T1B

ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new

Certainly nothing new to us. Maybe now we can open a practice.

/sin/
Dingoes.

Come on 88, isn’t it considered passé to post “stories” from The Onion as actual reportage?

Goober McTuber wrote:Come on 88, isn’t it considered passé to post “stories” from The Onion as actual reportage?

I say no.

World Bank forcloses on World Farm

Who gets to define "incompatible with life"?

apparently mommy and daddy do, according to chip.

smackaholic wrote:apparently mommy and daddy do, according to chip.

:?

Jsc810 wrote:Incompatible with life is a medical term.

You are quite possibly the dumbest motherfucker to ever register here. And that's quite an accomplishment given your competition.

Jsc810 wrote:Although I would have phrased it a bit differently, I agree with the conclusion. It is a medical fact that some pregnancies result in a birth that is incompatible with life. Incompatible with life is a medical term, don't get pissed off at me for it. When such a birth occurs, to me the humane thing to do is to end its suffering, just as I believe that patients at the end of life should have the right to euthanasia if that is what they desire. Since the parents make the medical decisions for a new born, they should have the right to euthanize that baby should circumstances warrant. Please note that I am saying this should be the case only where the baby is born incompatible with life, and not where mere birth defects exist.

I would think a lawyer would have half way deece reading comp.

that article basically concludes that a perfectly healthy newborn is just a blob of tissue, as it was a few seconds earlier, when you were quite comfortable with the concept of whacking it.

i still believe that first trimester abortions should remain legal, but, you militant PRO abortion types are really scary. you try to hide behind the examples of putting horribly deformed babies out of their misery, but, it truth, you do think it's OK to whack them pretty much whenever, including after being born if they are a nuisance.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

smackaholic wrote:apparently mommy and daddy do, according to chip.

:?

Jsc810 wrote:Incompatible with life is a medical term.

You are quite possibly the dumbest motherfucker to ever register here. And that's quite an accomplishment given your competition.

did you read any of the article?

here's a bit......

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

chip said...

Although I would have phrased it a bit differently, I agree with the conclusion.

fukking moron.

smackaholic wrote:did you read any of the article?

Yes, I did. And unlike you, I actually understood both what I was reading and JSC's reply.

What does fanatics arguing for a parent's right to kill their babies if they are disabled (or they just don't "want them") have to do with defining what is incompatible with life? Incompatible with life means the baby faces insurmountable odds of having any "quality of life" outside of the womb and should be terminated post haste. Unless you're a total pro-lifer, you'd probably agree with terminating the pregnancy/newborn.

The article is suggesting we should give parents more power to terminate their kids. For example, if you discover your newborn has a birth defect (and not necessarily facing a death sentence outside of the womb) parents should also be able to kill their baby with no repercussions. Moreover, someone else is taking it a step further. They are saying because abortion is legal, all newborns should be subject to death if the parents decide they don't want the kid. For example, if he has the wrong eye color, the parents can kill him because he "has no rights."

Neither example (birth defect or wrong eye color) I cited has anything to do with "incompatibility with life."

You are a total and complete dumbfuck.

Papa Willie wrote:Odd. I just addressed this at CF, so I'll use the same reply here:

A lot of times, nobody is going to know if they have defects or not.

My twins were born early - 32 weeks, to be precise. They spent their first 3 weeks in the NICU. Luckily, we didn't abort in the last month. They both just took a school wide test that judged where they were. One of them aced it (the only kid in the first grade to do it), and the other missed one. Two highest scores in the grade.

Pretty glad we didn't abort.

Make any sense now?

When kids come out that early - you don't know if they're going to be fucked up or not. Guess I'm lucky.

Yeah. Lucky that the mailman hit paydirt.

Papa Willie wrote:somebody had some damned good semen

Sig material.

Papa Willie wrote:somebody had some damned good semen.

Insert pic of those two goobers flipping the bird that everyone posts.

Rats.

Jsc is just angling for the opportunity to run one down in his car.

He's done the womb job. He's ready for some next level shit now.

Let's bear in mind that throughout history in all cultures, defective babies were euthanized. The method was usually "exposure"--or just leaving it out in the wilderness. Other methods were used, but the point is it was an accepted convention of society from Africa to Asia to the Mediterranean, and Polynesians and Native Americans. And why? Because defective babies drag down the society. This sounds harsh--and indeed would seem to echo the German Nazis' doctrine. But the Nazis derived their eugenics doctrine directly from the American Eugenics Movement of the 1920's, etc. And these were of course good Christers with the same love of a White America as Pat Buchanan. So...why the sudden reversal by these same ignorant racist Christers? Why the sudden love of every Down Syndrome and Spina Bifida lil' bundle of love?

