- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,694
I'm confused. How does quoting a 12 year old kid prove anything?
Abortion Bills
- Thread starter user 7704
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
That looks pretty damn grim. If he hasn't show remorse and proven a sound and ongoing committment to doing better on the issue then I'd say have at calls for resignation, as I would for anyone in this situation - a person has demonstrate improvement, not just pay lip-service while continuing with stupid and harmful behaviours. Still unsure of how it relates to the current abortion issue, though. Ill-judged and perhaps deliberately foul action in one area doesn't automatically make someone sound or unsound in another area.
That tells me everything I need to know. You have no need for teaching abstinence? It is the only known 100% guarantee of not getting pregnant or an STD. But no, you just want to teach kids about sex and how to do it 'safely', which there is no such thing. Sick.
How about we leave abortion to a vote? Only those involved. Mom gets 1 vote. Each baby gets 1 vote. And we'll leave the tie-breaking vote to God?
To simplify the discussion. Once the fetus becomes viable and can survive outside the womb, then it become a living child. Before that, it could not survive so it is still a fetus. The women in charge of the womb, have enough time to decide to keep or terminate before the fetus become a child. This is not complex and gives both sides a say. But to me, once viable, it is life and would be murder to abort.
Nazi guards and camp officers laughing at Auschwitz Death Camp.
Democrats smiling (their postures don't suggest laughter in the same way as in the other image) at the signing of a bill that safeguards women's autonomy and health while maintaining appropriate restrictions on late-term abortion.
Edit: That last sentence should 'while maintaining appropriate restrictions on abortion during the third trimester.' A curse on discussing things when I'm tired!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2012
- Messages
- 18,449
Trying to abort a child is wrong in my book no matter what the circumstances. . . It is a life. I can't understand how a mother that carried that previous baby in her womb for whatever amount of time could even fathom the idea of killing her child. I can only think that person must be vain, wan ting the *peefext" baby. I was truly shocked when I first heard of this. . . It just breaks my heart. I can not understand how anyone, especially a mother could approve of this legalized murdering of a precious child.
For me, there's a massive difference between 'wanting the perfect baby' (which is a ridiculous desire) and having no physical or other resources for a child, being at risk of death or serious damage from continued pregnancy, lethal foetal abnormality, etc. And again, I perceive a difference between an embryo/foetus and a child. Yes, following premature birth from around 22 weeks, a child may survive, but abortion at this stage is undertaken in extreme health-related circumstances, not just because the pregnant person couldn't be bothered to finish the job.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the difficulty of obtaining an abortion during the first and second trimesters is one of the reasons for abortion during the third trimester. Pro-birth legislation, attacks on clinics, etc., push people further along in their pregnancy. Daniel Grossman goes into this a little in his response to Meghan McCain's poorly informed statement: https://www.someecards.com/news/new...NvSbe-eZhJq7jCCWJ5tekFzuUCzPwb93kzw6hE8LpykK0
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 10,004
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...hare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
It starts out with a good idea and then it mutates into areas we never deemed possible. Yes, as I stated, designer babies. Eyes, hair, etc. No far fetched at all.
It starts out with a good idea and then it mutates into areas we never deemed possible. Yes, as I stated, designer babies. Eyes, hair, etc. No far fetched at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
This has very little to do with the abortion bills with which you started, though.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 10,004
My initial post states my thoughts exactly.
It was that all of these ideas "for the good of the people" usually take a turn for the worse.
Your original post seemed to be about people aborting foetuses with the wrong eye colour or whatever, rather than about gene manipulation in order to avoid certain genetic traits. My apologies: I didn't realise that you were linking the two issues.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 6,474
no one wants to hear it but in every case,it is the women's choice not yours not mine just the women who is pregnant
do I support abortion no but we can not live another's life for them
do I support abortion no but we can not live another's life for them
That's how I think about it, too.
Thats the whole issue . The Little Person that is going to be ripped apart and bleed to death is not big enough to fight back . So some of Us think They are worth fighting for . Some People would like a law that would allow Them to have Their Parents euthanize so They can get Their inheritance quicker . No difference .
I'm very pro choice, but even I have my limits when it comes to abortion in the 3rd trimester.
The only exception that I can think of is ancephaly, which is when a baby is born without (and I mean completely without) a brain...as sometimes happens when mom abuses drugs during pregnancy, or when she doesn't get folic acid.
People worry about a slippery slope, but I've always regarded the slippery slope as a fallacy.
This is because issues like abortion are on a continuum, and the slippery slope ignores a healthy middle ground in favor of one extreme or another.
As an example, I know many religious people who are opposed to condoms for birth control, as a permissive attitude toward condoms sets the stage toward being permissive toward the morning after pill...which makes abortion easier, which in turn will lead to the killing of newborn infants, which then lets us build Nazi-like extermination camps for undesirable people.
So....condom usage can cause the Holocaust to happen again.
