Holy Crap Texas

[fskimospy]

You're suggesting the child is better off dead?

Well that ship has sailed now.

What I'm saying is that using the power of the state to keep a brain dead person's body functioning as an incubator for a deformed fetus in explicit violation of that person's stated wishes is creepy.

You don't like big government? That's big government for you, right there.

 

[zinfamous]

thanks for your concern on the "truckstop dicks" i have encountered. while i have to admit that i am good looking and have been propositioned by gays (possibly some from your own family) a couple of times, i have to bow out as my proclivities run in the opposite direction. funny though that most have looked strikingly similar to your avatar - that birdshit and mayonnaise on white bread peckerwood type so popular in berekely.

anyway it appears paratus and sandorski are advertising for some type of collective homosexual union in this very thread. seeing as you promote your dads preference for tranny sex, and that stuff runs in families, maybe you oughta give those two a shout.

not one to judge, but i don't believe that this is the proper venue for you three pursuing your trysts. might i suggest pm's or emails?

Oh, you haven't been around here long enough. Propositions are always out in the open. get used to it.

I'm sure the advances weren't from my family members, as the gays in my family prefer chicks. go figure.

 

[Atreus21]

Well that ship has sailed now.

What I'm saying is that using the power of the state to keep a brain dead person's body functioning as an incubator for a deformed fetus in explicit violation of that person's stated wishes is creepy.

You don't like big government? That's big government for you, right there.

It's creepy, but I don't see it as a crime or even unjust. In an effort to save the child, deformed or not, the mother is being kept alive.

What this situation lacks is any perfect options. Killing the child because we deem him to have an insufficient quality of life is worse.

 

[nehalem256]

Well that ship has sailed now.

What I'm saying is that using the power of the state to keep a brain dead person's body functioning as an incubator for a deformed fetus in explicit violation of that person's stated wishes is creepy.

You don't like big government? That's big government for you, right there.

I know crazy big government. Always trying to tell us who we can and cannot kill.

Next thing you know they will stop us from lynching the blacks. Or the gays.

 

[fskimospy]

It's creepy, but I don't see it as a crime or even unjust. In an effort to save the child, deformed or not, the mother is being kept alive.

What this situation lacks is any perfect options. Killing the child because we deem him to have an insufficient quality of life is worse.

We aren't killing the child because we think he will have an insufficient quality of life (although in some cases of sufficient deformity this is the best option)

As for the rest, I view the forcing of unwanted, invasive medical procedures on unwilling participants to be a fundamental violation of our rights to our own bodies. It seems odd to me that many conservatives think it is a violation of liberty to force someone to buy health insurance, but it would not be a violation of liberty for the government to force a feeding tube down your throat, artificially operate your heart and lungs, etc, etc.

At least in the case of abortion opponents they are simply denying access to wanted medical procedures. While I still think that is deeply immoral, the denial of a wanted procedure is much less invasive than forcing an unwanted procedure on someone.

 

[fskimospy]

I know crazy big government. Always trying to tell us who we can and cannot kill.

Next thing you know they will stop us from lynching the blacks. Or the gays.

You are incapable of forming an honest or rational argument.

 

[Atreus21]

We aren't killing the child because we think he will have an insufficient quality of life (although in some cases of sufficient deformity this is the best option)

As for the rest, I view the forcing of unwanted, invasive medical procedures on unwilling participants to be a fundamental violation of our rights to our own bodies. It seems odd to me that many conservatives think it is a violation of liberty to force someone to buy health insurance, but it would not be a violation of liberty for the government to force a feeding tube down your throat, artificially operate your heart and lungs, etc, etc.

...for the purpose of saving someone's life.

At least in the case of abortion opponents they are simply denying access to wanted medical procedures. While I still think that is deeply immoral, the denial of a wanted procedure is much less invasive than forcing an unwanted procedure on someone.

99 times out of 100 I agree with you. The 100th time is when it's to save a life.

 

[fskimospy]

...for the purpose of saving someone's life.

Say you had a relative who desperately needed an organ transplant and that the only person who could give it to them without massive risk of rejection was you. Should the state be able to force you to donate a kidney? It's to save a life.

Say maybe we're at a place technologically where we can grow a new kidney inside of you that you can transplant so you aren't even out a kidney in the deal. Should the state be able to force you to grow one for him? It's to save a life.

 

[Atreus21]

Say you had a relative who desperately needed an organ transplant and that the only person who could give it to them without massive risk of rejection was you. Should the state be able to force you to donate a kidney? It's to save a life.

No, but this issue is not entirely comparable. As I understand it, the mother is going to be taken off of life support. What they're doing is extending her time on life support to allow them to birth the child. That's not a horrible compromise.

 

[fskimospy]

No, but this issue is not entirely comparable. As I understand it, the mother is going to be taken off of life support. What they're doing is extending her time on life support to allow them to birth the child. That's not a horrible compromise.

It's pretty damn closely comparable. In both cases an individual is being forced to undergo an unwanted, invasive medical procedure in order to save someone else's life. I don't see why one would be okay and the other not.

 

[nehalem256]

Say you had a relative who desperately needed an organ transplant and that the only person who could give it to them without massive risk of rejection was you. Should the state be able to force you to donate a kidney? It's to save a life.

Say maybe we're at a place technologically where we can grow a new kidney inside of you that you can transplant so you aren't even out a kidney in the deal. Should the state be able to force you to grow one for him? It's to save a life.

So then by your own logic a woman who is 8.9 months pregnant should be able to get an abortion.

Because otherwise the state would be forcing the woman to use her body to support the fetus.

Funny that practically everyone along with the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

As for the rest, I view the forcing of unwanted, invasive medical procedures on unwilling participants to be a fundamental violation of our rights to our own bodies.

You mean unless we are talking about forcing flu shots on pregnant women

 

[Vic]

No, but this issue is not entirely comparable. As I understand it, the mother is going to be taken off of life support. What they're doing is extending her time on life support to allow them to birth the child. That's not a horrible compromise.

It is when the fetus is not viable.
This is just a horrible chain of events for the father. His pregnant wife dies suddenly, and some ideologues insist on using the power of the state to keep her rotting carcass 'alive' against his wishes on the remote chance that the fetus might survive.
And you just know that at the end of this is a multi million dollar hospital bill and bankruptcy for him. As though his grief isn't already enough.

 

[fskimospy]

So then by your own logic a woman who is 8.9 months pregnant should be able to get an abortion.

Because otherwise the state would be forcing the woman to use her body to support the fetus.

Funny that practically everyone along with the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

You mean unless we are talking about forcing flu shots on pregnant women

You're a moron.

 

[Vic]

...for the purpose of saving someone's life.

Against their will.

This is why my wife and I both have living wills specifying no heroic measures. God save us from you self righteous bastards.

 

[Vic]

Local news reporting that life support was removed yesterday, family is making funeral plans today, and burial will take place this week.

A tragic end, but at least the family is being allowed closure.

 

[nehalem256]

You're a moron.

Pointing out your hypocrisy does not make me a moron.

You have no issue with forcing flu shots on pregnant women.

And you of course don't like me pointing out the massive liberal hypocrisy of trying to claim that

(1) From 0-22 weeks gestation it is wrong to force a woman to give her body up to support the fetus
(2) from 22w-birth it is perfectly fine to force a woman to give up her body to support the fetus
(3) But then after birth forcing the woman to give up her body to support the child, see your organ transplant deal, is again horribly wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So then by your own logic a woman who is 8.9 months pregnant should be able to get an abortion.

It is actually the case that there are a great many nuances that come to bear in near-term pregnancies with regard to the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, having to do with viability of the fetus and the invasive nature of abortive procedures vis-a-vis birthing.

Of course, you disingenuously disregard these nuances in attempt to score political points, because you aren't at all interested in facts, rights or freedom. You're just interested in winning for your team. It's pretty sad, but nonetheless a testament to the real ideology of today's conservatives, rather than the bumper sticker sloganeering to which they pay lip service.

 

[nehalem256]

It is actually the case that there are a great many nuances that come to bear in near-term pregnancies with regard to the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, having to do with viability of the fetus and the invasive nature of abortive procedures vis-a-vis birthing.

Of course, you disingenuously disregard these nuances in attempt to score political points, because you aren't at all interested in facts, rights or freedom. You're just interested in winning for your team. It's pretty sad, but nonetheless a testament to the real ideology of today's conservatives, rather than the bumper sticker sloganeering to which they pay lip service.

I am interested in rights and freedoms. That is why I am pointing out the hypocrisy of saying there is a window where apparently a woman loses the right to her body.

 

[fskimospy]

Pointing out your hypocrisy does not make me a moron.

You have no issue with forcing flu shots on pregnant women.

And you of course don't like me pointing out the massive liberal hypocrisy of trying to claim that

(1) From 0-22 weeks gestation it is wrong to force a woman to give her body up to support the fetus
(2) from 22w-birth it is perfectly fine to force a woman to give up her body to support the fetus
(3) But then after birth forcing the woman to give up her body to support the child, see your organ transplant deal, is again horribly wrong.

The only thing you're pointing out is your own willful dishonesty or rank stupidity.

 

[nehalem256]

The only thing you're pointing out is your own willful dishonesty or rank stupidity.

Dishonesty? I am presenting the facts of what most pro-choice people believe.

You just don't like me pointing it out because it makes pro-choice people look insane. They believe a woman's body is her own until believing such makes them look bad.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I am interested in rights and freedoms.

There's that lip service I was talking about.

That is why I am pointing out the hypocrisy of saying there is a window where apparently a woman loses the right to her body.

And there's the disregard for the nuances that I mentioned.

Prophecy fulfilled!

 

[nehalem256]

There's that lip service I was talking about.


And there's the disregard for the nuances that I mentioned.

Prophecy fulfilled!

The only nuance is that continuing to believe that a woman has a right to her body when she is 8 months pregnant would make liberals look bad.

 

[Texashiker]

As for the rest, I view the forcing of unwanted, invasive medical procedures on unwilling participants to be a fundamental violation of our rights to our own bodies.

You have numerous post approving of the government and companies forcing employees to take unwanted vaccines.

You can not have it both ways.

Because otherwise she represents a significantly increased risk of transmitting a serious viral infection to a vulnerable population.

Anyone who opposes this vaccine is insane. Flat out insane.

Either we control what goes into out bodies or we don't.

Please make up your mind.

This is not an attempt to derail this thread. But you are contradicting yourself.

Which is it, do we control our bodies or not?

 

[fskimospy]

You have numerous post approving of the government and companies forcing employees to take unwanted vaccines.

You can not have it both ways.

Either we control what goes into out bodies or we don't.

Please make up your mind.

This explains so much about your shit show in the other thread.

People can require individuals to undergo flu shots as a condition of employment.

 

[Vic]

Pointing out your hypocrisy does not make me a moron.

You have no issue with forcing flu shots on pregnant women.

And you of course don't like me pointing out the massive liberal hypocrisy of trying to claim that

(1) From 0-22 weeks gestation it is wrong to force a woman to give her body up to support the fetus
(2) from 22w-birth it is perfectly fine to force a woman to give up her body to support the fetus
(3) But then after birth forcing the woman to give up her body to support the child, see your organ transplant deal, is again horribly wrong.

The only hypocrisy here is your constant lying.
No one is forcing a pregnant woman to have a flu shot (yes, I saw the thread where the hospital required one of their nurses to get a flu shot... Poor policy on the hospitals part IMO but entirely different from how you are presenting it).
Before 22 weeks, a fetus is not viable outside the womb and is essentially a part of the woman's body.
After 22 weeks, the fetus is potentially viable outside the womb, and the woman already had plenty of time to abort if chose to.

One of the core principles in the establishment of our country in the concept of personal property. This concept begins with the premise that a person's body is their own property, and not that of the state.