If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   Doctor has medical license revoked for refusing to force a 10-year-old girl to give birth. This happened in A) Saudi Arabia B) Sudan C) Kansas   (alternet.org) divider line 670
    More: Sick, medical licensure, Olds, Iowa, Dr. George Tiller, Sam Brownback, local board of health, late-term abortion, expert witnesses, mental disorders  
•       •       •

9623 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



670 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-26 03:49:30 PM

coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: Anyone who is anti-choice is also pro-botched-abortion. Just thought you should know.

Ahh, the old if we don't let them they will do it anyway and mess something up line of reasoning. I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists either.

So you're equating women who want to abort a fetus the same as terrorists? That's quaintly... retarded. Kudos!

Holy crap, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. Idiot.

Well, I am most certainly not wrong. Why would you mention terrorists? Oh, right, it's an analogy. Sure, you had no intention to equate women who were raped or have health issues and decide to get an abortion with terrorists.

fark off, you trolling clown.


So you know its an analogy but you still chose to put words in my mouth. I didn't have any such intentions, it is the same concept... "DURRR IF YOU OUTLAWZ SOMETHING ONLY OUTLAWAS WILL BE SOMETHIGN SOMETHING>!"

First thing you should have noticed as you reply to a lot of my posts, I am sure you saw it, is that I said the 10 year old should have been allowed to get an abortion. Second, just because I am not for abortion doesn't mean I think it should be outlawed.

You have a massive persecution complex and cant seem to summon the cognitive ability to think that someone may not like something but they don't want to see it banned or legislated. Your hyperbole is tired, just like the vast majority of your hyper-partisan arguments. If you're looking for a troll you're going to want to get out from under that bridge and find a mirror to look in.
 
2012-06-26 03:51:22 PM

I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: Anyone who is anti-choice is also pro-botched-abortion. Just thought you should know.

Ahh, the old if we don't let them they will do it anyway and mess something up line of reasoning. I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists either.

So you're equating women who want to abort a fetus the same as terrorists? That's quaintly... retarded. Kudos!

Holy crap, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. Idiot.

Well, I am most certainly not wrong. Why would you mention terrorists? Oh, right, it's an analogy. Sure, you had no intention to equate women who were raped or have health issues and decide to get an abortion with terrorists.

fark off, you trolling clown.

So you know its an analogy but you still chose to put words in my mouth. I didn't have any such intentions, it is the same concept... "DURRR IF YOU OUTLAWZ SOMETHING ONLY OUTLAWAS WILL BE SOMETHIGN SOMETHING>!"

First thing you should have noticed as you reply to a lot of my posts, I am sure you saw it, is that I said the 10 year old should have been allowed to get an abortion. Second, just because I am not for abortion doesn't mean I think it should be outlawed.

You have a massive persecution complex and cant seem to summon the cognitive ability to think that someone may not like something but they don't want to see it banned or legislated. Your hyperbole is tired, just like the vast majority of your hyper-partisan arguments. If you're looking for a troll you're going to want to get out from under that bridge and find a mirror to look in.


Le Projector!

Seriously, this was a good post. At least to show us what you really think of yourself.
 
2012-06-26 04:00:52 PM

GentDirkly: Though I do not favor unrestricted access to abortion, it does not follow that I also oppose generous financial assistance to mothers who need it, or free access to pre-natal and neo-natal care.




And what then of the child that you have mandated shall come into the world? Do you support free medical care, dietary assistance, and education to the age of majority? Or once they are born, are you ready to abandon them to be the next generation of brood mares for the rapists?
 
2012-06-26 04:01:52 PM

whidbey: I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: Anyone who is anti-choice is also pro-botched-abortion. Just thought you should know.

Ahh, the old if we don't let them they will do it anyway and mess something up line of reasoning. I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists either.

So you're equating women who want to abort a fetus the same as terrorists? That's quaintly... retarded. Kudos!

Holy crap, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. Idiot.

I'm pretty sure he just put you, or anyone who is anti-choice in their place.

If you want unsafe abortions likely to be botched by some pseudo-professional in an unconditioned storage unit somewhere,. then keep fighting the right to choose.

There's no way around it.


I know exactly what he meant. I don't want it outlawed but on the other hand I don't think it should be socially acceptable except in cases like what happened to this 10 year old girl, or where the mothers life is at risk. I would rather see birth control and sexual education efforts expanded.

I know that some republicans have taken up this subject and they are on the wrong side of the issue. To tell you the truth I don't know why they have done it. It really isn't even pandering to their base.
 
2012-06-26 04:07:02 PM

Brandyelf: We do, actually. We focus on the teachings of Christ by helping the less fortunate, loving our neighbours, and keeping our hearts and minds open to anyone who wishes to join us. We do not shove our beliefs down the throats of anyone else, and we do not discriminate on the basis of race or sexual preference. We leave the judging of others to God.


Sorry, but that is NOT helping the damned problem. If you want to actually help the perception of your little group, you need to SPEAK UP MOTHERFARKER

GentDirkly: jcooli09: GentDirkly: I oppose abortion in the case of rape, incest, or young maternal age, on religious grounds.

Then you are mentally ill and/or just plain evil.

You're the one advocating baby-killing, not me.
It would be ethical to punish rape with the death penalty, sure. Not ideal (the ideal punishment is probably jail time or removal of testicles or both), but also not immoral. But the one receiving the punishment should be the rapist, not the baby.


