"I Had an Abortion"

[Vox]

It has been PROVEN experimentally that babies feel pain in utero at 18 weeks gestational age - PROVEN, not speculated - and there are many signs that the babies feel pain much earlier than that.

Pure steaming bullshit. You're just making crap up, because you know jack about the actual science. But then, you're a pro-lifer, so that's a given. People who know the science become pro-choice.

I'll help you out. Plants show a stress response to injury, but that doesn't mean plants feel pain. Feeling pain requires a working conscious brain.

And I'd tell you when that happens, but I find it more amusing to watch you flail about and make more stuff up.

Why do you support infanticide?

because she is a vagina with vocal cords, not a human being.

 

[thanatos144]

I find the act of infanticide a very good comparison with Nazi's I mean hell we all know you socialists have this need to KILL all you feel is UNWORTHY.

You understand you're mentally ill, right?

What, has no one informed of that before?

Consider this to be your intervention. You need help. As do most of the pro-lifers on this thread. Y'all just aren't right in the head.

So in your mind a person who thinks infanticide is sick practice makes me mentally ill? You truly are a evil person.

 

[JoeB131]

[

yes it is a big deal. there is no reason to have an abortion after 20 weeks, but a c-section.
If you are human, not dr. mengele.

Actually, surviability at 20 weeks is ZERO.

Surviability at 21 weeks is ZERO.

At 23 weeks, it's 17%.

the insanity that you are going to cut a fetus out of a woman to make her watch it die anyway is really the kind of mad science Dr. Mengele would have liked.

 

[JoeB131]

[qu

Jesus, you don't find anything wrong with a 43 year old having sex with a 13 year old? What a sick bastard. Guess you missed where she also said this: "Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[15] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[16][17] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop."; "Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual"; "Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction"; "In a 2003 interview,[13] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong."; "decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family."

He raped her.

When the 13 year old's m other is pimping her out, no, I don't think that's a big deal.

 

[thanatos144]

[qu

Jesus, you don't find anything wrong with a 43 year old having sex with a 13 year old? What a sick bastard. Guess you missed where she also said this: "Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[15] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[16][17] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop."; "Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual"; "Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction"; "In a 2003 interview,[13] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong."; "decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family."

He raped her.

When the 13 year old's m other is pimping her out, no, I don't think that's a big deal.

I hope you never have kids for their sake.

 

[JoeB131]

[qu

Jesus, you don't find anything wrong with a 43 year old having sex with a 13 year old? What a sick bastard. Guess you missed where she also said this: "Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[15] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[16][17] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop."; "Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual"; "Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction"; "In a 2003 interview,[13] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong."; "decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family."

He raped her.

When the 13 year old's m other is pimping her out, no, I don't think that's a big deal.

I hope you never have kids for their sake.

Well, here's the thing. If I did, I wouldn't take a bunch of money to leave one alone with a lecherous movie director, which is exactly what this girl's mother did.

Which is why the prosecutor said, "Meh, no big deal" and decided to go for probation.

 

[thanatos144]

When the 13 year old's m other is pimping her out, no, I don't think that's a big deal.

I hope you never have kids for their sake.

Well, here's the thing. If I did, I wouldn't take a bunch of money to leave one alone with a lecherous movie director, which is exactly what this girl's mother did.

Which is why the prosecutor said, "Meh, no big deal" and decided to go for probation.

So you advocate abusing kids if they are not killed in utero. Like I said you are a sick fuck.

 

[JoeB131]

I hope you never have kids for their sake.

Well, here's the thing. If I did, I wouldn't take a bunch of money to leave one alone with a lecherous movie director, which is exactly what this girl's mother did.

Which is why the prosecutor said, "Meh, no big deal" and decided to go for probation.

So you advocate abusing kids if they are not killed in utero. Like I said you are a sick fuck.

This girl and her mother knew EXACTLY what they were doing. This was an extortion plan from the get-go.

Roman Polanski rape victim now takes less horrified view - Hot Topics

But Geimer, now 50 and author of a just-released autobiography called “The Girl: My Life in the Shadow of Roman Polanski,” told the “Today Show” this week that she didn’t consider the incident as horrific as seemingly everyone else did.

“How do I feel about him? I hope he is well,” she says on the show. “I was 13, that makes it rape. But I didn’t experience it that way. In my mind, I didn’t know that was illegal. I didn’t understand he could go to jail for it. I was young.”

