Bowerbird said, "I actually said a lot more and am used to people on AGW denialism cherry picking because they have little else to go on. Addressing me in this manner could be considered "baiting" under the rules of this forum. But I will answer although Cady as done a masterly job of doing so. I have an issue with people who do not have an adequate cognitive construct in relation to the this area of health and who are sourcing "information" from biased and agenda ridden sites. But then I have the same issue with people who refuse vaccinations for their children based on what they have read on some half baked site or other. And please note that at no time have I specified whom I was/am referring to or even if those people were/are active and present on the board[/QUOTE] Addressing you how? How did I address you that was bad? Do explain….. You want freedom for people to disagree…and act on their beliefs but look how you feel about parents refusing vaccinations for their kids. How tolerant is that of their views. Ya know when people agree with your worldview your fine but someone steps on your toes and you go nuts.
Tell me can you hold a conversation with a child a week old?. You made it quite clear earlier, that you believed the child was only a person after it was born. I want to know why the location of the child makes a difference?. A baby after birth is much the same as baby in the womb, the only differnce is location. You have avoided my question and talked of old celibate men, whatever that has to do with abortion I don't know. So doctors and nurses are now also an authority on ethics, and anyone else should not give an opinion and express their concerns regarding abortion. What figures did I ever give?. How can my figures be off if I never gave any?.
Being a doctor or a nurse does not make them an expert on ethics. Just for the record I have been to hundreds of births, I have helped in births, I have sometimes had loses during births sometimes not just the offspring but on occassion the mother as well. Every year I see death during births and complications during pregnancies. You see I run a hobby farm and I keep sheep, I also help neighbours around lambing time, I was brought up on a farm. My brother is a vet, and my sister is a nurse. I have taken part in difficult births, and when a farmer loses a lamb or a ewe it is gut wrenching, it is more than a job, farmers really care for their livestock. So how much more sickening is it when it is a human child that is lost?.
SEan awesome post. You are just so good at what you say…always. Bravo. But these people do not value life that much is evident. They don't care about life in the womb…it is expendable…its collateral damage.
David Magnus, a bioethics expert, said this: "The point at which life or personhood begins is not something biology can settle, says David Magnus, co-director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, California... Magnus quotes the example of identical twins who are one entity at the point of fertilisation; not until a few days later do they become separate. They clearly develop into two individuals who have different personalities and patterns of behaviour, even though they share the same DNA. Magnus's assertion raises the question of whether a "soul" assigned at fertilisation would later have to be split." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-collide.html Your post is all about births. What does this have to do with abortion?
Who is to say David Magnus is an expert on ethics?. That is something that is up for debate. I could say a religous leader is more of an expert on ethics. David Magnus is a doctor and knows about anatomy he is not an authority on souls. I thought we were talking about why women have abortions, and the process of giving birth can be harmful to the woman etc. I was informed if I did not know about this subject I should refrain from talking about it. That would also include you unless you are a doctor or nurse as well. I was simply letting you know I am experienced when it comes to pregnant mothers. I know of complications that can happen at birth. Also that was just a side statement the main thing is doctors and nurses are not experts on ethics. I believe I am as entitled to take part in this debate as much as you are, or anyone else for that matter.
Like the religious leaders who covered up the Catholic priest pedophilia scandals? Then why would you force women to risk their health and lives in pregnancy/childbirth?
You run a HOBBY farm which means you PLAY at farming. That means your livestock are more like family pets. With that in mind, do you still enjoy lamb chops? REAL farmers, meaning those who do it for a living, REALLY CARE for their livestock, every loss is dollars and cents. Multiple losses mean the loss of that year's profit. Several years of that mean the loss of the farm. Those farmer/ranchers with valuable animals are very careful about breeding them, and should any animal accidentally be bred to an inferior stock, an abortion will result. Your experience with animals should make you more sympathetic to the dangers women face during pregnancy/childbirth, and you should remember that your livestock has only one purpose in life and that is to reproduce, while women can have many purposes and are able to choose their purposes...well, they can choose IF they are allowed to control their reproduction.
What are you talking about Catholic religious leaders for this is a debate on abortion as you already pointed out to me. The only difference is my post was relevant to the topic. If you want to debate religion I suggest you go to that section of the site. Do not try and bait me and sidetrack the issue. Why am I forcing women to risk their health?, tell me exactly how I am doing that?. Being pregnant as I have already stated on numerous occasssions is not an illness, giving birth comes with an element of risk, but then so does driving to work everyday. If you are worried about the risk refrain from sexual intercourse, it's that simple. If I worry about driving to work everyday I can quit my job and stop driving to work
A hobby farm to you could be very different to what I call a hobby farm. I only keep sheep, but at one time I kept also pigs. I have around 60 lambs and 22 ewes I have 3 tups. One of them is a zwarble I also keep zwarble ewes they are considered a rare breed. They are not pets, I earn money from it, just not enough, there is no room in the market for small farmers like myself the only way to make real money at it is if you are a big farmer with lots of land and stock. Small farmers can no longer compete. I would do farming full time if it paid the bills, but I had to downsize and take on a full time job. This is one of the hazards of farming prices going go up and down very quickly. Yes I eat lamb chops, what has that got to do with anything?. Real farmers as you call them, do care about their money, but I can also tell you, even when prices are bad most farmers I know are willing to give their stock the medicine and care they need even if it means their profit margin is minimal, or no profit at all. The most farmers I know it is not just a job it's a lifestyle, you do it for the love of it. Some farmers try their best simply to keep their farm afloat maybe relying on a sale of livestock and hoping they get the price they need or their business can go to the wall. Very, very seldom does a farmer request one of livestock to get an abortion. As matter of fact anyone I know has never requested it, and very, very seldom does the vet suggest it. I have never heard of any vet suggesting it to anyone I know, but I am sure on extremely rare occassions it happens. The truth of the matter is most of the time a farmer will work hard to save the young livestock before during and after the birth. They also work hard at ensuring the mother is healthy, especially if it is a first time lamber or calver. My father when I was growing up kept about 500 sheep, I know maybe to some people in America and Australia this may not be regarded as many but here it is. He still keeps about the same many and has my brother to help, who also works a full time job and helps in the mornings before work and in the evening after work. If you still think I play at farming thats up to you, but I take it seriously, I also help neighbouring farmers and get paid to clip other farmers sheep. Livestock are their just for our use is correct. Even though a farmer has hundreds of sheep, cattle or whatever, they still recognise the ones that served them well. An old ewe that has produced many good lambs and has to go of to the market is rembered fondly by the farmer, he remembers that certain ewe served him well, he has growing a certain amount of affection for it, even though it is a dumb animal. Now how much effort should we not try in ensuring the survival of our own offspring?. How much more should we care for them?. Women can control their reproduction they can refrain from sex, or they can have sex and if they happen to get pregnant enjoy the thought that they are carrying within them a new person.
One means of ensuring the survival of our own offspring is making sure the woman does not produce offspring at too young an age, have offspring too close together in age, or have too many of them. Abortion is just one means of doing that. Women can and will control their reproduction with abortion as a back-up whether it is legal or not. Women are not going to just "enjoy" the thought that they are pregnant if they don't want to be. What an absurd proposal!
I was talking about Catholic religious leaders because you said this: And my post was a relevant response to your post. The ethics of Catholic religious leaders are pertinent to the abortion debate... If you don't want to hear about Catholic priest pedophilia scandals, don't bring up the ethics of religious leaders. Whatever the element of risk in pregnancy, it is up to the woman to decide if she is willing to take that risk. Women should refrain from intercourse because YOU think abortion is immoral? Who are you to dictate women's sexual behavior?
I never mentioned CATHOLIC I simply mentioned religious leaders. You were stating a doctor was a bioethic expert, I was simply staing that was up for debate, that religious leaders could also be regarded as experts on ethics, though I never made any claim that they were. I never mentioned Catholicism or any form of religion I was simply making a point as to who can say who is an expert on ethics. I could also have said philosphers may be regarded as experts on ethics but that does not mean they are. I do not know why you are mentioning paedophiles and the Catholic Church that is way of the beaten track. But I have already seen your form of tactics in debating abortion, you do not debate the subject at all, you try to find some way of offending your opponent, even if it has nothing to do with the topic. The ethics of everyone is pertinent to the abortion debate. Tell me what do you not care for the opinion of the Jewish, or Islamic people, humanists, atheists etc. Your blatant attack on my faith was some small way for you to think you got one up. You are so petty, and everyone can see what you really are. Even I am sure those who agree with your stance on abortion can see the foulness in your methods. I have no hatred for anyone who agrees with abortion, I believe many , probably most have misplaced compassion, and genuinely believe they are standing for what they believe to be morally right, though I disagree. I am sorry for you, there is such a hardness of your heart. I can admire some people who hold an opposing position to me, and I try to be understanding, though it can at times be hard and frustrating, you however have no concept of how to carry yourself in any kind of dignified manner.
How does ensuring our survival in anyway mean that mothers should not have children at to young an age?, or have to many?, or have offspring to close in age?. I would like to know how these things ensure our survival. If they are not going to "enjoy" being pregnant then they should refrain from enjoying the method of how it comes about.
Another post about me? Follow your own advice (to me) and address the topic, not other posters. The Catholic Church is probably the biggest force around the world in the anti-abortion movement. As such, it is subject to criticism. I wasn't attacking your personal faith.
Life is life threatening. Get in a car what are your chances fly a plane? Take over the counter drugs .drink or eat something that might cause an illness. Food causes cancer .especially sugar do you eat sugar? Smoking and drinking .causes health risks. Pregnancy is not different. It is as normal as can be.
"Your decision is not up to me, and my decision is not up to you." Ahhh, but it is. See, you may have heard of something called "society." No? It means "a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations." See, in a society, often times groups of people get together and draw up things called "laws." And these do exactly what you said society doesn't get to do, namely, make decisions for the masses. Now, certainly, some decisions (though increasingly less and less) are made by individuals. I personally think almost all decisions should be made the individuals involved. But they're not. And would you like to know why? Because of you, and people like you. I assume you don't find it funny, but everyone with a brain does, that you who are anti-life identify as "pro-choice." Where is this "pro" when the choice has to do with school choice? Or voluntary prayer in school? Or discrimination in private businesses. You think that the State has the right to step in and tell a racist shop owner that they can't not sell to a black potential customer. Where's the choice there? Or how about how to dispose of one's own property? If you were really "pro-choice" you would allow wealthy companies and individuals to "choose" (see how that's kind of like "choice") what charities, if any, to give to. But you don't. So my point is not to say that you are wrong on any of these stances, or that you're wrong for being anti-life. My point is that the justification you used here makes you look like an idiot. And maybe you're okay looking like an idiot, but I just thought you should know.
Pregnancy in young girls, especially under the age of fifteen, is considered high risk. Young women's bodies aren't ready for the stress of pregnancy/childbirth, so young pregnancies endanger the pregnant girl and also the fetus. It is healthier for the woman and also the babies if the babies are at least three years apart. Again the stress of pregnancy/childbirth causes damage to the woman's body. The offspring are less likely to survive when births are too close together to too many repeated births. Please don't refer me to the Dugger family, we all know anomalies exist. Your posts reflect that you resent women have the freedom to choose sex without the "consequences" of pregnancy/childbirth. Babies are not supposed to be, and shouldn't be, a punishment for women.
It was post stating how you use foul methods in debate, I am willing to stay on the topic, it is you who keeps sidetracking. My post was stating how you go of track, and how you try to personalise things. If you had not diverted the topic I would not have commented on your charcter, but it was you who first started using foul methods. Do you expect me to just sit back and take it on the chin. If you attack my faith I see that as an attack on me. The Catholic faith is the largest Church in the world so it is hardly any wonder it is the biggest anti-abortion group. But almost every Christian faith is against abortion, and almost every faith that is not Christian. So if these churches and religions are just as equally opposed to abortion why not target them. Also if you are going to attack the Catholic Church for it's position on abortion then attack it for that, not for something that has no relevance on this topic at all.
Well then you can guess what else young girls bodies of 15 are not ready for?. If a young girls is considered high risk then you monitor the pregnancy more closely. You do not kill the person within, just for the sake of something that may or may not happen. The vast majority of young girls who get themselves pregnant, will give birth successfully if they decide to go through with the pregnancy. It is in a very extremely mininmal amount of cases that women die giving birth, regardless if they are considered high risk or not. Sometimes the woman dies and the child survives. The Dugger family is something I know nothing about, but I am quite sure that it is one case that helps support your point of view. I know a family who are all growing up now, but there was 22 children all to the same mother and father, adn they are good decent people, who have experienced a happy loving family. There was a set of twins in the 22. You are exactly right babies should not be considered a punishment so why is it those who support abortion consider them as such and decide to kill them?. Our actions have consequences, you talk about choice for women , women make a choice when they choose to have sexual intercourse with a man. There is all kinds of methods of having sex without trying to get pregnant, but you are taking a risk, and you must take into consideration that your actions come with a risk of getting pregnant.
Unfortunately, young girls will decide to have sex regardless of the consequences. Should we just to allow them to die because they made a foolish decision? There is no "person" within. Medical personnel are qualified to make that decision, you are not. OK, you have destroyed all your credibility here and now with this one statement: "young girls who get themselves pregnant". Even fewer die from abortions. Women should make the decisions for their own lives about the level of risk they are willing to take, with the advice of their doctors of course. It is pro-lifers who WANT to make children a punishment for women's choosing to have sex. Pro-choicers want women to choose when to become parents, rearing children is too important to be left to those who do not wish to do it. Consequences=punishment, 100%. Risks are present with every action, but we have alternatives to simply "suffering the consequences".
relevance? why do you continue with false accusations and refuse to discuss the top priority issue, the life of a fellow human being,?
you could just as easily insert a pic of a doctor, or a lawyer, politician, etc, so are we going to discuss al of that? sounds a bit off topic to me. still irelevant and it is up to society, aka govt, to protect those who cant protect themselves, unborn children. funny, it always comes down to that.. maybe not, but abortion rights activists dont even want pro lifers to be able to inform women about what is going to actually happen, cuz its about power, politics and money for them, and they use pregnant women as pawns
Government does not have the ability to protect "unborn children." Society is simply not capable of protecting fetuses. A pregnant woman is the ONLY one who CAN protect a fetus, so it is her choice whether she does so or not. Laws simply cannot be enforced for this event. Now government COULD make it more likely that a woman would protect her fetus by providing free healthcare for her and the child once born, and also with financial assistance for rearing the child, but that's about the limit of effectiveness of government.
Are "unborn children" legal entities? I thought the law considers people existent only upon a birth certificate or foreign travel document. Apart from that, why should the government fund entitlements to mothers with unwanted children, when a lot less funds would be much more effective spent on running abortion clinics and free condoms for men, plus legal education in schools such as the basics of family law (child support, divorce, abuse allegations, etc.)? Isn't it interesting why nobody wants a basic family law subject in high schools? Let me guess, it is the women's groups themselves that go against such an education, so that they can protect their shrewed income entitlements. (Political to the core.)
