Abortion

[tzor]

I have already done that.
But i lost my it immediately on income tax.
Now i am a republican

Don't worry land on chance and you can win your IQ back by getting 2nd place in a beauty contest.
Then you will become a conservative.

[The1exile]

Nappy, do you know what hypocrisy means, or are you just unaware of the blithe idiocy that accompanies your attempt to put clear mockery on the same field as a Serious-Fucking-Business point?

[Napoleon Ier]

Nappy, do you know what hypocrisy means, or are you just unaware of the blithe idiocy that accompanies your attempt to put clear mockery on the same field as a Serious-Fucking-Business point?

What are you talking about? Of course I fucking know what hypocrisy means, or I wouldn't use the bloody word you fucking imbecile. Why in God-the-LORD of Abraham Isaac and Jacob's Holy Name would I turn around and say "hey, here's a word the intent and extent of which I'm completely ignorant, let's use it in a sentence", and furthermore, then by some complete freak accident, have absolutely correctly applied it to a blatant instance of an extension of it's meaning, id est when Dancing Retard "made up a fiction post then responded to it", a tactic he'd had the bloody cheek criticize on my part before using it himself barely fifteen minutes later.

[Ray Rider]

I make a simple constate about your post's failings, and end up with:
"No, you're the one whose not intelligent or relevant, so nah!"

Oh yes, the old 'make up a fictional post by Dancing Mustard then reply to it' gambit, I hear it's all the rage at nursery-schools this year.

Shame that it's neither relevant or intelligent though... two words I seem to remember some arrogant kid being all hung up on only moments ago. Now who could that have been?

Nice little spiel Mustard, shame it contains nothing relevant to the issue we're trying to discuss whatsoever. Blah blah blah blah blah, look how far my head is rammed up my own arse, blah blah blah blah. Have you ever seen a little boy take himself this seriously before in your life? Blah blah blah behold as I do exactly the same thing I'm whinging about blah blah blah blah blah fucking blah. Again.

Sorry Nappy, what was that? I was trying to listen to your insignificant wrong opinions, I really was, but you got drowned out by the blaring of the hypocrisy-alarm that started sounding just the moment you opened your mouth.

Better luck next time eh?

What was that you were saying about hypocrisy?

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh dear Mustard...embarrassing, really.

[Dancing Mustard]

What's this? Dancing Mustard being a hypocrite? Never...

Correct.

Well, sorry Mustard, "I was trying to listen to your insignificant wrong opinions, I really was, but you got drowned out by the blaring of the hypocrisy-alarm that started sounding just the moment you opened your mouth."

Too blind with rage to think up original material? No problem, just copy and paste something that a far wittier and more intelligent poster wrote.

It's what all the kids are doing these days...

Anyway, I'll leave you to keep trying to thrash and squirm out of the monumental pile of shit you've gotten yourself into, and let you have your insignificant and rather unintelligent last word, if it leaves you with any feeling of satisfaction.

I'm not squirming out of anything, I'm just enjoying mocking your hilarious little attempts at flames.

I've been waiting for a logical answer to my (admittedly flawless) rebutal of Tzor's 'points' for quite some time now, but as ever all you can do is rant, rave and accuse me of precisely the thing that you seem to be unable to cease doing yourself.

Please do feel free to, oh, I don't know, read or book, or properly think about a serious issue between now and tomorrow

Says the little boy who has done nothing but piss and moan for the last two pages, and whose usual attempts at 'debating' are nothing more than weak-flames intermingled with meaningless verbage.

I can assure you Nap-nap, I'll take your hilariously feeble demands very seriously indeed. Look, I'll write them down on a piece of paper and put them right here in my 'circular file' just so I don't forget them.

perhaps you and I can have an actual debate rather than have you just gallivant around the place making hair-splitting grammatical points

Next time you start talking to Tzor, you should probably make it a bit more explicit that you're doing so.

you're being dismantled by people younger than you.

I read this sentence several times, desperately attempting to reconcile it with reality.
Ultimately I had to replace the words 'dismanteld by', with 'hilariously and succesfully running rings around' in order to make it anything other than the flagrant tantrumed fantasy of a hormone addled adolescent... but I think you'll agree that the changes were both warranted and accurate.

Until then, adieu.