What baby? Fetus=/=baby. A fetus is a clump of cells that is growing into a baby, but is not yet a baby. It is POTENTIAL, not ACTUAL, and there is a whole mess of shiat that can go very wrong, very fast.

Brandyelf: KiplingKat872: Sorry, but that is the loudest group representing YOUR religion. If you don't want them to represent you, then get off your arses and shut them up or at least start making more noise than they do.

They're human beings. They're Americans. They represent you, too, if you're going to go with vast generalizations. You should get off your arse and shut them up or at least start making more noise than they do, lest people in more refined countries begin to believe all Americans are like them. Screaming "All Christians are bad!!!" is no more helpful.

They do not belong to my religion, I'm a United Methodist. They happen to spell the name of their God the same as I do, that's all. The only ones that seem to be lumping us under the same umbrella are the atheists I hear yelling.

I swear, Fark atheists can be as close-minded as some Republicans I talk to.


Your little sub-faction matters not. SPEAK THE fark UP.

GentDirkly: in this society majority religious belief (and the majority does believe that elective abortion is unethical) will always should not play a role in motivating laws


FTFY

GentDirkly: Chameleon: GentDirkly: Chameleon: Hey what a surprise. An hour and a half, plus 150 comments, and GentDirkly: still hasn't answered a simple question.

Do you think you should be legally required to donate a kidney to a dying man?

No. There are really a lot of differences between that situation, where the man has no natural claim to my body, and the other situation, where the fetus is implanted in the uterus and will remain and grow there without intervention.

Oh, right. "No, it's totally different when it's my body."

No one, not even my children, have a "natural claim" to my body.

If they're growing inside of you and will continue to do so unless you take mortal action against you, sorry, they do have a natural claim. You would be the agressor and they would be the victim.


So you oppose treating tapeworm, lice, and ticks, then?

Chameleon: GentDirkly:
If they're growing inside of you and will continue to do so unless you take mortal action against you, sorry, they do have a natural claim. You would be the agressor and they would be the victim.

No, sorry. If you have a right to bodily integrity, even if it causes someone's death, then I have the same right to bodily integrity. Where the "person" is at the time has no bearing on this right.


Pretty much this, yeah...
 
2012-06-26 04:10:21 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: GentDirkly: demaL-demaL-yeH: Look, dumbass, a fetus is not a baby.
Wrap your mind around that fact.
If you think that is false, please present your ConceptionDay Certificate issued by the State of Kansas (assuming you were born there). Pictures from your and your friends' ConceptionDay parties with appropriately-captioned banners would be good supporting evidence.
Once you've absorbed the fact that a fetus is not a baby, think through the moral ramifications of involuntarily enslaving an existing, living, breathing person - putting her in mortal danger - for the sake of a literal parasite that is, at most, a potential person.

GentDirkly: It's true in a sense. Even the Torah talks about the penalty for causing a miscarriage to be less than the penalty for murder. However, I really think the heirarchy of offense goes like this:
Murder of someone outside the womb > causing death in the wombMISCARRIAGE > pretty much any non-life-threatening complaint the mother might have.

Causing a miscarriage is civil, not criminal. Got it? It is not an offense. A majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

And don't you dare tell a Jew what Torah says.
Not.
Yours.
You're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong because your assumptions, mental and moral framework, religious "education", agenda, and preconceptions are wrong, and quite often based on bad, fifth-hand mistranslations (some of which were deliberate) of a text I read in the original Hebrew every year.

My tradition never takes abortion lightly. My tradition also points out circumstances when abortion is required - and those arguments and their justifications largely predate your religion.


demaL-demaL-yeH: GentDirkly: demaL-demaL-yeH: Look, dumbass, a fetus is not a baby.
Wrap your mind around that fact.
If you think that is false, please present your ConceptionDay Certificate issued by the State of Kansas (assuming you were born there). Pictures from your and your friends' ConceptionDay parties with appropriately-captioned banners would be good supporting evidence.
Once you've absorbed the fact that a fetus is not a baby, think through the moral ramifications of involuntarily enslaving an existing, living, breathing person - putting her in mortal danger - for the sake of a literal parasite that is, at most, a potential person.

GentDirkly: It's true in a sense. Even the Torah talks about the penalty for causing a miscarriage to be less than the penalty for murder. However, I really think the heirarchy of offense goes like this:
Murder of someone outside the womb > causing death in the wombMISCARRIAGE > pretty much any non-life-threatening complaint the mother might have.

Causing a miscarriage is civil, not criminal. Got it? It is not an offense. A majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

And don't you dare tell a Jew what Torah says.
Not.
Yours.
You're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong because your assumptions, mental and moral framework, religious "education", agenda, and preconceptions are wrong, and quite often based on bad, fifth-hand mistranslations (some of which were deliberate) of a text I read in the original Hebrew every year.

My tradition never takes abortion lightly. My tradition also points out circumstances when abortion is required - and those arguments and their justifications largely predate your religion.


I freely admit that I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel", and this causes me to read it less closely or precisely than many Jews do. But I fail to see why "death in the womb" and "miscarriage" is a distinction at all, and why you would be so vehement in making a distinction there. I'm willing to be educated on your point of view here, though I will probably not accept it as my own.
 
2012-06-26 04:12:41 PM

Jim_Callahan: At 10, one would think they'd go with the "statistically, going through labor will probably kill me" rationale, not the mental-health one.


They'd have to be more specific - there's a live birth from a 5 year old mother, and 'lots' at 10.

ox45tallboy:
And, I know this is a separate issue, and probably very much overshadowed (and rightly so) by all the other things wrong with this story, but how the fark is a 10-year-old already past menarche? This isn't right, either.


Welcome to the bell curve; even naturally some get an 'early start'. 10 isn't anywhere near the record, which is 5 years, 7 months, 17 days. A number of others at 6 years; at least one able to nurse. One screwed up case? One girl gave birth at 8 and her daughter ended up giving birth at 8 as well; making her a grandmother at 17.

Note: If the 10 year old who got the abortion had given birth, she'd probably be on the list, which goes as high as 11.
 
2012-06-26 04:13:37 PM

friday13: So you oppose treating tapeworm, lice, and ticks, then?


Is the tapeworm capable of developing into a human with a heart, lungs, and brain via natural processes?
I don't have kids, but it's very hard for me to imagine a parent explaining to their daughter, "you were once a parasite on the level of a tick. I would have had every right to squash you. But now you're my beautiful, special girl!"
 
2012-06-26 04:15:13 PM

I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: Anyone who is anti-choice is also pro-botched-abortion. Just thought you should know.

Ahh, the old if we don't let them they will do it anyway and mess something up line of reasoning. I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists either.

So you're equating women who want to abort a fetus the same as terrorists? That's quaintly... retarded. Kudos!

Holy crap, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. Idiot.

Well, I am most certainly not wrong. Why would you mention terrorists? Oh, right, it's an analogy. Sure, you had no intention to equate women who were raped or have health issues and decide to get an abortion with terrorists.

fark off, you trolling clown.

So you know its an analogy but you still chose to put words in my mouth. I didn't have any such intentions, it is the same concept... "DURRR IF YOU OUTLAWZ SOMETHING ONLY OUTLAWAS WILL BE SOMETHIGN SOMETHING>!"

First thing you should have noticed as you reply to a lot of my posts, I am sure you saw it, is that I said the 10 year old should have been allowed to get an abortion. Second, just because I am not for abortion doesn't mean I think it should be outlawed.

You have a massive persecution complex and cant seem to summon the cognitive ability to think that someone may not like something but they don't want to see it banned or legislated. Your hyperbole is tired, just like the vast majority of your hyper-partisan arguments. If you're looking for a troll you're going to want to get out from under that bridge and find a mirror to look in.


Yawn. You have no credibility dude. You cry foul on Obama every chance you get so why should anyone think or care if you are "middle ground" on an issue? Hyper-partisan? You have got to be joking. See, ironic statements that are so obvious like that means you must be trolling.

//Brought the scorn of the entire Fark community on yourself, you have.
 
2012-06-26 04:16:33 PM

GentDirkly: friday13: So you oppose treating tapeworm, lice, and ticks, then?

Is the tapeworm capable of developing into a human with a heart, lungs, and brain via natural processes?
I don't have kids, but it's very hard for me to imagine a parent explaining to their daughter, "you were once a parasite on the level of a tick. I would have had every right to squash you. But now you're my beautiful, special girl!"


What do you tell your children about the billions of years that passed before they existed? Do you lie to them and say they existed all that time, just not as humans?
 
2012-06-26 04:32:44 PM

GentDirkly: friday13: So you oppose treating tapeworm, lice, and ticks, then?

Is the tapeworm capable of developing into a human with a heart, lungs, and brain via natural processes?
I don't have kids, but it's very hard for me to imagine a parent explaining to their daughter, "you were once a parasite on the level of a tick. I would have had every right to squash you. But now you're my beautiful, special girl!"


Not that hard for me. Of course, I may have a little more insight into the biological workings of pregnancy than you do. After all, I paid attention in biology class.
 
2012-06-26 04:43:13 PM
holy shiat, he's still posting.
 
2012-06-26 05:01:09 PM

GentDirkly: I freely admit that I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel", and this causes me to read it less closely or precisely than many Jews do. But I fail to see why "death in the womb" and "miscarriage" is a distinction at all, and why you would be so vehement in making a distinction there. I'm willing to be educated on your point of view here, though I will probably not accept it as my own.


1. Miscarriage is the proper, medical term for a medical event. Use the right word. Your assumption that abortion is infanticide because you improperly identify a fetus as a baby, is wrong. Your arguments and position on abortion flow from these falsehoods.

2. This - I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel" - is why you can't get even the basics right: not the Sabbath, not Shema (the Oneness of God), not even why practicing ritual cannibalism is an abomination. (I refer you to Matthew 5:17-20 in your book to show you why you should think my criticism over carefully. And if your response is to tell me that Solly the Greek overrides that statement straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, what am I to make of your beliefs?)
 
2012-06-26 05:12:23 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: GentDirkly: And the risk to the baby in your scenario is 100%. Your point is not persuasive.

Look, dumbass, a fetus is not a baby.
Wrap your mind around that fact.


If you put it in bold it magically becomes true.
Really, what's the point in trying to convince somebody that your arbitrary opinion is better than your arbitrary opinion?
 
2012-06-26 05:19:05 PM

serial_crusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: GentDirkly: And the risk to the baby in your scenario is 100%. Your point is not persuasive.

Look, dumbass, a fetus is not a baby.
Wrap your mind around that fact.

If you put it in bold it magically becomes true.
Really, what's the point in trying to convince somebody that your arbitrary opinion is better than your arbitrary opinion?


Well, if you can convince them of that you know they'll believe anything.
 
