Sane conversation about abortion

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

If you mean "colonoscopies," I certainly do agree. LOL!

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Arrghh spelling again. Give them everything we can think of. Who could have imagined this stuff?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's far worse than anything Larry "Wag the Dog" Beinhart could come up with, for sure. A farce beyond all farces.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

That is so breath-takingly clueless —about children, their inability to make choices in their best interest, and about your adult responsibility to your 9-year-old to make choices for her in her best interest— that I am infuriated.

Coming from someone who requires one to condone sucking the fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wants it in order not to be considered 'misogynist', your 'infuriation' underwhelms me. What you seem to fail to recognize and/or acknowledge is your presumption that a 9 year old wants to kill the baby. You claimed something about 'being raped twice' if forced to have the baby--yet, you seem to believe that a 9 year being forced to kill her offspring--no matter what you think about the issue--may, also, consider herself 'being raped twice'. I suspect that, in the way that you and your clan like to prejudice this issue, you believe that a 9 year old would agree with you that the fetus was responsible for her raped condition--but, perhaps, you aren't giving the 9 year old enough credit to know that is not the case. Killing the fetus does not solve the rape. And, by the way, if I'm that girl's father, I don't need your input on how to raise her unless you plan on taking over the job. Got that? Your 'community' doesn't raise my child....and, judging by the way you want all fetuses to be treated (even as their brains are sucked out right before birth if you want it), I'm not sure if 'your community' is one that would, say, invite your dogs in as family companions--or eat them for lunch--you seem to have no more regard for any fetus at any stage than as a dog being eaten in Asia as their 'community interest' indicates....and, none of this can be considered as having any more rights than a dog, can it, Zenzoe?

Now, what are you going to do with the rapist? See to it that the rapist gets 'rehabilitated' and holds hands with you and sings Kumbaya along with the others of your 'non-judgmental clan' as you stand by and have the brains sucked out of the fetus as an 'answer' to that rapist's 'abuse'? Your sense of justice seems to lack a component of honesty and integrity in judgment if you really think that killing the fetus addresses the rape....and I do believe that even a 9 year old could tell that....

And, aborting the fetus without telling the 9 year old what you are doing, and why you think that it should be done, is no less a 'rape' than having her have the child....and it does NOT address what you are going to do with the rapist....I've noticed how all of you conveniently ignore explaining how you would handle any abuser as you readily kill the fetus under the pretense of such abuse as your excuse to make for an elective abortion....DRC loves to 'rehabilitate' the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer--but, says nothing about what 'rehabilitation' and 'understanding of motives' DRC would offer someone who murders a late stage abortionist...what hypocrites you are....

Let me reiterate this point once again because of the attempts made here to distract from what elective abortions are really about: There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus in any circumstance. The only indication to kill a normal fetus is that the mother wants it--that is what elective abortions are all about. There is no judgment of the physician that qualifies that decision. Even Zenzoe's example of a 21 weeker with pre-eclampsia having her life threatened does NOT make it where the fetus has to be killed before bringing it out. There are other ways of monitering and controlling the issues of pre-eclampsia without killing the fetus (and no term pre-eclamptic woman ever has her fetus killed in order to 'save her life'). However, if the fetus needs to come as a resolution to the threats of pregnancy to the woman, that does NOT require that the fetus be killed before doing it despite what those who more militantly posture as THE 'condition' required to remove all semblances of 'misogyny' that any fetus be allowed to be killed at any stage of pregnancy. It's not medically indicated--and it never was. The only reason to kill a normal fetus is that the mother wants it. And, in the event of a child being abused, 'speaking for that child' doesn't address the very personal issues that child may have even in a pregnancy created by abuse--especially if domestic abuse, that child may have a lot of issues involving 'feeling loved' herself that she may think that having her own child may answer--and preemptively killing her child for YOUR answer may not help unless there has been some intentions on addressing that child having a child's feelings on the matter....and, unlike the so-called 'adults' on this thread, I suspect that the child that even has a pregnancy caused by an abusive sitaution realizes that the fetus didn't 'cause' it....

Quote Zenzoe:

No little girl on planet earth would choose to "kill her baby," as you no doubt would explain it to her, manipulatively. But that's exactly what would be in her best interest.

You have no idea what you are talking about, Zenzoe. That 9 year old has been put into a precarious situation and that needs to be recognized up front--in some ways, no matter how you 'solve' this with the fetus, that child has lost her childhood--however, as your only answer being 'kill the fetus' (without once addressing the abuser), I suspect that your 'answer' isn't going to address all her concerns in this issue, either....

Quote Zenzoe:

That's the whole point, right, Kerry? You don't care what's in the best interest of a pregnant child, or a woman, for that matter. It's irrelevant.

What pretense are you using to come up with that crap, Zenzoe? Do you think that holding hands and singing Kumbaya as you suck her fetus's brains out 'answers' this? Then, why aren't YOU saying how you are going to deal with the abuser? In the interests of 'rehabilitating' him and having him 'rejoin the community', hold hands with him and sing Kumbaya as the fetus (and the 9 year old mother) suffers the consequences of the act?

You people are incredible. You have no shame. DRC wants to rehabilitate the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer as some gesture of civility--but, none of you seem to think that sucking the brains out of a fetus right before birth--as your militant posturing insists is required not for you to label someone 'misogynist'--is not, itself, a direct assault on common decency. And, coming from those who claim to be 'so compassionate', you actually should consider that point. But, instead, you posture on with all sorts of hyperbole on your own on how 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and even the threats to the mother's life' are even realistic excuses to 'suck the fetus's brains out right before birth' in the issue of elective abortions. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--there may be personal, social, and, if you want to take it that far, political ones (like the issue of overcrowding being answered in China by allowing only one child per family with forced abortions to anyone that doesn't adhere to that law), but there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus in any circumstance....

I see that there have been many posts since I've been gone. I'll read the others--but only answer those addressed to me specifically....

I will add that Fletcher Christian in post #874 offers the very point that I use to indicate that, if every conception were, indeed, a 'life' that God intended on it being 'lived', why so many miscarriages? As I was taught, 20% of all pregnancies end up being miscarried--or what is medically termed 'spontaneous abortions'. And, while no pregnancy is an absolute guarantee to be without risk at any stage (for the fetus or the mother, for that matter), the farther along in the gestation the mother goes, the more likely the fetus will survive outside of the womb. While I am all for the mother choosing for any reason to end her pregnancy before fetal viability (an issue that usually can be handled in the privacy of a doctor's office), I am against having to kill the fetus before brining it out in order to make sure it doesn't live in the later stages of pregnancy (an issue that has more risks of complications, anyway, and, therefore, one that may require a hospital bed or surgery suite and involve more people than just the 'privacy' of the doctor and the mother wanting to abort and, despite how this is postured here, sucking the brains out, or killing in any way, a fetus near term is an assault on common decency to many good people that may be witnessing it and that should be considered in any situation where the choice is to kill that fetus at a stage when it could be born alive). If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. By the way, a fetus in a fallopian tube wouldn't survive long enough to be delivered alive. No spontaneous abortion in the early stages of pregnancy ever comes out alive because the very act of uterine contractions to abort it kills the fetus....early gestational life is quite precarious--but, obviously, that improves as the pregnancy goes along....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, I said that I wasn't going to address any other posts, specifically, but I had to comment on what skip530 says in post #876:

Lastly, this whole debate or argument is being used by both of our politrical parties to keep us fighting each other rather than coming together to solve the problems that we face.

There are those here, like DRC, who constantly claims being for a 'both/and' and not an 'either/or' manner of addressing and thinking on social problems. However, despite any of the claims on sanity (and certainly rationally), otherwise, on this particular issue, there is no 'both/and' to their posture. It is 'either' you accept sucking the brains out of the fetus right before birth 'or' be labelled 'misogynist'. Medically speaking, there is never a medical indication to posture an 'either/or' issue between a normal fetus and its mother as being 'either' the fetus's life 'or' the mother's life as having to be decided. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. But, despite any previous posturing done by DRC and this clan before, only in this 'special' circumstance in order not to be labelled 'misogynist', you do have to play up to it being 'either the mother or the fetus'.....even if you offer such a 'balance' as allowing abortions for any reason prior to fetal viability....that's just not enough for those who posture with a more militant position to kill the fetus at any stage for any reason to 'empower women'.....and it is militant because it has exactly the same characteristics and qualities of dehumanizing to kill in war--and regardless of what common decency it may insult in doing so....yet, without once recognizing their own incongruities in such a militant stance, claim for 'their group' that they, alone, are 'sane', 'civil', and, of course, 'community-interested'....

And, another from skip530 in post #881:

What is this wonderfull feeling of liberation, is it primarily from economic worry? Is it from worry of responsibility for another person, is it a supposed freedom from guilt?

This 'conversation' has gone on long enough for me to note that those who are for 'empowering women' with it having to be the choice to abort at any stage in pregnancy (right up to sucking out the fetal brains right before birth) seem to be deadset against any sense of personal responsibility (and, without it, how that really 'empowers women', I don't know). Somehow, their form of 'sane community' appears to lack personal responsibility--and how they actually think that will work out in a society with any semblance of coherence, justice, and fairness, I have no earthly idea. They seem to claim that their 'community interest' above and beyond any rational thought has that all covered--but I, as 'insane' as I may be, sincerely doubt it. And, like them holding hands and singing Kumbaya as the fetal brains are being sucked out (and, maybe, as the rapist who created the fetus holds hands with them), I doubt they can even address abuse in a fair and just manner that considers personal responsibility in any of this--which I think sometimes requires punishment to the gross abuser and unrepentant (who, as my second rate horror film analogy indicates to me, seems to get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya right along with them as the fetal brains are sucked out). And, as they condone killing the fetus at any stage (even to the point of having its brains sucked out right before birth), they think that all other forms of killing (even if legally due processed and found guilty of the most horrendous of crimes--such as a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer) are too 'uncivilized' and 'inhumane'....but, no personal responsibility (only 'community caring') is what they claim is the 'sane' posture.....the 'fair and just' posture--and, of course, they disqualified 'rational' considerations (certainly of 'personal responsibility' and 'individual rights') quite a while back...when you think about it, it's really a surreal situation that they offer as 'sane and real and just'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We cannot even have a sane conversation about contraception or anything dealing with women's health. Keep the law out of it because it can only punish women in a misogynist culture. That is the bottom line.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

When, in fact, as Dr. Kerry has contended, a viable fetus (one that has attained the ability to live outside the mother's womb never presents a threat to the mother's life.

Well, what I mean to say is that even if a viable fetus is in a pregnancy that poses a threat to the mother's life, killing that fetus doesn't answer it. Removing that fetus may--but that doesn't require killing it before being removed. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. The only reason to kill a normal fetus is if the mother wants to. And, that is what elective abortions are all about despite the attempts here to use their own form of hyperbole in claiming 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and risks to the mother', otherwise, implies. Not one of those situations medically requires killing the fetus to address the issue. Not one.

That's why elective abortions are a legal and political issue--not a medical one. One that I think rightfully concerns 'the contention of rights' it involves--just like how Roe vs. Wade addressed it those many years ago....a contention of rights--individual rights...but, the 'community caring' group here thinks that, with me being a self-professed 'leftist libertarian' intent on the priority of government to maintain its American classical basis as 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights', that that stand of 'emphasizing the political premise of individual rights' is being 'too selfish'....however:

Quote Zenzoe:

It takes courage to make a decision in your own best interest.

'A decision in your own best interest'. Is that not the epitome of a 'selfish cause'? I know how you people claim to be 'beyond rationalism'--but does that also mean that you are beyond any consistency in your own posturing? Being for the political intent of 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights' is 'too selfish'--but, making a decision in your own best interest isn't? You all tolerate in your friends what you condemn in your enemies--and you claim to be the more 'enlightened' ones? More 'community caring' ones?

I have no problem with the selfish intent of 'deciding what's in your own best interest'--but I do believe it has to take in the personal responsibility of such decisions. When it comes to the right to decide--the individual right to decide--it has to be with the recognition that that requires one to have the personal responsibility for such a decision and such a right. And, any right to choice is OK as long as it doesn't interfere with another's right. And, as Roe vs. Wade acknowledged all those years ago, that's what this whole issue of elective abortion is all about. The mother's right to choose to abort as long as the fetus has no right to life....and, as the political and legal issue that this is, there will have to be a consensus as to what that entails. For me, a mother has the right to decide to end that pregnancy for any reason before fetal viability. After that, if the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. As also Roe vs. Wade recognized, without the right to life, you cannot have any other right....and, this is more than considering it like dogs with 'rights' where one community treats them as family companions and the other eats them for lunch.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

We cannot even have a sane conversation about contraception or anything dealing with women's health. Keep the law out of it because it can only punish women in a misogynist culture. That is the bottom line.

There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. What are you saying is to direct these decisions if it isn't considered in its legal and political context? As a contention of rights like Roe vs. Wade deliberated on those many years ago.....

Since there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus, even having the doctor and the mother the 'right to privacy' to determine the outcome of that pregnancy takes a legal (and political) determination to have it so....otherwise, as before, it would all be illegal.....that's the real bottom line to this issue of elective abortions....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have had it with you. Don't mention me in your posts.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, you forgot to address this one, from me: "...to defend the “innocent” fetus makes one an innocent too; it puts one on the side of the angels, erasing one’s own guilt and ensuring one’s entry into heaven. You can be cruel, condemn to punishment, to hell on earth, the criminals, the “enemies” abroad and within, the homosexuals, the animal-rights-activists, the tree-huggers, and, yes, all those “evil women” who defy the law and hierarchy set by God, by wanting to control their reproductive destinies; but no matter how vile your hatred for the Other, in violation of the teachings of Jesus, you will not be condemned yourself. You have sided with The Good, with “Life.” You, by your innocence, now have permission to judge.

Then our “pro-choice” position comes along, threatening to eliminate the very tool of your absolution! We refuse to grant any right to control the reproductive lives of women, defying your world-view, but worse, we remind you of your own guilty secrets, your own lusts, your own cowardice, your own fear of the freedom of self-determination. "

Moving on...

Kerry wrote: "Since there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus, even having the doctor and the mother the 'right to privacy...' You're wrong on both counts. On the first, you simply refuse to accept the medical indications that support our view; on the second, it's not about "right to privacy." It's about the right to the same self-determination that men have; it's about discrimination, Kerry. I realize Roe didn't address discrimination, but that's what women face, when their lives are put last in the equation.

DRC, I'm so glad you're on this forum, a man who truly loves women. I have to thank you, and D_NATURED, and Ulysses, and all the men who support women's health and freedom. And thank you for treating this as an important subject.

I'm sure Kerry feels he loves women too; after all, he is in favor of abortion up until viability. But he wants, mistakenly, I believe, to expand his "love" to what he probably views as an "innocent," in an absolutist way, one that disregards many factors the rest of us find relevant. It's a black and white world, right Kerry? Well, I'm willing to agree to disagree. How about you?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have had it with you. Don't mention me in your posts.

So says the 'compassionate' one intent on forgiving the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer as a 'civil' gesture (to be 'rehabilitated and understood' without once claiming what to do with one who murders a late stage abortionist)--yet stand by without a word when there is talk of sucking a fetus's brains out right before birth (because, to question its civility, one gets accused of being 'misogynist')--and, of course, condemning me to hell, anyway......is that a 'both/and' instead of 'either/or' posturing on your part?

Regardless of what has been postured with here, I really do believe that Roe vs. Wade's deliberations on this issue are spot on--of all the issues that affect the function of our society, and despite any 'compassionate cause' for or against this issue, this issue is one of recognizing and prioritizing individual rights. As a mother deciding on the outcome of her pregnancy before any issue of fetal viability intervenes and interferes. But, those here claim this isn't an issue of rights and its personal responsibility--and, to those, I would say that they don't deserve the rights this really entails. And, when the conservatives get a 'right to life at conception' passed in any state in this nation, you will deserve what you get as your own hyperbole clouds the issue of choice and rights that this issue legally and politically really contains....just like Roe vs. Wade acknowledged (as did many Supreme Court cases of the past--including Griswald vs. Connecticut concerning birth control and individual rights).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You know, I'm not quite sure why I keep being categorized as being against the choice of the mother since I do not believe that I have veered one bit from the idea that the mother has that choice (for any or no reason at all--much less this bullshit being offered as a 'victimhood triumphant' posture of 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or risks to the mother') before fetal viability (outside of the womb) ensues--something that Texas law has always carried as 'the limit to legal elective abortions' (20 weeks gestation) since the Roe vs. Wade decision (and, according to Zenzoe, California law is even veering more towards that 'limit' since they have reduced the legal gestational age of elective abortions from term--as I remember it being when Roe vs. Wade was being deliberated upon--to 24 weeks--but, of course, those 4 'extra weeks' get me and my state branded as 'misogynist'). So, I make no limits to the mother's choice when the issue of fetal viability isn't an issue. However, I do expect the mother to be (personally) responsible for the outcome of the fetus once viability does exist. This has been my position all along.

Zenzoe, there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. In other words, in issues of 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or risks to the mother', it is NOT medically required to kill the fetus in any of those circumstances. The only indication to kill a normal fetus is when the mother wants to. That is it. I know that places a lot of rights and responsibility on the mother than you and your clan want to condition with all sorts of dire situations in which, in effect, are to have one condone 'sucking out the fetal brains right before birth', but there is NO medical indication to have that be done under any circumstance up to, and including, the real physical risks to the life of the mother....nothing medically requires a normal fetus to be killed before being delivered....nothing....

Quote Zenzoe:

It's about the right to the same self-determination that men have; it's about discrimination, Kerry. I realize Roe didn't address discrimination, but that's what women face, when their lives are put last in the equation.

Oh, I think that Susan Wellington, the attorney for Roe, very much realized how this involved self-determination--and the individual right to have it. But, unlike any other issue that affects society, I also believe that Roe vs. Wade realized how much of a responsibility a pregnancy is and how a state may fairly act in the interest of the fetus to endorse such responsibility if it saw fit to do so. That's why this individual right wasn't absolute (to every woman across the nation) except to 12 weeks gestation--after which, any state could interfere with that right in the interest of the fetus. Some states at the time (New York and California) has no restrictions all the way to term--some, such as Utah, restricted it past 12 weeks. Texas decided upon the limit being the limit of fetal viability that has, for the past 40 years (and it has gotten no better), been documented as 20 weeks gestation (as the earliest any fetus has survived outside of the womb). Remember, this is the entire issue that separates our positions. I am not going to condone 'sucking out the fetal brains right before birth' just to have you not call me 'misogynist'......I do see where personal responsibility is needed in this decision.....and common decency has its limits....

By the way, once again, as a self-proclaimed leftist libertarian who wants government to prioritize 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights' that has been called 'selfish' in that position, how 'selfless' is 'self-determination' and the right to have it? Really.....

Quote Zenzoe:

It's a black and white world, right Kerry?

As 'black and white' as you calling anyone that doesn't condone sucking fetal brains out right before birth 'misogynist', right Zenzoe? Insisting that an assault on common decency has to be condoned to remove that label. As you swoon over all those men that say they value women and their choices by singing Kumbaya and holding your hand as the fetal brains are sucked out right before birth to 'prove it' to you....regardless of any sense against common decency that others may hold with that very situation....

Quote Zenzoe:

Well, I'm willing to agree to disagree. How about you?

Well, I want a specific instance where you say that any medical professional that you can consult and/or quote that claims that there is a medical indication to kill a normal fetus. I won't 'agree' to that--nor 'agree to disagree'. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance....there may be a medical indication to end the pregnancy but that never has to include killing a normal fetus before doing it....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
This 'conversation' has gone on long enough for me to note that those who are for 'empowering women' with it having to be the choice to abort at any stage in pregnancy (right up to sucking out the fetal brains right before birth) seem to be deadset against any sense of personal responsibility (and, without it, how that really 'empowers women', I don't know).

There's a lot you don't know. What you do know is how to consistently mischaracterize and lie about the opposition's arguments.

Three months, Kerry. That's your whole argument in a nutshell. You feel it's a crime to "kill" a fetus but you don't mind if people starve to death as children. You have put this issue under your little "Jesus and freinds" microscope and ignored the larger crime your position results in. Then, you have attempted to accuse the opposition of not seeing the minutia you dwell upon. You accuse the left of abandoning "personal responsibility" while you willfully ignore the idea of societal responsibility.

I know, you feel small next to Jesus and everything seems large under the microscope but if you would pull away from the eye-piece, you'll see there is more to the debate than dead fetuses. There are live women who have value to us all. When, Kerry, will you take responsibility for how society treats them?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

BTW, Z, thanks for the kind words regarding courage. Very few people are willing to encourage my anti-religious (or anti-external god) stance. I am supposed to tolerate everyone else's stupid ideas if they are well intended, apparently, though-like you-I feel the proof is in the puddin'. If the ideology in question does not work for humans, IT DOESN'T WORK! Whether it works for imaginary spirits existing in another dimension, nobody can know and I wouldn't even speculate on such an absurd notion.

The abortion debate, even absent a religious perspective, is still religion-like to some people (Kerry), who don't look at the whole but, instead, focus on their own relevance-or lack thereof- in the debate. As a man and an alleged doctor, I feel he thinks he deserves some say in women's reproductive rights and is frustrated by the idea that he might impregnate a woman and then lose the ability to further control her for the next nine months (or the last three months) of gestation. It is the legal expression of male human arrogance and insecurity.

What this country needs is more confident men and less frightened children in man suits.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

You say that, D_NATURED, as you ignore how much of an assault on common decency that sucking the fetal brains out at birth would be to many decent people. If you think that it takes people having to put up with you sucking the fetal brains out right before birth before you can be deemed not 'misogynist', it is you that lacks any personal responsibility or recognition of that responsibility to pregnancy. Perhaps all you want to do is be free of any responsibility in yourself for an act of sexual intercourse that leads to pregnancy--and, then, make the woman responsible for the results--just like how not one of you have responded as to what you would do with the rapist except to kill the fetus as the product in 'answering it'. 'I'll respect you in the morning, honey'--look at those brains come oozing out at your request right before birth (oh, I'm sorry, is that 'hyperbole'? Or, reality?).....You all do keep a tight lip on addressing that as Zenzoe offers the excuse to kill the fetus in such dire circumstances as, somehow, addressing those circumstances--and the one who caused it--which, of course, it does not. Nor does it really address the real issue behind elective abortions....

But, do recognize something here, D_NATURED. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--and that is even the risk of life to the mother. A fetus can quickly come out without taking the time to kill it by C-section. It's bullshit for you to use the excuse you offer of two women you know who died in childbirth.

So, the entire issue of elective abortions is aborting the pregnancy as the mother chooses--and only as the mother chooses. Are you ready to discuss this issue on those grounds--or, is there going to be another excuse offered by you and your cohorts to 'justify' it, otherwise? And, tell me, how does any other 'justification' other than by the choice of the woman 'empower' that woman, D_NATURED? And, by what mechanism of law justifies that 'empowerment'? Would it be anything like a RIGHT? And, is that 'selfish'--or not? Watch your lip here--your cohorts are reading this....individual rights don't seem to go with your Kumbaya moments as you suck those fetal brains out at birth to remove any semblance of 'misogyny'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I wish we had a "like" button, next to "reply" and the rest. I'd hit that one for D_NATURED's comments there. As it is, right now, I couldn't say it better, or add anything much.

I do wonder how it would be, if the "every sperm is sacred" faction had the government in its grip. Would men then not be allowed to have vasectomies? Would those nuts want to own men's penises too?

Don't let your beetle brain get sucked out, like that. It's a very ugly thing.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

By the way, this has nothing to do with 'religion'--if it did, I'd be talking like the one that condemned me to hell and claim all that fetal brain-sucking right before birth was about 'compassion'. I know it's not. And, if 'compassion' is to guide this, I, also, know that there is a political component to this that claims 'compassion' for the fetus despite all of your militant views on condoning 'sucking the fetal brains out right at birth'. One way or the other, 'compassion' should not guide this. As Roe vs. Wade notes, in reality, this is guided by, and has always been guided by, the political and legal recognition of rights and the contentions that can hold....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

For whining and victimization, the loghorheal one is a prime example. Enough.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The real question to consider here is what is the real component of power--or what should be the real component of a power based on anything like social fairness and justice as can be determined by anyone that considers it? Is that 'community compassion'--directed on dogs in such a varying way as to have them as a family companion in one community but the next meal in another? Which 'community' has the 'right compassion'? What determines the 'right compassion'? If that depends upon who you speak to, how is that determined, in any way, to be fair and just? In its political sense, these, I think, are all dialectic questions that lead to one rational answer--the recognition and promotion of good government securing and guaranteeing individual rights. But, instead, I get blamed for being 'misogynist' in recognizing how sucking fetal brains out right before birth can, indeed, be an assault on common decency as many good people can see it. What a militant view to espouse from someone that condemns me to hell for considering it--and all the cohorts patting each other on the back for not being misogynist as they allow sucking fetal brains out right before birth to be a proper political part of this issue on elective abortions....and, then, claim how others are 'whining' when they, themselves, use 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and risks to the mother' as qualifications to electively abort.....none of which represent the free choice that I thought empowerment was all about--a free choice that recognizes its own responsibility to choose as her own when that choice is respectfully possible.....but, no, based on what is said here, it's 'something else' that determines that power.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

ENOUGH!!!!!

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

By the way, this has nothing to do with 'religion'--if it did, I'd be talking like the one that condemned me to hell and claim all that fetal brain-sucking right before birth was about 'compassion'. I know it's not.

Yes it is, just not for fetuses, but for women-as equal beings-and for greater society who benefit both from the security of their persons and the obvious dividends of judiciuos procreation.

And, if 'compassion' is to guide this, I, also, know that there is a political component to this that claims 'compassion' for the fetus despite all of your militant views on condoning 'sucking the fetal brains out right at birth'.

Incomprehensible hyperbole.

You are the militant, Kerry. The militant is not the guy, like myself, who DOESN'T advocate dragging doctors and women away in chains, get it? You want the storm troopers with the fetus arm bands, not me.

One way or the other, 'compassion' should not guide this. As Roe vs. Wade notes, in reality, this is guided by, and has always been guided by, the political and legal recognition of rights and the contentions that can hold....

Yes, the all-important rights of pre-humans to the exclusion of everyone else. That's right.

It's always refreshing to hear the good doctor argue against compassion. It reminds me that I am on the right side.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
But, instead, I get blamed for being 'misogynist' in recognizing how sucking fetal brains out right before birth can, indeed, be an assault on common decency as many good people can see it

We all agree that sucking the brains out of babies is a bad thing. However, everyone else is discussing elective abortion. You're the only one on a baby-brain-sucking kick.

Another problem is that you're confusing the issue of why women have abortions with the issue of the legal or moral gray areas surrounding abortion. I'll get the train back on the track. We can work through this. Let's clear the air, and get some points to work from. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. This does kill the fetus. Now, we're both in agreement that late term abortions should be illegal, or at least only available in the direst of circumstances. The first issue to start with is defining a person. What makes a human lifeform a person? I say it's the ability to think, feel, and directly react to stimuli. Therefore, I don't see it as murder to end the life of something that doesn't have any of those things. What would you say makes a human lifeform a person worthy of legal protection?

lance_cady's picture
lance_cady
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 5:20 pm

You know, it's interesting that even D_NATURED can't remember being the one being for 'sucking the brains out of the fetus right before birth if the mother wants it'--even as I am the one that had to go through all the posts to show that. Now, lance_cady comes in claiming that 'I' am the one that created that when I know that I was not--I am just using it over and over to bring out the very assault that it is on any sense of common decency. Also, note something else here: I have no problem with abortions before fetal viability. Is that conveniently alluding your recognition here? As far as 'direst of circumstances' go, I'll say it one more time, there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. Does that clarify this issue enough for any of you?

Quote D_NATURED:

You are the militant, Kerry.

But, once again, you are the one that claimed to be for sucking the brains out of the fetus right before birth if the mother wants it. Remember that? A real assault on any sense of common decency--and you don't even have to be religious to recognize that. My dictionary (Oxford Essential Dictionary of Difficult Words) defines 'militant' as this (my emphases): "adj. combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.....n. a person who is active in this way." And, you don't think that 'sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wants it' can be categorized as 'militant'? I do. And, I think that Zenzoe needing me to condone that in order not to be considered 'misogynist' is a form of militantism for 'the cause'. Zenzoe certainly appears to swoon approvingly over YOU saying, and condoning, it, D_NATURED.

Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, the all-important rights of pre-humans to the exclusion of everyone else. That's right.

Is it just a knack that you people have to actually ignore what my position really is? Is that some characteristic or subconscious tendency for you to categorize my position without, at any point, recognizing what I say in this issue? Is it important for you to ignore what I say in order to keep your own prejudiced ideas on what this issue represents? Does it represent 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or risks to the mother' to you? Does it represent a medical indication to abort to you? Does it represent aborting a normal fetus only for the very reason that a mother wants it to you?

My position has always been the same. When the fetus is totally dependent upon the mother's uterus to survive, that mother has the right to end the pregnancy for any, or no apparent, reason. When the fetus has the ability to come out alive, that mother no longer has that ability unrestricted because now, as I see it, as many states (including Texas and, apparently, California) see it, that fetus has gained some of its own rights (as the right to life)--with the full recognition that there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance.

Quote lance_cady:

The first issue to start with is defining a person. What makes a human lifeform a person?

Very similar to the point that I have been making--and asking--all along: When does a human life with rights begin? Because, once that has been determined, as Roe vs. Wade recognized, the primary human right to have is the 'right to life'--without that, you have no capacity to experience any other right. But, contrary to those who want to claim this as a 'medically indicated process', that is not defined 'medically'--that is defined legally and politically......for some of us, such as myself, if the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote]DRC, I'm so glad you're on this forum, a man who truly loves women. I have to thank you, and D_NATURED, and Ulysses, and all the men who support women's health and freedom. And thank you for treating this as an important subject.

For my part of it, you're quite welcome. This thread, though, has become a time sink and a morass, into which I'm not going to throw any more effort or energy. You can't even insult humanoids like this guy, and he'll keep chanting the same insane verses ad infinitum, ad nauseum, as long as he can elicit any response whatsoever, so for my part of it, I'm going to ignore him, knowing that he won't go away, but the energy spent on any responses at all -- even insults -- is what he feeds upon, so I'm just not feeding the troll anymore. That, at least, will deprive him of a little bit of the perverse emotional nourishment he needs to exist. When he didn't post anything for a while, I thought maybe he'd given up, but it now seems he just went back to whichever asylum he really lives in for r and r, and now he's resurfaced, like the hackneyed bad penny. More's the pity, but life's full of minor disappointments.

Ciao.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Again, as usual for Ulysses, absolutely no comment whatsoever about the issue being discussed--just assaults and attacks on some posters present that don't follow lock-step with 'the cause' being imposed without qualifications. No acknowledgement of how the issue of elective abortions isn't about 'dire circumstances', isn't about 'medical indications', and certainly isn't about 'the life of the mother or the life of the fetus' as a directive to choose abortion--but, you can't tell that by all the hoopla, and accusatory remarks, proposed by the Kumbaya clan. What a pitiful condition this makes for 'empowering women'--but, apparently, it appears even the women don't think so as the intent persists on accusing anyone that doesn't accept sucking fetal brains out right before birth as being 'misogynist'--as militant as that affront really is...sad state, indeed. And, a very bad condition for the real impetus behind elective abortions...but, with no response apparently possible coming from the 'selfless' proposals being offered here as excuses to allow elective abortions, when this does get around to being considered in the manner that it really holds--and that being a contention of rights--this clan deserves no respect and every bit of restraint coming from those that will say this is all about rights--but, this time, for the 'right to life' of the fetus as has already been attempted in one state's elective body....it will come around, again....and the ignorant here will wonder ''What the fuck happened?' And, maybe, once again, realize what it means to truly be a victim (with no voice) in the political environment....just like what they hypocritically 'claimed' to be all along in their militant fashion that makes nothing less than sucking fetal brains out right before birth as being 'misogynist'...

But, in parting, remember this part forever and always: There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. I know how all the condescenders (as they still are) are looking frantically for some 'exception' to that rule (D_NATURED threatens me over that because D_NATURED claims to know two women who died in childbirth--but, D_NATURED hasn't come back to say how those women died in childbirth or how killing their fetuses before being delivered would have changed their outcome--nor even if they had sought an elective abortion and were refused it)--however, I know they won't find a credible exception to that statement because there isn't a credible exception to that statement. And, if they even find any situation or statement that refutes it, I would like to hear how that medical 'professional' that supposedly refutes my statement justifies it--of course, rational to all medical knowledge and capacities in the field of American medicine today. I know that they won't find it....but, even with that, don't forget one other point that I have pointed out all along: Even in the 'misogynist state of Texas', 'therapeutic abortions' (of abnormal fetuses or pregnancies that show a risk from the beginning of the pregnancy due to the hemodynamics of the pregnancy--not 'the fetus') have always been allowed when even no other form of abortion was allowed prior to Roe vs. Wade....

Good day, Ulysses...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I feel the same way, Uly. ; ) Actually, though, I'm beginning to think of Kerry —Hi Kerry!— as the Energizer Bunny. He just goes and goes...you gotta have some respect for the perseverance there, si?

See ya here and there, I hope.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:You know, it's interesting that even D_NATURED can't remember being the one being for 'sucking the brains out of the fetus right before birth if the mother wants it'--even as I am the one that had to go through all the posts to show that.

Show me where I ever denied that, lying douchebag. I've said suck the brains, blend the fetus into a puree, snubnose 38 behind the fetal ear, whatever it takes. Whatever brings about the woman's wishes for the part of her known as "fetus". Show me where my position has strayed a milimeter from that.

Now, lance_cady comes in claiming that 'I' am the one that created that when I know that I was not--I am just using it over and over to bring out the very assault that it is on any sense of common decency.

Lance can misinterpret my or your position all he wants. He's not my sock puppet.

YOU mentioned sucking fetuses whole first in post 82 and Calperson mentioned sucking fetal brains first in post 227. Since then, you have used the idea as a battle axe, bludgening woman in defense of that within her.

Also, note something else here: I have no problem with abortions before fetal viability. Is that conveniently alluding your recognition here? As far as 'direst of circumstances' go, I'll say it one more time, there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. Does that clarify this issue enough for any of you?

And medical professionals should never involve themselves in matters that are not life and death, I suppose? Plastic surgeons, dermatologists and podiatrists are unnecessary. Got it.

You keep mentioning this "medical indication" thing like that relieves you of any societal or other obligations outside outside medical expediency. That is a doctor-centric opinion and not a human-centric, woman-centric or social-centric perspective. You obviously care most about whether you get to use your doctor authority and less about whether women should have any authority over their own body. How fucking arrogant you guys are.

When I wrote:

The abortion debate, even absent a religious perspective, is still religion-like to some people (Kerry), who don't look at the whole but, instead, focus on their own relevance-or lack thereof- in the debate. As a man and an alleged doctor, I feel he thinks he deserves some say in women's reproductive rights

I was right.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Show me where I ever denied that, lying douchebag. I've said suck the brains, blend the fetus into a puree, snubnose 38 behind the fetal ear, whatever it takes. Whatever brings about the woman's wishes for the part of her known as "fetus". Show me where my position has strayed a milimeter from that.

Oh, short-term memory loss once again, D_NATURED? Here's you saying this in post #800:

Let me state, for the record, that I was not the one who originally introduced the idea of crushing skulls and sucking brains. I said I thought it should be legal to do late term abortions and Kerry then began his redundant idiocy,

And, here's me responding to that in post #813:

Are you backing down from that position now, D_NATURED? Are you having to see this as the 'woman being in a victimized position' as if that were 'the choice to abort' in elective abortions? Is this like Zenzoe saying that Zenzoe never spoke of 'conditioning rights'? Then, again, I have to spend my time looking for the response that I have used all along? Well, you did say this, D_NATURED:

Quote D_NATURED:

So, yes, I suppose I would allow abortion the day before the due date. Even if that means slicing open the fetus skull and vacuuming out the gray matter.--post #237

Is your distinction now going to be you said 'slicing' instead of 'crushing' (crushing would be the more appropriate term for what they call a 'partial term abortion'--but, that would be better done after the brains have been extracted, so maybe you're right to 'slice' it first)?

Remember that? Now, in considering this issue of militancy, I want you to review what you have said about pureeing the fetus or doing just about anything you want to that fetus in order to kill it and tell me that that description, itself, isn't every bit of the term 'militant'. What dishonest people you are. Reminds me of how Zenzoe said that Zenzoe was 'comfortable with California's law that allows elective abortions up to 24 weeks' (am I going to have to find that one for you, also?)--but, then, swoons all over your militant description of killing a fetus right before birth, D_NATURED. A procedure that will take more time than just getting the fetus out by C-section (which, in experienced hands with a facility that can handle it, can take no more than 5 minutes)--if your 'pureeing machine' can match that time, I suspect it will be going to fast to distinguish fetal tissue from uterine tissue and just 'blend' everything--and I suspect that will be risky to the mother's life. But, we aren't here to discuss the realities of this issue, are we, D_NATURED? Just militantly rant on about how you are so willing to kill a fetus right before birth. And, remember, a dead fetus right before birth looks a whole lot like a dead baby right after birth. And, if that was done intentionally, some people will take offense to that as being an assault against their sense of decency--and I can understand that. Can you? Does any of your Kumbaya clan?

Quote D_NATURED:

YOU mentioned sucking fetuses whole first in post 82 and Calperson mentioned sucking fetal brains first in post 227. Since then, you have used the idea as a battle axe, bludgening woman in defense of that within her.

So what, dipshit, you're the one that wants to puree them right before birth--proving mine and Calperson's point. And, you are all for sucking out their brains right before birth if the mother wants it (or even pureeing them) regardless of how militant that posturing really is nor how much of an insult to common decency that that really is--and, as I have said before, you have impressed Zenzoe (and the rest of your Kumbaya clan haven't said one thing about it one way or the other--I suspect it's because it obviously doesn't connote 'compassion' like they say this issue does) but you haven't impressed me. Zenzoe may believe you--but, I think your posturing is more in line with 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'......are you willing to poke that instrument into the fetus right before birth and watch those brains come oozing out, big guy? A fetus that could have been born alive, otherwise? If so, you militant posturing confirms exactly why so many people with common decency see a problem with aborting fetuses that could be born alive, otherwise....and how people like you are so inconsiderate of much of what this issue involves. Once again (since you may have forgotten it), I have pointed out that the later the pregnancy goes along, the more likely the process of abortion will have to take a surgery suite or a hospital room--so, 'right to privacy' no longer counts here and there will be some people that will take offense to having to see and/or take part in killing a fetus that could have been born alive at that point. But, you don't give a shit, do you, big guy? You have Zenzoe to impress....

Quote D_NATURED:

You keep mentioning this "medical indication" thing like that relieves you of any societal or other obligations outside outside medical expediency.

'Medical expediency'? Is that the same, despite any assault on common decency it does show, as the one who condemns me to hell calling the concern for killling the fetus right before birth 'fetal sentimentalism'? There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus. Quit using bullshit 'selfless' causes for what is really a 'selfish' procedure when it comes to elective abortions and the choices involved in having them--and that being a mother choosing to abort her pregnancy no matter how normal the fetus is nor how muich it lacks any threat to her life. But, as dishonest as you have all been in this, I knew from the beginning of this discussion that no one wanted to really address how selfish the decision to electively abort really was (except Zenzoe tangentially--and you only in a 'big guy' way that you backed off of and joined the rest of the Kumbaya clan once no one followed suite with your acceptance of sucking out the brains right before birth--except, of course, Zenzoe tangentially)--and that was because you wanted to maintain your accusation of me of how 'selfish' my stand was in being a leftist libertarian--despite the point that I made that I defined libertarianism as one emphasizing 'the priority of government to secure and guarantee individual rights'--you don't even claim this issue is about 'individual rights' nor their priority because Zenzoe stepped in saying something about 'the right of dogs' and how Zenzoe wanted to 'condition all rights' (of which, also, Zenzoe denied and had me have to look it up to prove it to her). You can't bring it upon yourselves to address, and accept, how selfish this decision really is because of your accusation of 'my selfishness', right, big guy?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

That is a doctor-centric opinion and not a human-centric, woman-centric or social-centric perspective. You obviously care most about whether you get to use your doctor authority and less about whether women should have any authority over their own body. How fucking arrogant you guys are.

God, you just get more and more erratic, don't you? Can't remember what you said or when--how you have refuted your previous statements and, then, confirmed them. How none of you will even take the stand on how selfish a motive that elective abortions really are because of how you want to accuse me of my selfishness in being a leftist libertarian. I can see why the one who condemns to hell likes to say that there is a 'new world' beyond rational political thought that's 'ruling us' now because it appears that none of you can be consistent enough even with your own posturing to be rational with. That at least lacks insight--but, I suspect that, if you recognize what you are doing and are still doing it, it's really a dishonest posturing that wants more to condescend than understand like I have said all along.

Get this through your head, D_NATURED: There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. What you need to do other than accuse me to really refute that point is find an instance where that is not that case and I am telling that that is never the case once fetal viability has been reached. Notice that I'm not even asking for 'statistics' (that's Ulysses' affront to people), I am asking for one instance. Now, to be honest and rational with it, I would also require that I hear whoever is proposing this 'exception's' reasoning for it. And, don't try to pull Zenzoe's bullshit on how killing a fetus is 'required' in 'incestuous rape and suicidal ideation' because kiling the fetus doesn't address those issues in any direct manner. I want your proposal in this, D_NATURED. You're the one that threatened me if a mother died in childbirth and I wasn't all for killing the fetus at that point to 'save her life'. In that instance, I know that there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. And, don't forget, in experienced hands with the right facility, a C-section can be performed within 5 minutes--whatever way you are going to kill the fetus will take longer than that and you will still have to get the fetus out....oh, and if you puree the fetus like you want to, I suspect that that 'pureed material' could embolize just like amniotic fluid and kill the mother--but, what the hell, what's reality when you have a militant cause to defend, right?

All the other parts of your garbage isn't worth repeating--or responding to. It doesn't take a 'religious person' to feel offended if they are having to witness a fetus being killed right before birth. It's actually a natural feeling--or it is to those that don't hold 'militant causes' to this issue....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

I feel the same way, Uly. ; ) Actually, though, I'm beginning to think of Kerry —Hi Kerry!— as the Energizer Bunny. He just goes and goes...you gotta have some respect for the perseverance there, si?

Well, you can't openly admit it can you, Zenzoe? Elective abortions are about a mother's selfish decision to abort. No more, no less. Not about 'incentuous rape, suicidal ideation, or even physical risks to the mother's life'. Just the decision to abort as the mother wants it. Very selfish decision but you can't admit that before your Kumbaya clan, can you, Zenzoe? It doesn't have enough of a 'victimhood triumphant' ring to it, does it, Zenzoe? Can you tell the truth here, Zenzoe? Or, is accusing my stand as a leftist libertarian of being 'selfish' and even 'self-centered' more important to your, and the Kumbaya clan's, posturing?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Well, you can't openly admit it can you, Zenzoe? Elective abortions are about a mother's selfish decision to abort. No more, no less. Not about 'incentuous rape, suicidal ideation, or even physical risks to the mother's life'. Just the decision to abort as the mother wants it. Very selfish decision but you can't admit that before your Kumbaya clan, can you, Zenzoe? It doesn't have enough of a 'victimhood triumphant' ring to it, does it, Zenzoe? Can you tell the truth here, Zenzoe? Or, is accusing my stand as a leftist libertarian of being 'selfish' and even 'self-centered' more important to your, and the Kumbaya clan's, posturing?

Oh, I admit it, Kerry— we're a pack of selfish bitches— selfish, self-centered, willful, murderous wild bitches, and you better believe it!

So, now that we agree, how about you join hands with us, while we sing, "Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya....Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya...Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya...O Lord, kum bay ya.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ah, now you're trying to make fun of it, aren't you, Zenzoe? It's really just too hard for you to fathom openly and honestly--let's see how the one who condemns me to hell (so righteous in those 'selfless causes for community') takes this. Sad state for you as a 'defender' of women's rights--and empowering women--but, I know how that just has a hard feel in your mouth when 'victimhood triumphancy' sounds so much more 'communally just and righteous'. But, 'selfish', indeed, it is....

And, remember, as the selfish leftist libertarian, I have no problem with such self-determinations. The only problem I have is trying to make excuses for it in any other manner. It's not becoming of the real parts to this issue of elective abortions--but it is typical of self-righteous hypocrites...

Now, are you ready to talk in terms of RIGHTS to elective abortions--or not? And, the contention of rights that this issue really has? I know how your big guy, D_NATURED, likes to avoid that question at all costs because, once again, it just doesn't have the right feel to the self-righteous 'communitarians'--but, once again, selfish it is--and the only thing that will politically justify a 'selfish cause' is RIGHTS....'victimhood triumphancy' is just a dishonest motive to 'justify' the 'cause'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, you make me question EVERY doctor's intellect now. If you got through the higher education system, I just wonder how many doctors are out there now applying their stethoscopes to the elbows of people complaining of chest pain.

You are so comfortable lying, it's incredible. I asked you where I had ever denied being for the cut and suck, if desired by a woman, and you responded that my claim was inconsistent with my post in #800. Let's read, shall we:

Quote D-NATURED:Let me state, for the record, that I was not the one who originally introduced the idea of crushing skulls and sucking brains.

That is a true statement. I have since looked back and found that it was YOU who first mentioned sucking, in general, and Calperson who mentioned cutting open the skull and sucking brains.

I also wrote:

Quote D_NATURED:I said I thought it should be legal to do late term abortions and Kerry then began his redundant idiocy, based upon what he believes to be the accepted method of performing late term abortions. Don't get me wrong, if there is a better way than the crush and suck, let doctors use it. As I have had to state ad nauseum, whatever the safest way is for the human mother is what I want. If it involves crushing skull and sucking brain, fine. If there is a blender type device that can puree the fetus allowing for easy pouring out of the vaginal opening, I like that too.

So, when you claim that I had some memory lapse, you are projecting. You accused me of being the first to suggest the idea of the cut and suck (a lie) when I was not the first. Not that lying is a problem for you. I never claimed to know how abortions were done, I just said I don't care HOW it's done as long as the woman's rights are defended.That is not an arguable claim. It's true for anyone to read and if anyone can show where I ever claimed to be against any abortion procedure, let him demonstrate said claim by quoting my words.

Then, Dr. Douchebag, you answered my claim of your objections being based in your own egotistical, arrogant and physician-centric position with the SAME STATEMENT that earned you my derision initially. You attempted to disprove my claim by repeating the same shit that inspired my claim in the first place. "There is no medical indication for late term abortion" you blustered repetitively. WHAT A DOUCHE!

There's no medical indication for war either, Dr. Douchebag, so why do doctors allow themselves to get involved in that activity? Because they feel an ethical responsibility to use their training for the good of society. When you join the pro-lifers, you are abandoning good society for regulated uteri. That is my point now and always has been.

