The risks for gay marriage at the Supreme Court

Unbelievable.

Comments like these throw the conservative IQ bell curve off for the rest of us.

Why not just support shipping the gays from around the country to a penned in shanty town area somewhere in the Nevada desert and be done with them.

JetBoy on December 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Unbelievable. JetBoy is here to once again argue dishonestly on this topic. Continuing to ignore the fact that gays are not treated unequally under the law in any state, and to pretend that what is a solid conservative solution to any other issue does not pertain to this issue. People move from one state to another all the time to leave behind undesirable laws, taxes, and regulations.

NotCoach on December 12, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Even if I concede that sexual orientation and race are fundamentally different, the notion that those who are oppressed “should just move” is asinine.

libfreeordie on December 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

You’re right. We need to end all state level taxes to end the oppressive taxation that some states practice.

Now please define oppression. Who is treated unequally under the law in any state in this union.

NotCoach on December 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Um, no you didn’t because you’re delusional. People don’t test now because it could harm the fetus and the insurance companies will pick up the slack for the testing.

ninjapirate on December 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM

No, we did have this argument before. You were fool then, and you’re a fool now.

I’ve been saying for a while that the pro-life movement is doomed. The new safe prenatal genetic testing that is coming out will be the final nail in the coffin.

When the history of the pro-life movement is written, the inflection point should be the South Dakota 2006 abortion referendum. That had a chance to pass but failed because it didn’t include rape and incest exceptions. They alienated too many people with that so that even when they came back 2 years later with the exceptions that it was rejected again.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/South_Dakota_Referred_Law_6,_the_Abortion_Ban_Referendum_(2006)

I’d like to be pro-life and at one time I considered myself that, but pro-life activists are just too stupid. They rather get the most extreme purity tests put on ballot referendums and party platforms rather than getting anything worthwhile done. I’m just nihilist about the whole issue now.

BTW, I wish the Catholic Church understood that the extreme position on abortion is only remotely possible in a racially homogeneous society. Their immigration and abortion policies are at odds.

ninjapirate on August 22, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You should really have a working knowledge of people before commenting. Most who hold a pro-life view won’t take such tests because they are irrelevant to whether or not they will give birth.

NotCoach on August 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The percentage of people who won’t take the tests will be between 10-20% and it will decline overtime. There will be a huge amount of pressure from the insurance companies, test maker companies, and the federal government to take the tests.

There’s a good reason not to take the tests now… the fetus could get hurt. But that won’t be a problem soon.

Face it, we’re entering the era of prenatal eugenics and nothing is going to stop it.

ninjapirate on August 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Again, you really should know what the Fluke you’re talking about.

To explain the patently untrue part: Many women self-select out of a prenatal diagnosis, whether because they would not abort a baby with an identified genetic abnormality, or because their chance (based either upon age or prenatal screening tests) of having a baby with a genetic abnormality is low, or for some other reason. Only 2-3% of all pregnant women choose CVS or amniocentesis, the current definitive tests for chromosomal abnormalities, including Down syndrome. When you plot out the number of women who we would expect (based upon population studies and maternal age) to be having a child with Down syndrome versus the number of babies who are born with Down syndrome every year, we can conclude that 50% of babies conceived with Down syndrome are aborted. Presumably most of those abortions are based upon information gained via prenatal testing. (Prenatal Diagnosis, February, 2011, James Egan, et al.)

Now the above may be influenced by whether or not a doctor is recommending the test based upon certain warning signs, but over half of DS babies are not diagnosed prenatally. A very significant percentage of women choose not to have the tests done because they are having the baby regardless.

NotCoach on August 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM

NotCoach, amniocentesis is potentially dangerous to the fetus… that’s the reason few women go through with it.

I put that number at 10-20%.

ninjapirate on August 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

There is a new noninvasive maternal blood test called MateniT21 that is offered as early as 8-10 weeks that will replace amnio. And patients are reading about it and wanting it now. But at present it’s not offered to everybody, only older women and previous genetic defect patients or abnormal ultrasound. You can Google it.

Marcus on August 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Except that in practice the opposite is true. 90% of babies diagnosed prenatally with DS are aborted. Many women are making a conscious decision to terminate a life based upon the results of these tests. Many other women love their child and respect life, so they forego the tests entirely because they don’t see them as adding any value.

I put that number at 10-20%.

ninjapirate on August 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Using the buttpirate scientific method and data analysis techniques, I put that number at 99,000,000%.

NotCoach on August 22, 2012 at 11:22 AM

NotCoach on December 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM