wilpharm wrote:
and there is always the poop factor...cant imagine 100% house dog or city dog where thats an issue...We feel fortunate not to have to deal with that
When my part Newfie was growing... and he did that quite quickly at one stage... I weighed the food in and poop out over 1 week; and the output was greater than the intake!!! (OK, I forgot to weigh his water dish!)
dennis2146 wrote:
Well Art I respect ALL women. I know it is easy for you on the Left to accuse me of otherwise but it is true nonetheless. You on the Left use my comments to suit your corrupt agenda by lying and saying I do not respect women. Yet you have no proof other than your agenda to back up your idiotic comments.
Dennis
Well, folks, there you have it... Dennis respects ALL women.
Let's see... Hillary... Harris... AOC... Pelosi...
Over to you, Dennis, to creatively and defensibly back out of your statement!!!
I had a part Newfie (no idea of who “daddy” was) who was amazing. Gentle, short hair like a Lab, size of a Newfie, pulled the wagon of newspapers when my kids did delivery. We had him put down after only six years because he developed a tumor in his front shoulder and amputation of a front leg did not seem like a good option for a dog that size.
wilpharm wrote:
I hear what you are sayining, artsy, but I still dont think non property owners should vote taxes on property owners..Thats my opinion whether you like it or not..if you think thats fair then good for you..Im sure also you would be happy if coastal states control the whole other part of USA..thats the way democrats roll
Morphing your stance on property taxes (that non-property-owners should not have a vote on property tax) to abortion, I guess you think only women should vote on the abortion issue?
wilpharm wrote:
I guess you think its fair when some porch monkey with zero assets vote counts as much on a bond issue as a productive farmer...yes thats real democratic
I guess you think it is unfair that all votes count equally; and I think it fair to assume you think your vote is more important than someone else’s.
wilpharm wrote:
and unfortunatley thats where the votes are, Denver, Boulder, Golden
That’s the strange part of democracy, isn’t it…
The “state” is governed as a democracy.
The people vote and the majority wins.
But gosh, the people are not uniformly spaced across the state. Instead, they aggregate at a location. Thus, the vote is “skewed” to that geographical region and not representative of the entire “state.”
Do you think the farmer who owns 1000 acres should have as much vote-sway as the community of people living in 1000 acres of a city? Does democracy work for “the people” or “the land?”
Of course, the same whining applies to the fact that democrats tend to concentrate in cities along the coasts. What do you propose as the better solution if you don’t think democracy is fair?
On the same day, the State of Washington recently passed two laws.
They are:
1. Legalized gay marriage, and
2. Legalized marijuana.
Legalizing gay marriage and marijuana on the same day now makes perfect Biblical sense.
Leviticus 20:13 says: "If a man lies with another man, they should be stoned.”
Apparently, we just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!
Your biblical lesson for today! You’re welcome!
dennis2146 wrote:
Golly gee whiz. How fortuitous you are a skilled cell person to set him straight. Personally I did not think him too far off at all. The gist of the thread is abortion of human babies rather than cell growth in general isn't it?
I can't help but wonder how many people, yes on both sides of the aisle, have even considered the actual cut off point. I believe many, again, on both sides of the argument have no idea and are simply drawing a line in the sand to support their party without having a clue as to the development status of the fetus. Sixteen weeks is four months and it would seem in that time period a woman SHOULD be able to make a decision of whether or not to abort the baby or not. It would seem the Left wants to give the woman the responsibility of everything because it is of course HER body. But the Left refuses to give the woman the responsibility of not being pregnant in the first place.
Sorry but in my mind, except for cases of rape or incest abortion is EXACTLY a form of birth control. A woman gets pregnant and then decides to not have the baby for maybe many reasons but some must be, she did not want to get pregnant, she wanted a boy but found out she is having a girl instead. Perhaps she is married to Tom but decided to have sex with Bob. Whoops, now she is having Bobs baby. Can you agree, most on Left Wing side of The Attic cannot agree at all, the woman should bear the responsibility of having the child or not. I used to firmly believe the woman and the man decided what to do with the baby. But then the Left said the man had no say-so in whether or not the baby was aborted or kept. According to the Left it is all about the woman simply because it is her body.
If you feel as if you have no say on the issue of abortion then why are you joining the fray, making any comments at all? Do you feel abortion is a good thing and the woman has a right to abort the baby whenever she wants? Doesn't the baby/fetus have any rights morally? By your way of thinking not one man on the planet has any say so in the issue.
Dennis
Golly gee whiz. How fortuitous you are a skilled ... (
show quote)
I have expressed my position multiple times.