It doesn't matter how cute babies are or how gruesome a description of abortion you can muster. What matters are facts. What is society like when abortion is illegal and what is society like when it's not criminalized? All you've dwelled upon is empty rhetoric about unalienable rights for fetuses and arbitrary male doctor decider rights over women. Then, to seal your misogyny in a nice package you claimed that my defense of women, in other words HUMANS, is nothing but a primate mating display. Zenzoe, apparently, can't agree with me or vice versa without there being a hormonal component. Right. Does that mean that you and Bullwinkle are butt buddies?

You have covered douche behavior with a thoroughness not usually demonstrated by people with a higher education. You have argued against compassion and for lunacy. I don't know what else to say but fuck you very much.

Fuck you very much.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

...Then, to seal your misogyny in a nice package you claimed that my defense of women, in other words HUMANS, is nothing but a primate mating display. Zenzoe, apparently, can't agree with me or vice versa without there being a hormonal component...

He did??? I guess I missed that part. But I'm having deja vue now, which happens quite a lot on this thread, quite literally. (Kerry: "deja" ='s already; "vue" ='s seen)

Well, I'll take your word for it, D. What he doesn't know, apparently, is that I have no hormones, none whatsoever. I replaced them with chocolate mousse, which makes me invulnerable to the charms of other humans but hugely attached to my own delicious being, in selfishness and joy. Not that I don't enjoy a flirtation here and there; but those don't exactly overwhelm my ability to think and stay centered anymore...though I do admit to a slight nostalgia for going off the rails over a man, as I had been known to do from time to time. ; )

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

OH, Chocolate goodness really turns me on! Had a great chocolate/five spice OnoPop here in Hawaii yesterday. Next time Zenzoe, I will think of you. MMMMMMGOOOOD!!!

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

[quote]Notice that I'm not even asking for 'statistics' (that's Ulysses' affront to people),

Yeah! All of you imposers and posturers and condescenders (and especially the Kumbaya clan) get this through your heads: the statement above is written proof that alleged doctors are not scientists. Got that? Get that. See?

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh, My! Imposers and posturers and condescenders, Oh, My!...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

[quote]You have covered douche behavior with a thoroughness not usually demonstrated by people with a higher education. You have argued against compassion and for lunacy.

This is why I've never believed that he has a higher education. But then, doctors are technicians and body mechanics; the only ones who are scientists are the ones conducting pure research, which often involves -- GASP! -- statistics, which are -- GASP! -- symbolic representations of -- GASP! -- facts.

I've often thought that college is wasted on anybody who doesn't learn several important things other than the facts they acquire in their coursework:

1. College should teach everybody that we're ignorant, but that it's OK, because everybody is ignorant, just to different degrees and about different things. And ignorance is remediable; stupidity is not.

2. College should inculcate a lifelong desire to learn; if nobody ever reads another book after they graduate, they haven't gained that, and they're destined to remain at the level of ignorance they were at on their last day of college.

3. College should teach people to think well and critically. If they can't do that after four years of undergraduate work at any decent college, they have either failed themselves or been failed by their college. If, after four years at a good college, somebody can't differentiate between truth and bullshit, they've wasted their time and money.

Most reactionaries not only don't achieve most of the above, they don't even understand the value of achieving them, and they're seriously threatened by any facts or truths that don't agree with their preconceived worldviews on any given topic. This destines them to live their entire lives as wallsitting residents of Plato's cave, like most of the anti-choice crowd.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

[quote]Does any of your Kumbaya clan?

Kumbaya?! Naw. That's no more hip than conservatism. I'm into classic rock, doo wop, jazz, and blues.

Kumbaya's for Rick Santorum voters, those 'Merican patriots and hepcats who think a big evening consists of snacking on Velveeta fondue and Kraft Caramels while bobbing for free golfballs and cuttin' a mean rug to Lawrence Welk's Greatest Hits. ("Somebody stop me!")

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I know that I was not

I didn't claim that you were the one to bring it up. I just said that you were the one going on about it. To quote myself:

You're the only one on a baby-brain-sucking kick.

It seems as though you're just itching to be right about something, and completely ignoring reality.

I have no problem with abortions before fetal viability. Is that conveniently alluding your recognition here?

No. You've failed to present a situation that would be considered non-viable, or at the very least, establish satisfactory viability. Is a 25% chance of successful birth viable? You do realize that there are some forms of birth control that are still effective after conception, right?

there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance.

Wrong. There are circumstances that any sane doctor would say warrant aborting the pregnancy. You're confusing rarity with nonexistence. And, again, I'm not concerned with anyone's reasons for abortion. Those can range from perfectly sound reasoning to outright insanity. So, addressing this particular topic is only an exercise in your own narcissism. We don't care about your "moral superiority." If you were so superior, you wouldn't feel the need for self righteous posturing.

if the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive

So, at about 24 weeks. Cool. I give it up to about 26, because that is about the time that the portion of the brain responsible for cognizence develops to functionality. I don't know why it took you this long to clearly state your position. I think that if you had done that in the beginning, others wouldn't have construed it otherwise.

lance_cady's picture
lance_cady
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 5:20 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Kerry:

Well, you can't openly admit it can you, Zenzoe? Elective abortions are about a mother's selfish decision to abort. No more, no less. Not about 'incentuous rape, suicidal ideation, or even physical risks to the mother's life'. Just the decision to abort as the mother wants it. Very selfish decision but you can't admit that before your Kumbaya clan, can you, Zenzoe? It doesn't have enough of a 'victimhood triumphant' ring to it, does it, Zenzoe? Can you tell the truth here, Zenzoe? Or, is accusing my stand as a leftist libertarian of being 'selfish' and even 'self-centered' more important to your, and the Kumbaya clan's, posturing?

Oh, I admit it, Kerry— we're a pack of selfish bitches— selfish, self-centered, willful, murderous wild bitches, and you better believe it!

So, now that we agree, how about you join hands with us, while we sing, "Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya....Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya...Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya...O Lord, kum bay ya.

So now the right wingers want to outlaw selfishness? Alright, let us go back to the Eisenhower tax code, get serious about enforcing laws against illegal employers, and shut down people who selfishly hoard money.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote DRC:

OH, Chocolate goodness really turns me on! Had a great chocolate/five spice OnoPop here in Hawaii yesterday. Next time Zenzoe, I will think of you. MMMMMMGOOOOD!!!

Are you flirting with me, DRC? Well, don't forget— my heart belongs to Moi, My Precious Mee-eee-eee. But I understand. I am so yummy, it's only natural— so feel free to think of me anytime you like, even if you're not having a great chocolate/five spice OnoPop, and I will think of you dear DRC... ; )

Quote Ulysses:

Kumbaya?! Naw. That's no more hip than conservatism. I'm into classic rock, doo wop, jazz, and blues.

Kumbaya's for Rick Santorum voters, those 'Merican patriots and hepcats who think a big evening consists of snacking on Velveeta fondue and Kraft Caramels while bobbing for free golfballs and cuttin' a mean rug to Lawrence Welk's Greatest Hits. ("Somebody stop me!)

Actually, no, Ulysses. This is a better representative of right-wing taste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s25X6KwBpxw

Quote Phaedrus:

So now the right wingers want to outlaw selfishness? Alright, let us go back to the Eisenhower tax code, get serious about enforcing laws against illegal employers, and shut down people who selfishly hoard money.

Right—we're supposedly selfish, as if the uber-conservatives aren't the worst criminal, sociopathic, selfish people on earth.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:

...Then, to seal your misogyny in a nice package you claimed that my defense of women, in other words HUMANS, is nothing but a primate mating display. Zenzoe, apparently, can't agree with me or vice versa without there being a hormonal component...

He did??? I guess I missed that part. But I'm having deja vue now, which happens quite a lot on this thread, quite literally. (Kerry: "deja" ='s already; "vue" ='s seen)

Ok, maybe my description was a little...ummm...stretched. His consistent "big guy" dismissals and repeatedly accusing you and I of having some bond outside the rational defense of women is what I stretched, though.

Like this statement:

right to privacy' no longer counts here and there will be some people that will take offense to having to see and/or take part in killing a fetus that could have been born alive at that point. But, you don't give a shit, do you, big guy? You have Zenzoe to impress....

Like the fact that I'm a man who defends women is just my way of "impressing" you and not my way of defending humanity in general (as I've stated over and over). It's Dr. Douchebag's way of saying that men and women cannot naturally agree. Any appearance of sensitivity to women's issues is just a mating display.

Well, I'll take your word for it, D. What he doesn't know, apparently, is that I have no hormones, none whatsoever. I replaced them with chocolate mousse, which makes me invulnerable to the charms of other humans but hugely attached to my own delicious being, in selfishness and joy. Not that I don't enjoy a flirtation here and there; but those don't exactly overwhelm my ability to think and stay centered anymore...though I do admit to a slight nostalgia for going off the rails over a man, as I had been known to do from time to time. ; )

Don't get me wrong, Zenzoe. Smart, powerful women (especially those full of chocolate) are very attractive to me but I'm happily married to a strong, smart, chocolaty woman so my defense of our sisters' rights is not a panty-dropping ploy. Furthermore, I'm not that charming. I tend to say what I believe is true and defend it against all comers.Believe it or not, that does not make me the life of the party.

I have admitted that I like you, as a person, based upon the things I've read of yours and I can only assume that is the source of Dr Douchebag's comment. You are a thousand times more coherent than Dr. Douchebag ever was and you have an appreciation for the in-betweens that Mr. Kerry cannot even fathom. You also write a pretty mean limerick and, coursing through your veins, is a decadent chocolaty mousse. He can't compete.

