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.

(Washington Post)   Supreme Court will consider whether abortion patients have too much privacy   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, abortions  
•       •       •

2544 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 2:38 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-24 04:33:35 PM  
These clinics sending their patients a complimentary pepper sprayer before their appointment might be a useful option.
 
2013-06-24 04:34:10 PM  

what_now: The Planned Parenthood on Commonwealth Ave is basically on BU's Campus. I can't tell you how many times I walked down the street trying to get to class, and had some asshat yell at me about my baby.


If you're single, they're publicly accusing you of pre-marital sex which by their own standards makes you a sinner and bad person. I wonder if a slander lawsuit would get very far, and if the defense would try to claim sex outside of marriage isn't bad after all...
 
2013-06-24 04:36:13 PM  

Old enough to know better: These clinics sending their patients a complimentary pepper sprayer before their appointment might be a useful option.


yeah, so they can have their babbies in prison!
 
2013-06-24 05:03:30 PM  
Republicans: Government so small it fits in a vagina.
 
2013-06-24 05:21:56 PM  

spongeboob: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtm l
http://gawker.com/5896804/frank-brunis-too+good+to+be+true-abortion- ta le

Might lead to some awkward conversations.


Stories like that show the utter disconnect from reality that many of the so-called 'pro-life' people live.  They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Simply put, their abortions were completely necessary, and any other woman who decides to get an abortion is a low life whore and should be reminded of that.  That is the way their mind works.
 
2013-06-24 05:35:33 PM  

coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!


Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.
 
2013-06-24 05:41:51 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: spongeboob: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtm l
http://gawker.com/5896804/frank-brunis-too+good+to+be+true-abortion- ta le

Might lead to some awkward conversations.

Stories like that show the utter disconnect from reality that many of the so-called 'pro-life' people live.  They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Simply put, their abortions were completely necessary, and any other woman who decides to get an abortion is a low life whore and should be reminded of that.  That is the way their mind works.


I've heard lots of people dispute those stories and insist that no woman who vocally opposed abortion would ever get one. I'll grant that it's possible or even likely that pro-life women get fewer abortions than pro-choice women, but their scenario is beyond a statistical outlier. It would be by a wide margin the least likely thing that has ever happened.
 
2013-06-24 05:44:18 PM  

what_now: You have no first amendment right to engage anyone in conversation, you have no first amendment right to bully or harass.

Massachusetts doesn't have this law for fun, they have it because one of these "right to life" second amendment warriors murdered two receptionists in Brookline.


This.
 
2013-06-24 05:44:46 PM  

Bloody William: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Technically, that's datum. Data implies multiple points. Or anecdontal evidence, since it's just one incident with a specific backstory to it that, statistically, has no farking bearing on trends.


Are talking about Steven Chase Brigham?
 
2013-06-24 05:59:29 PM  

tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.


Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.
 
2013-06-24 06:03:48 PM  

coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.


They are all more recent and they killed more people.
 
2013-06-24 06:13:25 PM  

tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.

They are all more recent and they killed more people.


How many incidents since the 90s to today?  That was your supposition... "what is this, the 80s?"  So back it up instead of goal post moving of "more recent".
 
2013-06-24 06:21:27 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.


Agreed.

From my own personal experience, I've found that people who hold near fanatical views on a subject often tend to display signs of cognitive dissonance.  It seems as if they have so fully committed themselves to the cause that any deviation might shatter their worldview.

Case in point: I've had a couple of debates regarding pro-life references within the Bible that many people use as their basis to justify their position.  When I point out that there are several passages that show that [Old Testament] God is indifferent [or worse, advocates the use of abortion under some scenarios, like in Numbers V], and how many of their own passages are being used out-of-context, I get a bunch of Whaaarbargle.

