Previous comments - didn't see anything in the video saying to outlaw the pills...just that people should understand how they work.
Thanks for the information. We'll be doing more research and likely switching methods. I'm not interested in taking any chances on murdering my babies.
last time I checked, the churches don't have a say in wether abortion is legal or not in the US, or if people should use birth control pills or not. If your religion decides against it, it's up to you to choose if you want to use it or not.
It is, IMHO, highly unlikely that the 2 methods mentioned would fail (decreasing/eliminating ovulation and thickening of cervical mucous). If per chance they did there are many people who would not consider a thinned endometrial lining an abortion. Women on the pill do not want to become pregnant, bottom line. If you have spiritual/moral beliefs that would interfer with standard western medicine birth control this is for YOU to consider. MANY people do not have the same beliefs.
@joyfulwands Sadly many from the other side, don't see it that way. They feel that their beliefs not only should be everyone elses beliefs, but should be law as well!
John Holdren is Obama's appointed Science Czar. Like all Czars, they were not approved by the Senate, which is unconstitutional. He advocated in his book "Ecoscience", sterilization of the human population by adding a sterilization drug to the food and water supply and the government taking babies away from single mom's. GOOGLE “zombietime john holdren” and click on link.
"the cynical deception of women by selling abortifacents as if they were contraceptives is incompatible with the respect due to women. " Germaine Greer
@kidsandkarma.... it is scientifically absurd to say that life and development does not start at conception and fertilization... no impartial scientist has EVER said otherwise. Fertilized Egg has its own unique DNA code, growth, development, has already started dividing, etc... a new human life.
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm, represents the beginning of a human being." Embryologist Keith More. Study your biology...
I learned how the pill works in HS. It was no surprise to me there. I choose not to take it, but not because I have a problem flushing out a embryo, it personally make me sick and I feel they should put out safer products on the market. Those who wish to rid the world of b/c, thats all well and fine, but then you should also reject all other forms of modern medicine, for that is what kept world from over population. H/e few of you wish to do that. Are you trying to create more starving children?
@Boudiga An embryo is is a human being in its embryonic stage. Nearly all embryologists are in agreement that life begins at conception. Safer products for who? Certainly not for the unborn. Fertility is not a disease for which you need a remedy.The natural God given purpose of sex is to bring forth life. Even looking at it objectively the purpose of sex is to bring forth life. Do you know the definition of sterilization is? To be BARREN of LIFE. Overpopulation a LIE.The world is not and
@frank2033 ROFLAO! First the embryo is NOT a human being. Its by all definitions a parasite. It survives off another beings body and will die with the host dies. It develops into a human if allowed to grow. Life does begin at conception, however its not yet human for quite some time. Plus it will not reach the equal rights of a born person until it is BORN! I never said fertility is a disease. However its a persons choice whether they wish to conceive or NOT.
@Boudiga A "parasite" that is conceived by sex. By your actions. Not something that attaches to you incidentally . When (in your opinion)does it change from a "parasite" or embryo to a human being? When it's wanted and YOU decide it's human after all? When does the miraculous transformation take place? How is it in your mind/ heart is it not human at one time then "Alleluia" it is? You can't accept the truth that the embryo always was and is human. no matter what you and others that repeat
@frank2033 "does it change from a "parasite" or embryo to a human being?"
Yes to both. An embryo is a parasite. The definition of parasite something that requires a host in order to survive. The sperm is the outside source you speak of. It is foreign to the woman. Whether u feel she should be forced to give birth is just an opinion. The law simply follows that the woman is already born therefore no longer a parasite placing her needs over the fetus. Thats simply your old enemy, science again!
@Boudiga So the feus or embryo is a parasite? you have to dehumanize( call the child a parsite) the human in order for your justification to kill. Again every embryolgist is in agreement that conception is the begining of a unique human being. A human being not tissue such as blood . Blood or some other type of tissue will only be tissue and never be a human being. TISSUE will not be TISSUE one moment then human the next. That's why TISSUE donation is moral.
@frank2033 I didn't see this post yesterday so I'm responding today. I see that our issues here is the definition of person. Now the embryo is a parasite by all medical terms. Thats a fact. Its not dehumanizing, its pointing out a fact. You have the woman who is born already, is legally a person and isn't physically dependent off of another persons body 24-7. Therefore she is not imposing on any other persons physical body. The embryo does have DNA so do skin cells.
@Boudiga Person huh? Parasite ?So you're getting into word play. That's all you can do.Where in any medical/science book is it written?The term "human being "is found in those books. In human embryology text books. There's the classification human being but no scientific/medical term a for "person". That's more of a philosophical term than scientific. Again SCIENCE is shedding a flood light on this. Science isn't my enemy but my ally. The embryo has human DNA because it's a complete not
@frank2033 Word play? I'm pointing out flaws in your debate and all you got to go against me is that I know the definitions of words better than you? In the medical books they refer to the embryo or fetus as an embryo or fetus. When I talked about person I was talking about the law. Science isn't backing you up here. DNA is also found in skin cells, hair roots, saliva etc... I doubt you would care much if I scratched some skin cells off would you?
@frank2033 BTW did you know OJ is an abrofication? Its true. If a woman drinks it within 72 hrs of conceiving she could very easily separate the embryo from the womb and bye bye.... So I expect you to be boycotting OJ? Its been killing embryos for thousands of yrs. lol
@Boudiga The method/ agent isn't as important as to the intent. If you purposely sought to MURDER someone does it matter if you gave him OJ ,pepsi, sleeping pills, rat poison, RU 48 , ELLA ,canulla or used whatever else in your reach. It certainly wouldn't matter to the victim. And there are victims just look at the pictures of aborted non persons. They look and are human. The eminent geneticist Prof. Jerome LeJeune ,M.D., Ph.D at the Rene Descartes university of Paris Faculty of Medicine
@frank2033 Except those parts were inside another persons body and were living off of that persons body for substances. Hence why the laws steps in. Because the fetus (not an embryo) still requires the physical connection to the birth mother. Now if its a late term abortion, where it could survive outside it is (for legal abortions) a danger to the mothers life and HER life takes presidencies. If at her own free will she can have legal papers written up claiming to give her life for the fetus.
@Boudiga Prof LeJeune states: "If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen". THAT's SCIENCE and COMMON SENSE. Can you see?
@frank2033 Yes but just a fertile egg? Really? Because if you don't implant it in a woman it can't develop into a human, it will either be frozen or rot away. It requires the physical body of a woman to carry it. If its not implanted it can't develop. Which is imposing on the rights of the woman of her body if she doesn't wish to carry that embryo. That is both science & common sense.Prof LeJeune was known for being very bias in his view of the fetus. B/c he knew w/o a host it wouldn't survive.
@Boudiga Embryo is a genetically complete human being but not fully developed It's just in an underdeveloped stage . Just as a newborn, toddler, or infant is underdeveloped stage but still very much dependant on others or this life will die . If you kill by a surgeons knife or canulla or RU 48 or let a child to starve most people even yourself would call it murder. A 1 day 1 year or how many years old (outside of the womb) is still dependant on the mother to survive?Other's dependency
@frank2033 Here is the differences between a newborn, a toddler, child or adult.... They aren't physically connected to another human beings body. A newborn, toddler etc... doesn't require the woman who birth them to care for them. As the fetus or embryo does. Its insider her body and thus a part of her body which she is FREE to do what she wishes. You also just told me that life doesn't develop now you are admitting it does. The embryo isn't a human, its developing into a human.But not one yet!
@Boudiga A newborn or child doesn't require anyone to survive? That's news to me.You really should walk me through that one. AS to a baby being apart of her body - Have you seen say, a piece of tissue or an organ try to move(by itself) when a sharp surgical instrument enters the womb or in the case of other surgeries of organs or other tissue being removed?NO. you haven't have you?Gee seeing is believing. This might be evidence that suggests it's INDEPENDANT being.And if you say it's an
@frank2033 "A newborn or child doesn't require anyone to survive?" So u can't make ur point w/o taking my quotes out of context? This my quote "Here is the differences between a newborn, a toddler, child or adult.... They aren't physically connected to another human beings body. A newborn, toddler etc... doesn't require the woman who birth them to care for them." (to the last part, ie the child is adopted..) & yes I have seen abortion videos, I saw then in an health class in college.
@Boudiga If you say it's a parasite again but still part of her body ,then i've got to ask you it's one or the other.Is it a organ /tissue that grew from her body or is it a parasite? Come on, make up your mind.As to the what I stated before whether it's developing or is already human,let me answer in a way you can understand.I really hope I can be clear. Human embryology and I state that zygote,embryo,fetus,are diferent stages of development of a genetically complete HUMAN BEING. Got it? To
@frank Actually there u r wrong. The embryo is both. It came from an outside source that connected with one of her cells (ie the egg.) Also ppl have things removed from their bodies all the time. "Come on, make up your mind.As to the what I stated before whether it's developing or is already human," Your the 1who said the embryo is a developing human. Make up ur mind! B/c its developing into a human. You believe that a human exist the moment an egg &sperm meet. Science &the law disagree w/ u!
@Boudiga It's a genetically complete human being that's a scientific fact. Why won't you answer the Prof LeJeune that nothing is added to make it human. Of course the human being needs the mother. just as the baby needs it after birth. Just because the baby needs care the care shouldn't/ wouldn't be imposed? Why don't you answer THE question. What is in the womb if it's not a human being? What? Or who? You saw the abortion videos , so what was aborted?
@frank2033 Its not a complete human being because its NOT developed. An zygotedoes require something to be added, it must be implanted inside a woman womb in order to develop into a human. A baby after birth doesn't need a mother. A father could do, a grandparent or an adopted parent. But the zygote requires the woman its implanted in. While the its in the woman body its her right if she wishes to be imposed or not. Just as after its born if she wishes to raise it or not. Its not equally human..
@Boudiga But she had that "right" before she got pregnant. She could've said NO.After wards she had the ability not the right to commit evil. It sounds very arbitrary and not scientific that one's WISHES can change reality . From a human being to not human being because one WISHES it so. Are you sure that's science? Again what's the biological miracle/ process that's human being one moment (if you WISH it to be so) then it's not? What is this biological term you would use if had to name it? SELF
@frank2033 "But she had that "right" before she got pregnant. She could've said NO." Yes but not everyone follows your sex is for breeding only purposes. That is your religion, not a law. (Thank you founding fathers!) ".After wards she had the ability not the right to commit evil." Your against bc. You want less abortions promote the use of bc, because your religion is NOT to be forced upon others. The law not science said the woman takes presidencies over the fetus. B/c she is already BORN.
@frank2033 No one is wishing anything, the fetus was never considered human. It was developing into a human and yes it has our DNA, however its still a parasite inside a womans body until. Again more circle logic from you mixing what I said is law and what is science.
@frank2033 because it requires to live off the physical body of a human being directly inside it. Its imposing itself on a person who is born and is legally person, who has rights to make the choice over the body. As for the abortion. I saw a 7 wk termination, 19 week conjoint twins and late term miscarriage being removed, 9months was what I remember. It was actually quite interesting.
@Boudiga The text says a parasite is from a diferent species . But we both know that's not possible. Also does a parasite/tissue/ organ move away from the canulla, or other sharp surgical intstument when it's near? does the liver or heart move away or its own heartbeat(which it does have) rises dramatically? No. See a live abortion and you'll see it for yourself. Is any biological matter added to the developing baby? No. Just time . and it's not developed just as a 1 day or 1 yr old or 10 year
@frank2033 Definition of parasite:# an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host leech: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.
The fetus clearly fits this description. Definition of Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
@Boudiga You forgot if it's of the same species then it's not parasitic as obviously it is of the same species .No wonder you left that one out. An inconvenient TRUTH. How many parasites are there that are of the same species but you get because of deliberate act of procreation? You shouldn't murder what your fruit of your loins create. LIFE. Isn't that working at cross purposes?
@frank2033 "No wonder you left that one out" You completely ignored all the points I made in past post. Care to re-discuss Oran and ancient Hebrew culture? Or about the morality of killing one conjoint twin for the hopes other might live? Or how you keep ignoring the FACT that a already born person doesn't require a host body. LOL All you do is try to take what I say out of contexts to make your point. Weak! Again no facts just amusement.
@Boudiga STILL you don't answer the question what would be the term for the unborn that's in the woman's uterus? YOU know , the one that's in the human enbryology textbooks that states that is not a genetically complete human being but still developing (maturing) human being? PLEASE GIVE ME THAT BIOLOGICAL TERM! YOU CAN't , IT DOESN'T EXIST!! What did happen on a few months ago scientists were invited to these hearings to hear what geneticists/embryologists had to TESTIFY as to when the human
@frank2033 1 You've asked me many questions and the term for a unborn baby in the womb is called a FETUS! Not maturing, but DEVELOPING into a human! A child matures into an adult, a fetus develops into a human.
I have a question for you. If a man sleeps with a willing pregnant woman (doesn't matter if he is the father or not) should he and she be charged with child sexual abuse? A mans penis thrusting itself that close to a "child", if it was born, they would be called a SEX OFFENDER!
@frank2033 "You forgot if it's of the same species then it's not parasitic as obviously it is of the same species .No wonder you left that one out." I didn't leave it out. Its right there in my definition. The fetus isn't developed yet so its still parasite. Where a human doesn't require host to survive on. Here is shock, my doctor (both actually) told me the same thing "the fetus is a parasite" it has our DNA but requires a host to survive. It is by all medical definition a parasite.
@Boudiga AS to when human life begins . They ALL STATED CONCEPTION WAS THE BEGINING OF LIFE. NO AMBIGUITIES NO CONFUSION. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST THAT DISSENTED. NOT ONE. AND YOU PRO DEATH TYPES WERE MOST CERTAINLY INVITED TO PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE. YOU DIDN'T SHOW UP DID YOU?
@frank2033 Hmmm let me guess another pro-life demo, yeah I think most of us have pretty much heard it all. Seen all the pics and how they swear a fetus should president to a woman body. Yeah that gets old. Especially when you have a better understand of bio and law than theses ppl do.
@Boudiga Where is your scientific proof? where are your scientists that would've/should've testified? Where is your documentation?You're right that the it's old because that's what we've always said, nothing new. It's grand when science has caught up to what we've always believed in. Science will not help you here.
@frank2033 Scientist do research for the purpose to understand develop, LAW however holds a different purpose. I makes for our social survival. Scientist could argue that certain people should not breed because of genetic defects, however the LAW allows theses people to breed any way. Even if they develop genetic problems in their off spring. They have the right and the choice to breed, even if they can't care for the children. Hence the the differences!
@Boudiga You go on being a wordsmith twisting terms such as fetus (legitimate textbook term) choice , imposition( not scientific)But where are your scientists, textbooks , your biologists , doctors that you've worked for and could've testified in that senate subcomittee that LIFE doesn't begin at conception? You know - that life is developing into a human being but won;t be unless the woman (because that's the LAW is written today) choose that fully human being to continue it be? Where is your
@frank2033" You go on being a wordsmith twisting terms such as fetus (legitimate textbook term) choice , imposition( not scientific)" Thats not word smithing, you asked me the scientific term and the answer was fetus. I answered your question, now because I was able to, your acting all sulky. As for when life begins, it technically begins at the sperm. However for a sperm to become a human being it has to meet with an egg and develop into a human being in the WOMB! ie the woman body!
@frank2033 Thats science hon, whether you like it or not.
The LAW doesn't declare a person a person until they are BORN! Hence the law honors the right of the legal person over the fetus. If you don't agree with this, go to a third world country that follows to your religious views! H/e even countries like Brazil will allow an abortion to a 9 yr old rape victim carrying twins, that were endangering her life. The catholic church felt she should have died giving birth to those twins! Sick.
@Boudiga Again the LAW allows for murder , is it right to kill a defenseless human being? You have said that life begins at the sperm but that's a LIE. Scientists are universally state that a human being starts at conception. Why did you LIE? Because your next ridiculous thing you might have said would be masturbation or ejaculations being murder . Wordsmithing again.Why ? As for that case in Brazil I certainly feel for that girl she should'nt have to go through that in a perfect world
@frank2033"You have said that life begins at the sperm but that's a LIE." No its not a lie. The sperm is a life form. By all means! If it fertilizes an egg and it grows in a woman it can become a human. Pathetic you have to grasp at such silliness to make your point. LOL As for the fetus, it is NOT a legal person until its born. Hence no murder. And care to answer my question? If killing a fetus is murder (your logic) than is having sex with a pregnant woman child abuse?
@Boudiga Sperm is a life form? Like blood or skin ? There you go again TWISTING words. I'm glad I'm keeping a wary eye on your wordsmithing. Tissue is not a human being is it ? Human being . That's what every embryologist , geneticist would agree on .Where in the texts say this? What 's your source? Science will not help you. And what's with the ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman being sexual assualt of a baby ? Don't you have anything better than desperation ?
@frank2033 "Sperm is a life form? Like blood or skin ? There you go again TWISTING words." I was simply pointing out as I said before how ridiculous your state about the embryo being a life. That by your logic it would actually start as a sperm. The sperm is alive, but you admit like tissue it doesn't count as human. Its not wordsmithing, its throwing your own dumb argument in your face.
@frank2033 "What 's your source? Science will not help you. " In 2006, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics published their opinion on “Using Preimplantation Embryos for Research.” In it, they say, “If the preimplantation embryo is left or maintained outside the uterus, it cannot develop into a human being.” Hear that DEVELOP into a human being. Hence not a human yet or could be if NOT implanted. Theres science again backing me up!
@frank2033 "And what's with the ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman being sexual assualt of a baby ?" I find it ridiculous that you would put a woman right to her body over a sperm combined with an egg. See even you agree that having a erect penis just inches away from a fetus is NOT child abuse. If thats not child abuse then its not a child. If killing a fetus is murdering a child, than by the same logic, having an erect penis just inches away from a fetus is sexual abuse!
@Boudiga Why do you persist in this ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman is sexual abuse? Is it his motive to have sex with the woman or the child? If a couple have sex with the child very close by and there's no room (such as in the case of a pregnant woman) for the baby to be elsewhere ,is it sexual abuse of a child? Is he the recipient of his penis or his lust or is it incidental ? WAS THE child molested ? No, of course not.
@frank2033 "Why do you persist in this ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman is sexual abuse?" Because I want an answer. If it were born and laying on top of the womans abdominal, it would be sexual abuse. You consider the fetus equal to an already born child, so I want to know why by your logic, how sex with a pregnant woman is NOT child abuse. Plus after the debate about having sex w/o risking pregnancy is like some1 eating& vomiting afterwards. I'm calling you on your HYPOCRISY!
@Boudiga But you do have those cases .What's the solution? To kill two human beings in the case that she might die? In case she might die. Might die. Might. there have been cases that doctors have recomended abortion because they felt it was too dangerous for the woman or possible defect/ handicapin the baby. Those mothers refused and both were fine. Doctors aren't God, they don't know with certainty. Do you know if that young girl would've died ? Are you God? No. The Church in Brazil
@frank2033 " To kill two human beings in the case that she might die?" So your against that if the womans life is at risk, she should still give birth? Well that sums up all my concerns. Once you ban abortion you force women willing or unwilling to give up their lives. One damn good reason NEVER to ban abortion! Now as for this god crap, god is a belief, NOT a fact. It doesn't belong in gov. As for the doc. yes they can be wrong. But shouldn't it be the woman choice if she wants to risk it?
@Boudiga What about the tiny human beings that are a dead certainty to die? Since you admit they're human beings though not currently protected by law why isn't it evil to kill them ?
@frank2033 "Since you admit they're human beings though not currently protected by law why isn't it evil to kill them ?" Now that is a down right lie on your part. I never said the fetus or the embryo etc... was human. NEVER did! I said about a million times I see NOTHING wrong with abortion, as long as the woman who is having the abortion is doing it of her own free will! You accuse me of lying and word smithing, but thats on you. Either that your have a reading disability.
@Boudiga As for God being a belief and not a fact , try this . In abortion you are killing a human being that's a fact not a belief or opinion. You are physically killing another human being that's a scientific fact that's a human being . SCIENTIFIC FACT. FACT #1The life of a human being starts at conception. FACT # 2 You are killing said human. Not opinion nor belief just objective FACT.
@frank2033 "You are physically killing another human being that's a scientific fact that's a human being . SCIENTIFIC FACT"
American College of Pediatricians on its Web site. “The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.”
There that science contradicting your claims again! Call it a fact until your blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Hence why abortion is still legal.
@Boudiga The Church teaches that no good can come out of something intrinsically evil. What is certain two babies died. That's a certainty. You let God decide who is to die. You don't introduce man's hand and commit a deliberate act and kill. If she dies it is not through human's deliberate ,conscience, evil act . So there's no culpability in someone doing evil such as killing twins. Let me explain further. All three are of equal value in God's eyes . He's the Supreme Court. If a child 1 yr old
@frank2033 "The Church teaches that no good can come out of something intrinsically evil." Well then maybe should worry about their child molester problem 1st. What is certain a little girl is alive today& her rapist step dad is still in good standing w/ the church. As for ur god, it doesn't belong in the laws. I dont' believe in ur god. Hence ur gods wishes don't apply to me or any1 who is NOT of your faith. So u need not explain it to me.
@Boudiga YOU brought up the Church when you mentioned that girl in Brazil and I responded with why the Church did what it did. Don't likre the truth about the Church ? Too bad you brought up what you thought of what the Church responded. Sick is killing a human being or two for no reason other than you so choose. You don't care whether it (even though you've admitted it's a human being) a case of rape or the woman 's life is endangered (though nothing is certain but that the CHOICE is certain
@frank2033 "YOU brought up the Church when you mentioned that girl in Brazil " I brought up that I thought it was sick. I've heard their excuses and two little fetus verses an already born child, I see that as no contest. I never said the fetus was human I said it has our DNA but not fully developed. Man you could you make a point w/out taking what I say out of content?
@frank2033 "The CHOICE is certain death for the little human beings in her womb and maybe andf I repeat maybe death for the mother." The CHOICE is her to make what she wants to do with her body! By all accounts both legal and even science the woman takes presences over the fetus. And more women die from child birth than they do abortions. So try again!
@Boudiga If a 1yr old or 5yr or whatever age was trapped with her mother or anyone else in a cave in but the experts said there was not enough of air, food , water or whatever so the recommended action would be to kill her . Or she had a deadly disease so, to survive remove that threat to her life and kill. Would that be just? Merciful? The Church would say have faith and don't kill. Leave it in God's hands. There are some miners trapped somewhere , I forget where. So apply this to their
@frank2033 "Leave it in God's hands. There are some miners trapped somewhere ,"
Again that is YOUR faith. Not the rest of the world. I"m all for allowing women who are pro-life to choose to give up their lives of their own free will to have a rapist child, a sickly child, etc... However I'm against FORCING anyone against their will to have a child! That little 9 yr old didn't have a choice! She was violated and would have further violated giving birth! I'm glad her mother choose her life!
@frank2033 "So these miners are trapped and they if faced a similar situation , would it be just/loving to kill some so others might live?"
For those circumstances, I've heard all sort of things. I've heard of people killing themselves so they could lower the food rate or even let their bodies be food. In such stressful situations I'm not going to judge. Who knows what one will do in order to survive.
@Boudiga You don't introduce a deliberate evil human act such as killing into the situation. That way no one commits evil. You leave in God's hands. And if you HATE God , then say let nature take its course then no one gets their hands bloody. As for Onan it's always ( first century)been the teaching that the Onanism = contraception= intrinsically evil. And you have to understand that a particular verse can have more than one lesson. It's called depth. You talk about forcing but you do the
@frank2033"And if you HATE God ," I never said I hated god. I just don't believe in your god. Theres a differences. I say let the woman decides. We don't let "nature take its course" when it comes to cancer. As for ur misinterpretation of the bible the Hebrew story has to do with Onan not wanting to have to share his fathers land with this child he was to conceive. Talk to a Rabbi. They know all theses little facts regarding the ancient Hebrews! There is depth&then there is lies.
@Boudiga " So we let nature takes its course "Fertility/children are NOT CANCER .They are a blessing -Life is a blessing. We don't CUT A HUMAN BEING INTO PIECES AND CALL IT A DISEASE!
@frank2033 "Fertility/children are NOT CANCER .They are a blessing -Life is a blessing." Not to someone who doesn't want a child! I'm sure a rape victim wouldn't call her rapist fetus a blessing! And the fetus can be like a disease in that it can be deadly! ie... ectopic pregnancies. No way to save the embryo in the lining of the tube. And since its not developed into a HUMAN, there is no real issue in performing abortions.
