The Gaystapo is at it again

[JoeB131]

What about the baby - the innocent child? Imagine the pain....

As opposed to the pain of spina bifida or brittle bone disease or any of the other horrible considitions that late abortion prevents?

 

[Seawytch]

Christ, you make yourself more of a moron every day, just like Trump. A reduction and a removal are not drastically different.

Sweetie...if they were the “same thing” you wouldn’t have used the term “reduction” instead of removal. You were proven wrong and you know it. And now you’re throwing a little tantrum, just like all of the snowflakes on the left when President Trump owns them. From your own link:

Breast reduction can be used to minimize, but not completely eliminate the breasts, and as a result the chest isn’t contoured to appear male.

Removal completely removes (ie total mutilation and attempt to alter gender). Far cry from reduction, sweetie. You know it. I know it. The whole board knows it. Just admit you don’t know shit about your favorite subject and move along.

Sugar, you lied...over and over. First you claimed gender reassignment surgery was being performed on minors, it is not. Then you claimed there's a HUGE difference between reduction and removal. There isn't. The only difference is in the amount of tissue being removed. You then lied and said breast reduction/removal was being done on children as young as six. Another lie.

First kids should never make that kind of decision, ever. Kids are stupid and confused, parents should educate and lead them and when they are of age they can make those decisions, how is this hard to understsnd?

And why are they having ANY surgery? Again the left is fucked up, really sick people

Do you object when 16 year olds get plastic surgery? Breast reductions are reversible.

 

[DBA]

Removing a baby from the womb via c-section is "born". You do realize that babies could be removed from the mother as early as 22 weeks and survive with medical assistance. At 8 months, just imagine how viable the baby is.,and yet you and your ilk are ok with that same baby being killed at any time prior to the woman going into labor., all to protect your ideology and belief that a woman can choose. That is murder, plain and simple. I don't expect you to be moral, you are an anti-religious, liberal Democrat, but at least have some human decency.

I do. I'm not the kind of cocksucker who would make a woman give birth to a dying baby because some Magic Sky Fairy maybe said that was bad, even though most of you are kind of hard pressed to show me in the bible where. (The bible didn't consider you a person until you were a year old, because infant mortality was something like 50%.)

NObody has a late abortion unless something has gone horribly wrong, and you fucks need to mind your own business.

It is our business, just like murder is our business.

You are an immoral, moron. You said you used to be a Republican. You must have been kicked in the head by a donkey because your beliefs, politics and ability to reason are completely antithetical to the Republican Party.

 

[DBA]

What about the baby - the innocent child? Imagine the pain....

As opposed to the pain of spina bifida or brittle bone disease or any of the other horrible considitions that late abortion prevents?

There are no restrictions on late term abortions. A woman can choose to kil her baby if she so chooses 1 day before birth. You are your moronic, unethethical and immoral ilk don't care. It is all about a woman's right to choose, which is assinine.

 

[hadit]

Christ, you make yourself more of a moron every day, just like Trump. A reduction and a removal are not drastically different.

Sweetie...if they were the “same thing” you wouldn’t have used the term “reduction” instead of removal. You were proven wrong and you know it. And now you’re throwing a little tantrum, just like all of the snowflakes on the left when President Trump owns them. From your own link:

Breast reduction can be used to minimize, but not completely eliminate the breasts, and as a result the chest isn’t contoured to appear male.

Removal completely removes (ie total mutilation and attempt to alter gender). Far cry from reduction, sweetie. You know it. I know it. The whole board knows it. Just admit you don’t know shit about your favorite subject and move along.

Don't accept their premise. The purpose of breast reduction is different from the purpose of breast removal. Unless a woman is having a mastectomy done because of cancer or other disease, removing the breasts completely are a cosmetic attempt to appear more masculine, whereas reduction is an attempt to be more comfortable (because large breasts are heavy), yet remain feminine.

 

[j-mac]

So, you're in favor of late term abortion?

I am in favor of letting the woman and her doctor decide what the best course of action is. If they are performing a late trimester abortion (Late term is an inaccurate phrase, if a fetus comes to term it's born) there's usually a damned good reason for it.

Usually? While I agree that there are cases where it would be cruel to force the birth, I wouldn't say usually...In those instances are statistically insignificant when compared to the number of abortions that happen due to pure contraceptive purposes....

 

[JoeB131]

It is our business, just like murder is our business.

You are an immoral, moron. You said you used to be a Republican. You must have been kicked in the head by a donkey because your beliefs, politics and ability to reason are completely antithetical to the Republican Party.

No, I was stabbed in the back by a One Percenter... that's what changed my mind.