Are you kidding me? You won't be able to keep your chubby little fingers away from the keyboard for more than ten minutes. It's painfully obvious how serious a business you regard your precious little E-persona, and you just won't be able to resist coming back here to paddy and squeal about how fervently you wish you weren't being made to look like a monumental clown.

It ain't Adieu Nappy L'Rash, it's just Au Revoir.

[suggs]

Not as embarrassing as ordering red wine with fish, old boy.
Not nearly.

[Dancing Mustard]

What was that you were saying about hypocrisy?

I wouldn't worry your tiny mind about it. Far more important for you is what I was saying about not being a complete imbecile.

Here's two concepts:
1. Making up a post and replying to it, i.e. inventing things they never said and then replying to those.
2. Replying to a users post, but also adding a paraphrase into the quote i.e. replying to what they said, but also adding a little extra to the quotation for the purposes of humour.

See how they differ? See how the first is what Nappy L'Rash was doing, and the second is what I was doing? You do? Well then well done, you may one day perhaps become the leader of your hairy little troop, then you'll never have to pick another flea from the pelt of your bretheren for as long as you continue to live.

Now shoo, there's enough stupid people for me to mop the floor with here already. I don't yet require another grunting simian to ply my trade on.

[Napoleon Ier]

What's this? Dancing Mustard being a hypocrite? Never...

Correct.

Well, sorry Mustard, "I was trying to listen to your insignificant wrong opinions, I really was, but you got drowned out by the blaring of the hypocrisy-alarm that started sounding just the moment you opened your mouth."

Too blind with rage to think up original material? No problem, just copy and paste something that a far wittier and more intelligent poster wrote.

It's what all the kids are doing these days...

Anyway, I'll leave you to keep trying to thrash and squirm out of the monumental pile of shit you've gotten yourself into, and let you have your insignificant and rather unintelligent last word, if it leaves you with any feeling of satisfaction.

I'm not squirming out of anything, I'm just enjoying mocking your hilarious little attempts at flames.

I've been waiting for a logical answer to my (admittedly flawless) rebutal of Tzor's 'points' for quite some time now, but as ever all you can do is rant, rave and accuse me of precisely the thing that you seem to be unable to cease doing yourself.

Please do feel free to, oh, I don't know, read or book, or properly think about a serious issue between now and tomorrow

Says the little boy who has done nothing but piss and moan for the last two pages, and whose usual attempts at 'debating' are nothing more than weak-flames intermingled with meaningless verbage.

I can assure you Nap-nap, I'll take your hilariously feeble demands very seriously indeed. Look, I'll write them down on a piece of paper and put them right here in my 'circular file' just so I don't forget them.

perhaps you and I can have an actual debate rather than have you just gallivant around the place making hair-splitting grammatical points

Next time you start talking to Tzor, you should probably make it a bit more explicit that you're doing so.

you're being dismantled by people younger than you.

I read this sentence several times, desperately attempting to reconcile it with reality.
Ultimately I had to replace the words 'dismanteld by', with 'hilariously and succesfully running rings around' in order to make it anything other than the flagrant tantrumed fantasy of a hormone addled adolescent... but I think you'll agree that the changes were both warranted and accurate.

Until then, adieu.

Are you kidding me? You won't be able to keep your chubby little fingers away from the keyboard for more than ten minutes. It's painfully obvious how serious a business you regard your precious little E-persona, and you just won't be able to resist coming back here to paddy and squeal about how fervently you wish you weren't being made to look like a monumental clown.

It ain't Adieu Nappy L'Rash, it's just Au Revoir.

No, no, no. You don't quite understand here. What you're trying to do here, is disprove elementary mathematics. Now, you may have a bizarre insecurity or inferiority complex which has prompted you to try and do this sort of asinine thing to salvage face for your "e-personality", but until you show me how A being a subset of B would make A union B equal to anything but B, you look like an absolute moron.

Now, in the process of me and Tzor ripping the shit out of you on the serious debate front, you've attempted to insult me in some rather bizarre, blatantly hypocritical ways, often ending up looking like your average american cheerleader responding to a rival female in some hyped-up bitch fight, but despite the fact that the phenomenal black hole of stupidity which is represented by your brain is able to suck up and distort the laws of logic, physics and mathematics (as well as apparently, those of grammar), the fundamental truths of underlying the deep complex and meaningful structures of the universe haven't changed.

But maybe I'm being a little harsh...you were just preparing for me that essay you were going to write about Marxist dialectics and the mating call of historical materialists, right, and hence had little time left to devote to the much-vaunted process of making-any-fucking-sense in this thread, eh?

What's that?

No, I thought not....

[suggs]

*gay -frankly, too gay* Oooooooooo, the boys' are fighting!

[Napoleon Ier]

What was that you were saying about hypocrisy?

Here's two concepts:
1. Making up a post and replying to it, i.e. inventing things they never said and then replying to those.
2. Replying to a users post, but also adding a paraphrase into the quote i.e. replying to what they said, but also adding a little extra to the quotation for the purposes of humour.

So far, so good...except, you never did actually respond to any of the substance, just made up a load of deluded bullshit and then decided to throw around the word "hypocrisy" without even fucking pausing to think whether or not it was applicable.

But, here's another concept for ya, Prancing Retard:

Parody: invented, properly speaking, by Hegemon the Thasian, or so the philosopher would have us believe, and later developed by Lucilius and Juvenal as satire. Difficile est non saturam scribere, but it appears that adding quality to seemingly endless quantity of bullshit is beyond your (rather limited) repertoire of skills.

Parody effectively consists in setting a humorous counter-piece against the original work, derived from the roots παρα and οδυ; or "counter ode".

You will note a key feature if this concept:

In order to "counter", as it were, the original "ode", it must use the material within the original ode and paraphrase it amusingly, or hyperbolically extend it.

However, regurgitating the original material and then adding in completely unrelated bullshit afterwards isn't parodic, it's retarded. Trying after this to draw a completely arbitrary line based on precisely dick between what you were doing and what I was, and furthermore failing to advance any reasons why one would count as any more or less "inventive" of material, makes you again, look like a mongoloid.

Vale et salve as they say, and à la prochaine.

[Neutrino]

I would have to say, the only conceivable way this argument about grammar could be improved is if it were combined with one about wrestling, or similar.
I hope that illustrates how truly facinated I am with this argument.

[PLAYER57832]

I just have to clarify here. A post viable procedure is a birth. No doctor would actually KILL a truly viable child. That, I believe is a gross misunderstanding that folks like Napoleon have tried to put forward. (though a few crazies advocate that, they are only the fringe and not part of any real debate).

I think I heard of a case a long time ago where in Califorina someone wanted an abortion becasue the doctors determined that regular birth would be too life threatening but she didn't want to go through a c-section because it would have left a scar. I don't think the doctors were in much agreement with this either, but it was a case where the absolute law sided on the unnecessary abortion.

One of the problems is that patient's rights is often used as a general "secrecy" excuse. The result is that in the absence of hard facts that aren't decades old conspiracy theories rise like dandilions in the field.

As Reagan said, "trust but verify."

Yes ... and this what is known as an "urban legend".

However, what actually does happen is almost as heart-wrenching.

There are about a thousand things that can go wrong even in the actual brith process. Usually, the "first" real indicator of a definite problem is a drop in blood oxeygen. If it drops below a point, teh doctor has to move FAST. That might mean medication, it might mean "just" doing the best he can to get the child out the "usual" way (sometimes with clamps or vacume pumps to assist). Sometimes surgery is the best option. ALL of these are methods to try and SAVE the child, but injury or death can absolutely occur. Nothing is gauranteed. All of it entails risk. So, doctors require consent. If the mother is conscious, she may refuse a C-section. Not so much because she "doesn't want a scar", but she might just be opposed to surgary on medical or religious grounds... it IS up to the patient. Legally, in most state, the mother is the only "patient" at this point. [note, this is a place where I think the law could be changed, but only carefully].
Realise that even though some dismiss a C-section as "simple surgary" leaving "just a minor scar", there is a very big difference between a planned and prepared C-section and an emergency one. Not even all OBs can do them. Cuts can easily be made the wrong way. It is not uncommon for women to have things damaged. Sometimes they are not able to have children ever again. So, some women are scared. Some believe a C-section is just "wrong", for any number of reasons.

Medically, the mother is "sure", the baby a "possible". Many times, even with full consent given in advance (something many obstetricians obtain just for emergencies), the doctor still cannot move fast enough to save the child. Sometimes, despite the best medical tests, it turns out there is a life prohibiting injury. It could be a "mechanical" issue .. maybe a tear inthe umbilical chord caused the baby to bleed out. Maybe there was any number of a thousand other issues. Sometimes a delay occurs in obtaining consent. That time can be critical. It is very easy to look back and say "if only ... " and to lay blame.
Parents often try. It is why Obstetrics have some of the highest malpractice insurance rates imaginable. Outsiders try and usually just cause everyone pain.


These are some of the cases that the most hard-hearted and hard-headed of anti-abortionists sometimes try to call "abortions". They are tragedies. They are, in some cases, preventable incidents that perhaps should result in changes to medical procedure ... in very rare cases, law. (I do think that a doctor should, at some point, be able to override consent requirement, but ... only in some cases)

[heavycola]

What was that you were saying about hypocrisy?

Here's two concepts:
1. Making up a post and replying to it, i.e. inventing things they never said and then replying to those.
2. Replying to a users post, but also adding a paraphrase into the quote i.e. replying to what they said, but also adding a little extra to the quotation for the purposes of humour.

So far, so good...except, you never did actually respond to any of the substance, just made up a load of deluded bullshit and then decided to throw around the word "hypocrisy" without even fucking pausing to think whether or not it was applicable.

But, here's another concept for ya, Prancing Retard:

Parody: invented, properly speaking, by Hegemon the Thasian, or so the philosopher would have us believe, and later developed by Lucilius and Juvenal as satire. Difficile est non saturam scribere, but it appears that adding quality to seemingly endless quantity of bullshit is beyond your (rather limited) repertoire of skills.

Parody effectively consists in setting a humorous counter-piece against the original work, derived from the roots παρα and οδυ; or "counter ode".

You will note a key feature if this concept:

In order to "counter", as it were, the original "ode", it must use the material within the original ode and paraphrase it amusingly, or hyperbolically extend it.

However, regurgitating the original material and then adding in completely unrelated bullshit afterwards isn't parodic, it's retarded. Trying after this to draw a completely arbitrary line based on precisely dick between what you were doing and what I was, and furthermore failing to advance any reasons why one would count as any more or less "inventive" of material, makes you again, look like a mongoloid.

Vale et salve as they say, and à la prochaine.

This is the gayest thing I have read since I rewrote the script for 'Anal Shopping IV'

[suggs]

Normally I am 100% with you Cola. But I saw the original script for "Anal",and it was a heart warming, passionate love affair between one man and his buttocks.
You, for reasons I can only assume had something to do with your reputation for being willing to "sample the merchandise", turned the whole thing into some sordid porno.
I am most displeased

[heavycola]

I take your point - not literally, obviously.

Speaking of abortions, is anyone aware of just how badly the English cricket team is batting this afternoon?

[suggs]

I take your point - not literally, obviously.

Speaking of abortions, is anyone aware of just how badly the English cricket team is batting this afternoon?

Shit. Whats happening?

[heavycola]

I take your point - not literally, obviously.

Speaking of abortions, is anyone aware of just how badly the English cricket team is batting this afternoon?

Shit. Whats happening?

a womb-scrapingly awful 124-5. Although KP looks good, ish.

[suggs]

Good effort at keeping on topic!
Christ, we should be slaughtering them. Weid times

[PLAYER57832]

Although this thread has almost run its course, there is one more set of thoughts ... really more of a question, point to consider than a specific view I have.

Some years ago, when I was new to college, I took "babysitting" jobs for extra cash. One position involved a young girl with severe cerebral palsy. She could not talk, could not move more than uncontrolled jerks ... I was young and idealistic. My biggest previous picture of cerebral palsy was the book "Karen". That was what I thought was acheivable for every so -afflicted child. Even caring for this child, I began to see that this one's picture was almost certainly not so rosy. BUT, that is not the point of my story.

Full of all these images, I happened to mention this girl to my roommate, who was from Africa. She got this lok of complete shock on here face and asked "how could this happen?". I explained some gobledy-gook about doctors doing their best, but these things happen, etc...... She quickly cut me off and said, her face full of absolute disgust and disdain... "no, I mean how could anyone let such a child live?"

He words shocked me to the core. This was the same person who took her Bible, here religion VERY seriously. She had, on more than one occasion takne it upon herself to lecture me in my lack of faith for various issues. Yet, in this, she was, ironically on the opposite side from what I felt to be Godly and "correct".

I realized quickly how much that spoke of our different backgrounds, worlds. In her world, children are dying, not so much for lack of advanced surgaries and procedures, but from plain lack of food, lack of vaccines and the most basic medical care. Anyone working with doctors over there talks of parents who walk for sometimes 100 miles or more on the hope of getting their children the vaccinations we take for granted... nay, sometimes even rebel against. The idea of "wasting" (her idea, not mine) food and resources on such a child was insane. Plain and simply, few parents would have the ability to care for such a child. Even if they could, it would (indirectly, if not directly) mean food denied to another, fully healthy child.

That is the "other question" we, in the US try to ignore when talking about issues such as abortion, even euthansia of the very severely disabled.

I have said that I could not, would not ever tell someone they had no right to be here, would not, could not tell a parent that they had no right to bring child into the world or keep them here. The thought is repugnant to be.

Yet, the real truth is that as much as we might wish otherwise, even in our world, even here in the US, there is a limit to medical resources available. I already, I believe mentioned that our local hospital doesn't even have an incubator on hand. They will borrow one if they know to expect a need, but mostly, mothers are sent to a further away hospital if it is expected their child will be too early or will ahve difficulties. IF they have warning ... in many cases, there is a frantic rush by ambulance or life flight. The decisions doctors make, then, even here are quite differant than if a mothere shows up at the emergency room in a big city with just about every piece of equipment and skills available.

So, here is the thing. When we decide to spend hundreds of thousands to keep one child alive, the real and extremely hard truth is that it means hundred of thousands of dollars not available to keep other children alive and healthy. It is not an exact exchange. The doctors, for example, that work on these specialized cases are not the same ones that will give vaccines in the inner city (usually... they may well volunteer for such efforts as well). Certainly, the dollars available from insurance and other sources for a heart transplant, say, are not really available for the local food pantry. AND, the reasons why kids end up in shelters and so forth... at least within the US ... is not, strictly speaking, just money.

There is a word ... it is, to my mind one of the nastiest words in our language. It is called "triage". It comes into play most often in mass casualty events. It means that if you have 100 screaming patients ... some who might need surgary, some who "merely" need to be freed of debris, you cannot take the time to do CPR on one individual. You open their airway, feel for a pulse ... in some cases do a push or two... and then you put a black tag on them and GO. You go, even though there is a good possibility that were you able to keep up with the CPR and get that person to the hospital (as you certainly would in other circumstances), they would survive. You leave them, because saving 100 is more important than saving that one.

Anyone trained in any kind of urgent care medicine know it ... and no sane person ever wants to use it. BUT, when needed, it saves lives.

THAT is the question, the issue we like to avoid here in the US, in most civilized nations. We want to see the question of saving a child as just that -- saving that one child. In that context, it absolutely makes sense to do everything within our power. BUT, the hard truth is that is only part of the question. The real truth is that for every decision you make, you are, in fact, saying "no" to many others.

As a Christian, I don't think these decisions are ones we were "supposed" to be making. I think these ethical questions are perhaps why we really should have taken the admonition to trust God and not physicians to heart. Because, we are not God, we cannot choose which life is "more important" (not that God actually decides in that precise manner), which child should live and which should not.

As we have seen in this debate, there are some very broad parameters. I believe most folks agreed that a child who would be in constant pain might be better not being born... but, there is always the question, in making that decision "are we SURE" ... are we sure that child really will be in constant pain. Are we sure that some technique won't some about that will give even the most severely disabled a decent life? (not a "perfectly healthy" life, but a "decent" and "happy" one).

One thing I do know. Right now, these decisions are being made by insurance companies and hospital administrators.. by "default" at times (if you don't buy a piece of equipment, it cannot be used to save a child). Mostly, hospitals really do try to do the best they can. A small hospital like we have here simply cannot be the equivalent of Johns' Hopkins or Seattle General.

In some ways, it relieves parents & doctors of the immediate decisions. BUT, are the decisions being made really the best. In many cases, parents are left with nothing but heartbreak. Many people just don't realize how very risky pregnancy and birth are, even today ... just how many things can, plain and simply, go wrong. The fact that 1 in 3 pregnancies miscarry in the first trimester, for example... 1 in 3!!!!! One in 3 of absolutely wanted children simply die in the first 3 months. As time goes on, the statistics get much, much more favorable. BUT, it is never certain, even with the very best of care. And, not every mother receives that care ... or CAN receive that care.

So, what is my point? I don't have a real position on this, except that I know we cannot leave these decisions to teh business of medicine. We HAVE TO think about, discuss and come to terms with these issues on moral grounds ... and we have to do so FULLY. It is not enough to simply say that "we must save every child". It is not enough because it is not reality. The reality is that if we decide to save one child, we are also deciding that we will not be able to save several others.

Probably the best guide we have, right now, in the US, is the system of organ donation. It is not perfect and is most definitely fraught with problems. BUT, it is a legitimate and real attempt to bring morality to the most difficult of decisions. (deciding who gets what organ). Would that system work for other issues? Not precisely, no. I am not sure it always works the best for organs. BUT, it is definitely a step in the right direction. AND, like it or not, we have to take such steps when it comes to other medical decisions as well. AND, when those decisions are made, it is up to us to ensure that the right people are involved. That means doctors, clergy of ALL faiths (including the "non" faiths like athiesm), and yes... busisness folks as well.

In the mean time, I think that we also need to accept that decisions about life and death are immensely complicated. So complicated that no one, other than those directly involved can really KNOW all the issues and therefore only THEY can really and truly make the "best" decision for those circumstances. That means, legally, allowing those in that position to make that decision and not forcing artificial and arbitrary limits upon the choices. Will some peopel make what you or I would consider a "bad" choice. Yes, absolutely. BUT, people make choices I consider bad every day. That is called "being human".

[Napoleon Ier]

Except in the United States of A, there are no food shortages are there...that's their problem over in Afriky. So your friend obviously wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, eh?

Now, if over in fuzzy-wuzzy land they want to argue that scarce resources shouldn't go to "inferior" disabled human beings, fair enough, but don't cloud this with the issue of abortion when this is in fact more of a utilitarian "babies and indians" ethical scenario.

[jonesthecurl]

Just to muddy the water: When people use various types of medical intervention to conceive children, it will often happen that more than one child starts up. Twins or even triplets are a little more common these days for just that reason.

Sometimes a far larger number will be conceived - I remember a case a few years back where there were 8 or 9.

The medical advice is usually that it is extremely unlikely that all the babies will be carried to term successfully. And that the likelihood of some surviving is increased if most of the fetuses are aborted.

Should the parents accept the advice and "murder" several of their children so that some can live? Or continue with an artificially-induced extended family, none of which will probably live?

I'm not offering an answer on this one, just wondering what people think: probably lose eight babies because you don't want to deliberately abort any of them? Or abort some when there is a vanishingly small possibility that they would all have survived?

[joecoolfrog]

Wouldn't it be nice is there was a little more consistentsy and a little less hypocrisy spouted about this issue. If it is ones view that to preserve ' life ' is an absolute moral imperative then one cannot reasonably support any form of lifetaking, war and capital punishment being obvious examples. My view is that all three can be justified on occasion, depending on circumstance, by all means demonstrate against abortion but demonstrate against innocent children being blown to pieces as well.

[InkL0sed]

Except in the United States of A, there are no food shortages are there...that's their problem over in Afriky. So your friend obviously wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, eh?

Now, if over in fuzzy-wuzzy land they want to argue that scarce resources shouldn't go to "inferior" disabled human beings, fair enough, but don't cloud this with the issue of abortion when this is in fact more of a utilitarian "babies and indians" ethical scenario.

Obviously you read, what, the first paragraph?

[Napoleon Ier]

Except in the United States of A, there are no food shortages are there...that's their problem over in Afriky. So your friend obviously wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, eh?

Now, if over in fuzzy-wuzzy land they want to argue that scarce resources shouldn't go to "inferior" disabled human beings, fair enough, but don't cloud this with the issue of abortion when this is in fact more of a utilitarian "babies and indians" ethical scenario.

Obviously you read, what, the first paragraph?

Look, I have GCSEs tomorrow. I can no be arsed to trawl through reams and reams of her pathetic, whingy bullshit. I'd lose the will to live, apart from anything else.