Guest editorial --

A Common Sense Take on the Texas Anti-Abortion Law-


Mandating masks to end a pandemic and regulating the ownership of deadly weapons are attacks on personal freedoms, yet forcing women to carry pregnancies, regardless of risks, abnormalities, and other factors, such as rape and incest, is not?

I cannot even begin to comprehend how those thoughts can coexist in the same mind.

I do not support completely unrestricted access to abortion, but the small government crowd definitely should not be the ones telling others what to do with the innermost parts of their bodies.

It is wrong to force a lifesaving mask on your fellow citizens, yet, somehow, it is lawmakers’ job to stick their hands into women’s wombs?

On what level does that even begin to make sense?

Doesn't make much sense unless you consider re election antics and shenanigans by extreme loony right wing politicians.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-042aee286494c62531dbbd69e535aa80-mzj

yet forcing women to carry pregnancies, regardless of risks, abnormalities, and other factors, such as rape and incest, is not?So it's better to just kill the unborn child?


I do not support completely unrestricted access to abortion, but the small government crowd definitely should not be the ones telling others what to do with the innermost parts of their bodies.So you do not support "completely unrestricted access to abortion", but you wouldn't want to tell others what to do with the "innermost parts of their bodies"? But wouldn't that be the result of placing restrictions on abortion? You would be telling some women they could not have an abortion and would thus be telling them what to do with the, "innermost parts of their bodies".

You can't have it both ways. Either you completely support a woman's "right to choose" and exercise sovereignty over her body, or you support placing limits on that right and sovereignty.

So it's better to just kill the unborn child?

Missed the point - again! It's about choice.


So you do not support "completely unrestricted access to abortion", but you wouldn't want to tell others what to do with the "innermost parts of their bodies"? But wouldn't that be the result of placing restrictions on abortion? You would be telling some women they could not have an abortion and would thus be telling them what to do with the, "innermost parts of their bodies".

You can't have it both ways. Either you completely support a woman's "right to choose" and exercise sovereignty over her body, or you support placing limits on that right and sovereignty.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me put it this way - I agree with the author of the piece and totally support a woman's right to choose. AT THE SAME TIME, being against completely unrestricted access to abortion does not mean a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE should be legally infringed. One can have reservations about a law and still abide by it.

Do you get it? Now? (Probably not.)

Missed the point - again! It's about choice.Evaded the question...again. I'll repost it. "So it's better to just kill the unborn child?"

As to your second point, you seem to be against "completely unrestricted access to abortion", and yet you would not legally restrict a woman's right to choose? So let's see. You are against "completely unrestricted access to abortion", but yet you would not restrict access to abortion. Uhm...that doesn't make sense.

If you were the doctor and were going to kill this 19 week fetus, what procedure would you use? I ask because this is what liberals exercise their "choice" to ignore. In abortion, the baby has to die. Closing your eyes to that truth does not absolve you of responsibility.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/cf/55/d1cf5583a5cb24b6b5c2af3f64c836f6.jpg

If you were the doctor and were going to kill this 19 week fetus, what procedure would you use?

I don't do abortions.

Would you have this fetus aborted if your wife's life depended on it?


In abortion, the baby has to die. Closing your eyes to that truth does not absolve you of responsibility.

The responsibility for the baby's death lies with those who perform the abortion. No one "closes their eyes to the truth" that a baby dies during an abortion.

The unborn fetus has yet to draw its first breath. It isn't viable, able to live and survive, until it has been born and breathed. The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature (Genesis 2:7).

If someone is pronounced dead when the heart stops beating then why shouldn't someone be pronounced alive when there is a heart beat ?

The Texas law is bad law for reasons I outlined here,
The new Texas abortion law is unconstitutional (askmehelpdesk.com) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/new-texas-abortion-law-unconstitutional-848405.html)

About a dozen states have heart beat laws This is the 1st time courts have permitted enforcement at least until someone comes forward with proper standing . Then the law will be over turned .

Texas this year added a $20 million increase in funding for pregnancy centers, adoption agencies and maternity homes that provide free services .In total, lawmakers voted to invest $100 million into the Texas Alternatives to Abortion program .So the state puts up funding to offer a choice .

As for the 'my body my choice' rhetoric ;attempts to challenge the terminology of the Texas Heartbeat Act lay bare the truth of whose body is really being violated in an abortion. Everyone knows this .Everyone knows that the practice of murder for the right of convenience is grotesque. That is why the Orwellian use of terms like pro-choice; reproductive rights ,and reproductive freedom are used instead . It hides an ugly truth .

And, too often, what happens to that breathing newborn with a heartbeat? One was recently found alive, wrapped in rosary beads and with vomit in its mouth, in a discarded dresser drawer in a Chicago alley, hours before the piece of furniture and other trash would’ve been picked up by garbage trucks and taken to a landfill. And that's only one story.

The remedy to prevent an act of cruelty is murder ? 2020 54,741 abortions were executed in the state of Texas .Would all those babies alternatively been discarded in the trash ? Since abortion for the most part is readily available and probably free in Chicago then how is it that someone decided to toss that baby in the trash when a legal murder option was available ?

how is it that someone decided to toss that baby in the trash when a legal murder option was available ?
Shame? Fear? Single mother with no resources/support for raising a child? Since the abandoned baby was wrapped with rosary beads, a certain Christian denomination comes to mind as to why the baby made it through delivery. Illinois has Safe Haven laws, which would have allowed a parent to drop the newborn child at a location like a police station or hospital so long as he or she is uninjured and not yet 30 days old.

Shame? Fear? Single mother with no resources/support for raising a child?Since the abandoned baby was wrapped with rosary beads, a certain Christian denomination comes to mind as to why the baby made it through delivery.

a lot of speculation with the flimsiest of evidence supporting it . If I was to whack someone I could possibly come up with many reasons to rationalize the act .


Illinois has Safe Haven laws, which would have allowed a parent to drop the newborn child at a location like a police station or hospital so long as he or she is uninjured and not yet 30 days old.

Yes most states have alternative programs . Maybe the effort should be educating about the availability of the alternatives and assistance .

a lot of speculation with the flimsiest of evidence supporting it . If I was to whack someone I could possibly come up with many reasons to rationalize the act .
And the baby was full term and had been delivered. We have yet to hear the full story

Yes most states have alternative programs . Maybe the effort should be educating about the availability of the alternatives and assistance .
Definitely! Now, how can that be accomplished?

I don't do abortions.No. You just vote for and applaud those who continue to allow it.


Would you have this fetus aborted if your wife's life depended on it?Perhaps. I imagine my wife and I would have agreed to pray and put it in God's hands, but I've never been in that situation. Now how about the other 99.99% of the cases?


The responsibility for the baby's death lies with those who perform the abortion. No one "closes their eyes to the truth" that a baby dies during an abortion.Just a feeble attempt to avoid responsibility. You vote for and applaud those who enthusiastically support these laws. It's on you and all those who vote for those who continue it.


The unborn fetus has yet to draw its first breath. It isn't viable, able to live and survive, until it has been born and breathed.So you are OK with an abortion taking place at the end of the ninth month? You are if you really believe in the standard you just posted.

But even at that, how do you propose the doctor should kill that baby pictured above? That's the key question that neither one of you has the courage to answer. How do you take the little baby's life?


The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature (Genesis 2:7).Amazing how quickly you post and give a literal understanding to any scripture that you think supports your position. What a double standard. And were you there when that happened? (another standard of yours)


The remedy to prevent an act of cruelty is murder ? 2020 54,741 abortions were executed in the state of Texas .Would all those babies alternatively been discarded in the trash ?Great reply for which, you will notice, there was no response.

Since you two would not answer the question, I have answered it for you. Read this and see if you are comfortable with this being done to the baby in the picture above, speaking of the one with fingernails, lips, and a beautifully formed face.



1. Grasp the cervix with an instrument to hold the uterus in place.
2. Dilate the cervical canal with probes of increasing size. An abortion in the second 12 weeks will need the cervix to be dilated more than required for a vacuum aspiration.
3. Pass a hollow tube (cannula) into the uterus. The cannula is attached by tubing to a bottle and a pump that provides a gentle vacuum to remove tissue in the uterus. Some cramping is felt during the rest of the procedure.
4. Pass a grasping instrument (forceps) into the uterus to grasp larger pieces of tissue. This is more likely in pregnancies of 16 weeks or more and is done before the uterine lining is scraped with a curette.
5. Use a curved instrument (curette) to gently scrape the lining of the uterus and remove tissue in the uterus.
6. Use suction. This may be done as a final step to make sure the uterine contents are completely removed.


Bear in mind that the forceps being used to "grasp larger pieces of tissue" is referring to the grasping and removing of legs, arms, and the torso. The head is generally removed last. They then "reassemble" the body on a tray and, as I understand it, photograph it as proof that they removed everything just in case the mother gets sick and wants to sue.

OK with that? Are you really OK with that?

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) | Michigan Medicine (uofmhealth.org) (https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/tw2462)

You can watch this testimony before Congress. It's about five minutes long. There are no pictures, but simply a description of how those procedures are done.

Testimony of Former Abortion Provider, Dr. Anthony Levatino - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE)

But Planned Parenthood has to extract the baby out with great care if they are to harvest useful baby parts .
Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal organs used for research - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/undercover-video-shows-planned-parenthood-exec-discussing-organ-harvesting/2015/07/14/ae330e34-2a4d-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html)

But Planned Parenthood has to extract the baby out with great care if they are to harvest useful baby parts It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly rational people can look at that and say, "Oh well." PP basically says to women, "Bring us your unborn child and we'll turn it into a commercial product." It's just stunning, and I wonder how much longer it will be until we take the next step.

from Athos
Would you have this fetus aborted if your wife's life depended on it?


Perhaps.

Perhaps? PERHAPS? So your anti-abortion stance is conditional. WOW! What a revelation. When it's in your interest, killing unborn children is a definite possibility.

This is not a good day for you, Jl. First you were caught evading the Bible question, now this.


So you are OK with an abortion taking place at the end of the ninth month? You are if you really believe in the standard you just posted.

So are you if it saves your wife's life. You just told us of this possibility.


But even at that, how do you propose the doctor should kill that baby pictured above? That's the key question that neither one of you has the courage to answer.

There's nothing "key" about that question. We are not doctors. But what about YOU? How would YOU kill the unborn baby if your wife's life depended on it? Is that still a "key" question when the ball is in your court? I'm sure you know all about the methods and that you can tell the rest of us.


Amazing how quickly you post and give a literal understanding to any scripture that you think supports your position.

That Bible quote was for YOU. You can't answer it, so another evasion. You're 0 for everything, Jl.

Perhaps? PERHAPS? So your anti-abortion stance is conditional. WOW! What a revelation. When it's in your interest, killing unborn children is a definite possibility.

This is not a good day for you, Jl. First you were caught evading the Bible question, now this.Oh stop with the fake theatrics. The principle of self defense is well established. My answer was an honest one. I've never faced that, but I would think we would not do it. My wife's input would be of enormous importance. Knowing her as I do, I think I know what she would say. But any semi-thoughtful person can see the difference between an abortion to protect the mother's life versus what nearly all abortions are about which is convenience.


There's nothing "key" about that question. We are not doctors. But what about YOU? How would YOU kill the unborn baby if your wife's life depended on it? Is that still a "key" question when the ball is in your court? I'm sure you know all about the methods and that you can tell the rest of us. The usual non-answer. Typical. The question remains on the board. If you were the doctor, how would you go about taking the life of that 19 week fetus pictured above?

Note to readers. Prepare for another plateful of evasion along with a side order of anger.


That Bible quote was for YOU. You can't answer it, so another evasion. You're 0 for everything, Jl.There's nothing to answer since there was no question asked. The Genesis scripture was not in reference to abortion or a woman being pregnant or giving birth. You will not find a medical book anywhere which says that an unborn child is somehow not alive since it is not breathing. It is preposterous. It's about as dumb as saying that the child must eat to be considered alive. It's as absurd as destroying a nest full of eagle eggs and then pleading that, after all, Athos said it must be breathing to be alive, and the eagles in the eggs were not yet breathing. Try that and see how far you get with it.

At 19 weeks [pictured in a post above], your baby measures about 6 1/4 inches (15.8 centimeters) from the top of their head to the bottom of the buttocks. Their height is approximately 9 inches (22.8 centimeters) from the top of the head to the heel (crown-heel length). By this week of pregnancy, your baby will weigh around 9 1/2 ounces (272 grams).

https://www.verywellfamily.com/19-weeks-pregnant-4159012

But any semi-thoughtful person can see the difference between an abortion to protect the mother's life versus what nearly all abortions are about which is convenience.
No, not convenience. Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed. Unviable pregnancy.

At 19 weeks [pictured in a post above], your baby measures about 6 1/4 inches (15.8 centimeters) from the top of their head to the bottom of the buttocks (crown-rump length (https://www.verywellfamily.com/crown-rump-length-crl-2371608)). Their height is approximately 9 inches (22.8 centimeters) from the top of the head to the heel (crown-heel length). By this week of pregnancy, your baby will weigh around 9 1/2 ounces (272 grams).So you are saying that the larger a person becomes, the more valuable his/her life is? Teenagers are of greater worth than babies? Do you really want to go there?


No, not convenience. Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed. Unviable pregnancy.Would those be acceptable excuses to kill a new-born baby? "Officer, I became desperate and felt so guilty that I just had to kill the pesky little irritant. You understand, don't you?"

Did you read the description of a second term abortion? Are you really OK with that? Did you even bother to watch the five minute video of testimony before Congress?

So you are saying that the larger a person becomes, the more valuable his/her life is? Teenagers are of greater worth than babies? Do you really want to go there?
No, I'm not saying that at all. No, I'm not trying to go there.

Would those be acceptable excuses to kill a new-born baby? "Officer, I became desperate and felt so guilty that I just had to kill the pesky little irritant. You understand, don't you?"
Newborn? The age of the fetus in that photo is 19 weeks.

FACT: Unmarried women account for about 85% of all abortions. (from https://concernedwomen.org/abortion-demographics-who-has-an-abortion/)
Advice to men: Do not have sex with ANY woman until you are happily married to one. Then be faithful to her.

No, I'm not saying that at all. No, I'm not trying to go there.Then what was your point?


Newborn? The age of the fetus in that photo is 19 weeks.You are saying you are fine with killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has, "Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed." I'm just asking if those excuses also apply to a newborn? If not, then why not?

Are you really OK with killing the unborn because the mother doesn't want to be embarrassed at being pregnant (Fear of being shamed)? Really? Is life that cheap to you?

Then what was your point?
Slowly and carefully reread Post #22.

You are saying you are fine with killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has, "Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed." I'm just asking if those excuses also apply to a newborn? If not, then why not?
Where did I say I "was fine...."?

A newborn is usually "finished" and can be adopted or at least fostered.

Slowly and carefully reread Post #22.

Yet another evasive answer. That's number 513 I think.


Where did I say I "was fine...."?Fair enough. I'll change the statement. Are you saying you are fine with killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has, "Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed?"

Yet another evasive answer. That's number 513 I think.
Why haven't you gotten my point yet????

Fair enough. I'll change the statement. Are you saying you are fine with killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has, "Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed?"
I would first want her to get unbiased counseling before she makes any decision.

Why haven't you gotten my point yet????Because you haven't stated it. Evasion number 514.


I would first want her to get unbiased counseling before she makes any decision.Evasion number 515. You must be going for the record!!

Because you haven't stated it. Evasion number 514.
Evasion number 515. You must be going for the record!!
Your questions are terribly phrased and attack the other (this time it's me). That's why these threads devolve into arguments instead of discussions.

How about this?

JL: Fair enough. I'll change the statement. Are you saying you are fine with killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has, "Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed?"

WG: No, I am not fine with that. I would want her to get unbiased counseling before she makes any decision.

Questions are terribly phrased? Really?

Question 1."Then what was your point?" That's as simple as it gets. You have steadfastly evaded answering it, trying to suggest your point was made in post 22. Post 22 made no point concerning the material in post 21. None at all.

Question 2. "Are you saying you are fine with killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has, "Desperation. Guilt. Anger at the father. Fear of being shamed?' " Now that is another very simple question. Rather than answering it, you punted to some statement about seeking counseling. But the question simply asks you to tell us if you are alright with a woman getting an abortion for the reasons you listed. Are you saying that you would be OK with an abortion for one of those reasons as long as the woman was counseled? "Yes, you can have your baby killed by the dismemberment of an abortion since, after all, you are angry at the father."

Questions are terribly phrased? Really?

Question 1."Then what was your point?"

Question 2. "Are you saying you are fine with killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has"
In the future, please phrase your questions so they are not confrontational.

Please check my post #32 to see what I added to my response.

In the future, please phrase your questions so they are not confrontational.In the future, please just answer the questions. Good grief.


Please check my post #32 to see what I added to my response.
Already had seen it.

So you have evaded answering yet again. Even worse, you try and blame your evasiveness on me.

"But the question simply asks you to tell us if you are alright with a woman getting an abortion for the reasons you listed. Are you saying that you would be OK with an abortion for one of those reasons as long as the woman was counseled? "Yes, you can have your baby killed by the dismemberment of an abortion since, after all, you are angry at the father."

It is a serious question about a terribly serious issue, and one which I think you prefer to simply avoid. That's why you just refuse to answer.

Already had seen it.
Apparently not.

JL: Question 2. "Are you saying you are fine with 'killing the 19 week baby as long as the mother has"
WG: No, I am not fine with that. I would want her to get unbiased counseling before she makes any decision.

So your only concern is that she gets counseling? The sheer brutality of tha abortion process is of no concern, nor is the destruction of a human life. I just find that to be amazing.

And still no explanation of what point you were trying to make in post 21. Just more evasion and suggestions to look here and look there. Forbid it that you should just state your meaning.

Evasion.

Oh stop with the fake theatrics. The principle of self defense is well established.

Fake theatrics? FAKE? You just admitted your anti-abortion stance is a big lie. What's fake about citing that lie? You dug a hole so deep you will never be able to get out of it.


My answer was an honest one.

YOUR position is honest? But all the others are simply matters of convenience? Jesus, you are one incredible hypocrite.


But any semi-thoughtful person can see the difference between an abortion to protect the mother's life versus what nearly all abortions are about which is convenience.

Too late, pal. You can't backtrack now. As you like to remind everyone, your written comment is forever lodged in the archives here. So please don't give us any holy crap about abortion from here on in. Man up and shut up.


The question remains on the board. If you were the doctor, how would you go about taking the life of that 19 week fetus pictured above?

I see you have already answered your own question. Rather gruesomely, I note. What is it about you people that loves the grizzly details? You like the shock value, but your revulsion is notably absent when wacko anti-abortionists kill doctors and patients at abortion clinics. Life is not so precious then, is it?

What could possibly be your point in having others describe abortion procedures as you have done? Seems pretty sick to me.


Note to readers. Prepare for another plateful of evasion along with a side order of anger.

Note to readers - compare Jl's posts with mine. Who's got the FACTS? Anger? Damn right - righteous anger at your phony compassion for a fetus, especially when it's your wife who needs the abortion. Then all compassion goes out the window.


You will not find a medical book anywhere which says that an unborn child is somehow not alive since it is not breathing. It is preposterous.

She was referring to viable human life. You always skip that inconvenient fact.


Athos said it must be breathing to be alive

I never said anything of the sort. Stop misquoting me.

Note to readers. Prepare for another plateful of evasion along with a side order of anger.
Once again I predicted your response correctly.

Just more theatrics.

I haven't changed my position. My first statement was, "Perhaps. I imagine my wife and I would have agreed to pray and put it in God's hands, but I've never been in that situation. Now how about the other 99.99% of the cases?". Now of course you have not answered the question there. Business as usual.

Gruesome and grizzly details? You just, as the famous line goes, can't handle the truth. That is exactly what happens in a D&E abortion. Contradict it if you can.

You never said anything of the sort? Well, you never say anything of any sort. You are so hesitant to answer questions, it's hard to know where you stand. But you can solve that problem now. What is your standard of when life begins?

Note to readers. You can be certain that question will not be answered.

So your only concern is that she gets counseling? The sheer brutality of tha abortion process is of no concern, nor is the destruction of a human life. I just find that to be amazing.
Counseling will include discussion of all those issues.

And still no explanation of what point you were trying to make in post 21. Just more evasion and suggestions to look here and look there. Forbid it that you should just state your meaning.

Evasion.
Post 22.

Counseling will include discussion of all those issues.Evasion number 516.


And still no explanation of what point you were trying to make in post 21. Just more evasion and suggestions to look here and look there. Forbid it that you should just state your meaning.

Evasion.


Post 22.You've just been told that post 22 had nothing at all to do with post 21. One was about the size of the unborn child at 19 weeks while the other was about your accepted reasons for an abortion at 19 weeks. Evasion 517.

This is interesting and probably not a unique experience.

A medical abortion at 19 weeks
https://www.pregnancychoicesdirectory.com/peoplesstories/abortion/1738/a-medical-abortion-at-19-weeks


Evasion number 516.
Why is that an evasion?

You've just been told that post 22 had nothing at all to do with post 21. One was about the size of the unborn child at 19 weeks while the other was about your accepted reasons for an abortion at 19 weeks. Evasion 517.
I have absolutely no clue what your problem is.

Well, this is obviously not going to be answered. "And still no explanation of what point you were trying to make in post 21. Just more evasion and suggestions to look here and look there. Forbid it that you should just state your meaning."


Although I was aborting my baby, there was no question about the love I had for it, so giving that baby up to somebody else would have been impossible for me to do.A titanically stupid observation. It amounts to saying, "I love my baby so much that I'm going to let someone brutally kill it rather than give him/her the beautiful option of being raised by another family and have an opportunity to live."

Just amazing to me how your liberal philosophy has led you down such an indefensible road.


Why is that an evasion?Because you have steadfastly refused to answer the question. Simple.


You've just been told that post 22 had nothing at all to do with post 21. One was about the size of the unborn child at 19 weeks while the other was about your accepted reasons for an abortion at 19 weeks. Evasion 517.


