|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Fur or babies? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1557923352 Message started by WebsterMark on 05/15/19 at 05:29:12 |
|
Title: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/19 at 05:29:12 If you want to know how far apart the country is, consider that New York City is discussing banning fur and Alabama is discussing banning abortion. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/15/19 at 06:25:29 I agree - fur should be banned, abortions shouldn't. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/15/19 at 08:19:54 293738393429322F5D0 wrote:
WOW !!! You believe that harvesting/hunting, and using meat/fur, from a animal, is wrong. Yet you believe, KILLING A HUMAN BABY, A Sentient Being, Is perfectly OK. And you have the balls to say, no one here knows you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/15/19 at 08:52:32 5675486B6972757C1B0 wrote:
WOW !!! You believe that harvesting/hunting, and using meat/fur, from a animal, is wrong. Yes - but to be clear, I do eat meat and I get the hypocrisy, so.... But I think that killing animals for fur is worse. Yet you believe, KILLING A HUMAN BABY, A Sentient Being, Is perfectly OK. Well mn, a fetus is not a baby. A heartbeat is not a baby. A zygote is not a baby. And you have the balls to say, no one here knows you. Yeah, I do. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Serowbot on 05/15/19 at 08:58:55 The real argument is not about whether or not abortion should happen,... it's about whether doctors should be allowed to do them. Abortions will happen. They always have and always will. You really need to face reality. Know your history. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/15/19 at 09:00:19 I think the basis is the killing of a born animal for fur. It would be equal if they were killing unborn animals for fur, or killing born humans for meat. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/15/19 at 09:02:56 "it's about whether doctors should be allowed to do them" This is exactly correct. Procreation will continue. Underground and home abortions will happen, and will increase if a safer clinical setting isn't available as they have in the past. It is no different than giving birth. If clinical birth centers were illegal people would still have children, just without professional medical assistance. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/15/19 at 09:05:55 624240485542270 wrote:
Agrees - well said, both of you. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/15/19 at 09:09:38 4553445941545942360 wrote:
Absolutely they will. Yet I have the ability to say I believe it is KILLING a Human. Just like you have the ability to say, you don't believe in any Deity, or believe some guns, and uses of them should be BANNED. (Well until the B.S. Socialists take away the 1st. as they are working hard to do) Here the rub, YOU, don't pay for MY guns. Yet I, pay for YOUR (or friend/etc) abortion ! |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Serowbot on 05/15/19 at 10:30:14 No tax money is used for abortion. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/15/19 at 10:34:26 5640574A52474A51250 wrote:
Planned Parenthood Support? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/15/19 at 11:22:38 I am fine with the removal of public taxes for abortion clinics. What is happening is the criminalization of the procedure, not the removal of public taxes. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/15/19 at 11:43:40 7E687F627A6F62790D0 wrote:
"...taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers..." "...the Hyde Amendment has been signed into law prohibiting federal payments through Medicaid..." |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/15/19 at 18:25:59 Nobody is fool enough to believe that abortions will be stopped by this. It's basically a tenth amendment ploy. Let the states decide their own policies. That's what this is all about. Kill roe vs wade, and then the states decide how to deal. The baby inside a woman is a baby. It's a human being. The ONLY reason it's called Constitutional and legal to kill it is because it hasn't been born yet. The language of the constitution GUARANTEES certain rights to those born or naturalized in America. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/19 at 18:54:23 Fighting so hard for your team to win that you'd grant more value to a mink that a human being is hard to fathom. Every pro-choice person was, at all one point in their life, identical to the life they'd kill. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by pg on 05/15/19 at 18:58:47 Democrats support abortions for everyone except their parents..... Am I right or am I right...... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/19 at 03:40:23 Anyone who starts with the business of defining life other than the definition that would be used under any other circumstance has no basis pointing out anti-vaccine people or those objecting to overhyped climate change concerns as anti-science. And flexible definitions for what is and isn’t human (based 100% on politics or in the case of Planned Parenthood, money) is horrifying. I read some article a while back that said Downs was on the verge of being eradicated..... it’s not being eradicated, they’re simply killing them off. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/16/19 at 06:16:44 Ban furs - not abortions. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/19 at 08:31:06 So a woman could kill a baby at 8 months because she wants to but she can’t wear a fur coat to the abortion clinic? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/16/19 at 09:07:21 784A4D5C5B4A5D624E5D442F0 wrote:
LOVE IT !!!!! That is exactaly how a UL, FDS DFI Thinks !!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/16/19 at 09:42:24 4D7F78696E7F68577B68711A0 wrote:
That's not what I said. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/19 at 09:43:34 Yes it is. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/16/19 at 09:48:37 675552434455427D51425B300 wrote:
No, it's not. I've never been in favor of late term abortions. But I've always been in favor of a woman's right to choose. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/16/19 at 10:37:36 495758595449524F3D0 wrote:
Really ? So when you say: I've never been in favor of late term abortions. But I've always been in favor of a woman's right to choose. fur should be banned, abortions shouldn't. They mean the same thing ? Tell me when someone says: "Turn Them All In" What does that mean ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D (Smiley faces just for tt) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/19 at 10:45:29 302E21202D302B36440 wrote:
No, it's not. I've never been in favor of late term abortions. But I've always been in favor of a woman's right to choose.[/quote] But not a woman’s right to choose fur?..... When you say woman’s right to choose, you are in favor of giving one person the right to kill another human being for any reason. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/16/19 at 13:17:31 5B696E7F78697E416D7E670C0 wrote:
No, it's not. I've never been in favor of late term abortions. But I've always been in favor of a woman's right to choose.[/quote] But not a woman’s right to choose fur?..... No - because you're actually killing a living animal. A fetus is NOT a living animal. Not until it's viable outside the womb. When you say woman’s right to choose, you are in favor of giving one person the right to kill another human being for any reason.[/quote] SMH - again - a fetus is not a human being. It's not a person. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/16/19 at 13:55:12 And flexible definitions for what is and isn’t human (based 100% on politics or in the case of Planned Parenthood, money) is horrifying. I read some article a while back that said Downs was on the verge of being eradicated..... it’s not being eradicated, they’re simply killing them off. Can you reference this? I am familiar with this topic regarding genome sequencing and gene editing. If this is what you are referring to then you are saying altering a parent's genes is killing a potential human prior to intercourse. If they are prioritizing abortions based off downs-syndrome that's different. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by pg on 05/16/19 at 14:33:02 http://100abortionphotos.com/ Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/16/19 at 14:41:34 SMH - again - a fetus is not a human being. It's not a person. It's not a puppy. What you are willing to pretend is true goes against everything humanity accepted as true on its face since the beginning. Only since Roe vs Wade and the denial of civil rights to the unborn has that twisted ideology been pushed. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/16/19 at 14:44:51 And if a pregnancy is terminated during the commission of a crime, then it's murder. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/16/19 at 15:20:41 405F595E43447545754D5F53182A0 wrote:
I'm not pretending about anything. But hey - abortion is in the Bible. So, is the Bible not Gospel? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/16/19 at 15:23:52 4B584F4E515C5A58530C3D0 wrote:
If the woman doesn't know she's pregnant, does that count? How can she even know at the early stages? That'd be - at best - a case by case consideration. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/16/19 at 15:24:07 All sorts of bad stuff is in the bible. Slavery too. It's a part of the fallen nature of man. Doesn't mean we should call it good. Or deny the value of the unborn. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/16/19 at 15:29:43 607F797E63645565556D7F73380A0 wrote:
More hypocrisy.... you don't want to "deny the value of the unborn", yet after the kid is born, "fukc 'em - they're on their own." What kid of rationale is that?? If you take away a woman's right to choose, then you must accept the burden of every single child that's born. Meaning - if that woman wants to give up that baby, there is zero consequence. No matter how many times she gets pregnant and dumps a kid, we have to pay for it. Pay for the cost of the prenatal care, the birth, the postnatal care, the feeding, the clothing, the care until its adopted and on and on... |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/16/19 at 15:48:04 2A343B3A372A312C5E0 wrote:
But that's what, YOU, want to do. You don't like Fur, (in fact you value Fur above unborn Human Babies), YOU, want to 'take away Choice', and BAN FUR ! 5B454A4B465B405D2F0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/16/19 at 15:51:30 594748494459425F2D0 wrote:
OMG, that sounds, (GASP) Conservative !!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/16/19 at 16:57:27 deny the value of the unborn", yet after the kid is born, "fukc 'em - they're on their own." Gosh! I didn't know that's what I think. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/16/19 at 18:13:28 Everyone is just re-hashing their view on the human life definition and saying other definitions are wrong. The argument is about current law, not opinion. This is like arguing over seat-belt laws. People debate forever about the effectiveness of seat-belts instead of addressing the real issue of if its acceptable for law to tell you what you can and can't do for your personal safety inside an automobile. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/19 at 18:41:01 More hypocrisy.... you don't want to "deny the value of the unborn", yet after the kid is born, "fukc 'em - they're on their own." What kid of rationale is that?? If you take away a woman's right to choose, then you must accept the burden of every single child that's born. Meaning - if that woman wants to give up that baby, there is zero consequence. No matter how many times she gets pregnant and dumps a kid, we have to pay for it. Pay for the cost of the prenatal care, the birth, the postnatal care, the feeding, the clothing, the care until its adopted and on and on... Here's your philosophy then, in a newspaper style headline: "TT: Baby almost born into poverty but mother kills it in the nick of time!" |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by raydawg on 05/16/19 at 19:23:08 Pay for the cost of the prenatal care, the birth, the postnatal care, the feeding, the clothing, the care until its adopted and on and on... Huh..... :-? :-? :-? :-? I thought that was Bernie's plan anyway, for everybody? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/17/19 at 06:25:08 3B28302D283E2E490 wrote:
No, it's not. Educate yourself on Bernie's policy if you're going to comment on it. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/17/19 at 06:26:53 586A6D7C7B6A7D426E7D640F0 wrote:
No, that's incorrect. As I stated, I don't condone late term abortions. A fetus that has become viable outside the womb can only then be considered a "baby". So your "in the nick of time" reference is flawed. Nice try. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/17/19 at 07:25:47 Pretend it's not essentially correct. Split hairs, but it's what you said. Kill it, save it from poverty. Boy, how racist! The most dangerous place for the unborn? Inside a democrat. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/17/19 at 08:54:08 564847464B564D50220 wrote:
So a woman, has missed her period. She ’thinks’ she may be pregnant. She is driving to the Doctors office. She is hit head on and killed. The other person is charged with one count of ‘Vechiel Manslaughter’. A Autopsy is performed, and it is discovered she was pregnant, by one week. Now, the other person is charged with TWO counts of ‘Vechiel Manslaughter’. And is sentenced to, Two, Consecutive terms. So, where is your, ‘outrage’ ? You believe, ‘But it’s not a person’, ‘ A fetus is NOT a living animal.’, ‘a fetus is not a human being’, ‘It’s not a person’, ‘a fetus is not a baby’, ‘A heartbeat is not a baby’, ‘A zygote is not a baby’. So clearly you believe that person should NOT be charged, because that second, ‘person’, was NOT a ‘person’. Please explain why, the same people, (for the very most part) have decided a ‘baby’ is NOT a ‘baby’ until it is born, and can be willy-nilly, ‘aborted’, up to that point. YET, suddenly, that, ‘unborn nothing’, is now a person ? If the Tragic accident happened as above. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/17/19 at 09:08:29 2C3335322F2819291921333F74460 wrote:
Wow... all of a sudden, I've changed my mind!!! <<<<<< Sarcasm :D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/17/19 at 09:11:00 6C4F725153484F46210 wrote:
So a woman, has missed her period. She ’thinks’ she may be pregnant. She is driving to the Doctors office. She is hit head on and killed. The other person is charged with one count of ‘Vechiel Manslaughter’. A Autopsy is performed, and it is discovered she was pregnant, by one week. Now, the other person is charged with TWO counts of ‘Vechiel Manslaughter’. And is sentenced to, Two, Consecutive terms. Do you have proof of that happening? What's your source? So, where is your, ‘outrage’ ? You believe, ‘But it’s not a person’, ‘ A fetus is NOT a living animal.’, ‘a fetus is not a human being’, ‘It’s not a person’, ‘a fetus is not a baby’, ‘A heartbeat is not a baby’, ‘A zygote is not a baby’. So clearly you believe that person should NOT be charged, because that second, ‘person’, was NOT a ‘person’. Again, is there a record of such an incident? Please explain why, the same people, (for the very most part) have decided a ‘baby’ is NOT a ‘baby’ until it is born, and can be willy-nilly, ‘aborted’, up to that point. YET, suddenly, that, ‘unborn nothing’, is now a person ? If the Tragic accident happened as above. "If the tragic accident happened above"? So this is only in your mind? Maybe you should ask a lawyer. [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/17/19 at 09:21:05 3F212E2F223F24394B0 wrote:
Great Job of Deflecting ! Great Job ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/17/19 at 09:42:40 0A291437352E2920470 wrote:
Great Job of Deflecting ! Great Job ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] What do you want me to do? Give you legal advice? I'm not you - I educate myself. Take your storybook scenario and go ask a lawyer. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by raydawg on 05/17/19 at 09:47:56 What do you want me to do? Give you legal advice? I'm not you - I educate myself. Gee, and to think I only looked at the pictures.....goodness, times have changed at Playboy I guess. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/17/19 at 10:22:48 6D7E667B7E68781F0 wrote:
WTF does that even mean? A Playboy reference?? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/17/19 at 10:24:01 No, that's incorrect. As I stated, I don't condone late term abortions. A fetus that has become viable outside the womb can only then be considered a "baby". I normally think any joining of male and female DNA fulfills the definition of what is a human but in your case, given that explanation, I'd be willing to make an exception......! |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by raydawg on 05/17/19 at 10:39:44 273936373A273C21530 wrote:
WTF does that even mean? A Playboy reference?? :-?[/quote] Gee, for one who is so smart, ya think it would be obvious, to where you get educated at..... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Serowbot on 05/17/19 at 11:07:37 The Alabama law will be overturned. ...and, if Trump ever got abortion outlawed, it would only be for 2 years because it would guarantee a Democrat win in 2020, at which time it would be overturned. Around 70% of voters are pro-choice. It's a losing issue for Conservatives. This may well be the last Republican ever elected President. Women will not risk this again. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/17/19 at 11:17:29 2F392E332B3E33285C0 wrote:
the law was specifically written to be challenged and Roe brought up again. That 70% pro-choice figure drops off a cliff when you show women pictures of babies ripped apart............ |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by raydawg on 05/17/19 at 11:19:43 4254435E46535E45310 wrote:
Who cares what you think.....its a woman's issue, you have no say ;D ;D ;D ;D EDIT: The really sad thing is abortions should be rare, with today's intercourse controls, it should not be a option of convenience, when so many better ways exist, and safer too! |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Serowbot on 05/17/19 at 11:29:29 4E5D45585D4B5B3C0 wrote:
Precisely how I feel about it. It's a women's choice... not my body, not my business. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/17/19 at 11:50:11 "That 70% pro-choice figure drops off a cliff when you show women pictures of babies ripped apart............ " Actually a study conducted in-part by the Vatican showed this action to have very little impact. Its like saying showing people pictures of grotesque STD lesions on genitals will reduce sexual activity. There is no evidence of this ever being the case as human sexuality encases more factors than aversion to human disfigurement. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/17/19 at 11:55:24 "A Autopsy is performed, and it is discovered she was pregnant, by one week. Now, the other person is charged with TWO counts of ‘Vechiel Manslaughter’. And is sentenced to, Two, Consecutive terms." Is there legal precedent for this? We have had this discussion before but nobody wants to use actual law. Real laws in lawbooks, used in courts, as reference. Again, the prosecution for harming an unborn human is because an act was committed without the choice/consent of the Mother. Without, the Mother's consent. The Mother had no choice, was not allowed a part in the decision. The Mother, had, no, choice. That's why the prosecution can file charges regarding an unborn baby. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/17/19 at 12:07:30 It will not go away. (Until it is not FREE) Just that I am not willing to PAY for it. I buy a gun. It is for my use/entertainment. I, PAY for it. A woman, has a abortion, for convenience sake, because she is to lazy to use the multitude of intercourse controls. I Pay for it. When that person, PAYS for MY gun, then we will talk. And yes, it is very well documented that Taxpayers, both State and Fed, PAY for the, ‘convenience’ abortions. And no, not even close to paying for someone, that, Truly, needs help. No one wants to go back to the days of coat hangers and closets. It is legal, it is her conscious. No, FREE, abortion, because she is to lazy to use the multitude of conception control, readily available, and FREE. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/17/19 at 13:46:34 "because she is to lazy to use the multitude of conception control, readily available, and FREE." My opinion is that it should be both parties responsibility. Or however many are involved. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/17/19 at 13:47:02 18383A322F385D0 wrote:
Please explain why, prosecution can file charges. Because, that is a 'Unborn', 'thing' in the belly of a human female, It is NOT, a, 'Baby', 'Human', 'Person'. So their can, NOT, be any crime, consent or not. Simply because it is a, 'thing', just like a pencil rolling about on the floor. It's a, 'thing', until it is out of the body of the human female. And until that happens, the human female can have a abortion. Yet (for the most part) the same people are saying. It's a, 'unborn human Baby', if it is a car accident, or drug addiction, or some other thing that can/has, harmed that, 'Baby'. Then, their is a penalty ! |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/17/19 at 14:02:49 "So their can, NOT, be any crime, consent or not. Simply because it is a, 'thing', just like a pencil rolling about on the floor." Incorrect. One can commit a crime and damage a "thing", like I can damage a motorcycle that is not mine and be charged with destruction of property. "It's a, 'thing', until it is out of the body of the human female. And until that happens, the human female can have a abortion." Again - it is Legal to have an abortion. It is Illegal to harm a human female. It is illegal to harm a human female with a "thing" in her womb depending on law where the prosecution takes place. The problem here is you want to argue semantics and not use law. Did you bother to read 609.205 and 609.266? I did the last time we had this discussion. Did you bother to look up "Public Law 108-212"? I did. How hard is it to look up "In Utero" and see how its very specifically defined as to how it is used in law? 38 States have their own version of this. Some have none. If the mother consents, and uses a credentialed provider it is legal. Any other method is not. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/17/19 at 16:51:02 4C6C6E667B6C090 wrote:
No, show all women, not those about to have an abortion, what really happens in an abortion and then have them vote. The mandated ultrasound laws do show a reduction. Not huge amouts, but a reduction none the less. That's why the pro-choice crowd is against ultrasound or pictures. They know it won't change many minds who are about to have an abortion but it will sure galvanized those on the fence when they witness a baby killed. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by pg on 05/17/19 at 18:10:36 2136303C3323510 wrote:
Did anyone take a look at those photos? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/17/19 at 18:24:46 647375797666140 wrote:
Maybe the first 5, then clicked off. I believe it is tt, that needs to have eyes held open, then watch those over and over, and over. Wait, that would nave NO effect. I know. Get a bunch of photos of women in fur coats ! https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/fur-coat?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=fur%20coat&license=rf,rm&page=1&recency=anydate&suppressfamilycorrection=true ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/17/19 at 22:17:50 "No, show all women, not those about to have an abortion, what really happens in an abortion and then have them vote. The mandated ultrasound laws do show a reduction. Not huge amouts, but a reduction none the less." Ultrasound and heartbeat regulation capitalize on the exact opposite concept that human disfiguration does. That's why it works better. I'm not going delve into the details of human developmental psychology and group acceptance pattern methodologies, but showing a living human historically creates more desired results than showing a dead or disfigured one. Showing mutilated humans does less to stop violence than humanizing the enemy. Teaching adolescents about partner care lowers STD's more than images of infected lesions on genitals. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/18/19 at 01:01:55 It's not about making it illegal. It's a tenth amendment thing. You ACTUALLY think Trump has something to do with it? Naaah.. It's the Russians. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/18/19 at 06:46:21 Just to circle back to the original thought I had behind this thread, if you are in favor of a law that forbids fur, prosecutes the wearer, the manufacturer and the seller, but refuse laws that forbid late term abortions, abortions for Downs or parental consent laws AND you’ve taken that position for political gains (which you all have) then you’re a living, breathing piece of human excrement. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/18/19 at 09:33:47 What political gains do I have by preferring an abortion take place, legally, in a clinic environment over a basement, alley or other higher-risk environment? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/19/19 at 04:47:43 Your not stupid Eegore so stop playing like you are. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/19/19 at 08:27:21 "Your not stupid Eegore so stop playing like you are." I do not know the political advantages I would have by legalizing abortion. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Serowbot on 05/19/19 at 09:13:25 704245545342556A46554C270 wrote:
So,.. should women be prosecuted for getting an abortion?... Should they be charged with murder?... Prison?... .. or would you have a fine?, like a parking ticket?... Have you considered the practical consequences?... We already have 5 times more people in prison than most civilized countries,... do you want to pay to imprison more?... 100's of thousands more?... ... or do you want to punish only the providers? Kinda' like jailing the gun makers instead of the shooters... |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/19/19 at 19:46:24 Wow, you really hate babies don't you? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/19/19 at 23:14:04 I think asking how or if prosecuting women for attempting abortion is a valid question. I don't think it will ever happen since it's much easier to go after the provider. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 04:58:13 69494B435E492C0 wrote:
It's because he hates babies. He and other leftist are waging a war on babies. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 05:58:49 5D6F68797E6F78476B78610A0 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 06:02:28 6E5C5B4A4D5C4B74584B52390 wrote:
It's because he hates babies. He and other leftist are waging a war on babies.[/quote] LOL - "war on babies" now? You conservatives are hilarious. There is no war on babies - there's no war on anything. You cons use that phrase to legitimize your fear mongering. You make it sound like the lefties are going to kill all babies...lmao!! The fact is - this whole debate is not about abortions - it's about a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Get over it. It's not going to change. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 06:35:16 6D737C7D706D766B190 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.[/quote] Just so I'm clear, in your definition, a fetus is the term up until the moment where it emerges from the woman's body at which point it becomes a baby / human with all the inalienable rights we all share? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 08:35:04 2F313E3F322F34295B0 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.[/quote] Yep, he's dehumanizing the enemy to make what's deplorable acceptable. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 08:59:33 5E6C6B7A7D6C7B44687B62090 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.[/quote] Just so I'm clear, in your definition, a fetus is the term up until the moment where it emerges from the woman's body at which point it becomes a baby / human with all the inalienable rights we all share? [/quote] No. A fetus is the term I use for the organism that cannot sustain itself outside the host's body. It is somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester - 23 to 26 weeks that a fetus becomes viable outside the body. After that point, there should be restrictions and considerations made of abortions. Clear? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 09:00:41 2D3E2928373A3C3E356A5B0 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.[/quote] Yep, he's dehumanizing the enemy to make what's deplorable acceptable. [/quote] You label me as such to make yourself feel better. Sad. The fact is vers - most women agree with me - not you. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 09:24:22 7F616E6F627F64790B0 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.[/quote] Yep, he's dehumanizing the enemy to make what's deplorable acceptable. [/quote] You label me as such to make yourself feel better. Sad. The fact is vers - most women agree with me - not you. [/quote] Where's the label? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 09:42:48 667562637C7177757E21100 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.[/quote] Yep, he's dehumanizing the enemy to make what's deplorable acceptable. [/quote] You label me as such to make yourself feel better. Sad. The fact is vers - most women agree with me - not you. [/quote] Where's the label?[/quote] Sorry, should have said You accuse me as such to make yourself feel better. Sad. Better? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 09:56:41 No. A fetus is the term I use for the organism that cannot sustain itself outside the host's body. fetus....organism....host... ain't you Mr. Human?! So due to the medical technology we have in advanced nations in 2019; today's baby was an organism 20 years ago and today's organism will be a baby 20 years from now. Solid logic there..... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 10:12:56 0C3E39282F3E29163A29305B0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 10:31:09 A fetus that is under 20 weeks old is not viable outside the body. Medical technology be darned. You can't have something that isn't true, suddenly be true. But medical technology does matter. Years ago, that 20 week limit was higher. No matter the medical technology, 24 weeks was the limit for example. And logically, years in the future, it will be lower, 16 weeks. So I'm just trying to understand. Based upon what you said: A baby is a fetus based upon the medical technology at the time and place it happens to be. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 11:07:09 083A3D2C2B3A2D123E2D345F0 wrote:
Again, it's not all about the abortion, it's about the women's right to choose. But I'll indulge you... So let's set this up properly. I state that a woman's right to choose should not be taken away. I also state that if enough of the pregnancy has passed and the fetus is viable outside the body (let's say 23 weeks), then there should be restrictions and considerations made at that time about allowing an abortion. Restrictions such as as termination of the fetus and consideration to the life of the mother (I'm only calling her "mother" because we are talking about a fetus that may be viable outside the body). If the mother's life is in danger due to the fetus, then she should still have the choice on whether or not to abort. If the mother simply wants to terminate the fetus for no other reason than birth control - she should not be allowed. However, if the time ever comes where medical science can reliably sustain a fetus outside the body prior to say, 20 weeks, then those considerations shift slightly. If you want to try and look into the future, then at some point, abortion will no longer be a thing. Artificial uteruses already exist. But we've got a hell of a long way to go before that. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 11:22:09 I've always wondered this, but what condition jeopardizes the mother's health that can only be remedied by killing the baby? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/20/19 at 11:54:55 "I've always wondered this, but what condition jeopardizes the mother's health that can only be remedied by killing the baby?" Theres many reasons women die from childbirth. Also mortality rates have increased, and many of the reasons are unknown. According to 9 MMRC's the primary factors known prior to birth are preeclampsia, cardiomyopathy, blood disease, potential for hemorrhage, and coronary disease. "Overall, there were seven leading underlying causes of pregnancy-related death, accounting for 72.1% of all pregnancy-related deaths (Figure 4). In addition, there were at least 5 pregnancy-related deaths due to each of the following: amniotic fluid embolism (4.2%), homicide (3.3%), cerebrovascular accidents (2.8%), unintentional injury (2.8%), anesthesia complications (2.3%), and autoimmune diseases (2.3%). " In the above section autoimmune diseases are typically known prior to childbirth and risk factors, when combined with consistent assessment, can be reliably calculated. Autoimmune factors should also be considered as a childbirth related mortality factor. This covers circumstances only prior to birth and result in mortality during delivery, it doesn't include situations where both the mother and child will die. Also a number of others pregnancy related issues can kill the mother months after birth. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Freproductivehealth%2Fmaternalinfanthealth%2Fpmss.html |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 11:59:15 5B696E7F78697E416D7E670C0 wrote:
Not tough to find on the google machine.... http://www.livescience.com/24127-fact-check-walsh-pregnancy-can-kill.html http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/ http://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/pregnancy-complications But to be clear - we're not talking about a baby - we're talking about a fetus. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/20/19 at 12:07:26 253B343538253E23510 wrote:
Believe everyone here knows your view, a view from someone that, Believes in, Not believing. (Well unless it is someone like C.U. or AOC) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 12:39:18 3E202F2E233E25384A0 wrote:
A fetus is not a baby.[/quote] Yep, he's dehumanizing the enemy to make what's deplorable acceptable. [/quote] You label me as such to make yourself feel better. Sad. The fact is vers - most women agree with me - not you. [/quote] Where's the label?[/quote] Sorry, should have said You accuse me as such to make yourself feel better. Sad. Better?[/quote] Myself? I'm not pregnant, nor have I dehumanized anyone. So you're the one that's sad as I don't have to rationalize a choice. Currently pro-life/choice is 48/48%, so you might want to re-evaluate yourself. (Gallop poll) |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 12:54:46 7F6C7B7A65686E6C6738090 wrote:
You may want to clarify that stat. Yes, that's what people give their opinion as to being pro-life or pro-choice. But it goes much deeper than that. As to the legality: From Gallop- Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances? (Asked of those who say abortion should be legal under certain circumstances) Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances? Combined data based on full sample Legal under any - 29% Legal under most - 14% Legal only in a few - 35% Illegal in all - 18% No opinion - 3% 78% say it should be legal in some form or fashion. CONTEXT. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 13:24:56 312F20212C312A37450 wrote:
Certainly, legal in a few and not at all equate to 53% when you compare it to 48% says you ought to re-evaluate you consider CONTEXT. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 13:39:10 5D4E5958474A4C4E451A2B0 wrote:
Certainly, legal in a few and not at all equate to 53% when you compare it to 48% says you ought to re-evaluate you consider CONTEXT.[/quote] LOL - wow, how clever. Maybe someday, you'll have some more originality.... But to be clear - 78% - A MAJORITY OF THOSE POLLED THINK IT SHOULD BE LEGAL. End. Of. Story. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 13:44:45 How about we talk about what constitutes a living human being? Survivablility? Soul? Or to you godless horde, Consciousness? Is a polliwog a frog? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 13:49:37 537371796473160 wrote:
And killing the baby is the solution to these issues? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 13:50:24 7B687F7E616C6A68633C0D0 wrote:
I though we covered that..... A fetus is the term I use for the organism that cannot sustain itself outside the host's body. It is somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester - 23 to 26 weeks that a fetus becomes viable outside the body. After that point, there should be restrictions and considerations made of abortions. So to recap - a fetus becomes human when it can sustain itself outside the womb. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 13:55:48 We have a rover on Mars digging up the soil looking for signs of life. Imagine it were to uncover the product of a male sperm and female egg, moments after conception. Imagine the machine had the capabilities to analyze it. Once the data was received on earth, what would we do? We'd say we found life on Mars. What kind of life? A dog, a monkey, a fish? No, we found human life. But here on Earth, that same data is called something else to justify killing it. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 14:03:15 7B494E5F58495E614D5E472C0 wrote:
And killing the baby is the solution to these issues?[/quote] LOL - "killing babies" - yet another conservative, fear mongering tactic. You can't kill a baby if there is no baby. There's a reason it's called a fetus and not a baby. These sorts of tactics that you use, have actually led to a doctor's death. The moron that is bill o'reily constantly referred to Dr. George Tiller as a "baby killer" on his program. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bill-oreillys-dangerous-war-against-dr-tiller-107722/ So let's set it straight. A fetus is not a baby. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 14:05:53 465857565B465D40320 wrote:
I though we covered that..... A fetus is the term I use for the organism that cannot sustain itself outside the host's body. It is somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester - 23 to 26 weeks that a fetus becomes viable outside the body. After that point, there should be restrictions and considerations made of abortions. So to recap - a fetus becomes human when it can sustain itself outside the womb.[/quote] I see, you're not capable of higher thought, just regurgitation. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 14:05:56 427077666170675874677E150 wrote:
A fetus is little more than a parasite.... until it's viable on its own. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 14:08:21 495A4D4C535E585A510E3F0 wrote:
I though we covered that..... A fetus is the term I use for the organism that cannot sustain itself outside the host's body. It is somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester - 23 to 26 weeks that a fetus becomes viable outside the body. After that point, there should be restrictions and considerations made of abortions. So to recap - a fetus becomes human when it can sustain itself outside the womb.[/quote] I see, you're not capable of higher thought, just regurgitation.[/quote] What more would you like - a dissertation? I've posted my thoughts. They're well thought out and pretty easy to follow. You don't like it? I really don't care. I support a woman's right to choose. Period. I think that life begins when a fetus is viable outside the womb. Period. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 14:10:21 a chicken lays an egg, is that viable? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 14:27:29 5C4F5859464B4D4F441B2A0 wrote:
If it's been fertilized, possibly. But it must be kept warm and sheltered or it will not hatch. But we're not talking about a food-stock animal, are we? If a woman is pregnant but does not know it - say 2 or 3 months along - and she goes skiing and has a bad fall that causes a miscarriage - is that murder? Better yet, what if she's a heavy drinker and smoker... is that murder - even if she doesn't know she's pregnant? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/20/19 at 14:33:25 726C63626F726974060 wrote:
Please expound on when a 'thing' becomes a baby ? Is it when the head crowns, head out, 1 shoulder, or both, to the waist, one leg, or both ? If the umbilical cord is attached to the Placenta, and that is inside the Woman, is it a, 'IT' or a 'Baby' ? Does the Umbilical cord have to be cut ? At what point is, 'it', considered, 'born', and can no longer be Killed, willy nilly for convenience sake ? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 14:36:42 And religion would be upended.... how about that? The moral compass of everyone religious would be flawed.... I don't know anyone who would be upended. Why would they? Ray; if life was found on Mars (and presumably TT didn't abort it because it would be inconvenient to him) would that throw your moral compass into a tizzy? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 14:41:16 5675486B6972757C1B0 wrote:
Please expound on when a 'thing' becomes a baby ? Sigh.... I though we covered that..... A fetus is the term I use for the organism that cannot sustain itself outside the host's body. It is somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester - 23 to 26 weeks that a fetus becomes viable outside the body. After that point, there should be restrictions and considerations made of abortions. So to recap - a fetus becomes human when it can sustain itself outside the womb. Is it when the head crowns, head out, 1 shoulder, or both, to the waist, one leg, or both ? If the umbilical cord is attached to the Placenta, and that is inside the Woman, is it a, 'IT' or a 'Baby' ? Does the Umbilical cord have to be cut ? At what point is, 'it', considered, 'born', and can no longer be Killed, willy nilly for convenience sake ?[/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 14:43:39 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/20/19 at 14:58:58 170906070A170C11630 wrote:
Another question, you said: sustain itself outside the host's body. So does that mean, that once born, (From a female Human) and born, (as your description of, 'born', from a previous post) Does that mean that, 'baby' can, "sustain Itself', by gathering food, keeping warm, etc. etc, etc, Or does that, baby' need someone to do those things for him/her for a while ? So you are constantly saying. sustain itself outside the host's body. That, 'thing', or 'it', only becomes a 'baby' when it can, sustain itself outside the host's body. After it is How Old ? (According to the Gospel as said by tt) So it can be, Killed Willy Nilly, until it's how old ? (According to YOUR, sustain itself outside the host's body.) Gospel according to tt: a fetus becomes human when it can sustain itself outside the womb. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 15:02:36 3C222D2C213C273A480 wrote:
[/quote] Genesis, god created heaven and the earth. What tizzy do you think it would cause? Oh wow... that includes mars. (mind explodes) |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by verslagen1 on 05/20/19 at 15:04:54 5B784566647F7871160 wrote:
I never seen a toddler that can farm or milk a cow. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 15:21:17 I don't know a single Christian person who would be overly upset. Do you? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 15:35:29 5B784566647F7871160 wrote:
Another question, you said: sustain itself outside the host's body. So does that mean, that once born, (From a female Human) and born, (as your description of, 'born', from a previous post) It means what it says - viable outside the womb. Does that mean that, 'baby' can, "sustain Itself', by gathering food, keeping warm, etc. etc, etc, Or does that, baby' need someone to do those things for him/her for a while ? No. That means that a fetus, that is no longer dependant on the host's body for maturation. Meaning - all its organs are formed completely. So you are constantly saying. sustain itself outside the host's body. That, 'thing', or 'it', only becomes a 'baby' when it can, sustain itself outside the host's body. After it is How Old ? (According to the Gospel as said by tt) Around 22 weeks or so after fertilization. So it can be, Killed Willy Nilly, until it's how old ? (According to YOUR, sustain itself outside the host's body.) Well, you can't kill something that is not alive - but up to about 18 to 20 weeks you can still abort the fetus if necessary. Gospel according to tt: a fetus becomes human when it can sustain itself outside the womb. Yeah, I said that - we get it... why do you keep repeating it? [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 15:37:45 5F4C5B5A45484E4C4718290 wrote:
[/quote] Genesis, god created heaven and the earth. What tizzy do you think it would cause? Oh wow... that includes mars. (mind explodes)[/quote] Oh. I guess I must have missed the part about Mars in the Bible and how the "Garden Of Eden" existed there too.. and all other non-Earth worlds.... You want to sit there and tell me that religion wouldn't be upended if there were humanoid life found elsewhere? Are you really that naive too? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 15:39:26 283B2C2D323F393B306F5E0 wrote:
I never seen a toddler that can farm or milk a cow. ;D[/quote] Yeah, because that's exactly what I meant. <<<<sarcasm If sustainability meant self reliance, I know there's a few people on this forum that would be questionable. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 15:41:18 003235242332251A36253C570 wrote:
Upset? Maybe, maybe not. But the whole concept of religion - as it formed here - would be upended. The Bible doesn't mention life existing anywhere but here. The Heavens are separate from the Earth. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/20/19 at 15:45:40 5D6F68797E6F78476B78610A0 wrote:
As in: "Imagine it were to uncover the product of a male sperm and female egg, moments after conception. Imagine the machine had the capabilities to analyze it" Don't believe they would be upset at all ! In fact, the people that believe in a Deity, would say: "Told You So" |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 15:49:17 6645785B5942454C2B0 wrote:
As in: "Imagine it were to uncover the product of a male sperm and female egg, moments after conception. Imagine the machine had the capabilities to analyze it" Don't believe they would be upset at all ! In fact, the people that believe in a Deity, would say: "Told You So" [/quote] Huh? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/20/19 at 15:50:56 170906070A170C11630 wrote:
So great that paddles are made, that work both ways ! people on this forum that would be questionable Again tt, you believe everything is about YOU ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/20/19 at 15:54:02 1D3E032022393E37500 wrote:
So great that paddles are made, that work both ways ! people on this forum that would be questionable Again tt, you believe everything is about YOU ! No, I'm viable and quite self-sustainable. Thanks. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D[/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/20/19 at 16:53:16 "And killing the baby is the solution to these issues?" I'm not going to break it down to survivability rates by procedure and compromising medical issue since people won't even read references here. Read the reference I provided, there's hundreds of thousands of examples, look through the AAST data tables and come up with your own answer. The variables are considerable, but yes the process of childbirth kills mothers, this has been known for over a century. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/19 at 19:10:47 Of course women occasionally die in childbirth, no one questions that. My only question was what health concern does the mother have that requires killing the baby? You’ve not answered that. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 04:58:20 This has gone where all abortion discussions ultimately go: the pro-death side simply changes the definition of words so they don't have to admit what they know deep down; abortion kills a human being. I wish one of them would have the balls to admit it. You're giving permission to a woman to end the human life growing within her for her convenience. At least be honest. Stop making $hit up like a woman's right or war on woman or other such nonsense. You're taking away the future of one human being and every interaction they'll ever have. Abortion is THE litmus test. If you've looked closely and seriously into the issue and still call yourself pro choice, there's something seriously out of kilter with you. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/21/19 at 05:49:33 "You’ve not answered that." Yes I have. I offered reference, that as usual people wont read, I even typed in the leading causations of during-birth mortality knowing this and you say I haven't offered an answer. You not reading is not my failure to provide an answer. Do you feel that high mortality condition preeclampsia is not a health concern? Why? Do you feel that excessive vaginal bleeding to the point of death is not a health concern? Why? Do you feel that ectopic pregnancy is not a health concern? Why? If you want to break it down you are only asking what health concern requires an abortion and the obvious answer is none. The mother could die instead. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/21/19 at 05:58:35 427077666170675874677E150 wrote:
The fact is this - a fetus is not a baby. Further, although you don't want to admit it, this isn't about abortion. It never has been. It's about a woman's right to choose. If you take away that right, what's next? Will it be illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during the pregnancy? Will she be restricted from any activity that could endanger the fetus? Where does it end? Also, all the pro-lifers seem to forget one huge thing. The man responsible for the pregnancy. 100% of all pregnancies are caused by men. Yet they bear none of the responsibility in carrying a fetus to term or childbirth. How is it that they are in charge of deciding what's best for a woman? To expound on that, many pro-lifers that I've talked to are in favor of the death penalty. Hypocrisy anyone? So why don't they all stop making this what it's not - it's not killing someone, because a fetus that is not viable outside the womb is not a person/baby/child. It's just not. It's more akin to a parasite. Yeah, I'm dehumanizing it - because it's not human. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 06:59:41 6A4A48405D4A2F0 wrote:
I'm specifically talking about late term abortions but it applies in many cases, why kill the baby? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 07:13:33 The fact is this - a fetus is not a baby. Yes, it is. It is a human being. As I said before, in any other environment, it is a human being. The only exception being in those cases where someone wants to kill it so it is renamed to something else. Further, although you don't want to admit it, this isn't about abortion. It never has been. It's about a woman's right to choose. If you take away that right, what's next? Will it be illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during the pregnancy? Will she be restricted from any activity that could endanger the fetus? Where does it end? It ends where logic begins. a woman who is pregnant has a responsibility to that child inside her. In fact, a woman can be prosecuted for giving birth to a drug addicted child. And a woman's right to choose what? To kill another human being for her convenience. Also, all the pro-lifers seem to forget one huge thing. The man responsible for the pregnancy. 100% of all pregnancies are caused by men. Yet they bear none of the responsibility in carrying a fetus to term or childbirth. How is it that they are in charge of deciding what's best for a woman? Mind numbing stupid argument. So decisions can only be made by those who bear the responsibility for the result of those decisions? Fine, you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote. See how stupid that is? To expound on that, many pro-lifers that I've talked to are in favor of the death penalty. Hypocrisy anyone? Again, simplistic and weak argument. But doesn't apply to me as I'm against the death penalty. So why don't they all stop making this what it's not - it's not killing someone, because a fetus that is not viable outside the womb is not a person/baby/child. It's just not. It's more akin to a parasite. Again with the parasite. You try to pass yourself off as a morally bankrupt person, but I don't believe even you, in your heart of hearts, have sunk to that depth. I refuse to believe there are that many awful people in the world. For you, this is a political argument. Its another separation between left and right, democrats and republicans. you are using someone whose willing to kill their child as another weapon in your war. Yeah, I'm dehumanizing it - because it's not human. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/21/19 at 07:45:30 1C2E29383F2E39062A39204B0 wrote:
Enough of the "war" talk you big whiner. There is no "war" on anything, except in your head. That fact is mark, I don't condone abortion. I'm not egging women on to have one. In fact, I have more than one daughter and if any of them felt the need to have an abortion, I'd try and talk them out of it - unless that fetus put her in danger. I know there are alternatives. I know of a few couples that have adopted, and the gift of a child to those people gives them so much joy. I get it. But it's simply not my (or anyone's) call when it comes to what to do when a woman contemplates having an abortion. It's her decision, not mine. That's the law. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 08:31:12 You try to pass yourself off as a morally bankrupt person, but I don't believe even you, in your heart of hearts, have sunk to that depth. I refuse to believe there are that many awful people in the world. Then again, maybe I'm wrong......... |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/21/19 at 08:43:13 "I'm specifically talking about late term abortions but it applies in many cases, why kill the baby? " To substantially increase the mother's chances of survival. Are you changing the question now from what conditions exist to why people would make the choice? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 09:20:33 Yes. After the time at which the baby can live outside the womb, under what condition is it necessary to kill the baby to protect the mother's health? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/21/19 at 09:30:22 Again, the reference provided breaks all that down by procedure, condition, timeframe, location, race, outcome etc. etc. Multiple conditions exist, I already posted them. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Serowbot on 05/21/19 at 09:40:57 Forcing women to carry to term is imposing one's religious beliefs on another person's body. The church had a much different view in pre-Victorian times, even though most people were much more devout. Even the Puritans accepted abortion up to the point of the "quickening",... which is when the fetus begins to kick. (around 20 weeks) How have people in modern times become more puritanical than Puritans?... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 09:45:20 Not killing a human being is solely the domain of religion??? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Serowbot on 05/21/19 at 09:57:35 764443525544536C40534A210 wrote:
No,.. your definition of a human being is... |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/21/19 at 10:47:36 6F796E736B7E73681C0 wrote:
Is that WM's definition, or Others, definition, or the definition of 100's of organizations ? WHY, If a Mother, died before or during birth. The, ’thing’, is called a (no matter what gender) stillborn baby, or miscarried baby. Even though it was not, ‘Born’ ? Why, do MANY people say and believe, the pre born, 'thing' is a, Baby. "...the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo, and the baby's first nerve cells have already formed. Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus.By the end of the first month, your baby is about 1/4 inch long – smaller than a grain of rice! Month 2 Your baby’s facial features continue to develop. The head is large in proportion to the rest of the baby’s body. By the end of the second month, your baby is about 1 inch long and weighs about 1/30 of an ounce. At about 6 weeks, your baby’s heart beat can usually be detected. After the 8th week, your baby is called a fetus instead of an embryo. Month 3 Your baby’s arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed. Your baby can open and close its fists and mouth. Fingernails and toenails are beginning to develop and the external ears are formed. The beginnings of teeth are forming. Your baby's reproductive organs also develop, but the baby's gender is difficult to distinguish on ultrasound. By the end of the third month, your baby is fully formed. All the organs and extremities are present and will continue to mature in order to become functional. The circulatory and urinary systems are working and the liver produces bile. At the end of the third month, your baby is about 4 inches long and weighs about 1 ounce...." (and on and on and on) It is apparent that tt values a, FUR, over what will become a live human being. I Wonder if tt is afraid that it will grow up to be smart, and a Conservative ? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/21/19 at 10:50:53 7E5D6043415A5D54330 wrote:
Is that WM's definition, or Others, definition, or the definition of 100's of organizations ? WHY, If a Mother, died before or during birth. The, ’thing’, is called a (no matter what gender) stillborn baby, or miscarried baby. Even though it was not, ‘Born’ ? Why, do MANY people say and believe, the pre born, 'thing' is a, Baby. "...the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo, and the baby's first nerve cells have already formed. Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus.By the end of the first month, your baby is about 1/4 inch long – smaller than a grain of rice! Month 2 Your baby’s facial features continue to develop. The head is large in proportion to the rest of the baby’s body. By the end of the second month, your baby is about 1 inch long and weighs about 1/30 of an ounce. At about 6 weeks, your baby’s heart beat can usually be detected. After the 8th week, your baby is called a fetus instead of an embryo. Month 3 Your baby’s arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed. Your baby can open and close its fists and mouth. Fingernails and toenails are beginning to develop and the external ears are formed. The beginnings of teeth are forming. Your baby's reproductive organs also develop, but the baby's gender is difficult to distinguish on ultrasound. By the end of the third month, your baby is fully formed. All the organs and extremities are present and will continue to mature in order to become functional. The circulatory and urinary systems are working and the liver produces bile. At the end of the third month, your baby is about 4 inches long and weighs about 1 ounce...." (and on and on and on) It is apparent that tt values a, FUR, over what will become a live human being. I Wonder if tt is afraid that it will grow up to be smart, and a Conservative ? At this point and time mn, the term "smart conservative" is an oxymoron. ;D [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/21/19 at 11:03:14 "WHY, If a Mother, died before or during birth. The, ’thing’, is called a (no matter what gender) stillborn baby, or miscarried baby. Even though it was not, ‘Born’ ?" In a forensic medical environment it would have been called a fetus. This applies from week 7 until birth. "Why, do MANY people say and believe, the pre born, 'thing' is a, Baby." I think you would have to ask MANY people that and get some answers. Just my opinion, I prefer horses mouth statements over speculation. Most organizations like the Clevelandclinic link you posted will use the term "Baby" for most of the information. Mayo clinic interchangeably uses "Baby" and "Fetus". https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302 There's a fair amount of psychology involved with the use of the terms fetus and baby but arguing over it does nothing since the term doesn't mean enough to alter one's views on maternal choice factors. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 12:29:10 4452455840555843370 wrote:
No,.. your definition of a human being is...[/quote] I'll go back to my Mars lander thought experiment. What would you call it if the lander found the product of a male sperm and female egg after conception? It would have a totally unique DNA, it would be growing and dividing towards a predetermined end, depending upon the age, it may have a beating heart, brainwaves, ability to feel and react to stimulus... So what would you call that? Human or something else? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/21/19 at 12:44:30 0A383F2E29382F103C2F365D0 wrote:
No,.. your definition of a human being is...[/quote] I'll go back to my Mars lander thought experiment. What would you call it if the lander found the product of a male sperm and female egg after conception? It would have a totally unique DNA, it would be growing and dividing towards a predetermined end, depending upon the age, it may have a beating heart, brainwaves, ability to feel and react to stimulus... So what would you call that? Human or something else? [/quote] Not human, something else. It's not of this Earth - ergo, extraterrestrial. To clear something up for you - a fetus can only start feeling and reacting to stimulus after about 20 weeks. Further, sperm has only one function - to fertilize an egg. It exists only for "a predetermined end". Careful how you word things.... pretty soon, the right-to-lifers will be checking your laundry for crusty socks! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 12:49:16 Not human, something else. It's not of this Earth - ergo, extraterrestrial. Thought experiment. A way to visualize concepts. A favorite of Einstein. When Einstein used thought experiments (trains moving in space) did you think he was really thinking of actual trains?..... So, again, what would you call it? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/21/19 at 12:52:20 596B6C7D7A6B7C436F7C650E0 wrote:
I think tt would call it a, 'Mink' ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D (This Drive By brought to you by ...) |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 12:52:58 Something else I just happened to see on Twitter that applies here. The leftist idiot, Alyssa Milano (who is someone labeled a celebrity) is a real wacho nutjob. Anyway, she just posted this that we shouldn't call heartbeat laws that, instead, they should be called 'fetal pole cardiac activity....blah blah blah... Anyway, some clever follower of hers found a post she made when she was 7 weeks pregnant. Her dog was on her lap with his head on her stomach and she asked the question "Do you think my dog can hear the baby's heartbeat?" Now carefully ponder that for a few moments and tell me why in one case she feels one way and in the other case, she feels another. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/21/19 at 13:09:36 "Now carefully ponder that for a few moments and tell me why in one case she feels one way and in the other case, she feels another. " Human psychology. This is a know and reproducible effect in most (96.4403%) humans. The real question is if she "feels" or "defines" one from another. Again, none of this changes another's opinion on maternal choice factors. Definitions apply to law and science, both of which are ignored in a semantics phrase war. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/19 at 13:44:43 The point is Mr Spock, her personal and fluctuating value defines what is human and what is not. What is a baby and what is not. So, extrapolate that. Is someone with a severe form of Alzheimer's such a burden to a single provider that they should have the choice to terminate what is essentially a 90 year old vegetable, unable to do anything on their own? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/21/19 at 15:26:55 "The point is Mr Spock, her personal and fluctuating value defines what is human and what is not. What is a baby and what is not." Only for her. Not for every human and every similar situation, which is why law and science doesn't use anecdotal evidence. "Is someone with a severe form of Alzheimer's such a burden to a single provider that they should have the choice to terminate what is essentially a 90 year old vegetable, unable to do anything on their own?" That's why there is a huge debate on "Right to Choose...Death" laws, or Dignity Law. Again as I posted before, there are Ethics Committees designed for this type of thing. There is no debate on whether the insurance provider can do it, but there is a debate on if the Patient can terminate their own life. This is another choice debate, not a definition of human vs vegatable debate. Same as abortion being a choice of the mother debate and not a definition of fetus vs. baby debate. Keep arguing on what you call it, while results come from the outcome of choice. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/21/19 at 15:43:43 704245545342556A46554C270 wrote:
That is exactaly what the UL/FDS Socialists, WANT to do ! |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/21/19 at 15:58:58 1C2E29383F2E39062A39204B0 wrote:
Me personally? I don't know. Maybe I would call it a "sign of life". No different than if bacteria were discovered there. That doesn't change the law here and what a fetus here is. Your "thought experiment" is not what it appears to be. You're trying to manipulate a definition. Here on Earth, there is debate about when life begins. Life - as in human life - is not the same as bacterial or microscopic life. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/21/19 at 16:01:33 033136272031261935263F540 wrote:
You'd have to ask her that mark. But I'll tell you this - a heartbeat is not a sign of life. Heart tissue has been grown in the lab and has started to contract on its own. It's not "alive". No more than a fetus is alive at that point. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by MnSpring on 05/21/19 at 16:47:04 3A242B2A273A213C4E0 wrote:
a fetus is not a human being As well as your statements of: fur should be banned, abortions shouldn't. Also reinforcing your position, I've always been in favor of a woman's right to choose. Yet slighted WM's statement: "But not a woman’s right to choose fur?" Makes it very clear where you stand. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/22/19 at 04:52:09 “More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease, and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost four times that of White women. In 2014 36% of all abortions were performed on black women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States.” It goes on to say that since the 1973 landmark decision, 19 million black babies have been aborted. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by T And T Garage on 05/22/19 at 05:37:42 4D7F78696E7F68577B68711A0 wrote:
They're not babies. But you keep up your rhetoric.... |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/22/19 at 06:27:50 So as stated earlier, people don't think making abortion illegal will reduce abortions. It will change the locations to homes, alleys, etc. How many lives will be saved that way? |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/22/19 at 08:49:49 I would say I'm alive today as is my wife because abortion was illegal and taboo in the early 1960's. In today's world, the odds are very good both of us would have ended up in little plastic hazmat bags. (or sold to med schools) So for every woman who dies in some back room coat hanger abortion (grossly over estimated of course) tens of thousands of babies are born. I'll take that. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by Eegore on 05/22/19 at 16:44:28 So for every woman who dies in some back room coat hanger abortion (grossly over estimated of course) tens of thousands of babies are born. I'll take that. I'd agree with the "dies" from abortion part but most mothers survive. Non-clinic abortion is pretty common nationwide, among those seeking it, however the outcome of making it illegal is harder to assess given the large social, economic and technology change since Rowe V Wade. With advances in multimedia and social media and alternative internet resourcing (Dark Web) I can't imagine abortions would be reduced by much in today's environment by simply closing down public clinical procedures. I think too much has changed to make an accurate assessment at this time. |
|
Title: Re: Fur or babies? Post by WebsterMark on 05/23/19 at 05:44:53 Someone would make a fortune off killing black babies like PP does now. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |