# Post-Birth Abortion



## Vanquish (Aug 25, 2012)

&lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post

Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 25, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> 
> Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
> 
> This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.



Don't look now, but it's not just those crazy Aussies pushing this crap. 

Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 25, 2012)

Maybe the democrats will fully embrace this at the convention.


----------



## Liability (Aug 25, 2012)

This is why the fucking idiot President OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.  He was concerned that a law that protected a just born "failed abortion" might somehow turn into a slippery slope that would "qualify" the unfettered alleged "right" of women to have abortions on demand.

Yes.  That's how much of a sick fuck the incumbent is.


----------



## Douger (Aug 25, 2012)

The way things appear today I think abortions should be legal until the "baby" is about 16 years.By that age you can generally determine if the "baby" is going to grow up meathead, tranny, Nazi or religious nutbag.


----------



## Liability (Aug 25, 2012)

Booger is a convincing argument FOR abortion.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 25, 2012)

Dr Ezekiel Emannuel, brother of Rahm, and advisor to the Idiot-In-Chief on healthcare believes that rationing will be essential in the wonderful universal health care system that the left salivate over. His considered opinion included:

The over 65s being the bottom of the list.
Children under the age of 3 are not "fully formed human beings" (his words, not mine) and are therefore at the bottom of the list, along with the over 65s. 

That's what the left worship. Picking not on need but on 'value'. Sick freaks.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 26, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> 
> Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
> 
> This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.



A number of abortion doctors have been murdered by pro-lifers, therefore all pro-lifers support the murder of abortion doctors.  Those who are pro-choice should have seen this coming.  Now all those who are pro-choice must fear for their lives because it is a fact that all pro-lifers want to kill those who are pro-choice.  This is the road pro-choicers knew was coming.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 26, 2012)

The total number of abortion providers to date is 8.  George Tiller is the most well known.

The number of doctors arrested for murder connected with providing abortions might be in the hundreds.


----------



## jillian (Aug 26, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> ...



peter singer is lying scum who wrote the book Animal Liberation and has stated catagoricaly that it is ok to lie to advance your agenda.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 26, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> ...




How many abortion doctors have been killed?

and
"therefore ALL pro-lifers support murder"????


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 26, 2012)

jillian said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



He's also in a position to infect young minds with his poison. Which he does while nailing down a nice salary for his efforts. 
He's typical of a large segment of American academia.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 26, 2012)

When republicans and conservatives support living children I'll take them serious, until then they remain empty moralists who only preach. All these constant threads are, is holier than thou BS when your actions contradict your presumed morals. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/241999-abortion-rape-question-4.html#post5859215

*"Having ensured that children will be born through their anti-abortion legislation, House Republicans have now ensured those children will be deprived of proper nutrition once they come into the world, ensuring that 300,000 millionaires will have more money in their pockets at the expense of nearly 500,000 women and children. Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee approved the appropriations bill which reduces WIC funding from $6.73 billion this year to $5.90 billion in 2012. The bill will also cut $38 million from the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSIP), as well as $63 million from the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAB). If the Republicans had been truly interested in slashing the federal budget they could have saved more money by ending tax cuts for the rich or slashing subsidies to the oil companies. Instead they starve the infants and elderly. Why do I say that?  WIC could be fully funded at the cost of just one week of Bush&#8217;s tax cuts for millionaires. According to the Center for American Progress, &#8220;one day&#8217;s worth of millionaire tax cuts would feed needy families for a year.&#8221;"* The Consequences of Evil - Republican Legislation Since 2010


http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...e-with-a-history-of-trauma-5.html#post4730878

*"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."* HISTORY OF ABORTION


----------



## Liability (Aug 26, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> When republicans and conservatives support living children I'll take them serious, until then they remain empty moralists who only preach. All these constant threads are, is holier than thou BS when your actions contradict your presumed morals.
> 
> * * * *



They do support living children and yet, despite your claim, you don't take them seriously.

So, your post is simply a compound false statement.  

"Supporting living children" comes in far more forms than the ones "admitted" by the petty, narrow-minded, self-serving, sanctimonious views of far left wing hacks such as you.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 26, 2012)

Why not? The partial abortion procedure is so finely tuned legally that there is perhaps half a second between the time the baby would have been born but the fetus is (successfully?) stabbed in the back of the head without anesthesia and it's brain's sucked out with some Frankenstein contraption invented by abortionists. Why not cut out all the tension and the covered up cases of manslaughter when the baby accidentally slips out and is killed anyway? Stab them to death on the table on the table, what's the difference? Why not film it so reality show fans can use the grotesque procedure for entertainment disguised as education. Maybe they can bet on how long the baby screams before it is put out of it's misery.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 26, 2012)

The much vilified Catholic church has supported women in trouble for hundreds of years. Say what you want about priests diddling children which is terrible..but if you do you'll be confusing the issue.

There are MANY charities and organizations that help pregnant women and indigent families.

Saying that pro-lifers don't care is complete bullshit.


----------



## rdean (Aug 26, 2012)

If the baby was already born, Republicans don't care what happens to it.  We already know that from their policies.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 26, 2012)

Supporting living children to democrats is to totally remove the responsibility for those children from parents and place it in the hands of the government.  Like they do in Cuba.


----------



## Liability (Aug 26, 2012)

rdean said:


> If the baby was already born, Republicans don't care what happens to it.  We already know that from their policies.



Repeating your idiotic lies doesn't help them improve with age, you lying whore liberal partisan hack bitch motherfucker.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 26, 2012)

Liberals believe that expecting parents to support their children is unfair.   That obligation belongs to the village.  The parents are nothing more than occasional baby sitters.


----------



## LilOlLady (Aug 26, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> 
> Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
> 
> This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.




