T1B

Martyred wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:the child is worthless if produced by rape or incest. if the child was produced by two 13 year olds fucking, it is the most wonderful thing and must be protected at all costs. so beautiful is life. so precious. unless it was an older brother who fathered the child. in that case the child must be vacuumed out and destroyed. how could the mother live with that infestation in her body? but if the father was a drunken fratboy then the child might be the next President or MVP or Pope.

What if the child was the product of the loving, tender union of a (slightly alcoholic) American housewife and a virile, handsome Canadian communist?

Riddle me that, Batman.






:|

so precious.

Please, don't mock me.

I see right through your patronising tone.

Jsc810 wrote:Truman, from your comments it appears that you have not put the same thought into these issues as I have, and that actually is a good thing. For about 8 years I was a medical malpractice defense lawyer, and I've been a patient many times, with a few times being very close to death. I've had to put considerable thought into such issues. That is not to say I am right and you are wrong, but you'd be quite mistaken if you believe that my position has been reached without substantial consideration.

To answer your question, it is physicians who determine incompatibility with life. While unsettling, it is nonetheless a medical reality that some are born that way. Some babies have no other option but to live a few hours, days, weeks in pain and suffering, and then they die.

Physicians already make similar determinations. For example, in Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the patient must have two physicians diagnose him with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. Likewise in Louisiana, a patient must have two physicians certify that he has a terminal and irreversible condition in order to have a valid living will to withhold life-sustaining procedures. Your state probably has similar laws.

Please note that I did not say that the life has no value, I merely stated that some are born incompatible with life. And because they do have value, I believe that the humane thing to do is to euthanize them instead of prolonging their suffering, if that is what the parents determine for that incompatible with life baby.

Put the goal posts back, Jsc. This isn’t a debate on end-of-life decisions. FWIW, I am sympathetic with those who feel they have reached the end of the line and are seeking legal avenues to bring their lives to a close.

Another argument for another thread.

No, this argument settles upon 88’s Onion-like article and your enthusiasm to back the jackasses who suggest that the killing of newborns can be somewhat justified.

Appearances can be deceiving, Counselor. Do not presume to know my mind.

Yes, I am very aware of the (non)value the legal system places on a child. Yet the irony of your take is that you would leave the determination of “compatibility of life” in the hands of doctors – the same people you spent eight years of your life suing for damages to recompense the “quality of life” of your clients.

Irony, thy name is Chip.

The same docs you regularly sue wouda been better off just letting you die. And so would this Board.

Point blank, Counselor: What Moral Authority grants any doctor the power to determine who lives or who dies?

I’m pretty sure that one isn’t in the Constitution. And I’m fairly confident the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t make allowances for such decision-making either.

Does the baby get a say? Oh, that’s right: He isn’t a viable human-being in your parlance. At least the convicted murderers you defend tooth-and-nail have their fate determined by jury of their peers. What recourse does a baby have? A jury of his? Or perhaps a committee of 12 doctors? Why, that smacks of the Death Panels that Obamacare honks claim the legislation doesn’t have.

Look, Harry Rex, I enjoy your LSU posts and fishing PETS, but you get run-spread every time you post a take on social issues. I appreciate your links to case law… But this Board regularly buries you in an avalanche of Common Sense. Admitting you're wrong takes salt... And you are waaayy out-of-bounds on this one. Something to think about.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Huh? What..are you also dutifully reciting the Limpdick line?

Doesn't it occur to you that providing women with birth control will reduce VERY EXPENSIVE unwanted pregnancies? You know, poor women with kids they can't afford--and so they require public aid, and the kids (statistically) grow up prone to chronic underachieving and crime? And thus more and more public expense?

What part of basic common sense eludes you?

Or...are you just a Christer who contends that sex that's not strictly for procreation is just some sort of indulgence like drinking alcohol? I refuse to believe you're so mentally crippled.

WW

LTS, keep encouraging the parasites of society, the leeches and the cockroaches. It figures that you would be for the BIG and bloated government getting bigger and more bloated.

If a person is too poor to afford a fuckin condom, then I am of the opinion that they are a scumbag.
AND, people like LTS who champion the causes of scumbags, disgust me.

