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.

(Yahoo)   National poll reflects that the 20-week-ban bill may actually be a victory for Republicans - who have succeeded in bringing the abortion debate away from the difficult rape-and-incest exceptions in which Democrats insist on exclusively framing it   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 275
    More: Followup, Republican, Democrats, abortion rights, Late termination of pregnancy, Democratic Coalition, Marsha Blackburn, House Republicans, two-thirds vote  
•       •       •

1270 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2013 at 12:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-26 12:40:58 PM  
Is it me, or has Yahoo become a right wing mouthpiece website in the last year? This is just more evidence of that.
 
2013-06-26 12:45:23 PM  

vernonFL: Is it me, or has Yahoo become a right wing mouthpiece website in the last year? This is just more evidence of that.


Pretty much everywhere has. Even Fark has that farking Newsmax sidebar now.

Right-wing trash have the money and own the corporate outlets that manufacture news.
 
2013-06-26 12:45:25 PM  
I really don't like it when articles about polls don't show the actual question that was asked.
 
2013-06-26 12:45:38 PM  
The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.
 
2013-06-26 12:46:30 PM  
This implies that the 20 week ban was the only thing the filibuster was about and ignores the larger context of the SB5.
 
2013-06-26 12:47:44 PM  

Rascal King: This implies that the 20 week ban was the only thing the filibuster was about and ignores the larger context of the SB5.


Very deliberate framing on the part of the right. They can't win this - and by "win" I mean "deprive women of basic human rights" - by being honest about it.
 
2013-06-26 12:48:59 PM  
IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."
 
2013-06-26 12:49:19 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.


I found the Kansas version of that a few years back to be especially douchy.  They mandated the size of the janitors closets, and set minimum and maximum air temperature requirements for the building.

Setting the minimum temperature of an exam room as higher than the maximum of the hallway on the other side of a door was an inspired piece of assholearly by someone.
 
2013-06-26 12:51:29 PM  

vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."


Harlequin babies and anencephalic lumps are gifts from god and furthermore
 
2013-06-26 12:51:41 PM  

vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."


Is that like doing a GIS for anencephaly?

/NEVER do a GIS for 'anencephaly'.
The 'baby' qualifier is unnecessary since non-baby anencephaly is basically impossible.
 
2013-06-26 12:51:58 PM  
Oh, trollmitter, you're good.
 
2013-06-26 12:52:38 PM  
Remember when the trolling was mostly in the threads, rather than the headlines? I miss that.
 
2013-06-26 12:52:48 PM  
Republicans don't like to mix rape and abortion.

They like their rape pure and legitimate.
 
2013-06-26 12:53:32 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.


This.

/pro-choice, but abortions should be safe, legal, and rare
//20 weeks is starting to push when a fetus is viable outside the womb
 
2013-06-26 12:54:16 PM  

Karac: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

Is that like doing a GIS for anencephaly?

/NEVER do a GIS for 'anencephaly'.
The 'baby' qualifier is unnecessary since non-baby anencephaly is basically impossible.


But you have to put baby in there, or else spend all day on batman sites.
 
2013-06-26 12:54:19 PM  
What I find interesting is that when SB5 is talked about by right-wingers, they only bring up the 20+ week abortion topic.  The primary problem with the bill is how it goes about closing abortion services across the state with provisions like requiring that all abortion clinics are surgical centers.  And most registered voters in Texas think we're wasting time with this nonsense...

http://gqrr.com/images/documents/061913_TX_ACLU__FQ_public.pdf
 
2013-06-26 12:54:23 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Even Fark has that farking Newsmax sidebar now.


Not even having ABP on Firefox prevents that :(
 
2013-06-26 12:55:08 PM  

Aarontology: I really don't like it when articles about polls don't show the actual question that was asked.


cdn-media.nationaljournal.com
 
2013-06-26 12:55:09 PM  
FTA:


"Survey respondents were told that the legislation included exceptions in cases of rape and incest that were reported to authorities. They were also told supporters say the bill was necessary because a fetus can feel pain at that point in pregnancy and that opponents say the measure undermines abortion rights granted by the Supreme Court in 1973."

Yep, a totally unbiased poll, whose validity is without question.

Also, a lot of women do not (Hell, CANNOT) report rape, and I'm sure a whole hell of a bunch do not report incest. And these women will be forced to carry these children to term.
 
2013-06-26 12:55:10 PM  
Dear Social Conservatives,

Roe V Wade was 40 years ago.  It's over. Get past it. Move on.

Does your political platform have the word "abortion" anywhere in it? Are you proposing a bill or statute that has the word "abortion" anywhere in it?  Drop it.
 
2013-06-26 12:55:19 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Karac: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

Is that like doing a GIS for anencephaly?

/NEVER do a GIS for 'anencephaly'.
The 'baby' qualifier is unnecessary since non-baby anencephaly is basically impossible.

But you have to put baby in there, or else spend all day on batman sites.


If the choice is "harlequin baby pictures" or "spend all day looking at pictures of Harley", I think the choice is clear.
 
2013-06-26 12:57:21 PM  

Jairzinho: A Dark Evil Omen: Even Fark has that farking Newsmax sidebar now.

Not even having ABP on Firefox prevents that :(


Sounds like a job for Greasemonkey. After they put that up I became tempted to install an ad blocker just for Fark, because fark that shiat.
 
2013-06-26 12:58:25 PM  
"In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out."

4b075e6d1dc6d4754676-77025ec4716c7dabdb361d1ec7e41893.r43.cf3.rackcdn.com
 
2013-06-26 12:59:47 PM  

enry: Mike Chewbacca: The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.

This.

/pro-choice, but abortions should be safe, legal, and rare
//20 weeks is starting to push when a fetus is viable outside the womb


Aren't the majority of them when there is something seriously wrong with the fetus, or the fetus is dying/dead and taking the mother with it??

If we had universal healthcare, perhaps the stress and worry about how to pay for the NICU or a lifetime of medical troubles for a child might not play a part in deciding whether or not to carry to term?

//Freely available birth control would do more to lower abortion rates than banning it after 20 weeks.
 
2013-06-26 12:59:54 PM  
This is so damn stupid. The number of women who get an abortion after 20 weeks accounts for something like 1% of all abortions, and when asked why they get them they mostly didnt know they were pregnant, found a horrible deformity, or their life changed to the point that a child was not feasible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

This is only only only only only a way to chip away at women's rights to comprehensive healthcare.
 
2013-06-26 01:00:07 PM  

vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."


but but three have survived a couple decades, heroically struggling through a lifetime of absolute hell and because they made it, we should absolutely take the heartwrenching decision away from other families who may not understand how difficult it has been for these people to create a life for themselves.  It's what Jesus would do.

To be fair, ichthyosis was discussed in 2011 as severe and chronic, but increasingly non-fatal.  However, like other severe and chronic illnesses, having a child with one is still going to be a massive undertaking for any family.
 
2013-06-26 01:01:33 PM  
Funniest headline the queue huh?
 
2013-06-26 01:02:54 PM  
Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.
mainly used when you believe your wife is a whore and pregnant with someone else's fetus.

/Church approved abortions are part of the republicans way of life
//So is treating your wife as a slave as you purchased her from her father.
///Rape is also in the bible as a victory
////So is incest.
//So is brutally murdering people for minor crimes/debt.
 
2013-06-26 01:03:53 PM  
You know, if we hook a generator up to the Republican spin machine we could solve the worlds energy problems.
 
2013-06-26 01:04:11 PM  

vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."


OMG I wish I had just taken your word for it. I am not easily disgusted but...OMG I feel like I need a pint of bourbon to forget that.
 
2013-06-26 01:04:24 PM  
Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide

This one is always a 'What?' moment for me.

It does not matter one whit how somebody committed suicide. In the complete and total absence of ready access to firearms, people would just use another method.
 
2013-06-26 01:04:44 PM  

enry: //20 weeks is starting to push when a fetus is viable outside the womb


20 weeks can be about the time you find out that your baby will never be viable.   That's about when you find out the baby has no lungs, or kidneys, or hydrocephalus has swollen his brain so large it's a risk for the mother to deliver the baby.

Yeah, 20 weeks.  A great time to start telling women they are required to deliver a baby.  Even if she and the doctors know it will suffer and die in her arms.
 
2013-06-26 01:05:01 PM  

meat0918: //Freely available birth control would do more to lower abortion rates than banning it after 20 weeks.


It's not about lowering abortion rates.  It's about punishing women for having sex.
 
2013-06-26 01:05:09 PM  
So long as men are allowed to escape all physical and emotional burdens associated with pregnancy at any point for any reason simply by paying someone some money, women should have the same option.
 
2013-06-26 01:05:13 PM  

meat0918: enry: Mike Chewbacca: The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.

This.

/pro-choice, but abortions should be safe, legal, and rare
//20 weeks is starting to push when a fetus is viable outside the womb

Aren't the majority of them when there is something seriously wrong with the fetus, or the fetus is dying/dead and taking the mother with it??


Don't know the stats offhand, but that should be the case.  In my mind, there should be a push for live birth and giving the baby up for adoption after 20 weeks and all is healthy.  Not a requirement though, just the doctor being able to offer alternatives to abortion.  I know plenty of couples who can't have kids of their own who would love to raise a child (and many have).

If we had universal healthcare, perhaps the stress and worry about how to pay for the NICU or a lifetime of medical troubles for a child might not play a part in deciding whether or not to carry to term?

//Freely available birth control would do more to lower abortion rates than banning it after 20 weeks.


YES, which makes it strange why the GOP is so anti-birth control.
 
2013-06-26 01:05:27 PM  

Ambivalence: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

OMG I wish I had just taken your word for it. I am not easily disgusted but...OMG I feel like I need a pint of bourbon to forget that.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-26 01:05:57 PM  

meat0918: Aren't the majority of them when there is something seriously wrong with the fetus, or the fetus is dying/dead and taking the mother with it??


Yep.  Generally a woman who has chosen to carry a baby for 5 months straight actually wants the things.
 
2013-06-26 01:06:25 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2013-06-26 01:06:54 PM  

enry: YES, which makes it strange why the GOP is so anti-birth control.


Could it be that it's actually just about giving the wealthy and powerful more and more control over peoples' lives, just like everything else rightists do? HMM.
 
2013-06-26 01:07:06 PM  
I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm pro choice, but I don't support late term abortion, once the child would feasibly be viable if an emergency c-section were performed.  So obviously there's some room in MY "gray area" there.

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.  I don't want to punish anyone for having sex ... the more sex being had the better, and preventing unwanted children is always good.  But once it enters that gray area, I stop caring about your problems because you really went out of your way to be a dumbass.

My only real objection to this law would be that it would start a slipper slope.  I know the "slipper slope" is like THE logical fallacy for making arguments, but in this case I think it warrants some concern because it's an attempt to make a clear line between black and white areas when the entire area is really gray for most people.
 
2013-06-26 01:07:43 PM  

sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.


nah, it doesn't.
 
2013-06-26 01:08:44 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: enry: YES, which makes it strange why the GOP is so anti-birth control.

Could it be that it's actually just about giving the wealthy and powerful more and more control over peoples' lives, just like everything else rightists do? HMM.


no
 
2013-06-26 01:08:45 PM  

pivazena: This is so damn stupid. The number of women who get an abortion after 20 weeks accounts for something like 1% of all abortions, and when asked why they get them they mostly didnt know they were pregnant, found a horrible deformity, or their life changed to the point that a child was not feasible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

This is only only only only only a way to chip away at women's rights to comprehensive healthcare.


Philip J. Fry: enry: //20 weeks is starting to push when a fetus is viable outside the womb

20 weeks can be about the time you find out that your baby will never be viable.   That's about when you find out the baby has no lungs, or kidneys, or hydrocephalus has swollen his brain so large it's a risk for the mother to deliver the baby.

Yeah, 20 weeks.  A great time to start telling women they are required to deliver a baby.  Even if she and the doctors know it will suffer and die in her arms.


This is why I'll probably never support a ban of any kind on abortion. It leaves no leeway for random awfulness that life can throw your way. Supporters of such legislation have no concept of sympathy.
 
2013-06-26 01:09:13 PM  

spiderpaz: I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm pro choice, but I don't support late term abortion, once the child would feasibly be viable if an emergency c-section were performed.  So obviously there's some room in MY "gray area" there.


1) Hospital viability is about 25 weeks.

2) The late-term restrictions were not the big problem here, it was the onerous requirements that would make almost every women's clinic in the entire state of Texas have to close its doors.
 
2013-06-26 01:09:16 PM  

Heraclitus: You know, if we hook a generator up to the Republican spin machine we could solve the worlds energy problems.


Or drain the universe of entropy, vanishing into a white hot singularity of perfect order.
 
2013-06-26 01:09:40 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out."

[4b075e6d1dc6d4754676-77025ec4716c7dabdb361d1ec7e41893.r43.cf3.rackcd n .com image 639x360]


Aaaaand the office is now looking at the guy who spontaneously burst into tear-jerking laughter. I love you.
 
2013-06-26 01:10:13 PM  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy



Sorry it didn't link before. For women who were beyond 16 weeks (16-20 weeks account for 4.8 % of abortions, 20+ is around 1.5%). So we don't know how the reasoning shifts given the extra month of gestation, but:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
 
2013-06-26 01:10:54 PM  
Of course, even the Republicans had to sneak in funding for Planned Parenthood after cutting it two years ago due to the cost of the 20k additional births at county hospitals.

This bill would have cost the state millions more in hospital costs each year.

/and 12 years of public education.
 
2013-06-26 01:11:12 PM  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22796078

By 11 weeks, you can find out if it has down syndrome or is deformed, so a 9 week window to get those tests done and then decide ... that's tough.  20 weeks is a bit harsh, especially if you're trying to consider people with little access to those test who might not find out until much later than 11 weeks.
 
2013-06-26 01:12:31 PM  

spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.


Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?
 
2013-06-26 01:13:33 PM  
Abortion is close to the last remaining wedge issue the Republicans have any support on, so they are going to ride this baby to its very end (no pun intended).

Let's do a quick check, shall we?

Immigration reform? Lost cause
Anti-environment? Lost cause
Anti-education? Lost cause
Demographics? Lost cause
Pro-business? Democrats mostly took this from them.
Anti-healthcare? Lost cause
Anti-minority? Lost cause
Against gay marriage? Lost cause
Anti-marijuana? Lost cause
Prison reform? Lost cause
Anti-Tax? OK, one other issue

For certain people, like my mom, abortion is her ONLY issue. You'll probably continue to see the Megachurches push this harder and harder as they try to consolidate power over their constituents.

So basically they're down to death and taxes.
 
2013-06-26 01:14:38 PM  

what_now: This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?


Because they want to punish women for being having sex.  She didn't know she was pregnant?  Force her to have a baby!  That'll show her.  He literally says he doesn't have sympathy.
 
2013-06-26 01:14:55 PM  
This bill had protections for cases of rape and incest, right? This article at least implied so. I see several people here bringing up late-diagnosed fetal conditions. Does anyone know if this or similar bills have experienced with built-in protections regarding those?
 
2013-06-26 01:15:05 PM  

enry: //Freely available birth control would do more to lower abortion rates than banning it after 20 weeks.

YES, which makes it strange why the GOP is so anti-birth control.


Not really. The actual position (which they don't tell anyone, for obvious reasons) is that unless you are prepared to raise a baby, you shouldn't be having sex.

People who are religious and have lost the memories of their adolescence to the mists of time consider this to be an entirely reasonable attitude.
 
2013-06-26 01:15:26 PM  

mcreadyblue: Of course, even the Republicans had to sneak in funding for Planned Parenthood after cutting it two years ago due to the cost of the 20k additional births at county hospitals.

This bill would have cost the state millions more in hospital costs each year.

/and 12 years of public education.


That's what all the pushing for war is about. Those now-living-in-poverty children who otherwise would have never been born will flock to the military for a paycheck or tuition assitance. Boom - ready made cannon fodder just chomping at the bit to die for their profit.
 
2013-06-26 01:16:17 PM  

sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.
mainly used when you believe your wife is a whore and pregnant with someone else's fetus.

/Church approved abortions are part of the republicans way of life
//So is treating your wife as a slave as you purchased her from her father.
///Rape is also in the bible as a victory
////So is incest.
//So is brutally murdering people for minor crimes/debt.


Numbers 5: 12-28, if memory serves correctly.
 
2013-06-26 01:16:24 PM  

vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."


and here I thought I was going to get a picture of some smutty novel.
 
2013-06-26 01:18:02 PM  
For Republicans, rape and incest are a way of life. Why should they compromise on cherished virtues?

/Ducks and runs
 
2013-06-26 01:19:18 PM  

what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?


That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.
 
