Call me old fashioned....

[Windseeker]

Last time I checked I'm a glob of cells. A fetus is human, period. It's not a horse or a monkey or a dolphin or spotted owl (all those fetuses are protected under federal law) but I could be mistaken because I'm just an evil man (like Jesus) who wants to control girls bodies and keep them from killing littler girls without a good reason.

It's interesting that we control men’s bodies when it comes to prostitution, drugs, and don't get me started on all the safety regulations and controls we have out there in nearly every aspect of our lives. Is that women doing that? …I’ll have to ask my wife, daughters, and mother about this secret war I just found out about.

I'm sure we will make it too the end of civilization and want to thank all the willing accomplices that are eagerly selling their souls for a mess of pottage to bring about this great and final event. I know it’s not just women (I was playing stupid back there) there are plenty of men who would much rather place their seed in a tomb than a womb. Meanwhile I will do all I can to slow societies heartbreaking slouch towards gomorrah and protect and honor the sacred gift of life.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Windseeker

[Windseeker]

Last time I checked I'm a glob of cells. A fetus is human, period. It's not a horse or a monkey or a dolphin or spotted owl (all those fetuses are protected under federal law) but I could be mistaken because I'm just an evil man (like Jesus) who wants to control girls bodies and keep them from killing littler girls without a good reason.

It's interesting that we control men’s bodies when it comes to prostitution, drugs, and don't get me started on all the safety regulations and controls we have out there in nearly every aspect of our lives. Is that women doing that? …I’ll have to ask my wife, daughters, and mother about this secret war I just found out about.

I'm sure we will make it too the end of civilization and want to thank all the willing accomplices that are eagerly selling their souls for a mess of pottage to bring about this great and final event. I know it’s not just women (I was playing stupid back there) there are plenty of men who would much rather place their seed in a tomb than a womb..less yucky responsibility that way. Meanwhile I will do all I can to slow societies heartbreaking slouch towards gomorrah and protect and honor the sacred gift of life.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Windseeker

[Windseeker]

Last time I checked I'm a glob of cells. A fetus is human, period. It's not a horse or a monkey or a dolphin or spotted owl (all those fetuses are protected under federal law) but I could be mistaken because I'm just an evil man (like Jesus) who wants to control girls bodies and keep them from killing littler girls without a good reason.

It's interesting that we control men’s bodies when it comes to prostitution, drugs, and don't get me started on all the safety regulations and controls we have out there in nearly every aspect of our lives. Is that women doing that? …I’ll have to ask my wife, daughters, and mother about this secret war I just found out about.

I'm sure we will make it too the end of civilization and want to thank all the willing accomplices that are eagerly selling their souls for a mess of pottage to bring about this great and final event. I know it’s not just women (I was playing stupid back there) there are plenty of men who would much rather place their seed in a tomb than a womb..less yucky responsibility that way. Meanwhile I will do all I can to slow societies heartbreaking slouch towards gomorrah and protect and honor the sacred gift of life.

[bytor2112]

1. Globs of cells aren't human, and don't have rights. You have the right to do what you like with your own globs of cells (within reason).

2. Humans are human, and deserve equal protection under the law, regardless of their ability to stand up for themselves.

Since God is silent on the matter, it's up to us humans to decide when something goes from being a glob of cells, to being human. We have to draw the line somewhere, so we'll know when a woman falls into category 1, or when a baby falls into category 2. Because once a glob of cells becomes human, you don't get to kill it just because you want to. Because it's a human, and humans have rights, and deserve equal protection under the law.

We fight over where to draw the line, but few would disagree with the self-obvious truths above. To put it another way, people who don't like what I just said, will most likely not disagree with what I've said, they'll get bent out of shape for me being a man, or some such nonsense.

The Lord may be silent on when life begins..but HIS church is not silent on abortion.

[bytor2112]

The use of children in protest or political activation is nothing new:

Touche'..but, at least one child is being taught a righteous principle versus something that is not....

[Just_A_Guy]

It's interesting that we control men’s bodies when it comes to prostitution, drugs, and don't get me started on all the safety regulations and controls we have out there in nearly every aspect of our lives.

And the elephant in this room that no one has mentioned yet:

Child support.

If a woman, within twenty weeks of voluntarily performing an act she knew could reasonably make her a mother--with all the responsibilities thereof--then why can't a man act similarly? (I'm not saying he should be able to compel the woman to have an abortion; but how about the unilateral right to execute a notarized disclaimer-of-parental-rights within the first twenty weeks, immunizing him from support liability if and when the child is actually born?)

I support allowing abortion for the standard scenarios outlined in LDS policy; but as for the rest (which I understand to comprise over 90% of abortions)? If the argument were "equality", the left would support implementation of a mechanism that lets men abandon their parental obligations with the same impunity that women can. Or else, they'd support tighter enforcement of child support, mandatory paternity testing at birth for all children, and resurrecting and enforcing the defunct criminal statutes against fornication and adultery (even if only against men, to level the biologically-slanted playing field).

