Jump to content

Abortions cause babies pain


Doug69
This topic is 6808 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Not that any of your pro-abortionists care - since, after all, NOTHING is more important than the right of women to slaughter their own babies, since without THAT, we have fascism - but science has now rather conclusively established that fetuses feel pain even as early as 20 weeks from Partial Birth Abortions. But it's ok - they're just clumps of cells. So go ahead and pull their limbs off and crush their skulls - and just pretend that they don't feel anything when that happens.

________________________________________________________________

 

Doctor: Fetus Feels Pain After 20 Weeks

 

By KEVIN O'HANLON, Associated Press Writer

 

LINCOLN, Neb. - A type of abortion banned under a new federal law would cause "severe and excruciating" pain to 20-week-old fetuses, a medical expert on pain testified Tuesday.

 

"I believe the fetus is conscious," said Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sonny" Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. He took the stand as a government witness in a trial challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

 

The act, which was signed by President Bush in November, has not been enforced because judges in Lincoln, Neb., New York and San Francisco agreed to hear evidence in three simultaneous, non-jury trials on whether the ban violates the Constitution.

 

Anand said fetuses show increased heart rate, blood flow and hormone levels in response to pain.

 

"The physiological responses have been very clearly studied," he said. "The fetus cannot talk ... so this is the best evidence we can get."

 

The Bush administration has argued that the procedure, referred to by opponents as "partial-birth abortion," is "inhumane and gruesome" and causes the fetus to suffer pain.

 

During the procedure, which doctors call "intact dilation and extraction" or D&X, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured. It is generally performed in the second trimester.

 

Abortion rights advocates argue that it is sometimes the safest procedure for women, and that the law will endanger almost all second-trimester abortions, or 10 percent of the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions.

 

The law would be the first substantial limitation on abortion since the Supreme Court legalized it 31 years ago in the landmark case Roe v. Wade.

 

Challenges to the ban were filed by several doctors being represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Abortion Federation (news - web sites) and the Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America. The issue is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably true. But the general argument is specious, because there aren't floods of these procedures done. It's grim and no mother or physician would do it except in case of a real emergency. There's been no evidence that this procedure is done casually.

 

If research indicates that a fetus feels pain, it would be fairly simple to inject the fetus with an anesthetic before the procedure. It wouldn't make the procedure any less an abortion, of course, but it would make it more humane, if there is any doubt.

 

What IS certain is that reading Dougie's posts causes pain to readers here. Why doesn't he post on a site about politics, or abortion rights issues, or whatever it is that pulls his chain, instead of on a site about commerical sex? It's not that many of us aren't interested in political issues, but we come here to read about lighter pursuits, on the whole! I read about all the politics I want on the news sites!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It's probably true. But. . .

 

Go ahead and kill them anyway.

 

the general argument is specious,

>because there aren't floods of these procedures done. It's

>grim and no mother or physician would do it except in case of

>a real emergency. There's been no evidence that this

>procedure is done casually.

 

It's not that often that doctors rip the limbs off babies and crush their skulls. They only do it sometimes, so what's the big deal?

 

>If research indicates that a fetus feels pain, it would be

>fairly simple to inject the fetus with an anesthetic before

>the procedure. It wouldn't make the procedure any less an

>abortion, of course, but it would make it more humane, if

>there is any doubt.

 

Dr. Brazil thinks that fetal anathesia exists which can sufficiently numb the baby so that it feels no pain when having its skull crushed and limbs ripped off. Make sure to go tell doctors about this medical discovery of yours.

 

>What IS certain is that reading Dougie's posts causes pain to

>readers here.

 

To you they do, because your sickenesses get exposed so often from them. Although that pain is understandably unpleasant for you, it can be good for you, too.

 

Why doesn't he post on a site about politics,

>or abortion rights issues, or whatever it is that pulls his

>chain, instead of on a site about commerical sex?

 

THIS little bit of advice, dispensed by someone who has burdened the forum with literally hundreds of posts echoing the endless squabbles between the Israelis and Palestinians over some desert land that they kill each other over. Posting endlessly about that, or constantly screetching about the fascist dictatorship which has taken over the United States, are all perfectly appropriate topics for this "commerical sex" forum. But posts that are too political shouldn't be here - even if they're posted in the forum called POLITICS, RELIGION AND WAR. That makes a lot of sense.

 

>It's not

>that many of us aren't interested in political issues, but we

>come here to read about lighter pursuits, on the whole! I

>read about all the politics I want on the news sites!

 

Who appointed you spokesman for the participants here? And if you think that political posts don't belong in this forum, why do you write multiple political posts here on a daily basis? And, given the walking contradictions and reeking hypocrisy that plagues you, how do you refrain from hanging yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Killing the Baby-Maker

 

Doug, have you ever thought about the pain and suffering you inflict on your sperm cells every time you forcibly eject them from their warm little sac at super speed into a cold and hostile world where they will be treated as mere cum for toilet tissue when they are in fact, each and every one of them, a baby maker, a giver of human life? How long will you continue to waste these God-given cells on your own sexual satisfaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>What IS certain is that reading Dougie's posts causes pain to

>readers here. Why doesn't he post on a site about politics,

>or abortion rights issues, or whatever it is that pulls his

>chain, instead of on a site about commerical sex? It's not

>that many of us aren't interested in political issues, but we

>come here to read about lighter pursuits, on the whole! I

>read about all the politics I want on the news sites!

 

As the yin and yang of the board, I usually just let you two go at each other because it’s generally way too detailed for me to jump in. However, when you start questioning why someone even participates, I do have an opinion.

 

There are people who like hearing both sides of an argument. This board is full of liberals, and without people who have opposing views, it would just be a bunch of liberals talking to themselves. I hardly ever agree with the conservatives on the board, but an opinion formed without hearing both sides of the argument is not an opinion at all – just something you’ve been told and are repeating.