@frank2033 AS to LIES you are the LIAR. As to depth , let me explain something about scripture They CAN have more than one meaning there's layers, as long as they don't contradict . Look at Deu 25;5-10 the man refused to perform the duty of a husband's brother to the widow.God didn't strike him dead and he wasn't put to death by others just got his sandal pulled off his feet and spit on his . As for Jewish commentary there was agreement that this meant he was acting perversely ; killiong his
@frank2033 Excuse me I read your bible front to back, so don't be calling me a liar because your are ignorant of your own faith! Look at the whole thing, because its not a story but a law being placed. It tells how the hebrews, not god would punish a man if he didn't perform his duties! Your god is also not consistent in its acts. Is it my fault your book has flaws? You really lack understanding of your holy book. So don't be calling me a liar because I KNOW it better than you!
@frank2033 Now I have answered all your ? & I want answers to mine! 1. What does one do when you have joint twins, one will die if separated, both will die if they don't? 2. Should OB GYN report women for having sex while pregnant, as sex offenders? 3. Did you look up jewish history and learn the FACTS behind Orans situation? 4. Would you force a woman to give birth even if the odds are against her survival? 5. Are you aware you are trying to force ppl to live by your religious beliefs?
@Boudiga Religious or moral?The difference is we believe all should live live regardless of religion or non religious . Catholic or protestant. Muslim or Hundu. Budhist or animalist. All have a equal dignity . Women and child. I have not really looked into the cojoined twins situation . I'm not familiar whether what you state is truthful or accurate about both dying for certain or murdering one and possibly saving the other. I've answered already that you don't introduce a deliberate evil
@frank2033 "Religious or moral?" I follow ethics which can mature and even change. Where religion and morals often don't. I find it ironic you mention Hinduism because of a high rate of abortions in India by Hindu women. Woman and child are not protected equally. Nor are men or the elderly etc... For example, often men are expected to lay their lives down for their women. Most people would die for a child. However not everyone follows theses codes. The unborn is solely at the carriers wishes!
@Boudiga' Religious or moral"? I meant that it's not a particular religion that i'm trying to tell the truth and save and most of all love. As for ethics maturing or changing if it's based on the truth it doesn't change as in doing a reversal it deepens OUR understanding of it. Truth doesn't change I'm trying to help ALL people of religious backgrounds not just Christian . They all have a human dignity endowed by their GOD. From the moment of conception to the end of their natural lives.
@frank2033 "They all have a human dignity endowed by their GOD. From the moment of conception to the end of their natural lives"
No you are trying to force your beliefs form your religion onto others who are NOT of your religion. Not all beliefs agree with the fetus being of any status at all.
@frank2033 As for the conjoint twins I suggest you look them up. Cases like this are literally all over the world. The last one I read about was in Pakistan. Two girls jointed at the head. The weaker one was just a head and some of a torso. The other one was normal. Removing them killed the weaker one, however the other is alive and well. However last I heard brain damage (because of where they were connected) was a concern.
@Boudiga You do the forcing on other human beings when you dismember them or poison them or burn them alive. What's so bad when both live but your solution is death for one and life long pain for the other . Is that love for either one ? As for sacrificing one self for others that's totally diferent than murdering another.
@frank2033 "You do the forcing on other human beings when you dismember them or poison them or burn them alive." I haven't heard about the burning alive abortion, but your bible talks about the stoning one. You know when a woman had sex outside of marriage, (how do you think they could prove that) by stoning her alive. They did it to pregnant women too! How holy! :)
@frank2033 Now you see I understand that in your perfect world all people are virgins until marriage. Every time they have sex its done of the sole goal to conceive. All women should be happy to carrying, birth and even die if needed for the fetus. Thats your perfect world. However I live in a country where we have FREEDOM of religion. Where people can live and create their own needs of perfection.
@Boudiga Yes there lies the root of all evil. WE do what WE want and only answer to ourselves.Let me tell you about this way of yours. This woman said it best when she was promoting pure fashions her clothing line: 'If we don't tell them ( young women) the truth what do we get 1 and a half million abortions a year and STD' s
Is this what you want for people ? for our world? would this either make them healthy or happy? Will sex with no logical consquences of pregnancy/abortion . for your
@frank2033 1 you were talking a woman promoting fashion verses abortions. That makes no damn sense! Big business have promoting fashion and products through lies and decent for yrs. As for abortions, I'm not promoting them. I'm simply agreeing they should remain as a CHOICE!
@frank2033 In all seriousness if you really want to help lower abortions (because you can't force a person to give birth at the risk of their life nor force a rape victim to birth a rapist conception) why not actually promote things that would lower them. Like low cost to free medical care? Or maybe low cost to free day care? Even though your faith is against bc, you admit the sperm is NOT equal to a human, so why not give out condoms? Better that than conceiving & aborting? Thats logical.
@Boudiga That's a lie that more than 1% of pregnancies are the result of rape/incest and the life of the mother is at risk so kill their children. 99% are elective. No danger to the mother and 99% were not raped. Less poverty and more economic help would mean lower crime , but should we abandon our laws against larceny and just work to end poverty?
@frank2033 Again calling me a liar because you have no argument and you took again another thing I said out of context for the same reason. The example of rape and woman life risk was in () because those are exceptions you can't get around. I was talking abortions done due to poverty and age. The fact you won't promote bc shows you don't care about fixing the problem. One way to help lower poverty is allowing ppl to control their family size! Which bc does!
@Boudiga i won't have anything to do with BC. By your deliberate action you make the sexual act null and void. You sterilze it and call it clean. Clean of LIFE which was its pupose. Even looking at it objectively that's it's pupose (along with love). Instead you rob yourself and your spouse ot the beauty, pupose and love which what it was created for. You hold back from him your trust your most intimate self and create a barrier. Are you truly one flesh when you say this far and no more?
@frank2033 Again your have a religious issue against bc which you have no right to force onto others. Love making is just as wonderful with bc as it is without. I've done both. So don't be trying to compare. There is trust and relief to know we can control the size of our family. We aren't holding back, we would be if we had to always risk pregnancy with sex. You are being silly in this example. LOL PS you notice I don't insult you, but you can't seem to hold back. Pretty sad, you can't debate!
@Boudiga It's all or nothing. In this most intimate act of conceiving/procreating a human being you hold back something of yourself and what it was created for the uniting of two into one you say 'NO' i don't trust or love you." That's why there' s no bonding at such a crucial level for the marriage to suceed. That's also why cohabitating before marriage leads to divorce there's no real love without trust. Love without trust or truth is doomed to failure.
@frank2033 The act is intimate w/o procreation. Its not holding back, its embracing&much more often. Your logic doesn't hold. Couples are more likely to divorce with children in it, b/c of the added stress. It can sound romantic that you conceived, but then you have the reality. The extra bills, the time that very few ppl have any more, the MONEY that is needed w/ each child. You don't go any further than the sex. Children are responsibility, that require more planning than a night of passion!
@frank2033 "That's also why cohabitating before marriage leads to divorce there's no real love without trust. Love without trust or truth is doomed to failure."
I call BS on this too, just like your FP logic. If a couple is religious enough or influenced by religious family enough to remain separate before marriage, they are more likely to be too religious (or their family) to have a divorce. Where a couple who doesn't follow that, have more freedom! Again fail!
@Boudiga Condoms lead to more pregnancies more STD's and that's a fact by centers of disease control . Let me repeat myself : Bc leads to more pregnancy and STD's Why ? Because instead of being careful(chaste) it leads people to think they're protected and have sex. If you take someone for BC without any sexual mores and leave them be , what do you think would be the results? I haven't been taught to be chaste and I have protection , so why not? Instead we give our children Bc but not teach
@frank2033 "Condoms lead to more pregnancies more STD's and that's a fact by centers of disease control." I went to the center of disease control website and it DOESN'T"T match your findings! Look up condoms on their website! I'm not going to call you a liar because I'm bigger than that, I will call your Pope on for telling ppl in 3rd world countries this. He should be charged w/ war crimes! Any person who takes his word literally &gets HIV, their blood is on his hands!
@Boudiga We give them Bc and that sends a powerful messaage we don't expect them to be abstaining and you are protected (LIE). You can look this up with Abby Johnson the former Planned Parenhood director at College Station, Tx. She brought this up at a PPmeeting and raised her concerns that since Family planning has increased then why aren't unplanned pregnancies decreasing? They told her doesn't she get it, that they were in it for the money. PP just loves to spead that LIE, that bc prevents
@frank2033 "We give them Bc and that sends a powerful messaage we don't expect them to be abstaining and you are protected (LIE)." Again your pushing your religious beliefs onto those who don't follow your beliefs! My beliefs have no issue with sex before marriage. You are not going to stop this, so move on. Your church as been trying for over a 1,000 yrs to force this concept. Needless to say, turn on a TV they failed. Its insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
@frank2033 I did some research on this Abby Johnson: 1. She stole personal confidential records from a patient! to bring to her pro-life buddies. Massively against the law and should be arrested. 2. Her claims that PP only plan abortions, when the fact is in most of the country PPs are often the safest places to achieve. Most woman who want to keep their baby go to an OB GYN, those who want to place for adoption go to an adoption agency and those who want an abortion go to PP. more...
@frank2033 In 2008 only 3% of PP services were for abortions. I've seen also see the PP introduction video to pregnant women who choose abortion. They make clear their options, keeping it, adoption and abortion. It explains in detail what each would require and effect on them. I've had friends who had abortions and those who considered it, and PP gave them information on adoption and even keeping it if they wished. Who should I believe? My friends or this nut who has been caught in many lies?
@frank2033 As for bc I can honestly say with my own experiences I've never contracted an STD or got pregnant when using a condom. Everyone I know personally who used the condom correctly didnt' get pregnant or an STD. Your Abby Johnson hasn't given any proof to her claims that abortions remained the same with bc. It is merely her word, a bias one at that. Pretty weak.
@frank2033 "Also does a parasite/tissue/ organ move away from the canulla, or other sharp surgical intstument when it's near? " I saw a hook worm wrap itself around a surgical scapula. The liver and heart isn't a parasite. The bio additive is the implantation inside the woman. Which allows it to grow. W/o it its nothing more than a rotten egg. A born baby is developed enough to live outside the woman and doesn't impose on the physical body of the woman. It can then go else where, unlike fetus.
@Boudiga To this list add newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult and senior . At no point was this developing HUMAN BEING not a HUMAN BEING. Now that's science and reason. Again this is textbook.
@frank2033 We develop and reach a peek and start the dying process. Like leaves that sprout in the spring, bloom in the summer, wither in the fall and are dead come winter. Thats life and basic fundamentals. LOL The human is already developed now it grows to reach a peek then begins to deteriorate. The process is usually slow and everyone goes through it differently. Some people die of heart attacks at 30 while others live to 100. Apples and oranges my friend. LOL
@Boudiga Yes but during all this peaking and decline were you ever not human?Let me repeat this question- when were you not human during this life and basic fundamentals?
@frank2033 Depends, mere sperm and egg no. I was not human then. When I just got implanted in the womb no still not human. I was born in the 80s so medical tech at the time I wouldn't have survived out of the womb at say 6 months, maybe 5 months. I would NOT legally have any rights as a human until I was born.
@Boudiga A human being dependent(imposing) shouldn't count as to being allowed to live. A 1 day or 1 , 2 3 year old is not independant and therefore imposes on her mother. Maybe by your standards and others we still should have the CHOICE to KILL that child.And it's happening now or haven't you heard of THE Born Alive Law. This law would protect those babies that survived an attempt on their lives.An embryo is a complete but underdeveloped human being that will grow not mutate metamorph into
@frank2033 No you again like your bible you are taking what I said out of context. A baby or child already born isn't attached physically to another person. They require care yes, but people other than the birth mother can do it. H/e with an attached embryo or a fetus is physically inside someone. THATS THE DIFFERENCES! So don't put words in my mouth. If an abortion fails I agree in allowing medical treatment to the now born baby. The embryo isn't a human until it develops and is born.
@Boudiga" If an abortion fails I agree in ALLOWING medical treatment to the now born baby". What's the biological difference from one moment to the next? Would you name this term ?PLEASE.
@frank2033 Also take in account joint twins. In many cases 1 twin is weaker and is harming the health of the healthier twin. If separated the healthier twin will live where the weaker twin will die. Yet doctors, parents even judges have had chosen to force or allow separation surgery.
