I agree that Freeman's post was well said.

I do not agree that there was a problem with a trap. The people on tape are negotiating services, for Pete's sake! Do you want someone who is being taped negotiating a murder for hire to have to attempt the actual murder! Hell no, you wouldn't! That is a distraction.

I am all for the funds that are being given to PP being transferred to county health clinics. There are clinics all around the US, and there can be the same services provided minus abortion.

Contraception, yes! Most certainly yes! That shows responsibility.
Abortion? No. Not after 22 weeks, not as convenience, not unless the mother's life is physically in danger, or a reported rape or incest occurred.

My second biggest problem with abortion is when the government is funding what, as RickyP says, a most personal decision. You want it? You pay for it.

As for a pregnancy being a accident? That is abject BS. Not unless you slip in the shower and fall directly into your SO while ejaculating. THAT would be an accident.

Let's face it, sex causes pregnancy, and there are ways to inhibit conception, and I am all for that. However, AFTER conception, there is a new set of rules. Freeman wants animals to come to full life term. I am fine with that. Shall we have the same standards for humans?

bbauska wrote:I agree that Freeman's post was well said.

I do not agree that there was a problem with a trap. The people on tape are negotiating services, for Pete's sake! Do you want someone who is being taped negotiating a murder for hire to have to attempt the actual murder! Hell no, you wouldn't! That is a distraction.

Who was doing the asking on the tapes? Perhaps you should demand those trying to procure organs on the tape be prosecuted?

I am all for the funds that are being given to PP being transferred to county health clinics. There are clinics all around the US, and there can be the same services provided minus abortion.

How "magnanimous" of you.

Contraception, yes! Most certainly yes! That shows responsibility.
Abortion? No. Not after 22 weeks, not as convenience, not unless the mother's life is physically in danger, or a reported rape or incest occurred.

again, current US laws disagree with your strictures.

My second biggest problem with abortion is when the government is funding what, as RickyP says, a most personal decision. You want it? You pay for it.

should the same logic also apply to any other health choice, even having the pregnancy go full term?

As for a pregnancy being a accident? That is abject BS. Not unless you slip in the shower and fall directly into your SO while ejaculating. THAT would be an accident.

Let's face it, sex causes pregnancy, and there are ways to inhibit conception, and I am all for that. However, AFTER conception, there is a new set of rules.

Which form(s) of contraception are 100% effective? Which are unaffected by any other substances? Which can never be forgotten to take/apply? Or taken/applied incorrectly by someone in a hurry?

All physical "barrier" forms of contraception can break or fail. All chemical ones rely on the body's biochemistry. And humans being imperfect can make mistakes.

Yes accidents do happen. And whatever your views on the "rules" changing, US law is clear - abortions are allowed.

Freeman wants animals to come to full life term. I am fine with that. Shall we have the same standards for humans?

You will have to quote where Freeman says this, as I didn't see it.

bbauska

My second biggest problem with abortion is when the government is funding what, as RickyP says, a most personal decision. You want it? You pay for it.

Someone on medicare may make a personal decision to continue cancer treatment or end the treatment. But the treatments payment is never in question. And the privacy of the decision is never invaded.
But somehow pregnant women are not to be afforded the same privacy and dignity ?

Shall we also prosecute those who are asking someone for murder for hire? Just plain silliness with that one, Danivon.

Your pointing out that US laws disagree with me, as if to curb discussion is example of non-tolerance of another's opinion. US laws before Roe V Wade were different. Would that be reason enough to curb discussion of those who did support abortion? My opinion is just that. It has just as much worth as anyone's.

As for health care being paid by government... Yes! I do not think the health care payments should be made from the government.

Which forms of contraception? Complete abstinence is almost 100% effective. I only know of one case of conception while being a virgin without medical implanting of sperm/egg/fetus.