You mean like white men and women now *killing their own children *is a epidemic? I call it *murder* and you want to call it *abortions?*

Moms killing their children more common than you think | Mom Houston | a Chron.com blog
Mick and Mairead Philpott: Parents accused of murdering their six children in house fire will NOT attend their funeral | Mail Online
Vatican Admits Priests are Raping Nuns Around the World


----------



## LilOlLady (Aug 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Liberals believe that expecting parents to support their children is unfair.   That obligation belongs to the village.  The parents are nothing more than occasional baby sitters.



who takes care of them? do you know how much welfare a mother gets for a child? If the right stop doing away with *government job training programs and subsidies for childcare*, more women could get off welfare and work. the Right *put them on welfare and keep them there*. and then *complain because they are on welfare*?


----------



## LilOlLady (Aug 26, 2012)

rdean said:


> If the baby was already born, Republicans don't care what happens to it.  We already know that from their policies.



Like I have said if the Right forces me to have a baby I don't want or cannot afford they damn well be willing to take care of it. For 18 years.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2012)

Douger said:


> The way things appear today I think abortions should be legal until the "baby" is about 16 years.By that age you can generally determine if the "baby" is going to grow up meathead, tranny, Nazi or religious nutbag.


As the horse said, "Neigh." Mr. Douger, if it breathes and you kill it, it's legally murder if and when you get caught and convicted.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Dr Ezekiel Emannuel, brother of Rahm, and advisor to the Idiot-In-Chief on healthcare believes that rationing will be essential in the wonderful universal health care system that the left salivate over. His considered opinion included:
> 
> The over 65s being the bottom of the list.
> Children under the age of 3 are not "fully formed human beings" (his words, not mine) and are therefore at the bottom of the list, along with the over 65s.
> ...


The Nazis considered handicapped people miscreants and went after them for elimination from the Aryan race. That is unconscionable in my book.


----------



## atlasshrugged (Aug 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > If the baby was already born, Republicans don't care what happens to it.  We already know that from their policies.
> ...



And how did the government force you to have a child you don't want? I support abortions in the case of rape, but just because the government doesn't give you everything you want doesn't mean they give you nothing. The government doesn't force you to have sex. The government doesn't prevent you from using condoms and other forms of birth control. If you don't want a baby, don't have a baby. But if you say that the government forces you to have a baby just because they won't let you kill it is as idiotic as me saying that the government forces me to have parents just because I can't murder them.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 26, 2012)

You gotta almost admire the nerve of the radical left's argument. It's so full of holes and racial bigotry that it's an embarrassment but the radicals stick with the concept that manslaughter shortly after birth is better than living in freedom in the greatest Nation on earth. The radical left is an embarrassment.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 26, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Why not? The partial abortion procedure is so finely tuned legally that there is perhaps half a second between the time the baby would have been born but the fetus is (successfully?) stabbed in the back of the head without anesthesia and it's brain's sucked out with some Frankenstein contraption invented by abortionists. Why not cut out all the tension and the covered up cases of manslaughter when the baby accidentally slips out and is killed anyway? Stab them to death on the table on the table, what's the difference? Why not film it so reality show fans can use the grotesque procedure for entertainment disguised as education. Maybe they can bet on how long the baby screams before it is put out of it's misery.



Do you even know WHY a woman might need a partial birth abortion? I guess not, because you sound completely ignorant on the subject.

And also, partial birth abortion is illegal in the US, so why the fuck you lifers keep bringing it up is beyond me.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > If the baby was already born, Republicans don't care what happens to it.  We already know that from their policies.
> ...



But they wouldn't. They have to prevent fetuses being killed. They don't care about the newborn babies whose parents can't afford them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals believe that expecting parents to support their children is unfair.   That obligation belongs to the village.  The parents are nothing more than occasional baby sitters.
> ...



I have a step granddaughter that's bringing in $5k a month in public benefits so yes I know how much they get.  I also know women who have been insulted by the suggestion that they go to work.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 27, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> The much vilified Catholic church has supported women in trouble for hundreds of years. Say what you want about priests diddling children which is terrible..but if you do you'll be confusing the issue.
> 
> There are MANY charities and organizations that help pregnant women and indigent families.
> 
> Saying that pro-lifers don't care is complete bullshit.



They don't give a shit about the baby once it is born, and put a fetus over the life of the woman. The church is well known for its anti woman stance.


----------



## Dick Tuck (Aug 27, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> 
> Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
> 
> This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.



From your article.



> We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates.  And we believed we were going to read interesting responses to the argument, as we already read a few on this topic in religious websites.
> 
> However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal.  This was not made clear enough in the paper.  Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, peoples emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.



Now, a question.  Didn't Rick Santurum opt to have no intervention for one of his newborns, and allow her to die?  What are the ethics associated with that?


----------



## Liability (Aug 27, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > The much vilified Catholic church has supported women in trouble for hundreds of years. Say what you want about priests diddling children which is terrible..but if you do you'll be confusing the issue.
> ...



The new lib meme (at least it pops up more frequently of late) is "they don't care about the child AFTER it's born."  This bullshit gets applied with a broad brush to all lib opponents.

It is a dishonest and baseless claim.

But it is also a very trite silly "argument" to make.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 27, 2012)

o please......what about the bumperstickers yall love.....if you can feed them dont breed them.....

its like so two faced.....and you know this is true....

i still hate your fucking guts btw over kiva


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 27, 2012)

The answer is very simple.  Any child born to a woman who wants to foist support for that child to the public should have the kid taken away.


----------



## Liability (Aug 27, 2012)

strollingbones said:


> o please......what about the bumperstickers yall love.....if you can feed them dont breed them.....
> 
> its like so two faced.....and you know this is true....
> 
> i still hate your fucking guts btw over kiva



A bumper sticker that says if you CAN feed them (then) DON'T breed them?

I don't know anybody who even has that bumper sticker, much less loves them.  I think your editing skills are funny.  You must have taught TderpM.

On the other hand, I DO subscribe to the notion that it IS rather irresponsible to have kids if you can't properly provide for their care.  Not a thing in the world "two faced" ABOUT THAT.

As for kiva:  take your angst out on them.  I'm not the one charging immoral usurious rates to lend small amounts of money to people who can't really afford it.