I have absolutely no clue what your problem is.I think you do. You're a smart woman and you know the game you're playing. "Oh, just look at post 22 which has nothing whatsoever to do with post 21 and you'll get your answer!!" Please.

Well, this is obviously not going to be answered. "And still no explanation of what point you were trying to make in post 21. Just more evasion and suggestions to look here and look there. Forbid it that you should just state your meaning."Post #21 was a description of a 19-week fetus. What is your question?

My point was how tiny and incomplete a 19-week-old fetus is.

A titanically stupid observation. It amounts to saying, "I love my baby so much that I'm going to let someone brutally kill it rather than give him/her the beautiful option of being raised by another family and have an opportunity to live."
The fetus was not viable at 19 weeks. The mother was 15. Had she been your daughter and the center of ribald humor and nastiness at school, what would you have suggested and how would you have handled her going through the entire pregnancy?

Once again I predicted your response correctly.

Just more theatrics.

No, all you did was evade my comments about your anti-abortion stance. It's theatrics when your abortion stance is challenged, but self-defense when you approve abortion for yourself. I can't believe you actually wrote that. You are more repulsive than even I suspected.


I haven't changed my position.

Yes, we all now know that you approve of abortion in certain circumstances - the ordinary position of the majority. Welcome to the pro-choice club.


Gruesome and grizzly details? You just, as the famous line goes, can't handle the truth. That is exactly what happens in a D&E abortion. Contradict it if you can.

Good Lord! Why would I contradict it? What, in God's name, is your point?


You are so hesitant to answer questions, it's hard to know where you stand.

Anyone reading these posts and all I've ever made here has not a single solitary problem understanding where I'm coming from. Except you, or course, But that's more a matter of your refusal to see.


But you can solve that problem now. What is your standard of when life begins?

Note to readers. You can be certain that question will not be answered.

Note to readers. There's no point in answering it for Jl since he's now self-identified as pro-choice. Anyone else interested may ask me.

Post #21 was a description of a 19-week fetus. What is your question?

My point was how tiny and incomplete a 19-week-old fetus is.So now the truth comes out. It WAS about size equating to worth. So you're OK with dismembering an unborn baby as long as it is not large enough to be considered important?

The fetus was not viable at 19 weeks. The mother was 15. Had she been your daughter and the center of ribald humor and nastiness at school, what would you have suggested and how would you have handled her going through the entire pregnancy?I would not have told her to kill her baby. I would support her and remind her that she is carrying a precious, wonderful human being worthy of life and protection.


Note to readers. You can be certain that question will not be answered.Right again! That's 3 for 3. You are altogether too predictable.


Yes, we all now know that you approve of abortion in certain circumstances - the ordinary position of the majority. Welcome to the pro-choice club.To save the mother's life, yes. Only a die-hard abortion enthusiast like you would fail to see that. Thankfully, it is very rare.


Good Lord! Why would I contradict it? What, in God's name, is your point? That second term abortions are, as you said, "grizzly" procedures. The baby is torn into pieces. Now you are evidently OK with that, and that is really my point. In failing to oppose it, you endorse it. Finally we have a position for Athos.


. It's theatrics when your abortion stance is challenged, but self-defense when you approve abortion for yourself



If you know for a fact that mother and baby are going to die, then you have no choice. But as I said, and it remains unanswered (as usual) by you, what about the other 99.99% pregnancies?

Note to readers. There is practically zero chance that Athos will answer that question.

So now the truth comes out. It WAS about size equating to worth. So you're OK with dismembering an unborn baby as long as it is not large enough to be considered important?
You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus. Tom didn't mention at least one other method used in abortions, in the first trimester and in the early part of the second trimester.

I would not have told her to kill her baby. I would support her and remind her that she is carrying a precious, wonderful human being worthy of life and protection.
And regarding all the nastiness and dissing she got at school -- how is she to handle that? And once the baby has been born, then what?

You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus. Tom didn't mention at least one other method used in abortions, in the first trimester and in the early part of the second trimester.You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Predictably, you have no support for your statement. Tell us about that abortion technique in the second term which does not involve suction or a D&E. Your statement is just silly. I gave you a link to a med college, for crying out loud. You know more than them?


And regarding all the nastiness and dissing she got at school -- how is she to handle that? And once the baby has been born, then what?You do realize that parents handle these situations every day, don't you? It's not pleasant or easy, but it's about a million times better than your solution of having the baby killed. And ten years later, she will be glad she did the difficult but right thing. That's how life goes.

Did you read this comment by the young lady?


I should be happy, living my life like I wanted to but I can't anymore. I'm so depressed and only have my boyfriend left. My friends have all left me, some are even saying that I made the whole pregnancy up. I mean seriously, how disgusting of them right?How'd that work out for that poor girl? What a sad outcome.

Interesting quote.

Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood did more to promote and spread abortion on demand throughout the world than any other individual. Nearly fifty years ago, he commented, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.”

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Predictably, you have no support for your statement. Tell us about that abortion technique in the second term which does not involve suction or a D&E. Your statement is just silly. I gave you a link to a med college, for crying out loud. You know more than them?
mifepristone and misoprostol

You do realize that parents handle these situations every day, don't you? It's not pleasant or easy, but it's about a million times better than your solution of having the baby killed. And ten years later, she will be glad she did the difficult but right thing. That's how life goes.
I haven't said she should kill the fetus. How would you handle it if your daughter got pregnant? What would happen to the newborn?

This is why I weep when I read your replies:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Predictably, you have no support for your statement.
Your statement is just silly.
I gave you a link to a med college, for crying out loud.
You know more than them?

mifepristone and misoprostolAre not used in the second trimester. They are not used at all after 10 weeks, and I've never heard of misoprostol being an abortifacient. Perhaps so, but I've never heard of it.

Your statement was simply wrong. " A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus." And I did give you a link to a med school description of abortions. Perhaps you did not read it? I know I overreact at times, but it gets very old trying to help someone understand the issues involved who, quite frankly, does not seem to want to understand. Help me see the error of my ways if that's wrong.

Help me see the error of my ways if that's wrong.
No, it's not worth it. This is why:

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Predictably, you have no support for your statement.
Your statement is just silly.
I gave you a link to a med college, for crying out loud.
You know more than them?

Very well. The fact remains that this is a completely wrong statement. " A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."

Very well.
Those were sentences you said to me -- in one post.


The fact remains that this is a completely wrong statement. " A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."
Not true. Mifepristone and misoprostol can be used.

Not after ten weeks. The baby you were referring to was 19 weeks. Do your homework BEFORE you post. Even your own link that you posted told you that. "We went to see my GP who claimed I was 16 weeks pregnant and referred me to the hospital abortion ward. At this point me and my ex had started talking again but it was wrong for me to bring up the abortion to him as it was obvious he had already assumed I'd had it. So I kept it to myself."

I really think that if you had any real interest in the truth, you would never have posted your plainly incorrect statement which you could have found out about yourself in all of ten minutes. Ru 486 is not cleared for use after ten weeks.

Mifeprex (mifepristone) Information | FDA (https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/mifeprex-mifepristone-information)

But does it really make you feel better to have found a non-violent means of abortion? Isn't the baby's life still destroyed? That really solves the problem for you?

Do your homework BEFORE you post. Even your own link that you posted told you that.

I really think that if you had any real interest in the truth, you would never have posted your plainly incorrect statement which you could have found out about yourself in all of ten minutes.

But does it really make you feel better to have found a non-violent means of abortion?

It worked! I opened the door and you came charging through, blasting me with your usual nastiness, just as I knew you would!

The only door you have opened is the door of ignorance. It's hopeless. The truth does not interest you. You posted a comment that was plainly wrong. You are so intent on defending the ability of doctors to kill these unborn babies that it all just becomes funny to you. Very sad. I guarantee you that you did not have the courage to watch the five minute youtube video I linked earlier. It might have disturbed your delightful ignorance.

This girl's plight doesn't bother you at all, does it? It's all just part of your big joke. "I should be happy, living my life like I wanted to but I can't anymore. I'm so depressed and only have my boyfriend left. My friends have all left me, some are even saying that I made the whole pregnancy up. I mean seriously, how disgusting of them right?" Sorry to say it, but this girl's mistake was in listening to people who have no interest in the truth. You seem to be one of them.

This girl's mistake was in listening to people like you who have no interest in learning what really happens during abortions.
Sorry, Charlie. I interned at Catholic Charities for nine months. I know exactly what happens during abortions. Oh, and I've been pregnant myself. And have never said here I'm on board for abortion.

No you don't. This comment proves it. " A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus." Well yeah, it actually does. Your miracle pills don't work at 19 weeks, so your own words demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge on the subject, "Charlie".

And if you don't have the courage to oppose abortions, then yeah, you're on board.

No you don't. This comment proves it. " A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus." Well yeah, it actually does. Your miracle pills don't work at 19 weeks, so your own words demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge on the subject, "Charlie".
No, a fetus no matter how far along doesn't have to be ripped or suctioned out of a woman's uterus.

And if you don't have the courage to oppose abortions, then yeah, you're on board.
I thought this is a discussion site.

fetus no matter how far along doesn't have to be ripped or suctioned out of a woman's uterus.Poor WG. You are simply wrong. Do you not see that you are wildly disagreeing with a med school? You might as well say that you know that stents are not used in heart patients because, after all, you did a nine month internship. Oh brother. Why do you think doctors perform suction and D&E abortions hundreds of thousands of times a year. Why do you think they do that, so they can have a little fun?

Do you ever really listen to yourself?

Here is the problem. You want to be pro-abortion without having to identify as pro-abortion. If you choose to ignore it, and even passively support it, then you are pro-abortion.

Poor WG. You are simply wrong. Do you not see that you are wildly disagreeing with a med school?
ONE med SCHOOL??? Do some research, Charlie!

Yeah. Those med schools staffed with med experts don’t know anything. You have to come to this obscure web site and check in with someone who did a nine month internship to find out the truth.

You need to go onstage. You’re really funny!

As I said earlier, a fetus no matter how far along doesn't have to be ripped or suctioned out of a woman's uterus. There are other, less violent methods.

If all prepubescent males had a reversible vasectomy done, abortions would be rare.

Note to readers. WG actually believes that.

Note to readers. WG actually believes that.
Hmm, how did that embryo come to exist? The female dreamt it and her dream came true? Or maybe it was from the Brussels sprouts she had at dinner?

And apparently Charlie -- whoops JL -- has never heard of an induced miscarriage and how its done.

So now you want to change the subject? Well, women could try keeping their pants on until they get married. But I guess your incredible plan of the government physically forcing teenage boys to have an invasive surgery seems, amazingly, to be a better plan to you.

So now you want to change the subject? Well, women could try keeping their pants on until they get married.
No subject change. Preventing abortions begins with preventing pregnancies. And that begins with ... you know.... (You sound like Adam: "The woman made me do it!")

How about this? It's also because of a male's testosterone that they have to have sex. So how about giving them regular doses of estrogen?

A vasectomy doesn't have to be invasive. It's minor surgery, can be done very quickly and simply.

It’s like the old saying. Surgery done on you is minor. Surgery done on me is major.

