Jsc, serious question about homosexuals

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

"What is the latest point at which you would allow an abortion to take place?"

"11th Trimester."

Sincerely,

[trev]

What about a late term abortion for a healthy baby and mother. How would you feel about that, Jsc?

[poptart]

I think he's already given his green light for it, trev.

He said, "Why put a limit on it?"


Jsc, would you allow an infant to be put to death - if that was the best thing for him and/or his parents?

If not, I want you to please explain why the moment of ---> being out of the woman's body - is significant to you.

[Van]

pop, he already clarified it as "the moment it draws breath," so of course he's not including newborns...that is, unless they have a horrible, tragic, and permanent/fatal physical issue upon birth. Jesus, quit being a moron. That question is nearly as ridiculous as equating Pol Pot's campaign of genocide to women choosing what to do with their own bodies. Jsc also already clarified why it matters that the fetus actually attain birth when he gave you his "don't count your chickens before they hatch" analogy.

So why are you pursuing this stupid line of questioning?

[trev]

Well, I doubt any minds were changed here. Abortion is legal. Up to a certain point, I guess. People will be irresponsible, parents or not.

[trev]

No. But wouldn't that be private medical records anyway?

[Van]

Counsel is leading the witness....

[trev]

One late term abortion would be too many, in my opinion. I am sure it has happened. 8.5 months? maybe, maybe not. It's not the decision I would make. Honestly, since evey situation is different, I am glad women have the choice. That doesn't mean women should take advantage of the choice and be irresponsible about it. That's all.

[Van]

But a lot of these women aren't women, they're scared, hopeless young girls.

[trev]

Not buying that at all. Maybe a small percentage.

[poptart]

pop, he already clarified it as "the moment it draws breath," so of course he's not including newborns...that is, unless they have a horrible, tragic, and permanent/fatal physical issue upon birth.

Jsc's take is that only infants who are "incompatible with life" should be put to death, but his definition of "incompatible with life" is just his own.

The standard he set in wanting to shoot down my 3 condition limit on abortions (rape, danger to mother, fatal fetus defect) is that they should ALWAYS be a woman's decision.

How dare I try to set a limit based on my own sensibilities.

He said, "Great, good for you, pop. You have weighed the circumstances, and after careful consideration, decided on the abortion option. Why do you want to prohibit others from doing the same thing?"


But look at him now.

He is doing the EXACT same thing that he scolded me for.

He accepts that infants may be killed if they are "incompatible with life," and yet he thinks that only HE may decide what that means.

If parents decide that an infant is "incompatible with life," due to it having some form of disability, Jsc can step the hell OUT and let them make their own death decision for that infant... and themselves.

How dare he try to tell them their business?

Jesus, quit being a moron. That question is nearly as ridiculous as equating Pol Pot's campaign of genocide to women choosing what to do with their own bodies.

You're laffably wrong on both points you made.

The U.S. campaign of genocide dwarfs that of Pol Pot.
Not close.

The dead fetus is not the woman's body.
Welcome to Reality 101.

[Van]

Not buying that at all. Maybe a small percentage.

What, do you seriously think the majority of abortions are performed on thirty-ish, upstanding career women?

No. The majority of abortions are on young, immature girls. Depending on how you wish to define 'young' and 'girl,' these are early-twenties or younger 'women' who are mostly clueless, directionless, and unable to take care of a baby.

[trev]

Van, you are a male and really can't begin to know what's it's like being a female. But, nice try. A lot of 20's and over are having abortions.

[poptart]

48% of women who have abortion are over 25.

25% are over 30.

[Van]

pop, he already clarified it as "the moment it draws breath," so of course he's not including newborns...that is, unless they have a horrible, tragic, and permanent/fatal physical issue upon birth.

Jsc's take is that only infants who are "incompatible with life" should be put to death, but his definition of "incompatible with life" is just his own.

It is NOT his own fucking definition! He clearly stated that "incompatible with life" is a strict medical term, and that doctors are the only ones who can make that determination. Not himself, not me, not you, not the mother...doctors. You know, those professionals who rely on provable science and actually know what they're talking about when it comes to making such determinations?

Yeah, those guys.

I know you read what he wrote, so are you simply lying now or are you just dumber than a pile of stupid?

The standard he set in wanting to shoot down my 3 condition limit on abortions (rape, danger to mother, fatal fetus defect) is that they should ALWAYS be a woman's decision.

