> During that period, Glen Frey wrote "Smuggler's Blues" and other hits, and Miami Vice was a TV hit show using his music, a natural fit.
> 
> I knew what you were thinking when you posted it.
> "Dirty Laundry" summed up most of the latter 20th century tabloid press and people's obsession with it.
> I get confused with Joe Walsh's stuff as he came and went, in his own haphazard way.


Bubble headed bleach blonde comes on at five...


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you repeat things just for fun?


I usually repeat them for clarity, such as in an answer to a question, like, "What DO you consider relevant?".
But no, it rarely if ever is "fun".

I suspect our sense of humor is very different.............


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should just read what I post, not what you think it means, because they are almost never the same things


I have noticed that too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> There's a limit to the multi quote function, so *I'll* have to post this in pieces.......:viking:
> 
> 
> 
> *No particular comment, other than *I* was making sure *I* hadn't imagined what *I* thought *I* witnessed...........


_Another_ self aggrandizing post. Someone is proud of themselves. :clap:


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should just read what I post, not what you think it means, because they are almost never the same things


Oh well... wouldn't it be a much better world if everyone knew what someone meant when they typed their thoughts out on a computer screen? If you truly understood my meaning of what I post and you didn't repost something that changed if from here to Kingdom come and visa versa[as the case may be]?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I usually repeat them *for clarity*, such as in an answer to a question, like, "What DO you consider relevant?".
> But no, it rarely if ever is "fun".
> 
> I suspect our sense of humor is very different.............


It was clear the first time around.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Oh well... wouldn't it be a much better world *if everyone knew what someone meant* when they typed their thoughts out on a computer screen? *If you truly understood* my meaning of what I post and you didn't repost something that changed if from here to Kingdom come and visa versa[as the case may be]?


If you'd just *read the words* you would know.
No hidden meanings at all


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> _Another_ self aggrandizing post. Someone is proud of themselves. :clap:


No, not really.
A little disappointed, but nothing to boast about.



Bearfootfarm said:


> It was clear the first time around.


Yeah, I guess so.
The only relevant posts are those that agree with yours.............


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you'd just *read the words* you would know.
> No hidden meanings at all


So, my understandings of the meaning of the collection of words that you put in your posts is exactly what you intended? And Visa Versa?

You've missed a number of my intents in writing what I thought was explicitly clear. So, is it my problem, is it your problem or is it everyone's problem?

Again, you imply that I am stupid. Is that your intent?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> No, not really.
> A little disappointed, but nothing to boast about.
> 
> Yeah, I guess so.
> The only relevant posts are those that agree with yours.............


I never said that either.
I was very specific and it shouldn't require multiple explanations


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, my understandings of the meaning of the collection of words that you put in your posts is exactly what you intended? And Visa Versa?
> 
> You've missed a number of my intents in writing what I thought was explicitly clear. So, is it my problem, is it your problem or is it everyone's problem?
> 
> *Again, you imply that I am stupid*. Is that your intent?


I'm through explaining only to have you ask the same questions yet again
Figure it out

I think it's just an attempt to derail the thread


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Look around. There is so much proof that it is undeniable, in my opinion.


But I don't have to offer my opinion on the role of my father on my creation. It's provable. In fact, due to some inheritable medical issues I have the test results to prove it. I asked a simple question earlier based on your rather simple declaration. A simple answer, without qualifiers, would be appreciated. Unless life and it's decisions aren't that simple after all.


----------



## mmoetc

Maybe this deserves its own thread but in a effort to short cut one of the first posts in that thread being from our local Nostradamus patting himself on the back for predicting such a new thread I'll post the question here.

For those of you seeking to ban, outlaw or criminalize abortion- Who will you penalize and how? What specific law would you write. What specific methods would you outlaw? What penalties would you impose? How would you enforce such laws?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Excellent question
This should be good


----------



## mmoetc

mmoetc said:


> Maybe this deserves its own thread but in a effort to short cut one of the first posts in that thread being from our local Nostradamus patting himself on the back for predicting such a new thread I'll post the question here.
> 
> For those of you seeking to ban, outlaw or criminalize abortion- Who will you penalize and how? What specific law would you write. What specific methods would you outlaw? What penalties would you impose? How would you enforce such laws?


22 hours and not one of usually vociferous advocates of telling others how they must live have a single idea on how to enforce their will on others? We all know that making something against the law prevents it from happening, right?

Here's some help. How about mandatory monthly gynocological exams for every woman of childbearing age to check for any signs of pregnancy and close monitoring and tracking of any woman who is pregnant including travel bans to prevent her from going to another country where abortions might be allowed. That should solve the problem.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> 22 hours and not one of usually vociferous advocates of telling others how they must live have a single idea on how to enforce their will on others? We all know that making something against the law prevents it from happening, right?
> 
> Here's some help. How about mandatory monthly gynocological exams for every woman of childbearing age to check for any signs of pregnancy and close monitoring and tracking of any woman who is pregnant including travel bans to prevent her from going to another country where abortions might be allowed. That should solve the problem.


There is respect for life. If a person has to be told not to terminate their child's life they are beyond talking to. For all the terminology thrown around about this so called medical procedure...I believe if you were put in a tight cage defenseless....and your limbs slowly removed you may be enlightened just a bit.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> There is respect for life. If a person has to be told not to terminate their child's life they are beyond talking to. For all the terminology thrown around about this so called medical procedure...I believe if you were put in a tight cage defenseless....and your limbs slowly removed you may be enlightened just a bit.


So, you don't have an answer? Just more rhetoric about your righteousness? What should the government do with those who are "beyond talking to." Just one little, simple idea about what you're government is going to do if you get your way and abortion is banned from the moment of conception. Just one.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> So, you don't have an answer? Just more rhetoric about your righteousness? What should the government do with those who are "beyond talking to." Just one little, simple idea about what you're government is going to do if you get your way and abortion is banned from the moment of conception. Just one.


That I respect life is rightousness? Then let it be known. See if your rhetoric changes when one of your limbs is removed.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> That I respect life is rightousness? Then let it be known. See if your rhetoric changes when one of your limbs is removed.


Still can't answer? I can ask (almost) all day. Others will tell you I'm quite persistent. I'm just curious what you and your fellow yapping dogs are going to do when you finally catch that car you've been chasing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> That I respect life is rightousness? Then let it be known. See if your rhetoric changes when one of your limbs is removed.


Your rhetoric isn't answering the question which was asked, so it's meaningless.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> Still can't answer? I can ask (almost) all day. Others will tell you I'm quite persistent. I'm just curious what you and your fellow yapping dogs are going to do when you finally catch that car you've been chasing.


I am crystal clear as to my position that I respect life. Persistent? As to your position you have no respect for life? Shout that from your rooftop.


----------



## MDKatie

elevenpoint said:


> As to your position you have no respect for life?


I'm amazed that some people still cannot grasp the simple concept of being pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. Very simple concept, really. It has nothing to do with personal beliefs about abortion, or respect for life. It has to do with respect for rights and choices.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> I am crystal clear as to my position that I respect life. Persistent? As to your position you have no respect for life? Shout that from your rooftop.


I have a lot of respect for life. Even those lives making choices I personally disagree with. I'm asking a question which should have an answer for any willing to give it a modicum of thought. Identifying a problem isn't a solution to the problem. Legislating against it doesn't make it go away. Misstating others views in lieu of offering ideas solves nothing. You wish abortion to cease. So do I. What's your answer?


----------



## mmoetc

MDKatie said:


> I'm amazed that some people still cannot grasp the simple concept of being pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. Very simple concept, really. It has nothing to do with personal beliefs about abortion, or respect for life. It has to do with respect for rights and choices.


In think that most grasp the concept quite well. But demonizing the other side is easier and less intellectually challenging than acknowledging that the other side are just people with different beliefs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> As to your position you have no respect for life?


No that isn't the question

Here are the questions:



> For those of you seeking to ban, outlaw or criminalize abortion-
> Who will you penalize and how?
> 
> What specific law would you write.
> 
> What specific methods would you outlaw?
> 
> What penalties would you impose?
> 
> How would you enforce such laws?


----------



## mmoetc

24 hours. Not one answer. C'mon people! You're not even trying!


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> 24 hours. Not one answer. C'mon people! You're not even trying!


OK...one more time. Thou shalt not kill. There is no higher law. Period.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> OK...*one more time*. Thou shalt not kill. There is no higher law. Period.


It's already been established you have no answer to the question


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> OK...one more time. Thou shalt not kill. There is no higher law. Period.


Then you must disagree with many of the actions your god took and endorsed in your holiest books. Lots of killing and lots of calls for those who displease him to be killed. 

Maybe the answer is the government should execute anyone found to have done an abortion. Oh yeah, thou shalt not kill, right? So that would lead to quite the moral dilemma.

Still waiting for one, single answer to the questions asked.


----------



## wr

elevenpoint said:


> OK...one more time. Thou shalt not kill. There is no higher law. Period.


I respect the guidelines of your faith as I would expect you to respect mine but those are there to guide us through our individual lives, not as a way to enforce our beliefs on others.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's already been established you have no answer to the question


That is correct...the questions are designed to please men and that I cannot do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> That is correct...the questions are designed to please men and that I cannot do.


The questions are "designed" to get a real, honest answer.
Nothing you've stated so far fits that description.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> That is correct...the questions are designed to please men and that I cannot do.


Actually the questions were asked to foster further dialogue. There are those here who's opinions and ideas I respect even if I don't always agree with them. The questions are real. The answers are important. Some lash out at an overreaching government at every opportunity. I am curious how they, and others, would enforce their bans without having government intrude further into private lives. Your personal feelings about abortion aren't all that important to me. What is important to me is what happens if your feelings become law. I'd rather you, or any other , take the time to rationally and thoughtfully tell me what the world would look like under your rule. We know what it looks like today. What will the laws look like in your future? How will they be administered. Making abortion illegal only begins the journey.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Maybe this deserves its own thread but in a effort to short cut one of the first posts in that thread being from our local Nostradamus patting himself on the back for predicting such a new thread I'll post the question here.
> 
> *For those of you seeking to ban, outlaw or criminalize abortion- Who will you penalize and how? What specific law would you write. What specific methods would you outlaw? What penalties would you impose? How would you enforce such laws?*





mmoetc said:


> 24 hours. Not one answer. C'mon people! You're not even trying!





mmoetc said:


> I have a lot of respect for life. Even those lives making choices I personally disagree with. I'm asking a question which should have an answer for any willing to give it a modicum of thought. Identifying a problem isn't a solution to the problem.
> 
> 
> * Legislating against it doesn't make it go away.*
> 
> 
> 
> Misstating others views in lieu of offering ideas solves nothing. You wish abortion to cease. So do I. What's your answer?




I saw the question(s) when you posted, the first quote above.
Since I am neither a law maker nor enforcer, I have no answer to give you on that.
Your later post in bold is the reason any answer to the first question, would be moot anyway.







mmoetc said:


> So, you don't have an answer? Just more rhetoric about your righteousness? What should the government do with those who are "beyond talking to." Just one little, simple idea about what you're government is going to do if you get your way and abortion is banned from the moment of conception. Just one.



As to the second question, asking for a real solution that DOESN'T involve crime and punishment, I think we all know the answer to that.



mmoetc said:


> I have a lot of respect for life. Even those lives making choices I personally disagree with. I'm asking a question which should have an answer for any willing to give it a modicum of thought. Identifying a problem isn't a solution to the problem.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I saw the question(s) when you posted, the first quote above.
> Since I am neither a law maker nor enforcer, I have no answer to give you on that.
> Your later post in bold is the reason any answer to the first question, would be moot anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the second question, asking for a real solution that DOESN'T involve crime and punishment, I think we all know the answer to that.


Thanks for another non response. I'll continue to voice my frustration that those who wish to impose their philosophical or religous will on others have no real plan on how to do it or to make even one small suggestion how more laws or even a Constitutional amendment will change things one iota other than creating more criminals. How those who proclaim loudest about government abuse and intrusion will solve the "problem" of abortion without intruding deeply into people's lives. You've all identified the problem. Many of you have called for action and even tell the rest of us how you're working to get laws changed and courts appointed that suit your leanings. I'm just asking to what end. What would those laws look like? What would those rulings be? To simply say that any legislation would be "moot" makes me question why there is all the emphasis on it.

Your beliefs about abortion are yours, mine are mine. I'm not interested in another debate about those. I am willing to discuss and debate what you or others want to do about it. Too bad none of you really seem to know. I'll keep asking because maybe it will get one of you to actually think about what it means to win this battle. If recent history has taught us anything, winning the battle is only the first, and often the easiest, step forward


----------



## MattB4

mmoetc said:


> ...
> 
> Your beliefs about abortion are yours, mine are mine. I'm not interested in another debate about those. I am willing to discuss and debate what you or others want to do about it. Too bad none of you really seem to know. I'll keep asking because maybe it will get one of you to actually think about what it means to win this battle. If recent history has taught us anything, winning the battle is only the first, and often the easiest, step forward


Having left this Thread a bit ago I have not notice your odd question. I fail to understand why you think you even have a valid question. All kind of laws exist regardless of the fact that many will not follow them. It is why the law exists. We would need no laws at all if everyone agreed to follow certain societal precepts. 

So do you think laws against underage drinking are a waste of time? How about age of consent laws? Assault? Rape? Robbery? I will point out people evade those laws all the time and have done so since Hector was a pup. 

We have laws right now concerning abortion practices. What we do not have is a firm understanding of when we should enforce them. I already stated my opinion on that earlier and appeals to nebulous, 'everybody does it', form of arguments is a exercise for intellectual midgets. 

Do not think that simply appealing to the Constitution as a goodies document where all that you want is given to you has some form of validity. Many of this present generation seem to feel that way. With their whimpering cries of "You can't judge me". Well yes I can.


----------



## mmoetc

MattB4 said:


> Having left this Thread a bit ago I have not notice your odd question. I fail to understand why you think you even have a valid question. All kind of laws exist regardless of the fact that many will not follow them. It is why the law exists. We would need no laws at all if everyone agreed to follow certain societal precepts.
> 
> So do you think laws against underage drinking are a waste of time? How about age of consent laws? Assault? Rape? Robbery? I will point out people evade those laws all the time and have done so since Hector was a pup.
> 
> We have laws right now concerning abortion practices. What we do not have is a firm understanding of when we should enforce them. I already stated my opinion on that earlier and appeals to nebulous, 'everybody does it', form of arguments is a exercise for intellectual midgets.
> 
> Do not think that simply appealing to the Constitution as a goodies document where all that you want is given to you. Many of this present generation seem to feel that way. With there whimpering cries of "You can't judge me". Well yes I can.


