please explain to me when a baby is no longer a clump of cells. Also explain why viability is an issue. So when grandma can no longer pass that test do we just off her?
Three Days and 12 Posts Later
- Thread starter big_country90
- Start date
The clump of cells comment was tongue in cheek mimicking the board libs. The viability is just my personal opinion. I go back and forth on charging double murder for babies. I think using viability makes it a little more black and white for me personally. I honestly don’t have a huge problem with grandma making that choice herself if she’s terminal,end of life, hospice etc.
"I was called out for being completely wrong on this discussion. I didn't just jumble details, I made my entire argument around something that simply is false. In no way do any states allow for the killing of a baby after it is born, yet I made that claim as part of either the NY or VA bill. Instead of admitting that my entire argument was bogus, I am going to try and play the victim card here.
I will also avoid taking a stance on in vitro and the morning after pill. Based on my religious and moral beliefs, in order to stay consistent, I must be against both of those things. But I won't admit that on here, because they are unreasonable stances. And just because my mother risked her life for an unborn baby, I feel all women should have to do that, too. I don't care that some woman may be a single parent of three other children and have no family to take care of them if she were to die while giving birth to a fourth child. She should die in order to potentially save the unborn baby and assure that all four children get stuck bouncing around the foster system."
Yeah, this one was over early in the contest. Now, Yagi is down by five scores, and he's relying on Jimmy Skinner to bring him back.
Doesn't look good.
Oh God, remember that pick against Kansas State. Still can't figure that one out. We have had some serious chokes.
It's sad that only one of you deplorables tried helping BC out. I believe it was MLBlack who said "Well, he didn't mean what he said. He actually meant this completely opposite thing. And he also didn't mean the state he mentioned. He actually meant one 400 miles away. And yeah, what he claimed didn't apply to either of those states, but he also didn't mean that."
My argument was based on you supporting late term and full term abortion. I stated that, in some cases, children could potentially be killed after birth. All I was incorrect about was the state. I even gave you the Virginia governor’s exact words on the bill he was trying to pass. All you can do is throw out the “I’m smart and you’re dumb” card. You seriously need to come up with something new.
Believing that life begins at conception isn’t unreasonable whatsoever. Like I stated in an earlier thread, if we found the same type of cells on Mars, scientists everywhere would be celebrating that as life on another planet. You conveniently avoided that topic altogether because you know I’m right.
As for the rest of your comment, I’ll just say this. You have no business advocating for LGBT, illegals, minorities, or any other group until you support their right to be born. Imagine all the liberals, illegals, and government tit suckers that you support killing prior to them being given a chance at life outside the womb (and you support killing seconds prior to birth). Heck, that might be the best argument for abortion that you’ve ever made, come to think of it.
I have effectively painted you into a corner that you cannot get out of.
How can somebody be this god damn stupid? You said that babies could legally be killed just after they are born.That's entirely false. There isn't a slight, very remote, even teeny-tiny bit of truth in that. You're simply fabricating a bunch of bullshit. And to have the audacity to come back and claim that you are correct on that? God damn. You're wrong. You're not a little wrong. You're not wrong most of them. You're not wrong in all but very rare cases. You're entirely, 100% of the time, absolutely and unequivocally wrong. There is no "some cases" that it could occur. There are no "rare cases." You're absolutely fvcking wrong. Stop making up bullshit that you think you read somewhere.
That's fine. But in order to stay intellectually honest, you have to also be against the morning after pill/emergency contraception. You also have to be against in vitro fertilization. So tell all of those married couples who are trying to have a baby that they are actually murdering a bunch of babies in trying to get pregnant.
You good with those stances?
I didn't avoid shit. You simply don't have the intelligence to engage in these types of discussions, and you continue to prove that.
Nobody is debating that a fetus inside of a woman is absent of all signs of life. What our stance is, is that it hasn't been born yet. It doesn't have legal rights. It doesn't count until it is born.
This is such an illogical, comically bad attempt at an argument that I can't believe even you would attempt it. The fact that you tried grandstanding like you actually make a great point is really disturbing when considering you're an adult with a college education.
My god. This is some shit I would have expected Herdon2 to have made a decade ago on here.
As for the rest of your comment, I’ll just say this. You have no business advocating for LGBT, illegals, minorities, or any other group until you support their right to be born. Imagine all the liberals, illegals, and government tit suckers that you support killing prior to them being given a chance at life outside the womb (and you support killing seconds prior to birth). Heck, that might be the best argument for abortion that you’ve ever made, come to think of it.
---------------------------------------------------
Powerful statement, BC
Total domination at this point.
---------------------------------------------------
Powerful statement, BC
Total domination at this point.
Herdman, do you want to throw in the towel for YAGS, or do you want me to toss it? Or, should we continue to sit quietly and enjoy watching BC delivering more haymakers?
Don't do this to BC. He isn't savvy enough to realize that when you start posting scores in threads, you do it only when the person you claim is winning bigly is actually getting dominated.
But it isn't his fault. He's still emotional that a doctor gave his mother the right to choose nearly 40 years ago, and he can't think normally because of how emotional it makes him.
Hey, BC. When I was very young, my mother had a TR6 and TR7 Triumph. She was driving one of them to work one morning when she hit a patch of black ice while going about 55 mph. Her vehicle was so small, the momentum of it pushed it under the metal cable wires that were meant to keep cars from dropping off of the big cliff into the river. The medics/firefighters on site had never seen anything like it. One, they had never seen a car actually make it through the metal wires. It simply pushed the metal over the small car. Then, they couldn't believe that the car didn't fly off of the cliff, but rather, got wedged between two perfectly placed trees.
Ever since then, I get too emotional when I look at a car, a river, water, trees, or guardrails that I can't talk about any of those subjects.
You guys were the jocks in high school who egged the retard on in the cafeteria to keep standing on the table doing a strip tease by telling him that it made him cool, huh?
Doesn't Roe v Wade establish the point of viability to be 24 weeks? It doesn't establish a fetus as a person at that point, but that 24 weeks is the earliest point in which it can be proven that a fetus can have a meaningful life. So why, at that point, wouldn't you at least draw a line like many supporters of abortion? Why are you ok with a baby being destroyed moments before he/she is born? I can't understand that position, as it is immensely extreme.
No, it established the point of viability between the 24th and 28th weeks. At the 24th week, fetuses are more likely to not survive than to survive. Even those that survive usually have severe brain damage. And it's another 6 weeks before severe brain damage chances drop below being likely.
Viability differs just like alcohol intoxication of a person. One person may blow a .08 and be absolutely trashed, unable to even turn a steering wheel. Another person may blow a .10 and be perfectly capable of driving a vehicle safely.
I can't draw a line because there is no definitive time stamp on when every single fetus is viable. Just like in my intoxication example, there is a huge difference based on individualism. As I said, at the 24th week, more than half of all fetuses won't survive. And the majority of the minority that do end up being on a ventilator and having severe brain damage. Is that fair?
That's why many court decisions have made it a medical decision on an individual basis.
I'm not "ok" with it. It is not a comfortable situation or thought, but I do put the priority of a person who is alive over something that is unborn. If the health of the mother is in jeopardy, it is an easy decision for me to support. And again, something that is not born does not have legal protections.
Now, are you going to admit that your major argument throughout this entire thread has been wrong. There is not a single grain of soil in this country where it is legal to kill a baby just after it is born regardless of the situation.
I corrected my stance already, several times. The proposed bill in Virginia, as the governor argues, would allow for just that. The bill just hasn't passed.
Also, when you say "health" do you include "mental health" in that description?
No, no, no. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
The governor doesn't get to pick what is or isn't in the bill. That's not how our government works. The governor, having been taken out of context according to his spokesperson and/or simply not fully knowing what he was saying, has comments that are worthless relating to what is actually in the bill.
The proposed bill DOES NOT "allow for just that." Stop fvcking lying. Jesus, this is like trying to teach a fourth grade class.
I'm not an expert here, but I think the NY law allows "mental health" to count. That is tricky IMO. What if a woman tells her OB that she's so stressed about caring for a baby that she doesn't think she can handle it and thinks she might kill herself? OK, that to me is a medical emergency. But why can't you just deliver the baby and adopt or give it to the state? Again, I don't know the NY law but I *think* from what I've read there is legal justification to possibly terminate here.
I'm very far from an OB, but I'm not aware of many (?any?) indications at something like 36 weeks for termination of pregnancy in the form of abortion. Sure, there are lots of indications to deliver quickly/emergently, but not sure there are indications that the fetus/baby has to die to save the mother in this situation. I reserve the right to be wrong and haven't delivered a baby in over 10 years now. I'm willing to be educated here.
By all means Carl, let the drug dealing “producer” educate the board doctor on mental health and abortion. Can’t wait.
this has been my thoughts on the argument of the baby being a threat to the mother's life. obviously, i'm not a dr, and i've never stayed in a holiday inn express, but i have watched up close and personal the delivery of two babies via cesarean, which takes very little time in an emergency situation. during the birth of my first born, the druggy anesthesiologist (who was later fired from the hospital for stealing drugs) fukt up the spinal which caused paralysis and she couldn't breathe or speak. i thought something was wrong when the staff started freaking out and they opened her up and ripped the kid out of her in under a minute i'm thinking, two max. i was even more suspect when the druggy anesthesiologist asked her if she was ready to go to sleep and she blinked twice. i knew something was wrong when they intubated her. at any rate, emergency situation, she could have died right there on the table. damn, i'm glad we didn't have to kill my son to save her life.
Speaking of, how many doctors did it take to certify you and your “mental health” issues, rifle?
Why can't you? Because, clearly, that is what is causing the mental health issue.
It's giving medical doctors a bit more power in that they have authority to use their professional discretion to know when it is an emergency. And regardless of what BC continues to argue, there is nothing that allows for the killing of a baby after it is born.
When you get absolutely destroyed in a discussion and get mocked for repeatedly fabricating things for your argument, always try to divert attention by taking even more foolish jabs.
"BUT THE GOVERNOR SAID . . . !"