That's for abortion. His "incompatibility with life" qualifier referred to newborns. For an abortion, yes, it should always be the woman's decision. Religious concerns and panties-in-a-wad types with their misplaced sensitivities should have no bearing on what a woman does with her own body.

How dare I try to set a limit based on my own sensibilities.

Exactly. How dare you. You have no right to tell a woman what she must do with her own body. When you can become pregnant and go through everything you're telling her she must go through, then you can offer your opinion to her, and that's it.

Until then, shut the fuck up and mind your own business.

He said, "Great, good for you, pop. You have weighed the circumstances, and after careful consideration, decided on the abortion option. Why do you want to prohibit others from doing the same thing?"

But look at him now.

He is doing the EXACT same thing that he scolded me for.

He accepts that infants may be killed if they are "incompatible with life," and yet he thinks that only HE may decide what that means.

Are you insane? Seriously. Have you gone completely off the deep end, and now you aren't even truly firing on all cylinders?

How on earth can you read what he wrote and come away from it with the idea that he thinks he should be the one to decide what constitutes "compatibility with life"? Has he ever claimed to be a doctor? No, he hasn't. Did he state in no uncertain terms that the definition is a medical term that is arrived at only by doctors? Yes, he did.

What is your fucking reading comprehension problem? How are you screwing this up so incredibly badly?

If parents decide that an infant is "incompatible with life," due to it having some form of disability, Jsc can step the hell OUT and let them make their own death decision for that infant... and themselves.

Parents DON'T make that determination! Doctors do. ONLY DOCTORS! Jsc isn't trying whatsoever to make any decisions for the parents or the doctors!

How dare he try to tell them their business?

He isn't telling them anything. He's saying that if doctors determine a newborn to be "incompatible with life" then the parents should have the option of euthanizing the newborn, just as the elderly and their families ought to have the right to euthanization for the terminally ill who are needlessly suffering.

You'd know all this if you actually read what he wrote before clacking out your gawdawfully shitheaded takes.

Jesus, quit being a moron. That question is nearly as ridiculous as equating Pol Pot's campaign of genocide to women choosing what to do with their own bodies.

You're laffably wrong on both points you made.

The U.S. campaign of genocide dwarfs that of Pol Pot.
Not close.

The "U.S. campaign"? So, what, now you have the U.S. Government making the call and demanding women have abortions?

This is without a doubt the worst effort you've ever made in any debate on this board. You are getting everything so profoundly wrong—even the most basic facts and concepts—that I really am beginning to think you have a screw loose. When you started in with the "shaman" talk to prove that people (including yourself) can communicate with the spiritual world, I really began to wonder about your mental equilibrium.

Now, this?

You're not all there.

The dead fetus is not the woman's body.
Welcome to Reality 101.

It's not a dead baby, either. When that fetus dies in her body naturally, it also gets dispelled naturally from her body...because it's part of her body.

You fucking moron.

[Van]

Van, you are a male and really can't begin to know what's it's like being a female.

Which is why neither I nor any other man ever ought to try and tell a woman what she must do with her own body.

Thank you.

But, nice try. A lot of 20's and over are having abortions.

Yes, and "a lot" of young, clueless women are having them too. In the end, their age doesn't even matter. It's their body. That's all anyone needs to know.

[trev]

I think I already said I like that women can make their own decision.

I was pretty mature by age 20. There is no excuse for what those "clueless" women are doing.

[Van]

Except in cases of rape or incest, who's making excuses for them? I don't see anybody making excuses for them.

The difference is that when a stupid young man unloads in a stupid young woman, the stupid young man isn't ordered by the popnazis of the world to donate his body as a breeding incubator for the next year in recompense for his mistake.

[poptart]

It's not a dead baby, either. When that fetus dies in her body naturally, it also gets dispelled naturally from her body...because it's part of her body.

If it's part of her body, why did you just say that a fetus dies?

When you talk out of both sides of your mouth that way, you spin yourself further into the ground.

You can NOT avoid reality.
Life ends. Period.

But the woman lives on, so guess what?
The death of another has taken place.

You can stop with the "it's her body" bullcrap.

The "U.S. campaign"? So, what, now you have the U.S. Government making the call and demanding women have abortions?

Of COURSE it's a U.S. campaign, dimwit.

The U.S. people have been doing the killing - and the people's representatives have surely sanctioned it.


Duh!