2012-06-26 05:21:18 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: GentDirkly: I freely admit that I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel", and this causes me to read it less closely or precisely than many Jews do. But I fail to see why "death in the womb" and "miscarriage" is a distinction at all, and why you would be so vehement in making a distinction there. I'm willing to be educated on your point of view here, though I will probably not accept it as my own.

1. Miscarriage is the proper, medical term for a medical event. Use the right word. Your assumption that abortion is infanticide because you improperly identify a fetus as a baby, is wrong. Your arguments and position on abortion flow from these falsehoods.

2. This - I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel" - is why you can't get even the basics right: not the Sabbath, not Shema (the Oneness of God), not even why practicing ritual cannibalism is an abomination. (I refer you to Matthew 5:17-20 in your book to show you why you should think my criticism over carefully. And if your response is to tell me that Solly the Greek overrides that statement straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, what am I to make of your beliefs?)


#1 is worth repeating.
 
2012-06-26 05:24:47 PM

I alone am best: whidbey: I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: coeyagi: Anyone who is anti-choice is also pro-botched-abortion. Just thought you should know.

Ahh, the old if we don't let them they will do it anyway and mess something up line of reasoning. I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists either.

So you're equating women who want to abort a fetus the same as terrorists? That's quaintly... retarded. Kudos!

Holy crap, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. Idiot.

I'm pretty sure he just put you, or anyone who is anti-choice in their place.

If you want unsafe abortions likely to be botched by some pseudo-professional in an unconditioned storage unit somewhere,. then keep fighting the right to choose.

There's no way around it.

I know exactly what he meant. I don't want it outlawed but on the other hand I don't think it should be socially acceptable except in cases like what happened to this 10 year old girl, or where the mothers life is at risk. I would rather see birth control and sexual education efforts expanded.


That's nice, but that doesn't negate the point made. Make it illegal and you will have guaranteed unsafe conditions and a total lack of medical standards when it comes to performing abortions. Avoiding that is the single-biggest reason to support pro-choice.

I know that some republicans have taken up this subject and they are on the wrong side of the issue. To tell you the truth I don't know why they have done it. It really isn't even pandering to their base.

I guess you forgot about the far-right Christian fundamentalists that put them over the top and into the White House in 2000. They make up the loudest voices in the party.

Other than that, Republicans aren't into the concept of pro-choice. Allowing abortions in certain cases like rape or or whether the mother's life is at risk isn't "pro-choice."
 
2012-06-26 05:25:06 PM

dickfreckle: ox45tallboy:
All of you Kansas farks who insist on abstinence-only sex ed and creationism "science", look upon what your policies have caused. You could have prevented this, but you were so worried about looking good to your god that you voted against sensible policy, just as Penn State wanted to look good to their gods - alumni, boosters, advertisers with wheelbarrows full of money.

Kansians, you are partially culpable for this. To put it in terms you can understand: You are your brother's keeper.

I've been reading your rants for a while, and want to welcome you to my favorites list! You're consistently thoughtful and well-spoken, and even when it's clear your passion might be getting the better of you usually keep things in line. It doesn't mean I agree with the minutia of every post you make, but I really enjoy reading them.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x248]


Sorry, just saw this, but I appreciate the compliment!
 
2012-06-26 05:26:43 PM
Sam Brownback. Bad for vagina's. Bad for Kansas.
 
2012-06-26 05:36:25 PM

BronyMedic: Article does a really poor job of pieceing together what is going on, and obvious agenda is obvious.

Neuhaus has been in trouble because, upon retrospective review of her records, she was found to have performed inadequate mental health screenings on late term abortion prospects as required by law and not up to par for the clinical standards of her profession, not for "not forcing 10 year olds to have abortions."

/pro choice.
//Still, if you're going to work in a controversial field, don't half-ass your work. You're going to get caught.


Actually, the reason the doctor didn't fill out the forms correctly was to protect said ten-year-old and her other teenaged patients. The only real problem here is the aftercare, and while I agree the doctor needs a bit of training, I see nothing at all wrong with her refusing to fill out the forms--it means those teen girls weren't dragged through the mud, so it did exactly what it was supposed to do.

You want to have proper protocols? Make that ethically possible.

/Though yes, the doctor certainly needs to provide aftercare to these children--like, say, calling the cops and getting them in psychologist's offices.
 
2012-06-26 05:43:44 PM

Dansker: Because empty phrases and politically correct euphemisms are hallmarks of true objectivity


While it remains true that it is difficult debate on the topic of abortion because large numbers of people on both sides of the issue are convinced they are right with a passion and fever that borders on religious fundamentalism, it's also true that there are signs you can use to tell when somebody is so far gone that you can't even trust anything they say anymore.

And people who insist on using terms aside from "pro choice" and "pro life" always fit in that category. My political ramblings around the internet predate Fark, and Constitutional issues (ie, like abortion) have always been what I take the most interest in. It didn't take a genius to quickly figure out who was never going to acknowledge any argument on the topic of abortion that didn't align 100% with their own and this results in the inability and/or unwillingness to even properly understand the opposing position you disagree with.

BronyMedic: Uh, no. Claiming someone's position is pro-life in the pro-abortion or anti-abortion debate is, to anyone with more than half a brain cell, an attempt at an emotional appeal and poisoning the well. These people aren't pro-life. They're pro-birth. There's a huge difference.


