Lets end the "pro-life" "pro-choice" bullshit shall we

[ScreamingEagle]

Abortion somehow became a political issue. One where simply being for or against it automatically puts you into one of the "camps" Dem or Repub.

Lets be honest. No one "Likes" abortion and no one thinks a woman should have an abortion under any and all circumstances. There may be those types but they are the fringe.

The topic we should be discussing is Abortion is legal. Because its legal it is available legally and should be. Having something be legal while making it hard as hell to get is interfering with something that is legal for a reason that has nothing to do with legality.

Restricting access is about morals. Whats moral and whats legal are 2 diff things. While I understand how someone can see it as morally wrong I don't see how hiding or restricting or making hoops to jump through helps legally.

Its like someone hiding traffic lights because they don't like them. The result is accidents will happen because someone didn't like or agree with it.

So while you might not agree with the act of getting an abortion....making it harder, more painful etc does nothing to change the legality its just being a nuisance really.

This board has lost its ability to say "Con on one issue and Dem on another" now its either all or nothing and nothing is "all or nothing"

It's a political issue because to put it into a broader sense the real argument is about control of....

LIFE and DEATH...

Leftists support state-sponsored DEATH in all forms (unless it helps the existing society they want to destroy) because it gives them power over you.....immoral power....any type of government that acquires too much immoral power will have the power of life and death over the individual...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pro-life sees the unborn for what they are, a human being; pro-choice sees the unborn as an inconvenient nuisance.

You can blather all day about legality and shit. The fact is abortion ends the life of another human being and that is why people who are pro-life want restrictions/regulations placed on it. Oh the horror of having morals that believe killing a human being because "it" is a nuisance is wrong. Bugger off.

And here we see a good example of the problem: the tedious ignorance, extremism, and demagoguery of the right.

No one sees anything as an ‘inconvenient.’

It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to acknowledge the privacy rights of women with regard to personal matters concerning reproduction and to also be opposed to abortion.

In addition to being un-Constitutional, one should oppose laws banning abortion because they will do nothing to end the practice, as abortion is in fact a symptom of much more serious, deeper problems facing society that can’t be solved by jeopardizing our civil liberties.

 

[Unkotare]

No I'm not saying ANY restriction is a nuisance. Of course there should be restrictions I'm referring to restrictions or procedures that are for no reason other than to create a burden just because.

Just because what? "just because" many people value human life and would rather err on the side of protecting life than defending a political position?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion somehow became a political issue. One where simply being for or against it automatically puts you into one of the "camps" Dem or Repub.

Lets be honest. No one "Likes" abortion and no one thinks a woman should have an abortion under any and all circumstances. There may be those types but they are the fringe.

The topic we should be discussing is Abortion is legal. Because its legal it is available legally and should be. Having something be legal while making it hard as hell to get is interfering with something that is legal for a reason that has nothing to do with legality.

Restricting access is about morals. Whats moral and whats legal are 2 diff things. While I understand how someone can see it as morally wrong I don't see how hiding or restricting or making hoops to jump through helps legally.

Its like someone hiding traffic lights because they don't like them. The result is accidents will happen because someone didn't like or agree with it.

So while you might not agree with the act of getting an abortion....making it harder, more painful etc does nothing to change the legality its just being a nuisance really.

This board has lost its ability to say "Con on one issue and Dem on another" now its either all or nothing and nothing is "all or nothing"

It's a political issue because to put it into a broader sense the real argument is about control of....

LIFE and DEATH...

Leftists support state-sponsored DEATH in all forms (unless it helps the existing society they want to destroy) because it gives them power over you.....immoral power....any type of government that acquires too much immoral power will have the power of life and death over the individual...

More tedious ignorance, extremism, and demagoguery from the right.

Seeking to involve the state in private matters individuals alone should address is what gives government more power. No one supports ‘state-sponsored death,’ that’s moronic idiocy; if someone is serious about ending the practice of abortion he needs to do so in a manner that comports with the Constitution and its case law – not just ‘ban and forget.’

 

[Flopper]

I fall on the right side of the isle, but I believe in abortion rights during the 1st trimester and limited exceptions thereafter (2nd - victim of incest or rape) and 3rd (birth defects or mother's life is in danger). I think it's morally wrong and I see it as killing a baby, but I don't agree with child getting pregant having a baby, a rape or incest victim forced to have a baby etc.

I assume your referring to the Texas law. First, if you can't figure out after 5 month whether to terminate your pregancy or not, then I you should lose that choice outside of two exceptions (baby has birth defects or mother's life is in danger). Second, why shouldn't abortion clinics be close to hospitals and have admitting rights. If the baby survives and is born alive, then the execursioner must transition to savior and do what is necessary to save the baby, including admitting the baby to the hospital. Third, if current clinics aren't up to code fuck them! They either get up to code or move to a place they can get up to code. There is a market for abortion, therefore, if some go down because they don't want to get up to code, others will pop up to replace them!

The Texas law makes sense, liberals opposition to it makes NONE!

See I think everyone can agree with the bolded for the most part.

Now the 2nd paragraph I agree on 5 months way too late unless serious problems are there. Your question is why not, but my question was Why in the first place..There is a reason to move them into out of the way areas, waaaaay away from the people who access it most. Its like putting Midget supplies on the top shelf. No you aren't technically stopping anyone but you know the effect it will have. Midgets cant reach 'em!

Ya know

They don't have hospitals in Texas?

The problem that the clinics have is not that there aren't enough hospitals, it is that the doctors do not have admitting privileges. Ever wonder why a doctor that practices anywhere wouldn't be able to admit a patient to a hospital?

For a doctor to become a member of the staff so he or she could admit patients, application must be made along with a fee. Many hospitals require doctors to complete specific training. I'm sure there is a lot of variation between hospitals, but there are a number of other obligations for the doctor, one being staff meetings. Typically, a doctor wouldn't become a member of staff unless he expects to be admitting a fair number of patients.

 

[PixieStix]

Abortion somehow became a political issue. One where simply being for or against it automatically puts you into one of the "camps" Dem or Repub.

Lets be honest. No one "Likes" abortion and no one thinks a woman should have an abortion under any and all circumstances. There may be those types but they are the fringe.

The topic we should be discussing is Abortion is legal. Because its legal it is available legally and should be. Having something be legal while making it hard as hell to get is interfering with something that is legal for a reason that has nothing to do with legality.

Restricting access is about morals. Whats moral and whats legal are 2 diff things. While I understand how someone can see it as morally wrong I don't see how hiding or restricting or making hoops to jump through helps legally.

Its like someone hiding traffic lights because they don't like them. The result is accidents will happen because someone didn't like or agree with it.

So while you might not agree with the act of getting an abortion....making it harder, more painful etc does nothing to change the legality its just being a nuisance really.

This board has lost its ability to say "Con on one issue and Dem on another" now its either all or nothing and nothing is "all or nothing"

When it comes to offing babies for the sake of convenience...it is all or nothing to them. So please get off your high horse, "shall we"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Abortion somehow became a political issue. One where simply being for or against it automatically puts you into one of the "camps" Dem or Repub.

Lets be honest. No one "Likes" abortion and no one thinks a woman should have an abortion under any and all circumstances. There may be those types but they are the fringe.

The topic we should be discussing is Abortion is legal. Because its legal it is available legally and should be. Having something be legal while making it hard as hell to get is interfering with something that is legal for a reason that has nothing to do with legality.

Restricting access is about morals. Whats moral and whats legal are 2 diff things. While I understand how someone can see it as morally wrong I don't see how hiding or restricting or making hoops to jump through helps legally.

Its like someone hiding traffic lights because they don't like them. The result is accidents will happen because someone didn't like or agree with it.

So while you might not agree with the act of getting an abortion....making it harder, more painful etc does nothing to change the legality its just being a nuisance really.

This board has lost its ability to say "Con on one issue and Dem on another" now its either all or nothing and nothing is "all or nothing"

It's a political issue because to put it into a broader sense the real argument is about control of....

LIFE and DEATH...

Leftists support state-sponsored DEATH in all forms (unless it helps the existing society they want to destroy) because it gives them power over you.....immoral power....any type of government that acquires too much immoral power will have the power of life and death over the individual...

More tedious ignorance, extremism, and demagoguery from the right.