"Incompatible with life" is perhaps the dumbest term I've ever heard.

So dumb, in fact, that, well, you and Jsc would pimp it.

If someone is incompatible with life, it's funny to then see them... living, isn't it?

In fact, we ALL are incompatible with life, then, because we are ALL dying as soon as we're born.



Jsc, you are declaring that the term means what the medical professional(s) on hand says it means.
You believe it is ok for parents to kill their infant if it falls within the boundary of "incompatible with life" according to the medical professiona(s) involved.

Ok, you've taken the step to say that you believe it's ok for some infants being killed - just as I took the step to say I believe it's ok for some abortions to take place.

But my step wasn't enough for you, because you say I restrict the 'rights' of the woman.

But here YOU are advocating restricting the rights of parents, because you support the view that they should not be allowed to kill their infant unless he fits into the definition of incompatible with life that you advocate.


Who the hell is a doctor to tell a parent that a pretty well fucked up child that he will be STUCK WITH is not sufficiently... incompatible with life, and that he/she therefore may not terminate him?

Doctor: "Oh yes, your child is majorly fucked up, will require massive medical treatment, will suffer, and YOU will suffer in many ways because of this, but he just does not meet the threshold of... incompatible with life, so you therefore must suck it up and deal with it. Sorry."

This is fine with you, yet you somehow think that no skank should be made to suck it up and deal with her child if she simply decides, "pfft, Fuck it. Too much hassle for me. OVER!!"

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.


The obvious answer is, NO infants ought to be killed, because someone is playing god and someone is making a life judgment that they are not qualified to make.



Btw, Jsc, you never answered my question.

Why is the 'first breath' the magic moment at which sacred life can not be terminated... except in the case of the dreaded 'incompatible with life' scenario?

[Van]

It's not a dead baby, either. When that fetus dies in her body naturally, it also gets dispelled naturally from her body...because it's part of her body.

If it's part of her body, why did you just say that a fetus dies?

Because fetuses can die, just like cells and tissues in her body die.

:?

Even that basic fact confuses you now?

Dude....

But the woman lives on, so guess what?

The woman lives on. As it should be.

The death of another has taken place.

It ain't "another" until it leaves her body and is breathing without her necessary assistance.

You can stop with the "it's her body" bullcrap.

It's not "bullcrap" and I'll never stop with it. It's 100% fact, as is "poptart is a fucking lunatic."

The "U.S. campaign"? So, what, now you have the U.S. Government making the call and demanding women have abortions?

Of COURSE it's a U.S. campaign, dimwit.

Oh really? The U.S. Government demands that women have abortions? They make women have them?

You're spouting such psychotic tinfoil hat proclamations now, I'm debating between and .

The U.S. people have been doing the killing - and the people's representatives have surely sanctioned it.

Duh!

Women make the choice themselves. No government representative or member of any authoritative body is making them do anything.

"Incompatible with life" is perhaps the dumbest term I've ever heard.

Hardly. The story of Noah's ark is the dumbest thing you've ever heard. Wait. No. The story of Adam and Eve and Creation is the dumbest thing you've ever heard. No, wait....

So dumb, in fact, that, well, you and Jsc would pimp it.

It's a medical term. We don't pimp it. Jsc didn't come up with it. Doctors came up with it to describe a specific set of provable physical circumstances.

It's a medical term.

If someone is incompatible with life, it's funny to then see them... living, isn't it?

Since you managed to miss everything else Jsc posted, I guess it would make sense that you also missed the definition he provided for the term. Anyway, no, it doesn't mean they're dead. It means they stand no chance of continuing to live for very much longer. Survival is impossible.

I suppose you think it wise and humane to attempt to keep a brain-dead, living corpse on life-support forever, which would be so Raider Fan of you.

In fact, we ALL are incompatible with life, then, because we are ALL dying as soon as we're born.

We have a ballpark life expectancy based on provable statistics for healthy people. That ballpark is longer than a few days or weeks beyond birth.

You're awful at this. Truly awful.

Btw, Jsc, you never answered my question.

Why is the 'first breath' the magic moment at which sacred life can not be terminated... except in the case of the dreaded 'incompatible with life' scenario?

He did answer your question, and I repeated his answer for you: It ain't a chicken if it's still an egg, so don't count your chickens until they hatch.

[poptart]

If a fetus really is part of a mother's body, it needs to have the same genetic code as the mother.
But it does not.
Each cell in the fetus is genetically distinct from each cell in the mother's body.