It’s like the old saying. Surgery done on you is minor. Surgery done on me is major.
It's painless with few aftereffects beyond the most important one. The GOP doesn't want women to get abortions, so I'm going to present this fool-proof remedy to them. Bet they'll be thrilled!

Why not force women to get a reversible tubal ligation?

Why not force women to get a reversible tubal ligation?
That's MUCH more complicated and invasive than a reversible vasectomy that's just a snip-tieoff and you're done. No sperm, no pregnancy! Voila! What fun we can have with no responsibilities!

Nah. Not anymore. And it’s painless with few after effects other than the important one.

I thought you liked the idea of government enforced surgery?

Nah. Not anymore. And it’s painless with few after effects other than the important one.
That's the vasectomy you're talking about. And a tubal ligation isn't easily reversed.

I thought you liked the idea of government enforced surgery?
For reversible vasectomies, yes!

Neither is a vaz. And only in favor of forced surgery for men?? Sexist!!

Note to readers. There is practically zero chance that Athos will answer that question.

Note to readers: There is zero chance (no practically about it) that Jl is anything but a hypocritical phony who enjoys painting gruecome pictures of fetuses being terminated, all the while being pro-choice himself as he has so clearly and definitively admitted in these very pages.

I was right again! It's four for four now. And the reader can see that noticeable side order of anger accompanying the main course of evasion. But I'll repeat my statement just in case you have changed your mind.

"If you know for a fact that mother and baby are going to die, then you have no choice. But as I said, and it remains unanswered (as usual) by you, what about the other 99.99% pregnancies?

Note to readers. There is practically zero chance that Athos will answer that question." He scarcely ever does.

Neither is a vaz. And only in favor of forced surgery for men?? Sexist!!
Hey! It's men's equipment that causes all the trouble. We women may have to start cloning.

I was right again! It's four for four now."

I was right again. It's four for four now. Jl is a card-carrying supporter of abortion. This is not debatable. Jl has admitted it in his own words. Like most supporters of abortion, he doesn't like it but believes it is allowed in some cases. That is the mainstream opinion of most Americans and Jl fits right in. His hypocrisy notwithstanding, he cannot deny his own confession.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you! You copied my post very ably. Well...somewhat ably.

There is a significant difference between the two of us. I answer questions. You don't. I'll prove it! What about the other 99.99% of abortions that are not performed to save the life of the mother? What is your view of them? Do you defend them?

BTW, the side order of hotly seasoned anger is not a pretty sight.

Dear reader. Prepare to see my point proven...again.

There is a significant difference between the two of us.

Thank God for that. But the difference is not about abortion. In fact, our belief on abortion is identical. I don't like abortion, but I recognize there can be a legitimate reason to have an abortion. THAT IS PRECISELY THE IDENTICAL POSITION OF Jl WHICH HE HAS STATED RIGHT HERE ON THIS VERY WEBSITE AS RECENTLY AS YESTERDAY.

Stop digging, Jl. The pit is deep enough. All you can do now is admit you lied or else shut your mouth about abortion forever.

I don't like abortion, but I recognize there can be a legitimate reason to have an abortion. Well, that is an answer of some small sort. Of course you already have said you don't believe in unlimited abortions, and yet you also claim that we should not tell women what to do with their bodies. So the obvious question remains which you have yet to answer. What restrictions would you agree with, even understanding that it would automatically deprive women of some control over their bodies? In other words, what are those "legitimate reasons"?

BTW, the side order of hotly seasoned anger is not a pretty sight.
Are you Hannibal "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti" Lector???

You must keep up, dear WG. You must keep up. And why is your mind filled with such ghastly images? Good grief. "Hotly seasoned anger" somehow turns into cannibalism? What have you been watching?

what are those "legitimate reasons"?

The same reason you gave to support abortion.

The issue here Jl is YOU and your stance on abortion. My position is well-known. I have never denied being pro-choice. All the rest of your blather is nothing but you deflecting away from yourself and your hypocrisy.

You lost, Jl, stop making a fool of yourself.

You're pro-choice, but you don't like abortion? Really? Why don't you like it?

The only reason I have given is self defense, where the mother's life is clearly in danger. That hardly occurs ever any more. So you are saying ("The same reason you gave to support abortion") that reason is your legitimate reason? Well, if that's it, then how can you be pro-choice for the other 99.99% of abortions? You must have many other legitimate reasons you have not yet posted.

The only reason I have given is self defense, where the mother's life is clearly in danger.

You're scrambling, Jl.

Right above in black and white is your admission of being pro-choice. For you who constantly picks apart words and their plain meaning, this should be a slam dunk for you.

Yet, you want to have it both ways. You want to admit to supporting abortion as you have done above, and yet you want to continue to criticize and condemn others who support abortion.

It's over, Jl.

I've been very open in my position. In that remarkably small sliver of cases where the woman's life is really endangered, I don't see much choice there. If the woman dies, the baby dies automatically, so nothing is gained. If the baby is viable, and it typically is, then it can be delivered and both survive. So it is certainly over in the sense that my answer is open and complete.

This is my question from above which you did not address. I am trying to understand your position. "So you are saying ("The same reason you gave to support abortion") that reason is your legitimate reason? Well, if that's it, then how can you be pro-choice for the other 99.99% of abortions? You must have many other legitimate reasons you have not yet posted." Not trying to irritate you, but just trying to understand your position. So far, I have not seen any limitations you would place on abortion, so I assume you are OK with, for instance, partial birth abortions. Correct?

One more point. You said earlier that I had posted a "painting". The pic of the 19 week fetus was simply a stock photo off the internet. There are many others like it. You can double check any pic by simply right clicking it, copying the image address, and putting it into a browser.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/cf/55/d1cf5583a5cb24b6b5c2af3f64c836f6.jpg

If the woman dies, the baby dies automatically
Not true.

Not true.It is basically true. There are very rare cases where the baby survives, but it is very, very rare. Once the mother dies, the clock is ticking and ticking fast.

Once the mother dies, the clock is ticking and ticking fast.
Not if the pregnancy is in the third trimester.

Yes it is. Once the mother dies, her heart stops beating. The baby depends upon her blood for oxygen at the placenta, so the clock starts ticking big time at that point. Time is measured in a very few minutes.

I've been very open in my position.

No question about that - your position is supporting abortion. That discussion is over and done with.


In that remarkably small sliver of cases where the woman's life is really endangered, I don't see much choice

Small sliver, big sliver - that's supporting abortion.


So it is certainly over in the sense that my answer is open and complete.

Even with your attempts to ratonalize your abortion choice, you can't escape the fact that the attempt itself is obviously a pro-abortion stance.


This is my question from above which you did not address. I am trying to understand your position.

My position is simplicity itself to understand. I support pro-choice re abortion. There. Got it? Naturally, you're playing the diversion game again - change it from you to me. Too late, Jl, it won't work.


Not trying to irritate you, but just trying to understand your position.

Jl, read my lips. I-AM-PRO-CHOICE. There is nothing "to understand". Pro-choice means pro-choice. You have this weird problem with the plain meaning of words.


I have not seen any limitations you would place on abortion

Like any issue under the law, I support whatever the law states. Your attempt to involve me in your hypocrisy is a failure, Jl.


You said earlier that I had posted a "painting". The pic of the 19 week fetus was simply a stock photo off the internet.

A perfect example of your difficulty with the plain meaning of words. More straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Give it up, Jl. When you're down to painting vs. picture, it's all over.

post deleted

You don't understand the difference between a painting and a picture? It's kind of significant. A painting can be intentionally inaccurate. Pictures...not so much.

As to the rest, I can only assume that you have changed your position. You said earlier that you did not believe in unrestricted abortion and that you do not like abortion. Now you say are completely pro-choice. I find that hard to imagine. So partial birth abortions, the ghastly procedures described earlier, sucking the little baby out of the womb with a suction tube, or just any means for taking the life of an unborn baby is what you are for? You have no problem with the killing of the other 99.99% of babies? They mean nothing to you? A mother in the ninth month of pregnancy can have her baby killed with your approval? If that indeed is your position as you've stated, then you are, in effect, pro-death. That is hard for me to understand, but you did answer the question, and for that I commend you, but perhaps it has become apparent why you are so reluctant to provide answers.

So our difference is now clear. I favor life for the 99.99% and mourn the loss of the .01%. You are OK with death for them all. Is that a fair statement?

You don't understand the difference between a painting and a picture? It's kind of significant.

It is totally, completely insignificant in this discussion.


As to the rest, I can only assume that you have changed your position. You said earlier that you did not believe in unrestricted abortion and that you do not like abortion. Now you say are completely pro-choice. I find that hard to imagine.

Dear Lord! I have changed NOTHING! I am pro-choice. That means I support a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Nothing could be more clear except for the fact that you do not understand what pro-choice means.


So our difference is now clear.

Since you announced your acceptance of abortion depending on circumstances - which is the mainstream position - we're in agreement.


I favor life for the 99.99% and mourn the loss of the .01%. You are OK with death for them all. Is that a fair statement?

You are OK with the death of 4,000 fetuses every year. Is that a fair statement?

Dear Lord! I have changed NOTHING! I am pro-choice. That means I support a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Nothing could be more clear except for the fact that you do not understand what pro-choice means.This was your initial statement. "I agree with the author of the piece and totally support a woman's right to choose. AT THE SAME TIME, being against completely unrestricted access to abortion does not mean a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE should be legally infringed." So that clearly seems to say that you are against "completely unrestricted access to abortion." Now you are simply saying you support a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion." So I can only assume you now support "unrestricted access to abortion." If not, then please state the restrictions you support. Otherwise, you are sanctioning, "...partial birth abortions, the ghastly procedures described earlier, sucking the little baby out of the womb with a suction tube, or just any means for taking the life of an unborn baby..." If you are not OK with any of those, then please say so.

BTW, the author of the piece, who you said you agreed with, said this. "I do not support completely unrestricted access to abortion." Still waiting to hear what those restrictions are which you would agree with.

When a house is fully engulfed in fire, firefighters do not allow the mother to run back in to attempt to save her children since they know it will accomplish nothing and just result in the mother's death. In the same way with abortion, rather than lose the mother AND baby, it is best to preserve the mother's life. It is one of the terrible tragedies of life, just like the housefire. 4,000? A fantastic exaggeration. Remember what Guttmacher said?


Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood did more to promote and spread abortion on demand throughout the world than any other individual. Nearly fifty years ago, he commented, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.”

But anyone who endorses 900,000 abortions a year for, as I understand you, any and all reasons looks a little strange with his supposed concern about 4,000, don't you think?

you are simply saying you support a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion.

That's correct.


In abortion, rather than lose the mother AND baby, it is best to preserve the mother's life.

That is a CHOICE made in favor of the life of the mother over the life of the baby. Others may choose the life of the baby over the life of the mother. In either case, it is a CHOICE.


4,000? A fantastic exaggeration.

Not a bit exaggerated. The figure is from a number of sites including the World Health Organization. It is the number from your statistic of .01% whose loss you "mourn". Apparently, you say things off the top of your head when they could easily be verified by a simple internet search.


But anyone who endorses 900,000 abortions a year looks a little strange with his supposed concern about 4,000, don't you think?

What I think is that you can't see things accurately. Pro-choice does NOT mean "endorsement". The 4,000 figure is YOUR number of abortions whose loss you "mourn".

