Sign in to follow this  
nucklehead

Crazy in Alabama

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

You used an at whim, 34 week abortion as an example early in this thread. Just saying. 

 

There can indeed be medical complications later in pregnancy that threaten the life of the mother and baby. But if you refuse to even acknowledge that, why should I continue to have this debate with you? 

I actually talked about any abortion after 24 weeks when the fetus has decent viability statistics and after 30 where the survival rate is almost always.  

 

You have yet to provide any medical reason why an abortion after 30 weeks is ever medically necessary.  I will acknowledge it but having no brain which you would’ve found out on your first trimester ultrasound, or hypotension which is just completely untrue for the necessity of an abortion.  

 

Here’s a medically relevant one, what if the mother has cancer and needs chemo and the baby will die.  Well if its prior to 24 weeks, yes the baby should be aborted, if after 24 weeks the baby can survive and definitely at 30 weeks it almost always survives.

 

Here is another one, what about a terrible car accident where the mother is going to die if she doesn’t have a surgery to save her life,  Well if she’s over 24 weeks, have the baby, just don’t resort to killing it.

 

I’ve provided you an article and there are plenty more to read how 3rd trimester abortions are never medically necessary but you can choose to ignore them if you want.

 

Doesn’t seem like we will find common ground because I feel that we are all humans and deserve the right to life and liberty and shouldn’t be killed just because we aren’t wanted, so I’ll leave you with this

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/i-am-a-man-with-down-syndrome-and-my-life-is-worth-living/544325/

Edited by mpt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mpt said:

When is it not a cluster of cells?  It had a detectable heart beat by 6 weeks.  Technically you are a cluster of cells

 

Because the media loves obama and won’t say anything bad about him, trump utilized the law, Obama would rather deport people in record numbers; so yes Trump separated the families, Obama deported them, no one can disagree they dont have an illegal immigration problem in the states but how do they fix it?  Open borders definitely isn’t the way to go.

 

Its not the government’s job to take care of you (unless you are a democrat) its the government’s job to protect your unalienable rights which are: life, liberty and in the states property

A heart beat doesn't mean you're alive. If you're in a coma, your heart still beats, but could you call that living?

 

If your excuse is "the media loves obama" then that's where you lose me. I suppose the 16 seperate investigations into Trump are also the "media." If America prides itself as the home of the free and land of the brave, then it should start acting like it. There's nothing "American" about taking children from families.

 

Life, liberty, and property. Should practice that, too. This law restricts a women's right to her body. Why does the child's life matter more than the mother's?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Qwags said:

A heart beat doesn't mean you're alive. If you're in a coma, your heart still beats, but could you call that living?

 

If your excuse is "the media loves obama" then that's where you lose me. I suppose the 16 seperate investigations into Trump are also the "media." If America prides itself as the home of the free and land of the brave, then it should start acting like it. There's nothing "American" about taking children from families.

 

Life, liberty, and property. Should practice that, too. This law restricts a women's right to her body. Why does the child's life matter more than the mother's?

Can I murder someone in a coma? 

 

With respect to Trump, yes separating children from parents is terrible, so is putting them in holding cells (essentially jail) - like Obama did, so is allowing everyone to come in via open borders.   Constant deportation costs a lot so I guess they need some sort of border protection to stop them from coming illegally, Weird, I wonder who’s thinking about that?  Especially since all top democrats supported a wall/fence/barrier in the past but can’t now because of political games.

 

The child’s life doesn’t matter more, they both deserve to live.  One doesn’t deserve the right to kill the other unless in self defense - which is when the mother’s life is at risk (as in actual life threatening situation, not inconvenience).  All pro-lifers agree with that statement.

 

Really this is all about absolving responsibility for your actions, women don’t want the inconvenience of becoming a mother when it inconveniences them (for whatever reason they give) and men want to absolve their responsibility as a Dad because they just wanted to have sex with women and not stick around.  The government wants it because of their socialism views where they know these unwanted babies would then be a major drain on the system which their social policies can’t afford so they continue to promote it.  Those mothers would then not make as much money, and would then collect government benefits instead of paying taxes from STEM jobs and because of the welfare redistributionism nature of socialized governments they like the idea of women creating population control for the less successful.   Its sad really...  If only we had personal responsibility...

Edited by mpt
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mpt said:

Can I murder someone in a coma? 