 

Also, as has been mentioned before in other threads, many of us who haunt this forum – and it really is a decided minority – get tired of all the giggling and hedonism that goes on in the other forums. We come here to discuss topics with other gay men who have something in common with us. Even if it’s only hiring an occasional hooker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I typically check in here first.

 

That said, Doug's bombast, usually so amusing, grows tedious on such a worn old subject as reproductive rights. I guess it's a slow news day.

 

As to fetal slaughter and pain, and ripping unborn babies limb from limb and crushing their skulls, it's nobody's business but a mother and her doctor. Heck, I even support teenage abortion without parental consent. Because abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Dr. Brazil thinks that fetal anathesia exists which can

>sufficiently numb the baby so that it feels no pain when

>having its skull crushed and limbs ripped off. Make sure to

>go tell doctors about this medical discovery of yours.

>

 

 

This would get nothing but a yawn from doctors. There is in fact MANY ways to dull pain, several of which could be practically used for abortions. There are lots of operations where limbs ARE removed and where parts of the skull ARE crushed and removed in which the person being operated feels/remembers nothing. I would imagine that if society continues to insist that abortion is a right and it also becomes a consensus that unborn babies can feel pain it will be standard of care to administer some sort of anesthetizing agent to the fetus no matter what it's intrauterine age. At the very least it might make mothers have a bit easier time dealing with the guilt that people like Doug heap on them for having the procedure.

 

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>becomes a consensus that unborn babies can feel pain it will

>be standard of care to administer some sort of anesthetizing

>agent to the fetus no matter what it's intrauterine age.

 

I wouldn’t be so sure. If it actually becomes a consensus that fetuses feel pain, it could change a lot of people’s views on abortion and the tide could turn. I think there are probably many people like myself who support abortion rights because they do believe, as Doug put it, that “they’re just clumps of cells” with no functioning brain activity. It’s going to be very hard to convince me that you have to administer anesthesia to a clump of cells. In my mind, the two concepts are absolutely incompatible.

 

I would still struggle with having the audacity to tell someone else what to do with their body, but it would make me rethink everything. I honestly don’t know what side I would come down on and it’s hard for me to believe I would be alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure everyone's decision on where they stand would be a tough one IF they really thought about all the things that go into the decision to have or to not have an abortion.

 

I dont' remember my embryology as well as I should but I'm confident that activity in the brain of an unborn child begins way before the 20 weeks they cite in this article as being able to feel pain. I do know that the neural tube (which is the very primitive brain and spinal cord) closes by 3 weeks.) At this point it can probably "feel" impulses from primitive nerves migrating to their eventual homes in the body. (that's why you have to take folic acid to avoid neural tube defects ALL the time that you're trying to get pregnant since you usually don't find out that you are until sometime after the third week) It's such a continuum that it's VERY hard to define when thought/pain would begin. However, if someone was going to base decisions on brain activity then I think they would have to rethink MANY abortions besides late term ones.

 

I agree that its VERY hard to try to decide what would be right about telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body. I'm excedingly thankful that as a gay man one of the very worst decisions of anyone's life is not going to have to ever be made by any partner of mine. I would never want to have to weigh this decision knowing that if I did it certain people without any thought or consideration at all would see me as nothing more then a murderer for the rest of my life :(

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Not that any of your pro-abortionists care -

 

There's a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

 

>science has now rather conclusively established

>that fetuses feel pain even as early as 20 weeks from Partial

>Birth Abortions.

 

There is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion." That term was created by anti-abortion activists. It's a procedure that is rarely done, and when it is performed, it is only when the life or health of the woman is endangered. But I forgot: we're only supposed to be concerned about fetuses, not full-grown humans, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a pro-abortionist? I've heard the terms pro-choice and pro-life, but I don't recall ever hearing the term pro-abortionist.

 

Unless it used for "execusable abortions" by the pro-life crowd. I really have NEVER understood why the pro-lifers feel that abortion is murder when the baby was conceived via sex between non-related consenting adults but not murder when the baby was conceived via rape or incest. Talk about inconsistency. Or why the pro-lifers feel it is not murder to kill doctors and patients at abortion clinics.

 

Why abortion is being discussed/debated by men on a gay site, or indeed by men at all is moot. Such decisions, within the legally defined parameters, should be up to women and women alone, as it is their bodies and it is only them who have to make the agonizing decisions.

 

Even more disturbing, at least imo, are all the recent enactments of laws charging double homicide for the murder of a pregnant woman, even if the fetus is still within the age range to allow legal abortion. Plays right into the hands of the pro-lifers, as if abortion of a month old fetus is not murder, but the death of a month old fetus via murder of the mother is now murder of the baby also. Not a good omen at all. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Not that any of your pro-abortionists care -

>

>There's a difference between being pro-choice and

>pro-abortion.

 

As a practical matter, there is no difference. If you have your way, women are free to slaughter their babies. You can say that you're not in favor of them slaughtering their babies, but rather, you're only in favor of them having the choice to do so. But that's just semantics. In your world, women are free to slaughter their babies. Emphasizing the "choice" part of it is just a way to avoid what it is that you are actually endorsing.

 

>There is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion." That

>term was created by anti-abortion activists.

 

What is inaccurate about the term? The baby is partially birthed and then killed. How is that not a "partial birth abortion." Why are you so eager that this term not be used?

 

It's a procedure

>that is rarely done, and when it is performed, it is only when

>the life or health of the woman is endangered.

 

This is simply false. Someone else here said this a couple months ago and I posted - from the Nation - an article detailing a PBA that was done where it had nothing to do with the mother's health.

 

Also, if what you say is true, would you favor a law banning PBA's except when the mother's life or health is endangered?

 

But I forgot:

>we're only supposed to be concerned about fetuses, not

>full-grown humans, right?

