Quote: @badgervike said:
ba·by (bā′bē) n. pl. ba·bies1.a. A very young child; an infant.b. An unborn child; a fetus.c. The youngest member of a family or group.d. A very young animal. 2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
I guess I simply can't stand by reading anymore.
Well for 50 years the Supreme Court upheld this protection of personal choice. Now it doesn't.
Kill a baby? Let's examine that word first. A baby by definition is a infant child.
Definition of baby (Entry 1 of 3)
1a(1): an extremely young child especially : INFANT
Definition of infant (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a child in the first period of life
Something you can hold coo with and cuddle. So at what point inside the womb is this happening? 24 weeks? 15 weeks? So that's been the real question mark. At which point is a fetus a baby? When it able to sustain life on it's own? You know be an actual baby...and yes I'm well aware of the Latin meaning of the word fetus. No country speaks Latin anymore. Just words mixed in with other languages.
Where does the constitution say execution of criminals is a states right? It upheld states right over an individuals rights against cruel and unusual punishment. So it's an interpretation of states rights ain't it? You know their job as SC justices.This for 50 years was an individuals right over the state. Hopefully it won't come to punishment of individuals crossing state lines to have procedures done banned in their state. It simply can't. Can it??
The constitution was created to divide the powers of the government. To protect the rights of the states from the government. Then protect the rights of the individuals. So the real argument here is when is the fetus an individual with equal rights as the adult carrying it? Many, most don't think it is until it can sustain life on it's own.
This states rights thing is the most screamed about aspect of out constitution. I always preferred the individuals. So we must answer. At what point is something an individual? Maybe when it can be undivided from it's host and survive individually?
For 50 years this was upheld as an individuals right over a: not yet baby...by definition.
This killing babies rhetoric is just inflammatory attention getting misuse of a definition. It's not truly a baby until it's born. Sorry let's be real if we're gonna be real.
Lastly I believe conservatives really liked this better as a talking point then actually the thing they tried for 50 years coming to pass. Now they seem worried about the fall out from mobilization of progressives and moderates who for years, 50 actually, liked it the way it was. Welcome to your tiny island. Your constant pursuit of all inclusiveness just took another big hit.
Hey Suncoast. Good to see you. Just curious on why you only picked part of the definition of baby? Certainly, one of the definitions of baby is as you described.
Here's the full definition:
ba·by (bā′bē) n. pl. ba·biesb. An unborn child; a fetus.c. The youngest member of a family or group.d. A very young animal. 2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Baby is used all the time to describe a fetus. We've all used it that way. The first time your wife feels the baby move...did she say "I felt the baby kick" or did she say "I felt the non-descript glob of cells move"?
noun
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
So...by the very definition of the word...after 8 weeks...we are indeed talking about killing babies. Parsing the definition or pretending differently may make people feel better about supporting (and celebrating) abortion up to the day of birth....but it's not the truth.
The survivability argument used frequently by abortion supporters is also a little suspect. Leave a baby alone for a few days and see how they do.
As I said earlier in this thread, I hope both sides can find some common ground on the subject in this increasingly polarized World.
2 months can survive as a premature? For what 6 month then maybe be a healthy baby? Where you getting 8 weeks is a baby not a fetus?
Maybe then the common ground should be taking the woman out of it all together honestly. Grow eggs to babies in a lab. This would still require the usual egg and sperm but takes the risk out for the woman. Or very young teens already at risk if forced to bring babies to term now. These 13 year olds are somebody's baby too.
Good to see you as well.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ badgervike said:
ba·by (bā′bē) n. pl. ba·bies1.a. A very young child; an infant.b. An unborn child; a fetus.c. The youngest member of a family or group.d. A very young animal. 2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
I guess I simply can't stand by reading anymore.
Well for 50 years the Supreme Court upheld this protection of personal choice. Now it doesn't.
Kill a baby? Let's examine that word first. A baby by definition is a infant child.
Definition of baby (Entry 1 of 3)
1a(1): an extremely young child especially : INFANT
Definition of infant (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a child in the first period of life
Something you can hold coo with and cuddle. So at what point inside the womb is this happening? 24 weeks? 15 weeks? So that's been the real question mark. At which point is a fetus a baby? When it able to sustain life on it's own? You know be an actual baby...and yes I'm well aware of the Latin meaning of the word fetus. No country speaks Latin anymore. Just words mixed in with other languages.
Where does the constitution say execution of criminals is a states right? It upheld states right over an individuals rights against cruel and unusual punishment. So it's an interpretation of states rights ain't it? You know their job as SC justices.This for 50 years was an individuals right over the state. Hopefully it won't come to punishment of individuals crossing state lines to have procedures done banned in their state. It simply can't. Can it??
The constitution was created to divide the powers of the government. To protect the rights of the states from the government. Then protect the rights of the individuals. So the real argument here is when is the fetus an individual with equal rights as the adult carrying it? Many, most don't think it is until it can sustain life on it's own.
This states rights thing is the most screamed about aspect of out constitution. I always preferred the individuals. So we must answer. At what point is something an individual? Maybe when it can be undivided from it's host and survive individually?
For 50 years this was upheld as an individuals right over a: not yet baby...by definition.
This killing babies rhetoric is just inflammatory attention getting misuse of a definition. It's not truly a baby until it's born. Sorry let's be real if we're gonna be real.
Lastly I believe conservatives really liked this better as a talking point then actually the thing they tried for 50 years coming to pass. Now they seem worried about the fall out from mobilization of progressives and moderates who for years, 50 actually, liked it the way it was. Welcome to your tiny island. Your constant pursuit of all inclusiveness just took another big hit.
Hey Suncoast. Good to see you. Just curious on why you only picked part of the definition of baby? Certainly, one of the definitions of baby is as you described.
Here's the full definition:
ba·by (bā′bē) n. pl. ba·biesb. An unborn child; a fetus.c. The youngest member of a family or group.d. A very young animal. 2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Baby is used all the time to describe a fetus. We've all used it that way. The first time your wife feels the baby move...did she say "I felt the baby kick" or did she say "I felt the non-descript glob of cells move"?
noun
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
So...by the very definition of the word...after 8 weeks...we are indeed talking about killing babies. Parsing the definition or pretending differently may make people feel better about supporting (and celebrating) abortion up to the day of birth....but it's not the truth.
The survivability argument used frequently by abortion supporters is also a little suspect. Leave a baby alone for a few days and see how they do.
As I said earlier in this thread, I hope both sides can find some common ground on the subject in this increasingly polarized World.
2 months can survive as a premature? For what 6 month then maybe be a healthy baby? Where you getting 8 weeks is a baby not a fetus?
Maybe then the common ground should be taking the woman out of it all together honestly. Grow eggs to babies in a lab. This would still require the usual egg and sperm but takes the risk out for the woman. Or very young teens already at risk if forced to bring babies to term now. These 13 year olds are somebody's baby too.
Good to see you as well.
If surviving on their own is your standard, I know plenty 16 year olds eligible for abortion.
Quote:
ba·by (bā′bē) n. pl. ba·biesb. An unborn child; a fetus.c. The youngest member of a family or group.d. A very young animal. 2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Baby is used all the time to describe a fetus. We've all used it that way. The first time your wife feels the baby move...did she say "I felt the baby kick" or did she say "I felt the non-descript glob of cells move"?
noun
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
So...by the very definition of the word...after 8 weeks...we are indeed talking about killing babies. Parsing the definition or pretending differently may make people feel better about supporting (and celebrating) abortion up to the day of birth....but it's not the truth.
The survivability argument used frequently by abortion supporters is also a little suspect. Leave a baby alone for a few days and see how they do.
As I said earlier in this thread, I hope both sides can find some common ground on the subject in this increasingly polarized World.
2 months can survive as a premature? For what 6 month then maybe be a healthy baby? Where you getting 8 weeks is a baby not a fetus?
Maybe then the common ground should be taking the woman out of it all together honestly. Grow eggs to babies in a lab. This would still require the usual egg and sperm but takes the risk out for the woman. Or very young teens already at risk if forced to bring babies to term now. These 13 year olds are somebody's baby too.
Good to see you as well.
The definition of baby from the source that you cited "b. An unborn child; a fetus."
The definition of fetus from above (Google, Oxford Dictionary)
- an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
As I have said before, I fall in the middle on this topic (which is extreme for those on either extremity). Having spent a lot of my free time working in homeless shelters, I've seen first hand the despair of a young, pregnant girl whose family has shunned them and they're now on the streets. Although I am a strong advocate of adoption instead of abortion, I will support the mother's right to choose...up to a point. That's why I know a fair amount about PP. I'm guessing most on this board have never seen the inside of a PP facility.
My reaction to VG (breast screenings) above was the normal liberal lead with breast exams as the first item that PP provides. Let's be honest, PP exists primarily to perform abortions. Never once in 35 years of working in shelters in the inner city have I or anybody I knew sent someone to PP for a breast exam. Cancer.gov states "Mammography is the most common screening test for breast cancer" and PP doesn't have equipment. I have referred women to the Free Clinic on many occasions for "women's health" related issues including breast exams / mammograms. Certainly, my interactions with PP have never suggested we refer people to them for breast exams.
I don't honestly have a good answer on when a baby is a baby (Oxford, Google say 8 weeks) but I know that some of these later term abortions are absolutely killing babies and I just can't advocate for that without proper predicate (health of the mother, baby). All abortions, in my mind, should be timely, informed and a solemn/difficult experience. There is nothing about abortion that should be celebrated.
Quote: @mblack said:
@ badgervike said:
I said they don't do mammograms and screen for breast cancer in response to VG. They do provide services such as Pap smears and HPV tests...which are normally done prior to administering birth control and provide cervical cancer screening at the same time. They actually outsource most of that testing here in Madison to the clinics but they may do more in other urban areas. Still a very small part of their business.
VG said screening. You injected mammograms. So you were not responding to something she said.
From: cancer.gov
Quote:Screening tests can help find cancer at an early stage, before symptoms appear. When abnormal tissue or cancer is found early, it may be easier to treat or cure. By the time symptoms appear, the cancer may have grown and spread. This can make the cancer harder to treat or cure.
It is important to remember that when your doctor suggests a screening test, it does not always mean he or she thinks you have cancer. Screening tests are done when you have no cancer symptoms.
There are different kinds of screening tests.Screening tests include the following:
- Physical exam and history: An exam of the body to check general signs of health, including checking for signs of disease, such as lumps or anything else that seems unusual. A history of the patient’s health habits and past illnesses and treatments will also be taken.
- Laboratory tests: Medical procedures that test samples of tissue, blood, urine, or other substances in the body.
- Imaging procedures: Procedures that make pictures of areas inside the body.
- Genetic tests: A laboratory test in which cells or tissue are analyzed to look for changes in genes or chromosomes. These changes may be a sign that a person has or is at risk of having a specific disease or condition.
And of those "screening" tests, the only one that is performed at PP to my knowledge (at least locally) is a physical breast exam. They don't do laboratory, genetic or imaging exams which are the most effective screening particularly in women 40 or older. Basically, PP's contribution to screening is about the same as mine on Friday date night...
Also from Cancer.gov:
A clinical breast exam is an exam of the breast by a doctor or other health professional. He or she will carefully feel the breasts and under the arms for lumps or anything else that seems unusual. It is not known if having clinical breast exams decreases the chance of dying from breast cancer.
