Sane conversation about abortion

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Zenzoe:

What I'm trying to get through to you, Kerry, is that your fears are unfounded. Elective abortions after viability are really quite rare, if they happen at all—in the real world.

United States: In 2003, a total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. From data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. 1.4% of 848,163 means that 11,874 unborn children, at or over the age of 21 weeks, were legally killed in the United States of America in 2003.
Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Kerry... I'm starting to think there is a trend here. LMAO...

Are you lost, Capital? What 'trend' is that, Capital? Are you saying anything here with regards to elective abortions?

Does that 'trend' involve blaming government as interfering with the 'free market'--and, then, relying on government to pay for at least part of that same 'market'? Is that 'the trend' you are talking about, Capital? Or, are you just lost here?

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

Once again, Zenzoe, if it is illegal to do it, how is there going to be an example on record? As far as sucking fetal brains out, that is one part of the description of what has been termed as late-term partial birth abortions (sucking their brains out allows the fetus to go through a smaller cervical opening, otherwise--which then, of course, takes some crushing of the skull to have it fit through a smaller cervical opening)--but, those were never legal in Texas and they have even been banned across the nation by federal law. So, how am I to come up with an example, huh?

Right. It's illegal. If it's not happening, you've won already. So shut up about it.

However, you will NEVER get me to agree that the "Partial Birth Abortion Act" was Constitutional or correct.

Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.

Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163

If there is a "severe health risk to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally," because of hydrocephalus, for example, a D&X abortion is justified. And please do not bring up C-sections as an alternative: Those too pose severe risks to the mother. If you're going to practice ethical medicine, you choose the method that is the least extreme and poses the least risks to the patient, i.e., the pregnant woman.

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

Are you lost, Capital? What 'trend' is that, Capital?

Everyone claiming your a disengenious asshole. I find it sort of funny.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Oh, I see, you have commented on elective abortions, haven't you, Capital?

You data is from 2003. When did the federal law that banned partial birth abortions take effect?

Of course, as trends go, that has nothing to do with Zenzoe's original complaint about how 'disingenuous' I was with this when Zenzoe never made one statement about that very point when D_NATURED claimed sucking fetal brains out right before birth was required to 'empower women'.--in fact, admired it as D_NATURED's little 'exaggeration'. And, now that Capital has come into this mix, I suspect asking Zenzoe realistic questions about how far would Zenzoe be for killing fetuses (and only just if the mother wanting it) as a show of 'empowering women' since the true and honest opinions are about to come forth from 'Capital'.....who, of course, has thought all issues out that Capital makes any comments on--especially ones that involve 'free markets', 'government intervention', and the application of American medicine....

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

Oh, I see, you have commented on elective abortions, haven't you, Capital?

You data is from 2003. When did the federal law that banned partial birth abortions take effect?

The data was abortion done after viability. I don't recall it saying anything about Partial Birth Abortion. I'm sure that was a reading oversight on your part.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Right. It's illegal. If it's not happening, you've won already. So shut up about it.

But, that didn't stop you from admiring D_NATURED saying it, did it, Zenzoe? How far are you willing to take killing a fetus (and only if the mother wants it) as a show for 'empowering women'?

And, once again, Zenzoe, if the fetus has a condition that is considered non-viable, in a due process manner (which involve forms that expose the conditions being addressed and the decisions being made), that pregnancy can be terminated. But, that's not elective abortions--and that's not for any--or no apparent--reason at all, is it? And, 'I'm' the one being 'disingenuous' when it comes to real elective abortions, Zenzoe? I've always disliked how you and the Kumbaya clan introject 'dire circumstances' as a way to excuse the 'free choice' that real elective abortions have. But, you and your Kumbaya clan have always ignored that, also. But, 'I'm' the disingenuous one....

Speaking of which:

Quote Capital:

Everyone claiming your a disengenious asshole. I find it sort of funny.

Let's see if Ulysses comes in here and chastises you for your spelling of 'disingenuous' (as, of course, Ulysses only comments). But, as 'disingenuous' as any of you claim me to be, I've noted that, in the world of hypocrites, you are willing to condone in your friends what you condemn in your enemies.....it will be interesting to see how much of a 'friend' you are to them, Capital, a real 'ingenuous' friend.....

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

Let's see if Ulysses comes in here and chastises you for your spelling of 'disingenuous' (as, of course, Ulysses only comments). But, as 'disingenuous' as any of you claim me to be, I've noted that, in the world of hypocrites, you are willing to condone in your friends what you condemn in your enemies.....it will be interesting to see how much of a 'friend' you are to them, Capital, a real 'ingenuous' friend.....

o boy, sounds like a hoot

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

The data was abortion done after viability. I don't recall it saying anything about Partial Birth Abortion. I'm sure that was a reading oversight on your part.

Coming from someone that just decided to pounce in here, you are the one having the reading oversight, Capital. The issue was Zenzoe asserting me to come up with one example of fetal brains being sucked out--which is a description of the first part to a partial birth abortion (the second part is crushing the skull). Your data is from 2003. If the federal ban on partial birth abortions was after that (and I cannot remember), then your data is probably off. In fact, if you had been following this at all, you would have known that, when Roe vs. Wade was being deliberated, at least two states (New York and California) offered elective abortions to term. Zenzoe has already pointed out that California law now allows elective abortions only to 24 weeks.

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

So, since you've won, why don't you shut up? What does it matter if I side with D or U or anybody else? You and your prick anti-woman pals have won. Why not just enjoy your partial-death-to-women victory and get off our backs?

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

In fact, if you had been following this at all,

Not at all, I was curious if you discussion style carried over to other threads. Surprise Surpise..

Funny you've been discussing partial Birth abortions for about 1000 posts and you can't remember off the top of your head the Landmark legislation banning the practice and when. LOL. you crack me up. Nov 3rd 2003.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

You have some nerve to come in here and claim how 'disingenuous' I am with this, Zenzoe. Did you one time say how D_NATURED sucking out fetal brains right before birth if the mother wants it was NOT realistic? One time, Zenzoe? No, you credited it as being D_NATURED's 'exaggerated way of being for empowering women', didn't you?

It's not an exageration. To empower women, we must disempower the fetus. Why? Because the fetus is the little "man on the inside" for conservatives. Though the fetus was created BY the woman, the fetus is granted arbitrary rights that supercede those of its creator.The fetus is the excuse for conservatives to control women, nothing more.

Only in the ass-backward conservative mind does the truth seem to be an exageration. Zenzoe and others may have thought I was arguing from a hyperbolic perspective but, in truth, I'm not. My defense of women's rights is in direct (not exagerated) proportion to the level of assault on their bodies by conservative, religious men. The greater the offense, the greater the need for protection.

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

internalized abandonment

seems to be the only sane reason why adults worry about fetal brains being sucked out. Or internalized fears developed while in the woman's womb (otherwise know as a uterus - before the biological event of the zygote implantation).

So much worry for this and yet lives already developed and ongoing are given the death panel. No, this does not make sense.Or for the lives already developed and ongoing - except the person is in jail for a crime they did not commit - but will be murdered by our government anyway.

If the issue is about sustaining life - then why isn't the SUSTAINING OF ALL LIFE given the same care & attention ?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

So, since you've won, why don't you shut up? What does it matter if I side with D or U or anybody else? You and your prick anti-woman pals have won. Why not just enjoy your partial-death-to-women victory and get off our backs?

Is that what you see this as, Zenzoe? And, you claim that 'I' am the 'disingenuous one'? And, did you answer how far you were willing to go in killing any fetus to show how that 'empowers women'?

Quote Capital:

Funny you've been discussing partial Birth abortions for about 1000 posts and you can't remember off the top of your head the Landmark legislation banning the practice and when. LOL. you crack me up. Nov 3rd 2003.

Have you read all 1000 posts? Or, is that to be another 'ingenuous' remark coming from you? If you had read all 1000 posts, you would have noted that the issue of such partial birth abortions being made illegal by federal law was noted by me very early in this discussion--but that didn't prevent D_NATURED from coming in here being for sucking the fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wanted it as D_NATURED's way of supposedly promoting the 'empowering of women'--nor Zenzoe admiring D_NATURED for that--nor any of the Kumbaya clan making any statement against it as they all condemned 'my treatment' of a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer. But, then, you certainly know what 'disingenuity' looks like, right, Capital? Even if you don't know how to spell it....

Quote D_NATURED:

To empower women, we must disempower the fetus.

That looks a lot like an 'either/or' assessment to me. But, in the event of everyone here being so 'ingenuous', DRC, the one who claims to have 'community's interest' in a 'both/and' manner, makes absolutely no comment about that.....and, again, 'I'm' the 'disingenuous one'....

Quote D_NATURED:

Because the fetus is the little "man on the inside" for conservatives.

I'd rather consider it just like how the deliberations of Roe vs. Wade did: When does a human life with rights begin? Since this is a political and ethical issue, that is the most pertinent and realistic manner to consider it. But, then, that is only if you are in line with individual rights (when they do exist) trumping 'community interests' in its political, ethical, and legal context. Of which, apparently none of the Kumbaya 'community interest' clan are. Then, perhaps, we should go back to the time as it was before Roe vs. Wade when each community could then determine whether it allowed any elective aboritons or not.....after all, as the Kumbaya clan continues to promote, 'individual rights' are apparently always to be 'conditioned' by 'community interests and standards'....

Quote D_NATURED:

Though the fetus was created BY the woman, the fetus is granted arbitrary rights that supercede those of its creator.

If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. That is its most natural context in which that issue can be considered. And, if it takes a special procedure to kill that fetus before delivery in order for it not to come out alive, it could have come out alive.....

Quote D_NATURED:

The fetus is the excuse for conservatives to control women, nothing more.

With regards to my own point (which I have restated over and over), that is typical diversionary bullshit. Now, tell me once again who's being 'disingenuous' here? My point is this (once again):

And, please, don't try to twist my words once again. If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. If the fetus cannot come out alive, that mother can choose to end that pregnancy for any--or no apparent--reason at all. After all, as Roe vs. Wade acknowledges in the early gestational periods of pregnancy, that woman has that right....and that's not dogma, that's a sane and considerate decision concerning the 'contention of rights' this issue holds....right along with its obligation to personally responsible behavior....

Quote D_NATURED:

Only in the ass-backward conservative mind does the truth seem to be an exageration.

Is sucking the fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wants it 'the truth', D_NATURED? As Zenzoe has been asking me: Do you have one example of that? Or, do you even have any state in this nation 'agreeing' with you? So, who's 'truth' are you talking about? And, how 'ingenuous' is that?

Quote D_NATURED:

Zenzoe and others may have thought I was arguing from a hyperbolic perspective but, in truth, I'm not.

My quesitons above still remain. Until you can show the same type of example that Zenzoe is asking of me, your 'truth' is basically just like 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'....

Or, if you were placed in such a situation, would you be willing to suck out fetal brains right before birth--and only if the mother wanted it to be done (in other words, no 'dire circumstances' involved) to show how much that 'empowers women'?

Quote D_NATURED:

My defense of women's rights is in direct (not exagerated) proportion to the level of assault on their bodies by conservative, religious men. The greater the offense, the greater the need for protection.

But, you aren't addressing whatever 'assault' you are talking about to the ones doing the 'assaulting', are you, D_NATURED? You aren't addressing that problem, or any supposed solution to this 'assault', to these 'conservative, religious men' who you say 'did it' (whatever 'it' is), you are addressing this 'solution' to the fetus--who did nothing.

Now, who gets to claim 'disingenuity' in this, Zenzoe? Or, is this another hypocritical prospect where you are willing to condone in your friends what you condemn in your enemies?

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

If the issue is about sustaining life - then why isn't the SUSTAINING OF ALL LIFE given the same care & attention ?

Apparently you haven't read all 1000 posts, either. I just love that same old excuse that the left offer: If you are willing to kill innocent children in war or by starvation, why are you willing to save every fetus? Of which, rationally and comparatively, the right can respond: If you are willing to kill any fetus, why are you willing to save every child rapist-murderer? And, now, thanks to my discussion with DRC, another question can be added to that: If you are willing to punish (even kill) any hate criminal (for your supposed 'righteous cause'), why are you willing to save every child rapist-murderer to be 'rehablitated'? And, kill any fetus for no cause?

Assigning a 'motive' that is, according to this 'higher cause community interest' prospect that DRC (and the Kumbaya clan) promote, that is to 'go beyond any action or result'--even if a child gets raped or murdered in the process--is a mental trap that the Kumbaya clan fail to appreciate (even as they continue to use it--otherwise, we could 'agree to disagree').....More to the point, in elective abortion's case, 'motive' screws them up because a real elective abortion is done for any--or no apparent--reason at all as the mother's right. Not because of any dire circumstances of incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or any real risks to the mother's life because, by those prospects, those aren't 'free choice'--or truly 'elective' (but, 'I'm' the 'disingenuous one', right?). So, by such continued proposals by Zenzoe, DRC, and all the rest of the Kumbaya clan, elective abortions aren't about 'free choice' because the Kumbaya clan, right in line with them being against 'individual rights' or any personal responsibility that is to entail, don't believe in 'free choice', either--even if and when someone is declared to have that right just like what Roe vs. Wade declared in this issue....again, only to be contended by when a fetus is to gain its own rights....their 'higher cause' is 'community interest'--but, like in a dog's case, how they separate out the 'family companion community interest' for the 'next meal community interest' without individual rights superseding that, I have no idea....and it is somewhat disturbing that they don't see that--and, still, claim that 'I' am the 'disingenuous one'....and, now, even Capital, who apparently is claiming to have all the answers to every question concerning the free market, government intervention, and the application of American medicine, is here to 'join them'....interesting how 'that' will work out in an 'ingenuous manner'.....

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

So, since you've won, why don't you shut up? What does it matter if I side with D or U or anybody else? You and your prick anti-woman pals have won. Why not just enjoy your partial-death-to-women victory and get off our backs?

Is that what you see this as, Zenzoe? And, you claim that 'I' am the 'disingenuous one'? And, did you answer how far you were willing to go in killing any fetus to show how that 'empowers women'?

I won't address any of your questions that refer to abortion as "killing" a fetus. Don't bore me with that particular manipulation. And, anyway, that's no answer to my questions. Try again.

I can hardly wait for the moment you figure out that Capital thinks ANY abortion is "killing babies," no matter whether pre or post-viability. I wonder if he knows you don't argue with pre-viability abortions. This could get interesting.

Take care where you step in here, media_muse— it's practically wall-to-wall crap where the anti-woman brigade has been. Verbiarrhea problem. Quite stinky.

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

What is the difference between a 'community interested in individuality' and one 'who grants individual rights to others as much as acquires them for oneself', Ulysses?

It's against International Fishing Conventions to retroll the same waters too soon after trolling them the first time.

