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  
•       •       •

1257 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 275 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report