The Abortion Dress

[cm husker]

 

No.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

Curious, what does god say about abortion specifically? Or cancer treatment. Or life support?

 

Subquestion: should any law in the US be based solely on a religious belief?

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

No.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

Curious, what does god say about abortion specifically? Or cancer treatment. Or life support?

 

 

Jesus once told me to stop playing with myself.

[JJ Husker]

We can leave it here. I strongly disagree that belief in God is a suitable rejoinder to criticism of the obstinate, scornful characterization of women's choice as selfish.

Abortion definitely isn't an easy topic, and different denominations vary on it. It's been a welcome discussion from my end and I appreciate you having it with me. I just think, don't come out with something like this ...

 

 

she is a c**t. I want her to feel shame. She should feel shame. She's a piece of sh#t. I wish her mother had aborted her. Wonder if she would be in favor of that?

 

...and then invoke 'God'. That's not God, that's you.

@Red, I moved your latest to the 'Shed. It's not the only post that should probably be there, but hopefully it's enough. That kind of tone that's been going on a little ways back in this thread, only belongs there -- if you and JJ would like to continue it in that vein :\

You're right zoogs. That was not very Christian of me. I am a sinner, a flawed human being, and a hypocrite at times. I need to be better.

 

However, I do find it a little amusing that my comments (mere words) about her cause you more concern than a person who would end a human life or prevent the most innocent among us from ever being born and having the opportunities that you and I take for granted. Killing another life is okay but using harsh language crosses the line. Is that how it works without God?

[zoogs]

Well, I think it's one thing when you have a viable baby. Up to that point, it's part of the woman's body, and so she ought to have discretion over what to do with it, whether that's nurturing to the point where it becomes a new, independent being, or deciding not to.

 

I think there's a lot to be said for the positive outcomes of family planning. Something a lot of us take for granted, I think, is having been born into a stable family where the mother and father are not only married, but ready and trying for a child.

 

That they were able to do that in a lot of our cases is a product of a few things: access to contraceptives when they needed it, and the absence of bad luck where sometimes it doesn't work. I go back to my example from my first post in this thread of someone terminating a pregnancy at a time that wasn't right for them, and welcoming a (wonderful!) child a few years later, when they were trying.

 

The message I want to support is whatever reasons it wasn't right the first time are simply nobody's business -- but we're all well aware of how unfortunate attitudes tend to be.

[Moesker]

 

No.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

 

Why wouldn't he be honest about it? Its not like its something he should be ashamed of.

 

And even if there is a higher power, its very likely not one that humans worship. JMO.

[Moesker]

We can leave it here. I strongly disagree that belief in God is a suitable rejoinder to criticism of the obstinate, scornful characterization of women's choice as selfish.

 

Abortion definitely isn't an easy topic, and different denominations vary on it. It's been a welcome discussion from my end and I appreciate you having it with me. I just think, don't come out with something like this ...

 

she is a c**t. I want her to feel shame. She should feel shame. She's a piece of sh#t. I wish her mother had aborted her. Wonder if she would be in favor of that?

 

 

 

@Red, I moved your latest to the 'Shed. It's not the only post that should probably be there, but hopefully it's enough. That kind of tone that's been going on a little ways back in this thread, only belongs there -- if you and JJ would like to continue it in that vein :\

What kind of wizardry is this? Posts can get moved to the woodshed room? Interesting.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

No.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

 

Why wouldn't he be honest about it? Its not like its something he should be ashamed of.

 

And even if there is a higher power, its very likely not one that humans worship. JMO.

 

 

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

[Moesker]

 

 

No.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

 

Subquestion: should any law in the US be based solely on a religious belief?

 

If anyone answers yes to this...I can almost guarantee they are voting for Cruz.

[Moesker]

 

 

 

No.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

Curious, what does god say about abortion specifically? Or cancer treatment. Or life support?

 

 

Jesus once told me to stop playing with myself.

 

Trying hard to not take this to the next level.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

We can leave it here. I strongly disagree that belief in God is a suitable rejoinder to criticism of the obstinate, scornful characterization of women's choice as selfish.