Breast self-exams may be done by women or men to check their breasts for lumps or other changes. If you feel any lumps or notice any other changes in your breasts, talk to your doctor. Doing regular breast self-exams has not been shown to decrease the chance of dying from breast cancer.
Quote: @badgervike said:
@ mblack said:
@ badgervike said:
I said they don't do mammograms and screen for breast cancer in response to VG. They do provide services such as Pap smears and HPV tests...which are normally done prior to administering birth control and provide cervical cancer screening at the same time. They actually outsource most of that testing here in Madison to the clinics but they may do more in other urban areas. Still a very small part of their business.
VG said screening. You injected mammograms. So you were not responding to something she said.
From: cancer.gov
Quote:Screening tests can help find cancer at an early stage, before symptoms appear. When abnormal tissue or cancer is found early, it may be easier to treat or cure. By the time symptoms appear, the cancer may have grown and spread. This can make the cancer harder to treat or cure.
It is important to remember that when your doctor suggests a screening test, it does not always mean he or she thinks you have cancer. Screening tests are done when you have no cancer symptoms.
There are different kinds of screening tests.Screening tests include the following:
- Physical exam and history: An exam of the body to check general signs of health, including checking for signs of disease, such as lumps or anything else that seems unusual. A history of the patient’s health habits and past illnesses and treatments will also be taken.
- Laboratory tests: Medical procedures that test samples of tissue, blood, urine, or other substances in the body.
- Imaging procedures: Procedures that make pictures of areas inside the body.
- Genetic tests: A laboratory test in which cells or tissue are analyzed to look for changes in genes or chromosomes. These changes may be a sign that a person has or is at risk of having a specific disease or condition.
And of those "screening" tests, the only one that is performed at PP to my knowledge (at least locally) is a physical breast exam. They don't do laboratory, genetic or imaging exams which are the most effective screening particularly in women 40 or older. Basically, PP's contribution to screening is about the same as mine on Friday date night...
Also from Cancer.gov:
A clinical breast exam is an exam of the breast by a doctor or other health professional. He or she will carefully feel the breasts and under the arms for lumps or anything else that seems unusual. It is not known if having clinical breast exams decreases the chance of dying from breast cancer.
Breast self-exams may be done by women or men to check their breasts for lumps or other changes. If you feel any lumps or notice any other changes in your breasts, talk to your doctor. Doing regular breast self-exams has not been shown to decrease the chance of dying from breast cancer.
kinda of like rectal prostate exams, basically the new theory is to establish baseline PSA numbers and monitor that as the physical exam misses so much that by the time anything is detected that way its usually already an issue... but yet some docs still want to get up in there. its crazy how far we have come on some things in medicine and science and yet some other things its like we are still making our houses of sod and heating them with burning buffalo shit.
Quote:
kinda of like rectal prostate exams, basically the new theory is to establish baseline PSA numbers and monitor that as the physical exam misses so much that by the time anything is detected that way its usually already an issue... but yet some docs still want to get up in there. its crazy how far we have come on some things in medicine and science and yet some other things its like we are still making our houses of sod and heating them with burning buffalo shit.
Maybe they're just doing it wrong Jimmy....
![[Image: SnivelingDangerousFlatfish-size_restricted.gif]](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SnivelingDangerousFlatfish-size_restricted.gif)
I am circling back to the misogyny in various churches for a minute. I remember my mom telling me about the nuns beating her for her accent. Thankfully she never lost it because it is a part of who she is. She just told me about how they didn't want the girls to read the Bible in the church because they didn't want them to know what was inside it, they wanted blind followers. She has read it voraciously since leaving. I remember being told not to ask questions at church. I recently spoke with a Baptist girl going through a forced pregnancy and she mentioned that her church told her that she wasn't supposed to know things about the Bible unless the church allowed it. There are no restrictions on the Bible for boys or men from these shared experiences. I am going to watch that documentary about the Hillsong scandal. It is interesting to hear young people talk about how their churches are problematic.