@Boudiga As to "embryo has DNA so does skin cells" arguement -The embryo won't "miraculously "change or mutate from tissue into a HUMAN BEING (it 's already a human being) No, science and common sense (reason) is quite evident that can't happen.While it would be take a MIRACLE to change mutate , or metamorph skin tissue into a HUMAN BEING.Human being will still be a human being and fingernail clippings( or skin cells) will still be skin cells..Science and reason (your old enemy) won't help
@frank2033 No the embryo can if allowed and able to grow, could develop into a human being. An acorn if planted in the earth and allowed and able to grow could become an oak. But as an acorn is no tree. Again thats plan science. They aren't my enemy babe. Nor do I fear it. Basic biology a human is more than embryo.
@Boudiga it's the same species but in different stage of development. Just as any species. ASk any biologist. they will conclude it's the same but underdeveloped. Ask them was it ever a diferent kind of tree , you know a pecan or tomatoe or banana. a squash . an apple or lemon or what. No, they'll just look at you with a kind of confused look.
@frank2033 No its developing into a human being. A human being can survive outside the womb. Like a seed of a plant if its not implanted it doesn't develop. We also again don't count the unborn in our society. It all goes by the whole chicken before the egg. I actually know doctors and biologist. I use to work with several. They would look at your argument and laugh.
@frank2033 I also noticed you didn't respond to any of my points. 1. Oran being forced by his family to lay with his sister-in-law. 2. The issue of conjoint twins and how we will separate them even if it means the death of one of them. 3. The fact that the zygote-fetus requires a host body to survive were an already born child does not. (requiring someone to raise them doesn't count as a HOST.)
@frank2033 You also avoid the topic of the woman herself and her RIGHTS to her body. To make a choice for their own body. Back before abortion was legal most women wouldn't have the choice to give their life for their unborn. Now thanks to the pro-choice advocates theses women can now keep medical documents to allow them to choose the fetus over her. Something over looked by the pro-life movement.
@Boudiga Again laws can change from that of a non human being to that of a full human being (slavery) like in the 1800's.As for the humanity of both unborn or blacks ,science and reason would leave you to the truth . As to before murder was legal and you can thank the pro death advocates it seems that the imposition on them doesn't merit the death penalty. The supposed crime doesn't match the penalty. After all the' imposition" is for a few months while death(by dismemberment) is eternal. Say
@frank2033 So you want to force women to be breeding slaves by taking away the right to control their bodies. Yeah I still side with the already born. Yes laws can change. However taking away a right rather than adding one NEVER works. I doubt the unborn will ever be considered a human because ITS not. Its not fully developed. DNA of a fetus can be found in a hair root. Another thing you ignored.
@Boudiga "Choose the fetus over her" is not a good arguement. We are not saying kill the woman but spare the baby. While you definitely say choose the woman but kill the baby. In your reasoning one dies . While in mine both LIVE.
@frank2033 I was talking about in the case of a life or death situation if the woman doesn't have legal paper work stating her wishes to die for the fetus, then the hospital will choose her life even if she is kicking & screaming.STOP taking what I say out of contact. Again its up for the woman to choose if she wants to take the medical &health risk &sufferings that come w/ pregnancy &birth. If she doesn't wish to do that, she has the right to terminate. Preg. is MORE than just an inconvenience.
@Boudiga No science won't help you on this one. Science will only point you to the TRUTH. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT. As to the legality that the fetus isn't legally a "person"is subjective and not based on science .It's based on legal opinion of a supeme court judge Blackmon that was renting space from an abortionist when ROE vs Wade was being heard. AS to the fetus what legal protection can it have when it's 9 months but an abortionist takes most of the baby out but still leaves skull in the
@frank2033 Okay first of all read what I said, because your taking what I said out of context. When I talk about the fetuses rights, I"m talking about LAW not science. Like you said law is subjective. So read please! Second the courts ruled that women have the RIGHT over the fetus to control their bodies. Your conspiracy theory means nothing to me. Women aren't breeding slaves plan and simple. The judges of the courts agreed the woman is a legal person where the fetus is not. We don't count....
@frank2033 ... fetuses in our population, a pregnant woman alone can't drive in an HOV line, simply put we don't count all our chickens before they are hatched. We don't count those who aren't born in our society. You must be pulling at strings if you already tossed the late term abortions in the debate. Because late term abortions at 9months are done legally when the mothers life is at state. The woman has the right to choose her own life over the unborn. FACT! Yes some illegal late terns were
@frank2033 ... performed illegally however they are rare and when caught are fully charged. You may feel we should force women into a death sentence of birth, but now that is her choice! (Provided she keeps paper work stating her wishes to give her life for the fetus. If not even if she is kicking and screaming the doctors will choose her life over the fetus. )
@frank2033 Therefore the woman is the legal person, where the embryo or fetus is not. Her body is her right to control. The fetus is not legally a person and doesn't have the right on the grounds that it is physically part of a legal persons body. A child is a legal person for it also isn't imposing physical existences off of another body. Thats the law and medical science. The embryo or fetus is not legally a person or child until its born. You have have religious beliefs that conflict...
@Boudiga Leaves skull in cervix then jams a pair of scissors into the back of skull and scissors are spread apart while baby( or legally is still a fetus) is thrashing about for its life. Baby''s(or as you point out legally a fetus without any rights) skull contents or what most people would call its brains are sucked out. Then the( NO LEGAL STATUS ;NO LEGAL PROTECTION ) baby's stops all movement. The abortionist then takes the baby( I mean NO LEGAL PERSON) pout of the woman's cervix.
@Boudiga Human life is at conception nearly all embryologists are in agreement. Human life doesn't "develop" into a human it just matures. How would you classify this newly conceved LIFE? I mean if YOU'VE decided it's not human but still some type of LIFE , just what typeof LIFE is it? Is it animal? NO. Is it flora? NO. Is an inanimate object ? NO. Is it microbacterial or viral? NO. Even if you argue it's the size of a bacteria , bacteria will never (miracle)transform into a HUMAN BEING later.
@Boudiga I don't believe you can satisfy my curiosity as to what you would classify this newly conceived LIFE. Just what is in a mother's womb for 9 months or shorter if you decide to KILL? But again, KILL what eactly? Science and reason (YOUR old enemy) will let you know if you let it.
@frank2033 "I don't believe you can satisfy my curiosity as to what you would classify this newly conceived LIFE."
Well thats your problem. What grows in the womb is a parasite. Its developing into a human. It will legally become its own person when its born. Until then, it is still a part of the woman body until its born. Then its legally its own person. Science is not my enemy dear. I just choose modern science over old mythology.
@frank2033 BC has been around for thousands of yrs. The belief in god is that a belief. It hasn't been proven & there are many different beliefs regarding mythology. My beliefs hold no issue w/ bc. Sex has long evolved for breeding purposes. Women are only fertile a few days a month &some even less or not at all. Sex is a mental connection & a natural part of human desire. I understand what sterilization is. I have family who suffer from infertility. They even support bc!
@frank2033 As for over population being a lie, that is utter BS! I saw the silly videos trying to disprove it, from an catholic priest who isn't a scientist but some1 determine to keep a backwards tradition that isn't even supported by the bible by trying to convince people NOT to use bc. All the real scientist disagree very strongly& I'm more inclined to believe them over the catholic church that has lied about what the bible actually says! So I support bc, not all ejaculations deserve a name!
@Boudiga Overpopulation is a LIE. The birth rate is falling and has continued to fall thanks to the LIES out there. In america it's 1.8 per couple and even less in some parts in europe. For those that don't know the replacement rate for two adults is 2.2. That's just replacement and does not cover gowth. Same goes for much of asia. We are in reality underpopulated.
@frank2033 LOL that is utter BS! We are expected to more than double our birthrate by 2012. If you can give me a link from a non-religious/republican/ or other bias site that disproves this I"m all ears.
@Boudiga Gen 38 v 8-10 Then Judah said to Onan, go to your brother's wife perform the duty of a brother in law to her and raise up offspring for your brother. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his bother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground., lest he should give any ofspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord and He slew him also. Find out what and why the Church teaches.
@frank2033 You xians are so predictable! READ THE WHOLE STORY and STOP CHERRY PICKING! Start at the beginning of that story where it tells the story of the widow who had no children, god orders her late husbands brother to lay with her. He refuses and god kills him. The man REFUSED to lay with a woman who wasn't his wife. The next brother Onan spills his seed, yes. Eventually all the brothers are dead and the widow dresses like a whore and seduces her father-in-law. The story IS NOT about BC!
@Boudiga What beginning? Er was slain and for why? No reason is known. As for Onan the reason is CRYSTAL CLEAR. If he didn't want children he should've abstained. Instead he ENJOYED relations with her but refused the whole purpose of sexual relations (to bring forth LIFE). An anology would be to enjoy the eating but still making yourself throw up so don't get the nourishment. So what's the point of eating(sexual relations) beyond yor own SELFISH ENJOYMENT. In both cases you've defeated the WHY
@frank2033Oran was pacifically ordered to conceive a child! It doesn't imply that all sex is for that, only that in this case he was ordered by his father to make a baby. He refused b/c he knew the child wouldn't be his. Thats not selfish. He didn't want a child with his brothers wife. Its not about the birth control its about him refusing a direct order." Gen. 38:7But (F)Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life." Not very pro life if you ask me.
@Boudiga Again , the sin was that while he ENJOYED relations with her he "spilled his semen on the ground ". If he wasn't willing to conceive why not abstain? But no, he had relations but spilled his semen on the ground. Isn't it exactly like BC to enjoy realations but spill the semen on the ground. And again , the question is WHAT'S the meaning/pupose of sex? Just our enjoyment? It's to bring forth LIFE. with the reward/benefit of enjoyment/pleasure. Instead with BC/sterilization you put the
@frank2033 Thats your opinion. He was ordered by his father to lay with her. He was given an order to bare a child. This does NOT apply to all sex partners. This is your twisted interpretation of the bible. The woman later dresses as a prostitute and conceives with her father in law. Hebrew law actually requires that all childless woman, widowed or barren are to lay with their husbands brothers and fathers to attempt to conceive a boy. It doesn't say Oran enjoyed himself. He was forced.
@Boudiga I guess when you spill your semen you're not enjoying yourself. NO? Yes. Again why have sex then turn away from its intended meaning?Did God slay him for refusing to raise children for his brother or for BC ? Why not simply abstain? No he married then he had relations with his wife. Then he spilled his semen.There were several opportunities to walk away. In your own words"Hebrew law requires that all childless women, widowed or barren ( i'm not too sure about the barren women thing)
@frank2033 1 I'm a female, I have no seed to spill. Yes most my sex has been for pleasure, but in the case of Oran he was ordered by his father. Hebrew laws obey your parents. Especially since you wanted their land to farm on. In the Hebrew culture it was a brothers duty to try to concieve a son for his brother. He couldn't refuse to bed her.Read Gen38:8-9 He was forced to do this to honor customs but tried to avoid doing his duty and your god killed him.
@frank2033 "( i'm not too sure about the barren women thing)" Actually that is true. If a woman didn't bare children or have a boy by her husband she is required to lay with his brothers to try to conceive a child (preferable male) showing that the early Hebrews understood the possibility of male infertility. If she still couldn't produce then she was often cast out in shame. You really should study up on ancient Hebrew cultures.
@Boudiga "are to lay with their husband's brothers and father to attempt to conceive" It's the "attempt' that stands out. How could it that Onan really(God can tell ) did "attempt' it if he spilled his semen on the ground. Did he have lousy aim?No, he didn't act in good faith and God slew him. You're right that's its not all about procreation it's foremost an act of LOVE. Done correctly. Morally. but God definitely made it for marriage and for procreation of children.The sex act must never
@frank2033 The story tells of a man who tried to cheat out of his duties, but god knew, what he did. Kinda like santa watching to see who is naughty or nice. In santa gods eyes, Oran breaking his very important duty to his family and was killed for it. Oran started his job by laying with her, but he didn't fulfill the seed planting so the woman could conceive. And since your god a belief and not accepted fact by either law or science your twisted interpretation isn't enforced by the USA.
@frank2033 Again much like most of our conversation your interpretation is flawed. You know little of this Hebrew book you are quoting from. You are looking at the OT through a modern xian eye not an ancient Hebrew.
@frank2033 Sex is far more to conceive. Or why would the elderly do it? Or the barren? Its proven to be more of a emotional and mental connection with another person, in one of our deepest ways. Its like what the meaning of Viagra when old men aren't going to be living long enough to raise a child to an adult? Because sex is more than baby making. A lot more! I feel sorry for you if you don't know this already.