 

Abortion definitely isn't an easy topic, and different denominations vary on it. It's been a welcome discussion from my end and I appreciate you having it with me. I just think, don't come out with something like this ...

 

she is a c**t. I want her to feel shame. She should feel shame. She's a piece of sh#t. I wish her mother had aborted her. Wonder if she would be in favor of that?

 

 

 

@Red, I moved your latest to the 'Shed. It's not the only post that should probably be there, but hopefully it's enough. That kind of tone that's been going on a little ways back in this thread, only belongs there -- if you and JJ would like to continue it in that vein :\

What kind of wizardry is this? Posts can get moved to the woodshed room? Interesting.

 

 

Yup. There's a specific thread where your dirty laundry gets hung out for everyone to see.

 

Well, everyone that has the keys to the executive washroom, that is.

[Moesker]

 

 

We can leave it here. I strongly disagree that belief in God is a suitable rejoinder to criticism of the obstinate, scornful characterization of women's choice as selfish.

 

Abortion definitely isn't an easy topic, and different denominations vary on it. It's been a welcome discussion from my end and I appreciate you having it with me. I just think, don't come out with something like this ...

 

she is a c**t. I want her to feel shame. She should feel shame. She's a piece of sh#t. I wish her mother had aborted her. Wonder if she would be in favor of that?

 

 

 

@Red, I moved your latest to the 'Shed. It's not the only post that should probably be there, but hopefully it's enough. That kind of tone that's been going on a little ways back in this thread, only belongs there -- if you and JJ would like to continue it in that vein :\

What kind of wizardry is this? Posts can get moved to the woodshed room? Interesting.

 

 

Yup. There's a specific thread where your dirty laundry gets hung out for everyone to see.

 

Well, everyone that has the keys to the executive washroom, that is.

 

You mean the whole thread doesn't disappear? What will they think of next?

[JJ Husker]

Well, I think it's one thing when you have a viable baby. Up to that point, it's part of the woman's body, and so she ought to have discretion over what to do with it, whether that's nurturing to the point where it becomes a new, independent being, or deciding not to.

 

I think there's a lot to be said for the positive outcomes of family planning. Something a lot of us take for granted, I think, is having been born into a stable family where the mother and father are not only married, but ready and trying for a child.

 

That they were able to do that in a lot of our cases is a product of a few things: access to contraceptives when they needed it, and the absence of bad luck where sometimes it doesn't work. I go back to my example from my first post in this thread of someone terminating a pregnancy at a time that wasn't right for them, and welcoming a (wonderful!) child a few years later, when they were trying.

 

The message I want to support is whatever reasons it wasn't right the first time are simply nobody's business -- but we're all well aware of how unfortunate attitudes tend to be.

The issue, as I see it, is; there is a huge overlap of it being a viable baby and still part of the woman's body, around nine months worth. The last time I checked, the vast majority of babies are born healthy if they are not aborted. For me, that makes virtually all fetus' viable babies. I mean if you keep the sharp tools and vacuum machines away, wouldn't most all of them be viable?

 

Do you have some other criteria that you rely upon to determine when they are viable? Or, as long as it is still connected to the mother's body, does that make it not viable and therefore subject only to the whims of the mother? It also raises the question, when, if ever, are the desires of the father considered? It takes a man and a woman to conceive that other life, then for nine months, the mother can do as she wishes with no one else allowed any input but, once the baby is born, then the man can have input again? Something about that arrangement doesn't seem quite right.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

Well, I think it's one thing when you have a viable baby. Up to that point, it's part of the woman's body, and so she ought to have discretion over what to do with it, whether that's nurturing to the point where it becomes a new, independent being, or deciding not to.

 

I think there's a lot to be said for the positive outcomes of family planning. Something a lot of us take for granted, I think, is having been born into a stable family where the mother and father are not only married, but ready and trying for a child.

 

That they were able to do that in a lot of our cases is a product of a few things: access to contraceptives when they needed it, and the absence of bad luck where sometimes it doesn't work. I go back to my example from my first post in this thread of someone terminating a pregnancy at a time that wasn't right for them, and welcoming a (wonderful!) child a few years later, when they were trying.