I realized that abortion is a "Rube" issue. It's how the One Percenters get the RUBES to vote against their own economic interests by playing on their sexual and religious fears.

Do you think it's a coincidence that abortion NEVER gets banned, (even with 10 of the last 14 SCOTUS appointment being made by Republicans since Roe) but the rich always, always get their tax cuts.

You see, what I realized that was despite a lifetime of Catholic Brainwashing, some of which stuck even after I became an atheist, abortion has no effect on my life. But the One Percenters demolishing the middle class protections year after year... um, yeah, that totally does.

 

[JoeB131]

Usually? While I agree that there are cases where it would be cruel to force the birth, I wouldn't say usually...In those instances are statistically insignificant when compared to the number of abortions that happen due to pure contraceptive purposes....

Contraceptive abortions happen in the first trimester when the fetus is the size of a peanut.

Late abortions are done for solid medical reasons.

 

[JoeB131]

There are no restrictions on late term abortions. A woman can choose to kil her baby if she so chooses 1 day before birth. You are your moronic, unethethical and immoral ilk don't care. It is all about a woman's right to choose, which is assinine.

Yes, a woman is more qualified to make these choices than a politician or a clergyman.

Do you really think there's a woman out there who is killing a healthy fetus one day before birth? Can you cite a case where this has happened? I know this is a wonderful talking point of the Misogynistic InCel Right... the ones who've probably never gotten laid and don't have any say in the matter.

 

[j-mac]

Usually? While I agree that there are cases where it would be cruel to force the birth, I wouldn't say usually...In those instances are statistically insignificant when compared to the number of abortions that happen due to pure contraceptive purposes....

Contraceptive abortions happen in the first trimester when the fetus is the size of a peanut.

Late abortions are done for solid medical reasons.

I already said that if it is medically necessary to save the life of the mother was a call by the doctor...

But, we have seen monsters (my opinion) like Tiller, and Gosnell who seemed perfectly fine killing babies for cash....

I couch my abortion views in terms of three qualifiers...Rape, incest, or medically necessary to save the life of the mother....That's it. Abortion as a contraceptive measure, which is the vast majority of abortions, should NOT be legal. If the woman doesn't want to have a child, then do participate in the activity that causes that to happen....Simple as that.

 

[P@triot]

First you claimed gender reassignment surgery was being performed on minors...

And then I proved it.

Then you claimed there's a HUGE difference between reduction and removal.

Actually, you claimed there was no difference between breast removal and breast reduction (which is fall-down hilarious).

You then lied and said breast reduction/removal was being done on children as young as six.

6-year olds don’t have breasts, you ignorant dolt.

I made no such claim.

 

[P@triot]

And why are they having ANY surgery? Again the left is fucked up, really sick people

Because the Gaystapo soldiers like Seawytch are sick.

And...as proven by me in this thread...astoundingly ignorant of their favorite topic.

 

[JoeB131]

I already said that if it is medically necessary to save the life of the mother was a call by the doctor...

But, we have seen monsters (my opinion) like Tiller, and Gosnell who seemed perfectly fine killing babies for cash....

I couch my abortion views in terms of three qualifiers...Rape, incest, or medically necessary to save the life of the mother....That's it. Abortion as a contraceptive measure, which is the vast majority of abortions, should NOT be legal. If the woman doesn't want to have a child, then do participate in the activity that causes that to happen....Simple as that.

Here's the problem with that. If you really think that fetuses are people, but it's okay to execute them if they are result of rape or incest, then you shouldn't have a problem with executing children who were conceived as a result of rape or incest. The fact that you don't shows that even you recognize that there is a medical/legal/moral difference between a fetus and a baby.

Tiller wasn't in it for the cash, and Gosnell was clearly mentally ill...

Now, with that said, when it becomes "Medically necessary", who makes that call? Um, that would be the same doctors you denounce. What if the pregnancy is merely a threat to her health? What if the fetus is going to be severely deformed and will die within hours of being born? It would seem forcing THOSE pregnancies to come to term would be a lot crueler than aborting a fetus because the girl got drunk at a frat party.

The practical reality is- a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant. If you want them to not choose abortion, then support single payer health care, paid family leave, comprehensive sex education and contraception. But end of the day, still her body... still her choice.

 

[j-mac]

I already said that if it is medically necessary to save the life of the mother was a call by the doctor...

But, we have seen monsters (my opinion) like Tiller, and Gosnell who seemed perfectly fine killing babies for cash....

I couch my abortion views in terms of three qualifiers...Rape, incest, or medically necessary to save the life of the mother....That's it. Abortion as a contraceptive measure, which is the vast majority of abortions, should NOT be legal. If the woman doesn't want to have a child, then do participate in the activity that causes that to happen....Simple as that.

