Do you have adblock enabled?
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 60
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-12 03:09:47 AM  
10 votes:
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  
6 votes:
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  
5 votes:
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 09:43:44 AM  
4 votes:
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 06:53:36 AM  
4 votes:
One thing remains true: Once born, they simply no longer care about a child.
2013-05-12 05:30:53 AM  
4 votes:
"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 06:57:32 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:27:25 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:00:47 PM  
3 votes:

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 09:34:41 AM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-05-12 09:30:24 AM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com

/oblig
2013-05-12 08:22:00 AM  
3 votes:
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 07:32:21 AM  
3 votes:
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 07:09:46 AM  
3 votes:
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 06:53:25 AM  
3 votes:
I don't think the people demanding control over women's bodies are going to relent soon.
2013-05-12 02:03:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:33:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:01:58 AM  
2 votes:

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 05:40:58 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:33:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:51:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:12:11 PM  
1 votes:
Milo Minderbinder:  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?

redalertpolitics.com
2013-05-12 05:07:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:06:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:03:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:01:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:28:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:10:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:37:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:34:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:24:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:31:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:18:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:03:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:02:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:57:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:46:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:45:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:43:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:43:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:40:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:37:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:29:17 PM  
1 votes:
2013-05-12 11:59:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:57:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:55:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:51:20 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:29:17 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:19:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:02 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:38:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:24:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:03:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:55:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:43:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:05:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:54:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:50:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:27:56 AM  
1 votes:
www.godlikeproductions.com
 
Displayed 60 of 60 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