Abort or die?

[HAL_9000]

I propose mandatory reversible sterilization of all women before they experience their first menses.

This is not a sexist position, just statistically logical.

Then, in order for the sterilization to be reversed, the woman would have to provide proof of responsibility including marriage.

Problem solved.

 

[coachdb18]

Curiosity is fine, but certainty in an area that is faith based and extending it to another is arrogance. I stick to the medicine because it's the only reality I can objectively assume extends to another person. Their faith is entirely unique to them and isn't a reflection of my faith or lack thereof.

I didn't opt to have abortions myself, it wasn't right for me. That doesn't extend to me believing that it wouldn't result in a greater good for someone else.

Think all you want, argue all you want, as long as you don't actively try to stop someone from doing what's right for them, I'm cool. I'm fine with persuasion, but not coercion.

You're welcome to your faith and your Creator and your curiosity, with my blessing and my curiosity to want to know what your life is like for you. Projecting that or enforcing that on others is where my line gets drawn.

That's why the objectives of the civil war remain unsettled. Arguing that it was fought over slavery is an oft committed mistake, as it was about states rights, with slavery only being the most active of the issues at stake. Coercion, via war, was the remedy tried. The creation of a new, confederate (decentralized) form of government was the step for their relief. It still is not resolved. States rights in a number of issues are rising in impotance, especially as we have a President who has set upon a course of crushing all rights other than those of federal power.

Imposition of federal faith and belief mandates, along with taxes to support them, has a lot of people pissed enough for a do-over.

 

[Recidiva]

That's why the objectives of the civil war remain unsettled. Arguing that it was fought over slavery is an oft committed mistake, as it was about states rights, with slavery only being the most active of the issues at stake. Coercion, via war, was the remedy tried. The creation of a new, confederate (decentralized) form of government was the step for their relief. It still is not resolved. States rights in a number of issues are rising in impotance, especially as we have a President who has set upon a course of crushing all rights other than those of federal power.

Imposition of federal faith and belief mandates, along with taxes to support them, has a lot of people pissed enough for a do-over.

Half of my family is from the South and half are Yankees.

I consider the Republican party to be a Southern insurgency. And I always had to remember to refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" to my Daughter of the Confederacy aunts.

Yes, long-held beliefs die hard. But you have to ask why you're holding the beliefs for other people and not just yourself, and what you get out of it.

 

[coachdb18]

Half of my family is from the South and half are Yankees.

I consider the Republican party to be a Southern insurgency. And I always had to remember to refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" to my Daughter of the Confederacy aunts.

Yes, long-held beliefs die hard. But you have to ask why you're holding the beliefs for other people and not just yourself, and what you get out of it.

The 'North versus South' thinking is a reflection of the depth of misunderstanding of the current issue. Most of the migration that has taken place since the end of the Civil war has seen the increase in population taking place in the southern states, while the New England northeast has lost population. The west coast has been a center for liberals as well. But the belief in limited government is nationwide. It is an idea of personal responsibility, and based on personal freedom. It is not a regional idea, and never was completely so. The subject of slavery was an expediency to the agricultural lifestyle of the 1860's, but industrialization had made it a diminishing return even as the war was fought. It was never just about the institution of slavery, but about being told what you could and would do, from a central power. Americans have always had a problem with that, and it's why our first government was formed under the Articles of Confederation. Slavery had nothing at all to do with that first construct.

 

[Recidiva]

The 'North versus South' thinking is a reflection of the depth of misunderstanding of the current issue. Most of the migration that has taken place since the end of the Civil war has seen the increase in population taking place in the southern states, while the New England northeast has lost population. The west coast has been a center for liberals as well. But the belief in limited government is nationwide. It is an idea of personal responsibility, and based on personal freedom. It is not a regional idea, and never was completely so. The subject of slavery was an expediency to the agricultural lifestyle of the 1860's, but industrialization had made it a diminishing return even as the war was fought. It was never just about the institution of slavery, but about being told what you could and would do, from a central power. Americans have always had a problem with that, and it's why our first government was formed under the Articles of Confederation. Slavery had nothing at all to do with that first construct.

I found my way to seeing that both Northerners and Southerners had their customs and ways and were just people.

Regardless of just being people, if they spout bullshit I'll call them on it.

White Southerners benefitted from the idea that they were a superior race who had the right to subjugate Africans on the basis of the idea that God gave them Dominion. They socially and economically benefitted from this idea. Africans did not, therefore the theory did not fly with them, or with Northerners who had no pony in the fight other than the queasy feeling that tolerating it was corrosive and destructive and ignored the suffering of fellow human beings.

In this case, women have been treated as chattel by the Christian church for centuries and they're not about to backtrack now. They're going to double down and maintain their stance. if they don't, they'd have to admit that the subjugation of an entire gender might not have been such a good idea. That will not work with that whole infallibility doctrine. Giving Galileo a grudging pass does not extend to letting the whole thing go to hell to spare women.