You've never answered these two questions: How would you handle it if YOUR unmarried daughter got pregnant? What would happen to the newborn?

You've never answered these two questions: How would you handle it if YOUR unmarried daughter got pregnant? What would happen to the newborn?

He'd abort that sucker faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". He even knows HOW to do it.

You've never answered these two questions: How would you handle it if YOUR unmarried daughter got pregnant? What would happen to the newborn?I most certainly did. Post 46. Pay attention.


He'd abort that sucker What a sick statement. That explains your position. Unborn children are just "suckers" to you. To me, they are people deserving of protection. You'll be remembering that sick statement for a long time.

Unanswered questions.

1. How would you kill the 19 week fetus if you were the doctor?
2. You said you were in favor of restrictions, but now you seem not to be. Which way is it?
3. Is WG smarter than a medical school website? (rhetorical)

I most certainly did. Post 46. Pay attention.
Pay attention??? You answered only ONE of my questions.


3. Is WG smarter than a medical school website? (rhetorical)
I'm certainly a better googler than you are, thanks to 28 years in public libraries. (factual)

To me, they are people deserving of protection.

Yeah, except when you choose to abort them.


You'll be remembering that sick statement for a long time.

That statement - " He'd abort that sucker faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". - was obviously sarcasm. But you will cling to it like a fly on s**t.

I'm certainly a better googler than you are, thanks to 28 years in public libraries. (factual)Then you need to start exhibiting it here. So far, you've shown nothing. You offered your own silly opinion which was at variance with a med school. Saying that suction abortions and D&E abortions are never needed is just a really uneducated comment. Sorry, but that's how it is. End of story.

What would we do with the newborn? Those questions are hard to answer. When my daughter was at that age, wifey and I were fifty or so. At that age, we'd likely encourage our daughter to keep the child and we'd pitch in to help. At our age now (late sixties) adoption would be a better course. Of course our daughter would have a big say in the matter. But I would never consent to killing the unborn child, and would NEVER refer to it as a "sucker". WG, I know you practically worship Athos, but it's a stain on you to not object to that sickening reference.


That statement - " He'd abort that sucker faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". - was obviously sarcasm. But you will cling to it like a fly on s**t.Yeah. You got caught in your little sick game, and now you're mad. Sorry, but you own it now. And your little cussing exhibition, like a three year old, looks even worse.

Yeah. You got caught in your little sick game, and now you're mad. Sorry, but you own it now. And your little cussing exhibition, like a three year old, looks even worse.

Jl, I understand your need to fight back. But if anyone here is "caught", clearly it is YOU.

Your replies get more and more desperate as you sink deeper and deeper into the morass of your own making. Absurd and bizarre, tho' it is.

From your confusion about your own stated position on abortion, to your willful ignorance re the Covid effects from the SD motorcycle rally, to your quite revealing position on standing before God and telling the truth, and now to the pathetic comment above, you have nowhere to go, Jl.

Try the truth and try to learn from your betters here. You'll be much better off.

Then you need to start exhibiting it here. So far, you've shown nothing. You offered your own silly opinion which was at variance with a med school.
Apparently you want a plethora of links that you will happily read. So noted.

Saying that suction abortions and D&E abortions are never needed is just a really dumb comment.
I said "never"? Please give us the Post #.

What would we do with the newborn? Those questions are hard to answer. When my daughter was at that age, wifey and I were fifty or so. At that age, we'd likely encourage our daughter to keep the child and we'd pitch in to help.
That would be a lot on the plate of a 15 y/o girl. Up at night with a squalling infant. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding? Doctor visits. The new mom wants to go to school events, dances, go on dates, has to do homework, go to the library after school. She and her parents may be shunned by other students and neighbors and church members because she is an unmarried mother. And on and on.

1. How would you kill the 19 week fetus if you were the doctor?
After the fourteenth week of pregnancy, scraping methods can no longer be used; instead the uterus must be induced to expel the fetus, resulting in premature labor. In the saltwater method, a needle is inserted through the abdominal and uterine walls and into the amniotic sac. A portion of the amniotic fluid is removed; a saline solution is then injected between the uterine wall and the amnion, forcing their separation. After a day or so, contractions begin. The woman goes through labor and delivery to expel the fetus.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/abortion

That would be a lot on the plate of a 15 y/o girl. Up at night with a squalling infant. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding? Doctor visits. The new mom wants to go to school events, dances, go on dates, has to do homework, go to the library after school. She and her parents may be shunned by other students and neighbors and church members because she is an unmarried mother. And on and on.Not having your belief that killing the baby is much preferable to a person having to undergo some healthy hardship and actually having to forego going to a dance (gasp!!), I'd stick with my decision. You think that's hard? Go back 200 years ago. Study some history. Read about the Dust Bowl in the 30's. Try telling your daughter when she's 12 that getting pregnant out of wedlock is heck.

Sorry, but having to choose between something called the The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu/) and a med school site, I'll go with the med school site every time. I still find it strange how you find it comforting to come up with some supposedly non-violent method of killing the unborn baby in that picture. Does it help you sleep at night?

Post 47. "You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."
Post 62. "No, a fetus no matter how far along doesn't have to be ripped or suctioned out of a woman's uterus."

Happy now?


How would you kill the 19 week fetus if you were the doctor?So you are happy with the method you described above? That's what you would do to the 19 week fetus in the picture? What do you tell the mother to do with her little baby? Flush it down the toilet? Get rid of the little "sucker"?

Other sites that confirm a D&E is done in the second twelve weeks. Would you like more? I can get them easily.

https://www.mottchildren.org/health-library/tw2462
https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health-wellness/health-encyclopedia/he.dilation-and-evacuation-d-e.tw2462
https://www.springfieldrtl.org/abortion-methods-dilation-evacuation-de-abortion/
https://www.stlukesonline.org/health-services/health-information/healthwise/2017/06/27/13/27/dilation-and-evacuation-de
https://safe2choose.org/faq/mva-faq/during-mva-abortion/what-is-dilation-and-evacuaiton

Not having your belief that killing the baby is much preferable to a person having to undergo some healthy hardship and actually having to forego going to a dance (gasp!!)
And as the grandfather, you would regularly put her down, shame her, belittle her, rage at her for being so stupid. And leave all the work and care to your wife and daughter.

I still find it strange how you find it comforting to come up with some supposedly non-violent method of killing the unborn baby in that picture.
I answered your question.

Post 47. "You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."

So you are happy with the method you described above? That's what you would do to the 19 week fetus in the picture?
Sure beats ripping and suctioning.

What do you tell the mother to do with her little baby? Flush it down the toilet? Get rid of the little "sucker"?
I'd certainly be more empathetic than you would be with a teen daughter who had sex out of wedlock and became a mother because of that.

And as the grandfather, you would regularly put her down, shame her, belittle her, rage at her for being so stupid. And leave all the work and care to your wife and daughter.How did you come to that stupid conclusion? It's just your prejudice at work. And you are the one who claims to be in favor of being kind and understanding? Well, so much for that with you.


Sure beats ripping and suctioning.But you're in favor of ripping and suctioning as well! There's no method you are willing to go on record against. You seem to love it all.


EId certainly be more empathetic than you eould be with a teen daughter who had sex out of wedlock and became a mother because of that.No you wouldn't. You'd have the unborn killed and forego having to inconvenience yourself. Between the two of us, I'm the one who would put my life on hold to raise a grandchild, and would love him/her with all my heart. You're the one voting for death. And when your daughter is twenty years older and torn with guilt, you'll get to explain to her why you voted that way.

I hope you saw this.

Other sites that confirm a D&E is done in the second twelve weeks. Would you like more? I can get them easily.

https://www.mottchildren.org/health-library/tw2462
https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org...ion-d-e.tw2462 (https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health-wellness/health-encyclopedia/he.dilation-and-evacuation-d-e.tw2462)
https://www.springfieldrtl.org/abort...n-de-abortion/ (https://www.springfieldrtl.org/abortion-methods-dilation-evacuation-de-abortion/)
https://www.stlukesonline.org/health...-evacuation-de (https://www.stlukesonline.org/health-services/health-information/healthwise/2017/06/27/13/27/dilation-and-evacuation-de)
https://safe2choose.org/faq/mva-faq/...and-evacuaiton (https://safe2choose.org/faq/mva-faq/during-mva-abortion/what-is-dilation-and-evacuaiton)

And this.

Post 47. "You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."
Post 62. "No, a fetus no matter how far along doesn't have to be ripped or suctioned out of a woman's uterus."

Happy now?

I hope you saw this.

Other sites that confirm a D&E is done in the second twelve weeks. Would you like more? I can get them easily.
A D&E is NOT the only method of expelling the fetus.


How did you come to that stupid conclusion?
It seems to be your m.o.

No one ever said it was. There is suction, and there are even worse methods used in the third trimester. Want to hear about them? Oh well. It wouldn't make any difference to you. Your mind is made up absent any real evidence. Besides, if you really cared, you would already know.

A D&E does not EXPEL the fetus. The fetus is pulled apart and taken out in pieces, and you are happy with that? Is there nothing so shocking that you would be repulsed by it?

It was not my stupid, unkind, and inaccurate conclusion. It was yours, and based on no evidence at all. Sad. I do regret using the word "stupid", but I really don't know of a better descriptor.

But you're in favor of ripping and suctioning as well! There's no method you are willing to go on record against. You seem to love it all.
R&S are not necessary.

No you wouldn't. You'd have the unborn killed and forego having to inconvenience yourself. Between the two of us, I'm the one who would put my life on hold to raise a grandchild, and would love him/her with all my heart. You're the one voting for death. And when your daughter is twenty years older and torn with guilt, you'll get to explain to her why you voted that way.
You are beyond mean!


Oh well. It wouldn't make any difference to you. Your mind is made up absent any real evidence. Besides, if you really cared, you would already know.
I do know and posted it above.

R&S are not necessary.That makes no sense.


You are beyond mean!

Is it not true?


I do know and posted it above.You did not. You don't know the material.

"A third trimester induction abortion is performed at 25 weeks LMP (25 weeks since the first day of the woman’s last period) to term. At 25 weeks, a baby is almost fully-developed and is considered viable, meaning he or she could survive outside the womb. For this reason, the abortionist will usually first kill the baby in utero by injecting a substance that causes cardiac arrest, and induces the mother’s labor to deliver her baby stillborn."

https://www.abortionprocedures.com/induction/

And you think my comment was mean? Look at what you're supporting and voting for. None of you here can bring yourselves to oppose this. It would violate your liberal orthodoxy. Kill them and deliver a dead baby. Pull out parts one at a time. Suction the little "sucker" out. You are in favor of all of it, and I honestly don't see how you can sleep at night.

That makes no sense.

You did not. You don't know the material.
Again,

After the fourteenth week of pregnancy, scraping methods can no longer be used; instead the uterus must be induced to expel the fetus, resulting in premature labor. In the saltwater method, a needle is inserted through the abdominal and uterine walls and into the amniotic sac. A portion of the amniotic fluid is removed; a saline solution is then injected between the uterine wall and the amnion, forcing their separation. After a day or so, contractions begin. The woman goes through labor and delivery to expel the fetus.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/abortion

You have seen seven links to the contrary including one med school. But if you want to believe your fairy tale, then go for it.

The dilation and curettage method, or the D&C, has been practiced since even before abortion (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=abortion) was legalized in the US, and is now called the D&E, or dilation and evacuation (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=dilation%20and%20evacuation). At one time a physician gradually enlarged the woman’s cervix (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=cervix) by inserting a series of increasingly thicker rods, but now the cervix (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=cervix) is dilated by administering medication. The physician then gently scrapes out the contents of the uterus (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=uterus) using a spoon-like instrument called a curette.This is the altogether inaccurate description of a D&E on that website you linked. It's preposterous.

This is the altogether inaccurate description of a D&E on that website you linked. It's preposterous.
What's inaccurate?

The description rather conveniently left out the part about bringing the baby’s body out one piece at a time. Oversight?

The description rather conveniently left out the part about bringing the baby’s body out one piece at a time. Oversight?
Not if labor and delivery result.

Then it’s not a D&E.

Your website gave a very much sanitized description.

Then it’s not a D&E.
Nope, not when the mother's muscles push out the fetus. As the description said, "scraping methods can no longer be used; instead the uterus must be induced to expel the fetus, resulting in premature labor".

You are confusing the procedure you posted with what I posted. They are not the same

Even your site mentioned no delivery with a D&E.

Yet again, she posted:

After the fourteenth week of pregnancy, scraping methods can no longer be used; instead the uterus must be induced to expel the fetus, resulting in premature labor. In the saltwater method, a needle is inserted through the abdominal and uterine walls and into the amniotic sac. A portion of the amniotic fluid is removed; a saline solution is then injected between the uterine wall and the amnion, forcing their separation. After a day or so, contractions begin. The woman goes through labor and delivery to expel the fetus.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/abortion

It...is...not...the...same...procedure. Your own site says that. For goodness sake try reading your own link. Are you sure you were a librarian??? The description you posted above is NOT of a D&E. It even says, " In the saltwater method." NOT...A...D&E. Do you understand now?

Good grief you can be irritating with your willful obstinacy.

It...is...not...the...same...procedure. Your own site says that. For goodness sake try reading your own link. Are you sure you were a librarian??? The description you posted above is NOT of a D&E. It even says, " In the saltwater method."

Good grief you can be irritating with your willful obstinacy.
Good grief, Charlie! I was not posting about a D&E. (Where oh where did THAT idea get into your head???) Read the first phrase. (Here, I'll help you: "After the fourteenth week of pregnancy....") The fetus in the photo was 19 weeks. A D&E is NOT the correct procedure for aborting a fetus that old. Put your dilator and evacuator away.

I posted this on post 120 FROM YOUR LINK. That was only ten posts ago, about three hours.


The dilation and curettage method, or the D&C, has been practiced since even before abortion (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=abortion) was legalized in the US, and is now called the D&E, or dilation and evacuation (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=dilation%20and%20evacuation). At one time a physician gradually enlarged the woman’s cervix (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=cervix) by inserting a series of increasingly thicker rods, but now the cervix (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=cervix) is dilated by administering medication. The physician then gently scrapes out the contents of the uterus (https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=uterus) using a spoon-like instrument called a curette.


This is the altogether inaccurate description of a D&E on that website you linked. It's preposterous.
Was that not clear enough for you??? You then asked about what was inaccurate, and that's been where we are in the discussion.

You're really Mensa??? Good grief, Lucy.

You even posted my reply on post 125. "Then it’s not a D&E." And you actually insist that you didn't know we were talking about a D&E? Good grief.


A D&E is NOT the correct procedure for aborting a fetus that old.Yeah. I've only posted seven sites that say it is, including a med school. Would you like to see more, because I can EASILY find them. You posted a site that doesn't even know what a D&E is.

You're really, really Mensa? Really, Lucy?

You do realize God's reading all your nastiness and putdowns and rude remarks?

There are several problems with your comment.

1. You say all the time we should not judge, but now you're judging.
2. You have been guilty of "nastiness and putdowns and rude remarks," so I don't think you are in position to be the judge. It would be the guilty trying to judge the accused.
3. It would be nice if you would at least acknowledge your mistake. How you decided we were not talking about a D&E is just beyond me.
4. I would suggest you concern yourself with what God thinks about your continued support of abortion and your continuing acceptance of any and all methods of abortion no matter how ghastly they may be in their destruction of the most innocent and defenseless human lives.

I cannot see how you arrived at this statement. "I was not posting about a D&E. (Where oh where did THAT idea get into your head???)" How could you have thought we were not discussing D&E? I just don't get it. Are you just being intentionally irritating since the facts clearly don't support your case?

I saw this posted on another site. When a person takes the flu shot, do they walk out worried about who DIDN'T take the shot, or are they just glad to be vaccinated?

there are more that 3 million flu cases in the US every year .
<sarc> I think the flu vaccine should be mandated </sarc>

1. You say all the time we should not judge, but now you're judging.
I'm trying to keep up with you.

2. You have been guilty of "nastiness and putdowns and rude remarks," so I don't think you are in position to be the judge. It would be the guilty trying to judge the accused.
As I said above, I'm trying to keep up with you.

3. It would be nice if you would at least acknowledge your mistake. How you decided we were not talking about a D&E is just beyond me.
My quotes were that a D&E are not medically advisible after 14 weeks. The pictured fetus was 19 weeks and should be delivered, not ripped apart and scooped out.

4. I would suggest you concern yourself with what God thinks about your continued support of abortion and your continuing acceptance of any and all methods of abortion no matter how ghastly they may be in their destruction of the most innocent and defenseless human lives.
I don't support abortion or encourage it.

I cannot see how you arrived at this statement. "I was not posting about a D&E. (Where oh where did THAT idea get into your head???)" How could you have thought we were not discussing D&E? I just don't get it. Are you just being intentionally irritating since the facts clearly don't support your case?
Again, my quotes were that a D&E are not medically advisible after 14 weeks. The pictured fetus was 19 weeks and should be delivered, not ripped apart and scooped out.

When a person takes the flu shot, do they walk out worried about who DIDN'T take the shot, or are they just glad to be vaccinated?
They walk out hoping the flu shot developers got it right this time so the vaccinated persons are protected from the current flu variant that's running wild.

that's what happens when a virus becomes endemic .... like covid will. Many infections ,few deaths because the primary way to deal with it is effective treatments .

there are more that 3 million flu cases in the US every year .
<sarc> I think the flu vaccine should be mandated </sarc>

Deaths from flu in the last 10 years ranged from 12,000 to 61,000 annually with an average of 37,000 per year.

Deaths from Covid-19 is approaching 700,000 and will go far past that. Annualized, the death total is over 500,000 and increasing.

To your 3,000,000 flu cases annually, so far there have been 41,200,000+ Covid-19 cases in 20 months.

Summary:

Flu cases ----------- 3,000,000
Covid cases -------- 25,000,000 (annualized from 20 months)

Flu deaths ---------- 37,000 annually
Covid deaths ------- 500,000 annually - projected to Dec. 31, 2021.

Trump began the invalid comparison between flu and Covid. It was widely debunked at the time. I'm surprised you are still using it.

My quotes were that a D&E are not medically advisible after 14 weeks. The pictured fetus was 19 weeks and should be delivered, not ripped apart and scooped out.Your information is just flat wrong. Seven websites say so including a med school. And I can easily find ten more if you want. Even worse, you will not even raise your voice in opposition to a baby being "ripped apart and scooped out."


I don't support abortion or encourage it.Yes, you do. You support it all the time.


I'm trying to keep up with you.Physician, heal thyself.

Your information is just flat wrong. Seven websites say so including a med school. And I can easily find ten more if you want. Even worse, you will not even raise your voice in opposition to a baby being "ripped apart and scooped out."
We are discussing abortion, how it's done. This is not a "post your beliefs" thread.

Yes, you do. You support it all the time.
I have never stated that I agree with it and support it.

We are discussing abortion, how it's done. This is not a "post your beliefs" thread.Oh? Is that how you explain this? "That would be a lot on the plate of a 15 y/o girl. Up at night with a squalling infant. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding? Doctor visits. The new mom wants to go to school events, dances, go on dates, has to do homework, go to the library after school. She and her parents may be shunned by other students and neighbors and church members because she is an unmarried mother. And on and on." What did that have to do with how abortions are done?

I have never stated that I agree with it and support it.Yep. It's the ever popular "straddle the fence" option. Miss Evasion strikes again.

Oh? Is that how you explain this? "That would be a lot on the plate of a 15 y/o girl. Up at night with a squalling infant. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding? Doctor visits. The new mom wants to go to school events, dances, go on dates, has to do homework, go to the library after school. She and her parents may be shunned by other students and neighbors and church members because she is an unmarried mother. And on and on." What did that have to do with how abortions are done?
Yep. It's the ever popular "straddle the fence" option. Miss Evasion strikes again.
It was part of our discussion, Mr. Abuse to Confuse.

You were supporting a belief of yours that a fifteen year old girl should be able to have an abortion so she would not have to be shunned by other students or miss dances.

"Miss Evasion" should be your name. But you can show me to be wrong by simply coming out with a position on abortion instead of being evasive by straddling the fence.

You were supporting a belief of yours that a fifteen year old girl should be able to have an abortion so she would not have to be shunned by other students or miss dances.
Abortion was not mentioned. Do you deny "it would be a lot on the plate of a fifteen-year-old girl" to be pregnant and have a baby?


"Miss Evasion" should be your name. But you can show me to be wrong by simply coming out with a position on abortion instead of being evasive by straddling the fence.
I have never stated that I agree with it and support it. Thus, I do not agree with it or support it.

It was mentioned when you first posed the question.

Of course it would. That’s why I, unlike you, say we should encourage young girls to abstain from sex until marriage.

Thus you are a fence straddler, ever fearful of taking a position. But all of your comments are pro-abortion.

It was mentioned when you first posed the question.

Thus you are a fence straddler.
Nope. I have never stated that I agree with it and support it. Thus, I do not agree with it or support it.

As I said, a fence straddler, for neither do you oppose it.

As I said, a fence straddler, for neither do you oppose it.
It's time for your nap. You're overtired.

It's time for some honesty. You're being evasive.

Good thing we elected Biden to get this Covid deal under control. Covid deaths are now nearly at two thousand per day.

‘Soul-crushing’: US COVID-19 deaths are topping 1,900 a day | News 4 Buffalo (wivb.com) (https://www.wivb.com/news/soul-crushing-us-covid-19-deaths-are-topping-1900-a-day/)

Deaths from flu in the last 10 years ranged from 12,000 to 61,000 annually with an average of 37,000 per year.

Deaths from Covid-19 is approaching 700,000 and will go far past that. Annualized, the death total is over 500,000 and increasing.

To your 3,000,000 flu cases annually, so far there have been 41,200,000+ Covid-19 cases in 20 months.

Summary:

Flu cases ----------- 3,000,000
Covid cases -------- 25,000,000 (annualized from 20 months)

Flu deaths ---------- 37,000 annually
Covid deaths ------- 500,000 annually - projected to Dec. 31, 2021.