 

What a bizarre thing to say. If someone think it's wrong for a woman to kill her baby, and thinks that laws should exist making it illegal to do so, how does that imply that nobody cares about "full-grown humans?"

 

Also, under our system of laws, we don't have the right to kill someone else in order to save ourselves. If I need a liver transplant in order to live, but can't get one, I don't have the right to kill my child in order to take his/her liver so that I can live. Why should a woman be able to kill her baby in order to save herself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>What is a pro-abortionist? I've heard the terms pro-choice

>and pro-life, but I don't recall ever hearing the term

>pro-abortionist.

 

See my answer to Rick for the explanation.

 

>Unless it used for "execusable abortions" by the pro-life

>crowd. I really have NEVER understood why the pro-lifers feel

>that abortion is murder when the baby was conceived via sex

>between non-related consenting adults but not murder when the

>baby was conceived via rape or incest. Talk about

>inconsistency.

 

I agree with you entirely. There is absolutely no more justification for murdering a baby if it's conceived due to rape or incest as there is in any other case. Many people who believe that aboriton should be illegal, but say that they think these exceptions are ok, are just being unprincipled for the sake of political expediency - just like those people who believe that abortion is ok, but then want to ban PBA's, are also being unprincipled for political expediency.

 

Or why the pro-lifers feel it is not murder to

>kill doctors and patients at abortion clinics.

 

You're being intellectually dishonest with this question. Do you actually think that a significant number of pro-lifers think this isn't murder? Do you know how many abortionists have been killed in the last 10 years? A tiny handful. If the idea were widespread that it's not murder to kill them, don't you think that there would be more? And have you ever heard of pro-life politicians introducing legislation making it legal to kill abortionists? Trying to say that pro-lifers favor the killing of abortionists is just a distraction from the actual issue.

 

>Why abortion is being discussed/debated by men on a gay site,

>or indeed by men at all is moot. Such decisions, within the

>legally defined parameters, should be up to women and women

>alone, as it is their bodies and it is only them who have to

>make the agonizing decisions.

 

The reason it's discussed among gay men and any other citizen is the same reason that murder or rape or kidnapping or any other crime is. We don't think that, where the victim is a post-birth human being, that murder is an act between the murderer and the victim and that nobody else should discuss it.

 

If, as science is being to prove more and more conclusively, pre-birth babies are not merely clumps of cells for us to eradicate at will, but instead, have the defining characteristics of human beings, then the murder of these human beings is every bit as much the business of "men on a gay site" as any other crime is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go again Dougie...

 

>What is inaccurate about the term? The baby is partially

>birthed and then killed. How is that not a "partial birth

>abortion." Why are you so eager that this term not be used?

 

Actually, labor is not induced, so it has nothing to do with birth. The cervix is dilated and the fetus is extracted.

 

>>It's a procedure that is rarely done, and when it is performed, it

>>is only when the life or health of the woman is endangered.

 

>This is simply false.

 

Actually, it IS an exceedingly rare practice. As for the life of the mother, technically, you are correct, to that point alone, but doing nothing but lying (by omission) as you continue.

 

>Someone else here said this a couple

>months ago and I posted - from the Nation - an article

>detailing a PBA that was done where it had nothing to do with

>the mother's health.

 

Why don't you revive the thread so that the whole truth can be read instead of your smallest possible excerpt?

 

In fact, what few dilations and extractions are done ARE deemed medically necessary by the doctors and the agonized mothers who desperately want a baby.

 

You see, Doug is skipping over the fact that his poor, defenseless, suffering babies are in fact very defective fetuses unlikely to develop into medically viable babies, which even with the best and most expensive care would at best be extremely disabled individuals needing several surgeries just to survive and/or constant care for the rest of their lives.

 

This is the life Doug and those like him insists absolutely must be brought into the world, no questions asked.

 

Even more ludicrous, these same people are all for eliminating the most effective programs for preventing accidental pregnancies, cutting public healthcare including pre-natal which could help prevent and especially catch some of these defects sooner, and most hypocritical of all, cutting public assistance for the disabled they absolutely demand be born.

 

Why? Because *they* read their fairy-tale book to say so, that's why! It also says we are all abomination, and condones selling one's daughters into slavery, but never mind that! Wait a minute, isn't your almighty an abortionist himself? There are more miscarriages then medical abortions by far, not to mention the outright murders done in his name and directly by him in his wrathful days...

 

>Also, under our system of laws, we don't have the right to

>kill someone else in order to save ourselves. If I need a

>liver transplant in order to live, but can't get one, I don't

>have the right to kill my child in order to take his/her liver

>so that I can live. Why should a woman be able to kill her

>baby in order to save herself?

 

Because cases where the growth of the fetus endangers the life of the mother it usually endangers itself as well. You don't support removing the fetus via any extraordinary measures whatsoever? Then they'd both be guaranteed to die, because there's usually no way for such a fetus to be born without a cesarean section at the minimum.

 

And of course your idiocy goes back all the way to just fertilized zygotes, which can be used to save the lives of millions but are absolutely precious human beings in your mind, despite the fact that tens of thousands are lost naturally every year and that they are also obviously not human life.

 

It really is funny, your book of fairy tales addresses how to slaughter an animal to please your god, even has a fable where your god orders a father to kill his living son and rewards him for being willing to do so, but which chapter addressed eternal damnation for using undifferentiated cells to cure disease/save lives??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: There you go again Dougie...

 

>Actually, labor is not induced, so it has nothing to do with

>birth. The cervix is dilated and the fetus is extracted.

 

When a fetus is "extracted," that's called birth. When a fetus is partially extracted and then killed, that's called a partial birth abortion.

 

One reason I think that pro-abortionists deep down know that what they are doing is wrong is that they constantly try to find words to obscure just how gruesome and brutal this act is.

 

 

>>>It's a procedure that is rarely done, and when it is

>performed, it

>>>is only when the life or health of the woman is endangered.

