Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
How do you feel about the head of an 8 month old fetus being crushed with forceps or the 8 month old fetus being hacked to death with a scalpel? Does that make you feel rage?

[rhetorical question] Why do you wish to argue with me about this in response to the story I told? [/rhetorical question]

I would certainly be enraged if that were done for any reason other than saving the life of the mother of that fetus. In whcih case, its arguably a selfish choice, but hers to make.

Yet at the same time, I note that if I were empowered to choose for that 8 month old fetus either your scenario or the one I described (about a year farther down the road), I would choose your scenario every time. Much quicker and less painful.

Go away, Troll.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Not particularly

Does the baby left to starve to death make you feel rage? And if so, why doesn't it make you feel rage about an 8 month old fetus being killed in such a gruesome manner?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
,though I wonder why anyone would wait this long to get an abortion (unless the issue was learning very late in pregnancy about the threat to a mother's life).

Ahh, you bring up a very good point. There are rarely reasons to do this. The reason for most 3rd term abortions is because the woman delayed getting an abortion not because of any reasons outside her control. There are some late term abortions done for life of the mother, but those are not the majority. The majority are because the mothers wait for no good reason.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[rhetorical question] Why do you wish to argue with me about this in response to the story I told? [/rhetorical question]

Because you seem to feel compassion for a child once it is born so I wonder if you feel the same compassion for a child right before it is born.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I would certainly be enraged if that were done for any reason other than saving the life of the mother of that fetus. In whcih case, its arguably a selfish choice, but hers to make.

Most 3rd trimester abortions are not done to save the life of the mother.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yet at the same time, I note that if I were empowered to choose for that 8 month old fetus either your scenario or the one I described (about a year farther down the road), I would choose your scenario every time. Much quicker and less painful.

Ok then, do you get enraged if someone crushes the head of an infant or hacks it to death with a scalpel? I do.

The woman who left her infant to die could have given the child up for adoption. Your "abortion is necessary because we don't take care of unwanted children" argument is ludicrous. People go to China and Romania and Guatemala to adopt infants in this country. She could have given the baby up for adoption and it would have been taken care of.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Go away, Troll.

By your definition, troll is one who smashes your argument to bits and pieces and made you look like a fool. Fool.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But he cannot, right?



So she has a constitutional right to remedy the situation. He, on the other hand, must endure an 18-year garnishment of his wages because of her unilateral decision - over his protests - not to exercise her consitutional rights.

It is absurd.

Dude, you're the one who decided to have sex.

You takes your chances, you pays your money.

(No sympathy for the devil, ah, for slave, but, OTOH, I have great sympathy for the father who is willing to raise the child whom the mother wishes to abort).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why are you willfully ignoring Slave's point? Assuming a non-rape scenario, the man and woman have both decided to have sex. After that, it is solely the woman's choice, even though the choice has consequences for both.

I am not ignoring his point. He is framing the issue as if the constitutional right is about parenthood. It is not. It is about controlling what happens to one's own body. The reason it is solely the woman's choice is because it is soley her body that will be pregnant. You cannot use the laws to change biology.

Moreover, as my cousin Not Bob pointed out, you and Slave are ignoring that child support is not the right of the mother. It is the right of the child.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
OTOH, I have great sympathy for the father who is willing to raise the child whom the mother wishes to abort

2. but I wonder how many of them would want to have the child if there were some way to implant the fetus in the man and let him carry it to term?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Most 3rd trimester abortions are not done to save the life of the mother.

Most statistics like this are hackneyed and twisted.

3rd trimester abortions are few and far between, despite attempts to create outrageous statistics by including every third semester d&c out there (that is a more readily available statistic, and, unfortunately, there are many that are involuntary - because the baby has died). It's difficult to track the reasons for them, and I'm unaware of any meaningful data on the point.

Working off pure experience with no claims to a scientific basis, I expect that there are a healthy number of late term abortions relating to babies being diagnosed with downs or some other significant medical issue, and they occur this late because the diagnosis wasn't done until late in the term. I have, on the other hand, not heard of many late-term abortions of the "birth control" kind, resulting from mere delay, and am suspicious of data that says otherwise.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Dude, you're the one who decided to have sex.

No, oddly, they decided to have sex.

You takes your chances, you pays your money.

Say there is no malice whatsoever involved, but by a sheer accident (e.g. the 1/1000 times the pill doesn't work) she becomes pregnant.

She now, holds all the cards as to the future. Her future. His future. The purported child's future.

He has no rights whatsoever. He has no say.

As for the "takes your chances" - He merely bought into getting laid - he didn't buy into a purchasing a jumbo mortgage.

As long as there exists the "convenience right" of a woman to an abortion, the male should have the corollary right to opt out if she unilaterally decides not to exercise it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
2. but I wonder how many of them would want to have the child if there were some way to implant the fetus in the man and let him carry it to term?

Yeh, all men are selfish. Evil, too.

Of course, if the pregnancy sex is good, maybe Slave will volunteer...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

Say there is no malice whatsoever involved, but by a sheer accident (e.g. the 1/1000 times the pill doesn't work) she becomes pregnant.

Note that if the pill doesn't work 1 out of 1000 times, and you have sex, on average, just 10 times per month, the odds are that you will produce a child every eight years.

Another way of thinking of it: If it costs about $250,000 in present value to raise a child, and the pill doesn't work 1 out of 1000 times, you should assume the child-rearing "cost" of each roll in the hay while on the pill is about $250.

Just so you enter your relationships with open eyes.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As long as there exists the "convenience right" of a woman to an abortion, the male should have the corollary right to opt out if she unilaterally decides not to exercise it.

Um, so your solution is to vote for a party that compels the women you've fucked to carry their children to term?

Give your future a fighting chance, Slave. Vote Dem.

[Atticus Grinch]

Give Up 'Delusional Hope' of Iraq WMD, Kay Says

• "I think it's most important that the president of the United States recognizes that in fact the weapons are not there," Kay told reporters after speaking at The Government Security Expo and Conference.

Kay's thesis is that as long as 43 and the "intelligence community" hold out this delusional hope, there will be no true reform of the problems that led to the intelligence failure.

Hmm.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


Just so you enter your relationships with open eyes.

Nothing you have answered though suggests that a woman is in a worse position ex ante that having the sole/unilateral right to choose to have an abortion is somehow rough justice. Both sides know the same things going in (in fact, probably the woman knows more because she's able to conceal whether she's using at least some forms of birth control). Yet only one side has the right to decide what the consequences of the unexpected will be.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Give your future a fighting chance, Slave. Vote Dem.

As Darcy will attest, abortion isn't an issue that commands my attention when I vote.*

* Wake me up when someone ignores the two extremes and publicly announces they are Anti-Roe, federalist, pro-choice, "safe, legal and rare"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Say there is no malice whatsoever involved, but by a sheer accident (e.g. the 1/1000 times the pill doesn't work) she becomes pregnant.

She now, holds all the cards as to the future. Her future. His future. The purported child's future.

He has no rights whatsoever. He has no say.

Not so. He has all sorts of parental rights, potentially.

It's true that the woman gets to decide whether to carry the baby to term. On the other hand, it's her body.