Pro-Choice people are not pro-abortion, hence they they changed their name. Their position, if you understand it and by what you say I believe you do, is not accurately described as being 'for abortion', as the term pro-abortion implies. The Pro-Choice label accurately reflects their position on the issue because it is their belief that abortion should be a choice they have. Pro-life people are not anti-abortion anymore you would be "anti-murder" if you stopped somebody from shooting a baby sitting in a stroller. Their position is that human life begins at conception and that undergoing a medical procedure to end that biological process is tantamount to murder. Pro-Life accurately reflects their position because they believe that the unborn are alive.

It's a cute little phrase they use to distract from what the issue is truely about, and make it about something it's not. This is about whether you believe, or not, that aborting a mass of cells with no self awareness (pre-late term) or with limited proprioception (late term, but nonviable) is acceptable or not.

This is not actually relevant. Understanding the fundamentals of why each side believes as it does goes well beyond this.

Call me when they come out for lifetime, free healthcare for children, support systems which provide for their nourishment and education and safe housing, abolishment of the death penalty and limiting military interventionalism. Then I MIGHT decide to call them pro-life. But given the antiabortion demographics at hand, that will never happen.

There is no such thing as free health care, for children or anyone else, just as there is no such thing as free education, food, housing, or anything else. I do not have children but I pay taxes in to a system that supplies them with education (public school), I also pay for WIC/welfare programs, and various other things for children. I'm not aware of any major movement to take those things away but fringe elements do exist. This is putting aside the fact that by far and large the people who call themselves "pro-life" tend to be in the same group of people who give quite a bit more to charity.

The death penalty is an entirely different issue. Is it really difficult to understand how somebody who believes that abortion is murdering a completely innocent person would have no issue executing a serial killer? This remains one of the worst arguments I've ever heard that just won't go away. Look at it from their perspective, you're seriously asking them "How can you be against murdering unborn children but be for killing people who have committed horrific crimes against their fellow humans?"

Do you see how silly that sounds? Aside from that there is not a shortage of people who are against the death penalty and are pro life.
 
2012-06-26 05:45:22 PM

zarberg: holy shiat, he's still posting.


Sad, isn't it.

I think I'll get my 'mons more ready to take on Shingen Takeda and defend against Kenshin Uesugi's potential assault while I wait for his next bloody diarrhea spurt...

/yes, I'm a pokemon fan, and yes, I did get conquest.
//Though I am pissed they had to butcher history to do it...but I'm glad they got KOEI to do the music.
 
2012-06-26 05:45:33 PM

Hugh2d2: Sam Brownback. Bad for vagina's. Bad for Kansas.


Do you think he's going to be a one-term Governor?
 
2012-06-26 06:20:11 PM

randomjsa: Dansker: Because empty phrases and politically correct euphemisms are hallmarks of true objectivity

While it remains true that it is difficult debate on the topic of abortion because large numbers of people on both sides of the issue are convinced they are right with a passion and fever that borders on religious fundamentalism, it's also true that there are signs you can use to tell when somebody is so far gone that you can't even trust anything they say anymore.

And people who insist on using terms aside from "pro choice" and "pro life" always fit in that category. My political ramblings around the internet predate Fark, and Constitutional issues (ie, like abortion) have always been what I take the most interest in. It didn't take a genius to quickly figure out who was never going to acknowledge any argument on the topic of abortion that didn't align 100% with their own and this results in the inability and/or unwillingness to even properly understand the opposing position you disagree with.

BronyMedic: Uh, no. Claiming someone's position is pro-life in the pro-abortion or anti-abortion debate is, to anyone with more than half a brain cell, an attempt at an emotional appeal and poisoning the well. These people aren't pro-life. They're pro-birth. There's a huge difference.

Pro-Choice people are not pro-abortion, hence they they changed their name. Their position, if you understand it and by what you say I believe you do, is not accurately described as being 'for abortion', as the term pro-abortion implies. The Pro-Choice label accurately reflects their position on the issue because it is their belief that abortion should be a choice they have. Pro-life people are not anti-abortion anymore you would be "anti-murder" if you stopped somebody from shooting a baby sitting in a stroller. Their position is that human life begins at conception and that undergoing a medical procedure to end that biological process is tantamount to murder. Pro-Life accurately reflects the ...


I'm actually amazed: this was a well thought out post, was accurate (so far as I can tell) and is not actually trolling. I had you pegged as an idiot...re-evaluating... Though I will say that the movements to take welfare and schooling away do seem a little more prominent to me, but that may just be because of my own skewed perspective...
 
2012-06-26 06:20:16 PM

coeyagi: Gyrfalcon: Nuff Said McFarky: Holy. Farking. Shiat.

This is one of those times I wish there was a Hell. Because I would tell any and all of you anti-American, anti-choice subhumans who support this kangaroo kourt to rot there for eternity.

The Religious Right™. It's neither.

I retain some tenuous beliefs in the god I was raised up to (as opposed to the deist tendencies I have now) ONLY so that I can pray for these f*ckers to burn for all eternity.

If there is a God and a Hell, I'll be burning right there beside them; but it won't be because I was a hypocrite.

That's like saying you're a Republican who will do everything in your power to obstruct the HNIC just to prove that blacks are incompetent.


Except my beliefs have no impact on the real world.
 
2012-06-26 06:20:53 PM
D) Brownbackistan
 
2012-06-26 06:31:27 PM

GentDirkly: And the risk to the baby in your scenario is 100%. Your point is not persuasive.


You are aware that you're not improving the negative opinion many people have of christians, right?
 
2012-06-26 07:25:25 PM

Gyrfalcon: coeyagi: Gyrfalcon: Nuff Said McFarky: Holy. Farking. Shiat.

This is one of those times I wish there was a Hell. Because I would tell any and all of you anti-American, anti-choice subhumans who support this kangaroo kourt to rot there for eternity.

The Religious Right™. It's neither.

I retain some tenuous beliefs in the god I was raised up to (as opposed to the deist tendencies I have now) ONLY so that I can pray for these f*ckers to burn for all eternity.

If there is a God and a Hell, I'll be burning right there beside them; but it won't be because I was a hypocrite.

That's like saying you're a Republican who will do everything in your power to obstruct the HNIC just to prove that blacks are incompetent.

Except my beliefs have no impact on the real world.


True.

//it wasn't a real indictment on you, it was on them.
 
2012-06-26 07:54:31 PM

serial_crusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: GentDirkly: And the risk to the baby in your scenario is 100%. Your point is not persuasive.

Look, dumbass, a fetus is not a baby.
Wrap your mind around that fact.

If you put it in bold it magically becomes true.
Really, what's the point in trying to convince somebody that your arbitrary opinion is better than your arbitrary opinion?


"Arbitrary opinion"? Honestly, there are such things as relevant facts, and interestingly enough the vast majority of them in this case come down on the side of allowing access to abortion. And the opinion that abortion is always wrong is so devoid of any factual basis that many anti-abortion groups have been in favor of having laws mandate doctors lie to patients and perform medically unnecessary examinations to try and talk, scare, or shame them out of getting an abortion. In some states, doctors are required to lie to their patients and say there is a link between getting an abortion and developing breast cancer, when there has been zero evidence to suggest that (and quite a bit of evidence that there is no link). Several states require, by law, that doctors describe the fetus in detail to the woman before she has an abortion, in spite of the fact that that information has no empirical basis and only serves to effect a massive emotional reaction in the woman. If these people and groups had any supporting facts to back up their opinion, why would they resort to forcing policies like this on medical care providers and pregnant women?

Opinions are not all equal. Some of them are, in fact, informed and rationally founded. Those are not arbitrary, those are not meaningless, and those are not of equal validity as opinions which are not grounded in observable reality.
 
2012-06-26 08:01:49 PM
Defining terms and setting the boundaries of the debate such that you cannot be challenged within that context is sophistry.
 
2012-06-26 08:19:02 PM
I wonder if GentDorkly comprehends how the fetus got inside the 10-year old girl's uterus.

Spontaneous germination, perhaps?
 
2012-06-26 08:27:49 PM

Kittypie070: I wonder if GentDorkly comprehends how the fetus got inside the 10-year old girl's uterus.

Spontaneous germination, perhaps?


It was God's will. He also sent fossils to test us.
 
2012-06-26 08:32:38 PM

Kittypie070: I wonder if GentDorkly comprehends how the fetus got inside the 10-year old girl's uterus.

Spontaneous germination, perhaps?


Hope you had a good laugh. I acknowledged the crime if rape earlier and recommended not just prison time but castration in response to it. Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.
 
2012-06-26 08:39:22 PM
FTFA: "Teen pregnancy is not a risk factor for psychiatric disorders," she said. That kind of thinking *will* cause suffering and death. Such sick people. It is disgusting on a very basic level. I'd suggest making gross professional misconduct a capital offence, but the anti-abortion types would 'prolly try to use that to kill doctors. I can fantasize though. If all ya'll down there were willing to outsource the executions, I'd gladly help. Hell I wouldn't even charge.
 
2012-06-26 08:43:38 PM

GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.


Why does the fetus have more rights than the 10-year-old girl whose life is at risk just for carrying the baby to term?
 
2012-06-26 08:46:11 PM

Kome: GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.

Why does the fetus have more rights than the 10-year-old girl whose life is at risk just for carrying the baby to term?


Had they read the Bible they would know the value of a Postnatal Human > Fetus.
 
2012-06-26 08:56:43 PM

ruinevil: Kome: GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.

Why does the fetus have more rights than the 10-year-old girl whose life is at risk just for carrying the baby to term?

Had they read the Bible they would know the value of a Postnatal Human > Fetus.


For real. I don't get that aspect. I truly don't. The personhood status and the individuality of the pregnant woman/girl is not in question. Therefore, that person is granted rights, protections, and freedoms under US law. And some of those have very direct applications towards the ongoing health and safety of the woman. In many cases of abortion, the fetus - regardless of whether or not it deserves to be called a person - poses a serious threat to the life of the woman. At which point, really, it stops being innocent. Ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths, other medical emergencies that arise in a pregnant woman where they cannot save her without terminating the pregnancy (and then having to conduct an abortion to remove the tissue from her womb). These things happen. And in the cases of rape/incest, she had zero choice in the matter of getting pregnant. Why should she be coerced, legally or morally, to forfeit her life or up to 40 weeks of her life (which includes progressively dramatic alterations in physiology)?

The only reason I can think of that would allow me to sort of understand why would be sexism. Pure and simple. If you see girls/women as inherently inferior, as deserving of subjugation or second-class citizenship, then I can understand (and be absolutely disgusted by) why someone might think the rights and life of the pregnant woman/girl do not take precedence over that of a fetus.
 
2012-06-26 09:14:26 PM

Dr Dreidel: mrshowrules: That was interesting. The 40 days before conception thing might be a fly in the appointment. Could be justification for rape to prevent murder I suppose. Also, the teachings in utero might have truancy implications if interrupted.

Well, all of that is, as demal-demal-yeH said, very kabbalistic. I'm not sure any of it is Old-Testament-textual. None of it supersedes the textual stuff.