Van is lying.


In many cases, the blood type of the fetus is different than the mother's.
One body can not function with two blood types.
They are not the same body.

Van is lying.


In half of pregnancies, the sex of the fetus is male.
This is not the mother.

Van is lying.


A fetus can die and a mother can live on - and visa versa.
This could obviously not be true if they were the same person.

Van is lying.


It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.

Van is lying.


Similarly, when Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, he was charged with two murders.

Van is lying.



At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

This is the FACT you were looking for, Van.



When did I say that our government is making people have abortions?

In war, the U.S. people (because we ARE the government... supposedly) have chosen to kill others - and we do it.

This is a death campaign.

Not all of us want that death campaign (like abortion) and not all of us are doing the killing (like abortion), but it most surely IS a U.S. death campaign which is occurring.

[Goober McTuber]

WTF, Van?

3/4ths of your last post is fodder and filler. Is all that really necessary?


Carry on.

Just ...you don't need to carry on so much.

Shut the fuck up, you fat, drunken pedophile.

[M Club]

wonder what the statistical profile of abortions in south korea looks like.

[poptart]

wonder what the statistical profile of abortions in south korea looks like.

I'm pretty sure the S. Koreans haven't snuffed the equivalent of almost 20% of their population over the course of 40 years.





Scott, refusing to agree that we should fleece fully innocent bystanders ---> to pay for the mistaken pregnancies of complete strangers, makes me a hypocrite?

*FAIL*


Get us back to pre-Roe v. Wade and we've got a fighting chance to get a grip on the culture problem.

I'm not counting on that happening in the new Soddom and Gomorrah, though.

Minds are pitifully warped, dicks will not be restrained, and legs will not remain closed.

[M Club]

wonder what the statistical profile of abortions in south korea looks like.

I'm pretty sure the S. Koreans haven't snuffed the equivalent of almost 20% of their population over the course of 40 years.

I was asking who gets abortions in Soko and why.

Otherwise, there's this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world ... thers.html

In 2007, 7,774 babies were born out of wedlock in South Korea, 1.6 percent of all births. (In the United States, nearly 40 percent of babies born in 2007 had unmarried mothers, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.) Nearly 96 percent of unwed pregnant women in South Korea choose abortion, according to the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs.

Back of an envelope calculations suggest unmarried women have about 186,576 abortions a year. Who knows how many married women account for so I'll just say 200,000 total. 200,000 x 40 = 8 million. About 48 million in Soko so I guess that means only 16% of their population over the course of 40 years, so guess you're right.

[Atomic Punk]

Come forth and entertain us, Ms. Panties

How is the shit troll thing working out for you? Do you understand that you kick your own ass each and every time you post? I'm flattered a total loser that got ass blasted by me under a different nic had to hide under a shit troll. I win, you lose. Simple.

[Imus]

[Derron]

that got ass blasted by me

Finally something you have a fucking clue about.

[Derron]

FTFY.

[lovebuzz]

One late term abortion would be too many, in my opinion. I am sure it has happened. 8.5 months? maybe, maybe not. It's not the decision I would make. Honestly, since evey situation is different, I am glad women have the choice. That doesn't mean women should take advantage of the choice and be irresponsible about it. That's all.

^ This^ - This is good common sense.

What is my hypocracy supposed to be?

Forcing a woman who can't afford a child to have it, then refusing as a taxpayer to help her support it

The typical pro-life conservative mindset. We'll do anything and everything for that fetus/baby from conception until birth. After that ? You're on your own.
Meanwhile we're ok with Viagra, contraception is wrong. Misogyny at it's finest. Yeah buddy.

Fuck you, who think you have the right to decide who should live or die before a human being is even given the chance... while YOU bleat on about gay marriage being a fundamental right.

Fuck you all to hell and back.

I know this was typed in response to Jsc but since I am dropping my 2 cents here, just clarifying. I don't GAS about gay marriage (two same sex partners want marital benefits and the chance to be as happy/miserable as the rest of the married population, have at it. who the fuck cares ? this is not a real issue and fuck anyone who thinks it is. don't like gay marriage ? don't get gay married. it's pretty simple, really. you love who you love. no one else's business.)