So, if being a big guy means I'm not a big thinker like the alleged doctor, that's fine. I can bow out of the intellectual exercise of debating this ass wipe and just offer my neck wringing services to imposed upon women everywhere. As long as I get to contribute somehow, I'm happy.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Don't get me wrong, Zenzoe. Smart, powerful women (especially those full of chocolate) are very attractive to me but I'm happily married to a strong, smart, chocolaty woman so my defense of our sisters' rights is not a panty-dropping ploy. Furthermore, I'm not that charming. I tend to say what I believe is true and defend it against all comers.Believe it or not, that does not make me the life of the party.

I know that, D. And I've never had any doubt whatsoever that your writings and opinions derive from an earnest and heartfelt conviction, with no manipulative content at all about them. Kerry just can't imagine, apparently, an exchange between a man and a woman that does not involve hormones. Chocolate, however, has no connotation of sin, thus I thought I might be innocent in his eyes, for once, with chocolate in my veins. ; ) (or does it? Oops!)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

That is a true statement. I have since looked back and found that it was YOU who first mentioned sucking, in general, and Calperson who mentioned cutting open the skull and sucking brains.

Why don't you cite the post that indicates that, D_NATURED?

Besides that, as dishonesty goes, you also added that you had no problem with pureeing the fetus if that were more efficient--as you claim that I am the one who is 'militant' in this. I recognize that many people--and that includes women--don't want to take part in seeing or condoning the killing of a fetus right before birth. I recognize the part that whatever 'privacy' this procedure entails, to remove that offense, it really has to be private--and late term abortions don't have that luxury. They can even end up with the very 'mother killing' conditions that you claim to hold as an excuse for killing late term fetuses--especially if you 'puree' them since that material could embolize into the mother's bloodstream and kill them. But, once again, don't let reality interfere with your militant cause.

The rest of your posts are, as is typical of the clan that likes to claim 'selfless community causes' for itself, personal attacks on me.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote lance_cady:

No. You've failed to present a situation that would be considered non-viable, or at the very least, establish satisfactory viability. Is a 25% chance of successful birth viable? You do realize that there are some forms of birth control that are still effective after conception, right?

Perhaps you have been led astray by the condescending Kumbaya clan but I have never said that I was against all abortions. And, despite all deceptive ploys to try to make this a 'medical indication', I fully recognize that all elective abortions are based on the mother wanting to abort--not 'incestuous rape', not 'suicidal ideation', and not even 'physical threats to the life of the mother'. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--what I mean by that more specifically is that there is no condition of the mother that requires killing the fetus to 'correct it'. Even Zenzoe's example of a 21-week pre-eclamptic mother (if that, indeed, exists) doesn't require killing the fetus even if it requires delivering the child. There are ways in which that mother can be monitered and treated to correct the issues of pre-eclampsia. If they don't work, delivering the child may, indeed, be in order--but it is not medically required to kill the fetus before doing so.

Elective abortions are not medically indicated issues--they are politically and legally indicated ones. This constant posturing on 'dire circumstances' as reasons to allow elective abortions are ignorant excuses on the concept of elective abortions at least, intentionally dishonest affronts to cover for the rather selfish cause to kill a fetus only if the mother wants to in elective abortions at most. You, lance_cady, may have missed the first of this 'discussion' when 'I' was being attacked for being a 'selfish libertarian'--even as I tried to explain my own sense of 'libertarianism' as having government's primary role to secure and guarantee 'individual rights' and even as I acknowledged that it required government to do so (which I also admitted--making my form of libertarianism a 'leftist libertarianism'). What this Kumbaya clan has failed to openly recognize is that the mother choosing to abort her pregnancy is the epitome of a 'selfish cause'--and, in its political context, 'selfish causes' are defined as 'rights'.

Elective abortions are not a medically indicated process. As a political process, 'rights' are what define 'selfish causes'. But, this Kumbaya clan doesn't want to address it as such because Zenzoe early on in this discussion wanted to 'condition rights'--which, if done in the manner that Zenzoe appeared to be approaching it, meant that all 'rights' were to be adjusted according to whatever can be determined as a 'community interest'--but, as the examples with the 'rights of dogs' brought up, 'community interests' can vary (from the dog being a family companion to being the next meal in some Asian communities). And, it is historically accurate to recognize that, before Roe vs. Wade, the ability to have safe and legal elective abortions has varied in accordance with 'community interests' of each state--at the time, California and New York allowed elective abortions all the way to term and some states (like Texas) didn't allow any elective abortions (although, even the state of Texas did allow 'therapeutic abortions')--although Zenzoe now states that California only allows elective abortions to 24 weeks--only 4 weeks longer than what the 'misogynist state of Texas' has allowed since Roe vs. Wade made elective abortions a right to all women all across the nation up to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks gestation, Roe vs. Wade has always allowed any state to intervene against the mother's choice to electively abort as the 'state's (and community's) interest' on the fetus's behalf--and, the fact that California has adjusted its allowed gestational age for elective abortions to an earlier stage I think verifies the very point that I have been making all along--many people, without the militant affront of people like D_NATURED, have a problem seeing and/or politically condoning killing a fetus right before birth even as they allow the mother the choice before fetal viability becomes an issue.

Why is fetal viability an appropriate political and legal concept to consider? Since there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance, fetal viability is an appropriate political and legal concept to consider with elective abortions because such a viability reaches the very prospect of what it means to have a (human) 'right' as a 'selfish cause' in its political context. The question really boils down to 'When does a human life with rights begin?' because, as I've said, without the 'right to life' (to your own 'self' as a person), you cannot have, or experience, any other 'right'. Once again, Zenzoe wanted this 'conditioned' to allude its impact and contention with elective abortions but that just cannot be done in a political context that intends on maintaining the integrity of 'individual rights' as its priority (something that, up until very recent times with some people in the 'Kumbaya clan', was a very pertinent political context to maintain--and still is if you consider the reality of what this issue involves--which is a contention of 'rights').

Quote lance_cady:

Wrong. There are circumstances that any sane doctor would say warrant aborting the pregnancy.

Read my note to D_NATURED. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--there indeed may be a medical indication to end the pregnancy but that doesn't require killing the fetus before doing so. What is insane about this whole discussion is the affront being used as 'dire circumstances' as a justification for elective abortions--by the very term of them being 'elective', there is no 'dire circumstance' involved that 'medically indicates' the fetus be killed before being delivered.

Quote lance_cady:

So, addressing this particular topic is only an exercise in your own narcissism.

I know how the Kumbaya clan likes to throw terms around in order to avoid the reality of this issue of elective abortions but in you using the term 'narcissism', are you claiming that the real cause to elective abort is 'selfless'? Only if 'dire circumstances' warrants the killing of the fetus--but, no matter what the 'dire circumstance' is, that neither translate into an excuse to electively abort (because there is no medical indication to kill an normal fetus before delivering it) nor does it recognize the real motive behind elective abortions (which is the choice of the mother--a very 'selfish cause'). What insanity exists in this discussion is the constant affront being put forth by the Kumbaya clan that that is not the reality--I know that it is. And, so should you and all the Kumbaya clan....

But, let's posture a little bit using the constant excuses being offered here to abort as a justification to electively abort--and I'll put myself in the position that the one who condemns me to hell says is the 'right position'--the king of 'selfless causes'. The only excuses being put forth by the Kumbaya clan concern such 'selfless causes'--but, now, I, as the king of 'selfless causes', will decide this as 'selfless' as it should be. You say that abortions are to be allowed in 'incestuous rapes'. OK, I as the king of 'selfless causes' will allow that--but only under the condition that the rapist be charged and convicted of such rape--otherwise, I, as the king of 'selfless causes', can't be sure you are just lying to cover up for what is a selfish cause to abort--and that being if you want it. You say that abortions should be allowed in 'suicidal ideation'. Well, I as the king of 'selfless causes' sees suicide as a very 'selfish cause'--but, in order to be as benevolent as I as the king of 'selfless causes' is (with Kumbaya as my anthem), will allow suicidal ideation as a cause to abort--but, only if such ideation is confirmed by two professionals' separate confirmation of such intentions so as not to be used as a lying attempt to cover up for a 'selfish cause'--which would be if the mother wants to abort. You say that abortions should be allowed in cases when 'the mother's life is at risk'. I know that our medical facilities have the ability to deliver any child alive under any circumstane that doesn't affect the life of the mother (and, even if the life is at risk, I recognize that such a consideration is the selfish intent of 'self-defense')--but, I, as the king of 'selfless causes', listens to the concerns of the people and will allow abortions if the mother's life is at risk--but only if such a risk is confirmed by two professionals' separate confirmations of such a risk so as not to be used as a lying attempt to cover up for a 'selfish cause'--which would be if the mother wants to abort. So, I, as the king of 'selfless causes' has addressed all the people's concerns on the 'selfless' issues of the mother at risk in her pregnancy. I will allow all abortions confirmed to have 'incentuous rape, suicidal ideation, and risks to the mother's life' involved--but I will allow no others--especially the ones involving just the mother wanting it which is such a 'selfish cause'....

An, 'insane rendition' on how this 'discussion' has progressed? You know, I've said all along that with the way that this has been postured, no one here deserves the right of choice because no one acknowledges the right of choice here. Posturing with 'dire circumstances' as the excuse to abort is the insane position to have for elective abortions--because it has nothing to do with elective abortions. But, continue to use them as the 'selfless causes' and maybe the 'king of selfless causes' will hear you and allow all your excuses--but no other....the 'dire circumstances' excuse is such a 'heartfelt' and 'compassionate' reason to abort with such Kumbaya 'selflessness' involved that maybe the 'king of selfless causes' will hear it out and allow it--but, again, no other.....

Quote lance_cady:

We don't care about your "moral superiority."