----------



## Conservative (Aug 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Libtards should love him then.


----------



## Liability (Aug 27, 2012)

Let's play JEOPARDY!

The ANSWER is MURDER.

the question is:


----------



## Noomi (Aug 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The answer is very simple.  Any child born to a woman who wants to foist support for that child to the public should have the kid taken away.



That is fine by me - as long as the lifers are forced to adopt that child.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> 
> Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
> 
> This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.



I love how the authors are shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you! - that anyone would actually think that "infants could be killed" means they're suggesting that infants could be killed.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Douger said:


> The way things appear today I think abortions should be legal until the "baby" is about 16 years.By that age you can generally determine if the "baby" is going to grow up meathead, tranny, Nazi or religious nutbag.



Well, admittedly, that policy would have spared us listening to YOUR gaseous emissions.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Dr Ezekiel Emannuel, brother of Rahm, and advisor to the Idiot-In-Chief on healthcare believes that rationing will be essential in the wonderful universal health care system that the left salivate over. His considered opinion included:
> 
> The over 65s being the bottom of the list.
> Children under the age of 3 are not "fully formed human beings" (his words, not mine) and are therefore at the bottom of the list, along with the over 65s.
> ...



And for some odd reason, they always erroneously assume that they will be numbered among those who are valued, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Why not? The partial abortion procedure is so finely tuned legally that there is perhaps half a second between the time the baby would have been born but the fetus is (successfully?) stabbed in the back of the head without anesthesia and it's brain's sucked out with some Frankenstein contraption invented by abortionists. Why not cut out all the tension and the covered up cases of manslaughter when the baby accidentally slips out and is killed anyway? Stab them to death on the table on the table, what's the difference? Why not film it so reality show fans can use the grotesque procedure for entertainment disguised as education. Maybe they can bet on how long the baby screams before it is put out of it's misery.
> ...



I note with interest that, while you loftily pronounced the poster "completely ignorant" as to "why a woman might need a partial birth abortion", you did not yourself demonstrate that YOU know.

And also, you're not in the US, so why the fuck you foreigners think it's any of your business WHAT we talk about is beyond me.  When we want your advice on what our political discussions should and should not be about - or on anything other than how to be a member of a government-owned herd of ignorant sheep, about which you seem to be an expert - we'll "baaaah" at you.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 1, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Look up hydrocephalus and STFU. Fetal head can get so large it can't be born naturally. A c section is required, the cut of which must be deeper, and there is a risk of bleeding, even death. Partial birth abortion eliminates that risk.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 1, 2012)

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva aren't academics. They're glorified domestic terrorists.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Is there a single other country in the world where abortion is in any way a political issue?

I can't think of one. 

American politics seem increasingly set to gridlock, where each party just opposes everything the other party supports out of spite, and nothing ever moves forward.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> When we want your advice on what our political discussions should and should not be about - or on anything other than how to be a member of a government-owned herd of ignorant sheep, about which you seem to be an expert - we'll "baaaah" at you.



What a weird, weird thing to post.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Is there a single other country in the world where abortion is in any way a political issue?
> 
> I can't think of one.




That's because you're an idiot. Is there a single country in the world where the disposition of human life is not the most significant of all 'political' matters? Are you not so fucking self-obsessed that you have sacrificed your humanity to your obscenely pretentious and dangerously over-inflated ego?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> Let's play JEOPARDY!
> 
> The ANSWER is MURDER.
> 
> the question is:



What is THE LIBERAL VERSION OF "FAMILY VALUES"?

What do I win?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Wow.  You must have been REALLY popular with the boys when you were a teenager, given your level of gullibility and willingness to believe any damned-fool thing you're told.

Look up "cephalocentesis", then fuck off and die.

It's actually kinda funny, watching liberals attempt to cloak their evil in "science", given how pitifully uneducated you people are.  Apparently, having your government treat you like a helpless, ignorant child has actually turned you into a helpless, ignorant child.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Is there a single other country in the world where abortion is in any way a political issue?
> 
> I can't think of one.
> 
> American politics seem increasingly set to gridlock, where each party just opposes everything the other party supports out of spite, and nothing ever moves forward.



Is there any other country in the world that we're even vaguely interested in emulating?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > When we want your advice on what our political discussions should and should not be about - or on anything other than how to be a member of a government-owned herd of ignorant sheep, about which you seem to be an expert - we'll "baaaah" at you.
> ...



I'm looking in vain for the place where I asked you, or indeed in any way indicated that your opinion was worth a fart in a wind tunnel to me.

While I realize that if you waited until someone cared what you have to say before speaking, you'd never say anything at all, you're going to have to explain to me why that's a bad thing.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a single other country in the world where abortion is in any way a political issue?
> ...



There should be. 

Any intelligent person in any country is going to look to other countries to see what policies have succeeded, and what failed. It's how we learn from history without needing to make the same mistakes other countries have made.

In this case I think many Americans might find it interesting and surprising to note that abortion is very rarely even mentioned in the political sphere, and doesn't appear in the policy statements of many political parties. It was very much an issue in the 1970s, but since then the debate has moved on. I appreciate the concept of post-birth abortion is new and work discussing, but I wonder how many post-birth abortions would take place even if it weren't. 

btw, This is a discussion forum. If you are uncomfortable with discussion as a concept, and clearly you are, stick to writing a diary.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Which simply brings us right back to my question.



Saigon said:


> In this case I think many Americans might find it interesting and surprising to note that abortion is very rarely even mentioned in the political sphere, and doesn't appear in the policy statements of many political parties. It was very much an issue in the 1970s, but since then the debate has moved on. I appreciate the concept of post-birth abortion is new and work discussing, but I wonder how many post-birth abortions would take place even if it weren't.


'

Why, precisely, would we find that at all interesting?  Offhand, I can't think of any country in the world that I would look at and say, "Gosh, they are SO WONDERFUL, I'm just DYING to take my moral leadership from THEM!"