As women in the bible were always treated pretty poorly (see Jepthah's daughter) I never found the Bible to be a guide of morality. The words of Christ are excellent however, and he says nothing on the subject. He does say lots of stuff like turn the other cheek and love your neighbor and render unto Caesar and feed the hungry and cure the sick.

So as a "Christian" (technically based on following the words of Christ) - how does telling women what to do with their body make sense other than as a bolster of thousands of years of the Church gathering power and maintaining dogmatic hold on the faithful when it suits them?

If you're as learned and capable of critical thought as you present yourself to be, it's too much cognitive dissonance to be borne.

 

[coachdb18]

I found my way to seeing that both Northerners and Southerners had their customs and ways and were just people.

Regardless of just being people, if they spout bullshit I'll call them on it.

White Southerners benefitted from the idea that they were a superior race who had the right to subjugate Africans on the basis of the idea that God gave them Dominion. They socially and economically benefitted from this idea. Africans did not, therefore the theory did not fly with them, or with Northerners who had no pony in the fight other than the queasy feeling that tolerating it was corrosive and destructive and ignored the suffering of fellow human beings.

In this case, women have been treated as chattel by the Christian church for centuries and they're not about to backtrack now. They're going to double down and maintain their stance. if they don't, they'd have to admit that the subjugation of an entire gender might not have been such a good idea. That will not work with that whole infallibility doctrine. Giving Galileo a grudging pass does not extend to letting the whole thing go to hell to spare women.

As women in the bible were always treated pretty poorly (see Jepthah's daughter) I never found the Bible to be a guide of morality. The words of Christ are excellent however, and he says nothing on the subject. He does say lots of stuff like turn the other cheek and love your neighbor and render unto Caesar and feed the hungry and cure the sick.

So as a "Christian" (technically based on following the words of Christ) - how does telling women what to do with their body make sense other than as a bolster of thousands of years of the Church gathering power and maintaining dogmatic hold on the faithful when it suits them?

If you're as learned and capable of critical thought as you present yourself to be, it's too much cognitive dissonance to be borne.

Most everyone can go back into history and find a reason to be pissed off now. If you wish to spend your life taking pokes at the church, men, southerners, jews, indians, antfarms and polyps in transit, that's your call... free will!

But I will call you, and anyone else out who becomes a control freak, and tries to impose some sort of responsibility for history by restricting or imposing government remedies on my assets. I think the right to life is one of those rights we disrespect at our peril. How often has it happened that we demean others, and simply say they are worth 3/5 of a human, or assigned a name, or determined a value for another human to be less than our own, and come to a government for a law to make it so. The penchant for doing so is neither north or south, nor is it christian vs atheist. It is a human tendency to use the law as a club on others, not because it is right, but because it is a hell of an easy club to wield. Slavery was the ability of one group to gain an advantage for personal gain over another, but so is abortion. It's just what we do. It's not excusable by whining about history.

 

[Recidiva]

Most everyone can go back into history and find a reason to be pissed off now. If you wish to spend your life taking pokes at the church, men, southerners, jews, indians, antfarms and polyps in transit, that's your call... free will!

But I will call you, and anyone else out who becomes a control freak, and tries to impose some sort of responsibility for history by restricting or imposing government remedies on my assets. I think the right to life is one of those rights we disrespect at our peril. How often has it happened that we demean others, and simply say they are worth 3/5 of a human, or assigned a name, or determined a value for another human to be less than our own, and come to a government for a law to make it so. The penchant for doing so is neither north or south, nor is it christian vs atheist. It is a human tendency to use the law as a club on others, not because it is right, but because it is a hell of an easy club to wield. Slavery was the ability of one group to gain an advantage for personal gain over another, but so is abortion. It's just what we do. It's not excusable by whining about history.

I'm not the one that started on about the civil war. You introduced it, counselor.

 

[mustang200]

Mustang


I didnt read the whole thing, as most of your links are from prolife sites.

Can you please site me something that says how many women die at planned parenthood each year due to abortion related complications.

There is none so blind as she who will not see. So what if it comes from a pro-life site. Does that make the information unworthy? By that logic then, anything that comes from a pro-abortion site is equally suspect and unworthy of being read. Yet you read that, don't you?

 

[TexasWife25]

There is none so blind as she who will not see. So what if it comes from a pro-life site. Does that make the information unworthy? By that logic then, anything that comes from a pro-abortion site is equally suspect and unworthy of being read. Yet you read that, don't you?

I prefer to get my medical information from medical professionals.

However if you have any link, propaganda or not, that talks about the actual question, which was the death rate of women from recieving planned parenthood provided abortions, I'd be willing to read that.

 

[mustang200]

Half of my family is from the South and half are Yankees.