Seeking to involve the state in private matters individuals alone should address is what gives government more power. No one supports ‘state-sponsored death,’ that’s moronic idiocy; if someone is serious about ending the practice of abortion he needs to do so in a manner that comports with the Constitution and its case law – not just ‘ban and forget.’

tell that to the lefties in the Demrat party who want to fund Planned Parenthood everywhere....that's equal to supporting 'state-sponsored death'...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

See I think everyone can agree with the bolded for the most part.

Now the 2nd paragraph I agree on 5 months way too late unless serious problems are there. Your question is why not, but my question was Why in the first place..There is a reason to move them into out of the way areas, waaaaay away from the people who access it most. Its like putting Midget supplies on the top shelf. No you aren't technically stopping anyone but you know the effect it will have. Midgets cant reach 'em!

Ya know

They don't have hospitals in Texas?

The problem that the clinics have is not that there aren't enough hospitals, it is that the doctors do not have admitting privileges. Ever wonder why a doctor that practices anywhere wouldn't be able to admit a patient to a hospital?

For a doctor to become a member of the staff so he or she could admit patients, application must be made along with a fee. Many hospitals require doctors to complete specific training. I'm sure there is a lot of variation between hospitals, but there are a number of other obligations for the doctor, one being staff meetings. Typically, a doctor wouldn't become a member of staff unless he expects to be admitting a fair number of patients.

Did you just make all that up?

A modicum of research would show you the difference between admitting privileges and actually treating patients at a hospital. Every single ambulatory surgery center in Texas requires doctors to have admitting privileges, even if they aren't actually doctors, they all manage it. Yet, for some obscure reason, abortion providers say it will close down every abortion clinic in the state.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion somehow became a political issue. One where simply being for or against it automatically puts you into one of the "camps" Dem or Repub.

Lets be honest. No one "Likes" abortion and no one thinks a woman should have an abortion under any and all circumstances. There may be those types but they are the fringe.

The topic we should be discussing is Abortion is legal. Because its legal it is available legally and should be. Having something be legal while making it hard as hell to get is interfering with something that is legal for a reason that has nothing to do with legality.

Restricting access is about morals. Whats moral and whats legal are 2 diff things. While I understand how someone can see it as morally wrong I don't see how hiding or restricting or making hoops to jump through helps legally.

Its like someone hiding traffic lights because they don't like them. The result is accidents will happen because someone didn't like or agree with it.

So while you might not agree with the act of getting an abortion....making it harder, more painful etc does nothing to change the legality its just being a nuisance really.

This board has lost its ability to say "Con on one issue and Dem on another" now its either all or nothing and nothing is "all or nothing"

How funny. I posted this exact post in another thread about abortion..only my slant was "Now wait for two minutes and one of the pro-death cultists will come forward to say hey, nobody LIKES abortion, nobody is PRO abortion, and what is legal is RIGHT so it can't be wrong, and pro-life is REALLY pro-death, and abortion is REALLY in the best interests of the precious children"...and here you are!

It's like you READ MY MIND...or saw my post and thought "Hey, she's right! I'm going to start my own thread about that!"

Because you are, for real and for true, an unoriginal, brain damaged and brainwashed death cultist.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion somehow became a political issue. One where simply being for or against it automatically puts you into one of the "camps" Dem or Repub.

Lets be honest. No one "Likes" abortion and no one thinks a woman should have an abortion under any and all circumstances. There may be those types but they are the fringe.

The topic we should be discussing is Abortion is legal. Because its legal it is available legally and should be. Having something be legal while making it hard as hell to get is interfering with something that is legal for a reason that has nothing to do with legality.

Restricting access is about morals. Whats moral and whats legal are 2 diff things. While I understand how someone can see it as morally wrong I don't see how hiding or restricting or making hoops to jump through helps legally.

Its like someone hiding traffic lights because they don't like them. The result is accidents will happen because someone didn't like or agree with it.

So while you might not agree with the act of getting an abortion....making it harder, more painful etc does nothing to change the legality its just being a nuisance really.

This board has lost its ability to say "Con on one issue and Dem on another" now its either all or nothing and nothing is "all or nothing"

It's a political issue because to put it into a broader sense the real argument is about control of....

LIFE and DEATH...

Leftists support state-sponsored DEATH in all forms (unless it helps the existing society they want to destroy) because it gives them power over you.....immoral power....any type of government that acquires too much immoral power will have the power of life and death over the individual...

More tedious ignorance, extremism, and demagoguery from the right.

