Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[Faun]

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views

That's the argument those who can't win an argument make. Using that nonsense means no Constitutional law is right.

 

[sakinago]

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

 

[sakinago]

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views

That's the argument those who can't win an argument make. Using that nonsense means no Constitutional law is right.

No, it just means that not all have been right. We've clearly been wrong about very important things in the past, it's daft to assume we are doing everything right now. Especially with a scotus that disagrees with it's own rulings 2 years later, how does that sound consistent?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.

Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?

Get off my screen, get medication, get help. Dismissed, flatliner.

Wow, Someone was a little tiny bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.

---
I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.

Shall we give God the death penalty?
Or was it the Devil and God's a ***** in not stopping him?

It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in this mess? Wow.

---
A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
Or, the devil made them do it.

Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.

Or we could spend the money on assistance for victims of violent crimes, like the people those criminals harmed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?

Get off my screen, get medication, get help. Dismissed, flatliner.

Wow, Someone was a little tiny bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.

---
I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.

Shall we give God the death penalty?
Or was it the Devil and God's a ***** in not stopping him?

It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in this mess? Wow.

---
A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
Or, the devil made them do it.

Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.

---
And we should "traffic" their body parts to help others in medical need

I could kind of see medication donation of the corpses of executed criminals. We do have a precedent in laws that make property used in the commission of crimes forfeit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.

Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.

Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

"We shouldn't have laws protecting fetuses, because we don't have laws protecting fetuses!"

Leftist-think is the best source of circular "logic" I've ever seen.

 

[sakinago]

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

"We shouldn't have laws protecting fetuses, because we don't have laws protecting fetuses!"

Leftist-think is the best source of circular "logic" I've ever seen.

It really is, winter born and care4all are the only ones who can hold a two way conversation

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent

I am being consistent. No one forces the mother to keep the baby. She can surrender it. But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.

She should stop *******...Who wants to **** someone that has no responsibility?

Um, there are bars at 2 am just full of guys who do. Just sayin' . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views

That's the argument those who can't win an argument make. Using that nonsense means no Constitutional law is right.

No, using that logic means law is not morality, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[Faun]

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

 

[sakinago]

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

 

[Faun]

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

 

[sakinago]

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

 

[aris2chat]

And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.

Why is this not about men not wearing condoms or not using them properly? Why is it the women that have to be on birth control? Women have the burden of what happens after men have sex. Men should be the ones more responsible when they unzip their fly

 

[Faun]

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.

Why is this not about men not wearing condoms or not using them properly? Why is it the women that have to be on birth control? Women have the burden of what happens after men have sex. Men should be the ones more responsible when they unzip their fly

Well, for starters, because women are the ones doing the most bitching and whining about how their own biology is some "misogynistic curse and nightmare and punishment". Also, because medical science has yet to produce a male contraceptive that is as effective as female contraceptives, so a sensible human being - I realize how few liberal women that actually includes, thank you - would want the best shot at effectiveness.

Women don't have a "burden of what happens after men have sex". They have the biological reality of what happens after THEY engage in sex. I have zero patience with this whole "I am just a helpless, unengaged object of others' lust" riff. Unless you were raped - and statistically speaking, you weren't, so get over it - this was mutual, and not an "atrocity".

 

[aris2chat]

Abortionists make BIG money....I suggest they should face a BIG risk in return....George Tiller for example:

your avatar is offensive and threatening. Are you suggesting more people should be shot?

That that work in clinics have family and friends. They provide services for the community. It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.

It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose. Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers. If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer. It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire. Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well? She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree. 'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????

So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want? You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child? If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?

How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?

Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?

Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women. Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.

There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.

Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after. For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months. A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time. Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth. They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes. Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that. It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.

If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.

 

[BullKurtz]

your avatar is offensive and threatening. Are you suggesting more people should be shot?

That that work in clinics have family and friends. They provide services for the community. It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.

It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose. Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers. If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer. It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire. Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well? She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree. 'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????

So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want? You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child? If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?

How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?

Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?

Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women. Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.

There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.

Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after. For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months. A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time. Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth. They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes. Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that. It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.

If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.

No, it is not her body.....it's her child's body and she has no right to have it murdered and it's parts sold to the highest bidder. As to my avatar I'm DElighted you find it "offensive and threatening". It shows you jump to idiotic conclusions same as your rant about murdering the unborn. But because I'm a kind and caring fella and to ease your brittle little mind, the .357 ISN'T LOADED....or is it?

 

[aris2chat]

~~~~~~~~~~~~

first term the fetus is not 'chopped' in a normal procedure. They just sort of do a D & C and it passes how every the lining of the uterus chooses to expel the tissue. It is not like they amputate each piece in the uterus with purpose. The more intact the pieces and lining are, the less chance of infection or blood poisoning.
Late term, the fetus is too big to come out on its own. That is a medical procedure for the safety/life of the woman or because the fetus could not survive more than a short time or be born dead. It is not a 'contraceptive' choice. If they can avoid it, they do not open the uterus like a C-section to remove the fetus.

Why do outsiders want to dictate to doctors or patient how to practice medicine?? They try to do the minimal of damage to the woman in the process. The woman is the first patient, they are trying to help. After the fetus is born live, then the fetus becomes its own patient with a different set if doctors and specialists.

Till the fetus is detached and takes its first real breath and cry to clear its lungs of fluid, the mother is the patient on record. It is her body to decide with the doctor what is best for her.

Unless you are the doctor of record, you have no say how the patient and Dr. should proceed. Stop practicing blind hypothetical message board medicine. Each patient has her own need and condition. Not all women are the same, have the same family or financial circumstance nor can they be treated like robots on an assembly line. The only right answer is the one that makes the patient the most happy/comfortable

 

[BullKurtz]

So how do you kill 58 million babies. Answer: You lie. What are the lies?

I am pro-choice
No. You're pro-abortion. As a pro-lifer I'm more pro-choice than any pro-choice person. Babies grow up to be old people and make millions of choices in their lives. An aborted baby never gets the chance to make a single choice. Stop lying. Call yourself pro-abortion.

My body, my choice.
No. It's not your body. It's somebody else's body who is borrowing yours. Your body has your DNA. This body has DNA that is unique. Stop lying. It's not your body.

It's about women's health.
No. It's about whether or not you are allowed to kill babies. Women's health is a different issue. Abortion in the name of convenience is not in the name of health. You're still lying.

It's just a clump of cells.
You're just a clump of cells too.

They don't feel pain.
That's just a bold faced lie. All second trimester babies feel pain at being cut up and aborted. But when did "pain" suddenly become the defining element in being human? There is a medical condition adults can have called "analgesia"--the lack of sensibility to pain. These people can't feel pain. So. . .are they less than human? Is it okay to kill them because they won't feel pain? Now that you mention it, is it okay to kill anybody by, say, carbon monoxide poisoning since they just fall asleep painlessly and never wake up? Stop lying to yourself about pain being a factor.

It's not a baby.
It's a zygote, embryo, or fetus.It's an early stage human being with a unique DNA character that has never occurred before and will never happen again. We humans value uniqueness. We embrace it. It is evil and despotic to ignore our uniqueness and demand we all be the same like bricks in a wall. It is the unique DNA combination that first establishes our uniqueness. Killing that unique combination strikes at the core of being human. It's not just a zygote. Stop lying to yourself.

It's legal so it's okay.
You're substituting legality for morality. In Germany, it was legally preferred to starve and kill Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, gypsies, and handicapped people and so people turned a blind eye to it. Everybody who performs, requests, and supports abortions knows they are killing babies. They just turn a blind eye to it.

This is the American Holocaust. We said, "Never again," and yet here we are doing it again--not just watching it but leading the charge. The death toll of abortion dwarfs the genocide of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao combined.