Obviously prenatal screening should be thorough and appropriate preventative measures provided by basic health care plans, period.

The real issue that is indeed a case of most foul immorality is the fact of millions of Indian and Chinese couples screening for gender and then aborting female fetuses. This is a cause worthy--and demanding--of getting angry and loud. Because the process of Evolution is in fact much faster than we've ever dared to acknowledge. From species mutating, to human populations undergoing drastic changes, the manipulation of gender balance is already having dreadful ramifications.

Wake the fuck up! Forget "Frothmix" Santorum and his horribly ignorant mouthings, and get a grip on the wheel.

WW

LTS TRN 2 wrote: the fact of millions of Indian and Chinese couples screening for gender and then aborting female fetuses.

At least they'll have fewer sluts demanding government sponsored birth control.

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

What part of sarcasm eludes you?
x 38 million

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The real issue that is indeed a case of most foul immorality is the fact of millions of Indian and Chinese couples screening for gender and then aborting female fetuses. This is a cause worthy--and demanding--of getting angry and loud.

Tough shit, asshole. You want "reproductive choice"? There it is. Hopefully they'll find a fag gene soon and parents can start killing their little fag babies, too.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Doesn't it occur to you that providing women with birth control will reduce VERY EXPENSIVE unwanted pregnancies?

Provide your own fucking birth control, you sperm belching gene splice.

Mikey wrote:What part of sarcasm eludes you?
x 38 million

The unfunniest twat on the interwebs doesn't get any other form of humor. Why would you expect him to get sarcasm?

Wait until they're born, pronounce Iraqi citizenship on them, them obliterate them with super-heated shrapnel.

That's okay, right?

i'd just settle for goober & mikey being veryveryveryveryvery late-term aborted

Mikey wrote:What part of sarcasm eludes you?
x 38 million

Sorry, dude, I'm still all tore up over Whitney.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Doesn't it occur to you that providing women with birth control will reduce VERY EXPENSIVE unwanted pregnancies?

Provide your own fucking birth control, you sperm belching gene splice.

Yo, M-Cop, I see you're in full circled-wagon mode with an all-hands-on-deck alert from the heavily sweating Limpdick--not to mix metaphors

Of course he and his "dittoheads" wallow in the garbage he vomits, and I suppose you get some perverse pleasure in spewing petty punitive smears on fellow Americans while screwing the nation at the same time.

And you're infantile gibberish concerning the gerrymandering of gender in India and China shows your true wattage. And..it's dark in there.

Cuda wrote:i'd just settle for goober & mikey being veryveryveryveryvery late-term aborted

STOP READING MY MIND!

:x




...comrade.

Jsc810 wrote:Although I would have phrased it a bit differently, I agree with the conclusion. It is a medical fact that some pregnancies result in a birth that is incompatible with life. Incompatible with life is a medical term, don't get pissed off at me for it. When such a birth occurs, to me the humane thing to do is to end its suffering, just as I believe that patients at the end of life should have the right to euthanasia if that is what they desire. Since the parents make the medical decisions for a new born, they should have the right to euthanize that baby should circumstances warrant. Please note that I am saying this should be the case only where the baby is born incompatible with life, and not where mere birth defects exist.

I cannot imagine the brand of law that you practice, Jsc. Hopefully, it is something as innocuous as real estate, contracts, patents, or some other discipline that requires extensive research in dusty, old libraries that hasn’t a prayer of touching real people.

What the Sam-Hill is wrong with you?!

Just WHO, pray tell, determines the "compatibility of life"?

If you truly believe that human life - any human life - has no value in its infancy, then you are easily the most dispicable, morally bereft individual to ever log on to this Board. Do us all a favor and euthanize yourself. You and your take ain't worth a bucket of warm shit.

Jesus-fucking-Christ-with-a-bent-coat-hanger...

Martyred wrote:

Cuda wrote:i'd just settle for goober & mikey being veryveryveryveryvery late-term aborted

STOP READING MY MIND!

:x




...comrade.

Yes, please dear God, eliminate all the bullies.

What a pair of fucking Nancy-boys.

Jsc810 wrote: Some babies have no other option but to live a few hours, days, weeks in pain and suffering, and then they die.

That isn't what these medical "ethicists" are talking about so stop trying to cloud the issue, you lying, hypocritical fuckbag.

chip, in your first post in this thread, you pretty much said it was badly worded, but, you agreed with them.

maybe i have "them" mistaken for someone else.

Jsc810 wrote:Oh come on 88, you can do better than that.