My argument isn't that that because people break laws such laws are worthless. 
My question is what laws am I arguing against. My personal feeling is that 21 is an abitrary age and has no more validity than 18 as a drinking age. But I can point to the laws, penalties and enforcement and make cogent arguments supporting why I feel those laws and punishments are good or bad, effective or not. What I cannot do is discuss in any intelligent manner a ban on abortion without knowing what that really means. Without some idea of what laws, penalties and enforcement such a ban would take I'm arguing against air. I really have no concern about how or whether you judge me. It doesn't affect my life. I do have concerns how you would codify that judgement if given the power and how that would affect me. But I can't discuss it unless you tell me what you'd do. That's all I'm asking. Tell me one law you would pass, the penalties for breaking it and how you would enforce it. I'll make it easier. You've expressed frustration enforcement of current law. Pick one and tell me how you would improve things to your standards.


----------



## MattB4

mmoetc said:


> ... I do have concerns how you would codify that judgement if given the power and how that would affect me. But I can't discuss it unless you tell me what you'd do. That's all I'm asking. Tell me one law you would pass, the penalties for breaking it and how you would enforce it. ...


I would establish that abortion after a fetus has developed to the point of brain activity was illegal. Because it now is a life. No clinic could perform one and if they did than doctors would be going to jail for murder in the 2 degree. Rather simple. 

I would also say that a woman that went to a illegal clinic to have a abortion was guilty of manslaughter and sent to jail. Of course there would be trials of fact like there presently is. 

So what is so hard to understand about the law? 

Women have the right to choose. Do not have unprotected sex, or if they did, make sure they were not pregnant. There would be a small window of time to make up their minds.


----------



## mmoetc

MattB4 said:


> I would establish that abortion after a fetus has developed to the point of brain activity was illegal. Because it now is a life. No clinic could perform one and if they did than doctors would be going to jail for murder in the 2 degree. Rather simple.
> 
> I would also say that a woman that went to a illegal clinic to have a abortion was guilty of manslaughter and sent to jail. Of course there would be trials of fact like there presently is.
> 
> So what is so hard to understand about the law?
> 
> Women have the right to choose. Do not have unprotected sex, or if they did, make sure they were not pregnant. There would be a small window of time to make up their minds.


Thanks for answering. I don't really find a lot objectionable to what you say. We might define the point at which the line is crossed and I might even put some exceptions in for later term abortions but even that I'm willing to debate and modify as knowledge is gained. My question was more directed at those who would ban all abortion and how they would write actual law.


----------



## MattB4

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for answering. I don't really find a lot objectionable to what you say. We might define the point at which the line is crossed and I might even put some exceptions in for later term abortions but even that I'm willing to debate and modify as knowledge is gained. My question was more directed at those who would ban all abortion and how they would write actual law.


No problem. However I am sure the pro-abortion crowd would differ with me to the point of absolute hatred and name calling. I favor logical restrictions on their "Right to choose".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I favor logical restrictions on their "Right to choose".


That describes current laws perfectly


----------



## MattB4

Bearfootfarm said:


> That describes current laws perfectly


Actually it does not.


----------



## mmoetc

MattB4 said:


> No problem. However I am sure the pro-abortion crowd would differ with me to the point of absolute hatred and name calling. I favor logical restrictions on their "Right to choose".


And I'm sure the life begins at conception crowd would lump you in with those pro- abortionists as just another "baby killer". Aren't labels and name calling great? Thanks for injecting them again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MattB4 said:


> Actually it does not.


Certainly it does.
There are many restrictions in place now.
None will seem "reasonable" to those opposed to abortions, but that's OK, since people don't need their approval and don't want their control


----------



## MattB4

mmoetc said:


> And I'm sure the life begins at conception crowd would lump you in with those pro- abortionists as just another "baby killer". Aren't labels and name calling great? Thanks for injecting them again.


I did not inject them. You just did. I merely stated that the pro-abortionists would not accept any views that opposed their position. To the point of hatred and name calling. 

Those that have religious beliefs that are against any form of birth control are equally unlikely to accept a definition for when intelligent life begins that goes against their religious beliefs. However that is not science. It is superstition.


----------



## MattB4

Bearfootfarm said:


> Certainly it does.
> There are many restrictions in place now.
> None will seem "reasonable" to those opposed to abortions, but that's OK, since people don't need their approval and don't want their control


So when during the entire cycle of impregnation to birth does the pro-abortion crowd accept others control? From what I keep hearing it is never.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> For those of you seeking to ban, outlaw or criminalize abortion- Who will you penalize and how? What specific law would you write. What specific methods would you outlaw? What penalties would you impose? How would you enforce such laws?


 I would like to see the providers of abortion treated like current murderers. If they have been found to have performed an illegal abortion (which would include all abortions where the LIFE of the mother wasn't in mortal danger), they should receive lengthy prison time. The "mothers", who seek the illegal abortion, should receive the same treatment. Those who actively support the providers/"mothers" in seeking said abortion, should be treated as current accessories to murder are. 

You would enforce them as you find them, just like with current cases of homicide.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MattB4 said:


> I did not inject them. You just did. I merely stated that the pro-abortionists would not accept any views that opposed their position. *To the point of hatred and name calling.
> *
> Those that have religious beliefs that are against any form of birth control are equally unlikely to accept a definition for when intelligent life begins that goes against their religious beliefs. However that is not science. It is superstition.


Go back through the abortion threads and look at who does the name calling



> So when during the entire cycle of impregnation to birth does the pro-abortion crowd accept others control? From what I keep hearing it is never.


I answered that once already:



> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> That describes current laws perfectly


The current laws are based on science and carry enough restrictions


----------



## MattB4

Bearfootfarm said:


> ...
> 
> 
> The current laws are based on science and carry enough restrictions


In your opinion. I disagree with your opinion. If they were scientifically based they would not be so hit and miss.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MattB4 said:


> In your opinion. I disagree with your opinion. If they were scientifically based they would not be so hit and miss.


Define "hit and miss"

The most states only allow them during the first trimester, and only a few allow them beyond 21 weeks. 

There has never been a viable birth below that age because the lungs aren't formed


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for another non response. I'll continue to voice my frustration that those who wish to impose their philosophical or religous will on others have no real plan on how to do it or to make even one small suggestion how more laws or even a Constitutional amendment will change things one iota other than creating more criminals. How those who proclaim loudest about government abuse and intrusion will solve the "problem" of abortion without intruding deeply into people's lives. You've all identified the problem. Many of you have called for action and even tell the rest of us how you're working to get laws changed and courts appointed that suit your leanings. I'm just asking to what end. What would those laws look like? What would those rulings be? To simply say that any legislation would be "moot" makes me question why there is all the emphasis on it.
> 
> Your beliefs about abortion are yours, mine are mine. I'm not interested in another debate about those. I am willing to discuss and debate what you or others want to do about it. Too bad none of you really seem to know. I'll keep asking because maybe it will get one of you to actually think about what it means to win this battle. If recent history has taught us anything, winning the battle is only the first, and often the easiest, step forward



I wasn't expecting a positive reply, but I wasn't sure how negative it would be if I did.
The questions sounded as if there was a single predicted answer, which had a rebuttal ready to be given.
The fact that you already stated that a ban would not solve any of the problems, at the same time asking for specifics on how the laws would be written and enforced was like inviting someone to their own beating, a verbal one in this case and getting mad because no one RSVPed! 
If we all agree that making it illegal wouldn't solve the problem, why would you want details provided on the law doing it?
By now, you should know that I don't have much faith in man-made laws having the ability to cure mankind's ills.

And I apologize for assuming too much in my second response, that the real solution was already known to all.
This is where I thought you were going, but assuming can lead one to the wrong answer.
What I think is the best thing to do is to pour time, energy and yes, money, into adoptions.
There are those that object to contraception in the mix, but that's a good part of the solution too.
Rather than closing the barn door after the cows get out, my suggestion is don't take on more cows than you can handle and care for the ones you have.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I would like to see the providers of abortion treated like current murderers. If they have been found to have performed an illegal abortion (which would include all abortions where the LIFE of the mother wasn't in mortal danger), they should receive lengthy prison time. The "mothers", who seek the illegal abortion, should receive the same treatment. Those who actively support the providers/"mothers" in seeking said abortion, should be treated as current accessories to murder are.
> 
> You would enforce them as you find them, just like with current cases of homicide.


Thanks for answering. Given what I believe to be your stance that life begins at conception and any action after that would be defined as murder by you I don't see your answer as realistic or possible. I've been wrong before, but I doubt I am in this.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I wasn't expecting a positive reply, but I wasn't sure how negative it would be if I did.
> The questions sounded as if there was a single predicted answer, which had a rebuttal ready to be given.
> The fact that you already stated that a ban would not solve any of the problems, at the same time asking for specifics on how the laws would be written and enforced was like inviting someone to their own beating, a verbal one in this case and getting mad because no one RSVPed!
> If we all agree that making it illegal wouldn't solve the problem, why would you want details provided on the law doing it?
> By now, you should know that I don't have much faith in man-made laws having the ability to cure mankind's ills.
> 
> And I apologize for assuming too much in my second response, that the real solution was already known to all.
> This is where I thought you were going, but assuming can lead one to the wrong answer.
> What I think is the best thing to do is to pour time, energy and yes, money, into adoptions.
> There are those that object to contraception in the mix, but that's a good part of the solution too.
> Rather than closing the barn door after the cows get out, my suggestion is don't take on more cows than you can handle and care for the ones you have.


No worries. I sometimes ask questions because I know the answer but sometimes I ask because I'm actually curious what others think. This would be one of those cases. While it's fun to argue I've found it more productive to try to find areas of agreement. While I'll agree that your goal in increasing adoption is laudable it doesn't really answer the questions I asked. But we can go down your path. How do you meet your goals? How do you incentivize adoption and convince women to carry full term?


----------



## Shine

I'll step in here and suggest that we are in a precarious period here. The actions of the people are not protected by the products in use currently. I would like to think that rather than providing a one a day that there would be something more adaptable for planning to where a young couple or just two people who agree to a romp in the hay might be able to do so with absolute surety that an unintended occurrence will not be the result. I am not advocating "free sex for all" but I do understand that it is going to happen. If it is going to happen then I would like to think that somewhere in all of the available medical knowledge that there is a solution that would meet the need. [and hopefully not in an expensive pill]

Then no one has any issues. [except for abortion providers] And then PP might indeed be a laudable entity doing good. [in my eyes]


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> No worries. I sometimes ask questions because I know the answer but sometimes I ask because I'm actually curious what others think. This would be one of those cases. While it's fun to argue I've found it more productive to try to find areas of agreement. While I'll agree that your goal in increasing adoption is laudable it doesn't really answer the questions I asked. But we can go down your path. How do you meet your goals? How do you incentivize adoption and convince women to carry full term?





Shine said:


> I'll step in here and suggest that we are in a precarious period here. The actions of the people are not protected by the products in use currently. I would like to think that rather than providing a one a day that there would be something more adaptable for planning to where a young couple or just two people who agree to a romp in the hay might be able to do so with absolute surety that an unintended occurrence will not be the result. I am not advocating "free sex for all" but I do understand that it is going to happen. If it is going to happen then I would like to think that somewhere in all of the available medical knowledge that there is a solution that would meet the need. [and hopefully not in an expensive pill]
> 
> Then no one has any issues. [except for abortion providers] And then PP might indeed be a laudable entity doing good. [in my eyes]




Reading both posts together, an answer is beginning to appear to me.
Practical or realistic, I can't say.
When I can post it coherently, , I will.
There's also the chance someone else sees it too and can express it better than I.


----------



## MDKatie

Well here's a scenario when abortion is illegal in El Salvador. 



> In El Salvador, some women face lengthy prison sentences for miscarriages. In her Op Ed, Guevara-Rosas describes the plight of one such victim. âMs. VÃ¡squez became pregnant after being raped,â she writes. âWhen she miscarried and was taken to a hospital in San Salvador, the capital, her doctors accused her of having intentionally terminated her pregnancy. Despite the paucity of evidence against her, she was convicted of aggravated homicide, and imprisoned.â Several women, known as El Salvadorâs Las 17, face similar sentences.


This is from this article, talking about how there's currently a 2 year ban on pregnancies in El Salvador, and the effects it will have since birth control is not readily available and abortions are illegal.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for answering. Given what I believe to be your stance that life begins at conception and any action after that would be defined as murder by you I don't see your answer as realistic or possible. I've been wrong before, but I doubt I am in this.


 
I am under no illusions that making abortion illegal would stop all abortions, no more that I believe making anything illegal stops all of it. What it does is gives us options as to what to do with the ones caught doing it.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I am under no illusions that making abortion illegal would stop all abortions, no more that I believe making anything illegal stops all of it. What it does is gives us options as to what to do with the ones caught doing it.


My comment on it being realistic or possible wasn't about whether it would halt all abortions. It was about the chances of your view becoming reality. I don't see our country ever going that far. We know what you would do with those caught, but how would you investigate and catch them? Surgical abortions are fairly obvious. But what contraceptives that prevent implantation would you outlaw and how would you enforce such a ban? How deep would the investigation into a miscarriage would you endorse? I just think the reality of such a world is quite different from your idea of it, and quite different than many of your stated ideals for what you think this country should be.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> My comment on it being realistic or possible wasn't about whether it would halt all abortions. It was about the chances of your view becoming reality. I don't see our country ever going that far. We know what you would do with those caught, but how would you investigate and catch them? Surgical abortions are fairly obvious. But what contraceptives that prevent implantation would you outlaw and how would you enforce such a ban? How deep would the investigation into a miscarriage would you endorse? I just think the reality of such a world is quite different from your idea of it, and quite different than many of your stated ideals for what you think this country should be.



Yes, I know, I suppose the vast majority of prosecutions would have to be aimed at surgical abortion providers, and smugglers of abortion causing drugs. Make it as difficult as possible to kill the unborn. As for miscarriages, I would say that, unless there is obvious evidence of wrong doing, they should be left alone.

It would be a monumental task, but, it is one that should be done.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> I'll step in here and suggest that we are in a precarious period here. The actions of the people are not protected by the products in use currently. I would like to think that rather than providing a one a day that there would be something more adaptable for planning to where a young couple or just two people who agree to a romp in the hay might be able to do so with absolute surety that an unintended occurrence will not be the result. I am not advocating "free sex for all" but I do understand that it is going to happen. If it is going to happen then I would like to think that somewhere in all of the available medical knowledge that there is a solution that would meet the need. [and hopefully not in an expensive pill]
> 
> Then no one has any issues. [except for abortion providers] And then PP might indeed be a laudable entity doing good. [in my eyes]


The reality is that no contraceptive will ever be 100% effective. The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that there is no absolute certainty. I do know they've gotten more effective and will continue to do so but the way many of the most effective act is still anathema to many people.

