Holy Crap Texas

[Atreus21]

So you're saying its a dead vs mostly dead thing.....hmm interesting.....

Call up Miracle Max.

 

[Vic]

Legally dead. Not actually dead.

Blacks were once not legally people, einstein.

/facepalm

Blacks in America have always been considered legal persons. Maybe only 3/5ths a person, and maybe with basic rights infringed, but always legal persons.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you are saying it is common to support women getting abortions at 8 months pregnant if they choose?

Do you have reading comprehension problems? It seems that you do.

 

[Texashiker]

If it is against the person's express wishes or in the absence of that against their family's wishes it is not done because it is unethical.

From your previous posting history you have made it clear that what a person wants is irrelevant.

What the government and business wishes trumps your civil rights.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

/facepalm

Blacks in America have always been considered legal persons. Maybe only 3/5ths a person, and maybe with basic rights infringed, but always legal persons.

Just adding to this: The 3/5ths compromise was how blacks were counted in determining a state's representation in Congress. It was a clerical adjustment, not a measure of personhood.

 

[Vic]

Between 21 and 22 weeks nothing about the physical circumstances of the fetus changed.

I mean if a fetus is born at 22 weeks it requires massive amounts of medical technology for survival. Is the fetus a part of the medical technology? Of course not, it is merely sustained by it.

And likewise a 20 week fetus is no more or less a part of the mother than a 22 week fetus. It is just sustained by the mother's body.

Medical science and the law both disagree with you.

 

[Atreus21]

The fetus was not viable. Not legally or medically.
As this matter never affected you, you don't get to choose.

Apparently neither does the father. Yeah, the matter doesn't affect him at all.

Not viable? Is there a guarantee somewhere that the child will die?

 

[Atreus21]

/facepalm

Blacks in America have always been considered legal persons. Maybe only 3/5ths a person, and maybe with basic rights infringed, but always legal persons.

And how does that refute the point? Legal blindness is not always blindness. Legal intoxication is not always intoxication. Legal death is not always death.

 

[dawp]

the fetus died when the mother died, back in November.

 

[Vic]

I would say very few people are in favor of true at will employment. Or are you saying you are in favor of allowing people to fire someone because of their race?

Reducing to the absurd is really all you got, isn't it?

Firing someone due to their race is not the same as firing someone for failing to adhere to company policy.
Now if you want to argue that the policy was flawed, I'd agree with you. Herd immunity should be sufficient that high risk patients, like pregnant women, should not have to be vaccinated. The hospital apparently saw differently. Either that or perhaps applied it policy too rigorously.

 

[nehalem256]

Medical science and the law both disagree with you.

There is no medical science that says a fetus magically becomes not a part of the mother at 22 weeks. The only difference is that we have fancy life support equipment that can sustain it outside the womb at that point.

Reducing to the absurd is really all you got, isn't it?

Firing someone due to their race is not the same as firing someone for failing to adhere to company policy.
Now if you want to argue that the policy was flawed, I'd agree with you. Herd immunity should be sufficient that high risk patients, like pregnant women, should not have to be vaccinated. The hospital apparently saw differently. Either that or perhaps applied it policy too rigorously.

So if company policy says you have to have white skin you are then okay with it?

And there is nothing absurd about mentioning firing a person for being black. I mean we specifically have laws to prevent doing so. If the idea was absurd why is there a law against doing so?

 

[Vic]

Apparently neither does the father. Yeah, the matter doesn't affect him at all.

Not viable? Is there a guarantee somewhere that the child will die?

The matter absolutely affected the father.

And yes, there was a guarantee that the child would die. The incident happened where the mother became brain-dead at 14 weeks pregnancy. There is no medical science that can keep a fetus alive outside the womb at 14 weeks. That's why they tried heroic life support measures with the mother's body, all of which ultimately failed.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Reducing to the absurd is really all you got, isn't it?

If I ever needed an object lesson on the strawman fallacy, I could literally pick any nehalem256 post at random and find a textbook example with roughly a 95% success rate.

Person A: XYZ is true.

nehalem256: Oh, so you're saying that circles are squares. Well that's dumb.

Person A:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? It seems that you do.

Oh, so I don't bite on your strawman and you just give up. I guess it really is all you got.

 

[bshole]

The matter absolutely affected the father.

And yes, there was a guarantee that the child would die. The incident happened where the mother became brain-dead at 14 weeks pregnancy. There is no medical science that can keep a fetus alive outside the womb at 14 weeks. That's why they tried heroic life support measures with the mother's body, all of which ultimately failed.

Um... ultimately who pays for all that incredibly expensive "heroic life support measures"? Are they going to bill the husband when he opposed it every step of the way? I suggest it be billed it to the Texas Republican party since those chimps are behind this EXPENSIVE inanity. Better yet, bill it to the pro-LIFE movement. Let those @#$%@#s pay for it once in their life.

 

[Vic]

There is no medical science that says a fetus magically becomes not a part of the mother at 22 weeks. The only difference is that we have fancy life support equipment that can sustain it outside the womb at that point.



So if company policy says you have to have white skin you are then okay with it?

And there is nothing absurd about mentioning firing a person for being black. I mean we specifically have laws to prevent doing so. If the idea was absurd why is there a law against doing so?

And there you again, making shit up.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh, so I don't bite on your strawman and you just give up. I guess it really is all you got.

Do you even know what "nuance" means? No reasonable person believes that a woman doesn't have a right to her body at 8 months pregnant, although it would appear that you do not believe it.

You said no reasonable person believes that a woman doesn't have a right to her body at 8 months pregnant. Yet nearly everyone would oppose her having an abortion at that point.

Such beliefs are contradictory. You appear to be confusing cowardice for nuance.

What it really comes down to is that liberals do not support abortion because its a woman's body. But because they don't want her to have to be burdened with a child if she doesn't want one. And so they figure by 22 weeks she has had plenty of time to get one if she wants.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You said no reasonable person believes that a woman doesn't have a right to her body at 8 months pregnant. Yet nearly everyone would oppose her having an abortion at that point.

Such beliefs are contradictory.

No they aren't. Your allegation that they are is precisely how we can know that you're either ignorant, dishonest or both.

You appear to be confusing cowardice for nuance.

That suggestion could only be meaningful if you had any idea of nuance. As it is, it rings very hollow.

What it really comes down to is that liberals do not support abortion because its a woman's body. But because they don't want her to have to be burdened with a child if she doesn't want one. And so they figure by 22 weeks she has had plenty of time to get one if she wants.

It must be frightening in your world of delusion, to have to contend constantly with all these imagined monsters.

 

[Vic]

Nah.. Nehalem is just more interested in "winning" on the Internet than he is about knowledge and truth. That's his morally poor choice that the rest of us have to pay for.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Nah.. Nehalem is just more interested in "winning" on the Internet than he is about knowledge and truth. That's his morally poor choice that the rest of us have to pay for.

Actually it was his mother's poor choice that the rest of us have to pay for.

 

[Texashiker]

Better yet, bill it to the pro-LIFE movement. Let those @#$%@#s pay for it once in their life.

So much anger.

Did you miss your meds last night?

 

[nehalem256]

No they aren't. Your allegation that they are is precisely how we can know that you're either ignorant, dishonest or both.

Most people have no issue with using women as incubators. The only matter of discussion is at what point in the gestation is it acceptable to force them to be such.

Of course liberals don't want that truth to come out.

It must be frightening in your world of delusion, to have to contend constantly with all these imagined monsters.

Imagined? It is actually what Vic said 3 hours ago:

After 22 weeks, the fetus is potentially viable outside the womb, and the woman already had plenty of time to abort if chose to.

 

[row]

Oh, don't make us blush! I'm sure you have a journal under your pillow that keeps tabs of all the truckstop dicks you have encountered.

:wub:

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.

well by all means you three carry on then. thanks for the clarification :wub:

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

wait a minute, i understand the part about your sisters liking "chicks", but if your dad prefers tranny's...

My dad blew a tranny. I've been asked to see if I can get one replaced free.

and like your sisters, mom is a lesbian, were you adopted, test tubed, ah, artificially inseminated?

daaaymn, i'm gonna say a prayer that moonbeam is not your real father :'(

family affairs must be interesting though

enjoy talkin to ya. carry on

 

[zinfamous]

wait a minute, i understand the part about your sisters liking "chicks", but if your dad prefers tranny's...

that's a quote from PAB. This is where I would normally say: "Noobs like you wouldn't understand, so STFU, noob."

but since you're an RBM, it's just "STFU and DIAF, or maybe TPAD" or whatever you prefer....

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Most people have no issue with using women as incubators.

Citation needed.

The only matter of discussion is at what point in the gestation is it acceptable to force them to be such.

No, it isn't. Nehalem256 Strawman #99188283881

Of course liberals don't want that truth to come out.

Nehalem256 Strawman #99188283882

Imagined? It is actually what Vic said 3 hours ago:

Yes, imagined. I don't expect you to understand -- after all, they are your monsters. Everybody else sees it though.