Anti-Choice Bush Nominee

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:34 pm

[QUOTE=BTS;747109]abortions at about 7 Weeks (first trimester)

also include a pathologist's medical authentication.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...yage/index.htm

Interesting. I got this photo of a 7 week human embryo that doesn't look anything like that.

Even the 9 week embryo (next page of that link) doesn't look much like your examples. In fact, it's hard to tell they're even human.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:36 pm

rjwould;746938 wrote: In your mind it obviously is not separate, however, not all women see it the same. To many women, a fetus is an extension of their bodies until born and living outside the womb. I have no problem with the differences between how different women see it. I respect it either way. What I object to is religious fundamentalists, mostly men, thinking they know better than either view from women., and using their influence to have laws passed criminalizing behavior and choices made.

Yes rj........is right once again.........He says a woman says "a fetus is an extension of their bodies until born and living outside the womb."

Here are a few extensions for you with their brains sucked out or burned to DEATH with saline:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...yage/index.htm

And you want to give animals the rights of humans but kill the unwanted babies?

What a man of CHOICE you are.........Man

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:38 pm

Snooze;747117 wrote: Interesting. I got this photo of a 7 week human embryo that doesn't look anything like that.

Even the 9 week embryo (next page of that link) doesn't look much like your examples. In fact, it's hard to tell they're even human.

Maybe you need a better googler eh???

Here is my source:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources ... /index.htm

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:40 pm

Could you provide a link to the site you found those late term 'abortion' photos, please? No doctor is going to abort a baby that advanced in pregnancy unless there's a serious medical condition for either the mother or child.

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:42 pm

BTS;747121 wrote: Maybe you need a better googler eh???

Here is my source:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources ... /index.htm

Maybe you could find a site that isn't so obviously biased on the subject.:rolleyes:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:50 pm

Yeah...priests4life. Jesus on a crutch. If I had posted photos of dead dogs, y'all would have jumped my a.ss like a hen on a junebug. I don't appreciate this crap. I can lift those pics off any gore site if I wanted to see them.

After having people tell me MY posts are depressing or inappropriate, and seeing these, somebody is out of line and it sure isn't me.

I'm also getting sick of stupid remarks like "keep your legs closed." This is an ignorant statement. How about keep your d.ick in your pants, guys? It takes two.

This convo started as something I got in an email and passed on fo rinfo. We already know what sides of the fence we stand on from past arguments. Today I have seen nothing but nastiness in this thread. Mainly to new members in fact. Seeing your gore pix does not change my mind. Nobody said abortion was pretty. We said it was a necessary evil and once again the mother's business trumps all else.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:59 pm

Snooze;747123 wrote: Maybe you could find a site that isn't so obviously biased on the subject.:rolleyes:

What do you want??????

Most are signed/dated and certified by a pathologist.........

What more do you want?

I am sure your PRO CHOICE sites would NEVER post REAL pics of what a baby looks like after having this atrocity done to him/her......

Ever wonder why they wouldn't???

I'll tell you why............. Because it is terrible what those babies must go through, that is why they won't ever touch it or post these pics.

And it SO weird that the PRO lifers are the ones that ALWAYS object to seeing what they REALLY belive in doing.........

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:03 pm

BTS;747127 wrote: What do you want??????

Most are signed/dated and certified by a pathologist.........

What more do you want?

I am sure your PRO CHOICE sites would NEVER post REAL pics of what a baby looks like after having this atrocity done to him/her......

Ever wonder why they wouldn't???

I'll tell you why............. Because it is terrible what those babies must go through, that is why they won't ever touch it or post these pics.

And it SO weird that the PRO lifers are the ones that ALWAYS object to seeing what they REALLY belive in doing.........

forgive me for asking this, but do you mean Pro Choicers? because I am pro-life and I cried when I saw what you posted....this is a very tender subject for me and I have read this thread all day.....this is one of those subjects that we aren't going to come to an agreement on.....unfortunately....in response to the op, I always vote for the pro-lifers....always will.

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:11 pm

BTS;747127 wrote: What do you want??????

Most are signed/dated and certified by a pathologist.........

What more do you want?

I am sure your PRO CHOICE sites would NEVER post REAL pics of what a baby looks like after having this atrocity done to him/her......

