:roll: Solitary
My wife and I are actually OK with half of this Bill; specifically the moratorium on abortion after the 20th week; in fact, we would support it at 16 weeks.
What I don't like is the "surgical center" provision that de facto closes all but 5 clinics in the whole state.
:evil:
16 is way too early to draw the line, I think 22 - a pretty common 'line in the sand' is plenty fair. I think most pro-choice people feel that something right around the age of viability is a reasonable place to put the limit. The chances of a 22 week old delivery surviving is incredibly slim, impossible without life support really. That's kind of beside the point, though. This garbage is only being pushed through to shut down all but one or two clinics in the state. There's a great video out of the girl, I forget her name, being pulled out of the room by law enforcement because she was "disrespectful" and I overheard today on Fox news where they kept trying to pretend her time was up. Fucking gross.
They did WHAT?! Where the hell was Wendy Davis this time?!?! Wait, you said the House. She's a Senator. What happens now? This is a gross failure for our supposed system of "liberty".
Quote from: "OtterPop"I think most pro-choice people feel that something right around the age of viability is a reasonable place to put the limit. The chances of a 22 week old delivery surviving is incredibly slim, impossible without life support really.
Look, as far as I'm concerned, if the thing can't exist without being physically attached to its mother, it should be treated the same way that a tumor or a parasitic twin would be.
This whole "personhood" argument has gotten ridiculous. None of the people slinging the term "personhood" around seem to actually know what it means. The philosophical idea of a "person" requires self-awareness, sentience, sapience, agency, metaconsciousness, and a bunch of other traits that technically exclude even human infants and the profoundly retarded. I.E., in philosophical theory, an unthinking lump of flesh that happens to have human genes does not get the same "rights" (even the right to life) that a full person does, but an alien that does fulfill the criteria for personhood
would get the same rights.
The only reason we give human infants the legal fiction of personhood is because we have an emotional attachment to them as a concept - and of course it makes sense that we do, because without that caregiver instinct toward them, the species would have died out long ago. I mean, they're pretty burdensome and annoying, so we had to have some neurochemical bonding us to them if we were to stand a chance. :lol: But this does not make the legal fiction rational or objectively correct.
Quote from: "Titania"This whole "personhood" argument has gotten ridiculous. None of the people slinging the term "personhood" around seem to actually know what it means. The philosophical idea of a "person" requires self-awareness, sentience, sapience, agency, metaconsciousness, and a bunch of other traits that technically exclude even human infants and the profoundly retarded. I.E., in philosophical theory, an unthinking lump of flesh that happens to have human genes does not get the same "rights" (even the right to life) that a full person does, but an alien that does fulfill the criteria for personhood would get the same rights.
So ridiculous that we're going to need to give the HeLa (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa) cell line the vote.
Edit: Formatting
Quote from: "Jason78"So ridiculous that we're going to need to give the HeLa (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa) cell line the vote.
Seriously. I mean, as I see it, the whole point of honoring "personhood" was to give extra rights to things that can think, feel, synthesize, and understand that they're thinking and alive - in other words, to keep from harming complex creatures that suffer on higher levels.
How does this apply to aborting a blastocyst?... any more than it applies to removing a lump of parasitic twin tissue from a surviving child? Human tissue is sacred now, on its own merit? Well, then, we should protect lab-made skin grafts as persons! Or livers removed from brain-dead patients.
This is all a bunch of ass and I'm sick of American politics because the people running this country have the rationality of a hyena.
Quote from: "Seabear"My wife and I are actually OK with half of this Bill; specifically the moratorium on abortion after the 20th week; in fact, we would support it at 16 weeks.
What I don't like is the "surgical center" provision that de facto closes all but 5 clinics in the whole state.
So you are a medical doctor? So you know for sure every fetus after that time is going to be healthy, cause no risk to the mother, and never be a result of rape or incest?
Sorry, there is no way to make a utopia law on this issue. Not to mention it is not your body and you wont be raising the kid if born.
It is as simple as if you don't want an abortion don't have one. But do not tell other girls/women, what to do with their own body.
Brian, are you advocating 36th week abortions?
Quote from: "Plu"Brian, are you advocating 36th week abortions?
No, I am advocating suspending judgment of the girl/woman and doctor, because WE are not them. Unless you understand a specific case and are in it and are going to have to live with that very life impacting decision, don't judge. These laws are too broad for something that can only be taken case by case.
All this bullshit is going to do is put girls/women back into unsafe conditions with potential quacks.
If you are not the girl/women or the doctor, keep your nose out of it. It is ultimately none of your business.
So if the doctor and the girl consider it okay, they should be able to do a 36th week abortion?
Quote from: "Plu"So if the doctor and the girl consider it okay, they should be able to do a 36th week abortion?
Look, even as an atheist left-libertarian I don't think there's a good reason for aborting a 36-week fetus unless birthing it would endanger the woman's life. I think most reasonable people will agree that this probably viable fetus could be given in adoption to another entity and it would cause no more harm to the mother. But the reality is that this is not what the abortion debate ends up being.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Plu"Brian, are you advocating 36th week abortions?
No, I am advocating suspending judgment of the girl/woman and doctor, because WE are not them. Unless you understand a specific case and are in it and are going to have to live with that very life impacting decision, don't judge. These laws are too broad for something that can only be taken case by case.
All this bullshit is going to do is put girls/women back into unsafe conditions with potential quacks.
If you are not the girl/women or the doctor, keep your nose out of it. It is ultimately none of your business.
with no term limits?
Quote from: "surly74"with no term limits?
Viability is my arbitrary limit, according to my own morality.
I know, but it was Brian who said "don't tell people what to do with their bodies", and that would suggest to me that he'd allow a 36-weeks abortion if the girl and the doctor wanted one.
It sounds ridiculous to me and I hope that's not what he meant, but that is what it sounds like.
Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "Plu"So if the doctor and the girl consider it okay, they should be able to do a 36th week abortion?
Look, even as an atheist left-libertarian I don't think there's a good reason for aborting a 36-week fetus unless birthing it would endanger the woman's life. I think most reasonable people will agree that this probably viable fetus could be given in adoption to another entity and it would cause no more harm to the mother. But the reality is that this is not what the abortion debate ends up being.
Bullshit, terminal medical problems already in the fetus, or threat to the life of the mother, rape and incest. Those things don't cease to be potential problems because of an arbitrary timeline. Not to mention it is not your body and you are not going to raise the kid. And there has never been enough people who adopt in any case, even if there are lots who will.
Being pro birth does not make you pro quality of life, either for the mother or fetus.
A girl or women, who choses an abortion IS NOT doing it to throw a fucking party, and by no means should such a decision be taken lightly. But such life impacting decisions EITHER way, can only be CASE BY CASE, nothing else.
You try to make sweeping invasive laws like this you are going to do nothing but endanger girls/women. The only two people who should be involved in this decision are the girl/women and doctor, NOT YOU NOT ME.
Keep your fucking nose off of a body you don't own. PERIOD!
Getting emotional and angry doesn't help you make a case.
Quote from: "Brian37"Bullshit, terminal medical problems already in the fetus, or threat to the life of the mother, rape and incest. Those things don't cease to be potential problems because of an arbitrary timeline. Not to mention it is not your body and you are not going to raise the kid. And there has never been enough people who adopt in any case, even if there are lots who will.
what if the father is willing to raise the kid?
Quote from: "Plu"Getting emotional and angry doesn't help you make a case.
For who?
How many times do I have to say "You are not a doctor"
How many times do I have to say "Problems with the fetus and mother do not stop because of lawmakers"
How many times do I have to say "pro birth does not equate to pro quality of life"
How many times do I have to say "This can only be case by case"
Turning back the clock on 40 years of Supreme Court law will do nothing but harm girls/women. Not help them.
Damned right I am emotional about this. These same fuckwads who cry about "big government" are becoming the "Big Brother" they say they don't want and the best way to undermine progress is to attack women's rights.
This has nothing to do with the viability of life. The abortion issue is simply one more issue rich white men use to divide the middle class and working poor to distract them from the fact the cost of living is exploding, and allows them to continue the race for slave wages.
They could give a fuck less who gets screwed or the quality of life after birth.
Now I will say this as calmly as I can.
There is no practical way to make blanket solutions to a complex issue. The best way to deal with something that no girl/women, wants, is to leave the issue between them and their doctor.
So I'll ask again: if the girl and the doctor agree, you would want a 36th week abortion allowable? That's perfectly in line with your argument so far. Either you agree that this is acceptable, or you're leaving out information which is obfuscating your position.
Good thing hyperbole is free.
I have absolutely no idea what Brian's position is supposed to be. He's acting emotional and throwing out incomplete statements, from which I cannot form a reliable position on the situation. "It should be between the girl and the doctor, period" is what he says. My question is in line with that. If he doesn't agree with it, then he hasn't fully explained his position, which would probably explain why it comes across as extremely radical when in reality it probably isn't.
There's probably a reasonable position in there, but until it comes out, it's kinda hard to talk about this whole issue. I'm kinda tired of just filling in all the blanks myself and then 15 pages in finding out that because someone didn't mention something the whole discussion so far has been pointless. So I'd like to know exactly where Brian stands before I start throwing out all manner of counter arguments.
DAMN IT
YES I AM EMOTIONAL SO THE FUCK WHAT!
Now someone please explain to me how medical problems magically cease because of an arbitrary time law?
Can anyone guarantee the health of the mother or fetus, in every single case, if you want to use force of law?
Can anyone here promise that every baby born is going to be wanted or healthy and have a good life after birth?
If you cannot answer those questions, then my advice is once again, the best people to decide that are the person who is pregnant and the doctor. No one else.
Abortion in every single case can only be case by case. And if you are not in it as the pregnant girl/woman, or the doctor, you need to stay the fuck out of it.
(//http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/28551416.jpg)
So basically what I seem to be able to deduce from your post is that you think there should be exceptions for when the mother or child are in life threatening danger? And that there shouldn't be a blanket law that says "to here and no further"?
Because that's something completely different from "there should be no laws regarding abortions at all". If you discard all abortion laws and consider it all legal as long as the mother and the doctor agree, you realise that it would be legal to abort babies in the 36th week. One of the reasons that abortion laws exist in the first place to prevent that kind of thing.
Current abortion laws might not work where you live, and are a complicated issue, but getting rid of all of them will introduce a host of new terrible situations. That doesn't sound like a very good final solution. And when you calm down you should think about some of the horrors that will happen when you allow abortions, no questions asked. Then you'll see why that is probably not the best solution either.
Quote from: "Brian37"YES I AM EMOTIONAL SO THE FUCK WHAT!
I was just noting a pattern in the tone of your replies.
Quote from: "surly74"[ Image (//http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/28551416.jpg) ]
Assholes who are not doctors, that is what I am yelling about.
Life is not a utopia. The fact that abortions happen no one likes or sets out to get pregnant just to have one.
This has everything to do with using social issues to divide society, and nothing to do with any pragmatic laws that could actually work.
Medical threats can and do happen throughout the entire pregnancy. Quality of life after birth is just as important as the health of the mother and fetus before birth.
You cannot pragmatically make sweeping laws on an issue that can only be decided medically case by case.
Now the other issue people don't want to consider is this.
Ok, lets say you get a ban on abortion after a certain time. What should be the punishment of 14 or 15 year old girl who gets one illegally after that time frame? Murder? Manslaughter? What punishment should we give them?
I am also against arbitrary, blanket abortion laws. I am also concerned that this latest legislation may lay the groundwork for making abortion functionally illegal through a series of piecemeal measures.
Quote from: "Seabear"Quote from: "Brian37"YES I AM EMOTIONAL SO THE FUCK WHAT!
I was just noting a pattern in the tone of your replies.
I think "fuck you" to people who are not doctors, is a perfectly reasonable response. Just like "fuck you" the earth is not flat.
Girls/women will be in more danger because of such arbitrary legislation.
in an ideal world we'd have practical solutions to these issues.
unfortunately in the real world, we have one group who is bound and determined to force women back to the back alleys and coat hangers, and even trying to ban the pill again, vs another who may not suport yours or my ideals, but clearly are the better options, yeah thats who I'm siding with.
I too prefer no abortions for viable fetuses unless there's a medical reason.
but given the choices we face in the real world, thats a moot point.
Quote from: "Hydra009"I am also against arbitrary, blanket abortion laws. I am also concerned that this latest legislation may lay the groundwork for making abortion functionally illegal through a series of piecemeal measures.
Thank you. If anyone reading this thinks the backers of such laws really care about girls/women, they have their heads up their asses. This is an attack on women's rights and women's health.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Brian37"Bullshit, terminal medical problems already in the fetus, or threat to the life of the mother, rape and incest. Those things don't cease to be potential problems because of an arbitrary timeline. Not to mention it is not your body and you are not going to raise the kid. And there has never been enough people who adopt in any case, even if there are lots who will.
what if the father is willing to raise the kid?
I don't have a vagina, I cant get pregnant.
Myeah. I guess it's pointless to discuss this further with you Brian. You don't seem interested in an actual discussion. Count me out.
QuoteBecause that's something completely different from "there should be no laws regarding abortions at all"
Where did I say there should be no laws about abortions?
Highways have speed limits, so yea, abortions should be in safe environments, just like you have 25mph in school zones. I don't think abortions should be done in unregulated places, but what the right wing is doing will have that affect.
But whatever laws can only address how they can be done safely. The laws should not take away the privacy of the doctor or the girl/woman.
You can only make abortions safer, but you cannot ban them, which these types of laws are ultimately long term trying to do.
Case by case can only be decided by the doctor and patient. Laws outside that can only address safety of environment, like seat belts on cars or speed limits on highways.
The right wing is trying to gut through as someone in this thread said "piecemeal" as much of Roe V Wade they can. What they will do is send girls and women to the unregulated dangerous conditions that existed before Roe V Wade.
Quote from: "Plu"Myeah. I guess it's pointless to discuss this further with you Brian. You don't seem interested in an actual discussion. Count me out.
Why? So it is a "discussion" when I agree with you, and ignorance on my part when I dont.
Ok.
Still cant answer my questions.
1. "Can you guarantee every pregnancy after that cut off point will result in a safe birth and healthy and wanted baby"?
2. "Do you have a medical degree?"
3. "Can you guarantee any unwanted baby will be adopted, even if born healthy"
4. "What should be the charge and punishment of a girl/woman who breaks the cut off laws suggested"?
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "surly74"[ Image (//http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/28551416.jpg) ]
Assholes who are not doctors, that is what I am yelling about.
Life is not a utopia. The fact that abortions happen no one likes or sets out to get pregnant just to have one.
This has everything to do with using social issues to divide society, and nothing to do with any pragmatic laws that could actually work.
Medical threats can and do happen throughout the entire pregnancy. Quality of life after birth is just as important as the health of the mother and fetus before birth.
You cannot pragmatically make sweeping laws on an issue that can only be decided medically case by case.
Now the other issue people don't want to consider is this.
Ok, lets say you get a ban on abortion after a certain time. What should be the punishment of 14 or 15 year old girl who gets one illegally after that time frame? Murder? Manslaughter? What punishment should we give them?
i'm not against abortions.
i'm just wondering why you are so upset and thought the image was appropriate.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Brian37"Bullshit, terminal medical problems already in the fetus, or threat to the life of the mother, rape and incest. Those things don't cease to be potential problems because of an arbitrary timeline. Not to mention it is not your body and you are not going to raise the kid. And there has never been enough people who adopt in any case, even if there are lots who will.
what if the father is willing to raise the kid?
I don't have a vagina, I cant get pregnant.
oh I don't know about not having a vagina.
Ah, I see you've calmed down. Now you're actually making sense again. You're mixing in all kinds of "things currently happening" and other current events, many of which I know nothing about (the opening post in the topic wasn't exactly helpful there, either) with your own stance.
But it seems like you're somewhere along the line of "we should have options to allow abortions be performed safely and ultimately make it the choice of the girl and her doctor, with the safety of mother and child being the most important factor"?
That sounds like a pretty reasonable position. I think it's roughly where we're at where I live, with life threatening situations meaning the woman can choose to have an abortion at any point (or an early delivery), but it's still her choice whether she wants to risk it, and abortions being allowed by default up until about 24 weeks, after which you've had almost half a year to think about it and you're expected to have decided to keep it.
Would you be ok with something along those lines? I've always considered it the best of both worlds; with the safety and choice of the mother secured, but also some protection for the child and other people invested in the child after it's been around long enough for them to really start bonding with it as well. I wouldn't be ok with a situation where a mother decides to abort a child weeks before a birth because she's sick of it. At that point it might be the mother's body, but it's going to be incredibly hurtful to the father and grandparents as well. As some point, they start mattering as well. Especially once they can see and feel the child themselves as well. And especially if they could simply deliver the child and have it survive on its own, with the father or grandparents raising it. There's no reason left at that point to kill the baby, unless the mother's life is in danger (but even then, it's often just as easy to deliver the child as it is to abort it)
QuoteWhy? So it is a "discussion" when I agree with you, and ignorance on my part when I dont.
It's a discussion until at least one side starts raving like a madman and being all emotional and no longer present rational arguments or seems interesting in defending their side, or learning of the other side's. As for your questions; if you still care about the answers now that you seem a little less emotional, I'll answer them for you. But it seemed pointless to ask questions when you were seemd rather uninterested in considering the answers.
No, madmen shoot abortion doctors. Madmen slam planes into buildings. "Fuck you you are not a doctor" is a fact. " "Fuck you if it is not your body" is a fact.
Can we also write laws forcing men who get their nuts cut off when they produce kids they don't pay for? How many men would put up with that?
These abortion laws are not about women's health, it is about undermining the lives of women and taking their control away from them.
And we're back to emotional ranting. Well, it was fun while it lasted.
Quote from: "Brian37"1. "Can you guarantee every pregnancy after that cut off point will result in a safe birth and healthy and wanted baby"?
Thou must accept what thy LORD has given him, or some shit like that.
Quote from: "Brian37"2. "Do you have a medical degree?"
No, but I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel once.
Quote from: "Brian37"3. "Can you guarantee any unwanted baby will be adopted, even if born healthy"
Only if they're born overseas.
Quote from: "Brian37"4. "What should be the charge and punishment of a girl/woman who breaks the cut off laws suggested"?
Stoning, preferably with cannabis.
On a more serious note, I have never understood why a
choice concerning a non-sentient wad of flesh is even considered to be an issue, especially by my fellow men. It ain't your body, shut the crap up.
Quote from: "Plu"And we're back to emotional ranting. Well, it was fun while it lasted.
Ok,
Once again,
1. Can you guarantee the health and safety of the girl/women in EVERY CASE if such laws are implemented?
2. Are you medically qualified to determine anything about girls/women/s pregnancies?
3. If you force a girl/women, to term via law, can you guarantee that kid, if unwanted will get a home and be properly taken care of? Can you guarantee every forced birth will be a healthy kid and or get adopted?
4. If such laws are put in place, what should the charge be against the girl/women who has an abortion after the cut off date? What should the punishment be?
If you cant answer those questions or refuse to answer them, then a "fuck you" is perfectly acceptable.
Your utopia crap is making my dick itch.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Brian37"1. "Can you guarantee every pregnancy after that cut off point will result in a safe birth and healthy and wanted baby"?
Thou must accept what thy LORD has given him, or some shit like that.
Quote from: "Brian37"2. "Do you have a medical degree?"
No, but I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel once.
Quote from: "Brian37"3. "Can you guarantee any unwanted baby will be adopted, even if born healthy"
Only if they're born overseas.
Quote from: "Brian37"4. "What should be the charge and punishment of a girl/woman who breaks the cut off laws suggested"?
Stoning, preferably with cannabis.
On a more serious note, I have never understood why a choice concerning a non-sentient wad of flesh is even considered to be an issue, especially by my fellow men. It ain't your body, shut the crap up.
Well, even when there is a point a fetus can feel pain, you still are subject to all sorts of shit that can go wrong in all the points of the pregnancy. There simply is no way for these laws to work pragmatically. The only thing you can do is make abortion as safe as possible.
I agree, ultimately it is not your body. All these laws will succeed in doing is forcing desperate girls/women into dangerous unsafe conditions where quacks will prey upon them.
And not once in this thread, or anywhere have I heard one credible answer as to what the charge should be or the punishment should be for a girl/women who breaks these suggested laws if put in place.
QuoteYour utopia crap is making my dick itch.
What utopia crap? The only I've said so far is currently implemented law in my own country. I've not said anything utopian so far.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteYour utopia crap is making my dick itch.
What utopia crap? The only I've said so far is currently implemented law in my own country. I've not said anything utopian so far.
America is NOT your country, so what might work for you will not work for us.
The people here pushing for anti abortion laws here are not secularists. They are theocrats. And combine that with Corporate America, all these draconian laws would do is and endanger the lives of more women and create more unwanted babies and more unstable families.
Your conditions are different so you cannot apply them to us.
Our more religious states, like Texas, are the more poorest states and these are the states pushing for these laws. Our right wing here cares nothing about quality of life, not just with abortion, but society in general.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Plu"QuoteYour utopia crap is making my dick itch.
What utopia crap? The only I've said so far is currently implemented law in my own country. I've not said anything utopian so far.
America is NOT your country, so what might work for you will not work for us.
The people here pushing for anti abortion laws here are not secularists. They are theocrats. And combine that with Corporate America, all these draconian laws would do is and endanger the lives of more women and create more unwanted babies and more unstable families.
Your conditions are different so you cannot apply them to us.
Corporate America is now behind anti abortion laws?
Quote from: "surly74"Corporate America is now behind anti abortion laws?
Not as a conspiracy, but a climate. Corporate America economically leans right which the theocrats do on social issues and economic issues. That climate creates the political climate to cause the division. That division allows the public to be distracted from cost of living issues, pay gap issues, health care issues. Corporate America doesn't give a shit, but the distraction does keep people focused on everything but their own wallets when it comes to social issues.
I have asked my older republican voting sister, who is as dirt poor as I am questions about health care costs and pay, and without mentioning party, she agrees with me. But because of the utopia "brass ring" bullshit of Corporate America, she votes against her own self interest.
She complained about her mother(our biological mother) losing her benefits at work. But blames liberals for that, when we are the ones who say the business who did that to her are assholes. She also complains her two sons do not make enough to make ends meet. Again, blames liberals when we are the ones who agree with her that they dont make enough. At the same time they are all pro life. So with the spin they have swallowed combined with their religious views are a bad combo because she votes against her own self interest.
When you have a corporate Business like Chick Fucked homophobes run by a religious family it is very easy to see that overlap happens. I wonder what that rich family pays their fry cooks? I wonder what their position on abortion is? I don't think I have to wonder about that.
Again, not as a conspiracy, but just like with a hurricane, which needs multiple conditions and varying factors to happen.
Well. It's nice to hear that Europe is so much more advanced than the US that you don't consider it possible for them to catch up at all, I guess? You don't hear that often :-s
It's also interesting to read between the lines that you seem to think that I'm in favor or these laws or something? I don't even know what they are. I was just interested in discussing different views on abortion.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "surly74"Corporate America is now behind anti abortion laws?
Not as a conspiracy, but a climate. Corporate America economically leans right which the theocrats do on social issues and economic issues. That climate creates the political climate to cause the division. That division allows the public to be distracted from cost of living issues, pay gap issues, health care issues. Corporate America doesn't give a shit, but the distraction does keep people focused on everything but their own wallets when it comes to social issues.
I have asked my older republican voting sister, who is as dirt poor as I am questions about health care costs and pay, and without mentioning party, she agrees with me. But because of the utopia "brass ring" bullshit of Corporate America, she votes against her own self interest.
She complained about her mother(our biological mother) losing her benefits at work. But blames liberals for that, when we are the ones who say the business who did that to her are assholes. She also complains her two sons do not make enough to make ends meet. Again, blames liberals when we are the ones who agree with her that they dont make enough. At the same time they are all pro life. So with the spin they have swallowed combined with their religious views are a bad combo because she votes against her own self interest.
When you have a corporate Business like Chick Fucked homophobes run by a religious family it is very easy to see that overlap happens. I wonder what that rich family pays their fry cooks? I wonder what their position on abortion is? I don't think I have to wonder about that.
Again, not as a conspiracy, but just like with a hurricane, which needs multiple conditions and varying factors to happen.
this seems like a stretch, or at least too many sweeping generalizations
corporate america leans anyway it needs to to make more money. You seem to think that corporate america needs to give a shit about anything other than their wallets. they've found politicians that will do their bidding on the capitalist side and if those politicians have anti abortion views then that's the cost of doing business.
Quote from: "Plu"Well. It's nice to hear that Europe is so much more advanced than the US that you don't consider it possible for them to catch up at all, I guess? You don't hear that often :-s
It's also interesting to read between the lines that you seem to think that I'm in favor or these laws or something? I don't even know what they are. I was just interested in discussing different views on abortion.
And I gave you my views.
Most importantly, if it is not your body, then it is none of your business. Secondly, things can and do go wrong throughout the entire 9 months that can and do endanger the life of the mother. Nor do I think a girl or woman who has one should be treated in the same class as a murderer or rapist, so punishing them instead of compassion, in an already deep decision that will affect the rest of their life, is absurd.
The only pragmatic thing you can do with abortion is keep it as safe as possible with trained doctors.
If you want a more pragmatic solution to reduce abortions, more power and education for girls/women, more economic stability and better education for society as a whole.
Quote from: "Plu"Well. It's nice to hear that Europe is so much more advanced than the US
Western Europe and the US are similar in population and the US is similar to all of Europe in area, and I doubt that you think that Europe is one homogenous place. The US isn't either. There are probably some areas in the US that have a lower average IQ than an uninhabited jungle.
Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "Jason78"So ridiculous that we're going to need to give the HeLa (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa) cell line the vote.
Seriously. I mean, as I see it, the whole point of honoring "personhood" was to give extra rights to things that can think, feel, synthesize, and understand that they're thinking and alive - in other words, to keep from harming complex creatures that suffer on higher levels.
Carried to the end, this would grant personhood to chimpanzees and gorillas. (Not that I'd have any problem with that.)
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "Jason78"So ridiculous that we're going to need to give the HeLa (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa) cell line the vote.
Seriously. I mean, as I see it, the whole point of honoring "personhood" was to give extra rights to things that can think, feel, synthesize, and understand that they're thinking and alive - in other words, to keep from harming complex creatures that suffer on higher levels.
Carried to the end, this would grant personhood to chimpanzees and gorillas. (Not that I'd have any problem with that.)
Yes, yes it would, and one would be a fool to try to claim that Great Apes don't have civil rights according to this view. Anyone with a lick of sense can tell that adult chimps and gorillas are more "persons" than human infants are. It's especially evident with the ones that can, for example, use sign language to express sadness at memories of traumatic events in their past.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "Titania"Look, even as an atheist left-libertarian I don't think there's a good reason for aborting a 36-week fetus unless birthing it would endanger the woman's life. I think most reasonable people will agree that this probably viable fetus could be given in adoption to another entity and it would cause no more harm to the mother. But the reality is that this is not what the abortion debate ends up being.
Bullshit, terminal medical problems already in the fetus, or threat to the life of the mother, rape and incest. Those things don't cease to be potential problems because of an arbitrary timeline. Not to mention it is not your body and you are not going to raise the kid. And there has never been enough people who adopt in any case, even if there are lots who will.
I agree that I left out the other concern of whether the fetus is healthy. I am in favor of euthanizing not just a fetus but anyone who's "born to suffer".
Now, if the fetus is a product of rape or incest and is already past viability, you're using an appeal to emotion to justify offing it (because everyone hates rape and incest, right?) Let me propose a scenario: A woman was raped by her brother, became pregnant, and the resulting fetus is now at 38 weeks gestation. It has no apparent physical/neurological problems. The woman has already carried it to term this far. What harm would it do to let the child be born and adopted off rather than being terminated?
The only argument to the contrary that I can think of is that the child may carry rapist genes. That's legit too, I guess.
And STILL I don't propose legislating these things based on my views. That is every person's choice to decide for themselves. I don't pretend to be God or to have the omniscience required to be qualified to tell people how to live their lives, especially when it comes to such grey areas.
Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "Colanth"Carried to the end, this would grant personhood to chimpanzees and gorillas. (Not that I'd have any problem with that.)
Yes, yes it would, and one would be a fool to try to claim that Great Apes don't have civil rights according to this view. Anyone with a lick of sense can tell that adult chimps and gorillas are more "persons" than human infants are. It's especially evident with the ones that can, for example, use sign language to express sadness at memories of traumatic events in their past.
Yes, I was thinking of Koko when I wrote that. I'd have no problem finding her sitting next to me on a bus.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Plu"Well. It's nice to hear that Europe is so much more advanced than the US
Western Europe and the US are similar in population and the US is similar to all of Europe in area, and I doubt that you think that Europe is one homogenous place. The US isn't either. There are probably some areas in the US that have a lower average IQ than an uninhabited jungle.
I know. It was more a response to how someone could think that a system that's actually in place in parts of the world and working fine is "utopian". That's literally saying "your place is so much more awesome than mine that's it like an unattainable dream-place to me".
It's just... weird.
Quote from: "Brian37"she votes against her own self interest.
Sigh. Just like my father. Let me go down the checklist:
-Likes social programs
-Receives disability checks
-Has Medicare/Medicaid
-Has received unemployment checks and food stamps in the past
-Thinks gay people should be able to love whomever they want and have equal marriage rights
-Thinks pot smokers should be allowed to smoke if it pleases them, as long as they harm no one
-Thinks women have the right to choose to abort, because it's their body
-Thinks minimum wage should be increased
-Thinks religion shouldn't play a part in civil law
-Thinks big corporations are allowed to screw low/middle income Americans way too much
Sounds like a textbook Dem, right? Hah. He's a registered Republican and
always votes red - because "DEMOCRATS PUSH A COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY". #-o :Hangman:
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means. :roll:
Quote from: "Jason78"So ridiculous that we're going to need to give the HeLa (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa) cell line the vote.
Indeed.
Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "Brian37"she votes against her own self interest.
Sigh. Just like my father. Let me go down the checklist:
-Likes social programs
-Receives disability checks
-Has Medicare/Medicaid
-Has received unemployment checks and food stamps in the past
-Thinks gay people should be able to love whomever they want and have equal marriage rights
-Thinks pot smokers should be allowed to smoke if it pleases them, as long as they harm no one
-Thinks women have the right to choose to abort, because it's their body
-Thinks minimum wage should be increased
-Thinks religion shouldn't play a part in civil law
-Thinks big corporations are allowed to screw low/middle income Americans way too much
Sounds like a textbook Dem, right? Hah. He's a registered Republican and always votes red - because "DEMOCRATS PUSH A COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY". #-o :Hangman:
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means. :roll:
sounds like a text book socialist.
Quote from: "surly74"sounds like a text book socialist.
Yeah, try explaining that to him. :lol:
"Communism" is a four-letter word that got shoved into him as The Big Bad in the 60s/70s, and even though he barely grasps what it means, he riles against the Democratic Party any time one of his pet talking heads invokes the word.
Damn you, low-information voters. Damn you all.
I'm going to exonerate myself right now by letting you know that I am not genetically related to him. I was adopted at birth.
Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "surly74"sounds like a text book socialist.
Yeah, try explaining that to him. :lol:
"Communism" is a four-letter word that got shoved into him as The Big Bad in the 60s/70s, and even though he barely grasps what it means, he riles against the Democratic Party any time one of his pet talking heads invokes the word.
Damn you, low-information voters. Damn you all.
I'm going to exonerate myself right now by letting you know that I am not genetically related to him. I was adopted at birth.
i should try...i got my father to vote NDP when all he did was vote Conservative here in Ontario. Mind you our conservative party is alot less conservative than the Republicans.
in the last three provincial elections I have voted for three different parties...the Converative Party, The Liberals, and the New Democratic Party (socialist). Each time they have had a different candidate in my riding that met the needs regardless of party or views.
I always answer a question with a question..."does that make sense".
The sooner the medical science regarding conception, pregnancy, and abortion is advanced the sooner this fucking nonsense will become irrelevant.
I don't know, I think it will always come down to a matter of opinion in the long run. You can science your fool head off, but that isn't going to change the die-hard, life-begins-at-conception-and-unwed-women-who-get-pregnant-are-filthy-whores anti abortionists.
I think it's more about women (See: subjugation of) than it is about science.
Quote from: "Mermaid"I think it's more about women (See: subjugation of) than it is about science.
Of course it's about subjugation. If men didn't subjugate women, women would eventually realize that gender stereotypes are bullshit. We can't have that, now can we? :roll:
I think it is great that young girls and women that get pregnant can now go down a dark alley and use a coat hanger or go to some sleazy abortionist that uses no anti bacterial procedures and can make big bucks and maybe killing them instead of a safe legal abortion. They should have used contraception that doesn't work all the time. the whores! This is where antiabortionist miss the point of making it illegal by their ignorance of reality. Also, not every baby born is a sweet lovable thing, sometimes they are a monster or just a lump of protoplasm. :roll: Solitary
That is a large gap in the logic. The bible-thumping anti-abortion faction is delusional to think that legislation will actually prevent women from terminating pregnancy.
Quote from: "Mermaid"That is a large gap in the logic. The bible-thumping anti-abortion faction is delusional to think that legislation will actually prevent women from terminating pregnancy.
Those of us who were old enough in the 40s, 50s and 60s know that it won't. It didn't then (we all knew where a girl could "solve" her "problem" safely), before it was legal, and once they've had a taste of quick, safe and legal, there won't be much "but it's so wrong". Even the "good Catholic girls" back then weren't so religious when it became personal. And with the possibility of bringing enough RU486 back from Canada or Mexico (or anywhere, really) with very little risk, a "back alley abortion" is a lot safer now than it was 50 or more years ago.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Mermaid"That is a large gap in the logic. The bible-thumping anti-abortion faction is delusional to think that legislation will actually prevent women from terminating pregnancy.
Those of us who were old enough in the 40s, 50s and 60s know that it won't. It didn't then (we all knew where a girl could "solve" her "problem" safely), before it was legal, and once they've had a taste of quick, safe and legal, there won't be much "but it's so wrong". Even the "good Catholic girls" back then weren't so religious when it became personal. And with the possibility of bringing enough RU486 back from Canada or Mexico (or anywhere, really) with very little risk, a "back alley abortion" is a lot safer now than it was 50 or more years ago.
It may be a lot safer, but these are the statistics world wide, for back alley illegal abortions: The Guttmacher Institute recently published a study of worldwide abortions and tried especially to tally as many illegal abortions as possible. Admittedly impossible to measure, these procedures claim tens of thousands of lives every year. While the number 70,000 is staggeringly high, I feel certain that this figure sadly could not represent all deaths, as there is no way all "back alley" abortions could be accounted for in this statistic due to the harsh punishments to those caught performing or receiving them. Solitary
Quote from: "Colanth"And with the possibility of bringing enough RU486 back from Canada or Mexico (or anywhere, really) with very little risk, a "back alley abortion" is a lot safer now than it was 50 or more years ago.
Yup yup, the abortion pill is an at-home, no-doctor-required, generally safe solution that you
could buy on the street. All you need is the pills, some painkillers and nausea meds, and instructions. The near-eliminated need to go to a clinic or get chopped by an unlicensed doctor would mean that there's little danger of getting caught and thus little way of enforcing the law. What percentage of illicit drug sales are caught? Lot of good the Drug War has done the US. People still get high, and people will still get abortions. People still found booze during Prohibition, too.
Dumb pro-lifers, you really think you can force people to have kids they don't want? Coat hangers; abortifacients; throwing yourself down a staircase; having someone punch you in the gut; suicide; even straight-up infanticide - those things have existed since time immemorial, and you'll see them rise again if you ban legal abortions. People will always find a way. You're never gonna win this battle.
No sorry, they are after women's rights, abortion is merely one aspect.
Quote from: "Brian37"No sorry, they are after women's rights, abortion is merely one aspect.
I don't know that I buy that. That's a little extreme. Please explain.
Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "Brian37"No sorry, they are after women's rights, abortion is merely one aspect.
I don't know that I buy that. That's a little extreme. Please explain.
I am not Brian, but for starters, this ruling threatens to shut down 90% of the state-funded health centers, denying women access to basic care.
http://jezebel.com/5948215/texas-is-rep ... cy-centers (http://jezebel.com/5948215/texas-is-replacing-legitimate-womens-health-clinics-with-crisis-pregnancy-centers)
They are the religious right, you'd expect them to be after women's rights. That's what gawd commands, after all.
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Mermaid"That is a large gap in the logic. The bible-thumping anti-abortion faction is delusional to think that legislation will actually prevent women from terminating pregnancy.
Those of us who were old enough in the 40s, 50s and 60s know that it won't. It didn't then (we all knew where a girl could "solve" her "problem" safely), before it was legal, and once they've had a taste of quick, safe and legal, there won't be much "but it's so wrong". Even the "good Catholic girls" back then weren't so religious when it became personal. And with the possibility of bringing enough RU486 back from Canada or Mexico (or anywhere, really) with very little risk, a "back alley abortion" is a lot safer now than it was 50 or more years ago.
It may be a lot safer, but these are the statistics world wide, for back alley illegal abortions:
We're talking about the situation in the US, in which abortion is a right protected by law. Yes, there are countries in which abortion is illegal. And there are cultures in which killing your wife because she aborted your child is looked at as "it's too bad it had to go that far, but you can just buy another wife". But that's irrelevant to the current thread, which is states preventing people from doing something that federal law guarantees them the right to do.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "Brian37"No sorry, they are after women's rights, abortion is merely one aspect.
I don't know that I buy that. That's a little extreme. Please explain.
I am not Brian, but for starters, this ruling threatens to shut down 90% of the state-funded health centers, denying women access to basic care.
http://jezebel.com/5948215/texas-is-rep ... cy-centers (http://jezebel.com/5948215/texas-is-replacing-legitimate-womens-health-clinics-with-crisis-pregnancy-centers)
The centers are certainly not being shut down to prevent women from getting their pneumonia treated or a cancer removed. They're being shut down
only because that's where they get abortions. I think it's pretty far-fetched to say that the Texas Repubs' intention is to kill off all the women or take away
all our rights.
He made the statement that "they're after women's rights in general", but abortion/birth control is a very specific issue, so in order to accept his claim, I require him to give examples of other women's rights being attacked by the Texas Repubs.
Wow - I think I've said this like 100 times on this message board - But - the fact is - MANY women get their basic OBGYN care at these clinics that Also happen to provide abortions. For a great number of female Americans (middle to low income) these clinics are the Only source they have for pap smears and birth control. Not to mention check-ups and advice for further female medical needs.
People **hear** the term abortion and their minds go towards ONE thing............ abortion. The many other methods of care women receive at these clinics are ignored Once the word 'abortion' is said.
::: sigh :::
ANY women's clinic that shuts down means thousands of females who will either (1) be forced to go without OBGYN medical attention or........ (2) have to travel a great distance to secure such OR (3) start flooding emergency rooms for non-emergency care WHICH makes Real emergencies stand in line for medical attention.
Closing clinics (that ALSO provide abortions) will NOT make female patients vanish into thin air.
If people want to stop late-term abortions --- I can wrap my head around that. But closing clinics that provide valuable medical services is just cutting off your nose to spite your own face. It. Is. Stupid.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Wow - I think I've said this like 100 times on this message board - But - the fact is - MANY women get their basic OBGYN care at these clinics that Also happen to provide abortions. For a great number of female Americans (middle to low income) these clinics are the Only source they have for pap smears and birth control. Not to mention check-ups and advice for further female medical needs.
People **hear** the term abortion and their minds go towards ONE thing............ abortion. The many other methods of care women receive at these clinics are ignored Once the word 'abortion' is said.
::: sigh :::
ANY women's clinic that shuts down means thousands of females who will either (1) be forced to go without OBGYN medical attention or........ (2) have to travel a great distance to secure such OR (3) start flooding emergency rooms for non-emergency care WHICH makes Real emergencies stand in line for medical attention.
Closing clinics (that ALSO provide abortions) will NOT make female patients vanish into thin air.
If people want to stop late-term abortions --- I can wrap my head around that. But closing clinics that provide valuable medical services is just cutting off your nose to spite your own face. It. Is. Stupid.
Everything you just said is true and still it doesn't answer the question. "Women lost access to pap smears because the state closed the abortion clinics they used" is
not the same statement as "The state closed the abortion clinics
because they didn't want women to get pap smears."