Funerals for abortions?!?!

[emilynghiem]

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

This is a very old attitude, Emily. I have recently been watching the Drama "Downton Abbey". The series takes place at the turn of the 20th century, and there have been several episodes that dealt with sexual relations. Invariably, even when the man initiated, the woman, and the woman alone suffered the consequences. In one case, the lord of the manor took a maid, and began to make out with her, entirely consensual. However, it was the maid who was forced to leave, and lose her job, because, even then, "boys will be boys", but, apparently, it is entirely the woman's responsibility to refuse. The thinking is that, apparently, women do not feel sexual attraction, and are always in complete control of their emotions; or if they are not, they are wanton hussies. So, sexual intercourse is never the man's responsibility; only the woman's. Sadly, it seems that a hundred years later, we still haven't learned any better.

It's the responsibility of both involved. It's ultimately the woman's choice whether or not the man can take part except in cases of rape.

I wish the man taking part would be responsible so those of you thinking those of us that didn't get a piece are more financially responsible for what he did that he is.

I agree with most of what you said Conservative65
the only shaky area is on rape vs. coercion or relationship abuse

too many men (and women) will swear up and down the person consented,
but when I hear them complain of each other, clearly they should not have been intimately involved.
They didn't even get their terms of relationship straight, what the expectations were,
so certainly the sex was an added complication that neither of them was prepared for.
they may consider that consent, but from them both complaining of abuse, I would argue it isn't consensual.
had the two partners known in advance they didn't agree on terms, they shouldn't have sex in the first place
ie not consensual.

So i have a higher standard on what is consent and what is abuse.
And if people addressed that in advance, fewer people would agree to have sex.
most would realize that isn't right for their relationship and isn't worth the problems, thus not consensual.

 

[Conservative65]

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

This is a very old attitude, Emily. I have recently been watching the Drama "Downton Abbey". The series takes place at the turn of the 20th century, and there have been several episodes that dealt with sexual relations. Invariably, even when the man initiated, the woman, and the woman alone suffered the consequences. In one case, the lord of the manor took a maid, and began to make out with her, entirely consensual. However, it was the maid who was forced to leave, and lose her job, because, even then, "boys will be boys", but, apparently, it is entirely the woman's responsibility to refuse. The thinking is that, apparently, women do not feel sexual attraction, and are always in complete control of their emotions; or if they are not, they are wanton hussies. So, sexual intercourse is never the man's responsibility; only the woman's. Sadly, it seems that a hundred years later, we still haven't learned any better.

It's the responsibility of both involved. It's ultimately the woman's choice whether or not the man can take part except in cases of rape.

I wish the man taking part would be responsible so those of you thinking those of us that didn't get a piece are more financially responsible for what he did that he is.

I agree with most of what you said Conservative65
the only shaky area is on rape vs. coercion or relationship abuse

too many men (and women) will swear up and down the person consented,
but when I hear them complain of each other, clearly they should not have been intimately involved.
They didn't even get their terms of relationship straight, what the expectations were,
so certainly the sex was an added complication that neither of them was prepared for.
they may consider that consent, but from them both complaining of abuse, I would argue it isn't consensual.
had the two partners known in advance they didn't agree on terms, they shouldn't have sex in the first place
ie not consensual.

So i have a higher standard on what is consent and what is abuse.
And if people addressed that in advance, fewer people would agree to have sex.
most would realize that isn't right for their relationship and isn't worth the problems, thus not consensual.

If someone is in a coercive or abusive relationship but don't leave, that's their fault. That doesn't take away from he responsibility the one being abusive has for doing so. However, one person in the relationship can't be abusive to the other one if the other one leaves.

 

[Compost]

It was your suggestion. I'm pointing out the obvious. After an abortion, something must be done with baby's body. You are complaining that the baby's body is being mentioned at all and say it's to shame the mother. If you believe abortion is just a medical procedure, and a right, why are you whining about shame? You appear to be conflicted.

I'm complaining that you are trying to create shame where there should be none.

If you have nothing to be ashamed of, I cannot create shame in you. You are responsible for your own feelings.

That's a lie, and you know it. People let other people manipulate them into feeling shame for things they shouldn't, all the time. Hell you're trying to do it, now. I just refuse to accept your twisted reality. Not everyone is lucky enough to be as strongly independent as me.

Me thinks you protest too much. A strong independent thinker could not possibly be manipulated if he was certain of his position. Could he?

