Quote:

---

No the one I advocate for is to see her doctor/OGY/GYN ASAP.

---

Fine with me.

Quote:

---

who doesn't let you in her business, nor gives a rats patoot about YOUR religious moral judgements.

---

You sure are doing a lot of moral judging yourself for a guy who claims to be against it.

Quote:

---

If you ever have read my posts in other forums abstinence is my first choice for unwanted pregnancies that is 100% guaranteed to work. Women have gotten pregnant using one and two forms of birth control. You would know that if you weren't strictly stuck in your own narrow view of the way the world has works, or weren't so obsessed by controlling others with your supposed god given authority.

---

Funny how liberals are so opposed to Christians expressing their moral point of view, but have no problems with imposing their own morality on others. You have a moral point of view. I have a moral point of view. Yours results in the devastating out of wedlock birth rates we currently have. Mine will not. Take your pick.

I'm not opposed to you expressing your views at al,l but holier than thou doesn't work for me. Specifically when you get on the high horse of I'm right, you're wrong meme which that last sentence typifies.

Quote:

---

Yours results in the devastating out of wedlock birth rates we currently have. Mine will not. Take your pick.

---

I'm for birth control, you are for abstinence, that much is clear, but it's not up to either of us what individuals choose to do, a fact I have learned to accept. I must correct you though because practicing safe sex, and using BC does not lead to more out of wedlock births and have cited many times that it's more about being aware and educated on what to do, and having the resources to actually tap into those GOOD options are the areas that need the most attention in my view.

When you present but one solution as you do, then you lose your audience who is smart enough to know better. When you attack PP for example because all options and services are on the table for a small part of the services offered then you lose credibility at least with me, that you actually care about the lives of those you seek to deprive of options, solutions, love and support. It's no surprise that your one solution seems to be rejected by those you seek to influence. The whole notion that their lives have been devastated by unwanted pregnancy as opposed to a challenge to rise to is a concept you cannot grasp, and blaming others who STEAL your money to help those facing the challenge is patently misguided and counterproductive, and wholly inaccurate in my book.

I respectfully submit that neither of us controls others, and we can only react after the deed is done. As long as the world is what it is, populated by flawed humans, then you better have more than one tool in your tool box, because they just won't come to you for help. Groceries maybe, but not HELP. Most are not just addicts, or convicts either, as you well know, they are just ordinary humans. Are some better than others? NO!

Back to YOU!

Quote:

---

I'm for birth control, you are for abstinence, that much is clear

---

I don't know where you get this stuff from. This is my proposal from earlier: "I often am amazed at just how it is that liberals will not do even a wildly common-sense call such as to tell young women not to get pregnant out of wedlock." That is what you would not agree to, but perhaps now you are.There is no mention of abstinence there. You are doing what you frequently do which is to just make things up out of thin air. At any rate, we are swimming in an ocean of birth control and you see how well it is working. Back in the first half of the 20th century, when bc methods were pretty crude compared to now, out of wedlock births were rare. Most women who get pregnant now do so either out of raw carelessness or simply intend to do so. Now abstinence is the best course, but bc is better than nothing.

As for PP, you don't know the facts. They are the #1 abortion provider in the U.S. and routinely sell organs "harvested" from aborted fetuses. I know you are OK with that, but I am not. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of other clinics that provide services for women other than PP.

Quote:

---

The whole notion that their lives have been devastated by unwanted pregnancy as opposed to a challenge to rise to is a concept you cannot grasp,

---

You are living in a liberal fantasy world if you believe that single parenthood is not a poor decision for both the mom and her child. Statistics are cold, hard reality, and the stats bear this out very plainly to those who actually want to know the truth.

Your ignorance of science both past and present probably makes you a climate change denier to so it's pointless to feed you data but one fact you may understand is the need for abortions may be trending down without your fire and brimstone outlook. Oh I guess you think a nice speech will bring instant success? I know it's a pet peeve of yours, but it's only one of many challenges we face.

No organs can be harvested in the US without consent, unless you are a human with criminal intent.

Quote:

---

Your ignorance of science both past and present probably makes you a climate change denier to so it's pointless to feed you data but one fact you may understand is the need for abortions may be trending down without your fire and brimstone outlook.

---

I was a science major in college and a science teacher as well. I will be more than happy to discuss any area of science you wish to go into. I look forward to seeing any data you wish to bring forward.

Quote:

---

No organs can be harvested in the US without consent, unless you are a human with criminal intent.

---

The unborn baby is being killed without his/her consent. And according to CNN, "Planned Parenthood has countered that it donates the tissue for scientific research and receives only reimbursement for its expenses, which is legal. The group also says it helps people donate tissue "with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards," according to a statement from spokesman Eric Ferrero."

