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 60
    More: Followup, Republican, Democrats, abortion rights, Late termination of pregnancy, Democratic Coalition, Marsha Blackburn, House Republicans, two-thirds vote  
•       •       •

1264 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-06-26 12:40:58 PM
6 votes:
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 02:09:51 PM
5 votes:

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 01:33:37 PM
5 votes:

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 12:48:59 PM
5 votes:
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 12:45:38 PM
5 votes:
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 12:45:23 PM
5 votes:

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 01:28:34 PM
4 votes:

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 01:27:23 PM
4 votes:

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 01:04:44 PM
4 votes:

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 12:45:25 PM
4 votes:
I really don't like it when articles about polls don't show the actual question that was asked.
2013-06-26 01:49:02 PM
3 votes:

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 01:05:09 PM
3 votes:
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 12:55:09 PM
3 votes:
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 03:50:33 PM
2 votes:

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 02:52:19 PM
2 votes:

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 02:27:28 PM
2 votes:

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 02:18:14 PM
2 votes:

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 02:06:23 PM
2 votes:

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 02:04:37 PM
2 votes:

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 02:00:40 PM
2 votes:

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 01:56:26 PM
2 votes:

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 12:59:47 PM
2 votes:

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 12:47:44 PM
2 votes:

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 04:39:28 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:45 PM
1 votes:

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 02:34:52 PM
1 votes:

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 02:32:53 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:25:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:16:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:41 PM
1 votes:

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 02:03:27 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:58:48 PM
1 votes:
i2.kym-cdn.com
2013-06-26 01:56:12 PM
1 votes:

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 01:55:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:55:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:52:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:57 PM
1 votes:

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 01:48:57 PM
1 votes:

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 01:46:12 PM
1 votes:

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 01:44:22 PM
1 votes:

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 01:39:57 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:13 PM
1 votes:
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 01:25:57 PM
1 votes:

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 01:25:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:31 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:13 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:54 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:01 PM
1 votes:

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 01:03:53 PM
1 votes:
You know, if we hook a generator up to the Republican spin machine we could solve the worlds energy problems.
2013-06-26 12:58:25 PM
1 votes:
"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 12:55:10 PM
1 votes:
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 12:54:19 PM
1 votes:
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 12:53:32 PM
1 votes:

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 12:51:41 PM
1 votes:

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 12:51:29 PM
1 votes:

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 12:49:19 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:30 PM
1 votes:
This implies that the 20 week ban was the only thing the filibuster was about and ignores the larger context of the SB5.
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report