mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

Fully agree pro-lifers use bad science all the time, and no I do not assume science is always on my side .. hence why the comment used is "Experts disagree", please find a law based on experts disagree?

If as you assert you have reliable, peer reviewed scientific research to support you position, why don't you use it?

Apart from being a personal opinion posted on another forum, how does that video dispute the science .. details, Anders, its all in the details

Exactly what "science" does that video show, that a fertilized ovum develops into a fetus .. whoopy doo, I never knew that

 

LOL! Yup, to cavemen using science is "hiding behind it".....

"Progressives have monopolized science"""..... could be!

They ARE so much smarter than regressive Anti-Choicers who base their opinions on feeeeeeeelings and things as ephemeral as "morals"....

 

Tell you what Anders, you are so sure that you are right. I challenge you to a one on one debate on any aspect of abortion you choose.

Start the topic here - http://www.politicalforum.com/debates-contests/ - put out a call for any of the MOD's etc to judge the debate, and the rules involved with the debate .. in other words put your money where you mouth is.

I wait for your response.

 

If you would have followed the series of links, it would have eventually taken you to this document:
http://reproductiverights.org/sites...ts/crr_ACOG_Amicus_Brief_Isaacson_v_Horne.pdf

Because you are probably too lazy to go find it, I have included the text here, for your convenience (I know how important convenience is to you, and other choicers)

NOT ALL FETAL ANOMALIES CAN BE DIAGNOSED BEFORE 20 WEEKS

Contrary to the district court’’s finding ““that it would be extremely rare to
find a condition that could be diagnosed after 20 weeks that could not have been
diagnosed earlier,”” there are numerous fetal anomalies that are regularly only
detected after 20 weeks.4 Isaacson v. Horne, No. CV-12-01501, 2012 WL
3090247, at *7 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2012). While chromosomal anomalies can
generally be diagnosed by 20 weeks, some low-risk couples do not elect to have
testing and instead learn that their fetus has a chromosomal anomaly during a
routine ultrasound later in pregnancy. Moreover, many lethal or serious fetal
4 HB 2036 defines ““gestational age”” as ““the age of the unborn child as
calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.””
A.R.S. § 36-2151(4). Because the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman
generally predates fertilization by an average of two weeks, the prohibition applies
beginning at what is essentially 18 weeks’’ gestation.

- 5 -
conditions are structural (not chromosomal) and are not susceptible to testing by
amniocentesis, and thus can only be diagnosed by detailed ultrasound examination.
In non-obese patients, this cannot happen until 18 weeks of pregnancy at the
earliest, and in practice such tests typically take place between 18 and 20 weeks.
By the time a diagnosis is confirmed by a specialist capable of diagnosing these
anomalies, the pregnancy has often progressed beyond 20 weeks. Perhaps most
importantly, however, given that almost 60% of Arizona women are obese,5 there
are many patients in whom a detailed ultrasound examination will not reveal
structural anomalies in the fetus until those anomalies become more pronounced,
and thus visible, later in the pregnancy——often after 20 weeks.
Many tests cannot definitively diagnose grave conditions affecting a
pregnancy prior to twenty weeks because the fetus is not sufficiently developed for
those conditions to be detected. Even in cases where an ultrasound detects
indications of a structural anomaly prior to 20 weeks, additional tests (such as
amniocentesis or echocardiogram) are often necessary to confirm the diagnosis.
Scheduling those additional tests and obtaining the results will take additional
time, often up to two weeks. As a result, a woman whose fetus is critically
impaired often will not learn that fact until well into the second trimester. Once
5 The obesity rate among women in Arizona is 57.1%. See Kaiser
Permanente, Arizona: Overweight and Obesity Rates for Adults by Gender, 2010,
available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=4&ind=90 (last
visited Sept. 11, 2012).

- 6 -
the diagnosis is confirmed, many couples need additional time to make a wellinformed
and careful decision about whether to terminate the pregnancy.
Before the district court, Plaintiffs marshaled evidence that their own
patients were diagnosed, near or after 20 weeks, with anencephaly, a ““lethal defect
characterized by absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull and
orbits,”” which results in death before or soon after birth, Williams Obstetrics 394
(Cunningham et al. eds., 22d ed. 2005); renal agenesis, the failure of kidneys to
materialize, leading to death before or shortly after birth; limb-body wall complex,
in which the organs are often outside the body cavity; severe heart defects; and
neural tube defects such as encephalocele (the protrusion of brain tissue through an
opening in the skull), and severe hydrocephaly (severe accumulation of excessive
fluid within the brain). See, e.g., Declaration of William H. Clewell (““Clewell
Decl.””) [D. Ct. Dkt. #2] ¶¶ 14-15; see also, e.g., Williams Obstetrics 394
(anencephaly can be diagnosed ““f visualization is adequate””); id. (cephalocele
““may be difficult to image””); id. at 399 (renal agenesis may not be detectable
ultrasonographically because kidneys may appear after 18 weeks). Dr. Clewell’’s
testimony comports with the experiences of ACOG’’s members, who regularly treat
patients in whom serious and often lethal fetal anomalies are not diagnosed until
after 20 weeks’’ gestation. Indeed, in addition to the structural defects Dr. Clewell
identified, ACOG’’s members have treated patients in whom other anomalies,

- 7 -
including meningomyelocele (an opening in the vertebrae through which the
meningeal sac may protrude) and caudal regression syndrome (a structural defect
of the lower spine leading to neurological impairment and incontinence), were
diagnosed only near or after 20 weeks of pregnancy. See also Parilla et al.,
Antenatal Detection of Skeletal Dysplasias, 22 J. Ultrasound Med. 255, 256 (2003)
(mean gestational age for ultrasound diagnoses of lethal skeletal dysplasias,
including caudal regression syndrome, was 20.4 weeks; mean gestational age for
all skeletal dysplasias was 22.7 weeks).
The medical difficulty——if not impossibility——of diagnosing many of these
lethal structural defects before 20 weeks is heightened by the fact that additional
tests and doctors’’ appointments are often needed to confirm the anomaly, as
discussed above. General obstetricians who suspect a problem based on an
ultrasound at 18 to 20 weeks often refer their patient to a perinatologist (the
relevant specialist) for confirmatory study and then diagnosis. These confirmatory
tests take additional time——sometimes several weeks——to schedule and obtain
results, particularly for women who live in rural or underserved areas. The final
diagnosis will thus regularly take place near or after 20 weeks. Implementation of
HB 2036 would leave women in Arizona with no ability to consider the possibility
of an abortion after learning that their previable fetus was gravely impaired. Cf.
Grimes, The Continuing Need for Late Abortions, 280 JAMA 747, 749 (199

- 8 -
(““Although techniques such as chorionic villus sampling and early amniocentesis
have allowed earlier diagnosis, by the time results of midtrimester amniocentesis
or ultrasound are available, a woman may be beyond 20 weeks’’ gestation.””).
The district court appears to have acknowledged that in certain
circumstances, ““a diagnosis of fetal anomalies will not occur until after 20 weeks
and thus, a woman’’s decision as to whether to have an abortion will be completely
taken away from her.”” Isaacson v. Horne, 2:12-CV-01501, 2012 WL 3090247, at
*7 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2012). It nonetheless dismissed this possibility as irrelevant
to a ““facial”” challenge to the statute because it concluded——without any medical
basis——that such circumstances were somehow ““unique.”” Id. at *8. As the
evidence above establishes and the experience of amici confirm, there will be
numerous patients each year in Arizona for whom grave fetal abnormalities will
first be diagnosed at or after 20 weeks, and who would be denied the opportunity
to obtain an abortion by HB 2036, even though the fetus has not reached viability.

 

for one the original link you posted does not link to this document, for another the premise is yours not mine onus on you to provide the data to support it - or are you unaware of how a debate works - furthermore even the site the one link of yours does go to does not lead to the above document.

I am still unsure as to what this document shows in support of your argument that They abort 27-week old down syndrome babies all the time, because they don't find out until that late into the pregnancy., that is the data I am waiting for as asked for right at the start of this thread.

Furthermore no where in the item above, or in the full document is DS or any other disability relating to "retarded/feeble" minded even mentioned, so I am still waiting for that as well.

 

Just to inform others Anders has declined my challenge to a one on one debate via a PM along with requesting that I not reply to his comments .. yeah fat chance on that.

 

No surprise there

 

None what so ever, just goes to show that for all of his hot air and bluff he doesn't have much belief in what he posts, if he does why decline to take me on?

 

What is sick and twisted is wanting to force women to gestate and give birth against their will.

A zef is not an 'innocent human'. A little over 50% of women who abort were using contraception, that is hardly irresponsible.

 

One way or the other, that little sucker has to come out.

" zef " appears to be like the new n-word in the pro-life debate

They should have used more contraception. Just taking the pill and having sex is hardly "responsible".

 

Your point....?

?????

Using contraception is very responsible. And what makes you think they were 'just taking the pill and having sex'?

 

Talk about clutching at straws, you have never heard of an acronym it seems

zygote
embryo
fetus

Unlike you we know the correct biological terms

 

Why didn't you accept Fugazi's challenge ??? Why did you disappear ?

 

No, "they're not people".

If pro-choicers don't think regular fetuses have the capabilities of humans, what makes you think severely retarded fetuses are any better?

 

And if pro-lifers did want to ban abortion, even on retarded fetuses, I'm sure choicers would be screaming "How could you force her to keep it?!? It will be born retarded!!! Do we need more retarded children?"

 

I was hoping he would have accepted. I like one on one debates better. Helps the parties get their points acrossed without interference

 

You really have no comprehension of of what choice is do you.

- - - Updated - - -

I knew he wouldn't simply because almost everything he posts has been blown apart, including his preference to posting things that are later found out to be fabricated or misrepresented.

 

Well in the abortion debate one side will generally claim to have blown apart the other sides views, while reality is neither side has blown anything apart, for if they had there would be nothing to debate on the subject.

 

As far as Anders is concerned then yes all of his so called arguments have been blown apart, hence why he starts a topic, replies a few times then either starts a new one or drags up a three year old one.

I stand by my comment, if he is so sure he is right then why will he not debate me one on one?

(I already know the reason)

 

Really Fugazi. You went right to comparing banning abortion to rape. Well let me try explaining this again to you, since you keep going to a woman's right to decide what she can and can't do with her body and how the fetus has no right to live inside the woman if she says it should die.
First lets talk about rape. You say by my logic a rapist has the right to rape. Well that's pretty inaccurate of you and quite disturbing you would even go that route. Rape is illegal. The rapist does not need to rape in order to survive and at no time is any part of the rapist ever inside the victim, until it is forced inside.
Now onto me latching onto you in order to sustain my life, even without your permission. Also illegal and is backed up by SCOTUS. I do not need to use your body in order to survive. I could use any compatible body in order to survive. The hard part is finding a volunteer, but nothing is impossible in this case.
Now onto the unborn. The unborn requires the woman's body and hers alone in order to survive up until viability when the unborn can be removed and survive, granted depending on the stage will still require medical assistance. Now it is not and can not be illegal to terminate a pre viable unborn, however it can and often is illegal to terminate a post viable unborn, with few exceptions. Now going off your one person can not be forced to use their body to sustain the life of another, would that not make any law that bans abortion at anytime illegal? It's not SCOTUS backs late term abortion bans by 7-2 after 28 weeks(roe Vs Wade 1973) and 5-4 after 24 weeks(Planned Parenthood Vs Casey 1992). What this tells me is that McFall Vs Shimp(197 does not apply to pregnancy, but only to born persons. If it applied to pregnancy then any and all restrictions on abortion would be illegal and McFall Vs Shimp would have been cited in a SCOTUS decision supporting the ruling. Even the highly liberal 1973 court did not do this. In fact the 197 court ruled restrictions were elgal after the first trimester and after week 28 a total ban can take place, as long as exceptions to the life of the woman are in place. What this also tells me is that abortion is not a Constitutional right, for if it was it could never be taken away, unless a crime was committed. Since the unborn never commits a crime (name one case where a baby was found to have committed a crime while being developed inside the woman) then the right to abortion is not absolute and is left up to the state on whether the woman should, or should not have the right to terminate her pregnancy as the constitution originally intended.. Also No amendment presented has ever had the intention of taking away the state rights to govern themselves on abortion. Name one amendment that when it passed had the intention of giving a woman the right to abortion. Can't say 14th, because at the time of passing abortion bans, or heavy restrictions were either in place, or quickly coming into place in all 50 states and none of them went away with the passing of the 14th amendment.

 

Ok let me try to explain this better.

Potential to be a viable person makes it a human being. A fetus without limbs is still a human as long as it is still potentially viable. A chimera has one human developing parts of another that may, or may not be developing. These parts will never be a viable person, so therefor is no long a human, but is human. a child born without a brain is not a person, as it is not viable, and has no potential to ever become viable.... a child born without limbs is a person, if it is viable, or has potential to be viable. You lose the status of person once you lose viability, or potential to be viable(brain dead). The unborn is not brain dead, but is in fact developing a brain, something even born humans continue to do well into their 20s.

 

They aren't people but non disabled fetuses are? I'm just trying to figure out your thought process, you don't agree with abortion unless the fetus is disabled? And you are okay with killing disabled neonates. Seems like eugenics to me.....

 

You have completely mis-understood the analogies used. You have focused on the literal acts involved instead of the underlying basis of the comparison .. which is if you give a set of people (fetuses) the right to impose and injury another person without consent then under the equal protection clause you MUST give the same rights to all other people, unless you are now saying that a fetus is not the same as any other person but a "super-person".

Neither Roe or Casey banned abortion at anytime, they both allowed the states to impose restrictions if they so wished, even now ANY of the states could remove any and all restrictions on abortion if they wanted to, in fact the only abortion banning related decision SCOTUS made was concerning the so called "Partial birth abortion", and even that was the banning of a procedure NOT late-term abortions per se.

Roe vs Wade - After viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to be able to survive outside and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest, and the state could choose to "regulate, or even proscribe abortion" as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.

A fetus does not have to be convicted of committing a crime, as you well know as we have been through this before, there is a standard that ALL courts adhere to called mens rea (guilty mind), the court must decide on the level on guilty mind the accused has, if, as in the case of a fetus, the accused is found to be mentally incompetent they cannot be convicted of a crime, that however does not mean they are free to commit any crime they wish, a person still has the right to defend themselves, up to and including deadly force, from injury even if the person causing the injury is legally mentally incompetent.

Whether laws went away or not doesn't change the reality that from the moment the Roe decision was made, those laws became unconstitutional and unenforceable, where I live we still have laws like I can shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow on a Sunday if they try to heard sheep through the town center, does that law still being on the books make it legal for me to do it?

 

That still does not take away the fact that you are making an arbitrary decision based on development, something you say pro-choice people cannot do, oh and BTW a child born without a brain is still deemed a person, look up Anencephaly and specifically the case of baby Theresa - The case of baby Theresa was the beginning of the ethical debate over anencephalic infant organ donation. The story of baby Theresa remains a focus of basic moral philosophy. Baby Theresa was born with anencephaly in 1992. Her parents, knowing that their child was going to die, requested that her organs be given for transplantation. Although her physicians agreed, Florida law prohibited the infant's organs from being removed while she was still alive. By the time she died nine days after birth, her organs had deteriorated past the point of being viable

What you are advocating is not different to the pro-choice position of a fetus being a person upon constant brain wave activity.

Furthermore you are making decisions as to when rights can be given and taken away, if you give rights to a fertilized ovum then by what right do you have to remove those rights simply because they don't develop in the way you think they should.

As to your viability argument, then what standard do you set on what is viable or not, it seems to me that you are basing it on the same argument that some pro-choice people use .. brain development.