2013-06-26 01:21:05 PM  

Philip J. Fry: what_now: This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

Because they want to punish women for being having sex.  She didn't know she was pregnant?  Force her to have a baby!  That'll show her.  He literally says he doesn't have sympathy.


That's not true I said I have trouble finding sympathy for someone that dumb.  I still feel bad for them ... just sort of the same way I feel bad for someone when they shoot themselves cleaning a loaded gun.
 
2013-06-26 01:21:12 PM  

Ranger Rover: This bill had protections for cases of rape and incest, right? This article at least implied so. I see several people here bringing up late-diagnosed fetal conditions. Does anyone know if this or similar bills have experienced with built-in protections regarding those?


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/831/billtext/html/SB00005H.ht m

Take an example of a mother with serious blood pressure issues due to the pregnancy and she is restricted to bed.  That bill would require to carry the pregnancy to term (unless I missed a paragraph?) despite the fact it means she seriously endangers not only her life, but also her livelihood.  How is a poor person supposed to afford bed rest for four months plus then take care of a newborn with no job?

Section 5 paragraph 18 comes close to being ok, but only if the woman will be paralyzed or brain damaged by her pregnancy.
 
2013-06-26 01:21:26 PM  
It'll only be a victory if the GOP also succeeds in revoking a woman's right to vote. That ain't happening. See you at the polls.
 
2013-06-26 01:22:15 PM  

spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.


Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.
 
2013-06-26 01:23:30 PM  

what_now: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.


a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship
 
2013-06-26 01:24:21 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.


And that's just considering the Ambulatory Surgery Center clause (since each clinic would have to meet ASC standards and only 5 or maybe 6 currently do).  No one has looked to see if the ASC would offer abortion services are located within 30 miles of Hospital or whether the ASC doctors have or could get admitting privileges.
 
2013-06-26 01:25:21 PM  

spiderpaz: Philip J. Fry: what_now: This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

Because they want to punish women for being having sex.  She didn't know she was pregnant?  Force her to have a baby!  That'll show her.  He literally says he doesn't have sympathy.

That's not true I said I have trouble finding sympathy for someone that dumb.  I still feel bad for them ... just sort of the same way I feel bad for someone when they shoot themselves cleaning a loaded gun.


Gotcha, ending up pregnant is like shooting yourself with a gun.  You a fairly detached from the reality of how women end up pregnant.  Birth control fails.  Condoms fail.  Lack of periods are not a guaranteed indicator of being pregnant as some women do not get them regularly and others are on medication that suppresses them.  $10 for a pregnancy test or $50 + loss of a days pay to visit the doctor is a lot of money to people.  And combined with Texas brilliantly defunding health clinics, doubly hard for women to access.
 
2013-06-26 01:25:57 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.

a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship




Define "elective"
 
2013-06-26 01:26:40 PM  

pivazena: This is so damn stupid. The number of women who get an abortion after 20 weeks accounts for something like 1% of all abortions, and when asked why they get them they mostly didnt know they were pregnant, found a horrible deformity, or their life changed to the point that a child was not feasible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

This is only only only only only a way to chip away at women's rights to comprehensive healthcare.


Honestly if you add "and in cases where it threatens the life of the mother" to rape and incest, then I feel like 20 weeks is a good compromise.  "Didn't know they were pregnant", isn't really a great excuse for getting a late term abortion.  If we're going to compromise on this then Democrats have to be willing to concede some things.

Is there are reason 20 weeks isn't a good compromise if that's basically the status quo of abortions anyways?  Is it that unreasonable to make that 0.7% of women who want abortions because they don't understand their own bodies give their children up for adoption?

It's called compromise, and it's only good if both sides are angry about some part of it.
 
2013-06-26 01:26:46 PM  

Philip J. Fry: enry: //20 weeks is starting to push when a fetus is viable outside the womb

20 weeks can be about the time you find out that your baby will never be viable.   That's about when you find out the baby has no lungs, or kidneys, or hydrocephalus has swollen his brain so large it's a risk for the mother to deliver the baby.

Yeah, 20 weeks.  A great time to start telling women they are required to deliver a baby.  Even if she and the doctors know it will suffer and die in her arms.


I'm still in the "health of the mother/child" camp on that.  If you're at 25 weeks and find a serious enough problem that the fetus would never come to term, then that should still be allowed.  If the fetus is otherwise healthy, there should be better alternatives for the mother other than an abortion.

I realize this is a really nuanced view, but I don't have a uterus, so I should probably just shut up and hope that women are able to have better control over their health choices.
 
2013-06-26 01:26:50 PM  

Heraclitus: You know, if we hook a generator up to the Republican spin machine we could solve the worlds energy problems.


Yeah, but look at their success rate lately. It's only a matter of days before one of them says something massively asinine and drags this around to bite them on the ass again.
 
2013-06-26 01:27:23 PM  

skullkrusher: a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship


What other medical procedures do you think its appropriate for the government to ban because they violate your morals? Boob jobs? Circumcision? Vasectomies? Blood transfusions?

You don't get to decide what is or isn't elective. You don't get to intrude into a doctor patient relationship. Not yours.
 
2013-06-26 01:27:35 PM  

pivazena: skullkrusher: what_now: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.

a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship

Define "elective"


not necessary to save the mother's life/protect her from serious injury
 
2013-06-26 01:28:22 PM  

enry: I realize this is a really nuanced view, but I don't have a uterus, so I should probably just shut up and hope that women are able to have better control over their health choices.


It's almost like you should let the mother choose.
 
2013-06-26 01:28:25 PM  

what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?


It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?
 
2013-06-26 01:28:34 PM  

dehehn: Honestly if you add "and in cases where it threatens the life of the mother" to rape and incest, then I feel like 20 weeks is a good compromise. "Didn't know they were pregnant", isn't really a great excuse for getting a late term abortion. If we're going to compromise on this then Democrats have to be willing to concede some things.


fark you. I'm not compromising on my health so old white men can feel better.
 
2013-06-26 01:29:13 PM  
Americans favor such a bill by 48 percent to 44 percent.

...

It has a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.


That seems well within the margin of error to comfortably say Americans are rather evenly split on the matter. But, hey, let's not let a little thing like "understanding statistics" get in the way of the narrative. And, nice job putting the margin of error - critical information to properly frame the findings - as the very last sentence.

Democrats have proven adept in recent years at framing the abortion debate by focusing on those cases, successfully casting Republicans--especially Republican men--as out-of-touch extremists.

No, Republicans are very adept at casting Republicans as out-of-touch extremists. Democrats are just very adept at not letting people forget that.
 
2013-06-26 01:30:05 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship

What other medical procedures do you think its appropriate for the government to ban because they violate your morals? Boob jobs? Circumcision? Vasectomies? Blood transfusions?

You don't get to decide what is or isn't elective. You don't get to intrude into a doctor patient relationship. Not yours.


just this one since after a certain point it actually impacts another human being, unlike boob jobs and circumcisions.

We do get to decide, actually. And we have. In fact, pretty much every western country has such restrictions. Europe is awash with abortion restrictions which are far more stringent than the ones in most of the US, actually. Welcome to society. So sorry you find it so terribly onerous
 
2013-06-26 01:32:41 PM  

what_now: That's the point why it's a gray area for me. For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable. But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point. Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen. In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.


I don't see the point of including doctors in that statement, other than the point of lending more credibility to the reasons for termination, as if the mother's opinion weren't enough by itself.  It's pointless to include the doctor as if it's going to be that difficult to find some doctor somewhere willing to do whatever the hell you want for the right price.

That being said, choosing between "let women make the medical decisions for whether they can abort up until the child is born regardless of circumstance" and "let's have some limits on it with exception for special cases" ... if the parameters are reasonable enough I can't really say have a big enough opinion on it to really way in.

This particular law though - just on the surface from what I've skimmed has enough problems with it that it isn't fair.
 
2013-06-26 01:33:37 PM  

skullkrusher: Europe is awash with abortion restrictions which are far more stringent than the ones in most of the US, actually.


Europe also has comprehensive sex education, mandatory maternity and paternity leave and universal health care.

You provide that in the US and see what happens to abortion rates. Until that happens, people talking about "the sanctity of life" are farking liars who want to control women.
 
2013-06-26 01:34:06 PM  

Ranger Rover: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?




It's not a scientific study simply because of the way it was conducted, e.g. It was at a clinic so the sample is biased, but the sample size is quite large so the percentages are reasonable. I couldn't find anything for the very few women who get abortions past 20 weeks. I assume that things will skew away from "didnt know I was pregnant, couldn't get access" and towards "health of the fetus / mother". There are a few reasons for this. One is cost -- later term abortions are more expensive and traumatic, so at that point the procedure itself may be a deterrent for women who are on the fence. Two is biology. Of the 16-20 week group, Many women probably become aware of their pregnancy around, lets say 16 weeks and got their abortion around 19 weeks. Like I said, the internets are failing me for the 20-week groups, probably because the sample size is very small. I'm pretty interested in this topic though so ill keep searching
 
2013-06-26 01:34:25 PM  

spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.


That's kind of how I feel about it too.

My biggest issue is I know two women who worked in the NICU, which is the neonatal intensive care unit. They regularly took care of babies that were around 22-34 weeks, and while the 24-week point is probably I dunno 50/50 for the baby surviving, to me you're at the point where it's really a baby not a fetus, and many grow up to be fine kids. Many of these are cesarians. So instead of getting an abortion after 24-weeks, if the person wants an abortion at that point and you really think it needs to be state decided, you should have the state (if it wants to do this) pay for the cesarian and also have programs for the extra kids this will generate. I don't know the abortion statistics for between 20 and 24 weeks but it probably is most of the 1% remaining.

Is the mother 'punished' for having sex? I suppose a bit, but if the state has programs and the cesarian can be performed at the same cost of an abortion (subsidized by gov't of course) then I see no reason to punish the baby either at that point, as it's pretty viable. You might end up pushing many pregnancies out to close to full term under those scenarios, if the mother is worried for example about higher risk with cesarians. Would you still have back-alley abortions? I suppose. Or they go to a state where those laws don't exist.

I personally think you need to have some sort of practice to allow mothers to make decisions in exceptional scenarios where the mother is at much higher risk or the baby has serious birth defects. The problem with legislating this is that it is ripe for problems, medical professionals lying to pregnant women or to the state, depending on their views.

Basically, I'm seriously conflicted on this.
 
2013-06-26 01:34:30 PM  

vernonFL: Is it me, or has Yahoo become a right wing mouthpiece website in the last year? This is just more evidence of that.


Reporting on facts?! Curse you, right wing mouthpieces!
 
2013-06-26 01:34:47 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: Europe is awash with abortion restrictions which are far more stringent than the ones in most of the US, actually.

Europe also has comprehensive sex education, mandatory maternity and paternity leave and universal health care.

You provide that in the US and see what happens to abortion rates. Until that happens, people talking about "the sanctity of life" are farking liars who want to control women.


nice subject change.
Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?
 
2013-06-26 01:35:59 PM  
Btw here's a study of gestational viability (it's dated):
http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm
 
2013-06-26 01:36:40 PM  

what_now: dehehn: Honestly if you add "and in cases where it threatens the life of the mother" to rape and incest, then I feel like 20 weeks is a good compromise. "Didn't know they were pregnant", isn't really a great excuse for getting a late term abortion. If we're going to compromise on this then Democrats have to be willing to concede some things.

fark you. I'm not compromising on my health so old white men can feel better.


lolwut?  I hate to break it to you but plenty of women and non-white men disagree with you.  You can't just blame white men any time you're trying to make an argument unsuccessfully.  That's ridiculous.
 
2013-06-26 01:37:03 PM  

spiderpaz: I don't see the point of including doctors in that statement, other than the point of lending more credibility to the reasons for termination, as if the mother's opinion weren't enough by itself.


because women- who aren't doctors- can't judge the health risks by themselves, obviously.

spiderpaz: That being said, choosing between "let women make the medical decisions for whether they can abort up until the child is born regardless of circumstance" and "let's have some limits on it with exception for special cases" .


Because certain states will make those "special cases" harder and harder to qualify. Also, what are the statistics on the level of women who have an abortion of a viable fetus for "elective" reasons after 25 weeks? What percentage are we talking about? Because if its higher than the number of babies who are shaken to death every year, I'll be shocked.
 
2013-06-26 01:37:49 PM  

Ambivalence: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

OMG I wish I had just taken your word for it. I am not easily disgusted but...OMG I feel like I need a pint of bourbon to forget that.


I'll never get tired of posting these:
fashionablygeek.com
 
2013-06-26 01:38:56 PM  

Ambivalence: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

OMG I wish I had just taken your word for it. I am not easily disgusted but...OMG I feel like I need a pint of bourbon to forget that.


Even the Wikipedia article on it is cringe-worthy.
 
2013-06-26 01:39:57 PM  

Philip J. Fry: $10 for a pregnancy test or $50 + loss of a days pay to visit the doctor is a lot of money to people. And combined with Texas brilliantly defunding health clinics, doubly hard for women to access.


Two days pay - women are required to have two visits.  Because apparently Republicans think women are so stupid that they women are so stupid that they don't consider what they're asking for the first time they walk into a clinic and request an abortion.  They have to ensure that some harlot who wants to murder her child sleeps on it at least one night and hopefully gets the correct decision in her pretty, little, empty head.

And then add to to that that it would bring the number of abortion providers in Texas down to 4 or 5 - so most women in the state would also have to drive more than a few hours to even get to the clinic.
 
2013-06-26 01:40:48 PM  

Ranger Rover: It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?


That's for 16-20 weeks. This whole thing is about after 20 weeks.
 
2013-06-26 01:40:56 PM  

what_now: Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.


WHAAAAAAT!
 
2013-06-26 01:41:13 PM  

what_now: Because certain states will make those "special cases" harder and harder to qualify. Also, what are the statistics on the level of women who have an abortion of a viable fetus for "elective" reasons after 25 weeks? What percentage are we talking about? Because if its higher than the number of babies who are shaken to death every year, I'll be shocked.


then why the fark are you losing your shiat about putting a restriction on elective abortions after a certain point?
Also, why did you put "elective" in scare quotes?
 
2013-06-26 01:41:23 PM  

skullkrusher: sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.

nah, it doesn't.


Numbers 5:18-19

5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
 
2013-06-26 01:42:44 PM  

mcsmiley: skullkrusher: sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.

nah, it doesn't.

Numbers 5:18-19

5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:


yeah that doesn't say anything about abortion. Nor does it even mention that the woman is pregnant.
 
2013-06-26 01:43:39 PM  
yeah, Yahoo news is basically fox news at this point.
 
2013-06-26 01:44:22 PM  

bdub77: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

That's kind of how I feel about it too.

My biggest issue is I know two women who worked in the NICU, which is the neonatal intensive care unit. They regularly took care of babies that were around 22-34 weeks, and while the 24-week point is probably I dunno 50/50 for the baby surviving, to me you're at the point where it's really a baby not a fetus, and many grow up to be fine kids. Many of these are cesarians. So instead of getting an abortion after 24-weeks, if the person wants an abortion at that point and you really think it needs to be state decided, you should have the state (if it wants to do this) pay for the cesarian and also have programs for the extra kids this will generate. I don't know the abortion statistics for between 20 and 24 weeks but it probably is ...


Do you have any idea who difficult a Cesarian is? it's not anywhere near the same level of surgery as an abortion. Who pays for the 8 weeks that the woman is totally out of work?  Once you have one C-section, you're almost always going to have to deliver every single future child by C-section, so who pays for any subsequent cesarean sections the woman has?
 
2013-06-26 01:44:52 PM  

Karac: Philip J. Fry: $10 for a pregnancy test or $50 + loss of a days pay to visit the doctor is a lot of money to people. And combined with Texas brilliantly defunding health clinics, doubly hard for women to access.

Two days pay - women are required to have two visits.  Because apparently Republicans think women are so stupid that they women are so stupid that they don't consider what they're asking for the first time they walk into a clinic and request an abortion.  They have to ensure that some harlot who wants to murder her child sleeps on it at least one night and hopefully gets the correct decision in her pretty, little, empty head.

And then add to to that that it would bring the number of abortion providers in Texas down to 4 or 5 - so most women in the state would also have to drive more than a few hours to even get to the clinic.


This was the real problem, the 20 week thing really is great for the GOP because it wedges the debate. You're never going to get full acceptance of this issue for the crazies that think a blastocyte is a baby, but now you put a certain week close to viability to it, now you're detaching the issue from being about how the other compliance requirements in the Texas abortion bill made it basically impossible to operate an abortion clinic in Texas.
 
2013-06-26 01:45:30 PM  

what_now: bdub77: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

That's kind of how I feel about it too.

