Planned Parenthood Endorses Infanticide

grmblfjx wrote:

Is it just me, or is Mikey getting strangely emotional?

I'm weirded out

I wouldn't know. I put him on my "ignore" list years ago.

grmblfjx wrote:

Is it just me, or is Mikey getting strangely emotional?

I'm weirded out

He's been getting strangely sincere lately.

Mikey, are you on some new medication or something?

Have you finally just relaxed your pooper and ripped a bong?

No, no, I mean the opposite. He never gets emotional, he's cheerfully inoffensible, and now all of a sudden he attacks rachel with hyperbolic, way over the top responses à la Chris. He's either trolling or hacked or maybe some girl finally agreed to date him and he's subscribing to all her causes. I don't know, but I'm weirded out, and I don't mean that in a good way.

Stop trolling, Mikey, I'm upset.

grmblfjx wrote:

No, no, I mean the opposite. He never gets emotional, he's cheerfully inoffensible, and now all of a sudden he attacks rachel with hyperbolic, way over the top responses à la Chris. He's either trolling or hacked or maybe some girl finally agreed to date him and he's subscribing to all her causes. I don't know, but I'm weirded out, and I don't mean that in a good way.

Stop trolling, Mikey, I'm upset.

I just really hate rachel because of how unbelievably stupid and sure of herself she is inb4 Irony. What you're thinking of is hypocrisy anyway. And of course bungletits blocked me, because God forbid her sensitive, incomprehensible stupid liberal ears hears a different opinion. That's the difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative is a stubborn jackass that will never be swayed by argument, a liberal won't even argue, because opposing viewpoints make them sad in pants.

Basic fucking logic seems to escape her, as demonstrated by her implication that guns are the reason a suicidal man killed himself, and she's allowed to vote. Hence why people like her are ruining this country. It's one thing if you disagree with me, that only means you're wrong, but when you plug your ears and go "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and clearly get all of your news from MSNBC, that makes you stupid.

Also, if you're getting upset, doesn't that mean I'm trolling well?

But but but Mikhail, I'm so liberal, practically socialist, yet I find you amusing. Like Ron Swanson.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You know like almost self-parodic or something because he normally doesn't seem to take himself too seriously.

Disco Stu wrote:

But but but Mikhail, I'm so liberal, practically socialist, yet I find you amusing. Like Ron Swanson.

Bwaaaaah!

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

That's the difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative is a stubborn jackass that will never be swayed by argument, a liberal won't even argue, because opposing viewpoints make them sad in pants.

This is brilliant.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Relevant.

TheHedonist wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Relevant.

Is that real?

Lady Anne wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Relevant.

Is that real?

Yup, it's his campaign bumper sticker.I'm not sure whether is shows the kind of brainpower responsible for the anti-gun safety movement, the anti-choice movement, or both.

(ETA Link.)

rachel wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Relevant.

Is that real?

Yup, it's his campaign bumper sticker.I'm not sure whether is shows the kind of brainpower responsible for the anti-gun safety movement, the anti-choice movement, or both.

(ETA Link.)

There is not enough facepalm in the world for that kind of WTF.

Lady Anne wrote:

rachel wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Relevant.

Is that real?

Yup, it's his campaign bumper sticker.I'm not sure whether is shows the kind of brainpower responsible for the anti-gun safety movement, the anti-choice movement, or both.

(ETA Link.)

There is not enough facepalm in the world for that kind of WTF.

Don't worry, I have just the thing.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I fucking want to paste that bumper sticker on the back of my jacket.

Lady Anne wrote:

This thread begs the question--why would an abortion be performed on a viable fetus?

You mean like a C-section or induced labor? Abortion doesn't mean that the fetus will die in the process. It just means that the person with the womb's part in it is put to an early end.

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This thread begs the question--why would an abortion be performed on a viable fetus?

You mean like a C-section or induced labor? Abortion doesn't mean that the fetus will die in the process. It just means that the person with the womb's part in it is put to an early end.

That's not abortion. That's early delivery.

Lady Anne wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This thread begs the question--why would an abortion be performed on a viable fetus?

You mean like a C-section or induced labor? Abortion doesn't mean that the fetus will die in the process. It just means that the person with the womb's part in it is put to an early end.

That's not abortion. That's early delivery.

The only difference is the connotation that we put on it. Abortion just means that the fetus is removed from the womb (which is why removing miscarried fetuses (feti?) from a womb is also called abortion). It doesn't describe the method, or what happens to the fetus afterwards. So, getting a c-section is an abortion of the pregnancy. Inducing labor is an abortion of the pregnancy. Seeing a pattern here?

Abortion = ending pregnancy early. "Aborting" it, if you will.

Abortion =/= killing babies.

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This thread begs the question--why would an abortion be performed on a viable fetus?

You mean like a C-section or induced labor? Abortion doesn't mean that the fetus will die in the process. It just means that the person with the womb's part in it is put to an early end.

That's not abortion. That's early delivery.

The only difference is the connotation that we put on it. Abortion just means that the fetus is removed from the womb (which is why removing miscarried fetuses (feti?) from a womb is also called abortion). It doesn't describe the method, or what happens to the fetus afterwards. So, getting a c-section is an abortion of the pregnancy. Inducing labor is an abortion of the pregnancy. Seeing a pattern here?

Abortion = ending pregnancy early. "Aborting" it, if you will.

Abortion =/= killing babies.

There are actually some doctors who agree with you. When my brother-in-law was born, his mother's doctor refused to perform a C-section, despite the fact that the baby was at 10 months' gestation and trying to be born throat first (a position that is almost always fatal to the baby, due to the fact that the position usually snaps the neck). The doctor felt it would be an abortion to perform a C-section, and therefore refused. The baby lived (and is now 38 years old), but not through any help from the doctor. In fact, he is mentioned in obstetrics texts because he is the only person in recorded history to survive being born throat first.

Lady Anne wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This thread begs the question--why would an abortion be performed on a viable fetus?

You mean like a C-section or induced labor? Abortion doesn't mean that the fetus will die in the process. It just means that the person with the womb's part in it is put to an early end.

That's not abortion. That's early delivery.

The only difference is the connotation that we put on it. Abortion just means that the fetus is removed from the womb (which is why removing miscarried fetuses (feti?) from a womb is also called abortion). It doesn't describe the method, or what happens to the fetus afterwards. So, getting a c-section is an abortion of the pregnancy. Inducing labor is an abortion of the pregnancy. Seeing a pattern here?

Abortion = ending pregnancy early. "Aborting" it, if you will.

Abortion =/= killing babies.

There are actually some doctors who agree with you. When my brother-in-law was born, his mother's doctor refused to perform a C-section, despite the fact that the baby was at 10 months' gestation and trying to be born throat first (a position that is almost always fatal to the baby, due to the fact that the position usually snaps the neck). The doctor felt it would be an abortion to perform a C-section, and therefore refused. The baby lived (and is now 38 years old), but not through any help from the doctor. In fact, he is mentioned in obstetrics texts because he is the only person in recorded history to survive being born throat first.

The doctor refused to perform a C-section? What a jackass. It sounds like letting the baby be born is such a way is dangerous to both mother and child. He couldn't have known the baby would survive, and should have respected the mother's wishes for a safer end to the pregnancy. He shouldn't be practicing medicine if he is willing to endanger lives because of his fear of the "A" word.

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This thread begs the question--why would an abortion be performed on a viable fetus?

You mean like a C-section or induced labor? Abortion doesn't mean that the fetus will die in the process. It just means that the person with the womb's part in it is put to an early end.

That's not abortion. That's early delivery.

The only difference is the connotation that we put on it. Abortion just means that the fetus is removed from the womb (which is why removing miscarried fetuses (feti?) from a womb is also called abortion). It doesn't describe the method, or what happens to the fetus afterwards. So, getting a c-section is an abortion of the pregnancy. Inducing labor is an abortion of the pregnancy. Seeing a pattern here?

Abortion = ending pregnancy early. "Aborting" it, if you will.

Abortion =/= killing babies.

There are actually some doctors who agree with you. When my brother-in-law was born, his mother's doctor refused to perform a C-section, despite the fact that the baby was at 10 months' gestation and trying to be born throat first (a position that is almost always fatal to the baby, due to the fact that the position usually snaps the neck). The doctor felt it would be an abortion to perform a C-section, and therefore refused. The baby lived (and is now 38 years old), but not through any help from the doctor. In fact, he is mentioned in obstetrics texts because he is the only person in recorded history to survive being born throat first.

The doctor refused to perform a C-section? What a jackass. It sounds like letting the baby be born is such a way is dangerous to both mother and child. He couldn't have known the baby would survive, and should have respected the mother's wishes for a safer end to the pregnancy. He shouldn't be practicing medicine if he is willing to endanger lives because of his fear of the "A" word.

Playing devil's advocate here: Check the year. If the kid is 38 now, this pregnancy happened around '75.

I'm no expert, and this is my utterly uninformed opinion, but I'm pretty sure that C-Sections through the 70's-to-late-80's were a pretty big deal. They're nearly routine now, but over the course of nearly 40 years medical technology has developed an amazing amount compared to way back then where C-Sections were pretty traumatic.

Not knowing the background; but there could be other factors involved that influenced the Doc's decision. Adding to that Roe Vs. Wade was barely 2-3 years old at the time.

I have no medical knowledge, but my mother had her two kids both with C-Sections. My brother in 1966, myself in 1968.