Just wondering: why are you NOT pro-choice?

[uppityperson]

Since it is obvious that some aren't here is your chance. Tell us what the term "pro-choice" means to you and why you are not pro-choice.

[alice silas]

1. A baby in the womb is a living human being with rights. NT

[notadmblnd]

4. oh go on... even children in this country don't have rights. I defy u to prove me wrong.

Btw.. how many unwanted children have you adopted?

[alice silas]

12. Children don't have rights? How about the right to life? NT

[uppityperson]

14. Is a fertilized egg a "child"? Serious question. When does it become a "child"? nt

[alice silas]

17. Since I am being pushed, I would have to say at the point it can live outside the womb

Since I am being pushed, I would have to say at the point it can live outside the womb, but even if physician care is necessary to keep the baby alive.

PS. I found an interesting factoid about baby death rates in America versus other countries, especially England, Canada, Switzerland, etc. It appears that these countries don't count a baby as being born alive unless it breaths on its own for a period of time. In America we count a baby as being born alive even if all it has is a heart beat. That is why our infant mortality stats look so bad compared to europe.

[uppityperson]

18. Thank you for answering rather than continuing to duck

That is considered around 24 weeks but varies according to several factors.

Edited to add, does that mean that women should have the right to a legal abortion before that time?

Where did you find that factoid as I'd like to check it out? Thank you. I may be uppity but I try to be civil.

[alice silas]

26. I am a moderate and they are going to CAN me here so I hope you read this

before they axe me. Seems nobody likes moderates here and that is being reflected in the new polls that show obama tanking.

Research it. The truth is european countries don't count a baby as being born alive unless it breaths on its own for a period of time, usually one minute. In America we count a baby as being born alive if it has a heart beat. Google it. That is why our infant mortality rate is "higher" than europe. They are comparing apples and oranges. GOD BLESS YOU from a moderate Democrat READY TO VOTE REPUBLICAN after seeing the lunatics post here.

[Scout]

27. Research it

that's your job, you made the claim ... it's up to you to prove it.

[alice silas]

28. what/ are you too fucking lazy to look it up or do you prefer to believe a lie? NT

This is wonderful. Most blogs etc. would forbid anyone from using the F word. here is it every other word.

[uppityperson]

30. fuck no fuck isn't fucking every fucking other fucking word! Fuck no!

This isn't a blog.

And no, we don't prefer to believe lies, that is why someone claiming something as Truth must show proof.

Fucking A!

[iverglas]

37. fucking ahem

You yanks and your Fucking A.

What is that supposed to mean??

It's FUCKIN EH?!

!


Oops. Got the punctuation wrong.

[uppityperson]

39. blame canada

eh?

[rd_kent]

61. Ahhh, and THERE is the anger designed to stir up the pot.

Nice try, freeper. Back under the bridge you go!

[iverglas]

62. done and dusted, long since

Right about when this thread went dormant. ;)

[uppityperson]

29. I do not think those words mean what you think they mean and no. You made the claim, you post proof

If you cannot post proof, the claim is irrelevant. All I find on google is right wing news saying that. Irrelevant and false.

I agree that there are lunatics posting here

[choie]

31. So, go vote republican...

it's your funeral.

[uppityperson]

32. Goodbye and no, you are not a moderate. You are ts'd though

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=242865

[iverglas]

35. what? damn!

I thought I checked before I replied. Blast. I really, really wanted an answer to that question!

[iverglas]

34. do you have a time machine?

I would have to say at the point it can live outside the womb, but even if physician care is necessary to keep the baby alive.

The only actual way to determine whether a fetus can survive outside the woman's body is to remove it.

It succeeds or it fails. Nobody can predict which ones will fail. Some do, you may have noticed. Some women carry pregnancies to full term and deliver fetuses that are dead on arrival or fail to live after delivery.

So how do you know which one can live after it leaves/is removed from the body of the woman where it is?

Please, I really do want to know.


PS. I found an interesting factoid about baby death rates in America versus other countries, especially England, Canada, Switzerland, etc. It appears that these countries don't count a baby as being born alive unless it breaths on its own for a period of time. In America we count a baby as being born alive even if all it has is a heart beat.

Well you certainly chose the right word for this.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factoid

fac·toid (fktoid)
n.
1. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition ...
Usage Note: The -oid suffix normally imparts the meaning "resembling, having the appearance of" to the words it attaches to. ...

Yup, that nonsense you have spewed almost looks like a fact. Too bad it isn't.

You might want to check your factoids before you spew them.


That is why our infant mortality stats look so bad compared to europe.

There are two possible reasons your infant mortality rates are bad.

The first is that they are. Many, many, many people in the US do not have access to health care of the standard that prevails in western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is the primary factor in infant mortality rates worldwide.

The second might be that more heroic measures are put into keeping extremely premature infants alive in the US, and the failure rate for such fetuses is of course higher than for full-term or less premature infants. Whether this factor is significant in infant mortality rates is debatable.


Anyhow. Please do share your wisdom about determining the viability of fetuses. I think a lot of people would like to know the answer.

[notadmblnd]

22. didn't think I'd get an answer to my questions from you.

[uppityperson]

6. Thank you for answering. Is there a time limit for you for abortions?

Some people find first trimester acceptable, others once the egg is fertilized it is not acceptable. Wondering where you stand on this?

[alice silas]

11. That's above my pay scale...NT

[uppityperson]

13. What?

[alice silas]

15. Did you say "what" when Obama was asked when life began and he said the same thing? NT

[uppityperson]

16. I am asking you since you are chosing to answer the OP. nt

[lindisfarne]

7. Welcome. A fertilized egg can become one or more individuals when necessary circumstances

are met. So can an unfertilized egg. Or a sperm. Do you also grant personhood to sperm & unfertilized eggs?

[obliviously]

25. Only the sperm that is going to fertilize the egg

And then half assed rights!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. Ahhhhh, so you're a birther in more ways than one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6076727#6076740

Just in case you're able to reply to this before you get the inevitable pizza: what purpose was served by you signing up for this site?

[uppityperson]

24. Doesn't seem to like Franken either. Ah well

[sarcasmo]

2. Sure didn't take long.

[av8rdave]

3. Never does! LOL

[sarcasmo]

5. Did you see the number of post on the one you hooked, LOL.

[uppityperson]

33. Yup, it lasted longer than I thought it would.

got another one going elsewhere also.

[uppityperson]

8. shhh. I am trying to understand. Have read some interesting opinions

on DU today and want to check it out with them.

[sarcasmo]

9. Sorry.

[uppityperson]

10. 'tis ok

I will hand them rope later

[valerief]

19. Jesus Plus Nothing is the usual reason. nt

[Control-Z]

20. What is it with all the

new trolls around here lately? There have been at least a dozen new, very low post count (100 or less), members, spouting off boldly in the past few days. Is there an ad campaign or troll contest I haven't heard about?

Geez. These are times when I wish DU had NO posting rules so I could be candid. These people just suck.

[uppityperson]

23. There are periodic influxes and indeed, sometimes the rules are a bit binding

Still, sometimes being civil is a good thing for me to do for myself.

[iverglas]

38. you don't spend enough time

in the gun dungeon. ;)

[Control-Z]

60. Probably a good thing.

I haven't been coming over here much, either. I should. This would have been a good thread to get in on at the beginning. But I find myself getting far too angry, especially since Dr. Tiller's murder, and not terribly patient. I would probably end up TSed if I said what I really thought.

Sometimes it's just better to keep my mouth shut. Plus, they can be great popcorn moments for me, watching you and the others here put these idiots in their rightful place. :evilgrin: You are the masters.

[iverglas]

36. I'm trying to imagine a thread at this site

that started out:

Just wondering. Why are you a racist?

Just wondering. Why are you a bigot?

... and then having people actually answer ...

[uppityperson]

40. hmmm, ideas for tomorrow

[Azalea]

41. A noose.

wow. What are you an honorary KKK member? That would explain a lot.

[iverglas]

42. you know, if you don't have a clue

you could ask to buy one. Otherwise, just being quiet would probably work for you. Unless you want to look like a moron in public. A particularly unpleasant one, at that.

[Azalea]

43. So

You see no problem with posting nooses as opposed to the MANY MANY other things that could be posted to express his sentiment?

Explains it all.

[iverglas]

44. some reading material for you

So, eh?

http://www.scooterbbs.com/archive/anything/5004/0.html

... No -- I am talking here about people who are emotionally abusive, and who have obviously invested effort in learning a whole technology of emotional abuse that they are deploying in a systematic way for (what they regard as) political purposes. I am talking about people who express themselves in snide, sarcastic, scornful tones, who express themselves in innuendoes, who invest incredible effort in provoking an intemperate response so that they can portray themselves as victims, and who engage in complicatedly indirect forms of rhetoric that deniably presuppose things that are false.

Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about. This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting:

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness.

Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

... Notice, too, the rhetorical question ("If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending 'hate mail'?"). This is also common. It's a way of making an obviously false assertion ... without admitting to it. Then the "my god", etc, which assumes an answer to the rhetorical question, as if the rhetorical question's proffered paraphrase were something that I said. Then, of course, the flood of nasty language.

You'll want to read the whole thing. If you enjoy looking in mirrors as much as I suspect you do.

[uppityperson]

45. You are clueless and TS'd. Thanks mods!

[Scout]

46. +1 n/t

[uppityperson]

47. Way

Reading elsewhere,you handled it better than I would have. Hugs to you

[Scout]

49. oh, that's nice of you--thanks!

at least that one is gone ... probably lurking and stewing in her own juices!

:rofl:

[iverglas]

48. did I help out a bit?

:rofl:

Long practice in that other place ...


Oh, and did you enjoy the reading material? The whole thing really is a good read!

[uppityperson]

50. You are wonderful indeed.

Now we have iverglas the pedaphil, Scout whose mother should have aborted her, and me the KKK member. Rock on!

[Scout]

51. we should get together and party!

i'll bring the chips and guacamole, and some strawberry margarita's

[iverglas]

52. damn, that sounds fine

Almost makes me want to stop being a hermit.

Got your passport? I have the spare guesthouse!

[Scout]

54. actually, no i don't have a passport yet ... never needed one to visit our

friendly neighbours to the north! We Michiganders got used to just crossing over and back as we pleased ... all you needed was your driver's license. I am getting ready to apply for my passport though, for future visits north, and i might be going on a cruise to the western caribbean with my sister next spring.

keep that guesthouse open! i'll let you know when the passport comes through :hi:

[uppityperson]

55. Sounds like a fun time. I've a passport, but on w coast

Made a 10 avacado guacamole last weekend, yum

[iverglas]

57. well

You can mail it in. ;)

Now I'm wanting guacamole. Instead, I have to go cook pork tenderloin and squash pancakes. Actually, I have to do about two hours' work ...

I want guacamole and strawberry margheritas!

[iverglas]

53. hm

or is that too obscure? ;)

[uppityperson]

56. Obscure. I need to ponder

[iverglas]

58. it's

the last word in that image.

As in "have for dinner". Or maybe "next course". ;)

Or I could have just said:

[uppityperson]

59. I was thinking along that line.

thanks for the explanation. I forgot musette_sf, am off to invite her to the party also