Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Wanker Says Fetuses Are Wanking

Wanker Says Fetuses Are Wanking

5 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1Wanker Says Fetuses Are Wanking Empty Wanker Says Fetuses Are Wanking 6/18/2013, 5:15 pm

Sal

Sal

Another gem from the anti-science mob ...

As the House of Representatives gears up for Tuesday’s debate on HR 1797, a bill that would outlaw virtually all abortions 20 weeks post fertilization, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) argued in favor of banning abortions even earlier in pregnancy because, he said, male fetuses that age were already, shall we say, spanking the monkey.

“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” said Burgess, a former OB/GYN. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”

I guess in his tiny little lizard brain, females don't masturbate.

Republican men - still unable to acknowledge or even locate the clitoris.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

How in god's name does someone like that actually get elected to Congress.
Yet another sign that national decline is upon us.
I shudder to think what this country will be like in another decade.

Guest


Guest

Twenty weeks is entering the third trimester right? Where exactly do you want a line drawn?

I don't really give a damn... even tho I'm opposed to the idea of abortion as birth control. I just want to hear the rationalization. The reason I don't oppose it staunchly is that it's really none of my business... I guess people have differing ethics and I may not understand them. But cmon... at six months a baby is viable... where is the line?

There are plenty of humans that aren't viable or self-reliant well after eighteen years... Why aren't they cut off? why can't we kill them?

knothead

knothead

why can't we kill them?

******************************************************************

Good question pkr . . . . . I think we just turn them loose in our cities where they are killed with automatic weapons!

Sal

Sal

Can you imagine the orgy going on inside the Octomom?

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Twenty weeks is entering the third trimester right? Where exactly do you want a line drawn?


Jebus, ...

... can't you read?

Obviously, the line should be drawn when the fetus starts pounding his pud.

If your fetus can whack it, you cannot extract it.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

My post was commenting on this creep's idea of a male fetus masturbating in the womb.
That's so insane that it makes me wonder what other goofy ideas he has when considering legislation.  

If we're strictly talking about the issue of when abortion should be legal,  the first 20 weeks sounds like a good compromise to me (with of course making an exception when the mother's health is at issue. Then I say it should be legal period).  

But of course compromise no longer exists.  So I guess we have to choose between the two thresholds of fertilized egg or right before birth.
I'll have to defer to others on that because my mind doesn't work that way.



Last edited by Bob on 6/18/2013, 6:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

I don't have a major problem with the lefties killing babies.  Whatever floats their boat.  I just don't think that I should have to pay for it via my tax dollars.  Make it a cash only business.  Not my cash.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

gulfbeachbandit wrote:I don't have a major problem with the lefties killing babies.  Whatever floats their boat.  I just don't think that I should have to pay for it via my tax dollars.  Make it a cash only business.  Not my cash.

What if it's a poor white teenage girl who is the victim of rape by a black man?
If she doesn't have the funds to pay for the abortion should she be forced to give birth?  And remember,  she'll be giving birth to another half-breed like Hussein COWH.
And since she doesn't have the funds for a hospital birth either,  should she be forced to give birth at home?

Lefty minds wanna know.

Guest


Guest

I'm pretty sure medicaid/obamacare/planned parenthood have that covered.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Bob wrote:
gulfbeachbandit wrote:I don't have a major problem with the lefties killing babies.  Whatever floats their boat.  I just don't think that I should have to pay for it via my tax dollars.  Make it a cash only business.  Not my cash.

What if it's a poor white teenage girl who is the victim of rape by a black man?
If she doesn't have the funds to pay for the abortion should she be forced to give birth?  And remember,  she'll be giving birth to another half-breed like Hussein COWH.
And since she doesn't have the funds for a hospital birth either,  should she be forced to give birth at home?

Lefty minds wanna know.

How did our founding Fathers handle a situation like this when they wrote the constitution?
Not make everyone in the country with a job pitch in for the abortion. Which is what we are doing now.

Sal

Sal

Our founding fathers could never have envisioned masturbating fetuses.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Sal wrote:Our founding fathers could never have envisioned masturbating fetuses.

How about blacks raping poor white girls?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

gulfbeachbandit wrote:

How did our founding Fathers handle a situation like this when they wrote the constitution?
Not make everyone in the country with a job pitch in for the abortion.  Which is what we are doing now.

Since most of the founding fathers were slaveowners,  I don't imagine some of them would even understand blacks having freedom.  So not sure what they would say about this.
I think we're gonna have to figure this one out on our own.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Bob wrote:
gulfbeachbandit wrote:

How did our founding Fathers handle a situation like this when they wrote the constitution?
Not make everyone in the country with a job pitch in for the abortion.  Which is what we are doing now.

Since most of the founding fathers were slaveowners,  I don't imagine some of them would even understand blacks having freedom.  So not sure what they would say about this.
I think we're gonna have to figure this one out on our own.

Meanwhile, I have to pay for everyone's abortions?
I think it would be cheaper just to buy their rubbers for them. Wouldn't it?
Or have them fixed. Like I did to my dog. No more unwanted puppies that I would have had to feed and pay vet bills for. Same difference.
Getting them fixed is something I would pitch in for. Not tax money. A straight contribution. Where can I mail the check to?

Guest


Guest

gulfbeachbandit wrote:
Bob wrote:
gulfbeachbandit wrote:

How did our founding Fathers handle a situation like this when they wrote the constitution?
Not make everyone in the country with a job pitch in for the abortion.  Which is what we are doing now.

Since most of the founding fathers were slaveowners,  I don't imagine some of them would even understand blacks having freedom.  So not sure what they would say about this.
I think we're gonna have to figure this one out on our own.

Meanwhile, I have to pay for everyone's abortions?
I think it would be cheaper just to buy their rubbers for them. Wouldn't it?
Or have them fixed. Like I did to my dog. No more unwanted puppies that I would have had to feed and pay vet bills for. Same difference.
Getting them fixed is something I would pitch in for. Not tax money. A straight contribution. Where can I mail the check to?

The progressives already tried that in the early 1900's... it was called eugenics. Margaret sanger was a supporter and it was reported to be an inspiration to hitler and the nazis with their master race. You won't hear much about that these days however.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

gulfbeachbandit wrote:
Meanwhile, I have to pay for everyone's abortions?
I think it would be cheaper just to buy their rubbers for them.  Wouldn't it?
Or have them fixed.  Like I did to my dog.  No more unwanted puppies that I would have had to feed and pay vet bills for.  Same difference.
Getting them fixed is something I would pitch in for.  Not tax money.  A straight contribution.  Where can I mail the check to?

http://www.care2.com/causes/louisiana-republican-wants-to-sterilize-poor-women-pay.html

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

By the way,  PkrBum, your take on this is enlightening.  It's because I think it's fair to say you have mostly libertarian positions.

This one is fascinating.  Because Libertarianism argues that the INDIVIDUAL should have all the control.
But with this one issue and only this one issue,  it has to be decided which individual has the control.  The out of the woman individual or the still in the womb individual.
So I suppose that means it's not inconsistent to be either pro-choice or pro-life and still remain a libertarian.

Of course the crux of the issue is whether or not the fetus should be considered an "individual" (human being that is).  And if so,  at which point in pregnancy does it become an "individual (if at any point).

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:By the way,  PkrBum, your take on this is enlightening.  It's because I think it's fair to say you have mostly libertarian positions.

This one is fascinating.  Because Libertarianism argues that the INDIVIDUAL should have all the control.
But with this one issue and only this one issue,  it has to be decided which individual has the control.  The out of the woman individual or the still in the womb individual.
So I suppose that means it's not inconsistent to be either pro-choice or pro-life and still remain a libertarian.

Of course the crux of the issue is whether or not the fetus should be considered an "individual" (human being that is).  And if so,  at which point in pregnancy does it become an "individual (if at any point).

The hard part of liberty has always been allowing things that you may disagree with but cause you no personal harm. I assume those that choose to have an abortion merely see it as a medical procedure and don't connect the same morality or ethics that many others would. Like gbb... I don't see any reason why others should pay for or subsidize it.

I simply wouldn't try to or want to control those people... even tho I personally find it distasteful.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PkrBum wrote:

The hard part of liberty has always been allowing things that you may disagree with but cause you no personal harm. I assume those that choose to have an abortion merely see it as a medical procedure and don't connect the same morality or ethics that many others would. Like gbb... I don't see any reason why others should pay for or subsidize it.

I simply wouldn't try to or want to control those people... even tho I personally find it distasteful.

I respect that.

BUT, by taking that position you have absolutely decided that the other individual is not one.
Because something is either a human being or it's not a human being. There aint no partly human being. Well maybe the Borg but that's still only fiction now. lol
And if it IS a human being, then you just took all it's rights away from it. I mean ALL of em. lol

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

The hard part of liberty has always been allowing things that you may disagree with but cause you no personal harm. I assume those that choose to have an abortion merely see it as a medical procedure and don't connect the same morality or ethics that many others would. Like gbb... I don't see any reason why others should pay for or subsidize it.

I simply wouldn't try to or want to control those people... even tho I personally find it distasteful.

I respect that.

BUT, by taking that position you have absolutely decided that the other individual is not one.
Because something is either a human being or it's not a human being. There aint no partly human being. Well maybe the Borg but that's still only fiction now. lol
And if it IS a human being, then you just took all it's rights away from it. I mean ALL of em. lol


Just because you and I see it that way doesn't trump other people that think it's just a medical procedure.

Which it is.

Guest


Guest

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

"A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit -- in other words social failures -- would allow solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types."

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

[quote="PkrBum"]


Just because you and I see it that way doesn't trump other people that think it's just a medical procedure.

Which it is.

whoa. I don't see it that way. And I don't see it the other way either.
That's why I think this can ONLY be resolved in a compromise. Because I think either side can be considered what is right in this. And boy that's hard for most people to swallow.
That there can actually be opposite positions on something and they actually both be right.

Guest


Guest

http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/

PROGRESSIVE GENOCIDE

Among the many concerns that captivated the American educated class early in the last century,few were thought to be as urgent as the threat posed to the nation by sexually insatiable female morons. This may sound silly; today,our fear of morons is rather abstract,and on a national scale confined mostly to whomever is the current resident of the White House. But a hundred years ago,morons were public enemy No. 1,seen as a drain on the nation’s resources and a grave danger to its stability. The situation was most keenly appreciated by progressives —scientists, businessmen,feminists and liberal politicians.

Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor,such as charity. Sterilization was “scientific” —its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton,the father of eugenics,who mused that superior people,like superior crops and farm animals,were the product of good breeding. The term “gene” had not yet been coined —among the surprises in Bruinius’ book is that the science and the word “genetics” were born of the pseudoscience eugenics,and not vice versa —but any well-read person could understand that if you wanted to rid the world of inferior people,you ought to stop them from passing on their characteristics to future generations. Whereas charity only prolonged and deepened the problem of poverty by allowing the “unfit” among us to survive and procreate, sterilization presented what you might call a permanent,final solution.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PkrBum wrote:http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/

Among the many concerns that captivated the American educated class early in the last century,few were thought to be as urgent as the threat posed to the nation by sexually insatiable female morons. This may sound silly; today,our fear of morons is rather abstract,and on a national scale confined mostly to whomever is the current resident of the White House. But a hundred years ago,morons were public enemy No. 1,seen as a drain on the nation’s resources and a grave danger to its stability. The situation was most keenly appreciated by progressives —scientists, businessmen,feminists and liberal politicians.

Well my first reaction is this.  Remember that's what human beings were thinking only a measly hundred years in the past.  So please nobody try to tell me I should take seriously what they were saying TWO THOUSAND years ago.  And especially since that has now been translated by a queer king of england.  After being translated and re-translated so many times before that
At least the "abort female morons theory" was wrote in English and didn't require no translatin.

But that is some incredible stuff I never knew a thing about and so well written about in that piece that it blows me away.  Thanks for sharing it.

HOWEVER, don't overlook one thing.  The "female" aspect to that.  Mostly females were considered the morons because at that time females were second class citizens in every way.  
Maybe the righteous thing about the "pro-choice" position is that it helps to make females be human beings with rights too.   Females,  you know like the only ones who have the thing INSIDE them.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Wanker Says Fetuses Are Wanking

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum