Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Hot Air)   Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"   (hotair.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, illegal operation, global dimming, Mr. Roboto, blah blah, Robert Duvall, abortions, DNC  
•       •       •

6722 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Aug 2012 at 9:47 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-24 12:21:49 PM  

magusdevil: So where do you think personhood begins? You seem to avoid establishing what you, personally, believe.


Impossible to quantify. But I'm not the one trying to do so.
 
2012-08-24 12:22:25 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.


Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain. Romney has executive experience. My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.
 
2012-08-24 12:23:29 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: lennavan: Well, some late term abortions should be legal. There are plenty of late term fetuses that fit your definition of person.

Ed Zachary.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: What is confusing is your inability to admit that you condone the killing of a viable person.

Again, state where I've said that. So far, you've just managed to look like a retard trying to hump a doorknob by not knowing what "words" mean.

I'm sorry, did you not just say that you are ok with late term abortions?


What do YOU believe, so far all we know is that you don't agree with your own party on abortion, and that "if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it." Do you have any actual position that could be articulated with, you know, words?
 
2012-08-24 12:24:27 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: So where do you think personhood begins? You seem to avoid establishing what you, personally, believe.

Impossible to quantify. But I'm not the one trying to do so.


Impossible to quantify, however you believe that "if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it." It seems like you are trying to do so.
 
2012-08-24 12:24:45 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Science is concerned with things that can be measured. Perhaps this is not a measurable thing.


It can very easily become a measurable thing. That burden is, however, on the person asking the question.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm sorry, did you not just say that you are ok with late term abortions?


Yes.

Now tell me where I said that I "condone the killing of a viable person." You know, the thing you've been vomiting into the thread for about a dozen posts now.
 
2012-08-24 12:25:13 PM  

skilbride: LasersHurt: It's funny because that's not how the data is calculated at all.

You want to provide a study that proves that? Because I'm 100% positive you're wrong. (Especially since I provided a link to prove I was right.)


Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.
 
2012-08-24 12:26:09 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: So where do you think personhood begins? You seem to avoid establishing what you, personally, believe.

Impossible to quantify. But I'm not the one trying to do so.


If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?
 
2012-08-24 12:26:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: LasersHurt: It's funny because that's not how the data is calculated at all.

You want to provide a study that proves that? Because I'm 100% positive you're wrong. (Especially since I provided a link to prove I was right.)

Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.


If that was a legitimate pay gap women would have a way of shutting the whole thing down.
 
2012-08-24 12:26:51 PM  

sprawl15: Now tell me where I said that I "condone the killing of a viable person." You know, the thing you've been vomiting into the thread for about a dozen posts now.


Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses. Fetuses that you say are people.
 
2012-08-24 12:27:45 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.

I hear you, but "viability" is not a static measure. What was not viable 20 years ago is viable now. What is not viable now may be in 20 years. I have trouble with defining a person differently based on the state of medical science.


The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.
 
2012-08-24 12:28:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?


Where did I say I wanted to ban them?
 
2012-08-24 12:28:55 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?


He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?
 
2012-08-24 12:29:50 PM  

Fart_Machine: lennavan: Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

No, it's really not. That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?

So how does this not make it an emotion based appeal? If you're using loaded term like "killing children" then we've already fallen into that territory. B


I didn't use the term "killing children." I accept your apology and request you re-address the point I made.
 
2012-08-24 12:31:13 PM  

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?


Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"
 
2012-08-24 12:31:39 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: Now tell me where I said that I "condone the killing of a viable person." You know, the thing you've been vomiting into the thread for about a dozen posts now.

Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses. Fetuses that you say are people.


This post just reminded me of how much I love to completely make shiat up to support my point when I'm on the internet. I always hope no one notices and just accepts the bullshiat I pulled out of my ass as truth.
 
2012-08-24 12:31:39 PM  

sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: Science is concerned with things that can be measured. Perhaps this is not a measurable thing.

It can very easily become a measurable thing. That burden is, however, on the person asking the question.

When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person. If you have some other measure, please introduce and defend it.

 
2012-08-24 12:31:56 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.

Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain.


See, back then, in 2008, an executive experience argument might have worked. Now, it's an entirely different ball game.

Romney has executive experience.

He has experience running a vulture capital firm, which I don't think would translate well to running the country. You can't just close America and go somewhere else with a hefty management fee in your pocket, after all.

He also has experience as governor of a state which, at present, is polling for Obama in a landslide. I think it's telling that the people who know his leadership best don't want him in charge of the country.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done an exceptional job with foreign policy, he has done the best job he can domestically when faced with a legislature that is completely and utterly dysfunctional, and the future is getting better. It's rather slow at getting better, and there's a lot more I'd like to see, but again, dysfunctional legislature. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll need more than "experience", because I know exactly what that experience is worth.
 
