T1B

Van wrote:If fetuses are constitutionally protected, then why are abortions legal throughout much of the country?

For the same reason slavery was legal throughout much of the country. For the same reason that women could not vote throughout the entire country. For the same reason that you are a pinheaded dipshit.

Diego wrote:How does genitalia matter in marriage?

haha

This will make a nice sig, you flippin' reject.


Solid 2 minute summary given by Alan Keyes - while trying to avoid being interrupted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc

Van wrote:I greatly prioritize the mother over her fetus.

In what regard?

This is the 3rd or 4th time you've mentioned how the mothers rights trump the fetus, mostly in your response to trev, but I'd like some more detail.

Of course, if the mothers life or health are in danger by carrying that child to term, then an abortion is warranted. You and I both know that is a very small % of abortions. Most are performed as a matter of convenience, like getting your oil changed at Jiffy Lube.

Or in other words, this isn't a good time for mommy right now.

Sorry Van, I don't see the premeditated murder of innocent children to be a matter of convenience. Do you?

Wagon wrote:Of course, if the mothers life or health are in danger by carrying that child to term, then an abortion is warranted. You and I both know that is a very small % of abortions.

They always trot out the very small fraction of unusual cases in attempt to muddy the waters.

It's pitiful.

Jsc810 wrote:Adult=teenager=toddler=child = baby = fetus = embryo = zygote

Yeah all the same thing.

Yes, they are the same thing. They are all nothing more than different developmental stages of the human animal which, under our Constitution, is afforded the right to life which may not be deprived without due process of law.

Interesting that you support made up rights for a bunch of sphincter-sucking degenerates while denying the most fundamental right of all to unborn humans.

You are completely lost.

Jsc wrote:Child = baby = fetus = embryo = zygote

Why wouldn't it be?

All will be, barring negative human intervention, fully functioning human beings.


It's ALL human life, dude.

mvscal wrote: Interesting that you support made up rights for a bunch of sphincter-sucking degenerates while denying the most fundamental right of all to unborn humans.

Rack!

That is quite ironic, is it not? The conundrums poor Jsc must face on a daily basis:

Fish, or cut bait?

Make bets right, or welch?

Grill up a hamsteak for my unaborted kids and post a thread about it at RTT, or face the music at T1B?

Ponderous questions this man must resolve.

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:If fetuses are constitutionally protected, then why are abortions legal throughout much of the country?

For the same reason slavery was legal throughout much of the country. For the same reason that women could not vote throughout the entire country.

Meaning...because fetuses aren't protected by the Constitution, and until the Constitution is amended to provide them with that protection you will remain a fucking moron who can't get out of his own hypocritical way.

But hey, thanks for proving my point. You really don't have a clue, but at least you'll be loudly clueless, which makes you that much more laughable.

Woah, I see the TVO debate team creeping up on us here. How many times are you going to have to edit that post?

Abortions are legal because of a fucked up SCOTUS decision in 1973. It was called Roe vs. Wade, maybe you've heard of it?

Quit typing constitution with a capital 'C' even.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote:I greatly prioritize the mother over her fetus.

In what regard?

In all regards. That fetus exists only by her good graces. When it comes to any choice between her and it, she wins.

This is the 3rd or 4th time you've mentioned how the mothers rights trump the fetus, mostly in your response to trev, but I'd like some more detail.

What do you want? What sort of details? 100% of the time, the viable mother takes priority over the nonviable fetus.

That being said, I'd strongly hope that no one ever has an abortion without there being a damn good reason; not just as a matter of convenience to clean up her mess following a particularly eventful frat party.

Of course, if the mothers life or health are in danger by carrying that child to term, then an abortion is warranted. You and I both know that is a very small % of abortions. Most are performed as a matter of convenience, like getting your oil changed at Jiffy Lube.

As long as those Jiffy Lube abortions are performed during the first trimester, I have no problems with them. If having a baby will completly fuck up her life, even if she only carries it to term before giving it up for adoption, then having an abortion is her choice.

Like I said, if men could get pregnat...Jiffy Lube. As a general practice, men would not allow their entire lives - much less their golf games - to become jeopardized over something that could be fixed with a single pill. They can act as sanctimonious as pie when it's women's lives their judging, but were it their own lives?

They'd burp during the Yankess-Indians highlights on Sportscenter, and that fetus would be toast. R-Jack would post a cool PET about it, and PSUFAN would win a Smackoff with it.

Or in other words, this isn't a good time for mommy right now.

Pretty much, yep. It sucks, but it's reality. Men would make that same decision like it's picking out a tie for the day. For your average career-minded Type A personality shlub, getting an abortion would be about as much of a no-brainer as popping a zit.

Sorry Van, I don't see the premeditated murder of innocent children to be a matter of convenience. Do you?

They aren't children. They're fetuses. In the first trimester, often times they're barely a bad case of heartburn.

All your nonsequitur handwringing is never going to wash. The mother matters more than the nonviable glob of goo that's using her body as a cocoon. Until that fetus could at least survive outside the womb, it's a nonissue since that fetus is not a viable human being.

War Wagon wrote:Woah, I see the TVO debate team creeping up on us here. How many times are you going to have to edit that post?

Abortions are legal because of a fucked up SCOTUS decision in 1973. It was called Roe vs. Wade, maybe you've heard of it?

Quit typing constitution with a capital 'C' even.

Wags, when referring to the actual Constitution document, it is always capitalized, so maybe you might want to think twice before attempting to correct me - or mvscal, for that matter, since he also spells it correctly - on issues of spelling and grammar.

Also, abortions have been occuring legally in this country from the time of the Founding Fathers, and still they never bothered to include fetuses within their definition of "people" whose rights are guaranteed under the Constitution. Even after amending the Constitution to include blacks as full-fledged "people" and women as deserving of suffrage, fetuses have never been addressed. They always have been and remain to this day an unprotected entity according to the 5th Amendment.

Van wrote:Also, abortions have been occuring legally in this country from the time of the Founding Fathers,

Link?

How about you link me to a time in this country when abortions weren't being legally performed. You can even go back to the eighteenth century if you wish. At no point were abortions ever addressed in the Constitution, and they were never federally banned across the board. Even in cases where states made them illiegal, it was only on a restricted basis. There have always been exclusions.

The bottom line is abortions have never been prohibited by the Constitution, even as the Constitution received amendments that addressed other issues.

Van wrote:Until that fetus could at least survive outside the womb, it's a nonissue since that fetus is not a viable human being.

Van, as mvscal pointed out to you already, there is a LOT of human life that is not able to survive on it's own.

It doesn't give anyone the right to snuff that human life out - because they want to.

Your point is quite simply, asinine.

pahtah, I said outside the womb, not merely on its own. If it's not even developed enough to survive outside the womb then it's not viable life.

But you admit that it is human life.

Do you want to stop and consider how much "non-viable" human life there is?

If an elderly fella is a permanantly laid up diaper-shitter, should we off him?

He's not viable.

What about a child that's born a hopelessly crippled retard?

Off him?

To be consistent in your position, the parents ought to be allowed to make that choice, no?

What about a child that's born a hopelessly crippled retard?

Off him?

Teevo, make your time.

poptart wrote:But you admit that it is human life.

No, I absolutely do not. It's a fetus; it's merely potential human life. Fetuses miscarry entirely on their own, never becoming human life. It isn't truly a human life until it's living independent of the mother, and it sure as hell isn't a human life when it's not yet developed enough to survive beyond the womb. A fetus in its first trimester is not a human life. Period.

Do you want to stop and consider how much "non-viable" human life there is?

Nope. Why would I? That's of no relevance whatsoever to this issue.

If an elderly fella is a permanantly laid up diaper-shitter, should we off him?

