3 3
JerryBaumchen

One Gutsy Girl

Recommended Posts

(edited)
10 minutes ago, kallend said:

There is no "who" except the woman.

You've pinpointed the problem. So many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. (Here's where you claim that it's "just a lump of cells.") Pathetic.

Edited by rcdrury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

You've pinpointed the problem. So many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. (Here's where you claim that it's "just a lump of cells.") Pathetic.

Are you a true believer in "life beginning at conception"? Or are you one of those fake believers who would make exceptions for cases of rape and incest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

You've pinpointed the problem. So many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. (Here's where you claim that it's "just a lump of cells.") Pathetic.

Hi rc,

In this country, the children are non-existent until they are born.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kallend said:

What goes on inside a woman's body is nobody's business but her own.

Not the Pope's, not a politician's, not rcdrury's, not mine, not the governor of Texas's or any legislators'. 

Her business, and hers alone.

You know the rules:

The GOP is all about preserving life, right up to the moment of birth;

After that it's every man for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

You've pinpointed the problem. So many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. (Here's where you claim that it's "just a lump of cells.") Pathetic.

 

Keep your nose out of womens' genitals (unless invited in).

 

It simply is none of your business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi rc,

In this country, the children are non-existent until they are born.

Jerry Baumchen

If they were people they'd be given a SocSec number, be counted in the census, be eligible for a passport and would be a tax deduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

You've pinpointed the problem. So many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. (Here's where you claim that it's "just a lump of cells.") Pathetic.

And yet the ~40% of "living human children" that are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body are just  . . . ignored.  Like they never existed.

It's almost as if you have two sets of standards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, billvon said:

And yet the ~40% of "living human children" that are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body are just  . . . ignored.  Like they never existed.

It's almost as if you have two sets of standards!

My favorite are Chimera's. No one has yet to explain where the extra soul goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rcdrury said:

You've pinpointed the problem. So many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. (Here's where you claim that it's "just a lump of cells.") Pathetic.

I can assure you that the woman's commitment to a pregnancy has more impact than a man's does. I'm a woman, and I've been pregnant, and I've had a baby. There are more health impacts, more job impacts, on the woman than on the man. Period.

And, yes, there are so many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. Most of them are fathers who don't want to be bothered.

Until they're born, they're not children, any more than fertilized eggs are chickens. They deserve respect and humane treatment, but often the needs of the mother are in conflict with the needs of the child -- especially if she's pregnant without its having been planned.

Until they're capable of being alive outside the womb, they're a far bigger impact on the mother than on the father. She is the only one providing physical support to the pregnancy. Until the pregnancy has attained the age of viability, it should be her final decision, preferably with him being involved in it. Of course -- when the father cuts out, he generally doesn't involve the mother, does he?

After the normal age of viability, I honestly believe that exceptions should be made for non-viable fetuses, along with mother's health concerns, as well as the rape and incest exceptions. People involved in those situations are compromised already, and may be in situations that are dangerous enough that getting an abortion early isn't reasonable.

Wendy P.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I can assure you that the woman's commitment to a pregnancy has more impact than a man's does...

All great points; and all irrelevant as to the "fetus'" biological standing or right to live. Let's address all of them; but let the innocent child live in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know how you can tell the gop doesn't care about anything other than controlling women in this abortion bullshit?  they try to use "christian" values, but totally ignore the fact that the bible says a child has no soul until it takes it's first breath.  so a fetus has no soul, at least according to the bible.  to me, it isn't a child until you can leave it alone for a while (a few hours) without it dying.  like at least 27 weeks or so (not real sure on when they can).  those premies that they put in incubators don't count, since they can't live more than a minute or so without the machines.  but then again, i prefer leaving my wishes or desires out of a woman's business.  her body, her business, period, no exceptions.  piss on anyone who tries controlling them through ANY method without their consent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no legitimate scientific OR religious basis for the GOP point of view on this one, it's purely a control thing. In fact, as you say, in the bible first breath is the point at which life begins so in this case it is actually science that is more restrictive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rcdrury said:

All great points; and all irrelevant as to the "fetus'" biological standing or right to live. Let's address all of them; but let the innocent child live in the meantime.

And when does the "innocent child" become a person. At the moment of conception? At the moment the mother thinks there's a possibility of being pregnant? Do you advocate for a procedure to check women for extra bleeding on a period? How about inquests for miscarriages? Burials and gravestones mandated? I'm assuming you think it's fair for the woman, if single, to be the one to pay for this. Someone has to.

Going down the "all costs to protect the fetus" path has consequences. Yes, in a supportive community where women aren't expected to work, then this can happen. Otherwise, a rape or incident of incest can have an even greater cost on the woman than it does now. And it becomes clear that the woman is just a vessel.

Maybe forced vasectomies for men who abandon children (even pre-birth ones), or at the very least forced paternity tests. After all, if the woman has to have her body invaded, why shouldn't the man?

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

 i prefer leaving my wishes or desires out of a woman's business.  her body, her business, period, no exceptions.  piss on anyone who tries controlling them through ANY method without their consent.

Agree 100% (except for the absence of capitalizations).

Her body, her business, her decision.  Popes, priests, pastors and politicians should butt-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Maybe forced vasectomies for men who abandon children (even pre-birth ones), or at the very least forced paternity tests. After all, if the woman has to have her body invaded, why shouldn't the man?

I have no problem with that, as long as due process is exercised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

you know how you can tell the gop doesn't care about anything other than controlling women in this abortion bullshit?

You can't really tell by the examples you give. But you can tell by the fact that once the children are born, the GOP doesn't really give a shit anymore.

  • Universal healthcare: nope
  • Subsidized daycare: nope
  • Education: only decent if you can pay for it
  • Food security: don't be so damn lazy
  • etc. etc.

They claim to care about children, but they really stop caring once a child is born. That is how you know this is really only about controlling women. The American Right is no different from any of the Muslim extremist regimes: control through religion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3