Thread: Off Topic
View Single Post
  #131  
Old August 10th 19, 11:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Off Topic

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:44:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:46:39 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 4:15:25 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 3:08:35 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:54:34 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 9:06:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 10:42:55 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception the month they became pregnant. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion?

-- Jay Beattie.

This is NOT a case of the ethics or morals of the woman and her partner. It is the HUMAN RIGHTS of the baby. Oregon ONLY allows capital punishment for aggravated murder but you don't seem to have the same respect for a baby.


Let me guess, to you an embryo is a human from the point of conception. This is part of your faith. Right? There is something in the Bible that tells you this.

You are willing to deprive a woman of her HUMAN RIGHTS and make her bear a child based on your faith -- not hers. Hmmmm. Let's make you bear a child against your will and see what you think.

Why shouldn't the woman be allowed to go to her doctor, get a script for RU486 and terminate the pregnancy and the embryo, which at 2 weeks is the size of a pinhead. At a few days, its a collection of cells. Why the bizarre need to make this woman bear a child?

-- Jay Beattie.

Let me guess - you think that a baby in a stroller who needs breast feeding and is fully dependent upon its mother is also liable for "abortion" with the simple application of a club.

That's the best you can do? Aborting a collection of cells is the same as clubbing to death a baby in a stroller? Are you crazy?

-- Jay Beattie.

Within the first week a heart begins beating. At that point it is no longer a collection of cell. That heart isn't keeping the mother alive and stopping its beating kills the baby.

I find you arguing medical facts in the face of every known authority to be rather lawyerish.


Wrong. https://americanpregnancy.org/while-...rst-trimester/ https://www.thejournal.ie/pregnancy-...79399-May2018/

We're talking about human gestation and not a rat.

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay - you don't understand what you're reading. You do not have a

baby forming until what they are referring to as the "third week".
Until the fertilized egg embeds into the uterine wall this is NOT a
baby. 80% of fertilized eggs pass through the uterus and never embed.
So that single week from embedding until the heart begins beating is
the time in which the egg becomes a human being with ALL of the rights
of a human being.

With pictures (for those that don't read well) already
https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-dev...t-week-by-week
--
cheers,

John B.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home