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.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:48:17 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Is that anything like your penetrating fear of nuclear war? Or maybe
your shivering fear that no one in today's world could grow food so that
you could retain your blimp-like physiology?

Err, projecting?
We grow a bit of our own food, so nil work should any disaster transpire.
How about you?

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:40:49 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, 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.

No again: https://www.thejournal.ie/pregnancy-...79399-May2018/ I'll cut and paste because you clearly are not reading the links:

"One No campaign poster says that the embryo’s heart starts beating at 22 days of gestation (or 5/6 weeks of pregnancy), which is roughly correct.

One US study published in the Journal of Prenatal Medicine examined the cardiac function of a foetus during the first trimester (12 weeks). It states:

Cardiovascular development in a human embryo occurs between 3 and 6 weeks after ovulation.

At the end of the fourth week of gestation, the heartbeats of the embryo begin.

The fourth/fifth week of gestation would be around the sixth/seventh week of pregnancy."


Whether were talking weeks of gestation or weeks of pregnancy, the heart does not begin to beat in week one.

-- Jay Beattie.

And you didn't read what I wrote and then quoted another source repeating me. It is certainly easy to see that you're a lawyer.

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:48:17 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Is that anything like your penetrating fear of nuclear war? Or maybe
your shivering fear that no one in today's world could grow food so that
you could retain your blimp-like physiology?

Err, projecting?
We grow a bit of our own food, so nil work should any disaster transpire.
How about you?

I am smart enough to know the world around me and that there will be no "disasters" that will prevent a marketplace.

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:40:49 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, 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.

No again: https://www.thejournal.ie/pregnancy-...79399-May2018/ I'll cut and paste because you clearly are not reading the links:

"One No campaign poster says that the embryo’s heart starts beating at 22 days of gestation (or 5/6 weeks of pregnancy), which is roughly correct.

One US study published in the Journal of Prenatal Medicine examined the cardiac function of a foetus during the first trimester (12 weeks). It states:

Cardiovascular development in a human embryo occurs between 3 and 6 weeks after ovulation.

At the end of the fourth week of gestation, the heartbeats of the embryo begin.

The fourth/fifth week of gestation would be around the sixth/seventh week of pregnancy."


Whether were talking weeks of gestation or weeks of pregnancy, the heart does not begin to beat in week one.

-- Jay Beattie.

And you didn't read what I wrote and then quoted another source repeating me. It is certainly easy to see that you're a lawyer.

You mean I'm lawyerly because I don't launch into psychotic rants, spewing patently wrong facts -- facts so wrong that a five year old with internet access could refute them? https://www.livescience.com/65501-fe...explained.html If I acted like you in court, the judge would have me handcuffed and hauled away.

Show me any source that says the embryonic heart starts beating in the first week of gestation. If its reliable, I'll admit my error.


-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:15:39 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:40:49 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, 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.

No again: https://www.thejournal.ie/pregnancy-...79399-May2018/ I'll cut and paste because you clearly are not reading the links:

"One No campaign poster says that the embryo’s heart starts beating at 22 days of gestation (or 5/6 weeks of pregnancy), which is roughly correct.

One US study published in the Journal of Prenatal Medicine examined the cardiac function of a foetus during the first trimester (12 weeks). It states:

Cardiovascular development in a human embryo occurs between 3 and 6 weeks after ovulation.

At the end of the fourth week of gestation, the heartbeats of the embryo begin.

The fourth/fifth week of gestation would be around the sixth/seventh week of pregnancy."


Whether were talking weeks of gestation or weeks of pregnancy, the heart does not begin to beat in week one.

-- Jay Beattie.

And you didn't read what I wrote and then quoted another source repeating me. It is certainly easy to see that you're a lawyer.

You mean I'm lawyerly because I don't launch into psychotic rants, spewing patently wrong facts -- facts so wrong that a five year old with internet access could refute them? https://www.livescience.com/65501-fe...explained.html If I acted like you in court, the judge would have me handcuffed and hauled away.

Show me any source that says the embryonic heart starts beating in the first week of gestation. If its reliable, I'll admit my error.


-- Jay Beattie.