Previous comments - didn't see anything in the video saying to outlaw the pills...just that people should understand how they work.
Thanks for the information. We'll be doing more research and likely switching methods. I'm not interested in taking any chances on murdering my babies.
AceAvenue1119 1 month ago
last time I checked, the churches don't have a say in wether abortion is legal or not in the US, or if people should use birth control pills or not. If your religion decides against it, it's up to you to choose if you want to use it or not.
colorsmadeoftears 4 months ago
um, in the information birth control packet i received it clearly states all three methods..
greenxgold 9 months ago
It is, IMHO, highly unlikely that the 2 methods mentioned would fail (decreasing/eliminating ovulation and thickening of cervical mucous). If per chance they did there are many people who would not consider a thinned endometrial lining an abortion. Women on the pill do not want to become pregnant, bottom line. If you have spiritual/moral beliefs that would interfer with standard western medicine birth control this is for YOU to consider. MANY people do not have the same beliefs.
joyfulwands 10 months ago
@joyfulwands Sadly many from the other side, don't see it that way. They feel that their beliefs not only should be everyone elses beliefs, but should be law as well!
Boudiga 9 months ago
John Holdren is Obama's appointed Science Czar. Like all Czars, they were not approved by the Senate, which is unconstitutional. He advocated in his book "Ecoscience", sterilization of the human population by adding a sterilization drug to the food and water supply and the government taking babies away from single mom's. GOOGLE “zombietime john holdren” and click on link.
.
Allen West 2012
Oktoberfesting 1 year ago
Abortion and Contraception are linked and indeed are bad fruits of the same tree.
CredoCatholicJournal 1 year ago
This is completely misleading and is only talking about the progesterone only pill.
wendywardashley 1 year ago
"the cynical deception of women by selling abortifacents as if they were contraceptives is incompatible with the respect due to women. " Germaine Greer
MsHello2468 1 year ago
this is complete bs.
massoudi3 1 year ago
@kidsandkarma.... it is scientifically absurd to say that life and development does not start at conception and fertilization... no impartial scientist has EVER said otherwise. Fertilized Egg has its own unique DNA code, growth, development, has already started dividing, etc... a new human life.
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm, represents the beginning of a human being." Embryologist Keith More. Study your biology...
CallofDude13 1 year ago 7
I learned how the pill works in HS. It was no surprise to me there. I choose not to take it, but not because I have a problem flushing out a embryo, it personally make me sick and I feel they should put out safer products on the market. Those who wish to rid the world of b/c, thats all well and fine, but then you should also reject all other forms of modern medicine, for that is what kept world from over population. H/e few of you wish to do that. Are you trying to create more starving children?
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga An embryo is is a human being in its embryonic stage. Nearly all embryologists are in agreement that life begins at conception. Safer products for who? Certainly not for the unborn. Fertility is not a disease for which you need a remedy.The natural God given purpose of sex is to bring forth life. Even looking at it objectively the purpose of sex is to bring forth life. Do you know the definition of sterilization is? To be BARREN of LIFE. Overpopulation a LIE.The world is not and
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 ROFLAO! First the embryo is NOT a human being. Its by all definitions a parasite. It survives off another beings body and will die with the host dies. It develops into a human if allowed to grow. Life does begin at conception, however its not yet human for quite some time. Plus it will not reach the equal rights of a born person until it is BORN! I never said fertility is a disease. However its a persons choice whether they wish to conceive or NOT.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga A "parasite" that is conceived by sex. By your actions. Not something that attaches to you incidentally . When (in your opinion)does it change from a "parasite" or embryo to a human being? When it's wanted and YOU decide it's human after all? When does the miraculous transformation take place? How is it in your mind/ heart is it not human at one time then "Alleluia" it is? You can't accept the truth that the embryo always was and is human. no matter what you and others that repeat
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "does it change from a "parasite" or embryo to a human being?"
Yes to both. An embryo is a parasite. The definition of parasite something that requires a host in order to survive. The sperm is the outside source you speak of. It is foreign to the woman. Whether u feel she should be forced to give birth is just an opinion. The law simply follows that the woman is already born therefore no longer a parasite placing her needs over the fetus. Thats simply your old enemy, science again!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga So the feus or embryo is a parasite? you have to dehumanize( call the child a parsite) the human in order for your justification to kill. Again every embryolgist is in agreement that conception is the begining of a unique human being. A human being not tissue such as blood . Blood or some other type of tissue will only be tissue and never be a human being. TISSUE will not be TISSUE one moment then human the next. That's why TISSUE donation is moral.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 I didn't see this post yesterday so I'm responding today. I see that our issues here is the definition of person. Now the embryo is a parasite by all medical terms. Thats a fact. Its not dehumanizing, its pointing out a fact. You have the woman who is born already, is legally a person and isn't physically dependent off of another persons body 24-7. Therefore she is not imposing on any other persons physical body. The embryo does have DNA so do skin cells.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Person huh? Parasite ?So you're getting into word play. That's all you can do.Where in any medical/science book is it written?The term "human being "is found in those books. In human embryology text books. There's the classification human being but no scientific/medical term a for "person". That's more of a philosophical term than scientific. Again SCIENCE is shedding a flood light on this. Science isn't my enemy but my ally. The embryo has human DNA because it's a complete not
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Word play? I'm pointing out flaws in your debate and all you got to go against me is that I know the definitions of words better than you? In the medical books they refer to the embryo or fetus as an embryo or fetus. When I talked about person I was talking about the law. Science isn't backing you up here. DNA is also found in skin cells, hair roots, saliva etc... I doubt you would care much if I scratched some skin cells off would you?
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 BTW did you know OJ is an abrofication? Its true. If a woman drinks it within 72 hrs of conceiving she could very easily separate the embryo from the womb and bye bye.... So I expect you to be boycotting OJ? Its been killing embryos for thousands of yrs. lol
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga The method/ agent isn't as important as to the intent. If you purposely sought to MURDER someone does it matter if you gave him OJ ,pepsi, sleeping pills, rat poison, RU 48 , ELLA ,canulla or used whatever else in your reach. It certainly wouldn't matter to the victim. And there are victims just look at the pictures of aborted non persons. They look and are human. The eminent geneticist Prof. Jerome LeJeune ,M.D., Ph.D at the Rene Descartes university of Paris Faculty of Medicine
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Except those parts were inside another persons body and were living off of that persons body for substances. Hence why the laws steps in. Because the fetus (not an embryo) still requires the physical connection to the birth mother. Now if its a late term abortion, where it could survive outside it is (for legal abortions) a danger to the mothers life and HER life takes presidencies. If at her own free will she can have legal papers written up claiming to give her life for the fetus.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Prof LeJeune states: "If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen". THAT's SCIENCE and COMMON SENSE. Can you see?
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Yes but just a fertile egg? Really? Because if you don't implant it in a woman it can't develop into a human, it will either be frozen or rot away. It requires the physical body of a woman to carry it. If its not implanted it can't develop. Which is imposing on the rights of the woman of her body if she doesn't wish to carry that embryo. That is both science & common sense.Prof LeJeune was known for being very bias in his view of the fetus. B/c he knew w/o a host it wouldn't survive.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Embryo is a genetically complete human being but not fully developed It's just in an underdeveloped stage . Just as a newborn, toddler, or infant is underdeveloped stage but still very much dependant on others or this life will die . If you kill by a surgeons knife or canulla or RU 48 or let a child to starve most people even yourself would call it murder. A 1 day 1 year or how many years old (outside of the womb) is still dependant on the mother to survive?Other's dependency
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Here is the differences between a newborn, a toddler, child or adult.... They aren't physically connected to another human beings body. A newborn, toddler etc... doesn't require the woman who birth them to care for them. As the fetus or embryo does. Its insider her body and thus a part of her body which she is FREE to do what she wishes. You also just told me that life doesn't develop now you are admitting it does. The embryo isn't a human, its developing into a human.But not one yet!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga A newborn or child doesn't require anyone to survive? That's news to me.You really should walk me through that one. AS to a baby being apart of her body - Have you seen say, a piece of tissue or an organ try to move(by itself) when a sharp surgical instrument enters the womb or in the case of other surgeries of organs or other tissue being removed?NO. you haven't have you?Gee seeing is believing. This might be evidence that suggests it's INDEPENDANT being.And if you say it's an
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "A newborn or child doesn't require anyone to survive?" So u can't make ur point w/o taking my quotes out of context? This my quote "Here is the differences between a newborn, a toddler, child or adult.... They aren't physically connected to another human beings body. A newborn, toddler etc... doesn't require the woman who birth them to care for them." (to the last part, ie the child is adopted..) & yes I have seen abortion videos, I saw then in an health class in college.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga If you say it's a parasite again but still part of her body ,then i've got to ask you it's one or the other.Is it a organ /tissue that grew from her body or is it a parasite? Come on, make up your mind.As to the what I stated before whether it's developing or is already human,let me answer in a way you can understand.I really hope I can be clear. Human embryology and I state that zygote,embryo,fetus,are diferent stages of development of a genetically complete HUMAN BEING. Got it? To
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank Actually there u r wrong. The embryo is both. It came from an outside source that connected with one of her cells (ie the egg.) Also ppl have things removed from their bodies all the time. "Come on, make up your mind.As to the what I stated before whether it's developing or is already human," Your the 1who said the embryo is a developing human. Make up ur mind! B/c its developing into a human. You believe that a human exist the moment an egg &sperm meet. Science &the law disagree w/ u!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga It's a genetically complete human being that's a scientific fact. Why won't you answer the Prof LeJeune that nothing is added to make it human. Of course the human being needs the mother. just as the baby needs it after birth. Just because the baby needs care the care shouldn't/ wouldn't be imposed? Why don't you answer THE question. What is in the womb if it's not a human being? What? Or who? You saw the abortion videos , so what was aborted?
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Its not a complete human being because its NOT developed. An zygotedoes require something to be added, it must be implanted inside a woman womb in order to develop into a human. A baby after birth doesn't need a mother. A father could do, a grandparent or an adopted parent. But the zygote requires the woman its implanted in. While the its in the woman body its her right if she wishes to be imposed or not. Just as after its born if she wishes to raise it or not. Its not equally human..
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga But she had that "right" before she got pregnant. She could've said NO.After wards she had the ability not the right to commit evil. It sounds very arbitrary and not scientific that one's WISHES can change reality . From a human being to not human being because one WISHES it so. Are you sure that's science? Again what's the biological miracle/ process that's human being one moment (if you WISH it to be so) then it's not? What is this biological term you would use if had to name it? SELF
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "But she had that "right" before she got pregnant. She could've said NO." Yes but not everyone follows your sex is for breeding only purposes. That is your religion, not a law. (Thank you founding fathers!) ".After wards she had the ability not the right to commit evil." Your against bc. You want less abortions promote the use of bc, because your religion is NOT to be forced upon others. The law not science said the woman takes presidencies over the fetus. B/c she is already BORN.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 No one is wishing anything, the fetus was never considered human. It was developing into a human and yes it has our DNA, however its still a parasite inside a womans body until. Again more circle logic from you mixing what I said is law and what is science.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 because it requires to live off the physical body of a human being directly inside it. Its imposing itself on a person who is born and is legally person, who has rights to make the choice over the body. As for the abortion. I saw a 7 wk termination, 19 week conjoint twins and late term miscarriage being removed, 9months was what I remember. It was actually quite interesting.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga The text says a parasite is from a diferent species . But we both know that's not possible. Also does a parasite/tissue/ organ move away from the canulla, or other sharp surgical intstument when it's near? does the liver or heart move away or its own heartbeat(which it does have) rises dramatically? No. See a live abortion and you'll see it for yourself. Is any biological matter added to the developing baby? No. Just time . and it's not developed just as a 1 day or 1 yr old or 10 year
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Definition of parasite:# an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host leech: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.
The fetus clearly fits this description. Definition of Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga You forgot if it's of the same species then it's not parasitic as obviously it is of the same species .No wonder you left that one out. An inconvenient TRUTH. How many parasites are there that are of the same species but you get because of deliberate act of procreation? You shouldn't murder what your fruit of your loins create. LIFE. Isn't that working at cross purposes?
frank2033 1 year ago
Comment removed
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 "No wonder you left that one out" You completely ignored all the points I made in past post. Care to re-discuss Oran and ancient Hebrew culture? Or about the morality of killing one conjoint twin for the hopes other might live? Or how you keep ignoring the FACT that a already born person doesn't require a host body. LOL All you do is try to take what I say out of contexts to make your point. Weak! Again no facts just amusement.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga STILL you don't answer the question what would be the term for the unborn that's in the woman's uterus? YOU know , the one that's in the human enbryology textbooks that states that is not a genetically complete human being but still developing (maturing) human being? PLEASE GIVE ME THAT BIOLOGICAL TERM! YOU CAN't , IT DOESN'T EXIST!! What did happen on a few months ago scientists were invited to these hearings to hear what geneticists/embryologists had to TESTIFY as to when the human
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 1 You've asked me many questions and the term for a unborn baby in the womb is called a FETUS! Not maturing, but DEVELOPING into a human! A child matures into an adult, a fetus develops into a human.
