REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Kansas "bans" abortions

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, July 8, 2011 14:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7651
PAGE 2 of 4

Sunday, July 3, 2011 6:55 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

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?



Magon


The GOP convention delegation held a special meeting to devise a wedge issue that would galvanize the christian vote. A personal friend of mine was a delegate at that meeting, and gave me the blow by blow. Several ideas were rejected on the grounds that they would splinter one christian sect against another, and that the democrats would swoop in and come up with a counter position, and they'd end up splitting the christian vote.

Eventually, someone came up with the right to life wedge issue position, which was designed to include all of the major christian denominations. The figured pretty much on losing the unitarians anyway. Most wedge issues were cooked up this way. It doesn't mean it's not an issue, it means some toreador is standing there with a big red flag, and we're the bull charging through and getting stabbed. Check out my thread "Wulf makes the top ten" which enumerates the most discussed threads and topics. It's depressing, given what we purport to care about, how it turns out we actually spend our time.


Kiki

Any sensitive political topic will be pushed by both sides, but the pro-choice side is most likely to be editing wikipedia because people at universities are most likely to be editing wikipedia. A couple years ago I read that while edits came from all over, by count of users, by count of actual edits, it was something like 90% from universities. So, yes, any source on this topic will be biased one way or another.

When people get EC or abortions and die later from complications, it's generally not counted in statistics, yet if someone was shot it would be. The international data I get all over tends towards 0.1% on surgical abortion and 1.0% on EC. Given the total number of procedures, that's going to produce a massive death toll. Death rates in child birth were higher than from abortion/EC in the 1st world than childbirth; and higher from childbirth than abortion in the 3rd world, death rates were overall lower in first world countries. Abortion and EC death rates were much higher for teen pregnancies, while childbirth death rates were lower. Childbirth death rates were much higher for older mothers, abortion death rates were lower.

Where cases were considered specific and not general and statistical, it became very obvious that these problems were not the same people: You could always abort a problem pregnancy. Ireland has excellent data on this, and in fact, if you're willing to abort in a worst case, and have prenatal care, childbirth death is always avoidable.

In the case of abortion, death was usually avoidable if there was the proper amount of aftercare. However, walk in clinics and EC, esp. home-administered EC, death rates climbed and were more difficult to control because of hemorrhaging. 17% of all cases showed abnormal hemorrhaging, and hemorrhages, without proper medical care, can and do lead to death on a regular basis. Anyone hemorrhaging should be in a hospital with proper aftercare.

Now, I agree that mother-child is one life form, but the natural order is *usually* that it is becoming two. If that is not what is happening, because there's a health danger, than it is not against life to abort. It is, in fact, pro-life to do so. This is why I don't support a law banning abortions. Abortion as a way to prevent childbirth deaths to me and just about everyone this side of Fred Phelps is completely acceptable. Killing people through carelessly preformed elective abortions and EC done without proper care is just all kinds of unacceptable, on every level.

This is part of a larger medical problem. What else kills people: Unnecessary use of general anaesthesia. It's an overused process which is often done so the doctors won't have to deal with the nitpicking of the patient, or panic, etc. Sometimes, it's essential, because a muscle movement could screw up the operation, but over-anaestetizing patients for non-essential reasons is just as bad as botching abortions or EC. Our medical community has a lot to answer for and needs to develop a higher standard of care. The purpose of this thread appears to be to stir up a panic that raising the standard of medical care would lead to a decreased availability of elective abortions. If so, those are not procedures that anyone should want to have available because they do not meet medical standards. I could go on and on ranting about bad medicine.

But as I'm being attacked just for being RTL, a position held by over half the country, and a larger % of the planet, still, I feel I need to clarify my position. I have two very personal emotional objections to abortion:

1) As a Taoist, I respect all life, it's a tenet I have to live by. Here's how far I take it: Is it not acceptable to kill a human child (or prevent one from being born) to ensure the economic convenience of some adult. It's also not acceptable to euthanize a dog or cut down a tree, it's certainly not acceptable to kill a person. A respect for the natural order and all living things dictates that position. I don't think anyone should have the right to kill: I don't support the death penalty, armed self defense, the pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment, euthanasia for humans or animals or war. I don't believe that people should be allowed to kill populations in part or in whole, or prevent them from their natural destiny. I don't believe that the medical community should be allowed to sterilize people, or unnecessarily risk the lives of patience out of a matter of convenience.

2) This is just part of an overall propaganda machine that comes from a eugenicist elite which adversely has affected my family and many others. Sanger, Stokes et al are white supremacists, but they did not recognize slavs or celts as white. This is about Anglo-Germanic supremacy of the upper classes, still is, and always was. This idea came from the same intellectual elite that dreamt up the holocaust, in which my father's extended family was slaughtered. If anyone has noticed, yes, I can abstract this idea of selective population control and I rail against it in central Africa, Gaza, Brazil, China, etc. for whatever reason whatever power is running this kind of scheme, I tend to suss it out and post it here with a very unforgiving stance against those who want to selectively reduce the population. I know where this thinking comes from, and I know where it leads, and "economic determinism" as an excuse is a very clear indicator of Jello Biafra's "Kill the Poor" scenario.

