Legislator Blames Disabled Children on Abortion

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, there is scientific evidence to support Palin's risk taking:

The risk of having a baby with chromosomal disorders increase as a woman grows older. The most common of these disorders is Down syndrome, a combination of mental retardation and physical abnormalities caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1, 250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

Trying to Conceive After 35 - What are the Risks of Birth Defects?

Far more dangerous than having previously had an abortion.

And your point is what? More importantly, your point relates to the OP's point - stunningly stupid as it was - how?

My point relates to the poster who claimed their was scientific evidence to support the idea that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of having a baby with birth defects. Apparently it's a worse risk for older women to have children.

Let me rephrase so that you can understand what I'm saying.

So what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So this was posted just to use as ANOTHER dig at Sarah Palin and her downs syndrome BABY.

the left can't crawl any lower, I swear.

Let me help our 'second born' posters out here.

If anyone taking a dig at Palin, it's Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall who made the statement. Now, if you agree with his statement, that women who have abortions suffer nature's rath on their next child, then you and Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall are saying that anyone with disabled child is being punished for a previous abortion. Palin has a disabled child. According to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall, she's being punished for a previous abortion.


So, all of you people who are rushing in to defend Palin, you may want to re-aim your verbal firearms at Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall.

Let me help YOU. Did anyone ever teach you while you were in school that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square? One meets the definition of the other, but the other does not always meet the definition of the first.

Likewise, saying that women who have abortions increase the risk to their later children is NOT saying that ALL disabled children are the result of a prior abortion. Abortion is ONE cause of possible disabilities. It is not the ONLY cause. The first meets the definition of the second, but the second doesn't necessarily meet the definition of the first.

It's called "logic", Punkinhead. Give it a try.

 

[Cecilie1200]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/02/...l#ixzz0gHwHPojl


LOL, WUT?

Sarah Palin Had An Abortion Before?

Your comment about Palin is breathtakingly stupid, Little Lefty. Just because you're anonymous and just because other people behave like morals don't matter, does not mean you have to follow their example.

Lefty made a logical conclusion, based on what that wingnut asshole said.

It's quite logical . . . to someone who wouldn't know logic if it crawled up his pants leg and bit him on the left testicle. To everyone else, it's bullshit.

 

[beowolfe]

So this was posted just to use as ANOTHER dig at Sarah Palin and her downs syndrome BABY.

the left can't crawl any lower, I swear.

Let me help our 'second born' posters out here.

If anyone taking a dig at Palin, it's Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall who made the statement. Now, if you agree with his statement, that women who have abortions suffer nature's rath on their next child, then you and Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall are saying that anyone with disabled child is being punished for a previous abortion. Palin has a disabled child. According to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall, she's being punished for a previous abortion.


So, all of you people who are rushing in to defend Palin, you may want to re-aim your verbal firearms at Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall.

Right there is where you took the reading comprehension train off the rails and into la-la land in order to try and score some fictional cheap political points. Either that, or you have no idea of how logic works. Or maybe a third option. You could be a second born yourself?

If A happens, then SOMETIMES B occurs.
If B occurs, it is not a guarantee that A happened.

I say this with full knowledge that Bob-o Marshall is still a dumbass who was looking to score some cheap fictional political points himself.

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I didn't see where Marshall said 'may' at any point. He spoke as if it were a given that a woman who had a disabled child had previously had an abortion. Now, I'm not in the habit of interpreting words that are not there. But if you saw something that Marshall that supports your position that he was not speaking in absolute terms, please post it. I'll be anxiously awaiting your post. Now if you don't find it, I'll be anxiously awaiting your apology....

 

[Modbert]

And he uses the bible to back up that statement.

Video of Bob Marshall Proves He Said What He Meant, Meant What He Said | Right Wing Watch

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VODxVQcF_yw]YouTube - Video of Bob Marshall Proves He Said What He Meant, Meant What He Said[/ame]

Some of the other things he has said:

He said this about abortion in the case of rape: "[T]he woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman."

And he said this about contraception: "[W]e have no business passing this garbage out and making these co-eds chemical Love Canals for these frat house playboys in Virginia."

 

[potter 58]

pathetic, I wonder if that stupid fucker uses his gov paid for Viagra, he sure has a hard on

 

[Modbert]

pathetic, I wonder if that stupid fucker uses his gov paid for Viagra, he sure has a hard on

I find it interesting he's so willing to tell the Anti-Parenthood people one thing but not so willing to say the same exact comments to everyone else.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Let me help our 'second born' posters out here.

If anyone taking a dig at Palin, it's Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall who made the statement. Now, if you agree with his statement, that women who have abortions suffer nature's rath on their next child, then you and Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall are saying that anyone with disabled child is being punished for a previous abortion. Palin has a disabled child. According to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall, she's being punished for a previous abortion.


So, all of you people who are rushing in to defend Palin, you may want to re-aim your verbal firearms at Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall.

Right there is where you took the reading comprehension train off the rails and into la-la land in order to try and score some fictional cheap political points. Either that, or you have no idea of how logic works. Or maybe a third option. You could be a second born yourself?

If A happens, then SOMETIMES B occurs.
If B occurs, it is not a guarantee that A happened.

I say this with full knowledge that Bob-o Marshall is still a dumbass who was looking to score some cheap fictional political points himself.

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I didn't see where Marshall said 'may' at any point. He spoke as if it were a given that a woman who had a disabled child had previously had an abortion. Now, I'm not in the habit of interpreting words that are not there. But if you saw something that Marshall that supports your position that he was not speaking in absolute terms, please post it. I'll be anxiously awaiting your post. Now if you don't find it, I'll be anxiously awaiting your apology....

Like showing off your lack off logic and reading skills?

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children."

Where did Marshall say that an abortion is the ONLY reason a subsequent child is handicapped?

Go on....



We're waiting....



You best stop while yer ahead.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Pathetic..

 

[del]

Actually, there is scientific evidence to support Palin's risk taking:

The risk of having a baby with chromosomal disorders increase as a woman grows older. The most common of these disorders is Down syndrome, a combination of mental retardation and physical abnormalities caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1, 250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

Trying to Conceive After 35 - What are the Risks of Birth Defects?

Far more dangerous than having previously had an abortion.

And your point is what? More importantly, your point relates to the OP's point - stunningly stupid as it was - how?

My point relates to the poster who claimed their was scientific evidence to support the idea that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of having a baby with birth defects. Apparently it's a worse risk for older women to have children.

list of risk factors for birth defects - Google Search

and it's an even worse risk if the mother has a 12 bag a day heroin habit.

there is scientific evidence to support the idea that having an abortion increases the risk of birth defects. there are many things that put a pregnancy at risk, but only one gives you the chance to take a shot at palin.

funny that that's the one you chose.

 

[del]

So this was posted just to use as ANOTHER dig at Sarah Palin and her downs syndrome BABY.

the left can't crawl any lower, I swear.

Let me help our 'second born' posters out here.

If anyone taking a dig at Palin, it's Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall who made the statement. Now, if you agree with his statement, that women who have abortions suffer nature's rath on their next child, then you and Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall are saying that anyone with disabled child is being punished for a previous abortion. Palin has a disabled child. According to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall, she's being punished for a previous abortion.


So, all of you people who are rushing in to defend Palin, you may want to re-aim your verbal firearms at Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall.

oh, i thought it went without saying that the man is an asshat, but consider it done.

 

[Ravi]

And your point is what? More importantly, your point relates to the OP's point - stunningly stupid as it was - how?

My point relates to the poster who claimed their was scientific evidence to support the idea that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of having a baby with birth defects. Apparently it's a worse risk for older women to have children.

list of risk factors for birth defects - Google Search

and it's an even worse risk if the mother has a 12 bag a day heroin habit.

there is scientific evidence to support the idea that having an abortion increases the risk of birth defects. there are many things that put a pregnancy at risk, but only one gives you the chance to take a shot at palin.

funny that that's the one you chose.

What causes birth defects?

Birth defects have a variety of causes, such as:
Genetic problems caused when one or more genes doesn't work properly or part of a gene is missing
Problems with chromosomes, such as having an extra chromosome or missing part of a chromosome
Environmental factors that a woman is exposed to during pregnancy, such as rubella or German measles while pregnant, or using drugs or alcohol during pregnancy.

From your link.

Low birth weight isn't a birth defect.

btw, why the selective outrage? The asshole GOPer in the OP basically blamed women that give birth to handicapped children for the handicap.

That's just wrong.

 

[jillian]

Study finds that an Abortion does put future babies at risk.

Abortions and risks to future babies

Not for birth defects, it doesn't... from your link:

Women who have abortions are more likely to have premature or low birth weight babies in later life,” the Daily Mail said. It reported on a large review that has found that women who have had a previous termination could be at risk of having a subsequent premature birth or a low birthweight baby.

 

[MajikMyst]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/02/...l#ixzz0gHwHPojl

Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall ® "says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy," reports the News Leader.

Said Marshall: "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children."

LOL, WUT?

Sarah Palin Had An Abortion Before?

Your comment about Palin is breathtakingly stupid, Little Lefty. Just because you're anonymous and just because other people behave like morals don't matter, does not mean you have to follow their example.

Actually little neotard his comments are right on.. She has a child with Down syndrome..

And yet another glaring example of how CAgirl knows nothing about the issue at hand.. Way to go CAgirl??

Now back to the issue.. Did Palin have an abortion?? One of these two neotards is wrong.. Which one.. Either Palin had an abortion or this Va. guy is a total quack..

It is ok CAgirl.. We all know where you stand.. Unlike you however.. I won't neg your bitch ass simply cause we disagree.. I should however.. Your posts are truly pathetic..

 

[MajikMyst]

So this was posted just to use as ANOTHER dig at Sarah Palin and her downs syndrome BABY.

the left can't crawl any lower, I swear.

ZOMG you people are stupid!!

It is a valid point.. If handicapped children are a punishment from god for having an abortion.. It is a valid question to ask about Palin..

What is with you people?? Do any of you have brains?

 

[California Girl]

Actually, there is scientific evidence to support Palin's risk taking:

The risk of having a baby with chromosomal disorders increase as a woman grows older. The most common of these disorders is Down syndrome, a combination of mental retardation and physical abnormalities caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1, 250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

Trying to Conceive After 35 - What are the Risks of Birth Defects?

Far more dangerous than having previously had an abortion.

If you had any knowledge of Ms Palin, you would be aware that she knew the risks and chose to take that risk rather than abort her child. She was demonized by the left for it. Because apparently being pro choice does not extend to allowing other women to do likewise.

 

[California Girl]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/02/...l#ixzz0gHwHPojl


LOL, WUT?

Sarah Palin Had An Abortion Before?

Your comment about Palin is breathtakingly stupid, Little Lefty. Just because you're anonymous and just because other people behave like morals don't matter, does not mean you have to follow their example.

Actually little neotard his comments are right on.. She has a child with Down syndrome..

And yet another glaring example of how CAgirl knows nothing about the issue at hand.. Way to go CAgirl??

Now back to the issue.. Did Palin have an abortion?? One of these two neotards is wrong.. Which one.. Either Palin had an abortion or this Va. guy is a total quack..

It is ok CAgirl.. We all know where you stand.. Unlike you however.. I won't neg your bitch ass simply cause we disagree.. I should however.. Your posts are truly pathetic..

You're becoming a tad hysterical, kid. Take a couple of deep breaths. And try acting your age instead of your shoe size.

 

[MajikMyst]

Your comment about Palin is breathtakingly stupid, Little Lefty. Just because you're anonymous and just because other people behave like morals don't matter, does not mean you have to follow their example.

Actually little neotard his comments are right on.. She has a child with Down syndrome..

And yet another glaring example of how CAgirl knows nothing about the issue at hand.. Way to go CAgirl??

Now back to the issue.. Did Palin have an abortion?? One of these two neotards is wrong.. Which one.. Either Palin had an abortion or this Va. guy is a total quack..

It is ok CAgirl.. We all know where you stand.. Unlike you however.. I won't neg your bitch ass simply cause we disagree.. I should however.. Your posts are truly pathetic..

You're becoming a tad hysterical, kid. Take a couple of deep breaths. And try acting your age instead of your shoe size.

Kid?? Your the one with the nack of writing posts about nothing and then demanding everyone bow to your intelligence..

How bout you let me know when your IQ is greater than your shoe size..

Seriously.. Write a post for a change!! Use your head for something other than a hair factory.. Try not to be so insulting.. Support your views.. Think before your post..

And for god sakes stop negging someone cause they bitchslap you.. I mean really.. Do you honestly believe you are right cause you negged someone?

Support you views.. Or try to anyways..

 

[California Girl]

Actually little neotard his comments are right on.. She has a child with Down syndrome..

And yet another glaring example of how CAgirl knows nothing about the issue at hand.. Way to go CAgirl??

Now back to the issue.. Did Palin have an abortion?? One of these two neotards is wrong.. Which one.. Either Palin had an abortion or this Va. guy is a total quack..

It is ok CAgirl.. We all know where you stand.. Unlike you however.. I won't neg your bitch ass simply cause we disagree.. I should however.. Your posts are truly pathetic..

You're becoming a tad hysterical, kid. Take a couple of deep breaths. And try acting your age instead of your shoe size.

Kid?? Your the one with the nack of writing posts about nothing and then demanding everyone bow to your intelligence..

How bout you let me know when your IQ is greater than your shoe size..

Seriously.. Write a post for a change!! Use your head for something other than a hair factory.. Try not to be so insulting.. Support your views.. Think before your post..

And for god sakes stop negging someone cause they bitchslap you.. I mean really.. Do you honestly believe you are right cause you negged someone?

Support you views.. Or try to anyways..

You didn't 'bitchslap' me, fool. You got personal. Getting personal gets a neg. That is not hard. I don't think I'm right because I negged you - I negged you for getting personal. It had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was just your nasty little mouth, attached - at least hopefully - to your small and stupid brain. Get personal, get negged. Clear?

 

[MajikMyst]

You're becoming a tad hysterical, kid. Take a couple of deep breaths. And try acting your age instead of your shoe size.

Kid?? Your the one with the nack of writing posts about nothing and then demanding everyone bow to your intelligence..

How bout you let me know when your IQ is greater than your shoe size..

Seriously.. Write a post for a change!! Use your head for something other than a hair factory.. Try not to be so insulting.. Support your views.. Think before your post..

And for god sakes stop negging someone cause they bitchslap you.. I mean really.. Do you honestly believe you are right cause you negged someone?

Support you views.. Or try to anyways..

You didn't 'bitchslap' me, fool. You got personal. Getting personal gets a neg. That is not hard. I don't think I'm right because I negged you - I negged you for getting personal. It had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was just your nasty little mouth, attached - at least hopefully - to your small and stupid brain. Get personal, get negged. Clear?

I got personal?? ROFL!! You wish!! Stop dreaming and come to reality.. I made a topic personal to you!! And it bitch slapped you!! You negged me cause you were so flustered that you couldn't think of anything else to do.. Like write a post in support of your views.. You negged me cause you disagreed.. I didn't get personal.. There is no such thing as peronal in a topic about people being descriminated against for their sexual orientation.. I simply applied it to you and you got all flustered..

The sad thing is you should have applied it to yourself when contemplating your own position on the issue.. I shouldn't have to do it for you..

Now.. Stop thinking about me being personal with you.. Try really really hard to actually write a post about your feelings and positions, and support the way you feel with facts or logic.. I know it will be hard for you.. Most of your posts are like 2 sentences.. You might have to right a number of rough drafts.. Kinda hard to make a point and support it with 2 sentences..