If people believe that abortion is an immoral act, and that they came to that decision through self-reflection, fine.  If they came to that decision because some mentor or authority figure repeated a few cherry-picked verses, then I have a problem.  If the latter folks decide to interfere with people who disagree with their opinion, then I have a big problem.  If those folks cannot be swayed and have otherwise become irrational, then IMHO, we all have a big problem.
 
2013-06-24 06:22:03 PM  

coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.

They are all more recent and they killed more people.

How many incidents since the 90s to today?  That was your supposition... "what is this, the 80s?"  So back it up instead of goal post moving of "more recent".


Read:
The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.
 
2013-06-24 06:36:47 PM  

Old enough to know better: These clinics sending their patients a complimentary pepper sprayer before their appointment might be a useful option.


Or just a t-shirt that states, "This is a 'Stand Your Ground' state, and I'm feeling very threatened right now".
 
2013-06-24 06:37:28 PM  

Dinjiin: AurizenDarkstar: They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Agreed.

From my own personal experience, I've found that people who hold near fanatical views on a subject often tend to display signs of cognitive dissonance.  It seems as if they have so fully committed themselves to the cause that any deviation might shatter their worldview.

Case in point: I've had a couple of debates regarding pro-life references within the Bible that many people use as their basis to justify their position.  When I point out that there are several passages that show that [Old Testament] God is indifferent [or worse, advocates the use of abortion under some scenarios, like in Numbers V], and how many of their own passages are being used out-of-context, I get a bunch of Whaaarbargle.

If people believe that abortion is an immoral act, and that they came to that decision through self-reflection, fine.  If they came to that decision because some mentor or authority figure repeated a few cherry-picked verses, then I have a problem.  If the latter folks decide to interfere with people who disagree with their opinion, then I have a big problem.  If those folks cannot be swayed and have otherwise become irrational, then IMHO, we all have a big problem.


A lot of the cognitive dissonance is over late-term abortions.  Pro-choice advocates want the option legally available but don't want to really see the doctors and facilities that do it.  I listed 3 that have been charged with murder and all lost their medical licenses but there are more.  There simply aren't that many doctors willing to do the procedures and so it falls to the least capable.  It's not just the horror shops either.  The dissonance is heard (*crickets*)  when these places are discovered and there is really no defense for it.
 
2013-06-24 06:40:58 PM  
Well, here's a bit about the petitioners' side of this case:

Do you have the right to approach people on a public sidewalk and ask, politely, if they will consent to speak with you?  If they consent, do you have the right to converse with them? The answer had better be "yes" or a lot of things we value will be lost.

This Mass. law, unlike the Colorado law that the Court upheld in "Hill," does not allow abortion foes to approach near enough to ask for consent in a civil manner.  The Colorado law provides a buffer zone of 8 feet, near enough to request consent in a normal conversational voice.  At 35 feet, you'll have to raise your voice in what may be construed as a threatening manner.

The Mass. law forbids you to converse about abortion and its alternatives on a public sidewalk even with a consenting party, if you are within 35 feet of a "reproductive healthcare facility's" entrance.  Even silently offering leaflets is banned within the buffer zone.

The Mass. law originally conformed closely with Colorado's. It was revised to make it easier for cops to enforce.  They had difficulty determining  whether consent was given, somebody claimed.  The mere convenience of law enforcement is not sufficient grounds to infringe upon First Amendment rights (yeah, I know; but those are other Amendments).

"But anti-abortionists don't ask  nicely!"  you say.  Well, if  they don't, you can bust them for harassment or something.  But you can't presume that they won't; that's prior restraint of speech.  You can only set reasonable and necessary rules for engagement and then arrest actual violators.  You can't arrest people because people like them have committed crimes.   (Unless they're black or  brown,of course.)

So really, the Court need not reverse Hill v. Colorado or allow protesters unbridled power to torment abortion patients .  it need only rein in the Mass. statute.

If you want to read more about both sides on SCOTUSblog, the case is McCullen v. Coakley. Pity TFA didn't mention that.
 
