Off Topic

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:54:32 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Ah but Tom the baby in the stroller does not "need" breast feeding. In
fact more and more babies, at least in developing countries, are fed
from birth on "formula". And is also not fully dependent on its
mother. An older sister is perfectly capable of caring for the baby,
and yes, this is frequently seen in developing countries where the
mother works.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 16:15:22 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Good Lord, Tom. "in the face of every known authority"? Within first
week?

https://www.babycenter.com/404_when-...at_10349811.bc
"about 8 weeks pregnant if you have an early ultrasound exam."

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnan...latory-system/
"the chances are strong that you'll be able to hear your baby's
heartbeat for the very first time around week 9 or week 10 of
pregnancy. "

--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 09:00:33 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:12:05 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 13:36:30 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:56:25 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:


I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old
Testament writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the
**** up�.

As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities.

Atrocities today, perhaps, but at the time of writing they were
"truths". The law in other words.

From my vague memory, just for a small and dying mob in the Levant I
think, or one mob (that became two and later three)_ in the Middle
East.

I've always wondered just how many of the common folk were really
affected by these various "codes" and WTF "life" in general was like
where "the law" had to specifically state such matters.


So what you're saying is that you do not believe in the freedom to
live.

Re-read my comment. I make an comment and not a statement.

I'll ignore the number of times you've given up 'freedom" for "safety"

Perhaps you could point out to me when I've ever given up freedom for
safety. This ought to be good watching you stretch your power of
invention.

Naah, your continual whining about your local environment is enough.c

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 09:06:31 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


This is NOT a case of the ethics or morals of the woman and her partner.
It is the HUMAN RIGHTS of the baby.

Straw again tommy. A foetus is not a baby. It is a parasitic growth until
it is born, then it continues to grow into a human if support.

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 14:41:39 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 06:49:48 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:04:13 -0700, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Granted, the effectiveness is less if they are used only "typically" -
IOW, sometimes not used. I don't see that as a fault of the
contraceptive. I see it as a lack of responsibility.

Well it isn't. In "perfect use" there would be no deaths from motor
accidents. I also totally discredit manufacturers claims and the NHS is
a hightly vested business.

I guess repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with an iron bar is also
a 99% effective contraception. Which points out a major reason why
people might use contraceptive.


It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the
reason why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your
fears.

Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use
"contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the
top claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they
were prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during
her pregnancy.

That is another example of lack of responsibility. Your argument is
coming through as a bit garbled, but I hope you're not somehow
defending those men.

I am just wondering about your verement focus on blaming other people a
need for an abortion.
You would have to be totaslly opposed to organ trasplatns as "people
shoukd have taken better care of their bodies"; e oppossed to all
treatment of accident victims as people should have driven absolutely
safely, etc, etc.

Since it "takes to tango", as it were, just who is the responsible
party in the contraceptive category?

That is one of the points I agree with.

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:05:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/9/2019 2:49 AM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:04:13 -0700, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Granted, the effectiveness is less if they are used only "typically" -
IOW, sometimes not used. I don't see that as a fault of the
contraceptive. I see it as a lack of responsibility.

Well it isn't. In "perfect use" there would be no deaths from motor
accidents. I also totally discredit manufacturers claims and the NHS is
a hightly vested business.

Then you should produce data for effectiveness from a source you
consider valid. (BTW, one link I gave was from Planned Parenthood.
Rather vested, I'd say, and on your team, so to speak.)


It's irresponsible to refuse any contraceptive, then abort the baby
that results.

It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the
reason why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your
fears.

Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use
"contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the
top claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they
were prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during
her pregnancy.

That is another example of lack of responsibility. Your argument is
coming through as a bit garbled, but I hope you're not somehow
defending those men.

I am just wondering about your verement focus on blaming other people a
need for an abortion.
You would have to be totaslly opposed to organ trasplatns as "people
shoukd have taken better care of their bodies"; e oppossed to all
treatment of accident victims as people should have driven absolutely
safely, etc, etc.

(Better type more slowly - or perhaps, post when sober. Your fingers are
getting tangled.)

Of course I'm not opposed to organ transplants. That's not even a
realistic attempt at a "straw man" argument.

Sorry Frank. You've blown credibility on this matter.21

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.

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?

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:21:17 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 09:06:31 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


This is NOT a case of the ethics or morals of the woman and her partner.
It is the HUMAN RIGHTS of the baby.

Straw again tommy. A foetus is not a baby. It is a parasitic growth until
it is born, then it continues to grow into a human if support.

Since you are not a citizen of the US you can pass any laws you like and murder whomever you believe you can get away with. But there will come a reckoning.

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.