It's not about gender equality, folks. Nor is it about the sanctity of the individual's body. It's not about medicine, and it's not even about "choice" in the abstract. It's about the choice to have sex--lots and lots of it--without consequences; about the ability to shunt the inevitable financial, medical, and emotional costs of that sex onto those members of society who made their own sexual choices somewhat more prudently; and about the right to glibly deny the personhood of any individual whose existence we find personally inconvenient.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[bytor2112]

It's not about gender equality, folks. Nor is it about the sanctity of the individual's body. It's not about medicine, and it's not even about "choice" in the abstract. It's about the choice to have sex--lots and lots of it--without consequences; about the ability to shunt the inevitable financial, medical, and emotional costs of that sex onto those members of society who made their own sexual choices somewhat more prudently; and about the right to slice, dice, and vacuum up any unfortunate creature who had the temerity to do what fertilized eggs have this inexorable tendency to do.

Very well said....bravo!

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually, Bytor, that last clause of the paragraph was extremely impolitic; and I should apologize for it.

(But thanks for the kind sentiments.)

[annewandering]

I am not against any woman.

Anddenex, I have no doubt at all that you are not against women. Problem here is that you are not a politician trying to get votes for your backers causes.

I would have been furious if my wife had been expected to deliver our unborn which passed within her womb at 3 months.

I carried our stillborn baby for two weeks after we knew he was dead. Feeling like a coffin is not a good experience. Have we ever wondered what it would feel like carrying a baby that was going to die before birth or immediately after? Now I would be happy to do it to have that time with them, knowing it was the only time I would have but how would others feel about it? The thing is this. There are so many variables in life. When we make strict laws with very specific parameters with little or no lea way for variables we make a mistake. The Texas law would not have allowed the doctor to have removed my stillborn baby because it only made allowance for aborted dead babies. He wasnt aborted. He was still there with my body showing NO sign of rejecting him. Politicians just have no business in this. The church says it is up to the woman, her doctor and God. It never said anything about some rabid politician

Common sense is what is needed not political agendas.

[annewandering]

I used to think something similar, until I experienced this:

I was in my mid-20's, hanging out with some friends. One friend, a lady a few years younger than me, was opining about abortion. She voiced the opinion that it should be legal for a woman to abort her baby within the first year of the baby's life.

Let me say that again: I was standing less than 2 feet away from a woman, who, being fully serious, and fully aware of what she was saying, voiced the opinion that a mother should be able to abort her baby within a year of it being born.

Let me say it a third time: This lady, who was not drunk, didn't do drugs, wasn't mentally incompetent, had a job, a boyfriend, and active social life, and was competent to vote and enter into contracts, thought a woman should be able to abort her newborn child as long as it was under a year old.

Anne, would you like to speak to your statement above? Do you believe that such a choice should be between the woman, doctor, and God? If not, why not?

I am not stating my own opinion. It is what the church has stated. I already said it is between a woman, her doctor, and God. I am confused why you are wondering about that. The woman in your example is not discussing abortion. She is discussing infanticide a totally different question. I would call the woman a nutcase.

[annewandering]

Are you serious? You really believe that the reason they wait for labor to start on its own in the event of a stillbirth has to do with some sort of male power conspiracy and abortion and nothing whatsoever to do with what is best for the health of the mother? Were you that disinterested in your own health care that you just assumed it was some sort of abortion tactic? You insult a lot of health care providers and mothers with that misguided assumption.

But if you are looking for zebras, that is what you will see.

Are you kidding me? What reason is there to wait two weeks for a dead, decaying body to be expelled by natural labor? I actually have an aunt who's baby died and was NEVER expelled. She had health problems all her life and never had any more kids either. I will gladly insult any health care provider who is that uncaring.

I dont know where you get the idea that I think its the medical profession that is in a war against women's rights. It is the far right politicians and their supportive constituents. There may be medical people in that group but that is not, specifically, who I am talking about and I never said it was.

[Windseeker]

The Texas law would not have allowed the doctor to have removed my stillborn baby because it only made allowance for aborted dead babies. He wasnt aborted. He was still there with my body showing NO sign of rejecting him. Politicians just have no business in this. The church says it is up to the woman, her doctor and God. It never said anything about some rabid politician

Anne this is simply not true. Even after reading the law that Dravin posted and thanking him, you still insist that this Texas law would have forced you to carry your undead baby.

Under the law

An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion;

© remove an ectopic pregnancy; or

(D) treat a maternal disease or illness for which a prescribed drug, medicine, or other substance is indicated.

A baby that dies in the womb naturally or thru trauma is not only a spontaneous abortion but would harm the health of the mother and therefore fall under

(B) this Act does not apply to abortions that are necessary to avert the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

So actually your scenario is covered twice under the Texas law.

30% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. You really think all those nasty right wingers want to force 30% of pregnant women to carry a dead baby in them? It's unfair and unkind of you to falsely accuse those who support this bill with such inhumanity.

Common sense is what is needed not political agendas.

You might want to try this your self.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Windseeker

[Windseeker]

The Texas law would not have allowed the doctor to have removed my stillborn baby because it only made allowance for aborted dead babies. He wasnt aborted. He was still there with my body showing NO sign of rejecting him. Politicians just have no business in this. The church says it is up to the woman, her doctor and God. It never said anything about some rabid politician

Anne this is simply not true. Even after reading the law that Dravin posted and thanking him, you still insist that this Texas law would have forced you to carry your undead baby.