2013-06-24 07:08:20 PM  

tbeatty: Dinjiin: AurizenDarkstar: They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Agreed.

From my own personal experience, I've found that people who hold near fanatical views on a subject often tend to display signs of cognitive dissonance.  It seems as if they have so fully committed themselves to the cause that any deviation might shatter their worldview.

Case in point: I've had a couple of debates regarding pro-life references within the Bible that many people use as their basis to justify their position.  When I point out that there are several passages that show that [Old Testament] God is indifferent [or worse, advocates the use of abortion under some scenarios, like in Numbers V], and how many of their own passages are being used out-of-context, I get a bunch of Whaaarbargle.

If people believe that abortion is an immoral act, and that they came to that decision through self-reflection, fine.  If they came to that decision because some mentor or authority figure repeated a few cherry-picked verses, then I have a problem.  If the latter folks decide to interfere with people who disagree with their opinion, then I have a big problem.  If those folks cannot be swayed and have otherwise become irrational, then IMHO, we all have a big problem.

A lot of the cognitive dissonance is over late-term abortions.  Pro-choice advocates want the option legally available but don't want to really see the doctors and facilities that do it.  I listed 3 that have been charged with murder and all lost their medical licenses but there are more.  There simply aren't that many doctors willing to do the procedures and so it falls to the least capable.  It's not just the horror shops either.  The dissonance is heard (*crickets*)  when these places are discovered and there is really no defense for it.


Except that those of us who support a woman's right to an abortion already DO have issues when doctors like this come to light.  You probably won't believe anything I say, but the crimes that the Dr. Gosnell committed are heinous, and he SHOULD go to jail for committing these acts.  But that doesn't mean that every single doctor that performs abortions (and the few that actually perform late term ones) is a killer in disguise, no matter what your religion supposedly says.

As far as less capable people performing these procedures, it might be due to the fact that the pro-life crowd has either a. been actively trying to kill these doctors or b. have been working with state legislators to put roadblocks to safe procedures being done.  Instead of making sure that these procedures are safe, many states are removing the option altogether.
 
2013-06-24 07:23:10 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Except that those of us who support a woman's right to an abortion already DO have issues when doctors like this come to light. You probably won't believe anything I say, but the crimes that the Dr. Gosnell committed are heinous, and he SHOULD go to jail for committing these acts. But that doesn't mean that every single doctor that performs abortions (and the few that actually perform late term ones) is a killer in disguise, no matter what your religion supposedly says.

As far as less capable people performing these procedures, it might be due to the fact that the pro-life crowd has either a. been actively trying to kill these doctors or b. have been working with state legislators to put roadblocks to safe procedures being done. Instead of making sure that these procedures are safe, many states are removing the option altogether.


This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.  Gosnell was one person,  These aren't planned parenthood clinics.  There are many doctors that have fallen beneath the cracks for a REALLY long time that did procedures that competent doctors wouldn't do outside a hospital setting.  Steven Chase Brigham has operated for decades beyond what should be acceptable.  Because it is abortion, though, there isn't the same scrutiny because looking makes the dissonance too loud.  Gosnell had a long history of complaints and lawsuits.  It was the DEA and the War on Drugs that brought the abortion stuff to light.   There are many OB/GYN doctors and hospitals that will do a late-term delivery or abortion to save the life of the mother.  These late term clinics though, exist on the fringe of both the medical community and society for no medical reason.  It's obvious that no one likes a system that allows Gosnell and Brigham to exist but your dissonance creates obstacles to removing them.
 
2013-06-24 07:34:32 PM  
Time and place restrictions are allowed under the 1st amendment. This includes abortion protestors
 
2013-06-24 07:36:08 PM  

tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.


I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.
 
2013-06-24 07:40:42 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Time and place restrictions are allowed under the 1st amendment. This includes abortion protestors


THIS!!
 
2013-06-24 07:57:33 PM  

Biological Ali: tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.

I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.


Oh please.  You can troll better than that.