And everyone is that strong, right?

I'm less worried about the strong than those who are willfully ignorant. Consider. Isn't it important that we be informed about our medical treatment? For some, seeing that line item on the removal of the aborted baby's remains just might inform them that we're talking about more than a lump of cells. Do you think it is better to be strong or informed?

 

[Czernobog]

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

If they aren't ready and in agreement to have children together, why are they doing together what it take to produce children? A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen. They may not intend it to happen but it's different than not wanting. If I don't WANT something to happen, I don't do what it takes for it to happen.

I thought the argument was what a woman does with her body is her choice. If she offers it up to a man, hasn't she made that choice?

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

Apparently you are stupid enough to think that's what I meant. You're dismissed for continuing to be a fucking worthless moron.

If that's not what you mean, then why make such a moronic statement as "A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen,"? The implication of that statement is that the only time a man and woman have sex, is if they want to have a child, implying that the only reason to have sex is to procreate. That was your statement I was quoting, upon which I based my incredulous question.

You inferred that. You're still dismissed puss.

I inferred it, because you implied it. I understand that you don't want to take responsibility for your own retarded statements. Your concession is noted.

 

[Conservative65]

If they aren't ready and in agreement to have children together, why are they doing together what it take to produce children? A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen. They may not intend it to happen but it's different than not wanting. If I don't WANT something to happen, I don't do what it takes for it to happen.

I thought the argument was what a woman does with her body is her choice. If she offers it up to a man, hasn't she made that choice?

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

Apparently you are stupid enough to think that's what I meant. You're dismissed for continuing to be a fucking worthless moron.

If that's not what you mean, then why make such a moronic statement as "A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen,"? The implication of that statement is that the only time a man and woman have sex, is if they want to have a child, implying that the only reason to have sex is to procreate. That was your statement I was quoting, upon which I based my incredulous question.

You inferred that. You're still dismissed puss.

I inferred it, because you implied it. I understand that you don't want to take responsibility for your own retarded statements. Your concession is noted.

You came to an incorrect conclusion because it's what you want to believe. Not my fault you're an uneducated, simple minded piece of shit.

 

[Czernobog]

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

Apparently you are stupid enough to think that's what I meant. You're dismissed for continuing to be a fucking worthless moron.

If that's not what you mean, then why make such a moronic statement as "A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen,"? The implication of that statement is that the only time a man and woman have sex, is if they want to have a child, implying that the only reason to have sex is to procreate. That was your statement I was quoting, upon which I based my incredulous question.

You inferred that. You're still dismissed puss.

I inferred it, because you implied it. I understand that you don't want to take responsibility for your own retarded statements. Your concession is noted.

You came to an incorrect conclusion because it's what you want to believe. Not my fault you're an uneducated, simple minded piece of shit.

You made a retarded statement designed specifically to encourage that conclusion, so the fault is entirely yours. But, like all of your ilk you want everyone to take responsibility for their words, and actions but yourself. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

 

[whitehall]

It would have been pretty easy to dump the Twin Towers 9-11 rubble in the landfill but Americans were concerned about human remains as well as other things. The federal, state and local government agencies were so careful about human remains that they shipped the entire gigantic rubble of 9-11 in thousands of trucks to a safe place and protected from seagulls and rats. The government established a 24/7 conveyor belt where people went through every scrap to isolate weapons, valuables, money and human remains. The emergency services were so concerned about the remains of Firefighters that they delayed the cleanup and stopped everything to respectfully escort the remains of the Firefighters from the scene. Fast forward to the self centered callus liberal generation who who only care about their own lucky DNA and think that dumping human remains in the freaking landfill is the best way to deal with the carnage of abortion. It's not surprising that propaganda arm of the abortion industry issued talking points to ignorant low information lefties that respectfully dealing with human remains constitutes "forced funerals". Evidence indicates that even freaking Neanderthals respected their dead. The Nazis would have been proud of today's idiot left and the propaganda relating to the abortion industry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘“The Health and Human Services Commission developed new rules to ensure Texas law maintains the highest standards of human dignity,” said health commission spokesman Bryan Black.’

Nonsense.

This is a childish temper-tantrum on the part of Texas authorities, the consequence of having the state’s ridiculous, unwarranted abortion regulations hostile to the privacy rights of women appropriately struck down by the Supreme Court because they manifest as an undue burden to a woman’s right to privacy in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The proposed rules are being made in bad faith, having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘maintaining human dignity.’