I have a question for you. If a man sleeps with a willing pregnant woman (doesn't matter if he is the father or not) should he and she be charged with child sexual abuse? A mans penis thrusting itself that close to a "child", if it was born, they would be called a SEX OFFENDER!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 "You forgot if it's of the same species then it's not parasitic as obviously it is of the same species .No wonder you left that one out." I didn't leave it out. Its right there in my definition. The fetus isn't developed yet so its still parasite. Where a human doesn't require host to survive on. Here is shock, my doctor (both actually) told me the same thing "the fetus is a parasite" it has our DNA but requires a host to survive. It is by all medical definition a parasite.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga AS to when human life begins . They ALL STATED CONCEPTION WAS THE BEGINING OF LIFE. NO AMBIGUITIES NO CONFUSION. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST THAT DISSENTED. NOT ONE. AND YOU PRO DEATH TYPES WERE MOST CERTAINLY INVITED TO PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE. YOU DIDN'T SHOW UP DID YOU?
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Hmmm let me guess another pro-life demo, yeah I think most of us have pretty much heard it all. Seen all the pics and how they swear a fetus should president to a woman body. Yeah that gets old. Especially when you have a better understand of bio and law than theses ppl do.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Where is your scientific proof? where are your scientists that would've/should've testified? Where is your documentation?You're right that the it's old because that's what we've always said, nothing new. It's grand when science has caught up to what we've always believed in. Science will not help you here.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Scientist do research for the purpose to understand develop, LAW however holds a different purpose. I makes for our social survival. Scientist could argue that certain people should not breed because of genetic defects, however the LAW allows theses people to breed any way. Even if they develop genetic problems in their off spring. They have the right and the choice to breed, even if they can't care for the children. Hence the the differences!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 So pretty much you have nothing left to debate... yawn!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga You go on being a wordsmith twisting terms such as fetus (legitimate textbook term) choice , imposition( not scientific)But where are your scientists, textbooks , your biologists , doctors that you've worked for and could've testified in that senate subcomittee that LIFE doesn't begin at conception? You know - that life is developing into a human being but won;t be unless the woman (because that's the LAW is written today) choose that fully human being to continue it be? Where is your
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033" You go on being a wordsmith twisting terms such as fetus (legitimate textbook term) choice , imposition( not scientific)" Thats not word smithing, you asked me the scientific term and the answer was fetus. I answered your question, now because I was able to, your acting all sulky. As for when life begins, it technically begins at the sperm. However for a sperm to become a human being it has to meet with an egg and develop into a human being in the WOMB! ie the woman body!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 Thats science hon, whether you like it or not.
The LAW doesn't declare a person a person until they are BORN! Hence the law honors the right of the legal person over the fetus. If you don't agree with this, go to a third world country that follows to your religious views! H/e even countries like Brazil will allow an abortion to a 9 yr old rape victim carrying twins, that were endangering her life. The catholic church felt she should have died giving birth to those twins! Sick.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Again the LAW allows for murder , is it right to kill a defenseless human being? You have said that life begins at the sperm but that's a LIE. Scientists are universally state that a human being starts at conception. Why did you LIE? Because your next ridiculous thing you might have said would be masturbation or ejaculations being murder . Wordsmithing again.Why ? As for that case in Brazil I certainly feel for that girl she should'nt have to go through that in a perfect world
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033"You have said that life begins at the sperm but that's a LIE." No its not a lie. The sperm is a life form. By all means! If it fertilizes an egg and it grows in a woman it can become a human. Pathetic you have to grasp at such silliness to make your point. LOL As for the fetus, it is NOT a legal person until its born. Hence no murder. And care to answer my question? If killing a fetus is murder (your logic) than is having sex with a pregnant woman child abuse?
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Sperm is a life form? Like blood or skin ? There you go again TWISTING words. I'm glad I'm keeping a wary eye on your wordsmithing. Tissue is not a human being is it ? Human being . That's what every embryologist , geneticist would agree on .Where in the texts say this? What 's your source? Science will not help you. And what's with the ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman being sexual assualt of a baby ? Don't you have anything better than desperation ?
frank2033 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank2033 "Sperm is a life form? Like blood or skin ? There you go again TWISTING words." I was simply pointing out as I said before how ridiculous your state about the embryo being a life. That by your logic it would actually start as a sperm. The sperm is alive, but you admit like tissue it doesn't count as human. Its not wordsmithing, its throwing your own dumb argument in your face.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 "What 's your source? Science will not help you. " In 2006, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics published their opinion on “Using Preimplantation Embryos for Research.” In it, they say, “If the preimplantation embryo is left or maintained outside the uterus, it cannot develop into a human being.” Hear that DEVELOP into a human being. Hence not a human yet or could be if NOT implanted. Theres science again backing me up!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 "And what's with the ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman being sexual assualt of a baby ?" I find it ridiculous that you would put a woman right to her body over a sperm combined with an egg. See even you agree that having a erect penis just inches away from a fetus is NOT child abuse. If thats not child abuse then its not a child. If killing a fetus is murdering a child, than by the same logic, having an erect penis just inches away from a fetus is sexual abuse!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Why do you persist in this ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman is sexual abuse? Is it his motive to have sex with the woman or the child? If a couple have sex with the child very close by and there's no room (such as in the case of a pregnant woman) for the baby to be elsewhere ,is it sexual abuse of a child? Is he the recipient of his penis or his lust or is it incidental ? WAS THE child molested ? No, of course not.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "Why do you persist in this ridiculous arguement that sex with a pregnant woman is sexual abuse?" Because I want an answer. If it were born and laying on top of the womans abdominal, it would be sexual abuse. You consider the fetus equal to an already born child, so I want to know why by your logic, how sex with a pregnant woman is NOT child abuse. Plus after the debate about having sex w/o risking pregnancy is like some1 eating& vomiting afterwards. I'm calling you on your HYPOCRISY!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga But you do have those cases .What's the solution? To kill two human beings in the case that she might die? In case she might die. Might die. Might. there have been cases that doctors have recomended abortion because they felt it was too dangerous for the woman or possible defect/ handicapin the baby. Those mothers refused and both were fine. Doctors aren't God, they don't know with certainty. Do you know if that young girl would've died ? Are you God? No. The Church in Brazil
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 " To kill two human beings in the case that she might die?" So your against that if the womans life is at risk, she should still give birth? Well that sums up all my concerns. Once you ban abortion you force women willing or unwilling to give up their lives. One damn good reason NEVER to ban abortion! Now as for this god crap, god is a belief, NOT a fact. It doesn't belong in gov. As for the doc. yes they can be wrong. But shouldn't it be the woman choice if she wants to risk it?
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga What about the tiny human beings that are a dead certainty to die? Since you admit they're human beings though not currently protected by law why isn't it evil to kill them ?
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "Since you admit they're human beings though not currently protected by law why isn't it evil to kill them ?" Now that is a down right lie on your part. I never said the fetus or the embryo etc... was human. NEVER did! I said about a million times I see NOTHING wrong with abortion, as long as the woman who is having the abortion is doing it of her own free will! You accuse me of lying and word smithing, but thats on you. Either that your have a reading disability.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga As for God being a belief and not a fact , try this . In abortion you are killing a human being that's a fact not a belief or opinion. You are physically killing another human being that's a scientific fact that's a human being . SCIENTIFIC FACT. FACT #1The life of a human being starts at conception. FACT # 2 You are killing said human. Not opinion nor belief just objective FACT.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "You are physically killing another human being that's a scientific fact that's a human being . SCIENTIFIC FACT"
American College of Pediatricians on its Web site. “The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.”
There that science contradicting your claims again! Call it a fact until your blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Hence why abortion is still legal.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga The Church teaches that no good can come out of something intrinsically evil. What is certain two babies died. That's a certainty. You let God decide who is to die. You don't introduce man's hand and commit a deliberate act and kill. If she dies it is not through human's deliberate ,conscience, evil act . So there's no culpability in someone doing evil such as killing twins. Let me explain further. All three are of equal value in God's eyes . He's the Supreme Court. If a child 1 yr old
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "The Church teaches that no good can come out of something intrinsically evil." Well then maybe should worry about their child molester problem 1st. What is certain a little girl is alive today& her rapist step dad is still in good standing w/ the church. As for ur god, it doesn't belong in the laws. I dont' believe in ur god. Hence ur gods wishes don't apply to me or any1 who is NOT of your faith. So u need not explain it to me.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga YOU brought up the Church when you mentioned that girl in Brazil and I responded with why the Church did what it did. Don't likre the truth about the Church ? Too bad you brought up what you thought of what the Church responded. Sick is killing a human being or two for no reason other than you so choose. You don't care whether it (even though you've admitted it's a human being) a case of rape or the woman 's life is endangered (though nothing is certain but that the CHOICE is certain
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "YOU brought up the Church when you mentioned that girl in Brazil " I brought up that I thought it was sick. I've heard their excuses and two little fetus verses an already born child, I see that as no contest. I never said the fetus was human I said it has our DNA but not fully developed. Man you could you make a point w/out taking what I say out of content?
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga The CHOICE is certain death for the little human beings in her womb and maybe andf I repeat maybe death for the mother.
frank2033 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank2033 "The CHOICE is certain death for the little human beings in her womb and maybe andf I repeat maybe death for the mother." The CHOICE is her to make what she wants to do with her body! By all accounts both legal and even science the woman takes presences over the fetus. And more women die from child birth than they do abortions. So try again!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga If a 1yr old or 5yr or whatever age was trapped with her mother or anyone else in a cave in but the experts said there was not enough of air, food , water or whatever so the recommended action would be to kill her . Or she had a deadly disease so, to survive remove that threat to her life and kill. Would that be just? Merciful? The Church would say have faith and don't kill. Leave it in God's hands. There are some miners trapped somewhere , I forget where. So apply this to their
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "Leave it in God's hands. There are some miners trapped somewhere ,"
Again that is YOUR faith. Not the rest of the world. I"m all for allowing women who are pro-life to choose to give up their lives of their own free will to have a rapist child, a sickly child, etc... However I'm against FORCING anyone against their will to have a child! That little 9 yr old didn't have a choice! She was violated and would have further violated giving birth! I'm glad her mother choose her life!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga So these miners are trapped and they if faced a similar situation , would it be just/loving to kill some so others might live?
frank2033 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank2033 "So these miners are trapped and they if faced a similar situation , would it be just/loving to kill some so others might live?"
For those circumstances, I've heard all sort of things. I've heard of people killing themselves so they could lower the food rate or even let their bodies be food. In such stressful situations I'm not going to judge. Who knows what one will do in order to survive.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga You don't introduce a deliberate evil human act such as killing into the situation. That way no one commits evil. You leave in God's hands. And if you HATE God , then say let nature take its course then no one gets their hands bloody. As for Onan it's always ( first century)been the teaching that the Onanism = contraception= intrinsically evil. And you have to understand that a particular verse can have more than one lesson. It's called depth. You talk about forcing but you do the
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033"And if you HATE God ," I never said I hated god. I just don't believe in your god. Theres a differences. I say let the woman decides. We don't let "nature take its course" when it comes to cancer. As for ur misinterpretation of the bible the Hebrew story has to do with Onan not wanting to have to share his fathers land with this child he was to conceive. Talk to a Rabbi. They know all theses little facts regarding the ancient Hebrews! There is depth&then there is lies.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga " So we let nature takes its course "Fertility/children are NOT CANCER .They are a blessing -Life is a blessing. We don't CUT A HUMAN BEING INTO PIECES AND CALL IT A DISEASE!
frank2033 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank2033 "Fertility/children are NOT CANCER .They are a blessing -Life is a blessing." Not to someone who doesn't want a child! I'm sure a rape victim wouldn't call her rapist fetus a blessing! And the fetus can be like a disease in that it can be deadly! ie... ectopic pregnancies. No way to save the embryo in the lining of the tube. And since its not developed into a HUMAN, there is no real issue in performing abortions.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 AS to LIES you are the LIAR. As to depth , let me explain something about scripture They CAN have more than one meaning there's layers, as long as they don't contradict . Look at Deu 25;5-10 the man refused to perform the duty of a husband's brother to the widow.God didn't strike him dead and he wasn't put to death by others just got his sandal pulled off his feet and spit on his . As for Jewish commentary there was agreement that this meant he was acting perversely ; killiong his
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Excuse me I read your bible front to back, so don't be calling me a liar because your are ignorant of your own faith! Look at the whole thing, because its not a story but a law being placed. It tells how the hebrews, not god would punish a man if he didn't perform his duties! Your god is also not consistent in its acts. Is it my fault your book has flaws? You really lack understanding of your holy book. So don't be calling me a liar because I KNOW it better than you!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 Now I have answered all your ? & I want answers to mine! 1. What does one do when you have joint twins, one will die if separated, both will die if they don't? 2. Should OB GYN report women for having sex while pregnant, as sex offenders? 3. Did you look up jewish history and learn the FACTS behind Orans situation? 4. Would you force a woman to give birth even if the odds are against her survival? 5. Are you aware you are trying to force ppl to live by your religious beliefs?
