I'm the mother of a premature baby- I was one of the lucky ones-my baby was born at 29 weeks, I learned a lot in 9 weeks in the NICU-asking questions and having EVERYTHING explained to me in great detail-I can assure you sandre you are absolutely right!babies born less than 22 weeks have 99.8% chance of dying before reaching term and trust me every second of that is pain. being a prem baby is very painful.the few under 25 weeks who do survive have life long problems-bar a tiny few exceptions.
ok here's what i should have made clear to you, baby dies gets terminated before 28 weeks - does not violate the harm principle, baby is continued to live and endures pain does because of parents thus living beyond the 28 weeks - that will then lead to a violation of the harm principle. As for the rest of your final post, I would agree but that is if it was private and the rest of the public didn't pay for it, and remember we also have the option for private healthcare in the uk.
@rehanabey The harm principle only applies if the crime is victimless. The death of the baby means the baby becomes the victim if the parents will it to live. The harm principle doesn't apply even if there is pain. The right to not be inflicted pain contradicts the right to not be killed. Why can't you understand that? Are you blissfully ignorant or just that stupid?
@rehanabey You've provided no rational justification for your acceptance since the difference between a 22 week fetus and 24 week fetus is superficial. Therefore the law is arbitrary and your acceptance of the law is baseless.
It doesn't matter if it's on youtube, the fact that you resort to saying someone is stupid because you disagree with them just shows how much intelligence you lack, and that you're really just a pseudo-intellectual.
And this would be very superficial thinking as you will be committing to the idea that all that matters is being genetically human. This is terrible idea as you would be saying that someone who is permanently brain dead has more of a right to live than something like an octopus or dolphin( i am not implying the brain dead person should die btw) and for hypothetical sense if we ever come across intelligent aliens that is avery sticky attitude to take.
Hey Lee, in case you were wondering how compassionate the US healthcare system is 18 thousand people that have insurance die each year becuase they cost the company too much money, and they will not pay for there treatment.
No sane person would trade the UKs NHS for the American System.
His argument was right, born at 22 weeks, they will not provide the baby with care for any reason because it will unlikely survive. That decision was ultimately made by a bureaucrat. That kind of decision should be made by the parents of the child.
No it shouldn't. For the first of all, a parent will not always make the most reasonable decisions regarding their children, and for the second, most parents aren't doctors themselves and can't possibly fathom the kind of pain they will cause their child if they decide to put it on life-support.
@TheSandreGuy The parents are stupid therefore a government bureaucrat can make a better decision regarding the life of the child?
It is the responsibility of the docter to inform the parents of the likely consequences and the right of the parent to decide.
And the real reason the children are left to die is not because of the pain, it's because the costs to give it life support outweigh the supposed benefits. It's the same with the old or very sick in socialized healthcare systems.
@TheSandreGuy The parents are stupid therefore a government bureaucrat can make a better decision with regard to the life of hte child?
It's the responsibility of the docter to inform the parents of the likely consequences and the right of the parents to decide
The real reason why the children are left to die isn't because of the pain. It's because the costs to provide the child with care outweigh the suposed benefits. It's the same with the old or very sick in socialized systems
@breakinthebend a child is not the parents' property (however people do seem to think so) nor however do I believe it is the state's or the the state's right to say who can or cannot have kids, but it can't make a decision (especially when it isn't fully developed - yes it isnt even a person yet, unless you believe in a soul) and the only thing you will be doing is allowing parents to grow a human being in enduring pain, with a very small chance of living
@rehanabey ethically your forced in to a dilemma, allow something to endure great pain with a tiny chance of living, or chose what the parents feel is right for the child despite how terribly wrong they may be (and remember I have established that a child is not merely property of the parent). But yes you are right on one thing, there is the saving up money motive behind this (perhaps the stronger motive) but we have private healthcare alongside the NHS so.....
@rehanabey The parents are forced into an ethical dilemma of whether the child should live or die, not we who argue against the government's interference.
(and remember a child is a subject of the parents, not property)
@breakinthebend NO, its is not "completely (please remember I said completely before you go on a rant) the right of the parents to decide what is right for the child, especially if it involves dealing great pain to them, if we were to take the harm principle ( a truly liberal idea, and I know for some reason american conservatives see themselves as the true liberals)the state has more of an obligation to stop that rather than allow the parents right to inflict pain on the child
@rehanabey It's the right of the parent to decide whether it's in the best interest of the child to live or die. You're assuming the parents will make a bad decision by default but the parents probably even more capable of making a rational decision about their child than a bureaucrat is.