The reprehensible right, indeed.

 

[irosie91]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

not always

Provide an example.

some women are coerced into sex

 

[theHawk]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

 

[theHawk]

‘“The Health and Human Services Commission developed new rules to ensure Texas law maintains the highest standards of human dignity,” said health commission spokesman Bryan Black.’

Nonsense.

This is a childish temper-tantrum on the part of Texas authorities, the consequence of having the state’s ridiculous, unwarranted abortion regulations hostile to the privacy rights of women appropriately struck down by the Supreme Court because they manifest as an undue burden to a woman’s right to privacy in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The proposed rules are being made in bad faith, having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘maintaining human dignity.’

The reprehensible right, indeed.

The only persons throwing a childish temper-tantrum are leftists like you.

The only reprehensible ones are the left, who support snuffing out human life out of convenience.

 

[Czernobog]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Katzndogz]

The body of an unborn child is no more medical waste than any other body is. That's why when derelicts die in the streets they aren't taken away in a garbage truck and dumped in a landfill. If the mother doesn't think of this baby that is her right. She doesn't have to mourn. She doesn't have to go to a crematorium or burial site. She can get drunk and laid. The remains will treated with the respect due human remains.

 

[Czernobog]

The body of an unborn child is no more medical waste than any other body is. That's why when derelicts die in the streets they aren't taken away in a garbage truck and dumped in a landfill. If the mother doesn't think of this baby that is her right. She doesn't have to mourn. She doesn't have to go to a crematorium or burial site. She can get drunk and laid. The remains will treated with the respect due human remains.

At whose expense?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Who I feel for are the guys who do want to take responsibility for their action, but at the end of day, don't mean a thing when its the female who carries the baby. According to what I have seen/read, if the man wants the baby and the woman does not, it is the woman who has the final word, therefore, the pregnancy is then terminated.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I wonder if this is a reason why some males try to transition over the womanhood. If yes, I feel even worse for them because they will still never be able to get pregnant.

 

[Conservative65]

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Who I feel for are the guys who do want to take responsibility for their action, but at the end of day, don't mean a thing when its the female who carries the baby. According to what I have seen/read, if the man wants the baby and the woman does not, it is the woman who has the final word, therefore, the pregnancy is then terminated.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I wonder if this is a reason why some males try to transition over the womanhood. If yes, I feel even worse for them because they will still never be able to get pregnant.

If the woman gets the final say regardless of what the sperm donor wants, shouldn't she get the total responsibility of that choice?

AS far as some males wanting to transition, it's a mental disorder.

 

[Conservative65]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

not always

Provide an example.

some women are coerced into sex

Next thing you'll tell me is that the vast majority are from coercion.

 

[Conservative65]

Apparently you are stupid enough to think that's what I meant. You're dismissed for continuing to be a fucking worthless moron.

If that's not what you mean, then why make such a moronic statement as "A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen,"? The implication of that statement is that the only time a man and woman have sex, is if they want to have a child, implying that the only reason to have sex is to procreate. That was your statement I was quoting, upon which I based my incredulous question.

You inferred that. You're still dismissed puss.

I inferred it, because you implied it. I understand that you don't want to take responsibility for your own retarded statements. Your concession is noted.

You came to an incorrect conclusion because it's what you want to believe. Not my fault you're an uneducated, simple minded piece of shit.

You made a retarded statement designed specifically to encourage that conclusion, so the fault is entirely yours. But, like all of your ilk you want everyone to take responsibility for their words, and actions but yourself. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Oh, the argument that I meant what you said I meant because you said so? Not how it works, son. Learn and live it.

 

[irosie91]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

not always

Provide an example.

some women are coerced into sex

Next thing you'll tell me is that the vast majority are from coercion.

how would know what the next thing I am going to tell you is?
You asked for AN EXAMPLE----which I interpreted as being
in the SINGULAR-----one example------if you want more----why not just politely ASK?

 

[Conservative65]

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

not always

Provide an example.

some women are coerced into sex

Next thing you'll tell me is that the vast majority are from coercion.

how would know what the next thing I am going to tell you is?
You asked for AN EXAMPLE----which I interpreted as being
in the SINGULAR-----one example------if you want more----why not just politely ASK?

I asked for an example and you provided an excuse. There is a difference.