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

"EARTH IS AN INSANE ASYLUM,
TO WHICH THE OTHER PLANETS DEPORT THEIR LUNATICS."
--Voltaire

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

Kyl Walks Back Planned Parenthood Claim:
It ‘Was Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement’
As ThinkProgress reported earlier today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) defended Republicans’ willingness to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood by falsely claiming that abortion is “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” In reality, just three percent of its work is related to abortion. Kyl’s office claiming the statement was not meant to be “factual”:"

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

Tobacco and alcohol use by pregnant women has adverse effects on the fetus. Tobacco use causes an increase in SIDS and miscarriages. It is estimated that 3700 children die by the age of one month because of complications from the mother's smoking during pregnancy.

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

A Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey of 1313 pregnant women found that 3.5 percent admitted to having seven or more drinks a week or bingeing on five or more drinks at one setting within the previous month. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a leading cause of mental retardation.

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

According to the U.S. EPA, MSMA "can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans" and is converted in the environment to inorganic arsenic, a known human carcinogen. About 4 million pounds of MSMA is applied every year to golf courses and cotton fields in the United States to control weeds. The pesticide has been banned in India and Indonesia.

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

The timing and types of pesticide exposures are critical determinants of reproductive outcomes, according to a recently published study by Canadian researchers. The study examined pesticide exposures based on recall by farm families and reported histories of spontaneous abortions among women living on the farms. The study found strong evidence that a woman's exposure to pesticides in the three months prior to conception or in the month of conception significantly increased her risk of spontaneous abortion.

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd (MMBL).
The suicide rate among India's farmers from the cotton failures are global news. Monsanto has a sub name to offset the google hits and headlines with criminal charges for contaminations.

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

Switching cotton fields to hemp fields would improve: the quality of our soil, the durability of our clothes, the safety of our ground source water, the quality of our air, and the preservation of forests cut for paper (not to mention saving hundreds of thousands of lives prematurely ended by disease caused by pollution) In 1993, two hundred and fifty thousand tons of pesticides were used to grow cotton world-wide.

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

These pesticides wash into streams and rivers, destroying eco-systems and poisoning human water supplies. Today the water supplies of many large cities are contaminated. Many of the vegetables we eat and clothes we wear contain pesticide residues. We must develop and utilize sustainable technologies if we want to survive and prosper in the next millenium. Hemp is a perfect sustainable raw material for thousands of products. Textiles, cosmetics, building materials, fuel and food can all be made from hemp.

High on Hemp
Pro Life? Not even anti abortionists...

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

*Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism
because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
~ Benito Mussolini

"...somebody has to take governments' place,
and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it."
- David Rockefeller - Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.

. "Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes it's laws"
— Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild 1863

U.S.Al Qaeda!

SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

What's your point?

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

Only idiots think they don't. At least I know why what I say is true.

What's 'true', D_NATURED? 'Empowering women' has to include sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wants it? Or, claiming that it has to be 'either the fetus's life or the mother's life' when you do so? Which one of those positions is 'true' when it comes to what to consider in elective abortions? And, is that, in any way, compared to how this situation was deliberated on--and decided by--the Supreme Court that considered the Roe vs. Wade case?

Quote D_NATURED:

There is a difference between selfishness and self-interest, do you agree or not?

I don't know of a self-interest that doesn't have a selfish component, do you? Including elective abortions....There may be a difference between that form of 'selfishness' and, say, the Ayn Randian form of 'self interest regardless of any other selves'--but, that's even hard to distinguish in the case of elective abortions (especially if you are one to consider the fetus a 'self' in any point in this). But, that still doesn't mean that a 'self interest with regards to other selves' (just like 'granting others individual rights as much as acquiring them for oneself') isn't 'selfish'.....

Quote D_NATURED:

You can't fix stupid.

Or hypocrites that are ignorant despite the knowledge....

Quote D_NATURED:

If, on the other hand, you see a distinction between self interest-as a foundation of community and a moral base line-and selfishness, which is a threat to community and even to moral self interests, then we can continue.

I'm not even sure what you are saying. Politically, the prime distinction to make between an Ayn Randian form of 'selfishness' and a more 'moral basis' for 'selfishness' is how inclusive you are in granting other selves the same rights as you acquire for oneself. In fact, like the decision on what to do with a dog, any 'community interests' apart from that can be oppressive and suppressive--even if supposedly done 'for the best (most "un-selfish") of reasons'--like killing in a battlefield regardless of one's own life (or, of course, others)....or holding hands and singing Kumbaya as a 'selfless cause' to suck fetal brains out right before birth....

Quote D_NATURED:

Similarly, any community that allows its participants to engage in selfish behavior, unchecked, does not care about community either.

What behavior deserves being 'checked' by community, D_NATURED? Who gets to determine that--and, most importantly, how do they do so? 'Community interests' without such 'selfish causes' (as individual rights are to represent) can be so oppressive, suppressive, and prejudicial--even if done 'for the best (most "un-selfish") of reasons'.....

Quote D_NATURED:

So, when we talk about elective abortion (as opposed to the kind where you're strapped down to a table and forced to abort), we're talking about self interest, not greed.

Who's talking about 'greed', D_NATURED? Are you referring to how much these abortionists charge? I know they all do it because they claim such an interest in 'empowering women'--but, I don't know of any that do it for free.....hitmen like to get paid.....(don't take that wrong, now).....

Quote D_NATURED:

People don't have abortions so that their other children can grow fat on the extra food that the new baby won't be eating, but they do have abortions so that their existing children don't starve.

You see, when it comes to real elective abortions, this is where you are all wrong--and hypocritical--about it. Elective abortions can be done for any--or no apparent--reason at all. No 'dire circumstances' have to justify it--unless that fetus has gained a right to life and it is now decided by due process....

Boy, D_NATURED, you go from sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wants apparently as the only way to claim 'empowering women' to, now, 'doing it to prevent the others from starving'. That's another point to consider, many claims on 'community interest' when it concerns 'personal behavior' are, by their very nature, hypocritical--despite any 'we' vs. 'me' bullshit....

Quote D_NATURED:

There's nothing wrong with women making choices about reproduction.

Once again, D_NATURED, did I say there was? The only contention that 'we' seem to have here is when to determine when that offspring has a right to life. When it doesn't have a right to life, that mother can make the choice to end that pregnancy for any--or no apparent--reason at all. After all, thanks to Roe vs. Wade, she has that right.....at least before 12 weeks gestation to any woman anywhere in the nation....absolutely....

Quote D_NATURED:

Furthermore, the abortion of a thirty week fetus has no more long term negative consequences for society than the abortion of a four week fetus.

Have you asked anyone that has witnessed a 30 week abortion? Zenzoe has even said that California--which even prior to Roe vs. Wade allowed abortions all the way to term--now restricts legal elective abortions to 24 weeks. Not too many people like seeing fetuses killed near birth to come out looking just like dead babies. But, in this quest to kill all fetuses to claim that as empowering all women, the Kumbaya clan doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Many other people do.....

Quote D_NATURED:

The "crime" is in your imagination.

And, several states that limit the gestational period of legal elective abortions--including California.

Quote D_NATURED:

We are arguing about the self-interest of fetuses that don't even know they're a self yet.

How do you know that? And, for that matter, do newborns know that they are a 'self' yet? And, would you use that as an excuse to justify killing them--even if born under the very same dire circumstances of 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and supposed (future) risks to the mother's life and wellbeing'?

Quote D_NATURED:

They don't get to be a self until they exist outside the uterus of another self. But you don't get that.

I do get that that is what you say--but, then, read above. Also, isn't your own 'moment before birth' to 'moment after birth' drawing a line that you claim this 'shouldn't draw'? Actually, I believe it to be a much more natural position to hold that a fetus that can come out alive, should come out alive. Also, with full recognition that if it required a special procedure to kill that fetus before delivering it, it could have come out alive....

Quote D_NATURED:

Now, will you tell me how a non-self can be a self just by you waving your magic doctor wand? I'm not seeing it.

If the fetus can come out alive, it's a 'self'....do you see that?

"SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!"

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

The people your dogmatism offends...

Dogmatism, DRC? I believe that any of your 'we' issues not able to be intrinsically understood by any 'me' would be, by its very nature, a dogma (and I believe that to be historically and politically accurate--right in line with its Original Sin tenets against 'individual understanding'). So, you using that word against me (you know, 'rationalism' and all) is a little misinforming, I believe.

Perhaps you have missed something here, DRC--or are intentionally ignoring it despite the knowledge. I have stated many times my disdain over how this issue---particularly you and all the Kumbaya clan--want to couch 'empowering women' as meaning 'kill any fetus'. In fact, when it comes to discussions of elective abortions as I have also said, this is the very first time (after this being one of my most involved topics in cyberspace over a dozen years) where I am having to argue 'against abortion' from how you and your Kumbaya clan like to claim 'being for it'. So, I'm not sure how you can blanketly claim (you know, in 'either/or' fashion) that 'my dogmatism' is either 'offensive' or against a woman's 'right to choose'.

What I do know (and you and your Kumbaya clan ignore despite that knowledge) is that this issue of elective abortions as deliberated on by the Supreme Court that decided the Roe vs. Wade case was decided directly in regard to individual rights (against any so-called 'community interest') and the contention between the mother's 'right to liberty and pursuit of happiness' up against any potential 'right to life' the fetus can attain for itself by any state in the nation 'acting on the fetus's behalf'. In fact, that was the very substance of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Individual rights, DRC. A political entity that is just the opposite of any dogmatic approach that I can think of. Any 'community interest' approach, either, since it was recognized that some 'communities' would, up until recently (when more people recognized what a dead fetus looked like near birth--which is exactly like a dead baby after birth), allow abortions to term as others wouldn't allow any elective abortions at all. Just like the life of a dog dependant upon which 'community' you were referring to--without establishing and prioritizing 'individual rights', any 'community interest' could intervene on any personal behavior.

Also, I know that individual rights without personal responsibility cannot long sustain a civil society--but, instead of removing the interests of individiual rights completely (and dogmatically), I would rather recognize the personal obligation it must intrinsically contain to retain any moral or ethical integrity to its function. Thus, I realize that the 'right to choose' of the mother will eventually come up against the 'right to life' of her offspring as any civilized persons can intrinsically understand it--and, in the making of its laws, agree to it--always responsibly cognizant of the character of 'individual rights' (and any contentions that may hold) that it is to address. Absent such personal responsibility, sucking fetal brains out right before birth as a mother's right can be interpreted as rejecting all responsibility to any pregnancy--especially by fathers not wanting to take their responsibility as a personal obligation (with any law allowing such a maneuver 'by choice' seeming to support such irresponsible behavoir towards the outcome of any pregnancy). And, this far along into the pregnancy is not a 'private issue' that only the mother (and her doctor) knows--and the issue of its proposed and purposive demise is, also, not going to be such a 'secret', either--more in line with an open act of sex also being offensive and pornographic to those having to 'witness it'. But, along with you and your Kumbaya clan's proposition that 'empowering women' can only be confirmed by 'killing any fetus', you don't seem to have a very 'community-minded' consideration of such an insult, do you? How 'selfish' of you and your Kumbaya clan so condescendingly, and hypocritically, describing my form of libertarianism as being 'selfish'....

Quote DRC:

They may or may not be equally dogmatic in the broad expanse of "ethics," but they are serious and the use of this issue to attack women's freedom and equality, as well as dignity, is so extreme that we believe it justifies our commitment to her freedom of conscience, "right to choose" and protection of her legal rights to have an abortion.

I am not sure how you could view a dead baby knowing that just moments before it was killed (and knowing that such a killing was a purposive act) that it could have been born alive and claim that to be 'an act of dignity'.....that is so offensive to the common sense of humanity that I can see why states like California have reneged on legal third trimester elective abortions. Why you don't see that is, again, another peculiar and particular form of ignorance to the very basis of humanity and humaneness (to claim 'protection for its weakest members' that, in other areas, you have even held--but, that's when your 'we' is of 'the both/and' of your form of 'community' and not the 'we' of this 'either/or' condition that you and your Kumbaya clan lay here, right, DRC?)--and this coming from you and your Kumbaya clan that seems so hypocritically intent on 'killing every fetus' to 'empower every woman' (as 'either/or'--certainly not 'both/and' as even you use the terms as this 'we' of 'community--but, 'granting rights to others as you acquire them for yourself' isn't really a part of your 'we' community as you describe it, anyway, is it, DRC?).

And, please, don't try to twist my words once again. If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. If the fetus cannot come out alive, that mother can choose to end that pregnancy for any--or no apparent--reason at all. After all, as Roe vs. Wade acknowledges in the early gestational periods of pregnancy, that woman has that right....and that's not dogma, that's a sane and considerate decision concerning the 'contention of rights' this issue holds....right along with its obligation to personally responsible behavior....

"SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!"

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

Most took the Hippocratic Oath; the alleged doctor self-administered the Hypocritic Oath.

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

Are you lost, Capital? What 'trend' is that, Capital?

Everyone claiming your a disengenious asshole. I find it sort of funny.

The truth CAN be excruciatingly funny, as well as often tragic. The shoe fits, but the alleged doctor refuses to put it on.

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

Oh, I see, you have commented on elective abortions, haven't you, Capital?

You data is from 2003. When did the federal law that banned partial birth abortions take effect?

Of course, as trends go, that has nothing to do with Zenzoe's original complaint about how 'disingenuous' I was with this when Zenzoe never made one statement about that very point when D_NATURED claimed sucking fetal brains out right before birth was required to 'empower women'.--in fact, admired it as D_NATURED's little 'exaggeration'. And, now that Capital has come into this mix, I suspect asking Zenzoe realistic questions about how far would Zenzoe be for killing fetuses (and only just if the mother wanting it) as a show of 'empowering women' since the true and honest opinions are about to come forth from 'Capital'.....who, of course, has thought all issues out that Capital makes any comments on--especially ones that involve 'free markets', 'government intervention', and the application of American medicine....

You're not disingenuous; only ineducable.

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

Oh, I see, you have commented on elective abortions, haven't you, Capital?

You data is from 2003. When did the federal law that banned partial birth abortions take effect?

The data was abortion done after viability. I don't recall it saying anything about Partial Birth Abortion. I'm sure that was a reading oversight on your part.

Yeah, a deliberate reading oversight. He's a past master at those.

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

Right. It's illegal. If it's not happening, you've won already. So shut up about it.

But, that didn't stop you from admiring D_NATURED saying it, did it, Zenzoe? How far are you willing to take killing a fetus (and only if the mother wants it) as a show for 'empowering women'?

And, once again, Zenzoe, if the fetus has a condition that is considered non-viable, in a due process manner (which involve forms that expose the conditions being addressed and the decisions being made), that pregnancy can be terminated. But, that's not elective abortions--and that's not for any--or no apparent--reason at all, is it? And, 'I'm' the one being 'disingenuous' when it comes to real elective abortions, Zenzoe? I've always disliked how you and the Kumbaya clan introject 'dire circumstances' as a way to excuse the 'free choice' that real elective abortions have. But, you and your Kumbaya clan have always ignored that, also. But, 'I'm' the disingenuous one....

