Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

a reply to: Imperator2

I am referring to when life begins in the womb. Not when human life started on the planet. That would be a strange pivot for this discussion.

What's the difference?

Backtrack in time from the moment of birth of a live child, to a point where it was not alive. There is no such point. The child was always alive in the womb, right back to the first fertilized egg cell. That egg cell was alive before is was fertilized, as was the sperm cell that fertilized it. Both the egg cell and the sperm cells were created through mitosis from other living cells. Go back even farther past the parents' puberty, and both were created from living stem cells. Take that back and those stem cells were created through mitosis from other living stem cells. We can go all the way back to where the parents were themselves in a womb and every part of them is still alive.

How can there be a point where life begins unless there is a point at which there is no life?

That's what I was trying to convey. The question of when does life begin in the womb is unanswerable. Life does not begin... it continues, generation after generation after generation.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Hey, let the man speak!

This is the first time I can remember that other states are actually saying how much lousier they are than Alabama. Let me have these few minutes of glory?

TheRedneck

What do they think is wrong with Alabama?

Mobile is a great city!

Only other place I've been in Alabama is the interstate highway though.

Enjoy your Sweet Home, looks almost as good as Arizona to me.

a reply to: frogs453

Stories like that do happen. And they're not exactly rare. That's why I don't think the pro-abortionists have anything to actually worry about; if the lawyers arguing this case are worth the title, they can easily have that restriction shot down.

That's also a good reason why the courts should not be making law. If not for Roe v Wade, these new laws would not have been passed. They only exist to try and shoot down a bad court decision, and normal people get caught in the middle. There may have been laws against abortions, but anyone who advocated no exception for mothers in danger would have been run out of the capitals on a rail.

I wish people could understand that. When one side spends all their time trying to force unacceptable beliefs on another, as Sotomayor did in her little tirade and as a lot of people do, there is always pushback. It's as human as having a baby.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

How much one eats does not affect the reproduction process directly.

I believe women stop ovulating when their body fat gets low enough. Lots of female gymnasts, models, people with eating disorders, etc. do not have a period.

a reply to: dawnstar

Any state could have decided to say hey wait a minute, we understand the rape and incest victim might not want to continue a pregnancy but this fetus has a chance of survival... so no, you can't have an abortion but we will allow you to be relieved of any further burden and allow early delivery of the fetus. Since you are now wanting to abort the baby and if you take this offer, you will be willing to place the baby in grave danger, we don't feel you are a suitable mother so, we will take guardianship of it now, pay the cost of delivery and foster care/adoption placement.

I actually agree with that solution... I doubt many pro-abortionists would agree, though.

Pregnant with a child you don't want, but able to deliver? The state pays for all medical costs, including prenatal care, delivery, etc., and the state then places the child up for adoption immediately upon birth.

That's another part of this debate that hasn't been but needs to be addressed: adoption as it is right now is a grueling and expensive process, to the point some people actually choose to adopt babies from other countries to avoid the hassle. That needs to change. Adoptive parents need to be vetted, but that vetting should not be so awful an experience so as to discourage potential parents from even trying.

There are a lot of good people out there who would love nothing more than to raise a child, and many cannot have children of their own. The present system is a massive waste of love.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Has been discussed in the past.

Democrats insisted on free abortion on demand.

Said this idea was insulting.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then is the man responsible to make sure the women is taking the pill? Should he shove it down her throat if she doesn't want to.?
And, I said all I am gonna say about why abstinence didn't work... I have on this thread as well as other threads... it might help if you think of husband/wife relationships rather than one time pickup in bars and clubs. The religious doctrines of fundamentalist christian churches might be worth consideration also...
I will just say that abstinence, condoms, well they require the male's cooperation.

Depression, lack of appetite, less nutrition, it's hat I was attributed it to... it wasn't from a decrease of the male demand for sex...
Ya, men have been known to demand the women abort their babies... they have also been known to murder them when demanding didn't work. I don't know what the situation is now, but when my kids were growing up, we had alot of single parents neighbors... many of them would complain they received little or nothing in child support. One of my coworkers years,ago slipped on the ice, hurt his back, oops, he couldn't work...went on disability. My husband bought a van and we went to pick it up and who did I find there working as a mechanic??? Yep, the poor hurt coworker, working under the table, avoiding child support. Come to think of it, the mother we had living here was waiting for child support that never came.. my grandfather lived blocks away from my father, without my father ever knowing him. It took my grandmother, his aunt, and my great grandmother along with my dad working on their sewing machines that got them through the depression...
Ya, many men will take part in their kid's lives, ensure they have what they need and ya, it might be harder to avoid the responsibilty... but I know of too many men who have skirted that responsibility also.

And, I wasn't talking about what happens after there is a child but rather the part they play in creating that child or avoiding creating it... and how their participation can be necessary to avoid it.

a reply to: frogs453

Sigh, the point is some people cannot afford it

Read my posts. I afforded it when I couldn't pay my electric bill! I bought condoms when I was hauling hay in the summer for money! And they're cheaper and easier to get now!

They are actually free for many people!

But that aside, let's say that someone you cared about, a wife, a mother, a child, needed a medicine to stay alive that costed $600 a year. Are you saying that the cost is too high and it's OK to let them die? That's the same argument... the cost to prevent a pregnancy is $600 a year, and that's too much, so it's OK to just kill the kids to not spend that small amount. My God, man, do you not realize that's less than most people spend on a cell phone just to play games on!

That's what I meant when i said you just valued a human life at $600 a year.

TheRedneck

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

We have penalties for murder.

What is the penalty if one's family member dies from sickness?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Do I personally think it's too much? No I don't. However I'm not everyone, nor can I claim to know anyone's financial situation. We certainly know of many people who have died as they couldn't afford other medicines. So apparently insurance and pharmaceutical companies do put prices on people's lives. I guess when you're grown it may be like 12 grand a year, I believe insulin runs at least 1000 a month.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

What do they think is wrong with Alabama?

Where have you been? Don't you know that Alabama is a state of uneducated, unsophisticated dirt farmers with IQs under 50, weird accents, 7 dirty kids, 5 aging hound dogs, and a few dozen junked cars in their front yard, and nasty hygiene from a total lack of indoor plumbing? Oh, yes, and one or maybe two nasty teeth left from chewing off beer bottle caps instead of unscrewing them like civilized folks.

At least that's how we are painted by the self-same people who now admit they can't do nearly as good with all their advantages!


TheRedneck

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The problem was present before Obamacare.
I don't know if you are new to ATS or and old member who just changed names..
But, take my advice, you don't want to argue with me on this one..

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree.


I was just reading a story of a 44 year old woman. She had cramps and bleeding and thought it was just hormones due to her age. Called the doc, they advised advil. Next day it was worse. She went in, found out both she was pregnant and miscarrying. She then had to go in to basically have a forced abortion to remove everything.

She asked if the new policy in Texas would have affected her if she lived there. The doc said yes it would. Her access to getting the help she needed would be severely limited which could lead to health issues or death for herself.

These situations happen more than some people believe.

So maybe democrats should stop their 50 year war to get free abortion on demand, so we can start working on more reasonable policies.

Or just be honest and put your abortion on demand policy up to a vote.

Don't even care what kind of vote.

Democrats won't do that.

Have been fighting to get what they want in other ways for 50 years.

THAT is what caused this mess.

Nothing else.

Because democrats KNOW that their abortion policies would get less than 35% support from voters, and even less from their own democrat legislators, knowing that they will soon have to face voters again.

Don't believe me?

Demand your democrat leaders, now in complete control of our federal government, vote on the exact abortion law that democrats want.

You can even write it completely yourself.

We'll even convince our Republican leaders to not vote against it.


Complete free pass to draft any democrat abortion fantasy of a law.

Not kidding.

I'll even work hard to support the bill (among democrats).

I triple dog dare you.

Every leftist in this thread.

Write your fantasy law and post it right here.

Not gonna do it?

Is it because only the 24% of our population considered left wing extremists will support it?

End of democrat party.

Don't believe me?

Do it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The problem was present before Obamacare.
I don't know if you are new to ATS or and old member who just changed names..
But, take my advice, you don't want to argue with me on this one..

I'll argue with whomever I please, thank you very much.

Are you afraid to start?

I'm not.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The birth control itself might be free, depending on insurance, but that's only one part of the equation. The appointment to get prescribed birth control costs money. The appointment to get more refills costs money. What if the originally prescribed method doesn't agree with you? That's another office visit.

Then we have to figure in the fact that this person is not at work when they're visiting the doctor, so that's lost income.

Of course this is all dependent on if you're able to find a doctor. Hospitals in low-income areas are closing and doctors are moving their offices to areas where their patients are more likely to have private insurance. This has led to a shortage of doctors in low-income areas.

Let's say you are able to find a doctor and get an appointment. Now that you have a prescription, where are you getting it filled? Pharmacies have also been moving out of low-income areas.

That's why Planned Parenthood is so important to these communities. It provides them with an affordable option that caters to reproductive health and family planning and is also able to dispense medication.

That's just looking at the individual issues lower-income people face when it comes to reproductive health and access to contraception. But what about some of the more systemic ones as well?

Studies have shown that unintended pregnancies decrease with an increase in education regarding reproductive health. Now we all know that low-income areas are worse when it comes to quality of education than higher income areas. This also applies to sex ed. Most low-income areas are still teaching abstinence-only sex ed despite numerous studies showing that it's ineffective and withholds valuable medical information from being taught.

So how is a woman supposed to even know what her options are when the existence of those options are being intentionally withheld?

Once again, this is another reason Planned Parenthood is valuable to these communities. They not only provide healthcare but they seek to educate the population about reproductive health and all options available to them.

So while the co-pay for birth control may be $0 there are other costs and barriers that make it less accessible to low-income communities.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Really?? I doubt if many in the pro-life crowd would either. They would insist on the women carrying it to term I think... I mean come on, those drs, lawyers, and judges that were pressuring women and running to the courts to get court order forcing women to have c-sections were doing so because they were concerned with the safety of the baby more than the safety of the mother and believed that the c-section was the safest way for the baby...and were willing to add additional risk onto the mother and ignore her right to choose her own medical care.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

What do they think is wrong with Alabama?

Where have you been? Don't you know that Alabama is a state of uneducated, unsophisticated dirt farmers with IQs under 50, weird accents, 7 dirty kids, 5 aging hound dogs, and a few dozen junked cars in their front yard, and nasty hygiene from a total lack of indoor plumbing? Oh, yes, and one or maybe two nasty teeth left from chewing off beer bottle caps instead of unscrewing them like civilized folks.

At least that's how we are painted by the self-same people who now admit they can't do nearly as good with all their advantages!

TheRedneck

Not my experience.

I was in Mobile (not exact location due to NDA) for a few weeks on the tail end of a 300m software/systems project for a high tech defense contractor in roughly 2005 (again, not precisely accurate)

My role was extremely minor so I had a lot of free time.

I'll give you the dogs, everyone there seemed to have at least 3, but the city itself, and it's citizens, were FAR superior to anything I've ever seen in California or NYC.

a reply to: dawnstar

Then is the man responsible to make sure the women is taking the pill?

He is responsible for making sure the woman he is with at least claims to be taking the pill. And no, I do not advocate violence; not sure why you would suggest otherwise. I advocate responsibility.

The woman has an easier job... one cannot see the birth control pill after it is swallowed, but one can easily see a condom.

BOTH! Both, both, both, both, both, both, both, BOTH! It's a real word! I promise! Look it up!

I will just say that abstinence, condoms, well they require the male's cooperation.

And sexual intercourse requires the woman's cooperation, does it not? Unless you want to claim rape, which is a felony.

Get real. The woman has all of the power in a relationship. Consider a man and a woman on a date: only one of them knows if this date will end in sex, and it's not the man!

Depression, lack of appetite, less nutrition, it's hat I was attributed it to...

Depression could be a possibility; it does some strange things to the body's hormonal and chemical balances.

I am truly sorry you had to go through that. Depression is an evil place.

Re: your anecdotes... yes, I know there are many men who avoid paying child support. How does that support murder? Would it be to punish the men for their future lack of child support? Isn't that sort of against everything our society stands for? Punishment for future crimes, a second crime as vengeance for the one that has yet to be committed?

You seem to be going to a very dark place.

And, I wasn't talking about what happens after there is a child but rather the part they play in creating that child or avoiding creating it... and how their participation can be necessary to avoid it.

Again, the woman has the ultimate choice in that relationship. if one man is not satisfactory, there is nothing requiring any woman to not toss him aside and find a better one. The woman can also say "wear the condom or stay on your side of the bed."

An abortion, even if it is completely legal, requires a trip to a doctor's clinic at least. How is that less trouble than saying "Not until you put it on"?

TheRedneck

a reply to: frogs453

So apparently insurance and pharmaceutical companies do put prices on people's lives.

So I take it you do not support the ACA?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The birth control itself might be free, depending on insurance, but that's only one part of the equation. The appointment to get prescribed birth control costs money. The appointment to get more refills costs money. What if the originally prescribed method doesn't agree with you? That's another office visit.

Then we have to figure in the fact that this person is not at work when they're visiting the doctor, so that's lost income.

Of course this is all dependent on if you're able to find a doctor. Hospitals in low-income areas are closing and doctors are moving their offices to areas where their patients are more likely to have private insurance. This has led to a shortage of doctors in low-income areas.

Let's say you are able to find a doctor and get an appointment. Now that you have a prescription, where are you getting it filled? Pharmacies have also been moving out of low-income areas.

That's why Planned Parenthood is so important to these communities. It provides them with an affordable option that caters to reproductive health and family planning and is also able to dispense medication.

That's just looking at the individual issues lower-income people face when it comes to reproductive health and access to contraception. But what about some of the more systemic ones as well?

Studies have shown that unintended pregnancies decrease with an increase in education regarding reproductive health. Now we all know that low-income areas are worse when it comes to quality of education than higher income areas. This also applies to sex ed. Most low-income areas are still teaching abstinence-only sex ed despite numerous studies showing that it's ineffective and withholds valuable medical information from being taught.

So how is a woman supposed to even know what her options are when the existence of those options are being intentionally withheld?

Once again, this is another reason Planned Parenthood is valuable to these communities. They not only provide healthcare but they seek to educate the population about reproductive health and all options available to them.

So while the co-pay for birth control may be $0 there are other costs and barriers that make it less accessible to low-income communities.

Are you unaware that Obamacare gave everyone 1 free doctor visit every year?

And the bottom 25% on Medicaid get as many FREE visits as they want?

So your primary claim is just a flat out lie.

And your secondary claims are that someone might have to scrounge up enough couch change to cover a $4.00 copay or every 3 months or take a couple hours off work once a year?

Cry me a river.