My biggest issue is I know two women who worked in the NICU, which is the neonatal intensive care unit. They regularly took care of babies that were around 22-34 weeks, and while the 24-week point is probably I dunno 50/50 for the baby surviving, to me you're at the point where it's really a baby not a fetus, and many grow up to be fine kids. Many of these are cesarians. So instead of getting an abortion after 24-weeks, if the person wants an abortion at that point and you really think it needs to be state decided, you should have the state (if it wants to do this) pay for the cesarian and also have programs for the extra kids this will generate. I don't know the abortion statistics for between 20 and 24 weeks but it pro ...


she probably should have had an abortion before it was too late in that case. Simple solutions.
 
2013-06-26 01:46:12 PM  

skullkrusher: nice subject change.


You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?


No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.
 
2013-06-26 01:46:14 PM  

Karac: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

Is that like doing a GIS for anencephaly?

/NEVER do a GIS for 'anencephaly'.
The 'baby' qualifier is unnecessary since non-baby anencephaly is basically impossible.


Harlequin babies are bad, but they don't measure up to anencephalic babies. I'm a guy who regularly looks up weird, farked up shiat on the web, but anencephalic babies are still the only things that have haunted me to this day. I can't imagine how a would-be mother would feel if one of those came out. I can't even post a hyperlink to trick people into seeing one. Ugh...

Not a joke, folks.
 
2013-06-26 01:47:38 PM  
i.imgflip.com
 
2013-06-26 01:48:07 PM  

skullkrusher: yeah that doesn't say anything about abortion. Nor does it even mention that the woman is pregnant.


And if she was correctly accused of infidelity (which is what that's all about), she dies pretty horrifically - swelling from thigh to breast until she bursts. This happens in public after a priest tears her shirt off (yah rly).
If she's falsely accused of infidelity, she gets preggers within the year. Presumably by her husband's doing.

Perhaps the Bible is not the source we want to use here.
 
2013-06-26 01:48:54 PM  

Philip J. Fry: Gotcha, ending up pregnant is like shooting yourself with a gun.


No you're not doing it good enough.  To get 10 out of 10 you've got to go BIGGER.  I would have gone with saying my opinion is the same as believing "just being born a woman is the same as strapping on a suicide vest."
 
2013-06-26 01:48:57 PM  

spiderpaz: lolwut? I hate to break it to you but plenty of women and non-white men disagree with you. You can't just blame white men any time you're trying to make an argument unsuccessfully. That's ridiculous.


The GOP is the party of the old white man. There is no way around that, regardless of how many camera angles they show their black friend from.
 
2013-06-26 01:49:02 PM  

serial_crusher: [i.imgflip.com image 480x317]


Congratulations, you have managed to post the most dishonest thing in the thread. Good job.
 
2013-06-26 01:49:18 PM  

what_now: Do you have any idea who difficult a Cesarian is? it's not anywhere near the same level of surgery as an abortion. Who pays for the 8 weeks that the woman is totally out of work?  Once you have one C-section, you're almost always going to have to deliver every single future child by C-section, so who pays for any subsequent cesarean sections the woman has?


The woman can choose whether to do the cesarian or not. They can carry to full term if they wish. The state would pay for whatever procedure, for the time the woman is out of work, and for the care of the child for the first 18 years of life (as well as provide adoption services). You don't like having to pay for all of that as a taxpayer? It's making your state broke? Here's the world's tiniest violin. If you don't like that, don't make abortion illegal and instead institute a statewide sex education program.
 
2013-06-26 01:49:26 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.


well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller
 
2013-06-26 01:49:57 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: Because certain states will make those "special cases" harder and harder to qualify. Also, what are the statistics on the level of women who have an abortion of a viable fetus for "elective" reasons after 25 weeks? What percentage are we talking about? Because if its higher than the number of babies who are shaken to death every year, I'll be shocked.

then why the fark are you losing your shiat about putting a restriction on elective abortions after a certain point?
Also, why did you put "elective" in scare quotes?


Because people like you will keep deciding what "elective" means.
 
2013-06-26 01:51:13 PM  
What are the statistics on actual rate of injury/death that occurs from services rendered at obstensibly legitimate abortion clinics.
I mean if this is all about the health and safety of the mother, clearly there must be an epidemic of women being severely injured or dying due to unsafe conditions.

[Because that totally didn't happen while abortion was completely illegal in most of the country.]
 
2013-06-26 01:51:44 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: Because certain states will make those "special cases" harder and harder to qualify. Also, what are the statistics on the level of women who have an abortion of a viable fetus for "elective" reasons after 25 weeks? What percentage are we talking about? Because if its higher than the number of babies who are shaken to death every year, I'll be shocked.

then why the fark are you losing your shiat about putting a restriction on elective abortions after a certain point?
Also, why did you put "elective" in scare quotes?

Because people like you will keep deciding what "elective" means.


People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?
 
2013-06-26 01:52:17 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller


It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.
 
2013-06-26 01:52:45 PM  

what_now: Ranger Rover: It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?

That's for 16-20 weeks. This whole thing is about after 20 weeks.




So one thing is if you look at the demographics (this is a horrible proxy) but there are slightly more white people getting late abortions (past 20 weeks) than other demographics. Also wealthier and older people, though again these numbers are very small. That suggests, very tenuously, that the people getting abortions after 20 weeks are doing it for health reasons, or they can afford it (though Jesus... I can't fathom getting an abortion that late, it'd be awful.)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm#Tab22
 
2013-06-26 01:53:29 PM  

what_now: spiderpaz: lolwut? I hate to break it to you but plenty of women and non-white men disagree with you. You can't just blame white men any time you're trying to make an argument unsuccessfully. That's ridiculous.

The GOP is the party of the old white man. There is no way around that, regardless of how many camera angles they show their black friend from.


I've never voted Republican in my life.  There are plenty of Democrats that don't buy this no-exceptions dogma you're spouting.
 
2013-06-26 01:54:29 PM  

serial_crusher: [i.imgflip.com image 480x317]


with back alley abortions the free market can decide who is the safest and who isn't.
 
2013-06-26 01:55:24 PM  

skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?


Because a woman forced to bed rest due to complications from a pregnancy yet isn't at mortal risk falls under "elective" to you, which means she could lose her job and her house and be destitute by the time your legally required gift of life is delivered that she's homeless and on welfare?

The definition of "elective" you want to use isn't useful for people who actually get pregnant.
 
2013-06-26 01:55:39 PM  

spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.


First, only about 1.5% of abortions are performed post-20 weeks in the US.  And while you folks would certainly know you were pregnant the moment the sperm hit the egg, many women have irregular periods, so missing a period isn't a big clue, or they continue to have periods.  So that big flag is missing.  So what are the other things that clue woman in that they may be pregnant (ya know besides that ubiquitous pregnancy glow)?

Naseau?  Well not every women gets morning sickness and barfing could easily be mistaken for gastro illness.
Sore boobies?  Well, some women get that when they get their period, so that would be a sing of NOT being preggers.
Having to pee all the time?  At my age, I should then assume I am always pregnant.

Tell me how you KNOW you're pregnant and why we/you should assume everyone else would know, keeping in mind, again that this is a very small number of the abortions that are being performed?

Here's the other thing, although the GOP would have you  believe that there are all these (horrible, slutty, irresponsible) gals hanging out buying baby clothes then suddenly changing their minds about having a baby at week 21, the majority of post-20 week abortions are due to a major but previously undiagnosed problem with the mother or the fetus.

Now if it is a condition that is life threatening to the mother there are exceptions in the law, so if you get uterine cancer, yeah, then you are going to need an abortion to be treated. But while getting breast cancer is life threatening to the mother, getting treatment for breast cancer would not be hindered by being pregnant so no abortion for you, you just get your chemo and we'll hope your baby isn't all farked up.  See, having a deformed baby with no brain is a-ok under these "no abortion post-20 week" laws. Some of them even specify that you don't get an abortion even if everyone involved knows your baby is going to have three arms but no head.

And in fact the law are written so that post-20 weeks (and even the post-viability) laws would force a mother who determined in week 25 that her baby was seriously deformed (non-formed brain stem, missing vital organs, sever genetic issues) and/or unable to survive outside the womb, to carry that baby to term, because only God knows for sure... or some shiat.

^^THESE^^ are truly the situations were Republicans are trying to prevent an abortion, but just like all of those Cadillac Welfare Queens, they only talk about a gal who for some absolutely bizarre reason is so irresponsible that she waits 6 months to decide on an abortion because she wants a major, expensive surgical, difficult to get late term abortion.
 
2013-06-26 01:56:06 PM  

pivazena: It's not a scientific study simply because of the way it was conducted, e.g. It was at a clinic so the sample is biased, but the sample size is quite large so the percentages are reasonable. I couldn't find anything for the very few women who get abortions past 20 weeks. I assume that things will skew away from "didnt know I was pregnant, couldn't get access" and towards "health of the fetus / mother". There are a few reasons for this. One is cost -- later term abortions are more expensive and traumatic, so at that point the procedure itself may be a deterrent for women who are on the fence. Two is biology. Of the 16-20 week group, Many women probably become aware of their pregnancy around, lets say 16 weeks and got their abortion around 19 weeks. Like I said, the internets are failing me for the 20-week groups, probably because the sample size is very small. I'm pretty interested in this topic though so ill keep searching


Makes sense. Yes, please post any further findings; very interesting.
 
2013-06-26 01:56:12 PM  

skullkrusher: I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable.


The life of the mother is easy.

The "health" of the mother is where politicians WHO ARE NOT DOCTORS will get to chip away at abortion access by saying "Well, so what if this pregnancy is causing her to have gestational diabetes/depression/cancer/tipped uterus ? I know plenty of women that have survived that, it doesn't meet the standard."
 
2013-06-26 01:56:26 PM  

serial_crusher: [i.imgflip.com image 480x317]


Try to pay attention here.  Texas SB5 was not about making abortions safe. It was about setting unreasonable standards for abortion clinics so that they would be forced to close down.  If they were serious about improving the standards of these clinics they would have included funding to turn them into ASCs.
 
2013-06-26 01:57:50 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: Because certain states will make those "special cases" harder and harder to qualify. Also, what are the statistics on the level of women who have an abortion of a viable fetus for "elective" reasons after 25 weeks? What percentage are we talking about? Because if its higher than the number of babies who are shaken to death every year, I'll be shocked.

then why the fark are you losing your shiat about putting a restriction on elective abortions after a certain point?
Also, why did you put "elective" in scare quotes?

Because people like you will keep deciding what "elective" means.

People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?


Be careful how you use the word "health".  The like to point out the inherent health risks of pregnancy itself ("oh no, it's almost as risky as driving a car!") or make dubious claims about mental health with ridiculous thresholds for what counts as reasonable mental health protection ("being pregnant makes me sad, boo hoo!")
 
2013-06-26 01:58:48 PM  
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-06-26 01:58:49 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.


just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.
 
2013-06-26 01:59:32 PM  

Graffito: It was about setting unreasonable standards for abortion clinics so that they would be forced to close down.


Unreasonable, but safer. Besides, everyone says they'd like to reduce the number of abortions, and you would have still had 5 months do get it done. This would have reduced the number of abortions.

We don't have a constitutional right to easy access to abortions. let the market for abortions decide?

/just postulating
 
2013-06-26 02:00:17 PM  

Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?

Because a woman forced to bed rest due to complications from a pregnancy yet isn't at mortal risk falls under "elective" to you, which means she could lose her job and her house and be destitute by the time your legally required gift of life is delivered that she's homeless and on welfare?

The definition of "elective" you want to use isn't useful for people who actually get pregnant.


yeah, I don't regard potential financial impact as worthy of exception. I'm a human like that.
 
2013-06-26 02:00:40 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.


Fallacy. People do not abort a healthy 7-9 month fetus. It doesn't happen.
 
2013-06-26 02:00:49 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.


What's it to you?  I mean why do you care if someone gets an abortion or not?  Serious question.
 
2013-06-26 02:01:26 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable.

The life of the mother is easy.

The "health" of the mother is where politicians WHO ARE NOT DOCTORS will get to chip away at abortion access by saying "Well, so what if this pregnancy is causing her to have gestational diabetes/depression/cancer/tipped uterus ? I know plenty of women that have survived that, it doesn't meet the standard."


those are the risks of pregnancy, indeed. A woman could even die in childbirth. I don't think that warrants allowing an abortion on her due date.
 
2013-06-26 02:01:30 PM  

what_now: Ranger Rover: It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?

That's for 16-20 weeks. This whole thing is about after 20 weeks.


Okay; do you have reason to believe that the ~2% statistic at that point goes up wildly to become the majority right at that point or very quickly afterward? At what point does the death or medical distress of the fetus become the majority reason for terminating a pregnancy past 20 weeks?
 
2013-06-26 02:01:48 PM  

Epoch_Zero: [i2.kym-cdn.com image 500x240]


As a white male between the ages of 18 and 45, I feel not only the right but the obligation to make sweeping, binding declarations on a subject that can literally never possibly affect me, and those wimminz better shut up and listen because I know about the ladybits.
 
2013-06-26 02:02:08 PM  

skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?


sure until some asshole says something like:

serial_crusher: Be careful how you use the word "health". The like to point out the inherent health risks of pregnancy itself ("oh no, it's almost as risky as driving a car!") or make dubious claims about mental health with ridiculous thresholds for what counts as reasonable mental health protection ("being pregnant makes me sad, boo hoo!")


And makes my point for me.
 
2013-06-26 02:02:25 PM  

Graffito: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.

What's it to you?  I mean why do you care if someone gets an abortion or not?  Serious question.


I don't. Until we're talking about killing an actual human being who just happens to still reside within his or her mother. I oppose infanticide as well. Why do I care about that? I dunno, hard to say.
 
2013-06-26 02:03:27 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?

Because a woman forced to bed rest due to complications from a pregnancy yet isn't at mortal risk falls under "elective" to you, which means she could lose her job and her house and be destitute by the time your legally required gift of life is delivered that she's homeless and on welfare?

The definition of "elective" you want to use isn't useful for people who actually get pregnant.

yeah, I don't regard potential financial impact as worthy of exception. I'm a human like that.


So you're ok with the fetus being born to a homeless, destitute mother with no job and ruined health?
 
2013-06-26 02:03:29 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?

sure until some asshole says something like:

serial_crusher: Be careful how you use the word "health". The like to point out the inherent health risks of pregnancy itself ("oh no, it's almost as risky as driving a car!") or make dubious claims about mental health with ridiculous thresholds for what counts as reasonable mental health protection ("being pregnant makes me sad, boo hoo!")

And makes my point for me.


hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it
 
2013-06-26 02:04:07 PM  

Skail: meat0918: //Freely available birth control would do more to lower abortion rates than banning it after 20 weeks.

It's not about lowering abortion rates.  It's about punishing women for having sex.


Yet lauding men for virility and sowing of oats and what not.
 
2013-06-26 02:04:17 PM  

spiderpaz: I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm pro choice, but I don't support late term abortion, once the child would feasibly be viable if an emergency c-section were performed.  So obviously there's some room in MY "gray area" there.

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.  I don't want to punish anyone for having sex ... the more sex being had the better, and preventing unwanted children is always good.  But once it enters that gray area, I stop caring about your problems because you really went out of your way to be a dumbass.


Some pregnancies are so asymptomatic that the mother still have her period throughout their pregnancy.  Even women who have had previous pregnancies have gone through this.  shiat, there is even a reality tv show dedicated to this.  Some forms of birth control like depo provera also have pregnancy like symptoms adding to the confusion.
 
2013-06-26 02:04:30 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?

Because a woman forced to bed rest due to complications from a pregnancy yet isn't at mortal risk falls under "elective" to you, which means she could lose her job and her house and be destitute by the time your legally required gift of life is delivered that she's homeless and on welfare?

The definition of "elective" you want to use isn't useful for people who actually get pregnant.

yeah, I don't regard potential financial impact as worthy of exception. I'm a human like that.

So you're ok with the fetus being born to a homeless, destitute mother with no job and ruined health?


no, I already said that serious risks to her health should be an acceptable reason for an exemption after a certain point.
I am happier with a baby born homeless to a poor mother than murdered in the womb though. Weird, I know.
 
2013-06-26 02:04:37 PM  

skullkrusher: hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it


which is why I want politicians out of the picture entirely.
 
2013-06-26 02:05:45 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.

Fallacy. People do not abort a healthy 7-9 month fetus. It doesn't happen.


so, again, why are you so worried about it remaining illegal?
 
2013-06-26 02:06:13 PM  

skullkrusher: no, I already said that serious risks to her health should be an acceptable reason for an exemption after a certain point.
I am happier with a baby born homeless to a poor mother than murdered in the womb though. Weird, I know.


You clearly don't consider it murder or as you condone killing a fetus if the mother's life is at risk.
 
2013-06-26 02:06:23 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?