>

>>This is simply false.

>

>Actually, it IS an exceedingly rare practice.

 

I didn't deny that it's rare. I denied what Rick said - that it's done "only when the life or health of the woman is endangered." As you now know, and as you acknoweldged (begrudgingly), what Rick said is false.

 

As for whether it's rare, that's totally irrelevant. It's also rare for people to tie a man to the back of a pick-up truck and murder him by dragging him along the road. But the fact that the act is rare doesn't make it any less disgusting or criminal.

 

>You see, Doug is skipping over the fact that his poor,

>defenseless, suffering babies are in fact very defective

>fetuses unlikely to develop into medically viable babies,

>which even with the best and most expensive care would at

>best be extremely disabled individuals needing several

>surgeries just to survive and/or constant care for the rest of

>their lives.

 

This vile comment catpures perfectly one of the primary reasons why abortion should be outlawed.

 

Who the fuck are YOU to decide which human life is so "defective" that it's okay to slaughter it? Here you are, saying that some babies are so broken and defective that their lives are worthless and it's just fine to go ahead and tear their limbs off and crush their skulls and murder them. You're actually saying that they're so broken, they're something less than human.

 

In case you didn't know, this "idea" was one of the core, defining basis of National Socialism, which began its long line of atrocities by doing exactly what you are doing - singling out severely disabled human beings who, according to them, were so broken and defective that their lives were not worth preserving, because it cost way too much money to save them, and all you were saving was some cripple anyway, so why not go ahead and kill it.

 

There is a very sick and dangerous tenedency among people who are ideologically similar to you - you believe you are entitled to decide what human life has the right to exist and what doesn't. The same people, like you, who think that it's perfectly fine to pull the limbs off of "defective" babies are the same ones cheering for that comatose woman in Florida to be starved to death. After all, she needs machines to live, so what worth does her life have? She's also worthless and somehow less-than-human, so we should go ahead and kill her, too.

 

My opposition to abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with religious beliefs of any kind. It has to do with the recognition that there are few things more disturbuing and dangerous than to give the Jamesk8410's of the world the right to start pointing to certain types of human life and decreeing that life to be worthless and a perfectly fine candidate for slaughter.

 

The only reason you've gotten away with it with regard to unborn babies for this long is because you have been able to sell the lie that unborn babies are not really human. They're just "clumps of cells" - merely potential humans - so it's fine to murder them. People are starting to realize what a grotesque lie this is.

 

The mounting scientific evidence will uncover this lie once and for all. The exhange Phage had with Giovani was awesome and a perfect illustration of what is to come. Here were nice liberals talking about how it doesn't matter if babies feel pain; just go ahead and give them anathesia. But why would you give a clump of cells anatheisa? You would only give a human being anathesia - somenoe who feels pain from the procedure. But if they're human, and they feel pain, how the fuck do we have the right to murder them?

 

I just read some story about a guy who drop kicked a Yorkshire Terrier and killed it. He was arrested and is going to be charged with cruelty to animals, which will subject him to a year in prison. How interesting that he can go to jail for doing something to a dog, but it's perfectly legal to murder unborn babies in a much more brutal and painful manner than what he did.

 

But it's OK, James. It's only deformed babies to whom this is happening; it's not like we're talking about actual human beings, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I find abortion very repugnant. I'm very glad I've never been in a position to decide, or help decide, whether or not a specific person should have an abortion.

 

With that said, what bothers me about most of the anti-abortion crowd is total lack of concern about the baby after it is born. I recently found out my sister had an abortion. After that, she had two children. Because of her own selfishness and inability to think of anyone except herself, she left her children with their father who is an extremely abusive person. Given the life those kids are now enduring, is twenty years of pain (until they can get live independantly) and all the problems associated with what their lives will be greater or less than the pain they would have experienced had she aborted these two pregnancies? I'm sure the answer to this question will differ among different people.

 

Unfortunately, as much as anyone may dislike abortion as a procedure, it's very unlikely it will ever go away. If abortion is made illegal in some places, those with money will travel to places where safe abortions are legal, and, those without money will get butchered by back street doctors.

 

I recently read a report that stated there are fewer abortions per capita in Canada and Britain than in the US. Why the difference? Canada and Britain do more than propose abstinance as a method for avoiding pregnancy. This leads to another issue I have with the majority of the anti-abortion movement. They will fight abortion, but, also fight publicizing knowledge of birth control to avoid pregnancy.

 

When the majority of the anti-abortion movement has successfully funded organizations to raise unwanted children in safe and caring environments, (which includes stable gay couples!!), I will be able to support the overall movement. Until that time, as much as I dislike the thought of abortion, given all the surrounding issues, I am firmly in the camp of allowing a woman the right to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: There you go again Dougie...

 

~It's only malformed fetuses to whom this is happening; it's not

~like we're talking about actual human beings, right?

 

That's exactly what the supreme court and the majority of citizens of our country say, yes. You've finally done it, you've ~ (almost) gotten the point!

 

You seem to be saying no matter how extraordinary and invasive a medical procedure is, no matter the condition of the fetus, even if it only has 1/3rd of its brain and severe damage to most other organs (the conditions of the case you cited if I remember correctly), no matter that a doctor who's studied medicine for years and a mother who truly wants a child can't imagine any reason to take all those extraordinary measures and undertake a lifetime of constant care and further corrective surgeries, that fetus absolutely must be born and kept alive, no matter the cost or anything else, right Doug? So, you're going to pay for this care? Because as I said (and you skipped right over as you do with most of arguments you're losing...), your party cuts every government source of aid to that mother and your precious, disabled, forcibly-born baby every chance it gets.

 

But 'life' is absolutely sacred, nobody has the right to take it under any circumstances, that's your view? Ooops, but you're for the Iraq war aren't you? Ten thousand Iraqis were killed, including children, many, many more then would've been even under Saddam's continued rule this year... Who the fuck are you to say thousands of civilians' lives were worth the potential (certainly not met so far) of better life for all?! And isn't your side pretty vehement in support of the death penalty as well?? Hmm...

 

So, you're all pretty much full of it, but just out of curiosity, do you believe it is my right or your right to decide that invasive medical treatment is too much suffering for too little likely gain to be worthwhile, and refuse treatment for ourselves even though it means an earlier death? And do you believe it is my right to specify that I trust you (ha!) to make that decision for me if I am incapacitated?

 

Place your bets gentlemen, will Dougie even cursorily address one of my points or questions before he goes off on a vaguely (at best) related rant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: There you go again Dougie...

 

>Place your bets gentlemen, will Dougie even cursorily

>address one of my points or questions before he goes off on a

>vaguely (at best) related rant?

 

Can you recognize how absurd it is that, in the very same post where you anticipatorily accuse me of not answering the points you made -- while imploring/begging your liberal comrades to tell you how right you are about this so you don't have to feel so alone -- in that very same post, you ignored virtually every point I made in the post to which you were ostensibly responding?

 

Before you go write a post next time predicting that someone will avoid your points, you really ought verify that you haven't just done exactly that yourself. Did you just miss these, or do you have no answer to them:

___________________

 

As for whether it's rare, that's totally irrelevant. It's also rare for people to tie a man to the back of a pick-up truck and murder him by dragging him along the road. But the fact that the act is rare doesn't make it any less disgusting or criminal.

____________________

 

In case you didn't know, this "idea" was one of the core, defining basis of National Socialism, which began its long line of atrocities by doing exactly what you are doing - singling out severely disabled human beings who, according to them, were so broken and defective that their lives were not worth preserving, because it cost way too much money to save them, and all you were saving was some cripple anyway, so why not go ahead and kill it.

 

________________________

 

There is a very sick and dangerous tenedency among people who are ideologically similar to you - you believe you are entitled to decide what human life has the right to exist and what doesn't. The same people, like you, who think that it's perfectly fine to pull the limbs off of "defective" babies are the same ones cheering for that comatose woman in Florida to be starved to death. After all, she needs machines to live, so what worth does her life have? She's also worthless and somehow less-than-human, so we should go ahead and kill her, too.

 

My opposition to abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with religious beliefs of any kind. It has to do with the recognition that there are few things more disturbuing and dangerous than to give the Jamesk8410's of the world the right to start pointing to certain types of human life and decreeing that life to be worthless and a perfectly fine candidate for slaughter.

__________________________________

 

The mounting scientific evidence will uncover this lie once and for all. The exhange Phage had with Giovani was awesome and a perfect illustration of what is to come. Here were nice liberals talking about how it doesn't matter if babies feel pain; just go ahead and give them anathesia. But why would you give a clump of cells anatheisa? You would only give a human being anathesia - somenoe who feels pain from the procedure. But if they're human, and they feel pain, how the fuck do we have the right to murder them?

 

I just read some story about a guy who drop kicked a Yorkshire Terrier and killed it. He was arrested and is going to be charged with cruelty to animals, which will subject him to a year in prison. How interesting that he can go to jail for doing something to a dog, but it's perfectly legal to murder unborn babies in a much more brutal and painful manner than what he did.

____________________________________

 

>You seem to be saying no matter how extraordinary and invasive

>a medical procedure is, no matter the condition of the fetus,

>even if it only has 1/3rd of its brain and severe damage to

>most other organs (the conditions of the case you cited if I

>remember correctly), no matter that a doctor who's studied

>medicine for years and a mother who truly wants a child can't

>imagine any reason to take all those extraordinary measures

>and undertake a lifetime of constant care and further

>corrective surgeries, that fetus absolutely must be born

>and kept alive, no matter the cost or anything else, right

>Doug?

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We don't have the right to obliterate human life because we think it's too defective to matter. That's a defining trait of National Socialism, and anyone, like you, who arroagtes unto themselves the right to decide that certain human life is so defective that it has no right to exist - which, sickeningly, really is your viewpoint - is one of the most dangerous toxins that can exist.

 

>So, you're going to pay for this care? Because as I

>said (and you skipped right over as you do with most of

>arguments you're losing...), your party cuts every government

>source of aid to that mother and your precious, disabled,

>forcibly-born baby every chance it gets.

 

(1) You keep telling me what my "side" and my "party" thinks and then attributing those things to me and then demanding that I defend them. I know you will never be able to understand this, and that's genuinely sad (for you), but I don't have a "side" or a "party." I have a brain with faculties of reason and judgment which enable me to formulate opinions about issues without having to be bound to some 2-sided matrix that determines my views on every issue.

 

This is how you think: "There are 2 sides and 2 sides only in the world. You have to pick the side you belong to. Once you pick that side, then it determines your viewpoint on every single issue, and you have to stick to that side and adopt its positions on every issue." You can't fathom that someone may not live in accordance with this simplistic, pathetic framework, becasue it's the only one you think exists.

 

I am against abortion. Therefore, I must have the same views on every other issue as the majority of people who are also against abortion. That is just dumb.

 

(2) The Government provides aid and support to people who are seriously disabled. I don't recall ever hearing anyone advocate the elimination of those programs, and I know I don't advocate that, leaving one to wonder what the fuck you're talking about.

 

(3) EVEN IF you were talking about something that actually exists, rather than a figment of your imagination, what you are saying is unfathomably repulsive. You're saying that anyone whose life is too expensive to preserve can and should be slaughtered. I don't think I even need to do more than describe your position in order to illustrate its moral depravity.

 

>But 'life' is absolutely sacred, nobody has the right to

>take it under any circumstances, that's your view? Ooops,

>but you're for the Iraq war aren't you? Ten thousand

>Iraqis were killed, including children, many, many more then

>would've been even under Saddam's continued rule this year...