Quote: @Vikergirl said:
I am circling back to the misogyny in various churches for a minute. I remember my mom telling me about the nuns beating her for her accent. Thankfully she never lost it because it is a part of who she is. She just told me about how they didn't want the girls to read the Bible in the church because they didn't want them to know what was inside it, they wanted blind followers. She has read it voraciously since leaving. I remember being told not to ask questions at church. I recently spoke with a Baptist girl going through a forced pregnancy and she mentioned that her church told her that she wasn't supposed to know things about the Bible unless the church allowed it. There are no restrictions on the Bible for boys or men from these shared experiences. I am going to watch that documentary about the Hillsong scandal. It is interesting to hear young people talk about how their churches are problematic.
If someone is attending a church that treats its females as some second class citizen then the people need to leave that church. Neither my family or I would put up with that.
That doesnt however, mean that all churches teach that or think that way. I mean theres churches that hold snakes as well. That doesn’t mean its normal.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ Vikergirl said:
I am circling back to the misogyny in various churches for a minute. I remember my mom telling me about the nuns beating her for her accent. Thankfully she never lost it because it is a part of who she is. She just told me about how they didn't want the girls to read the Bible in the church because they didn't want them to know what was inside it, they wanted blind followers. She has read it voraciously since leaving. I remember being told not to ask questions at church. I recently spoke with a Baptist girl going through a forced pregnancy and she mentioned that her church told her that she wasn't supposed to know things about the Bible unless the church allowed it. There are no restrictions on the Bible for boys or men from these shared experiences. I am going to watch that documentary about the Hillsong scandal. It is interesting to hear young people talk about how their churches are problematic.
If someone is attending a church that treats its females as some second class citizen then the people need to leave that church. Neither my family or I would put up with that.
That doesnt however, mean that all churches teach that or think that way. I mean theres churches that hold snakes as well. That doesn’t mean its normal.
I am not saying all churches are like that, I am saying not all churches are good. There are good churches, my mom found one later. I am saying there is a lot of misogyny associated with church in multiple denominations. There is a lot of generational trauma due to the perversion and distortion of religion. There are a lot of false prophets our there passing on misogyny. It is important to call out the inequality. There are also cultural differences in some Christian denominations that allow the misogyny to continue. I am just saying this happens and it is significant. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Evangelical and many others have this as a foundation of their structure.
Quote: @Vikergirl said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Vikergirl said:
I am circling back to the misogyny in various churches for a minute. I remember my mom telling me about the nuns beating her for her accent. Thankfully she never lost it because it is a part of who she is. She just told me about how they didn't want the girls to read the Bible in the church because they didn't want them to know what was inside it, they wanted blind followers. She has read it voraciously since leaving. I remember being told not to ask questions at church. I recently spoke with a Baptist girl going through a forced pregnancy and she mentioned that her church told her that she wasn't supposed to know things about the Bible unless the church allowed it. There are no restrictions on the Bible for boys or men from these shared experiences. I am going to watch that documentary about the Hillsong scandal. It is interesting to hear young people talk about how their churches are problematic.
If someone is attending a church that treats its females as some second class citizen then the people need to leave that church. Neither my family or I would put up with that.
That doesnt however, mean that all churches teach that or think that way. I mean theres churches that hold snakes as well. That doesn’t mean its normal.
I am not saying all churches are like that, I am saying not all churches are good. There are good churches, my mom found one later. I am saying there is a lot of misogyny associated with church in multiple denominations. There is a lot of generational trauma due to the perversion and distortion of religion. There are a lot of false prophets our there passing on misogyny. It is important to call out the inequality. There are also cultural differences in some Christian denominations that allow the misogyny to continue. I am just saying this happens and it is significant. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Evangelical and many others have this as a foundation of their structure.
I’m a Lutheran. We actually attend a Methodist church for unrelated reasons. My kids attend nondenominational Christian school.
We wouldn’t put up with any church or school for that matter treating women any differently.
|