He's not viable.

He's viable beyond the womb. He is a human life.

What about a child that's born a hopelessly crippled retard?

Off him?

Same thing. Hell, I often engage them on this very board.

To be honest, though, if a newborn truly is hopelessly and permanently crippled/deformed as well as severely retarded, no, I'd have no problem with a little culling of the herd. If the parents cannot bear the agony, I'd be fine with leaving the choice up to them.

I wouldn't mandate the child's death; I just wouldn't have a problem with it.

To be consistent in your position, the parents ought to be allowed to make that choice, no?

Under the circumstances I described? Yes.

Jsc, you have to place a reasonable time-limit on your prediction before it'd be worth a shit to wager on it. I think five years was mentioned. That would be reasonable for the purposes of a bet.

Jsc810 wrote: OK, WW, here's the offer: I believe that the Prop 8 case now pending in California will eventually be heard by the SCOTUS, who will then issue a ruling that will recognize that same sex couples have a fundamental right to marriage in all 50 states. The $100 goes to charity, whoever wins gets to decide on the charity, but sorry, you are not a charity. Do you accept that offer?

No, not without a reasonable deadline. This thing could be tied up in the court for years with appeals and counter appeals.

But I'll make a prediction.

Both you and I will more than likely be dead before gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I hope it never happens, but I'd rather be dead when/if it does happen.

War Wagon wrote:Both you and I will more than likely be dead before gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I hope it never happens, but I'd rather be dead when/if it does happen.

Really? You’d rather be dead than have to live with the knowledge that two men are swapping fluids in a state-sanctioned marriage. Not much loss when you’re gone, Jethro.

I guess for your sake Goobs I shoulda' specified 50 years from now.

88 wrote: If the Supreme Court takes the case...

And what do you place the likelihood of that being?

I say slim, because the court knows the shit firestorm it would raise thru-out the entire country if it legislated gay marriage rights from the bench.

It's a state's rights issue and one the SCOTUS should know better than to fuck with.

Jsc810 wrote:Van, it is my bet and I can do with it what I want. You're more than welcome to come up with a bet of your own if you wish.

Don't be ridiculous. A bet with no foreseeable conclusion is not a bet at all. If you don't place a deadline on it, neither person will ever be wrong, and no one ever wins the bet. Wtf is the point?

88 wrote:Jsc810's bet, as offered, is fair. The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Wikipedia has an article devoted to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger

It will be easy to track.

The District Court should issue a ruling sometime this year. One can assume that the losing party will appeal the District Court's judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. After the 9th Circuit issues its decision, the losing party will likely petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will likely be in late May or June of 2012 or 2013 before an opinion is rendered.

And if the SC chooses not to hear the case? When or how will the bet ever be decided?

Wags wrote:thru-out

:?

Was anyone's mind changed in this thread?

trev wrote:Was anyone's mind changed in this thread?

Probably not, but Wags at least learned that he needs to capitalize 'Constitution' when he's referencing our governing document.

:D

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:And if the SC chooses not to hear the case? When or how will the bet ever be decided?

If the SCOTUS doesn't hear the case, then I would lose the bet.

Not sure of the exact number, but the SCOTUS doesn't accept many cases, perhaps two or three percent.

I've called my shot. :)

You need to figure out a way to get your ass pitted against TVO's before the SCOTUS. Now there's some Court TV I'd surely watch!

Even better, get yourself appointed to the SCOTUS, and make it your life's mission to get TVO to argue a case before you. When you dismiss his case with supreme prejudice, you gotta rub salt in the wound by shouting out, "SEC, bitch! Booyah!"

Van wrote:

If an elderly fella is a permanantly laid up diaper-shitter, should we off him?

He's not viable.

He's viable beyond the womb. He is a human life.

No, he isn't. He will die without continual care from other people. He is incapable of providing for any of the basic necessities of life. How is that is even remotely "viable."

