If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that while she supports Roe vs. Wade, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target   (chron.com) divider line 219
    More: Interesting, Ginsberg, University of Chicago Law School, abortions, judicial restraint, abortion opponents, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

1651 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2013 at 5:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-12 12:46:46 AM  
I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.
 
2013-05-12 12:51:16 AM  
We're all lucky it got the decision it did, when it did.

themindiswatching: I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.


Nah, we'll have transitioned into single-payer by then, as planned.
 
2013-05-12 01:15:42 AM  
She looks tired
 
2013-05-12 02:20:35 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: She looks tired


sorry.  I kept her up late last night.
 
2013-05-12 02:22:35 AM  

Bucky Katt: MaudlinMutantMollusk: She looks tired

sorry.  I kept her up late last night.


All of 6:00 PM, huh?

/damned daylight savings time can spoil an evening
 
2013-05-12 03:09:47 AM  
I had a pregnancy scare once (I'm the guy), and while I'm not a personal fan of the procedure I can't in a million years imagine being the voice in charge of whether you can have it or not. It was a grueling month - she had made it clear that's what would happen and I struggled with having to live with this plus the fact that I couldn't have possibly provided the life I would imagine for a kid at that stage in my life. Ultimately, though, it was her body. I just made a guest appearance one night.

I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand! But no...no one actually digs abortion. It's just the rational thing to do. You're ruining three lives when the child isn't wanted or can't be afforded.

Now at the age of 38 I still have problems dealing with my neurotic, adopted puppy. You want me handling a child? I'm not even sure how to properly hold one, and with some luck will never have to.
 
2013-05-12 03:52:39 AM  
I'm pretty sure abortion opponents wouldn't be happy about it no matter when or how it happened. It's like Obama trying to appease Republicans, it's just pointless.
 
2013-05-12 05:28:17 AM  
Too sweeping?  Seriously?  The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.  With each year, as time goes forward, womens' rights go backwards as the right continues to work to eliminate access to abortion on a state level, all DESPITE Roe v. Wade.

Too sweeping?  Imagine what the situation would be like if Roe v. Wade had been any LESS sweeping.
 
2013-05-12 05:30:47 AM  
Clearly, Republicans should be passing stricter and stricter laws on abortion. She's wavering, fellas! Now's your chance!
 
2013-05-12 05:30:53 AM  
"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students. "... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."

Hmmm, one the one hand RBG's assessment makes sense to me in that Roe v Wade was a sweeping ruling that ran ahead of public opinion at the time which is turn led to the political empowerment of the religious right which is bad.

OTOH, the religious right's relentless campaign against abortion access is unabashedly wrong, immoral, unethical, unrealistic, unenforceable, sexist and will likely never end completely which is worse.

The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women's rights. Rather, the Roe opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and asserted that it extended to a woman's decision on whether to end a pregnancy.

Full agreement here. Citing right to privacy rather than women's rights/autonomy was a bit of a cop out.
 
2013-05-12 05:34:55 AM  
I wonder if she's hinting at a restrained ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, e.g. gay marriage, but only in California.
 
2013-05-12 05:40:58 AM  
Yes....but whoever the defendant was in an abortion case was going to be the "target," Justice Ginsburg, or did that not occur to you when you made the comment? Or was the hope that we'd somehow have "Abortion Providers, Inc. v. Right-Wing Lunatics Corp." as our final decision? While I am not a Supreme Court Justice, nor even a judge, I'm enough of a student of human behavior to know that one ain't gonna happen any time in this century.

Or is it your thought that if only we had ignored it a while longer, it would have "gone away" like the gay marriage thingy? Perhaps....but given the number of totally liberal and 110% pro-civil-rights individuals who nevertheless can argue all day long that abortion is killing babies, I doubt that we'd ever have seen a time when, absent a court ruling, that abortion would have been socially acceptable as gay marriage. Maybe I'm merely 25 years younger than her Honor, and more cynical, but I don't ever see abortion as being anything but viciously divisive.
 
2013-05-12 06:27:56 AM  
www.godlikeproductions.com
 
2013-05-12 06:53:25 AM  
I don't think the people demanding control over women's bodies are going to relent soon.
 
2013-05-12 06:53:36 AM  
One thing remains true: Once born, they simply no longer care about a child.
 
2013-05-12 06:56:36 AM  

Captain Dan: I wonder if she's hinting at a restrained ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, e.g. gay marriage, but only in California.


That was my immediate take. Which sucks.
 
2013-05-12 07:01:58 AM  

Emposter: Too sweeping?  Seriously?  The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.  With each year, as time goes forward, womens' rights go backwards as the right continues to work to eliminate access to abortion on a state level, all DESPITE Roe v. Wade.

Too sweeping?  Imagine what the situation would be like if Roe v. Wade had been any LESS sweeping.


I think you miss her point. By virtue of the decision, the policy debate was largely taken out of the equation. Those favoring choice no longer had to defend choice on the merits, but just had to point to the decision. Ginsburg is saying this throws the democratic process a curveball, a disrupting method to reach a position we would have (hopefully) come to democratically; in effect, conservative intransigence was CREATED by the decision.
 
2013-05-12 07:09:46 AM  
The GOP made it a political issue.   Only the Catholics cared about the issue before Roe v. Wade.   The evangelicals saw a political opportunity and took it.   With that said, they have used it as a way to control women.
 
2013-05-12 07:11:20 AM  
Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.
 
2013-05-12 07:12:10 AM  
The worst part about Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, was that it was decided by nine men, at least one of whom was a notorious womanizer. However, this decision (among other things) did eventually lead to greater acknowledgements of women's rights, and eventually put several women on the Supreme Court, where the decision might be revisited someday, only this time, with the direct input of women justices.

As society as a whole becomes less dogmatic about religious doctrine, any revisitation of this decision will be increasingly likely to be a more solid majority rather than an overturning.
 
2013-05-12 07:13:11 AM  

riverwalk barfly: Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.


Could you expand on this statement a bit? I'm genuinely curious.
 
2013-05-12 07:16:12 AM  

themindiswatching: I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.


It was actually a 7-2 decision. Shows you how far we've come.
 
2013-05-12 07:25:24 AM  

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.

Could you expand on this statement a bit? I'm genuinely curious.


I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm  going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?
 
2013-05-12 07:32:21 AM  
Conservative intransigence was created by LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Amendment, not RvW.

/Hell, it was really created by the Emancipation Proclamation, they just didn't have to actually accept it until LBJ.
 
2013-05-12 07:39:06 AM  

AdrienVeidt: Conservative intransigence was created by LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Amendment, not RvW.

/Hell, it was really created by the Emancipation Proclamation, they just didn't have to actually accept it until LBJ.


Indeed.
 
2013-05-12 07:41:33 AM  

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.

Could you expand on this statement a bit? I'm genuinely curious.


jumping in on this - i could see a point to be made; in that it could sound as if she is inviting a new challenge

Instead, Ginsburg told an audience ...... she feels the ruling.... was too sweeping....
 "... My criticism of Roe......
The ruling  was  centered on the right to privacy


consider the wider audience
 
2013-05-12 07:42:30 AM  
Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?
 
2013-05-12 07:44:11 AM  

themindiswatching: I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.


All NFIB v. Sebelius did was say "the democratic processes have the right to produce this result. The people acting through their elected representatives may do this without offending the Constitution." Roe v. Wade took abortion out of the democratic processes. That's what enraged abortion opponents, and has fueled the anti-choice movement for so long.

It sounds like she's expecting Roe to be overturned in the near future though. A lot of people don't realize Kennedy started out on the Court as anti-choice. He switched later on, but the man is a Roman Catholic. I've always suspected his switch was politically motivated rather than legally so. He wanted to diminish the appearance that the abortion right was threatened in order to keep from energizing abortion-rights supporters. If I'm right, he should switch back about... now.
 
2013-05-12 07:50:13 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?


I don't think people call it out by name much, but there's a concerted effort across many states to restrict voting rights in recent years.
 
2013-05-12 07:51:26 AM  

riverwalk barfly: I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?


This is just me, but I'd rather know everything about the judge who was trying my case before I decide on a strategy. I'm currently in Alabama, where nearly all judges in state courts are elected, so you get to know pretty much what their political philosophy is during the campaign (well, at least as much as any politician). I'm personally not in favor of elected judges, because it opens the door to corruption, but in a red state like Alabama, the judges usually are who they say they are - right-wing and proud of it.

You can get a pretty good idea of any of the SCOTUS justices based on their writings, and even more from the confirmation hearings, especially when the majority party in Congress is not the same as the President's party. SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia), and if you've heard Sandra Day O'Connor's interview with Jon Stewart, she said that this is because they are the only branch of government that is required to explain their entire decision-making process on the record, and to say anything else to the press would either be redundant, or would make it appear as if the official record was incomplete.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to SCOTUS justices having a public life, and even giving more press interviews. Sometimes the rulings are intentionally vague, or worded in a duplicitous manner in order to satisfy two ways of thinking. However, it is simply not likely for the above listed reasons. But it is important to note that they do this by choice, not by any mandate or law.
 
2013-05-12 07:55:39 AM  

ox45tallboy: SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia),


And Scalia is also notorious for expressing his views off the bench. Way more so than Ginsberg.
 
2013-05-12 08:00:23 AM  
So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?
 
2013-05-12 08:15:10 AM  

AdrienVeidt: So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?


No, I'm saying I agree with Ginsburg in that a SCOTUS decision is more galvanizing to the opposition than
legislation passed by democratically elected representatives, and particularly so at the local level.
 
2013-05-12 08:22:00 AM  
Roe v. Wade didn't start start the anti-abortion crusade - desegregation did. And only after Jerry Falwell got pissy that conservative Christian schools would lose tax breaks over their racist policies.
 
2013-05-12 08:23:30 AM  

dickfreckle: I had a pregnancy scare once (I'm the guy), and while I'm not a personal fan of the procedure I can't in a million years imagine being the voice in charge of whether you can have it or not. It was a grueling month - she had made it clear that's what would happen and I struggled with having to live with this plus the fact that I couldn't have possibly provided the life I would imagine for a kid at that stage in my life. Ultimately, though, it was her body. I just made a guest appearance one night.

I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand! But no...no one actually digs abortion. It's just the rational thing to do. You're ruining three lives when the child isn't wanted or can't be afforded.

Now at the age of 38 I still have problems dealing with my neurotic, adopted puppy. You want me handling a child? I'm not even sure how to properly hold one, and with some luck will never have to.


Look there are plenty of men who faced more challenges than a "neurotic dog " and all this pseudo Woody Allen shait life is too tough.

Want to spare two lives ruined from your self confessed fears. Go have a vacastomy .

Oh you may want to see how some 20 year old men are doing in this life.


http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70129360?locale=en-US&mqso=8100023 0& awmatchtype=b&awnetwork=g&awcreative=25639099508&awkeyword=%2Brestrepo %20%2Bmovie&awposition=1t1&awexpid=&awdevice=c&awcampaignid=121071908& gclid=COvqkJrGkLcCFYQ7OgodaFQAkA
 
2013-05-12 08:25:11 AM  

dickfreckle: I had a pregnancy scare once (I'm the guy), and while I'm not a personal fan of the procedure I can't in a million years imagine being the voice in charge of whether you can have it or not. It was a grueling month - she had made it clear that's what would happen and I struggled with having to live with this plus the fact that I couldn't have possibly provided the life I would imagine for a kid at that stage in my life. Ultimately, though, it was her body. I just made a guest appearance one night.

I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand! But no...no one actually digs abortion. It's just the rational thing to do. You're ruining three lives when the child isn't wanted or can't be afforded.

Now at the age of 38 I still have problems dealing with my neurotic, adopted puppy. You want me handling a child? I'm not even sure how to properly hold one, and with some luck will never have to.


Be careful what you wish for.
 
2013-05-12 08:32:58 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: AdrienVeidt: So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?

No, I'm saying I agree with Ginsburg in that a SCOTUS decision is more galvanizing to the opposition than
legislation passed by democratically elected representatives, and particularly so at the local level.


Right on then. But that's not what 'create' means, is all I'm saying. I'm sure we agree conservatives are generally worthless dickheads, so I'll still but you a beer if/when possible, mang.
 
2013-05-12 08:38:32 AM  
More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.
 
2013-05-12 08:40:23 AM  

badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.


Huh?

Various federal and state laws, most notably HIPAA, would argue otherwise - with few legal exceptions. Would you clarify that comment for me?
 
2013-05-12 08:44:42 AM  

m3000: I'm pretty sure abortion opponents wouldn't be happy about it no matter when or how it happened. It's like Obama trying to appease Republicans, it's just pointless.


They could outlaw abortion, and execute any "whore" that looks for one.  They could pass laws allowing them to stone suspected gays, Muslims, and college graduates in the street.  They could pass laws making this country a theocratic, despotic empire in which the word of God was our only Constitution.

And they'd still find someone else to blame, and still be a bunch of ignorant, miserable farks.
 
2013-05-12 08:49:14 AM  
Don't abortions get one closer to Nirvana since they recycle the spirit faster?
 
2013-05-12 08:50:45 AM  

AdrienVeidt: Milo Minderbinder: AdrienVeidt: So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?

No, I'm saying I agree with Ginsburg in that a SCOTUS decision is more galvanizing to the opposition than
legislation passed by democratically elected representatives, and particularly so at the local level.

Right on then. But that's not what 'create' means, is all I'm saying. I'm sure we agree conservatives are generally worthless dickheads, so I'll still but you a beer if/when possible, mang.


"Create" in the sense that much of the opposition came from resentment that the outcome was forced on them. But I think it goes farther. I think the victors following a decision often become intellectually indolent, because they can simply point to the "scoreboard"; they aren't forced to make persuasive policy arguments. Ever been in a policy debate with a gun nut and all s/he can say is "Second Amendment"?
 
2013-05-12 08:53:44 AM  
AdrienVeidt:
Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?

I believe that the quote you're referring to was from the '80s, and the bible-thumpers were part of the Reagan coalition. Ralph Reed and his ilk.
 
2013-05-12 08:54:23 AM  

badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.


HIPAA allows people the right to privacy regarding medical procedures. That's why someone else's abortion is none of your goddamn business.

/Pro choice
//Five hole punches on my card from the Rape N Scrape
///One more, and I get a free hat.
 
2013-05-12 08:54:32 AM  
...NPR broadcast Justice Ginsburg's comments a month or so back, pointing out that she was one of the lawyers who made Roe possible.  (FULL DISCLOSURE:  I don't agree with it, but the Supreme Court says it is a Constitutional right, and as far as I'm concerned that means it's legal).  The impression I got from her comments, however, was that she genuinely expects it to be seriously challenged and/or overturned sometime soon.
 
2013-05-12 08:56:28 AM  

hardinparamedic: badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.

Huh?

Various federal and state laws, most notably HIPAA, would argue otherwise - with few legal exceptions. Would you clarify that comment for me?


http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/faq-government-access-med ic al-records
 
2013-05-12 09:05:16 AM  

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.

Huh?

Various federal and state laws, most notably HIPAA, would argue otherwise - with few legal exceptions. Would you clarify that comment for me?

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/faq-government-access-med ic al-records


Every situation you listed is covered under the "Mandatory Release of PHI" regulations that HIPAA establishes for mandatory reporting events. However, the ACLU website goes into the extreme on one point: The police CANNOT access your health information unless they submit a written letter of why to the hospital  It is still a violation for that facility to give information other than demographics needed to identify a patient, and mandatory disclosures under law - i.e. suspected sexual or physical abuse, gunshot wounds/stab wounds, - without having that in hand. Even this access is relatively restricted based on a "need to know".

But no, your original post is a little incorrect and misleading. Your abortion is your business, and the only way a person can access that information is if YOU sign away the ability for them to do so, or if they have a court order.
 
2013-05-12 09:06:49 AM  
img59.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-12 09:11:38 AM  

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?

This is just me, but I'd rather know everything about the judge who was trying my case before I decide on a strategy. I'm currently in Alabama, where nearly all judges in state courts are elected, so you get to know pretty much what their political philosophy is during the campaign (well, at least as much as any politician). I'm personally not in favor of elected judges, because it opens the door to corruption, but in a red state like Alabama, the judges usually are who they say they are - right-wing and proud of it.

You can get a pretty good idea of any of the SCOTUS justices based on their writings, and even more from the confirmation hearings, especially when the majority party in Congress is not the same as the President's party. SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia), and if you've heard Sandra Day O'Connor's interview with Jon Stewart, she said that this is because they are the only branch of government that is required to explain their entire decision-making process on the record, and to say anything else to the press would either be redundant, or would make it appear as if the official record was incomplete.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to SCOTUS justices having a public life, and even giving more press interviews. Sometimes the rulings are intentionally vague, or worded in a duplicitous manner in order to satisfy two ways of thinking. However, it is simply not likely for the above listed reasons. But it is important to note that they do this by choice, not by any mandate or law.


You make very valid points.   We all don't come to Fark to flame.  I do feel educated by your comments on this.   Don't entirely agree, but....  lol
 
2013-05-12 09:28:43 AM  

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?

This is just me, but I'd rather know everything about the judge who was trying my case before I decide on a strategy. I'm currently in Alabama, where nearly all judges in state courts are elected, so you get to know pretty much what their political philosophy is during the campaign (well, at least as much as any politician). I'm personally not in favor of elected judges, because it opens the door to corruption, but in a red state like Alabama, the judges usually are who they say they are - right-wing and proud of it.

You can get a pretty good idea of any of the SCOTUS justices based on their writings, and even more from the confirmation hearings, especially when the majority party in Congress is not the same as the President's party. SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia), and if you've heard Sandra Day O'Connor's interview with Jon Stewart, she said that this is because they are the only branch of government that is required to explain their entire decision-making process on the record, and to say anything else to the press would either be redundant, or would make it appear as if the official record was incomplete.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to SCOTUS justices having a public life, and even giving more press interviews. Sometimes the rulings are intentionally vague, or worded in a duplicitous manner in order to satisfy two ways of thinking. However, it is simply not likely for the above listed reasons. But it is important to note that they do this by choice, not by any mandate or law.


willvideoforfood.com
You know, I learned something here today.

I had always thought that the reason that SCOTUS rulings are so vague at times is that they leave the ability for the court to revise or clarify them based on situations that arise in the future from their decisions that were unforeseeable at the time.
 
2013-05-12 09:30:24 AM  
i.imgur.com

/oblig
 
2013-05-12 09:34:41 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-12 09:35:42 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Yes....but whoever the defendant was in an abortion case was going to be the "target," Justice Ginsburg, or did that not occur to you when you made the comment? Or was the hope that we'd somehow have "Abortion Providers, Inc. v. Right-Wing Lunatics Corp." as our final decision?


I think the anti-choice crowd would rather have one of those "grass roots" groups with a misleading name in the decision.  Something like "Women First v. Breast Cancer" might make them, well, not happy (since they're incapable of happiness), but slightly less agitated.
 
2013-05-12 09:43:44 AM  
How was giving women the right to their own bodies too sweeping? Was freeing the slaves too sweeping? Maybe we should allow slavery in certain circumstances, to pacify people who miss the old south.
 
2013-05-12 09:43:54 AM  

Emposter: Too sweeping? Imagine what the situation would be like if Roe v. Wade had been any LESS sweeping.


yeah she said the ruling, heck let's quote the article: " Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court." so it would have been litigated again and again state by state with 40+ different ruling/interpretations -- how about hell no.
 
2013-05-12 09:47:36 AM  

Alphax: Milo Minderbinder: Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?

I don't think people call it out by name much, but there's a concerted effort across many states to restrict voting rights in recent years.


And look how well that plan worked out for the GOP last fall...blacks voted in record numbers. Oops!
 
2013-05-12 09:49:43 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: I think you miss her point. By virtue of the decision, the policy debate was largely taken out of the equation. Those favoring choice no longer had to defend choice on the merits, but just had to point to the decision. Ginsburg is saying this throws the democratic process a curveball, a disrupting method to reach a position we would have (hopefully) come to democratically; in effect, conservative intransigence was CREATED by the decision.


she's entitled to her opinion but IMO it was always there but just got a lot louder with the advent of rabid partisan politics in recent years.
 
2013-05-12 09:49:52 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Maybe we should allow slavery in certain circumstances, to pacify people who miss the old south.


Technically, we  DO.

datedaily.mate1.com

As long as it's consensual.
 
2013-05-12 09:54:34 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: How was giving women the right to their own bodies too sweeping? Was freeing the slaves too sweeping? Maybe we should allow slavery in certain circumstances, to pacify people who miss the old south.


We have the right to privacy or we do not. They are going to have to rule on this matter. Guess which one will win.
 
2013-05-12 09:55:41 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Roe v. Wade didn't start start the anti-abortion crusade - desegregation did. And only after Jerry Falwell got pissy that conservative Christian schools would lose tax breaks over their racist policies.


This.

Since the original Roe v. Wade decision met with pretty much a collective yawn in the religious community and it wasn't until years later when Falwell was looking for a way to bring Catholics and Evangelicals together politically that they seized on the anti-abortion thing, this shows a stunning ignorance of both legal and political history on the part of Justice Ginsburg.
 
2013-05-12 09:58:45 AM  
She may see it as a matter of strategy, I'm just glad that we had a couple of decades of relatively safe and unobstructed access to abortion services so that fewer women have had to die from backstreet abortions.
 
2013-05-12 10:03:00 AM  

badhatharry: We have the right to privacy or we do not.


people.virginia.edu

Incorrect. There are certain situations where the individual's right to privacy is outweighed by the need to protect society at large, and at times the individual themselves. While these situations should be heavily regulated and abuses of them not tolerated, they do exist by the virtue of us living under the social contract we do.

There is no harm in mandatory reporting of a gunshot wound, of someone intentionally spreading HIV, or of reporting of a suspicion of child sexual abuse, and a LOT of harm from not reporting them.
 
2013-05-12 10:04:05 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: Emposter: Too sweeping?  Seriously?  The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.  With each year, as time goes forward, womens' rights go backwards as the right continues to work to eliminate access to abortion on a state level, all DESPITE Roe v. Wade.

Too sweeping?  Imagine what the situation would be like if Roe v. Wade had been any LESS sweeping.

I think you miss her point. By virtue of the decision, the policy debate was largely taken out of the equation. Those favoring choice no longer had to defend choice on the merits, but just had to point to the decision. Ginsburg is saying this throws the democratic process a curveball, a disrupting method to reach a position we would have (hopefully) come to democratically; in effect, conservative intransigence was CREATED by the decision.


No, I got that.  It's sort of the point of the entire discussion, after all.  I simply find it unlikely, if not ridiculous, that--as she apparently believes--under the facade of drooling mouthbreather-osity that is the conservative right wing, there is some sort of hidden reserve of reason that has only been held back by their deep-seated knee-jerk reaction to perceived judicial activism.

I believe it far more likely that, had said mouthbreathers not had to deal with a decision like Roe v. Wade, the only difference would be far MORE laws like those of North Dakota, etc.
 
2013-05-12 10:05:44 AM  
I see what the Democrats are doing now.

They are releasing more information about Benghazi, the IRS teabagger thing, and reviving the Abortion, Gay, and Abortions issues all at the same time. Some of these issues they may lose or postpone on purpose so the Republicans will get a big head going into the debt ceiling fight.

Two things to gain here.

1) Get anything that might even resemble a "scandal" out of the way a year before the midterms. Remind the public how insane Republicans are by their reaction..

2) Give the Republicans a nice length of rope to hang themselves with before the midterms with the debt ceiling fight. Remind the public how insane Republicans are with their party before country mentality.

Sweep the 2014 midterms and get America moving forward again. Keep trolling the GOP until Hilary is in office.
 
2013-05-12 10:24:11 AM  
Am I the only one?

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-12 10:24:42 AM  

Granny_Panties: Keep trolling the GOP until Hilary is in office.


i'm all for trolling the GOP but i really doubt hillary is going to be president.
 
2013-05-12 10:27:21 AM  

Granny_Panties: They are releasing more information about Benghazi, the IRS teabagger thing, and reviving the Abortion, Gay, and Abortions issues all at the same time. Some of these issues they may lose or postpone on purpose so the Republicans will get a big head going into the debt ceiling fight.


Considering that Rand Paul admitted openly that the only reason the GOP made Benghazi an issue was to poison the well for Hillary in 2016, and were basically using a revised account of the deaths of four Americans as political propaganda, that strategy seems to be working.
 
2013-05-12 10:32:17 AM  
What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something .

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.
 
2013-05-12 10:38:44 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something .



//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.


Irrelevant. It's just a bad excuse to control women.
 
2013-05-12 11:05:02 AM  
When I made this very same point a few weeks ago I was hooted down and Widbey called me an idiot. (Actually being called an idiot by Widbey is a badge of honour.)  A very similar thing happened with the death penalty. Before the court ruled it unconstitutional the death penalty was well on its way to being outlawed in just about every state. The Supreme Court's banning it made it a cause celbre it never was before and started a ground swell movement to reinstate the death penalty. Now that the court has reversed itself on the death penalty there are MORE states putting folks to death than were when the court made its first decision!. Abortion was well on its way to becoming the law of the land state by state. Rowe provided a symbol and an impetus for the anti-abortion crowd to rally around. It WAS the right decision but at theWRONG time.
 
2013-05-12 11:08:26 AM  

riverwalk barfly: ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.

Could you expand on this statement a bit? I'm genuinely curious.

I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm  going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?


Two professions in life are supposed to be objective, neutral, balanced.

Journalists, who spend their college career boozing it up, twittering, social networking, suddenly find that poof they are journalists and somehow not telling people how they vote, or even if they do vote enables them to write neutral, honest, insightful, objective, balanced, stories.

Lawyers, who spend their careers prosecuting people, or defending people, or paving the way for giant corporations, and poof, throw on black robes, and somehow being quiet about their  opinions because honestly, they've never thought about them and don't want to prejudice anything, enables them to write neutral, honest, insightful, objective, balanced, opinions.

Everyone else is quizzed on their knowledge and thought processes to make sure the sky is blue in their world and 1 + 1 = 2.

I think you're swallowing a load of malarkey that judges, lawyers, and special interests put forward to think that judges should pretend that mentioning their opinion makes them beholden either to their opinion, or to others.

Same thing with journalists.
 
2013-05-12 11:19:08 AM  

Delawheredad: Abortion was well on its way to becoming the law of the land state by state. Rowe provided a symbol and an impetus for the anti-abortion crowd to rally around. It WAS the right decision but at theWRONG time.


Except for the fact that it was not, and illegal and back alley abortions were such a problem that the early EMT textbooks of the era had an entire chapter dedicated to how to manage back-alley abortion complications and related injuries.
 
2013-05-12 11:21:04 AM  
She probably didn't say that for those countries that used to have decades long killing sprees over such "moral issues," the US controversy is an anachronism.

The time of those wars coincided with the founding of the US, possibly giving the extremists a place of escape in case the conflicts ended in Europe and everyone got a little more respectful.
 
2013-05-12 11:29:17 AM  
Saying a case you argued for AS AN ACLU ATTORNEY would have been "better" than the one the court had already decided and used as precedent to uphold your case? She may be a lady, but she's sure got a set of balls on her. The very picture of judicial/lawyer arrogance.
 
2013-05-12 11:40:37 AM  
I think abortion should be legal (at least for the first few months), but the idea that it's protected by the constitution is ridiculous.  Roe vs Wade was a terribly reasoned decision.
 
2013-05-12 11:43:11 AM  
Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.
 
2013-05-12 11:50:15 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: ...NPR broadcast Justice Ginsburg's comments a month or so back, pointing out that she was one of the lawyers who made Roe possible.  (FULL DISCLOSURE:  I don't agree with it, but the Supreme Court says it is a Constitutional right, and as far as I'm concerned that means it's legal).  The impression I got from her comments, however, was that she genuinely expects it to be seriously challenged and/or overturned sometime soon.


This.
Her point appears to be that the end result of choice may have been achieved in a more stable manner than the specific language of RvW. Choice isn't going anywhere nationally (the places with gun control will have abortions and vice versa) but the argument that the specific language of the Roe decision itself did the choice no long term favors is an old one.
 
2013-05-12 11:51:20 AM  
Despite abortion being farking awesome, the legal reasoning behind Roe v Wade was far from a slam dunk.  You can love the fact that if you drop a load in someone who forgot to take their birth control one day you can just pay some cash and make the problem go away without rolling your eyes at the way this case law was decided.  

Although I suppose the Due Process clause giving some imaginary constitutional right to privacy is not much worse than the hoops that have been jumped through to mutate the meaning of the commerce clause.
 
2013-05-12 11:51:20 AM  
That is not a headline. iIt is a thesis statement for an essay in Freshman Composition I.
 
2013-05-12 11:54:51 AM  

Richard Roma: I think abortion should be legal (at least for the first few months), but the idea that it's protected by the constitution is ridiculous.  Roe vs Wade was a terribly reasoned decision.


It's a basic issue of health and life. Women due a lot more often when you make basic health care illegal.
 
2013-05-12 11:55:07 AM  

riverwalk barfly: You make very valid points.   We all don't come to Fark to flame.  I do feel educated by your comments on this.   Don't entirely agree, but....  lol


Here is the thing ... unlike ... say ... people who are elected to Congress ... Judges are generally intelligent people and are truly interesting to listen too (even Scalia - Thomas not so much).  I wish more Judges would do press and speak publicly.  If nothing else - to fight the demonizing of the court by right and left wing nutjobs. The three Supreme Court judges in Iowa got kicked off the bench for their decision legalizing same sex marriage because they didn't come out and publicly protect the court and its role in government.

/met Ginsburg at a wedding she was officiating
 
2013-05-12 11:55:22 AM  

Delawheredad: Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.


Um the problem was that he wasn't being inspected and the procedures he was performing were illegal.
 
2013-05-12 11:57:41 AM  

Delawheredad: nd as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota


No it doesn't. It indicates a total failure of the system, and the exact need why regulation and oversight of providers are needed. It doesn't indicate why patients should be punished for a legitimate medical procedure.

Delawheredad:  The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then.


Agreed.

Delawheredad: He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!


Disagree completely. He was not completely legal - in fact his clinic had been cited multiple times over the last decade for the conditions and practices by which he engaged in, and the Grand Jury findings indicate he was acting outside the law while utilizing corrupt inspectors and a STATE Department of Health which had better things to do than it's job.

In reality, Gosnell had very, very bizarre beliefs on things like Racial Eugenics and differences between women of color and white women, and acted on these in perpetrating his crimes.

Delawheredad: Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.


Just because someone is pro-choice does not make them pro-abortion. I don't like it in most cases (life of the mother and fatal genetic disease/massive birth defects are two areas I personally think it's completely okay), but it's not my decision to force on others.
 
2013-05-12 11:58:40 AM  

Fart_Machine: Delawheredad: Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.

Um the problem was that he wasn't being inspected and the procedures he was performing were illegal.


Yes, but that won't stop the pro-life folks from twisting the truth to suit their agenda.

They're trying to use Gosnell the same way the gun control lobby used Sandy Hook.

And the Pro-life folks still can't see the irony in it.
 
2013-05-12 11:59:20 AM  

Fart_Machine: Um the problem was that he wasn't being inspected and the procedures he was performing were illegal.


Yes, he was. He was being inspected, and his clinic was shut down temporarily multiple times for filthy conditions and violations of the state medical practice act. The state was too damn lazy to do a proper investigation and shut him down permanently and take his license.

FFS, he was using unlicensed people to perform basic medical procedures which alone would have gotten his license taken away according to the medical practice act. That's ignoring all of the other crap he did.
 
2013-05-12 12:00:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Yes, but that won't stop the pro-life folks from twisting the truth to suit their agenda.

They're trying to use Gosnell the same way the gun control lobby used Sandy Hook.

And the Pro-life folks still can't see the irony in it.


Can we please stop calling them pro-life. They're not. They're anti-choice. They're as much pro-life as I am pro-rape.
 
2013-05-12 12:02:36 PM  
I've never gotten the whole abortion issue. Republican's seem to act like Democrats  like abortion. No one does. If you want to go and act like Mrs Garrison from South Park and "scramble the baby up your cooch" then you don't need an abortion you need mental help.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
 
2013-05-12 12:05:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: Delawheredad: Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.

Just because someone is pro-choice does not make them pro-abortion. I don't like it in most cases (life of the mother and fatal genetic disease/massive birth defects are two areas I personally think it's completely okay), but it's not my decision to force on others.


Same. I think abortion should be a last resort and that we should do our best to keep people from getting into a situation like that (ie: sex-ed that isn't worthless, easy access to contraception).

Of course the same people who are "Pro-Life" don't believe in these things which is why I fail to take them and their concerns seriously.

/And don't get me started with how the "Pro-Life" crowd treats these children after they are born...
 
2013-05-12 12:08:28 PM  
part of the problem:
This.
Her point appears to be that the end result of choice may have been achieved in a more stable manner than the specific language of RvW. Choice isn't going anywhere nationally (the places with gun control will have abortions and vice versa) but the argument that the specific language of the Roe decision itself did the choice no long term favors is an old one.


No. What she is doing is laying the public groundwork for her vote to strike down same sex marriage. This is not about abortion at all. When her fellow liberals whine and biatch about her betrayal she is going to justify it by stating, "Look at Roe. I did not want to give the conservatives another symbol to attack." I'll leave it to others whether they think that is bullshiat or not. But mark my words and mark them clearly, that is exactly what is going to happen.

I said after oral argument that I did not consider Ginsberg to be a shoo in and I am more convinced than ever she is going to vote no.
 
2013-05-12 12:17:04 PM  
Gyrfalcon:  I don't ever see abortion as being anything but viciously divisive.

I agree with this sentiment completely.  On one side you have people defending a fetus' right to live... they really cannot compromise at all without still endorsing 'baby murder'.  On the other side it is people concerned with women's rights and population control.   Some pretty heavy hitters on both sides.

Perhaps future technology can help with a solution.
 
2013-05-12 12:18:52 PM  
Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.
 
2013-05-12 12:20:26 PM  

dickfreckle: I had a pregnancy scare once (I'm the guy), and while I'm not a personal fan of the procedure I can't in a million years imagine being the voice in charge of whether you can have it or not. It was a grueling month - she had made it clear that's what would happen and I struggled with having to live with this plus the fact that I couldn't have possibly provided the life I would imagine for a kid at that stage in my life. Ultimately, though, it was her body. I just made a guest appearance one night.

I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand! But no...no one actually digs abortion. It's just the rational thing to do. You're ruining three lives when the child isn't wanted or can't be afforded.

Now at the age of 38 I still have problems dealing with my neurotic, adopted puppy. You want me handling a child? I'm not even sure how to properly hold one, and with some luck will never have to.


You should never ever feel bad about that and I say that as a 36 year old father of an awesome son.   I would, had I known, still have asked his mother to have an abortion though.

That being said, couldn't live without

imageshack.us
 
2013-05-12 12:22:03 PM  

Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.


They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.
 
2013-05-12 12:27:12 PM  

zarberg: I've never gotten the whole abortion issue. Republican's seem to act like Democrats  like abortion. No one does. If you want to go and act like Mrs Garrison from South Park and "scramble the baby up your cooch" then you don't need an abortion you need mental help.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.


I don't like abortion any more than I like appendectomies. They're a neutral medical procedure. Logically if the fetus isn't a human life, then you shouldn't care if a woman has one abortion or a hundred. I wouldn't really care if a person had one melanoma removed or a hundred either.

It's either human life or it's not. You can't say "Yeah this fetus has a bit of human life, but not enough to outweigh the rights of the mother over her own body, so she can kill it if she wants."
 
2013-05-12 12:29:17 PM  
 
2013-05-12 12:33:27 PM  

Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.


I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.
 
2013-05-12 12:36:18 PM  

worlddan: part of the problem:
This.
Her point appears to be that the end result of choice may have been achieved in a more stable manner than the specific language of RvW. Choice isn't going anywhere nationally (the places with gun control will have abortions and vice versa) but the argument that the specific language of the Roe decision itself did the choice no long term favors is an old one.

No. What she is doing is laying the public groundwork for her vote to strike down same sex marriage. This is not about abortion at all. When her fellow liberals whine and biatch about her betrayal she is going to justify it by stating, "Look at Roe. I did not want to give the conservatives another symbol to attack." I'll leave it to others whether they think that is bullshiat or not. But mark my words and mark them clearly, that is exactly what is going to happen.

I said after oral argument that I did not consider Ginsberg to be a shoo in and I am more convinced than ever she is going to vote no.


My hearing is gone... maybe youre better at hearing this particular dog whistle than I am. It would not suprise me. But I have heard her argument before....
 
2013-05-12 12:37:31 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?


The King of All-Caps: RAND PAUL for one.
 
2013-05-12 12:37:37 PM  

Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.


I believe that if you own a gun, you are more likely to die a violent death, so I don't consider them defensive weapons.
 
2013-05-12 12:39:00 PM  

Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.


I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.
 
2013-05-12 12:39:59 PM  

Fart_Machine: hardinparamedic: Yes, he was.

He wasn't inspected for 17 years.


Read the actual Grand Jury findings I linked. He used his connections with state and local inspectors to avoid being inspected by the medical boards that oversaw him.

Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.


Stick to the ICU. I respect you more when you stay there.
 
2013-05-12 12:40:21 PM  
I'm curious as to how the pro-life movement views showering. No, really, hear me out..

They state that a zygote is a human life and everything, yet cleaning their own bodies they kill more advanced single-celled organisms on a genocidal scale. How do they sleep at night knowing they are worse than a million Hitlers?
 
2013-05-12 12:43:02 PM  

Alphax: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that if you own a gun, you are more likely to die a violent death, so I don't consider them defensive weapons.


Ever think that people who own guns may be at risk of dying a violent death, hence needing a firearm? Feel free to petition that police officers get rid of their guns, since they're not defensive tools, after all. Nevermind, it's better if the government just tell people what to do with their bodies.
 
2013-05-12 12:43:38 PM  

Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.


Those changes won't save a life, they'll just make mine more miserable, as I'd still seek an abortion. Only now it won't be safe. Now, I'll be risking major infections if my birth control should fail. That's not a life saved.

That's you getting your squishy, feel-good emotions by ruining somebody else's life.
 
2013-05-12 12:44:09 PM  

Epoch_Zero: I'm curious as to how the pro-life movement views showering. No, really, hear me out..

They state that a zygote is a human life and everything, yet cleaning their own bodies they kill more advanced single-celled organisms on a genocidal scale. How do they sleep at night knowing they are worse than a million Hitlers?


Where'd you learn that skin cells can reproduce on their own into a whole new being?
 
2013-05-12 12:45:18 PM  

Epoch_Zero: I'm curious as to how the pro-life movement views showering. No, really, hear me out..

They state that a zygote is a human life and everything, yet cleaning their own bodies they kill more advanced single-celled organisms on a genocidal scale. How do they sleep at night knowing they are worse than a million Hitlers?


Only people have souls, so even when they throw bags of kittens in a river, they don't feel guilty.
 
2013-05-12 12:45:19 PM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something .

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 164x120]

//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.


When a fetus can stand on its own two feet and offer an opinion in its own words, I'll give it consideration.  Until then, it's just a part of my body to do with as I will.  Deal with it.
 
2013-05-12 12:46:55 PM  

Delawheredad: Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.


No matter where you stand on the issue, somebody who wants an abortion will seek it regardless of its safety and legality. You don't care to protect those lives?
 
2013-05-12 12:46:55 PM  

Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that if you own a gun, you are more likely to die a violent death, so I don't consider them defensive weapons.

Ever think that people who own guns may be at risk of dying a violent death, hence needing a firearm? Feel free to petition that police officers get rid of their guns, since they're not defensive tools, after all. Nevermind, it's better if the government just tell people what to do with their bodies.


No.
 
2013-05-12 12:48:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Mrtraveler01: Yes, but that won't stop the pro-life folks from twisting the truth to suit their agenda.

They're trying to use Gosnell the same way the gun control lobby used Sandy Hook.

And the Pro-life folks still can't see the irony in it.

Can we please stop calling them pro-life. They're not. They're anti-choice. They're as much pro-life as I am pro-rape.


It's not even so much anti-choice as it is anti-woman. They specifically do not want women to have a say in the matter.
 
2013-05-12 12:48:27 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

Those changes won't save a life, they'll just make mine more miserable, as I'd still seek an abortion. Only now it won't be safe. Now, I'll be risking major infections if my birth control should fail. That's not a life saved.

That's you getting your squishy, feel-good emotions by ruining somebody else's life.


Why won't you compromise on abortion control? You abortion nuts get so uptight whenever anyone suggests a tightening of regulations. There have been 53 million abortions in the USA since 1973. No one is coming for your coat hangers.
 
2013-05-12 12:48:51 PM  

Mrbogey: Epoch_Zero: I'm curious as to how the pro-life movement views showering. No, really, hear me out..

They state that a zygote is a human life and everything, yet cleaning their own bodies they kill more advanced single-celled organisms on a genocidal scale. How do they sleep at night knowing they are worse than a million Hitlers?

Where'd you learn that skin cells can reproduce on their own into a whole new being?


What is an amoeba, Alex?
 
2013-05-12 12:49:30 PM  

Alphax: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that if you own a gun, you are more likely to die a violent death, so I don't consider them defensive weapons.

Ever think that people who own guns may be at risk of dying a violent death, hence needing a firearm? Feel free to petition that police officers get rid of their guns, since they're not defensive tools, after all. Nevermind, it's better if the government just tell people what to do with their bodies.

No.


Awesome reply, bro
 
2013-05-12 12:50:52 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You can't say "Yeah this fetus has a bit of human life, but not enough to outweigh the rights of the mother over her own body, so she can kill it if she wants."


Actually... you can. So long as the fetus depends upon the mother for survival, it is a part of the mother's body to do with as she desires. It could be as alive as the day is long, and yet it's potential for life would still not be greater than the mother's current right to her own life.
 
2013-05-12 12:51:03 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Delawheredad: Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.

No matter where you stand on the issue, somebody who wants an abortion will seek it regardless of its safety and legality. You don't care to protect those lives?

We need to ban 3d printers. Someone could print out coat hangers and have an abortion.
 
2013-05-12 12:52:53 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.


I believe you have the right to defend yourself.  I also believe that when it is not your life, but rather your stuff in danger, then you have an obligation to just let it go man, because it's gone.
 
2013-05-12 12:55:37 PM  

Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

Those changes won't save a life, they'll just make mine more miserable, as I'd still seek an abortion. Only now it won't be safe. Now, I'll be risking major infections if my birth control should fail. That's not a life saved.

That's you getting your squishy, feel-good emotions by ruining somebody else's life.

Why won't you compromise on abortion control? You abortion nuts get so uptight whenever anyone suggests a tightening of regulations. There have been 53 million abortions in the USA since 1973. No one is coming for your coat hangers.


Because your way of "compromising" involves putting my life in even greater danger than it would have been had you simply just allowed me to abort, safely and in a hospital. Why can't you just accept that adult women are going to live their lives the way they choose?

Why can't your compromise be more extensive birth control options/discussion of said options in sex ed classes?  Why does it have to be taking away my very last resort for not being a mother?
 
2013-05-12 12:57:09 PM  

Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Delawheredad: Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.

No matter where you stand on the issue, somebody who wants an abortion will seek it regardless of its safety and legality. You don't care to protect those lives?
We need to ban 3d printers. Someone could print out coat hangers and have an abortion.


I wish I could print out a fist to punch you in the face with. NOBODY USES COAT HANGER FOR ABORTIONS.   Not legal, safe ones, that is.

What you are arguing for is MORE back-alley abortions, more dead women, ACTUAL current lives ending because you can't just give up on that whole counting your eggs before they hatch thing.

The potential for life does not trump a current life.  Period.
 
2013-05-12 12:57:20 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something .

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 164x120]

//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.

When a fetus can stand on its own two feet and offer an opinion in its own words, I'll give it consideration.  Until then, it's just a part of my body to do with as I will.  Deal with it.


Keep that crazy biatch away from me.
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-12 12:57:24 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Mrtraveler01: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.

I believe you have the right to defend yourself.  I also believe that when it is not your life, but rather your stuff in danger, then you have an obligation to just let it go man, because it's gone.


When can you tell that your stuff is in danger vs your life is in danger?
 
2013-05-12 12:57:50 PM  

Doom MD: We need to ban 3d printers. Someone could print out coat hangers and have an abortion.


You are trying way too hard.

You're like the Michael Scott of Fark.
 
2013-05-12 12:58:36 PM  

Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Mrtraveler01: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.

I believe you have the right to defend yourself.  I also believe that when it is not your life, but rather your stuff in danger, then you have an obligation to just let it go man, because it's gone.

When can you tell that your stuff is in danger vs your life is in danger?


You can't tell when you are being physically harmed vs. when somebody is just touching your stuff?
 
2013-05-12 12:58:39 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

Those changes won't save a life, they'll just make mine more miserable, as I'd still seek an abortion. Only now it won't be safe. Now, I'll be risking major infections if my birth control should fail. That's not a life saved.

That's you getting your squishy, feel-good emotions by ruining somebody else's life.

Why won't you compromise on abortion control? You abortion nuts get so uptight whenever anyone suggests a tightening of regulations. There have been 53 million abortions in the USA since 1973. No one is coming for your coat hangers.

Because your way of "compromising" involves putting my life in even greater danger than it would have been had you simply just allowed me to abort, safely and in a hospital. Why can't you just accept that adult women are going to live their lives the way they choose?

Why can't your compromise be more extensive birth control options/discussion of said options in sex ed classes?  Why does it have to be taking away my very last resort for not being a mother?


Thank you, you've encapsulated the argument for the 2nd amendment. I agree women have a right to choose what to do with their bodies.
 
2013-05-12 12:59:28 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Mrtraveler01: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.

I believe you have the right to defend yourself.  I also believe that when it is not your life, but rather your stuff in danger, then you have an obligation to just let it go man, because it's gone.

When can you tell that your stuff is in danger vs your life is in danger?

You can't tell when you are being physically harmed vs. when somebody is just touching your stuff?


Never been mugged at gunpoint?
 
2013-05-12 01:00:03 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Mrbogey: Epoch_Zero: I'm curious as to how the pro-life movement views showering. No, really, hear me out..

They state that a zygote is a human life and everything, yet cleaning their own bodies they kill more advanced single-celled organisms on a genocidal scale. How do they sleep at night knowing they are worse than a million Hitlers?

Where'd you learn that skin cells can reproduce on their own into a whole new being?

What is an amoeba, Alex?


Human cells.. amoebas... same thing. Amirite?

You made a bad argument. You don't have to defend it to the death.
 
2013-05-12 01:01:34 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Mrtraveler01: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.

I believe you have the right to defend yourself.  I also believe that when it is not your life, but rather your stuff in danger, then you have an obligation to just let it go man, because it's gone.

When can you tell that your stuff is in danger vs your life is in danger?

You can't tell when you are being physically harmed vs. when somebody is just touching your stuff?


Why do you even bother with Doom? He just wants to make a point about the second amendment. Like most "constitutionalists" they are incredibly lazy, can't actually debate a topic on it's own merits, and can seem to fathom that issues can be different and should be approached differently.
 
2013-05-12 01:01:59 PM  

Mrbogey: Epoch_Zero: Mrbogey: Epoch_Zero: I'm curious as to how the pro-life movement views showering. No, really, hear me out..

They state that a zygote is a human life and everything, yet cleaning their own bodies they kill more advanced single-celled organisms on a genocidal scale. How do they sleep at night knowing they are worse than a million Hitlers?

Where'd you learn that skin cells can reproduce on their own into a whole new being?

What is an amoeba, Alex?

Human cells.. amoebas... same thing. Amirite?

You made a bad argument. You don't have to defend it to the death.


Because bacteria and all sorts of non-human single-celled organisms totally don't occupy the same space as human cells, ever.
 
2013-05-12 01:02:49 PM  

Bane of Broone: The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Mrtraveler01: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.

I believe you have the right to defend yourself.  I also believe that when it is not your life, but rather your stuff in danger, then you have an obligation to just let it go man, because it's gone.

When can you tell that your stuff is in danger vs your life is in danger?

You can't tell when you are being physically harmed vs. when somebody is just touching your stuff?

Why do you even bother with Doom? He just wants to make a point about the second amendment. Like most "constitutionalists" they are incredibly lazy, can't actually debate a topic on it's own merits, and can seem to fathom that issues can be different and should be approached differently.


*can't seem to fathom
 
2013-05-12 01:03:01 PM  

Bane of Broone: The My Little Pony Killer: Doom MD: The My Little Pony Killer: Mrtraveler01: Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.

I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.

I believe you have the right to defend yourself.  I also believe that when it is not your life, but rather your stuff in danger, then you have an obligation to just let it go man, because it's gone.

When can you tell that your stuff is in danger vs your life is in danger?

You can't tell when you are being physically harmed vs. when somebody is just touching your stuff?

Why do you even bother with Doom? He just wants to make a point about the second amendment. Like most "constitutionalists" they are incredibly lazy, can't actually debate a topic on it's own merits, and can seem to fathom that issues can be different and should be approached differently.


God forbid someone demand logical and philosophical consistency.
 
2013-05-12 01:04:06 PM  

Alphax: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something 
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.

Irrelevant. It's just a bad excuse to control women for the harvest to be late.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

// All lives are relevant.
 
2013-05-12 01:05:22 PM  

Emposter: The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.


Oh geesh, not this off topic "sky fairy" horseshiat again. We get it, some of you hate religion, you put that knee jerk hate in every thread. However the real deal is the GOP was more interested in stuffing it's pockets and creating a historic deficit while waging a nice profitable proxy war. The GOP had Congress AND the White House from 2000 thru 2006 and did NOTHING about abortion. Now save your anti-faith bias for when it's on topic. The GOP won't do anything about abortion because it affects rich doctors and medical establishment's profit the end.
Don't confuse right wing Mammon worship for Christianity, it is a too common error.
 
2013-05-12 01:06:44 PM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Alphax: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something 

//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.

Irrelevant. It's just a bad excuse to control women for the harvest to be late.


// All lives are relevant.


Dafuq?
 
2013-05-12 01:12:39 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Emposter: The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.

Oh geesh, not this off topic "sky fairy" horseshiat again. We get it, some of you hate religion, you put that knee jerk hate in every thread. However the real deal is the GOP was more interested in stuffing it's pockets and creating a historic deficit while waging a nice profitable proxy war. The GOP had Congress AND the White House from 2000 thru 2006 and did NOTHING about abortion. Now save your anti-faith bias for when it's on topic. The GOP won't do anything about abortion because it affects rich doctors and medical establishment's profit the end.
Don't confuse right wing Mammon worship for Christianity, it is a too common error.


It's different, higher forms of morons driving the GOP now. Right now, they are VERY aggressively pushing anti-abortion restrictions at the state level, in every state where they now have unrestricted control.
 
2013-05-12 01:16:26 PM  

Alphax: Kurmudgeon: Emposter: The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.

Oh geesh, not this off topic "sky fairy" horseshiat again. We get it, some of you hate religion, you put that knee jerk hate in every thread. However the real deal is the GOP was more interested in stuffing it's pockets and creating a historic deficit while waging a nice profitable proxy war. The GOP had Congress AND the White House from 2000 thru 2006 and did NOTHING about abortion. Now save your anti-faith bias for when it's on topic. The GOP won't do anything about abortion because it affects rich doctors and medical establishment's profit the end.
Don't confuse right wing Mammon worship for Christianity, it is a too common error.

It's different, higher forms of morons driving the GOP now. Right now, they are VERY aggressively pushing anti-abortion restrictions at the state level, in every state where they now have unrestricted control.


It sucks when the other side is acting like authoritarian pricks, doesn't it?
 
2013-05-12 01:17:48 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Mrbogey: Epoch_Zero: Mrbogey: Epoch_Zero: I'm curious as to how the pro-life movement views showering. No, really, hear me out..

They state that a zygote is a human life and everything, yet cleaning their own bodies they kill more advanced single-celled organisms on a genocidal scale. How do they sleep at night knowing they are worse than a million Hitlers?

Where'd you learn that skin cells can reproduce on their own into a whole new being?

What is an amoeba, Alex?

Human cells.. amoebas... same thing. Amirite?

You made a bad argument. You don't have to defend it to the death.

Because bacteria and all sorts of non-human single-celled organisms totally don't occupy the same space as human cells, ever.


You've convinced me. Some humans are apparently as intelligent as amoebas.
 
2013-05-12 01:18:42 PM  

Doom MD: Alphax: Kurmudgeon: Emposter: The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.

Oh geesh, not this off topic "sky fairy" horseshiat again. We get it, some of you hate religion, you put that knee jerk hate in every thread. However the real deal is the GOP was more interested in stuffing it's pockets and creating a historic deficit while waging a nice profitable proxy war. The GOP had Congress AND the White House from 2000 thru 2006 and did NOTHING about abortion. Now save your anti-faith bias for when it's on topic. The GOP won't do anything about abortion because it affects rich doctors and medical establishment's profit the end.
Don't confuse right wing Mammon worship for Christianity, it is a too common error.

It's different, higher forms of morons driving the GOP now. Right now, they are VERY aggressively pushing anti-abortion restrictions at the state level, in every state where they now have unrestricted control.

It sucks when the other side is acting like authoritarian pricks, doesn't it?


I'd ask you what that even means, but it doesn't seem to be worthwhile. You're in full troll mode.
 
2013-05-12 01:31:47 PM  

Alphax: Doom MD: Alphax: Kurmudgeon: Emposter: The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.

Oh geesh, not this off topic "sky fairy" horseshiat again. We get it, some of you hate religion, you put that knee jerk hate in every thread. However the real deal is the GOP was more interested in stuffing it's pockets and creating a historic deficit while waging a nice profitable proxy war. The GOP had Congress AND the White House from 2000 thru 2006 and did NOTHING about abortion. Now save your anti-faith bias for when it's on topic. The GOP won't do anything about abortion because it affects rich doctors and medical establishment's profit the end.
Don't confuse right wing Mammon worship for Christianity, it is a too common error.

It's different, higher forms of morons driving the GOP now. Right now, they are VERY aggressively pushing anti-abortion restrictions at the state level, in every state where they now have unrestricted control.

It sucks when the other side is acting like authoritarian pricks, doesn't it?

I'd ask you what that even means, but it doesn't seem to be worthwhile. You're in full troll mode.


The cognitive dissonance in here is quite telling
 
2013-05-12 01:32:51 PM  

dickfreckle: I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand!


There won't be? Damnit, guess I am back to pro-life

Kidding, I would never be pro-life
 
2013-05-12 01:33:47 PM  

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 575x1330]


Wow, that's really crap.
 
2013-05-12 01:34:06 PM  
Bullshiat. They would target it just the same. Look at their rhetoric: "life begins at conception." Do you think someone with a belief like that would say "oh well, it's murder by my logic but there are a few restrictions, therefore it's okay."

No. They're nuts. You're giving them too much credit.
 
2013-05-12 01:35:01 PM  

hardinparamedic: Tyrone Slothrop: Maybe we should allow slavery in certain circumstances, to pacify people who miss the old south.

Technically, we  DO.

[datedaily.mate1.com image 800x533]

As long as it's consensual.


We also allow it for prisoners.

Seriously, read the 13th: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
 
2013-05-12 01:55:40 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You can't say "Yeah this fetus has a bit of human life, but not enough to outweigh the rights of the mother over her own body, so she can kill it if she wants."

Actually... you can. So long as the fetus depends upon the mother for survival, it is a part of the mother's body to do with as she desires. It could be as alive as the day is long, and yet it's potential for life would still not be greater than the mother's current right to her own life.


By that logic, every time a medical breakthrough happens to increase the viability of premature babies, the line on where an abortion should be acceptable gets moved backwards. As we move towards a future where we have bag babies that can be grown term outside of the mother, abortion will become unacceptable in all situations, so long as the criteria is dependence on the mother for survival.
 
2013-05-12 02:01:48 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: in effect, conservative intransigence was CREATED by the decision.


There are conservatives, living today, who build their entire worldview around being pissed the federal government says they can no longer own slaves.  Conservative intransigence was no more created by RvW than nuclear bombs were created by magic pixies.  If we rewound everything back to the point we were paleolithic hunter-gatherers, the conservatives would be biatching about the liberal horro that is the opposable thumb.  America-hating, Satan-worshiping dogfarkers are going to be America-hating, Satan-worshiping dogfarkers because they are America-hating, Satan-worshiping dogfarkers, not because of RvW
 
2013-05-12 02:03:20 PM  

Doom MD: God forbid someone demand logical and philosophical consistency.


You don't see any people in here equating drug laws with abortion restrictions. You don't see anybody pestering the people in this thread with things like "How come abortion is legal but gay marriage isn't?"

You're not demanding "logical and philosophical consistency", you're just threadjacking; you're annoying everyone else here and making yourself look very stupid in the process. Stop it.
 
2013-05-12 02:12:40 PM  

hardinparamedic: Fart_Machine: hardinparamedic: Yes, he was.

He wasn't inspected for 17 years.

Read the actual Grand Jury findings I linked. He used his connections with state and local inspectors to avoid being inspected by the medical boards that oversaw him.

Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

Stick to the ICU. I respect you more when you stay there.


So he wasn't inspected then. I'm not sure where we disagree here.
 
2013-05-12 02:14:09 PM  

Biological Ali: Doom MD: God forbid someone demand logical and philosophical consistency.

You don't see any people in here equating drug laws with abortion restrictions. You don't see anybody pestering the people in this thread with things like "How come abortion is legal but gay marriage isn't?"

You're not demanding "logical and philosophical consistency", you're just threadjacking; you're annoying everyone else here and making yourself look very stupid in the process. Stop it.


Not to mention, hurting his cause.

If gun rights advocates would stop acting like a bunch of douchebags, then maybe we could have a serious discussion on issues like that one as well as abortion.

And yes...gun control advocates can be just as bad as the gun rights folks at times as well.
 
2013-05-12 02:18:28 PM  

Biological Ali: Doom MD: God forbid someone demand logical and philosophical consistency.

You don't see any people in here equating drug laws with abortion restrictions. You don't see anybody pestering the people in this thread with things like "How come abortion is legal but gay marriage isn't?"

You're not demanding "logical and philosophical consistency", you're just threadjacking; you're annoying everyone else here and making yourself look very stupid in the process. Stop it.


Oh, come now, how often do people make fun of "pro-life" people for being pro-death-penalty? Either attacking a moniker for inconsistencies across issues is fair game or it isn't.
 
2013-05-12 02:24:09 PM  

vygramul: Oh, come now, how often do people make fun of "pro-life" people for being pro-death-penalty? Either attacking a moniker for inconsistencies across issues is fair game or it isn't.


They're not attacking the "moniker" - pro-life people actually do make the claim that "life", in a generic sense, is sacred. You can be satisfied with their rationalizations for believing that while supporting the death penalty, perhaps, but it's nothing remotely like "Why come you want abortions to be legal but not guns?"
 
2013-05-12 02:26:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Biological Ali: Doom MD: God forbid someone demand logical and philosophical consistency.

You don't see any people in here equating drug laws with abortion restrictions. You don't see anybody pestering the people in this thread with things like "How come abortion is legal but gay marriage isn't?"

You're not demanding "logical and philosophical consistency", you're just threadjacking; you're annoying everyone else here and making yourself look very stupid in the process. Stop it.

Not to mention, hurting his cause.

If gun rights advocates would stop acting like a bunch of douchebags, then maybe we could have a serious discussion on issues like that one as well as abortion.

And yes...gun control advocates can be just as bad as the gun rights folks at times as well.


My cause are people who allow the government to shiat all over them because they won't unify against successfive infringements on their rights. People are fine with getting fingerbanged at the airport/listened to on their phone calls since they "have nothing to hide". People are ok taking away a woman's right to choose because they're not women. People are ok crapping on gun rights because they personally don't own any. People are ok with prolonged wars abroad that are bankrupting us because brown people. People are ok with the government giving welfare to corporations that have shown a complete lack of ethics or long-term business acumen because both sides of the aisle came to a foregone conclusion this was "the thing to do". People are ok with infringements on their rights when it's being done by "their guy". Yeah, go ahead and hand-wring around your cafeteria selection of rights that you give a shiat about. Hang together or hang seperately. Your choice.
 
2013-05-12 02:30:58 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Oh, come now, how often do people make fun of "pro-life" people for being pro-death-penalty? Either attacking a moniker for inconsistencies across issues is fair game or it isn't.

They're not attacking the "moniker" - pro-life people actually do make the claim that "life", in a generic sense, is sacred. You can be satisfied with their rationalizations for believing that while supporting the death penalty, perhaps, but it's nothing remotely like "Why come you want abortions to be legal but not guns?"


You don't find it inconsistent that some people are more comfortable with allowing people to terminate unborn children rather than use a firearm to kill someone trying to do them or their family active harm?
 
2013-05-12 02:34:32 PM  

Doom MD: You don't find it


I find it stupid that you're trolling this thread. Do you honestly think that annoying people on the internet is an effective way to advance your cause?
 
2013-05-12 02:35:40 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Oh, come now, how often do people make fun of "pro-life" people for being pro-death-penalty? Either attacking a moniker for inconsistencies across issues is fair game or it isn't.

They're not attacking the "moniker" - pro-life people actually do make the claim that "life", in a generic sense, is sacred. You can be satisfied with their rationalizations for believing that while supporting the death penalty, perhaps, but it's nothing remotely like "Why come you want abortions to be legal but not guns?"


And the "choice" part in pro-choice isn't generalized? Why "anti-choice" rather than "anti-abortion" - which is clearly the more precise term. People use "anti-choice" because of its emotional appeal, and that appeal has entirely to do with the general implication.
 
2013-05-12 02:36:01 PM  

Biological Ali: Doom MD: You don't find it

I find it stupid that you're trolling this thread. Do you honestly think that annoying people on the internet is an effective way to advance your cause?


I'm sorry your cognitive dissonance is getting your panties in a twist and ruining your Mother's Day, Shirley. Nevertheless, I am totally expecting to turn this nation around in this fark thread so let me operate.
 
2013-05-12 02:37:29 PM  

Doom MD: Biological Ali: vygramul: Oh, come now, how often do people make fun of "pro-life" people for being pro-death-penalty? Either attacking a moniker for inconsistencies across issues is fair game or it isn't.

They're not attacking the "moniker" - pro-life people actually do make the claim that "life", in a generic sense, is sacred. You can be satisfied with their rationalizations for believing that while supporting the death penalty, perhaps, but it's nothing remotely like "Why come you want abortions to be legal but not guns?"

You don't find it inconsistent that some people are more comfortable with allowing people to terminate unborn children rather than use a firearm to kill someone trying to do them or their family active harm?


Practicality. Making abortions illegal leads to more deaths; making guns illegal leads to fewer.
 
2013-05-12 02:42:47 PM  

vygramul: And the "choice" part in pro-choice isn't generalized?


What? Of course not. Nobody's going around claiming "choice" in and of itself to be something sacred. Everybody knows which one specific choice is being referred to here, except perhaps somebody immigrating to the US from some non-English speaking country who's learning all of this for the first time.
 Doom MD


You're well within your rights spending the rest of your day having strangers on the internet believe you're some kind of idiot. Obviously I can't stop you if you've got your heart set on it.
 
2013-05-12 02:46:21 PM  

austerity101: Doom MD: Biological Ali: vygramul: Oh, come now, how often do people make fun of "pro-life" people for being pro-death-penalty? Either attacking a moniker for inconsistencies across issues is fair game or it isn't.

They're not attacking the "moniker" - pro-life people actually do make the claim that "life", in a generic sense, is sacred. You can be satisfied with their rationalizations for believing that while supporting the death penalty, perhaps, but it's nothing remotely like "Why come you want abortions to be legal but not guns?"

You don't find it inconsistent that some people are more comfortable with allowing people to terminate unborn children rather than use a firearm to kill someone trying to do them or their family active harm?

Practicality. Making abortions illegal leads to more deaths; making guns illegal leads to fewer.


According to the CDC, there have been 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973. Show me how gun violence has come even close to approaching this. Furthermore, relaxation of gun laws and the rise of concealed carry has occurred in a period where gun crime has decreased to 1950s levels.

You will retort I'm discounting the mother's safety, which is obviously improved with legalized abortion. I will retort by pointing out that a gun is a tool, not an act, and banning a simple tool is ridiculous. Furthermore, you're discounting lives saved from defensive gun uses and the positive gains from firearms being used for food acquisition and as an active physical hobby that gets people outdoors.

People should have a right with what to do with their bodies. Be it defending it or their reproductive rights.
 
2013-05-12 02:52:18 PM  
 i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-12 02:54:45 PM  
Dear Justice Ginsburg:

You will never be Chief Justice. So please stop campaigning for it. It's unseemly, probably unconstitutional, certainly unethical and more appropriate for the conservative members of the court.
 
2013-05-12 02:55:11 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: [i.imgur.com image 419x243]


This is so appropriate given your fark handle.

/citizenkane.gif
 
2013-05-12 03:00:55 PM  

Doom MD: austerity101: Doom MD: Biological Ali: vygramul: Oh, come now, how often do people make fun of "pro-life" people for being pro-death-penalty? Either attacking a moniker for inconsistencies across issues is fair game or it isn't.

They're not attacking the "moniker" - pro-life people actually do make the claim that "life", in a generic sense, is sacred. You can be satisfied with their rationalizations for believing that while supporting the death penalty, perhaps, but it's nothing remotely like "Why come you want abortions to be legal but not guns?"

You don't find it inconsistent that some people are more comfortable with allowing people to terminate unborn children rather than use a firearm to kill someone trying to do them or their family active harm?

Practicality. Making abortions illegal leads to more deaths; making guns illegal leads to fewer.

According to the CDC, there have been 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973. Show me how gun violence has come even close to approaching this. Furthermore, relaxation of gun laws and the rise of concealed carry has occurred in a period where gun crime has decreased to 1950s levels.

You will retort I'm discounting the mother's safety, which is obviously improved with legalized abortion. I will retort by pointing out that a gun is a tool, not an act, and banning a simple tool is ridiculous. Furthermore, you're discounting lives saved from defensive gun uses and the positive gains from firearms being used for food acquisition and as an active physical hobby that gets people outdoors.

People should have a right with what to do with their bodies. Be it defending it or their reproductive rights.


That was even better than I expected. Thanks.
 
2013-05-12 03:29:33 PM  
In any civil rights case that rules in favour of the victim is  "giving opponents something to target" almost by definition. That is how oppression and prejudice work.
 
2013-05-12 03:37:50 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: And the "choice" part in pro-choice isn't generalized?

What? Of course not. Nobody's going around claiming "choice" in and of itself to be something sacred. Everybody knows which one specific choice is being referred to here, except perhaps somebody immigrating to the US from some non-English speaking country who's learning all of this for the first time.


Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?
 
2013-05-12 04:07:22 PM  
The states should decide their own abortion laws. Although, you do need a federal limitation such a partial birth abortion or else the Democrat states will be gosnelling their children up until their teen years. One of the Progressives, I think it was Boxer, recently said they should be able to choose death for the baby until it leaves the hospital.
 
2013-05-12 04:10:19 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: The states should decide their own abortion laws. Although, you do need a federal limitation such a partial birth abortion or else the Democrat states will be gosnelling their children up until their teen years. One of the Progressives, I think it was Boxer, recently said they should be able to choose death for the baby until it leaves the hospital.


i306.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-12 04:21:32 PM  
img3.joyreactor.com
 
2013-05-12 04:28:16 PM  

vygramul: Biological Ali: vygramul: And the "choice" part in pro-choice isn't generalized?

What? Of course not. Nobody's going around claiming "choice" in and of itself to be something sacred. Everybody knows which one specific choice is being referred to here, except perhaps somebody immigrating to the US from some non-English speaking country who's learning all of this for the first time.

Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?


I like that one when I'm not going with "forced birthers".
 
2013-05-12 04:50:20 PM  

vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?


Because most of the anti-choice crowd are OK with abortion in certain circumstances - rape, the life of the mother, their daughter's pregnancy, etc.  It's the idea of women in general having the choice that gets their knickers in a twist.
 
2013-05-12 04:55:38 PM  

Graffito: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

Because most of the anti-choice crowd are OK with abortion in certain circumstances - rape, the life of the mother, their daughter's pregnancy, etc.  It's the idea of women in general having the choice that gets their knickers in a twist.


Men shouldn't have to pay child support, it was the woman's choice to have the kid.
 
2013-05-12 05:01:35 PM  

Jegred2: Graffito: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

Because most of the anti-choice crowd are OK with abortion in certain circumstances - rape, the life of the mother, their daughter's pregnancy, etc.  It's the idea of women in general having the choice that gets their knickers in a twist.

Men shouldn't have to pay child support, it was the woman's choice to have the kid.


Oh you poor, poor man.  Life is so unfair to you.
 
2013-05-12 05:03:59 PM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: The My Little Pony Killer: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something .

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 164x120]

//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.

When a fetus can stand on its own two feet and offer an opinion in its own words, I'll give it consideration.  Until then, it's just a part of my body to do with as I will.  Deal with it.

Keep that crazy biatch away from me.
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 233x216]


What does Stephen Hawking have to do with this?

img.thesun.co.uk
 
2013-05-12 05:06:52 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I don't like abortion any more than I like appendectomies. They're a neutral medical procedure. Logically if the fetus isn't a human life, then you shouldn't care if a woman has one abortion or a hundred. I wouldn't really care if a person had one melanoma removed or a hundred either.

It's either human life or it's not. You can't say "Yeah this fetus has a bit of human life, but not enough to outweigh the rights of the mother over her own body, so she can kill it if she wants."


When does it transition from a little bunch of cells to a human?

Some politicians actually want to say it's when the guy blows his load, as seen by the stance on abortion even in terms of rape.

I'm all for erring on the side of caution, but if we're going to take that much care in saving a "human life" shouldn't we care about it after it's born?
 
2013-05-12 05:07:29 PM  

Jegred2: Graffito: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

Because most of the anti-choice crowd are OK with abortion in certain circumstances - rape, the life of the mother, their daughter's pregnancy, etc.  It's the idea of women in general having the choice that gets their knickers in a twist.

Men shouldn't have to pay child support, it was the woman's choice to have the kid.


Decision the man had: Decision to insert his penis, unprotected, into a woman's vagina.
Second Decision the Man had: Decision to thrust himself vigorously, for the four or five seconds it takes YOU to orgasm.
Third Decision the man had: To ejactulate into an unprotected woman's vagina.

So go cry me a river, you poor, persecuted little man.
 
2013-05-12 05:08:38 PM  
I'm sure this is the thread where we will settle all controversies on abortion once and for all.
 
2013-05-12 05:12:11 PM  
Milo Minderbinder:  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?

redalertpolitics.com
 
2013-05-12 05:17:59 PM  

Alphax: I don't think the people demanding control over women's bodies are going to relent soon.


NO NO NO, it has nothing to do with controlling women, it's purely about protecting the innocent child which should be obvious since once that child is born they are willing to pay any amount of taxes to make sure that child grows up healthy and educated, right?
 
2013-05-12 05:19:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jegred2: Graffito: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

Because most of the anti-choice crowd are OK with abortion in certain circumstances - rape, the life of the mother, their daughter's pregnancy, etc.  It's the idea of women in general having the choice that gets their knickers in a twist.

Men shouldn't have to pay child support, it was the woman's choice to have the kid.

Decision the man had: Decision to insert his penis, unprotected, into a woman's vagina.
Second Decision the Man had: Decision to thrust himself vigorously, for the four or five seconds it takes YOU to orgasm.
Third Decision the man had: To ejactulate into an unprotected woman's vagina.

So go cry me a river, you poor, persecuted little man.


You guys are currently saying that fathers have no right to say squat about what a woman does with his child. I don't think men should have to pay child support if they have no say in whether or not their child gets to live.
Your 3 decision thing makes it appear as if you think women don't have anything to do with the act of sex.
 
2013-05-12 05:27:25 PM  

Jegred2: You guys are currently saying that fathers have no right to say squat about what a woman does with his child.


Oh, but that's the thing. You're pretending that fathers don't have any say. They do. After the fetus is out of the woman's body. Because, at that point, the neonate no longer has the ability to cause the woman to be psychologically destroyed from a forced abortion, or die from a complication. You are more than welcome after the fact to keep your name off the birth certificate, and then go to court to either get custody, or prove you're not the baby daddy.

Don't want to pay child support? Start by not signing that certificate.

Jegred2: I don't think men should have to pay child support if they have no say in whether or not their child gets to live.


And that makes you a waste of humanity if you think you should be able to fark anything you want, without consequences, and then force that person to undergo a procedure which - if non-consensual - can be horrifically scarring on the psyche of a woman.

Jegred2: Your 3 decision thing makes it appear as if you think women don't have anything to do with the act of sex.


And you are saying that, as a man, you are too weak and easily manipulated to spend two seconds and fifty cents putting a piece of plastic on your dick. That is insulting to every other man out there.
 
2013-05-12 05:40:55 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jegred2: You guys are currently saying that fathers have no right to say squat about what a woman does with his child.

Oh, but that's the thing. You're pretending that fathers don't have any say. They do. After the fetus is out of the woman's body. Because, at that point, the neonate no longer has the ability to cause the woman to be psychologically destroyed from a forced abortion, or die from a complication. You are more than welcome after the fact to keep your name off the birth certificate, and then go to court to either get custody, or prove you're not the baby daddy.

Don't want to pay child support? Start by not signing that certificate.

Jegred2: I don't think men should have to pay child support if they have no say in whether or not their child gets to live.

And that makes you a waste of humanity if you think you should be able to fark anything you want, without consequences, and then force that person to undergo a procedure which - if non-consensual - can be horrifically scarring on the psyche of a woman.

Jegred2: Your 3 decision thing makes it appear as if you think women don't have anything to do with the act of sex.

And you are saying that, as a man, you are too weak and easily manipulated to spend two seconds and fifty cents putting a piece of plastic on your dick. That is insulting to every other man out there.


You are the one advocating consequence free sex with anything for women, and I never said anything about rape. Also, women should be smart enough to either use birth control, or verify that the man is wearing a condom before they have sex. You are codling women with your attitude.

BTW, I never said abortion should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If there aren't any medical reasons or rape reasons to get it then you shouldn't be getting it.

There is no need for you to get nasty and emotional because you don't agree with what I say. Act like a civilized adult.
 
2013-05-12 05:43:22 PM  

vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?


I'm not the one who decided to go with something stupid like "pro-life". You'll have to take it up with them.
 
2013-05-12 05:49:21 PM  

ColdFusion: What does Stephen Hawking have to do with this?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 380x574]


I guess Hawking's parents might have aborted him if they were informed of the genetic risk their foetus was carrying. You know, the same way math geniuses in general are targets for a sort of genocide because of the social stigma around autism.
 
2013-05-12 06:29:36 PM  

Etchy333: I'm sure this is the thread where we will settle all controversies on abortion once and for all.


I think it's possible. My question is how much do you tip the abortion doc?
 
2013-05-12 06:38:08 PM  

Delawheredad: He's completely legal, was state inspected


why the fark do people feel the need to just straight up lie about stuff like this
 
2013-05-12 06:50:01 PM  

Graffito: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

Because most of the anti-choice crowd are OK with abortion in certain circumstances - rape, the life of the mother, their daughter's pregnancy, etc.  It's the idea of women in general having the choice that gets their knickers in a twist.


Neither side is pure, for one thing. Most of the pro-abortion crowd are ok with limiting late-term abortions to only those cases where medially necessary. I guess everyone hates choice.
 
2013-05-12 06:51:28 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jegred2: Graffito: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

Because most of the anti-choice crowd are OK with abortion in certain circumstances - rape, the life of the mother, their daughter's pregnancy, etc.  It's the idea of women in general having the choice that gets their knickers in a twist.

Men shouldn't have to pay child support, it was the woman's choice to have the kid.

Decision the man had: Decision to insert his penis, unprotected, into a woman's vagina.
Second Decision the Man had: Decision to thrust himself vigorously, for the four or five seconds it takes YOU to orgasm.
Third Decision the man had: To ejactulate into an unprotected woman's vagina.

So go cry me a river, you poor, persecuted little man.


You're never going to be able to create a symmetrical decision tree for men and women when it comes to child-bearing.
 
2013-05-12 06:52:22 PM  

djkutch: Etchy333: I'm sure this is the thread where we will settle all controversies on abortion once and for all.

I think it's possible. My question is how much do you tip the abortion doc?


media.zenfs.com
 
2013-05-12 06:53:49 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

I'm not the one who decided to go with something stupid like "pro-life". You'll have to take it up with them.


I'm not asking them why they call themselves pro-life rather than anti-abortion. I'm not asking you why you don't call them pro-life. I'm asking you why you don't call them anti-abortion. Your dodging the question suggests you recognize the ground upon which you stand and realize you're not entirely happy with it.
 
2013-05-12 06:56:49 PM  

Etchy333: I'm sure this is the thread where we will settle all controversies on abortion once and for all.


It comes down to just one question: when does human life start? Some people believe it's at conception. Others believe it's at birth. Some people start feeling uncomfortable somewhere halfway through the process. Answer that fundamental question to everyone's satisfaction, and the debate is over.
 
2013-05-12 06:57:32 PM  

Jegred2: You are the one advocating consequence free sex with anything for women


No, I'm not. Raising a child is hardly consequence free. Child support is not about what is best for the woman, at any rate It's about what is best for the child, namely not making him a ward of the state and a burden on society as a whole.

Jegred2: and I never said anything about rape.


No, you just implied a man is too stupid to take control of his own ability to procreate.

Jegred2: Also, women should be smart enough to either use birth control, or verify that the man is wearing a condom before they have sex


Yeah, they should. And a man should be smart enough to know that hormonal contraception can fail, or someone could be lying to him. If he's so desperate that he can't keep it in his damn pants, it's not a gigantic leap to put a condom on.

Jegred2: You are codling women with your attitude.


No, I'm not. It takes 46 chromosomes to make a baby. You're donating 23 of them. You have control over that 23, and keeping it away from that egg. Stop pretending to be the oppressed one.

Jegred2: BTW, I never said abortion should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If there aren't any medical reasons or rape reasons to get it then you shouldn't be getting it.


Which is irrelevant to the discussion. What was addressed was your parroting of Men's Rights Activist talking points and your "strawman feminist" claims about rape apologetics and blaming a victim for their sexual assault. Irregardless, you should know better than to force your opinion onto the rights of others.

A woman has a right to self-determination for what happens in her own body. Until that point that it is out and a neonate, you have no say and rightfully so.

Jegred2: There is no need for you to get nasty and emotional because you don't agree with what I say. Act like a civilized adult.


I am acting like a civilized adult, you delicate little flower. Your talking points are blatantly offensive to me as a man and as an adult, namely inferring that I am too weak to control my own penis, and that I am easily manipulated by a woman into ejactulating inside of her unprotected vagina, and that somehow her getting pregnant is all her fault.

I despise Men's Rights cowards, and their idea of "manliness" of being able to fark anything they want without consequences, and abandoning what they create with their moment of stupidity and consensual choice.

But no, keep pretending that because I didn't use honey to catch the flies, my point is invalid.
 
2013-05-12 06:59:20 PM  

vygramul: Most of the pro-abortion crowd are ok with limiting late-term abortions to only those cases where medially necessary. I guess everyone hates choice.


The problem is that late-term abortion occurs at the point where there is a medically viable, and self-aware fetus capable of feeling pain and sensation of the world around him, while most normal abortions occur before the neurological system is even developed to the point of mounting a cursory response to pain, and the fetus is not capable of survival outside of the womb.
 
2013-05-12 07:02:55 PM  

hardinparamedic: vygramul: Most of the pro-abortion crowd are ok with limiting late-term abortions to only those cases where medially necessary. I guess everyone hates choice.

The problem is that late-term abortion occurs at the point where there is a medically viable, and self-aware fetus capable of feeling pain and sensation of the world around him, while most normal abortions occur before the neurological system is even developed to the point of mounting a cursory response to pain, and the fetus is not capable of survival outside of the womb.


Do you endorse a ban on late-term abortions except in the case of the life of the mother?
 
2013-05-12 07:28:55 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jegred2: You are the one advocating consequence free sex with anything for women

No, I'm not. Raising a child is hardly consequence free. Child support is not about what is best for the woman, at any rate It's about what is best for the child, namely not making him a ward of the state and a burden on society as a whole.

Jegred2: and I never said anything about rape.

No, you just implied a man is too stupid to take control of his own ability to procreate.

Jegred2: Also, women should be smart enough to either use birth control, or verify that the man is wearing a condom before they have sex

Yeah, they should. And a man should be smart enough to know that hormonal contraception can fail, or someone could be lying to him. If he's so desperate that he can't keep it in his damn pants, it's not a gigantic leap to put a condom on.

Jegred2: You are codling women with your attitude.

No, I'm not. It takes 46 chromosomes to make a baby. You're donating 23 of them. You have control over that 23, and keeping it away from that egg. Stop pretending to be the oppressed one.

Jegred2: BTW, I never said abortion should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If there aren't any medical reasons or rape reasons to get it then you shouldn't be getting it.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. What was addressed was your parroting of Men's Rights Activist talking points and your "strawman feminist" claims about rape apologetics and blaming a victim for their sexual assault. Irregardless, you should know better than to force your opinion onto the rights of others.

A woman has a right to self-determination for what happens in her own body. Until that point that it is out and a neonate, you have no say and rightfully so.

Jegred2: There is no need for you to get nasty and emotional because you don't agree with what I say. Act like a civilized adult.

I am acting like a civilized adult, you delicate little flower. Your talking points are blatantly offe ...


You aren't even worth arguing with, and it doesn't even matter anyway. Those women who are going to use abortion as a form of birth control are doing the world a favor and making sure less of their genes are running around. Using abortion as birth control is irresponsible in the extreme. Good luck with your arguments and personal attacks.
 
2013-05-12 07:39:22 PM  
You know who got it right?  The French. After 12 - 14 weeks you've made your choice. Plan B in gumball machines everywhere.
 
2013-05-12 07:42:46 PM  

Jegred2: I never said abortion should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If there aren't any medical reasons or rape reasons to get it then you shouldn't be getting it.


It should never be a first line of defense but abortion ultimately *is* the last line of birth control and should be made available and covered under everyone's basic medical plan and paid for with tax dollars if necessary.

Key word there is not "birth" so much as "control".

I believe it's morally repugnant of someone to try to control another person body and life to the degree that you advocate.

You believe that abortion is morally wrong without a medical or rape reason and that beyond those exception it should be illegal.

I doubt we'll ever change each other's minds.
 
2013-05-12 07:52:04 PM  

quatchi: Jegred2: I never said abortion should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If there aren't any medical reasons or rape reasons to get it then you shouldn't be getting it.

It should never be a first line of defense but abortion ultimately *is* the last line of birth control and should be made available and covered under everyone's basic medical plan and paid for with tax dollars if necessary.

Key word there is not "birth" so much as "control".

I believe it's morally repugnant of someone to try to control another person body and life to the degree that you advocate.

You believe that abortion is morally wrong without a medical or rape reason and that beyond those exception it should be illegal.

I doubt we'll ever change each other's minds.


Why should the government pay for abortion? Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.
 
2013-05-12 07:54:45 PM  

Jegred2: quatchi: Jegred2: I never said abortion should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If there aren't any medical reasons or rape reasons to get it then you shouldn't be getting it.

It should never be a first line of defense but abortion ultimately *is* the last line of birth control and should be made available and covered under everyone's basic medical plan and paid for with tax dollars if necessary.

Key word there is not "birth" so much as "control".

I believe it's morally repugnant of someone to try to control another person body and life to the degree that you advocate.

You believe that abortion is morally wrong without a medical or rape reason and that beyond those exception it should be illegal.

I doubt we'll ever change each other's minds.

Why should the government pay for abortion? Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.


While regrettable in a philosophical sense, it would probably be a fiscal no-brainer if anyone crunched the numbers.
 
2013-05-12 08:07:47 PM  

vygramul: Biological Ali: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

I'm not the one who decided to go with something stupid like "pro-life". You'll have to take it up with them.

I'm not asking them why they call themselves pro-life rather than anti-abortion. I'm not asking you why you don't call them pro-life. I'm asking you why you don't call them anti-abortion. Your dodging the question suggests you recognize the ground upon which you stand and realize you're not entirely happy with it.


I'm not "dodging the question" - I actually don't understand what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to ask me something, or are you trying to tell me something? If you're trying to make some sort of point, you might as well be up front about it rather than beating about the bush.
 
2013-05-12 08:26:51 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Biological Ali: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

I'm not the one who decided to go with something stupid like "pro-life". You'll have to take it up with them.

I'm not asking them why they call themselves pro-life rather than anti-abortion. I'm not asking you why you don't call them pro-life. I'm asking you why you don't call them anti-abortion. Your dodging the question suggests you recognize the ground upon which you stand and realize you're not entirely happy with it.

I'm not "dodging the question" - I actually don't understand what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to ask me something, or are you trying to tell me something? If you're trying to make some sort of point, you might as well be up front about it rather than beating about the bush.


Beating around the bush is a good way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
 
2013-05-12 08:27:48 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Biological Ali: vygramul: Then why not just go with "anti-abortion" which is more precise?

I'm not the one who decided to go with something stupid like "pro-life". You'll have to take it up with them.

I'm not asking them why they call themselves pro-life rather than anti-abortion. I'm not asking you why you don't call them pro-life. I'm asking you why you don't call them anti-abortion. Your dodging the question suggests you recognize the ground upon which you stand and realize you're not entirely happy with it.

I'm not "dodging the question" - I actually don't understand what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to ask me something, or are you trying to tell me something? If you're trying to make some sort of point, you might as well be up front about it rather than beating about the bush.


The question is pretty straight forward:

Why do you call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion, which is more precise?
 
2013-05-12 08:29:53 PM  

vygramul: Why do you call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion, which is more precise?


What? I myself just call them "pro-life" because that's the stupid name they've picked out for themselves. I don't really care what other people call them.
 
2013-05-12 08:31:01 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Why do you call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion, which is more precise?

What? I myself just call them "pro-life" because that's the stupid name they've picked out for themselves. I don't really care what other people call them.


OK, by why do other pro-choicers choose to call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion?
 
2013-05-12 08:44:13 PM  

vygramul: OK, by why do other pro-choicers choose to call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion?


There are at least three people in this very thread who have used the phrase "anti-choice". Wouldn't it make more sense to ask one of them directly rather than have me speak on their behalf?
 
2013-05-12 08:48:55 PM  

Curious: Milo Minderbinder: I think you miss her point. By virtue of the decision, the policy debate was largely taken out of the equation. Those favoring choice no longer had to defend choice on the merits, but just had to point to the decision. Ginsburg is saying this throws the democratic process a curveball, a disrupting method to reach a position we would have (hopefully) come to democratically; in effect, conservative intransigence was CREATED by the decision.

she's entitled to her opinion but IMO it was always there but just got a lot louder with the advent of rabid partisan politics in recent years.


I was a kid back then. My experience was clearly anecdotal, but from what my kid's ears heard, race (civil rights) was a million times more of an irritant than abortion. And I grew up in a northern state.

Many adults around me were incandescent that "coloreds" considered themselves equal as citizens. And thought they could live in the same neighborhoods!

When people were angry about women, it was when women expected to be able to work after marriage, as professionals, not be treated as a piece of ass, be respected, be paid fairly.

Red-faced, frothing RAGE.
 
2013-05-12 09:05:14 PM  
How about a national registry of pro-life folks committed to adopting a potential abortion regardless of sex or race?

Until then, STFU.
 
2013-05-12 10:14:47 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: OK, by why do other pro-choicers choose to call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion?

There are at least three people in this very thread who have used the phrase "anti-choice". Wouldn't it make more sense to ask one of them directly rather than have me speak on their behalf?


So you're saying that you don't know WHY "anti-choice" is used. Despite this professed ignorance, you felt informed enough to make an assertion about it earlier:

"Nobody's going around claiming "choice" in and of itself to be something sacred. Everybody knows which one specific choice is being referred to here, except perhaps somebody immigrating to the US from some non-English speaking country who's learning all of this for the first time."

And guess what? Everyone knows what one specific life is being referred to here, too.
 
2013-05-12 10:33:02 PM  

Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?


Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.
 
2013-05-12 10:41:25 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?


RON PAUL
 
2013-05-13 01:38:46 AM  

vygramul: And guess what? Everyone knows what one specific life is being referred to here, too.


As I already explained, "pro-life" isn't a shorthand for specific kinds of lives to the exclusion of others - it really is based on a set of ideas about life in general (what they believe human life to be, at any rate), which is why questions about the death penalty will always be pertinent (and indeed, many of them actually are against the death penalty for that very reason).

And as for the ones that aren't against the death penalty you may (as I also said earlier) be satisfied by their rationalizations, but you should at least be able to see why the question about the death penalty isn't a pointless diversion, unlike some random troll demanding to know why someone who supports abortion rights doesn't also support gun rights.
 
2013-05-13 02:11:33 AM  
Wrong people.  Roe is meaningless!!!! Casey v. Planned Parenthood is the holding everyone has attributed to Roe for the last fourty years.

/technically correct
//the best kind of correct
///slashies!!!
 
2013-05-13 04:10:12 AM  

quatchi: Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?

Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.



Come on. We're losing sight of the real victims in all of this. Deadbeat dads. All those harlots and painted ladies shake their beehinds for the menfolk, and they powerlessly have to shove their peener in without a hint of thought or foresight. The woman has to take full responsibility of all birth control. Forcing men to pay their child support for their unwanted spawn is the greatest injustice since the Bataan Death March down the Trail of Tears to Auschwitz. MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!!
 
2013-05-13 05:54:01 AM  

stoli n coke: quatchi: Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?

Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.


Come on. We're losing sight of the real victims in all of this. Deadbeat dads. All those harlots and painted ladies shake their beehinds for the menfolk, and they powerlessly have to shove their peener in without a hint of thought or foresight. The woman has to take full responsibility of all birth control. Forcing men to pay their child support for their unwanted spawn is the greatest injustice since the Bataan Death March down the Trail of Tears to Auschwitz. MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!!


You didn't even read the arguments did you? The other guy was arguing that women shouldn't be responsible for anything other than going in for an abortion when they find out that they got pregnant. Being pregnant isn't something that should be treated as a cancer that you cut out and discard on a whim.
 
2013-05-13 08:17:48 AM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: And guess what? Everyone knows what one specific life is being referred to here, too.

As I already explained, "pro-life" isn't a shorthand for specific kinds of lives to the exclusion of others - it really is based on a set of ideas about life in general (what they believe human life to be, at any rate), which is why questions about the death penalty will always be pertinent (and indeed, many of them actually are against the death penalty for that very reason).

And as for the ones that aren't against the death penalty you may (as I also said earlier) be satisfied by their rationalizations, but you should at least be able to see why the question about the death penalty isn't a pointless diversion, unlike some random troll demanding to know why someone who supports abortion rights doesn't also support gun rights.


Wait - are you serious? Aside from the abortion issue, once you remove the Catholics, just what generalized respect for life is it that typical conservatives have, even in their own minds?
 
2013-05-13 09:38:08 AM  

Jegred2: stoli n coke: quatchi: Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?

Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.


Come on. We're losing sight of the real victims in all of this. Deadbeat dads. All those harlots and painted ladies shake their beehinds for the menfolk, and they powerlessly have to shove their peener in without a hint of thought or foresight. The woman has to take full responsibility of all birth control. Forcing men to pay their child support for their unwanted spawn is the greatest injustice since the Bataan Death March down the Trail of Tears to Auschwitz. MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!!

You didn't even read the arguments did you? The other guy was arguing that women shouldn't be responsible for anything other than going in for an abortion when they find out that they got pregnant. Being pregnant isn't something that should be treated a ...


People cut out and discard cancers on a whim?
 
2013-05-13 10:11:20 AM  
Derpa derpa. Arguing on the internet etc etc.
 
2013-05-13 01:30:14 PM  

vygramul: Wait - are you serious? Aside from the abortion issue, once you remove the Catholics, just what generalized respect for life is it that typical conservatives have, even in their own minds?


Since I still have no farking clue what it is you're trying to say here, I'm just going to repeat what I've already said so far:

- I started out in this thread by objecting to a troll doing the usual "Why abortions but not guns, lol" routine
- You mentioned people asking pro-lifers about the death penalty, implying that it was somehow equivalent
- I point out why that's not the case, i.e., because pro-lifers do indeed claim to base their philosophy around ideas about the sacredness of "life" in general that encompasses all people (or rather, what they imagine "people" to be), whereas pro-choicers do not base their philosophy around some grand theory of "choice" that covers the right to own a firearm

That's the extent of the discussion that I came to this thread to have. If you have some specific disagreement with that (e.g. if you believe either the pro-life or the pro-choice philosophies to be based on something else entirely), then you should state it directly.
 
2013-05-13 01:45:40 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Wait - are you serious? Aside from the abortion issue, once you remove the Catholics, just what generalized respect for life is it that typical conservatives have, even in their own minds?

Since I still have no farking clue what it is you're trying to say here, I'm just going to repeat what I've already said so far:

- I started out in this thread by objecting to a troll doing the usual "Why abortions but not guns, lol" routine
- You mentioned people asking pro-lifers about the death penalty, implying that it was somehow equivalent
- I point out why that's not the case, i.e., because pro-lifers do indeed claim to base their philosophy around ideas about the sacredness of "life" in general that encompasses all people (or rather, what they imagine "people" to be), whereas pro-choicers do not base their philosophy around some grand theory of "choice" that covers the right to own a firearm

That's the extent of the discussion that I came to this thread to have. If you have some specific disagreement with that (e.g. if you believe either the pro-life or the pro-choice philosophies to be based on something else entirely), then you should state it directly.


People use "anti-choice" because they want to impart a perception that what their opponents are against is "choice" and the connotations thereto. They like the fact that the implication escapes the boundaries of mere abortion. Their objection to choice in other contexts matters as a result.

You disagree, but you also say you don't understand them. Which is a strange disparity. You're trying to have it both ways.
 
2013-05-13 01:58:58 PM  

vygramul: People use "anti-choice" because they want to impart a perception that what their opponents are against is "choice" and the connotations thereto. They like the fact that the implication escapes the boundaries of mere abortion. Their objection to choice in other contexts matters as a result.

You disagree, but you also say you don't understand them. Which is a strange disparity. You're trying to have it both ways.


I didn't say I don't "understand" them; I said that I don't care about what terms they use to describe their opponents. I also don't care when pro-lifers say things like "anti-life" - when I take issue with them, it's with the incoherence of their philosophy as a whole, and not these stupid little marketing strategies.

As such, I'm not going to bother trying to explain what they do or don't mean by it, since it's not relevant to the one thing I came to the thread to talk about (the absurdity of the "abortions therefore guns" logic). If the "anti-choice" thing is still bothering you (and it looks like it is), you should take it up (as I suggested earlier) with one of the several people in this thread who actually do use the term.
 
2013-05-13 02:11:36 PM  

Por que tan serioso: Wrong people.  Roe is meaningless!!!! Casey v. Planned Parenthood is the holding everyone has attributed to Roe for the last fourty years.

/technically correct
//the best kind of correct
///slashies!!!


Came here to say this. Since 1992 Casey, not Roe, has been the controlling law.

Quick side note about Roe - there's a rumor that Chief Justice Burger changed his vote. The decision was going to be 6-3, with the Chief Justice in the minority. As per SCOTUS rules, the senior justice in the majority chooses who writes the majority opinion if the Chief Justice is not joining the opinion. That senior Justice would have been William Brennan, who was about 50,000x the legal mind of Justice Blackmun, and he would probably have written the decision himself. By joining the majority Burger didn't effect the outcome (it would have then been 6-3 without him) but he got to make sure that the decision would not be written by Brennan, who would have written a more legally cogent and persuasive decision better able to withstand scrutiny.
 
2013-05-13 02:58:21 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: People use "anti-choice" because they want to impart a perception that what their opponents are against is "choice" and the connotations thereto. They like the fact that the implication escapes the boundaries of mere abortion. Their objection to choice in other contexts matters as a result.

You disagree, but you also say you don't understand them. Which is a strange disparity. You're trying to have it both ways.

I didn't say I don't "understand" them; I said that I don't care about what terms they use to describe their opponents. I also don't care when pro-lifers say things like "anti-life" - when I take issue with them, it's with the incoherence of their philosophy as a whole, and not these stupid little marketing strategies.

As such, I'm not going to bother trying to explain what they do or don't mean by it, since it's not relevant to the one thing I came to the thread to talk about (the absurdity of the "abortions therefore guns" logic). If the "anti-choice" thing is still bothering you (and it looks like it is), you should take it up (as I suggested earlier) with one of the several people in this thread who actually do use the term.


Except it goes DIRECTLY to your objection.

Say a pro-choice person were to say, "Yes, I mean they're against choice in general and I'm for choice in general." Then attacking them for their lack of gun stance makes total sense. And if a pro-lifer says, "I only mean it in terms of abortion," then attacking them for a death penalty stance makes NO sense.

You can't argue that you both don't know what people mean by "choice" and then argue with certainty that attacking them for a lack of choice in other contexts is wrong.
 
2013-05-13 03:33:02 PM  

vygramul: Except it goes DIRECTLY to your objection.

Say a pro-choice person were to say, "Yes, I mean they're against choice in general and I'm for choice in general." Then attacking them for their lack of gun stance makes total sense. And if a pro-lifer says, "I only mean it in terms of abortion," then attacking them for a death penalty stance makes NO sense.


Sure, except in the real world, neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers are saying these things. When a pro-lifer is asked abou the death penalty, it goes to something that is at the heart of the pro-life philosophy itself, whereas the justification you made earlier about asking a pro-choicer about guns seems to be based not on their actual philosophy, but rather, on what you believe to be the "connotations" associated with a term that some of them use to describe their opponents. This looks like a massive stretch to me, but even if you don't agree with that, you should at least be able to see how they are two entirely different conversations.

I get that you're trying to make a "both sides do the same thing" argument, but it really doesn't apply here. A proper analogue to the "Abortions therefore guns" trolling would be if somebody asked a pro-lifer something like "Hey, you say you're pro-'life', so I guess you're against swatting mosquitoes too", in terms of being something that deliberately misstates the person's position to the same degree.

vygramul: You can't argue that you both don't know what people mean by "choice" and then argue with certainty that attacking them for a lack of choice in other contexts is wrong.


I never said I don't "know" - I "know" perfectly well. What I said was that I don't care enough to get into that particular argument, as it has no bearing on the point I was making.
 
Displayed 219 of 219 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report