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

[koshergrl]

Good. Then they can take their disgusting abbatoirs elsewhere.

Let them concentrate in the cities, where all the good pro-abortion ghouls reside.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Dear TK,

Please try to convince someone else that you are nt responsible for your own actions. That you only politicize it because someone else did it first. Indicating you don't really care about the issue. Either you do care and it has nothing to do with me or you don't.

 

[Billy000]

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"

Most cons do think with all or nothing reasoning. That's the problem with the rightwing. A shocking lack of basic critical thinking skills.

 

[Mr. H.]

There's a right to choice and a right to life. And ne're the two shall meet.

 

[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"

Most cons do think with all or nothing reasoning. That's the problem with the rightwing. A shocking lack of basic critical thinking skills.

Oh, you mean like recognizing that pro-abortion is really pro-death?

I aced Critical Thinking in college, btw. It's the easiest class I have ever taken, after Biology and Shakespeare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Sure you didn't.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Kosher has to translate everything into "strawman" language. That's the only way she can discuss issues. Like an animal only understands barks and growls

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

NARAL claims that 1.2 million women had abortions every year before Roe, it took 3 years for there to be 1 million legal abortions after Roe.

Funny how someone who insists that I am misreading his pathetic attempts to backtrack his posts is so adept at misreading mine.

I did not say you would encourage a rape victim to have an abortion. In fact, I specifically said you said you wouldn't argue with her. If you want me to read your posts right, perhaps you should learn to read mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?)

I asked a simple question, did you just make that up?

It seems the answer is yes. If you didn't, you would have provided actual links backing up your claim.

 

[Darkwind]

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"

Do you fall under the camp that we should just make laws arbitrarily for the purpose of just controlling people?

Because if we do, then there really is no point of having a government and we should just appoint certain people as Masters and Lords over all of Mankind.

I, however, believe that laws should be written and passed based upon a moral value to end a questionable activity. Like murder, extortion, theft....and other things that the vast majority of people consider wrong.

You also seem to think that any law passed, should never ever be challenged or overturned, that it is in fact, forevermore set as "The law of the Land."

What we should be talking about is not if abortion law is legal, but if it is a 'good' law, based upon a value that everyone (or a majority) in society finds acceptable. If they do, then society MUST be required to accept that the value that is being destroyed will be done in all instances. This is what is called 'thinking it through'.

So, while you may think of it as a nusiance, I can assure you that many consider the law a detriment to society, and degrading to an advanced society that cannot even manage to educate its citizens into having self restraint and personal responsibility for their own actions.

 

[KevinWestern]

NARAL claims that 1.2 million women had abortions every year before Roe, it took 3 years for there to be 1 million legal abortions after Roe.

This means nothing to me. I argued that prohibiting abortions would lead to a greater percentage of women getting abortions via riskier methods. You said this was untrue, so I asked you to show me something that supported your claim. The above blip has nothing to do with the argument...

Funny how someone who insists that I am misreading his pathetic attempts to backtrack his posts is so adept at misreading mine.

I'm comprehending your posts just fine.

I did not say you would encourage a rape victim to have an abortion. In fact, I specifically said you said you wouldn't argue with her. If you want me to read your posts right, perhaps you should learn to read mine.

You claimed I valued the embryo/fetus differently based on the method of conception. I said that was not true, and explained why. This blip above does not address the main point of my argument. You seem to be slipping Quantum friend...

 

[Flopper]

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?)

I asked a simple question, did you just make that up?

It seems the answer is yes. If you didn't, you would have provided actual links backing up your claim.

I ask a simple question. Did you even read the link?
Apparently not since the post is copied from the link.

 

[Billy000]

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"

Most cons do think with all or nothing reasoning. That's the problem with the rightwing. A shocking lack of basic critical thinking skills.

Oh, you mean like recognizing that pro-abortion is really pro-death?

I aced Critical Thinking in college, btw. It's the easiest class I have ever taken, after Biology and Shakespeare.

Well the fact that you believe that shows you do lack these skills. See, you can know what critical thinking is, but you are too stupid to actually apply the skills themselves.

Using critical thinking skills you would realize what you said is an oversimplification and implies a false motive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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"

My take is this...
The Burger Court rules incorrectly in Roe. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion was that under the 14th amendments due process clause protects the right to privacy.
That in and of itself is in error because the US Constitution expresses nor states no such right.
The 4th Amendment states we 'have a right to be secure in our homes persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures.' But does not speak to a 'right to privacy'...
In any event, the Blackmun opinion stepped on the Tenth Amendment's States Rights clause.....The opinion got around the 10th via this question which was answered in the majority opinion in the affirmative.
Q: Are there any circumstances where a state may enact laws prohibiting abortion?
A:Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
I believe the abortion question should be left to the individual States.
I also think abortion should be legal with restrictions. One of those being that abortion for a matter of convenience or simple birth control should not be permitted.
Do I think abortion to be important enough to rise to the level of a political decider in every national election? No...In fact whether I was in support of abortion or not I would not touch the issue during a campaign. It's just too divisive and potentially explosive.
SO I f were a candidate and a reporter asked my "what is your position on abortion?" MY response would be "abortion will not be a factor in my campaign...It's legal"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?)

I asked a simple question, did you just make that up?

It seems the answer is yes. If you didn't, you would have provided actual links backing up your claim.

I ask a simple question. Did you even read the link?
Apparently not since the post is copied from the link.

Does it answer my question?

