Kansas "bans" abortions by Niki2

*crickets*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 1, 2011 3:17 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

How do the safety requirements in Kansas compare to those in neighboring states? Are they a lot stricter? A little stricter?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 1, 2011 3:59 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Who doesn't believe Republican legislators and governors, swept into office on the promise of jobs and saying they weren't going to focus on social issues, are doing this as fast and as hard as they can everywhere?

Cites? In Kansas?

Kansas has lots of Evangelicals and Catholics. Anyone really think they aren't considering a candidates stand on abortion on election day?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 1, 2011 6:15 PM

You see women's rights and I see a child's life, or death rather. I realize most women would not be making an unfortunate decision like this lightly and there can be extenuating circumstances, but weighing potential abuse against the value (I place) of a human life makes it difficult for me to be sympathetic to anything pro-abortion.

That being said, are these new regulations applying to all clinics or only those that provide abortions? If the new regulations are exclusive to abortion clinics than I do agree that the law should be revoked. Otherwise, I believe the state of Kansas can regulate it's clinics as it sees fit, so long as it's population support it. I suppose we'll find out how they feel about it before too long.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 3:39 AM

Abortions can cause hemorrhages, which killed tens of thousands of women per year worldwide for no other reason than that the abortions are preformed in clinics with no follow up care. Any feminist who supports this is a fraud, because they are killing women. What happens when you walk into a clinic, and then leave with a little bleeding, expects, and it doesn't stop because no one has tied off the bloodflow that was suoposed to go to the baby who was now part of your circulatory system, so you decide to sleep it off and bleed to death. This is why you should be in a hospital. You're gettting surgery. I personally don't like to get surgery in a stripmall store.

I personally agree with Happy, but I don't think that's the issue. Numerically, the balance of abortion deaths are teenage girls, worth noting, since places like planned parenthood have told them that thhis is the responsible thing to do.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 3:47 AM

I've already said my piece, but just to reaffirm it - this has nothing to do with abortion, never did, never will, it has to do with certain political factions almost soley affiliated with one party having a serious hate-on for the whole idea of women having any rights at all, which would see them removed from the workforce, denied education, stripped of the right to vote, their very personhood, and crushed back under the misogynist heel of their "traditional" religious and social viewpoints.

Since they can't DO that, and get away with it, they chip away one bit at a time everywhere they can, and by winding up folk on an issue like this, not only carve away at womens rights, but also demean women in general in preparation for further attempts to hobble them should they ever get any traction here.

Which is why morality aside, I'll rabidly defend it with everything I got - cause the same arguments for abusing kids, disregarding their personhood, treating them as subhumans with no rights(1)....
Are the EXACT SAME ONES once used against women.

When taken in that context, and we're *honest* with ourselves about the primary objective here, regardless of how you feel about the notion, the idea of giving ground whatever feels repulsive, even treasonous.

Also worth remembering, is that the SAME DAMN MOTHERFUCKERS, who spend all this time decrying abortion, are ALSO the ones who block any sane, rational sex education, access to contraceptives and in so many ways, directly cause the *need* for the fekkin things... and yet shove all the responsibility right down on the very folk they deliberately and intentionally shafted in order to CREATE a sufficient problem to scream about.
That don't fly with me, you can't work your ass off to channel folks into this situation and then cry havoc when they reach for the only alternative they have left at that point - and I'll be DAMNED if I give these sumbitches a pass for it.

You wanna address the problem, prevent the *need* for the bloody things, but expect to fight tooth and claw up against the very bastards screamin about how awful they are after trying as hard as possible to cause them - and then acting like THEY are morally superior ?
Fuck that noise.

See them for WHAT THEY ARE, and then ask yourself whether those people are the solution...
Or the problem.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 3:53 AM

Sometimes, DT, you amaze me with what comes out of your mouth, really....

So you'd prefer back alleys and coat hangers, and misogynistic hatred of women, play right along with that whole scheme when you KNOW better ?
Or is it perhaps, not ignorance, but other objectives in mind, hmmm.

Anyhow, you don't wanna be in my way on this one, maybe you should look to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, at least then we'd be fighting the same bastards instead of each other.

But either way is fine with me, and no, I don't wanna hear your PN-ish ranting about wacko bullshit that's got nothin to do with whether or not people need or use a service - WHY people do things never does matter as much as the things they DO.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 5:30 AM

Wha? Frem, either I'm not following or you are not following. Not an insult, it's easy to misunderstand text without facial expression and body language and such.

I'll start with my misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that one cannot be against abortion while being for contraceptives, sex education etc... and that just seems deliberately ignorant and divisive. By branding all against abortion with that stereotype you make people weigh the risk of being perceived with ignorance just to satisfy yours. I suppose that's one way to reduce your opponents numbers, but that doesn't lead to a better understanding of the issue.

As for DT, I don't get where the coat hanger thing comes from. He was arguing for it to be done in hospitals, not alleys. Hospitals would be better equipped than clinics, better staffed, better supplied.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 5:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Happy, I believe the new laws apply specifically to abortion clinics: "new state law regulating abortion services". If anyone knows otherwise, please clarify. The impetus, as far as I understand it, is to further limit availability of abortions.

Riona, as far as I can tell, no other state has laws akin to these. Numerous states are finding ways around the law of the land by differing methods, this is just one of them. Luckily, at least they caved and licensed Planned Parenthood, and the only other two clinics are suing.

Meanwhile, in South Dakota:

Quote:
A federal judge on Thursday barred a tough new South Dakota abortion law from taking effect while it's being challenged in court.

The law, which would have taken effect Friday, requires women seeking abortions to face a three-day waiting period and undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortion. The waiting period would have been the longest in the nation.

Also taking effect Friday is a strict new licensing law for abortion providers in Kansas. On Thursday, the state avoided becoming the first state without an abortion provider by granting a license to a Planned Parenthood clinic. The law's regulations also are being challenged in federal court.

Both laws are part of an unprecedented surge of anti-abortion legislation that has advanced through Republican-controlled legislatures in many states. Collectively, the measures create an array of new obstacles — legal, financial and psychological — for women seeking abortions and doctors performing them.

The tactics of other states that have passed anti-abortion legislation have varied: mandatory sonograms and anti-abortion counseling, sweeping limits on insurance coverage, bans on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

SD law unconstitutional?

In South Dakota, Planned Parenthood argued in a lawsuit that the law violates a woman's constitutional right to abortion established under the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

In her ruling, Chief Judge Karen Schreier said that Planned Parenthood demonstrated that provisions of the law are "likely" unconstitutional, in particular the pregnancy help center requirement.

"Forcing a woman to divulge to a stranger at a pregnancy help center the fact that she has chosen to undergo an abortion humiliates and degrades her as a human being," read the court order, obtained by msnbc.com. "If the preliminary injunction is denied, many women will have been denied their right to free speech and effectively forced against their will to remain pregnant until they give birth."

Schreier let stand a small part of the law allowing pregnancy help centers to register with the state, but she suspended all the sections that require women to consult with those centers.

Mimi Liu, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, argued the provider's case in court.

"It would force our patients to discuss their most private medical information with an unlicensed, non-medical group that is opposed to abortion," Liu said in a statement.

Licensing showdown in Kansas

Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, confirmed it had received a license under the new Kansas law.

The new rules from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment tell abortion providers what drugs and equipment they must have on hand, how big some of their rooms must be and the temperatures allowed in procedure and recovery rooms.

Fearing that it would not get a permit for its clinic in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Kansas City. The filing came only hours after a state board granted the health department final approval to impose its rules.

The state's two other providers, also in the Kansas City area, were involved in a separate federal lawsuit filed earlier this week. A hearing in that case was scheduled for Friday.

Brownlie said the group would withdraw its lawsuit because it was getting the license.

"It confirms what we knew all along, that we provide high-quality health care," Brownlie said. "We're glad to be able to keep meeting the needs of our patients."

The state's two other clinics have not been inspected for licensing under the new law.

Protection for patients?

Supporters contend the Kansas licensing process and the new regulations will protect patients from substandard care. But legislators enacted the law lacking hard statistics on whether women having abortions face a significantly higher risk of complications and death than patients having surgical procedures in doctor's offices and clinics. Further, abortion rights advocates see the rules are a pretext for ending abortion services.

The health department is using an expedited process to impose the rules for four months, until it solicits public comments and considers changes. Department officials contend the fast track is necessary because the law requires the licensing process to be in place by Friday.

Abortion-rights advocates contend a rush by the department to impose its rules deprived the providers of due legal process. Virginia lawmakers enacted a licensing law late last year, and Utah legislators this spring, but neither state expects to have more detailed regulations in place until next year.

Supporters of SD law 'in it for long haul'

In South Dakota, supporters of the three-day waiting period say the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls gives women little information or counseling before they have abortions done by doctors flown in from out of state. They say the bill would help make sure women are not being coerced into abortions by boyfriends or relatives.

Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center pregnancy help center and supporter of the law, said that Schreier's decision was not a surprise and her organization plans to intervene on Friday.

"We're in it for the long haul," Unruh said after the ruling Thursday.

Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, said the law represents a blatant intrusion by politicians into difficult decisions that women and families sometimes need to make.

"We trust women and families in South Dakota to know and do what is best for them, without being coerced by the government. And we stand with them in our efforts to overturn this outrageous law," Stoesz said in a statement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43599494/ns/us_news-life/

These tactics are nothing new and have been sneaking into different states for some time. The difference is that many Republicans were swept into office and how have majorities in state legislatures, and governors, who are pushing as much through as fast as possible while they're in power.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 6:07 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT, I think your argument is as specious as the laws anti-abortion proponents are pushing. My mother had an illegal abortion. It nearly killed her, and it caused her to have miscarriage after misscarriage; she was lucky to carry me to term, my delivery was cesarian and they told her she couldn't try again or risk her life. All that because of abortion was illegal. So you want to go back to that, to women dying because you're not going to STOP abortions, any more than they stopped people from drinking during prohibition. i'd be very interested, if such statistics were available, to find out how many women today end up having illegal abortions because there's no clinic they can get to for a legal one. I'll bet the numbers would be a shocker.

But hey, that's what you guys want, and it looks like you're closer and closer to getting it. And apparently you're quite happy to see states defy the law of the land by devious methods. That's interesting, too.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 6:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just saw your second post, Happy. Hospitals in these states CANNOT perform abortions, that's the whole reason for abortion CLINICS. It would be lovely if they could, but if you didn't notice, laws have been passed nationally that make it so insurance companies have to exclude any hospital that performs ANY abortion, or they lose all their insurance. There are other things that make it impossible for hospitals to perform abortions in state laws as well.

As to coat hangers, see my response to DT. Coat hangers are one way women try to abort themselves, if you didn't know.

As to education and contraceptives, these same anti-abortion proponents are fighting against THOSE as well in many places. Remember the thing where a pharmacist could refuse to sell contraceptives if it was "against his beliefs"? That was one tactic. They try to keep sex education out of schools in some states, and there will ALWAYS be unexpected pregnancies, rapes, etc.; Frem's stance is valid, but it's not the whole answer. It would sure help, tho'.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 6:21 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem, tho' I wouldn't phrase it quite the way you did

, I'm as rabid on the subject as you are. It sickens me that these things keep happening, and that it keeps happening. As the only child of someone who had to have an illegal abortion (and who would have loved to have more children, as I would have loved having siblings), I feel pretty damned strongly on the issue of a woman's right to CHOOSE.

As I've said before, if these people spent half as much energy and money on adopting children as they do on preventing a woman's right to an abortion, we might have something to talk about. But to have legislators, especially MEN, deciding for all the women in a state that they have no rights on this issue makes me want to spit. Or worse.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 6:50 AM

JONGSSTRAW

As a pro-lifer I have often thought about viable alternatives to legal abortion. The problem is there aren't any, not any more. In the old days rich women would go to Europe for theirs, and everyone else either had the un-wanted child, or found the previously-mentioned back alley abortionist with his filthy tools of horror kit. Women must have the right to clean, legal abortions if they so desire, and without undo hassles of privacy. Who am I, who is anyone to say no, you can't have one?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 7:02 AM

Yeah, I've heard of the coat hanger reference before. I was just surprised because it was my interpretation DT was arguing for more safety and not less. So the hospitals can't do abortions and clinics may not be safe enough for them... that is a dilemma. If only the insurance companies didn't have American by the balls (with more than a little help from the government) there could be more flexibility there. If they really believe the clinics are unsafe there needs to be another option.

I'd prefer if abortions never had to happen in the first place. People need to know about contraception. It makes no sense to deny them that knowledge.

The way I see it, in every abortion someone will die and in every unsafe abortion two people might. Apparently this somehow translates into 'anit-women's rights' 'sexism' or somesuch on account of my being of the gender with larger shoulders. It takes two to make a baby and I believe both genders should be involved in the debate. To make this a 'female only' decision is merely sexism in the other direction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 8:12 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Abortions can cause hemorrhages, which killed tens of thousands of women per year worldwide for no other reason than that the abortions are preformed in clinics with no follow up care. Any feminist who supports this is a fraud, because they are killing women. What happens when you walk into a clinic, and then leave with a little bleeding, expects, and it doesn't stop because no one has tied off the bloodflow that was suoposed to go to the baby who was now part of your circulatory system, so you decide to sleep it off and bleed to death. This is why you should be in a hospital. You're gettting surgery. I personally don't like to get surgery in a stripmall store.

I personally agree with Happy, but I don't think that's the issue. Numerically, the balance of abortion deaths are teenage girls, worth noting, since places like planned parenthood have told them that thhis is the responsible thing to do.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Will y'all apply this to EVERY place which does ANY kind of medical procedure? Dentists, blood banks, etc.? After all, you could be bleeding from procedures done at any one of these places.

Don't forget pharmaceutical trials, where blood draws and such procedures are done several times per day...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 11:45 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
This assault on women's rights has been going on nationally for quite some time;

At what point do the rights of the woman stop and the rights of her baby begin ?

Just curious.

What YOU call an "assault" on a woman's rights can equally be called the fight to protect the unborn.

Sorry, but this is more than mere semantics.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 12:11 PM

It sounds like another step back into the dark ages to me....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 12:32 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"You see women's rights and I see a child's life,... the value (I place) o(n) a human life"

One undefined concept here, used to stir emotion and get people to sign on without evidence. In concrete terms what specifically do you mean by the 'value' of a 'Child's life'?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 12:35 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I suppose that's one way to reduce your opponents numbers, but that doesn't lead to a better understanding of the issue."

Neither does the use of emotion-laden non-specific ideas.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 12:57 PM

Frem

You haven't been following the news. Coathangers is wherer we are right now. It's not really "abortion" it's "EC" or late term EC. Fact is, hemorrhaging deaths in abortive procedures almost never happen in hospitals, and happen all the time in clinics, which ARE back alley coathanger chopshops.

Sometimes you seem very weak on children's rights, and women's rights. Not to mention Sangers goons are selling EC as birth control right now knowing damn well that it causes sterility, which is just jake with them.

Right now, you're standing in opposition to better healthcare for women and teens. Maybe you should rethink your position on this.

I get this part of your position: You believe a woman has a right to abort a child and a child does not have a right to be born. I happen to disagree with that position, but I get that it is your position.

What I don't get is where you don't think that women should have the following rights:

1) the right to healthcare with minimal risk of being killed.
2) the right to have children.
3) the right to not be sterilized.

Personally? I think the position of childrens rights is irreconcilable with prochoice, every bit as much as pro death penalty being irreconcilable with pro-life. I would find them hopeless inconsistent from any perspective without support of the three above items.

It's an emotional issue and I suggest we not slug it out, so by all means rebuff this, but it's a serious suggestion that you examine the consistency of your position.

ETA: Mike,

I'm a democrat, so of course I do.

Reality check:clinics should NOT perform surgery outside of absolute emergencies. I use clinics all the time. These are nice places to go when you want cheap quick diagnosis or something, but not for serious care.

What I like about a clinic is I can walk in and pay my $89 and walk out, but I don't think for a moment that they are qualified or prepared to preform any serious medical operations, even preliminary bloodwork is dubious.

If you do need surgery what they can do is refer you to a hospital.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
This assault on women's rights has been going on nationally for quite some time;

At what point do the rights of the woman stop and the rights of her baby begin ?

Just curious.

When the baby becomes a U.S. citizen.

This is YOUR argument, when you claim that non-citizens have no rights. A fetus is not a citizen, hence has no rights under the Constitution at all, according to conservative constitutionalists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 2:59 PM

this thread is slated to waste everyone's time. Why don't we just jump to "chauvinist!" "babykiller!" and then move on to something else.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 3:01 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
This assault on women's rights has been going on nationally for quite some time;

At what point do the rights of the woman stop and the rights of her baby begin ?

Condescending as this questions sounds, I do understand the reason for it. So, for what it's worth, here's my stance:
A woman capable of pregnancy is a fully (or at the least, mostly) grown human being, with an established life and consciousness. If pregnancy, birth, and/or parenthood is going to adversely impact that life, it should be avoided.
I would argue that this actually looks to the interest of children, also, as having a mother with health problems, or who was unable to finish school, or other potential negative consequences will have an adverse impact on a child's quality of life.

An embryo, for its part, is not a life. It may have the potential for it, but it isn't one. There are thousands of embryos estimated that simply fail to implant and never result in pregnancy, or that quietly miscarry due to a problem with the cell division. Far far far from every potential life comes into being. Thankfully! There would be no room for all of us if every ova in every woman was fertilized and became a child. Anyway, my point here is that potential children are plentiful, and their plentifulness does not mean that every single one of them should come to be. Far from it, only a tiny percentage should or ever physically can. Now, I'm not belittling life, here. Life is incredible, which is actually my point. Contraception (first choice) and abortion (last choice) do not in forever destroy the potential for life, because that potential is far too massive to destroy without something destroying or damaging the organs themselves.
So, considering that, I would just like to ask, does every single ova cell in my body have a "right" as a potential child? They are potentially children, after all. I hit puberty when I was 12, meaning that I have succeeded in preventing roughly 170 of my ova from attaining personhood, strictly through contraceptive means. I don't see anyone arguing here that it wouldn't be my right to do that.
...And yet if a single one of them had been fertilized and implanted successfully, preventing that one would have infringed on its rights as a potential child? I'm sorry, but that does not logically follow.

I am extremely glad, for my sake and any hypothetical child's sake, that I have not yet become a mother. I wouldn't have been able to deal with it. It would have adversely impacted my life, and by extension, the child's life. Even if I had settled on adoption, that can easily adversely impact a child's life. Statistically, it's very difficult to be a foster child, and can be difficult even if one is adopted. There's a lot of baggage there. I wouldn't want to inflict that sort of thing on any child. If I have one, I want to be capable of caring for it as a child should be cared for. That is a right every baby deserves, and a right of the mother as well. So really, the rights of the two do not conflict, not at all. Mother and baby both have the right to a good life, not just a functional one.

ETA: Mike's answer was much more succinct. Hopefully, though, my details are helpful. (not that I expect to convince anyone.)

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 3:21 PM

Well spoken PR, and while I don't agree 100% I certainly don't think you are belittling life all condescending like.

It's hard to say at what point that cell collection becomes a life, which is why I'm uncomfortable with arbitrarily setting that deadline and potentially committing murder. The eggs cannot fertilize themselves and so I do not see (most) contraceptives the way I view abortion. Like you said, most embryos don't make it and many without our knowledge and moral contemplations.

When we actively chose to end an embryo though... that's different. It's not a perfect analogy but thousands die of starvation and disease in Africa, should we just kill them and end their burden and misery? It could very well be a fate worse than death but I would give that child a fighting chance. Life is pain and struggle (for some more than others) and I would see everyone have their chance the rise above their circumstances.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 3:36 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
When we actively chose to end an embryo though... that's different.

Please explain why that is different from actively choosing to prevent one. I understand this is kind of an emotional subject, but if you leave as much emotion out as you possibly can, what is logically the difference? I'm not being flip or nasty or anything, I'm honestly curious.

As to Africa... I will go back again to my statement of established life and consciousness. Should we kill them? Of course not. Would it be better if they weren't suffering? Of course it would. Might it be better if there was a greater potential for choice in having children in a place like that? I think so. I'm not saying they should never have any, but a few extra years to get whatever footing it's possible to get under you? I don't think that's unreasonable, and I think it could limit suffering.
I don't believe that life is defined by pain and struggle. There may be pain and struggle involved, but life is much more than that. Having the opportunity to live my life, without having to be overly concerned whether I can eat today, gives me greater potential for quality of life. Getting my feet under me, so to speak, gives any children I might have in the future greater potential for quality of life. A life of pure suffering is not what I would want for my children or anyone else's children. I am pro-quality-of-life. Often it is places like the ghettos or the poor, war-torn countries where choice in parenthood is least available, which I think leads to greater suffering than is strictly necessary. Give someone a few years to better their situation (or not, as they choose) and then let them have kids. Better for everyone.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 3:45 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

THEHAPPYTRADER

wars of choice
wars of self defense (on home territory or at the borders)
the death penalty
personal self defense
defense of others
profit
medical neglect

I put this up because you claim to hold human life in some value. Here are just a few of the many things we seem to think are more valuable than human life. If you would be so kind, please rank these in order of value, paying particular attention to which things are more valuable than human life and which are less. It would help convey more concretely what you mean when you say you value human life.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 6:38 PM

Gonna go "down the line" here from my post down - being a bit pressed for time at the moment.

Happy

Quote:
Wha? Frem, either I'm not following or you are not following. Not an insult, it's easy to misunderstand text without facial expression and body language and such.

I'll start with my misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that one cannot be against abortion while being for contraceptives, sex education etc...

Sorry, I can get kinda foamy at the chops about this one - mostly cause I've seen enough of the really seedy things that can happen to unwanted children when that option isn't available, stuff that'd chill your very bones, man...

I didn't mean that one couldn't be against it while simultaneously trying to prevent it, no - but that preventing it is certainly the better course, is it not ?
I mean, we keep it from coming to that, the other problem all but ceases to exist, you see ?
Fight the root of the problem instead of the symptoms.
And yet many of the very folk complaining about abortion, intentionally sabotage those efforts in order to give themselves a political platform, something I find as despicable a thing as there ever was.

As for hospitals, as I can attest, both from long previous experience, and the most recent damn-near-lethal fiasco, they may well be better equipped and supplied - but I question that their personnel would be any better in skill or commitment, or for that matter the damn sense to listen to the patient.

There's also that even if they did find a way to work around the laws and regs which prettymuch explicitly forbid them from doing so - it would radically increase the expense, pricing it out of the range of the very people who most need it - yet another form of stealth-prohibition right up there with jacking tobacco taxes, an end run to outlaw something when it's either unconstitutional to do so, or the will of the people is against you.
Whether that is the INTENT or not, and in this case I do suspect it is - that winds up being the eventual effect, regardless of intention anyhow.

The only answer to that would be subsidizing the procedure with tax money, something which would offend many people as severely as my tax dollars being used for oppression, warfare and the direct support of evil religions does me - I can understand that, even if I do not agree with them, I can certainly empathize with folk who don't want their tax dollars used for something they personally find reprehensible, sure.
Although I really wish they would reciprocate that respect, which they mostly do not, alas.

So, no easy answers there - and if you price it out of reach, what are the poor and desperate going to do, you think, just suck it up... or take desperate measures ?
I think we both know the answer to that one.

Jongstraw

Quote:
As a pro-lifer I have often thought about viable alternatives to legal abortion. The problem is there aren't any, not any more. In the old days rich women would go to Europe for theirs, and everyone else either had the un-wanted child, or found the previously-mentioned back alley abortionist with his filthy tools of horror kit. Women must have the right to clean, legal abortions if they so desire, and without undo hassles of privacy. Who am I, who is anyone to say no, you can't have one?

Yeah, that's in fact pretty close to where I am at, despite not being a pro-lifer - I still find a wasted life, even in potential, something to be sorrowful for, I ain't a beast, yanno...
But we really don't have anything in the way of alternatives, and having far more experience than most with what HAPPENS to unadopted kids, where they wind up - if there's a hell, it's not in some theological afterlife, but right here and now, in those places, the hell of the unwanted.
Worse is that even adoption itself is rife with problems, starting with the tremendous expense, and adding a side order of religious and political biases just to make the gauntlet tighter - I've gone head on with MARE before, and lost... given my lunatic determination and ability to get the job done under crisis conditions, that ought to tell you something about how difficult they make it, and I will *forever* bear hostility to them over the fact that it was being non-christian which was the sticking point.

And don't even get me started about the Foster Care System.....

Dreamtrove
Again, I call bullshit.

You make claims not only without evidence, but directly in the face of reams of contradictory evidence, for one.
Secondly, I do not concur that a hospital is the better option for reasons I have already specified.
Also, you chose to make spurious, and intentionally false, claims about my position as a form of demonizing my position while propagandizing yours, in lieu of any facts whatever.
And then based on those spurious and intentionally false claims, try to stack on the claim that my position is inconsistent ?
You're building a house of cards in a wind tunnel here - gonna do that again, then bail out, hmm ?

Additionally: The only damn difference (In My Opinion) between a clinic and a hospital regarding less-invasive surgery, is that you're less likely to pick up an iatrogenic infection, and have the bill padded by an overnight stay or extra days in there - ESPECIALLY if the clinic itself, as many are, is affiliated WITH a hospital and happens to be using the same freakin personnel and equipment, not to mention having the hospital itself but a block or two away.
Now, neighborhood clinics not affiliated with a hospital, you may be assuming some risk, sure - but when your ass is poor, desperate and YOU HAVE NO ALTERNATIVES, they can save your very life - do you really think all the repair work on me was done in a hospital, when that particular medical establishment was trying like hell to hasten or cause my death via medical neglect ?
Which is prolly why, of the patchwork that holds me together - the clinic work happens to be the better done, and it's the hospital done work which is causing most of the problems.

All that aside: This - it's not YOUR choice to make, no matter how you "feel" about it - you can't run other peoples lives for them, nor can you "save" them from themselves, and you shouldn't oughta try.
I also note that the bailout came quicker than I expected, no surprises there, either.

PhoenixRose
You're awesome - I got nothin to add, just wanted you to know that.

Anyhows, all in all, we currently had/have a kind of status quo nobody involved really liked, but we all could live with, and when folk start screwing with that for what I consider to be nefarious purposes, tilting the table and risking upset, carnage and strife to benefit agendas I feel are despicable....
Well, I get a bit foamy at the chops about it.

Just like with a lot of the way life is, it ain't so often about what we LIKE, so much as what we can live with, what we find minimally tolerable even if it grates on our sense of how-it-should-be, which is the point I do believe Jongstraw was trying to make.

But we *can* change it, I just don't feel that coming at it ass backwards and trying to prevent termination of a pregnancy is the way to do it when we can better focus our efforts on preventing the pregnancy that would wind up terminated - and bonus that you don't screw the hell out of someone elses life or piss on their rights in the doing!

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 9:27 PM

Edit: Deleted my post, a fairly solid argument full of statistics from sources, upon re-examination of the pointlessness of this idiotic debate, I decided to kill it. I have insomnia, and so I'm just kicking around. If anyone actually wants to hear this, email me, I'll just post it to my drafts. There's no point in prolonging this nonsense on the board.

ETA: Frem, I actually do understand your position, you've posted it many times:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Pro-Death, absolutely

We don't need to argue it here. You know my position is a religious one, to support all life, and nature, above all else. Abortion is death, and unnatural. Poor health care is just stupidity.

Let's not waste time arguing. I think we both agree there are more important things to discuss. I'm only bothering to respond because I can't get back to sleep and don't want to take another pill, so I have to do something mindless, and this was pretty mindless.

See my posts on other threads to see my point on how utterly mindless this particular topic is, and how others, even if you don't think I have anything interesting to say, are so very obviously more worth debating than this one. Actual thought goes on there. Nothing happens here but emotional apes beating their chests. It's an exercise in mass stupidity.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2011 11:55 PM

Uh huh, suuuure you did - "sources" about as relevant as Weekly World News, no doubt.
And of course I don't hold the same "value" on Life others do, at what point Life if you sacrifice all quality for the sake of quantity ?
To me that's insane.

As for the rest...

Quote:
See my posts on other threads to see my point on how utterly mindless this particular topic is, and how others, even if you don't think I have anything interesting to say, are so very obviously more worth debating than this one. Actual thought goes on there. Nothing happens here but emotional apes beating their chests. It's an exercise in mass stupidity.

And you suddenly felt the ever pressing need to tell us this, right after your little house of cards got blown over, did you ?

Allow me to offer you a visual aid (in a nod to HappyTrader) to ensure you comprehend my opinion of that statement.

Now if you're done with your tantrum, us adults are having a discussion, here.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 2:26 AM

Yairs indeedy. It has always bemused me how DT posts highly inflammatory comments on this topic and then demands that we stop cease discussions about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 2:33 AM

If anyone needed a definition of being a dick... that was it.

A wedge issue argument is really worth it? You're really trying to drag me out to a fight you know you can't win because you think it will make me look bad. Here's what it will really do: Waste my time and yours.

ETA: I see the rally of a personal pile on. All I see is people avoiding the points that I raised, except for Mike.

Oh, and y'all know there's such a thing as adoption, right?

So, let me get this straight: We must keep maximum availability of, and propaganda for, abortions, regardless of quality of care, even though new techniques are very dangerous.

And we all know the only point in doing this is to reduce world population, right? We know women die by current policy.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 3:13 AM

I have no issue with people having different POV's, it's just a discussion, like many others that have different views on. That is why we come here. Sometimes we might even persuade each other a little,although probably not a full 180 degrees. But you do that thing - state your very strong views and then try and persuade us all that its a waste of time discussing this....why?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 4:04 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

When the baby becomes a U.S. citizen.

This is YOUR argument, when you claim that non-citizens have no rights. A fetus is not a citizen, hence has no rights under the Constitution at all, according to conservative constitutionalists.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say " huh?".

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 4:53 AM

America loves a winner!

PR - thanks for actually attempting to tackle the question. ( kwickie ran from it, in his typical style )

We seemingly agree that not every egg, not every embryo, is life, but " potential " life.

Fine.

But a woman has a unique relationship w/ all these potentials. There comes a time, when their rights as an individual start to become shared with the rights of the person living with in them. At some point, 'embryo's ' heart begins to pump, their synapses in their brain begin to fire...and they become a person.

Humans don't enter this world 'good to go'. We can't do much of anything w/ out help when we're born, so this notion that 'life begins at birth' is ridiculous. Just as the claim that life begins at conception is equally invalid. We can't say for sure what nature will do w/ a just-fertilized egg. Impossible to tell if that embryo will make it, all the way to term.

So the answer, as much as it annoys both pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, lies somewhere in between. MY position is that, women have a unique relationship w/ their unborn. They are both individuals, yet share the same body, for a time. It's a symbiotic relationship, where the mother slowly cedes a portion of her rights as the unborn grows.

Not a popular notion, I understand. And since either extremes are unworkable, there has to be some middle ground.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 5:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I have no issue with people having different POV's, it's just a discussion, like many others that have different views on. That is why we come here. Sometimes we might even persuade each other a little,although probably not a full 180 degrees. But you do that thing - state your very strong views and then try and persuade us all that its a waste of time discussing this....why?

Magon,

My apologies if that's what it looks like, but I believe I stated concerns about slipshod outpatient surgery and radical toxins as a health issue; whereupon I was received rapid ideologue rants.

I have always posted, to all wedge issue threads, that they are a waste of time.

Here's why:

Wedge issues are played up by TPTB, the MSM, to get us to stop talking about actual issues (like the war) and start talking about minor side issues (like gay marriage) which serves the purpose of said status quo by subverting our activism down fruitless channels. These issues are minor and out of our hands.

Fracking pollution is right now killing my sister, and has already killed another girl I know. This issue needs dealing with. I generated little interest on this, or other topics of real world concern, here on the board.

The reason is, as I have posted here, several times, and again very recently in a thread that IIRC got no responses, detailed accounts of how people spend their time, which is very different from how they think they spend their time. Ergo: They spend about 90% of it arguing minor side issues that the mainstream media and politicians have fed to them to waste their time and energy on to make sure that we never accomplish anything.

Witness Frem's rant just now demanding that I stay and debate this, and implying that I was a coward and a moron for wanting more to discuss the other running topics we had just posted on, which were, to wit:

Whether fighting SuperPAC with SuperPAC was a good strategy, or whether it was better to try to get rid of SuperPACs.

Focusing on local politics instead of national, as national was a distraction, and something we had no power over.

Whether it's okay to insult the president, or whether this reverence to the office is out of hand (okay, maybe this isn't so important, but at least it's not a wedge issue.)

The destruction of the okefenokee swamp, one of my favorite parts of the US, and the setting of Pogo.

Foxes and trampolines. Hey, it beats talking about abortion.

Frem was trying to bait me into a discussion because he believes it will make me look bad, which is why I said that his positions were inconsistent and he should see to that. I actually believe that they are. For me, it ruins his credibility on his key issue. Ergo, he loses me as an audience on his key issue.

But why bait anyone into a factory made debate trap for the human political mind? This is where we waste 90% of our time, and it's not by choice, it's by psychological manipulation. Those who believe they can get the upper hand seek to use it to dominate others. This is pointless. We should be uniting against evil, not slinging mud at one another.

For the record, I also say the same response to the following:

Racist threads "Oh look, racism, how quaint."

and Personal attack threads:

"This is a personal attack thread."

We should be above that sort of thing.

This is completely aside from the fact that some people have one view of life (that it is a sacred process) and others have a different one (that it should be managed and planned) The first view for most people, myself included, is a religious one.

Why would I argue my religious point of view? I didn't. I argued the safety of the procedure, which was absolutely on a par with the statements everyone else was posting.

Everyone did not attack me, Frem did, and he was a dick about it. My advice to him was sincere. I knew he would continue to be a dick, but he would have regardless, because he disagrees with me on a fundamental level about the sanctity of life, and is determined to win an argument at all costs.

Fine. Sobeit. But this is why wedge issues are a pointless waste of time: They feed the hate, and split people on their personal disagreements. Frem does not disagree with me really on the other points we were discussing.

That's what wedge issues are: Wedges. To drive people apart.

So, my positions on the other topics, posted at the same time as this were:

a) Unlimited corporate funding of campaigns is bad for democracy

b) Local politics are more important than national

c) Free speech includes the right to insult our leaders

d) The environment should be protected

e) Foxes are cute

I suspect Frem agrees with all five of these positions. Yet, of six posts posted at roughly the same time, that he would have read at the same time, he demanded that I come here to this one: Abortion, the uber-wedge issue, and we devote all our efforts here, like we have for most of the time on this forum, and ignore all of those other points, even though, unlike abortion, some of those we have actual power over. (Foxes will be cute regardless of what we do.)

Honestly, I think people are smarter than this, which is why I constantly post that wedge issues are wedge issues, devised to divide and conquer, and we should ignore our differences and unite on our commonalities against a common foe, and not let that common foe dictate our dialogue to keep us at each other's throats.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

When the baby becomes a U.S. citizen.

This is YOUR argument, when you claim that non-citizens have no rights. A fetus is not a citizen, hence has no rights under the Constitution at all, according to conservative constitutionalists.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say " huh " ?

Actually, you're the only one here who didn't understand it.

Let me see if I can go through it more slowly for you. Take your time, don't read too fast - we wouldn't want your lips to get tired.

Conservatives, those so-called "strict constitutionalists", like to argue that NOBODY on this planet EXCEPT U.S. citizens has the rights that several of our founding documents say that EVERYBODY has.

Got that part? Follow along so far? I'm not moving too fast for you on these concepts, am I?

Okay, so we agree that American citizens have certain "unalienable" rights. We differ on whether such rights should be extended to others, but we definitely agree that CITIZENS have those rights, right?

Conservatives are also arguing a very narrow view of WHO is a citizen of this country. They want to restrict, curtail, or just plain do away with the language and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that everyone born here (with a very few specific exceptions) is a U.S. citizen.

Follow me so far? I haven't lost you yet, have I? This conversation actually requires you to hold more than one concept in your head at the same time, which I know is hard for you.

Okay, so we've stipulated that citizens have certain rights - "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", according to Herman Cain when he misattributes it to the Constitution rather than the Declaration, but still, conservatives love to conflate the two documents, so I'll play along; I'm actually making this argument FOR you, FROM the "conservative" ideological mindset, so it really should be easy for you to follow. In fact, I get the feeling the only reason you CAN'T follow it is because *I* posted it, and not one of your right-wing heroes. Let's face it - the day Herman Cain endorses my position on this, you'll say you had this idea all along...

So - Citizens have rights. We quibble over who IS a citizen, but the Constitution (for now, at least) says that you're born here, you're a citizen. Born here. BORN. That's a key word, very important - just ask the current President!

I'm sure in their infinite wisdom, if the founders had intended that every fetus were a full citizen granted full citizenship rights, they could have said so at the outset. They didn't. Likewise, when the Fourteenth was drafted, it could have said every person CONCEIVED here was a citizen. It doesn't say that.

In fact, here's the text so you can read it yourself, since you obviously won't believe it if I just tell you what it says:

Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Now, obviously a fetus can't be "naturalized" in the United States, since it can't pass the test (in fact, few actual citizens can pass the test), and a fetus isn't - strictly speaking, in purely constitutional terms, of course - BORN in these United States until it's actually physically BORN, alive, at which time that fetus becomes a person and a citizen. A stillborn is not a citizen. A miscarriage is not a citizen.

A fetus is not a person; an egg is not a person. An embryo is not a person. A person is a person, but not until they're born. And they're also not a citizen of the United States until they are born.

This is the conservative argument, made from a strictly legal, strictly constitutional position. It's also the libertarian argument, which is that it's none of the government's damned business what a person does with their body as long as it doesn't harm another person - which it doesn't, because a fetus is not a person or a citizen under the terms of the Constitution.

Really, it's not hard to follow, *IF* you know your Constitution, which you claim to know so much more intimately than I do.

I'll eagerly await Rappy's brilliant legal arguments showing me where I'm wrong, which you can no doubt quote verbatim from the Constitution itself.

It will be a long wait, I'm sure.

Quote:

PR - thanks for actually attempting to tackle the question. ( kwickie ran from it, in his typical style )

Actually, I didn't run from it; I answered it, directly and bluntly. You were unable to follow it, which you clearly showed by posting your response: "Huh?" (Actually, you were unable to correctly punctuate your response, which is your typical style.)

So I've come back and slowed it WAAAAAYYYY down, since apparently it takes your short bus quite a while to get here, and I've tried to bring the language and inflection down to room-temp-dummy level, in the hopes that you'll be able to follow along. I can only surmise at this point that either you are missing it because you're incapable of conversing at an adult level, or because you're really not an intelligent human being, which you being a conservative tends to indicate rather strongly (see signature for edification).

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 6:18 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There comes a time, when their rights as an individual start to become shared with the rights of the person living with in them. At some point, 'embryo's ' heart begins to pump, their synapses in their brain begin to fire...and they become a person.

That is fairly logical, but is that what defines them as a person? I don't think it is. I actually have the (likely unpopular) opinion that until a fetus is capable of survival outside the womb, the circulatory and nervous system starting to work won't do them a lot of good. Basically, the line between what would separate a miscarriage from a birth.
I know this sounds a bit cold. I've known women who had miscarriages, and many of them were devastated by it, so I don't want to disregard their feelings, but miscarriage is something that happens, and there are reasons for it. Namely, if a fetus isn't viable for some reason, it will miscarry. So if it does, is it a person? With no chance of surviving outside the womb, it's not a viable life.
Thing is, as medical care advances, that line gets pushed further and further back, so it is a rather fluid definition.

Quote:
It's a symbiotic relationship, where the mother slowly cedes a portion of her rights as the unborn grows.

That isn't what symbiotic means, even when applied to a mother and child. It's often meant as the child being fully dependent on its mother, which the unborn, in fact, are. Symbiosis is also used to refer to parasitism. Actually, by definition the relationship between a growing fetus and a pregnant woman is parasitic. At a physical level a growing unborn saps nutrients for itself without having anything to contribute, which is what parasites do. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to paint pregnancy in an evil light here, but it is something that happens. From what I've read, it takes as much as three years to replenish the body's store of nutrients after giving birth. This is actually something I think more women should know, as getting pregnant again before your body is restored can make for a less healthy and sturdy child. Fortunately, since the time of a pregnancy is limited to less than a year, the parasitic relationship isn't detrimental, and of course it's necessary for pregnancy to function the way it does, but women who spend their lives pregnant have health problems, and that is why.
Anyway, yes, the relationship is symbiotic, but that doesn't necessarily mean ceding rights away. That isn't to say that certain 'rights' perhaps should be given up while pregnant, such as the right to drink alcohol. Good mothers, who want to have children and are prepared for it, will give up unhealthy habits while pregnant in order to protect something that is sharing their blood. This is another way in which unprepared mothers can adversely impact their children, and another reason I'm in favor of all forms of birth control.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 6:25 AM

America loves a winner!

Kwickie -

You ran from the question by introducing a totally separate issue, and then trying to interject a false premise into the previous discussion.

Take as many words as you'd like to try to explain away your intended deception, I really don't care. It's time out of your life you're wasting, not mine.

There's no need for me to comment further on your post, as you have nothing of any substance to add. You usually don't.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 6:29 AM

In other words, you've got nothing. You are completely unable to refute my points, because they are in fact the TRUE conservative position on the matter.

Imagine my surprise that you're now running away. You always do.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 8:09 AM

BYTEMITE

...I dunno if any of you have ever considered this, but some people around here don't live anywhere near approximating a normal lifestyle, and consider most of this debate as alien as ant reproduction.

You all start talking about babies and romance and pregnancy and abortion, and I start thinking about that scene from The Matrix, with fetuses in little pods being harvested by machines. Both the natural processes and unnatural processes I find gross, and a little creepy. This is how little I relate to all of this.

Conspiracies of power elites deliberately creating groups of parents with starving children they can't support, and thus generating slave labour simply through how the current economic system works is in my mind balanced with the threat of a eugenics and sterilization conspiracy. Both arguments appeal to my cynical and mistrusting view of the world, and because of how my mind works, I can believe that both are happening.

I post on this board in a futile effort to try to comprehend and connect to the rest of the human race. And, as here, and as in the voting thread, I fail more often then I succeed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 9:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This s going to be long, but I'm rather incensed and want to be clear.

DT, there is SO much wrong with what you wrote, it's hard to fathom how you came to some of your conclusions!

Quote:
clinics with no follow up care

How many hospitals do follow-up care??? The ones I've been to, they phone you after a few days to see if everything's okay. That's' it.

Quote:
Any feminist who supports this is a fraud, because they are killing women

Bullshit--how about those of us who AREN'T feminists, does that make us frauds too?

Quote:
I personally don't like to get surgery in a stripmall store

Please provide facts and figures of birth-control clinics in "stripmall stores".

Quote:
places like planned parenthood have told them that thhis is the responsible thing to do.

MAJOR bullshit. While it's the laws set up by anti-choice groups that force a woman to sit through gruesome videos in order to have an abortion, or be "counseled"--strongly!--not to have one, etc., etc., Planned Parenthood not only offers a number of choices, it also provides HEALTH SERVICES. Please check your facts before you make such outrageous statements; I thought you were the one who was so strong on self-education?

Quote:
PPFA provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization that lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care.

Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

Now, think for just a minute. Given abortions are only 3%of what Planned Parenthood does, how do you think getting rid of them would impact women who can't afford insurance in ALL those other areas? For example, on the SF Planned Parenthood website is a blurb

Quote:
PPSP Experiencing High Call Volume

PPSP is currently experiencing very high call volume and requests for appointments due to recent closure of Golden Gate Community Health Centers. We will try to assist you in any way we can during this time.

Where would those people go, if Planned Parenthood wasn't there to pick up the slack? Nationwide and in rural areas, that's even more true.

Gawd, DT, when you go off the deep end, you really do!

Quote:
Fact is, hemorrhaging deaths in abortive procedures almost never happen in hospitals, and happen all the time in clinics, which ARE back alley coathanger chopshops.

WOMEN CAN NO LONGER GET ABORTIONS IN HOSPITALS. So your basic premise is wrong from the start. Because of the demands of the Repulican legislators, they've made it so NO hospital will give abortions because they'd lose their funding if they did, and virtually NO insurance company will cover abortions. So it's not "either hospital or clinic", it's "either clinic or back alley"...and to say they all ARE back alley is totally absurd; you have to provide SOME kind of facts and figures to even begin to call Planned Parenthood anything of the kind.

Quote:
Not to mention Sangers goons are selling EC as birth control right now knowing damn well that it causes sterility, which is just jake with them.

That's a flat-out lie. I challenge you to prove it.

Quote:
1) the right to healthcare with minimal risk of being killed.
2) the right to have children.
3) the right to not be sterilized.

Good lord, talk about going off half cocked! As to number one, how about right to healthcare, period?? As I've posted above, Planned Parenthood provides MANY services, the least of which is abortion. So where would poor women go for those services otherwise? And again; please prove that abortion clinics do NOT provide "minimal risk of being killed".

Number two is absolutely ridiculous; every woman has the right to have children!

Number three isn't a valid question. Just for a few facts, which show that while SOME women will experience sterility or difficulty carrying a child after an abortion, it's not EVERYONE:

Quote:
5-10% will become sterile (of women who abort) - Thomas Hilgers, MD, Induced Abortion, A documented Report (1976)

http://www.gargaro.com/healthproblems.html That is from a PRO-LIFE website.

Quote:
Causes of Sterility

• Removal of ovaries/fallopian tubes
• Non-production of ovum
• Sexual coldness or unresponsiveness
• Frequent abortions
• Deranged position of uterus
• Some ailments of chronic nature
• Some hormonal disturbances
• Consequence of some accident, etc.

http://health.ezine9.com/major-causes-of-sterility-in-women-144c4d31cd
.html

Those quotes come from PRO-LIFE websites, so they want to weigh facts against abortions, but even they give figures that contradict what you wrote.

There's also the fact that 31% of pregnancies end early by natural miscarriage. To you and those who think like you, I realize a miscarriages don't count, but the fact remains that "God" has chosen to "kill" 31% of fetuses.

Here is what Planned Parenthood says:

Quote:
You are pregnant, you have three options to think about — abortion, adoption, and parenting. Reading and learning about each one will help you get the facts and may help you decide. It may also help to weigh the benefits and risks of each one. Think about which benefits and risks are most important to you.

Only you can decide which choice is right for you. But women often find it helpful to talk it through with someone else. You may choose to talk with your partner or a trusted family member or friend. Pick someone you think will be supportive. It's important to remember that you get to decide who is a part of your decision-making process.

Family planning clinics, like your local Planned Parenthood health center, have specially trained staff who can talk with you about all of your options. But beware of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers". These are fake clinics run by people who are anti-abortion. They often don't give women all their options. They have a history of scaring women into not having abortions. Absolutely no one should pressure you or trick you into making a decision you're not comfortable with.

It may be important to take your time and think carefully about your decision. Whether you choose adoption or to become a parent, if you plan to continue your pregnancy, you should begin prenatal care as soon as possible

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/pregnant-now-
what-4253.htm

Their website is clear about the three options, and has a page devoted to each. The page on adoption is at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/adoption-2152
0.htm; the one on parenting is at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/parenting-215
21.htm . They have material on pre-natal care:

Quote:
Prenatal Care at a Glance

--Medical care especially for pregnant woman
--Important for a healthy pregnancy
--Includes regular checkups and prenatal testing
--Best to begin as soon as you know you are pregnant

The key to having a healthy baby is taking good care of your own health. The healthier you are, the stronger you and your baby are likely to be.

They have "most frequently asked" questions and answers on every one of their pages; they cover ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pre-pregnancy health, STDs, birth control, infertility, and offer services for each one.

So this is your "strip mall store"?

I checked out some of those "crisis pregnancy centers" on line. NONE of them offered anything but "counseling" and urges not to have an abortion, talk a lot about God, and all the other things one would expect of pro-life position. One entire page listed as "Looking for more answers?" was religion-related--the entire PAGE, mind you; their only listing under "Relationships and Sexual Health" was "STDs". http://www.awomansconcern.com/adoption_myths.htm

Another one listed tons and tons of Abortion Risks. At the bottom even they admitted: "Very rarely death occurs after an abortion." Short sections on adoption, pregnancy tests and "counseling", parenting classes, "Sex and STDs", and under their services, "Recovery Bible Study".