Ever wonder why they wouldn't???

I'll tell you why............. Because it is terrible what those babies must go through, that is why they won't ever touch it or post these pics.

And it SO weird that the PRO lifers are the ones that ALWAYS object to seeing what they REALLY belive in doing.........

I'd like to know the source of the late term 'abortion' photos you provided. Once again, it's illegal to perform an abortion on a third trimester baby in this country unless the mother and/or the baby were in a life threatening situation. And your use of them is also morally and ethically suspect if you can't provide provenance.

Also, I haven't linked to anything which would indicate my thoughts and feelings on this issue, I'm merely concerned that you're flinging inaccuracies around.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:17 pm

RedGlitter;747126 wrote: Yeah...priests4life. Jesus on a crutch. If I had posted photos of dead dogs, y'all would have jumped my a.ss like a hen on a junebug. I don't appreciate this crap. I can lift those pics off any gore site if I wanted to see them.

After having people tell me MY posts are depressing or inappropriate, and seeing these, somebody is out of line and it sure isn't me.

I'm also getting sick of stupid remarks like "keep your legs closed." This is an ignorant statement. How about keep your d.ick in your pants, guys? It takes two.

This convo started as something I got in an email and passed on fo rinfo. We already know what sides of the fence we stand on from past arguments. Today I have seen nothing but nastiness in this thread. Mainly to new members in fact. Seeing your gore pix does not change my mind. Nobody said abortion was pretty. We said it was a necessary evil and once again the mother's business trumps all else.

Red,

I'll tell you like snooze, most of the atrocities I posted have a stamp from a pathologist and are documented. It is sad but true that for one to see what happens to the innocent will NEVER be on a pro choice site but only on sites that want to educate on what the innocent goes through. While still viable they are either injected with saline (burned to death) or their brains are sucked out.

And your "necessary evil" bull puck..........

I call BULL..........

Why is it necessary? Don't you have other choices as I posted earlier?

IE:

Birth control, rubbers, keeping ones legs together or as you state (I am ALL for this one too) "How about keep your d.ick in your pants, guys?"

And about the pics.........

Weren't they terrible? Isn't it terrible how the innocents are killed?

I think it is quite educational as was biology class.........

I like the way you try back off and say you started this as a e-mail info thingy.........

Ok well my pics were for info and I am VERY VERY pleased they upset you so much that maybe you or others might see it from the innocents eyes

And that's my STTTorrriee andd I'mmm STTickin to it!!!!!!!

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:19 pm

WonderWendy3;747129 wrote: forgive me for asking this, but do you mean Pro Choicers? because I am pro-life and I cried when I saw what you posted....this is a very tender subject for me and I have read this thread all day.....this is one of those subjects that we aren't going to come to an agreement on.....unfortunately....in response to the op, I always vote for the pro-lifers....always will.

Yes I did..........

Thanks

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:23 pm

BTS, maybe you'd like me to post some laboratory photos of what the other "innocents" really go through? The furry ones. I know you know about it but does that mean you want it in your face at dinnertime? Use some common sense, man. You haven't changed anyone's mind here, nor will you most likely. All you did was post disgusting photos. Do you honestly think we haven't seen them before? Who are you trying to hurt here other than the women who have lost babies or had abortions? Quite frankly, that's what p.isses me off; your total lack of regard for the women (and some men) here who really didn't need your propaganda shoved in their faces.

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:29 pm

RedGlitter;747137 wrote: BTS, maybe you'd like me to post some laboratory photos of what the other "innocents" really go through? The furry ones. I know you know about it but does that mean you want it in your face at dinnertime? Use some common sense, man. You haven't changed anyone's mind here, nor will you most likely. All you did was post disgusting photos. Do you honestly think we haven't seen them before? Who are you trying to hurt here other than the women who have lost babies or had abortions? Quite frankly, that's what p.isses me off; your total lack of regard for the women (and some men) here who really didn't need your propaganda shoved in their faces.

That's the operative word here.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:58 pm

RedGlitter;747137 wrote: BTS, maybe you'd like me to post some laboratory photos of what the other "innocents" really go through? The furry ones. I know you know about it but does that mean you want it in your face at dinnertime? Use some common sense, man. You haven't changed anyone's mind here, nor will you most likely. All you did was post disgusting photos. Do you honestly think we haven't seen them before? Who are you trying to hurt here other than the women who have lost babies or had abortions? Quite frankly, that's what p.isses me off; your total lack of regard for the women (and some men) here who really didn't need your propaganda shoved in their faces.