Far be it for a lawyer to believe the Mayo Clinic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...e/art-20045302

Week 5: Hormone levels increase: Your baby's heart and a primitive circulatory system will form in the middle layer of cells — the mesoderm. This layer of cells will also serve as the foundation for your baby's bones, ligaments, kidneys and much of the reproductive system

Oh, that's right - I forgot to add that it isn't a baby until it implants into the uterine wall at 4 weeks.

But then lawyers have never been known to actually worry about the truth - only what they want the story to be.

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:34:09 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:15:39 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:40:49 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, 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.

No again: https://www.thejournal.ie/pregnancy-...79399-May2018/ I'll cut and paste because you clearly are not reading the links:

"One No campaign poster says that the embryo’s heart starts beating at 22 days of gestation (or 5/6 weeks of pregnancy), which is roughly correct.

One US study published in the Journal of Prenatal Medicine examined the cardiac function of a foetus during the first trimester (12 weeks). It states:

Cardiovascular development in a human embryo occurs between 3 and 6 weeks after ovulation.

At the end of the fourth week of gestation, the heartbeats of the embryo begin.

The fourth/fifth week of gestation would be around the sixth/seventh week of pregnancy."


Whether were talking weeks of gestation or weeks of pregnancy, the heart does not begin to beat in week one.

-- Jay Beattie.

And you didn't read what I wrote and then quoted another source repeating me. It is certainly easy to see that you're a lawyer.

You mean I'm lawyerly because I don't launch into psychotic rants, spewing patently wrong facts -- facts so wrong that a five year old with internet access could refute them? https://www.livescience.com/65501-fe...explained.html If I acted like you in court, the judge would have me handcuffed and hauled away.

Show me any source that says the embryonic heart starts beating in the first week of gestation. If its reliable, I'll admit my error.


-- Jay Beattie.

Far be it for a lawyer to believe the Mayo Clinic. https://www.mayoclinic..org/healthy-...e/art-20045302

Week 5: Hormone levels increase: Your baby's heart and a primitive circulatory system will form in the middle layer of cells — the mesoderm. This layer of cells will also serve as the foundation for your baby's bones, ligaments, kidneys and much of the reproductive system

Oh, that's right - I forgot to add that it isn't a baby until it implants into the uterine wall at 4 weeks.

But then lawyers have never been known to actually worry about the truth - only what they want the story to be.

Now, read it again slowly, under "week six":

Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing. The baby's brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form.

At week six of the pregnancy, four weeks after fertilization and at least two weeks after implantation (your "baby" milestone), the heart is starting to form. Nothing about the heart beating. EVERY source -- even the Christian anti-abortion sites -- put the "heart beat" at or after 3 weeks from fertilization, and there isn't even a heart yet -- just tissue that will become a heart which produces a flutter. 4 weeks after conception (six weeks into the pregnancy) is the standard for a steady heartbeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_bill http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/986

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:34:10 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:48:17 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Is that anything like your penetrating fear of nuclear war? Or maybe
your shivering fear that no one in today's world could grow food so
that you could retain your blimp-like physiology?

Err, projecting?
We grow a bit of our own food, so nil work should any disaster
transpire.
How about you?

I am smart enough to know the world around me and that there will be no
"disasters" that will prevent a marketplace.

How young are you agan?

I reckon an infant should be regarded as the chattel of its parents until the little monster can fend for itself. It can be considered a pet. You're not allowed to abuse a pet or treat it cruelly, but you are allowed to put it down humanely-- whether or not your neighbors approve. There's a gross oversupply of both humans and pets, and unwanted ones cause all kinds of trouble.

Before the creature breathes air, there should be no question that it is the sole property of its mother.

snip Cheers

During the 1800's Great Britain, perhaps the most powerful nation in
the world, fought a number of "wars" on the N.W. Frontier and in the
First Anglo-Afghan War G.B. invaded Afganstan, in 1839, with an army
of 21,000 men and some 38,000 Indian camp followers and 30,000 camels
to carry supplies. When the British withdrew, in 1842, the only
soldier to reach Jalalabad, British India, was Dr. William Brydon .

Who was it that said something about those who refuse to learn from
history are doomed to repeat it?
--
cheers,

John B.

Thanks for this nugget, John. I went and read the Wikipedia entry
on the event after reading your post.
I appreciate your oontributions.

pH in Aptos, CA