Tiberius Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 13 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Aw, don’t worry tibs. We’ll make sure your mothers basement gets on the truck to Europe. Wouldn’t want you to be homeless. p.s. Did you ever admit and apologize about that thing that made you look like a worthless piece of *****? A truck to Europe! Ok! Nothing to apologize for ?
whatdrought Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Wow.. I think I’ve been bullying a mentally ######## person. I get why you guys don’t respond to him. 2
Numark3 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Is your argument then that all abortions should be eliminated at all times except when a doctor says it’s medically necessary? No, this law sounds reasonable to me. It allows abortions for any reason for the first 24 week’s (I think). And then it only allows abortions if the fetus is not viable for life, or if it’s medically necessity. of course we all might disagree on whether an abortion should be done in the first 24 weeks for whatever reason. I 100 percent respect your opinions on abortion, religious, moral, or ethical. I think it’s ok, but I understand why many are against abortions in the first 24 weeks. i personally would be devastated if a woman got an abortion for no reason early on.
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, bilzfancy said: There are probably a few billion people in this world who want a better life or seek asylum, should we let them all in? A very tiny fraction of them want in, that's all. Why you trying to fuzzy the issue? Life is life, right? But! Ya, we should be doing more around the world to make life better. Instead of invading Iraq, we could have tried fixing up a "sh** hole country" would have been a better investment 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Wow.. I think I’ve been bullying a mentally ######## person. I get why you guys don’t respond to him. Go drive your truck to Europe you stupid idiot
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: What do do you mean hide behind it? It’s the exception that permits late term abortions. If it’s not met, and the fetus is viable for life, a late term abortion still can’t occur. this is the first time anyone’s told me to stop hiding behind what a law plainly says when you are defending the law. It’s a sign, no offense, that you don’t sctually have an argument against it. There are no medical scenarios which require a doctor to kill a baby before delivering it for the physical health of the mother. None. The baby is completely viable in the third term, and is being delivered either way. Killing is first is 100% elective, and serves no medical purpose. This is precisely the reason "health" was left vague within the law. 2
whatdrought Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: No, this law sounds reasonable to me. It allows abortions for any reason for the first 24 week’s (I think). And then it only allows abortions if the fetus is not viable for life, or if it’s medically necessity. of course we all might disagree on whether an abortion should be done in the first 24 weeks for whatever reason. I 100 percent respect your opinions on abortion, religious, moral, or ethical. I think it’s ok, but I understand why many are against abortions in the first 24 weeks. i personally would be devastated if a woman got an abortion for no reason early on. The problem that exists is that, if you look at the history of the abortion industry, the “medically” necessary distinction has been a token used at every step to loosen laws and bring about open abortion. The Democratic Party stands on a platform of abortion anytime, for any reason. Go ask their last presidential nominee. more to the point. It’s wrong at week 1, and it’s wrong at week 41. 1
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Wow.. I think I’ve been bullying a mentally ######## person. I get why you guys don’t respond to him. If you just throw him on ignore you'd be surprised how much more coherent the conversation can be here. I have probably four or five people on ignore , and yes, at times, you may see an entire page of "You've chosen to ignore content by...", but then you look and see it's conversation between Tibs, The Dude and Exiled and you remember you haven't missed a damn thing. 1 1
whatdrought Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, LABillzFan said: If you just throw him on ignore you'd be surprised how much more coherent the conversation can be here. I have probably four or five people on ignore , and yes, at times, you may see an entire page of "You've chosen to ignore content by...", but then you look and see it's conversation between Tibs, The Dude and Exiled and you remember you haven't missed a damn thing. Thats solid advice.
Numark3 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: There are no medical scenarios which require a doctor to kill a baby before delivering it for the physical health of the mother. None. The baby is completely viable in the third term, and is being delivered either way. Killing is first is 100% elective, and serves no medical purpose. This is precisely the reason "health" was left vague within the law. What about a fetus that isn’t viable at 25 weeks. Could that be a scenario where it’s medically necessary for an abortion to occur? Sincere question.
BringBackOrton Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: What do do you mean hide behind it? It’s the exception that permits late term abortions. If it’s not met, and the fetus is viable for life, a late term abortion still can’t occur. this is the first time anyone’s told me to stop hiding behind what a law plainly says when you are defending the law. It’s a sign, no offense, that you don’t actually have an argument against it. No, you misunderstand. If you want to argue there is a medical reason for the exception to exist, prove there is a medical reason. Demonstrate a situation in which a late-term fetus must be poisoned before delivery to preserve the physical health of the mother. Just now, Crayola64 said: What about a fetus that isn’t viable at 25 weeks. Could that be a scenario where it’s medically necessary for an abortion to occur? Sincere question. How do you define “viable?” Why would you ensure it’s not viable by poisoning it? Sincere question. Sounds a lot like the guy in the army movies who shoots a fallen soldier because “they weren’t gonna make it anyway.”