So your e-mail that started the Bush Bashing from NARAL........... is not propaganda?

I beg to differ......

I am sorry seeing what you support upsets you......... I really am.

I would be upset too if what I supported looked like this .......

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:27 pm

No it wasn't propaganda. Were there pictures BTS? Was it offensive beyond the point of basic disagreement?

And no you're not a bit sorry you upset anyone, so don't give me crocodile tears. Just give it a rest BTS. You're probably getting froth all over the keyboard.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:02 pm

It is interesting that some people aren't agreeing what stage a baby is at during allowable times for an abortion. That seems to be a fairly important point to the discussion. From this site, it is pretty clear that the baby looks like a full baby by the end of the second trimester and that is has formed recognizable arms, legs and head by the end of the first.

What snooze posted looks more like an amoeba than a human. Knowing what is being sucked out of a person is useful when making the decision. For legal purposes we could even narrow down the time limit by considering photos.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am

I dont see how the gore pictures make any difference tbh.

Maybe ive seen them too many times but they dont make me think all of a sudden "hey i didnt realise they looked like that - maybe they ARE more important than a woman AFTER all" Ive looked for pictures of foetuses at all stages during my pregnancies, i think its weird how theres so many pictures of dead ones. Im starting to think a lot of pro-lifers get off on those pics tbh.

There are sooo many people being killed every day, in poverty, in torture, all over the world. The world can barely support the ones weve got without forcing more babies to be born that arent even wanted.

I actually find it a bit shocking when people seem to think a tiny undeveloped foetus is as much a person as a born child.

I cant imagine putting my pregnancy as as important as my other children, or as important as me or my partner.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:42 am

I pray for two things concerning this subject:1. That a doctor will figure out a way to transplant a baby (human being imo) from the womb of one mother to another.2. That our government will bestow citizenship rights at conception rather than birth.The first will happen someday, I'm certain. The second my never happen.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:45 am

Accountable;747261 wrote: I pray for two things concerning this subject:1. That a doctor will figure out a way to transplant a baby (human being imo) from the womb of one mother to another.2. That our government will bestow citizenship rights at conception rather than birth.The first will happen someday, I'm certain. The second my never happen.

My blank lines keep getting deleted & I don't know why.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:20 am

Accountable;747266 wrote: My blank lines keep getting deleted & I don't know why.

Are you saying your blank lines have been blanked? Hmmmm

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:48 am

How about the government creating dignified group homes for pregnant women who can't afford to feed themselves properly or get proper medical attention. Free medical services until after the baby is safely born and retraining if needed so that she can support herself and her child after giving birth.

At that point, the government would be in a position to make abortion illegal.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:07 pm

koan;747503 wrote: How about the government creating dignified group homes for pregnant women who can't afford to feed themselves properly or get proper medical attention. Free medical services until after the baby is safely born and retraining if needed so that she can support herself and her child after giving birth.

At that point, the government would be in a position to make abortion illegal.

I dont think it would, or should make any difference.

Its not about finances

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:11 pm

koan;747503 wrote: How about the government creating dignified group homes for pregnant women who can't afford to feed themselves properly or get proper medical attention. Free medical services until after the baby is safely born and retraining if needed so that she can support herself and her child after giving birth.

At that point, the government would be in a position to make abortion illegal.

I'm not sure that would make much difference in the larger scope of things.

Not sure it's govt's responsibility to get involved for that matter.

Even if such a thing were available, no woman should be forced or even coerced into delivering against her will. Yes dead children are a sad thing indeed but no child should EVER serve as it's mother's and father's consequence.

minks · Post by **minks** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:35 pm

BTS;747092 wrote: Keeping your legs together or using ALL the available birth control would have been a MUCH better start than to get knocked and say "Pregnancy and birth isnt a walk in the park, its damn hard graft and what it can do to a body physically and mentally can be pretty severe."

Wouldn't you think using your head and ALL available controls, such as birth control pills, rubbers, abstinence or even the after morning pill etc would be a BETTER PRO CHOICE?