Seeking to involve the state in private matters individuals alone should address is what gives government more power. No one supports ‘state-sponsored death,’ that’s moronic idiocy; if someone is serious about ending the practice of abortion he needs to do so in a manner that comports with the Constitution and its case law – not just ‘ban and forget.’

Stop talking out of two sides of your mouth. You loons are the ones who brought the state into it...first making abortion *legal* (via illegal method) and then by insisting the state fund it.

Then by making it sacrosanct, and forbidding any disclosure or record keeping......but allowing it to maintain tax exempt status.

You brought the government in. Good job! You want state-supported death, you get to have state interference as well. Tough titty.

 

[Unkotare]

In addition to being un-Constitutional, one should oppose laws banning abortion because they will do nothing to end the practice, as abortion is in fact a symptom of much more serious, deeper problems facing society that can’t be solved by jeopardizing our civil liberties.

This specious argument has been debunked time and time again.

 

[flacaltenn]

See I think everyone can agree with the bolded for the most part.

Now the 2nd paragraph I agree on 5 months way too late unless serious problems are there. Your question is why not, but my question was Why in the first place..There is a reason to move them into out of the way areas, waaaaay away from the people who access it most. Its like putting Midget supplies on the top shelf. No you aren't technically stopping anyone but you know the effect it will have. Midgets cant reach 'em!

Ya know

They don't have hospitals in Texas?

The problem that the clinics have is not that there aren't enough hospitals, it is that the doctors do not have admitting privileges. Ever wonder why a doctor that practices anywhere wouldn't be able to admit a patient to a hospital?

For a doctor to become a member of the staff so he or she could admit patients, application must be made along with a fee. Many hospitals require doctors to complete specific training. I'm sure there is a lot of variation between hospitals, but there are a number of other obligations for the doctor, one being staff meetings. Typically, a doctor wouldn't become a member of staff unless he expects to be admitting a fair number of patients.

We're not asking for doctors to make multiple APPLICATIONS for admitting priveleges.. But having an association with ONE HOSPITAL in the general area is a burden? Yeah, like they might have to be on call a couple nights a month.

Besides --- IF YOU ARE the principle doctor in a Planned Parenthood clinic --- are you planning on BIRTHING THE BABIES at your clinic? or at a hospital?

Get real... Those guys are SUPPOSED to be handling "womens issues" which is PRIMARILY pre-natal care.. ...................... And you don't have ADMITTING PRIVELEGES?

Truth is --- A lot of these obgyns do virtually NOTHING but abortions. But don't let them falsely advertise their clinics as "pre-natal care" or "women's health clinics".

 

[koshergrl]

A lot of them can't get admitting privileges because they are quacks and have heinous things in their backgrounds.

 

[ClosedCaption]

CC...

Give it up.. I re-read the OP.. And this is where you went off the rails...

Speaking to your opposition who in the most part believe any abortion is akin to murder ----
you really shouldn't casually call ANY restrictions on that practice --- "a nuisance"..

It kinda places you far to the extremes on this topic..

No I'm not saying ANY restriction is a nuisance. Of course there should be restrictions I'm referring to restrictions or procedures that are for no reason other than to create a burden just because.

I think you know that and if you didn't know you do

Like the restrictions in Texas that require doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals? The very restriction you said was a burden, and that a court just said cannot be dismissed simply because it is?

If you want to discuss lets talk about the things I actually say. I made no mention about Texas restrictions or any of that other stuff at all.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No I'm not saying ANY restriction is a nuisance. Of course there should be restrictions I'm referring to restrictions or procedures that are for no reason other than to create a burden just because.

Just because what? "just because" many people value human life and would rather err on the side of protecting life than defending a political position?

Exactly! Just because you dont like the law you try to make it as hard as possible just because you dont like it. Not for health reasons, just because it gets your back up.

Thanks for making my point clear

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dear CC,

We'll stop politicizing abortion when you stop politicizing school shootings for gun control. Deal? If not, it is rightly assumed that you don't care about children other than to use them as tools for leverage in a political debate.

This OP is hypocritical. Lets just stop politicizing things that don't need to be politicized. Period.

 

[KevinWestern]

If you want to actually discuss the issue based on facts, learn the facts. If you prefer to spout debunked talking points in order to pretend you care about an issue you are totally uninformed about, keep posting stupid shit.