From Freeman:
Fetuses are not things to be objectified. But our culture does not just thingify fetuses. In our capitalistic society we are more or less commodities. Companies are not supposed to have any loyalty to us----as soon as they can find cheaper labor somewhere they are supposed to get that cheaper labor to enhance that bottom line. Animals have been turned into meat without a normal life cycle. They are not really chickens or beef--they are pieces of meat. I became a vegetarian a few years back, mostly for health reasons. But I also started to think--how many animals have to die each day so I can continue to exist? Three , four, five, six? It's one thing to raise animals and eat them after they have had a normal life. But this mechanized production of meat seems inherently wrong to me.

Animals have been turned into meat. Harvesting...?
A normal life cycle. Is that what you call abortion?

Freeman has a great point that he does not want animals to be used that way. Fine. I support his right to be that way. However, the laws say that it is allowed to eat meat. Perhaps he should not say as such in your world view?

PP was caught on tape negotiating for fetal body parts. That is the fact.

That in itself is horrific.

There was a fine interview with New York Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul about this topic a couple of weeks ago: Worthwhile listen if you have some time:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/latest-attacks-planned-parenthood/

rickyp wrote:bbauska

That being said, since you brought 22 weeks into the mix; do you support the prohibition on abortion after 22 weeks?

24 weeks I think. Yes With rare exceptions of medical necessity.

Yes or no: is a 24-week "fetus" a human being?

bbauska

The fetus is a different entity. It has different DNA, it has all the major organ systems operating by 8 weeks. The mother is carrying a person

The fetus cannot exist outside the womb until 24 weeks. Until it can, it cannot be considered a seperate entity. (As different as its DNA)

So, no fetus is viable before 24 weeks? Is that your expert opinion?

Supposing it is, does that change your mind?

Oh, and a long time ago (okay, a few days ago), you held a different opinion:

rickyp wrote:Although I don't think abortion is just a medical procedure either... I think its a deeply personal decision that women should be allowed to make, up to the point where the fetus might become a viable entity (22 weeks) .

So, is viability at 24 weeks or 22?

Its the best thing that the US has in the way of medical assistance for poor women.

Is that true? Wasn't Obamacare supposed to solve this?

fate

It was no accident

But the pregnancy was....

Look, I edit, you edit, we all edit. However, this is dishonest--without any context, in a response to Bbauska, you slap my comment on the end. That's pretty lame, even for you.

Now, to set it in context and show your dishonesty:

rickyp wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The use of the aborted fetus in science research is akin to the donation of the organs of a car accident victim.

It was no accident. And, this is open to all sorts of abuse.

To that, you respond, "But the pregnancy was...."

You have no way of knowing that.a given pregnancy was an accident--and, even if it is, it is in no way analogous to a car accident. It's not like women are just going shopping and *oops* they're pregnant. Maybe that's what they teach in Canadian schools, but it's not so. Ask your Mom.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

My second biggest problem with abortion is when the government is funding what, as RickyP says, a most personal decision. You want it? You pay for it.

Someone on medicare may make a personal decision to continue cancer treatment or end the treatment. But the treatments payment is never in question. And the privacy of the decision is never invaded.
But somehow pregnant women are not to be afforded the same privacy and dignity ?

You clearly know nothing about Medicare. It is not an unlimited credit card.

Pregnant women do NOT have a right to taxpayer-funded abortion. That's just a fact.

This is so good. Typical liberal, Chris Cuomo, getting schooled by Rubio.

CUOMO: I know, but you’re deciding when it is human life…

RUBIO: No, science has decided when it is human life.

CUOMO: Science has not decided it’s at conception.

RUBIO: No, let me correct you. Science has—absolutely it has.

CUOMO: Not at conception.

From this video.

The video begins:

Fertilization is the epic story of a single sperm facing incredible odds to unite with an egg and form a new human life.

It is the story of all of us.

Emphasis mine. The animation explains the process of how a single sperm attaches to the egg cell membrane and how their outer membranes fuse. You can watch for the details, but note this from late in the video:

At this moment, a unique genetic code arises, instantly determining gender, hair color, eye color and hundreds of other characteristics.

This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being.

Here are many more examples of what “science” has to say about the fairly simple and obvious fact that human life begins at conception.