>Who the fuck are you to say thousands of civilians' lives were

>worth the potential (certainly not met so far) of better life

>for all?!

 

Sometimes, it's inevitable that people die. No option exists where death can be avoided. So anyone who cares about life in that situation will opt for the best choice. Sometimes, war is necessary, notwithstanding the fact that it entails death, in order to avoid more death. Few things have caused more death and suffering throughout history than pacifism and appeasement. No person who cares about life would ever seriously consider adopting those approaches as one's principles.

 

>And isn't your side pretty vehement in support of

>the death penalty as well?? Hmm...

 

Oh, look - we're talking about "my side" again. I will, though, note the irony that you are so eager to slaughter and wipe away the disabled and innocent babies, but so horrified that people who murder police officers or commit acts of terrorism may be killed. Isn't that hierarchy of concern a little inverted?

 

>So, you're all pretty much full of it, but just out of

>curiosity, do you believe it is my right or your right to

>decide that invasive medical treatment is too much suffering

>for too little likely gain to be worthwhile, and refuse

>treatment for ourselves even though it means an earlier death?

> And do you believe it is my right to specify that I trust you

>(ha!) to make that decision for me if I am incapacitated?

 

I think adult citizens have the right to decide any of those things for themselves, including dying. I just find it objectionable when human beings who haven't made that decision are slaughtered. Isn't that weird of me?

 

I didn't start this thread to re-hash old abortion points. I started it becasue of the news that science is increasingly demonstrating that what we call the "fetus" possesses, at a fairly early point, most of the attributes defining "human-ness." You claim that the majority of people don't think that fetuses are human life, but I think you're mistaken. If most people thought fetuses were sub-human, why would there be such widespread opposition to Partial Birth Abortions? Nobody would care about medical procedures performed on a clump of cells. The fact that they do demonstrates that the more people see and learn about what the fetus actually is, the less palatable the lie will be that we are not slaughtering human beings.

 

As I've told you before - but as you're incapable of recognizing, because it deviates from your 2-sided-matrix-prison -- religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with my view on abortion. What changed my mind on abortion was seeing a story when I was in college where a man who was posing as a doctor (he has no medical license) was performing abortions, and he attmepted one on a 6- or 7- month-old fetus, and botched it. He severed her arm and mangled her leg.

 

As a result of that procedure, labor was shortly thereafter induced and the girl was born, and survived (and survives to this day) with no arm and a mangled leg. Seeing the photographs of this infant made me realize how dishonest and artificial this notion was that, somehow, hours earlier, when she was in the fetus, it was perfectly fine to slaughter her, because she wasn't human. But hours later, this SAME PERSON, totally unchanged except that she was outside the womb rather than in it, was now a full person warranting all protections we give to human life. It is such an artificial distinction - and the continuity of her experience inside the womb carrying over to outside the womb is so glaringly obvious - that the absoulte wrongness of killing her in the womb became so clear to me.

 

As more and more people have similar recognitions - and I again urge you to go read Phage's post to Giovani which foreshadows what is to come on a widespread scale - abortion will come to be seen as the gruesome, murderous act that it is. And the lie that has been sold - that fetuses are sub-human and have no right to live - will go down in history as one of those great evil lies that, mysteriously, large numbers of people ended up believing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: There you go again Dougie...

 

>Before you go write a post next time predicting that someone

>will avoid your points, you really ought verify that you

>haven't just done exactly that yourself. Did you just miss

>these, or do you have no answer to them:

 

Just wanted to show you how ridiculous it is to debate something with someone who instead of responding to points goes off the map talking about the dangers of "national socialism". Guess that's why it's also good, according to your side, that single companies are allowed to drill, refine, and distribute oil, driving out any competition in any one of those areas, because if we regulated them/used our anti-trust laws genocide of the disabled would follow almost immediately! Riiiight...

 

>As for whether it's rare, that's totally irrelevant. It's

>also rare for people to tie a man to the back of a pick-up

>truck and murder him by dragging him along the road. But the

>fact that the act is rare doesn't make it any less disgusting

>or criminal.

 

Except that when your side paints your gruesome pictures you imply it's being done every day to thousands of *perfect, healthy babies*. Because you know you'd loose the argument if told the truth, that this is about *forcing* parents to have acutely disabled children, no matter how much must be done to just keep them alive, and setting back medical science to make thinks like amniocentesis worthless.

 

>In case you didn't know, this "idea" was one of the core,

>defining basis of National Socialism, which began its long

>line of atrocities by doing exactly what you are doing -

 

Yeah yeah, thus California must deregulate energy and workman’s comp, with disastrous results, or murder in the streets will follow. This has got to be one of your more bizarre arguments.

 

>There is a very sick and dangerous tenedency among people who

>are ideologically similar to you - you believe you are

>entitled to decide what human life has the right to exist and

>what doesn't.

 

No, actually, I think a medical doctor specializing in obstetrics, possibly in consultation with developmental pediatricians and the mother have this right. You're the one giving it to big government, not me.

 

>The same people, like you, who think that it's

>perfectly fine to pull the limbs off of "defective" babies are

>the same ones cheering for that comatose woman in Florida to

>be starved to death. After all, she needs machines to live, so

>what worth does her life have? She's also worthless and

>somehow less-than-human, so we should go ahead and kill her,

>too.

 

I know that I would not want to be kept alive in a PVS, I can imagine nothing worse on earth then the possibility of my mind being active inside a body that has no outlet whatsoever, and see no point in being kept alive with no mind activity at all, as brain scans show for her. I would also not want to die by starvation, but 'your side' considers it a victory that Kevorkian is in jail. Lethal Injections are good enough for murderers, but not the suffering who beg for them...

 

I also know I have communicated this feeling to family and would especially communicate it to anybody I loved enough to marry. I am aware that if I felt the other way I could spell it out in a living will as well.