I live with my mom
 
2013-06-24 08:08:24 PM  

tbeatty: Biological Ali: tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.

I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.

Oh please.  You can troll better than that.

I live with my mom


Someone else used the term "dissonance" upthread in describing the inconsistency of those "the only moral abortion is my abortion folks". That actually made sense (albeit not in the clinical sense of the term, but in the popular sense of a person expressing contradictory views that they haven't reconciled in a way that makes sense).

You then made several posts to the effect of "There's cognitive dissonance among pro-choice people too", but really, the only thing that's apparent (leaving your other tenuous arguments aside for the moment) is that you don't really know what the term means, since you haven't indicated that pro-choice people are simultaneously arguing contradictory things.

I'm not even trying to pick a fight with you here. I'm just saying that if you're not sure what a term means, you should look it up before using it.
 
2013-06-24 08:14:26 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Time and place restrictions are allowed under the 1st amendment. This includes abortion protestors


People always forget the "reasonable and necessary" part of restrictions they want.  So do governments,but that doesn't excuse it.
 
2013-06-24 08:28:26 PM  

tbeatty: A lot of the cognitive dissonance is over late-term abortions. Pro-choice advocates want the option legally available but don't want to really see the doctors and facilities that do it. I listed 3 that have been charged with murder and all lost their medical licenses but there are more. There simply aren't that many doctors willing to do the procedures and so it falls to the least capable. It's not just the horror shops either. The dissonance is heard (*crickets*) when these places are discovered and there is really no defense for it.


AurizenDarkstar: Except that those of us who support a woman's right to an abortion already DO have issues when doctors like this come to light. You probably won't believe anything I say, but the crimes that the Dr. Gosnell committed are heinous, and he SHOULD go to jail for committing these acts.


Gosnell was a chop-shop.  He should have been shut down long before.  Even if he wasn't performing abortions, he probably would have had his license yanked were he practicing in other fields of medicine.

As for the statement that "pro-choice advocates are undermining access to late term abortions", that's a tricky statement.  Pro-choice PACs are still actively fighting to retain or expand access.  Most people who identify as pro-choice still support the procedure under special circumstances and tend to vote as such.  The only group of significance who would fall under that statement are abortion doctors themselves.

That's not cognitive dissonance on the part of the pro-choice supporters, that's the real result of a campaign of fear and intimidation.  I wouldn't want to worry either whether or not some zealot is going to show up to my house and murder my wife and children because they found my residential address on an anti-abortion website.  Sure, you can shoot the bastards if they try, but there is a never ending stream of nutjobs in the country.  You'd have to send a lot of souls to Hell before abortion would be safe to do again in this country.  Pessimism says that it is just better to leave it to others, and if there aren't any, then that sucks but it is better to be alive.
 
2013-06-24 08:36:32 PM  

Biological Ali: tbeatty: Biological Ali: tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.

I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.

Oh please.  You can troll better than that.

I live with my mom

Someone else used the term "dissonance" upthread in describing the inconsistency of those "the only moral abortion is my abortion folks". That actually made sense (albeit not in the clinical sense of the term, but in the popular sense of a person expressing contradictory views that they haven't reconciled in a way that makes sense).



The dissonance is broadly supporting late-term abortion rights and narrowly condemning the outcome.  It's the same reasoning as "the only moral abortion is my abortion."  Saying you support broad late term abortion rights but then not support it's conclusion is dissonance.  I don't expect you to understand if you suffer from it just as "the only moral abortion is my abortion" people don't understand it.  That's why it's dissonance.  When dissonance exists, the people that have it are not particularly rational and avoid it.  Whence, the reason why some of these atrocities have gone on so long without oversight or correction,  When there should have been reasoned clarity there was dissonance and the desire to avoid it by ignoring it.
 
2013-06-24 08:46:26 PM  

tbeatty: The dissonance is broadly supporting late-term abortion rights and narrowly condemning the outcome. It's the same reasoning as "the only moral abortion is my abortion." Saying you support broad late term abortion rights but then not support it's conclusion is dissonance.