What specifically are you talking about? Which points?

The number of abortions before and after Roe is almost constant, as is the number of deaths as a result of them.

Women were not forced to navigate the sewers in order to get an abortion before Roe was handed down, they went to doctors that did everything they could to make sure the patients lived through the experience because the alternative was going to jail for murder. Today we have a pro abortion political movement that prefers to see clinics unregulated because they are convinced that any restrictions on abortions is a slap in the face of their religion.

If the law actually makes a difference, women were probably safer when abortion was illegal. At the very least, it forced women to consider the consequences before they had sex.

Can you link to a study or maybe some statistics that show that making abortions illegal has NO EFFECT on the number of abortions and the number of deaths resulting from the procedure? Hard to believe that such a specific and significant change to a law would have zero effect on how the population behaves.

You said you would never argue with a woman who got pregnant from rape if she wanted an abortion, yet you are willing to argue with one who got pregnant by voluntarily having sex. That imples that human life has a different value based on the method of conception, even if you don't come right out and say it.

No it does not. An abortion is a serious, serious decision, and if you're making that decision I'd hope there's a good reason balance out the gravity of terminating an embryo (note: the embryo always holds the same "value", regardless of the method of conception). In my eyes, aborting because your pregnancy poses a serious health risk is a 'better' reason than aborting because you aren't ready to give up your freedom to raise a child. Sending 20 soldiers to their death to save 1,000 citizens is a 'better' reason than sending 20 soldiers to their death to make a company a million dollars.

I never said I condone or would encourage the raped girl to abort; I just said it's not my place to step in because it CAN be argued that the two options are "equal" (ie either woman dies or baby dies). That is a personal decision for the pregnant woman to make. Not mine.

Again, read my words more carefully.

 

[koshergrl]

I've always said, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are dishonest labels. Each implies that anybody who doesn't agree with me is "anti-life" or "anti-choice", and that's bullshit both times.

All it is is a way of baiting and polarizing. It does nothing to address the issue, which kind of indicates the proponents of such charged terms are not really interested in the issue -- they're interested in personally winning some rhetorical sports event.

You loons always seek to change the definitions when you get pegged as the pro-death, criminal ghouls you are.

Pro-life is anti-abortion.

Pro-abortion is pro-death (because abortion is, after all, about killing)

That's the end of that stupid discussion.

 

[Unkotare]

No I'm not saying ANY restriction is a nuisance. Of course there should be restrictions I'm referring to restrictions or procedures that are for no reason other than to create a burden just because.

Just because what? "just because" many people value human life and would rather err on the side of protecting life than defending a political position?

Exactly! Just because you dont [sic] like the law you try to make it as hard as possible just because you dont [sic] like it. Not for health reasons...

Remaining alive is a "health reason."

 

[Flopper]

They don't have hospitals in Texas?

The problem that the clinics have is not that there aren't enough hospitals, it is that the doctors do not have admitting privileges. Ever wonder why a doctor that practices anywhere wouldn't be able to admit a patient to a hospital?

For a doctor to become a member of the staff so he or she could admit patients, application must be made along with a fee. Many hospitals require doctors to complete specific training. I'm sure there is a lot of variation between hospitals, but there are a number of other obligations for the doctor, one being staff meetings. Typically, a doctor wouldn't become a member of staff unless he expects to be admitting a fair number of patients.

Did you just make all that up?

A modicum of research would show you the difference between admitting privileges and actually treating patients at a hospital. Every single ambulatory surgery center in Texas requires doctors to have admitting privileges, even if they aren't actually doctors, they all manage it. Yet, for some obscure reason, abortion providers say it will close down every abortion clinic in the state.

In strong pro life areas admitting privileges simply wouldn't be be granted. If it's a Catholic hospital forget.

Having admitting privileges means you have to have a certain amount of patients sent to the hospital per month. While there are abortions that have unfortunate complications, overall abortions are very safe and complications are rare and admission are rare.

An admitting privileges law is a TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law. The main intent of TRAP laws is to stop abortion through legislation that doesn’t outright make abortion illegal—because that would be unconstitutional and unenforceable—but instead through forcing clinics to close. TRAP laws tend to place unnecessary burdens and stigmas on abortion providers.

Bébinn: For All Your Pro-Choice Needs! (Do Admitting Privileges Help Abortion Providers?)