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.

(Salon)   A panel of judges rules that Texas laws shutting down all but six clinics for women in the state "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman"   (salon.com) divider line 170
    More: Fail, undue burden, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Texas, health crisis, speed limits, chemical abortion, appeals courts, reproductive rights  
•       •       •

603 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-28 07:23:16 AM  
Now add in the Hobby Lobby decision - the religious right wants to give corporations the 'right' to limit abortion even further, and have corporations reduce access as much as possible.  it all adds up to a fairly well coordinated attack on women's rights and a comprehensive approach to controlling women's health care and reproductive health choices.
 
2014-03-28 07:43:26 AM  
Did the decision say "if sluts wouldn't slut their sluttery, then sluts sluts sluts Jesus."?
 
2014-03-28 07:44:49 AM  
If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.
 
2014-03-28 07:47:59 AM  

SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.


If only the procedure hadn't been driven underground, it could be performed in a hospital by competent doctors, and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
 
2014-03-28 07:56:37 AM  

SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.


It's cute when conservatives act like they care about the healthcare of women.
 
2014-03-28 07:58:37 AM  

clancifer: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

It's cute when conservatives act like they care about the healthcare of women.


Gotta keep the breeding stock healthy.
 
2014-03-28 08:00:14 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

If only the procedure hadn't been driven underground, it could be performed in a hospital by competent doctors, and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.


I think that many conservatives would rather just have the slutty women die off, leaving only the pliant obedient ones for breeding and general slavery.
 
2014-03-28 08:05:01 AM  

Weaver95: I think that many conservatives would rather just have the slutty women die off, leaving only the pliant obedient ones for breeding and general slavery.


No, they wank to The Handmaid Tale.
 
2014-03-28 08:12:02 AM  

baka-san: Weaver95: I think that many conservatives would rather just have the slutty women die off, leaving only the pliant obedient ones for breeding and general slavery.

No, they wank to The Handmaid Tale.


that too, yes.  this is a very coordinated attack on women's health issues.  i'm rather impressed at the ground work and effort the evangelicals put into all of this.  Now imagine if the evangelicals had spent all that time, money, effort and manpower trying to eliminate poverty instead of denying women access to affordable health care...

*sigh*

But strong, independent women in charge of their own lives scares the jesus out of some men.
 
2014-03-28 08:35:43 AM  
My vasectomy and boner pills (I mean, should I ever need them) are still free, right? Whew.
 
2014-03-28 08:55:24 AM  

enry: My vasectomy and boner pills (I mean, should I ever need them) are still free, right? Whew.


Of course, you have to get it up to cheat on your 3rd wife.
 
2014-03-28 09:00:01 AM  

Weaver95: But strong, independent women in charge of their own lives scares the jesus out of some men.


I think it's more of scaring the Jesus into men if the evangelicals are behind it :P
 
2014-03-28 09:01:17 AM  
I've heard that the health care situation in the southernmost, and poorest, part of Texas is especially dire.
 
2014-03-28 09:03:50 AM  
Hitch a ride whores, we know you've got experience with that kind of thing.
 
2014-03-28 09:04:52 AM  

LarryDan43: Hitch a ride whores, we know you've got experience with that kind of thing.


'I'm bleeding to death!'  (sticks thumb out)  'Going to Houston?  No?'
 
2014-03-28 09:04:54 AM  

clancifer: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

It's cute when conservatives act like they care about the healthcare of women.


I heard a rumor that some conservatives actually were women.  I know, crazy.
 
2014-03-28 09:05:39 AM  

Alphax: LarryDan43: Hitch a ride whores, we know you've got experience with that kind of thing.

'I'm bleeding to death!'  (sticks thumb out)  'Going to Houston?  No?'


Oh, and by 'whores', you mean all the women of Texas?
 
2014-03-28 09:06:19 AM  
Texas can straight fark off.
 
2014-03-28 09:07:28 AM  

Weaver95: baka-san: Weaver95: I think that many conservatives would rather just have the slutty women die off, leaving only the pliant obedient ones for breeding and general slavery.

No, they wank to The Handmaid Tale.

that too, yes.  this is a very coordinated attack on women's health issues.  i'm rather impressed at the ground work and effort the evangelicals put into all of this.  Now imagine if the evangelicals had spent all that time, money, effort and manpower trying to eliminate poverty instead of denying women access to affordable health care...

*sigh*

But strong, independent women in charge of their own lives scares the jesus out of some men.


Unless it's Our Sarah.
 
2014-03-28 09:07:46 AM  
As the Texas Tribune reports, Chief Justice Edith Jones' opinion stated that Texas' "articulation of rational legislative objectives, which was backed by evidence placed before the state legislature, easily supplied a connection between the admitting-privileges rule and the desirable protection of abortion patients' health."

Sure, but by that logic ALL clinics of ALL types should be required to have admitting privileges.  If you're singling out abortion providers, then the "connection" is pretext bullsh*t and isn't constitutional.
 
2014-03-28 09:08:45 AM  

LarryDan43: Hitch a ride whores, we know you've got experience with that kind of thing.


The only whore in this story is Rick Perry, because he's f*cking pretty much everyone in Texas.
 
2014-03-28 09:09:17 AM  

Trivia Jockey: As the Texas Tribune reports, Chief Justice Edith Jones' opinion stated that Texas' "articulation of rational legislative objectives, which was backed by evidence placed before the state legislature, easily supplied a connection between the admitting-privileges rule and the desirable protection of abortion patients' health."

Sure, but by that logic ALL clinics of ALL types should be required to have admitting privileges.  If you're singling out abortion providers, then the "connection" is pretext bullsh*t and isn't constitutional.


Not to mention that every clinic that asked for admitting privileges, anywhere, has been turned down.  They were meant to fail.
 
2014-03-28 09:09:50 AM  
I'm going to go out on a limb here... the panel of Texas judges is a bunch of old white guys?
 
2014-03-28 09:10:09 AM  
I get the feeling that the 5th Circuit Court would rule assassinating President Obama is not a crime.
 
2014-03-28 09:11:02 AM  

clkeagle: I'm going to go out on a limb here... the panel of Texas judges is a bunch of old white guys?


yes

all old white guys named Edith
 
2014-03-28 09:11:57 AM  

SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.


Didn't Gosnell get life in prison?

I would think that shows that existing laws would be sufficient deterrent to abortion doctors not getting their patients to an ER if they need one.
 
2014-03-28 09:12:05 AM  
Justice? In Texas?
 
2014-03-28 09:16:53 AM  
Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.
 
2014-03-28 09:17:20 AM  
Texas is almost like our very own third world country right here, at home.  Convenient.

If you don't want to be a chattel, get Bootstrappy and stop being a woman, is their theory, I guess....
 
2014-03-28 09:17:41 AM  
These people farking disgust me. They have no redeeming qualities, and the world will be a better place when they die.
 
2014-03-28 09:19:22 AM  
meh, The people of Texas want this to have these kinds of laws and restrictions, it isn't like this is some new trend.
 
2014-03-28 09:19:35 AM  
This is a teachable moment for you Progs.

See how easy it is to enact "regulations" that, on their face, appear to concern nothing but consumer-friendly protections, but are actually motivated by the desire to shut down most if not all of the targeted activity?

This is the tactic that free market proponents have been criticizing for about 100 or so years now -- government controls that are touted as consumer protections, but are really just a way to use the State as a tool for taking someone or something out of the picture.

The motivation here (Jesus) is different than the usual one (squelching competition), but the method is the same.

It must be frustrating to have your opponents shout "safety!" and "consumer protection!" back at you when you try to point out the true, corrupt motive and goal of these kinds of restrictions.

Terribly frustrating.
 
2014-03-28 09:20:01 AM  

Headso: meh, The people of Texas want this to have these kinds of laws and restrictions, it isn't like this is some new trend.


Some of them want slavery, too, but that doesn't mean we should let them have it.
 
2014-03-28 09:20:25 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: heard a rumor that some conservatives actually were women. I know, crazy.


And some are gay...

Self hate is a sad thing.
 
2014-03-28 09:20:36 AM  

Trivia Jockey: As the Texas Tribune reports, Chief Justice Edith Jones' opinion stated that Texas' "articulation of rational legislative objectives, which was backed by evidence placed before the state legislature, easily supplied a connection between the admitting-privileges rule and the desirable protection of abortion patients' health."