Speaking of which:

Quote Capital:

Everyone claiming your a disengenious asshole. I find it sort of funny.

Let's see if Ulysses comes in here and chastises you for your spelling of 'disingenuous' (as, of course, Ulysses only comments). But, as 'disingenuous' as any of you claim me to be, I've noted that, in the world of hypocrites, you are willing to condone in your friends what you condemn in your enemies.....it will be interesting to see how much of a 'friend' you are to them, Capital, a real 'ingenuous' friend.....

Why should I, when I can chastise yew for spelling "interject" as "introject?" Before I get around to anybody else, I simply MUST arrange for you to repeat Spelling 101 at Mrs. Malaprop's Skule Fer Alleged Doctors and Waywerd Boyz.

If you're going to argue in print with a highly literate audience, use a spell checker or prepare to be chastised.

IF YOU CAN'T RUN WITH THE BIG DOGS, YOU SHOULDN'T GET OFF THE PORCH!

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

The data was abortion done after viability. I don't recall it saying anything about Partial Birth Abortion. I'm sure that was a reading oversight on your part.

Coming from someone that just decided to pounce in here, you are the one having the reading oversight, Capital. The issue was Zenzoe asserting me to come up with one example of fetal brains being sucked out--which is a description of the first part to a partial birth abortion (the second part is crushing the skull). Your data is from 2003. If the federal ban on partial birth abortions was after that (and I cannot remember), then your data is probably off. In fact, if you had been following this at all, you would have known that, when Roe vs. Wade was being deliberated, at least two states (New York and California) offered elective abortions to term. Zenzoe has already pointed out that California law now allows elective abortions only to 24 weeks.

Ya see, Capital, if you go back and read this whole thread, from the beginning to here, you'll find out for yourself that the Kerry Troll relies heavily upon the old grade school retort, "I know you are but what am I?..."

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

internalized abandonment

seems to be the only sane reason why adults worry about fetal brains being sucked out. Or internalized fears developed while in the woman's womb (otherwise know as a uterus - before the biological event of the zygote implantation).

So much worry for this and yet lives already developed and ongoing are given the death panel. No, this does not make sense.Or for the lives already developed and ongoing - except the person is in jail for a crime they did not commit - but will be murdered by our government anyway.

If the issue is about sustaining life - then why isn't the SUSTAINING OF ALL LIFE given the same care & attention ?

...Because the Anti-Choice crowd lives out its slogan: "Love the Fetus, Hate the Child!" And, they want to shove that mindset down the rest of our throats, but millions of us have risen to say, "Come early, peckerwoods, and pack a BIG lunch!..."

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:And, if it takes a special procedure to kill that fetus before delivery in order for it not to come out alive, it could have come out alive.....

Yes, genius, that's why they call it an abortion and not a tickle fight. They have to kill the little parasite in order for the woman to be free of it. With her power of procreation and irrefutable physical responsibility comes the right to decide whether she gives live birth to a whole being or something in pieces or a puree, for that matter.Whatever is the least risky for her

You know, until you told me I didn't realize the sole reason for brain sucking was, in fact, to collapse the skull and put less stress on the cervix during extraction. I love that idea. That values women first. It is as it should be.

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

I won't address any of your questions that refer to abortion as "killing" a fetus. Don't bore me with that particular manipulation. And, anyway, that's no answer to my questions. Try again.

No, Zenzoe, I'll say it again: If it takes a special procedure to kill that fetus before delivering it so it will not come out alive, it could have come out alive. And, remember this one, too, Zenzoe: There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. There may be a medical indication to deliver that fetus prematurely but there is no medical indication that requires that fetus to be killed before that delivery. Quit trying to 'soften the blow' (inclusive of D_NATURED's 'tadpole' and 'parasite' comments) that this issue really involves because it is a disingenuous attempt to 'lessen the impact'--and that is your, and the Kumbaya clan's, disingenuous fallacy in your 'communal higher cause' proposals--and your 'assigned motives' as excuses, also...the real world--and real people (including women)--see it differently.....after all, a dead fetus right before birth looks just like a dead baby right after birth....

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

I can hardly wait for the moment you figure out that Capital thinks ANY abortion is "killing babies," no matter whether pre or post-viability. I wonder if he knows you don't argue with pre-viability abortions. This could get interesting.

Funny thing. Nobody's ever bothered to ask me what my actual opinion is on the matter. They just assume. Which I am perfectly fine with.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

I can hardly wait for the moment you figure out that Capital thinks ANY abortion is "killing babies," no matter whether pre or post-viability. I wonder if he knows you don't argue with pre-viability abortions. This could get interesting.

I already know that Capital thinks that, Zenzoe. But, if you haven't noticed, in this particular issue of claiming how 'disingenuous' I am, Capital is on your side--and Ulysses spends 11 posts directed against me and even being for Capital (despite Capital's spelling)--and regardless of Capital's position on abortion. That's why I remarked how interesting we'll see this work out in an 'ingenuous manner'. Now, tell me once again, Zenzoe, who's being disingenuous? And, is your remarks of 'disingenuity' even based on anything like 'the truth'? Or, is it just to be 'against me' that is 'the truth'? Why don't you ask Ulysses--and Capital? And, then, tell me what your 'true' answer is....

Now do you see why I call this group a clan--a 'Kumbaya clan'? But, now, with Capital's input, if Capital really makes any comments about elective abortions at all, we'll get to see how long this 'Kumbaya clan' stays 'together'--when it is rather obvious that the only thing that 'unites them' is to be 'against me'....right, Zenzoe? And, again, who is being 'disingenuous'? Tell the truth...

Why, any minute now, I expect DRC to come in here and congratulate Ulysses on how 'ingenuous' Ulysses' remarks are--and egg Ulysses on 'to make more remarks'.....in a very clannish way....

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

Funny thing. Nobody's ever bothered to ask me what my actual opinion is on the matter. They just assume. Which I am perfectly fine with.

Why look here, Zenzoe. Maybe you are wrong. Capital is here to join your cause...as the only 'honest way to empower women', right, Capital?.

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

Take care where you step in here, media_muse— it's practically wall-to-wall crap where the anti-woman brigade has been. Verbiarrhea problem. Quite stinky.

An absolutely disingenuous characterization of my comments, Zenzoe--but, that's not a problem with you, is it? Once again, this is my position:

And, please, don't try to twist my words once again. If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. If the fetus cannot come out alive, that mother can choose to end that pregnancy for any--or no apparent--reason at all. After all, as Roe vs. Wade acknowledges in the early gestational periods of pregnancy, that woman has that right....and that's not dogma, that's a sane and considerate decision concerning the 'contention of rights' this issue holds....right along with its obligation to personally responsible behavior....

So, I am for the mother's right to electively abort for any--or no apparent--reason at all. I am against that being translated into 'sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wants it' as either representing 'empowering women' or respecting pregnancies (in a personally responsible manner) at all.....I do think that the fetus gains rights the further along in the pregnancy that fetus goes....and so do most states--and even Roe vs. Wade that allowed women this sort of right (unconditionally in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy) recognized states could also recognize fetal rights the further along in the pregnancy the fetus developed....

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

You know, until you told me I didn't realize the sole reason for brain sucking was, in fact, to collapse the skull and put less stress on the cervix during extraction. I love that idea. That values women first. It is as it should be.

Again, D_NATURED, as Zenzoe has asked me, do you have an example of your position to go by? And, as I have asked you, if you were put in that position, would you be able to suck fetal brains out right before birth (and crush its skull)--and only if for the reason that the mother wants it (no dire circumstance excuses to try to 'lessen the blow')--as a show for how you see that 'empowers women'?