First of all, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as 100% certainty, at least that's not what they taught me in law school, perhaps you were taught something different.

Further, you are implying that I view a zygote, embryo, or fetus the same as an adult. I do not, and as you know or should know, the law does not.

The argument here isn't zygotes v adults. It is innocent newborns v adults.

And Jsc is not attempting to play willy nilly judge as to what constitutes "incompatible with life" for a stricken newborn. He's provided the medical definition, including the safeguard procedures employed by the medical profession before that conclusion can be reached.

One may agree or disagree with him on an emotional basis, but whether it's zygotes, fetuses, newborns or end-stage adults, he is perfectly consistent and 100% logical in his stance on this entire issue.

I actually agree 100% with his position. Particularly with those at the other end of life who are capable of making the decision.

The area where I have a problem is the "blob of tissue" defense.

Some want to extend that argument right on past the moment the "blob" leaves his mother's body.

I still believe that abortion should be legal during the first trimester. After that, you are getting into that slippery slope which some would extend right on past delivery.

I can't let this one lie w/o my opinion.
OK. Let's think reality here. If you have ever seen a newborn baby, how in hell can you fathom anyone killing that poor innocent child whether it is still inside the mother or even worse on its way out. What kind of MONSTER could do such a thing. And not only do it once, but day after day, chalking up a huge number of abortions and making a huge living off of it. I find it appalling. Such a "doctor" is no worse that a Nazi Doctor Mengle or other perverse people who smear the good name of medicine. And now you have some saying it is just hunky dory to kill a newborn if it does not fit their personal definition of "worthy of life". It's a sad state of affairs that it has come to this. If life life of the least of us has no value, then none of us have value. Fire away abortion activists, but you are (excuse the pun) dead wrong.

Wolfman wrote:Such a "doctor" is no worse that a Nazi Doctor Mengle or other perverse people who smear the good name of medicine.

Don't be ridiculous. Mengele performed his atrocities entirely on his own, without the consent of the adult victim. He did so solely to sate his own morbid curiosities.

Mothers who consent to abortions do so of their own volition, sometimes out of medical necessity; other times, in response to rape/incest.

Regardless of their motivations, no one is literally forcing them at gun point, which was the case with Mengele.

And now you have some saying it is just hunky dory to kill a newborn if it does not fit their personal definition of "worthy of life".

No, you don't. As Jsc specifically laid out for you, there are medical definitions that must be met and corroborated by a second doctor before "incompatible with life" can be determined.

See, it's these kinds of ignorant, pathetic knee-jerk responses which have no basis in reality that always manage to render so many "Pro Life" arguments moot. Wolfman, your opinion is utterly worthless here because it doesn't relate to the facts. It's just an emotional response to phantoms that don't exist.

Again, if the entire history of humanity--across the board--is one of practical euthanasia, why are we having this debate at all? Is it merely the Christer doctrine? Are you kidding? The tales of fishermen? The wash of Syria? A wretched world-hating seething cult spun out of a reeling Rome? The Tea Baggers?
And who are these good folks who have effectively rendered the GOP a bottomed-out freak show? Well, the average Tea Bagger is white, old, scared, low educated, and born-again Christer. Okay, so now we can see exactly why such disaster has befallen the "party of Lincloln"

But...try to think for yourself. Ask why the tedious rigid and thoroughly irrational doctrine of a totally fake cult religion should be influencing your thinking on such a practical matter as a woman's choice as to preventing unwanted pregnancies, and terminating them when they occur. The matter of defective fetuses should not even be in the discussion.

Sure, SS, but you neglect to say WHY you disagree. And...be honest...is it the Christer doctrine? Anything else?

Van wrote: Mothers who consent to abortions do so of their own volition, sometimes out of medical necessity; other times, in response to rape/incest.

And sometimes, quite likely most of the time, it's because the woman just doesn't feel like playing mommy yet.

As I've said before, I think abortion in the first trimester should remain legal. Maybe it should even be legal up until it is viable without mom. But, in all cases, I think it should be mandatory to try to get the woman to consider going to term and adopting the kid out to a family that desperately wants it.

I feel this way for a few reasons.

First of all, I think that it's in the interest of the woman's future mental health to carry the kid to term. You can't tell me there aren't a lot of women out there that carry a heavy burden for the rest of their lives for flushing potential kids. I think it really hits home with them when they eventually do experience the joy of becoming a parent.

Second, making the choice to carry the kid to term and handing it over to a loving family brings unimaginable joy to those that can't have their own.

Lastly, the little fukker does deserve a say in the matter, IMO.

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.

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.






:|