So it is being done whether you want to acknowledge it or not. And, of course, in the liberal world, selling fetal organs is fine so long as the mother gave her permission. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

You do live in my world, and have acknowledged the LEGALITY of PP's policy in the area of organ harvesting which most hospitals also do. As a man of science you also know the importance of research into the cure and treatments of the many diseases that plague man. Stem cell research is at the cutting edge of that research. So welcome to my world, whether you like it or not.

Poor uncle Joe is finally announcing his candidacy for president. You down with that, or is it still the dufus despite the scathing Mueller Report hanging over his head as he stalls congress bringing facts to the American people. There is also news out that he cannot deal with the Russians cyber attacks on our democracy despite the overwhelming evidence they and others are gearing up for the next election.

Don't mean to change the subject, but there are others issues besides abortion and the ridicules fetal consent argument you wish to engage in.

Quote:

---

You do live in my world, and have acknowledged the LEGALITY of PP's policy in the area of organ harvesting which most hospitals also do.

---

I never quite know what to say to a response like that. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow laws were legal. Killing Jews was legal in Germany. Killing the opposition was legal in the USSR. PP kills unborn children and sells the body parts. You are fine with that since it is "legal". I'm glad I am not in your position.

Quote:

---

As a man of science you also know the importance of research into the cure and treatments of the many diseases that plague man. Stem cell research is at the cutting edge of that research. So welcome to my world, whether you like it or not.

---

The last I heard, there is no need to "harvest" stem cells from unborn children. There are several other sources that work quite well. But if we are going to look at other human beings as nothing more than a source of material to benefit us, why not just take hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs from newborn infants. After all, if they are just there to serve us, as you seem to believe, and if being human is no longer important, then what would the objection be?

Quote:

---

You down with that, or is it still the dufus despite the scathing Mueller Report hanging over his head as he stalls congress bringing facts to the American people. There is also news out that he cannot deal with the Russians cyber attacks on our democracy despite the overwhelming evidence they and others are gearing up for the next election.

---

"Scathing Mueller report" Now that made me laugh. The report finds no evidence of collusion, but it is "scathing". Funny.

As to the Russkies, who was the pres during the last election cycle when they evidently attempted to influence our election? Did he "deal with the Russians cyber attacks"? Evidently not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I never quite know what to say to a response like that. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow laws were legal. Killing Jews was legal in Germany. Killing the opposition was legal in the USSR. PP kills unborn children and sells the body parts. You are fine with that since it is "legal". I'm glad I am not in your position.

---

Back to this country where abortion and organ harvesting ARE legal NOW. End of story!

Quote:

---

The last I heard, there is no need to "harvest" stem cells from unborn children. There are several other sources that work quite well. But if we are going to look at other human beings as nothing more than a source of material to benefit us, why not just take hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs from newborn infants. After all, if they are just there to serve us, as you seem to believe, and if being human is no longer important, then what would the objection be?

---

That's very true.

Quote:

---

"Scathing Mueller report" Now that made me laugh. The report finds no evidence of collusion, but it is "scathing". Funny.

---

You obviously haven't read it, not even the first few pages so let me enlighten you. Collusion was not part of the report and Mueller specifically said he investigated CONSPIRACY since it is a crime, unlike COLLUSION which is NOT. He found no evidence of CONSPIRACY by the dufus. Those nuanced understandings of the LAW are important, as even Barr used collusion to parrot his masters narrative to mislead and deceive just like the dufus. No where was the dufus exonerated of collusion, or obstruction and that's just a fact. Another fact is he could find no evidence of conspiracy was lack of cooperation and destroying evidence by dufus staffers and cohorts. Read the darn thing for yourself, like everyone should.

Quote:

---

As to the Russkies, who was the pres during the last election cycle when they evidently attempted to influence our election? Did he "deal with the Russians cyber attacks"? Evidently not.

---

Intell and national security have been working with the states and locals since before the election of 2016 and there has been continued efforts in that regard since, but the cyber czar and his whole department was gutted, like the civil rights division of DOJ. You should be disturbed by the dufus handling of this issue as we have been warned that the Russians and others are gearing up for the next election so the question becomes what is the dufus doing against this escalating cyber threat.

Quote:

---

Back to this country where abortion and organ harvesting ARE legal NOW. End of story!

---

So on your philosophy, slavery, when it was legal, was just fine.

Quote:

---

That's very true.

---

Wow. That's a stunning answer. You are OK with "harvesting" organs from young infants?? Unbelievable. I have to think I have misunderstood, somehow, your reply.

Quote:

---

Another fact is he could find no evidence of conspiracy was lack of cooperation and destroying evidence by dufus staffers and cohorts. Read the darn thing for yourself, like everyone should.

---

OK. Fine. He was not guilty of conspiracy. He declined to bring charges for obstruction. That's hardly a "scathing report".