Trump began the invalid comparison between flu and Covid. It was widely debunked at the time. I'm surprised you are still using it.



you missed the point .I was NOT comparing the covid pandemic of today with the annual flu .I was comparing the inevitable covid endemic of the future with the current annual flu endemic .
Covid will not disappear and any expectation that it will is delusional .The more realistic view is that ]enough people will gain immune protection from vaccination and from natural infection such that there will be less transmission and much a less COVID in terms of hospitalization and death .
You know this is a fact because the vaccines loose effectiveness real quick ;within a couple of months . The strongest immunity is in those who have had the virus and the vaccine.

Vaccines are a part of the answer . But the constant dismissals of effective therapeutics is what is driving up the death rate ..

The 1918 flu ,the 1957 flu ,the 1968 flu ,the 2009 swine flu all were pandemic that turned into endemics . As virus' matures they become less deadly . They are not trying to kill their host . That would be self defeating .


Reply (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3874249)

It's time for some honesty. You're being evasive.
Evasive?

Good thing we elected Biden to get this Covid deal under control. Covid deaths are now nearly at two thousand per day.
If only those fundie Southern white guys (and their wives) would get those darn covid vaccinations and wear masks and stop waving their arms around, "God will protect me."

If only those fundie Southern white guys (and their wives) would get those darn covid vaccinations and wear masks and stop waving their arms around, "God will protect me." The largest demographic that has so called vaccine hesitancy is American Blacks . And I don't blame them at all for their mistrust of the medical community .

The largest demographic that has so called vaccine hesitancy is American Blacks . And I don't blame them at all for their mistrust of the medical community .
Good point, tomder. My sis is in SC where ivermectin is the drug of choice. And no masks.

If only those fundie Southern white guys (and their wives)My goodness! What a racist statement, especially considering that it's not even correct. Shaaammmmeee!

Thank goodness for the Trump vaccine.

My goodness! What a racist statement, especially considering that it's not even correct. Shaaammmmeee!
Not if I'm white too and am still part of that cohort. I know them too well.

Thank goodness for the Trump vaccine.
...which he received three months after he had been hospitalized with covid....

You are prejudiced against white conservative Christians. In this case you were wrong. Isn’t it terrible what prejudice does? It causes a person to indict an entire group of people falsely.

you missed the point .I was NOT comparing the covid pandemic of today with the annual flu .I was comparing the inevitable covid endemic of the future with the current annual flu endemic

If this was your point, you missed making it.


the vaccines loose effectiveness real quick ;within a couple of months

Flat out wrong. Your opposition to vaccines and masking is deadly.

You are prejudiced against white conservative Christians. In this case you were wrong. Isn’t it terrible what prejudice does? It causes a person to indict an entire group of people falsely.
No prejudice. I'm still part of that cohort.


It causes a person to indict an entire group of people falsely.
Falsely? They refuse to be vaccinated, refuse to wear masks, refuse to social distance.

The infamous “they”. Sure sign of prejudice, yes?

Falsely? They refuse to be vaccinated, refuse to wear masks, refuse to social distance.

They are the most ignorant religious group in the nation. Among other proofs, is that they are the largest demographic that voted for Trump.

The infamous “they”. Sure sign of prejudice, yes?
If they get properly vaccinated, wear masks, and social distance, all's good. They will be my people again.

It's their business. It's our job to love them (and everyone else), vaccinated or not. Always amazed at how liberals love to toss that "they" around when talking about groups against whom they are prejudiced. "Fundies", I believe, was the term you used. Yeah, no prejudice there. Now if you could just get them to bathe and stop marrying their cousins...

It's their business. It's our job to love them (and everyone else)
Why do you hate me?

I'm not a liberal.

I have no hate for you or anyone. Do you hate “fundies”? Why do you mock them?

Going by your posts here, you are solidly liberal.

I have no hate for you or anyone. Do you hate “fundies”? Why do you mock them?
I grew up with them, lived among them for years, went to church picnics and potluck suppers with them, attended services with them, went to school with their children, dated their sons.

Going by your posts here, you are solidly liberal.
Wow! I sure fooled you!

So you know perhaps 1/100 of 1% of them, and that makes you an expert?

You’re a liberal. No doubt about it. Quacks like a duck?

So you know perhaps 1/100 of 1% of them, and that makes you an expert?
Plus I know you.

You’re a liberal. No doubt about it. Quacks like a duck?
Ha! I'm following in Jesus' footsteps.

One thing about fundamentalists I like. They are not afraid to clearly state their beliefs. They are not evasive.

You know me? Hardly.

Ask them a question and you get a straight answer. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?!

One thing about fundamentalists I like. They are not afraid to clearly state their beliefs. They are not evasive

Ask them a question and you get a straight answer. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?!
Problem is, too often they don't give a correct answer.

Like what Tucker Carlson said....

Problem is, too often they don't give a correct answer.Not sure I agree completely with that, but one way or the other, at least they give a clear answer that can then be judged as correct or incorrect. If you ask one of them is he/she believes in the resurrection, you will get a clear, concise answer pretty quickly. And if you present them with twenty or thirty Bible passages which all plainly support a particular conclusion, you will not be foolishly accused of cherry picking or be subject to some lecture about proof texts. Now they might attempt to counter your texts with other passages such as in the Calvin vs. Arminius debate, but they will not generally just dismiss the whole enterprise and run to another topic.

Tucker Carlson is far removed from being a fundamentalist.

Not sure I agree completely with that, but one way or the other, at least they give a clear answer that can then be judged as correct or incorrect.
Been there, done that as a LCMS PK.

Been there, done that as a LCMS PK.You certainly don't do it now. You are not for nor against abortion. You are not a liberal nor a conservative. You like to turn on the fog machine as frequently as possible. So those "fundies" you deride so frequently at least have some convictions they are willing to state and defend. I have to admire that.

You certainly don't do it now. You are not for nor against abortion.
You get an F for reading comprehension. I'm against abortion.

No you're not. You like to say you are against abortion, but you want it to remain perfectly legal and vote for those who agree with that. It's like saying, "I'm against slavery, but I don't want to change any of the slavery laws."

No you're not. You like to say you are against abortion, but you want it to remain perfectly legal and vote for those who agree with that. It's like saying, "I'm against slavery, but I don't want to change any of the slavery laws."
You're crazy!

Deny it if you can.

Do you want abortion laws changed?

Do you agree pregnant females who want an abortion should get counseling?

Do you believe females pregnant because of rape or incest should be allowed an abortion?

Should pregnant girls under 16 have an abortion?

Remember what I said about asking a fundamentalist a question and getting a clear answer from a person who has a clear idea of his beliefs and a willingness to defend them? And then I said that, "You certainly don't do it now. You are not for nor against abortion. You are not a liberal nor a conservative. You like to turn on the fog machine as frequently as possible." Well, I present this evidence. When asked if you wanted abortion laws changed, rather than getting an answer, I get this.


Do you agree pregnant females who want an abortion should get counseling?

Do you believe females pregnant because of rape or incest should be allowed an abortion?

Should pregnant girls under 16 have an abortion?

So much for getting clear answers from you, but I'm happy to show you how it's done.

1. No, since I don't think they should get an abortion to begin with.
2. That's a tough one. You are basically asking this. Should a woman pregnant from rape or incest be allowed to have her unborn child killed? I'd have to say no to that one.
3. Should pregnant girls under 16 be allowed to have their unborn child killed? Not unless that pregnancy clearly threatens her life. That is extraordinarily rare. Typically she can carry the baby close enough to nine months to be able to give birth to a pre-term child which will at least have a good chance.

See how that's done? See why I accuse you of loving fog? The reason is very clear. You want to claim to be against abortion while not wanting to have any laws against it, thus demonstrating that you are very much pro-abortion. The truth usually comes out in the end.

I'm heading to sleep. I do hope your hubster is doing better.

Tomorrow.

Now if you could just get them to bathe and stop marrying their cousins...

What a terrible thing for you to say about white evangelical fundamentalists. You, who criticizes what others say, have the filthiest mouth on this board. For shame!


Why do you mock them?.

No one here has mocked them as much as you have. See above.


Quacks like a duck?

Thought you didn't approve of plagiarism???


If you ask one of them is he/she believes..., you will get a clear, concise answer pretty quickly.

You mean like talking snakes???


Tucker Carlson is far removed from being a fundamentalist.

Good grief, what an example! Could you possibly pick anyone who is so plainly a nutcase based on his taped and video'd idiocies for years??

You want to claim to be against abortion while not wanting to have any laws against it, thus demonstrating that you are very much pro-abortion. The truth usually comes out in the end.

YOU want to claim to be against abortion while allowing yourself the choice to support abortion in a case that directly affects YOU. That's called being PRO-CHOICE! Also called being a hypocrite.

Yes, DEFINItELY - the truth usually comes out in the end.

You post so much nonsense, Jl, it's child's play to pick apart your foolishness.

the vaccines loose effectiveness real quick ;within a couple of months


Flat out wrong. Your opposition to vaccines and masking is deadly.

The CDC says I am right .The Pfizer CEO says I'm right . All the vaccine manufactures now recommend additional jabs . The Israeli government says I'm right .

That is just for the covid vaccines . Studies also show repeated boosters of other vaccines like the flu shot ,mumps, pertussis, meningococcal disease, and yellow fever lose effectiveness much sooner that previously thought .The flu vaccine loses effectiveness within 3 months . The covid vaccines demonstrably lose effectiveness in 6 . That is why all the manufacturers urge booster shots and the government is aiming towards approving them . They have already been approved for targeted vulnerable people

I have never been opposed to vaccines. I oppose mandates ;and I am realistic about what the expect from vaccines . They are a part of the solution ;Not the only solution. Covid is not going to go away .No jab will make it so. It will continue mutating on long past the time we run out of Greek letters to name them . A more targeted and diversified health strategy could have delivered better results. If, in addition to the early vaccines, we had focused on early treatments with antibodies and inexpensive and safe drugs instead of demonizing them because of who was in office (e.g. ivermectin), we might have saved many tens of thousands of lives. Without the economic and social destruction.

WG, the question was this. You say you are against abortion. Then do you support changing laws to make access to abortion more restricted? An answer would be wonderful. In this case, do as the "fundies" do!


The CDC says I am right .The Pfizer CEO says I'm right . All the vaccine manufactures now recommend additional jabs . The Israeli government says I'm right .With a thinking person, that argument would be compelling. It would at least be food for serious thought.

I'm all for the vaccine as well, but I'm not in favor of making it mandatory. And I have no confidence in the willingness of the Biden admin to be honest in passing out advice.

Tom, I do have one question for you. I hear the argument that life is filled with mandatory vaccinations. Schoolchildren must have them. Many members of the military, upon going overseas, are lined up and "shot". Does that make the case for mandatory Covid vaccinations more sensible? I don't like the mandatory Covid vaccines idea, but I have to admit that answering that argument is not easy.


YOU want to claim to be against abortion while allowing yourself the choice to support abortion in a case that directly affects YOU. That's called being PRO-CHOICE! Also called being a hypocrite.I feel safe in saying that the great majority of people understand that being willing to acknowledge that saving one life rather than losing them both is very much pro-life. That's the situation when the mother's life is clearly at stake. No allowance of abortion ever directly affected me. Being against 99.99% of abortions is very much a pro-life position. Being in favor of 100% of abortions, as you are, is very much a pro-death position. Can you defend that? (Why I ask this person questions, I don't know. It will likely not be answered.)