Under the law

An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(a) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(b) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion;

© remove an ectopic pregnancy; or

(d) treat a maternal disease or illness for which a prescribed drug, medicine, or other substance is indicated.

A baby that dies in the womb naturally or thru trauma is not only a spontaneous abortion but would harm the health of the mother and therefore fall under

(b) this Act does not apply to abortions that are necessary to avert the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

So actually your scenario is covered twice under the Texas law.

30% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. You really think all those nasty right wingers want to force 30% of pregnant women to carry a dead baby in them? It's unfair and unkind of you to falsely accuse those who support this bill with such inhumanity.

Common sense is what is needed not political agendas.

Great Advice Anne.

[MorningStar]

There is just something extra disgusting about a toddler holding a pro-abortion sign when they were a fetus just a short time ago.

[MorningStar]

These idiots were yelling "Hail Satan" as abortion protestors sang "Amazing Grace". Yeah, that will help sway people!

[NeuroTypical]

I am not stating my own opinion. It is what the church has stated. I already said it is between a woman, her doctor, and God. I am confused why you are wondering about that. The woman in your example is not discussing abortion. She is discussing infanticide a totally different question. I would call the woman a nutcase.

I'd like to continue with this case, if you're willing Anne.

Could you describe, in your own words, what the difference is between infanticide and abortion? I already know what the church says, and what the law says. I'd like to know what Anne says.

[Windseeker]

These idiots were yelling "Hail Satan" as abortion protestors sang "Amazing Grace". Yeah, that will help sway people!

It was signs and chants of "Satan for President" witnessed at an AFL/CIO rally in downtown Seattle as a young father and long term union member that forced me to question where I stood in politics and pushed me from a progressive socialist to eventually a social conservative.

I don't think for one minute that the people chanting are actually "Satanist". But what it does show is a lack of respect, reverence and a hatred and disdain for the spiritual and a slavery to base emotion.

...which I'm sure makes Satan happy.

[Saldrin]

I like this video by Kira Davis about one aspect of the Texas abortion debate.

[Backroads]

JAGs post was brilliant. Back in high school/college, I bought into the whole women's rights with their bodies idealogy and considered myself "reluctantly pro-choice". I now find that attitude irresponsible.

Though I'm now at the point where I condone rape/incest victims who continue with their pregnancies, yes, I support laws that allow for abortion in all sorts of rape/incest/medical emergency situations, as has been discussed so much in this thread. I'm sure we can argue about the nitty-gritty details of them. We could also argue about when life begins til beefche gets home.

But what gets me about the idea of abortion is the mindset it creates. If you don't want to get pregnant, their are many considerably reliable methods of birth control. But the idea of "I'll just get an abortion if I somehow get pregnant" (and you can't tell me people don't think that) frees people from having smart sex, from considering all consequences to their actions, allowing them to do whatever they want and live thoughtless, mindless lives.

[Anddenex]

My posts were brilliant too Backroads. Invisible Anddenex.

P.S.

[Backroads]

There, there, Anddnex. There, there. You made good comments, too! Such a good boy!

(seriously, you made good comments!)

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, but thoughtfulness and insight are routine from Anddenex and, therefore, unremarkable.

It's your own darned fault for setting the bar so high.

[Windseeker]

I thought about some of the promises made 40 years ago by the Pro-Abortionist.

Every Child a wanted Child - Despite easy access to contraception and abortion there has only been an increase in the number of children suffering from poverty and abuse driven by the increase in family disintegration.

Progress for Women - Abortions are disproportionately acts of the poorest and most vulnerable women among us. Half of all women having abortions, according to The New York Times, have had more than one. There has been a significant reduction in the last 40 years in expectations of men and women about male responsibility in the event of pregnancy. Studies of the United Nations efforts show no relationship between economic and political rights for women and abortion rights.

Safe, Legal and Rare (Bill Clinton 1996) -

I think we have heard the recent stories about these chamber of horrors run by pchycopathic doctors. The numbers of abortions have only increased. Per this thread efforts to make it safer are met with opposition from abortion supporters.Due to safety of women and advancements in Science and Medicine we see more clearly how babies develop and the tide of opinion is turning. So legality allowing negligent and horrific late term abortions is changing.

Not much progress if you ask me.

[Windseeker]

Yeah, but thoughtfulness and insight are routine from Anddenex and, therefore, unremarkable.

It's your own darned fault for setting the bar so high.

LOL, I agree!

Anddenex, you do set the bar high. I could thank you and others every post but it would be redundant.

I showed my wife my posts on this topic to make sure I was accurate on medical terms and the law (She's a Physician) and while we share the same views she was not happy with my tone.

So I sincerely apologize if I've offended anyone, especially you Anne. I'm sure there is much I'm missing, I don't know your situation and the experiences you've had to shape your views. But I do think you are a good person for what it's worth.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Windseeker

[bytor2112]

Scary...