Kinda like.....

gee I was drunk, hit and killed a pedestrian......

Same thing I think......... POOR CHOICES TO START WITH AND THE INNOCENT PAY

MY Point:

POOR choice= Driving Drunk...Killing pedestrian......Goto jail

POOR choice= Sex without birth control (that is READABLY available).....conceive a child........abort that child......

Tell me again how you are PRO CHOICE?

I am with ya 100% on this, Pro Choice ... "choose not to have an unwanted pregnancy."

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:52 pm

Yes, how ideal that would be. If only there weren't such things as human nature, failed birth control and human fallibility.

This to me smacks of the equivalent of an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Like the bumper sticker: "If you're against abortion....don't have one!"

And for heck's sake don't tell others what they can and cannot do with their own reproductive systems.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:31 pm

I just noticed something interesting. The folks who have time to be on here during the day seem to have a different perspective and opinion on life than the folks unavailable during the day.

I'm at lunch.:guitarist

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:33 pm

Clint;747645 wrote: I just noticed something interesting. The folks who have time to be on here during the day seem to have a different perspective and opinion on life than the folks unavailable during the day.

I'm at lunch.:guitarist

might be to do with different time zones too??

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:36 pm

suzycreamcheese;747648 wrote: might be to do with different time zones too??

Check the local times on the posts. Not that much difference.

minks · Post by **minks** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:59 pm

rjwould;747613 wrote: I can agree with this as well, minks. However, in the real world, it happens doesn't it. So, instead of brow beating one another about it, lets learn to speak like adults about it because young people are never going to trust the advice of those who get so judgmental and emotional about it. The only real way to change young peoples problems regarding sex is to teach with a loving, tolerant and understanding heart and mind.

sadly it does happen in the real world, so sad of a situation the children that can not "talk openly" with their parents. I suppose that is why schools bring in sex ed as well, to educate as well as they can.

Teach them to make smart decisions by example eh.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:24 pm

If I had to choose between losing my reproductive system or a baby's life there would be one more live baby and one more sterile woman in the world.

As to the mother's health being at risk from the pregnancy, I don't think anyone is saying that a woman should die in order to complete a pregnancy. As to laws on abortion being legal or not... If it becomes illegal then society will adapt. I don't consider my right to abort children to be important to my experience as a woman. Men don't have the right to do it so why should women?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:59 pm

Men that don't want their partner to have a child are not permitted to abort it. Men that want to keep a child that their partner wishes to abort can do nothing about it.

None of us currently have the right to kill ourselves so the argument about having the right to choose what to do with one's own body is moot.

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:12 pm

koan;748107 wrote: Men that don't want their partner to have a child are not permitted to abort it. Men that want to keep a child that their partner wishes to abort can do nothing about it.

None of us currently have the right to kill ourselves so the argument about having the right to choose what to do with one's own body is moot.

There's a subject I feel strongly about...euthanasia. That's obviously fodder for another thread that's probably been done to death, though. Pun unintended.... but still pretty good.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:15 pm

koan;748107 wrote: Men that don't want their partner to have a child are not permitted to abort it. Men that want to keep a child that their partner wishes to abort can do nothing about it.

None of us currently have the right to kill ourselves so the argument about having the right to choose what to do with one's own body is moot.

:yh_worshp I love clear thinking.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:06 pm

rjwould;748204 wrote: You crack me up, clint. You and your partner jester sure know how to trivialize.

I hadn't thought of Jester as my partner...that's flattering...thank you.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:47 am

Clint;747650 wrote: Check the local times on the posts. Not that much difference.
well it says im posting at 02.47 local time next to me, but its actually 10.48 here.

Methinks i need to go and change a setting somewhere!

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:54 am

koan;748073 wrote: If I had to choose between losing my reproductive system or a baby's life there would be one more live baby and one more sterile woman in the world.

As to the mother's health being at risk from the pregnancy, I don't think anyone is saying that a woman should die in order to complete a pregnancy. As to laws on abortion being legal or not... If it becomes illegal then society will adapt. I don't consider my right to abort children to be important to my experience as a woman. Men don't have the right to do it so why should women?

making abortion illegal, historically AND statistically doesnt actually reduce abortions by that much - it just reduces safe abortions and increases illegal ones in which both mother and child often die

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Men dont have the right to do it because its not their body.