It's not that confusing . . . unless you want to suppress the obvious, scientific fact.

fate

Pregnant women do NOT have a right to taxpayer-funded abortion. That's just a fact

t
never said it did.


fate

This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being

And every zygote is sacred right?

Then consider this:

Without Birth Control:
Out of 100 fertile women without birth control, 100 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 100 released eggs, 33 will become fertilized.
Out of those 33, 18% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women not on birth control: 6 zygotes will “die”

With Birth Control:
Out of 100 fertile women on birth control, around 6 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 6 released eggs, only 2 will become fertilized.
Out of those 2, 100% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women on birth control: 2 zygotes will “die”

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... pR7fb.dpuf

rickyp wrote:fate

Pregnant women do NOT have a right to taxpayer-funded abortion. That's just a fact

t
never said it did.


fate

This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being

And every zygote is sacred right?

Then consider this:

Without Birth Control:
Out of 100 fertile women without birth control, 100 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 100 released eggs, 33 will become fertilized.
Out of those 33, 18% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women not on birth control: 6 zygotes will “die”

With Birth Control:
Out of 100 fertile women on birth control, around 6 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 6 released eggs, only 2 will become fertilized.
Out of those 2, 100% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women on birth control: 2 zygotes will “die”

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... pR7fb.dpuf

Thank you for that. Of course, it has nothing to do with choosing to kill a baby, but thanks anyway.

rickyp wrote:fate

Pregnant women do NOT have a right to taxpayer-funded abortion. That's just a fact

never said it did.

Um, sure. So, you didn't mean that at all when you wrote:

Someone on medicare may make a personal decision to continue cancer treatment or end the treatment. But the treatments payment is never in question. And the privacy of the decision is never invaded.
But somehow pregnant women are not to be afforded the same privacy and dignity ?

Medicare is taxpayer-funded. To have the "same . . . dignity" would seem to imply they should also have taxpayer funding. If that's not what it means, do try to communicate your meaning next time.

bbauska wrote:Shall we also prosecute those who are asking someone for murder for hire? Just plain silliness with that one, Danivon.

In the video, who is the party asking for a service? One side is asking PP if they can provide fetal body parts. Is that OK with you?

Your pointing out that US laws disagree with me, as if to curb discussion is example of non-tolerance of another's opinion.

No it is not. It is statement of fact. You are all about the law on other issues. "Harvesting" is also a different concept. We kill animals for food, and so the death is linked to the purpose for it. We don't wait for cows to die of old age before we eat them, and we don't only eat meat from animals killed for a completely different reason.

But the use of organs from fetuses (like those from people who die in hospital) is not related to the reason that they died. It is a byproduct. Unless you can show that any abortion has been carried out primarily for the purpose of obtaining parts, as opposed to because the woman wanted to end the pregnancy.

US laws before Roe V Wade were different. Would that be reason enough to curb discussion of those who did support abortion? My opinion is just that. It has just as much worth as anyone's.

Where have I curbed discussion? I can't stop you posting, and if anything, you are the one with control over the discussion & site. After all, who has recently banned someone (and in so doing deleted all of their posts)? It is not me.

If you want to bring up a tactic, let's call what you are doing what it really is - playing the victim.

As for health care being paid by government... Yes! I do not think the health care payments should be made from the government.

No, but they are, and for all kinds of things. My opinion is that I am thankful that the state does get involved in health, and supports those who cannot afford private care, if only to reduce the risk of them spreading diseases in society.

Which forms of contraception? Complete abstinence is almost 100% effective. I only know of one case of conception while being a virgin without medical implanting of sperm/egg/fetus.

By definition, "abstinence" is not a form of contraception http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contraception. Abstinence is a passive position. Contraception is the employment of a deliberate act or method.

Just as "not being in a car" is not really a form of careful driving.

Anyway, one minute you are talking about contraception as being OK, "responsible" even, and the next when we look at what that means you retreat to abstinence.

(and clearly this one example you mention suggests that even abstinence is not guaranteed).