Before you condemn PP you might look at the good they do and how they aid the outcome you wish. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/0...cuts.html/RS=^ADA0Pf0hd.6Vw_spi1udl_5h8hCOOo- Many of the numbers dealing with the increase in births due to cuts in funding come directly from the Texas government. These aren't births due to lack of abortion services but due to clinics that counseled and provided access to birth control being shut down and such services being made inaccessible to many of the same women who could benefit most.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Yes, I know, I suppose the vast majority of prosecutions would have to be aimed at surgical abortion providers, and smugglers of abortion causing drugs. Make it as difficult as possible to kill the unborn. As for miscarriages, I would say that, unless there is obvious evidence of wrong doing, they should be left alone.
> 
> It would be a monumental task, but, it is one that should be done.


I'll agree its a monumental task. I doubt well ever agree on the need for it.

It does bring up some disturbing mental images of DEA agents conducting stop and frisks.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I'll agree its a monumental task. I doubt well ever agree on the need for it.
> 
> It does bring up some disturbing mental images of DEA agents conducting stop and frisks.


 
You are likely correct. We have drug stings now to catch smugglers/dealers/etc. I believe those tactics would be better served to, instead of trying to control what adults put in their bodies to hurt/kill themselves, to try and stop those drugs/procedures that are fatal to the innocent unborn.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You are likely correct. We have drug stings now to catch smugglers/dealers/etc. I believe those tactics would be better served to, instead of trying to control what adults put in their bodies to hurt/kill themselves, to try and stop those drugs/procedures that are fatal to the innocent unborn.


Substitute one government intrusion for another? You have your reasons. I'd rather see such intrusions limited, not expanded or just shifted.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Substitute one government intrusion for another? You have your reasons. I'd rather see such intrusions limited, not expanded or just shifted.


 One of the VERY few roles of government is to protect the innocent from harm. Most of the "War on Drugs" does nothing but try and protect people from themselves, which is wrong. Making abortion illegal would be to protect the innocent unborn.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> One of the VERY few roles of government is to protect the innocent from harm. Most of the "War on Drugs" does nothing but try and protect people from themselves, which is wrong. Making abortion illegal would be to protect the innocent unborn.


As I said, you've got your reasons. Everyone who advocates for government intrusion has their reasons. They make perfect sense to that person. Not always to others.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> As I said, you've got your reasons. Everyone who advocates for government intrusion has their reasons. They make perfect sense to that person. Not always to others.


 It is no more an intrusion than the current laws prohibiting murder, theft, fraud, etc.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> It is no more an intrusion than the current laws prohibiting murder, theft, fraud, etc.


Same old same old

Slavery is next, and nothing will change


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Same old same old
> 
> Slavery is next, and nothing will change


 I am asked questions and give answers to questions, if those answers are not consistent, you would be calling me out on that, so, why bother with the same old, same old insults time and time again? I mean, since it seems to bother you so.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Shine said:


> I'll step in here and suggest that we are in a precarious period here. The actions of the people are not protected by the products in use currently. I would like to think that rather than providing a one a day that there would be something more adaptable for planning to where a young couple or just two people who agree to a romp in the hay might be able to do so with absolute surety that an unintended occurrence will not be the result. I am not advocating "free sex for all" but I do understand that it is going to happen. If it is going to happen then I would like to think that somewhere in all of the available medical knowledge that there is a solution that would meet the need. [and hopefully not in an expensive pill]
> 
> Then no one has any issues. [except for abortion providers] And then PP might indeed be a laudable entity doing good. [in my eyes]



Well, until such a time as your suggested solution comes to fruition, abortion needs to stay legal, safe and available.

At its very heart, the entire abortion debate can be boiled down to one very simple concept. You can dress it all up with religion, morality or some idea that you're "protecting the innocent unborn" but it all comes down to this. You either believe women are intelligent and capable enough to make their own decisions including decisions regarding their reproduction or you don't. People who agree that women are indeed capable of their own decision making support their right to do so even when they personally might make a different choice or even if they disagree with the choice the woman makes. People who don't believe women are capable of making their own decisions are perfectly ok with forcing them to be slaves to the contents of their uteruses. 

I can hear the sputtering of the anti-choice contingent right now. "I think that women can make their own decisions, just not this one." You can't have it both ways. You either support a woman's right to make all her decisions or you don't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I am asked questions and give answers to questions, if those answers are not consistent, you would be calling me out on that, so, why bother with the same old, same old insults time and time again? I mean, since it seems to bother you so.


It's not an insult to point out the reality that no matter what the topic, many of your posts end up blaming everything on the Govt, and on nearly every abortion thread you want to compare it to illegal acts and slavery.

It's simply a fact

In the end it still comes back to wanting to control how others live their private lives

The post above this one sums it up quite well


----------



## Irish Pixie

SLFarmMI said:


> Well, until such a time as your suggested solution comes to fruition, abortion needs to stay legal, safe and available.
> 
> At its very heart, the entire abortion debate can be boiled down to one very simple concept. You can dress it all up with religion, morality or some idea that you're "protecting the innocent unborn" but it all comes down to this. You either believe women are intelligent and capable enough to make their own decisions including decisions regarding their reproduction or you don't. People who agree that women are indeed capable of their own decision making support their right to do so even when they personally might make a different choice or even if they disagree with the choice the woman makes. People who don't believe women are capable of making their own decisions are perfectly ok with forcing them to be slaves to the contents of their uteruses.
> 
> I can hear the sputtering of the anti-choice contingent right now. "I think that women can make their own decisions, just not this one." You can't have it both ways. You either support a woman's right to make all her decisions or you don't.


Thank you. As always, you've made every pro choice person's point in an excellent and well thought out way.


----------



## Farmerga

SLFarmMI said:


> Well, until such a time as your suggested solution comes to fruition, abortion needs to stay legal, safe and available.
> 
> At its very heart, the entire abortion debate can be boiled down to one very simple concept. You can dress it all up with religion, morality or some idea that you're "protecting the innocent unborn" but it all comes down to this. You either believe women are intelligent and capable enough to make their own decisions including decisions regarding their reproduction or you don't. People who agree that women are indeed capable of their own decision making support their right to do so even when they personally might make a different choice or even if they disagree with the choice the woman makes. People who don't believe women are capable of making their own decisions are perfectly ok with forcing them to be slaves to the contents of their uteruses.
> 
> I can hear the sputtering of the anti-choice contingent right now. "I think that women can make their own decisions, just not this one." You can't have it both ways. You either support a woman's right to make all her decisions or you don't.


 
You can fill in the blank with any crime and say EXACTLY the same thing. Either you are ok with people deciding if they should take your car, or, you are not. Either you are ok with people using fraud to enrich themselves, or, you are not. Etc. Etc.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not an insult to point out the reality that no matter what the topic, many of your posts end up blaming everything on the Govt, and on nearly every abortion thread you want to compare it to illegal acts and slavery.
> 
> It's simply a fact
> 
> In the end it still comes back to wanting to control how others live their private lives
> 
> The post above this one sums it up quite well


 I am for laws against the shooting of innocent people in the street as well. Does that mean that I am wanting to control the private lives of the would be shooters? 


The parallels between abortion and slavery cannot be denied. Some of the same arguments are/were used to defend both. (Not your business, who is going to take care of the results of making it illegal, etc.) It was once legal and is no longer. Again, if that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps it is your conscience pulling at you?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You can fill in the blank with any crime and say EXACTLY the same thing. Either you are ok with people deciding if they should take your car, or, you are not. Either you are ok with people using fraud to enrich themselves, or, you are not. Etc. Etc.


But most can easily agree what a car is. There's little dispute what tangible property is. When you can get agreement on when human life begins your analogy works. Until then it's your philosophy against others and theirs are just as valid a reason for abortion laws as yours. No one forces you to live by their philosophy. You would force many to live by yours. I though you didn't like coercive government force.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But most can easily agree what a car is. There's little dispute what tangible property is. When you can get agreement on when human life begins your analogy works. Until then it's your philosophy against others and theirs are just as valid a reason for abortion laws as yours. No one forces you to live by their philosophy. You would force many to live by yours. I though you didn't like coercive government force.


I have a feeling that a lot of the debate as to when human life begins, is wishful thinking from the pro-abortion forces. It is obvious that an embryo is a living thing capable of development into a fully functional human being. Just like a human infant is a living thing capable of developing into a fully functional adult. All are human, all are alive, the only difference is level of development. 

Again one of the very few valid roles of government is to protect people from harm. I am simply advocating for the last hold out, in the fight for human rights, to be recognized as the humans they are.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I have a feeling that a lot of the debate as to when human life begins, is wishful thinking from the pro-abortion forces. It is obvious that an embryo is a living thing capable of development into a fully functional human being. Just like a human infant is a living thing capable of developing into a fully functional adult. All are human, all are alive, the only difference is level of development.
> 
> Again one of the very few valid roles of government is to protect people from harm. I am simply advocating for the last hold out, in the fight for human rights, to be recognized as the humans they are.


I think that with many pro unborn it's simply wishful thinking that their opinion is even considered.


----------



## my3boys

SLFarmMI said:


> Well, until such a time as your suggested solution comes to fruition, abortion needs to stay legal, safe and available.
> 
> At its very heart, the entire abortion debate can be boiled down to one very simple concept. You can dress it all up with religion, morality or some idea that you're "protecting the innocent unborn" but it all comes down to this. You either believe women are intelligent and capable enough to make their own decisions including decisions regarding their reproduction or you don't. People who agree that women are indeed capable of their own decision making support their right to do so even when they personally might make a different choice or even if they disagree with the choice the woman makes. People who don't believe women are capable of making their own decisions are perfectly ok with forcing them to be slaves to the contents of their uteruses.
> 
> I can hear the sputtering of the anti-choice contingent right now. "I think that women can make their own decisions, just not this one." You can't have it both ways. You either support a woman's right to make all her decisions or you don't.


Seriously? Women never make bad, immoral or selfish decisions?

Why have laws at all? I mean, if you can trust people to always make the right decisions, every single time, why bother having laws? Are you suggesting that laws only need to be made for men? That's not sexist of anything. Why are there are so many women in prison? Some of the most brutal rulers in history have been women. Bloody Mary anyone? Anyone who has gone to school knows that girls can be some of the meanest, cruelest people on the planet.

Slaves to the contents of their uterus? Really? Those "contents" are a living human being. She doesn't want to be told what to do with her body, but she has no problem telling the baby, who is a separate individual, what to do with his or her body. Hypocritical much? 

Abortion = Infanticide. A selfish act of murder performed for the sake of convenience and to enable the avoidance of personal responsibility. 
Why don't you just admit it?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I think that with many pro unborn it's simply wishful thinking that their opinion is even considered.


 By the anti-unborn forces? I wouldn't expect it to be.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I have a feeling that a lot of the debate as to when human life begins, is wishful thinking from the pro-abortion forces. It is obvious that an embryo is a living thing capable of development into a fully functional human being. Just like a human infant is a living thing capable of developing into a fully functional adult. All are human, all are alive, the only difference is level of development.
> 
> Again one of the very few valid roles of government is to protect people from harm. I am simply advocating for the last hold out, in the fight for human rights, to be recognized as the humans they are.


It's not quite that obvious. Only about 35-40% of those fertilized eggs you call human life will successfully implant. The others have no capabilities to grow into anything. Some other percentage will abort spontaneously without further human intervention. Some other percentage will have such severe defects that they will never develop into fully functioning adults. Some, even after becoming adults, will never function fully. You can ascribe what ever motives you wish to others. You can even derail this further by the obvious attack that my words here somehow translate into my endorsing infanticide or eugenics. You'd be equally wrong there. 

My feelings as to when human life begins and when rights are bestowed differ from mine. I have no desire to force my beliefs on you and require you to do anything you don't wish as regards this issue. All I ask is that you offer the same respect to my beliefs.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> It's not quite that obvious. Only about 35-40% of those fertilized eggs you call human life will successfully implant. The others have no capabilities to grow into anything. Some other percentage will abort spontaneously without further human intervention. Some other percentage will have such severe defects that they will never develop into fully functioning adults. Some, even after becoming adults, will never function fully. You can ascribe what ever motives you wish to others. You can even derail this further by the obvious attack that my words here somehow translate into my endorsing infanticide or eugenics. You'd be equally wrong there.
> 
> My feelings as to when human life begins and when rights are bestowed differ from mine. I have no desire to force my beliefs on you and require you to do anything you don't wish as regards this issue. All I ask is that you offer the same respect to my beliefs.


 A person can die at any time, for any reason. What difference does that make to acknowledging their humanity?

If your beliefs, about human life, led you to advocate for slavery, murder, or other horrid acts upon people, would I be out of line to reject such beliefs and fight against them?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> A person can die at any time, for any reason. What difference does that make to acknowledging their humanity?
> 
> If your beliefs, about human life, led you to advocate for slavery, murder, or other horrid acts upon people, would I be out of line to reject such beliefs and fight against them?


Read my words. You claim that the minute egg and sperm unite all resulting outcomes are capable of becoming fully functional adult humans. I simply pointed out that all such unions don't share that capability for a variety of reasons. The ones that do only do so through a variety of things subsequently happening. And some never had any such capability.

And when you can prove, not just share your belief, that any conjoined egg and sperm are a person you will have my agreement. And to be clear, I've never said you are out of line to fight for your beliefs. If someone were trying to impose theirs on you I'd fight beside you. But since it's you wishing to impose yours on others, I'll fight against you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

my3boys said:


> Seriously? Women never make bad, immoral or selfish decisions?
> 
> Why have laws at all? I mean, if you can trust people to always make the right decisions, every single time, why bother having laws? Are you suggesting that laws only need to be made for men? That's not sexist of anything. Why are there are so many women in prison? Some of the most brutal rulers in history have been women. Bloody Mary anyone? Anyone who has gone to school knows that girls can be some of the meanest, cruelest people on the planet.
> 
> Slaves to the contents of their uterus? Really? Those "contents" are a living human being. She doesn't want to be told what to do with her body, but she has no problem telling the baby, who is a separate individual, what to do with his or her body. Hypocritical much?
> 
> Abortion = Infanticide. A selfish act of murder performed for the sake of convenience and to enable the avoidance of personal responsibility.
> Why don't you just admit it?


It's your opinion that abortion equals infanticide? If you believe it's fact, please link a definition of murder that includes abortion. Thank you.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Read my words. You claim that the minute egg and sperm unite all resulting outcomes are capable of becoming fully functional adult humans. I simply pointed out that all such unions don't share that capability for a variety of reasons. The ones that do only do so through a variety of things subsequently happening. And some never had any such capability.
> 
> And when you can prove, not just share your belief, that any conjoined egg and sperm are a person you will have my agreement. And to be clear, I've never said you are out of line to fight for your beliefs. If someone were trying to impose theirs on you I'd fight beside you. But since it's you wishing to impose yours on others, I'll fight against you.