SoHillGuy wrote:
***
I had not noticed "two backs" until you brought my attention to it, Now I see it all the time while viewing.
I am posting the photographer's original 2D for your viewing.
Thanks for that.
The effect is definitely there in the original. I really have to work at it being one torso!
dennis2146 wrote:
His definition of alive seems correct enough when talking about human fetuses/babies being aborted. Seems you are back in the amoeba and protozoa thought process. Human babies are far beyond that as you should know. Sorry you don't.
What is the Canadian statute on abortions? Can any woman who wants one simply walk into a doctor/hospital and ask for an abortion no matter how far along she is? Is there any official cut off time when a woman could no longer receive an abortion on demand?
What are your personal views on a time period for a woman to receive an abortion? Barring medical emergencies etc. when in your personal view should a woman no longer be entitled to receive an abortion because the the clump of cells, the fetus, is now a real life human baby still inside the womb?
Dennis
His definition of alive seems correct enough when ... (
show quote)
He was talking about a biological definition of "alive" and I wanted to set him straight on that point. It has nothing to do with a fetus; we could have been talking plant cells.
I don't really know the "Canadian" position on abortion (it may actually vary by province; if it does, that is unfortunate), and frankly I don't really care because I am not looking to have one, nor do I know anyone who wants or needs one; it is not my business. As for getting an abortion "on demand" there are many factors that should be considered. Your wording makes it sound like the woman is using abortion as a substitute for a priori birth control that she did not use, and to me that is wrong.
As to your last point about stage of development when it is OK or not (barring medical emergencies) I really don't have a time point because I have not looked into the scientific/medical arguments as to stage of development, survivability, etc. And I am not sure why that would even matter. The reasons for considering an abortion (barring medical emergencies) should be dealt with early on, not late in the pregnancy. But there may be good reasons even at later stages. It should be between the woman, her doctor, and her family. And they are the ones who should consider all the factors and make an informed decision. If ANY country/state allows for a death penalty then they are approving of "murder" in the most fundamental interpretation of the term as it relates to taking a human life.
It is NOT an easy decision, and for that I am grateful that I am male.
The last one is really excellently posed, lit and framed. Nice lines.
When I view this image with the glasses I find the shadow line along her spine to be a bit strong. From the waist up it appears there are 2 torsos... hers looking down at the pedestal, and another behind her creating the left arm and almost facing the back wall. I don't see the two "backs" as being in the same plane so as to be on the same body. I wonder if this is an artefact of the 3D rendering, or if the original photo also gives me that slight confusion, in which case it is the pose and lightning.
Otherwise a great shot and nice 3D effect.
dennis2146 wrote:
OMG!!!!! Surely you are aware John this discussion of cells and fetus does not relate to freezing cells at all and is more relegated to the preservation of life before birth. Certainly you have seen photographs of babies in the womb that have all their fingers and toes, a heart beat and look just like a baby but not yet out of the womb. Perhaps you are doing your best to obfuscate the argument by making yourself the red herring, maybe a deflection on your part.
Dennis
I was pointing out that btbg’s biological definition of “alive” was not correct, and not relevant to a discussion on abortion.
And yes, I have seen photos of fetuses. And I have told you my stance on abortion, particular point that it should not be different across states. You can leave it at the state level (because of your Constitution) but all states should adopt a uniform policy.
btbg wrote:
Self defense absolutely. Death penalty is decided by a jury of peers but I have no problem if we outlaw it as long as those convicts can never get out of jail.
As to war it happens and people die during war. As usual you pick and chose what part of tje text you read. I was very clear innocent life must be protected. That already answers your question.
I answered your question so when should abortion be banned?
I don’t have an answer to that question. It certainly should not be a routine means of birth control. But there are many reasons for having an abortion, and some carry more weight or are easier to justify/rationalize than others. There will also be abuses of legitimate reasons.
I think it makes the most sense to have guidelines rather than laws, and the decisions should be on a case by case basis decided by the woman, her doctor and her family.
But whatever is decided, it should be adopted nationally and not vary by State.
btbg wrote:
I acknowledge that sperm and eggs are alive. I disagree with you about the rest of your statement. The constitution protects life first and foremost. Thus a definition of life is vitally important to the discussion.
Abortion takes a life. Life is the first of tje rigjts mentjoned in the Declaration of Independance strongly suggesting that life is the most important of all rights.
Thus a definition of life is all that is relevant regarding when or if abortion should be allowed. It is not a religious issue. It is a constitutional issue
I acknowledge that sperm and eggs are alive. I dis... (
show quote)
Does your “Constitutional” right to life extend to rejecting the death penalty? Or to killing an enemy in war? How about self defence?