Sure, but by that logic ALL clinics of ALL types should be required to have admitting privileges.  If you're singling out abortion providers, then the "connection" is pretext bullsh*t and isn't constitutional.


I do hope this angle is being pursued vigorously. Likewise regarding the new restrictions to design and construction.
 
2014-03-28 09:21:05 AM  

Phinn: This is a teachable moment for you Progs.

See how easy it is to enact "regulations" that, on their face, appear to concern nothing but consumer-friendly protections, but are actually motivated by the desire to shut down most if not all of the targeted activity?

This is the tactic that free market proponents have been criticizing for about 100 or so years now -- government controls that are touted as consumer protections, but are really just a way to use the State as a tool for taking someone or something out of the picture.

The motivation here (Jesus) is different than the usual one (squelching competition), but the method is the same.

It must be frustrating to have your opponents shout "safety!" and "consumer protection!" back at you when you try to point out the true, corrupt motive and goal of these kinds of restrictions.

Terribly frustrating.


You're getting sillier and sillier.
 
2014-03-28 09:22:23 AM  

Alphax: Headso: meh, The people of Texas want this to have these kinds of laws and restrictions, it isn't like this is some new trend.

Some of them want slavery, too, but that doesn't mean we should let them have it.


well yeah, because that means they couldn't voluntarily leave Texas.
 
2014-03-28 09:25:08 AM  

Karac: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

Didn't Gosnell get life in prison?

I would think that shows that existing laws would be sufficient deterrent to abortion doctors not getting their patients to an ER if they need one.


Existing laws against abortion are insufficient and prove that we need more laws.  Whereas more gun prevention regulations is just a power grab by the gubmint.
 
2014-03-28 09:25:27 AM  

Headso: meh, The people of Texas want this to have these kinds of laws and restrictions, it isn't like this is some new trend.


Not all of us.
 
2014-03-28 09:29:00 AM  

Alphax: Alphax: LarryDan43: Hitch a ride whores, we know you've got experience with that kind of thing.

'I'm bleeding to death!'  (sticks thumb out)  'Going to Houston?  No?'

Oh, and by 'whores', you mean all the women of Texas?


something something something something steers and queers...
 
2014-03-28 09:43:51 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.


You're the last person to be lecturing anyone about petards.
 
2014-03-28 09:52:26 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.


Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.
 
2014-03-28 09:55:59 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Did the decision say "if sluts wouldn't slut their sluttery, then sluts sluts sluts Jesus."?


Mansplaining at its finest!
 
2014-03-28 09:56:12 AM  
A panel of judges rules that Texas laws shutting down all but six clinics for women in the state "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman"

If you want to find the undue burden caused by pregnancy, you're going to have to look lower.
 
2014-03-28 09:57:58 AM  

Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.


You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.
 
2014-03-28 10:01:56 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.


Needs more Alinsky.

Also, "Ha ha, no abortion for you. Funny!" You crack yourself up.
 
2014-03-28 10:03:02 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.


You're going to have to help me out here, since we don't live in the same universe as you and therefore don't inherently know what dastardly schemes you're "wink-wink nudge-nudging" us about.

Are you referring to us slowly stripping away your ability to openly discriminate and persecute women, minorities, homosexuals, non-Christians, and the poor?
 
2014-03-28 10:04:48 AM  

DrBenway: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

Needs more Alinsky.

Also, "Ha ha, no abortion for you. Funny!" You crack yourself up.


Realistically the only thing they did not do was install a tax on the providers and the patients.  And say the tax money would go to DR. training and education.  Then it would have been so perfect I would have peed myself laughing at you.
 
2014-03-28 10:12:12 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.


You're confusing business 'rights' and person rights.

Regulation of businesses that are dumping toxic slug into the air/water/earth, where it harms untold numbers of people is one thing.  Restricting the reproductive rights of women is something completely different.
 
2014-03-28 10:15:19 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: DrBenway: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

Needs more Alinsky.

Also, "Ha ha, no abortion for you. Funny!" You crack yourself up.

Realistically the only thing they did not do was install a tax on the providers and the patients.  And say the tax money would go to DR. training and education.  Then it would have been so perfect I would have peed myself laughing at you.


It's as though these Progderps aren't even aware of their own history.

This Texas law isn't an Alinsky tactic at all. It's a much older method, straight out of the Fabian Society.

If the Progderps ever have to face a well-orchestrated campaign of Fabian conservatism, or even Fabian libertarianism, the entertainment value will be very high. Much popcorn will be consumed. My schadenfreud-o-meter will asplode.
 
2014-03-28 10:16:02 AM  

APO_Buddha: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

You're confusing business 'rights' and person rights.

Regulation of businesses that are dumping toxic slug into the air/water/earth, where it harms untold numbers of people is one thing.  Restricting the reproductive rights of women is something completely different.


The anti-abortion people should hire Micheal Moore to make a video.  Heh Heh LOL at you.  They stole your game plan.
 
2014-03-28 10:23:35 AM  
My sock-puppet detector just exploded.
 
2014-03-28 10:25:00 AM  
That's the problem....wasn't "On the face"
 
2014-03-28 10:30:45 AM  

APO_Buddha: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

You're confusing business 'rights' and person rights.

Regulation of businesses that are dumping toxic slug into the air/water/earth, where it harms untold numbers of people is one thing.  Restricting the reproductive rights of women is something completely different.


Next thing is to get the young ones by standardized tests:

Coming up on a common core math test:

Question:  Since an abortion clinic without hospital visitation rights is 20% more likely to cause infection in the patients and in Texas there were 100,000 abortions before the bill saving the patents from this was passed; how many infections were prevented by this law?

Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.
 
2014-03-28 10:31:35 AM  
Thus hastening a browner and bluer Texas

and some horrifying news stories about botched, back alley abortions.
 
2014-03-28 10:34:22 AM  

Phinn: This Texas law isn't an Alinsky tactic at all. It's a much older method, straight out of the Fabian Society.

If the Progderps ever have to face a well-orchestrated campaign of Fabian conservatism, or even Fabian libertarianism, the entertainment value will be very high. Much popcorn will be consumed. My schadenfreud-o-meter will asplode.


Considering the Fabians have existed for 130 years and still haven't turned the UK into a Socialist state, I can see why you'd need much popcorn.
 
2014-03-28 10:38:21 AM  

Phinn: This Texas law isn't an Alinsky tactic at all. It's a much older method, straight out of the Fabian Society.


The Romans were like the Simpsons of the modern political and punditry tactics...Festina lente
 
2014-03-28 10:41:21 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: APO_Buddha: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

You're confusing business 'rights' and person rights.

Regulation of businesses that are dumping toxic slug into the air/water/earth, where it harms untold numbers of people is one thing.  Restricting the reproductive rights of women is something completely different.

Next thing is to get the young ones by standardized tests:

Coming up on a common core math test:

Question:  Since an abortion clinic without hospital visitation rights is 20% more likely to cause infection in the patients and in Texas there were 100,000 abortions before the bill saving the patents from this was passed; how many infections were prevented by this law?

Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.


Dude, I'm sorry, but you're coming off as incredibly pathetic right now.  Like, this is SAD trolling.  I mean, I can't even get sympathy-angry for you. 

If you really are over there laughing over what you are saying, then I envy you.  Being that stupid must be grand; the whole world is full of wonder and excitement.
 
2014-03-28 10:57:59 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.


You really seem to get off on suppressing women's rights.
 
2014-03-28 11:06:09 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: APO_Buddha: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

You're confusing business 'rights' and person rights.

Regulation of businesses that are dumping toxic slug into the air/water/earth, where it harms untold numbers of people is one thing.  Restricting the reproductive rights of women is something completely different.

Next thing is to get the young ones by standardized tests:

Coming up on a common core math test:

Question:  Since an abortion clinic without hospital visitation rights is 20% more likely to cause infection in the patients and in Texas there were 100,000 abortions before the bill saving the patents from this was passed; how many infections were prevented by this law?

Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.


blogs.loc.gov
 
2014-03-28 11:12:21 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

If only the procedure hadn't been driven underground, it could be performed in a hospital by competent doctors, and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.




Underground? in what universe?

Guys like Gosnell and Booker cared only about the money and didn't give a flip about the women they were killing, giving STDs due to contaminated instruments, or attending to them when they botched the procedures.