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Religious or moral?The difference is we believe all should live live regardless of religion or non religious . Catholic or protestant. Muslim or Hundu. Budhist or animalist. All have a equal dignity . Women and child. I have not really looked into the cojoined twins situation . I'm not familiar whether what you state is truthful or accurate about both dying for certain or murdering one and possibly saving the other. I've answered already that you don't introduce a deliberate evil
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "Religious or moral?" I follow ethics which can mature and even change. Where religion and morals often don't. I find it ironic you mention Hinduism because of a high rate of abortions in India by Hindu women. Woman and child are not protected equally. Nor are men or the elderly etc... For example, often men are expected to lay their lives down for their women. Most people would die for a child. However not everyone follows theses codes. The unborn is solely at the carriers wishes!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga' Religious or moral"? I meant that it's not a particular religion that i'm trying to tell the truth and save and most of all love. As for ethics maturing or changing if it's based on the truth it doesn't change as in doing a reversal it deepens OUR understanding of it. Truth doesn't change I'm trying to help ALL people of religious backgrounds not just Christian . They all have a human dignity endowed by their GOD. From the moment of conception to the end of their natural lives.
frank2033 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank2033 "They all have a human dignity endowed by their GOD. From the moment of conception to the end of their natural lives"
No you are trying to force your beliefs form your religion onto others who are NOT of your religion. Not all beliefs agree with the fetus being of any status at all.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 As for the conjoint twins I suggest you look them up. Cases like this are literally all over the world. The last one I read about was in Pakistan. Two girls jointed at the head. The weaker one was just a head and some of a torso. The other one was normal. Removing them killed the weaker one, however the other is alive and well. However last I heard brain damage (because of where they were connected) was a concern.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga You do the forcing on other human beings when you dismember them or poison them or burn them alive. What's so bad when both live but your solution is death for one and life long pain for the other . Is that love for either one ? As for sacrificing one self for others that's totally diferent than murdering another.
frank2033 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank2033 "You do the forcing on other human beings when you dismember them or poison them or burn them alive." I haven't heard about the burning alive abortion, but your bible talks about the stoning one. You know when a woman had sex outside of marriage, (how do you think they could prove that) by stoning her alive. They did it to pregnant women too! How holy! :)
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 Now you see I understand that in your perfect world all people are virgins until marriage. Every time they have sex its done of the sole goal to conceive. All women should be happy to carrying, birth and even die if needed for the fetus. Thats your perfect world. However I live in a country where we have FREEDOM of religion. Where people can live and create their own needs of perfection.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Yes there lies the root of all evil. WE do what WE want and only answer to ourselves.Let me tell you about this way of yours. This woman said it best when she was promoting pure fashions her clothing line: 'If we don't tell them ( young women) the truth what do we get 1 and a half million abortions a year and STD' s
Is this what you want for people ? for our world? would this either make them healthy or happy? Will sex with no logical consquences of pregnancy/abortion . for your
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 1 you were talking a woman promoting fashion verses abortions. That makes no damn sense! Big business have promoting fashion and products through lies and decent for yrs. As for abortions, I'm not promoting them. I'm simply agreeing they should remain as a CHOICE!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 In all seriousness if you really want to help lower abortions (because you can't force a person to give birth at the risk of their life nor force a rape victim to birth a rapist conception) why not actually promote things that would lower them. Like low cost to free medical care? Or maybe low cost to free day care? Even though your faith is against bc, you admit the sperm is NOT equal to a human, so why not give out condoms? Better that than conceiving & aborting? Thats logical.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga That's a lie that more than 1% of pregnancies are the result of rape/incest and the life of the mother is at risk so kill their children. 99% are elective. No danger to the mother and 99% were not raped. Less poverty and more economic help would mean lower crime , but should we abandon our laws against larceny and just work to end poverty?
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Again calling me a liar because you have no argument and you took again another thing I said out of context for the same reason. The example of rape and woman life risk was in () because those are exceptions you can't get around. I was talking abortions done due to poverty and age. The fact you won't promote bc shows you don't care about fixing the problem. One way to help lower poverty is allowing ppl to control their family size! Which bc does!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga i won't have anything to do with BC. By your deliberate action you make the sexual act null and void. You sterilze it and call it clean. Clean of LIFE which was its pupose. Even looking at it objectively that's it's pupose (along with love). Instead you rob yourself and your spouse ot the beauty, pupose and love which what it was created for. You hold back from him your trust your most intimate self and create a barrier. Are you truly one flesh when you say this far and no more?
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Again your have a religious issue against bc which you have no right to force onto others. Love making is just as wonderful with bc as it is without. I've done both. So don't be trying to compare. There is trust and relief to know we can control the size of our family. We aren't holding back, we would be if we had to always risk pregnancy with sex. You are being silly in this example. LOL PS you notice I don't insult you, but you can't seem to hold back. Pretty sad, you can't debate!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga It's all or nothing. In this most intimate act of conceiving/procreating a human being you hold back something of yourself and what it was created for the uniting of two into one you say 'NO' i don't trust or love you." That's why there' s no bonding at such a crucial level for the marriage to suceed. That's also why cohabitating before marriage leads to divorce there's no real love without trust. Love without trust or truth is doomed to failure.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 The act is intimate w/o procreation. Its not holding back, its embracing&much more often. Your logic doesn't hold. Couples are more likely to divorce with children in it, b/c of the added stress. It can sound romantic that you conceived, but then you have the reality. The extra bills, the time that very few ppl have any more, the MONEY that is needed w/ each child. You don't go any further than the sex. Children are responsibility, that require more planning than a night of passion!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 "That's also why cohabitating before marriage leads to divorce there's no real love without trust. Love without trust or truth is doomed to failure."
I call BS on this too, just like your FP logic. If a couple is religious enough or influenced by religious family enough to remain separate before marriage, they are more likely to be too religious (or their family) to have a divorce. Where a couple who doesn't follow that, have more freedom! Again fail!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Condoms lead to more pregnancies more STD's and that's a fact by centers of disease control . Let me repeat myself : Bc leads to more pregnancy and STD's Why ? Because instead of being careful(chaste) it leads people to think they're protected and have sex. If you take someone for BC without any sexual mores and leave them be , what do you think would be the results? I haven't been taught to be chaste and I have protection , so why not? Instead we give our children Bc but not teach
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "Condoms lead to more pregnancies more STD's and that's a fact by centers of disease control." I went to the center of disease control website and it DOESN'T"T match your findings! Look up condoms on their website! I'm not going to call you a liar because I'm bigger than that, I will call your Pope on for telling ppl in 3rd world countries this. He should be charged w/ war crimes! Any person who takes his word literally &gets HIV, their blood is on his hands!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga We give them Bc and that sends a powerful messaage we don't expect them to be abstaining and you are protected (LIE). You can look this up with Abby Johnson the former Planned Parenhood director at College Station, Tx. She brought this up at a PPmeeting and raised her concerns that since Family planning has increased then why aren't unplanned pregnancies decreasing? They told her doesn't she get it, that they were in it for the money. PP just loves to spead that LIE, that bc prevents
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "We give them Bc and that sends a powerful messaage we don't expect them to be abstaining and you are protected (LIE)." Again your pushing your religious beliefs onto those who don't follow your beliefs! My beliefs have no issue with sex before marriage. You are not going to stop this, so move on. Your church as been trying for over a 1,000 yrs to force this concept. Needless to say, turn on a TV they failed. Its insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 I did some research on this Abby Johnson: 1. She stole personal confidential records from a patient! to bring to her pro-life buddies. Massively against the law and should be arrested. 2. Her claims that PP only plan abortions, when the fact is in most of the country PPs are often the safest places to achieve. Most woman who want to keep their baby go to an OB GYN, those who want to place for adoption go to an adoption agency and those who want an abortion go to PP. more...
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 In 2008 only 3% of PP services were for abortions. I've seen also see the PP introduction video to pregnant women who choose abortion. They make clear their options, keeping it, adoption and abortion. It explains in detail what each would require and effect on them. I've had friends who had abortions and those who considered it, and PP gave them information on adoption and even keeping it if they wished. Who should I believe? My friends or this nut who has been caught in many lies?
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 As for bc I can honestly say with my own experiences I've never contracted an STD or got pregnant when using a condom. Everyone I know personally who used the condom correctly didnt' get pregnant or an STD. Your Abby Johnson hasn't given any proof to her claims that abortions remained the same with bc. It is merely her word, a bias one at that. Pretty weak.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Keep it coming. Real information is important here and too many are spreading myths or downright lies on these issues!
Well done!
auritone 10 months ago
@auritone I'm happy to help! :)
Boudiga 10 months ago
Comment removed
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "Also does a parasite/tissue/ organ move away from the canulla, or other sharp surgical intstument when it's near? " I saw a hook worm wrap itself around a surgical scapula. The liver and heart isn't a parasite. The bio additive is the implantation inside the woman. Which allows it to grow. W/o it its nothing more than a rotten egg. A born baby is developed enough to live outside the woman and doesn't impose on the physical body of the woman. It can then go else where, unlike fetus.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga To this list add newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult and senior . At no point was this developing HUMAN BEING not a HUMAN BEING. Now that's science and reason. Again this is textbook.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 We develop and reach a peek and start the dying process. Like leaves that sprout in the spring, bloom in the summer, wither in the fall and are dead come winter. Thats life and basic fundamentals. LOL The human is already developed now it grows to reach a peek then begins to deteriorate. The process is usually slow and everyone goes through it differently. Some people die of heart attacks at 30 while others live to 100. Apples and oranges my friend. LOL
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Yes but during all this peaking and decline were you ever not human?Let me repeat this question- when were you not human during this life and basic fundamentals?