The CDC says I am right .The Pfizer CEO says I'm right . All the vaccine manufactures now recommend additional jabs . The Israeli government says I'm right .

None of your sources say two months is the effective limit of the vaccines. As to Pfizer, they are hardly neutral in the matter. The Israeli government is not a scienfic outfit.


The covid vaccines demonstrably lose effectiveness in 6

6 months or a couple of months? Which is it? 10 months? 14 months?


I have never been opposed to vaccines. I oppose mandates

Those who oppose mandates rarely promote vaccines in the same sentence. They key on the mandates rather then keying on the vaccine. It would be a simple matter to do both.


I am realistic about what the expect from vaccines

Are you? What do you make of the fact that hospitalizations are now 99% unvaccinated people? A realistic expectation of getting the vaccine is that it will keep a person out of the hospital - and not die.


They are a part of the solution ;Not the only solution.

No argument there. There are many partial solutions to the pandemic including treatment, social distancing, masks, etc. - in addition to the prime solution of vaccination.


Covid is not going to go away .No jab will make it so.

It makes it go away for a person for at least 6 months as you stated above.



instead of demonizing them because of who was in office (e.g. ivermectin)

Don't forget bleach/disnfectants, hydrowhatever, and whatever else that demon you cite proposed.


we might have saved many tens of thousands of lives. Without the economic and social destruction.

There is no "might have" with Trump. His inaction led to over 400,000 deaths from Covid.

WG, the question was this. You say you are against abortion. Then do you support changing laws to make access to abortion more restricted?
Why do we need laws for or against abortion? We don't need laws to have a tooth pulled by one's dentist or laws for elective surgery.

Why do we need laws for or against abortion? We don't need laws to have a tooth pulled by one's dentist or laws for elective surgery.Why do we need laws against murder, or rape, or bank robbing, or any one of many other actions which the law says is wrong? If you are truly against abortion, then wouldn't you want it stopped by force of law? Otherwise, you will continue to have what you have now. So that's why I just don't think you are really against abortion. I don't think you have thought it through. If it is the destruction of a human life, then it should be stopped. If it's not, then as you said, it's nothing more significant than having a tooth pulled, in which case I can't imagine why anyone would be against it.

I feel safe in saying that the great majority of people understand that being willing to acknowledge that saving one life rather than losing them both is very much pro-life.

To choose one life over another is about choice. Try as you may, you cannot change that absolute fact. You want to have it both ways, but you can't. It's called rationalizing a decision. You've also got a moral problem with the end justifying the means.


No allowance of abortion ever directly affected me.

That's true of others here. The point?


Being against 99.99% of abortions is very much a pro-life position.

Not quite. There's your difficulty with words again. They don't mean what you want them to mean simply because they suit your position.


Being in favor of 100% of abortions, as you are, is very much a pro-death position.

Now it's pro-death. Ridiculous. You get crazier and crazier the more you post on abortion.


Can you defend that?

Do you really think I need to defend that nuttiness of yours?


(Why I ask this person questions, I don't know. It will likely not be answered.)

I have no idea why you ask anyone here questions. Just about everything you have ever asked or said has been roundly rebutted by me and others.

Oh, in case you missed it, post #180 is also for you.

If it is the destruction of a human life, then it should be stopped. If it's not, then as you said, it's nothing more significant than having a tooth pulled, in which case I can't imagine why anyone would be against it.

Now you're getting to the crux of the matter.

If it is the destruction of a human life, then it should be stopped.
Then war should be outlawed. Cars and trucks and planes should be banned.

Then war should be outlawed. Cars and trucks and planes should be banned. Wars are fought for many reasons, some of which are justifiable. As to cars and trucks, last time I checked, they do not exist for the purpose of killing people. That's like saying we should outlaw houses since they sometimes burn and kill the occupants. Abortion, on the other hand, always results in the killing of a human being. That's why I'm disappointed that you essentially approve of it.


To choose one life over another is about choice. Try as you may, you cannot change that absolute fact. You want to have it both ways, but you can't. It's called rationalizing a decision. You've also got a moral problem with the end justifying the means. I've explained it very clearly. It is always best to save both lives, but it is not always possible. It's one of the cruel truths of life. My explanation is clear enough for a ten year old to understand, but evidently I'm not able to explain it so that you can, so I'll just repost what was, as I said, a very clear and logical explanation.
I feel safe in saying that the great majority of people understand that being willing to acknowledge that saving one life rather than losing them both is very much pro-life. That's the situation when the mother's life is clearly at stake. No allowance of abortion ever directly affected me. Being against 99.99% of abortions is very much a pro-life position. Being in favor of 100% of abortions, as you are, is very much a pro-death position. Can you defend that?

I'm disappointed you did not try to explain why you are always in favor of the death of the unborn child. For someone who's blowing up because I don't want the mother AND child to both die, it's amazing that you are ALWAYS in favor of the death of the unborn child. You said at one time that you did not want unrestricted access to abortion, but now you have made it clear that you don't want any restrictions. Death by abortion for any reason at any time is what you seem to have bought into. That is a position that's just stunning to me.

Wars are fought for many reasons, some of which are justifiable.
Abortions are done for many reasons, many of which are justifiable.

I have been fortunate in that I did not become pregnant because of incest or rape, our birth control methods worked, we were able to afford the children born to us, my mental and physical health were good, the unborn babies were healthy with no mental or physical fetal defects, my husband was able to support us so I could be a stay-at-home mom and not have to work to keep us afloat, extended family was supportive. In other words, a win-win situation.

Abortions are done for many reasons, many of which are justifiable.Finally we make some progress. Would you list both the justifiable and the non-justifiable reasons for killing the unborn child?

Finally we make some progress. Would you list both the justifiable and the non-justifiable reasons for killing the unborn child?
I did. Reread my most recent post before this one.

You mean these? They were not presented as justifiable reasons, but that's all I can find. If this is not them, then perhaps you can link them. You certainly did not list what you consider to be UN-justifiable.



Do you agree pregnant females who want an abortion should get counseling?

Do you believe females pregnant because of rape or incest should be allowed an abortion?

Should pregnant girls under 16 have an abortion?

So your list then is rape, incest, or under the age of 16? Do I have that right?

No,I didn't mean those. I was explicit as to where to find my (partial) list. Here is again, simplified:

Justifiable reasons for abortion:
1. pregnant because of incest or rape
2. birth control has failed
3. can't afford a child or more children
4. the pregnant woman's mental or physical health is not good
5. the fetus has mental or physical defects -- or both
6. the pregnant woman has no means of financial support
7. extended family is not supportive
8. the pregnant woman is in an abusive relationship/marriage

I've explained it very clearly. It is always best to save both lives, but it is not always possible. It's one of the cruel truths of life. My explanation is clear enough for a ten year old to understand, but evidently I'm not able to explain it so that you can, so I'll just repost what was, as I said, a very clear and logical explanation.

What you have explained very clearly is YOUR rationale for approving an abortion. What you have failed to explain is that your rationale is a CHOICE. It couldn't be any clearer - whether to a ten-year-old or a hundred-year-old.


you did not try to explain why you are always in favor of the death of the unborn child.

Can you read? Really. I'm serious.

I have never said I am in favor of the death of an unborn child. Oddly enough, or not so oddly, YOU are the one, the only one here, who has said he is in favor of the death of the unborn child. You made it crystal clear when you CHOSE the life of the wife over the life of the unborn child.


it's amazing that you are ALWAYS in favor of the death of the unborn child. You said at one time that you did not want unrestricted access to abortion, but now you have made it clear that you don't want any restrictions. That is a position that's just stunning to me.

The truly stunning thing is your incredible ignorance in understanding what the simple word "choice" means. You have been called out on your lack for as long as you have been on these pages by just about every member here including a Greek scholar, a psychologist, a co-religionist, a moderator, and sundry others.

What is it about you that refuses to examine yourself when so many are pointing to your error?

THAT is what is most stunning!

So you are OK with killing the unborn baby if birth control has failed, or financial problems (adoption?), or poor mental/physical health (overweight?), the unborn baby is missing an arm, no extended family support, or the woman is in an abusive relationship. So you would be OK going, in effect, to the unborn child and saying, "Sorry, but your mom doesn't have enough money, or is overweight, or has too little family support, so we're going to have you killed?"

What if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?

Note for the non-thinking crowd. I am not endorsing the second paragraph. It is simply a question asked for clarification.

So you are OK with killing the unborn baby if birth control has failed, or financial problems (adoption?), or poor mental/physical health (overweight?), the unborn baby is missing an arm, no extended family support, or the woman is in an abusive relationship. So you would be OK going, in effect, to the unborn child and saying, "Sorry, but your mom doesn't have enough money, or is overweight, or has too little family support, so we're going to have you killed?"

What if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?
Your train has run off the tracks. But apparently you're okay ending an pregnancy begun because of rape or incest.

I've already said I'm not.

Now stop with the smokescreen and tell me what if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?

I've already said I'm not.

Now stop with the smokescreen and tell me what if the child has already been born and has mental or physical defects, or the dad is abusive, or the mom has mental/physical afflictions. Would it be OK to kill the baby after it's been born? If not, then why not? What is your standard there? Why is it OK to kill the baby at seven months, but not at eleven months?
Why oh why are you overcomplicating the question?!

Yeah. We wouldn't want to pay too much attention when human lives are at stake by the hundreds of thousands.

Never mind. The fog is just too thick.

Yeah. We wouldn't want to pay too much attention when human lives are at stake by the hundreds of thousands.

Never mind. The fog is just too thick.
We were talking about women's reasons for aborting a fetus. Suddenly we're talking about killing year-old babies. Yes, why are you operating a fog machine?

You know better, and that's the sad part. You know full well that was not the conversation. I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?

You know better, and that's the sad part. You know full well that was not the conversation. I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?
Sad? Look in the mirror. Why are we talking about babies that have been born?

I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?

I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?
Why would I kill a baby at 7 months?

That's a question you sure need to ask yourself. It's exactly what you are proposing. Babies die at the seventh month but are protected at the eleventh month.

Please. No more fog. Just an answer. What is your standard?

That's a question you sure need to ask yourself. It's exactly what you are proposing. Babies die at the seventh month but are protected at the eleventh month.

Why are they protected at the 11th month?

They are 11 months from conception, or 2 months old as we refer to it. So that's my question. Why can they, in your belief system, be killed two months prior to birth but not two months after?

They are 11 months from conception, or 2 months old as we refer to it. So that's my question. Why can they, in your belief system, be killed two months prior to birth but not two months after?
My belief system??? Um, please remind me what my belief system is.

Never mind. The fog is just too thick.

I have never expressed a belief system about abortion except to say I'm against it. I was a college grad when I married, was in a stable marriage when I had two happy, healthy babies over a 4-1/2-year period. I was able to be at home with them until they were in school all day. I had no reason to get an abortion when I was pregnant.

Yes, I'm against it for ME. But then, I didn't have reason to get one, did I.