Because a woman forced to bed rest due to complications from a pregnancy yet isn't at mortal risk falls under "elective" to you, which means she could lose her job and her house and be destitute by the time your legally required gift of life is delivered that she's homeless and on welfare?

The definition of "elective" you want to use isn't useful for people who actually get pregnant.

yeah, I don't regard potential financial impact as worthy of exception. I'm a human like that.

So you're ok with the fetus being born to a homeless, destitute mother with no job and ruined health?

no, I already said that serious risks to her health should be an acceptable reason for an exemption after a certain point.
I am happier with a baby born homeless to a poor mother than murdered in the womb though. Weird, I know.


And I trust women and their doctors to make a better decision in each and every instance than I trust a group of politicians to make a sweeping policy.
 
2013-06-26 02:06:29 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it

which is why I want politicians out of the picture entirely.


which isn't going to happen because the overwhelming majority of people WANT to see abortion restricted to some degree.
 
2013-06-26 02:06:47 PM  
bdub77:

The woman can choose whether to do the cesarian or not. They can carry to full term if they wish. The state would pay for whatever procedure, for the time the woman is out of work, and for the care of the child for the first 18 years of life (as well as provide adoption services).

These are the same states that are fighting universal heath care.

/And does the mom get a unicorn as a parting gift?
 
2013-06-26 02:06:49 PM  

s2s2s2: Graffito: It was about setting unreasonable standards for abortion clinics so that they would be forced to close down.

Unreasonable, but safer. Besides, everyone says they'd like to reduce the number of abortions, and you would have still had 5 months do get it done. This would have reduced the number of abortions.

We don't have a constitutional right to easy access to abortions. let the market for abortions decide?

/just postulating


SB5 would NOT make abortion safer.  It is already safe.  How do these standards make it safer?  The AMA already stated that these standards do not improve safety.

We don't know what the outcome of closing down these clinics will be.  Maybe more women will be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term,  Maybe more women will get illegal, Kermit Gosnell type abortions.
 
2013-06-26 02:06:51 PM  

Aarontology: I really don't like it when articles about polls don't show the actual question that was asked.


That's the trick, similar to push polling. You tangentially relate the question, while trying to make sure that as many people as possible will pick what you want. You get a poll "proving" your point, with the bonus of generating outrage. Any poll hiding the question they asked (verbatim, not paraphrasing) is ignored by me.
 
2013-06-26 02:07:20 PM  
from TFA The survey of 1,005 adults was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from June 20 to 23, via both landlines and cell phones.

Who the hell has a landline?

Who the hell gets a call on their cell and actually wastes their minutes on a poll?
 
2013-06-26 02:07:37 PM  

Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: no, I already said that serious risks to her health should be an acceptable reason for an exemption after a certain point.
I am happier with a baby born homeless to a poor mother than murdered in the womb though. Weird, I know.

You clearly don't consider it murder or as you condone killing a fetus if the mother's life is at risk.


that's not murder. That's a heartbreaking choice. Much like seeing your twin children drowning but only having 1 life preserver. You didn't murder the one you didn't throw the preserver to
 
2013-06-26 02:09:02 PM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.

What's it to you?  I mean why do you care if someone gets an abortion or not?  Serious question.

I don't. Until we're talking about killing an actual human being who just happens to still reside within his or her mother. I oppose infanticide as well. Why do I care about that? I dunno, hard to say.


I don't know if I've said anything to you directly before, but your posts are always lit up in blue, a color that I like.
 
2013-06-26 02:09:25 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.

Fallacy. People do not abort a healthy 7-9 month fetus. It doesn't happen.


Good, then there's no problem legally preventing them from doing so hypothetically, if a thorough enough law could be written that politicians didn't sneak all sorts of ridiculous crap into.  Just saying "they won't ever do it trust me" isn't good enough, for me at least in this case.  However, as you said earlier about not being able to "remember a politician talking about abortion reasonably", such a hypothetical law may not be realistic in our current state of politics, so the point may be moot altogether ... in which case I would agree with you that no restrictions is better that bad restrictions that do more harm than good.
 
2013-06-26 02:09:39 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: spiderpaz: I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm pro choice, but I don't support late term abortion, once the child would feasibly be viable if an emergency c-section were performed.  So obviously there's some room in MY "gray area" there.

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.  I don't want to punish anyone for having sex ... the more sex being had the better, and preventing unwanted children is always good.  But once it enters that gray area, I stop caring about your problems because you really went out of your way to be a dumbass.

Some pregnancies are so asymptomatic that the mother still have her period throughout their pregnancy.  Even women who have had previous pregnancies have gone through this.  shiat, there is even a reality tv show dedicated to this.  Some forms of birth control like depo provera also have pregnancy like symptoms adding to the confusion.



How many of those conditions would obscure the results of a common over-the-counter pregnancy test?  You know, the ones they sell at the grocery store for like $7 a pop.  Maybe sexually active people should just get tested once in a while.
If you can't afford to take a pregnancy test at least once every 20 weeks you probably can't afford a baby or an abortion either, so keep it wrapped up and/or in your pants.
 
2013-06-26 02:09:51 PM  

skullkrusher: so, again, why are you so worried about it remaining illegal?


Because we aren't talking about 7-9 month viable fetus abortions, we're talking about 5 month abortions of different levels of viableness.

And lets not forget: this bill wasn't about restricting access to post-20 weeks. It was about restricting access to ANY abortion, by making absurd claims about the size of the janitors closet and other horseshiat.

Stuff like this is why I will fight tooth and nail against ANY restriction.  The anti abortion crowd will do anything it can to punish women for having sex.

You cannot tell me that a politician who votes to cut food stamps one day, and abortion access the next  cares about poor children. I will laugh in the face of anyone who claims this.
 
2013-06-26 02:10:23 PM  

Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Graffito: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.

What's it to you?  I mean why do you care if someone gets an abortion or not?  Serious question.

I don't. Until we're talking about killing an actual human being who just happens to still reside within his or her mother. I oppose infanticide as well. Why do I care about that? I dunno, hard to say.

I don't know if I've said anything to you directly before, but your posts are always lit up in blue, a color that I like.


appreciated sir. I don't think I've had the pleasure. Post moar
 
2013-06-26 02:10:41 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.


The Spartans did, good enough for me. Hell, I'd even let there be a 30-day return policy on babies. Three weeks in, decide it isn't for you, send it back to the manufacturer, aka, god.

Also, you are coming off as a sanctimonious douchbag. If you don't like abortions, don't farking get one. how hard is that to accept. How does it affect you if some women, or as you seem to be implying, some ho bag piece of chattel floozey gets an abortion? it doesn't. Not one iota. So in summary, fark off asswipe.
 
2013-06-26 02:10:55 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: no, I already said that serious risks to her health should be an acceptable reason for an exemption after a certain point.
I am happier with a baby born homeless to a poor mother than murdered in the womb though. Weird, I know.

You clearly don't consider it murder or as you condone killing a fetus if the mother's life is at risk.

that's not murder. That's a heartbreaking choice. Much like seeing your twin children drowning but only having 1 life preserver. You didn't murder the one you didn't throw the preserver to


You do know that in an abortion someone physically kills the fetus, right?
 
2013-06-26 02:11:29 PM  

spiderpaz: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

well, tough shiat, cupcake. Reasonable people have agreed that reasonable restrictions on abortion after a certain point is good. All over the world, actually.

/cupcake was for effect
//I do rather like you, ya crazy feminazi babykiller

It has been a long long time since I've heard any politician make a reasonable argument for restricting abortion access.

just to be clear, we are referring to your apparent position that abortion should be unrestricted, for any reason, up until the moment of birth... presumably you think infanticide is bad. Hard to understand for people who support unfettered abortion up until the point the baby finishes its move through the birth canal but I must assume.

Fallacy. People do not abort a healthy 7-9 month fetus. It doesn't happen.

Good, then there's no problem legally preventing them from doing so hypothetically, if a thorough enough law could be written that politicians didn't sneak all sorts of ridiculous crap into.  Just saying "they won't ever do it trust me" isn't good enough, for me at least in this case.  However, as you said earlier about not being able to "remember a politician talking about abortion reasonably", such a hypothetical law may not be realistic in our current state of politics, so the point may be moot altogether ... in which case I would agree with you that no restrictions is better that bad restrictions that do more harm than good.



Ok. Let's see that law, and then we'll talk.
 
2013-06-26 02:11:46 PM  

RedT: bdub77:

The woman can choose whether to do the cesarian or not. They can carry to full term if they wish. The state would pay for whatever procedure, for the time the woman is out of work, and for the care of the child for the first 18 years of life (as well as provide adoption services).

These are the same states that are fighting universal heath care.

/And does the mom get a unicorn as a parting gift?


Oh I totally get it, I'm totally on the level of rainbows and unicorns. But OK let's say that you are a Democratic strategist and you want to go to war on abortion as really one of the last talking points the GOP has any merit on. So you put together a very reasonable solution to it, backed up by data, that keeps both life of mother and fetus in consideration. Now you've got a real platform that most reasonable people can agree on.

You'll always have dissenters and disagreements in both parties. My mom, total anti-abortion nut. My mother-in-law, pro-abortion and in fact had one years ago. Both are total conservatives and love each other, both are borderline insane. I would love to put them in a room together and have them discuss abortion (OMG why have I not thought of that)?
 
2013-06-26 02:12:22 PM  

serial_crusher: If you can't afford to take a pregnancy test at least once every 20 weeks you probably can't afford a baby or an abortion either, so keep it wrapped up and/or in your pants.


But no, he doesn't want to punish women for having sex.
 
2013-06-26 02:13:25 PM  

what_now: Because we aren't talking about 7-9 month viable fetus abortions, we're talking about 5 month abortions of different levels of viableness.


to clarify, we haven't discussed any cut off point at all except for your desire for there not to be one. Correct me if I am wrong, but the impression I have is that you don't give a shiat about viability.

what_now: And lets not forget: this bill wasn't about restricting access to post-20 weeks. It was about restricting access to ANY abortion, by making absurd claims about the size of the janitors closet and other horseshiat.


this bill is horseshiat for reasons aside from the cutoff. Talking about horseshiat is dull, though.

what_now: You cannot tell me that a politician who votes to cut food stamps one day, and abortion access the next cares about poor children. I will laugh in the face of anyone who claims this.


I am not one of those politicians, nor do I sympathize with most politicians who wish to further restrictions on abortion access on virtually any issue. Believe it or not, I am really, really, really, really not a Republican. I am not kidding when I say that. I just happen to like fighting with liberals ;)
 
2013-06-26 02:14:17 PM  

Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: no, I already said that serious risks to her health should be an acceptable reason for an exemption after a certain point.
I am happier with a baby born homeless to a poor mother than murdered in the womb though. Weird, I know.

You clearly don't consider it murder or as you condone killing a fetus if the mother's life is at risk.

that's not murder. That's a heartbreaking choice. Much like seeing your twin children drowning but only having 1 life preserver. You didn't murder the one you didn't throw the preserver to

You do know that in an abortion someone physically kills the fetus, right?


yep. You do know what a metaphor is, right? It is not meant to be a literal perfect match for the situation being described.
 
2013-06-26 02:14:54 PM  

what_now: serial_crusher: If you can't afford to take a pregnancy test at least once every 20 weeks you probably can't afford a baby or an abortion either, so keep it wrapped up and/or in your pants.

But no, he doesn't want to punish women for having sex.


I think we should punish women for not having sex, personally.

spankings, perhaps.
 
2013-06-26 02:16:04 PM  

Graffito: The AMA already stated that these standards do not improve safety.


Do you have a citation handy for that?  I'm not saying I doubt you, but I was looking for it last night and couldn't find anything.  I'd like to read what they said.

Obviously most of the Republicans voting for the bill ultimately wanted to use it as a way to shut the clinics down.  And it wouldn't surprise me to see the Democrats fighting even the most sane safety regulations, just on principle.
The AMA seems like a reasonably impartial organization though, so I'm interested to see their position.
 
2013-06-26 02:16:32 PM  

skullkrusher: yep. You do know what a metaphor is, right? It is not meant to be a literal perfect match for the situation being described.


You only want to use a metaphor to hide the reality of your belief.
 
2013-06-26 02:16:55 PM  
If it were a completely separate issue rather than in an omnibus bill, I suppose I'd be okay with a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. I'd still like to see medical exceptions and what not, but 20 weeks is close to the earliest point of fetal viability (I think I saw the youngest was estimated at just under 22 weeks). Balancing between 20 and 24 weeks is a weak preference to suss out for me.

Of course, you never see bills pushing just for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. You see them packaged with tons of other garbage that treats the pregnant woman like incompetent children at best or slaves at worst. I would have done exactly what Wendy Davis did last night if I were in her shoes.
 
2013-06-26 02:17:32 PM  

there their theyre: Also, you are coming off as a sanctimonious douchbag. If you don't like abortions, don't farking get one. how hard is that to accept. How does it affect you if some women, or as you seem to be implying, some ho bag piece of chattel floozey gets an abortion? it doesn't. Not one iota. So in summary, fark off asswipe.


It is sanctimonious to be shocked and horrified that people support murdering infants pre-birth? Believing that we as a society owe it to these most defenseless humans to protect them from being murdered in the womb a day before they were scheduled to check out of it? If so, eat a sack of my sanctimonious cocks, ya baby murdering shiatbag
 
2013-06-26 02:18:14 PM  

skullkrusher: to clarify, we haven't discussed any cut off point at all except for your desire for there not to be one. Correct me if I am wrong, but the impression I have is that you don't give a shiat about viability.


I do give a shiat about viability, and so do the doctors and the patients involved in the late term abortion decision.

A reasonable law would be, "abortions are not allowed after 7 months on a healthy and viable fetus except for when the health and welfare of the mother are at risk", full stop.

But that's not the laws we get, and until we have REASONABLE people discussing this I will oppose any and all forms of restriction.

skullkrusher: I am not one of those politicians, nor do I sympathize with most politicians who wish to further restrictions on abortion access on virtually any issue. Believe it or not, I am really, really, really, really not a Republican. I am not kidding when I say that. I just happen to like fighting with liberals ;)


Yeah, this is an engaging and civil debate, which is good. But it's about 100X more reasonable than any that politicians in this country are having right now.
 
2013-06-26 02:19:23 PM  

serial_crusher: ZombieApocalypseKitten: spiderpaz: I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm pro choice, but I don't support late term abortion, once the child would feasibly be viable if an emergency c-section were performed.  So obviously there's some room in MY "gray area" there.

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.  I don't want to punish anyone for having sex ... the more sex being had the better, and preventing unwanted children is always good.  But once it enters that gray area, I stop caring about your problems because you really went out of your way to be a dumbass.

Some pregnancies are so asymptomatic that the mother still have her period throughout their pregnancy.  Even women who have had previous pregnancies have gone through this.  shiat, there is even a reality tv show dedicated to this.  Some forms of birth control like depo provera also have pregnancy like symptoms adding to the confusion.


How many of those conditions would obscure the results of a common over-the-counter pregnancy test?  You know, the ones they sell at the grocery store for like $7 a pop.  Maybe sexually active people should just get tested once in a while.
If you can't afford to take a pregnancy test at least once every 20 weeks you probably can't afford a baby or an abortion either, so keep it wrapped up and/or in your pants.


Now I know you're trolling.  I wasn't sure before.  Why would you take a pregnancy test without symptoms?  Oh, they're closer to 15-20$ where I live.
 
2013-06-26 02:19:37 PM  

Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: yep. You do know what a metaphor is, right? It is not meant to be a literal perfect match for the situation being described.

You only want to use a metaphor to hide the reality of your belief.


I thought I've been pretty up front about my belief. Do you have something to add or a question about that belief? No one is hiding anything.

I suppose you could make a semantic argument that killing the baby to save the mother after viability is "murder" but it seems a rather morally acceptable, albeit terrible, decision to have to make.
 
2013-06-26 02:20:06 PM  
Can someone please explain what a harlequin baby is exactly? Because thanks to these abortion threadsiI am now terrified of googling it for fear of pictures.
 
2013-06-26 02:22:02 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: to clarify, we haven't discussed any cut off point at all except for your desire for there not to be one. Correct me if I am wrong, but the impression I have is that you don't give a shiat about viability.

I do give a shiat about viability, and so do the doctors and the patients involved in the late term abortion decision.

A reasonable law would be, "abortions are not allowed after 7 months on a healthy and viable fetus except for when the health and welfare of the mother are at risk", full stop.

But that's not the laws we get, and until we have REASONABLE people discussing this I will oppose any and all forms of restriction.
skullkrusher: I am not one of those politicians, nor do I sympathize with most politicians who wish to further restrictions on abortion access on virtually any issue. Believe it or not, I am really, really, really, really not a Republican. I am not kidding when I say that. I just happen to like fighting with liberals ;)

Yeah, this is an engaging and civil debate, which is good. But it's about 100X more reasonable than any that politicians in this country are having right now.