 I didn't say that "all resulting outcomes are capable of becoming a fully functional adult". I said that they are capable. A fertilized egg is, generally, capable of growing into a functional adult, eventually, just as an infant is capable. That doesn't mean that it is the only end result.

What would constitute "proof" in your eyes? We know that the embryo is simply a less developed human, with its own, unique DNA. It metabolizes food/Oxygen. It grows and develops, just like it does anywhere else along the continuum from fertilization to death. I don't look for a "magical" moment when the person goes from simply a clump of cells, to a person. I look at when the unique genetic pattern is created, that would be at conception.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I didn't say that "all resulting outcomes are capable of becoming a fully functional adult". I said that they are capable. A fertilized egg is, generally, capable of growing into a functional adult, eventually, just as an infant is capable. That doesn't mean that it is the only end result.
> 
> What would constitute "proof" in your eyes? We know that the embryo is simply a less developed human, with its own, unique DNA. It metabolizes food/Oxygen. It grows and develops, just like it does anywhere else along the continuum from fertilization to death. I don't look for a "magical" moment when the person goes from simply a clump of cells, to a person. I look at when the unique genetic pattern is created, that would be at conception.


But they don't all share that capability. You can modify your statement however you wish but a certain percentage of those fertilized eggs never have the capability of growing to full, functioning adulthood.

The easiest answer is I'll know it when I see it. You know it to your satisfaction. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm not trying to force you into an action you don't want.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> *But they don't all share that capability*. You can modify your statement however you wish but a certain percentage of those fertilized eggs never have the capability of growing to full, functioning adulthood.
> 
> The easiest answer is I'll know it when I see it. You know it to your satisfaction. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm not trying to force you into an action you don't want.


 The same can be said of any point along that continuum. Not all 6 month fetuses will make it to birth. Not all 9 month fetuses will be born alive. Not all infants will make it to be toddlers, not all toddlers will make it to children, not all children will make it to adolescence, not all adolescence will make it to adulthood. That should not and cannot be an excuse for killing them, no matter where they exist along that life continuum. But, the POTENTIAL exists and is should not be up to us to squash that potential. 

So, YOU know it when YOU see it. If that is valid, why not those who don't see humanity until the child is a toddler? There are those who believe that way. What about those who see a lack of humanity based on the amount of melanin that a person has, or, within which country they were born?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So, YOU know it when YOU see it. If that is valid, why not those who don't see humanity until the child is a toddler? There are those who believe that way. What about those who see a lack of humanity based on the amount of melanin that a person has, or, within which country they were born?


What about we don't play "what about" or "what if" or "why not", and just stick to the simple fact that if someone wants a legal abortion, you have no right to interfere.

It's their choice alone


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> What about we don't play "what about" or "what if" or "why not", and just stick to the simple fact that if someone wants a legal abortion, you have no right to interfere.
> 
> It's their choice alone


 
And if I want to advocate for changes to the law. Advocate for protections for the unborn. Shout it from the roof tops that abortion is immoral. Give money to those who share my views to affect change. Repeat myself to the ends of the Earth, if I so choose, you have no right to interfere, correct? What about that???


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> And if I want to advocate for changes to the law. Advocate for protections for the unborn. Shout it from the roof tops that abortion is immoral. Give money to those who share my views to affect change. Repeat myself to the ends of the Earth, if I so choose, you have no right to interfere, correct? What about that???


You can certainly advocate for changes to any law but if you wish to engage in an online discussion, you can expect that someone may interfere with your message by way of their own opinions.


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> You can certainly advocate for changes to any law but if you wish to engage in an online discussion, you can expect that someone may interfere with your message by way of their own opinions.


 
That is not interference. Interference would be to try and stop me from being able to voice my opinion. They are free to voice their opinions as they will. If it is their opinion that it is a-ok to kill the unborn, I will let history be their judge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> That is not interference. * Interference would be to try and stop me from being able to *voice my opinion. They are free to voice their opinions as they will. If it is their opinion that it is a-ok to kill the unborn, I will let history be their judge.


Stopping abortions would be "interference" by your own definition


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Stopping abortions would be "interference" by your own definition


Are people allowed to work towards changing the general consensus or is that "interfering"? By seeking to outlaw something that another feels strongly about being legal are they "denying anothers rights"?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And if I want to advocate for changes to the law. Advocate for protections for the unborn. Shout it from the roof tops that abortion is immoral. Give money to those who share my views to affect change. Repeat myself to the ends of the Earth, if I so choose, you have no right to interfere, correct? What about that???


Go right ahead, advocate to your heart's content. What you don't have the right to do is interfere with the right a woman has to terminate _her_ pregnancy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Are people allowed to work towards changing the general consensus or is that "interfering"? By seeking to outlaw something that another feels strongly about being legal are they "denying anothers rights"?


Many seem to *want to* deny other's rights

No one is stopping anyone from doing anything though, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. 

I suspect once again you're talking about what you *think* I said instead of just accepting what I *really* said

It *could be* considered "interfering" if most of your efforts at "change" are comprised of telling people they are heathens and murderers and will burn in Hell if they don't do things your way.


----------



## SLFarmMI

my3boys said:


> Seriously? Women never make bad, immoral or selfish decisions?
> 
> Sure they do. And so do men. And so do Christians. And so do non-Christians. And so do vegetarians. And so do carnivores. So what? Are you suggesting that, because women may make decisions that you may find to be bad, immoral or selfish, that they should lose the right to make those decisions?
> 
> Many people believe it is bad, immoral and selfish to eat meat. So, using your reasoning, people should lose the right to eat meat. Many people believe it is bad, immoral and selfish to have more than 2 children. So using your reasoning, people should lose the right to decide to have more than 2 children. Many people believe it is bad, immoral and selfish to get a divorce. So, using your reasoning, people should lose the right to make their own marital choices.
> 
> I have found that most people who want something to be banned because they find it bad, immoral or selfish suddenly change their tune when someone else wants to ban their behavior. So I'll ask you -- what would you like to lose the right to decide for yourself because I may find your choices bad, immoral or selfish?
> 
> Why have laws at all? I mean, if you can trust people to always make the right decisions, every single time, why bother having laws? Are you suggesting that laws only need to be made for men? That's not sexist of anything. Why are there are so many women in prison? Some of the most brutal rulers in history have been women. Bloody Mary anyone? Anyone who has gone to school knows that girls can be some of the meanest, cruelest people on the planet.
> 
> Wow, that is a colossal leap of logic. Don't know where in the world you came up with that. Nowhere did I state or imply that laws should only apply to men. You seem to be advocating that the only sector of society that should be allowed full decision making rights should be men since you apparently don't believe women can be trusted to make their own decisions because they might make one that you find to be bad, immoral or selfish.
> 
> Slaves to the contents of their uterus? Really? Those "contents" are a living human being. She doesn't want to be told what to do with her body, but she has no problem telling the baby, who is a separate individual, what to do with his or her body. Hypocritical much?
> 
> When you seek to force a woman to use her body in a manner that she does not wish with no right to determine that use and to strip away her say in the matter, then yes, slave to the contents is an apt term. And it doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, a baby or a 2 headed aardvark, the uterus belongs to the woman and she is the one who should determine its use.
> 
> Abortion = Infanticide. A selfish act of murder performed for the sake of convenience and to enable the avoidance of personal responsibility.
> Why don't you just admit it?
> 
> Ah, yes, the old argument that abortion is only for the sake of convenience and avoidance of personal responsibility. Why don't you admit that the reasons a woman may seek an abortion are many and varied and they aren't any of your business?



The plain fact of the matter is that you are absolutely unqualified to make reproductive decisions for me just as I am absolutely unqualified to make reproductive decisions for you. Just because you might not like the decisions I make does not make you qualified to make them for me and vice versa.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Are people allowed to work towards changing the general consensus or is that "interfering"? By seeking to outlaw something that another feels strongly about being legal are they "denying anothers rights"?


How are you working to change the general consensus? 

I could be wrong but it seems to me that if you want to affect change, you first have to hear the other side being presented, discuss the subject without insulting your target audience with inflammatory words intended to stir your emotions and offer a better solution than, 'no' and condescending tones about women's morals.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Stopping abortions would be "interference" by your own definition


 Yes it would. And I would interfere and try and stop the wholesale homicide of the unborn. I am for human rights that include ALL humans.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Go right ahead, advocate to your heart's content. What you don't have the right to do is interfere with the right a woman has to terminate _her_ pregnancy.


 I have the right to try and affect change that would remove the legal option to kill the unborn.


----------



## Farmerga

SLFarmMI said:


> The plain fact of the matter is that you are absolutely unqualified to make reproductive decisions for me just as I am absolutely unqualified to make reproductive decisions for you. Just because you might not like the decisions I make does not make you qualified to make them for me and vice versa.


 
Most of the time, the reproductive decision occurs prior to the new life being created. Few want to interfere with those decisions, we simply wish to protect the unique human life that has been created. The unborn should not be subject to "reproductive decisions" They are, usually, the results of "reproductive decisions".


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I have the right to try and affect change that would remove the legal option to kill the unborn.


Isn't that what I said? Advocate change until you're blue in the face, but if you try to prevent a woman from having an abortion you're violating her rights.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Isn't that what I said? Advocate change until you're blue in the face, but if you try to prevent a woman from having an abortion you're violating her rights.


 
I don't see the killing of the unborn as a right, but, rather a legal privilege given by misguided judges.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I don't see the killing of the unborn as a right, but, rather a legal privilege given by misguided judges.


In the real world it *is* a right for a woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy...


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> In the real world it *is* a right for a woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy...


 In the real world the word "right" has been bantered about, wrongly, for years. The privilege to kill the unborn came from government. It ignored/violated the human right to life that is inherent in the unborn. That was a mistake, one that I am diligently working to rectify.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I don't see the killing of the unborn as a right, but, rather a legal privilege given by misguided judges.


And I don't see every conjoined egg and sperm as a human being guaranteed rights. I don't see a government role in deciding for a woman that she cannot make her body an inhospitable environment for those conjoined cells to implant. You can make whatever choice you wish. Others should have that same right.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And I don't see every conjoined egg and sperm as a human being guaranteed rights. I don't see a government role in deciding for a woman that she cannot make her body an inhospitable environment for those conjoined cells to implant. You can make whatever choice you wish. Others should have that same right.


 You can use whatever gentle euphemism you wish, to describe the unborn, but, logically, it cannot be denied EXACTLY what is being destroyed by abortion. An innocent, albeit underdeveloped, HUMAN child.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> In the real world the word "right" has been bantered about, wrongly, for years. The privilege to kill the unborn came from government. It ignored/violated the human right to life that is inherent in the unborn. That was a mistake, one that I am diligently working to rectify.


The unborn have no rights. The woman has rights tho, and she has a choice. It doesn't matter in the slightest if you like it or not. 

How is that working out for you? In order to overturn Roe v. Wade SCOTUS would have to violate the rights of half of the citizens of the US. What do you think are the chances of that happening?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> *The unborn have no rights*. The woman has rights tho, and she has a choice. It doesn't matter in the slightest if you like it or not.
> 
> 
> How is that working out for you? In order to overturn Roe v. Wade SCOTUS would have to violate the rights of half of the citizens of the US. What do you think are the chances of that happening?


The unborn have rights, it is just that, in this twisted culture, those rights are ignored/violated with impunity.

Being that a majority of anti-abortionists are female, and see the fight against abortion as expanding human rights, perhaps not as difficult as you believe. 

Again, overturning Roe, V. Wade is not the ultimate goal. It would be nice, but, all it would do is to kick the issue back to the states, who could then outlaw, or, not outlaw abortion within their borders. The ultimate goal must be a constitutional amendment enumerating the rights of the unborn. That is a heavy load to carry, but, so important as to be well worth the effort.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You can use whatever gentle euphemism you wish, to describe the unborn, but, logically, it cannot be denied EXACTLY what is being destroyed by abortion. An innocent, albeit underdeveloped, HUMAN child.[/Q
> 
> And you can use whatever flawed logic you wish to equate two conjoined cells to a human child. We've gone down that path before and I have no desire to revisit it and once again waste my time trying to show you the flaws in your arguments. I don't really care what your beliefs are. I'm not trying to change them or keep you from acting on them.
> 
> I'll step away from this pointless discussion and suggest that rather than continuing to waste your time here trying to convince others, who by now you should realize will never be, to believe as you that you spend your time and effort and money to fund research to ensure that every conjoined egg and sperm be immediately identified and provided with an environment to grow and prosper as you wish. Nature is a far more efficient killer of the "unborn" than man has ever been. Provide that solution and provide for the resultant people and you will make all other arguments and philosophies moot. Probably a pipedream but in reality no more of one than yours.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can use whatever gentle euphemism you wish, to describe the unborn, but, logically, it cannot be denied EXACTLY what is being destroyed by abortion. An innocent, albeit underdeveloped, HUMAN child.[/Q
> 
> And you can use whatever flawed logic you wish to equate two conjoined cells to a human child. We've gone down that path before and I have no desire to revisit it and once again waste my time trying to show you the flaws in your arguments. I don't really care what your beliefs are. I'm not trying to change them or keep you from acting on them.
> 
> I'll step away from this pointless discussion and suggest that rather than continuing to waste your time here trying to convince others, who by now you should realize will never be, to believe as you that you spend your time and effort and money to fund research to ensure that every conjoined egg and sperm be immediately identified and provided with an environment to grow and prosper as you wish. Nature is a far more efficient killer of the "unborn" than man has ever been. Provide that solution and provide for the resultant people and you will make all other arguments and philosophies moot. Probably a pipedream but in reality no more of one than yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the flawed logic. Nature kills everything, no amount of money will change that fact. We cannot bring nature to trial, we cannot control nature with mans laws. We can attempt to keep humans from harming other humans and have some success at it. That is where I choose to place my energy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> The unborn have rights, it is just that, in this twisted culture, those rights are ignored/violated with impunity.
> 
> Being that a majority of anti-abortionists are female, and see the fight against abortion as expanding human rights, perhaps not as difficult as you believe.
> 
> Again, overturning Roe, V. Wade is not the ultimate goal. It would be nice, but, all it would do is to kick the issue back to the states, who could then outlaw, or, not outlaw abortion within their borders. The ultimate goal must be a constitutional amendment enumerating the rights of the unborn. That is a heavy load to carry, but, so important as to be well worth the effort.


Ultimately, only woman are effected if the right to chose is overturned, yes? 

Nope, the unborn have no rights. You may think they do, but that doesn't make it true.

This is pointless. For the last 43 years women have had the right to chose what to do with their bodies. In my opinion, that isn't going to change. 

