'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 21 2006, 10:49 AM) [snapback]352496[/snapback]</div>

Thanks Vince...and I think daron has agreed that women are "owned"...I will once again state that the number of vociferous pro-lifers who are men make me chuckle. It's funny because it's sad and true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 21 2006, 10:08 AM) [snapback]352511[/snapback]</div>

I think this one deserves an explaination. Show me where anything I've ever said could lead to this conclusion and I'll stop thinking you're a complete moron.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Nov 21 2006, 10:08 AM) [snapback]352506[/snapback]</div>

Now that we have this on the table, let's talk about the timeline.

At 10:50am, we have a woman who is pregnant.

At 11:00am, the baby is just outside the woman.

At 11:10am, the mother is holding the cleaned up baby.


Can you explain the difference between the personhood of the baby at 10:50am and 11:10am? In that 20 minutes, what changed for the baby that morally we can not kill it at our choosing.

A better question is why you think the 10:50am baby is not a person and that we are still morally allowed to kill them?

It ain't right to kill that baby at 11:10 after it's been out of the mother for 10 minutes, and it aint right to kill that baby at 10:50am 10 minutes before it's out of the mother.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 09:28 AM) [snapback]352553[/snapback]</div>

This is very interesting. I don't think that anybody here thinks that what you describe is OK. It's a moot point anyway, since it would not be done unless the mother's life is at risk. The rest of us have moved on the the more general discussion, but you continue to bring up a NON-PROBLEM. Perhaps it's because anything else is difficult to argue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 12:10 PM) [snapback]352581[/snapback]</div>

Trying to make the point a NON-PROBLEM is the only answer you have. Stop the conversation before people figure out what's really going on and turn support away from the pro-death movement.

I notice you keep on track with the

thing. That's a weak statement since there are plenty of doctors in the industry that acknowlege that it's happening for any possible reason and the mothers life is rarely or never at risk.

I suppose someone beat that drum long enough that you finally believe it too, or it's just too sickening to think that these PBA are happening when the mother has no risk at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 10:25 AM) [snapback]352590[/snapback]</div>

The only evidence you've supplied to back up this claim is from a decade ago, when it was still legal! Show me that this has happened since the new law was enacted.

PROVE IT!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 20 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]352329[/snapback]</div>

You're not opening up a can of worms. I am troubled by this too. If I buy eggs, I only purchase free range, organic eggs. I don't even buy cage free as that may still mean that they're cooped up in a lousy indoor, larger pen. I haven't had a stitch of meat, fish or poultry for almost 20 years due to the empathy that I feel for animals.

I have written letters to Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, etc., etc., etc., advising them that I'm no longer buying their products based on the fact that they still use antiquated animal testing procedures for their product safety measures (there are now more advanced means of testing that don't utilize helpless animals in the testing procedures). This was about 10 years ago and I haven't spent a dime on animal test products since then. My contradiction comes into play when I have to take a medicine. For instance, I take birth control pills; which ingredients have probably been tested on animals. Ironically this leads back to the main topic of the thread.....I have to be a hypocrite and forgo my anti animal testing philosophies because I don't want to get pregnant and have to choose between life and an abortion.

I commend you for you consideration of these animals and for the experiences that they may encounter as they serve a sole purpose for our consumption in one way or the another. I wish every single person would employ this compassion. Purchase dollars speak volumes to manufacturers and farmers.

The same compassion that I employ for animals drives my same compassion for all life. I consider a fetus with appendages and organs and a nervous system life.

Notwithstanding all of this, I believe in a woman's right to choose. We have such an imperfect system as it relates to the responsibilities and the subsequent life that will exist. I know quite a few divorced mothers who have trouble collecting their child support payments. I analyze risk for a living and also happen to see quite a few financial statements reflecting garnished wages. Until this inequity can be perfected (and until all the other points I've outlined earlier in this thread can be accommodated), I will remain pro choice. I'm just wondering how all the other pro choicers reconcile their compassion with a harmed fetus.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 21 2006, 11:49 AM) [snapback]352496[/snapback]</div>

I'm not the one who originally tried to use the Bible to defend abortion, but I CERTAINLY feel that I have the right to correct or defend it. What the other person said was WRONG, and I was setting it right. I really don't care what you think, as I wasn't replying to you.

Oh, and you perhaps speak Ancient Hebrew? Its a DEAD language, so we MUST translate it to our native tongue. What an ignorant argument.

I resent that greatly, as I am totally NON-political/neutral, and have no allegiance to Bush or any world leader, and such cheap shots just belie your inability to intelligently refute the argument. If you cannot draw the parallel, perhaps I need to do it for you: this is GOD'S law, showing HIS viewpoint. He clearly considers the unborn life of the fetus in the mother to be EQUAL in value to any other human life, as the penalty for killing a fetus was SOUL FOR SOUL. The person who assaulted the mother and killed the fetus would be put to death. That is God's sense of justice, not just mine.

I thought you understood Ancient Hebrew? No? Well then, here's the proper definition of the word used in that verse:
"(Beu′lah) [Owned as a Wife].
A Hebrew word (Be‛u‧lah′) is rendered “Married†(AT; RS), “Espoused†(Le), “my wedded wife†(Mo), and “Owned as a Wife†(NW)."
As used in the Bible, it is used simply to distinguish between a virgin/unmarried woman, and a married one. It is NOT "owned" in the sense of property, but owned in the sense of "spoken for". In that sense, even I think that I "own" my wife, in that she is spoken for, and no one else has any right to her. She was "given to me in marriage".