I think viability is determined to be 24-26 weeks at this point. It's getting sooner and sooner but I think that is the current range. You support restrictions after that point, I'm on board m'lady.

This is a civil and interesting discussion. Please ignore my invitation to one of our less intelligent comrades to eat a sack of my penises.
 
2013-06-26 02:22:37 PM  

stickmangrit: Can someone please explain what a harlequin baby is exactly? Because thanks to these abortion threadsiI am now terrified of googling it for fear of pictures.


it's farking terrifying.
 
2013-06-26 02:23:40 PM  

Serious Black: If it were a completely separate issue rather than in an omnibus bill, I suppose I'd be okay with a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. I'd still like to see medical exceptions and what not, but 20 weeks is close to the earliest point of fetal viability (I think I saw the youngest was estimated at just under 22 weeks). Balancing between 20 and 24 weeks is a weak preference to suss out for me.

Of course, you never see bills pushing just for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. You see them packaged with tons of other garbage that treats the pregnant woman like incompetent children at best or slaves at worst. I would have done exactly what Wendy Davis did last night if I were in her shoes.


Yeah this is the main problem. I think 23 weeks is about the point I'd have to start saying, OK you've got viable fetus. Something upwards of 1/3 of healthy kids will live at that point, and that goes up exponentially the two weeks after that. Give them care options for mothers who don't want them, now you've got something that makes more sense to me. If the data shows that most post 20 week abortions are done because of problems with fetal development, then make exceptions for it backed up by scientific data and a (preferably bipartisan) panel of medical professionals. There are laws that refer to competent professionals for decision making.
 
2013-06-26 02:24:31 PM  

skullkrusher: there their theyre: Also, you are coming off as a sanctimonious douchbag. If you don't like abortions, don't farking get one. how hard is that to accept. How does it affect you if some women, or as you seem to be implying, some ho bag piece of chattel floozey gets an abortion? it doesn't. Not one iota. So in summary, fark off asswipe.

It is sanctimonious to be shocked and horrified that people support murdering infants pre-birth? Believing that we as a society owe it to these most defenseless humans to protect them from being murdered in the womb a day before they were scheduled to check out of it? If so, eat a sack of my sanctimonious cocks, ya baby murdering shiatbag


Welp, you got 'em here. You are clearly the superior human being because that's totally what this argument is about.

/people are murdered - medical conditions are treated
 
2013-06-26 02:24:48 PM  

stickmangrit: Can someone please explain what a harlequin baby is exactly? Because thanks to these abortion threadsiI am now terrified of googling it for fear of pictures.


Basically it's a condition where the skin hardens to the point that it looks like scales on a body. The hardened skin layer makes it difficult or impossible to move, and the cracks in the skin make the baby incredibly susceptible to infection. There's maybe a hundred people living today with the condition, and before the 1980s, nobody survived it.
 
2013-06-26 02:25:27 PM  

bdub77:  There are laws that refer to competent professionals for decision making.


You know. Death panels.

/sorry, I totally had to respond to my own post, having realized what I was just saying
 
2013-06-26 02:25:39 PM  

what_now: serial_crusher: If you can't afford to take a pregnancy test at least once every 20 weeks you probably can't afford a baby or an abortion either, so keep it wrapped up and/or in your pants.

But no, he doesn't want to punish women for having sex.


wow, you've got some pretty stretchy definitions of "punishment".  Is it the $7 every 20 weeks, or the peeing on a stick that is an onerous burden to you?

/ ok, in practice you'd probably have to go less than 20 weeks between tests if you want to make sure you still have time to schedule and get the abortion.  Maybe 10 weeks?  So, $35/year or so?  What horror.
 
2013-06-26 02:25:54 PM  

skullkrusher: I think viability is determined to be 24-26 weeks at this point.


Yes, but that's for a baby that will spend months in a NICU and cost millions of dollars, and Texas is a state that will override a parents decision and turn off life saving equipment to people who don't have health insurance.
 
2013-06-26 02:26:13 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Welp, you got 'em here. You are clearly the superior human being because that's totally what this argument is about.


thanks for noticing, my alt.

Epoch_Zero: /people are murdered - medical conditions are treated


viable fetuses are pre-birth humans, not "medical conditions".
 
2013-06-26 02:26:55 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: I think viability is determined to be 24-26 weeks at this point.

Yes, but that's for a baby that will spend months in a NICU and cost millions of dollars, and Texas is a state that will override a parents decision and turn off life saving equipment to people who don't have health insurance.


I like the idea of gubmint healthcare. N/A
 
2013-06-26 02:26:56 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: I think viability is determined to be 24-26 weeks at this point.

Yes, but that's for a baby that will spend months in a NICU and cost millions of dollars, and Texas is a state that will override a parents decision and turn off life saving equipment to people who don't have health insurance.


Yep exactly. Realistically we are nowhere near a compromise on a federal or state level. If anything I feel like we've just gone even more polar opposite.
 
2013-06-26 02:26:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: yep. You do know what a metaphor is, right? It is not meant to be a literal perfect match for the situation being described.

You only want to use a metaphor to hide the reality of your belief.

I thought I've been pretty up front about my belief. Do you have something to add or a question about that belief? No one is hiding anything.

I suppose you could make a semantic argument that killing the baby to save the mother after viability is "murder" but it seems a rather morally acceptable, albeit terrible, decision to have to make.


It's not semantics.  You are taking the action of abortion, which you think should be illegal, except in a case you approve of, and you create this metaphor where your choice is passive.  You aren't killing the fetus.  It's just a result of circumstances!  Like your two drowning children.  It's the exact mentality that every pro-lifer who goes to have an abortion holds.    My abortion is the only moral abortion.

If it's murder on Monday, it's murder on Tuesday.  But for you suddenly it's just a "Well, my personal requirements are met, so the fetus is no longer being murdered."
 
2013-06-26 02:27:28 PM  

bdub77: There are laws that refer to competent professionals for decision making.


but the people making the laws think that rape kits "clean the mother out" and that evolution is a "lie from the pit of hell". So lets not let these people make laws on women's health.
 
2013-06-26 02:29:40 PM  

what_now: bdub77: There are laws that refer to competent professionals for decision making.

but the people making the laws think that rape kits "clean the mother out" and that evolution is a "lie from the pit of hell". So lets not let these people make laws on women's health.


I am honestly puzzled as to how anyone, especially a woman, thought that a rape kit prevented pregnancy.
 
2013-06-26 02:30:44 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: serial_crusher: ZombieApocalypseKitten: spiderpaz: I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm pro choice, but I don't support late term abortion, once the child would feasibly be viable if an emergency c-section were performed.  So obviously there's some room in MY "gray area" there.

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.  I don't want to punish anyone for having sex ... the more sex being had the better, and preventing unwanted children is always good.  But once it enters that gray area, I stop caring about your problems because you really went out of your way to be a dumbass.

Some pregnancies are so asymptomatic that the mother still have her period throughout their pregnancy.  Even women who have had previous pregnancies have gone through this.  shiat, there is even a reality tv show dedicated to this.  Some forms of birth control like depo provera also have pregnancy like symptoms adding to the confusion.


How many of those conditions would obscure the results of a common over-the-counter pregnancy test?  You know, the ones they sell at the grocery store for like $7 a pop.  Maybe sexually active people should just get tested once in a while.
If you can't afford to take a pregnancy test at least once every 20 weeks you probably can't afford a baby or an abortion either, so keep it wrapped up and/or in your pants.

Now I know you're trolling.  I wasn't sure before.  Why would you take a pregnancy test without symptoms?  Oh, they're closer to 15-20$ where I live.


$4.11 per test at Amazon, if you Subscribe-n-Save.

/ my "recommended products" section is going to be fun for the next couple of weeks.
// Oh, also on the "want to punish women for having sex" thing, I'd expect the male partner in a monogamous couple to put up half the cost.  Promiscuous single woman, well that's an unfortunate cost of the lifestyle.
 
2013-06-26 02:31:34 PM  

Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: Philip J. Fry: skullkrusher: yep. You do know what a metaphor is, right? It is not meant to be a literal perfect match for the situation being described.

You only want to use a metaphor to hide the reality of your belief.

I thought I've been pretty up front about my belief. Do you have something to add or a question about that belief? No one is hiding anything.

I suppose you could make a semantic argument that killing the baby to save the mother after viability is "murder" but it seems a rather morally acceptable, albeit terrible, decision to have to make.

It's not semantics.  You are taking the action of abortion, which you think should be illegal, except in a case you approve of, and you create this metaphor where your choice is passive.  You aren't killing the fetus.  It's just a result of circumstances!  Like your two drowning children.  It's the exact mentality that every pro-lifer who goes to have an abortion holds.    My abortion is the only moral abortion.

If it's murder on Monday, it's murder on Tuesday.  But for you suddenly it's just a "Well, my personal requirements are met, so the fetus is no longer being murdered."


The word choice really doesn't matter to me. Maybe you like a metaphor that involves a deranged man about to attack a person with a knife. He is not responsible for his behavior and it completely innocent from a moral point of view yet you would be morally justified in "murdering" him to save the other person. Have you honestly read this thread and thought to yourself "skullkrusher is a pro-lifer"?

Full disclosure: I am. Personally. Not for you. For me. For you I am pro-choice with reasonable limits such as the ones we currently have in place. How the fark is someone who supports the abortion status quo a pro-lifer?
 
2013-06-26 02:32:08 PM  

serial_crusher: $4.11 per test at Amazon, if you Subscribe-n-Save.


I think you mean $13.  Unless you think Amazon will open the box and send you individual tests?
 
2013-06-26 02:32:09 PM  

skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it

which is why I want politicians out of the picture entirely.

which isn't going to happen because the overwhelming majority of people WANT to see abortion restricted to some degree.


And it is. So your arguing for more restrictions?
 
2013-06-26 02:32:49 PM  

Serious Black: what_now: bdub77: There are laws that refer to competent professionals for decision making.

but the people making the laws think that rape kits "clean the mother out" and that evolution is a "lie from the pit of hell". So lets not let these people make laws on women's health.

I am honestly puzzled as to how anyone, especially a woman, thought that a rape kit prevented pregnancy.


It's not that weird. Up until I read that article, I thought a rape kit contained chloroform and duct tape.

/not a woman
//that joke made even me a little creeped out
///watch a lot of SVU. I know what a rape kit is
 
2013-06-26 02:32:53 PM  

skullkrusher: viable fetuses are pre-birth humans, not "medical conditions".


Having a parasite is a medical condition.

You can easily categorize the condition of pregnancy as being a parasitic relationship between host and parasite, as the baby cannot grow without proper nutrition gained from the mother, who gets no physical benefits from the relationship.

And it still doesn't make it your decision or the decision of a fictitious sky wizard. If a woman carrying a fetus wants an abortion, it's her business and she has a constitutional right to one if she so wishes.
 
2013-06-26 02:33:30 PM  

Chewb1zz: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it

which is why I want politicians out of the picture entirely.

which isn't going to happen because the overwhelming majority of people WANT to see abortion restricted to some degree.

And it is. So your arguing for more restrictions?


newp. I am arguing against less restrictions.
 
2013-06-26 02:34:25 PM  

Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: viable fetuses are pre-birth humans, not "medical conditions".

Having a parasite is a medical condition.

You can easily categorize the condition of pregnancy as being a parasitic relationship between host and parasite, as the baby cannot grow without proper nutrition gained from the mother, who gets no physical benefits from the relationship.

And it still doesn't make it your decision or the decision of a fictitious sky wizard. If a woman carrying a fetus wants an abortion, it's her business and she has a constitutional right to one if she so wishes.


*yawn*. Although I suppose I should be impressed you managed to pack so many trite tropes into a such a short post.
 
2013-06-26 02:34:51 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: what_now: bdub77: There are laws that refer to competent professionals for decision making.

but the people making the laws think that rape kits "clean the mother out" and that evolution is a "lie from the pit of hell". So lets not let these people make laws on women's health.

I am honestly puzzled as to how anyone, especially a woman, thought that a rape kit prevented pregnancy.

It's not that weird. Up until I read that article, I thought a rape kit contained chloroform and duct tape.

/not a woman
//that joke made even me a little creeped out
///watch a lot of SVU. I know what a rape kit is


LOL. I keep a Forget-Me-Now in my rape kit personally.
 
2013-06-26 02:34:52 PM  

Philip J. Fry: serial_crusher: $4.11 per test at Amazon, if you Subscribe-n-Save.

I think you mean $13.  Unless you think Amazon will open the box and send you individual tests?


[notsureifserious.jpg].
Did I miss something?  Do you have to use them all at once?
I figured they were 3 individually-wrapped tests inside the same box
 
2013-06-26 02:35:39 PM  

what_now: bdub77: There are laws that refer to competent professionals for decision making.

but the people making the laws think that rape kits "clean the mother out" and that evolution is a "lie from the pit of hell". So lets not let these people make laws on women's health.


Totally agree.
 
2013-06-26 02:36:14 PM  

skullkrusher: Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: viable fetuses are pre-birth humans, not "medical conditions".

Having a parasite is a medical condition.

You can easily categorize the condition of pregnancy as being a parasitic relationship between host and parasite, as the baby cannot grow without proper nutrition gained from the mother, who gets no physical benefits from the relationship.

And it still doesn't make it your decision or the decision of a fictitious sky wizard. If a woman carrying a fetus wants an abortion, it's her business and she has a constitutional right to one if she so wishes.

*yawn*. Although I suppose I should be impressed you managed to pack so many trite tropes into a such a short post.


Nice non-answer. You're sort of sounding like a fedora-wearing "misandry" jerk in this thread.
 
2013-06-26 02:41:34 PM  

Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: viable fetuses are pre-birth humans, not "medical conditions".

Having a parasite is a medical condition.

You can easily categorize the condition of pregnancy as being a parasitic relationship between host and parasite, as the baby cannot grow without proper nutrition gained from the mother, who gets no physical benefits from the relationship.

And it still doesn't make it your decision or the decision of a fictitious sky wizard. If a woman carrying a fetus wants an abortion, it's her business and she has a constitutional right to one if she so wishes.

*yawn*. Although I suppose I should be impressed you managed to pack so many trite tropes into a such a short post.

Nice non-answer. You're sort of sounding like a fedora-wearing "misandry" jerk in this thread.


to morons, perhaps.

parasites cannot live without a host. A viable fetus, by definition, can. Nothing to do with a "fictitious sky wizard" either. You gotta try a bit harder. Showing your hand so quickly is amateur hour bullshiat
 
2013-06-26 02:44:20 PM  

Jairzinho: A Dark Evil Omen: Even Fark has that farking Newsmax sidebar now.

Not even having ABP on Firefox prevents that :(


Install NoScript and block nmcdn.us
 
2013-06-26 02:46:47 PM  

Ambivalence: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

OMG I wish I had just taken your word for it. I am not easily disgusted but...OMG I feel like I need a pint of bourbon to forget that.


You were warned.
 
2013-06-26 02:47:48 PM  
But the poll, notably, showed that women supported such a measure in greater numbers than men (50 percent of women in favor; 46 percent of men).

Yup, nothing to see here but evil men motivated by hatred of women.
 
2013-06-26 02:48:08 PM  

skullkrusher: Chewb1zz: skullkrusher: what_now: skullkrusher: hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it

which is why I want politicians out of the picture entirely.

which isn't going to happen because the overwhelming majority of people WANT to see abortion restricted to some degree.

And it is. So your arguing for more restrictions?

newp. I am arguing against less restrictions.


So your arguing against a law that doesn't exist and have gone off into your own imaginary world where everyone is against you and you are the last man standing in the moral high ground.

Do you frequently argue against imaginary problems? Getting all worked up about issues in your own head is generally considered unhealthy. You might want to get that checked out by a professional.
 
2013-06-26 02:50:51 PM  

pivazena: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

Sorry it didn't link before. For women who were beyond 16 weeks (16-20 weeks account for 4.8 % of abortions, 20+ is around 1.5%). So we don't know how the reasoning shifts given the extra month of gestation, but:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other


Prevent the woman from getting her abortion within the given legal window and hey look, now she can't legally get an abortion.
 
2013-06-26 02:52:19 PM  

skullkrusher: to morons, perhaps.

parasites cannot live without a host. A viable fetus, by definition, can. Nothing to do with a "fictitious sky wizard" either. You gotta try a bit harder. Showing your hand so quickly is amateur hour bullshiat


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-06-26 02:52:33 PM  

dehehn: that 0.7% of women who want abortions because they don't understand their own bodies


Abstinence-only edumakashun FTL.
 
2013-06-26 02:54:17 PM  

Chewb1zz: So your arguing against a law that doesn't exist and have gone off into your own imaginary world where everyone is against you and you are the last man standing in the moral high ground.


nope, just talking with someone who originally said she thought there should be no restrictions on abortion. It was a discussion of ideas and of how things are and how someone said they wanted them to be. This isn't terribly confusing. Sorry you were unable to follow along.
 
2013-06-26 02:55:04 PM  

Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: to morons, perhaps.

parasites cannot live without a host. A viable fetus, by definition, can. Nothing to do with a "fictitious sky wizard" either. You gotta try a bit harder. Showing your hand so quickly is amateur hour bullshiat

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 680x907]


I saw the jpg at first and thought hey, this is going to be funny. Turns out I was wrong for the first time ever.
 
2013-06-26 02:57:51 PM  

Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: to morons, perhaps.

parasites cannot live without a host. A viable fetus, by definition, can. Nothing to do with a "fictitious sky wizard" either. You gotta try a bit harder. Showing your hand so quickly is amateur hour bullshiat

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 680x907]


"Nice Guys Finish Last: Why She Goes for the Asshole" is probably better suited for Cosmo or Playboy, don'tcha think?

// I usually have her finish first - seems more courteous that way
// you do run the risk of the sex-coma before your turn comes up, so YMMV
 
2013-06-26 03:01:02 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // I usually have her finish first - seems more courteous that way


you have to - is there anything less interesting than helping your partner finish after you have?
 
2013-06-26 03:02:41 PM  

serial_crusher: Oh, also on the "want to punish women for having sex" thing, I'd expect the male partner in a monogamous couple to put up half the cost.


If anything, I'd like to reward women for having sex.  But this isn't a thread about prostitution or marriage, so I'll try not to thread jack.
 
2013-06-26 03:10:29 PM  
Actually this is the thread you were responding to.

skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?

sure until some asshole says something like:

serial_crusher: Be careful how you use the word "health". The like to point out the inherent health risks of pregnancy itself ("oh no, it's almost as risky as driving a car!") or make dubious claims about mental health with ridiculous thresholds for what counts as reasonable mental health protection ("being pregnant makes me sad, boo hoo!")

And makes my point for me.


hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it

So not too terribly hard to keep up.  So my point stands.
 
2013-06-26 03:10:53 PM  

skullkrusher: Ranger Rover


Would love to, studying for the god-awful bar. I submitted this link, got it approved (first time!), yawned at being called a troll by the kinds of people who think the word "troll" means "anybody who posts something that I disagree with", and have been pleased to watch a mostly intelligent and educating conversation roll out.
Unfortunately, it's led to me taking five minute breaks after every, oh, five or so minutes of studying. Not cool.

What especially interested me about the article, and led me to submit it, was the fact that if legitimate, the study flies in the face of the characterization of the debate as a conservative "war on women." Similar to the problems raised by the branches of feminism that abhor when women want to stay home and be full-time wives or mothers, therefore depriving women of a meaningful choice in the matter, this characterization seems to me to alienate pro-life women (and even moderate abortion-disliking women) from other women with the suggestion that they are acting against the interests of their gender and the universal sorority in general. It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.
 
2013-06-26 03:15:07 PM  
I favor post-birth abortions.
 
2013-06-26 03:16:12 PM  

Chewb1zz: Actually this is the thread you were responding to.

skullkrusher: People like me? I think defining "elective" as an abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life and health of the mother is pretty reasonable. Why do you hate reasonable people?

sure until some asshole says something like:

serial_crusher: Be careful how you use the word "health". The like to point out the inherent health risks of pregnancy itself ("oh no, it's almost as risky as driving a car!") or make dubious claims about mental health with ridiculous thresholds for what counts as reasonable mental health protection ("being pregnant makes me sad, boo hoo!")

And makes my point for me.

hehe well he is right. People do often try to expand "health of the mother" to every conceivable possible pregnancy related complication regardless of whether there is an actual risk of it

So not too terribly hard to keep up.  So my point stands.


No, your point that I was arguing against something imaginary when I was actually addressing a position someone took does not stand. If it makes you feel better, I'll pretty that it does though.

Well played!

/how's that?
 
2013-06-26 03:16:15 PM  
I want abortions safe, legal, and common.
/pro-abortion because, come on...some people should not breed
 
2013-06-26 03:16:45 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out."


That quote is a grammatical abortion.
 
2013-06-26 03:17:15 PM  

serial_crusher: Philip J. Fry: serial_crusher: $4.11 per test at Amazon, if you Subscribe-n-Save.

I think you mean $13.  Unless you think Amazon will open the box and send you individual tests?

[notsureifserious.jpg].
Did I miss something?  Do you have to use them all at once?
I figured they were 3 individually-wrapped tests inside the same box


Women don't stock up on pregnancy tests like they're toilet paper or tampons.  When you need one you pay $13, even if you get two free.
 
2013-06-26 03:18:52 PM  

Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover

Would love to, studying for the god-awful bar. I submitted this link, got it approved (first time!), yawned at being called a troll by the kinds of people who think the word "troll" means "anybody who posts something that I disagree with", and have been pleased to watch a mostly intelligent and educating conversation roll out.
Unfortunately, it's led to me taking five minute breaks after every, oh, five or so minutes of studying. Not cool.

What especially interested me about the article, and led me to submit it, was the fact that if legitimate, the study flies in the face of the characterization of the debate as a conservative "war on women." Similar to the problems raised by the branches of feminism that abhor when women want to stay home and be full-time wives or mothers, therefore depriving women of a meaningful choice in the matter, this characterization seems to me to alienate pro-life women (and even moderate abortion-disliking women) from other women with the suggestion that they are acting against the interests of their gender and the universal sorority in general. It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.


there is, without a doubt, a not insignificant of mouthbreathing shiatheads in the GOP and on the right in general. So many, in fact, that it is hard to take any of them seriously anymore. While I agree that a pro-life position is not necessarily an anti-woman position and have often argued that point, in 2013 it is hard to see how the more vocal people on the right are anything but anti-women.

However, this is Fark and fark nuance cuz nuance is hard.

/good luck on the bar, law talkin guy
 
2013-06-26 03:19:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: // I usually have her finish first - seems more courteous that way

you have to - is there anything less interesting than helping your partner finish after you have?


If she's hot or makes sexy noises, then yes (one ex - I coulda watched her double-click all damn day). Also, some of the women I've been with only need 5min or so before they're good to go again, so (assuming I don't go all sex-coma) they may get a Round 2.

// because where better to talk "Philosophy of Sex" than an abortion thread?
 
2013-06-26 03:23:51 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: Some pregnancies are so asymptomatic that the mother still have her period throughout their pregnancy.


True but if we're going to play "who has the better corner case" and I've got to choose between two laws where one enables a woman who had an asymptomatic pregnancy to kill a perfectly healthy 7-9 month old fetus (which for reasonable people is not acceptable), and the other prevents her from doing so, leaving the option of missing a month (or in some cases more) work to have a c-section or give birth and then put it up for adoption, I'd pick the lesser of two evils and spare the baby, and institute some kind of national mandatory 1 month paid maternity leave for the mother (and more assistance should complications come into the picture).

That would be the decent thing to do, however the most vocal people writing abortion laws are hardliners that aren't willing to compromise at all - so we're stuck with Rightards that want to prevent all abortion, always and never give any mother anything, ever in terms of assistance, or healthcare or education, and Libtards that think questioning any woman's decision anytime, ever is always blasphemy committed by white men to punish women for having vaginas.
 
2013-06-26 03:25:04 PM  

Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: // I usually have her finish first - seems more courteous that way

you have to - is there anything less interesting than helping your partner finish after you have?

If she's hot or makes sexy noises, then yes (one ex - I coulda watched her double-click all damn day). Also, some of the women I've been with only need 5min or so before they're good to go again, so (assuming I don't go all sex-coma) they may get a Round 2.

// because where better to talk "Philosophy of Sex" than an abortion thread?


Used to be able to do the quick back to back sessions but can't do it anymore. Sex then baseball these days for me. Though I agree that watching is still very entertaining even immediately following your own finish. Helping is more of a duty than a pleasure at that time though, imo
 
2013-06-26 03:29:10 PM  

Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: // I usually have her finish first - seems more courteous that way

you have to - is there anything less interesting than helping your partner finish after you have?

If she's hot or makes sexy noises, then yes (one ex - I coulda watched her double-click all damn day). Also, some of the women I've been with only need 5min or so before they're good to go again, so (assuming I don't go all sex-coma) they may get a Round 2.

// because where better to talk "Philosophy of Sex" than an abortion thread?


You can't have abortion without sex.  Possibly some good sex.  Unless we're talking about the Virgin Mary.  Did I just start talking about aborting Jesus?  Should I now have done that?  Good thing I'm atheist, otherwise I could be in some trouble.
 
2013-06-26 03:34:45 PM  

skullkrusher: mcsmiley: skullkrusher: sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.

nah, it doesn't.

Numbers 5:18-19

5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

yeah that doesn't say anything about abortion. Nor does it even mention that the woman is pregnant.


Not exactly. The curs is a reference to a womans monthly cycle. Basically what the "Bitter water" in question does is force a period. Basically a chemical abortion, much like what ru486 does.
 
2013-06-26 03:34:47 PM  

skullkrusher: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover

Would love to, studying for the god-awful bar. I submitted this link, got it approved (first time!), yawned at being called a troll by the kinds of people who think the word "troll" means "anybody who posts something that I disagree with", and have been pleased to watch a mostly intelligent and educating conversation roll out.
Unfortunately, it's led to me taking five minute breaks after every, oh, five or so minutes of studying. Not cool.

What especially interested me about the article, and led me to submit it, was the fact that if legitimate, the study flies in the face of the characterization of the debate as a conservative "war on women." Similar to the problems raised by the branches of feminism that abhor when women want to stay home and be full-time wives or mothers, therefore depriving women of a meaningful choice in the matter, this characterization seems to me to alienate pro-life women (and even moderate abortion-disliking women) from other women with the suggestion that they are acting against the interests of their gender and the universal sorority in general. It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.

there is, without a doubt, a not insignificant of mouthbreathing shiatheads in the GOP and on the right in general. So many, in fact, that it is hard to take any of them seriously anymore. While I agree that a pro-life position is not necessarily an anti-woman position and have often argued that point, in 2013 it is hard to see how the more vocal people on the right are anything but anti-women.

However, this is Fark and fark nuance cuz nuance is hard.


Thanks; I will need it if I keep posting things on fark and stopping studying every third minute. But it's just so fun....
First bold point, completely agree. It's why I left.
As to second, agree but think the bold sums it up. At this point, I think it's time for a revolution from the ol' silent majority. We've gotten to the point where the vocal crackpots are silencing everyone else. Luckily, I think we're also getting to the point where they're hemorrhaging votes because of it. I would even go so far as to the make the bold assertion that as it stands, anyone who wins in a major GOP primary is at a serious disadvantage in a general election, because of how radical they've made the primary stages. But it's hurting them. I do think there are a significant number of conservatives, Republicans, and women who feel the way you (from reading your posts so far and in the past) and I do on this subject - relatively moderate. Opposing abortion for ourselves, opposing late-term abortions, advocating sense and nuance for situations in between, and reasonable laws with reasonable exceptions. I'd like to think the vocal Todd Akins are the exception - and that's at least partly vindicated by the Republicans' rejection of him and Missouri's electoral stomping of him. But in the end, I think we agree on more than we disagree on - to say the left alienates us (or me, if I should just speak for myself here, that's fine) with its extremity is by no means meant to imply that the right does not as well.

/That said, the people who march around asserting that if you don't support late-term abortions, or support any kind of abortions as "basic health care" - and they are out there - then you hate women - those people bother me probably as much as the Todd Akins.
 
2013-06-26 03:37:45 PM  
Hell, parents should be able to abort their kids up to 5 years in to the child's life.
 
2013-06-26 03:41:43 PM  
Sorry for the huge text-wall; could have cut that down.
 
2013-06-26 03:50:20 PM  

pacified: Hell, parents should be able to abort their kids up to 5 years in to the child's life.


I support it up to the age of 18; you have to give the bastard/biatch a chance to prove their life has merit.
 
2013-06-26 03:50:33 PM  

Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover

 It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.


because the pro-life position is anti-choice, whats so hard to understand about that
 
2013-06-26 04:01:45 PM  

Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover

Would love to, studying for the god-awful bar. I submitted this link, got it approved (first time!), yawned at being called a troll by the kinds of people who think the word "troll" means "anybody who posts something that I disagree with", and have been pleased to watch a mostly intelligent and educating conversation roll out.
Unfortunately, it's led to me taking five minute breaks after every, oh, five or so minutes of studying. Not cool.

What especially interested me about the article, and led me to submit it, was the fact that if legitimate, the study flies in the face of the characterization of the debate as a conservative "war on women." Similar to the problems raised by the branches of feminism that abhor when women want to stay home and be full-time wives or mothers, therefore depriving women of a meaningful choice in the matter, this characterization seems to me to alienate pro-life women (and even moderate abortion-disliking women) from other women with the suggestion that they are acting against the interests of their gender and the universal sorority in general. It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.

there is, without a doubt, a not insignificant of mouthbreathing shiatheads in the GOP and on the right in general. So many, in fact, that it is hard to take any of them seriously anymore. While I agree that a pro-life position is not necessarily an anti-woman position and have often argued that point, in 2013 it is hard to see how the more vocal people on the right are anything but anti-women.

However, this is Fark and fark nuance cuz nuance is hard.

Thanks; I will need it if I keep posting things on fark and stopping studying every third minute. But it's just so fun....
First bold point, completely agree. It ...


for lack of a more accurate label, I am a libertarian. I am not an anarchist or even a minarchist, however. I have never been a member of the GOP nor have I ever voted for one for national office. Maybe I am a really liberal Republican. Maybe I am a super conservative Democrat. Perhaps a combination of both. Like I said, libertarian is the best label I guess. Idealistically, a minarchistic government is best. Practically, it's a terrible terrible terrible idea. I like preemptive environmental protections. I support a logical and effective safety net that not only keeps people fed but helps them bounce back. I'm a pacifist. I an pro-life for me, pro-choice for thee. I am the most pro-gay straight dude in the universe. I support immigration reform. I am not terribly troubled by people wanting to make English the national language. People learning English is one of the most fundamental steps that must be taken to succeed here. I liked what Occupy set out to do but really can't stand its fans or what it became. Until (or unless, perhaps, is more suitable) the conservative movement returns to its original principles of liberty and freedom for all people with minimal governmental involvement, I cannot even consider voting for one of them.

As I said earlier - I think it was in this thread - I just really, really like arguing with liberals. Specifically the know it all, no-nothing dishonest shiatbags that infest the Fark politics tab ;)
 
2013-06-26 04:02:51 PM  

mcsmiley: skullkrusher: mcsmiley: skullkrusher: sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.

nah, it doesn't.

Numbers 5:18-19

5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

yeah that doesn't say anything about abortion. Nor does it even mention that the woman is pregnant.

Not exactly. The curs is a reference to a womans monthly cycle. Basically what the "Bitter water" in question does is force a period. Basically a chemical abortion, much like what ru486 does.


The "curse" being referred to is infertility. The "bitter water" refers to the potion itself.
 
2013-06-26 04:04:37 PM  

ohioman: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover

 It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.

because the pro-life position is anti-choice, whats so hard to understand about that


Agreed. Pro-lifers aren't actually pro-life or they'd support welfare and support for single moms and women's reproductive rights and universal health care and sex eduction. But they support none of those, and then support the death penalty.
 
2013-06-26 04:11:43 PM  

skullkrusher: As I said earlier - I think it was in this thread - I just really, really like arguing with liberals. Specifically the know it all, no-nothing dishonest shiatbags that infest the Fark politics tab ;)


And I just really, really like being a flaming douchenozzle.
 
2013-06-26 04:18:20 PM  

ohioman: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover

 It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.

because the pro-life position is anti-choice, whats so hard to understand about that


Maybe the same thing that makes it so hard to understand that a woman's right to choose is not the only thing at issue. Some people (and I'm unsure and undecided myself, and have no trouble admitting that) believe that what's at issue, in any given stage of of a pregnancy, is a human life. If that's the case, the right to choose, and its relation to feminism, might not be much more relevant than it would be in a woman's right to choose to walk down the street and open fire on someone.
Now, I do understand those are not direct analogies. The person on the street that the woman kills is not within her body, dependent on her body for support, and, usually, able to cause harm to her body or even potential death. But this isn't a black and white debate, at least not to me, and that's why nuance and being willing to listen to the points of the other side matters. The point is, if one can admit that perhaps another component is involved in the debate, in addition to the woman's rights - like the potential and debatable rights of the embryo or fetus upon conception or later in development - then the debate becomes about more than simply the right to choose. Which would mean....that a pro-life position, in the end, could be built on more than just an arbitrary opposition to a woman's right to choose.