So the bit about only paying an expectant mother if you cause her to miscarry vs death* if you accidentally kill someone's child (either Exodus or Deuteronomy; I can't remember) seems to suggest a difference in the legal status of a fetus vs an actual child. Since "souls" aren't mentioned or described in the Old Testament, they take a backseat to what is mentioned there.

FWIW, IIRC Judaism permits very early (like first 5 weeks of pregnancy) abortions without any qualification. Also, a fetus which threatens the life of the mother-to-be is considered a "pursuing attacker" and may be aborted to save its mother's life at any stage of pregnancy (based on Sanhedrin 73a).

* Not actually the "string-em-up" death penalty, but a kind of revenge rights thing involving the perpetrator escaping to a sanctuary city.


I appreciate the information despite my silly jokes. Miscarriage had to have been the norm back then. Even today, I suspect there are more very early miscarriages (heavy periods) for every birth. To me that means that a fertilized egg or fetus is not life, it is the potential for human life and person-hood. It is sacred to a degree but it is not a person IMHO.
 
2012-06-26 09:16:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: In Judaism, there are three kind of "soul" - "life", common to plants, animals and humans; "motion", common to animals and humans; and "speech", which only humans have. (I think it actually refers to language rather than shared meaning through vocalizations, but that might just be the social scientist in me.)

According to the traditions I'm familiar with, there is the idea that souls are recyclable. They go to hell for a period of time (less than 12 months unless you were a real douchecanoe) to get the sins cleansed off them, then they wait in line for a new host. A "soul" is chosen to match a given fetus 40 days before sperm meets egg (I think that's what the phrase "40 days before conception, the drop [of semen/the single sperm cell that hits the egg] is designated" means in common parlance).

There's also the concept that fetuses are taught the entirety of The Law (Torah) in utero. The teaching angel touches the child's upper lip (which is where that divot comes from), causing them to forget all they've learned - it's to teach us that everyone is capable of becoming a scholar; you were one once before. That seems to imply the soul meets body at some point during fetal development, but I'm not that familiar with laws about miscarriages, stillbirths, etc.

I do know that male stillborn children get circumcised before burial. That's gotta be the saddest ceremony I can think of.

// but as demal-demal-yeH put it, "2 Jews, 3 opinions"
// I'm only familiar with some Jewish traditions

That was interesting. The 40 days before conception thing might be a fly in the appointment. Could be justification for rape to prevent murder I suppose. Also, the teachings in utero might have truancy implications if interrupted.

What I gave was consensus: At first breath.

What he gave was mysticism, but even that says that "full ensoulment", as it were, happens at first breath.

Suffice it to say, abortion is not taken lightly, and we've been discussing it ...


You guys have both provided me very interesting information.
 
2012-06-26 09:17:33 PM

Kome: GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.

Why does the fetus have more rights than the 10-year-old girl whose life is at risk just for carrying the baby to term?


Because! She's already had 10 years of life! That fetus has had none! It's like, totally a cool thing to do.

But seriously, this has been one of the great trolls of the past 2 weeks. I almost want to P-shop a medal or badge for our new reigning champ.
 
2012-06-26 09:19:11 PM

GentDirkly: Kittypie070: I wonder if GentDorkly comprehends how the fetus got inside the 10-year old girl's uterus.

Spontaneous germination, perhaps?

Hope you had a good laugh. I acknowledged the crime if rape earlier and recommended not just prison time but castration in response to it. Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.


No, it doesn't. Festuses, by virtue of not being human, have no rights at all, much less a right to remain unwelcome, and espcially not a right to remain unwelcome in the womb of a farking ten-year-old.

/took you long enough, it's almost been a full in-game year...
 
2012-06-26 09:23:20 PM

randomjsa: There is no such thing as free health care, for children or anyone else, just as there is no such thing as free education, food, housing, or anything else. I do not have children but I pay taxes in to a system that supplies them with education (public school), I also pay for WIC/welfare programs, and various other things for children. I'm not aware of any major movement to take those things away but fringe elements do exist. This is putting aside the fact that by far and large the people who call themselves "pro-life" tend to be in the same group of people who give quite a bit more to charity.

The death penalty is an entirely different issue. Is it really difficult to understand how somebody who believes that abortion is murdering a completely innocent person would have no issue executing a serial killer? This remains one of the worst arguments I've ever heard that just won't go away. Look at it from their perspective, you're seriously asking them "How can you be against murdering unborn children but be for killing people who have committed horrific crimes against their fellow humans?"

Do you see how silly that sounds? Aside from that there is not a shortage of people who are against the death penalty and are pro life.


Just to keep your definitions straight. Something provided to someone at no charge can be called "free". It is one of the several valid definitions of the term. Free does not have to mean that it incurred no cost by anyone. I use the example of Library books being provided for free even though technically have an indirect cost to tax payers. Sometimes items provided for "free" have a net cost savings to society.

/just some free advice
 
2012-06-26 09:23:52 PM

Kome: ruinevil: Kome: GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.

Why does the fetus have more rights than the 10-year-old girl whose life is at risk just for carrying the baby to term?

Had they read the Bible they would know the value of a Postnatal Human > Fetus.

