Obama Supports Infanticide

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1258662294' post='2005728']
I merely responded to you're statement, that because I'm not a OBGYN, that my statement that under 20 weeks, they can not save a fetus.


I provide the info, and now you say I'm the one dancing around the point? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/upsidedown.gif[/img]



Jim
[/quote]
My point THIS ENTIRE TIME was that technology develops, and as it does so, previously impossible things are no longer so.

It's a really simple, elementary point. I don't see why you continue to ignore it.

[JimR-OCDS]

Winchester


[quote]You're speaking in probabilities. You're saying that simply because someone has never been saved that it [i]will not [/i]happen. [/quote]

I'm taling in actuality. A deformed previable fetus, they will not attempt to save. Oh, the doctor may take a listen for a heartbeat, but even if he found it, he would do nothing, nor could he.
They don't bother trying to save normally formed premature babies born under 20 weeks.

Just a fact, but I know you'll not accept it, so why bother to go further providing more info? It only upsets Nihil Obstat. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]




Jim

[Laudate_Dominum]

Remember that time on DS9 when Keiko O'Brien was going to lose her baby so Kira asked Bashir to transplant the baby into her womb? That was weird having Kira carrying O'Brien's baby. lulz.

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1258662539' post='2005732']
Winchester




I'm taling in actuality. A deformed previable fetus, they will not attempt to save. Oh, the doctor may take a listen for a heartbeat, but even if he found it, he would do nothing, nor could he.
They don't bother trying to save normally formed premature babies born under 20 weeks.

Just a fact, but I know you'll not accept it, so why bother to go further providing more info? It only upsets Nihil Obstat. (edited the smilie, which is what the illiterate use for condescension. At least look up something insulting and steal it.)

Jim
[/quote]I get that it hasn't happened. I understand. But weird things happen and people survive what they are not supposed to survive. What is considered previable has changed over the years.

You are still speaking in probabilities.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Winchester

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1258662539' post='2005732']
Winchester




I'm taling in actuality. A deformed previable fetus, they will not attempt to save. Oh, the doctor may take a listen for a heartbeat, but even if he found it, he would do nothing, nor could he.
They don't bother trying to save normally formed premature babies born under 20 weeks.

Just a fact, but I know you'll not accept it, so why bother to go further providing more info? It only upsets Nihil Obstat. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]




Jim
[/quote]
Classy.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='19 November 2009 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1258662362' post='2005731']
My point THIS ENTIRE TIME was that technology develops, and as it does so, previously impossible things are no longer so.

It's a really simple, elementary point. I don't see why you continue to ignore it.
[/quote]

You're making a hypothesis that is not connected to reality.

They're not going to even try to save babies younger than 20 weeks.

Here's a British report;


[b][size="2"]Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says[/size][/b]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm[/url]


Here in the US, they said the same thing.

Without making the attempt, they will not gain the knowledge on how to go further.


Jim

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1258662905' post='2005738']
You're making a hypothesis that is not connected to reality.

They're not going to even try to save babies younger than 20 weeks.

Here's a British report;


[b][size="2"]Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says[/size][/b]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm[/url]


Here in the US, they said the same thing.

Without making the attempt, they will not gain the knowledge on how to go further.


Jim
[/quote]
So you pretty much stop reading at headlines, I take it.

[Winchester]

1. Google search.
2. Find bold-face type headline that apparently supports your position.
3. Post link.
4. YOU WIN!
5. Smilies optional, but they indicate pwnag3

[Apotheoun]

Vatican Document: [url="http://www.healthpastoral.org/pdffiles/Charter_06_Chapter2.pdf"]The Charter for Health Care Workers[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1258662905' post='2005738']
You're making a hypothesis that is not connected to reality.

They're not going to even try to save babies younger than 20 weeks.

Here's a British report;


[b][size="2"]Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says[/size][/b]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm[/url]


Here in the US, they said the same thing.

Without making the attempt, they will not gain the knowledge on how to go further.


Jim
[/quote]
Ooooohhhhhhhh, NOW I GET IT.


We can save SO MUCH MONI3Z now that there's no reason to look for the cure for cancer. It's never been done, therefore IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN EVER.

We can apply this to pretty much everything! Think of the money that can be saved in those pointless R&D departments. Think of the money that we can redirect towards important things like abortion funding, contraceptive funding, and mandatory sterilizations of undesirables!!

I LOVE WHEN I GET TO MAKE UP MY OWN RULES OF LOGIC!!!



-edit-
I think this is the most maliciously sarcastic post I've ever made. I'm standing by it.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[CatherineM]

My brother John was 24 weeks at delivery. That was also in a time before ultrasounds, 1949. He's not just lucky to be alive, but he is lucky to not be blind. They didn't know how to regulate oxygen good in incubators back then, and some premmies ended up blind from too much.

This is why I don't like leaving these decisions in the hands of humans, be they doctor or bureaucrat. If we allow God to make those decisions from Conception to natural death then we don't have to worry about making a mistake about which child should live or die. I have nothing against doctors, my brother Ray is an internist. He didn't go into OBGYN because he said he didn't like getting woken up at night.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think all the debates about abortion going on here at Phatmass right now demonstrate that the only way Catholics know how to argue is to make inflammatory or overly emotional "arguments" because they have no more way to prove their side than pro-choice people do.

Just saying.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='19 November 2009 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1258667776' post='2005808']
Just saying.
[/quote]


What does 'just saying' even mean?

WHOOOOOOOOOMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LLAP!!!!!!! \\//,

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='19 November 2009 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1258667921' post='2005813']


What does 'just saying' even mean?

WHOOOOOOOOOMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LLAP!!!!!!! \\//,
[/quote]
It means that I give up trying to debate it, I'm just saying it so that everyone can go "omgz abortion is MuRdErrrRR111!!one!" but I don't have to respond to it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='19 November 2009 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1258668591' post='2005821']
It means that I give up trying to debate it, I'm just saying it so that everyone can go "omgz abortion is MuRdErrrRR111!!one!" but I don't have to respond to it.
[/quote]


O<!@ WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am forced to admit that this debate could be more constructive.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='19 November 2009 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1258667776' post='2005808']
I think all the debates about abortion going in here at Phatmass right now demonstrate that the only way Catholics know how to argue is to make inflammatory or overly emotional "arguments" because they have no more way to prove their side than pro-choice people do.

Just saying.
[/quote]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='19 November 2009 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1258668591' post='2005821']
It means that I give up trying to debate it, I'm just saying it so that everyone can go "omgz abortion is MuRdErrrRR111!!one!" but I don't have to respond to it.
[/quote]

Anyone wonder what those comments would have looked like if the internet existed in the 1800's, dealing with the issues of that century? Let's jump in the ol' way back machine and take a look.


[quote name='Some Fellow' date='19 November 1854 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1258667776' post='2005808']
I think all the debates about slavery going in here American right now demonstrate that the only way Abolishionist know how to argue is to make inflammatory or overly emotional "arguments" because they have no more way to prove their side than pro-slavery people do.

Just saying.
[/quote]

[quote name='Some Fellow' date='19 November 1854 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1258668591' post='2005821']
It means that I give up trying to debate it, I'm just saying it so that everyone can go "omgz lynching is MuRdErrrRR111!!one!" but I don't have to respond to it.
[/quote]

It would be quite racist, but that's probably too emotional to point out.

Just saying.

Edited November 19, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='19 November 2009 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1258667776' post='2005808']
I think all the debates about abortion going on here at Phatmass right now demonstrate that the only way Catholics know how to argue is to make inflammatory or overly emotional "arguments" because they have no more way to prove their side than pro-choice people do.

Just saying.
[/quote]
We were debating from a Catholic perspective, meaning that the Catechism is a perfectly valid source of what can be considered fact, since it's already accepted by both sides.
Our position has been very clearly established using these already accepted facts, so I don't see exactly how you can criticize this debate.

If we were debating with an atheist, our proofs would be very different.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='19 November 2009 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1258664107' post='2005754']
Ooooohhhhhhhh, NOW I GET IT.


We can save SO MUCH MONI3Z now that there's no reason to look for the cure for cancer. It's never been done, therefore IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN EVER.

We can apply this to pretty much everything! Think of the money that can be saved in those pointless R&D departments. Think of the money that we can redirect towards important things like abortion funding, contraceptive funding, and mandatory sterilizations of undesirables!!

I LOVE WHEN I GET TO MAKE UP MY OWN RULES OF LOGIC!!!



-edit-
I think this is the most maliciously sarcastic post I've ever made. I'm standing by it.
[/quote]

You make me so proud.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='19 November 2009 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1258669646' post='2005828']
Anyone wonder what those comments would have looked like if the internet existed in the 1800's, dealing with the issues of that century? Let's jump in the ol' way back machine and take a look.






It would be quite racist, but that's probably too emotional to point out.

Just saying.
[/quote]
Not responding.

You are very high on my list of people I refuse to debate anymore. You can't construct an argument to save your life and the arguments you do "construct" are nothing but emotional bullock.

Emotion does not equate with fact. Good luck discovering that.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='19 November 2009 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1258669649' post='2005829']
We were debating from a Catholic perspective, meaning that the Catechism is a perfectly valid source of what can be considered fact, since it's already accepted by both sides.
Our position has been very clearly established using these already accepted facts, so I don't see exactly how you can criticize this debate.

If we were debating with an atheist, our proofs would be very different.
[/quote]
Note, I was talking about "all the debates about abortion going on here at Phatmass right now."