|
|
| Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules (1167697) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||
|
| (1168212) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 30 15:23:54 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 15:14:56 2014. you're calling me Adolf Hitler? |
|
|
| (1168213) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 30 15:29:45 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Mar 30 14:37:49 2014. Everyone has different principles about religion too. By that logic, religion is meaningless (NOTE: in my opinion it is). |
|
|
| (1168214) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Mar 30 15:34:25 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by italianstallion on Sun Mar 30 15:20:49 2014. No contest. This is definitely a meaningful statement.You'll note the dependency on religion though (Creator) and that this statement is a "holding" of an opinion. My initial argument against Spider-Pig was that laws cannot be based on facts alone. This statement is the result of a certain outlook on the world that was non-materialistic. |
|
|
| (1168215) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 15:38:41 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 30 15:23:54 2014. No, but I am actually attacking you. This is what it looks like. |
|
|
| (1168216) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Mar 30 15:39:22 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 30 15:29:45 2014. All I'm arguing is that laws must be based on something other than facts alone.Yes, religions differ on their beliefs. Nevertheless there must be something (such as, but not necessarily, a particular religious faith-system) that drives people's input in law-making. Whatever that something is, it will transcend fact. You have to get from the "is" to the "should." |
|
|
| (1168218) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 30 15:56:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Mar 30 14:32:59 2014. That's fallacious reasoning. You're not arguing in favor of a spiritualistic outlook because that's actually how the universe works, you're arguing in favor of it because if it did, it would really suck.Too bad, oftentimes things suck. |
|
|
| (1168219) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 30 15:59:28 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Mar 30 15:34:25 2014. It is not at all based on religion. Notice he goes out of his way of saying "God" alone without some modifier. It only says that men have these rights by virtue of existing and do not require some king or pope to grant them these rights. |
|
|
| (1168228) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 30 16:51:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Mar 30 15:17:27 2014. It isn't representative of any degree of sanity. That's what makes visiting here so much fun. :) |
|
|
| (1168229) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 30 16:51:50 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 15:14:56 2014. Oh wow ... a GodWIN thread ending! :) |
|
|
| (1168255) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Mar 30 21:57:21 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 15:19:12 2014. EEG in this discussion means full brain functioning, also known as viability.I call Bullshit. You started the meme by stating "EEG is measurable around 26-27 weeks." That is just wrong. EEG is measurable around 12 weeks. I'll say this for you - you are consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless. |
|
|
| (1168256) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 22:09:28 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Sun Mar 30 21:57:21 2014. Wrong. Read up on any *real* papers on fetal viability, not RW "pro-life" that ends at birth bullshit.try this |
|
|
| (1168264) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Mar 31 01:05:41 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 15:38:41 2014. #nicewifeMicroaggression sound like a midget tagteam in the WWE. But you did not w1n. |
|
|
| (1168276) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Mar 31 08:12:26 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 30 15:56:59 2014. Don't worry about my motives. Address the argument. Please explain how you bridge the gap between the "is" and the "ought."No matter what conclusion is reached, I think the world is a great place by the way. |
|
|
| (1168277) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Mar 31 08:14:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 30 15:59:28 2014. That's not what that statement says. Men are "endowed" these rights, suggesting an action of endowing, not an outright "having" them.Somebody or something has to grant the rights, even if they are granted to all. |
|
|
| (1168279) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 31 08:22:17 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Mar 31 01:05:41 2014. That is microagression. Not playing.Yes, i did win. You just refuse to get it. Everyone else does. |
|
|
| (1168286) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Mon Mar 31 08:53:56 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 31 08:22:17 2014. Yes....every on gets that you troll....even peoplewho may agree! |
|
|
| (1168293) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 12:03:15 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 22:09:28 2014. Irrelevant. You stated "EEG is measurable around 26-27 weeks." That's incorrect. It's 12 weeks. Where do you get RW from? Since when is Wiki Answers RW?The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week (Singer 1996; Vogel 2000). Vogel (2000) notes: "Slow EEG activity (0.5 – 2 c/s) can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of three months." Vogel, F. 2000. Genetics and the Electroencephalogram New York: Springer. Singer, P. 1996. Rethinking Life & Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. St. Martins Press. But keep deflecting things with your BS, it's amusing. |
|
|
| (1168317) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by train dude on Mon Mar 31 13:35:26 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 12:03:15 2014. You are wasting your time. Under bingbong rules she's permitted to change the argument as many times as its necessary for her to clsim thst she is finally correct. |
|
|
| (1168327) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 15:09:16 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by train dude on Mon Mar 31 13:35:26 2014. I'm retired, TD. I have nothing but time! |
|
|
| (1168364) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 18:30:04 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 15:09:16 2014. [Waiting for a reply from bingbong. Crickets chirping in the background} |
|
|
| (1168387) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 31 20:01:00 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 18:30:04 2014. Dave,Time to learn to read. You were already answered. |
|
|
| (1168388) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 31 20:01:00 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 18:30:04 2014. Dave,Time to learn to read. You were already answered. |
|
|
| (1168409) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 21:52:40 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 30 22:09:28 2014. Nothing in there that discusses at what stage of fetal development an EEG first measures brain activity. And we are not debating fetal viability, we're discussing at what age of fetal development an EEG is measurable.Bingbong = Fail. Do you even know who Frederich Vogel is? |
|
|
| (1168410) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 22:03:48 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 31 20:01:00 2014. You may want to read some of the research from The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. I'm sure you know much more than these doctors who've published articles in their journal:Tammy N. Tsuchida, MD, PhD Assistant Clinical Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics Children's National Medical Center George Washington University School of Medicine Courtney J. Wusthoff, MD Assistant Professor of Child Neurology Stanford University School of Medicine Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Renée A. Shellhaas, MD, MS Clinical Assistant Professor Pediatrics & Communicable Diseases University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Nicholas S. Abend, MD Assistant Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics Division of Neurology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Cecil D. Hahn, MD, MPH Division of Neurology, The Hospital for Sick Children Assistant Professor of Paediatrics (Neurology), University of Toronto Associate Scientist, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute Joseph E. Sullivan, MD Assistant Professor of Neurology & Pediatrics Director, UC San Francisco Pediatric Epilepsy Center University of California San Francisco Sylvie Nguyen The Tich, MD, PhD Professor of Pediatrics Child Neurology Unit Laboratoire Ingenierie Systeme Automatises EA4094, LUNAM University Hospital ANGERS Steven Weinstein, MD Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics Children's National Medical Center George Washington University School of Medicine Mark S. Scher, MD Professor of Pediatrics and Neurology Department of Pediatrics Division Chief, Pediatric Neurology Director, Rainbow Neurological Center, Neurological Institute of University Hospitals Director, Pediatric Neurointensive Care Program/Fetal Neurology Program Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital University Hospitals Case Medical Center James J. Riviello, MD NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center NYU Langone Medical Center Director, Division of Pediatric Neurology Professor of Neurology Department of Neurology New York University School of Medicine Robert R. Clancy, MD Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia |
|
|
| (1168420) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Mar 31 23:10:29 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 22:03:48 2014. +10 |
|
|
| (1168453) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 08:28:12 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Mon Mar 31 21:52:40 2014. I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks. Don't try to tell me that was a viable fetus. Don't even try. |
|
|
| (1168455) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Apr 1 09:14:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 08:28:12 2014. Except viability is not synonymous with measurable brain activity on an EEG |
|
|
| (1168464) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Apr 1 09:27:26 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Apr 1 09:14:10 2014. pwn3d |
|
|
| (1168468) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 09:28:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Apr 1 09:14:10 2014. That's the precise point I'm making. Thank you. |
|
|
| (1168469) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 09:30:00 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Apr 1 09:27:26 2014. Wrong. very wrong. Why don't you go back to the +1s? It's far more your speed. |
|
|
| (1168472) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Apr 1 09:37:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Apr 1 09:27:26 2014. Very. |
|
|
| (1168474) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 09:41:21 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Tue Apr 1 09:37:59 2014. Not in the least. |
|
|
| (1168482) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Apr 1 11:43:19 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 09:41:21 2014. So are you saying you know more about fetal EEG than all those doctors who have published in the journal of The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society? |
|
|
| (1168486) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 1 11:50:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Tue Apr 1 11:43:19 2014. LOL, of course. She's the biggest expert on anything.She is the sorest loser here. He ego can't take that she is often wrong. |
|
|
| (1169180) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 3 20:09:06 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 09:41:21 2014. Not in the least.You were pwn3d big time. |
|
|
| (1169189) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Apr 3 20:15:38 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Apr 1 09:27:26 2014. And speaking OF the question of measurable brain activity on an EEG ... there you are. :) |
|
|
| (1169197) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 20:24:42 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 3 20:09:06 2014. Wrong. As an effective non participant I doubt you read the entire thread and/ or you are a woman. |
|
|
| (1169206) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Apr 3 20:30:43 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 20:24:42 2014. There does appear to be sufficient evidence however that he spends the majority of each month on the rag though. :) |
|
|
| (1169222) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 3 20:38:29 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 08:28:12 2014. Blathering on about viability and brain function is completely irrelevant to the topic of abortion.The only salient point is this: The right to bodily autonomy is absolute. If a real living adult person will die unless he gets your kidney, you cannot be compelled to donate. If a real living adult person will die unless she gets your bone marrow, you cannot be compelled to provide it. If a real person has no right to consume your body for his own benefit, even if his life depends on it, then why should a fetus? This was pointed out in 1971, so it's clear by now that the only reason anybody opposes abortion is because they're sexists who simply don't accept that women have a right to bodily autonomy. |
|
|
| (1169248) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 20:52:07 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Tue Apr 1 08:28:12 2014. you had a miscarriage?you probably still feel terrible. every time you see a family with kids you're haunted by the experience. you think what could/should have been. i think a lot of abortion women do too. especially the ones who never have kids. When I lived in Queens, there was an "at risk youth" who lived nearby. when he was 14 or 15 he got his girlfriend pregnant and she had an abortion. The world is a better place because that abortion took place. Society was spared his offspring. |
|
|
| (1169251) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 20:55:11 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 20:52:07 2014. Three. I don't care to discuss it.Women have the basic human right to control their reproduction. Whatever that takes must be safe, legal and widely accessible. To have a child is her decision alone. |
|
|
| (1169273) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 21:07:33 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 20:55:11 2014. I agree. A woman should be allowed to have the final decision. But if the man does not want the kid, he should not have to pay child support because it's not his decision to give life to the kid.You can't say woman have final say to abort, but when they give life they give equal economic responsibility to the man. |
|
|
| (1169277) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 3 21:11:32 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 21:07:33 2014. But if the man does not want the kid, he should not have to pay child support because it's not his decision to give life to the kid.Exactly. If a man does not want a kid, he's perfectly free to keep it in his pants. However, if he chooses to father a child, then he has an obligation to support it. |
|
|
| (1169278) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 21:12:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 21:07:33 2014. Wrong. If she decides to have the kid, he's now a father. Fathers support their kids. They also have decision making rights in concert with the mother/ custodial parent and visitation, etc. rights.Shoulda thought about heading to the drugstore before...... |
|
|
| (1169285) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 21:20:24 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 3 21:11:32 2014. Exactly. If a man does not want a kid, he's perfectly free to keep it in his pants.However, if he chooses to father a child, then he has an obligation to support it. If the child is unplanned, and they are not married, he should have no financial obligation. As stated, the woman has the right to abort or have the kid but the man should have the right to choose not to want anything to do with the kid. The woman should be on welfare. |
|
|
| (1169286) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 21:24:16 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 21:20:24 2014. That's why we have such a problem with poverty in this country. |
|
|
| (1169288) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Thu Apr 3 21:34:34 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 21:20:24 2014. So the man does not incur any financial obligation for the unplanned child but we the taxpayers do? |
|
|
| (1169291) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Apr 3 21:43:33 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Apr 3 21:34:34 2014. Tea party is on the job taking care of that contingency as well. Any unplanned children will be rounded up and used to heat hospitals down there. :-\ |
|
|
| (1169292) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 3 21:46:02 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 21:20:24 2014. If the child is unplanned, and they are not married, he should have no financial obligation.I agree. If the man had sex entirely by accident, or was one of the extremely rare cases of female-on-male rape, then he should have no financial obligation. However, if he intentionally had sex, then he is responsible for the child that he voluntarily fathered. As stated, the woman has the right to abort or have the kid but the man should have the right to choose not to want anything to do with the kid. The man has every right to choose not to have a kid— I pointed out that he can freely choose to keep it in his pants, but he can also use a condom or get himself sterilised. What he should not be allowed to do is have a child but then disclaim any and all responsibility for it. Women aren't allowed to do that, so why should men? The woman should be on welfare. Except that you believe all welfare should be abolished— or, at minimum, you consistently vote for a party that does, believing their opposition to welfare is a mere "imperfection" not worth withholding your vote over. |
|
|
| (1169313) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 3 22:09:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 21:12:47 2014. a woman deserves the right to have an abortion. the right to be a mother or not to be. a man should have that right too.he should be informed before month three of the pregnancy that the woman is pregnant. if he says he does not want to be a dad, the woman is informed that she can have an abortion or raise the kid on her own. a man should have some rights too. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||