Court: Texas can cut off Planned Parenthood funds

[Susanm]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
The only thing a fetus has, out of your list, which an appendix does not is the DNA, until a certain point the fetus' blood supply is entirely from the mother. Nice how you ignore that part.

The appendex has a beating heart and you can determine the sex?????
I think that you need to take Biology 101.

[KittenKoder]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
The appendex has a beating heart and you can determine the sex?????
I think that you need to take Biology 101.

Um, until a certain point the fetus does not have either of those. Stop skipping steps.

[Susanm]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, until a certain point the fetus does not have either of those. Stop skipping steps.

Step one:

"Arguably the most defining moment in our lives is fertilization, the point at which we inherit either an X or a Y chromosome from our father."

http://physrev.physiology.org/content/87/1/1....

" In mammals, the sex of an individual is determined at conception. When a Y-bearing sperm fertilizes a X-bearing egg, the sex of the embryo is male while a X-bearing sperm will produce a female embryo."

http://labs.medicine.ucsf.edu/chrislau/Sexdet...

"Today it is possible to choose the sex of the embryo using advanced reproductive techniques during IVF. Doctors can do this using one of two methods. The first method is to sort out a sample of the father's sperm and only fertilise the egg with either 'male' sperm or 'female' sperm."

http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/d...

Sex is determined at the time of conception.

[PATRIOT]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
I cannot argue your final point, as I just went for the lowest more realistic value. It is likely that such is costing us billions per year, however, you do realize that many of those are the same people who do not support abortion at all, correct? You see, the solution I want would make both sides happy, if it wasn't for the fact that it removes one of our liberties. But the cost effectiveness would be much better as well as give us a method of population control, but the control would be wrought with corruption so I can agree that it is not a viable solution at this time, but it would be the only middle road solution. Since the middle road solution is not viable, allowing for abortion within limits reduces the costs, as well as places the decision and subsequent impacts on the person who it effects most, meaning, it retains a liberty. You cannot have a solution without some drawbacks or penalties, so choose the solution with the best balance between them.
Pay for them after they are born, or pay less for the ones that the women want to be rid of before they become viable on their own.

Pay now, or pay later, is not a an option solution to the fetus that is being ripped to shreds while being medically evicted from the womb. And as for balance solutions, the solution is for a woman not to get pregnant if she isn't ready to take motherhood on as a responsibility.

At any rate, the taxpayers, whether they are pro or anti-abortion, Christian or secular, should not be required to pay for irresponsibility. I don't know why that is so hard for liberal, socialist mindsets to understand. I don't pay my neighbors vet bills, why should I pay for their abortions?

[PATRIOT]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
The only thing a fetus has, out of your list, which an appendix does not is the DNA, until a certain point the fetus' blood supply is entirely from the mother. Nice how you ignore that part.

Now that's interesting. You admit that the "blood supply" to the fetus is entirely from it's "mother"-meaning that the mother is supplying the "ONLY" source of sustanible life to the fetus, and should that blood supply be cutoff, the fetus "DIES".

To put it another way-the fetus can only sustain life if the mother provides the life sustaining blood supply that allows for a continuation of developement and growth to term.

To put it another way-the mother then is the sole entity responsible for the life of the fetus.

To put it another way-the mother would be guilty of abuse and neglect of an unborn child by denying that unborn child a "life sustaining blood supply", causing the unborn child to die. Whether pain is being inflicted, or not, has no bearing on the degree of abuse or neglect to which the fetus is subjected-death is the end result.

Try defining manslaughter or murder for me?

[Compassionvoid]

PATRIOT wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that's interesting. You admit that the "blood supply" to the fetus is entirely from it's "mother"-meaning that the mother is supplying the "ONLY" source of sustanible life to the fetus, and should that blood supply be cutoff, the fetus "DIES".
To put it another way-the fetus can only sustain life if the mother provides the life sustaining blood supply that allows for a continuation of developement and growth to term.
To put it another way-the mother then is the sole entity responsible for the life of the fetus.
To put it another way-the mother would be guilty of abuse and neglect of an unborn child by denying that unborn child a "life sustaining blood supply", causing the unborn child to die. Whether pain is being inflicted, or not, has no bearing on the degree of abuse or neglect to which the fetus is subjected-death is the end result.
Try defining manslaughter or murder for me?

I won't define anything to someone who can't feel compassion. You don't care about the kid after it's born, and before it's born the woman who may or may not want to continue in a life changing pregnancy is a "slut" in your eyes. Why should anyone anywhere for any reason listen to your hate? A woman makes a choice, and you can either support it or not. Unless you can become pregnant, try giving support to those of us who can. Perhaps THEN we can reduce abortions. Getting rid of PP will not do this.

[KittenKoder]

PATRIOT wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that's interesting. You admit that the "blood supply" to the fetus is entirely from it's "mother"-meaning that the mother is supplying the "ONLY" source of sustanible life to the fetus, and should that blood supply be cutoff, the fetus "DIES".
To put it another way-the fetus can only sustain life if the mother provides the life sustaining blood supply that allows for a continuation of developement and growth to term.
To put it another way-the mother then is the sole entity responsible for the life of the fetus.
To put it another way-the mother would be guilty of abuse and neglect of an unborn child by denying that unborn child a "life sustaining blood supply", causing the unborn child to die. Whether pain is being inflicted, or not, has no bearing on the degree of abuse or neglect to which the fetus is subjected-death is the end result.
Try defining manslaughter or murder for me?

Your spleen needs a blood supply, otherwise it "dies." So, does removing the spleen count as murder as well? What about the tonsils, they need blood or they "die" as well, does removing those count as murder?

If you're going to attempt to make assertions through logic, think them through before you do.

[door king]

http://www.nice-a-beauty.com/where-to-buy-abo...

The point is moot. Abortions cost a dollar now, and none of your stupid laws are going to change that. How do you idiots think countries which had birth rates as high as seven per woman only 20 years ago now have birth rates lower than 2 per woman.

[PATRIOT]

Compassionvoid wrote:

<quoted text> I won't define anything to someone who can't feel compassion. You don't care about the kid after it's born, and before it's born the woman who may or may not want to continue in a life changing pregnancy is a "slut" in your eyes. Why should anyone anywhere for any reason listen to your hate? A woman makes a choice, and you can either support it or not. Unless you can become pregnant, try giving support to those of us who can. Perhaps THEN we can reduce abortions. Getting rid of PP will not do this.

Let's get something straight> I never called a woman a "slut" in my post. I never said anything about hating a woman. And whether a liar like you chooses to read my post, or even comment on my post is irrelevant.

"Unless you become pregnant", is like saying unless I can get pregnant I will never understand the dangers, or joys, of pregnancy. Well, try this on for size-until you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, you will never know the dangers of the act, or the nasty splatter of the stop it will cause.

Big difference, in your case, between empathy or sympathy for you you seek. I have quite a bit of compassion for other human beings.
But that says little when you consider I can only empathize with a woman who gets pregnant through irresponsible sex. I have sympathy for the unborn baby the woman is going to abort,(kill).

You know me better now?

[PATRIOT]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Your spleen needs a blood supply, otherwise it "dies." So, does removing the spleen count as murder as well? What about the tonsils, they need blood or they "die" as well, does removing those count as murder?
If you're going to attempt to make assertions through logic, think them through before you do.

What is laughable analogy. If a spleen or set of tonsils dies from the loss of a blood supply, they need to be removed for the person to "live", and are body organs that can be removed to save a life. Saving a life is not murder.

I don't know why I'm even responding to this kind of post. I almost believed you had a lick of smarts about you. But you confirmed to me that you are the border-line idiot poster.

[Susanm]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, until a certain point the fetus does not have either of those. Stop skipping steps.

Didn't you like my facts?????? Well color me surprised!!! LOL

[Susanm]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Your spleen needs a blood supply, otherwise it "dies." So, does removing the spleen count as murder as well? What about the tonsils, they need blood or they "die" as well, does removing those count as murder?
If you're going to attempt to make assertions through logic, think them through before you do.

Are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on a message board?

[UR BS]

I have a suggestion.
I will pay for abortions when both the parties responsible for the creation of the baby are sterilized as part of the procedure.

How about that?

Birth rates go down, abortions go down, unwanted pregnancies go down.

As for the one with the tonsils, etc. When you show me a set of tonsils that has a heart, and lungs I will take your rant seriously.

[Compassionvoid]

PATRIOT wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's get something straight> I never called a woman a "slut" in my post. I never said anything about hating a woman. And whether a liar like you chooses to read my post, or even comment on my post is irrelevant.
"Unless you become pregnant", is like saying unless I can get pregnant I will never understand the dangers, or joys, of pregnancy. Well, try this on for size-until you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, you will never know the dangers of the act, or the nasty splatter of the stop it will cause.
Big difference, in your case, between empathy or sympathy for you you seek. I have quite a bit of compassion for other human beings.
But that says little when you consider I can only empathize with a woman who gets pregnant through irresponsible sex. I have sympathy for the unborn baby the woman is going to abort,(kill).
You know me better now?

Sure, I know you're a pushy idiot who thinks an analogy between spleens and fetus aren't comparable, but jumping out of a plane is? Who are you kidding? You care about the abortion? Then why can't folks, such as yourself, actually be helpful before it's needed? Resources just aren't there, and PP being one of those few resources that won't end in abject poverty is under attack here. You just make it fun for guys like us who enjoy the debate. You didn't make the slut comment, but you might as well have. You see the logic of all of this? We make it difficult to obtain contraception, and nonjudgmental care. Noting is being provided here, it's only being taken away in the name of babies that no one will care for once they are born. I mean, you assume that abortions are the result of irresponsible sex, well that's mighty white of you. How many times have you resulted in a pregnancy, non? Then shut up. You don't know, can't know, and don't care to give a crap about women who seek abortion. So somehow taking the decision out of the hands of a woman is somehow good? How does that begin to make sense? Our society looks down on women who have kids, and women who don't. You're just like all those other bigots who can't see beyond your own bullying. You think women seeking abortions aren't trying to save their lives, as with the removal of tonsils and spleens? Her life doesn't count if there's a fetus, a man's property, in the way? Abortion is "never" an option until someone you love becomes raped and then NEEDS an abortion. Reasons are what you really need, and punishment for acts that you judge as being not good enough. Who puts you in charge of other people and their bodies?

[UR BS]

Before we get drawn in to the hype about Rape and Incest or the woman's health etc. lets look at the percentages.

"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts...

Notice 1% for rape or incest, 6% for health problems, and 93% because they just don't want to be pregnant.

So 93% can pay for their own.

[door king]

UR BS wrote:

Before we get drawn in to the hype about Rape and Incest or the woman's health etc. lets look at the percentages.
"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts...
Notice 1% for rape or incest, 6% for health problems, and 93% because they just don't want to be pregnant.
So 93% can pay for their own.

What about the daddy, how much is he required to pay?

[UR BS]

door king wrote:

<quoted text>
What about the daddy, how much is he required to pay?

Half of the total bill!

[door king]

Then the emotional and physiological burden placed on women through motherhood will be half his? I'd say unless you've carried a child or two to term, you should STFU.

[Compassionvoid]

UR BS wrote:

Before we get drawn in to the hype about Rape and Incest or the woman's health etc. lets look at the percentages.
"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts...
Notice 1% for rape or incest, 6% for health problems, and 93% because they just don't want to be pregnant.
So 93% can pay for their own.

What's with this "pay" bs.? Do you mean punishment? There's they Hyde Amendment keeping citizens from actually paying for abortions. What's your point, other than you can cite statistics and hate women?

[UR BS]

door king wrote:

Then the emotional and physiological burden placed on women through motherhood will be half his? I'd say unless you've carried a child or two to term, you should STFU.

Both parties are equaly responsible for the pregnancy, so both parties should pay for the abortion if they don't feel like having the child.
If a woman carries to term then abortion is a moot point is it not?
This is a discussion about abortion not the life long parental commitment.
Are you suggesting that a Father has nothing in the line of emotional or physiological burdens? I beg to differ.
My entire point is this. Both people were responsible in creating the child so both people are responsible for everything as it applies to the child. That inculdes killing it at whim if they so desire as it is allowed under the law.