Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

Superfreak said:
So at what moment does the magic baby fairy show up to turn it into a baby?
Click to expand...

Well, we know that starting at the first breath the blood circulation changes. A valve at the heart closes and directs greater blood flow to the lungs. (I guess that's why men and women give each other a little slap on the butt to get the blood flowing.) :-)

Some veins cease operation, collapse, then become like cords to hold several organs in place. Sort of like when you see bungee cords holding the furniture on the back of a pick-up.

Birth has been the accepted point for some time now so until a better idea comes along I'll go with birth.
 
apple0154 said:
Well, we know that starting at the first breath the blood circulation changes. A valve at the heart closes and directs greater blood flow to the lungs. (I guess that's why men and women give each other a little slap on the butt to get the blood flowing.) :-)

Some veins cease operation, collapse, then become like cords to hold several organs in place. Sort of like when you see bungee cords holding the furniture on the back of a pick-up.

Birth has been the accepted point for some time now so until a better idea comes along I'll go with birth.
Click to expand...

you might want to study up on gestational processes a bit more before making claims that aren't exactly accurate.
 
Superfreak said:
Listen you ignorant twit. If the doctor comes in and says, 'because of health concern x, there is no chance that both you and your baby will survive' then you are not dehumanizing anyone. It is simply a fact of life. I am not sacrificing either and neither is the woman in question. She has to make a choice on which of the two has the better chance of survival.

Thus there is no time where the woman 'must be sacrificed'. That is complete horseshit that you obviously have consumed in abundance.

Your pathetic feeble little attempts to pretend I don't like women are simply laughable.
Click to expand...

You really do have difficulty with comprehension, don't you? There are plenty of times when a woman's life could be sacrificed. We've been over this.

Heart attack, stroke and eye and kidney problems from high blood pressure. Heart disease and stroke from high blood sugar (diabetes).

If you're going to discuss this in a mature manner at least do some research. Women can and do die from pregnancy and child birth. Who the hell has any right to force that on a woman? Who would decide the level of acceptable risk? Some jackass like yourself?

You expect a woman to go crawling to some committee which will decide what level of risk she must take? What do you have against women, anyway? Men trying to take control of a woman's reproductive system by calling a fertilized cell a human being. It's sick and perverted.
 
apple0154 said:
You expect a woman to go crawling to some committee which will decide what level of risk she must take? What do you have against women, anyway? Men trying to take control of a woman's reproductive system by calling a fertilized cell a human being. It's sick and perverted.
Click to expand...

you expect a man to go before a committee, have his background checked, given some BS government training, and a mental evaluation just to have and carry a gun around, so is there a difference? what do you have against gun owners?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you expect a man to go before a committee, have his background checked, given some BS government training, and a mental evaluation just to have and carry a gun around, so is there a difference? what do you have against gun owners?
Click to expand...

I have nothing against gun ownership. As for the difference it's obvious. Ones health does not depend on whether they own a gun. And besides, men and women don't require a gun to have a good time. :D

Well, to be accurate, I suppose some S&M may involve gun play but I'm not well versed on that.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
but they can be viable, right? whether it's a month premie or 8 weeks, they can be viable. so birth really isn't the ultimate sign of life.
Click to expand...

You're right and that's why we have to be careful when dealing with this. The only sure way to know would be to remove the fetus and observe.

This has been the problem throughout the ages. People continually come along with ideas and jump on any wagon passing. From the 40 days for boys and the 80 days for girls to quickening to a politician making a deal with the Pope to DNA it just keeps going on and on.

Unless we're going to remove each fetus we need some standard and birth has been the standard for quite some time.
 
Threedee said:
Mace is a joke. Tasers are no where near as easy to use as guns and require a lot more training, are cumbersome, etc.
Click to expand...

mace, makes me laugh. I wonder how apple would feel about mace when the person she sprayed would laugh and then sing the marines hymn. I actually did that in boot camp during the gas tent drill. My DIs were impressed.
 
apple0154 said:
You really do have difficulty with comprehension, don't you? There are plenty of times when a woman's life could be sacrificed. We've been over this.

Heart attack, stroke and eye and kidney problems from high blood pressure. Heart disease and stroke from high blood sugar (diabetes).

If you're going to discuss this in a mature manner at least do some research. Women can and do die from pregnancy and child birth. Who the hell has any right to force that on a woman? Who would decide the level of acceptable risk? Some jackass like yourself?

You expect a woman to go crawling to some committee which will decide what level of risk she must take? What do you have against women, anyway? Men trying to take control of a woman's reproductive system by calling a fertilized cell a human being. It's sick and perverted.
Click to expand...

Less than 1% of abortions are performed due to a health risk to the mother. The majority of pregnancy related deaths(60%) occur post delivery due to embolism or preganancy related hypertension. These numbers make pregnancy more safe than driving your car or crossing the street or any number of mundane activities where death can result due to an accident.

If the only abortions that occured were due to rape, incest, and a woman's risk of life we would reduce abortions by 97%.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Less than 1% of abortions are performed due to a health risk to the mother. The majority of pregnancy related deaths(60%) occur post delivery due to embolism or preganancy related hypertension. These numbers make pregnancy more safe than driving your car or crossing the street or any number of mundane activities where death can result due to an accident.

If the only abortions that occurred were due to rape, incest, and a woman's risk of life we would reduce abortions by 97%.
Click to expand...

But you see, Ice Dancer, if an embryo/fetus is a human being surely one can not kill it because of rape or incest. I'm not making light of them. What I am saying is how can any civilized society claim a fetus/embryo is a human being with all the corresponding rights and at the same time justify the killing of that innocent human being because of the actions of a rapist or perverted family member? To say it's illogical is an understatement.

Moving along to the 1% of abortions due to medical reasons in 2005 there were 1.2 million abortions. That means 12,000 women would of had to go before some committee or hearing if abortions were illegal.

Twelve thousand women would have had their medical condition evaluated and the percentage of damage weighed before they could have obtained an abortion.

(I was just thinking about all the fuss over Obama's medical care plans/ideas and the folks who say the government will be choosing ones doctor. That sort of pales in comparison, doesn't it? )

Anyway, back to the topic. There would have to be medical boards set up to determine risk. Like anything else in our society decisions can be challenged. What is to stop a disgruntled lover from hiring a lawyer and doctor to contest the decision? There will always be some dumped dude who will want his former girlfriend to bear the child knowing that will be a constant connection between them.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v._Daigle

While it took place in Canada and the case is different this is somewhat the kind of thing that can happen. Even if the guy loses, as did this fella, the point is the opportunity is there to postpone and drag things out and tabloids love this stuff.

Getting back to the rape and incest do we insist on the woman carrying the child to term or do we classify embryos/fetuses as human beings while sanctioning the killing of those innocent human beings in certain circumstances?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
mace, makes me laugh. I wonder how apple would feel about mace when the person she sprayed would laugh and then sing the marines hymn. I actually did that in boot camp during the gas tent drill. My DIs were impressed.
Click to expand...

You're right. We should all carry rocket launchers.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y34o-MMQUu4&feature=related"]YouTube - Homemade Shoulder-fired Rocket Launcher[/ame]
 
apple0154 said:
But you see, Ice Dancer, if an embryo/fetus is a human being surely one can not kill it because of rape or incest. I'm not making light of them. What I am saying is how can any civilized society claim a fetus/embryo is a human being with all the corresponding rights and at the same time justify the killing of that innocent human being because of the actions of a rapist or perverted family member? To say it's illogical is an understatement.

Moving along to the 1% of abortions due to medical reasons in 2005 there were 1.2 million abortions. That means 12,000 women would of had to go before some committee or hearing if abortions were illegal.

Twelve thousand women would have had their medical condition evaluated and the percentage of damage weighed before they could have obtained an abortion.

(I was just thinking about all the fuss over Obama's medical care plans/ideas and the folks who say the government will be choosing ones doctor. That sort of pales in comparison, doesn't it? )

Anyway, back to the topic. There would have to be medical boards set up to determine risk. Like anything else in our society decisions can be challenged. What is to stop a disgruntled lover from hiring a lawyer and doctor to contest the decision? There will always be some dumped dude who will want his former girlfriend to bear the child knowing that will be a constant connection between them.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v._Daigle

While it took place in Canada and the case is different this is somewhat the kind of thing that can happen. Even if the guy loses, as did this fella, the point is the opportunity is there to postpone and drag things out and tabloids love this stuff.

Getting back to the rape and incest do we insist on the woman carrying the child to term or do we classify embryos/fetuses as human beings while sanctioning the killing of those innocent human beings in certain circumstances?
Click to expand...

The reasoning rests with the safety of the mother. If a mother will die because she remains pregnant then she has an argument for her safety. Her position becomes one of more than a mere location of another human being, but one of literal survival.

As to rape victims? I agree that the moral argument of life VS life fails the test. Still, since less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape I am also a pragmatist and could leave the moral argument to the state. That 97% of abortions occur because of a lifestyle convenience is unacceptable and I will always argue against this abortion as birth control attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top