Well, maybe in your family.jord wrote:
Well there's a surplus population don'tcha know.Jaekus wrote:
Not sure if anyone is actually pro-abortion...

Well, maybe in your family.jord wrote:
Well there's a surplus population don'tcha know.Jaekus wrote:
Not sure if anyone is actually pro-abortion...
7 billion now bro, and it's only rising...AussieReaper wrote:
Well, maybe in your family.jord wrote:
Well there's a surplus population don'tcha know.Jaekus wrote:
Not sure if anyone is actually pro-abortion...
Well, we can always be more creative in our use of the death penalty for mass murderers that actually desire to die. We could've burned him to death.Dilbert_X wrote:
Whenever people use the word 'obvious' it shows they haven't really thought about something.Turquoise wrote:
However, there are a few cases where the crimes committed are so awful and the case is so obvious that the death penalty makes sense.
Tim McVeigh deserved to die. There really was no point to keeping him in prison for the rest of his life.
Death clearly wasn't a deterrent, and it wasn't really a punishment since McVeigh went willingly in an effort to become a martyr.
"I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face."
Not sure how its 'obvious' in that context, or any other context really.
Well, there's a difference between the biological definition of life and the legal definition.HITNRUNXX wrote:
The difference will always be if you believe a fetus is life or not...
I get tired of the arguments against it...
To say it is ok, cause it isn't a real baby until it is x-weeks old is absurd. Amazing how if scientists think they find a bacteria on Mars then everything goes apeshit about alien life discovered... But for the sake of justifying murdering another human being, we will debate between 4 weeks it is fine and 6 weeks it isn't... Whatever.
Happens all the time with other tests required before doing a procedure.Dilbert_X wrote:
Doesn't matter the detail of the procedure, the govt shouldn't be forcing medical procedures on people - thats Stalinist.FEOS wrote:
If people want to get upset about government overreach, that's fine. If people want to get upset about how horrible the actual ultrasound procedure is...well, then they're just talking out their ass.
Read previous posts, Turq. I'm not sure anyone here is "for" this law.Turquoise wrote:
There is a certain irony to how some of the same people in favor of this law are the same ones against socialized medicine for fears of government forcing them to have visits or vaccinations.Dilbert_X wrote:
Doesn't matter the detail of the procedure, the govt shouldn't be forcing medical procedures on people - thats Stalinist.FEOS wrote:
If people want to get upset about government overreach, that's fine. If people want to get upset about how horrible the actual ultrasound procedure is...well, then they're just talking out their ass.
Supporting the government making medications and procedures more affordable is quite different from supporting them forcing you to get probed when it isn't a necessary part of a procedure.FEOS wrote:
Read previous posts, Turq. I'm not sure anyone here is "for" this law.Turquoise wrote:
There is a certain irony to how some of the same people in favor of this law are the same ones against socialized medicine for fears of government forcing them to have visits or vaccinations.Dilbert_X wrote:
Doesn't matter the detail of the procedure, the govt shouldn't be forcing medical procedures on people - thats Stalinist.
I find it even more ironic that those opposed to this are rabidly for a nationalized health system. We should have the government involved in our health care...except when we don't want them involved.
Hypocrisy all around.
Last edited by Turquoise (2012-02-19 09:25:47)
Way to dance. The government in this case (like all others) is in fact driving up the cost by forcing an unnecessary procedure.Turquoise wrote:
Supporting the government making medications and procedures more affordable is quite different from supporting them forcing you to get probed when it isn't a necessary part of a procedure.FEOS wrote:
Read previous posts, Turq. I'm not sure anyone here is "for" this law.Turquoise wrote:
There is a certain irony to how some of the same people in favor of this law are the same ones against socialized medicine for fears of government forcing them to have visits or vaccinations.
I find it even more ironic that those opposed to this are rabidly for a nationalized health system. We should have the government involved in our health care...except when we don't want them involved.
Hypocrisy all around.
Some models of socialized medicine can be pretty authoritarian, but having an NHS doesn't require things like forcing people to have regular visits.
Last edited by Jay (2012-02-19 09:52:45)
I have no idea where the Holocaust enters this discussion, but I guess Godwin's Law is always in effect.Jay wrote:
Way to dance. The government in this case (like all others) is in fact driving up the cost by forcing an unnecessary procedure.
I have enjoyed your fascist diatribes regarding killing people though. Very cute. Are you going to start measuring peoples skulls now to determine their worth? You've basically said that you're cool with the Holocaust on this page. Well done.
Last edited by FEOS (2012-02-21 03:46:29)
Last edited by FEOS (2012-02-21 03:46:01)
Last edited by Shahter (2012-02-19 10:43:22)
War makes sense under certain circumstances. Euthanasia makes sense when there is a legal framework for it -- I figured a libertarian would support giving people the choice of assisted suicide.Jay wrote:
In favor of giving more power to the government. In favor of war, euthenasia, death penalty and abortion. You're taking the misanthropic statist position and making the faulty assumption that you are somehow valuable enough to avoid the scythe. You're a world class moron turq.
It's unnecessary and is not required as part of the medical procedure. I too think it's the wrong thing.Macbeth wrote:
So is making women get tubes stuck up their vaginas in order to hear a fetus heartbeat before they get an abortion the right thing to do or the wrong thing? I think it's the wrong thing.
maybe it is necessary and the doctors just don't know it. who better than a bunch of old white men in the virginia legislature to determine what's medically necessary in the performance of an abortion? really jaekus, you should at least try to approach this from a more rational, open-minded position.Jaekus wrote:
It's unnecessary and is not required as part of the medical procedure. I too think it's the wrong thing.Macbeth wrote:
So is making women get tubes stuck up their vaginas in order to hear a fetus heartbeat before they get an abortion the right thing to do or the wrong thing? I think it's the wrong thing.
Which would achieve little except to give Sh1fty and lowing hard-ons.Turquoise wrote:
Well, we can always be more creative in our use of the death penalty for mass murderers that actually desire to die. We could've burned him to death.
The only issue there is the whole "cruel and unusual punishment" thing. If we modified the cruel part for special cases, then we could truly make an example out of people like McVeigh.
Which doesn't make it right.FEOS wrote:
Happens all the time with other tests required before doing a procedure.
Of course they are 'forcing'.And nobody is forcing anything. The woman chose to have an abortion...that test is part of the procedure in VA now.