You do what you feel is right for you. I won't hold my breath tho, K?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Ultimately, only woman are effected if the right to chose is overturned, yes?
> 
> Nope, the unborn have no rights. You may think they do, but that doesn't make it true.
> 
> This is pointless. For the last 43 years women have had the right to chose what to do with their bodies. In my opinion, that isn't going to change.
> 
> You do what you feel is right for you. I won't hold my breath tho, K?


Women and untold millions of unborn babies. 

The rights of the unborn are not currently protected by government, but, they still have them. The same could have been said about many groups, throughout our history. The unborn are simply among the last group that are in need of protection of their rights. 

43, 430, 4300, it makes no difference. The violation of the rights of the unborn is immoral and we should and will do all in our power to ensure that this shameful practice is halted.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Women and untold millions of unborn babies.
> 
> The rights of the unborn are not currently protected by government, but, they still have them. The same could have been said about many groups, throughout our history. The unborn are simply among the last group that are in need of protection of their rights.
> 
> 43, 430, 4300, it makes no difference. The violation of the rights of the unborn is immoral and we should and will do all in our power to ensure that this shameful practice is halted.


Exactly what is immoral? Is your morality something that should be forced on everyone? Why? What makes you so special? Can you explain? 

The reason that we have law is due to morality being subjective...


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly what is immoral? Is your morality something that should be forced on everyone? Why? What makes you so special? Can you explain?
> 
> The reason that we have law is due to morality being subjective...


 The wholesale slaughter of millions of humans is, by most people's attitude, immoral. To stomach the genocide, we come up with gentle euphemisms such as "choice" "clump of cells", "control of my body" "they are not really human" , etc. We dance around the realization that we are speaking of the killing of living breathing, unborn HUMANS. 

Some say that a high percentage of these unborn will die anyway, well, everyone dies, that doesn't excuse homicide, even in our twisted culture. 

Most agree that the intentional killing of an innocent human is wrong. So, the morality is there. What is being ignored is the humanity of the unborn. Most seem to think that the humanity is achieved at some magical point, somewhere along the continuum between conception and birth. In reality, there can be no denial of the fact that humanity is the result of their creation at conception. They are a unique, living, human life, from the beginning.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> The wholesale slaughter of millions of humans is, by most people's attitude, immoral. To stomach the genocide, we come up with gentle euphemisms such as "choice" "clump of cells", "control of my body" "they are not really human" , etc. We dance around the realization that we are speaking of the killing of living breathing, unborn HUMANS.
> 
> Some say that a high percentage of these unborn will die anyway, well, everyone dies, that doesn't excuse homicide, even in our twisted culture.
> 
> Most agree that the intentional killing of an innocent human is wrong. So, the morality is there. What is being ignored is the humanity of the unborn. Most seem to think that the humanity is achieved at some magical point, somewhere along the continuum between conception and birth. In reality, there can be no denial of the fact that humanity is the result of their creation at conception. They are a unique, living, human life, from the beginning.


So your opinion is what should be moral for everyone? Your morality is the standard on which everyone should be judged?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> So your opinion is what should be moral for everyone? Your morality is the standard on which everyone should be judged?


Not even close to what I said, but, you know that. 

The moral attitude against the killing of innocent humans, is almost universal. What the pro-abortionists do is to deny the humanity of the unborn. That is not a moral question, it is a question of science. By scientific definitions, the unborn are alive, genetically unique, and human. The pro-abortionist denies science to further their agenda and justify the killing.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> The wholesale slaughter of millions of humans is, by most people's attitude, immoral. To stomach the genocide, we come up with gentle euphemisms such as "choice" "clump of cells", "control of my body" "they are not really human" , etc. We dance around the realization that we are speaking of the killing of living breathing, unborn HUMANS.
> 
> Some say that a high percentage of these unborn will die anyway, well, everyone dies, that doesn't excuse homicide, even in our twisted culture.
> 
> Most agree that the intentional killing of an innocent human is wrong. So, the morality is there. What is being ignored is the humanity of the unborn. Most seem to think that the humanity is achieved at some magical point, somewhere along the continuum between conception and birth. In reality, there can be no denial of the fact that humanity is the result of their creation at conception. They are a unique, living, human life, from the beginning.


Nope, not "living, breathing". They don't breathe till born, like Adam wasn't alive till the first breath of life entered his nostrils.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Nope, not "living, breathing". They don't breathe till born, like Adam wasn't alive till the first breath of life entered his nostrils.


Find a way to cut off the oxygen supply to a fetus and see the results. One dead fetus. That suggests breathing, does it not?

BTW, we are speaking scientifically, not religiously.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly what is immoral?


Killing something that is not going to harm you or something that you are not going to eat or use...


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Find a way to cut off the oxygen supply to a fetus and see the results. One dead fetus. That suggests breathing, does it not?
> 
> BTW, we are speaking scientifically, not religiously.


Breathing is the mechanical action of filling the lungs with air.
So if you want to speak scientifically, better brush up.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> Killing something that is not going to harm you or something that you are not going to eat or use...


So cannibalism is moral?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Killing something that is not going to harm you or something that you are not going to eat or use...


Harm comes in many forms.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Breathing is the mechanical action of filling the lungs with air.
> So if you want to speak scientifically, better brush up.


They take in Oxygen and expel Carbon dioxide. Just like you and me. They ingest food/water and expel waste, just like you and me. The are alive, just like you and me. They have a unique, human genetic makeup, just like you and me. By those standards they are human and are entitled to protection of their right to live, just like you and me.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> So cannibalism is moral?


 Killing and cannibalism are two different things. There are cases, in primitive tribes, where the flesh of the dead is eaten by the family members as a show of respect.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> So cannibalism is moral?


wow. 

Why is it so hard to simply understand something without picking at it? 

You know much better than this but here it is for all to see.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Harm comes in many forms.


Yes, harm comes in many forms, for most, someone is allowed to take action to alleviate the harm being done. For the most part, I accept proactive, justifiable and reasonable acts to stop that harm. 

Now, I am speaking of harm and not nuisance. I am also speaking in a general sense without going into much detail so I am sure that those that have issues with me or my stances will have a heyday.


----------



## Farmerga

Shine said:


> wow.
> 
> Why is it so hard to simply understand something without picking at it?
> 
> You know much better than this but here it is for all to see.


 
That is how they operate. They will take a word or phrase and, with laser like focus, pick that word/phrase apart while ignoring the larger statement. It is a defense mechanism. Truth be known that, as we learn more about life in general and human life, in particular, their arguments, in favor of abortion, are becoming weaker and weaker. They are forced to ignore that which is so obvious.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Originally Posted by Farmerga:


> The wholesale slaughter of millions of humans is, by most people's attitude, immoral





> BTW, we are speaking scientifically, not religiously.


So what part of morality is "scientific:?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> That is how they operate. They will take a word or phrase and, with laser like focus, pick that word/phrase apart while ignoring the larger statement. It is a defense mechanism. Truth be known that, as we learn more about life in general and human life, in particular, their arguments, in favor of abortion, are becoming weaker and weaker. They are forced to ignore that which is so obvious.


What is "so obvious" is some would like to dictate the actions and even the thoughts of others, while some just want to be left alone


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Originally Posted by Farmerga:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what part of morality is "scientific:?


 
Come on, you are not this thick!!

Again the morality is not at issue as MOST people agree that killing millions of innocent humans is an immoral act. What is at issue is the humanity of the unborn, which, by scientific evidence, are human. They eat, they metabolize, they excrete waste, they have a unique human DNA fingerprint, they develop and change over time, etc.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> What is "so obvious" is some would like to dictate the actions and even the thoughts of others, while some just want to be left alone


I am sure that, if the unborn had a voice, they would want to be left alone to grow and develop as nature intended and not be ripped from their homes, killed, and torn apart, but, that is just a little empathy in a savage world.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Come on, you are not this thick!!
> 
> Again the morality is not at issue as MOST people agree that killing millions of innocent humans is an immoral act. What is at issue is the humanity of the unborn, which, by scientific evidence, are human. They eat, they metabolize, they excrete waste, they have a unique human DNA fingerprint, they develop and change over time, etc.


You keep saying that, but it still doesn't apply to everyone.
Some think it's far better than having 10's of millions of unwanted births

Abortions are legal in most educated. developed countries around the world, and studies have shown the number of abortions performed stay relatively the same, legal or not.

That should show you that "morality" isn't stopping anyone who wants it.

Even a poll done on this site showed more than 50% want it kept legal, and if you include those who also want it legal for rape or health reasons it jumps to 66%


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I am sure that, if the unborn had a voice, they would want to be left alone to grow and develop as nature intended and not be ripped from their homes, killed, and torn apart, but, that is just a little empathy in a savage world.


And now you've jumped back to raw emotion instead of sticking to science.
:shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Killing something that is not going to harm you or something that you are not going to eat or use...


So now it's your standard of mortality that everyone should be judged by? Or is it Farmerga's version of morality? Or mine? Or Basketti or BFF?

Bottom line is that is why we have law, morality isn't the same for every person.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I am sure that, if the unborn had a voice, they would want to be left alone to grow and develop as nature intended and not be ripped from their homes, killed, and torn apart, but, that is just a little empathy in a savage world.


Wow. I thought you were being scientific? Gah. I have no words... and that doesn't happen very often.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Yes, harm comes in many forms, for most, someone is allowed to take action to alleviate the harm being done. For the most part, I accept proactive, justifiable and reasonable acts to stop that harm.
> 
> Now, I am speaking of harm and not nuisance. I am also speaking in a general sense without going into much detail so I am sure that those that have issues with me or my stances will have a heyday.


What is the line between nuisance and harm? Who decides? Based on what criteria? Dollar amount? Physical harm? Potential danger? Who do you trust to make such decisions for you?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep saying that, but it still doesn't apply to everyone.
> Some think it's far better than having 10's of millions of unwanted births
> 
> Abortions are legal in most educated. developed countries around the world, and studies have shown the number of abortions performed stay relatively the same, legal or not.
> 
> That should show you that "morality" isn't stopping anyone who wants it.
> 
> Even a poll done on this site showed more than 50% want it kept legal, and if you include those who also want it legal for rape or health reasons it jumps to 66%


 Morality is not the issue we were discussing. Most of those, who favor abortion, deny the fact that the unborn are human. (For most, that is how they justify their stance on abortion)

I don't care if 99.999% of people want it legal, the unborn are still deserving of protection under the law, just as any other human. 

If morality were enough to stop abortion, we wouldn't need laws to prevent it.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> And now you've jumped back to raw emotion instead of sticking to science.
> :shrug:


 Well, I am sure that my statement holds true. The wholesale "legal" homicide of over 53 million of the unborn tends to elicit an emotional response in me. I never claimed to be a Vulcan.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. I thought you were being scientific? Gah. I have no words... and that doesn't happen very often.


 That shock, that has rendered you speechless? That would be the truth.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> What is the line between nuisance and harm? Who decides? Based on what criteria? Dollar amount? Physical harm? Potential danger? Who do you trust to make such decisions for you?


 Well if I look in my yard and see a homeless man sifting through my trash, and I decide to shoot him, I would guess that the law would have something to say about it. 

Was he harming me, or, just a nuisance? Who decides? I mean he opened me up for littering fines, identity theft, if I were to confront him, he MIGHT, try and kill me. You see, I had to shoot him, he could have, possibly, harmed me!!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> That shock, that has rendered you speechless? That would be the truth.


Nope, it was your announcement of how you were being scientific and then went off on an extreme emotional tangent that would be more suited to a 16 year old female. An immature 16 year old female at that. 

But don't let that stop you...


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Well if I look in my yard and see a homeless man sifting through my trash, and I decide to shoot him, I would guess that the law would have something to say about it.
> 
> Was he harming me, or, just a nuisance? Who decides? I mean he opened me up for littering fines, identity theft, if I were to confront him, he MIGHT, try and kill me. You see, I had to shoot him, he could have, possibly, harmed me!!


I really didn't want to go down this path but what if he's in your house at 3am disconnecting your tv? Can you shoot? The castle doctrine in many places says yes. Is not having a tv harmful, or just a nuisance. Who gets to decide?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Find a way to cut off the oxygen supply to a fetus and see the results. One dead fetus. That suggests breathing, does it not?
> 
> BTW, we are speaking scientifically, not religiously.


Once again, these words simply show that if you expand the definition of a word , in this case breathing, far enough you can justify any argument. You would expand human to include a conjoined egg and sperm. Take that same conjoined egg and sperm and place them on the kitchen counter. Can they breath? Can they gather nourishment and grow? Can they manufacture all the compounds and hormones neccessary for their continued growth? Put them in a Petri dish full of the proper nutrients and they soon reach their limit. But if a woman's body chooses to embrace them, connect to them, provide nutrients to them, provide oxygen to them, provide all the other hormones and chemical compounds necessary to continue all these actions someday those cells will reach a point where they can draw breath and survive outside her body, and thus, become human.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it was your announcement of how you were being scientific and then went off on an extreme emotional tangent that would be more suited to a 16 year old female. An immature 16 year old female at that.
> 
> But don't let that stop you...


 Yeah, whatever. :bored:

If you were, at least, a little honest, you would admit that the post was in response to BFF's post about people wanting to be left alone. I would imagine that the unborn would prefer to be left alone as apposed to being aborted as the instinct of most life forms is to survive. The description of the process of abortion was spot on and you know it. Perhaps somewhat colorful and shocking, but, correct. 

If you don't like the accurate description of that which you advocate, perhaps you should stop your advocating.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Once again, these words simply show that if you expand the definition of a word , in this case breathing, far enough you can justify any argument. You would expand human to include a conjoined egg and sperm. Take that same conjoined egg and sperm and place them on the kitchen counter. Can they breath? Can they gather nourishment and grow? Can they manufacture all the compounds and hormones neccessary for their continued growth? Put them in a Petri dish full of the proper nutrients and they soon reach their limit. But if a woman's body chooses to embrace them, connect to them, provide nutrients to them, provide oxygen to them, provide all the other hormones and chemical compounds necessary to continue all these actions someday those cells will reach a point where they can draw breath and survive outside her body, and thus, become human.


 Put that same infant on that same counter and leave it. Will it be able to gather nourishment? Regulate it's body temperature? etc. They are not as developed as you, or, I. Does that mean they are less? If you take the result of that egg and sperm conjoining and did a DNA test to determine which species it is, what would the test tell you? They take in Oxygen and emit CO2. They take in nourishment and expel waste. They grow, metabolize, change, etc. There is no debate that they are alive. Is there? The DNA will tell you to which species that this unborn life form belongs, correct? So, why does the act of taking in air, under there own power, magically make them human, in your eyes?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Put that same infant on that same counter and leave it. Will it be able to gather nourishment? Regulate it's body temperature? etc. They are not as developed as you, or, I. Does that mean they are less? If you take the result of that egg and sperm conjoining and did a DNA test to determine which species it is, what would the test tell you? They take in Oxygen and emit CO2. They take in nourishment and expel waste. They grow, metabolize, change, etc. There is no debate that they are alive. Is there? The DNA will tell you to which species that this unborn life form belongs, correct? So, why does the act of taking in air, under there own power, magically make them human, in your eyes?