2012-08-24 12:32:12 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?


You already stated that late term abortions were killing children. So are we to assume that you're in favor of killing children?
 
2012-08-24 12:33:21 PM  

lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.

I hear you, but "viability" is not a static measure. What was not viable 20 years ago is viable now. What is not viable now may be in 20 years. I have trouble with defining a person differently based on the state of medical science.

The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.


Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?
 
2012-08-24 12:33:36 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses.


No, they're not. "Late term" has no specified definition of time - people tend to draw their line anywhere between 20 and 28 weeks. It generally refers the the area where viability is a grey area, where viability cannot be certain. Roe v. Wade drew the line at 28 weeks for this reason - most fetuses beyond this point are viable.

"By definition", late term abortions have little relation to viability rate - if you want to really dig into the numbers, you're likely to find that more late term abortions would occur earlier in this time period than later, that more abortions were performed on non-viable fetuses than viable ones, and other aspects that would skew the results away from your conclusion.

But your continued inability to know what the hell you're talking about doesn't make your rambling at all relevant to what we're talking about.

Try to keep up, sparky.
 
2012-08-24 12:33:52 PM  

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

You already stated that late term abortions were killing children. So are we to assume that you're in favor of killing children?


I said abortions of viable fetuses was killing children. Please do get on the same page here.
 
2012-08-24 12:34:17 PM  

lennavan: Fart_Machine: lennavan: Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

No, it's really not. That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?

So how does this not make it an emotion based appeal? If you're using loaded term like "killing children" then we've already fallen into that territory. B

I didn't use the term "killing children." I accept your apology and request you re-address the point I made.


The person who initially brought up the argument on late term abortions stated they were killing children. Lighten up Francis.
 
2012-08-24 12:35:17 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.


Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.
 
2012-08-24 12:36:48 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

You already stated that late term abortions were killing children. So are we to assume that you're in favor of killing children?

I said abortions of viable fetuses was killing children. Please do get on the same page here.


You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable. So are you trolling or don't understand your own argument.
 
2012-08-24 12:38:37 PM  

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses.

No, they're not. "Late term" has no specified definition of time - people tend to draw their line anywhere between 20 and 28 weeks. It generally refers the the area where viability is a grey area, where viability cannot be certain. Roe v. Wade drew the line at 28 weeks for this reason - most fetuses beyond this point are viable.

"By definition", late term abortions have little relation to viability rate - if you want to really dig into the numbers, you're likely to find that more late term abortions would occur earlier in this time period than later, that more abortions were performed on non-viable fetuses than viable ones, and other aspects that would skew the results away from your conclusion.

But your continued inability to know what the hell you're talking about doesn't make your rambling at all relevant to what we're talking about.

Try to keep up, sparky.


So late term is somewhere between 20-28 weeks, but has no "specified definition of time." Ok, got it.

Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.
 
2012-08-24 12:38:47 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?

Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"


So some late term abortions are ok and some should be illegal, but you're not the one trying to quantify when personhood begins... got it.
 
2012-08-24 12:39:39 PM  

Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.


Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.
 
2012-08-24 12:40:35 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.


Yep, trolling.
 
2012-08-24 12:40:42 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.


How could anyone be 100% aware of your position? I don't even think you're 100% aware of your position.
 
2012-08-24 12:41:13 PM  

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?

Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"

So some late term abortions are ok and some should be illegal, but you're not the one trying to quantify when personhood begins... got it.


Um, to paraphrase, "what is so confusing about that?"

I can't quantify personhood to a measurable. Yet I do not believe that elective late term abortions should be permitted.
 
2012-08-24 12:42:57 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.

Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain. Romney has executive experience. My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.


I am curious as to what 'executive experience' means to you.
 
2012-08-24 12:43:13 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.


You mean like when you accused Sprawl of supporting the "killing of children" because he supports Late term abortions? Are you trolling or being obtuse?
 
2012-08-24 12:43:27 PM  

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

How could anyone be 100% aware of your position? I don't even think you're 100% aware of your position.


I've stated it no fewer than twice in this thread. That people continue to distort it is not my failing.
 
2012-08-24 12:43:59 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?

Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"

So some late term abortions are ok and some should be illegal, but you're not the one trying to quantify when personhood begins... got it.

Um, to paraphrase, "what is so confusing about that?"

I can't quantify personhood to a measurable. Yet I do not believe that elective late term abortions should be permitted.


So you're just randomly choosing "late term" without any consideration at all. I can't measure when a fetus becomes a person, so I'm just randomly drawing a line? That's your actual stated position. Good luck winning anyone over with that well considered position.
 
2012-08-24 12:44:04 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So late term is somewhere between 20-28 weeks, but has no "specified definition of time."


Yes. You really have problems with words, don't you? A trimester has a specific definition, a very clearly defined threshold of time. 'Late term' does not. The phrase 'late term' does not refer to a commonly agreed upon threshold. Someone may use 'late term' to mean 'after 20 weeks', while another person may use the term to mean 'after 28 weeks'. A 24 week abortion would be late term only to the former.

I'm kind of shocked by how stupid you are.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.


Again, you have no farking idea what I'm talking about. At all. You're just throwing up strawmen as fast as you can beat them down. Take some Naproxen, go for a walk, and when you're not bursting blood vessels you could try asking questions instead of making a total fool of yourself.
 
2012-08-24 12:44:35 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.

Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain.

See, back then, in 2008, an executive experience argument might have worked. Now, it's an entirely different ball game.

Romney has executive experience.

He has experience running a vulture capital firm, which I don't think would translate well to running the country. You can't just close America and go somewhere else with a hefty management fee in your pocket, after all.

He also has experience as governor of a state which, at present, is polling for Obama in a landslide. I think it's telling that the people who know his leadership best don't want him in charge of the country.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done an exceptional job with foreign policy, he has done the best job he can domestically when faced with a legislature that is completely and utterly dysfunctional, and the future is getting better. It's rather slow at getting better, and there's a lot more I'd like to see, but again, dysfunctional legislature. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll need more than "experience", because I know exactly what that experience is worth.


I don't expect to convince you. Our assumptions are too different.
 
2012-08-24 12:44:47 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.

I hear you, but "viability" is not a static measure. What was not viable 20 years ago is viable now. What is not viable now may be in 20 years. I have trouble with defining a person differently based on the state of medical science.

The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?


Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.
 
2012-08-24 12:45:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

You mean like when you accused Sprawl of supporting the "killing of children" because he supports Late term abortions? Are you trolling or being obtuse?


You mean when I asked him no fewer than twice to clarify his position and he still states that he is ok with aborting viable fetuses after declaring that they are people?

How is that an accusation when those are his words?
 
2012-08-24 12:45:53 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You mean when I asked him no fewer than twice to clarify his position


You haven't asked me a damn thing. You've just kept trying to tell me what I believe and getting it wrong.
 
2012-08-24 12:46:01 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

How could anyone be 100% aware of your position? I don't even think you're 100% aware of your position.

I've stated it no fewer than twice in this thread. That people continue to distort it is not my failing.


Right your position is "I don't have any idea when a fetus becomes a person so I am picking a point out of thin air as to when it should become criminal to have an abortion. "
 
2012-08-24 12:46:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: The person who initially brought up the argument on late term abortions stated they were killing children. Lighten up Francis.


The person was a retard. That doesn't make the argument itself retarded. Read it again without associating me with the killing babies tard:

That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?
 
2012-08-24 12:47:20 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

You mean like when you accused Sprawl of supporting the "killing of children" because he supports Late term abortions? Are you trolling or being obtuse?

You mean when I asked him no fewer than twice to clarify his position and he still states that he is ok with aborting viable fetuses after declaring that they are people?

How is that an accusation when those are his words?


Obtuse it is.
 
2012-08-24 12:47:24 PM  

sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.

Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.


Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.
 
2012-08-24 12:48:52 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.

Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.

Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.


Spontaneous child deaths occur all the time, we shouldn't investigate them?
 
2012-08-24 12:49:46 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.


Why does one have to be treated differently or separately from the other?
 
2012-08-24 12:50:01 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Straw-man argument.


No, it's not. Because if a fetus is a person, and must be treated like such, then society must be consistent in treating it that way. If deliberately killing a 12 week old fetus must be banned because it could be a person, then accidentally killing a 12 week old fetus must be investigated as an accidental death because it could be a person.

Either it's considered a person or it's not. What you're advocating is a weird pseudo-person state where a case of abortion is the only situation where it's considered a separate biological entity.
 
2012-08-24 12:50:25 PM  

magusdevil: Galloping Galoshes: sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.

Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.

Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.

Spontaneous child deaths occur all the time, we shouldn't investigate them?


People drown every day. So I don't see any reason why anyone should look into the drowning death of my frickin crazy ass lunatic ex-girlfriend.
 
2012-08-24 12:50:44 PM  

lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.


Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.
 
2012-08-24 12:51:20 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.


ITS NOT REPEATABLE IF YOU HAVE TO REPEAT IT

AND FURTHERMORE
 
2012-08-24 12:51:50 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.

Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.


And?

You're right, so I would never draw any retarded farking conclusions like "all 25 week old fetuses are viable." What exactly did you think you are saying here?
 
Displayed 50 of 355 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report