LTS lives in a fantasy world where people no longer have to be held accountable for their poor choices in life. The big bloated government will just swoop in and take care of everything.

Which is why the country is goin down the tubes in a hurrry. Get Obama outta there before its too late.

Truman's fairly excellent post (not that I'm entirely in agreement, just that it was well phrased), followed up by this piece of shit:

bradhusker wrote: If a person is too poor to afford a fuckin condom, then I am of the opinion that they are a scumbag.

Honestly, your schtick is getting a little worn out.

Martyred wrote:Truman's fairly excellent post (not that I'm entirely in agreement, just that it was well phrased), followed up by this piece of shit:

bradhusker wrote: If a person is too poor to afford a fuckin condom, then I am of the opinion that they are a scumbag.

Honestly, your schtick is getting a little worn out.

What you call schtick, others call REALITY. Marty, get your head out of "fantasy land", and wake the fuck up YOU IDIOT!

Its time I called you out for being a clueless tard. You ignore the direction this country is headed by your useless drivel. This government is headed in the wrong direction, WE SPEND A TRILLION MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. DID YOU HEAR THAT MARTY??

ANSWER THE QUESTION PRICK. I SAID, this country is spending a trillion more than it takes in, do you think that we can find areas to trim??? HUH dummy?

OBVIOUSLY, you dont give two shits that this federal government is in deep deep shit. So when I tell you that we our out of control and in a deadly downward spiral, all you can say is "schtick"???

FUCK YOU .

Lts and you need to get into reality, a hard dose of reality needs to hit you in the head like a ton of bricks, and fast.

You are so fuckin clueless that you dont see a problem with female law students needing free condoms from our federal government. AND, thats just the tip of the iceberg, there are examples of billions upon billions being wasted every single day.

We make jokes about it, I said that if my tax dollars go to giving this law student freebies, I fully expect to get a video for my hard earned tax dollars.

Obviously, you cant handle humor in this or any other situation. AT THE END OF THE DAY HOWEVER, it is me, bradhusker who is more in tune with the harsh realities of our out of control bloated federal government, and you marty, who is stuck in denial and fantasy.

Get back to us when you can fully realize the grave and serious matter at hand.

Truman wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Truman, from your comments it appears that you have not put the same thought into these issues as I have, and that actually is a good thing. For about 8 years I was a medical malpractice defense lawyer, and I've been a patient many times, with a few times being very close to death. I've had to put considerable thought into such issues. That is not to say I am right and you are wrong, but you'd be quite mistaken if you believe that my position has been reached without substantial consideration.

To answer your question, it is physicians who determine incompatibility with life. While unsettling, it is nonetheless a medical reality that some are born that way. Some babies have no other option but to live a few hours, days, weeks in pain and suffering, and then they die.

Physicians already make similar determinations. For example, in Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the patient must have two physicians diagnose him with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. Likewise in Louisiana, a patient must have two physicians certify that he has a terminal and irreversible condition in order to have a valid living will to withhold life-sustaining procedures. Your state probably has similar laws.

Please note that I did not say that the life has no value, I merely stated that some are born incompatible with life. And because they do have value, I believe that the humane thing to do is to euthanize them instead of prolonging their suffering, if that is what the parents determine for that incompatible with life baby.

Put the goal posts back, Jsc. This isn’t a debate on end-of-life decisions. FWIW, I am sympathetic with those who feel they have reached the end of the line and are seeking legal avenues to bring their lives to a close.

Another argument for another thread.

No, this argument settles upon 88’s Onion-like article and your enthusiasm to back the jackasses who suggest that the killing of newborns can be somewhat justified.

Appearances can be deceiving, Counselor. Do not presume to know my mind.

Yes, I am very aware of the (non)value the legal system places on a child. Yet the irony of your take is that you would leave the determination of “compatibility of life” in the hands of doctors – the same people you spent eight years of your life suing for damages to recompense the “quality of life” of your clients.

Irony, thy name is Chip.

The same docs you regularly sue wouda been better off just letting you die. And so would this Board.

Point blank, Counselor: What Moral Authority grants any doctor the power to determine who lives or who dies?