You said breathing and expanded the definition to make your point. Not I.

That infant will be able to move its diaphragm, expanding and contracting its lungs and thus breathe. That infant will be able to seek a nipple and suckle providing for its own nourishment. It will poop. Your conjoined egg and sperm do none of this independently. You can make your choice as to when life begins. I'll make mine. Society will reach an uncomfortable, for some, balance. What I won't do is act to pass a law forcing my view on you.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You said breathing and expanded the definition to make your point. Not I.
> 
> That infant will be able to move its diaphragm, expanding and contracting its lungs and thus breathe. That infant will be able to seek a nipple and suckle providing for its own nourishment. It will poop. Your conjoined egg and sperm do none of this independently. You can make your choice as to when life begins. I'll make mine. Society will reach an uncomfortable, for some, balance. What I won't do is act to pass a law forcing my view on you.


 But, there can be no denial that that sperm/egg combo is alive. There can be no denial that it is genetically human. It does take in nourishment, it does take in O2. 

Do you deny that the embryo is alive? Do you deny that it is human on a genetic level? I know that the unborn are human. There is plenty of scientific proof of same. I simply do not hold to the same "magical" point of gaining humanity that you seem to.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> But, there can be no denial that that sperm/egg combo is alive. There can be no denial that it is genetically human. It does take in nourishment, it does take in O2.
> 
> Do you deny that the embryo is alive? Do you deny that it is human on a genetic level? I know that the unborn are human. There is plenty of scientific proof of same. I simply do not hold to the same "magical" point of gaining humanity that you seem to.


And there's no denying cancer cells have the same qualities . They're alive. They take in nutrients. They respirate and expell waste. They have human DNA. Why aren't they human?

Eta- you're right. We hold differing views. I'm not trying to legally force mine on you.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And there's no denying cancer cells have the same qualities . They're alive. They take in nutrients. They respirate and expell waste. They have human DNA. Why aren't they human?
> 
> Eta- you're right. We hold differing views. I'm not trying to legally force mine on you.


 Same old "well cancer cells are alive" strawman. It gets old. You know the difference. Those cancer cells will never grow into an adult human, the human embryo has that chance, unless it is intentionally killed by those who do not admit to its humanity. 

You may not be trying to force your view on me, but, you do force it on millions of the unborn humans who are killed each year by supporting the legality of abortion.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Same old "well cancer cells are alive" strawman. It gets old. You know the difference. Those cancer cells will never grow into an adult human, the human embryo has that chance, unless it is intentionally killed by those who do not admit to its humanity.
> 
> You may not be trying to force your view on me, but, you do force it on millions of the unborn humans who are killed each year by supporting the legality of abortion.


No more of a straw man than the claim that those conjoined cells have a chance unless intentionally killed. Far more don't implant because the timing was wrong or conditions not conducive than man will ever intervene in. 

I force my belief on no one. I'm incapable of producing eggs . Wrong sex , you know. I never have, and never will force a woman to have an abortion or dictate which birth control she can use. Those choices are uniquely hers to make. And here I'll correct something I said earlier. I have stated before that I would never support a woman having an abortion. I misstated my position. There are conditions in which I would support such a decision. The conditions are extremely personal and I won't discuss them here. But I will fight any effort to make such a choice impossible.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> No more of a straw man than the claim that those conjoined cells have a chance unless intentionally killed. Far more don't implant because the timing was wrong or conditions not conducive than man will ever intervene in.
> 
> I force my belief on no one. I'm incapable of producing eggs . Wrong sex , you know. I never have, and never will force a woman to have an abortion or dictate which birth control she can use. Those choices are uniquely hers to make. And here I'll correct something I said earlier. I have stated before that I would never support a woman having an abortion. I misstated my position. There are conditions in which I would support such a decision. The conditions are extremely personal and I won't discuss them here. But I will fight any effort to make such a choice impossible.


 Abortion is force.  It is force against the unborn. As I have stated previously, nature ending a pregnancy is very different from man ending one. It is akin to the difference between a death from old age and death by beheading. 

The choice, of which you advocate, is the choice to end an innocent human life. There are certain choices we should not be allowed, that is one of them.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Abortion is force. It is force against the unborn. As I have stated previously, nature ending a pregnancy is very different from man ending one. It is akin to the difference between a death from old age and death by beheading.
> 
> The choice, of which you advocate, is the choice to end an innocent human life. There are certain choices we should not be allowed, that is one of them.


You've stated many things. 

And we've reached a logical end to this discussion. We won't agree on what constitutes being human and your arguments only work if we do. My stance takes nothing from you. Yours acts quite differently.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You've stated many things.
> 
> And we've reached a logical end to this discussion. We won't agree on what constitutes being human and your arguments only work if we do. My stance takes nothing from you. Yours acts quite differently.


Your stance may have taken the doctor who would have cured cancer. We will never know.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Your stance may have taken the doctor who would have cured cancer. We will never know.


Or the next Stalin. Or the next Manson. Or the next college student who stalks and kills a thirteen year old girl. You're right. We never do know. Some of us admit that and don't claim to have all the answers for others.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Or the next Stalin. Or the next Manson. Or the next college student who stalks and kills a thirteen year old girl. You're right. We never do know. Some of us admit that and don't claim to have all the answers for others.


No, just advocate for the killing of millions of unborn innocence. What a peach you all are. 

Good day.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> What is the line between nuisance and harm? Who decides? Based on what criteria? Dollar amount? Physical harm? Potential danger? Who do you trust to make such decisions for you?


For now, I operate underneath the general umbrella with an understanding that it ebbs and flows. I have views where that do not suit the needs of the few in the interests of the many and I have views that do not suit the many in the interest of the few. When my views align with the many and visa versa then my happiness quotient will increase. When that does not occur, then I will work harder.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> No, just advocate for the killing of millions of unborn innocence. What a peach you all are.
> 
> Good day.


And your final words are to again misstate my position. I've never advocated for abortion. But words and their meanings sometimes seem a bit fluid to you. I hope you have a nice day also.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And your final words are to again misstate my position. I've never advocated for abortion. But words and their meanings sometimes seem a bit fluid to you. I hope you have a nice day also.


 Very few things warrant the phrase "If you are not with us, you are against us" This is one of those things. You have spent days, weeks, months advocating for the "right" to abortion. (AKA advocating for Abortion) You can twist it how you wish, but, that is the truth.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Very few things warrant the phrase "If you are not with us, you are against us" This is one of those things. You have spent days, weeks, months advocating for the "right" to abortion. (AKA advocating for Abortion) You can twist it how you wish, but, that is the truth.


If I advocate for free speech am I advocating for everything said? When I advocate for the right to keep and bear arms am I advocating for every death caused by a firearm? Because I recognize someone's right doesn't mean that I advocate for all the ways they may exercise such rights. It's not a twist. It bends no facts. You might wish to take the time to ho back and read understand my stance. On one thing you're right. I am against you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

You seem unable to grasp what "pro choice means. Pro choice is not pro abortion, it is support of a woman's right to choose. It doesn't matter if she chooses to terminate or continue her pregnancy, it is that she has the right to chose either option. 

Do you understand now?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You seem unable to grasp what "pro choice means. Pro choice is not pro abortion, it is support of a woman's right to choose. It doesn't matter if she chooses to terminate or continue her pregnancy, it is that she has the right to chose either option.
> 
> Do you understand now?


You can use all of the gentle euphemisms you wish to help you sleep at night, but, the fact remains that when you say "pro-choice" the only "choice" you speak of is killing the unborn. 

It is a vial act of force that you support.

Do you understand now?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> If I advocate for free speech am I advocating for everything said? When I advocate for the right to keep and bear arms am I advocating for every death caused by a firearm? Because I recognize someone's right doesn't mean that I advocate for all the ways they may exercise such rights. It's not a twist. It bends no facts. You might wish to take the time to ho back and read understand my stance. On one thing you're right. I am against you.


 No, it goes beyond that. Freedom of choice is fine. One can choose what to eat, how to dress, whom to date/marry, if they want a tattoo, etc. One can support freedom of choice and not support homicide of the unborn any more than he/she supports the homicide of innocent people he/she meets on the street. One can support the freedom to keep and bear arms and not support others killing the innocent. Those are not in conflict. When you say freedom of choice, you are speaking of the "right" to choose to kill the unborn. 

I see the fact, that you and your ilk are against me, as a badge of honor. 
And I am very proud of that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> You can use all of the gentle euphemisms you wish to help you sleep at night, but, the fact remains that when you say "pro-choice" the only "choice" you speak of is killing the unborn.
> 
> It is a vial act of force that you support.
> 
> Do you understand now?


Nope, you are wrong. That is not what I believe at all. You can say it as many times as you'd like, and you will still be wrong. 

Pro choice is simply that. That you refuse to understand speaks volumes.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, you are wrong. That is not what I believe at all. You can say it as many times as you'd like, and you will still be wrong.
> 
> Pro choice is simply that. That you refuse to understand speaks volumes.


Lets do a little test.

Say the woman owns a florist shop, that caters to the public, and doesn't want to sell flowers to the gay couple about the be married? Should the law protect that choice? 

The same woman want to sell her house, lists it with an agent, but chooses to not sell it when the agent brings an asking price offer from a nice black couple, but, a day later, takes less than asking from a nice white couple? Should the law protect her choice in that instance? 

The same woman gets tired of it all and decides to get even with society, so, she builds a bomb and sets it off at the local city hall. Should the law protect that choice? 


If you said no to any of these, you are not really pro-choice are you? You are pro-choice with caveats. 

We are not speaking of being "pro-choice". You have argued against certain choices on numerous occasions. No, you are simply pro-abortion. Like it or not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Lets do a little test.
> 
> Say the woman owns a florist shop, that caters to the public, and doesn't want to sell flowers to the gay couple about the be married? Should the law protect that choice?
> 
> The same woman want to sell her house, lists it with an agent, but chooses to not sell it when the agent brings an asking price offer from a nice black couple, but, a day later, takes less than asking from a nice white couple? Should the law protect her choice in that instance?
> 
> The same woman gets tired of it all and decides to get even with society, so, she builds a bomb and sets it off at the local city hall. Should the law protect that choice?
> 
> 
> If you said no to any of these, you are not really pro-choice are you? You are pro-choice with caveats.
> 
> We are not speaking of being "pro-choice". You have argued against certain choices on numerous occasions. No, you are simply pro-abortion. Like it or not.


You do not get to decide what I think. Don't try to force what I said to fit your beliefs, it's annoying and not at all truthful. :facepalm:

Again, your refusal to comprehend what I wrote is all on you.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You do not get to decide what I think. Don't try to force what I said to fit your beliefs, it's annoying and not at all truthful. :facepalm:
> 
> Again, your refusal to comprehend what I wrote is all on you.


 So, are you pro-choice, or, aren't you? It is a simple question, is it not? I comprehend what you wrote very well. Do you?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> So, are you pro-choice, or, aren't you? It is a simple question, is it not? I comprehend what you wrote very well. Do you?


Yup, I do. No matter what you think I wrote. I am pro choice, I am don't care if the choice is to continue or terminate the pregnancy. I care that the woman has a choice. 

Your flower shop scenario is flawed. It's illegal to discriminate, and has absolutely nothing in common with being pro choice. At all.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, I do. No matter what you think I wrote. I am pro choice, I am don't care if the choice is to continue or terminate the pregnancy. I care that the woman has a choice.
> 
> Your flower shop scenario is flawed. It's illegal to discriminate, and has absolutely nothing in common with being pro choice. At all.


 
So, that choice is illegal. If you truly are pro-choice, you should advocate to have that law changed. After all, shouldn't we all have the freedom to choose? Or, is the fact of the matter that some choices don't fit into your morality and, therefore, you wish to allow the government to continue to force your view upon everyone?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> So, are you pro-choice, or, aren't you? It is a simple question, is it not? I comprehend what you wrote very well. Do you?


You always fall back to comparing illegal acts with the legal act of abortion.
We are approaching the part where you say "Slavery was once legal".

You would force your views on others to prevent them from doing what they want, and all they want from you is to be left alone.

Get over the idea that *you* get to decide what is "right" for anyone other than yourself


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You always fall back to comparing illegal acts with the legal act of abortion.
> We are approaching the part where you say "Slavery was once legal".
> 
> You would force your views on others to prevent them from doing what they want, and all they want from you is to be left alone.
> 
> Get over the idea that *you* get to decide what is "right" for anyone other than yourself


With the exception of bombing city hall, everything, in my test, was once legal until someone decided what was right for everyone else. Where were you to tell them that all those people wanted was to be left alone? 

Or, would you force your ideas on others to prevent them from doing what they want? If not, you should advocate for the immediate and complete revocation of all anti discrimination laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> With the exception of bombing city hall, everything, in my test, was once legal until someone decided what was right for everyone else. Where were you to tell them that all those people wanted was to be left alone?
> 
> Or, would you force your ideas on others to prevent them from doing what they want? If not, *you should advocate for the immediate and complete revocation of all anti discrimination laws*.


Irrational arguments just make you look silly


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Irrational arguments just make you look silly


 Hypocrisy makes you look silly. If you were truly for "leaving people alone" and freedom of choice, you couldn't, in good conscience, support laws that force people to do what they do not want. But, that is not the case. You have a set of morals that you wish to impose on everyone.


----------



## Lisa in WA

FarmerGa, I'm curious. Say you get what you want and abortion becomes illegal.
What do you do with the women who have illegal abortions? What do you do about the women who drink, smoke and do drugs during pregnancy? After all, this can cause miscarriage or birth defects, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. Etc?

Women who don't take their folic acid a supplements and prenatal vitamins and their babies are born with neural tube defects?

Women who ride horses, fall off and suffer miscarriages? 

Because all of these scenarios are women who are impacting that other "life" adversely. Sometimes ending it or making the baby handicapped in some way.

Do you advocate locking them up, strapping them down etc for the duration of the pregnancy? Because once you advocate forcing another person to act as incubator for another person, where do you stop?


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> FarmerGa, I'm curious. Say you get what you want and abortion becomes illegal.
> What do you do with the women who have illegal abortions? What do you do about the women who drink, smoke and do drugs during pregnancy? After all, this can cause miscarriage or birth defects, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. Etc?
> 
> Women who don't take their folic acid a supplements and prenatal vitamins and their babies are born with neural tube defects?
> 
> Women who ride horses, fall off and suffer miscarriages?
> 
> Because all of these scenarios are women who are impacting that other "life" adversely. Sometimes ending it or making the baby handicapped in some way.
> 
> Do you advocate locking them up, strapping them down etc for the duration of the pregnancy? Because once you advocate forcing another person to act as incubator for another person, where do you stop?


If I had my way, I would concentrate on the providers of the abortions (and abortion causing drugs), leaving the recipients alone unless it is an egregious violation of the law. (caught inside a "clinic", etc). 

There is no force, generally the woman chooses to have sex, this is just taking responsibility for ones actions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Hypocrisy makes you look silly. If you were truly for "leaving people alone" and freedom of choice, you couldn't, in good conscience, support laws that force people to do what they do not want. But, that is not the case. *You have a set of morals that you wish to impose on everyone*.


When have you seen me "support" any of those laws?

They were all passed before I was old enough to vote, and they don't affect me in any negative way, so I mind my own business.

My 'morals" don't force anyone to *do* anything.
Yours would


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> If I had my way, I would concentrate on the providers of the abortions (and abortion causing drugs), leaving the recipients alone unless it is an egregious violation of the law. (caught inside a "clinic", etc).
> 
> There is no force, generally the woman chooses to have sex, this is just taking responsibility for ones actions.






This doesn't seem to consistent to me. If the fetus is a life with all the rights conferred upon it, how can someone who contributes to its demise or overall health and wellbeing not be held responsible? 

If the mother of a 2 day old gave it drugs, she'd be locked up, no? You are saying there is no difference between an unborn fetus and one that is breathing


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> When have you seen me "support" any of those laws?
> 
> They were all passed before I was old enough to vote, and they don't affect me in any negative way, so I mind my own business.
> 
> My 'morals" don't force anyone to *do* anything.
> Yours would


 There was a whole thread about it a few months ago. So, you are fine with the government forcing others to behave a certain way. In this democratic republic, you are responsible for the laws we have. Ignoring them is implied acceptance. 

Plus, if you are really into minding your own business, why do you spend so much time fighting to protect abortion laws?(and defending anti-discrimination laws) You are male, it wouldn't really affect you one way, or, the other, so, why don't you mind your own business?


----------



## Lisa in WA

And if the mother didn't choose to have sex...if she was raped?

And what of babies with severe deformities, etc? In your perfect world will you allow these to be aborted?


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> This doesn't seem to consistent to me. If the fetus is a life with all the rights conferred upon it, how can someone who contributes to its demise or overall health and wellbeing not be held responsible?
> 
> If the mother of a 2 day old gave it drugs, she'd be locked up, no? You are saying there is no difference between an unborn fetus and one that is breathing


 
It would simply be difficult to prove. Was it a natural, or, accidental miscarriage, was it an intentional abortion. If it could be proven, I would be in favor of the same penalties as any other illegal homicide.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> And if the mother didn't choose to have sex...if she was raped?
> 
> And what of babies with severe deformities, etc? In your perfect world will you allow these to be aborted?


In a perfect world, no. In reality, if I could save the majority, by sacrificing the few, I would. Let me restate. If the choice was between outlawing no elective abortions and outlawing most elective abortions, I would, of course, choose to save as many as possible by outlawing most. 

It is not the fault of the child how he/she was conceived.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> It would simply be difficult to prove. Was it a natural, or, accidental miscarriage, was it an intentional abortion. If it could be proven, I would be in favor of the same penalties as any other illegal homicide.


So mothers who suffer miscarriages and still births would be subject to criminal investigations? What about moms who ride horses or skydive? Forbid their activities by law?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> There was a whole thread about it a few months ago. So, you are fine with the government forcing others to behave a certain way. In this democratic republic, you are responsible for the laws we have. Ignoring them is implied acceptance.
> 
> Plus, if you are really into minding your own business, why do you spend so much time fighting to protect abortion laws?(and defending anti-discrimination laws) You are male, it wouldn't really affect you one way, or, the other, so, why don't you mind your own business?


I've never "fought to protect abortion laws"
That's your false perception

I discuss things for my entertainment, and I happen to think people should spend more time minding their own business than they do dictating to others

You *want* the Govt to force women to carry those pregnancies full term whether they intended to get pregnant or not, but you spend most of your time complaining about Govt* interference* in our lives.

You are in favor of what you complain about the most


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've never "fought to protect abortion laws"
> That's your false perception
> 
> I discuss things for my entertainment, and *I happen to think people should spend more time minding their own business than they do dictating to others
> 
> *You *want* the Govt to force women to carry those pregnancies full term whether they intended to get pregnant or not, but you spend most of your time complaining about Govt* interference* in our lives.
> 
> You are in favor of what you complain about the most



Again, and it is not a difficult concept. I have said over and over again that one of the very few valid roles of government is to protect people. I include the unborn in the group of people, so, it would be valid for government to outlaw a practice that has killed millions of unborn people.

Also, do you not see the irony in the statement bolded above? You seem to believe that you can make your own rules here and tell other posters how to post, what to say, when it is ok to say it, etc. Of course, most of us give it the attention it deserves and ignore it, but, still. I still laugh at the concept of "mind your own business".


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> So mothers who suffer miscarriages and still births would be subject to criminal investigations? What about moms who ride horses or skydive? Forbid their activities by law?


 You are being a little silly. If they are caught in the act of having an elective abortion, yes, prosecute them. Prosecute providers as mass murders. Still, not a difficult concept.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Farmerga said:


> There was a whole thread about it a few months ago. So, you are fine with the government forcing others to behave a certain way. In this democratic republic, you are responsible for the laws we have. Ignoring them is implied acceptance.
> 
> Plus, if you are really into minding your own business, why do you spend so much time fighting to protect abortion laws?(and defending anti-discrimination laws) You are male, *it wouldn't really affect you one way, or, the other, so, why don't you mind your own business?*


And, following your own logic, as bolded above, my choice to have an abortion or not does not affect you one way or the other so why don't you follow your own advice and mind your own business?


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> You can use all of the gentle euphemisms you wish to help you sleep at night, but, the fact remains that when you say "pro-choice" the only "choice" you speak of is killing the unborn.
> 
> It is a vial act of force that you support.
> 
> Do you understand now?


Am I to understand that you are 100% against any form of abortion for any reason at all and it is my understanding that you are also male?

Am I misinformed?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> You are male, it *wouldn't really affect you* one way, or, the other, so, why don't you mind your own business?


I believe you often complain about the number of illegal aliens and those on welfare.

Having an extra 50 million unwanted children would be far more expensive and costly to everyone than allowing abortions for those who so choose.

Wait and see what happens with the Zika virus before demanding a "save them all" strategy


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> You are being a little silly. If they are caught in the act of having an elective abortion, yes, prosecute them. Prosecute providers as mass murders. Still, not a difficult concept.


Nope, not silly. If you are saying that a fetal life is equal to an infant baby's life, then how does your logic follow? If someone went skydiving with a 3 month old and the child was hurt or killed, the mother would be most likely charged with child endangerment. Would you charge a pregnant womn with the same if she landed hard and suffered a miscarriage as a result? 

If someone gives alcohol or drugs to a child, they will punished for child abuse. Should a pregnant woman be charged the same way if the fetus is injured or killed?


----------



## tiffnzacsmom

I think we should go back to Biblical times so that the right will be happy. Stone women who have out of wedlock children, allow the local wise woman to give the right herbs to the women with money to cleanse the womb and if the child is deficient in some way at birth leave them out to die of exposure. See no more abortions. Of course we need to remove all social safety nets as well since they didn't exist in those times either so if you become disabled and no family willing to support you, off to beg you go. Look at all the tax money that can be saved,


----------



## farmrbrown

OR.........you could go back to "biblical times" where the Son of God refused to stone a woman, instructed us to care for little children (it would be better for a millstone hung on your neck and cast into the sea, than to hurt one of these) and knew the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## Shine

tiffnzacsmom said:


> I think we should go back to Biblical times


You must not have paid attention during those times...


----------



## farmrbrown

basketti said:


> Nope, not silly. If you are saying that a fetal life is equal to an infant baby's life, then how does your logic follow? If someone went skydiving with a 3 month old and the child was hurt or killed, the mother would be most likely charged with child endangerment. Would you charge a pregnant womn with the same if she landed hard and suffered a miscarriage as a result?
> 
> If someone gives alcohol or drugs to a child, they will punished for child abuse. *Should a pregnant woman be charged the same way if the fetus is injured or killed?*


They already *are*.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> So, that choice is illegal. If you truly are pro-choice, you should advocate to have that law changed. After all, shouldn't we all have the freedom to choose? Or, is the fact of the matter that some choices don't fit into your morality and, therefore, you wish to allow the government to continue to force your view upon everyone?


It's quite legal to discriminate. We've been down this path many times and I've shown the many ways the florist could act to meet her personal values and the law. She's free to choose and I support that freedom if not her final choice.

The homeowner can sell that house to whomever they please for whatever price they please. You were clever to involve the real estate agent because that would violate federal law. But you really shouldn't try to involve others in your discriminatory acts anyway. I support the homeowner being able to choose who they sell their house to even if I don't support the criteria they use to make that choice.

I might even agree with the feelings of your bomber while I disagree with her method of expressing herself. I'll say that violence towards another human sometimes deserves punishment. But wait, you say. How can you allow a woman to take a morning after pill or have an iud inserted? I don't believe those things have anything to do with taking or harming another human. And I won't interfere with your choice to believe differently.


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> You are male, it wouldn't really affect you one way, or, the other, so, why don't you mind your own business?


Are you not male as well? If so, please explain how abortion laws would affect you but not other men?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> For now, I operate underneath the general umbrella with an understanding that it ebbs and flows. I have views where that do not suit the needs of the few in the interests of the many and I have views that do not suit the many in the interest of the few. When my views align with the many and visa versa then my happiness quotient will increase. When that does not occur, then I will work harder.


It's an interesting answer if I understand it but but it doesn't really seem to me to answer the question of how you personally decide the difference between harm and nuisance and who you would trust, besides yourself, to make such a decision for you.


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> Are you not male as well? If so, please explain how abortion laws would affect you but not other men?


 
I am not the one who supports the "mind your own business" mantra when it comes to the killing of the unborn. BFF says he does. Laws against child abuse do not directly affect me, as I am not a child, but, I am for defending those children.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> It's quite legal to discriminate. We've been down this path many times and I've shown the many ways the florist could act to meet her personal values and the law. She's free to choose and I support that freedom if not her final choice.
> 
> The homeowner can sell that house to whomever they please for whatever price they please. You were clever to involve the real estate agent because that would violate federal law. But you really shouldn't try to involve others in your discriminatory acts anyway. I support the homeowner being able to choose who they sell their house to even if I don't support the criteria they use to make that choice.
> 
> I might even agree with the feelings of your bomber while I disagree with her method of expressing herself. I'll say that violence towards another human sometimes deserves punishment. But wait, you say. How can you allow a woman to take a morning after pill or have an iud inserted? I don't believe those things have anything to do with taking or harming another human. And I won't interfere with your choice to believe differently.


But, her choices are quite limited by law. She has to jump through many hoops to be able to exercise her right to choose. If the Federal law interferes with one's right to choose, anything, should you not be fighting against such laws? 

I will agree that violence against another human sometimes deserves punishment. I have no magical level for the human life to attain before I consider it human.


----------



## Farmerga

SLFarmMI said:


> And, following your own logic, as bolded above, my choice to have an abortion or not does not affect you one way or the other so why don't you follow your own advice and mind your own business?


Please read what I said. BFF's mantra is leave others alone. That is not my mantra when it comes to the homicide of the unborn. (for anything that does no harm to others, I am right there with him). Abuse of a child is not my choice and does not affect me in any way either, but, I am for protection of those children. The same is true for the millions of unborn children who are killed each year for no reason other than convenience.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> But, her choices are quite limited by law. She has to jump through many hoops to be able to exercise her right to choose. If the Federal law interferes with one's right to choose, anything, should you not be fighting against such laws?
> 
> I will agree that violence against another human sometimes deserves punishment. I have no magical level for the human life to attain before I consider it human.


I'll first point out that no federal interfers with the florists right not to provide a gay couple flowers for their wedding.

And so are those choices limited to abortion providers. They're not limitations I largely disagree with. I do disagree with expanding them to include every thing you would like based on your , to me, overly broad definition of human. No rights are absolute. They all become limited at the human to human interaction barrier. So it comes back to my earlier question about who gets to define harm. A question you provided no answer to. Even if we take your definition of human as gospel it's a fairly low bar to prove the harms a pregnancy can cause to a woman, physically , emotionally and financially. Far more harm than having someone walk out the door with a television. Yet we would allow the woman, in many cases, to shoot and kill that, very human, thief. Why?


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> Am I to understand that you are 100% against any form of abortion for any reason at all and it is my understanding that you are also male?
> 
> Am I misinformed?


 I am against any form of abortion where the life of the mother is not in danger from the pregnancy. And yes, I am male. My views, on abortion, were formed early from teachings from my mother, aunts and older sister. (If you think I am rigid in my stance, you should see them).

Wanting to protect the lives of unborn humans, shouldn't have a gender.


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> I am not the one who supports the "mind your own business" mantra when it comes to the killing of the unborn. BFF says he does. Laws against child abuse do not directly affect me, as I am not a child, but, I am for defending those children.



I believe you indicated that Bearfoot was a man, who was not affected by abortion so he should mind his own business. 

In my opinion, the essence of that message is one of ideal. Women should be allowed to make their own decisions.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I am against any form of abortion where the life of the mother is not in danger from the pregnancy. And yes, I am male. My views, on abortion, were formed early from teachings from my mother, aunts and older sister. (If you think I am rigid in my stance, you should see them).
> 
> Wanting to protect the lives of unborn humans, shouldn't have a gender.


And why do you get to define danger for others?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I believe you often complain about the number of illegal aliens and those on welfare.
> 
> Having an extra 50 million unwanted children would be far more expensive and costly to everyone than allowing abortions for those who so choose.
> 
> Wait and see what happens with the Zika virus before demanding a "save them all" strategy


 I don't do a lot of complaining about illegal aliens, but, welfare, on the Federal level, is unconstitutional. I do not, however, advocate for the killing of welfare recipients or illegal aliens. 

I also do not advocate for the killing of the mentally disabled.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And why do you get to define danger for others?


 I didn't, but, you know that.


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> I believe you indicated that Bearfoot was a man, who was not affected by abortion so he should mind his own business.
> 
> In my opinion, the essence of that message is one of ideal. Women should be allowed to make their own decisions.


 Your beliefs, on this matter are in error, I think you fully realize the point I was trying to make with BFF. 