That the rest of the world has abandoned itself to moral degeneracy interests me not at all, and it certainly does not engender in me any belief that that is "progress".



Saigon said:


> btw, This is a discussion forum. If you are uncomfortable with discussion as a concept, and clearly you are, stick to writing a diary.



BTW, I'm not the one who introduced himself into a discussion by questioning the presence of someone else's remarks there.  So if YOU'RE uncomfortable with discussion that involves disagreeing with you, go sit with the other ignorant juveniles in the corner, and I'll get around to treating your posts with the contempt they deserve when it's your turn.  This ain't your public school classroom, and no one here is interested in pretending you're smart and valuable just because you can breathe without a diagram.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 1, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> 
> Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
> 
> This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.



I've been saying for years that liberal leaders are evil.

Give it 5 years and this will be demanded as a right.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 1, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva aren't academics. They're glorified domestic terrorists.



Serial killers.

Terrorist have a cause they believe in.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Why, precisely, would we find that at all interesting?  Offhand, I can't think of any country in the world that I would look at and say, "Gosh, they are SO WONDERFUL, I'm just DYING to take my moral leadership from THEM!"
> 
> That the rest of the world has abandoned itself to moral degeneracy interests me not at all, and it certainly does not engender in me any belief that that is "progress".
> 
> .



Which is why I prefaced my statement with the words "intelligent people". 

Observing what happens in other countries and learning from those examples, both good and bad, is what intelligent people do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Why, precisely, would we find that at all interesting?  Offhand, I can't think of any country in the world that I would look at and say, "Gosh, they are SO WONDERFUL, I'm just DYING to take my moral leadership from THEM!"
> ...



It is unnecessary to inform me that, like all leftists, you define "intelligent people" as "those who agree with me".  I already assume this particular idiocy to be present, and make assessments accordingly.

Let me spell this out for you slowly, since you clearly are not going to get it any other way:  disagreeing with your worship of other countries and the way they do things doesn't mean I didn't observe them.  It is entirely possible for someone to be aware of the facts, and STILL find your opinion to be utterly worthless.

See, what you learned from the example of morally bankrupt countries was, "Gosh, we should run right out and stop valuing human life, too!"  What I learned from observing the example of morally bankrupt countries was to ignore the advice of dimwits like you.

Let me know if this still isn't dumbed down enough for you, although frankly, I'm not really inclined to make the same point three times just because someone is too obtuse to grasp it the first two times.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Cecilie - 

Actually, not only am I not a "leftist" (whatever that means), nowhere on this thread do I suggest that I support so-called partial-birth abortions. I don't. 

I just suggested that in other countries it seems to be more of a medical issue than a political one. 

Everything else you simply made up.

I never understand how posters manage to make up entire novels of "you people" fantasy without any input from the person they claim to be describing. 

I also find it difficult to understand why some posters can not discuss any topic without swathes of meaningless and witless abuse. As the old saying goes, it is very difficult to cajole and convince at the same time.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Vanquish said:


> &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> 
> Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
> 
> This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.


To quote the article -[["However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal.  This was not made clear enough in the paper.  Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, peoples emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.]]

I ask how could they even have thought something like this, in order to suggest this kind of thing at all for a debate ? To think it is to have some sort of agreeing with such thoughts in order to come up with such a thought to begin with (get help quickly), and so they need others to jump in and help them understand whether or not their thoughts on this level are evil or not so evil or just downright evil (pick one of the three), because there is no other choices to pick from in such a thing.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 1, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Dr Ezekiel Emannuel, brother of Rahm, and advisor to the Idiot-In-Chief on healthcare believes that rationing will be essential in the wonderful universal health care system that the left salivate over. His considered opinion included:
> 
> The over 65s being the bottom of the list.
> Children under the age of 3 are not "fully formed human beings" (his words, not mine) and are therefore at the bottom of the list, along with the over 65s.
> ...



link?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> ...


Pro-Choice about what ? Need details and do spell it out for us all, and within it's entirety.. I just want to know what you feel being Pro-Choice is all about (how far do you go?), and this in it's entirety by your standards kept on the matter. Oh and who is doing all the killing again ?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > IGetItAlready said:
> ...


A major problem in America anymore these days I think..


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> When republicans and conservatives support living children I'll take them serious, until then they remain empty moralists who only preach. All these constant threads are, is holier than thou BS when your actions contradict your presumed morals.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/241999-abortion-rape-question-4.html#post5859215
> 
> ...


If do good feel good at any cost liberals would have left the prison systems as places of punishment, instead of making them oais after the crime, then our criminal population may be far lower than what it is to date, but here we have the backwards thinking of a do good feel good at all cost liberal once again on an issue, just as it is found in your take written into this post in which you have written. The same sort of mindset applies for both with democrats, even though the issues are different of course, and are viewed differently by conservatives in which they should be.. Slowly taking down the incentives to grow an impoverised population that will be forever dependent on the federal government is the right thing to do, but I agree that it must be done ever so slowly to reverse the problem, and it should be done with great compassion and help for the time it takes to reach the safe point to be found in it all again.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Why not? The partial abortion procedure is so finely tuned legally that there is perhaps half a second between the time the baby would have been born but the fetus is (successfully?) stabbed in the back of the head without anesthesia and it's brain's sucked out with some Frankenstein contraption invented by abortionists. Why not cut out all the tension and the covered up cases of manslaughter when the baby accidentally slips out and is killed anyway? Stab them to death on the table on the table, what's the difference? Why not film it so reality show fans can use the grotesque procedure for entertainment disguised as education. Maybe they can bet on how long the baby screams before it is put out of it's misery.
> ...