 

The message I want to support is whatever reasons it wasn't right the first time are simply nobody's business -- but we're all well aware of how unfortunate attitudes tend to be.

The issue, as I see it, is; there is a huge overlap of it being a viable baby and still part of the woman's body, around nine months worth. The last time I checked, the vast majority of babies are born healthy if they are not aborted. For me, that makes virtually all fetus' viable babies. I mean if you keep the sharp tools and vacuum machines away, wouldn't most all of them be viable?

 

Do you have some other criteria that you rely upon to determine when they are viable? Or, as long as it is still connected to the mother's body, does that make it not viable and therefore subject only to the whims of the mother? It also raises the question, when, if ever, are the desires of the father considered? It takes a man and a woman to conceive that other life, then for nine months, the mother can do as she wishes with no one else allowed any input but, once the baby is born, then the man can have input again? Something about that arrangement doesn't seem quite right.

 

 

So selfish of women to have control over their own bodies. How dare they? Sheesh. Pregnancy is so easy, they should share.

[zoogs]

 

The issue, as I see it, is; there is a huge overlap of it being a viable baby and still part of the woman's body, around nine months worth.

I don't think this is accurate to say. At a certain point a baby is developed enough that it can be born, or close to it; few abortions happen at that point and I think the consensus for broad restrictions (with few exceptions) is relatively strong in late trimester cases.

This is demonstrably not true in the early portion of a pregnancy. What would be required is for the woman to commit her body and herself to going through the full term of pregnancy.

Most pregnancies are either desired or close enough. Some of them are strongly not desired, whether there are crushing constraints of circumstance or whether it's simply the desire to not become a parent. In those cases, I believe a woman should get to do what she wants with her body: go through with the whole process, or not.

Does the man get to have input? Good question, and not one I've really explored. I would lean towards no. As gestation of a fertilized egg to a human baby ready to be born is carried out in a woman's body, I'd say it's up to her what to do with it. Men have plenty of input, though (clearly! ) -- they choose whether or not to get on the same page with their partner beforehand, given the clearly latent potential of an unintended pregnancy. So, yeah, a man who wants to have a child is going to need a partner willing to go through the process.

[NUance]

 

 

Well, I think it's one thing when you have a viable baby. Up to that point, it's part of the woman's body, and so she ought to have discretion over what to do with it, whether that's nurturing to the point where it becomes a new, independent being, or deciding not to.

 

I think there's a lot to be said for the positive outcomes of family planning. Something a lot of us take for granted, I think, is having been born into a stable family where the mother and father are not only married, but ready and trying for a child.

 

That they were able to do that in a lot of our cases is a product of a few things: access to contraceptives when they needed it, and the absence of bad luck where sometimes it doesn't work. I go back to my example from my first post in this thread of someone terminating a pregnancy at a time that wasn't right for them, and welcoming a (wonderful!) child a few years later, when they were trying.

 

The message I want to support is whatever reasons it wasn't right the first time are simply nobody's business -- but we're all well aware of how unfortunate attitudes tend to be.

The issue, as I see it, is; there is a huge overlap of it being a viable baby and still part of the woman's body, around nine months worth. The last time I checked, the vast majority of babies are born healthy if they are not aborted. For me, that makes virtually all fetus' viable babies. I mean if you keep the sharp tools and vacuum machines away, wouldn't most all of them be viable?

 

Do you have some other criteria that you rely upon to determine when they are viable? Or, as long as it is still connected to the mother's body, does that make it not viable and therefore subject only to the whims of the mother? It also raises the question, when, if ever, are the desires of the father considered? It takes a man and a woman to conceive that other life, then for nine months, the mother can do as she wishes with no one else allowed any input but, once the baby is born, then the man can have input again? Something about that arrangement doesn't seem quite right.

 

 

So selfish of women to have control over their own bodies. How dare they? Sheesh. Pregnancy is so easy, they should share.

 

 

I think JJ is pointing out that at some point during the nine months the baby becomes viable. And then the baby's right to live supersedes the woman's right to have the baby killed for just any whim, including the sake of her convenience. Or to phrase it in your manner of response above: So selfish of that baby to expect to continue living.