 

[Vox]

[

yes it is a big deal. there is no reason to have an abortion after 20 weeks, but a c-section.
If you are human, not dr. mengele.

Actually, surviability at 20 weeks is ZERO.

Surviability at 21 weeks is ZERO.

At 23 weeks, it's 17%.

the insanity that you are going to cut a fetus out of a woman to make her watch it die anyway is really the kind of mad science Dr. Mengele would have liked.

so?
what has survivability at 20 weeks to do with the baby feeling excruciating pain in utero when being cut to pieces?
c-section spares that pain. and there is never a dire need to perform an abortion at 20 weeks and not to wait to 25 or even 30 to perform a c-section and give a baby higher chances for survival.

if one is not dr. mengele, obviously, one understands that there is absolutely no reason to torture the baby to pieces in utero instead of delivering the baby via c-section

 

[JoeB131]

[

yes it is a big deal. there is no reason to have an abortion after 20 weeks, but a c-section.
If you are human, not dr. mengele.

Actually, surviability at 20 weeks is ZERO.

Surviability at 21 weeks is ZERO.

At 23 weeks, it's 17%.

the insanity that you are going to cut a fetus out of a woman to make her watch it die anyway is really the kind of mad science Dr. Mengele would have liked.

so?
what has survivability at 20 weeks to do with the baby feeling excruciating pain in utero when being cut to pieces?
c-section spares that pain. and there is never a dire need to perform an abortion at 20 weeks and not to wait to 25 or even 30 to perform a c-section and give a baby higher chances for survival.

if one is not dr. mengele, obviously, one understands that there is absolutely no reason to torture the baby to pieces in utero instead of delivering the baby via c-section

Frankly, you haven't demonstrated to me that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks.

This is a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor...

NOT a bunch of religious idiots trying to impose their bronze age superstitions on the rest of us.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Or gov't bureaucrats
even if the woman wants to keep the baby

we can't have some sickly kid costing the gov't money

 

[JoeB131]

Or gov't bureaucrats
even if the woman wants to keep the baby

we can't have some sickly kid costing the gov't money

Please point out where the govenrment has ever coerced a woman into having an abortion.

Thanks.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Not saying they did

but they should
don't you agree

 

[JoeB131]

Not saying they did

but they should
don't you agree

No, not really.

I think that this decision should be between a woman and her doctor, and I've said this pretty consistantly all along.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So the state should decide end of life issues
but not these where a birth defect could cost the state money
in the long run.

Seems inconsistent

 

[JoeB131]

So the state should decide end of life issues
but not these where a birth defect could cost the state money
in the long run.

Seems inconsistent

When did anyone say the state should decide "end of life" issues?

Guy, you are setting up straw men to knock down because you aren't winning the argument at hand.

 

[Neotrotsky]

In another post thread
you seemed to agree with the concept of the state
denying medical care for terminal ill or coma patients, against the person or family wishes

So what is different?




Oh yes
I forgot you are one of those posters that likes to claim or imply they always won
in some way.

Straw man
not at all , avoidance on your part sure
easy question

 

[JoeB131]

In another post thread
you seemed to agree with the concept of the state
denying medical care for terminal ill or coma patients, against the person or family wishes

So what is different?


Oh yes
I forgot you are one of those posters that likes to claim or imply they always won
in some way.

Straw man
not at all , avoidance on your part sure
easy question

First, can you produce that thread and point out EXACTLY what I said.

Second, refusing to pay for a treatment is not the same as the state euthanizing someone. Most medical plans don't pay for quack treatments desperate people want.

So please, please, please keep beating that straw man.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well, if didn't so sorry

So
You do agree with denying end of life/coma care
but don't want the state to require abortions for birth defects?

Again no straw man
easy question that you seem to avoid

If you makes you feel better
we can just say later that you "won"

 

[JoeB131]

Well, if didn't so sorry

So
You do agree with denying end of life/coma care
but don't want the state to require abortions for birth defects?

Again no straw man
easy question that you seem to avoid

If you makes you feel better
we can just say later that you "won"

No, I don't think that end of life care should be denied, and by the way, Medicare largely doesn't. 11% of Medical spending in the US is on treatments for terminally ill people who are going to die regardless of their treatment. So no one is denying anyone anything.

But you keep beating that straw man of something no one actually said, about a subject that is completely irrelevent to the issue at hand.

Yes or no, if a WOMAN and HER DOCTOR conclude that abortion is the best course of treatment, then no one else should be involved, correct?