Both sides can play tricks with words too. If pro-life is just another term for anti-choice, is pro-choice just another term for pro-abortion?
 
2013-06-26 04:21:26 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: As I said earlier - I think it was in this thread - I just really, really like arguing with liberals. Specifically the know it all, no-nothing dishonest shiatbags that infest the Fark politics tab ;)

And I just really, really like being a flaming douchenozzle.


you're in green - you aren't the type I was referring to... besides, do we really ever argue? Not to any great degree that I can recall
 
2013-06-26 04:22:02 PM  

Philip J. Fry: serial_crusher: Philip J. Fry: serial_crusher: $4.11 per test at Amazon, if you Subscribe-n-Save.

I think you mean $13.  Unless you think Amazon will open the box and send you individual tests?

[notsureifserious.jpg].
Did I miss something?  Do you have to use them all at once?
I figured they were 3 individually-wrapped tests inside the same box

Women don't stock up on pregnancy tests like they're toilet paper or tampons.  When you need one you pay $13, even if you get two free.


hwuh?
I'm suggesting that you take one regularly if you're sexually active and consider abortion an option, so as to avoid being "surprised" 20 weeks into your pregnancy.  It would be smart to change that particular buying habit if you were going to do that.

/ Sure, somebody like you might not get laid enough to need the whole box before their abortion dates, but for most people...
 
2013-06-26 04:22:56 PM  

skullkrusher: stickmangrit: Can someone please explain what a harlequin baby is exactly? Because thanks to these abortion threadsiI am now terrified of googling it for fear of pictures.

it's farking terrifying.


You people have the weakest constitutions....
fashion.russiaregionpress.ru
 
2013-06-26 04:25:17 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: ohioman: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover

 It's led to the assertion (and perhaps even the deeply held belief, for some) that a pro-life position, or again, even a moderate one, is fundamentally inconsistent with a feminist outlook. This to me is questionable, and troubling.

because the pro-life position is anti-choice, whats so hard to understand about that

Agreed. Pro-lifers aren't actually pro-life or they'd support welfare and support for single moms and women's reproductive rights and universal health care and sex eduction. But they support none of those, and then support the death penalty.


How much does it take the wind out of your sails when you run into people for whom your sweeping statements aren't true?
Okay, okay, granted they are true of the frightening majority of Republicans, at least the most vocal ones. But part of what I've been arguing in this thread is that in the midst of the extremism on both sides, there ARE people with moderate or centrist views in this debate, who want to advocate for some sort of reasonable middle ground, and they need to speak up!
Those are excellent points, I think, regarding especially health care and sex education, but I don't think the death penalty point is as apt of an analogy here as a lot of people tend to think it is. Both deal with the sanctity of life and the whole yada yada yada of that argument, but at a baseline, they do seem to me to deal with two fundamentally different kinds of life - innocent, untainted life which has not yet had a chance to see what we're like and how it's going to deal with us, on the one hand, as opposed to life which has been around with us for a while, and raped, murdered, and hurt to the point where we have banished them and as a society want to deprive them of life.
/Not a huge proponent of the death penalty, and see a lot of the points against it. But had to nod at the nuances above when they were pointed out to me. Is there more to it? Sure.
 
2013-06-26 04:25:55 PM  

serial_crusher: Sure, somebody like you might not get laid enough to need the whole box before their abortion expiration dates


must... hit... preview.... button
 
2013-06-26 04:26:29 PM  
skullkrusher:
Re the summary of your political positions, we might be the same person. Hell, I've never seen us in the same room at the same time.
 
2013-06-26 04:26:41 PM  

BSABSVR: skullkrusher: stickmangrit: Can someone please explain what a harlequin baby is exactly? Because thanks to these abortion threadsiI am now terrified of googling it for fear of pictures.

it's farking terrifying.

You people have the weakest constitutions....
[fashion.russiaregionpress.ru image 350x488]


I spent all my stat points on wisdom, intelligence and penis
 
2013-06-26 04:27:24 PM  

Ranger Rover: skullkrusher:
Re the summary of your political positions, we might be the same person. Hell, I've never seen us in the same room at the same time.


hehe. If only there were more of us.
 
2013-06-26 04:33:34 PM  

Ranger Rover: How much does it take the wind out of your sails when you run into people for whom your sweeping statements aren't true?


It doesn't. It actually makes me very, very happy. Because those are people who are consistent in their beliefs. I have one good friend who thinks all abortion is murder, and so he supports no abortion rights unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is incompatible with human life. If abortion is murder, then it's ALWAYS murder. However, he also supports free birth control pills for anyone who wants them, and he thinks kids should be taught all about how to not make babies, because not making babies when you don't want them is the best and easiest way to avoid abortions. Did I mention he's Catholic? He also supports marriage equality because he understands that our government is secular, and that legalized gay marriage doesn't affect his church in any way.
 
2013-06-26 04:37:25 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: As I said earlier - I think it was in this thread - I just really, really like arguing with liberals. Specifically the know it all, no-nothing dishonest shiatbags that infest the Fark politics tab ;)

And I just really, really like being a flaming douchenozzle.

you're in green - you aren't the type I was referring to... besides, do we really ever argue? Not to any great degree that I can recall


Even if we disagree, I don't think we argue much. And I have you green as well (technically yellow with the rest of the more libertarian-leaning Farkers I have faved).
 
2013-06-26 04:38:15 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: As I said earlier - I think it was in this thread - I just really, really like arguing with liberals. Specifically the know it all, no-nothing dishonest shiatbags that infest the Fark politics tab ;)

And I just really, really like being a flaming douchenozzle.

you're in green - you aren't the type I was referring to... besides, do we really ever argue? Not to any great degree that I can recall

Even if we disagree, I don't think we argue much. And I have you green as well (technically yellow with the rest of the more libertarian-leaning Farkers I have faved).


agreed. SHIAT, it happened again.
 
2013-06-26 04:39:28 PM  

Ranger Rover: As to second, agree but think the bold sums it up. At this point, I think it's time for a revolution from the ol' silent majority. We've gotten to the point where the vocal crackpots are silencing everyone else. Luckily, I think we're also getting to the point where they're hemorrhaging votes because of it. I would even go so far as to the make the bold assertion that as it stands, anyone who wins in a major GOP primary is at a serious disadvantage in a general election, because of how radical they've made the primary stages. But it's hurting them. I do think there are a significant number of conservatives, Republicans, and women who feel the way you (from reading your posts so far and in the past) and I do on this subject - relatively moderate. Opposing abortion for ourselves, opposing late-term abortions, advocating sense and nuance for situations in between, and reasonable laws with reasonable exceptions. I'd like to think the vocal Todd Akins are the exception - and that's at least partly vindicated by the Republicans' rejection of him and Missouri's electoral stomping of him. But in the end, I think we agree on more than we disagree on - to say the left alienates us (or me, if I should just speak for myself here, that's fine) with its extremity is by no means meant to imply that the right does not as well.

/That said, the people who march around asserting that if you don't support late-term abortions, or support any kind of abortions as "basic health care" - and they are out there - then you hate women - those people bother me probably as much as the Todd Akins.


Problem being that your last statement is currently hand in hand with the first.  It's not that the vocal crackpots are just silencing everyone else, but that the laws are being written to keep them mollified (if not actually by them).

Is it possible to truly believe that abortion is murder and not be a misogynist asshole?  Sure.  It's a difficult line to straddle however.  And it's not just Todd Akin talking about legitimate rape, or Foster Freiss talking about birth control is holding an aspirin between your knees.  It includes:

- forcing abortion clinics to close due to number of broom closets
- closing planned parenthood clinics that don't even provide abortion
- Mandating that women be given disinformation in order to get an abortion.
- Mandating arbitrary waiting periods for abortion.

Even if you set aside all of the "slut pills" and "no pregnancy is ever a risk for the mother" rhetoric, the actions themselves say "we don't trust women to make a smart decision on their own,  women are emotional beings that need to be convinced via scary rhetoric rather than facts, and  stopping abortion is so important to us, that we are willing to adopt a scorched earth policy when it comes to women's health."

Also that older men apparently believe abortion involves a lot of brooms.
 
2013-06-26 04:42:43 PM  
Mike Chewbacca:
It doesn't. It actually makes me very, very happy. Because those are people who are consistent in their beliefs. I have one good friend who thinks all abortion is murder, and so he supports no abortion rights unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is incompatible with human life. If abortion is murder, then it's ALWAYS murder. However, he also supports free birth control pills for anyone who wants them, and he thinks kids should be taught all about how to not make babies, because not making babies when you don't want them is the best and easiest way to avoid abortions. Did I mention he's Catholic? He also supports marriage equality because he understands that our government is secular, and that legalized gay marriage doesn't affect his church in any way.

Your friend and I have a hell of a lot in common. Skullkrusher, maybe there are more of us. It's nice to hear that, and your friend is exactly the kind of guy that I want to hear speaking up on the political scene - a person who doesn't feel so constrained by party politics and the prevailing polar system to have consistent views.

As a side note, I've resented for some time the partisan-ing [for lack of a better term I'm making an awkward one up, since I don't think "politicizing" really works here - every issue that matters to people in a democratic society is ultimately political in one way or the other] of issues that really have nothing to do with each other or with a consistent worldview. To have to feel one way about gun control because you feel a certain way about abortion, or one way about healthcare because you feel a certain way about foreign policy, is a sad and depthless way to go about life and politics. This is not where I try to de-rail thread into third-party-need discussion, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that the two polar parties do not speak for even a majority of their own adherents on a majority of issues, and that makes it really disconcerting that they remain the only viable options. Something's amiss. Abortion is obviously one of those issues, and that's what I hope keeps that point relevant to the rest of the thread.
 
2013-06-26 05:09:11 PM  

Ranger Rover: ohioman: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover


Both sides can play tricks with words too. If pro-life is just another term for anti-choice, is pro-choice just another term for pro-abortion?


No, you are the one playing tricks with words.

Pro-choice is about the woman being able to choose between terminating her pregnancy or carrying it to term. Pro-life is about eliminating one of those options
 
2013-06-26 05:22:24 PM  

randomjsa: Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide

This one is always a 'What?' moment for me.

It does not matter one whit how somebody committed suicide. In the complete and total absence of ready access to firearms, people would just use another method.


The only problem with that obviously framed "lets slip in a pro-gun statement in here" post of yours is that most of the other methods require large amounts of prescription and/or otherwise not in every home medications, huge amounts of alcohol or getting someone else to do the work for you / clean up after you (suicide by cop, stepping in front of a bus, jumping off a building ). Most of the rest available to normal people, or people ill enough to contemplate suicide, take too long or are too painful, over an extended time. People who are considering suicide aren't looking for extended pain - they are trying to avoid it.

Guns are efficient. That's what they were designed for - killing things. Target shooting is a fun sport, and mechanically guns are fascinating gadgets. Ignoring the fact that they can be efficient killing machines that can be abused in the wrong hands is burying your head in the sand.

What the hell am I saying, you didn't want a reasoned response.

\sorry for wasting your time
\\back to they usual foaming at the mouth and tri-cornered hat wearing
 
2013-06-26 05:35:44 PM  

ohioman: Ranger Rover: ohioman: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover


Both sides can play tricks with words too. If pro-life is just another term for anti-choice, is pro-choice just another term for pro-abortion?

No, you are the one playing tricks with words.

Pro-choice is about the woman being able to choose between terminating her pregnancy or carrying it to term. Pro-life is about eliminating one of those options


No, YOU are. And I'm rubber and you're glue.....or something.
Look, you didn't respond to my actual point. If you can say I'm against choice, sweepingly, without asking me, because I identify as pro-life (which, sure, I will, for purposes of this argument) than I can can say you're pro-abortion, sweepingly, without asking you, because you identify as pro-choice. You are in favor of abortions every bit as much as I'm against choice, in the imaginary world you've created.
And: "Eliminating one of those options." For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices? Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure? Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?
 
2013-06-26 05:40:17 PM  

Ranger Rover: For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices?


For some? Yes.

Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure?

Yes.

Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?

Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.
 
2013-06-26 05:40:43 PM  

BSABSVR: Problem being that your last statement is currently hand in hand with the first. It's not that the vocal crackpots are just silencing everyone else, but that the laws are being written to keep them mollified (if not actually by them).

Is it possible to truly believe that abortion is murder and not be a misogynist asshole? Sure. It's a difficult line to straddle however. And it's not just Todd Akin talking about legitimate rape, or Foster Freiss talking about birth control is holding an aspirin between your knees. It includes:

- forcing abortion clinics to close due to number of broom closets
- closing planned parenthood clinics that don't even provide abortion
- Mandating that women be given disinformation in order to get an abortion.
- Mandating arbitrary waiting periods for abortion.

Even if you set aside all of the "slut pills" and "no pregnancy is ever a risk for the mother" rhetoric, the actions themselves say "we don't trust women to make a smart decision on their own, women are emotional beings that need to be convinced via scary rhetoric rather than facts, and stopping abortion is so important to us, that we are willing to adopt a scorched earth policy when it comes to women's health."

Also that older men apparently believe abortion involves a lot of brooms.


Good points, although I'm not sure I understand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?
 
2013-06-26 05:41:34 PM  

CheapEngineer: randomjsa: Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide

This one is always a 'What?' moment for me.

It does not matter one whit how somebody committed suicide. In the complete and total absence of ready access to firearms, people would just use another method.

The only problem with that obviously framed "lets slip in a pro-gun statement in here" post of yours is that most of the other methods require large amounts of prescription and/or otherwise not in every home medications, huge amounts of alcohol or getting someone else to do the work for you / clean up after you (suicide by cop, stepping in front of a bus, jumping off a building ). Most of the rest available to normal people, or people ill enough to contemplate suicide, take too long or are too painful, over an extended time. People who are considering suicide aren't looking for extended pain - they are trying to avoid it.

Guns are efficient. That's what they were designed for - killing things. Target shooting is a fun sport, and mechanically guns are fascinating gadgets. Ignoring the fact that they can be efficient killing machines that can be abused in the wrong hands is burying your head in the sand.

What the hell am I saying, you didn't want a reasoned response.

\sorry for wasting your time
\\back to they usual foaming at the mouth and tri-cornered hat wearing


Man, I can't believe I missed randomjism's Boobies.

Yes, it actually DOES matter how somebody tries to commit suicide. This study found that people who try to commit suicide using a gun are twice to three times as successful as people who use the second most popular method to try and commit suicide (strangulation). Putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger makes it virtually impossible for you to reconsider after you've started the attempt. Any other method offers some time for you to realize what you've done and try to stop your death.

Basically, I agree fully with you, CheapEngineer, and I think randomjism needs to control where he ejaculates.
 
2013-06-26 05:44:09 PM  

Ranger Rover: Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?


You clearly don't pay much attention to current events.
 
2013-06-26 05:44:52 PM  

Ranger Rover: Good points, although I'm not sure I understand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?


Yes.
 
2013-06-26 05:45:57 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Ranger Rover: For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices?

For some? Yes.

Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure?

Yes.

Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?

Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.


Yeah, this is not really going to go anywhere. Conclusory statements based on personal beliefs. I can make 'em too. (And often do).

For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices?

For some? Yes.

For all? No.

Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure?

Yes.

No.

Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?

Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.


Evidence that you collected, and to you? Ever heard anyone with the opposite opinion? And with their own "evidence"? Like half this country?
 
2013-06-26 05:48:01 PM  

un4gvn666: Ranger Rover: Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

You clearly don't pay much attention to current events.

Not helpful.

A Dark Evil Omen: Ranger Rover: Good points, although I'm not sure I understand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

Yes.

Helpful! Thanks, I'll check 'em out. I had heard of these things happening in a bioethics class I was in last semester, but we didn't really focus on the issue too much. Definitely not a good thing, and not anything I support.
 
2013-06-26 05:48:19 PM  

Ranger Rover: ohioman: Ranger Rover: ohioman: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover


Both sides can play tricks with words too. If pro-life is just another term for anti-choice, is pro-choice just another term for pro-abortion?

No, you are the one playing tricks with words.

Pro-choice is about the woman being able to choose between terminating her pregnancy or carrying it to term. Pro-life is about eliminating one of those options

No, YOU are. And I'm rubber and you're glue.....or something.
Look, you didn't respond to my actual point. If you can say I'm against choice, sweepingly, without asking me, because I identify as pro-life (which, sure, I will, for purposes of this argument) than I can can say you're pro-abortion, sweepingly, without asking you, because you identify as pro-choice. You are in favor of abortions every bit as much as I'm against choice, in the imaginary world you've created.
And: "Eliminating one of those options." For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices? Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure? Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?


the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion
 
2013-06-26 05:48:31 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Ranger Rover: Good points, although I'm not sure I understand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

Yes.