Here's the problem with that. If you really think that fetuses are people, but it's okay to execute them if they are result of rape or incest, then you shouldn't have a problem with executing children who were conceived as a result of rape or incest. The fact that you don't shows that even you recognize that there is a medical/legal/moral difference between a fetus and a baby.

Tiller wasn't in it for the cash, and Gosnell was clearly mentally ill...

Now, with that said, when it becomes "Medically necessary", who makes that call? Um, that would be the same doctors you denounce. What if the pregnancy is merely a threat to her health? What if the fetus is going to be severely deformed and will die within hours of being born? It would seem forcing THOSE pregnancies to come to term would be a lot crueler than aborting a fetus because the girl got drunk at a frat party.

The practical reality is- a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant. If you want them to not choose abortion, then support single payer health care, paid family leave, comprehensive sex education and contraception. But end of the day, still her body... still her choice.

Don't get ahead of yourself Joe....Assigning motives to me rather than having a discussion with me is a loser for you....

In the cases of rape/incest the victim would have to carry out this before a heartbeat is detected or have the baby....

 

[JoeB131]

Don't get ahead of yourself Joe....Assigning motives to me rather than having a discussion with me is a loser for you....

In the cases of rape/incest the victim would have to carry out this before a heartbeat is detected or have the baby....

Again, why? If fetuses are people, then you can't execute them for crimes of their dads...

 

[j-mac]

Don't get ahead of yourself Joe....Assigning motives to me rather than having a discussion with me is a loser for you....

In the cases of rape/incest the victim would have to carry out this before a heartbeat is detected or have the baby....

Again, why? If fetuses are people, then you can't execute them for crimes of their dads...

Once it has a heartbeat, IMHO, it is a human life....But, I do see what you are saying, keep going and I could be persuaded to change my opinion to nothing but medical necessity to save the life of the mother.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here's the problem with that. If you really think that fetuses are people, but it's okay to execute them if they are result of rape or incest, then you shouldn't have a problem with executing children who were conceived as a result of rape or incest. The fact that you don't shows that even you recognize that there is a medical/legal/moral difference between a fetus and a baby.

Don't get ahead of yourself Joe....Assigning motives to me rather than having a discussion with me is a loser for you....

In the cases of rape/incest the victim would have to carry out this before a heartbeat is detected or have the baby....

Now, look what you've done. You've put me in the position of almost agreeing with JoeB131 on an important point.

Taking the life of a human being, especially an innocent human being, is an extremely drastic act, that is only ever acceptable under extremely drastic circumstances.

Having been conceived as a result of an act of rape is absolutely •NOT• a drastic enough circumstance to justify the killing of an innocent human being. The baby did not have any willing part in that crime, and it cannot be justified to put him to death for that crime. To even make that argument undermines the position that an unborn child is a human being, whose own right to life deserves to be protected, even if the circumstances of his existence are seriously inconvenient to someone else.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, why? If fetuses are people, then you can't execute them for crimes of their dads...

Once it has a heartbeat, IMHO, it is a human life....But, I do see what you are saying, keep going and I could be persuaded to change my opinion to nothing but medical necessity to save the life of the mother.

Once it becomes a diploid organism of the species Homo Sapiens, with its own unique genetic pattern that distinguishes it as a separate organism from its parents, it becomes a human life. That is when its own life begins. That is the point where something exists, that did not exist at all just before. From that point, until the end of its life, hopefully many decades later, every change that it undergoes is just a matter of development and aging, and not of anything new suddenly coming into existence.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What about the baby - the innocent child? Imagine the pain....

As opposed to the pain of spina bifida or brittle bone disease or any of the other horrible considitions that late abortion prevents?

What about the baby - the innocent child? Imagine the pain....

As opposed to the pain of spina bifida or brittle bone disease or any of the other horrible considitions that late abortion prevents?

Not only is spina bifida exceedingly rare the condition is operable in utero. It is no longer a death sentence. Should children who have spinal injuries be put to death?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There are no restrictions on late term abortions. A woman can choose to kil her baby if she so chooses 1 day before birth. You are your moronic, unethethical and immoral ilk don't care. It is all about a woman's right to choose, which is assinine.

Yes, a woman is more qualified to make these choices than a politician or a clergyman.

Do you really think there's a woman out there who is killing a healthy fetus one day before birth? Can you cite a case where this has happened? I know this is a wonderful talking point of the Misogynistic InCel Right... the ones who've probably never gotten laid and don't have any say in the matter.

There are certainly women who murder their children immediately after birth. Or are you denying that happens?