I consider the Republican party to be a Southern insurgency. And I always had to remember to refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" to my Daughter of the Confederacy aunts.

Yes, long-held beliefs die hard. But you have to ask why you're holding the beliefs for other people and not just yourself, and what you get out of it.

Dear, your ignorance is showing. Lincoln was a Republican, and it was his election to the Presidency that triggered the succession of the several States that formed the Confederacy. The Party of the south was the Democrat Party.

You must be a government school graduate.

 

[Recidiva]

There is none so blind as she who will not see. So what if it comes from a pro-life site. Does that make the information unworthy? By that logic then, anything that comes from a pro-abortion site is equally suspect and unworthy of being read. Yet you read that, don't you?

It makes the information biased. Getting information from many sources and doing a comparison would be best.

 

[Recidiva]

Dear, your ignorance is showing. Lincoln was a Republican, and it was his election to the Presidency that triggered the succession of the several States that formed the Confederacy. The Party of the south was the Democrat Party.

You must be a government school graduate.

You don't get to call me dear. Stopped there.

 

[mustang200]

I prefer to get my medical information from medical professionals.

However if you have any link, propaganda or not, that talks about the actual question, which was the death rate of women from recieving planned parenthood provided abortions, I'd be willing to read that.

I gave them to you. Read away.

Oh, pardon me, possibly not specific to PP, but you can infer from the evidence, unless you have your shields up.

 

[TexasWife25]

I gave them to you. Read away.

You provided a whole lot of nothing.

 

[coachdb18]

I'm not the one that started on about the civil war. You introduced it, counselor.

Slavery was an institution involved in the battle over the rights of states in relation to the federal government, and on that basis it was a bad battle to fight, as the institution itself was flawed.

It is not wise to use that same argument for control over another human being again as being a right to seek or obtain control over any other human being. Each has the right to life. Neither the slave, nor the fetus is subject to ownership by another human, and neither is subject to government reduction of their status as human beings. The ability of the federal government to force our acceptance of federally inpired laws notwithstanding.

In short, the government has the basic responsibilities for defending the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The states have, and had, the right to self direction free of coercion, but they didn't have the right to impose slavery on others, and in that they were wrong. Now, the federal government seeks to take the slaveowners position, and fails in supporting the right to life. In that position, they are on the side of the slavers, who were wrong before, and are just as wrong now.

The issue of states rights is a complex one, but the issue of supporting life is pretty straight up.

Problem that muddles this issue is, the 'North' didn't fight their war for abolition, any more than the 'South' fought for slavery. The war was over states rights, not slavery.

 

[HAL_9000]

I'm willing to wager that many, many more people die from accidental hunting accidents every year than from abortion mistakes.

Does coach want to ban hunting???

 

[coachdb18]

I'm willing to wager that many, many more people die from accidental hunting accidents every year than from abortion mistakes.

Does coach want to ban hunting???

Abortion is, in almost every case, and by definition, a mistake. The baby is not the mistake, the baby is just the evidence a mistake was made by two people fucking.

 

[mustang200]

You don't get to call me dear. Stopped there.

Whatever, sweety.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm willing to wager that many, many more people die from accidental hunting accidents every year than from abortion mistakes.

Does coach want to ban hunting???

There's probably a magic deer or something that appeared in a vision and told him hunting was totally cool.

 

[TexasWife25]

I was mistaken mustang, ALL of your sources are prolife groups. Can prolife groups be objective? Sure. But considering in the links you provide they accuse the government of skewing the numbers to promote abortion, and use terms like "innocents" instead of embryo, I'm going to say yours are more biased then most.

 

[mustang200]

You provided a whole lot of nothing.

By your admission, you haven't read the information because of your bias. That is your choice, of course, but it is intellectually dishonest.

You asked for the information, I rose to the challenge. What you choose to do with the information is of no consequence to me.

 

[TexasWife25]

I gave them to you. Read away.

Oh, pardon me, possibly not specific to PP, but you can infer from the evidence, unless you have your shields up.

You gave no evidence. You don't agree with abortion, youre entitled to your opinion... But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[coachdb18]

There's probably a magic deer or something that appeared in a vision and told him hunting was totally cool.

Hunting laws are en entirely different discussion, having to do with control of deer herds to both limit starvation as the natural control mechanism of herd size, and to prevent damage to our property through overpopulation

 

[mustang200]

You gave no evidence. You don't agree with abortion, youre entitled to your opinion... But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

'Scuse me? Just where did I give my opinion?

 

[Recidiva]

Hunting laws are en entirely different discussion, having to do with control of deer hers to both limit starvation as the natural control mechanism of herd size, and to prevent damage to our property through overpopulation

So aborting 57th trimester deer is fine. Check. Life is sacred and God has a plan unless they're deer. God hates deer.