Why should a man be able to choose what a woman does with her own body?

Its not like women get to choose whether a man has a vasectomy or not?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:39 am

suzycreamcheese;748279 wrote: Men dont have the right to do it because its not their body.

Why should a man be able to choose what a woman does with her own body?

It can be argued that the pre-born baby (neat term, eh?) is not the mother's body, either. It has different DNA.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:54 am

Accountable;748306 wrote: It can be argued that the pre-born baby (neat term, eh?) is not the mother's body, either. It has different DNA.

Yet as a parasite is to a host, it requires the mother's body to live.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:07 am

rjwould;748311 wrote: I thought science was too flawed for you. I guess not when it serves you though, huh?
That's the problem with trying to fit people into neat little categories. We generally ain't neat.

I don't think I've ever posted anything about science being flawed, but that's off this subject.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:08 am

RedGlitter;748318 wrote: Yet as a parasite is to a host, it requires the mother's body to live.
It's a parasite. Absolutely no getting around that. It that cause for the death penalty?

Hmmmmmm. Possible argument for a future welfare discussion. :yh_think

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:36 am

rjwould;748231 wrote: What was so offensive?

More inelegant and coarse, I'd have called it. Either you intend to persuade or you intend to needle people, it's hard to do both.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:47 am

RedGlitter;748318 wrote: Yet as a parasite is to a host, it requires the mother's body to live.

well exactly. I know it doesnt sound nice to say it that way, but its more that the woman shouldnt be forced into giving over her body to grow somebody else. The parasite host is the nearest example i can think of too. We dont force people to become organ donors even if theyre a match and it would save another life, and we shouldnt be forced to donate our bodies for the sake of another unless we actually want to do it. The fact that the foetus dies as a result of being removed from the host is secondary and unavoidable at this moment in time. It doesnt mean the host has any obligation

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:52 am

suzycreamcheese;748352 wrote: well exactly. I know it doesnt sound nice to say it that way, but its more that the woman shouldnt be forced into giving over her body to grow somebody else. The parasite host is the nearest example i can think of too. We dont force people to become organ donors even if theyre a match and it would save another life, and we shouldnt be forced to donate our bodies for the sake of another unless we actually want to do it. The fact that the foetus dies as a result of being removed from the host is secondary and unavoidable at this moment in time. It doesnt mean the host has any obligation

I would say that in cases of consentual sex, the host absolutely has an obligation. Similar to the 'you broke it, you buy it' rule ... You created it, you nurture it. It's a moral obligation, but an obligation nonetheless.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:56 am

rjwould;748355 wrote: It was just horseplay. I never said he was homosexual, I merely stated in a jovial way that his relationship with clint could border on homosexuality, which I meant as "could be interpreted by some as". If you prefer I change the post to reflect that more accurately, I will be happy to.
I thought it was funny, but Jester doesn't jest about moral issues. Get him talking about table dancing and he's a hoot!

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:56 am

Why just in consensual sex then?

Surely it shouldnt be as a punishment for daring to have sex?

I think the best thing to do is to avoid pregnancy at all costs if you dont want a baby, but there have always been, and always will be cases where a pregnancy happens despite this, and its very very common.

I just think childrearing is much too important a job to be done by people who arent totally up for it.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:57 am

rjwould;748360 wrote: excellent point. You remind me of someone else I know (virtually), but hes a him, and you're a her, so it can't be him, could it!?

lol, not the last time i checked, but im sure im not the only one with those views!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:04 am

suzycreamcheese;748366 wrote: Why just in consensual sex then?

Surely it shouldnt be as a punishment for daring to have sex?Good Lord no! You misread me entirely. I'm coming from a 'be responsible for your actions' point of view.

suzycreamcheese wrote: I think the best thing to do is to avoid pregnancy at all costs if you dont want a baby, but there have always been, and always will be cases where a pregnancy happens despite this, and its very very common.

I just think childrearing is much too important a job to be done by people who arent totally up for it.I agree. There are choices between abortion and raising the child yourself. Adoption is always one option.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:11 am

Adoption is certainly fine except it requires the mother to carry for nine and deliver. That's what we're trying to avoid.