This is--in my mind--utter nonsense, yet people think like this.
I think the slippery slope is comfortable to some people because it saves us the hard work of examing our beliefs and actually trying to figure out where a healthy middle ground exists.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 6,474
sorry I have to say this,,,,,,,,,,,,no one has the right to tell anyone what they have to do when it comes to their body
it is like smoking is bad for you so we will outlaw that
drinking causes the death of thousands of innocent people every year including children so that must be outlawed
there are to many people killed by guns they have to be outlawed
do you get the point,,,,,you and many others want to dictate to others how they should live their life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you are all for legalizing pot which is a stepping stone to more dangerous drugs which leads to crime and eventual death of many users
You made absolutely no point . The little infant has no choice there . A buch of selfish adults take them to a cold room in a clinic and butcher them with razors and twist them with pliers until they are ripped apart . How could you ssy the little Person had a choice in that .
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 6,474
do you smoke or drink if so you are hazard to yourself and everyone around you,,,,,,,and those around you when you smoke or when you drive while drinking have no choice ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,show me the difference ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you want it your way nothing else matters,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,now you have a nice little life I am thru with you
Amen
Wow. What a brilliant point. Abortion the vast majority of time means the death of one life so that another life can 'live better'. Let's not argue the <1% of cases which deal with real health issues, the vast majority are pure convenience. Let's not argue the 0.01% or pregnancies that are related to rape but are about selfishness.
The vast majority of pregnancies are girls/women who chose to have sex and boys/men who chose to have sex. Actions have consequences. At that point, they have had their 'choices'. Choices have consequences. The baby did not choose to be created. At that point, the baby's choice to live overrules any choice the mother can make. She can making choices in 9 months, it's not the end of the world.
It's no different to say that old people are a hinderance to their adult children getting what these adult children want (inheritance). Hitler effectively did this to his political enemies, he invented the 65-year-old mandatory retirement program so that they would leave power and he could bring in his minions & take total power. It will not be long before 'useless old people wasting medical resources' will get cut off in mass. It's already happening. Just yesterday a friend got a 'insurance denied' response on needed medical procedures. It won't be obvious, but will creep further in one inch at a time.
In most every pregnancy that ends in abortion its the choice of selfish Parents or Parent because having a Child will interfere with Their careers or lifestyle . The choice they should have made should have been not to get pregnant . Once Someone makes the choice to bring a new life into existence then they are responsible for the care of that life . To end a life because You don't want to help this Child should never be a option .
Only from the most evil People on Earth has that became a common practice .
As far as your drinking and smoking and legal pot comments . No I don't do any of thoes but I don't stop anyone that wants to . But that has absolutely nothing to do with the vile abortion industry . Thats just you lame attempt at deflection .
Only from the most evil People on Earth has that became a common practice .
As far as your drinking and smoking and legal pot comments . No I don't do any of thoes but I don't stop anyone that wants to . But that has absolutely nothing to do with the vile abortion industry . Thats just you lame attempt at deflection .
Highly trained and competent medical professionals either assist the mother to take an oral medication, or take her to a warm room to perform a surgical operation that may or may not (depending on the stage of pregnancy) involve very carefully dismembering the foetus after it is dead or, rarely, before it is dead. 'Butchering and ripping occur during the untrained, uncaring, illegal abortions in unsanitary and unsuitable locations to which pregnant people turn - often at later stages of pregnancy - when they cannot access legal and safe abortion during early stages.
QUOTE="Psalm7, post: 150258, member: 5177"]In most every pregnancy that ends in abortion its the choice of selfish Parents or Parent because having a Child will interfere with Their careers or lifestyle . The choice they should have made should have been not to get pregnant . Once Someone makes the choice to bring a new life into existence then they are responsible for the care of that life . To end a life because You don't want to help this Child should never be a option .
Only from the most evil People on Earth has that became a common practice .
As far as your drinking and smoking and legal pot comments . No I don't do any of thoes but I don't stop anyone that wants to . But that has absolutely nothing to do with the vile abortion industry . Thats just you lame attempt at deflection .[/QUOTE]
And if someone did not chose to get pregnant but became pregnant anyway? Failure of contraceptive medication, device or sterilisation; incorrect use of contraception due to inedaequate sex education (and, I suspect, inadequate education generally - if you're not functionally literate and numerate then you may not understand instructions); rape; etc.
Sensible solutions include better sex education and contraceptive availability to make both unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies less likely, and more straightforward availability of abortion during the first trimester before the embryo becomes vaguely child-like and second trimester before the foetus is able to feel pain. Another humane option would be to provide much better support for parents after the birth of a child, expecially an 'accidental' one, so that people who found themselves pregnant when they neither expected nor wanted to be might not feel so frightened and unable to cope.
BJ,
You don't get it. The person chose to have sex. THAT is the choice the man & woman made. A consequence of sex can be pregnancy. At that point the baby is there.