A really nasty one has nothing BUT risks, including "hepatitis"! It states "Failure to kill unborn babies younger than 6 weeks is relatively common. Surprise, surprise! Mommy's pregnant even though she endured the dangers and cost of an abortion." It also states "It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable." I can find nothing to back up either claim.

Another claims "Our center offers free medical quality pregnancy tests, practical information and friendship during this critical period in your life." Nothing about any other health information, tests, etc., it's all about adoption, encouraging pregnant women to get married, and single parenting--all positive--and abortion--all negative.

That's just a smattering. My point is, Planned Parenthood provides HEALTH services of all kinds, while the pro-life websites seem only interested in convincing one not to have an abortion.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 10:12 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Rose, I agree; You're awesome!

JS:

Quote:
As a pro-lifer I have often thought about viable alternatives to legal abortion. The problem is there aren't any, not any more. In the old days rich women would go to Europe for theirs, and everyone else either had the un-wanted child, or found the previously-mentioned back alley abortionist with his filthy tools of horror kit. Women must have the right to clean, legal abortions if they so desire, and without undo hassles of privacy. Who am I, who is anyone to say no, you can't have one?

Oh, man, JS, that is gorgeous; that's it in a nutshell. And from a pro-lifer; you have my admiration for having actually thought the situation through. I'd like to believe if more pro-lifers did the same, it wouldn't be the way it is.

Raptor:

Quote:
At what point do the rights of the woman stop and the rights of her baby begin ?

At what point do the rights of a woman whose contraceptives failed, who was raped, who was deserted by the "sperm donor" stop and the rights of a baby she's forced to carry, birth, and be responsible for during the next 18 or so years begin? You're right, it's not about semantics. It's ALSO not about simplification.

DT: You're doing it again: claiming that you see "piling on" when you're disagreed with, and dismissing the entire topic after LOOOONG posts by you about it. If it's so meaningless, why do YOU spend so much time on it? Just to rant? Given you are one of the most prolific posters here (along with Frem and I, and we don't consider our time "wasted", at least I don't), it's strange that you dismiss the topic you've invested so much in as meaningless. There's a dichotomy there...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 1:14 PM

DT, you think the issue of abortion was created by TPTB to distract us from the larger issues at hand? Which of TPTB created this issue? The social conservatives who want it banned or the liberals who want it legal? Your post is nonsense, I am afraid. Clearly, if abortions are being restricted bit by bit and rather sneakily in your country, it is an important issue that needs to be kept in the public light through discussion. It is outrageous that hospitals no longer are able to offer them, due to pressure from insurance companies, and that clinics are now being restricted.

There are many reasons to have a termination, mostly more complicated that the 'I'm a randy teenager who doesn't use contraception' cliche that most people seem to visualise when having this discussion. Some of the reasons can include risk to mothers health (ie ectopic), a fetus that has tested for severe disabilities, non viable fetuses, pregnancy in people with severe disabilities, pregnancy resulting from rape. There are also many less dramatic but personal reasons in which a woman may decide to terminate.

Now some people have beliefs (which I don't hold) which would prevent termination ever being an option as far as they are concerned, and that is their choice. Their CHOICE. It is not their RIGHT to prevent others from doing so. So as far as your religious convictions are concerned, keep em to yourself buddy. It's not for you to force them on others.

As for the health issues, I am kind of perplexed. Many clinics here often private, wide ranging treatments. They have to be conducted by appropriately qualified professionals and meet the same health and safety standards as elsewhere. Wouldn't that be the same as clinics in the US?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...I dunno if any of you have ever considered this, but some people around here don't live anywhere near approximating a normal lifestyle, and consider most of this debate as alien as ant reproduction.

You all start talking about babies and romance and pregnancy and abortion, and I start thinking about that scene from The Matrix, with fetuses in little pods being harvested by machines. Both the natural processes and unnatural processes I find gross, and a little creepy. This is how little I relate to all of this.

Conspiracies of power elites deliberately creating groups of parents with starving children they can't support, and thus generating slave labour simply through how the current economic system works is in my mind balanced with the threat of a eugenics and sterilization conspiracy. Both arguments appeal to my cynical and mistrusting view of the world, and because of how my mind works, I can believe that both are happening.

I post on this board in a futile effort to try to comprehend and connect to the rest of the human race. And, as here, and as in the voting thread, I fail more often then I succeed.

Yeah, the human race is perplexing, but don't give up on it Byte. Actually, I'd prefer your view that the whole issue was gross and a little creepy to the pink fluffy bunny rabbits view of reproduction. My own view of it is that it is a whole lot less sunshiny and happy, and more intrusive, heartbreaking and quite of bit of the gross factor involved. Having said that I have one beautiful and wonderful child that I am very thankful for, but the whole business was rather less Mills and Boons and more kind of an 'Alien' experience :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

But a woman has a unique relationship w/ all these potentials. There comes a time, when their rights as an individual start to become shared with the rights of the person living with in them. At some point, 'embryo's ' heart begins to pump, their synapses in their brain begin to fire...and they become a person.

Humans don't enter this world 'good to go'. We can't do much of anything w/ out help when we're born, so this notion that 'life begins at birth' is ridiculous. Just as the claim that life begins at conception is equally invalid. We can't say for sure what nature will do w/ a just-fertilized egg. Impossible to tell if that embryo will make it, all the way to term.

So the answer, as much as it annoys both pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, lies somewhere in between. MY position is that, women have a unique relationship w/ their unborn. They are both individuals, yet share the same body, for a time. It's a symbiotic relationship, where the mother slowly cedes a portion of her rights as the unborn grows.

Not a popular notion, I understand. And since either extremes are unworkable, there has to be some middle ground.

Pretty much agree with most of this. I might add that most people who support choice, would also concede there is a time in pregnancy where terminating it is unacceptable. I know that generally here, it is fairly easy to havea termination up to 12 weeks, from 12 -24 weeks, you are usually having to have a pretty good reason ie non viable fetus, severe disability and after 24 weeks it becomes very controversial, and probably rightly so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 1:59 PM

BYTEMITE

Ouch, C-section.

Well, sounds like you're lucky now.

EDIT: Or... maybe you feel like you've always been lucky... I meant that in a nice way, really. The words don't always come right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 2:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

DT

In 2006 in the US the maternal death rate in childbirth was 13.3 per 100,000. The death rate for legal abortions is less than 1 per 100,000. In other words, it is at least 13x riskier to give birth than to have an abortion. I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may have about the safety of birth or abortion in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death
www.prb.org/pdf06/unsafeabortion2006.pdf

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 2:36 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Niki

"Gawd, DT, when you go off the deep end, you really do!"

It's an interesting thing. It's that whole thing of you see what you want to see. I suspect no one is 100% accurate in their perceptions, because our beliefs get in the way, if for no other reason than they determine what we will focus on. Then there are people who literally can't accept simple facts presented to them when the facts contradict their cherished belief structures (How Facts Backfire). Then there are people whose very perceptions are sometimes to often unreliable, mixed in with an unusual set of beliefs.

People live in a large and sloppy mental space, with some more of this belief, a little less of that perception ... that corresponds with reality more or less, but never completely.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 3, 2011 5:46 PM