Narrowly condemning what outcome? Are you saying that somebody who supports the right to late-term abortion must necessarily support Gosnell (or must necessarily refrain from condemning him) in order to be consistent? I surely hope not, because that would be even more ridiculous than merely being confused about what "cognitive dissonance" means.
 
2013-06-24 09:37:58 PM  

EvilEgg: If the town can set up a 500 foot no stripper zone around churches and schools, it surely can set up a 35 foot no idiot zone around abortion clinics.

The strippers are even hidden from view inside a building in all, while the idiots are right out in the open.  I don't want my kids exposed to that kind of hate.  Think of the children.


I say we treat them like other protesters and shove them in a "Free Speech Zone" a couple blocks away. I'm sure more than a few anti-choice people believe they're ok when they are used against someone they disagree with.

I think 35' is enough, personally. You're close enough to hurl the obscenities most choose to do, or call them murderers. I'd rather have you yelling it so everyone can see what an a$$ you are.
 
2013-06-24 11:13:58 PM  

Biological Ali: tbeatty: The dissonance is broadly supporting late-term abortion rights and narrowly condemning the outcome. It's the same reasoning as "the only moral abortion is my abortion." Saying you support broad late term abortion rights but then not support it's conclusion is dissonance.

Narrowly condemning what outcome? Are you saying that somebody who supports the right to late-term abortion must necessarily support Gosnell (or must necessarily refrain from condemning him) in order to be consistent? I surely hope not, because that would be even more ridiculous than merely being confused about what "cognitive dissonance" means.


You're embarrassing yourself with the lack of understanding.  Perhaps it's your own cognitive dissonance.

You're argument doesn't even work for your example of cognitive dissonance.  Your arguing in the negative.   You don't actually require people that are pro-choice to actually have an abortion or even be okay with abortion as an option, do you?  You certainly must realize that people can be pro-choice and personally not be in favor of abortion for themselves, right?  You don't consider that cognitive dissonance I hope.  That would explain your lack of understanding.

To be consistent, condemning Gosnell must also condemn the system that created him and allowed him (and those like Steven Chase Brigham) to exist for so long.  That's nowhere near the broad category of abortion rights that you tried to neatly create as the overarching viewpoint to start from.  It's specifically late term abortions past viability and the very few clinics that perform them on demand.  Pennsylvania's medical licensing  recognized this when they realized how many clues they missed and why the problem was systemic lasting for decades.  If you know how cognitive dissonance work, the people afflicted will avoid it or justify it: "oh, he supplies Women's Health to poor and underserved communities" was why a number of complaints were overlooked and provided sanitized cover of what he did - in reality he only provided late term abortions in unspeakable conditions.  Those are facts. They didn't want to believe their system of views and values could create a monster.  In fact, the Weeners by the original reply was an argument that anti-abortionist created people like Gosnell because of threats to good doctors.  That's a classic dissonant response to mold their view to make themselves more comfortable with their conflicting views.   In fact, most Ob/Gyn doctors will perform abortions in certain circumstances.  They aren't picketed or threatened but pointing that out and pointing out that clinics like Gosnell's simply don't need to exist brings out the dissonance and the justifications commence.
 
2013-06-25 12:08:10 AM  

tbeatty: You're embarrassing yourself with the lack of understanding. Perhaps it's your own cognitive dissonance.


You'd have done better to just say "Yeah, I guess I wasn't really talking about cognitive dissonance after all", because your attempts to shoehorn your criticisms into this "cognitive dissonance" angle are just making less and less sense with each post (unless this is some really, really subtle satire about people who use "cognitive dissonance" as a generic insult because it sounds fancy, much like "projection" or "ad hominem").