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: What about a fetus that isn’t viable at 25 weeks. Could that be a scenario where it’s medically necessary for an abortion to occur? Sincere question. Define viability as you're using it in order to assure we're having the same conversation. The definition I am using implies that the fetus has a chance of survival outside of the womb.
boyst Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 28 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This is no worse than the lies in the Covington nonsense. It’s not an exception, it’s factors a doctor can look at when decided if it’s neccesaary for the woman’s health. It is trusting a doctor to make a medical judgment, something we allow them to do. It is not “on demand.” That is nonsensical and a lie. how many examples of late term abortions can you show that fall within “on demand” or were not really for a woman’s health. How common is it? you can disagree with abortion, but don’t post lies. This only allows late term abortions when the fetus is not viable or if it’s neccesary for health reasons (in in practice, probably both). You can disagree with those two exceptions on a philosophical, moral, or ethical level...but stop twisting facts regarding what the exceptions actually are. also, posting a 1 sentence excerpt of a judicial desision is almost universally misleading. A pet peeve of mine. 1) you're wrong. Doctors are not going to be performing or supervising this action. It's up to health care workers. And to find a familial need is simply to say a 16 yr old gets knocked up and doesn't want to tell her parents. Bing bang boom! abortion city! A 25 year old reckless woman gets knocked up and doesn't want her bf to know she cheated - blam, abortion city! A 37 yr old gets a FWB that's 19 yrs old to make her feel young and gets the flesh rod injection raw. Kerpow! Abortion city! A woman gets raped while drunk, 22 and doesn't remember. Goes to a store to get the old next day fixer upper and whamo! Abortion.... city! All of those are cases I know. All of those are birth control measures post coitis. A "doctor" supervised 2. 1 because the girl was young and didn't want it and her mom did find out as it was about to go down. The other was a woman not wanting to raise the thing by herself and ***** the dad's life up. So in all of those cases if the women waited until just the day before to say "meh, not feeling it." ... Wowza, blam! Abortion city! 2) hard to have accurate stats on abortions. From plan b pills to women getting the old vacuum cleaner suction treatment - hard data is not out there that shows a consensus that I have seen, at least. Either way, I'm not anti abortion. I'm anti stupid and would definitely say I am probably abortion. I want more. I want millions more.
Q-baby! Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 45 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: This is the difference between liberals and the rest of the human race: they have no problem picking apart baby pieces for cash if it helps them make money and stay in power. It's just that simple. And we all know this is true by the way all of them are cheering on this NYS law. Literally cheering it. Literally lighting up a building to celebrate the murder of children. But hey...some conservatives get abortions, so the right should simply be quiet. Douche!
boyst Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: What about a fetus that isn’t viable at 25 weeks. Could that be a scenario where it’s medically necessary for an abortion to occur? Sincere question. The law only states that it is impacting the mental health of a woman. That to me is quite scary because look at all these damn kids on my lawn these days. Emotionally we are a ***** weak socity.
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, BigMcD said: Douche! Well said, Gloria. 1
B-Man Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 22 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: There are no medical scenarios which require a doctor to kill a baby before delivering it for the physical health of the mother. None. The baby is completely viable in the third term, and is being delivered either way. Killing is first is 100% elective, and serves no medical purpose. This is precisely the reason "health" was left vague within the law. Well stated. I am not sure why the others cannot see this. Women who go for an abortion do not go to the emergency room, to the doctor's office for a consultation, They go to an Abortion Clinic, where the child is aborted for "Health" reasons, there is no trying to talk them out of it. Thus, in New York, viable babies will now be killed. . 1
Q-baby! Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Well said, Gloria. That's all that is needed to describe you. Well, could add nutbar!
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, BigMcD said: That's all that is needed to describe you. Well, could add nutbar! The Canadian education system at work, ladies and gentlemen! Come back tomorrow for two sentences and a coherent thought! It promises to be riveting.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Crayola64 said: Yea that’s unreasonable. It is a conspiracy-level distrust if doctors. Your problem isn’t with the law, it’s thinking doctors won’t be ethical and comply with it. Sorry Crayola, it is as reasonable to be distrustful of members of the medical profession as it is to be suspicious of any other group in America. There is no reason to give them a pass. The problem I have is that people are people, and some people do things most sane people would not. My assumption is that you would not support the abortion of a child at 8.5 months because the vessel carrying said child was emotionally paralyzed over being furloughed for 36 days. My assumption is that there are doctors who would be willing to perform the abortion based on his/her personally held opinions about life, about medicine, and his/her ability to flourish financially. I only think that because of my own experience and the quick google search using the phrase "doctor arrested for overprescribing..." that yielded 153,000 results. When I changed the search to 'doctor arrested for killing patients' the results dropped below 130,000. When I went with 'mother arrested for killing children' the number dropped below 100,000. Of course, then there is this: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fetal-tissue-20171209-story.html First, do no harm. But once harm is done, for heaven's sake turns a profit. 1
BringBackOrton Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: Well stated. I am not sure why the others cannot see this. Women who go for an abortion do not go to the emergency room, to the doctor's office for a consultation, They go to an Abortion Clinic, where the child is aborted for "Health" reasons, there is no trying to talk them out of it. Thus, in New York, viable babies will now be killed. . They wrap themselves in “the doctors know best” blanket as hypocrites. The same folks who think they are all bought by Big Pharma to push narcotics. It’s incredible. “You can’t trust doctors, except when it comes to abortion.” I, on the other hand, am afraid. I’m afraid that the hard stance on abortion will be a black-eye to the medical community 50-100 years from now. I’m afraid that this “debate” will go the way of “homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder” and “cigarettes are good for you.”
Recommended Posts