At one point in this discussion, you even backed off the idea that your position even held 'crushing the fetal skull'--but, that's when lance_cady decided to come in here and blame me for continuing to make the statement......and, now, who's being 'ingenuous'? Or, is this really just a 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey' moment? So, again, if put into the position, would YOU put your actions where your mouth is and suck out those fetal brains and crush that fetal skull right before birth--and only if the mother wanted it--as a show of how much that represented 'empowering women'? And, not even think twice about it....make an attempt to be 'ingenuous' here, D_NATURED. Let's here your remarks as YOU would perform them....

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

Why look here, Zenzoe. Maybe you are wrong. Capital is here to join your cause...as the only 'honest way to empower women', right, Capital?.

Nope, just came by to make fun of your misguided assumptons yet again. I'm starting to feel bad, It's like beating up the handicapped.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Nope, just came by to make fun of your misguided assumptons yet again. I'm starting to feel bad, It's like beating up the handicapped.

What an ingenuous remark being made again by the new member of the clan.....for exactly the reasons I pointed out. There is nothing that unites you to Ulysses--or Zenzoe--other than 'being against me', is there, Capital? What 'handicap' does that give 'me'? And, who is being 'ingenuous' in their remarks, here, Zenzoe? Is it 'the clan'? And their supposed 'higher communal cause' that ignores raping and murdering children--and killing fetuses at any stage of pregnancy as a way of claiming to 'empower women'? But loves to go after hate criminals--and me....

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

O noes.... Transforming Kerry from really bad communicator to Victim/ Martyr. I'll head back to my Healthcare thread and dream of a better time

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

You have already done your part in the frenzied feeding, Capital. At what point were any of your remarks here--or on the Healthcare thread for that matter--really 'ingenuous'? I don't have time to comment on that thread as of now--but, I can already see that you have 'changed' your position from being a pure 'free market' (claiming governement intervention as the folly) to now, one that does have a collusion between corporations and government, doesn't it, Capital? Yeah, that issue of 'disingenuous/ingenuous' gets quite tricky when you have to start really backing up your remarks to the real world....

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

Capital is here to join your cause...as the only 'honest way to empower women', right, Capital?.

Oh really? Read on...

Quote Capitol:
Quote Karolina:

The old "women=baby machines" tactic. Very telling.

Isn't it though. At least I'm not advocating killing babies.

Quote Capital:

On side, those who what the personal right to do with their bodies as they see fit free on consequence, against those you want to protect the most precious, defenseless natural resource we have...

The body in question isn’t YOURS...

So the question is, Does anything present in the Uterus automatically make it the exclusive dominion of the Women. I assume you already know the answer to that...

What in those quotes from another thread tells you he's interested in empowering women?

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

You have already done your part in the frenzied feeding, Capital. At what point were any of your remarks here--or on the Healthcare thread for that matter--really 'ingenuous'? I don't have time to comment on that thread as of now--but, I can already see that you have 'changed' your position from being a pure 'free market' (claiming governement intervention as the folly) to now, one that does have a collusion between corporations and government, doesn't it, Capital? Yeah, that issue of 'disingenuous/ingenuous' gets quite tricky when you have to start really backing up your remarks to the real world....

See, I told you— fun fun fun.

Let the wild rumpus begin!!!

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

You know, until you told me I didn't realize the sole reason for brain sucking was, in fact, to collapse the skull and put less stress on the cervix during extraction. I love that idea. That values women first. It is as it should be.

Again, D_NATURED, as Zenzoe has asked me, do you have an example of your position to go by? And, as I have asked you, if you were put in that position, would you be able to suck fetal brains out right before birth (and crush its skull)--and only if for the reason that the mother wants it (no dire circumstance excuses to try to 'lessen the blow')--as a show for how you see that 'empowers women'?

YES, YES and YES!!! Give me the triaining and the tools and the women in need and I'll be a brain suckiing fool, if you don't have the stomach for liberty, if you prefer the idea of the feminine underclass to the sight of dead fetuses. Yes, you weakling.

You know, I could have asked you the same question about a child rapist-murderer. That is, if you have the cajones to do what you claim to support, of cutting off his dick, shoving it in his mouth, sticking hot pokers up his ass and leaving him to die before your insane constructs of god and country.

I didn't ask you that, though, because I know it's bluster with you. You were trying to demonstrate that I have compassion for child murderers (which I don't) but not for widdle tiny babies...sniff sniff...that never hurt anyone and just want to be born alive...sniff. But, of course, compassion for fetuses is "normal" and compassion for women is a pick up line, right Dr. Douchebag?

At one point in this discussion, you even backed off the idea that your position even held 'crushing the fetal skull'

Actually, you're full of shit. I always said that I support whatever is the safest way for the woman. The fetus will not survive an abortion so it doesn't matter to it which way it is dispatched. It only matters to you. YOU are the one, Kerry, who first mentioned fetal brain sucking, and I NEVER backed down from that and never will. If that's the best way we have to perform a fetus-ectomy, then let the sucking begin!

--but, that's when lance_cady decided to come in here and blame me for continuing to make the statement......and, now, who's being 'ingenuous'? Or, is this really just a 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey' moment? So, again, if put into the position, would YOU put your actions where your mouth is and suck out those fetal brains and crush that fetal skull right before birth--and only if the mother wanted it--as a show of how much that represented 'empowering women'? And, not even think twice about it....make an attempt to be 'ingenuous' here, D_NATURED. Let's here your remarks as YOU would perform them....

Do you want to "here" my remarks, Dr. Douchebag. I think you already know what my two word response would be to your disengenuousness. You're smart enough to guess that, I think.

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

You da' man, D_NATURED! But, since you apparently missed it, I've already commented on what I would do with a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer--and, if it were some child that I knew and loved, it wouldn't be too far from what I've described--despite what DRC says about it (but, then, DRC did condone killing hate criminals even if DRC wants to rehabilitate child rapist-murderers). Or, Zenzoe, since that was when Zenzoe started accusing me of my disingenuousness (and the whole clan joined in--even got new members like Capital--who, as Zenzoe notes, isn't right in line with the rest of the clan's ideas on killing fetuses right before birth--but, then, I don't know why Zenzoe whines about women not having power--Zenzoe is the real leader of this clan, not DRC, as--other than Capital--they tiptoe around any part of this issue that doesn't go right along with killing every fetus to empower every woman and they are sure to make no remarks that, in any way, could be interpreted as 'offensive' to that cause--no matter what happens to a fetus right before birth as no law in this nation allows)--and, then, making all sorts of slanderous remarks about my capacity as a physician--a favorite posture from all the Kumbaya clan (who chimed in right in line with that accusation).

I don't have a lot of time to respond to your remarks, otherwise, however. Maybe that will give the Kumbaya clan time to pat itself on the back with your manly remarks on killing any fetus right before birth (even though, as 'ingenuous' as you now claim to be, when confronted by others, you have denied owning that position before--but, I don't have time to go looking for it)--even if there is a federal law against it. But, what the hell, written laws are over-appreciated, don't you think? And, maybe Zenzoe and lance_cady will come in here to honor and acknowledge your 'genuine support'--but, let me remind you what militant means from my Oxford Essential Dictionary of Difficult Words:

militant 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

But, I know how the Kumbaya clan who likes to hold hands and sing Kumbaya as you, D_NATURED, suck those brains out of that fetus right before birth and crush that skull, are so for love, peace, life, and community--but, I knew that it was a dishonest, disingenuous, sham, all along. But, go ahead and criticize me for what I would do to a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer, you hypocrites.....