 

maybe i should point this out again. someone with no previous knowledge who reads your posts, daron, would assume that all abortions were performed late in pregnancy via PBA when the fetus would otherwise have just been born in a perfectly normal manner. as in, the woman was pregnant for 8-9 months and then just up and changed her mind. you know for a fact that is not true. you should also know that partial birth abortions are the exception, not the norm.

"the procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later" [5 months: more or less 20 weeks] http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

but may i rehash this little number:
1.4% of all abortions were performed after the 20th week of gestation, back in 2002- and recall, this is before the ban (2003).

you're arguing to disallow all abortions based on partial birth abortions, which occurred in all of 1.4% of cases BEFORE the ban passed... can you see how ridiculous that is?

even i am against partial birth abortion except in the most extreme cases. i am definitely not for elective PBA. but i am not against all abortion because of this one procedure that i find to be unacceptable. it is not an all-or-nothing thing for me. that's what i see often in religious conservatives that so irritates me... it's either all or nothing. no issue is ever black and white, all or nothing.

okay. anyway, let's say they should just take that fetus out and see how it gets by... since you're making it sound so much like if the doc were to take 3 more seconds to remove the head from the birth canal that it would be a perfectly normal and healthy and would survive just fine.

http://www.tommys.org/media/statistics/key...-statistics.htm
"Survival rates

Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival

Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival

Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival

From 32 weeks onwards, most babies are able to survive with the help of medical Technology [EPICure data]"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 15 2006, 03:57 PM) [snapback]349733[/snapback]</div>

They can pray all they want to. As long as it stays in their prayers and doesn't transfer in their actions I don't care what they pray about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 21 2006, 03:15 PM) [snapback]352630[/snapback]</div>

I don't mean to imply that I know how Daron thinks but my perception is that he doesn't wish abortions to be performed at any point subsequent egg fertilization. I think that he continues to bring up late term abortion, and the procedure, to make a point about how horrific a practice this is and to have a more effective arguement. I could be wrong but that's how I'm interpreting his posts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov 21 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]352634[/snapback]</div>

So am I. And to prevent more flaming and "complete moron" statements, I'm out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov 21 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]352634[/snapback]</div>

as far as i understand, that seems to be the case.

so is this applicable to all arguments? can i therefore legitimately argue that marijuana is 100% good because it happens to have analgesic properties [nevermind the other things it does]? or that robbing banks is good for everyone because the robbers make some money [nevermind that the FDIC has to guarantee the return of those stolen dollars from government funds]?

daron is pushing an all or nothing agenda based upon [not all] of the issue. i find that funny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 21 2006, 03:33 PM) [snapback]352651[/snapback]</div>

So sorry, I didn't mean to say that it was applicable to all arguments. I was just stating this to be my perception of Daron's argument. And, I could be totally off base.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]352595[/snapback]</div>

I ask you how you came about your view and you tell me to prove it. Interesting..

http://www.imao.us/archives/004872.html
This is from February 2006, it nails the issue in fairly honest english from the view of a doctor that performs PBA.


Wikpedia is always a popular source around here...

In a pdf file from FRC:

So, the law was passed, but then suspended by the courts. It hasn't been able to be enforced, so I stand by the fact that the following is still the case:

If you still think it's not happening, then you show my why it stopped.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Nov 21 2006, 02:51 PM) [snapback]352670[/snapback]</div>

i wasn't directing that at you- just getting at the silliness of this narrow-view argument.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 12:08 PM) [snapback]352681[/snapback]</div>

You're right - I stand corrected!

 

I am an all or nothing guy on abortion.

Pro-Choice can argue the need for 1 abortion for 1 woman at 1 point in time to save her life is the reason to leave the abortion door wide open for everyone at every stage.

I argue that 1 abortion should be easily recognizable as unnecessary, let's make that one illegal and save that baby. If we can agree on that, then let's head in the direction of that 1 woman you think needs one.

If the figures were 100 abortions to save womans lives in the last 30 years, then I'd have a hard time trying to convince you that 1 of those was unneccessary.

Since the data is on my side, I'm saying that the 50 million we killed in the last 30 years is way too many and a whole lot of those should have been protected and allowed to live.

If we can't get a whole ban on abortion, lets tighten it down. Doctors have to do some serious documentation, patient discussion, second and third doctors concurring and whatever else needs to happen so that abortion is either zero or extremely rare.

 

Just to be ornery -- should these "persons" (fetuses) be counted in the Census population? Should they be granted citizenship? Required to have a passport to travel outside the U.S?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 21 2006, 04:22 PM) [snapback]352694[/snapback]</div>

As Obi Wan said. "Only the dark side sees the world in black and white",

But seriously. Every case is different and it should be up to the physician and patient to decide what to do. I agree that some of the reasons for late term abortions as described in Wikipedia would seem frivolous to us; they do to me. But I am not willing to condemn all women and endanger their medical care because of the small percentage of late term abortions that we may consider objectionable.

This is just a small portion of ethical questions that our concious brains have to deal with when confronted with biological reality.

I assume you are a vegetarian. I would argue that an adult animal raised within an industrial setting suffers more than an unborn human embryo.

 

[you]

crap.