To be consistent, condemning Gosnell must also condemn the system that created him and allowed him

The obvious problem with your argument is that "support for late-term abortions" is not synonymous with "the system that created [Gosnell] and allowed him" to do whatever. No, the primary responsibility lies with Gosnell himself, and then maybe with the police etc. if they turned their back on obvious probable cause (but that's a big "if", since I haven't seen any credible accusations that the actions were negligent based on what was known at the time; it's mostly just Captain Hindsight stuff similar to the people complaining that Tamerlan Tsarnaev should have been arrested years ago).

"Cognitive dissonance", whether you're going by the technical meaning or the popular meaning, applies only if one condition is met: the person must hold, simultaneously, two separate and clearly defined beliefs that the person cannot reconcile via normal logic. For instance, "All abortions are immoral, except when done to save a life" versus "My abortion for the sake of convenience is not immoral". There's no normal way to reconcile those two things.

On the other hand, "I support late-term abortions under any circumstance" (which itself is not synonymous with "pro-choice", which is what you started off with), is very easy to reconcile with "I don't support Kermit Gosnell" because the main charges against Gosnell have nothing to do with abortion at all, but are related to the killing of babies after birth, and of course the death of one of his patients, along with a number of more boring charges related to the conditions under which he worked.

You may make the argument that support for late-term abortions is an integral part of the "system" that created Gosnell, and it may even be a very good argument (though I obviously have my doubts), but it still wouldn't mean there's any "cognitive dissonance" going on. No, what you're doing is making is a conventional argument, premised (apparently) on a link between support for late-term abortions and the "system" that created Gosnell, and concluding (apparently) that people who condemn Gosnell should also condemn late-term abortions in general. Since this argument is coming from you, and others (including people who support late-term abortions) are under no obligation to accept your premise, inferences or conclusion, it cannot possibly be the basis for a claim of "cognitive dissonance" on their part.

I mean, if you really want to make this argument, go right ahead; I'm just letting you know that the "cognitive dissonance" angle is silly and adds nothing to it.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:26 AM  

tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.


Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.
 
2013-06-25 12:36:01 AM  

Selena Luna: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.


Really?  The prosecutor said she committed murder but because the clinic would induce labor and start in New Jersey and finish it in Maryland to take advantage of various state laws, they couldn't tell what state she killed the baby in.
 
2013-06-25 09:14:55 AM  

tbeatty: Selena Luna: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.

Really?  The prosecutor said she committed murder but because the clinic would induce labor and start in New Jersey and finish it in Maryland to take advantage of various state laws, they couldn't tell what state she killed the baby in.


The judge dropped the charges, which came up because she perforated a woman's uterus. They dropped the charges for insufficient evidence.
 
2013-06-25 10:02:09 AM  

WhoIsWillo: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

The argument that is being made is that it is the first amendment right of abortion protestors to make their message heard directly outside of the clinic. If I were arguing the case, I would point out that it is designed to protect one specific form of patient, and is therefore politically motivated to limit a specific kind of speech.


And if I were arguing against that, I would simply bring up the strings of abortion bombings and the harrassment that  still goes on despite the law, demonstrating that this is not simply a speech matter, and that the restriction fulfills a compelling government interest in protecting the patients.
 
2013-06-25 04:04:42 PM  

Selena Luna: tbeatty: Selena Luna: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.

Really?  The prosecutor said she committed murder but because the clinic would induce labor and start in New Jersey and finish it in Maryland to take advantage of various state laws, they couldn't tell what state she killed the baby in.

The judge dropped the charges, which came up because she perforated a woman's uterus. They dropped the charges for insufficient evidence.


Judges don't drop charges, prosecutors do.

"In his Tuesday news release announcing the dismissal of the charges, Cecil County State's Attorney Ellis Rollins III cited a lack of jurisdiction over the two-state procedure. The charges against Brigham, which included murder counts related to four other abortions, were also dropped. "
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53659761-78/riley-charges-abortion -s tatement.html.csp
 
Displayed 36 of 136 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


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