*"That Fetus or Child" Was "Just Not Coming Out Limp and Dead" *

Audio: Obama argues against Born Alive legislation in IL state senate - YouTube


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ld-was-just-not-coming-out-limp-and-dead.html


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Why not? The partial abortion procedure is so finely tuned legally that there is perhaps half a second between the time the baby would have been born but the fetus is (successfully?) stabbed in the back of the head without anesthesia and it's brain's sucked out with some Frankenstein contraption invented by abortionists. Why not cut out all the tension and the covered up cases of manslaughter when the baby accidentally slips out and is killed anyway? Stab them to death on the table on the table, what's the difference? Why not film it so reality show fans can use the grotesque procedure for entertainment disguised as education. Maybe they can bet on how long the baby screams before it is put out of it's misery.


How these doctors are not being arrested right now as we speak, is a shocker to me in this nation...WOW!


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

rdean said:


> If the baby was already born, Republicans don't care what happens to it.  We already know that from their policies.


Another big lie by a demon-crat, as I was a baby who was raised in poverty also in my life, and I had seen a many a presidents come and go in my life growing up (republican and democrat), and guess what ? My mom's welfare, foodstamps and medicade never stopped while we were on these programs, in fact I even got free lunch tokens at school etc. so what were you trying to lie about ?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 1, 2012)

There is no such thing as a "post-birth abortion".  wtf kind of bullshit wording is that?

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy   -  post-birth means the pregnancy ended because the person was born, _birth_ ended the pregnancy ... there is no abortion and those using this bullshit terminology of "post-birth abortion" are trying (and failing) to lessen what it actually is.   If one ends the life of a born person _it's murder_ and no amount of word massaging will change that.  

What the fuck is this world coming to?  wtf is wrong with people?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > The much vilified Catholic church has supported women in trouble for hundreds of years. Say what you want about priests diddling children which is terrible..but if you do you'll be confusing the issue.
> ...


Do you make this stuff up, or are you for real ?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 1, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



The retarded shit that falls out of them is truly stunning, isn't it?  Makes one wonder how they even manage to breath on their own.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Dick Tuck said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > &lsquo;After-birth abortion&rsquo;: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
> ...


Hmmm, if he was being told that something very bad was wrong I'm guessing by medical, and that the child would be totally deformed or something to that extreme if were born, then I'm sure he was listening closely to the ones whom he felt were the experts, but give to us whom are those that don't know what happened,  the rest of the details, and this so we can understand where it is that you are coming from on such a matter of opinion.. Thanks


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Beagle, Zoom - 

Can you explain what is "retarded" about Noomi's claim?

Because the idea that the Catholic church is not wildly enthusiastic about women's rights is one some people I suspect a little smarter than you have also put forward. 

Or are their female popes now?


----------



## AquaAthena (Sep 1, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Why not? The partial abortion procedure is so finely tuned legally that there is perhaps half a second between the time the baby would have been born but the fetus is (successfully?) stabbed in the back of the head without anesthesia and it's brain's sucked out with some Frankenstein contraption invented by abortionists. Why not cut out all the tension and the covered up cases of manslaughter when the baby accidentally slips out and is killed anyway? Stab them to death on the table on the table, what's the difference? Why not film it so reality show fans can use the grotesque procedure for entertainment disguised as education. Maybe they can bet on how long the baby screams before it is put out of it's misery.



Has our president changed his mind in support of this inhumane and primitive practice, since this video?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmz-CppGmts]Draw the Line: Barack Obama and Partial Birth Abortion - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## AmyNation (Sep 1, 2012)

A few academics write a paper, and everyone freaks out 

No one is advocating "post-birth" abortion.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Beagle, Zoom -
> 
> Can you explain what is "retarded" about Noomi's claim?
> 
> ...




The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research.  To state that the church 'doesn't give a shit once they're born they only care about the fetus not the woman' is retarded  and wrong.  For cryin' out loud.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Zoom-boing said:


> The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research. .



Right. 

And what does that have to do with the rights of women?

I took the rest of her comment to be a bit tongue in cheek, myself.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 1, 2012)

Both presidebtial advisors, Cass Sunstein and John Holdren believe that the right of a child to live is the mother's choice up to two years of age.   Killing them prior to that is an acceptable post birth abortion.

They have never said whether an injection to put them down is more acceptable than just ripping the living bodies apart.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research. .
> ...




I answered what was retarded about her post.  I am not responsible for what you don't understand.




Saigon said:


> Beagle, Zoom -
> 
> Can you explain what is "retarded" about Noomi's claim?
> 
> ...



Ironic post is ironic.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Both presidebtial advisors, Cass Sunstein and John Holdren believe that the right of a child to live is the mother's choice up to two years of age.   Killing them prior to that is an acceptable post birth abortion.



That is a lie. 

I do wish you'd post honestly, Katz. What do you get out of posting this garbage?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Zoom - 

Do you agree that the Catholic Church does not support equal rights for women?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Zoom -
> 
> Do you agree that the Catholic Church does not support equal rights for women?




Don't know, never thought much about it.  Nuns can't become priests I suppose that can be viewed as not supporting equal rights for women .. or perhaps because Jesus was male that's why priests are only male.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2012)

Zoom-boing said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom -
> ...



Indeed. 

As a non-Catholic I can't say I lay awake at night worrying about this myself, but I do think the church leaves itself open to criticism by not allowing female priests, bishops or popes.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Zoom-boing said:


> There is no such thing as a "post-birth abortion".  wtf kind of bullshit wording is that?
> 
> Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.
> 
> ...


Your wording in anger apears to suggest that you either are or have lost the argument as well, or why else would you rant and rave like this ?

So Dr. Ron Paul being a doctor when stated about what he saw as a physician was a lie ? Alot of past evidence to these matters has been submitted over time in America, but you are trying to mix words or attack words to try and say otherwise ? I think you are alone in the situation, with maybe a few or more on your side, but most know the truth about all of this now.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


What goes on within the church order of doing things is none of our business really, only if it affects us in a bad way outside of the church, otherwise is found in abuse there of, as would be found then in violation of the U.S. law, would we then make it our business. So far the attacks are against the churches in America unessesarily as is found in most cases, and in usery there of just like this, and we see this when being found as used in broader issues not pertaining to, and with a broad brush stroke it is being done, where as the churches are just trying to stay soveriegn in America, but people want to use them as an example to their every woes, when it doesn't even apply to them by way in which they are using it as they do.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Both presidebtial advisors, Cass Sunstein and John Holdren believe that the right of a child to live is the mother's choice up to two years of age.   Killing them prior to that is an acceptable post birth abortion.
> ...