Kansas has them too.
 
2013-06-26 05:48:52 PM  

Ranger Rover: For some? Yes.
For all? No.

Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure?

Yes.
No.

Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?

Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.

Evidence that you collected, and to you? Ever heard anyone with the opposite opinion? And with their own "evidence"? Like half this country?


Scientific evidence, supported by such agencies as the AMA and the APA.
 
2013-06-26 05:50:30 PM  

ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion


I won't. And I also won't seek legislative to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?
 
2013-06-26 05:53:39 PM  
The evil genius of social conservative legislation is the tendency to lump frontpage, but 50/50 item A along with tiny print heinous items B and C. This forces the opposition to either say "Even granting A, this is still an awful bill" which conservatives take to admit A; or "A is a terrible idea" which conservatives respond to with polls showing it's 50/50 and that means all items in the bill are 50/50.

Item A = abortion ban after 20 weeks
Item B = impossible clinic requirements
Item C = ban on medical abortions outside of clinics
 
2013-06-26 05:55:33 PM  

RminusQ: The evil genius of social conservative legislation is the tendency to lump frontpage, but 50/50 item A along with tiny print heinous items B and C. This forces the opposition to either say "Even granting A, this is still an awful bill" which conservatives take to admit A; or "A is a terrible idea" which conservatives respond to with polls showing it's 50/50 and that means all items in the bill are 50/50.

Item A = abortion ban after 20 weeks
Item B = impossible clinic requirements
Item C = ban on medical abortions outside of clinics


The democrats spent a substantial amount of time trying to put in an amendment exempting rape victims from the 20 week limit.  Would they have done that if B and C were the "real problems"?
 
2013-06-26 05:56:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.

Evidence that you collected, and to you? Ever heard anyone with the opposite opinion? And with their own "evidence"? Like half this country?

Scientific evidence, supported by such agencies as the AMA and the APA.


Cite? To studies that say that freely available abortion is unequivocally a "societal good"? This is what I have the issue with. I would agree that there are societal benefits to abortions in certain situations. But to say, whenever, wherever, at any stage, and anyone that opposes it runs against the manifest weight of "evidence" that abortion is a wonderful thing in American society is pretty conclusory and radical to me. I would also be surprised if a majority of American doctors/scientists felt this way. A few peer-reviewed studies would advance the argument, but they would by no means sell me on the idea that the scientific community as a whole adores abortion and wants it available on demand.
 
2013-06-26 05:59:32 PM  

Ranger Rover: ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion

I won't. And I also won't seek legislatively to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?


FTFM
 
2013-06-26 06:17:08 PM  

Ranger Rover: Cite? To studies that say that freely available abortion is unequivocally a "societal good"? This is what I have the issue with. I would agree that there are societal benefits to abortions in certain situations. But to say, whenever, wherever, at any stage, and anyone that opposes it runs against the manifest weight of "evidence" that abortion is a wonderful thing in American society is pretty conclusory and radical to me. I would also be surprised if a majority of American doctors/scientists felt this way. A few peer-reviewed studies would advance the argument, but they would by no means sell me on the idea that the scientific community as a whole adores abortion and wants it available on demand.


A "wonderful thing". Look, if you're not even going to have an honest discussion there's no point in talking to you. The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions. The APA has some research showing that abortion is less psychologically injurious than delivering an unwanted child. Legalization of abortion in the US had a massive effect in reduction of unwanted children. Can you show me any evidence of any sort showing that forcing women to carry unwanted children to term has a positive societal effect? Any? Any at all?
 
2013-06-26 06:31:57 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions


Do they elaborate on their definition of "appropriately trained physicians" anywhere?  If not they should.  Would be a good ender to at least part of this argument.
 
2013-06-26 06:38:07 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: A "wonderful thing". Look, if you're not even going to have an honest discussion there's no point in talking to you. The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions. The APA has some research showing that abortion is less psychologically injurious than delivering an unwanted child. Legalization of abortion in the US had a massive effect in reduction of unwanted children. Can you show me any evidence of any sort showing that forcing women to carry unwanted children to term has a positive societal effect? Any? Any at all?


I'm not sure that you're not changing the terms of the discussion. Sure, a "wonderful thing," is stretching your words from a "societal good" - so, my bad, but it's not stretching it too far, is it? You clearly think abortion is a good thing and want it to be widely available under (I'm assuming, now) probably the majority of circumstances. I made it clear, painstakingly clear, that what I had an issue with is unrestrained access to abortion at any point. Thanks for the cites, and I will check them out. What this will come down to, in the end, as it probably always does, is where you think life begins - a question that I am myself completely unsure about. It will be quite easy to show you evidence of any sort that preventing the unnecessary ending of human life has a positive societal effect - first and foremost would be the overwhelmingly uniform adoption throughout the civilized word of laws designed to prevent or restrict such ending of life, whether outside or inside the womb. See what happens when I turn "forcing women into carrying unwanted children to term" into "seeking to (within reason) prevent the needless loss of human life?"
Does a fetus have any value to you when it is inside the womb? Do you believe it is a human life, in some form? Does a human life have any value to you in terms of society and shared interests and ethical ties and community? If yes, then we probably don't disagree that much on the basic issues, it's just that I have no idea where to draw the line, and you've made a decision on where to draw that line that you stick with (more power to you). If no, we're never going to agree, but these discussions can still be fun (and huge time-wasters).
 
2013-06-26 06:43:55 PM  

Ranger Rover: A Dark Evil Omen: A "wonderful thing". Look, if you're not even going to have an honest discussion there's no point in talking to you. The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions. The APA has some research showing that abortion is less psychologically injurious than delivering an unwanted child. Legalization of abortion in the US had a massive effect in reduction of unwanted children. Can you show me any evidence of any sort showing that forcing women to carry unwanted children to term has a positive societal effect? Any? Any at all?

I'm not sure that you're not changing the terms of the discussion. Sure, a "wonderful thing," is stretching your words from a "societal good" - so, my bad, but it's not stretching it too far, is it? You clearly think abortion is a good thing and want it to be widely available under (I'm assuming, now) probably the majority of circumstances. I made it clear, painstakingly clear, that what I had an issue with is unrestrained access to abortion at any point. Thanks for the cites, and I will check them out. What this will come down to, in the end, as it probably always does, is where you think life begins - a question that I am myself completely unsure about. It will be quite easy to show you evidence of any sort that preventing the unnecessary ending of human life has a positive societal effect - first and foremost would be the overwhelmingly uniform adoption throughout the civilized word of laws designed to prevent or restrict such ending of life, whether outside or inside the womb. See what happens when I turn "forcing women into carrying unwanted children to term" into "seeking to (within reason) prevent the needless loss of human life?"
Does a fetus have any value to you when it is inside the womb? Do you believe it is a human life, in some form? Does a human life have any value to you in terms of society and shared interests and ethical ties and community? If ...


Thanks again for the cite. I don't see anything directly about their stance on legislative controls, except for the fact that they do state it should remain within the discretion of the physician, so I guess that's the latent assumption. It does appear that they have some ethical issues with late abortions, however. I certainly don't think they would espouse them as a societal good.
 
2013-06-26 06:59:13 PM  

Ranger Rover: ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion

I won't. And I also won't seek legislative to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?


within limits? so you are seeking legislation. Which is why it is and will always be about choice.
 
2013-06-26 07:13:55 PM  

ohioman: Ranger Rover: ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion

I won't. And I also won't seek legislative to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?

within limits? so you are seeking legislation. Which is why it is and will always be about choice.


Oh, for God's sake, you really are a broken record, aren't you? I've never argued that choice is not a part of this, or even not an important part. I'm simply saying it's not the only thing at issue - to many of us, who believe that the potential rights of another potential person are at issue. If it's your unequivocal belief that no other rights are involved and that even viable fetuses, or those who are not viable but may be able to feel pain, possess no rights and are totally removed from the discussion, then articulate it, rather than just inanely repeating the word "choice" and sometimes capitalizing it for good measure.
Choice is good, and freedom from government is good. But it's not always possible. Overwhelmingly, civilized countries tend to agree that choice and freedom to take certain actions extends to the limit where it starts hurting another in tangible, recognized ways. That's why I can't just walk down the street and choose to steal a car, even if that's a choice I want to make and even if freedom from government and the imposition of other people's morals on me is generally a good thing. For people that recognize that there might be another life at issue at here, potentially one capable of subsistence outside of a womb, a woman's right to choose runs up against these other rights, and provides us with another element to the debate to which we need to give consideration. I'm not sure to what extent I believe this, but I do at least recognize that is a real debate.

I await the word choice again, maybe this time in bold, or in a special, fun and flirty color.
 
2013-06-26 07:15:40 PM  

Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?


I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.
 
2013-06-26 07:24:44 PM  

Ranger Rover: Sure, a "wonderful thing," is stretching your words from a "societal good" - so, my bad, but it's not stretching it too far, is it?


Yes, it is. They are not the same in any way.

Ranger Rover: Thanks again for the cite. I don't see anything directly about their stance on legislative controls, except for the fact that they do state it should remain within the discretion of the physician, so I guess that's the latent assumption. It does appear that they have some ethical issues with late abortions, however. I certainly don't think they would espouse them as a societal good.


You don't understand what a societal good even  is. There are many things that are societal goods that aren't very much fun. In the context of the modern capitalist state, taxes are a societal good. Police and military are generally considered societal goods. They are considered net beneficial to society.

Would it be better if there were no abortions? Probably. Is general availability of abortion a net benefit to society? Absolutely. As noted, it is both physically and psychologically healthier than carrying an unwanted child to term, and women who get abortions do not have psychological problems worse than the rest of society (meaning that the possibility of regret later is not impactful enough to counteract the positive effects). In addition, it reduces the number of unwanted children around, which reduces strain on public systems like SNAP and the foster system and keeps the number of adoptable children - and there's already a gap between the number of adoptable children and available homes - lower and more manageable.

The way for there to be no (or at least nearly no) abortions is to make birth control generally and freely available, to make quality sex education generally and freely available and to make quality healthcare generally and freely available. Banning abortion is simply further victimizing people who are already at a disadvantage.  Beyond that, you have not provided a compelling reason for restricting abortion; "make the legal code shorter" does not qualify and certainly does not counterbalance any of the points I've made.
 
2013-06-26 08:01:05 PM  
A Dark Evil Omen:
 Would it be better if there were no abortions? Probably. Is general availability of abortion a net benefit to society? Absolutely. As noted, it is both physically and psychologically healthier than carrying an unwanted child to term, and women who get abortions do not have psychological problems worse than the rest of society (meaning that the possibility of regret later is not impactful enough to counteract the positive effects). In addition, it reduces the number of unwanted children around, which reduces strain on public systems like SNAP and the foster system and keeps the number of adoptable children - and there's already a gap between the number of adoptable children and available homes - lower and more manageable.


All of these points are good ones and form part of the reason why I remain as neutral as possible on the subject of abortions before viability - I'm not a fan by any means, but I do understand that the question is not just as simple as baby or no baby - it involves a lot of complex physical and psychological factors, not least of which, by any means, is what do to with unwanted children. So, we do have some common ground (I also hope you get the snark on the subjects we don't agree on - I think this is an okay argument compared to some other ones I've seen and been involved in in this thread).

The way for there to be no (or at least nearly no) abortions is to make birth control generally and freely available, to make quality sex education generally and freely available and to make quality healthcare generally and freely available.

Another thing we agree on. So much I bolded it, for fun.

Beyond that, you have not provided a compelling reason for restricting abortion; "make the legal code shorter" does not qualify and certainly does not counterbalance any of the points I've made.

Really? No compelling reason? The potential that what we're dealing with here could be a human life (and past the stage of viability is to my knowledge almost universally recognized to be one), and that those have value regardless of their circumstances or whether or not they were desired, is not a compelling reason at all? Is infanticide an okay solution for unwanted babies that are already born and are a drain on our resources and cause physical and psychological strain to their mothers, fathers, and families? Is the real debate here that you simply will not recognize a humanity or a value to life when a fetus is still in the womb? The second to last question, by the way, is only hyperbole because I would assume you don't feel that way. The third question is a real question that may get at the heart of why we disagree about this.

I'm not aware that I made a "make the legal code shorter" argument; if I did I didn't mean to, or am misunderstanding what you mean by it.
 
2013-06-26 08:06:00 PM  
Alright guys, I'll keep checking occasionally, but it's late in the thread, I'm outnumbered (there were a few like-minded earlier, but they went back into the cornfields), still swinging, and getting tired. I did enjoy these debates, though. I say good game for now, got to get some studying done. A Dark Evil Omen, I know I asked you some questions, so I will check back for your answer.
 
2013-06-26 08:29:55 PM  

what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.


Tell it like it is, sister.
STFO of my medical decisions.
 
2013-06-26 09:20:42 PM  

BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.


Absolutely. It's a real problem, and I hope it's their undoing. It needs to be.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.

Ah, okay, this is also a real problem. I did think it could potentially affect later fertility; is this old intel? I was, before being corrected, under the impression that most of what they tried to do in these pre-procedure counseling etc requirements was to caution about psychological effects, and this stuff would be hard to prove or disprove as bad science in a lot of ways, so I was curious about it.

As far as the abortion-infertility connection, I did a cursory google to see if there was an obvious answer one way or the other, and there doesn't seem to be, which I guess is a frustrating and natural outgrowth of such a hot-button issue so subject to selection bias and other biases from both sides. However, I did skim Planned Parenthood's article on the subject, and I legitimately believe it may have been written by a bot. It's not a valid source of information for anyone, regardless of the side of the debate. Seriously, whoever wrote that must not be able to claim English as a native language. Among other gems that it contains is this unbelievably magical sentence: "It may or may seem that it will definitely fall into a case to case basis depending on how strong a woman's body can be."

Really. I promise. There are no typos. I cut and pasted that sentence. If you have a sec, see if you can get through it, if for no other reason than amusement.

http://www.ppsv.net/can-abortions-cause-infertility/
 
2013-06-26 09:38:55 PM  

TheMysticS: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

Tell it like it is, sister.
STFO of my medical decisions.


Good thing for society and the unborn that that is not like it is. Do whatever you want with your body as long as you're not killing another person. When you're killing another person, we're gonna have to restrict you and make sure you have good reason. Thanks.
 
2013-06-27 12:06:07 AM  

Ranger Rover: BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.

Absolutely. It's a real problem, and I hope it's their undoing. It needs to be.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.

Ah, okay, this is also a real problem. I did think it could potentially affect later fertility; is this old intel? I was, before being corrected, under the impression that most of what they tried to do in these pre-procedure counseling etc requirements was to caution about psychological effects, and this stuff would be hard to prove or disprove as bad science in a lot of ways, so I was curious about it.

As far as the abortion-infertility connection, I did a cursory google to see if there was an obvious answer one way or the other, and there doesn't seem to be, which I guess is a frustrating and natural outgrowth of such a hot-button issue so subject to selection bias and other biases from both sides. However, I did skim Planned Parenthood's article on the subject, and I legitimately believe it may have been written by a bot. It's not a valid source of information for anyone, regardless of the side of the debate. Seriously, whoever wrote that must not be able to claim English as a native language. Among other gems that it contains is this unbelievably ...


Wow that is quite the article

Yet for the pro-choice groups, who believe that pregnancy can be a choice, abortions to them if done safely and properly, especially with a help of a doctor cannot become infertile because the procedure has been carefully done with the guidance of skilled hands. Firmly they agree that whether abortions cause infertility is a false belief.

I....um....yes?
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-06-27 02:57:15 AM  

BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.

Absolutely. It's a real problem, and I hope it's their undoing. It needs to be.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.

Ah, okay, this is also a real problem. I did think it could potentially affect later fertility; is this old intel? I was, before being corrected, under the impression that most of what they tried to do in these pre-procedure counseling etc requirements was to caution about psychological effects, and this stuff would be hard to prove or disprove as bad science in a lot of ways, so I was curious about it.

As far as the abortion-infertility connection, I did a cursory google to see if there was an obvious answer one way or the other, and there doesn't seem to be, which I guess is a frustrating and natural outgrowth of such a hot-button issue so subject to selection bias and other biases from both sides. However, I did skim Planned Parenthood's article on the subject, and I legitimately believe it may have been written by a bot. It's not a valid source of information for anyone, regardless of the side of the debate. Seriously, whoever wrote that must not be able to claim English as a native language. Among other gems that it contains is this ...


Coming from a "conservative" - whatever that word means anymore - Sarah Palin quote is......apt analogy. Yet another valid invocation of "Is English really your native language....because I......just...but just....oh, God."

/Glad to no longer have to say, "Are you really representing my party?"
//Ain't my party anymore. ^^^^
 
Displayed 275 of 275 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report