This is so far off topic but I'll try: BTW, before baby formula, if a woman didn't want to nurse or couldn't nurse or she died in childbirth they had these things called cows, goats, even horses, mammals that gave MILK... ...and that's what they used. ANYONE who was willing could feed them.
EASILY Googled ...........from: The History of Baby Feeding bottles: The Feeding Bottle There is evidence that babies have been fed by bottles, cups, jugs or other devices for thousands of years.. For example, hollow cow horns were used to drink in the Middle Ages and with a small bit of soft leather attached, the cow horn was often used to feed babies. Also across parts of Europe in the 1600’s leather, wood & pewter flask shaped bottles with screw tops were common and some are still surviving today.
Are you saying that there was NEVER a time in history where the breast was the only method of delivery?
So what? Did you have some kind of point somewhere ???? Being able to reason/analyze/ think would lead a person to realize that before there was a substitute for a woman breast feeding (VERY early in history, an era YOU haven't defined where there were NO mammals) then obviously the baby would die. Still no point.
Okay so the baby would die. You think that is an acceptable consequence of the women denying the baby her body?
FoxHastings said: ↑ So what? Did you have some kind of point somewhere ???? Being able to reason/analyze/ think would lead a person to realize that before there was a substitute for a woman breast feeding (VERY early in history, an era YOU haven't defined where there were NO mammals) then obviously the baby would die. Uh, duh, whether it's "acceptable " or not that is what happened. There were no red faced protestors screaming "That's not acceptable" at the time. Want to go back thousands and thousands of years and arrest women who couldn't or wouldn't nurse their babies ???? If you have a point , state it....but NO one is obligated to use their body to sustain the life of another. NO woman is obligated to nurse her baby.
Well that's because women didn't deny their breast milk to their babies! It's just an outrageous hypothetical that I came up with and I didn't expect you to go with me on it! But you have gone with me, and you've been MOST revealing! So you would've been okay with women allowing their babies to die by not feeding them? <Mod Edit>
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Doctors can be charged but not women! See? I believe that the current abortion law is FACT! And I'm making a MORAL argument AGAINST it! Just like YOU would be doing with a law that YOU didn't agree with!
IF abortion is BANNED then both women and those performing abortion will be charged. The partial birth law has to do with partial birth abortions that are happening now.
[ GOODGAWD! Get out of the basement! No, many poor people can't just "take out a loan""" and go anywhere...
HOW TF would you know that? Answer, you don't know. ...as usual. Yes, a lot about your lack of knowledge of history was revealed. <Mod Edit> I never said I was "Okay with allowing their babies to die by not feeding them ".
So then why don't women risk the exact same charges as doctors in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003?
That's because there is a clause prohibiting it. """""Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony. """ This is wrong IF she ASKED for an illegal partial birth abortion. Again, it was a sop to those who know that banning abortion is punishing women. Repubs like Prick Santorum want to look like they care about women.