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

I didn't know the word disingenuous had such power to stick in the head of a person. And now, Kerry, you feel truly besieged.

As I've said before, if you were to just sit back and enjoy the fact that your position is the law now, and then move on, this torment here could be done and over with.

I don't hate you. I hate your long-windedness, your incoherent ramblings and your repetitive mantras. It's tedious, that's all. Oh, and then there's your inability to tolerate ambiguity—not a fan of that one.

But then, I'm not perfect either, which is putting it mildly.

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

[quote]I already know that Capital thinks that, Zenzoe. But, if you haven't noticed, in this particular issue of claiming how 'disingenuous' I am, Capital is on your side--and Ulysses spends 11 posts directed against me

I'm just trying to scrape you off the shoe. Dry up and blow away and you won't have to read my remarks.

Who ya gonna call?! Trollbusters!...

And, is your remarks of 'disingenuity' even based on anything like 'the truth'?

I didn't think even you were that illiterate. "Remarks" is plural so it requires "are," not "is." Damn!

Now do you see why I call this group a clan--a 'Kumbaya clan'?

No. Please tell us again. For the ten thousandth time. I can't wait to experience more of your golden prose.

Why, any minute now, I expect DRC to come in here and congratulate Ulysses on how 'ingenuous' Ulysses' remarks are--and egg Ulysses on 'to make more remarks'.....in a very clannish way....

Well, ye just wait! Ye'll see! The Clans will rise again, when Bonnie Prince Charlie returns to the Highlands! Campbell! MacGregor! This is Kumbaya! Are ye reddy, lads and lassies?

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

Capital is here to join your cause...as the only 'honest way to empower women', right, Capital?.

Oh really? Read on...

Quote Capitol:
Quote Karolina:

The old "women=baby machines" tactic. Very telling.

Isn't it though. At least I'm not advocating killing babies.

Quote Capital:

On side, those who what the personal right to do with their bodies as they see fit free on consequence, against those you want to protect the most precious, defenseless natural resource we have...

The body in question isn’t YOURS...

So the question is, Does anything present in the Uterus automatically make it the exclusive dominion of the Women. I assume you already know the answer to that...

What in those quotes from another thread tells you he's interested in empowering women?

I'm already makin' book that you won't get a simple, direct answer to that one...

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

[quote]You da' man, D_NATURED! But, since you apparently missed it, I've already commented on what I would do with a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer

He's the reincarnation of Vlad the Impaler.

Zenzoe is the real leader of this clan, not DRC,

We see through him; we're the clan. Whenever he makes remarks like that, he's just trying to spread internal dissension between us, but we're too clever for that. We never speak ill of fellow clan members, just as "Saint Runald" Reagan never spoke ill of fellow Republicreeps.

then, making all sorts of slanderous remarks about my capacity as a physician

Nothing's slanderous, because you haven't documented your true status as a physician, and without documentation, anybody who wants to express the opinion that you're not a real doctor, but an alleged one, is free to do so. And, with nobody knowing your real identity, you can't claim that any negative assertions about you in this thread have caused you any professional damages, because since nobody knows who you are, you can't claim that anybody has refused to be your patient based on what has been said here.

This is also a public forum, and everybody's entitled to their opinions. If you inject yourself into public discourse, whatever anybody else thinks about your remarks or says about them is protected by the First Amendment. There's also no way to document that you're a real physician without you revealing your identity, and without anybody wishing to do so verifying with colleges and med schools that you are, in fact, a graduate, so you can put that one where the sun doesn't shine. People can't be blamed legally or any other way for refusing to accept undocumented, non-documentable assertions at face value, including allegations that somebody is a doctor.

Besides, slander is oral and libel is not, so it's impossible for anything written here to be slanderous. You're so ignorant you don't even know the difference.

I still don't (and never will) believe that anybody capable of earning undergraduate degrees and an M.D. from reputable universities writes and spells as poorly as you do and abuses English grammar the way you do. It's possible, if you went to Cow Tech or some facsimile, I guess. If you really are a doctor and you practice the way you write, I wouldn't let you near me or mine if this were the 1300s and we were in the throes of the Black Death. If you don't like that, too bad.

--a favorite posture from all the Kumbaya clan (who chimed in right in line with that accusation).

Somebody new must be writing his talking points. That's the first time he's used "posture" in a dog's age.

I don't have a lot of time to respond to your remarks, otherwise, however.

Yes. You mostly prefer to confine the voluminous nonsense you churn out to this particular thread.

But, I know how the Kumbaya clan who likes to hold hands and sing Kumbaya as you, D_NATURED, suck those brains out of that fetus right before birth and crush that skull, are so for love, peace, life, and community--but, I knew that it was a dishonest, disingenuous, sham, all along. But, go ahead and criticize me for what I would do to a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer, you hypocrites.....

"SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!, SKRITCH!..."

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

I didn't know the word disingenuous had such power to stick in the head of a person. And now, Kerry, you feel truly besieged.

I recognize clannish behavior when I see it, Zenzoe. Despite any claims of being 'less selfish' and 'more communal' to the contrary. Condoning sucking fetal brains out right before birth as the entire clan castigates me for what I would do to a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer--and showing absolutely no shame on the blatant discrepancies that such a so-called 'community interest' position holds....which, to me, proves the clan to be the hypocrites that they are....

Quote Zenzoe:

As I've said before, if you were to just sit back and enjoy the fact that your position is the law now, and then move on, this torment here could be done and over with.

The torment I have is how you all are so receptive of fetal brain sucking 'for the cause' and, then, claim to be so much for 'the life of the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' as if killing that person were, somehow, less 'civilized'. Both brutal deaths--but you are for the death of the one who dies by choice of another (at a time when many, even women, would claim that such a person deserves to have a life)--but against the other who dies by due process for what many would see as a just cause. Claiming all along to be 'against any socially sanctioned killing' but, in the meantime, as even you, Zenzoe, want to make all 'right to life' conditional.....treating a fetus about to be born as if it were the difference between a community interested in a dog being a family companion--or the next meal....

Quote Zenzoe:

I don't hate you. I hate your long-windedness, your incoherent ramblings and your repetitive mantras. It's tedious, that's all. Oh, and then there's your inability to tolerate ambiguity—not a fan of that one.

But, I am a fan of 'balance'--a word that even DRC loves to use in its 'community interest' perspective. But, more a rational 'balance'--such as a 'balance' between the mother's right to choose up against a fetus's right to life once that is recognized to exist (by written and natural law--with the most natural expression of law in this instance being 'if the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive'--and having to impose a separate procedure to kill the fetus--such as sucking the fetal brains out right before birth--does indicate that such a fetus could have naturally come out alive at that point). It certainly makes more rational and humane sense than 'sucking fetal brains out right before birth' as being the only way to prove that such forms of killing 'empower women'--and do it in a manner that is disrespectful of pregnancies altogether....in, of course, the personally responsible way that is the only way to guide civil societies with citizen rights...a way that the clan refuses to consider even to offer another realistic option for what confirms a 'civil society'....especially considering their rather militant adherence to fetal brain sucking right before birth 'by choice' and 'for their cause' as representing such a 'civil society'....

Quote Zenzoe:

But then, I'm not perfect either, which is putting it mildly.

This isn't about 'perfection', this is about the rational consideration of humane actions when it comes to contending rights of elective abortions as has been considered and determined by law...but the clan wants this to be about something else--complaining about something to do about a 'war on women's issues'--but being just about as militant about it (fetal brain sucking right before birth and all) as anyone they claim to have a contention against such a 'war'......and, by their professed comments and actions, making it as much a 'war' as anyone else.....

