Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[hpslugga 4097]

Good thing the change of site inspired some of you motherfuckers to re-think what's important in terms of political topics.

 

[HenryJames 67373]

If a woman delivers a baby during the national anthem, is it considered disrespectful if she doesn't stand?

[bad_teammate 13526]

40 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

He and the poster he was responding to were already discussing late term abortion. Read further up the thread. It was entirely relevant in context.

Nope, the DoobieWah post was absolutely not at all restricted to late-term abortion. Click the link and re-read it.

[David Dennison 19543]

I have no problem if you consider abortion murder. That's your call. I don't think it's murder, so we just disagree.

I take issue with people who consider abortion murder but make exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I have no problem if you consider abortion murder. That's your call. I don't think it's murder, so we just disagree.

I take issue with people who consider abortion murder but make exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest. 

So at what point is a fetus a human ?   Are you OK with late term, on demand abortions ?

[David Dennison 19543]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

So at what point is a fetus a human ?   Are you OK with late term, on demand abortions ?

You get born, and you're a human. Prior to that, you are a fetus. Late term and on demand abortions are between a woman and her doctor. They should be highly regulated. 

[sidis 10018]

two primary takeaways from this thread...

1) el guapo clearly refuses to make the jump to the new site (thank christ).

2) sack's understanding of how insurance works is hilarious.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You get born, and you're a human. Prior to that, you are a fetus. Late term and on demand abortions are between a woman and her doctor. They should be highly regulated. 

Really ?? Why should they be highly regulated if it's just a fetus and not a human ??  

There's no murder of a perfectly formed to term human being who's only death sentence was they couldn't make their heads fit thru some woman's birth canal right ?

 

[formermav43 4630]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Nope, the DoobieWah post was absolutely not at all restricted to late-term abortion. Click the link and re-read it.

The DoobieWah post is not the one you brought up as an example.

[David Dennison 19543]

Onboard: Correct. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by David Dennison

[bad_teammate 13526]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

The DoobieWah post is not the one you brought up as an example.

You're wrong. See post #113 and the conversation that follows. That entire chain of communication was predicated on DoobieWah's attempt to use late-term abortion pictures to characterize abortion writ large and Stros continued by doing the same thing later.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but maybe stop.

[DixonHur 11960]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Really ?? Why should they be highly regulated if it's just a fetus and not a human ??  

I can't speak for David, but he probably means they should be regulated because late term abortion is a complex medical procedure.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I can't speak for David, but he probably means they should be regulated because late term abortion is a complex medical procedure.

I'm sure it is, he said all abortions, and  they're not human anyway, so why does it need to be more "highly" regulated than any other similarly complex procedure ?  

Abortion beyond a certain date in the gestation period is murder, and there's no talking that away by calling a baby in a mothers womb a fetus.   

I believe the right to an abortion is valid, but late term for any reason other than the safety of the mother is a monstrous and murderous act.

 

 

[formermav43 4630]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You're wrong. See post #113 and the conversation that follows. That entire chain of communication was predicated on DoobieWah's attempt to use late-term abortion pictures to characterize abortion writ large and Stros continued by doing the same thing later.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but maybe stop.

I’m right. The post you originally referenced wasn’t that one. I pointed out it was on topic. You go back up the chain, correctly for once, and are now arguing about a different post (making my point for me). Which still doesn’t claim what you assert it does.

What I’m doing is pointing out how intellectually dishonest you are. But I am going to stop now, because 1) it’s pointless, you’re never going to change and 2) you were a known commodity long before this exchange anyway.

[DixonHur 11960]

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sure it is, he said all abortions, and  they're not human anyway, so why does it need to be more "highly" regulated than any other similarly complex procedure ?  

Abortion beyond a certain date in the gestation period is murder, and there's no talking that away by calling a baby in a mothers womb a fetus.   

I believe the right to an abortion is valid, but late term for any reason other than the safety of the mother is a monstrous and murderous act.

 

 

I hear you and respect your opinion. 

When life begins (conception, birth, some point in between), and what constitutes murder (war, executions, justifiable homicide, etc.) is clearly a complicated issue.  For these reasons, I tend to be more in line with David...it's between a woman and her doctor. 

The truth is there are very few abortions after 20 weeks (around 5k a year) and the majority of those because of health issues of the woman and/or the fetus.  If a fetus is known to have a disease or malformation that won't allow it to survive outside the womb, should a woman be required to carry to term?  I'm sure that for most women, the decision to abort, especially late term, is not a choice that's taken lightly, so if she and her doctor think it's the best course of action, then I have to respect that decision.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Why not use the medical definition?  Medicine says you are dead once there is no heartbeat or brainwaves.  So shouldn’t there be life when a fetus has both?  When is that?

[David Dennison 19543]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sure it is, he said all abortions, and  they're not human anyway, so why does it need to be more "highly" regulated than any other similarly complex procedure ?  

Abortion beyond a certain date in the gestation period is murder, and there's no talking that away by calling a baby in a mothers womb a fetus.   

I believe the right to an abortion is valid, but late term for any reason other than the safety of the mother is a monstrous and murderous act.

 

 

To protect the mother.

And calling abortion beyond a certain date in the gestation period murder is your opinion, one which many people do not share.

[David Dennison 19543]

57 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Why not use the medical definition?  Medicine says you are dead once there is no heartbeat or brainwaves.  So shouldn’t there be life when a fetus has both?  When is that?

That definition presupposes birth.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

It presupposes that you are alive with a heartbeat and brain waves.  When measuring life should there be a different measure for the beginning than the end?

[David Dennison 19543]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It presupposes that you are alive with a heartbeat and brain waves.  When measuring life should there be a different measure for the beginning than the end?

We disagree when life begins. My definition requires a birth. Yours does not. 

[bad_teammate 13526]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Why not use the medical definition?  Medicine says you are dead once there is no heartbeat or brainwaves.  So shouldn’t there be life when a fetus has both?  When is that?

citation needed

[JBJ 3827]

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

citation needed

Is this a joke?

[David Dennison 19543]

20 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Is this a joke?

Are they breathing?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

We disagree when life begins. My definition requires a birth. Yours does not. 

So killing a 9 month old fetus is cool since it isn’t life?

[David Dennison 19543]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

So killing a 9 month old fetus is cool since it isn’t life?

No. It's very uncool. But I don't think it should be illegal. 

[Spankytoes 1748]

25 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So killing a 9 month old fetus is cool since it isn’t life?

No. The law says you can’t. Whether you believe that life begins at conception or at birth is irrelevant. The law states that abortions are legal. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this decision. Further, unless it’s your partner, it has no affect on your life whatsoever.

Kind of like why we still have unlimited guns for all and keep arguing the merits of such when violence and mass shootings are so rampant. The Constitution guarantees your right. Gun owners don’t want to be restricted because ‘Mercia. What I think is meaningless.

[Chrispy 132]

50 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No. It's very uncool. But I don't think it should be illegal. 

Fetal viability is more than 98% when removed from the uterus at 9 months, whether that be natural birth or induced. Killing a baby with those chances of survival is nothing short of murder. This shit is sickening. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Spankytoes said:

No. The law says you can’t. Whether you believe that life begins at conception or at birth is irrelevant. The law states that abortions are legal. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this decision. Further, unless it’s your partner, it has no affect on your life whatsoever.

Kind of like why we still have unlimited guns for all and keep arguing the merits of such when violence and mass shootings are so rampant. The Constitution guarantees your right. Gun owners don’t want to be restricted because ‘Mercia. What I think is meaningless.

Well shit, since SCOTUS said it, I guess we should pack up and go home. 

[/Plessy v Ferguson]

I am well aware of the shit the Supreme Court made up in Roe. 

[Jack Burton 35]

Do miscarriages count as abortions by God?

[David Dennison 19543]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Well shit, since SCOTUS said it, I guess we should pack up and go home. 

[/Plessy v Ferguson]

I am well aware of the shit the Supreme Court made up in Roe. 

Even if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in this country. 

[hpslugga 4097]

8 hours ago, Jack Burton said:

Do miscarriages count as abortions by God?

Only those that are induced by a priest via giving the woman water in a clay jar seasoned with dust from the church floor. 

Edit: that wasn’t sarcasm, that shit is in the Bible by which these fucking people claim to live.

Edited April 25, 2018 by hpslugga

[seven 1368]

If people actually thought abortion was murder or a genocide or whatever I'd think they would do something drastic like kill the abortion doctors and stone the sluts. I'd be pretty pissed if doctors were murdering a few million 2yr olds every year. How can you sit back and do nothing to stop the genocide? 

But they don't do anything because deep down they know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. 

We can wrap this thread up now 

[Chrispy 132]

6 hours ago, seven said:

If people actually thought abortion was murder or a genocide or whatever I'd think they would do something drastic like kill the abortion doctors and stone the sluts. I'd be pretty pissed if doctors were murdering a few million 2yr olds every year. How can you sit back and do nothing to stop the genocide? 

But they don't do anything because deep down they know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. 

We can wrap this thread up now 

People have killed abortion doctors, so your premise is faulty. However, supposing someone feels abortion is akin to genocide (I’m not one of them), then supplanting it with the genocide of millions of their compatriots would seem rather counterproductive. There are more civil ways to effect change. 

Of course there’s a difference between a fetus and a baby, the question at hand is viability. Which is why late term abortions are especially abhorrent. 

[Chrispy 132]

9 hours ago, Jack Burton said:

Do miscarriages count as abortions by God?

Sure, and brain aneurisms are God shooting you in the head. 

[bad_teammate 13526]

7 hours ago, seven said:

If people actually thought abortion was murder or a genocide or whatever I'd think they would do something drastic like kill the abortion doctors and stone the sluts. I'd be pretty pissed if doctors were murdering a few million 2yr olds every year. How can you sit back and do nothing to stop the genocide? 

But they don't do anything because deep down they know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. 

We can wrap this thread up now 

amen

[Brian Fantana 6867]

14 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

So killing a 9 month old fetus is cool since it isn’t life?

This doesn't happen so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up, unless you want to count miscarriages and/or stillbirths as abortions.

The vast majority are performed in the first trimester, with a small fraction in the second, and a tiny number past the 24 week mark, which is only done in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

[Spankytoes 1748]

13 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Well shit, since SCOTUS said it, I guess we should pack up and go home. 

[/Plessy v Ferguson]

I am well aware of the shit the Supreme Court made up in Roe. 

Are you also aware that abortion was legal in some states prior to the Federal decision? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

Are you also aware that abortion was legal in some states prior to the Federal decision? 

Of course.  Why?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Even if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in this country. 

Depends on the state.

[David Dennison 19543]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Depends on the state.

Which is why I said this country.

[Spankytoes 1748]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Of course.  Why?

You cited Plessy v. Ferguson, which was a terrible decision by SCOTUS.Are you not inferring that SCOTUS decisions are bullshit?

[Anastasis 23721]

Abortion cannot be addressed adequately through the courts or the legal system. Abortion reflects a number of different cultural and socioeconomic deficits in our society, some of which may be modifiable, others which are firmly entrenched.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and I think most of us agree that that is a generally good goal for a society populated by something other than barbarians to have, there are a few specific areas that can yield much in the way of results and should be able to find some common ground.

One in five abortions are performed on women who have had 2 or more prior abortions.  It is their 3rd+ go around. Most reasonable people can recognize this as a problem that should be addressed with compassion. Doing so would not only have the potential to substantially reduce the number of abortions, but provide opportunities to improve health outcomes and broader well-being among the women who are using a medical intervention as form of birth control. 

 

   

Edited April 25, 2018 by Anastasis

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

You cited Plessy v. Ferguson, which was a terrible decision by SCOTUS.Are you not inferring that SCOTUS decisions are bullshit?

I cited it because it was overturned.  Showing the Supreme Court can change its mind.  

[David Dennison 19543]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I cited it because it was overturned.  Showing the Supreme Court can change its mind.  

And even if it does, we will still have safe and legal abortion in the United States of America. Women in the backward states will just have to suffer.

Edited April 25, 2018 by David Dennison

[gsoda3 3362]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

This doesn't happen so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up, unless you want to count miscarriages and/or stillbirths as abortions.

sure it does.  head in sand or willful ignorance?

9 hours ago, seven said:

If people actually thought abortion was murder or a genocide or whatever I'd think they would do something drastic like kill the abortion doctors and stone the sluts. I'd be pretty pissed if doctors were murdering a few million 2yr olds every year. How can you sit back and do nothing to stop the genocide? 

But they don't do anything because deep down they know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. 

We can wrap this thread up now 

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

amen

martin luther king didn't really think the lynching of black folks was murder.  he didn't really think the treatment of fellow blacks was awful otherwise he would've acted with violence to stop it.

 

i can't believe people liked that post.  

[Brian Fantana 6867]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Abortion cannot be addressed adequately through the courts or the legal system. Abortion reflects a number of different cultural and socioeconomic deficits in our society, some of which may be modifiable, others which are firmly entrenched.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and I think most of us agree that that is a generally good goal for a society populated by something other than barbarians to have, there are a few specific areas that can yield much in the way of results and should be able to find some common ground.

One in five abortions are performed on women who have had 2 or more prior abortions.  It is their 3rd+ go around. Most reasonable people can recognize this as a problem that should be addressed with compassion. Doing so would not only have the potential to substantially reduce the number of abortions, but provide opportunities to improve health outcomes and broader well-being among the women who are using a medical intervention as form of birth control. 

 

   

Well we can't teach safe sex or let PP hand out contraceptives in America because that's how the devil gets inside you.

[bad_teammate 13526]

8 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

martin luther king didn't really think the lynching of black folks was murder.  he didn't really think the treatment of fellow blacks was awful otherwise he would've acted with violence to stop it.

Completely inequivalent situations. A few thousand murdered by lynching in the Jim Crow era vs. hundreds of thousands murdered every year by abortion.

Also, MLK dedicated his life to the fight. Y'all motherfuckers vote for crooks and get mad on the Internet.

 

[gsoda3 3362]

10 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Well we can't teach safe sex or let PP hand out contraceptives in America because that's how the devil gets inside you.

you keep arguing with things no one has said on this thread- arguing against ghosts.  you're kinda worthless as a poster.

[gsoda3 3362]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Completely inequivalent situations. A few thousand murdered by lynching in the Jim Crow era vs. hundreds of thousands murdered every year by abortion.

Also, MLK dedicated his life to the fight. Y'all motherfuckers vote for crooks and get mad on the Internet.

 

oh ok so MLK wasn't mad enough because the body total needed to be 6 digits before he turned super saiyan. 

[Brian Fantana 6867]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

you keep arguing with things no one has said on this thread- arguing against ghosts.  you're kinda worthless as a poster.

It's called sarcasm you smooth-brained dipshit