Infants are viable humans either. They also require continual care from other people.

Van wrote:He's viable beyond the womb. He is a human life.

Your standard is silly.

An infant, a baby, a young child - is not viable beyond the womb.
It requires human assistance, or it dies.

Much of humanity is not viable beyond the womb.

Fetuses miscarry entirely on their own, never becoming human life.

And people have heart attacks and die ... entirely on their own.

In or out of the womb is irrelevant, you goof.

It's all human life.

You're just making up a bunch of strange bullshit that doesn't fly.

No, you're simply refusing to admit that there's a difference between an unhatched egg and a chicken.

How much clearer can I make I this for you? If it can't live outside the womb, even with the help of other human assistance, then it's not yet a viable human being. Your elderly person can survive without having to grow into literal existence inside another person's body. He can also assist in his own care, even if it's merely blinking his eyes in response to questions.

Are you just being obstinate, or are you truly this blindlingly stupid?

The standard you are setting is this:

If human life ... has ... existed outside of the womb, it is considered viable and should be protected - except, you say, in the case of (and maybe other cases, I don't know what you think) a hopeless crippled retard child - which can be off'd by the parents, if they want it killed.


Do you support abortion in the weeks, days, hours before birth?

What is the standard you want to make up to try to satisfy your conscience?

Van wrote:Are you just being obstinate, or are you truly this blindlingly stupid?

This is hilarious and it's what happens to you when you make yourself into a liberal, Van.

You get clowned.

The problem for you is that my position is entirely logical and it is entirely crystal clear.

That is --

1) Life begins at conception.
2) This life ought to be protected by federal law.
3) Only in the circumstances of (a) rape/incest or (b) mother's life in danger, ought terminating the life of the unborn be considered.

You on the other hand put up all manner of arbitrary standards regarding when life begins, what life is "viable," who ought to be allowed to terminate it, etc.

There are not many things more P I T I F U L than watching a "scientist" carry on about how life doesn't actually begin until ... such and such point of time.

Total mental handjobbery.

And liberal goofballs, who's favorite pastime it seems, is finding ways to separate adults from having a responsibility for the own actions, lap it up.

If I drive into Colorado, the moment I cross the state line I am IN the state.
It's not after I drive 3 miles.
It's not after I drive 20 miles.
It's not after I arrive in Denver.
No, there is an OBVIOUS moment at which I have arrived.

There is an OBVIOUS moment at which human life has begun, and you tie yourself into a pretzel, making up nonsensical standards based on ... nothing ... in order to try to weasle a way around what we can all recognize to be the truth.

Don't be a liberal putz.

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:Are you just being obstinate, or are you truly this blindlingly stupid?

This is hilarious and it's what happens to you when you make yourself into a liberal, Van.

You get clowned.

The iodot who believes in a flying spaghetti monster & blows off what scientists say is saying that others are being clowned.

Tears Jerry, tears.

You had every opportunity to enter the recent "Theology" thead and you failed to show, Diego.

Zero.

Got anything substantive to add here, or should we just assume you'll slink off now and finger yourself?

Jsc wrote:Yeah, what do those scientists know anyway?

Have you listened to them?

Comedy Central.

"Yes, by golly, the evidence tell us that THIS is when you can make the determination that life has begun."

har har


There is simply NO doubt that new human life has begun at the moment of conception.

The end.

When do you think a new human life has begun?

poptart wrote:When do you think a new human life has begun?

Every 8 seconds.

poptart wrote:

Do you support abortion in the weeks, days, hours before birth?

What is the standard you want to make up to try to satisfy your conscience?

Obviously, they do support it.

Jsc wrote:what word do you use to describe that point when a fetus can survive outside of the uterus?

I understand your use of the term viable, but as I see it, it doesn't matter at all when a fetus can survive outside the uterus.
Totally irrelevant.

It's just a bogus line in the sand abortion supporters use as they try to rationalize the irrational act of terminating human life.