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

But, I am a fan of 'balance'--a word that even DRC loves to use in its 'community interest' perspective. But, more a rational 'balance'--such as a 'balance' between the mother's right to choose up against a fetus's right to life once that is recognized to exist...

That's all I ever said—one must balance interests, which you dismissed as "conditioning all rights..." and blah blah blah.

I don't think I EVER advocated "sucking brains out" —"intact dilation and extraction"— of viable fetuses just before birth, unless something was wrong with the fetus. In fact, I do believe non-viability is the only reason intact dilation and extraction ever happens in the third trimester, as opposed to merely satisfying the whims of the mother. The hyperbole on this point has only lead to this straw man argument of yours, and I think you should let it drop.

You keep repeating the same 'ol, same 'ol things, expecting a different answer. And that is the definition of....?

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

The hyperbole on this point has only lead to this straw man argument of yours, and I think you should let it drop.

There it is again: strawman argument. There is no strawman argument here, Zenzoe. You had asked my opinion on the matter hundreds of posts ago and I had said that I was comfortable with how legal elective abortions had been defined in Texas as being prior to 20 weeks--recognizing that the earliest fetal gestation to survive outside of the uterus was 20 weeks (and will be 20 weeks into the foreseeable future--technology just isn't advanced enough to replace the uterus--no where near it--and, if it is ever that advanced, the costs will probably prevent it from being counted as a legal marker 'for everyone'). You remember that? And, as I remember it, that's when the bombardment ramped up--claiming such things as misogyny, backwardness, even personal assaults on my character and my profession. DRC even claimed that for the entire state of Texas due to that law--even though you came in with the point that California limits legal elective abortions to 24 weeks (so, apparently, according to DRC, the difference between a 'misogynist state like Texas' and a 'women-empowering liberal state like California' is 4 weeks). Remember all that, Zenzoe? It's there. You even came in complaining about how Thom Hartmann had made some statement even agreeing with the limits of elective abortions as set up by Roe vs. Wade--which set up a whole barrage of new attacks by the clan on basically the gist that 'empowering women' had to be defined as 'aborting until term'--'choice' with no reservations allowed by law no matter what fetal stage of development--even 'before birth'....

You didn't quite make it as blatantly as D_NATURED--but, you were trying to limit the fetal 'right to life' by the 'dire circumstance' argument of such things as 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and the supposed risks to the mother's life' (that D_NATURED appeared to try to make as physical risks like causing the death of the mother--but, again, there is no physical risk to the mother in that matter that has a medical indication to, or a requirement for, killing the fetus before deliverying it--but, that was duly ignored by everyone involved--with D_NATURED, da man that D_NATURED is, making subtle threats on me as a doctor if I were to 'kill the mother by saving the baby'--remember all that?). However, you wanted to add 'risks' that included the mother's own sense of wellbeing with having now the lifelong responsibility of raising that child--which, as I've said all along, if that were a question at this stage, why not just adopt the child out? At some point there has to be a personal responsibility accountable for that pregnancy if elective abortion did not get enacted in a timely manner. So far, Zenzoe, where's the 'strawman argument' here that my 'hyperbole' is creating?

And, whose 'hyperbole' and real 'strawman' are you talking about, Zenzoe? While D_NATURED did back off that 'sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wants it' posture during the time you instilled the 'dire circumstances' excuses to justify killing the fetus at any stage of development, true to form, D_NATURED in response to me has returned to that very argument in full brigada and sucking those fetal brains out and crushing that head, and right before birth, for 'the empowerment of women'--no matter how grotesque, inhumane, and blatant disregarding the feelings of any witnesses thereof (you know, surgery suites and hospital rooms), that action can be. Am I making that up, Zenzoe? Is that the 'strawman' and 'hyperbole' of which you speak? As the clan stands back and allows such descriptions to represent 'empowering women' without any comment whatsoever while my description of what to do with a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer is 'uncivilized', 'unjust', 'too vengeant'--where's your basis to make such a judgment when 'fetal brains sucking right before birth if the mother wants it' goes without comment--except to direct the accusations to me? In what I perceive to be a very clannish manner....'that's just D_NATURED's way of supporting women', you claimed--and I responded that that description sounds more like 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'--but, I guess you can 'respect the woman--but, still, disrespect her pregnancy all you want'.....

Regardless of what you think of religion, some of the words of Jesus are very wise and pertinent when you consider their impact and meaning with respect to how 'reality' unfolds before us (and within us)--judge not lest your yourself be judged.....it's rational coherence is intrinsic and profound....a 'rational Christian' perspective that Thomas Jefferson--even as the author of the term 'wall of separation between church and state'--was to claim as the fundamental premise to the foundation of natural law that was to be the rational basis of the American governmental experiment in democracy (that the clan seems to want to remove by the 'new paradigm' of 'community interest'). And, even though I am not a woman, I, in my own personal considerations of the issue, allow elective abortions because I could see how one could get caught in an unwanted pregnancy--but I respect the nature of pregnancy in having that woman recognize that fact in a timely manner in a way that eventually must respect the life of what she is helping create--and act accordingly. The most natural stage of that being when a fetus can come out alive--thus, fetal viability. That is what I have always said--but the clan has steadfastly accused me for it.

Now, D_NATURED has 'solved' it once and for all, right? No 'strawman argument' there, right?

YES, YES and YES!!! Give me the triaining and the tools and the women in need and I'll be a brain suckiing fool, if you don't have the stomach for liberty, if you prefer the idea of the feminine underclass to the sight of dead fetuses. Yes, you weakling.

Did I make that up, Zenzoe? Who is making the 'hyperbole' and 'strawman argument' here? D_NATURED claims to be telling the truth--and, along with the subtle threats, calls me a weakling for not being able to stomach fetal brain sucking right before birth--and only if the mother wants it. Then, why are you just addressing such accusations of 'hyperbole' and 'strawman arguments' to me? Am I the one being 'disingenuous' here? I've admitted my feelings on the topic--including fetal brain sucking and what to do with a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer. Why do you claim that I am the one being disingenuous here? I don't believe that I have swayed once from my position on this--despite all the accusations--including your accusations of hyperbole (in response to D_NATURED's description that you never directly address) and strawman argument (what 'strawman', Zenzoe?)--and, last but not least, your accusation of me being 'disingenuous'.....

You keep repeating the same 'ol, same 'ol things, expecting a different answer. And that is the definition of....?

But, that makes me 'disingenuous', right, Zenzoe? Whereas, all the claims of fetal brain sucking right before birth if the mother wants, all the claims on my character, misogyny, and even ability as a physician (with even DRC, a person who claims to be a person of God, telling me to go to hell), all the remarks about 'dire circumstances' in any way representing elective abortions or excuses to kill fetuses at any stage of development, those are all honest positions in this issue on all your parts to you, right, Zenzoe? And, you actually wonder why I keep repeating myself.....including my own slurs of you and your clan's hypocrisy.....

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

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, I thought this quote from him was pertinent to this 'discussion'. It's from my little booklet, 'Jefferson, The Man--In His Own Words' edited by Robert C. Baron, and is from a letter to James Heaton dated May 20, 1826 (about 6 weeks before Jefferson's death):

A good cause is often injured more by ill-timed efforts of its friends than by the arguments of its enemies. Persuasion, perserverance, and patience are the best advocates of questions depending on the wills of others.

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

Currently Chatting

Green World Rising

In two previous videos narrated by Leonard DiCaprio and available over at GreenWorldRising.org, we’ve seen the dangers that global warming and climate change present for our planet and the human race.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system