Another attempt to distract this issue from reality, lance_cady. But, that's fine, if you want to make the excuse of abortions to be 'incentuous rape, suicidal ideation, and risks to the mother's life', then, by your our Kumbaya proclamations, let that be the excuses--and no other because none of you seem to acknowledge any other, any way--all the others sound so.....selfish....

Now, who has the 'moral superiority' here? I am sure the one that condemns me to hell thinks himself as 'morally superior' in approaching this issue with 'compassion'....but, that same person has claimed that the women who act on such 'selfish causes' wouldn't make good mothers, anyway (I remember that in previous discussions on abortions here in thomland).....

Quote lance_cady:

If you were so superior, you wouldn't feel the need for self righteous posturing.

Speak for yourself and those like you that continue to posture with 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and risks to the mother's life' as if that were the deciding issue in elective abortions. If that is the way you want to play this out, don't be too surprised when the 'king of selfless causes' hears you and allows your excuses for abortions--but no other.....

Quote lance_cady:

So, at about 24 weeks. Cool. I give it up to about 26, because that is about the time that the portion of the brain responsible for cognizence develops to functionality. I don't know why it took you this long to clearly state your position. I think that if you had done that in the beginning, others wouldn't have construed it otherwise.

You haven't been following this 'discussion' have you? That's what I have been saying all along. It's those who want to 'condition all rights' for 'community interests' that don't acknowledge that. And, by the way, if that's your position, what do you have to say about D_NATURED 'pureeing the fetus' right before birth--but, of course, waivering over when that is to be done (since D_NATURED presented two women that died in childbirth and threatened me if I were the doctor that didn't allow the fetus to be killed to save the mother in those deaths--without D_NATURED once saying what the cause of those deaths were nor how killing the fetuses before being born would affect the cause of such deaths--but, once again, don't let reality get in the way of a good group accusation, the Kumbaya clan, to the one who is addressing this as elective abortions are addressed in reality--as legal and political rights that I know it involves--but, 'rights' are such a 'selfish cause'....).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Phadreus76:

So now the right wingers want to outlaw selfishness?

Typical nonsense coming from Phadreus76. Elective abortions aren't 'selfless'--that's the point, Phadreus76. But, go ahead and misrepresent what is said, you are so 'good' at that. And, call me 'selfish' in stating this in terms of rights....as a leftist libertarian....which this reality actually does contain.....and, speaking of the typical misrepresentations offered by the Kumbaya clan:

Quote Zenzoe:

Right—we're supposedly selfish, as if the uber-conservatives aren't the worst criminal, sociopathic, selfish people on earth.

Let me ask you to respond directly, Zenzoe: Do elective abortions hold a selfish cause? None of your bullshit sideskirting this issue with flippant remarks, just a straight answer. I know how the one who condemns me to hell sees that the 'selfishness' of such women desiring to abort their normal fetuses with no risk at all to themselves would make bad mothers but I see the human motive and initiative in this decision--as selfish as it really is--being a little more complex than just claiming all women who elect to abort their offspring would make bad mothers to begin with.....for instance, as I've stated before, I know that even a mother concerned for her own child has a degree of selfishness to it because it is her child and not every other child that such a mother is concerned over....and that woman makes a good mother.....

But, tell the truth, Zenzoe, how 'selfless' is the decision to abort electively? Really. And, remember, this is the 'selfish libertarian' asking you that question.....

Quote D_NATURED:

Like the fact that I'm a man who defends women is just my way of "impressing" you and not my way of defending humanity in general (as I've stated over and over).

Really? Pureeing a fetus right before birth is a description in your mind that 'defends humanity in general'? Come on, D_NATURED. It's more in line with 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'.....

Quote D_NATURED:

Any appearance of sensitivity to women's issues is just a mating display.

Ah, what a Kumbaya moment for the clan--as you puree and/or suck the brains out of a fetus right before birth. Just doesn't seem to be an honest rendition on what this involves--and, to be sure, women are to have their rights--but every parent of every child is to have their responsibility. And, when you don't have a militant cause to impress women with, you would understand that is when that fetus can come out alive....

Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry just can't imagine, apparently, an exchange between a man and a woman that does not involve hormones.

Oh, I think that sucking fetal brains out right before birth is all hormonal--and intended to 'impress' you with all that 'women support'--even up to and through sucking fetal brains out--or even pureeing them--right before birth if you wanna, honey.....that is what this issue is all about, isn't it, Zenzoe? Yep, no 'selfish causes' here....but, go on and claim how 'selfish' libertarianism is.....Ulysses thinks so--but, then, Ulysses is one of the most selfish posters I have ever had the dishonor of exchanging words around....the king of selflessness that condemns me to hell just can't seem to recognize how selfish Ulysses is....but you all get to claim how selfish I am because I promote myself as a libertarian, don't you?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The dishonor is all yours, well earned. You continue to misread, misrepresent and smear, and what a victim!

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Let me ask you to respond directly, Zenzoe: Do elective abortions hold a selfish cause? None of your bullshit sideskirting this issue with flippant remarks, just a straight answer.

Okie dokie. In short, yes, but I would call it self-interested. But if you want to think of it as "selfish," in a pejorative sense, well, try to imagine how little I care. :@

Anyway, your using selfish is a manipulative tactic, a pathetic attempt at shaming females into reverting to their "proper places" as the selfless half of the population. You think women will say, "Oh, I don't want to be selfish! That's so unloving! I'm a good girl." Fortunately, we're on to your manipulations.

If you want a longer response, check out my last comment at Women's Issues/Side Issues.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/womens-issues-are-side-issues?...

I've never sucked the brains out of anybody, except, in my imagination, that gynecologist who examined me during contractions. I sucked his brains out so hard his head crumpled and puckered up like a rotten canteloupe. And, nobody I ever knew chose to suck the brains out of their fetus just before birth; if that happened at all, it would have been because the brain of that fetus wasn't normal, or was deformed or damaged or unlikely to survive on the outside, anyway; BUT the mother had to end the pregnancy for a whole variety of reasons, none of which can convince you that she wasn't being "selfish," but maybe just plain entitled to make her own decisions about the life of her uterus.

You make way too much of sucking and pureeing. I begin to wonder if you weren't fixated at the oral stage. But I do feel your pain, whatever. Don't forget: None of this is real.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote D_NATURED:

That is a true statement. I have since looked back and found that it was YOU who first mentioned sucking, in general, and Calperson who mentioned cutting open the skull and sucking brains.

Why don't you cite the post that indicates that, D_NATURED?

You fucking idiot. I DID mention the posts a while back on this very page. You responded with a "so what".

Besides that, as dishonesty goes, you also added that you had no problem with pureeing the fetus if that were more efficient--as you claim that I am the one who is 'militant' in this. I recognize that many people--and that includes women--don't want to take part in seeing or condoning the killing of a fetus right before birth. I recognize the part that whatever 'privacy' this procedure entails, to remove that offense, it really has to be private--and late term abortions don't have that luxury. They can even end up with the very 'mother killing' conditions that you claim to hold as an excuse for killing late term fetuses--especially if you 'puree' them since that material could embolize into the mother's bloodstream and kill them. But, once again, don't let reality interfere with your militant cause.

The life of the mother is but one of the reasons I have given to justify late term abortion. I really don't care why it's done. Selfish behavior is not always wrong. I support the right of women to decide whom or what parasitic entity resides within them whithout calling them selfish. They have the right to be selfish with their own bodies. If I'm hungry, I can't just take a bite out of the first woman to walk by and then accuse her of being selfish if she protests.

If existing abortion methods pose a risk to the woman's health, then you medical professionals (and I'm speaking of others who are actually doctors) better get going on a better abortion method, if the puree and the cut and suck are insufficient. The most selfish thing we can do, as a society, is to allow our naturally existing fetus fetish to conflict with our collective health and well being as a society of humans. To do that is similar to allowing a religion to keep us from advancing as a species.

The rest of your posts are, as is typical of the clan that likes to claim 'selfless community causes' for itself, personal attacks on me.

Poor Kerry, nailed up on the mean abortionist's cross so long he can't think straight. So now the selfish decisions of a woman are selfless community causes? From whence does your distaste toward selfless community causes originate? From whence originates your distrust of women that you must create a line within their bodies that they can't cross?

It's not an insult to say that you don't care about women or society, as a whole. It's a statement of fact.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Perhaps you have been led astray...blah blah blah

I don't care about medical indicativeness. I've made this clear. Repeating your rant about how it isn't medically indicated is purely a masturbatory exercise. I didn't even read most of it. I merely glanced over it. You could literally have left out the two paragraphs in the middle.

The question really boils down to 'When does a human life with rights begin?'

That's a good second question. However, prior to that, one has to determine what qualifies as a human life with rights. This is generally covered. It is typically the norm for late term abortions to be illegal under all but the most unusual of circumstances (e.g. mother's life vs fetus' life). There may be states that allow them, but it's usually a policy to not perform late term abortions.

if you want to make the excuse of abortions to be...

Actually, I was very clear on this. Reasons for abortion are irrelevant, since those vary with the situation. Yet, I'm sure you'll continue prattling on about it anyway.

I remember that in previous discussions on abortions...

That was then. I'm none of those people. Get out of the past.

Speak for yourself and those like you...

What are you even talking about here?

You haven't been following this 'discussion' have you?

No. I haven't. I saw that this discussion goes back quite far. I jumped in late, and didn't see anything other than your rant on baby brain sucking for a couple pages.

blah blah blah...D_NATURED...blah blah blah

Take your grievances with D_NATURED up with D_NATURED.

lance_cady's picture
lance_cady
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 5:20 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system