Since I know that the pro abortion link doesn't actually back up your claim that you have to get special training to get admission privileges, don't try to pretend it answers my question.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Quantum, you don't know the process or why admitting privileges are important. Your opinion comes from not understanding. You don't understand why other Ppl have admitting privileges and what is hard about it. So you use that ignorance to come to the conclusion that it must be easy or right because others have done it.

But since you don't know, don't care and dismiss any information you don't like about the subject you remain ignorant. Pretty good scam but no one else falls for it.

 

[Flopper]

I asked a simple question, did you just make that up?

It seems the answer is yes. If you didn't, you would have provided actual links backing up your claim.

I ask a simple question. Did you even read the link?
Apparently not since the post is copied from the link.

Does it answer my question?

Since I know that the pro abortion link doesn't actually back up your claim that you have to get special training to get admission privileges, don't try to pretend it answers my question.

Apparently, you're having a reading problem. I quote from my post.
"Many hospitals require doctors to complete specific training."

I said many hospitals require specific training, but not all hospitals. For example:
Provider Orientation for Newport Hospital Medical Staff | Lifespan Health System, RI

 

[thereisnospoon]

How about we compare this to another legal activity, smoking. Most folks have no problem making smokers second class citizens, taxing the hell out of them and restricting areas where they can engage in this legal activity. So what's the problem making sure abortions are done safely by medical professionals who are fully equipped to handle any complication. You have no problem messing over smokers for the supposed safety of others, yet you advocate abortions be cheap and plentiful knowing it will destroy at least one life and could affect many more. Go figure.

The problem is that not even you agree with taxing and restricting the areas but you are advocating it as a solution when it goes against everything you believe in

The OP did not suggest 'taxing' abortions.
The issue is this. Abortion is legal. It is likely to remain legal. This is regardless of the far right wing religious zealot foot stamping and refusal to go to the polls on election day.
Now, should there be unfettered access to abortion? No..Should abortion be available as a matter of convenience( birth control) in my opinion no.
For matters of health of the mother, rape, incest or even if the child will be born with devastating deformation or missing organs? I would have to say those should be available.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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"

I think a lot of folks consider what's inside the female to be "human life", and therefore should be protected regardless of what the woman wants or does not want to do. I mean, there are good points on both sides of the equation.

Personally, I don't like abortion but can't quite make the leap to making that decision for someone else (and make it illegal). Two reasons for this are:

1.) if you make abortion illegal, people still will get them under considerably riskier circumstances
2.) who am I to tell a woman who was raped, and whose pregnancy poses a risk to health that she can't get an abortion. I just don't want to get in there, personally...

But I do think casual abortions (ie healthy mom who got pregnant in a non traumatic) should be difficult to get.

That's incredibly rare but it begs the question - Does anyone really believe that making it difficult to get a safe and legal abortion, or not allowing those women to abort -

Does anyone believe that THAT will make for a better mother? A well fed child even though born to someone who can hardly afford to feed themselves? A responsible father (sperm donor) stepping forward to take HALF the responsibility for the next 20 years?

If people care about the fetus, they would want that fetus to be wanted, loved, cared for, fed, educated.

Fetuses are just a political football for the rw's.

Just as no one has the right to control any woman's reproduction, no has the right to ask why she is aborting. And that will never ever change.

I think that's nonsense. True believers for pro life are emotionally staked in the well being of the unborn...
Religious zealots view it as a political issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think a lot of folks consider what's inside the female to be "human life", and therefore should be protected regardless of what the woman wants or does not want to do. I mean, there are good points on both sides of the equation.

Personally, I don't like abortion but can't quite make the leap to making that decision for someone else (and make it illegal). Two reasons for this are:

1.) if you make abortion illegal, people still will get them under considerably riskier circumstances
2.) who am I to tell a woman who was raped, and whose pregnancy poses a risk to health that she can't get an abortion. I just don't want to get in there, personally...

But I do think casual abortions (ie healthy mom who got pregnant in a non traumatic) should be difficult to get.

It comes down to 'chattel'

In the old days, a wife was considered the property of the man -- Chattel.

Slaves were chattel. IOW, property.

These days you can not hold a human being in chattel. Well, you can but you'll end up dying in prison like that guy in Cleveland. So it's not a smart move.

The argument comes down to this.... At what point is the fetus a Human Being?

Religious types thinks it's at the moment of inceptio,

dimocrap SCUM think it's not until the baby sticks its head of the mommy's Vag and cries "Mama".

And some more radical dimocrap scum aren't even convinced it's a human at that point.

We've all heard the stories of dimocrap scum murdering born-alive infants, throwing them in the garbage and letting them die there.

But hey, they're dimocraps. It's how they roll.

I don't subscribe to the 'instant human' status the religious right wants to award babies at conception either.

Mostly, I just hate dimocraps. Everything they stand for is sick, depraved, disgusting, corrupt, dishonest, Anti-American, racist, hateful -- Did I miss anything?

So if they're for something. I'm against it at first glance. And nothing has really changed my mind on this topic

dimocraps are never right. About anything. They're just too stupid

And they argue like certified imbecilic children

Especially funny coming from one who wants the state to control and force women to give birth. Same with not allowing women to buy birth control while allowing men to buy Viagra.

You were "against it at first glance" and never bothered to educate yourself since.

" Same with not allowing women to buy birth control while allowing men to buy Viagra."...
Please provide any example where state law prohibits women from purchasing birth control pills or devices in favor of men purchasing 'male enhancements'..
Just because birth control is not widely covered by health insurance , that is not akin to "disallowing" purchase.
Please, you and that candycorn person should find a coffee table and cry together over the plight of Sandra Flake.