I’m pretty sure that one isn’t in the Constitution. And I’m fairly confident the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t make allowances for such decision-making either.

Does the baby get a say? Oh, that’s right: He isn’t a viable human-being in your parlance. At least the convicted murderers you defend tooth-and-nail have their fate determined by jury of their peers. What recourse does a baby have? A jury of his? Or perhaps a committee of 12 doctors? Why, that smacks of the Death Panels that Obamacare honks claim the legislation doesn’t have.

Look, Harry Rex, I enjoy your LSU posts and fishing PETS, but you get run-spread every time you post a take on social issues. I appreciate your links to case law… But this Board regularly buries you in an avalanche of Common Sense. Admitting you're wrong takes salt... And you are waaayy out-of-bounds on this one. Something to think about.

Rack it!

Post of the week.

bradhusker wrote:

Marty wrote:Honestly, your schtick is getting a little worn out.

What you call schtick, others call REALITY.

No, they don't. The entire board agrees that you're a worthless troll whose shtick has grown seriously tired.

Great post Tru, but...

Truman wrote: The same docs you regularly sue wouda been better off just letting you die. And so would this Board.

I can't quite agree with this statement. Nobody riles me up quite like Jsc on his soapbox, nobody.

Half the time I think he's trolling, just trying to get me to meltdown. Lord knows it has been known to happen. The other half, I realize he's dead serious, and that bothers me. But I don't wish him dead, not really, though I may have posted the same thought in different words at times.

And that's a bit weird, since Jsc is easily one of the kindest, classiest, most decent people on this board.

Truman wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I was a medical malpractice defense lawyer

the irony of your take is that you would leave the determination of “compatibility of life” in the hands of doctors – the same people you spent eight years of your life suing for damages to recompense the “quality of life” of your clients.

Doesn't a medical malpractice defense lawyer defend the doctors, not sue them?

That's certainly how I would imagine it.

In any case, who else but doctors could be expected to make the determination of what does and does not constitute "compatible with life"? Should such questions be left to...lawyers?

Uhh...

When patients file malpractice suits, they are the plaintiffs, and the doctors are the defendants. Defense lawyers represent defendants.

I know. I'm agreeing with you.

Van wrote:I know. I'm agreeing with you.

I know. I was clarifying for those who may have been confused. ('Sup, Tru?)

Smackie Chan wrote:Doesn't a medical malpractice defense lawyer defend the doctors, not sue them?

Yeah, I caught that on a re-read this morning. Not confused, just missed it. Too late to edit, so I thought I'd let the good Counselor point that one out before you got to it...



First Law of Dinsdale is to never let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant. Regardless, malpractice defense sheds light on Chip's take: He spent eight years defending professional negligence and convincing juries that human life has no value. So it isn't a leap to consider that he might just feel the same way about babies. I stand by the rest of my take.

War Wagon wrote:Great post Tru, but...

Truman wrote: The same docs you regularly sue wouda been better off just letting you die. And so would this Board.

I can't quite agree with this statement. Nobody riles me up quite like Jsc on his soapbox, nobody.

Half the time I think he's trolling, just trying to get me to meltdown. Lord knows it has been known to happen. The other half, I realize he's dead serious, and that bothers me. But I don't wish him dead, not really, though I may have posted the same thought in different words at times.

Hyperbole, Wags. I don't wish anybody dead.

Tru wrote:First Law of Dinsdale

Now that's a "Ten Commandments" I really want to see.

Chop chop, Mizzou Boy. This oughtta be good.

Van wrote:

bradhusker wrote:

Marty wrote:Honestly, your schtick is getting a little worn out.

What you call schtick, others call REALITY.

No, they don't. The entire board agrees that you're a worthless troll whose shtick has grown seriously tired.

Van, the problem with a leftist pig like you is that you are so detached from reality, that I sound like a troll to you, when in fact, im the farthest thing from a "troll", end quote.

A left wing freak like you, wouldnt have a problem with a couple of gay men sticking their dicks in holes in the concrete in some alley in downtown San Fran on a saturday night.

So dont tell me about what "normal" is, cause you are way out there, way way out in pluto land.