Oh, and you do you have any evidence to support how often the baby is killed before it is dismembered, torn limb from limb? Here is an article where abortionists say that is impossible: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/09...oses-gruesome-reality-dismemberment-abortion/
(quote)
Dozens of abortion providers from across the state claim the Texas law effectively bans second-trimester abortions. There is simply no way, they say, to ensure the death of a fetus prior to dismemberment in a “safe and effective” way, so the law creates a substantial burden to a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.
You don't get it. The person chose to have sex. THAT is the choice the man & woman made. A consequence of sex can be pregnancy. At that point the baby is there.
Oh, and you do you have any evidence to support how often the baby is killed before it is dismembered, torn limb from limb? Here is an article where abortionists say that is impossible: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/09...oses-gruesome-reality-dismemberment-abortion/
(quote)
Dozens of abortion providers from across the state claim the Texas law effectively bans second-trimester abortions. There is simply no way, they say, to ensure the death of a fetus prior to dismemberment in a “safe and effective” way, so the law creates a substantial burden to a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.
Last edited:
And if someone did not chose to get pregnant but became pregnant anyway? Failure of contraceptive medication, device or sterilisation; incorrect use of contraception due to inedaequate sex education (and, I suspect, inadequate education generally - if you're not functionally literate and numerate then you may not understand instructions); rape; etc.
Sensible solutions include better sex education and contraceptive availability to make both unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies less likely, and more straightforward availability of abortion during the first trimester before the embryo becomes vaguely child-like and second trimester before the foetus is able to feel pain. Another humane option would be to provide much better support for parents after the birth of a child, expecially an 'accidental' one, so that people who found themselves pregnant when they neither expected nor wanted to be might not feel so frightened and unable to cope.[/QUOTE]
Wrong , the torturing and butchering is the common method used , with the addition of the New York law now they claim to use lethal injection on the babies they kill and at the same time say that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment for Inmates on Death Row .
In both the US and the UK, the majority of abortions are performed before an embryo is an inch long, and the vast majority before the embryo/foetus is sufficiently developed to feel pain.Dilation & extraction are used in a minority of abortions and intact dilation & extraction procedures are used in a tiny percentage.
It's a hell of a leap to 'torturing and butchering is the common method used'. You're writing hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense, Psalm7, and, like grayghost668, I'm through with you.
It's a hell of a leap to 'torturing and butchering is the common method used'. You're writing hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense, Psalm7, and, like grayghost668, I'm through with you.
Oh calling it "extraction" makes it sound so much less harmful . Now if someone throws anoter Person from a 7th story window they could say It wasn't murder it was just extraction .
So does that Child have a say in being extracted ? It is supposed to be Choice isn't it ?
BJ,
According to your view, it's not too bad to kill a midget because they're smaller. Since when does the size of a person make the difference defining whether they are a human being or not?
By your thinking, if I kill a guy who's missing an arm & a leg, I should only get about 75% of the sentence for murder since he's already missing 25% of his body. Or if I kill a 70 year-old, I only get 10% of the sentence?
Is that your justification for being ok with doing this when the baby is still small?
According to your view, it's not too bad to kill a midget because they're smaller. Since when does the size of a person make the difference defining whether they are a human being or not?
By your thinking, if I kill a guy who's missing an arm & a leg, I should only get about 75% of the sentence for murder since he's already missing 25% of his body. Or if I kill a 70 year-old, I only get 10% of the sentence?
Is that your justification for being ok with doing this when the baby is still small?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 6,474
BIBLE THUMPERS ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I'm still awaiting BlueJoy to answer this.
There is an issue related to this that hasn't been brought up.
The Right to Life ideals are often portrayed as a long-held Christian value, and nothing is further from the truth.
Midwives (who preformed abortions for hundreds of years) used to freely (if euphamistically) advertise their services on every church bulletin board....as the church used to be the center of the community.
It wasn't until the 1840s or so that abortion was portrayed as a religious issue about the sanctity of life when male doctors started to usurp the midwives as obstetricians, so a lot of this conflict stems from a business disagreement between midwives and physicians.
As far as the Bible goes, there is a passage in the Old Testament which states that a person must pay a fine if he strikes a pregnant woman and she loses the baby.
I'm not saying that there aren't holes in my argument.
The biggest one is that--for example--science evolves as we learn more, and we expand our knowlege and apply it.
One can also say that Christianity has evolved as we learn and understand more, and abortion--once considered (by almost all churches) to be a private matter between a midwife and her patient--has become a matter of life and death to people (ie: unborn babies) who can't be their own advocate.
If we accept this view, then we are accepting that Christianity can grow and change, so then everything else--such as gay marriage and birth control--can be reinterpreted in a better light.
I never believed that Christ intended that his followers stop reinterpreting his teachings in the face of a changing world.