 

With respect to Trump, yes separating children from parents is terrible, so is putting them in holding cells (essentially jail) - like Obama did, so is allowing everyone to come in via open borders.   Constant deportation costs a lot so I guess they need some sort of border protection to stop them from coming illegally, Weird, I wonder who’s thinking about that?

 

The child’s life doesn’t matter more, they both deserve to live.  One doesn’t deserve the right to kill the other unless in self defense - which is when the mother’s life is at risk (as in actual life threatening situation, not inconvenience).  All pro-lifers agree with that statement.

Would you call a coma living? If you cut down a tree, did you murder that tree?

 

Why is allowing open borders just as bad as putting put in jail. If Republicans fight for liberty, should these people not have a chance to speak for themselves? What does seperating their children accomplish?

 

If we restrict abortions, and punish doctors for performing them, that tells me we're looking past an abortion as a medical procedure.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I’m not even the first person to post this in this thread but you’re the definition of George Carlin’s “if you’re preborn, you’re fine. If you’re preschool, you’re &^@#ed”

 

But that quote makes zero sense since two situations are not compatible at all. Does a preschool kid have less protective rights than a pre born? Nope they both have the exact same protective rights. Everyone has the right to live and not have their life taken away by another. Trying to compare that right to another right is pretty dumb really.

 

53 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Answer me this: if there’s no medical reason for an abortion, why would lawmakers who won’t even let a 12 year old who was raped and impregnated by her father get an abortion, allow an abortion for medical reasons?

It’s actually pretty simple and it’s part of remaining consistent in protecting the right to live. 

 

Life has the right to be protected, just because life was created under a bad circumstance doesn’t mean it has less value. But when life is putting another at medical risk, the healthy life of the mother comes first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Qwags said:

Would you call a coma living? If you cut down a tree, did you murder that tree?

 

Why is allowing open borders just as bad as putting put in jail. If Republicans fight for liberty, should these people not have a chance to speak for themselves? What does seperating their children accomplish?

 

If we restrict abortions, and punish doctors for performing them, that tells me we're looking past an abortion as a medical procedure.

I don’t think someone has the right to murder someone in a coma.  Especially if within 9 months they are going to wake up from it.  The tree isn’t a human life, we kill cows and eat them, but again its not a human life.

 

Our socialized countries can’t afford open borders, our safety would be at risk as the government would not be allowed to regulate who comes in. Our population in Canada and the USA would hit 1 billion very quickly.  Don’t you think immigration should be based on letting those in with like values, beliefs  and skill sets that benefit the country?

 

Yes, because abortions aren’t medical procedures, they are murdering a human life often by cutting off arms and legs and removing them one limb at a time.  Doctors have sworn an oath not to do harm; sounds pretty harmful to me, especially for the baby.

Edited by mpt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mpt said:

I don’t think someone has the right to murder someone in a coma.  Especially if within 9 months they are going to wake up from it.  The tree isn’t a human life, we kill cows and eat them, but again its not a human life.

 

Our socialized countries can’t afford open borders, our safety would be at risk as the government would not be allowed to regulate who comes in. Our population would hit 1 billion very quickly.  Don’t you think immigration should be based on letting those in with like values and skill sets that benefit the country?

 

Doctors know that an abortion isn’t just a bunch of cells in a medical procedure, they know they are murdering (defined as a purposeful cessation of life) a human baby usually by cutting arms and legs off and removing them one by one.  That doesn’t sound like a medical procedure to me.

Sure, if you define a fetus as life. When do we define life as beginning? 

 

I agree that we should have the people with the best values in our borders. But we also need diversity. You can't call yourself a beacon if your door ain't lit.

 

If we define everything by how terrible they sounded nothing would get done. That also goes back to the whole "fetus being alive" thing. Surgery, is knocking a guy out, then having a man in a mask cut you open and root around in your insides, sometimes taking stuff out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

But that quote makes zero sense since two situations are not compatible at all. Does a preschool kid have less protective rights than a pre born? Nope they both have the exact same protective rights. Everyone has the right to live and not have their life taken away by another. Trying to compare that right to another right is pretty dumb really.

It’s comedic commentary on how many pro-lifers would soon as see a poverty stricken child die in a ditch because the kid's welfare is not their problem; as mpt alluded to a few times in his posts.

 

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

It’s actually pretty simple and it’s part of remaining consistent in protecting the right to live. 

 

Life has the right to be protected, just because life was created under a bad circumstance doesn’t mean it has less value. But when life is putting another at medical risk, the healthy life of the mother comes first. 

Thank you, while I disagree with the first portion, I agree about the life of the mother. It’s mpt who seems to be under the impression that once a fetus hits the 3rd trimester, there’s a magic force field around it that prevents catastrophic medical complications.  

 

 

Edited by HerrDrFunk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

And 98.7 % of abortions take place at or before week 21 (as per 2015 US data), so this late term post birth fearmongering is just as bad or worse.  Worse because many of that 1.3% are due to medical reasons not irresponsibility.

I have stated many times that medical issue being the reason of abortions is absolutley, especially if the health of the mother is at risk.

 

All the rest? That 98.7% they should all have their life terminated because 1.3% of babies aren't deliverable?

 

This shouldn't just be a free willy nilly form of lazy birth control. It needs regulations and laws.

 

On a more comedic note, the irony of feminists screaming our choice our body is these are the same people who pour bleach on men who "man-spread" Our body, our choice. Who are women to tell us what to do with our bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I have stated many times that medical issue being the reason of abortions is absolutley, especially if the health of the mother is at risk.

 

All the rest? That 98.7% they should all have their life terminated because 1.3% of babies aren't deliverable?

 

This shouldn't just be a free willy nilly form of lazy birth control. It needs regulations and laws.

 

On a more comedic note, the irony of feminists screaming our choice our body is these are the same people who pour bleach on men who "man-spread" Our body, our choice. Who are women to tell us what to do with our bodies.

Didn’t the bleach on man-spreaders video turn out to be Russian government propaganda? 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I have stated many times that medical issue being the reason of abortions is absolutley, especially if the health of the mother is at risk.

 

All the rest? That 98.7% they should all have their life terminated because 1.3% of babies aren't deliverable?

 

This shouldn't just be a free willy nilly form of lazy birth control. It needs regulations and laws.

 

On a more comedic note, the irony of feminists screaming our choice our body is these are the same people who pour bleach on men who "man-spread" Our body, our choice. Who are women to tell us what to do with our bodies.

Interestingly enough... since I've been tagged with the label of 'feminist'.... I've never actually poured bleach on men who 'man-spread'. So do I have your permission to say "MY body, MY choice, now? You know, just checking the 'rules' you seem to want to apply to women... especially when there is not one single law on the books in the US that bans men from doing anything they want with their reproductive organs. Discrimination much? Hmmm....

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mpt said:

You have yet to provide any medical reason why an abortion after 30 weeks is ever medically necessary.  I will acknowledge it but having no brain which you would’ve found out on your first trimester ultrasound, or hypotension which is just completely untrue for the necessity of an abortion.  

Preeclampsia, placental (and membrane) rupture, infection, hypertension, chromosomal defects found during 2nd trimester screening where abortion is, for whatever reason, delayed, and a whole bunch of rare ones that I can't remember off the top of my head. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 10:09 AM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

This really has nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with when YOU feel that fetus has value since you don’t agree with full term abortions.  As you just pointed out, at a certain point you feel the fetus’ rights and protection supersede the women’s rights.  You try to add grey in for no other reason then that your unable to defend your stance. 

 

That “certain point” is the entirety of the debate and what people seemingly disagree on.  Some people believe it’s 23 weeks, some people believe it’s at first sign of heartbeat, others believe it’s at conception.  The problem is people on the left like you base the foundation of your anger on stating that the right is trying to control women’s bodies….but the reality is they are doing no more or less controlling than what you are doing, the ONLY difference is…the timeframe on the WHEN.

 

That’s why the debate should be on when viability/value of a fetus begins and it’s also why statements like women’s body, women’s choice doesn’t hold any water, because that’s not what the discussion is about at all.  The only reason that keeps getting brought up is because it creates emotion and manipulates people in to painting the bad guy picture.

This is the key to understanding both sides. At what point is the baby a person?

 

I do not force my views on anyone, but to me "Her body, her choice" seems like a ridiculous argument, because once a baby is born it is no less dependent on others for survival. Do the parents have to feed, clothe, and shelter it? Do they have to go to work and earn money to care for it? Or is that 'their bodies, their choice' too?

 

When a story comes up of a mother killing her baby (which likely involves a mental health issue, among other things), people are shocked and horrified, and with good reason. Does it make a lick of difference if it turns out the baby was a result of incest or rape? Or if the mother didn't have the mental, emotional, or financial resources to care for it appropriately? No, it's still considered a horrible tragedy, and people would expect the government to lay criminal charges against the mother.

 

But why? It's a moral reaction, based on the belief that they baby's life had value, that it deserved to live as much as anyone else. But when did that value start? Simply when it was born? Who draws that line, and what is it based on? Who has the right to determine that for someone else? And then who has the right to enforce that on others?

 

According to estimates, there are more abortions worldwide in 2 years then there were total fatalities from World War 1 and World War 2 combined. To one person, this is the greatest slaughter of human life in the history of mankind. To another, this is a worthy sacrifice to remain "pro-choice". How can these two people really see eye-to-eye?

 

Edited by D-Money
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mpt said:

So are you against all other abortions or are just using the extreme rarity to justify all the others?

  I think, with the current medical understanding, we determined there is a certain period of fetal development where abortions can take place.  I also believe that in 100 years future society will believe we were in the Dark Ages aborting any babies.  In extreme cases of rape why not abort (put down) the rapist?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 9:11 PM, Kushman said:

Its not just her body at that point. It's another human life inside her. Does a human life only retain any rights once it is outside of the womb? Personal irresponsibility that leads to an unwanted pregnancy does not give anyone the right to kill another human life. ( Before someone gets outraged and brings up rape and incest... Those cases make up only around 1.5% of abortions. What to do in those situations can have a separate discussion.)

 

To characterize the pro-life position as "a bunch of old men" trying to "legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies..."  is to be completely intellectually dishonest about the issue.

 

From the pro life side, these laws are a concession against the "clump of cells" argument that prochoicers always use to justify abortions if they are early enough.. But of course once you give a little, it's never enough. A 9 month old baby can be aborted in certain states. Now that's insane!

 

 

 

This is medically and physically impossible. They would have to perform a c-section and then literally kill a living baby (if it wasn’t stillborn)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cerridwen said:

Interestingly enough... since I've been tagged with the label of 'feminist'.... I've never actually poured bleach on men who 'man-spread'. So do I have your permission to say "MY body, MY choice, now? You know, just checking the 'rules' you seem to want to apply to women... especially when there is not one single law on the books in the US that bans men from doing anything they want with their reproductive organs. Discrimination much? Hmmm....

And just ignore the rest of my post?

 

It was a comedic thought. Not serious, as in satircal... Abortions are not the same as man spreading. Also didn't know that it was propoganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Duodenum said:

They can't and it's almost foolhardy to even try. I know that if I engaged in this discussion, I wouldn't change a single mind. 

 

I'm of the stance that since a zygote and embryo are so far removed from human, that abortions during this time period should be universal. I don't care that a mass of cells is aborted regardless of what that mass of cells could've potentially turned into. I don't believe a zygote/embryo has "rights". At the end of the 2nd month, the embryo is an inch long and weighs 1/30th of an ounce. Still a long way to a living, breathing, baby with awareness of its surroundings and consciousness. I get iffy starting in month 3 and think that abortions should probably be refrained to just medically necessary ones starting in month 4. The fetus now is very human-like and can move inside the mom's belly. 

 

This is just one person's opinion of an extremely divisive topic that everyone is going to have their own stance on. It's why I think this law in Alabama is stupid, everyone shouldn't be policed just because some think their opinion regarding abortion is correct/moral. 

 

Maybe in the future, we will have a society where abortion is unnecessary (aside from medical reasons) because every human is cared for a given a good chance at a decent life. But, right now, babies are left to fend for themselves once they are born by the same people who push for a ban on abortions, which I think is wrong and hypocritical.  

 

 

Embryos develop their nervous system within 16 days it has laid the foundation for the brain. Around week 4, there is brain activity. That's life, brain activity is not a clump of cells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Duodenum said:

Preeclampsia, placental (and membrane) rupture, infection, hypertension, chromosomal defects found during 2nd trimester screening where abortion is, for whatever reason, delayed, and a whole bunch of rare ones that I can't remember off the top of my head. 

1.3% are the exception, not the rule. We can't mold our society around 1%. For any reason, its detrimental to society and is completely illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Embryos develop their nervous system within 16 days it has laid the foundation for the brain. Around week 4, there is brain activity. That's life, brain activity is not a clump of cells.

 

Life for you, clump of cells for me. Week 4 ultrasounds are quite unimpressive. 

 

57 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

1.3% are the exception, not the rule. We can't mold our society around 1%. For any reason, its detrimental to society and is completely illogical.

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about here, I'm just letting him know potential reasons for abortions secondary to medical emergencies in the third trimester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.