In other words, they did it to the industry.


Had the state of PA actually inspected and regulated Gosnell, perhaps a laws like this one would have never seen the light if day.

/laughs not because pro aborts are willing to allow women to die for the cause, but because there are people that will defend allowing them to die
 
2014-03-28 11:15:08 AM  

SauronWasFramed: Marcus Aurelius: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

If only the procedure hadn't been driven underground, it could be performed in a hospital by competent doctors, and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Underground? in what universe?

Guys like Gosnell and Booker cared only about the money and didn't give a flip about the women they were killing, giving STDs due to contaminated instruments, or attending to them when they botched the procedures.

In other words, they did it to the industry.


Had the state of PA actually inspected and regulated Gosnell, perhaps a laws like this one would have never seen the light if day.

/laughs not because pro aborts are willing to allow women to die for the cause, but because there are people that will defend allowing them to die


Why do you believe this problem is unique to abortion?
 
2014-03-28 11:18:02 AM  
I like it.

"They're using a page out of liberals play books!!!"

"Which one?"

"It's totally a liberal tactic. LOL AT YOU!!!!!"
 
2014-03-28 11:20:56 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: bigsteve3OOO: Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.

You really seem to get off on suppressing women's rights.


Usually he comes off as just really stupid. Today, though, he seems to be aspiring for "stupid asshole" territory. That's thinking big.
 
2014-03-28 11:24:11 AM  

DrBenway: Almost Everybody Poops: bigsteve3OOO: Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.

You really seem to get off on suppressing women's rights.

Usually he comes off as just really stupid. Today, though, he seems to be aspiring for "stupid asshole" territory. That's thinking big.


Got to mix it up now and then.  I do try, thanks for noticing the subtle differences.  I am an artist.
 
2014-03-28 11:34:05 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: DrBenway: Almost Everybody Poops: bigsteve3OOO: Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.

You really seem to get off on suppressing women's rights.

Usually he comes off as just really stupid. Today, though, he seems to be aspiring for "stupid asshole" territory. That's thinking big.

Got to mix it up now and then.  I do try, thanks for noticing the subtle differences.  I am an artist.


Well, if that guy who makes paintings by (literally) shiatting paint on to a canvas can be called an artist, I guess you can too.
 
2014-03-28 11:41:36 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.


they believe it's murder until you press them on the point that if it's murder, doctors, nurses and women should be prosecuted, imprisoned and executed for murder

pro-lifers always squirm away from this argument
 
2014-03-28 11:42:41 AM  

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: DrBenway: Almost Everybody Poops: bigsteve3OOO: Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.

You really seem to get off on suppressing women's rights.

Usually he comes off as just really stupid. Today, though, he seems to be aspiring for "stupid asshole" territory. That's thinking big.

Got to mix it up now and then.  I do try, thanks for noticing the subtle differences.  I am an artist.

Well, if that guy who makes paintings by (literally) shiatting paint on to a canvas can be called an artist, I guess you can too.


That sort should stick to vomiting on Lady Gaga. Much more constructive. And if past performance is any indicator, someone here would likely find that quite the turn-on.
 
2014-03-28 11:50:52 AM  

Dansker: Phinn: This Texas law isn't an Alinsky tactic at all. It's a much older method, straight out of the Fabian Society.

If the Progderps ever have to face a well-orchestrated campaign of Fabian conservatism, or even Fabian libertarianism, the entertainment value will be very high. Much popcorn will be consumed. My schadenfreud-o-meter will asplode.

Considering the Fabians have existed for 130 years and still haven't turned the UK into a Socialist state, I can see why you'd need much popcorn.


You must be one of those people whose thinking is so dependent on adjectives that you think that anything less than full Marxism isn't a socialist state.  Clearly, the British Labour Party has been successful, off and on, since the 1920s -- unionism, central banking, the welfare state, wage controls, nationalization of major industries including virtually all utilities, health care, transportation and telecommunications ... all were major socialist agenda items going back to Marx himself.
 
2014-03-28 11:59:49 AM  

wookiee cookie: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

they believe it's murder until you press them on the point that if it's murder, doctors, nurses and women should be prosecuted, imprisoned and executed for murder

pro-lifers always squirm away from this argument


Nulla poena sine lege praevia, scripta, certa et stricta.  Our current government doesn't define infanticide in utero as murder, so they can't be prosecuted for past acts.  But if and when the law changes, then it would be prosecuted as murder, just as snipping the brain stems of infants born alive is now acknowledged to be murder.
 
2014-03-28 12:06:02 PM  
Why do conservatives care so much (or at least pretend to) about unborn babies yet don't give a rats ass if they starve to death after they are born or are born with a painful abnormality and only survive 5-10 minutes?

Does the experience of life regardless of how painful or short lived it is trump everything?
 
2014-03-28 12:12:22 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.


You're okay with denying women healthcare if it means you get to laugh at liberals? Congratulations on your inhumanity.
 
2014-03-28 12:14:41 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Next thing is to get the young ones by standardized tests:

Coming up on a common core math test:

Question:  Since an abortion clinic without hospital visitation rights is 20% more likely to cause infection in the patients and in Texas there were 100,000 abortions before the bill saving the patents from this was passed; how many infections were prevented by this law?

Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.


God damn you're confusing. Math is now a liberal weapon?
 
2014-03-28 12:18:13 PM  

Phinn: Our current government doesn't define infanticide in utero as murder, so they can't be prosecuted for past acts. But if and when the law changes, then it would be prosecuted as murder, just as snipping the brain stems of infants born alive is now has always been acknowledged to be murder.

 
2014-03-28 12:21:43 PM  

NateAsbestos: bigsteve3OOO: Next thing is to get the young ones by standardized tests:

Coming up on a common core math test:

Question:  Since an abortion clinic without hospital visitation rights is 20% more likely to cause infection in the patients and in Texas there were 100,000 abortions before the bill saving the patents from this was passed; how many infections were prevented by this law?

Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.

God damn you're confusing. Math is now a liberal weapon?


From the Common Core Peta thread earlier this week.  Do try to keep up.  Common Core is the weapon not necessarily math.
 
2014-03-28 12:24:07 PM  
You can see why these misogynist judges want to perpetuate the war on women.
ww3.hdnux.comlitigationnews.files.wordpress.com entrepreneur.typepad.com
 
2014-03-28 12:26:48 PM  

Phinn: wookiee cookie: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

they believe it's murder until you press them on the point that if it's murder, doctors, nurses and women should be prosecuted, imprisoned and executed for murder

pro-lifers always squirm away from this argument

Nulla poena sine lege praevia, scripta, certa et stricta.  Our current government doesn't define infanticide in utero as murder, so they can't be prosecuted for past acts.  But if and when the law changes, then it would be prosecuted as murder, just as snipping the brain stems of infants born alive is now acknowledged to be murder.


my high school latin-fu is dead. but tx for the pretension.

where did i mention past abortions, i'm talking about future ones. obviously.

nice to see you cop to the completely unrealistic, dystopian, handmaid's tale-esque vision of doctors, nurses and women being prosecuted imprisoned and executed for murder. bc most of your kinfolk are intellectually dishonest cowards.
 
2014-03-28 12:30:11 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.


So in your own mind, you think they are using "petty laws to erode freedom," and you think this is amusing? Why?
 
2014-03-28 12:35:46 PM  

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: This Texas law isn't an Alinsky tactic at all. It's a much older method, straight out of the Fabian Society.

If the Progderps ever have to face a well-orchestrated campaign of Fabian conservatism, or even Fabian libertarianism, the entertainment value will be very high. Much popcorn will be consumed. My schadenfreud-o-meter will asplode.

Considering the Fabians have existed for 130 years and still haven't turned the UK into a Socialist state, I can see why you'd need much popcorn.

You must be one of those people whose thinking is so dependent on adjectives that you think that anything less than full Marxism isn't a socialist state.  Clearly, the British Labour Party has been successful, off and on, since the 1920s -- unionism, central banking, the welfare state, wage controls, nationalization of major industries including virtually all utilities, health care, transportation and telecommunications ... all were major socialist agenda items going back to Marx himself.


You sound like one of those people who equate Liberal Democracy with Socialism.
Labour hasn't been Socialist since the mid-'90s at the latest, and utilities, transportation and telecom is not nationalized in the UK. Health care kinda is, but in addition to the NHS they also have private medical insurance and health care providers
 
2014-03-28 12:36:10 PM  

wookiee cookie: my high school latin-fu is dead. but tx for the pretension.

where did i mention past abortions, i'm talking about future ones. obviously.

nice to see you cop to the completely unrealistic, dystopian, handmaid's tale-esque vision of doctors, nurses and women being prosecuted imprisoned and executed for murder. bc most of your kinfolk are intellectually dishonest cowards.


I'm knee-deep in Latin again for a project of mine, so it seems more normal to me.

I don't really have kinsfolk.  And I don't make my decisions about legal issues based on electoral politics.  Is squishiness on the question of prosecuting abortionists a by-product of cowardice?  Maybe, sure, sometimes.  In my experience, inconsistency and hypocrisy is more often just a matter of sloppy thinking and unfamiliarity with abstract thought, plus a big helping of plain old marketing considerations.

Anyway, I'm not so much pro-choice as I am pro-abortion.  I want a free-to-use self-serve abortion booth installed in every 7-Eleven and quickie-mart in America, one that dispenses a $200 gift card on completion, more if you opt to self-sterilize, and a free iPad if you refer a friend.
 
2014-03-28 12:40:47 PM  

enry: Karac: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

Didn't Gosnell get life in prison?

I would think that shows that existing laws would be sufficient deterrent to abortion doctors not getting their patients to an ER if they need one.

Existing laws against abortion are insufficient and prove that we need more laws.  Whereas more gun prevention regulations is just a power grab by the gubmint.


Maybe that's the answer.  A clinic should try giving away guns, and get the NRA involved in the fight against these transparently pretextual restrictions.
 
2014-03-28 12:44:19 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Justice? In Texas?


It's less likely than you think.
 
2014-03-28 12:49:45 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Why do conservatives care so much (or at least pretend to) about unborn babies yet don't give a rats ass if they starve to death after they are born or are born with a painful abnormality and only survive 5-10 minutes?

Does the experience of life regardless of how painful or short lived it is trump everything?


Well, just think a minute.  What 'other' group has such an obsessive requirement for a steady stream of babies?  (and, paradoxically, virgins.)  Could it be

www.churchofsatan.com
 
2014-03-28 12:51:59 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: NateAsbestos: bigsteve3OOO: Next thing is to get the young ones by standardized tests:

Coming up on a common core math test:

Question:  Since an abortion clinic without hospital visitation rights is 20% more likely to cause infection in the patients and in Texas there were 100,000 abortions before the bill saving the patents from this was passed; how many infections were prevented by this law?

Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.

God damn you're confusing. Math is now a liberal weapon?

From the Common Core Peta thread earlier this week.  Do try to keep up.  Common Core is the weapon not necessarily math.


I'm one of those unheard-of employed liberals, I don't get to peruse every thread.

So, how influenced were YOU by the test questions you had to answer as a kid? Because I know all I do is think about trains leaving towns going at certain speeds and when they'll meet.
 
2014-03-28 12:57:52 PM  
NateAsbestos:
So, how influenced were YOU by the test questions you had to answer as a kid? Because I know all I do is think about trains leaving towns going at certain speeds and when they'll meet.

Well, aside from going to my grave knowing that a baloo is a bear, a yonker is a young man, wuzzle means "to mix," and skulch is junk...
 
2014-03-28 01:17:19 PM  

Phinn: wookiee cookie: my high school latin-fu is dead. but tx for the pretension.

where did i mention past abortions, i'm talking about future ones. obviously.

nice to see you cop to the completely unrealistic, dystopian, handmaid's tale-esque vision of doctors, nurses and women being prosecuted imprisoned and executed for murder. bc most of your kinfolk are intellectually dishonest cowards.

I'm knee-deep in Latin again for a project of mine, so it seems more normal to me.

I don't really have kinsfolk.  And I don't make my decisions about legal issues based on electoral politics.  Is squishiness on the question of prosecuting abortionists a by-product of cowardice?  Maybe, sure, sometimes.  In my experience, inconsistency and hypocrisy is more often just a matter of sloppy thinking and unfamiliarity with abstract thought, plus a big helping of plain old marketing considerations.

Anyway, I'm not so much pro-choice as I am pro-abortion.  I want a free-to-use self-serve abortion booth installed in every 7-Eleven and quickie-mart in America, one that dispenses a $200 gift card on completion, more if you opt to self-sterilize, and a free iPad if you refer a friend.


yes, pro lifers engage in sloppy thinking and anti-intellectualism. you are correct.

they apparently also engage in dumb "satirical" strawmen parodies.

"abortion on demand" much?

anyway, im not so much pro-choice, as i am ex-pro-life, ever since i wised up to the the fact that the morally problematic issue of abortion needs to have a safe and legal avenue in society, lest we engage in handmaid's tale-inspired dystopian fantasies.

and i didnt even have to be involved in an unwanted prego.

i just had to talk to women, use my brain and empathy and balance the two options.

not everyone can do this apparently.
 
2014-03-28 01:21:09 PM  

wookiee cookie: Phinn: wookiee cookie: my high school latin-fu is dead. but tx for the pretension.

where did i mention past abortions, i'm talking about future ones. obviously.

nice to see you cop to the completely unrealistic, dystopian, handmaid's tale-esque vision of doctors, nurses and women being prosecuted imprisoned and executed for murder. bc most of your kinfolk are intellectually dishonest cowards.

I'm knee-deep in Latin again for a project of mine, so it seems more normal to me.

I don't really have kinsfolk.  And I don't make my decisions about legal issues based on electoral politics.  Is squishiness on the question of prosecuting abortionists a by-product of cowardice?  Maybe, sure, sometimes.  In my experience, inconsistency and hypocrisy is more often just a matter of sloppy thinking and unfamiliarity with abstract thought, plus a big helping of plain old marketing considerations.

Anyway, I'm not so much pro-choice as I am pro-abortion.  I want a free-to-use self-serve abortion booth installed in every 7-Eleven and quickie-mart in America, one that dispenses a $200 gift card on completion, more if you opt to self-sterilize, and a free iPad if you refer a friend.

yes, pro lifers engage in sloppy thinking and anti-intellectualism. you are correct.

they apparently also engage in dumb "satirical" strawmen parodies.

"abortion on demand" much?

anyway, im not so much pro-choice, as i am ex-pro-life, ever since i wised up to the the fact that the morally problematic issue of abortion needs to have a safe and legal avenue in society, lest we engage in handmaid's tale-inspired dystopian fantasies.

and i didnt even have to be involved in an unwanted prego.

i just had to talk to women, use my brain and empathy and balance the two options.

not everyone can do this apparently.


Take your "thinking" and "rationality" and gtfo. They have no place here on Fark.
 
2014-03-28 01:33:05 PM  
Why does America hate women?

Not as much as Pakistan, but enough to concern people from civilized countries.
 
2014-03-28 01:35:15 PM  
None if this is funny. My sister had an abortion. She also had huntingtons disease (HD). If PA courts had ruled like this, my family would have been stuck with an unwanted, potentially sick child. No way to know if HD was passed to it. My sister is also dead, so that child would also have been motherless. There are tons of reasons to keep abortions legal, safe, and available. Stop being assholes.
 
2014-03-28 01:43:59 PM  

wookiee cookie: they apparently also engage in dumb "satirical" strawmen parodies.


Like what?  My abort-o-matic booth idea?  That's totally serious.

wookiee cookie: i just had to talk to women, use my brain and empathy and balance the two options.


Balancing and empathy are not abstract thought.  They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.
 
2014-03-28 01:55:11 PM  

Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.


Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?
 
2014-03-28 01:59:19 PM  

grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?


No.  Magic is anti-reason.
 
2014-03-28 02:08:20 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.


Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.
 
2014-03-28 02:18:11 PM  

Phinn: wookiee cookie: they apparently also engage in dumb "satirical" strawmen parodies.

Like what?  My abort-o-matic booth idea?  That's totally serious.

wookiee cookie: i just had to talk to women, use my brain and empathy and balance the two options.

Balancing and empathy are not abstract thought.  They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.


if you say so, buddy. you're obviously the smarter person.

knowing latin and proposing TOTALLY SERIOUS abort-o-matic scenarios as you do.
 
2014-03-28 02:27:33 PM  

jigger: You can see why these misogynist judges want to perpetuate the war on women.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 205x262][litigationnews.files.wordpress.com image 212x261] [entrepreneur.typepad.com image 216x257]


If you think women can't be misogynist, you haven't met very many Texan conservative women. They hate "sluts" a thousand times more on average than the conservative men around here do.
 
2014-03-28 02:29:21 PM  

grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.


The religious ones don't.
 
2014-03-28 02:31:46 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.


Do you have a strictly logical reason fetuses should be granted primacy over the women carrying them? If so, I'd be interested to here what it is.
 
2014-03-28 02:32:22 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Do you have a strictly logical reason fetuses should be granted primacy over the women carrying them? If so, I'd be interested to here what it is.


hear, even.

/sigh
 
2014-03-28 02:32:54 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.


Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.
 
2014-03-28 02:43:54 PM  

grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.


As I said, I'm pro-abortion.  I don't think it should be illegal.  I think it should be fully subsidized, free to the consumer, with 24-hour service, no appointment necessary, come as you are, no questions asked, with cash and prizes given right there on the spot.
 
2014-03-28 02:48:21 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.

As I said, I'm pro-abortion.  I don't think it should be illegal.  I think it should be fully subsidized, free to the consumer, with 24-hour service, no appointment necessary, come as you are, no questions asked, with cash and prizes given right there on the spot.


Are you saying then that you recognize no logical reason abortion rights should be curtailed? You didn't answer the question in any meaningful way.
 
2014-03-28 02:54:06 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.

As I said, I'm pro-abortion.  I don't think it should be illegal.  I think it should be fully subsidized, free to the consumer, with 24-hour service, no appointment necessary, come as you are, no questions asked, with cash and prizes given right there on the spot.


So, you're pro-abortion in the way the strawman pro-choice people in your head are? Dripping sarcasm aside, I don't know anyone who actually holds that position.
 
2014-03-28 02:57:02 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Do you have a strictly logical reason fetuses should be granted primacy over the women carrying them? If so, I'd be interested to here what it is.


Life rights supersede liberty rights, which supersede property rights.  For example, trespassing is illegal, being a violation of property rights.  Also, a baseless detention or restraint is illegal, being a violation of one's liberty rights.  But unless the offender poses a risk of death or serious injury, merely being illegally detained, or the victim of a trespass (or even a theft), is not a justification for causing someone's death.  You don't get to kill the random child you find hiding in your tool shed, or decapitate the paparazzi when they stand in front of your car.  They are violating your rights, of course, but their rights to live are superior to your rights to be secure in your property and freedom of movement.

So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

I don't see how these facts can be denied.  The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever is expected to grow and develop and need economic support for the next 10-20 years is precisely the reason people want to kill it.  People don't go around amputating random cells from their body for no reason. I suppose they could, but they don't.  The whole point of elective abortion is to eliminate the expectation and prediction that the as-yet-unborn living, human organism who is growing inside the mother will eventually demand a huge claim on the parent's time and resources.

Unless the reason is that it is doomed to a short life of pain, in which case it's just a matter of euthanasia, which I affirmatively support.

Or the reason is a high-risk pregnancy that objectively threatens the mother's life, in which case it's a matter of self-defense, which I also firmly support.
 
2014-03-28 03:00:14 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Oh please. Enlighten us with your ethical and/or legal reasoning on why abortion should be illegal.

As I said, I'm pro-abortion.  I don't think it should be illegal.  I think it should be fully subsidized, free to the consumer, with 24-hour service, no appointment necessary, come as you are, no questions asked, with cash and prizes given right there on the spot.

Are you saying then that you recognize no logical reason abortion rights should be curtailed? You didn't answer the question in any meaningful way.


No, none.  I fully acknowledge that the abortion kills people, but I have no desire whatsoever to stop mothers who want to kill the offspring.  I am completely serious -- I want those people to have access.  I would be willing to pay for door-to-door, we-come-to-you mobile services.  The cash and prizes offer still stands, too.
 
2014-03-28 03:03:31 PM  

Phinn: So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.


The question was legal and ethical reasoning, not your opinion. You don't get to ignore reams and reams of bioethics papers just because you disagree with them.
 
2014-03-28 03:08:11 PM  

grumpfuff: Phinn: So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

The question was legal and ethical reasoning, not your opinion. You don't get to ignore reams and reams of bioethics papers just because you disagree with them.


It's alive.  There's been one, long, continuous, unbroken chain of life, going back to the ooze.  Clearly, offspring are living.

It's human.  It's not lizard.

It's a discrete organism.  It has its own DNA.  It consumes food, grows, develops and reproduces, if given sufficient protection and nutrients.  You can water a brick all day long, but it won't grow into a house.  You can feed a sperm anything you can think of, but until it fuses with an egg, there's no way to call it an organism, any more than you can drip a spot of blood on the ground and name it Junior.

The fact that it's a discrete, self-organized entity is the reason mothers want to kill it.
 
2014-03-28 03:12:33 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

The question was legal and ethical reasoning, not your opinion. You don't get to ignore reams and reams of bioethics papers just because you disagree with them.

It's alive.  There's been one, long, continuous, unbroken chain of life, going back to the ooze.  Clearly, offspring are living.

It's human.  It's not lizard.

It's a discrete organism.  It has its own DNA.  It consumes food, grows, develops and reproduces, if given sufficient protection and nutrients.  You can water a brick all day long, but it won't grow into a house.  You can feed a sperm anything you can think of, but until it fuses with an egg, there's no way to call it an organism, any more than you can drip a spot of blood on the ground and name it Junior.

The fact that it's a discrete, self-organized entity is the reason mothers want to kill it.


You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own
 
2014-03-28 03:20:06 PM  

grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own


"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.
 
2014-03-28 03:23:46 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own

"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.


Say you put the two year old down for a one hour nap and go watch tv in the other room. A pregnant woman takes the fetus out for an hour and goes to do whatever.

I bet the two year old will be in a lot better shape after that hour.

By the way, you still haven't actually provided any sound ethical or legal reasoning. Just your opinions.
 
2014-03-28 03:32:41 PM  

grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own

"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.

Say you put the two year old down for a one hour nap and go watch tv in the other room. A pregnant woman takes the fetus out for an hour and goes to do whatever.

I bet the two year old will be in a lot better shape after that hour.

By the way, you still haven't actually provided any sound ethical or legal reasoning. Just your opinions.


Where's the rule of logic that says that one hour is the cutoff point for deciding who gets cared for and who dies?

Can you make any comment on this topic that doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions?

If your child is drowning in the bathtub, it needs protection in 10 seconds. The fact that it can't protect itself or live on its own for another 5 minutes is not a justification for deciding it doesn't get to live. Remember the obligation to protect? It's binding on parents all the time, right up to the point of risking one's own life and safety.

The dependency of one's offspring is no justification for killing it. That's nonsense -- just another version of Might Makes Right.
 
2014-03-28 03:43:58 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own

"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.

Say you put the two year old down for a one hour nap and go watch tv in the other room. A pregnant woman takes the fetus out for an hour and goes to do whatever.

I bet the two year old will be in a lot better shape after that hour.

By the way, you still haven't actually provided any sound ethical or legal reasoning. Just your opinions.

Where's the rule of logic that says that one hour is the cutoff point for deciding who gets cared for and who dies?

Can you make any comment on this topic that doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions?

If your child is drowning in the bathtub, it needs protection in 10 seconds. The fact that it can't protect itself or live on its own for another 5 minutes is not a justification for deciding it doesn't get to live. Remember the obligation to protect? It's binding on parents all the time, right up to the point of risking one's own life and safety.

The dependency of one's offspring is no justification for killing it. That's nonsense -- just another version o ...


Well, your entire argument is dependent on your assertion that a fetus is a person. Which you didn't bother to argue for, just asserted based on sketchy definitions.

So you'll have to forgive me for not taking the rest of your argument seriously.
 
2014-03-28 03:50:22 PM  

Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: grumpfuff: Phinn: They aren't bad or wrong, but they're certainly not modes of ethical or legal reasoning.

Because "life begins at conception because Jesus" is?

No.  Magic is anti-reason.

Well, at least you admit the anti-choice brigade has no ethical or legal reasoning behind their position.

The religious ones don't.

Do you have a strictly logical reason fetuses should be granted primacy over the women carrying them? If so, I'd be interested to here what it is.

Life rights supersede liberty rights, which supersede property rights.  For example, trespassing is illegal, being a violation of property rights.  Also, a baseless detention or restraint is illegal, being a violation of one's liberty rights.  But unless the offender poses a risk of death or serious injury, merely being illegally detained, or the victim of a trespass (or even a theft), is not a justification for causing someone's death.  You don't get to kill the random child you find hiding in your tool shed, or decapitate the paparazzi when they stand in front of your car.  They are violating your rights, of course, but their rights to live are superior to your rights to be secure in your property and freedom of movement.

So, the issue in abortion is clearly the fetus's right to life.  I don't see why he/she wouldn't have a right to live, being an obviously living, obviously human, unique organism.

I don't see how these facts can be denied.  The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever is expected to grow and develop and need economic support for the next 10-20 years is precisely the reason people want to kill it.  People don't go around amputating random cells from their body for no reason. I suppose they could, but they don't.  The whole point of elective abortion is to eliminate the expectation and prediction that the as-yet-unborn living, human organism who is growing inside the mother will eventually demand a huge claim on the parent's time and resources.

Unless the reason is that it is doomed to a short life of pain, in which case it's just a matter of euthanasia, which I affirmatively support.

Or the reason is a high-risk pregnancy that objectively threatens the mother's life, in which case it's a matter of self-defense, which I also firmly support.


You are completely and utterly wrong.

A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life. If you are in a boat and encounter a drowning person who tries to climb on your boat you can actually legally keep them off your boat because it is your property. Woman's right to control her own body would actually trump the fetus IF the fetus was considered a person - which it isn't.
 
2014-03-28 03:54:15 PM  

grumpfuff: Well, your entire argument is dependent on your assertion that a fetus is a person. Which you didn't bother to argue for, just asserted based on sketchy definitions.

So you'll have to forgive me for not taking the rest of your argument seriously.


Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.  Like begets like.  The null hypothesis is that the organisms that are reproduced by organisms are another instance of the parent organism.  Give me a logical or scientific explanation as to why the offspring of persons are not persons, and I'll reconsider.

Arbitrary distinctions based on time, size and shape are invalid.  "Because I can kill it so easily" is not valid.

Go ahead.  Impress me.
 
2014-03-28 03:54:58 PM  

madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.


Except as to your offspring.
 
2014-03-28 04:04:27 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: Well, your entire argument is dependent on your assertion that a fetus is a person. Which you didn't bother to argue for, just asserted based on sketchy definitions.

So you'll have to forgive me for not taking the rest of your argument seriously.

Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.  Like begets like.  The null hypothesis is that the organisms that are reproduced by organisms are another instance of the parent organism.  Give me a logical or scientific explanation as to why the offspring of persons are not persons, and I'll reconsider.

Arbitrary distinctions based on time, size and shape are invalid.  "Because I can kill it so easily" is not valid.

Go ahead.  Impress me.


So, instead of you defining what makes a fetus a person, now the burden is on me to prove it isn't?

Huh.

Anyway, since you seem to be in dire need of Bioethics 101, here's the wiki article on personhood. Start from there and see if you can come up with a better argument. The only difference between your position and a religious anti-choice position is instead of "Because Jesus," you use "Because I said so."

Meanwhile, in bioethics, the opinions on personhood/life range from "every sperm is sacred" to "infanticide is ok." I'm sure somewhere in that range you can find a position you agree with, and use actual arguments instead of "Because I said so."

Go ahead. Impress me.
 
2014-03-28 04:07:18 PM  

Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.


Nope

No duty whatsoever.

That's freedom, baby!
 
2014-03-28 04:10:38 PM  

grumpfuff: So, instead of you defining what makes a fetus a person, now the burden is on me to prove it isn't?


Yes.  The burden is on you.  A fetus is the offspring of a person, so the fetus is also a person until you show my why it isn't.

"Personhood" is an abstraction.  It's been denied to slaves, children, prisoners, foreigners and women, to name a few.  Until you can show me why the immature offspring of persons are not persons, merely because they are dependent on the very care and protection that all immature persons need and are entitled to, then "personhood" is just an empty, formalistic label for "I want to kill it, it's easy, and you can't stop me."
 
2014-03-28 04:11:30 PM  

madgonad: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

Nope

No duty whatsoever.

That's freedom, baby!


Try leaving your starving 2 year-old in the middle of the living room, and see what the law and ethicists have to say about it.
 
2014-03-28 04:13:01 PM  

Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.


It's not offspring before it's born.
 
2014-03-28 04:13:21 PM  

Phinn: Yes.  The burden is on you.  A fetus is the offspring of a person, so the fetus is also a person until you show my why it isn't.


A fetus is the offspring of a person, but that does not automatically make the fetus a person until you show me why it does.

My statement has just as much epistemic integrity as yours. You haven't actually shown that a fetus is a person, you just claim it is. I can't refute something that hasn't been proven.
 
2014-03-28 04:13:33 PM  

Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.


That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?
 
2014-03-28 04:15:17 PM  

Dansker: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

It's not offspring before it's born.


Yes, it is.  It's made from two persons' biological material.  It's just a person inside another person.

Tough concept, I know, but try to wrap your head around it.  It might help if you keet up with the last 200 years of biology and medicine.
 
2014-03-28 04:22:12 PM  

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

It's not offspring before it's born.

Yes, it is.


Only if you ignore etymology and common usage.

It's made from two persons' biological material. It's just a person inside another person.

In my opinion you have to have a personality to be a person, and that requires at least a functioning central nervous system, so it's not a person in the first trimester. After that it becomes kind of a grey area.
 
2014-03-28 04:22:14 PM  

Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.


When does it become a person?
 
2014-03-28 04:26:55 PM  
Here's a nice picture of an oak tree for you, Phinn:

dingo.care2.com
 
2014-03-28 04:27:38 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?


You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.

If technology existed for mothers to remove their offspring and place them with other caretakers, that would be the ethical obligation, just as with the orphanage/surrogate parent situation.  But they don't, so that means that, for now, depriving the fetus of maternal care is tantamount to death.
 
2014-03-28 04:27:44 PM  

Phinn: grumpfuff: So, instead of you defining what makes a fetus a person, now the burden is on me to prove it isn't?

Yes.  The burden is on you.  A fetus is the offspring of a person, so the fetus is also a person until you show my why it isn't.

"Personhood" is an abstraction.  It's been denied to slaves, children, prisoners, foreigners and women, to name a few.  Until you can show me why the immature offspring of persons are not persons, merely because they are dependent on the very care and protection that all immature persons need and are entitled to, then "personhood" is just an empty, formalistic label for "I want to kill it, it's easy, and you can't stop me."


How can you prove a negative? Isn't the burden on you to prove to us that a fetus is a person?

/Debate 101
 
2014-03-28 04:31:05 PM  
 
2014-03-28 04:32:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?


When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.

Epic Fap Session: Here's a nice picture of an oak tree for you, Phinn:

[dingo.care2.com image 392x260]


Yeah, pretty much.  That's just a different stage of the tree's life cycle.  Tadpoles are just frogs, too.  Caterpillars grow into butterflies.  Baby eagles inside their eggs don't look much like eagles, but they are, just very young.

I know that people with a low IQ people have trouble understanding the continuity of life, what with appearances that can change so much, but try to play along anyway.  It's all part of the wonder of nature.
 
2014-03-28 04:34:56 PM  

Phinn:
You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.


There is no obligation to donate blood or organs to your children, even after they're born.
 
2014-03-28 04:37:10 PM  

Phinn: When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.


So even though the debate is still out on whether or not life begins at conception, you know deep down that is the true answer because...
 
2014-03-28 04:39:23 PM  

Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.


So, a blastocyst is a person?
 
2014-03-28 04:39:39 PM  

Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?

You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.

If technology existed for mothers to remove their offspring and place them with other caretakers, that would be the ethical obligation, just as with the orphanage/surrogate parent situation.  But they don't, so that means that, for now, depriving the fetus of maternal care is tantamount to death.


Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?

If the answer to either is no, then there is no legal foundation to mandate that all women give birth to the fetuses they carry.
 
2014-03-28 04:40:18 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

That's only true in a legal sense if the parent accepts responsibility for the care of the offspring, hence orphanages. If there is no absolute legal onus on the mother to care for a newborn until the age of majority, and she is free to relinquish care to the state, how does it make sense that that same onus should be placed on women carrying fetuses?

You can divest yourself of the obligations of parentage (care, protection, nutrients, sustaining life, etc.) only by confirming that someone else has assumed those obligations for you.

If technology existed for mothers to remove their offspring and place them with other caretakers, that would be the ethical obligation, just as with the orphanage/surrogate parent situation.  But they don't, so that means that, for now, depriving the fetus of maternal care is tantamount to death.

Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?

If the answer to either is no, then there is no legal foundation to mandate that all women give birth to the fetuses they carry.


...is in question.

/apparently only typed that last bit in my mind.
 
2014-03-28 04:42:07 PM  

Phinn: Epic Fap Session: Here's a nice picture of an oak tree for you, Phinn:

[dingo.care2.com image 392x260]


Yeah, pretty much.  That's just a different stage of the tree's life cycle.  Tadpoles are just frogs, too.  Caterpillars grow into butterflies.  Baby eagles inside their eggs don't look much like eagles, but they are, just very young.

I know that people with a low IQ people have trouble understanding the continuity of life, what with appearances that can change so much, but try to play along anyway.  It's all part of the wonder of nature.


Why would you insult my intelligence? You're the one crowing about your ignorance.

In your world should a miscarriage result in an investigation of the female host?
 
2014-03-28 04:47:43 PM  

Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.


My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.
 
2014-03-28 04:49:09 PM  

Dansker: Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.

My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.


I just committed genocide a few hours ago.
 
2014-03-28 04:55:39 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dansker: Phinn: Mrtraveler01: Phinn: Your entire argument depends on your assertion that a fetus is not a person, which has no basis in biology or reason.

When does it become a person?

When it's a discrete, self-organized entity, reproduced from male and female human DNA.  Commonly called fertilization.

My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.

I just committed genocide a few hours ago.


Also, all non-pregnant women kill at least 1 person a month.
 
2014-03-28 05:01:36 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Why would you insult my intelligence?


Probably in response to your snide post about the acorn.

Dansker: My DNA is reproduced from male and female DNA, so every copy of my DNA is obviously also reproduced from male and female DNA, which means my sperm are people. I've been killing them by the millions, and I will do it again.


Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.
 
2014-03-28 05:06:35 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?


What if you wanted to starve yourself and your children at the same time by not buying food?  You have the right not to buy food and die by suicide, but your kids will die before you do, probably.  It would be appropriate to trespass into your home and seize those children in order to protect them, which is otherwise (not in the presence of an existential threat to them) a wrongful act.

Fetuses can't be seized without killing them, at the moment, so saving the offspring could require offending the mother's liberty.  Again, life > liberty > property.
 
2014-03-28 05:08:33 PM  

Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.


They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.
 
2014-03-28 05:09:13 PM  

Phinn: Epic Fap Session: Why would you insult my intelligence?

Probably in response to your snide post about the acorn.


The snide remark that you agreed with right before insulting me?
 
2014-03-28 05:10:52 PM  

Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.


By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.
 
2014-03-28 05:13:33 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Phinn: Epic Fap Session: Why would you insult my intelligence?

Probably in response to your snide post about the acorn.

The snide remark that you agreed with right before insulting me?


Yeah, that one.  You tried to make a point with your sarcasm, but it makes no sense, since your point is based on superficial appearances, and not meaningful biological criteria.

All sorts of organisms change radically over the course of their life cycle.  That growth, development and change is an integral part of the definition of "organism," so the fact that young offspring look a lot different from their parents is actually an argument in my favor, not yours.
 
2014-03-28 05:16:35 PM  
This is why I think abortion shouldn't be a national issue or even a state issue, but a local issue.  The divide on this issue is too deep and very even.  It's also impossible to build a consensus.  Libtrolls won't go for it, and social conservatives won't agree to anything less than a total or near total ban. If it's a completely local issue, then the predominant opinion of the area would make the rules and those who support it get it in their area and those who don't want it get that in their area.  The level of biatching drops significantly, I have less of a headache and a much more pleasant attitude towards humanity in general.  A nation wide policy, or even a state wide policy, will not work on this issue.
 
2014-03-28 05:20:32 PM  

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.


By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.
 
2014-03-28 05:25:05 PM  

Phinn: UrukHaiGuyz: Here's where things get really tricky, because in seeking not to deprive the fetus, it is possible to trample all over the rights of the woman in question. For instance, if a woman decides to starve herself to force a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Would the state be within its rights to force-feed her?

What if you wanted to starve yourself and your children at the same time by not buying food?  You have the right not to buy food and die by suicide, but your kids will die before you do, probably.  It would be appropriate to trespass into your home and seize those children in order to protect them, which is otherwise (not in the presence of an existential threat to them) a wrongful act.


That didn't answer the question. I already know you see fetuses as perfectly analogous to children. Is the state within its rights to force-feed the woman? In your above scenario, the parent could starve themselves while still feeding their children. It doesn't exactly correlate.

Fetuses can't be seized without killing them, at the moment, so saving the offspring could require offending the mother's liberty.  Again, life > liberty > property.

Where are you getting this legal doctrine? Is it your personal opinion?
 
2014-03-28 05:26:44 PM  

Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.

By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.


They're not capable of growth, development or reproduction (which sounds odd, since they are reproduction-specialty cells within some other organism).  They need to fuse with another cell in order to grow and develop.  On its own, even with ample nutrition and protection from the elements, it will always only ever be a sperm cell.
 
2014-03-28 05:29:18 PM  

bobothemagnificent: This is why I think abortion shouldn't be a national issue or even a state issue, but a local issue.  The divide on this issue is too deep and very even.  It's also impossible to build a consensus.  Libtrolls won't go for it, and social conservatives won't agree to anything less than a total or near total ban. If it's a completely local issue, then the predominant opinion of the area would make the rules and those who support it get it in their area and those who don't want it get that in their area.  The level of biatching drops significantly, I have less of a headache and a much more pleasant attitude towards humanity in general.  A nation wide policy, or even a state wide policy, will not work on this issue.


Violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, so no dice. A constitutional amendment is about the least likely outcome on the issue.
 
2014-03-28 05:34:38 PM  

Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.

By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.


I guess a white blood cell is also an organism?
 
2014-03-28 05:42:38 PM  

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.

By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.

They're not capable of growth, development


Yes, they are.
img.photobucket.com

or reproduction (which sounds odd, since they are reproduction-specialty cells within some other organism).

A blastocyst is incapable of reproduction, ergo it's not a person.
 
2014-03-28 05:48:55 PM  

Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn:
Your sperm aren't organisms, any more than your kidney is.  What you do with your sperm is your business, and probably best kept private.

They are discrete, self-organized entities, so by your definition they're people. And they are better at surviving outside a human body than most embryoblasts.

By self-organized, I mean an organism.  Biology has a set of meaningful criteria for what an organism is.  There are single-celled organisms, but sperm cells are not among them.

By which criterium do they fail? They are mobile, carbon based life forms. Just because they're haploid, doesn't mean they're not organisms.

They're not capable of growth, development

Yes, they are.
[img.photobucket.com image 850x417]

or reproduction (which sounds odd, since they are reproduction-specialty cells within some other organism).

A blastocyst is incapable of reproduction, ergo it's not a person.


Someone used the built in Powerpoint clip art.
 
2014-03-28 06:06:23 PM  

Phinn: On its own, even with ample nutrition and protection from the elements, it will always only ever be a sperm cell.


The same is true for a person.
 
2014-03-28 07:43:28 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: bobothemagnificent: This is why I think abortion shouldn't be a national issue or even a state issue, but a local issue.  The divide on this issue is too deep and very even.  It's also impossible to build a consensus.  Libtrolls won't go for it, and social conservatives won't agree to anything less than a total or near total ban. If it's a completely local issue, then the predominant opinion of the area would make the rules and those who support it get it in their area and those who don't want it get that in their area.  The level of biatching drops significantly, I have less of a headache and a much more pleasant attitude towards humanity in general.  A nation wide policy, or even a state wide policy, will not work on this issue.

Violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, so no dice. A constitutional amendment is about the least likely outcome on the issue.


Not to mention he's apparently open to the acceptability of towns where women who have abortions can be burned at the stake or stoned to death. Local issue, after all. That's how they roll in Zygote City.

Also, "Sanctity of the Zygote!" sounds like a good slogan for a troll sign at an anti-abortion rally.
 
2014-03-28 08:15:37 PM  

jigger:
Someone used the built in Powerpoint clip art.


There's jizz themed clip art in your Powerpoint? Where do you work?
 
2014-03-29 12:20:07 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: DrBenway: Almost Everybody Poops: bigsteve3OOO: Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.

You really seem to get off on suppressing women's rights.

Usually he comes off as just really stupid. Today, though, he seems to be aspiring for "stupid asshole" territory. That's thinking big.

Got to mix it up now and then.  I do try, thanks for noticing the subtle differences.  I am an artist.


You're like that kid who huddles in the corner of the lunch room, sniffing his own farts and giggling.
 
2014-03-29 02:46:02 AM  
Hey guys, thanks for getting sidelined by the kids who like to play with their own poops.
 
2014-03-29 02:55:30 AM  

Kittypie070: Hey guys, thanks for getting sidelined by the kids who like to play with their own poops.


Yeah, I was the Subby, and the thread got trolled to death pretty quickly.
 
2014-03-29 04:56:48 AM  

Alphax: Kittypie070: Hey guys, thanks for getting sidelined by the kids who like to play with their own poops.

Yeah, I was the Subby, and the thread got trolled to death pretty quickly.


:(

I wish people would just stop talking to the keyboard wielding toilets around here.
 
2014-03-29 07:05:58 AM  

Kittypie070: Alphax: Kittypie070: Hey guys, thanks for getting sidelined by the kids who like to play with their own poops.

Yeah, I was the Subby, and the thread got trolled to death pretty quickly.

:(

I wish people would just stop talking to the keyboard wielding toilets around here.


I wish you would say more interesting things.
 
2014-03-29 07:16:00 AM  

Dansker: Phinn: On its own, even with ample nutrition and protection from the elements, it will always only ever be a sperm cell.

The same is true for a person.


You have ethical duties toward a person, but not toward a cell. I don't understand what it is you don't understand.

I think one of the problems you're having is the idea of owing duties only to people for being conscious, or however you put it earlier. That's not exactly accurate. People who are asleep or comatose are not conscious. But we owe them ethical duties (starting with Don't Kill) because we presume that they are going to develop consciousness in the FUTURE.

A person who is alive but brain dead has no such future, which is what makes killing such a person acceptable (or even preferable or mandatory). We presume everyone will be conscious until conclusively proven otherwise.

A sperm cell will never develop consciousness. This is known with certainty. It must be fused with another cell to become a new entity in order to do so. Neither the sperm cell nor egg from which each of us came was us. That fusion created the organism that literally is you -- it developed into the you of today.
 
2014-03-29 07:35:05 AM  

Kittypie070: Hey guys, thanks for getting sidelined by the kids who like to play with their own poops.


Hey, when you're in the bathtub and don't have a boat or a rubber duckie, sometimes you gotta make your own toys.
 
2014-03-29 09:09:07 AM  
www.colourbox.com

This is a picture of a house.
 
2014-03-29 10:03:47 AM  

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: On its own, even with ample nutrition and protection from the elements, it will always only ever be a sperm cell.

The same is true for a person.

You have ethical duties toward a person, but not toward a cell. I don't understand what it is you don't understand.

I think one of the problems you're having is the idea of owing duties only to people for being conscious, or however you put it earlier.


What I said was you have to have at least a functioning central nervous system to be a person. Your brain doesn't stop working just because you sleep or lose consciousness.

A person who is alive but brain dead has no such future, which is what makes killing such a person acceptable (or even preferable or mandatory).

And a clump of cells that doesn't have a brain is not a person, which is what makes removing such a clump of cells acceptable, so we almost agree.
 
2014-03-29 11:59:14 AM  

Dansker: Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: On its own, even with ample nutrition and protection from the elements, it will always only ever be a sperm cell.

The same is true for a person.

You have ethical duties toward a person, but not toward a cell. I don't understand what it is you don't understand.

I think one of the problems you're having is the idea of owing duties only to people for being conscious, or however you put it earlier.

What I said was you have to have at least a functioning central nervous system to be a person. Your brain doesn't stop working just because you sleep or lose consciousness.

A person who is alive but brain dead has no such future, which is what makes killing such a person acceptable (or even preferable or mandatory).

And a clump of cells that doesn't have a brain is not a person, which is what makes removing such a clump of cells acceptable, so we almost agree.


The cerebral hemispheres are formed in the fifth week. That's about the time many women first detect their pregnancies due to absent menstruation. The restriction in Texas that the Left is so up in arms about permits abortion up to 20 weeks, which is about the mid-way point of gestation. Even if we extend the CNS development threshold out to 10 weeks, there isn't any US prohibition on abortion that early, I believe.

In any event, the "development of a central nervous system" isn't a clear moment and therefore arbitrary. It's a shorthand way of summarizing millions of developmental processes.

I still don't understand how anyone can argue that a unique, human individual doesn't exist as of the moment it LITERALLY exists as a single, coherent organism. It's a tautology. Self-evident once you understand the basic mechanism of fertilization. Neither of the component parts can be rationally described as the organism that constitutes an individual, but the fertilized egg is. Its growth and development from that moment on is one long continuous chain of change.

When you set aside the electoral politics and just look at the biological facts, that fertilized egg is the individual entity that constitutes a human being.
 
2014-03-29 12:24:28 PM  

Phinn: The cerebral hemispheres are formed in the fifth week.


That's not at fertilization, which is when you said the cells become a person.

In any event, the "development of a central nervous system" isn't a clear moment and therefore arbitrary.

Inexact is not equal to arbitrary.

I still don't understand how anyone can argue that a unique, human individual doesn't exist as of the moment it LITERALLY exists as a single, coherent organism.

Our disagreement is simple to understand: I don't agree that two cells are the same as a person, regardless of their potential.
But at least you learned a few new things in this thread. If you manager to retain that new knowledge, it has not been a complete waste.
 
2014-03-29 01:25:47 PM  

Dansker: Phinn: The cerebral hemispheres are formed in the fifth week.

That's not at fertilization, which is when you said the cells become a person.


I know.  I was responding to your proposition about CNS development being the operative condition for humanity, or personhood, or whatever label the Left is using this week.  Even if the CNS were the controlling factor, I was saying, it would support justifying the prohibition of abortions as early as 5 weeks, which is 15 weeks earlier than this Texas law prohibits them.

As for the rest of your comments, you have now earned the farkie of "Pedantic Eurotard."
 
2014-03-29 01:35:38 PM  

Phinn: Dansker: Phinn: The cerebral hemispheres are formed in the fifth week.

That's not at fertilization, which is when you said the cells become a person.

I know.  I was responding to your proposition about CNS development being the operative condition for humanity, or personhood, or whatever label the Left is using this week.  Even if the CNS were the controlling factor, I was saying, it would support justifying the prohibition of abortions as early as 5 weeks, which is 15 weeks earlier than this Texas law prohibits them.

As for the rest of your comments, you have now earned the farkie of "Pedantic Eurotard."


I love how you're calling him pedantic while you're ignoring decades of work in bioethics in favor of dictionary definitions.
 
2014-03-29 02:45:07 PM  

Phinn: I was responding to your proposition about CNS developmen being the operative condition for humanity, or personhood,


I didn't say "development", I said that having a functioning central nervous system is my lowest requirement for calling something a "person".

As for the rest of your comments, you have now earned the farkie of "Pedantic Eurotard."

I earned that years ago, from better people than you.
But if you had paid attention to my pedantry, you could have learned that British energy, telecom, and transportation are not nationalized, and that spermcells and eggs both grow and develop from gonozytes.
Also, Marx wanted a national bank with exclusive monopoly on credit and lending, and the London Underground is not a political movement.
 
2014-03-29 08:45:10 PM  
I enjoyed reading through this thread, last 2 days of work.  It's always fun watching somebody try to argue that their logic is superior by ignoring the arguments and points of others. 

All I have else to add, is that while I'd love to have kids of my own, I'd rip out my own womb and throw it on the House steps before I allowed people to tell me that I am required to bring an embryo to term.  It's my farking choice.  I know when I'm ready, nobody else does.

And I'm not your god damned brood mare.
 
Displayed 170 of 170 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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