Should parents get to choose if they beat their children? Should they get to choose if they smother them in their sleep? A person can make all of the decisions they wish, for themselves. Decisions, that affect the life of others, (including the unborn) should be limited.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Nope, not silly. If you are saying that a fetal life is equal to an infant baby's life, then how does your logic follow? If someone went skydiving with a 3 month old and the child was hurt or killed, the mother would be most likely charged with child endangerment. Would you charge a pregnant womn with the same if she landed hard and suffered a miscarriage as a result?
> 
> If someone gives alcohol or drugs to a child, they will punished for child abuse. Should a pregnant woman be charged the same way if the fetus is injured or killed?


 If it can be proven that the "mother" in question did knowingly endanger her child, in utero, I would say yes. Oh, and to answer an earlier question you had. When a baby dies of SIDS, the parents are subject to an inquiry to determine if they killed their child or of other circumstances are at play. That process could easily be transferred to children who died in utero.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> If it can be proven that the "mother" in question did knowingly endanger her child, in utero, I would say yes. Oh, and to answer an earlier question you had. When a baby dies of SIDS, the parents are subject to an inquiry to determine if they killed their child or of other circumstances are at play. That process could easily be transferred to children who died in utero.


I'm flabbergasted that the illegal/legal thing still eludes you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Please read what I said. BFF's mantra is leave others alone. That is not my mantra when it comes to the homicide of the unborn. (for anything that does no harm to others, I am right there with him). Abuse of a child is not my choice and does not affect me in any way either, but, I am for protection of those children. The same is true for the millions of unborn children who are *killed each year for no reason other than convenience*.


You have no idea why those women make the choices they do, and no reason to expect them to adhere to your beliefs rather than their own.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I'll first point out that no federal interfers with the florists right not to provide a gay couple flowers for their wedding.
> 
> And so are those choices limited to abortion providers. They're not limitations I largely disagree with. I do disagree with expanding them to include every thing you would like based on your , to me, overly broad definition of human. No rights are absolute. They all become limited at the human to human interaction barrier. *So it comes back to my earlier question about who gets to define harm. A question you provided no answer to. Even if we take your definition of human as gospel it's a fairly low bar to prove the harms a pregnancy can cause to a woman, physically , emotionally and financially. Far more harm than having someone walk out the door with a television. Yet we would allow the woman, in many cases, to shoot and kill that, very human, thief. Why*?


 I used the very concrete condition of endangering the life of the mother. You used the word "harm". In the case of the TV thief, one doesn't know the intent of the thief. He KNOWINGLY is in your house to commit crimes. The unborn is where he/she is through no fault of his/her own and has no malicious intent.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have no idea why those women make the choices they do, and no reason to expect them to adhere to your beliefs rather than their own.


 
I have no idea why a person would choose to beat their child, or, smother them in their sleep, and I don't care. The protection of the child is what is foremost in my mind.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm flabbergasted that the illegal/legal thing still eludes you.


 I am flabbergasted that you don't seem to know the difference between "legal" and "just".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Your beliefs, on this matter are in error, I think you fully realize the point I was trying to make with BFF.
> 
> Should parents get to choose if they beat their children? Should they get to choose if they smother them in their sleep? A person can make all of the decisions they wish, for themselves. Decisions, that affect the life of others, (including the unborn) *should be limited*.


They *are* limited
You have no say so in the matter, and the mothers do.
Again you want to compare illegal actions


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I have no idea why a person would choose to beat their child, or, smother them in their sleep, and I don't care. The protection of the child is what is foremost in my mind.


We aren't discussing criminal actions
What happened to your "scientific" approach?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> They *are* limited
> You have no say so in the matter, and the mothers do.
> Again you want to compare illegal actions


 And I am for MORE limits on abortion. 

As for the rest of it, see my last response to Irish Pixie.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I didn't, but, you know that.


Who would you have define that danger? The woman? Her doctor? A government panel? A jury? By removing her choices to utilize things like IUD's and other forms of contraception that interfere with implantation you are deciding for her.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> We aren't discussing criminal actions
> What happened to your "scientific" approach?


 Oh, we are discussing criminal actions, perhaps not illegal, but, definitely criminal.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I am flabbergasted that you don't seem to know the difference between "legal" and "just".


I do know the difference, just as you absolutely understand illegal/legal but you ignore it to suit your agenda.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Who would you have define that danger? The woman? Her doctor? A government panel? A jury? By removing her choices to utilize things like IUD's and other forms of contraception that interfere with implantation you are deciding for her.


 Her doctor is qualified to make that determination with the oversight of a medical board at the local hospital. If one tries to use it as a cover for abortion on demand, the doctor could be prosecuted.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And I am for MORE limits on abortion.
> 
> As for the rest of it, see my last response to Irish Pixie.


And again, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having a legal abortion.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I do know the difference, just as you absolutely understand illegal/legal but you ignore it to suit your agenda.


 
Legal/illegal is fluid and ever changing. Just is not.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> And again, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having a legal abortion.


 I have, can, and will, fight to make it illegal.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I used the very concrete condition of endangering the life of the mother. You used the word "harm". In the case of the TV thief, one doesn't know the intent of the thief. He KNOWINGLY is in your house to commit crimes. The unborn is where he/she is through no fault of his/her own and has no malicious intent.


You still haven't defined what endangering the life entails. Does the woman who's family has a history of severe post partum depression and understands the dangers that might entail in her life have the choice of not having an unplanned pregnancy? Or, if her birth control fails her can she opt not to put herself in such danger? Can she proactively make that decision and choose to use highly effective forms of birth control that prevent implantation? Or do you get to choose for her that she must go forward, come what may?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> And I am for MORE limits on abortion.
> 
> As for the rest of it, see my last response to Irish Pixie.





> Oh, we are discussing criminal actions, perhaps not illegal, but, definitely criminal.


Feel free to lobby for changes in the laws, but you still have no right to tell others what to do, and calling something you disagree with "criminal" doesn't make it so. 



> Legal/illegal is fluid and ever changing. Just is not.


ISIS likes to think that way too.
I think they are overly self righteous


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You still haven't defined what endangering the life entails. Does the woman who's family has a history of severe post partum depression and understands the dangers that might entail in her life have the choice of not having an unplanned pregnancy? Or, if her birth control fails her can she opt not to put herself in such danger? Can she proactively make that decision and choose to use highly effective forms of birth control that prevent implantation? Or do you get to choose for her that she must go forward, come what may?


 She should have the choice to, or, not to have sex. She should have the choice to use any pre-conception form of BC available. She should NOT have the choice to kill her unborn child, unless it is a real physical danger to her life, as determined by a doctor.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Legal/illegal is fluid and ever changing. Just is not.


What is just, to you may not be what is just to others. What is legal for you is legal for all. Rarely do the two mesh perfectly. Work to change the law. I'll work against you. You can operate by your own sense of what's just. I'll operate by mine. Mine won't make yours illegal.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> She should have the choice to, or, not to have sex. She should have the choice to use any pre-conception form of BC available. She should NOT have the choice to kill her unborn child, unless it is a real physical danger to her life, as determined by a doctor.


So if she were to become pregnant and her doctors decided the threat of post partum depression were so real as to threaten her life she could have an abortion. But a doctor couldn't make the same diagnoses and advise her to have effective birth control which would do, in your eyes, the same thing?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Feel free to lobby for changes in the laws, but you still have no right to tell others what to do, and calling something you disagree with "criminal" doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> ISIS likes to think that way too.
> I think they are overly self righteous


 
Thanks for your permission. 

Is it not true that what is legal today, may not be legal tomorrow and vice versa? 

Again, I believe Godwin's law should be amended to include Islamo Fascists as well as the Hitler kind.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> So if she were to become pregnant and her doctors decided the threat of post partum depression were so real as to threaten her life she could have an abortion. But a doctor couldn't make the same diagnoses and advise her to have effective birth control which would do, in your eyes, the same thing?


 
If the danger were that great, from post partum depression, the woman should choose to have herself sterilized to avoid such danger as it would have likely taken prior births to make such a determination.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Legal/illegal is fluid and ever changing. Just is not.


Nope. What is illegal/legal at that time is hard and fast.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I have, can, and will, fight to make it illegal.


And that's your right.  

Right now abortion is legal, and there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having a legal abortion, is there? Please answer, and we can put this away.


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> If the danger were that great, from post partum depression, the woman should choose to have herself sterilized to avoid such danger as it would have likely taken prior births to make such a determination.


Are you aware that doctors will not sterilize women who are younger than a certain age or do not have a certain number of children? Essentially, a woman who strongly desires to never have children will be refused that option unless there is a compelling medical reason. 

It's also not a simple surgery and I assume in the US there are additional costs to having that surgery. Although it's considered routine day surgery, there are restrictions on activity for a period of time.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> If the danger were that great, from post partum depression, the woman should choose to have herself sterilized to avoid such danger as it would have likely taken prior births to make such a determination.


It's good that you also think you're suited to make medical decisions for others. Sterilization is a rather permanent choice. It could be a better treatment is just around the corner. It could be that in the future she might have access to better support and resources which would lessen the danger. But if you trusted her doctor you'd allow a surgical procedure to end a life but not a pill to prevent one. And yes, I'll demand you believe as I do to continue this argument just as you demand I accept your beliefs to validate your arguments. Or we could just agree that we won't agree on when life begins and go on making our own choices about our own lives.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> It's good that you also think you're suited to make medical decisions for others. Sterilization is a rather permanent choice. It could be a better treatment is just around the corner. It could be that in the future she might have access to better support and resources which would lessen the danger. But if you trusted her doctor you'd allow a surgical procedure to end a life but not a pill to prevent one. And yes, I'll demand you believe as I do to continue this argument just as you demand I accept your beliefs to validate your arguments. Or we could just agree that we won't agree on when life begins and go on making our own choices about our own lives.


Fair enough. I see life in concrete terms. You see life as occurring at some magical point along that continuum. I will continue to donate money, protest, lobby, etc. to change the laws.


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> Are you aware that doctors will not sterilize women who are younger than a certain age or do not have a certain number of children? Essentially, a woman who strongly desires to never have children will be refused that option unless there is a compelling medical reason.
> 
> It's also not a simple surgery and I assume in the US there are additional costs to having that surgery. Although it's considered routine day surgery, there are restrictions on activity for a period of time.


 Perhaps that should be protested. I mean if one is truly, pro-choice, it would seem that that type of restriction would stick in their craw. I know it does mine.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> And that's your right.
> 
> Right now abortion is legal, and there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having a legal abortion, is there? Please answer, and we can put this away.


 I never said, or, implied that I could physically stop a women from having an abortion, as long as it remains legal. I have said from the beginning that my goal is to change the laws/create a constitutional amendment. I have answer that question several times in the past months.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. What is illegal/legal at that time is hard and fast.


 And tomorrow, what is illegal may be different from today, therefore, fluid.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And tomorrow, what is illegal may be different from today, therefore, fluid.


Dang. Did you miss "at that time"? Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, *at that time*. Sigh.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I never said, or, implied that I could physically stop a women from having an abortion, as long as it remains legal. I have said from the beginning that my goal is to change the laws/create a constitutional amendment. I have answer that question several times in the past months.


Thank you.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Fair enough. I see life in concrete terms. You see life as occurring at some magical point along that continuum. I will continue to donate money, protest, lobby, etc. to change the laws.


You're free to make those choices about wasting your time and money. Isn't freedom to choose a grand thing?


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps that should be protested. I mean if one is truly, pro-choice, it would seem that that type of restriction would stick in their craw. I know it does mine.


They is a very solid group of women who don't want children doing exactly that but the response from the medical community is pretty firm. It seems they feel women are fickle and will change their minds later on. 

When I had it done, I had three kids but under the age limit and had to fight awful hard and ultimately, the only reason it was done was because I was able to convince one doctor that dying in the delivery room wasn't my main goal in life and I had more than ample proof it was a very likely chance.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> Are you aware that doctors will not sterilize women who are younger than a certain age or do not have a certain number of children? Essentially, a woman who strongly desires to never have children will be refused that option unless there is a compelling medical reason.
> 
> It's also not a simple surgery and I assume in the US there are additional costs to having that surgery. Although it's considered routine day surgery, there are restrictions on activity for a period of time.


I had mine done last year when I turned 35, guess that is old enough, very few questions asked. I have never married nor do I have children or any underlying health problem that would have necessitated the procedure.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> They is a very solid group of women who don't want children doing exactly that but the response from the medical community is pretty firm. It seems they feel women are fickle and will change their minds later on.
> 
> When I had it done, I had three kids but under the age limit and had to fight awful hard and ultimately, the only reason it was done was because I was able to convince one doctor that dying in the delivery room wasn't my main goal in life and I had more than ample proof it was a very likely chance.


I know several women that had to fight for sterilization too. They were all under 30, most had a couple kids, and all had to sign multiple waivers.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. Did you miss "at that time"? Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, *at that time*. Sigh.


Ok, right now, at this moment, what is illegal, is illegal and what is not is not. 

If there were a piece of wood floating on the sea, right now, it is in a certain place, that will not be true a few minutes from now, because, you know, fluid.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I know several women that had to fight for sterilization too. They were all under 30, most had a couple kids, and all had to sign multiple waivers.


 And I would fight right along with them because that is their body. No one else is being killed as a result of that choice.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Ok, right now, at this moment, what is illegal, is illegal and what is not is not.
> 
> If there were a piece of wood floating on the sea, right now, it is in a certain place, that will not be true a few minutes from now, because, you know, fluid.


Because everyone knows that a piece of wood floating on water is just a like a Constitutional right. :facepalm:


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Because everyone knows that a piece of wood floating on water is just a like a Constitutional right. :facepalm:


 There is no Constitutional right to abortion, enumerated in the Constitution. A few men, in black robes, wrongly, linked it to the actual Constitutional right to privacy. 

*Analogy*: A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> There is no Constitutional right to abortion, enumerated in the Constitution. A few men, in black robes, wrongly, linked it to the actual Constitutional right to privacy.
> 
> *Analogy*: A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.


It was an analogy. :hysterical:


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> It was an analogy. :hysterical:


 Indeed. To try and explain the word "fluid" for you in the context in which it was used. You seemed to be struggling.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Indeed. To try and explain the word "fluid" for you in the context in which it was used. You seemed to be struggling.


You are a funny guy but because you seem to have a real issue with the concept of time, and I do have a limited amount of patience, I'll use my right to ignore posts that I find ridiculous. At least for now.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You are a funny guy but because you have a real issue with the concept of time, and I have a limited amount of patience, I'll use my right to ignore posts that I find ridiculous. At least for now.


 Fair enough, but, I have no issue with the concept of time. Actually, not sure what you mean by that, or, how it is relevant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It seems they feel *women are fickle and will change their minds* later on.


Why on Earth would they think that????????????


----------



## wr

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why on Earth would they think that????????????


Perhaps someone posted pictures of my discarded knitting projects and my very valid reasons online. I'm kinda thinking that if the big guy can't comprehend 'I've fallen out of love for that yarn,' the medical profession probably can't either :rotfl:


----------