Fuck you and your self righteous ilk right back. Fuck you for thinking that you (as an uninvolved party) have any right to decide what the woman (and her partner) who is pregnant should do about said pregnancy. You don't. The opinion especially doesn't matter when one so passionately claims to defend the "rights" of the unborn but can't be bothered to support (materially and otherwise) those children when they come into the world, born to parents that are not equipped in any way to raise said children.

And if it truly is that you (the believers/religious people) have a genuine concern for an unborn child's right to life being snatched away before fruition, may I gently suggest consulting God about this one.

While I hesitate to say that abortions should ever happen, I do know they will happen (legal or not.)
The right to choose is a woman's own (and her partner's.) The patriarchal, soap box judgements do not matter. If you're ok with cutting off a woman's reproductive choice then you should be ok with cutting off your own. Against abortion ? Don't get one. Or get a vasectomy. Don't claim to know what is right for anyone else.

And yes (please alert the creepy spreadsheeting fucking freak weirdo Canadian guy) I've had an abortion. I made the choice, dealt with the aftermath have heard every Bible based parental lecture and juvenile insult possible (so save em for someone who you might actually sting) and yes, i am willing to answer non-asinine questions for non-assholes and/or discuss accordingly. Thank you and Good Day.

[Goober McTuber]

Rack the buzzer.

[Van]

And might I add that it's ridiculously hypocritical for those who worship a god who encourages murder, slaughter, cutting kids in half, and other assorted atrocities to even suggest that they're offended by the thought of aborting a fetus.

Yeah, there's also that.

[poptart]

Scott, you can stop acting like you care about the kids.

Your answer is to KILL THEM. lol

Seriously.
Look at you.

My answer is life.


Long story short, policies we put in place will never fully eliminate horrors which come about because of the human condition.
Some kids are always going to end up hurt, neglected, mistreated, etc.

But what we need to do is eliminate the abortion carnage and seriously cut back on the entitlement culture.

Does anyone actually think the family unit has grown stronger since Roe v. Wade?

For a couple of generations, America has put policies in place which do not encourage responsible behavior.

So guess what?

We've got irresponsible behavior.


Someone else needs to pay for this child of mine.

or

I'm just going to kill it.

Fuck you and your self righteous ilk right back. Fuck you for thinking that you (as an uninvolved party) have any right to decide what the woman (and her partner) who is pregnant should do about said pregnancy.

The woman and her partner are not removing a wart.

It's a life.
If it wasn't, there would be no need to abort it.

And it's a life which began at conception.
Many try desperately to spin away from this fact, but fact it is.

This being the fact, we might turn your statement back at you, buzzer, and imagine the fetus saying it to those who seek to butcher it.

What right do YOU have?


Van likes to thump his chest and say that he knows women, but he's not nearly as smart as he wants to be.

When a woman gets pregnant, she knows that her calling is to be a vessel for the new life which is housed in her - until such time as it is capable of moving out to live apart from the mother's vessel.

That's why when women choose abortion, they do feel guilty.

They know they had a calling ---> and they punted.

It's a failure and they know it.


It's a life and it ought to be respected as such.

[Van]

I thump my chest and say I know women?

That's what you see when I post things like...

Van, you are a male and really can't begin to know what's it's like being a female.

Which is why neither I nor any other man ever ought to try and tell a woman what she must do with her own body.

Thank you

But by all means, pop, keep dancing amid the lunatic fringe.

[Van]

When a woman gets pregnant, she knows that her calling is to be a vessel for the new life which is housed in her - until such time as it is capable of moving out to live apart from the mother's vessel.

No wonder you had to move to Korea to get laid. Your obvious high regard for women just oozes from every fourteenth-century pore.

[Truman]

I thump my chest and say I know women?

Just repent, Van, and "know women" takes on a whole new meaning...

[trev]

I like you Van and I like you poptart. I like you both a lot. But neither of you know women. Something about walking in their shoes....

[Van]

trev, the problem here is that between myself and poptart only one of us seems to understand the basic truth in your words.

Hint: It ain't poptart.

Also, fwiw, women don't know women either. People only know themselves, plus a few like-minded individuals. No one can speak for their entire gender, trev, including you. As much as it may pain you to admit it, you really don't know most women, any more than they know you.

[trev]

A friend of mine says Korean women are loose. Pop has bode.

[Van]

Since pop is married into a family of harpies and in-law ingrates, being surrounded by a shitload of loose Korean women would seem like a particularly cruel torture.

It probably also explains the guy's medieval points of view.