 

Ah, you skipped over my question, do you or I have the right to assign this decision to a loved one if incapacitated...?

 

Also, it's usually your side that says Christian Scientists and other zealots have the right to refuse even simple medical treatment which would most likely save lives, even for their children. I take it you're dead set against this, that a big government bureaucracy should exist to make sure these families do everything medically possible to sustain life...?

 

>The mounting scientific evidence will uncover this lie once

>and for all. The exhange Phage had with Giovani was awesome

>and a perfect illustration of what is to come. Here were nice

>liberals talking about how it doesn't matter if babies feel

>pain; just go ahead and give them anathesia. But why would you

>give a clump of cells anatheisa? You would only give a human

>being anathesia - somenoe who feels pain from the procedure.

>But if they're human, and they feel pain, how the fuck do we

>have the right to murder them?

 

That’s what you're intentionally failing to see. The mother does not want it. It cannot live without her, at all for normal abortions, without extraordinary measures for the types of fetus actually aborted with dilation and extraction.

 

Hell, a ringworm is life, *it* is actually capable of sustaining itself outside a human body, and will move away from painful stimulus, where is your thread about the murderous injustice done by medical treatment there??

 

>I just read some story about a guy who drop kicked a Yorkshire

>Terrier and killed it.

 

Good for you, glad you have a hobby outside of this board, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

 

>>You seem to be saying no matter how extraordinary and invasive

>>a medical procedure is, no matter the condition of the fetus,

>>even if it only has 1/3rd of its brain and severe damage to

>>most other organs (the conditions of the case you cited if I

>>remember correctly), no matter that a doctor who's studied

>>medicine for years and a mother who truly wants a child can't

>>imagine any reason to take all those extraordinary measures

>>and undertake a lifetime of constant care and further

>>corrective surgeries, that fetus absolutely must be born

>>and kept alive, no matter the cost or anything else.

 

>Yes, that's what I'm saying. We don't have the right to

>obliterate human life because we think it's too defective to

>matter.

 

You see, there you go, that's honesty, and if your side would frame the matter like that I'd have no problem with banning the procedures if the majority shared your view. They don't and you know it, which is why the histrionics about babies feeling pain...

 

>That's a defining trait of National Socialism, and

>anyone, like you, who arroagtes unto themselves the right to

>decide that certain human life is so defective that it has no

>right to exist - which, sickeningly, really is your viewpoint

>- is one of the most dangerous toxins that can exist.

 

Yadda yadda yadda, we know, except you're the one requiring fully socialized and regulated medicine to make sure these babies are born and cared for, I'm the saying individual has the right. Great right wing hypocrisy in everything your side does...

 

>(1) You keep telling me what my "side" and my "party" thinks

>and then attributing those things to me and then demanding

>that I defend them. I know you will never be able to

>understand this, and that's genuinely sad (for you), but I

>don't have a "side" or a "party."

 

Of course not, yet you defend every right-wingnut position I can think of.

 

>I have a brain with

>faculties of reason and judgment which enable me to formulate

>opinions about issues without having to be bound to some

>2-sided matrix that determines my views on every issue.

 

I dunno, I'm starting to think you're a) a broken record or b) were born similar to that fetus with only a brainstem which is why you insist such must be kept alive. Because I've never seen you actually consider an issue, just blather on spouting whatever you can to win your point not matter how bizarre or off topic it gets, finally dropping it when you've gone so far off-point people stop responding.

 

>This is how you think: "There are 2 sides and 2 sides only in

>the world. You have to pick the side you belong to. Once you

>pick that side, then it determines your viewpoint on every

>single issue, and you have to stick to that side and adopt its

>positions on every issue."

 

No, that's how you operate, especially in here. At first I had no feelings on this particular issue, but having seen the hypocrisy and lies involved in your arguments against it has created and solidified my position, it wasn't anything I read in the left-wing press (well, other then what *you* linked to support your point). You're doing such a bad job arguing this for your side at times it's hard to believe you seriously believe this way and aren't just being contrary or playing devil's advocate.

 

>I am against abortion. Therefore, I must have the same views

>on every other issue as the majority of people who are also

>against abortion. That is just dumb.

 

But you do! Prove my point for me, what is the Bush administration doing wrong?? I could create a list of things I think the Clinton administration did wrong, even though they were the head of my party and they created the biggest economic boon this country's ever had. Your guy only has the first one, yet walks on water, doesn't he Dougie?

 

>(2) The Government provides aid and support to people who are

>seriously disabled. I don't recall ever hearing anyone

>advocate the elimination of those programs, and I know I don't

>advocate that, leaving one to wonder what the fuck you're

>talking about.

 

That's funny, the Republican Governor of the state of California was trying to cut programs for the disabled just recently, but bowed to massive public outcry against it. Yet he's set up a structural deficit and things must be cut, he'll just be quieter about it next time.

 

What programs do you think all the money Bush is spending will come from? Not defense, god knows not more taxes, where Doug? He only increases funding to Medicare when it's to help his drug company contributors, and is ignoring the fact that social security will self destruct--especially with the added weight of his massive deficits. He will not admit to what he's doing of course, but that doesn't mean he's not doing it!

 

>(3) EVEN IF you were talking about something that actually

>exists, rather than a figment of your imagination, what you

>are saying is unfathomably repulsive.

 

That if you're going to require something be done you should be able to pay for it? That does seem to be an athama to your side lately!

 

>>But 'life' is absolutely sacred, nobody has the right to

>>take it under any circumstances, that's your view?...

 

>Sometimes, it's inevitable that people die. No option exists

>where death can be avoided. So anyone who cares about life in

>that situation will opt for the best choice. Sometimes, war

>is necessary, notwithstanding the fact that it entails death,

>in order to avoid more death. Few things have caused more

>death and suffering throughout history than pacifism and

>appeasement. No person who cares about life would ever

>seriously consider adopting those approaches as one's

>principles.