Ultimately, it's the right of the parent to decide.
And if a baby is born and living on it's own isn't considered human because it's born days before a deadline then you don't have a reasonable definition.
@breakinthebend "but the parents probably even more capable of making a rational decision about their child than a bureaucrat is." - No you are wrong, we have already established this.
The harm principle does work in my favor here, as the hospital has more of a right to terminate the baby's life as it isn't a person yet, but if if the parent's do let it grow it will gain personhood and then will endure pain (btw it is considered sufficiently developed at 28 weeks and the abortion limit is 24)
@rehanabey The abortion limit is arbitrary. By your definition, whatever the government decides the abortion limit is, that's when a baby becomes a person. That's not a principled argument. If the government outlaws abortion from conception, then you have no argument.
But you should be arguing that a braindead person should be killed. It makes no sense to say a braindead person has no rights but they shouldn't be killed.
@breakinthebend "The abortion limit is arbitrary. By your definition, whatever the government decides the abortion limit is, that's when a baby becomes a person. That's not a principled argument." - no i am not saying that , hence why I can be against abortion outlawed and prefer other abortion laws to others, me agreeing with a law isn't the same as me thinking the law is absolute because it is law, i don't understand how you thought that was my definition. - you are wrong, wrong and dumb
@breakinthebend "But you should be arguing that a braindead person should be killed" - believing that some one has the right to terminate a "Permanent" coma patient and a foetus is not the same as saying they should be killed, so what I said does make sense, I already debunked what you said about potentiality. "So an unattached person can make better decisions for the care of others than that person's family?"- yes when the consequences lead to severe pain so they can fulfil their emotions.
@breakinthebend I say this because I do not believe the child is completely subject to the parents, while if you believe that the parents have a right to inflict great deals of pain on the tiny chance it will live(and it can hardly be considered a person at the point this decision is decided, but will when it endures pain) then you clearly do, and that is no different from seeing them as divine property(by property if you inferred it as an idea of a permanent state I apologies, -adulthood)
@rehanabey And the harm principle doesn't apply to this. You're assuming the baby wills to die or live. But the baby can't make that decision, therefore it's the right of the parents to decide for the baby, not a bureaucrat.
The parent's don't have a right to violate the child's live, liberty, or health. You can't argue that allowing the baby to live violates it's health because of pain because by allowing it to die you're violating it's life.
@breakinthebend And yeah you can be against abortion without believing in a soul but you will have a fairly weak argument, it's a weak argument even you do believe in a soul as then it will be religious dogma, the pro-life movement try to cover the religious motives but it is fairly obvious, there are people who are against abortion without a religious motive but they haven't really thought it through, we do have a limit btw ;)
The argument against abortion isn't weak at all. If all human beings have a right to their life, liberty, health and property, then the only issue is what is defined as a human being. The most simplistic answer is that a human being receives its rights when it is conceived. Not by some arbitrary government decree that when the embryological cord is severed or reaches a certain day of development, it all of a sudden gains it's unalienable rights.
@breakinthebend Your intuition that personhood begins at conception is more arbitrary than what the scientist say about embryonic development. (which the uk law is based on), how can it begin at conception, it is noting more than a bunch of cells at the point. Unless what you're trying to say personhood(being sort of sentient) doesn't matter and what matter is you are genetically human, although it's hardly recognizable as one.
A fetus is pretty much the same as being brain dead but with the potentiality of becoming more, but that doesn't matter. A prince has the potentiality to become king but that doesn't mean he has the rights of a king.
@rehanabey A person in a coma is essentially brain dead, incapable of surviving on their own without being provided care by doctors. Should they be killed? The only reason why they continue to live is the fact that they have the potential of becoming aware again. A baby is more like a person in a coma in that they have potential.
So an unattached person can make better decisions for the care of others than that person's family? Absolutely idiotic.
@rehanabey And again, you need to look up the harm principle because it doesn't apply because the crime isn't victimless. The baby is being killed which violates his/her right to live. Now, simply not providing care would justified philosophically, and in my opinion this wouldn't be a problem, but the doctors already have a contract to provide medical care for the child since the parents have already paid for it. And a contract that violates a person's rights is void. Whether by gov or people.
@breakinthebend you might not reply but you might read this so.....
ok concerning abortion, a baby can be killed as I have argued that it can not be considered a person, and im going to use ayn rand here as you seem to like her, "A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. "
@breakinthebend with this issue, i am arguing there's a difference between a 28 week foetus and a 22 week foetus, I only believe in 24 weeks just to be cautionary, and while you may see this as an evil that displays federal government, the problem is that they have to stick to the guidelines due to the limited money as it is the nation health care, so they cant waste it on something that isn't considered a person (i think your idol just provided an explanation) and we have BUPA (private)
@breakinthebend and the harm principle applies only to things that can be considered people and you're still using "ad hominem" wrong, I'm just pointing out its on youtube(calling you wrong and dumb isn't an ad hominem)
And wow you really are a cliche
quoting ayn rand (despite her hate of conservatives and pro-life), using the term "pseudo-intellectual"(it's a valid term,but combined with all the other factors and what you say), using terms that display logical fallacies in debating wrongly...
@breakinthebend ..... dude seriously, how can you even live with yourself, cut your wrists now! I mean now! Your nature is probably to focus on this post and other insults rather than the actual arguments I have made then say its ad hominem, but hey whatever turn you on.
HA ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
you're a good person
HA HA HA HA HAHha hahahaha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha aha hah hahahahaha haa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha ha PFFT hah ahahahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa
@rehanabey Children aren't property of parents, they're the subjects of the parents until they reach adulthood. That's not the same thing.
It's is the right of the parents to decide what is best for the child as they see fit until the child can determine what is best for itself. It is not the right of a government bureaucrat to force them to kill their child (and it is their child if they deem it so even if it isn't born yet).
And you don't have to believe in a soul to be against abortion.
Statistics from the Urban Institute and the Institute of Medicine indicate that 60 Americans every day (22,000/year) die because of US health insurance system.
Can any nation afford to throw away that many people and destroy that many families day in and day out year after year?
Yeah. I cannot for the fucken' life of me understand how someone could make a misleading statement like that with out checking it out or giving a reference. * shakes head*
I suspect Htww, sees something and then .... I don't know what goes through his head.
22 weeks is only halfway to term (slightly more than half) and they are tiny, underdeveloped and even if brought to term and made to survive they wouldn't last long due to complications and severe developmental issues. HTWW is an ass, and that was well established before this video.
Due to the american health system he was not put in an incubator when he was born prematurely because the insurance company decided his premature birth was a pre-existing condition.
Therefore his brain suffered brain damage from oxygen depravation.
I'm the mother of a premature baby- I was one of the lucky ones-my baby was born at 29 weeks, I learned a lot in 9 weeks in the NICU-asking questions and having EVERYTHING explained to me in great detail-I can assure you sandre you are absolutely right!babies born less than 22 weeks have 99.8% chance of dying before reaching term and trust me every second of that is pain. being a prem baby is very painful.the few under 25 weeks who do survive have life long problems-bar a tiny few exceptions.
dancingnancy09 2 months ago
So... 80000 babies born in britian, half of them ARE treated in intensive carre
And Britain spends 1 billion pounds a year treating preborn babies.
Howtheworldworks? Hmm... He'd probably just ban your video if he hasn't already.
turnofffox 9 months ago
@turnofffox
It's already been banned.
TheSandreGuy 9 months ago
@TheSandreGuy Not surprised. I got banned yesterday. That twat.
turnofffox 9 months ago
Comment removed
rehanabey 1 year ago
ok here's what i should have made clear to you, baby dies gets terminated before 28 weeks - does not violate the harm principle, baby is continued to live and endures pain does because of parents thus living beyond the 28 weeks - that will then lead to a violation of the harm principle. As for the rest of your final post, I would agree but that is if it was private and the rest of the public didn't pay for it, and remember we also have the option for private healthcare in the uk.
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey The harm principle only applies if the crime is victimless. The death of the baby means the baby becomes the victim if the parents will it to live. The harm principle doesn't apply even if there is pain. The right to not be inflicted pain contradicts the right to not be killed. Why can't you understand that? Are you blissfully ignorant or just that stupid?
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@rehanabey You've provided no rational justification for your acceptance since the difference between a 22 week fetus and 24 week fetus is superficial. Therefore the law is arbitrary and your acceptance of the law is baseless.
It doesn't matter if it's on youtube, the fact that you resort to saying someone is stupid because you disagree with them just shows how much intelligence you lack, and that you're really just a pseudo-intellectual.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
"Nice ad hominem btw," ok......
1. (this links to the other 2) don't be such a cliché
2. This a youtube argument
3. Know how to use the term, and what it means
ie. You are wrong, wrong and dumb
rehanabey 1 year ago
And this would be very superficial thinking as you will be committing to the idea that all that matters is being genetically human. This is terrible idea as you would be saying that someone who is permanently brain dead has more of a right to live than something like an octopus or dolphin( i am not implying the brain dead person should die btw) and for hypothetical sense if we ever come across intelligent aliens that is avery sticky attitude to take.
rehanabey 1 year ago
Hey Lee, in case you were wondering how compassionate the US healthcare system is 18 thousand people that have insurance die each year becuase they cost the company too much money, and they will not pay for there treatment.
No sane person would trade the UKs NHS for the American System.
genYprogressive 1 year ago
His argument was right, born at 22 weeks, they will not provide the baby with care for any reason because it will unlikely survive. That decision was ultimately made by a bureaucrat. That kind of decision should be made by the parents of the child.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend
No it shouldn't. For the first of all, a parent will not always make the most reasonable decisions regarding their children, and for the second, most parents aren't doctors themselves and can't possibly fathom the kind of pain they will cause their child if they decide to put it on life-support.
TheSandreGuy 1 year ago
@TheSandreGuy The parents are stupid therefore a government bureaucrat can make a better decision regarding the life of the child?
It is the responsibility of the docter to inform the parents of the likely consequences and the right of the parent to decide.
And the real reason the children are left to die is not because of the pain, it's because the costs to give it life support outweigh the supposed benefits. It's the same with the old or very sick in socialized healthcare systems.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@TheSandreGuy The parents are stupid therefore a government bureaucrat can make a better decision with regard to the life of hte child?
It's the responsibility of the docter to inform the parents of the likely consequences and the right of the parents to decide
The real reason why the children are left to die isn't because of the pain. It's because the costs to provide the child with care outweigh the suposed benefits. It's the same with the old or very sick in socialized systems
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend a child is not the parents' property (however people do seem to think so) nor however do I believe it is the state's or the the state's right to say who can or cannot have kids, but it can't make a decision (especially when it isn't fully developed - yes it isnt even a person yet, unless you believe in a soul) and the only thing you will be doing is allowing parents to grow a human being in enduring pain, with a very small chance of living
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey ethically your forced in to a dilemma, allow something to endure great pain with a tiny chance of living, or chose what the parents feel is right for the child despite how terribly wrong they may be (and remember I have established that a child is not merely property of the parent). But yes you are right on one thing, there is the saving up money motive behind this (perhaps the stronger motive) but we have private healthcare alongside the NHS so.....
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey The parents are forced into an ethical dilemma of whether the child should live or die, not we who argue against the government's interference.
(and remember a child is a subject of the parents, not property)
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend NO, its is not "completely (please remember I said completely before you go on a rant) the right of the parents to decide what is right for the child, especially if it involves dealing great pain to them, if we were to take the harm principle ( a truly liberal idea, and I know for some reason american conservatives see themselves as the true liberals)the state has more of an obligation to stop that rather than allow the parents right to inflict pain on the child
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey It's the right of the parent to decide whether it's in the best interest of the child to live or die. You're assuming the parents will make a bad decision by default but the parents probably even more capable of making a rational decision about their child than a bureaucrat is.
Ultimately, it's the right of the parent to decide.
And if a baby is born and living on it's own isn't considered human because it's born days before a deadline then you don't have a reasonable definition.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend "but the parents probably even more capable of making a rational decision about their child than a bureaucrat is." - No you are wrong, we have already established this.
The harm principle does work in my favor here, as the hospital has more of a right to terminate the baby's life as it isn't a person yet, but if if the parent's do let it grow it will gain personhood and then will endure pain (btw it is considered sufficiently developed at 28 weeks and the abortion limit is 24)
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey The abortion limit is arbitrary. By your definition, whatever the government decides the abortion limit is, that's when a baby becomes a person. That's not a principled argument. If the government outlaws abortion from conception, then you have no argument.
But you should be arguing that a braindead person should be killed. It makes no sense to say a braindead person has no rights but they shouldn't be killed.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend "The abortion limit is arbitrary. By your definition, whatever the government decides the abortion limit is, that's when a baby becomes a person. That's not a principled argument." - no i am not saying that , hence why I can be against abortion outlawed and prefer other abortion laws to others, me agreeing with a law isn't the same as me thinking the law is absolute because it is law, i don't understand how you thought that was my definition. - you are wrong, wrong and dumb
rehanabey 1 year ago
@breakinthebend "But you should be arguing that a braindead person should be killed" - believing that some one has the right to terminate a "Permanent" coma patient and a foetus is not the same as saying they should be killed, so what I said does make sense, I already debunked what you said about potentiality. "So an unattached person can make better decisions for the care of others than that person's family?"- yes when the consequences lead to severe pain so they can fulfil their emotions.
rehanabey 1 year ago
@breakinthebend I say this because I do not believe the child is completely subject to the parents, while if you believe that the parents have a right to inflict great deals of pain on the tiny chance it will live(and it can hardly be considered a person at the point this decision is decided, but will when it endures pain) then you clearly do, and that is no different from seeing them as divine property(by property if you inferred it as an idea of a permanent state I apologies, -adulthood)
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey And the harm principle doesn't apply to this. You're assuming the baby wills to die or live. But the baby can't make that decision, therefore it's the right of the parents to decide for the baby, not a bureaucrat.
The parent's don't have a right to violate the child's live, liberty, or health. You can't argue that allowing the baby to live violates it's health because of pain because by allowing it to die you're violating it's life.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend And yeah you can be against abortion without believing in a soul but you will have a fairly weak argument, it's a weak argument even you do believe in a soul as then it will be religious dogma, the pro-life movement try to cover the religious motives but it is fairly obvious, there are people who are against abortion without a religious motive but they haven't really thought it through, we do have a limit btw ;)
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey child's life*, liberty, and health.
The argument against abortion isn't weak at all. If all human beings have a right to their life, liberty, health and property, then the only issue is what is defined as a human being. The most simplistic answer is that a human being receives its rights when it is conceived. Not by some arbitrary government decree that when the embryological cord is severed or reaches a certain day of development, it all of a sudden gains it's unalienable rights.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend Your intuition that personhood begins at conception is more arbitrary than what the scientist say about embryonic development. (which the uk law is based on), how can it begin at conception, it is noting more than a bunch of cells at the point. Unless what you're trying to say personhood(being sort of sentient) doesn't matter and what matter is you are genetically human, although it's hardly recognizable as one.
rehanabey 1 year ago
@breakinthebend
A fetus is pretty much the same as being brain dead but with the potentiality of becoming more, but that doesn't matter. A prince has the potentiality to become king but that doesn't mean he has the rights of a king.
ie. You are wrong, wrong and dumb
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey A person in a coma is essentially brain dead, incapable of surviving on their own without being provided care by doctors. Should they be killed? The only reason why they continue to live is the fact that they have the potential of becoming aware again. A baby is more like a person in a coma in that they have potential.
So an unattached person can make better decisions for the care of others than that person's family? Absolutely idiotic.
Nice ad hominem btw, I didn't know you were 5.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@rehanabey And again, you need to look up the harm principle because it doesn't apply because the crime isn't victimless. The baby is being killed which violates his/her right to live. Now, simply not providing care would justified philosophically, and in my opinion this wouldn't be a problem, but the doctors already have a contract to provide medical care for the child since the parents have already paid for it. And a contract that violates a person's rights is void. Whether by gov or people.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend
ie. You are wrong, wrong and dumb
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey BTW I ask if you're stupid because you can't understand why the harm principle doesn't apply, not because you disagree with me.
But I digress, I won't bother replying again, I've already wasted too much time trying to reason with an imbecile.
Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend you might not reply but you might read this so.....
ok concerning abortion, a baby can be killed as I have argued that it can not be considered a person, and im going to use ayn rand here as you seem to like her, "A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. "
rehanabey 1 year ago
@breakinthebend with this issue, i am arguing there's a difference between a 28 week foetus and a 22 week foetus, I only believe in 24 weeks just to be cautionary, and while you may see this as an evil that displays federal government, the problem is that they have to stick to the guidelines due to the limited money as it is the nation health care, so they cant waste it on something that isn't considered a person (i think your idol just provided an explanation) and we have BUPA (private)
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey so we do have a choice of these matters actually, if you choose to go private
rehanabey 1 year ago
@breakinthebend and the harm principle applies only to things that can be considered people and you're still using "ad hominem" wrong, I'm just pointing out its on youtube(calling you wrong and dumb isn't an ad hominem)
And wow you really are a cliche
quoting ayn rand (despite her hate of conservatives and pro-life), using the term "pseudo-intellectual"(it's a valid term,but combined with all the other factors and what you say), using terms that display logical fallacies in debating wrongly...
rehanabey 1 year ago
@breakinthebend ..... dude seriously, how can you even live with yourself, cut your wrists now! I mean now! Your nature is probably to focus on this post and other insults rather than the actual arguments I have made then say its ad hominem, but hey whatever turn you on.
HA ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
you're a good person
HA HA HA HA HAHha hahahaha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha aha hah hahahahaha haa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha ha PFFT hah ahahahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa
rehanabey 1 year ago
@rehanabey Children aren't property of parents, they're the subjects of the parents until they reach adulthood. That's not the same thing.
It's is the right of the parents to decide what is best for the child as they see fit until the child can determine what is best for itself. It is not the right of a government bureaucrat to force them to kill their child (and it is their child if they deem it so even if it isn't born yet).
And you don't have to believe in a soul to be against abortion.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
what are your thoughts on population reduction in reference to people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner?
Umips54 1 year ago
Just found your channel. I immeidiately subbed. Great work, keep it up!
igichan 2 years ago
Statistics from the Urban Institute and the Institute of Medicine indicate that 60 Americans every day (22,000/year) die because of US health insurance system.
Can any nation afford to throw away that many people and destroy that many families day in and day out year after year?
proudfootz 2 years ago
Unfortunatley american right-wing politicians think so :/
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Yeah. I cannot for the fucken' life of me understand how someone could make a misleading statement like that with out checking it out or giving a reference. * shakes head*
I suspect Htww, sees something and then .... I don't know what goes through his head.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Yea, I trust you for my information.
fupackers 2 years ago
You should. Because I actually cite the source, unlike HTWW.
Go right ahead to view the link, and you´ll see for yourself.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
@TheSandreGuy He sites sources in his box *cough* >.>
monkeywolf 1 year ago
Great video!
Keep up the god, I mean good work.
MoveOrder 2 years ago
Thank you :)
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Well done.
zarkoff45 2 years ago
Thanks! :)
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
22 weeks is only halfway to term (slightly more than half) and they are tiny, underdeveloped and even if brought to term and made to survive they wouldn't last long due to complications and severe developmental issues. HTWW is an ass, and that was well established before this video.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
Although this one story is heartbreaking, just imagine how many prematurely born children dies in the USA due to your lack of quality healthcare?
HTWW is an ass, but also a coward to use emotion rather than truth to try and convince those who are gullible.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Don't you worry, TSG i'm workin' on my own HTWW vid as we speak.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
That´s good. We need as many people as possible to bring down this bafoon.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
wtf??? All babies born here, prematurely in particular are put in incubators, whats wrong with this htww guy???
TurboDally 2 years ago
Due to the american health system he was not put in an incubator when he was born prematurely because the insurance company decided his premature birth was a pre-existing condition.
Therefore his brain suffered brain damage from oxygen depravation.
DrSim0nSayz 2 years ago
Props for having the stamina to actually refute this dingbat. I'm so sick and fucking tired of his slimey-ass attitude.
TheAtheistSwede 2 years ago
Tack :) Jag ska börja göra massor av videor om honom inom den närmsta tiden. Han är ju så full av skitsnack att han är ett långtidsprojekt.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Han är ju det hehe. Jag fattar inte hur folk kan lita på honom - hela han skriker ju av svek och en dolk i ryggen så fort han får chansen.
Urk... jag är inte en våldsam människa men jag vetefan om jag inte skulle ge honom en höger om jag sprang på honom på stan hehe.
TheAtheistSwede 2 years ago
He is just as fair and balanced as Fox News when it comes to reporting "the news and facts" of the world.
DrSim0nSayz 2 years ago
Jag slår vad om att hans våta dröm är att bli nyhetsankare där xD
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Det är ett säkert vad. Jag ger dig bara 1:1 i odds på det vadslaget.
DrSim0nSayz 2 years ago