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Depends, mere sperm and egg no. I was not human then. When I just got implanted in the womb no still not human. I was born in the 80s so medical tech at the time I wouldn't have survived out of the womb at say 6 months, maybe 5 months. I would NOT legally have any rights as a human until I was born.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 It was error on my part. I meant embryo. I type zygote. Relax. I understand my mistake.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga A human being dependent(imposing) shouldn't count as to being allowed to live. A 1 day or 1 , 2 3 year old is not independant and therefore imposes on her mother. Maybe by your standards and others we still should have the CHOICE to KILL that child.And it's happening now or haven't you heard of THE Born Alive Law. This law would protect those babies that survived an attempt on their lives.An embryo is a complete but underdeveloped human being that will grow not mutate metamorph into
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 No you again like your bible you are taking what I said out of context. A baby or child already born isn't attached physically to another person. They require care yes, but people other than the birth mother can do it. H/e with an attached embryo or a fetus is physically inside someone. THATS THE DIFFERENCES! So don't put words in my mouth. If an abortion fails I agree in allowing medical treatment to the now born baby. The embryo isn't a human until it develops and is born.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga" If an abortion fails I agree in ALLOWING medical treatment to the now born baby". What's the biological difference from one moment to the next? Would you name this term ?PLEASE.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Simple, its not physically connected to her and FEEDING off her body.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 Also take in account joint twins. In many cases 1 twin is weaker and is harming the health of the healthier twin. If separated the healthier twin will live where the weaker twin will die. Yet doctors, parents even judges have had chosen to force or allow separation surgery.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga As to "embryo has DNA so does skin cells" arguement -The embryo won't "miraculously "change or mutate from tissue into a HUMAN BEING (it 's already a human being) No, science and common sense (reason) is quite evident that can't happen.While it would be take a MIRACLE to change mutate , or metamorph skin tissue into a HUMAN BEING.Human being will still be a human being and fingernail clippings( or skin cells) will still be skin cells..Science and reason (your old enemy) won't help
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 No the embryo can if allowed and able to grow, could develop into a human being. An acorn if planted in the earth and allowed and able to grow could become an oak. But as an acorn is no tree. Again thats plan science. They aren't my enemy babe. Nor do I fear it. Basic biology a human is more than embryo.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga it's the same species but in different stage of development. Just as any species. ASk any biologist. they will conclude it's the same but underdeveloped. Ask them was it ever a diferent kind of tree , you know a pecan or tomatoe or banana. a squash . an apple or lemon or what. No, they'll just look at you with a kind of confused look.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 No its developing into a human being. A human being can survive outside the womb. Like a seed of a plant if its not implanted it doesn't develop. We also again don't count the unborn in our society. It all goes by the whole chicken before the egg. I actually know doctors and biologist. I use to work with several. They would look at your argument and laugh.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 I also noticed you didn't respond to any of my points. 1. Oran being forced by his family to lay with his sister-in-law. 2. The issue of conjoint twins and how we will separate them even if it means the death of one of them. 3. The fact that the zygote-fetus requires a host body to survive were an already born child does not. (requiring someone to raise them doesn't count as a HOST.)
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 You also avoid the topic of the woman herself and her RIGHTS to her body. To make a choice for their own body. Back before abortion was legal most women wouldn't have the choice to give their life for their unborn. Now thanks to the pro-choice advocates theses women can now keep medical documents to allow them to choose the fetus over her. Something over looked by the pro-life movement.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Again laws can change from that of a non human being to that of a full human being (slavery) like in the 1800's.As for the humanity of both unborn or blacks ,science and reason would leave you to the truth . As to before murder was legal and you can thank the pro death advocates it seems that the imposition on them doesn't merit the death penalty. The supposed crime doesn't match the penalty. After all the' imposition" is for a few months while death(by dismemberment) is eternal. Say
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 So you want to force women to be breeding slaves by taking away the right to control their bodies. Yeah I still side with the already born. Yes laws can change. However taking away a right rather than adding one NEVER works. I doubt the unborn will ever be considered a human because ITS not. Its not fully developed. DNA of a fetus can be found in a hair root. Another thing you ignored.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga "Choose the fetus over her" is not a good arguement. We are not saying kill the woman but spare the baby. While you definitely say choose the woman but kill the baby. In your reasoning one dies . While in mine both LIVE.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 I was talking about in the case of a life or death situation if the woman doesn't have legal paper work stating her wishes to die for the fetus, then the hospital will choose her life even if she is kicking & screaming.STOP taking what I say out of contact. Again its up for the woman to choose if she wants to take the medical &health risk &sufferings that come w/ pregnancy &birth. If she doesn't wish to do that, she has the right to terminate. Preg. is MORE than just an inconvenience.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga No science won't help you on this one. Science will only point you to the TRUTH. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT. As to the legality that the fetus isn't legally a "person"is subjective and not based on science .It's based on legal opinion of a supeme court judge Blackmon that was renting space from an abortionist when ROE vs Wade was being heard. AS to the fetus what legal protection can it have when it's 9 months but an abortionist takes most of the baby out but still leaves skull in the
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Okay first of all read what I said, because your taking what I said out of context. When I talk about the fetuses rights, I"m talking about LAW not science. Like you said law is subjective. So read please! Second the courts ruled that women have the RIGHT over the fetus to control their bodies. Your conspiracy theory means nothing to me. Women aren't breeding slaves plan and simple. The judges of the courts agreed the woman is a legal person where the fetus is not. We don't count....
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 ... fetuses in our population, a pregnant woman alone can't drive in an HOV line, simply put we don't count all our chickens before they are hatched. We don't count those who aren't born in our society. You must be pulling at strings if you already tossed the late term abortions in the debate. Because late term abortions at 9months are done legally when the mothers life is at state. The woman has the right to choose her own life over the unborn. FACT! Yes some illegal late terns were
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 ... performed illegally however they are rare and when caught are fully charged. You may feel we should force women into a death sentence of birth, but now that is her choice! (Provided she keeps paper work stating her wishes to give her life for the fetus. If not even if she is kicking and screaming the doctors will choose her life over the fetus. )
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 Therefore the woman is the legal person, where the embryo or fetus is not. Her body is her right to control. The fetus is not legally a person and doesn't have the right on the grounds that it is physically part of a legal persons body. A child is a legal person for it also isn't imposing physical existences off of another body. Thats the law and medical science. The embryo or fetus is not legally a person or child until its born. You have have religious beliefs that conflict...
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Leaves skull in cervix then jams a pair of scissors into the back of skull and scissors are spread apart while baby( or legally is still a fetus) is thrashing about for its life. Baby''s(or as you point out legally a fetus without any rights) skull contents or what most people would call its brains are sucked out. Then the( NO LEGAL STATUS ;NO LEGAL PROTECTION ) baby's stops all movement. The abortionist then takes the baby( I mean NO LEGAL PERSON) pout of the woman's cervix.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 But that is why we have separation of church and state.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Human life is at conception nearly all embryologists are in agreement. Human life doesn't "develop" into a human it just matures. How would you classify this newly conceved LIFE? I mean if YOU'VE decided it's not human but still some type of LIFE , just what typeof LIFE is it? Is it animal? NO. Is it flora? NO. Is an inanimate object ? NO. Is it microbacterial or viral? NO. Even if you argue it's the size of a bacteria , bacteria will never (miracle)transform into a HUMAN BEING later.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Actually it develops into a human. It starts out rather fish like in the early period. But I answered your question its parasitical.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga I don't believe you can satisfy my curiosity as to what you would classify this newly conceived LIFE. Just what is in a mother's womb for 9 months or shorter if you decide to KILL? But again, KILL what eactly? Science and reason (YOUR old enemy) will let you know if you let it.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 "I don't believe you can satisfy my curiosity as to what you would classify this newly conceived LIFE."
Well thats your problem. What grows in the womb is a parasite. Its developing into a human. It will legally become its own person when its born. Until then, it is still a part of the woman body until its born. Then its legally its own person. Science is not my enemy dear. I just choose modern science over old mythology.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 BC has been around for thousands of yrs. The belief in god is that a belief. It hasn't been proven & there are many different beliefs regarding mythology. My beliefs hold no issue w/ bc. Sex has long evolved for breeding purposes. Women are only fertile a few days a month &some even less or not at all. Sex is a mental connection & a natural part of human desire. I understand what sterilization is. I have family who suffer from infertility. They even support bc!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 As for over population being a lie, that is utter BS! I saw the silly videos trying to disprove it, from an catholic priest who isn't a scientist but some1 determine to keep a backwards tradition that isn't even supported by the bible by trying to convince people NOT to use bc. All the real scientist disagree very strongly& I'm more inclined to believe them over the catholic church that has lied about what the bible actually says! So I support bc, not all ejaculations deserve a name!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Overpopulation is a LIE. The birth rate is falling and has continued to fall thanks to the LIES out there. In america it's 1.8 per couple and even less in some parts in europe. For those that don't know the replacement rate for two adults is 2.2. That's just replacement and does not cover gowth. Same goes for much of asia. We are in reality underpopulated.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 LOL that is utter BS! We are expected to more than double our birthrate by 2012. If you can give me a link from a non-religious/republican/ or other bias site that disproves this I"m all ears.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Gen 38 v 8-10 Then Judah said to Onan, go to your brother's wife perform the duty of a brother in law to her and raise up offspring for your brother. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his bother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground., lest he should give any ofspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord and He slew him also. Find out what and why the Church teaches.
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 You xians are so predictable! READ THE WHOLE STORY and STOP CHERRY PICKING! Start at the beginning of that story where it tells the story of the widow who had no children, god orders her late husbands brother to lay with her. He refuses and god kills him. The man REFUSED to lay with a woman who wasn't his wife. The next brother Onan spills his seed, yes. Eventually all the brothers are dead and the widow dresses like a whore and seduces her father-in-law. The story IS NOT about BC!
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga What beginning? Er was slain and for why? No reason is known. As for Onan the reason is CRYSTAL CLEAR. If he didn't want children he should've abstained. Instead he ENJOYED relations with her but refused the whole purpose of sexual relations (to bring forth LIFE). An anology would be to enjoy the eating but still making yourself throw up so don't get the nourishment. So what's the point of eating(sexual relations) beyond yor own SELFISH ENJOYMENT. In both cases you've defeated the WHY
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033Oran was pacifically ordered to conceive a child! It doesn't imply that all sex is for that, only that in this case he was ordered by his father to make a baby. He refused b/c he knew the child wouldn't be his. Thats not selfish. He didn't want a child with his brothers wife. Its not about the birth control its about him refusing a direct order." Gen. 38:7But (F)Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life." Not very pro life if you ask me.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga Again , the sin was that while he ENJOYED relations with her he "spilled his semen on the ground ". If he wasn't willing to conceive why not abstain? But no, he had relations but spilled his semen on the ground. Isn't it exactly like BC to enjoy realations but spill the semen on the ground. And again , the question is WHAT'S the meaning/pupose of sex? Just our enjoyment? It's to bring forth LIFE. with the reward/benefit of enjoyment/pleasure. Instead with BC/sterilization you put the
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 Thats your opinion. He was ordered by his father to lay with her. He was given an order to bare a child. This does NOT apply to all sex partners. This is your twisted interpretation of the bible. The woman later dresses as a prostitute and conceives with her father in law. Hebrew law actually requires that all childless woman, widowed or barren are to lay with their husbands brothers and fathers to attempt to conceive a boy. It doesn't say Oran enjoyed himself. He was forced.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga I guess when you spill your semen you're not enjoying yourself. NO? Yes. Again why have sex then turn away from its intended meaning?Did God slay him for refusing to raise children for his brother or for BC ? Why not simply abstain? No he married then he had relations with his wife. Then he spilled his semen.There were several opportunities to walk away. In your own words"Hebrew law requires that all childless women, widowed or barren ( i'm not too sure about the barren women thing)
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 1 I'm a female, I have no seed to spill. Yes most my sex has been for pleasure, but in the case of Oran he was ordered by his father. Hebrew laws obey your parents. Especially since you wanted their land to farm on. In the Hebrew culture it was a brothers duty to try to concieve a son for his brother. He couldn't refuse to bed her.Read Gen38:8-9 He was forced to do this to honor customs but tried to avoid doing his duty and your god killed him.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 "( i'm not too sure about the barren women thing)" Actually that is true. If a woman didn't bare children or have a boy by her husband she is required to lay with his brothers to try to conceive a child (preferable male) showing that the early Hebrews understood the possibility of male infertility. If she still couldn't produce then she was often cast out in shame. You really should study up on ancient Hebrew cultures.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@Boudiga "are to lay with their husband's brothers and father to attempt to conceive" It's the "attempt' that stands out. How could it that Onan really(God can tell ) did "attempt' it if he spilled his semen on the ground. Did he have lousy aim?No, he didn't act in good faith and God slew him. You're right that's its not all about procreation it's foremost an act of LOVE. Done correctly. Morally. but God definitely made it for marriage and for procreation of children.The sex act must never
frank2033 1 year ago
@frank2033 The story tells of a man who tried to cheat out of his duties, but god knew, what he did. Kinda like santa watching to see who is naughty or nice. In santa gods eyes, Oran breaking his very important duty to his family and was killed for it. Oran started his job by laying with her, but he didn't fulfill the seed planting so the woman could conceive. And since your god a belief and not accepted fact by either law or science your twisted interpretation isn't enforced by the USA.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 Again much like most of our conversation your interpretation is flawed. You know little of this Hebrew book you are quoting from. You are looking at the OT through a modern xian eye not an ancient Hebrew.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@frank2033 Sex is far more to conceive. Or why would the elderly do it? Or the barren? Its proven to be more of a emotional and mental connection with another person, in one of our deepest ways. Its like what the meaning of Viagra when old men aren't going to be living long enough to raise a child to an adult? Because sex is more than baby making. A lot more! I feel sorry for you if you don't know this already.
Boudiga 1 year ago