From Freeman:
Fetuses are not things to be objectified. But our culture does not just thingify fetuses. In our capitalistic society we are more or less commodities. Companies are not supposed to have any loyalty to us----as soon as they can find cheaper labor somewhere they are supposed to get that cheaper labor to enhance that bottom line. Animals have been turned into meat without a normal life cycle. They are not really chickens or beef--they are pieces of meat. I became a vegetarian a few years back, mostly for health reasons. But I also started to think--how many animals have to die each day so I can continue to exist? Three , four, five, six? It's one thing to raise animals and eat them after they have had a normal life. But this mechanized production of meat seems inherently wrong to me.

Animals have been turned into meat. Harvesting...?
A normal life cycle. Is that what you call abortion?

You would have to check with Freeman, but I got the impression he is talking about how we treat animals post-birth. Also, I think we all agree that the "thingification" of fetuses or animals is pernicious. But that is a different subject to whether we eat meat or not.

Freeman has a great point that he does not want animals to be used that way. Fine. I support his right to be that way. However, the laws say that it is allowed to eat meat. Perhaps he should not say as such in your world view?

Well, you are certainly twisting Freeman's words as I read them, given his main stated reason for cutting meat from his diet was health. I see nowhere where he is saying that his vegetarianism should be imposed on others. And You are also repeating the false charge that by stating what the law allows, I am somehow stopping you from expressing your opinion, or even saying that you should not.

PP was caught on tape negotiating for fetal body parts. That is the fact.

That in itself is horrific.

it takes two to negotiate.

What is also unclear is whether there is any evidence that they have actually engaged in the practices that were speculated about on the tape by people who would not have been able to authorise them.

Which one on the video is actually in a position to offer or accept services?

Is it the videographer? No, it is the PP representative. Perhaps some blame should be there.

As for Abstinance v Contraception, as long as you accept the risks of sexual activity (i.e. pregnancy), I am fine with what you or anyone does. If/when the conception occurs, there should be another set of rules which protect the fetus. What I suggested was:

No abortion after 22 weeks, based upon RickyP's first recommendation.
Abortion would be allowed with a physical endangerment of the mother's life exemption.
Abortion would be allowed in the case of rape/incest. Charges would have to be filed prior to abortion.

This is what I would call a compromise. It does not give all that I would want. There are some who want the government to pay for this abortion. In example 2 or 3, I would even approve that.

My question is would you, Danivon, compromise? I know it is a woman's right currently. Certainly you have an opinion, though.

Perhaps you are for full, unfettered abortion paid by the government in all cases? My position is not to take the right away, just make the person pay for it if they choose to get that service.

As for Freeman, he can explain why he thinks animals should have rights to come to full term, but not a fetus.

Just to be clear, I was not arguing that meat consumption should be banned. I was arguing that we not treat the animals solely as meat and be totally indifferent to anything but to rapidly convertng them into meat as quickly as possible. Human beings have been consuming meat for untold millenia but not the way we have been doing it for the past 50 years or so. I don't think asking for treating animals more humanely before they are killed for meat can be equated with the complexities of the abortion issue.

We're not going to stop abortions by making women feel bad, or saying they should not sleep around, or calling them irresponsible. Given the prevalence of abortion and infanticide in human history one would suspect that this is just not a cultural adaption but one engendered by evolution. Women with genes that caused them to keep babies at inopportune times (no husband, too many children to feed already, etc.) probably were less successful than other women at getting their children to survive. It was a survival adaption. Now that we live in a time where survival is not nearly as great an issue, abortions are not as necessary. But that does not affect the disposition to not want to go through with unwanted pregnancies.

Technology and better and easily obtainable contraception is the answer. Trying to put the genie in the bottle and tell women not to have sex before marriage and not have control over their bodies...good luck with that. I think we will come up with a solution eventually that drastically reduces abortions but it won't come from that kind of thinking. There is an ethical/moral dimension with abortion and how we treat fetuses/early human life that needs a solution. In a 100 or 200 years people will probably say how barbaric we were in having so many abortions. Or course they will probably wonder at how barbaric we were in torturing animals so they would be more tender and taste better too...

I am all for contraception prior to conception, (Afterwards not so much). Have fun!