Quote:

---

Intell and national security have been working with the states and locals since before the election of 2016

---

So how did that work out for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So on your philosophy, slavery, when it was legal, was just fine.

---

NO! Very much in the same way abortion is legal though you don't like it one bit. I'm not unsympathetic to your basic position.

Quote:

---

Wow. That's a stunning answer. You are OK with "harvesting" organs from young infants?? Unbelievable.

---

They aren't young infants, they are unborn and very much like any subject of organ harvesting DEAD!

Quote:

---

OK. Fine. He was not guilty of conspiracy. He declined to bring charges for obstruction. That's hardly a "scathing report".

---

That was also explained in the report READ IT FOR YOURSELF! There was 10 specific instances of obstruction and to be clear lack of evidence for conspiracy is not exoneration, and in no way a finding of NOT guilty. Actually sweeping and systematic was the way Mueller phrased Russian interference, and the report was scathing because I read it and that's my opinion.

Others will NO DOUBT follow Vlad's playbook if nothing is done to thwart such efforts.

Quote:

---

So how did that work out for you?

---

It got us the dufus maybe, and likely will keep the dufus in office. I find the dufus handling of this issue suspicious and derelict. Obamas wholly inadequate.

Quote:

---

Obama's wholly inadequate.

---

WOW! You finally found something that Obama is not perfect at. Tip of the iceberg stuff there Tal and a revelation for you. Anyone who is fine with killing babies, is fine with a whole lot of stuff, like starting wars on a pretext

Quote:

---

NO! Very much in the same way abortion is legal though you don't like it one bit. I'm not unsympathetic to your basic position.

---

Well, that's progress.

Quote:

---

They aren't young infants, they are unborn and very much like any subject of organ harvesting DEAD!

---

I was talking about young infants, not the unborn. My point was to ask why we would not extend this organ harvesting to the post-born and not just to the pre-born. I mean we could kill the baby, and then it would meet your qualification of being DEAD. Now neither one of us would support that, but I just wonder why you support killing the unborn to harvest organs, but not killing infants. What is the difference to you?

You realize that your post is ludicrous on it's face suggesting we kill infants for the purpose of harvesting organs.

Quote:

---

You realize that your post is ludicrous on it's face suggesting we kill infants for the purpose of harvesting organs.

---

Read more carefully. "Now neither one of us would support that," So I am plainly not suggesting we do that. I am asking you why you believe it is OK to kill unborn children and collect their organs, but not OK to do that after the child has been born. And please don't tell me you're alright with it since it's legal. I'm asking why YOU believe it is morally acceptable. You said killing infants for organs is ludicrous. I agree, but why is killing the unborn not equally ludicrous?

For one you use the term KILL which in itself is an inaccurate term to describe the abortion issue. Most abortions are very early term beginning the day after the dead is done, that's not killing, it's prevention and done much more that the data shows, and is increasing sturdily. Then there is the very early procedure I have described many times with the OBY/GYN limited only by resources and awareness which goes unreported but that option becomes more available also as awareness and resources become available more widely. None of these meets that killing description in my opinion, and is prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

It seems our disagreement is specifics orientated unless you hold the opinion that killing starts at CONCEPTION which is arbitrary at best, and all encompassing and includes prevention. If you want to outlaw any killing then outlaw all killing and don't just stop at the "unborn" child.

Quote:

---

For one you use the term KILL which in itself is an inaccurate term to describe the abortion issue. Most abortions are very early term beginning the day after the dead is done, that's not killing, it's prevention and done much more that the data shows, and is increasing sturdily. Then there is the very early procedure I have described many times with the OBY/GYN limited only by resources and awareness which goes unreported but that option becomes more available also as awareness and resources become available more widely. None of these meets that killing description in my opinion, and is prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

---

So when would you say I could start using the term "kill"? The heartbeat and brainwaves are detectable at eight weeks. Would that be a good place to start? Babies can survive outside the womb at six months. Is that a good place to use the term "kill"? If you want to say that the use of "kill" cannot be at conception, then where would it be accurate, and why would you choose that stage?

My definition is 40 days is adequate for detection and making a decision going forward. I know what the law says but I didn't write it.

What happens at the fortieth day that makes the difference?

I know I'm digging some, but I find that most pro-abortion folks I run into seem not to have thought it through very well, so I'm just wondering how you came up with the figure of 40 days.

I could be wrong being a guy, but 10 days after a missed menstral cycle, would have me wondering if I were a sexualy active female.

The man who WROTE the crime bill of 94 which led to the mass incarceration of black men is now running because he’s worried about white supremacy . OMG thank you Uncle Joe for getting into the race . Maybe you can start your campaign by apologizing the Clarence Thomas for the smear job you did to him during his confirmation hearings .