For real. I don't get that aspect. I truly don't. The personhood status and the individuality of the pregnant woman/girl is not in question. Therefore, that person is granted rights, protections, and freedoms under US law. And some of those have very direct applications towards the ongoing health and safety of the woman. In many cases of abortion, the fetus - regardless of whether or not it deserves to be called a person - poses a serious threat to the life of the woman. At which point, really, it stops being innocent. Ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths, other medical emergencies that arise in a pregnant woman where they cannot save her without terminating the pregnancy (and then having to conduct an abortion to remove the tissue from her womb). These things happen. And in the cases of rape/incest, she had zero choice in the matter of getting pregnant. Why should she be coerced, legally or morally, to forfeit her life or up to 40 weeks of her life (which includes progressively dramatic alterations in physiology)?

The only reason I can think of that would allow me to sort of understand why would be sexism. Pure and simple. If you see girls/women as inherently inferior, as deserving of subjugation or second-class citizenship, then I can understand (and be absolutely disgusted by) why someone might think the rights and life of the pregnant woman/girl do not take precedence over that of a fetus.


This post is so good, I gave you a darker shade of green.

mrshowrules: a fertilized egg or fetus is not life, it is the potential for human life and person-hood


Ex-farking-zactly.

coeyagi: Kome: GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there, that fetus has a right to remain.

Why does the fetus have more rights than the 10-year-old girl whose life is at risk just for carrying the baby to term?

Because! She's already had 10 years of life! That fetus has had none! It's like, totally a cool thing to do.

But seriously, this has been one of the great trolls of the past 2 weeks. I almost want to P-shop a medal or badge for our new reigning champ.


Make it look like a turd sculpture.
 
2012-06-26 09:32:06 PM
I decided to use a stock set rather than waste more P-shop time on this turd.

So, I present to you:

i.qkme.me

i.qkme.me

i.qkme.me
 
2012-06-26 09:42:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: GentDirkly: I freely admit that I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel", and this causes me to read it less closely or precisely than many Jews do. But I fail to see why "death in the womb" and "miscarriage" is a distinction at all, and why you would be so vehement in making a distinction there. I'm willing to be educated on your point of view here, though I will probably not accept it as my own.

1. Miscarriage is the proper, medical term for a medical event. Use the right word. Your assumption that abortion is infanticide because you improperly identify a fetus as a baby, is wrong. Your arguments and position on abortion flow from these falsehoods.

2. This - I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel" - is why you can't get even the basics right: not the Sabbath, not Shema (the Oneness of God), not even why practicing ritual cannibalism is an abomination. (I refer you to Matthew 5:17-20 in your book to show you why you should think my criticism over carefully. And if your response is to tell me that Solly the Greek overrides that statement straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, what am I to make of your beliefs?)


You tempt me. You feign respect for "the horse's mouth," but our only source of sayings of Jesus during his incarnation are the four gospels, the longest of which segues directly into an explanation and endorsement of "Solly the Greek". If you would respect me when I quote Jesus out of Luke, why would you disrespect me for believing Luke as he writes in Acts that Paul is an Aposlte?
The Law was a covenant made between God, the Israelites, and their descendants. Along the way provisions were made for goyim to convert. These are not part of Torah. In Christ's time it seems it was possible for those not Jewish by birth to be added to Temple worship/sacrifices. The oral tradition by this time prescribed standards for this, but I do not find them in the Law or Prophets. My father was raised as a Conservative Jew, but I do not know if he is actually a male line descendant of Jacob, as you likewise have no such certainty about your own male line. Anyhow, it is obvious to any reader that at least some of the Law applies only to those taking the covenant to keep it, and only their male line descendants. It is also clear that some men were cut off from the covenant, along with their descendants. No man can be certain if he is actually part of the covenant by birth not as described in the Torah, or not. So yes, the verse you cite is true; those laws remain and those who both are under them by birth AND wish to be identified with them must keep them.
 
2012-06-26 09:47:48 PM

justtray:

1. Miscarriage is the proper, medical term for a medical event. Use the right word. Your assumption that abortion is infanticide because you improperly identify a fetus as a baby, is wrong. Your arguments and position on abortion flow from these falsehoods.

2. This - I categorize Torah into "things that still matter" and "things that only mattered for ancient Israel" - is why you can't get even the basics right. /---------snip----------/ (what am I to make of your beliefs?)

#1 is worth repeating.


And #2 demands an apology.
I am sorry.
I know many good and decent Christians who try and succeed in making the world a better place.
I have also had the misfortune of encountering people who are are not a credit to their faith - including some Jews.
I allowed my irritation with an example of the latter to get the better of me and replied in kind.
For this unnecessary harshness and the emotional distress I caused decent people who work to make this world a better place, I sincerely apologize.

According to my beliefs, there is no religious barrier whatsoever to whatever "heaven" may be: The Eternal is just fine with people who do good and moral things and work to heal the world.
 
2012-06-26 09:54:12 PM
GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there

I see.

So you are pro-rape.

Pro CHILD rape.
 
2012-06-26 09:58:19 PM
I'm pretty conservative on this issue -- even I think this is pants-on-head levels of retarded by the Kansas Board of Health.

So stupid...'effing stupid.
 
2012-06-26 10:01:36 PM

Kittypie070: GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there

I see.

So you are pro-rape.

Pro CHILD rape.


Now who's trolling?
 
2012-06-26 10:13:31 PM

GentDirkly: Kittypie070: GentDirkly: Whether or not a female had any say in how the fetus got there

I see.

So you are pro-rape.

Pro CHILD rape.

Now who's trolling?


Not really. You have consistently said that bringing a child into this world is of the greatest importance, regardless of the "carrier's" circumstances. So, rape is of no consequence to you. Maybe not pro-rape, but how about calling you...

Meh-rape.
 
Displayed 50 of 670 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report