 

SO a medical professional in consultation with the family can't abort the most malformed fetus, but YOUR PRESIDENT can kill children and precious fetuses inside pregnant mothers all fucking day and night in Iraq, because he says it'll get better. (How, the civil war and creation of a new Iran when we leave? Hey, at least abortion will be illegal there then, *now* I see why you support it!) And the state can kill people convicted of murder even though dozens and dozens of people have been proven innocent in our severely flawed system in the last couple years alone. Makes perfect sense, to who, I have no idea, but apparently to you and your kind.

 

What doesn't make sense is why anybody listens to them. I wish the hypocrisy was as clear in the media!

 

>>So, you're all pretty much full of it, but just out of

>>curiosity, do you believe it is my right or your right to

>>decide that invasive medical treatment is too much suffering

>>for too little likely gain to be worthwhile, and refuse

>>treatment for ourselves even though it means an earlier death?

 

>I think adult citizens have the right to decide any of those

>things for themselves, including dying.

 

Including assisted suicide? Including the right to assign to decision to cease life support to a loved one? I'd told my mother I wouldn't want to be kept alive as a vegetable long before I reached 18, should she have been able to carry out my wishes if needed?

 

>I didn't start this thread to re-hash old abortion points.

 

Of course not, they're killing living, breathing, healthy, viable human babies who cry bitter tears as they do it, that's not been argued by your side (with pictures) before!

 

Like I said, I can only hope your argument style sweeps your side, the issue'd be decided once and for all in no time!

 

>If most people thought fetuses were sub-human, why

>would there be such widespread opposition to Partial Birth

>Abortions?

 

Uninformed hysteria carefully fed by YOUR SIDE maybe? GOD forbid we leave it to doctors and mothers if a child will be kept alive who may have all the capacities to breathe for himself at best! Argue that! The biggest point of mine you've avoided with this issue is the extraordinary measures. That case you cited would require extraordinary measures just for the baby to be born "alive" let alone the host of corrective surgeries after the fact. Who the fuck are you to require this?

 

>As I've told you before - but as you're incapable of

>recognizing, because it deviates from your

>2-sided-matrix-prison -- religious beliefs have absolutely

>nothing to do with my view on abortion.

 

It's because you want more developmentally disabled people in the world, so the conservatives can hold a majority some day??? What is it??

 

>What changed my mind

>on abortion was seeing a story when I was in college where a

>man who was posing as a doctor (he has no medical license) was

>performing abortions, and he attmepted one on a 6- or 7-

>month-old fetus, and botched it. He severed her arm and

>mangled her leg.

 

That is what you're advocating you idiot! You've already got is so that 85% of counties don't have a place to go for the procedure, as others have said, the demand doesn't disappear just because you make it so that real medical professionals can't provide it anywhere near the people needing it! The rich get it done elsewhere and the poor end up with unwanted children with severed arms and mangled legs. And of course, according to you, a great social justice is done?!?

 

Further, you're back to YOUR SIDE's BULLSHIT argument about PBA. What happened there is fully against the law, always has been, ALWAYS WILL BE. A real doctor wouldn't even consider such a thing at 6 to 9 months, he'd require counseling for the mother, the core of my BET you've apparently lost--only being able to come up with the conditions what, 30-40 years ago when abortions were illegal and done by scam artists, the system you are fighting to go back to?!?!

 

>one of those great evil lies that, mysteriously, large

>numbers of people ended up believing.

 

The perfect summary for your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tango

I agree and disagaree with the above comment.

 

On the one hand, Doug69's topic doesn't fit

within the subject of escorts, but I think

it fits perfectly with the purpose of this

particular topic And, as I've said before,

the quality of contributors is sufficiently

high overall here that I'd be interested in

exchanges of ideas about politics,

religion, etc. among them.

 

However, I find the tone of Doug69's

commentary hateful. I can most easily

imagine him saying these things as part

of a protracted shouting match in a

parking lot outside a sleazy bar,

his voice hoarse, veins in his thick

neck visibly taut, dots of spittle

flying from his gaping mouth, scarred fists

clenched...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The reason it's discussed among gay men and any other citizen is the same reason that murder or rape or kidnapping or any other crime is".

 

Now who's being intellectually dishonest? Murder, rape and kidnapping are crimes, indeed, but abortion (via Roe vs Wade) is not a crime.

 

Yeah, I KNOW that I want to see a regression to the dark ages, when women, who for whatever reason wanted to abort a pregnancy, had to resort to butchers in dark alley hovels.

 

I still say let each individual woman make the decision to carry to term or abort. The last thing women need is a “male dominated” legislative, executive and judicial system “TELLING” them what they can do with their own bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, just realized the goal!

 

This may be obvious to some, but I think a lot of people haven't considered it... Many are leery of the new federal law making it a separate crime to injure a fetus, but found it hard to come up with more then a general, vague reason. I just realized, it could well be the right wing thinking ahead to if they ever overturn Roe vs. Wade! Then they would have criminalized it doubly, so that any legitimate doctor is twice as scared to do it and you probably get more dead women since a back alley butcher that fucks up knows he'd go to jail if he took her to the hospital...

 

Don't think it can happen? We're in the majority? So were the number of people who voted against Bush! So would be the number of people against this ban on so called (falsely) "Partial Birth" Abortions if informed of what the few that are done are actually used for (see below), but the 'right' HAVE MADE THEM ILLEGAL even if the further growth of the fetus endangers both the mother and the fetus!

 

There seems to be more and more evidence of a fall, with a new dark age to follow. Bush=Nero?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dougie runs away again...

 

>Doctor: Fetus Feels Pain After 20 Weeks

 

So does this mean you support abortions before 20 weeks Doug?

 

I couldn't help but notice that after I went through and refuted you point by point you shut up and ran away, as usual. How many months break do we get this time before you dredge this shit up again, hoping there's no one around to shine light on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...