Infanticide report based on Obama czar
Singer says, Some opponents of abortion respond that the human fetus, unlike the dog or chimpanzee, is made in the image of God, or has an immortal soul. They thereby acknowledge religion is the driving force behind their opposition, he said. But there is no evidence for these religious claims, and in a society in which we keep the state and religion separate, we should not use them as a basis for the criminal law, which applies to people with different religious beliefs, or to those with none at all.
Singer has also advocated euthanasia for persons who lack the capacity to understand the choice between continued existence and non-existence.
This philosophy could help explain why, as a state Senator in Illinois, Obama strongly opposed a bill that would required that medical care be given to babies who survived a botched abortion.

Obamas Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who is in charge of overseeing regulations throughout all areas of the government, including healthcare, is reportedly a devout disciple of Singer.

President Obama's Bizarre "Science Czar": Dr. John R Holdren, Professional Alarmist | Population Research Institute

 The publication of the book predated the Roe v. Wade decision, and the authors strongly argued for legalizing abortion as a population control measure. They suggest that abortion cannot really be considered the taking of a human life, on the grounds that neither the fetus, nor the newborn, nor the toddler, is truly human anyway: The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,1 write the authors. Move over, Peter Singer.

Holdren apparently agrees with the Princeton University ethicist that infants up to the age of two or so are not really human beings, and so can be eliminated without qualms.

What I get out of posting the truth is to get people like you to recognize the truth when they see it.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


So Obama is liken to Adolf Hitler possibly, and this as found within his visions, dreams or ideals that have been held back from us maybe? I mean why else would he surround himself with such fanatics as this ? Might be more onminus dread to what he had said to the Russian Ruler than what met the ear on that open mic not long ago. "I can do more once this election is over" eh ? What did you mean by this Barack when speaking to Putin ?


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> abortion is very rarely even mentioned in the political sphere, and doesn't appear in the policy statements of many political parties. It was very much an issue in the 1970s, but since then the debate has moved on.





No, the governments of Europe have moved on because they don't give a damn what people think about it. Europeans have been cowed into accepting that they no longer have a democratic voice. The EU put the last nail in that coffin.


----------



## Liability (Sep 1, 2012)

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would make a post-birth abortion illegal.

Pres. Obama OPPOSED the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

A post-birth abortion is also known (properly) as "murder."

The President therefore opposed a bill to make the murder of utterly helpless infants illegal.

But liberal Democratics WANT this guy in Office.

Sick shit.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would make a post-birth abortion illegal.
> 
> Pres. Obama OPPOSED the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
> 
> ...


Obama can agree to anything or go along with anything, and they would still want him, but why is this I wonder ? It's because they are failures in their own lives, and in so many ways now sadly they are in this way, and sadly that is why, yet they figure that he can or will save them from their ownselves in due time. How do you save someone from their ownself as a President looked upon to do so in a few years time ? All this nation asked of it's citizens, is that everyone do the right thing in life as much as they know how, but their are those whom don't do this, and when they are called on it, they look to people who had somehow gotten themselves into powerful positions, to then protect them and their ways in which are found as highly dependent, anti-assimilation, anti-sociable, anti-religious and anti-American culture in so many ways these days, that it isn't even funny anymore. These people are scared of management or structure in many ways, because it goes against their ways of thinking and doing things in life the way they want to, and as long as the government is holding this kind of activity up, then they will keep on supporting it to their bitter ends.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 1, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as a "post-birth abortion".  wtf kind of bullshit wording is that?
> ...




Go back and re-read my post because you seemed to have missed what I was saying.  And damn right this makes me angry.  What the hell is wrong with a person to think that killing a human being like that is ok??

"post-birth _abortion_" doesn't exist; taking the life of a "post-birthed" person is murder, not abortion.  By phrasing it as a "post-birth abortion" they are trying to soften/lessen what it actually is.  Typical.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 1, 2012)

Zoom-boing said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


I agree, what is wrong with someone who is saying such a thing or suggesting any thought of such a thing to be entertained in thought there of at all ? I may have mis-read you or something, and if so I apologize.. Sometimes I get to going and don't look back...


----------



## Liability (Sep 1, 2012)

*I don't always agree with those who advocate slaughtering infants,

but when I do:  It's Obama!*​


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 1, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few academics write a paper, and everyone freaks out
> 
> No one is advocating "post-birth" abortion.



You will


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> *I don't always agree with those who advocate slaughtering infants,
> 
> but when I do:  It's Obama!*​



To feed my conservative hunger to save taxpayer dollars I say exterminate anything in the oven if you don't break the plane you don't get points.  Thank you for being a contestant hopefully better luck next time.

As an abortion cost $1000 and we get to save $250-$375,000 in long-term cost to the taxpayer
I apologize that my conservative pocketbook wants to cut down on expenses
Conservatively speaking


----------



## Saigon (Sep 2, 2012)

Katz - 

I know you couldn't back that claim up - I'm just amazed you even "tried"! 

Saying "he apparently believes" and "is a supporter of" proves nothing at all. It's just nonsense from beginning to end.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 2, 2012)

Zoom-boing said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Beagle, Zoom -
> ...



I ain't seen many Catholics going around adopting babies - have you? I have seen a lot of them picketing abortion clinics, though. Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would make a post-birth abortion illegal.
> 
> Pres. Obama OPPOSED the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
> 
> ...



Can you just run us through the medical reasons why this operation might be carried out?

Because I'm not sure why you would oppose something before finding out what the case for it is.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 2, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Its true. The Catholic Church cares not one iota for women or children - except molesting alter boys and covering it up.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 2, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



There is still a risk of heavy bleeding with a C section. The fluid is drained from the head and the fetal head is delivered last. Fetus is born is breech position.

You don't know much about this stuff, do you? But conservatives never do...


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...




You're an idiot. You cling to your prejudice as if your life depended on it.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Do you deny that the Catholic Church covered up the sexual abuse of children?


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> This is why the fucking idiot President OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.  He was concerned that a law that protected a just born "failed abortion" might somehow turn into a slippery slope that would "qualify" the unfettered alleged "right" of women to have abortions on demand.
> 
> Yes.  That's how much of a sick fuck the incumbent is.



We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in  1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this  premise.  It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y.  We  expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or  the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in  academic debates.

---

Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are  many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy  making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, peoples  emotional reactions etc).  But we are not policy makers, we are  philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

---

However, we also received many emails from people thanking us for raising this debate which is stimulating in an _academic _sense.   These people understood there was no legal implication in the paper.   We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people  _should _do (or about what policies _should_ allow).


 We apologise for offence caused by our paper, and we hope this letter  helps people to understand the essential distinction between academic  language and the misleading media presentation, and between what could  be discussed in an academic paper and what could be legally permissible.


BMJ Group blogs: Journal of Medical Ethics blog » Blog Archive » An open letter from Giubilini and Minerva


I would have expected you of all people to understand the difference.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...




Do you think you're fooling anyone with this attempt at obfuscation? Even yourself? Do you excuse all forms of prejudice, or just this one you are wallowing in? Are you an honest person, even with yourself? Even part of the time?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



This is, hands-down, the stupidest frigging thing I've ever heard you say . . . and believe me, that's a high bar to clear.

Maybe you "haven't seen a lot of" stuff because your head's so far up your ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



What in the bloody hell are you babbling about?!  Who said anything about a Caesarian section?  And what does draining the excess fluid from the skull have to do with breech births, neither of which have fuck-all to do with C-sections?

Seriously, whatever drugs you're doing, you need to taper off of a bit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Do you deny that the Catholic Church is one of the largest private charitable organizations in the world?


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > *I don't always agree with those who advocate slaughtering infants,
> ...



I recognize that you are a vile sick-shit rodent of a "human being."

But thanks all the same for putting into words the way so many of you mentally ill libs think.

Please continue verbalizing (as coherently as you are able -- limited though that may be in your case) the "thinking" that places a dollar value on human life, you depraved diseased evil motherfucker.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You haven't "seen?"

Holy shit.  What a stupid and fully dishonest post.

Are you one of the "geniuses" who can tell the religion of a person just by looking?

Sorry to have to be so blunt, but let's call you what you are.  And what you are is a dishonest hack.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would make a post-birth abortion illegal.
> ...



Are you actually that ignorant and slow that YOU are incapable of finding out what is involved with a "post birth" abortion?

Genius: there is NO medical reason for killing the infant once the "abortion has failed" and the child is born alive.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Translation:  "I don't know shit and refuse to do a little research before spouting off about something I clearly know nothing about, which only makes me look like a complete dumbass".    Why'd you even bother responding?  

Negged for being an asshole ... can't just discuss can you, have throw in the insults.  Typical.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > This is why the fucking idiot President OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.  He was concerned that a law that protected a just born "failed abortion" might somehow turn into a slippery slope that would "qualify" the unfettered alleged "right" of women to have abortions on demand.
> ...



Oh emmie, stop.

There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.

A child born alive is a human being.  Killing it after it is born alive is therefore murder.

Opposition to any law that would call this kind of murder "murder" and make it illegal is sick.

I expect a base line of honesty as to the premises for any discussion.  And I expect no less from you, even if you disappoint on this occasion.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.



That's funny, because I think the same thing when I see so many riding around in these drug dealer looking cars all day, while I am working my butt off I guess to support it all, so it seems that being a full time drug dealer or salesman there of in the network pays well also in this nation these days. 

You know pertty soon that will be all that's left in America, because all these people who do nothing anymore all day, will have finally road the backs of those who do something (like work a job for a living) until we are all dead and gone finally, then what will they do, be asked to support their countrymen and country for a change ? ROTFLMBO is my answer to that one.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Liability - 

No, I'm not ignorant -  I was just curious as to whether you had done your research. 

I'm figuring you have no idea why this kind of procedure might be performed, in which case I'm surprised you feel informed enough to make a rational decision on its value.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I cannot quite see why anybody should care about your impressions, guesses, feeling and other displays of ignorance.

I also don't give a fuck WHAT is involved in the "procedure."  It isn't even just one procedure, so maybe you need to elevate your game a bit.

The issue is not what led to the child being born.  The ONLY question is whether it WAS born or not.

Spin all you want.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Oh emmie, stop.
> 
> There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.
> 
> ...



Debates such as this in bioethics are designed to push the boundaries and make people think beyond the obvious. These people were not advocating murder, as they described they were taking a particular premise to its logical conclusion. Bioethics is a fascinating field, and the issues it raises more often than not will set you back on your heels --- which, in my opinion, it's designed to do. Medical and nursing ethics have guided and enhanced my practice for nearly 30 years. Discussing and debating these issues aren't inherently evil or 'sick'.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Oh emmie, stop.
> ...



Nonsense.

Voting on a bill (or just verbalizing one's "position" on it) about a prohibition against post-birth 'abortion" is not an ethics discussion.

ANY position that allows for the murder of a human being, especially a helpless newborn infant, absolutely is evil.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Voting on a bill (or just verbalizing one's "position" on it) about a prohibition against post-birth 'abortion" is not an ethics discussion.
> 
> ANY position that allows for the murder of a human being, especially a helpless newborn infant, absolutely is evil.



Voting on a bill? 

I'm talking about a published debate between bioethicists on a specific premise put forth 40 years ago by Tooley regarding 'personhood'. I know you know the difference between what they did and actually advocating for murder.


----------



## AmyNation (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Oh emmie, stop.
> ...


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense.
> ...



I can't help it if you are attempting to discuss a subject I haven't discussed and then argue against what you imagine I might say on your topic.

Again, the President -- before he got elected -- OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.

THAT is the only topic I have been discussing.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Playing the trained seal, Amy applauds ^ a silly meaningless post.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I didn't realize you weren't discussing the article in the professional journal, as laid out in the OP. Carry on.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Yes.  The actual words I used in the few posts I offered didn't provide you with ANY hint that I was addressing just one part of the general topic.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 2, 2012)

According to the confused minds or liberals one way to reduce crime is to legalize it. Too many arrests for marijuana possession? Legalize the stuff and the problem goes away. The homosexual pedophile organization NAMBLA has been lobbying the democrat party to legalize consensual sex between men and underage boys. Why not make it legal for mothers to kill their own children under the age of one year or five years or the legal age of 18? Without laws there is no crime. The concept is simple and elegant in a psychotic way.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Actually no. I didn't read through the whole thread, but saw that post and knowing your (educational) background, was rather surprised. I should have realized that here, as on most threads at USMB, the discussion had veered away from the discussion of the article published in the journal to trying to score political points off both sides. So it's my fault for not reading every post up to the point I responded to you. Mea culpa. I wasn't concerned with the political, rather my interest is in the bioethical issues it raised, again from a medical and nursing perspective.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



The degree to which the conversation veered off isn't all that far, actually.

In the OP, the "ethics' debate was focused on the scenario that SOMETIMES it might be ethically permissible to kill a child who survived an abortion attempt.  The circumstances where it was suggested that it MIGHT be ethically/morally appropriate?  The same ones that would have justified an abortion in the first place.

You might consider that a valid "TOPIC for debate."

I do not.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



As a topic of debate on the ethics of that premise? Absolutely. In practice? No.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Oh emmie, stop.
> ...


This may be the path that Hitlers scientist were on also, where as they probably had all sorts of excuses for this kind of rational or type thinking as well.


----------



## Liability (Sep 2, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



If the conclusion is rejected before the debate, then there's no point in the debate.

It is not even a valid topic for an ethics debate.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...





You are being far too kind in your assessment.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I humbly apologize I sometimes speak frankly on subjects.  As pro life bitches about taxpayer dollars being used for abortions.  And that abortions are provided every day at some financial cost their appears to be a value set on a cell.  As I consider a cell to be life as well a cat.  When it comes to humans still debating that.  On top of that human skill humans for all sorts of reasons.  Basically I am comfortable with the two that did the deed, and the woman having access to medical to guide her with what's best to do.  Also giving a woman basically the last call because I respect them as equal no gray areas.

As for my calculation rant on saving taxpayer dollars its basically accurate.  adjust it to today's valuations the last time I did research on these numbers.


tech chair Monday use for abortion


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...







That hurt!








Just learning


----------



## Noomi (Sep 2, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



How many babies have you adopted, Cecile? You care about babies so much, put your money where your mouth is. But, like most pro lifers, you won't.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 2, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The thread is about partial birth abortion. If you knew anything about the subject, you would have KNOWN why I brought up the subject of C sections.

FFS.


----------



## The Professor (Sep 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



While a fetus with moderate to sever hydrocephalus can require a C section, let's put things in perspective.  Only 1 or 2  babies in a 1,000 develop hydrocephalus.  

The Stats

Fetal Hydrocephalus

If you are simply defending that small group of women whose fetuses have been diagnosed with hydrocephalus, you make a legitimate argument.   However, if  you are using them to justify the partial birth procedure for ALL woman I believe your argument fails.   

The one thing I find to be despicable, inhumane and criminal is when a child who is born alive is set aside and allowed to die.    I know this  is accepted by some people, and their arguments are not totally devoid of logic; however, I find the act to be morally repulsive.   I couldn't care less about the rights of the mother in this situation.  If that makes me insensitive to women's rights, so be it.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 2, 2012)

The Professor said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



At least you accept that hydrocephalus exists.

I make no excuses for those women who do not have a good medical reason to abort, but I refuse to judge and condemn a woman who chooses a late term abortion. It is her choice, and not my business.

On the issue of fetuses being born and set aside to die, this is a crime, last I checked. Just because the abortion fails does not give any doctor the right to merely allow the fetus to die. It MUST be saved, and if a healthy fetus was dumped aside to die, then the people responsible should have their balls in a vice.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 2, 2012)

Professor, Liability - 

Questioned about United Kingdom government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and *is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity*."[30]

Intact dilation and extraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...





You're an illogical dim-wit.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

Noomi said:


> On the issue of fetuses being born and set aside to die, this is a crime, last I checked.





You didn't check.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > On the issue of fetuses being born and set aside to die, this is a crime, last I checked.
> ...



I did check. And it should be illegal, if it isn't, then something is seriously wrong.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...




You obviously didn't check if you had to write about it in the conditional.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Oh, STFU.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...





You're a dim-wit. Go throw some shrimp on the barbie and vent your anti-religious bigotry. Stick with what you know.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Your the dimwit because you failed at answering the questions posed to you.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



That statement also makes no sense, but go ahead and ask any serious questions you have if you can make that little pea brain of yours focus long enough to think of them.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 4, 2012)

The democrats like Obama supports POST birth Abortion. He voted for it.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 5, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > *I don't always agree with those who advocate slaughtering infants,
> ...



clicked wrong reply..  oops


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 5, 2012)

Emma said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Oh emmie, stop.
> ...



...... but, if your out you earned the prizes!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 5, 2012)

jillian said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...


Ah - no wonder he's your hero.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 5, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> When republicans and conservatives support living children I'll take them serious,


False premise, that the only way to 'support living children' is the way -you- think they should be supported.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 8, 2012)

hortysir said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Kind of my point.  Just because a couple of nutjobs do or say something, doesn't mean everyone supports it.  Obviously, this one went right over your head.


----------