I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times, and it fails to make sense to me, and I am generally led to the conclusion that the emotional buttons of people have been pressed by an elitist group with an ideological agenda of selective depopulation. I don't hold any of this against those who have elective abortions, I generally think they have been duped by a group with an agenda. I don't think they are exercising a right, something is being done to them.


Others will disagree, and no one will convince anyone else, which is why I say we should skip it. People, when they do waste time talking about this issue, do so in too blanket a manner, and not considering that the cases are different from one another. One issue at the moment is that there are many ways in which TPTB are currently killing the people who are already here. That's a more pressing issue.



Niki,

That was totally uncalled for.



Frem,

Your mouth is talkin. You might want to see to that.
As to the strawman, it started here:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

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.

I was snarkily responding to that. I actually answered your questions about consistency or motive, but you did not answer mine.
Thoughts come to mind about glass houses, stones.



Now, to the topic:

Quote:
The new law sets minimum sizes for surgery and recovery rooms, has room temperature range parameters for each room, and sets broader equipment and staffing rules. It also requires doctors to have hospital privileges within 30 miles of the clinic, among other requirements.


Yes, this is the law which the panic button was pushed on.


Hospital privelidges within 30 miles of the clinic. Have you ever been to a clinic that the doctors did not have this? I haven't, because in New York state, IIRC, you can't have such a clinic without the associated hospital link. That's why all the NY clinics I have been to, and I have been in many, many, have this. It's something that can be done. It means that you have

a) qualified staff (the horror)
b) an emergency link to a hospital in case somehting goes wrong (the horror of horrors)

Yes, in my little town of 200 we had a healthcare clinic which met this standard.

Now, to the other requirement: You must have an adequate recovery room. In NY, not all clinics have this, but if you are going to perform surgery, yes, you are required to have this.

What is this, Afghanistan? I think I just posted the info that I found everywhere, that 17% of abortion patients have hemorrhages. And people are panicking because they *don't* want them to have recovery rooms or emergency room access?

I'm sorry. New York is not a bastion of conservative wing-nuttery. And yes, abortions are available here. Kansas is attempting to join us in the 21st century.


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 7:44 PM

1KIKI

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

From the CDC
"An abortion-related death is defined as a death resulting from a direct complication of an abortion (legal or illegal), an indirect complication caused by a chain of events initiated by an abortion, or aggravation of a preexisting condition by the physiologic or psychologic effects of abortion (13). An abortion is defined as "legal" if it was performed by a licensed physician or an appropriately licensed advanced practice clinician acting under the supervision of a licensed physician; an abortion is defined as "illegal" if it was performed by any other person. All deaths determined to be related causally to abortion have been classified as abortion-related regardless of the time between the abortion and death."

This is pretty complete when it comes to tallying maternal death due to abortion. And as I was rather careful to point out, figures were given for the US. It **IS** the US we are talking about, is it not? And while it's always possible to make birthing safer - through prenatal care and screening for problems with the embryo - the fact is MANY women in the US have no health care, hence no prenatal care, at all. And the death rate for women in the US is shockingly high: "The United States places 28, down from 27 in 2009, primarily because its rate for maternal mortality – 1 in 4,800 – is one of the highest in the developed world. The U.S. also ranks behind many other wealthy nations in terms of the generosity of maternity leave policies." according to Unicef.


Now, you can dispute Wiki, The CDC, Unicef, and WHO if you wish - but very few are going to accept that somehow you have personally collected the only correct set of numbers and the entire world is in a conspiracy to prove you wrong.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 1:47 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Mikey, if you don't mind, I'd like to borrow that Constitutionalist set-piece argument of yours.
There's a few folks who haven't thought it all the way through I'd like to show it to.



Oh, by all means, please do.

Thing is, it started as a joke - a right-winger's take on things, if you will. "Well, the Constitution says..." - and then it became a bit of a thought exercise, and what it became is actually the TRUE conservative position on abortion, from a purely legal, purely constitutional viewpoint.

And really, all you need to do in order to "win" this debate is get the conservatives to agree with their own dearly-held positions on constitutional rights and citizenship.

"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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:02 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Now, to the topic:

Quote:
The new law sets minimum sizes for surgery and recovery rooms, has room temperature range parameters for each room, and sets broader equipment and staffing rules. It also requires doctors to have hospital privileges within 30 miles of the clinic, among other requirements.


Yes, this is the law which the panic button was pushed on.



A question:

Is this standard applied to EVERY place of business that does any kind of health-related work, such as blood draws, vaccines, etc.?

Do they also have specific regulations on the size of their janitorial closets?

Or is this set of rules being specifically targeted solely at abortion services providers?

You speak a lot about agendas, DT, but I think you miss one key aspect of the anti-choice agenda in Kansas (and elsewhere).



And let me ask this question: Would you support such staunch and strict regulations if they were aimed at other kinds of businesses? Would you support regulations which specified that every oil refinery or gas station had to have a janitor's closet of a specific size in order to stay in business?

Will you support these same kinds of regulations for EVERY business, even the tomato growers out there?

You've complained long and loudly about being forced out of business by over-regulation. Odd to see you argue in favor of doing it to others.

"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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:04 AM

DREAMTROVE


Kiki

You say tomato, I say handgrenade. There so much agenda-based ideology it's impossible to trust anyone's data.

The CDC can define what it wants, they didn't tally or report. The numbers I got from wikipedia change depending on which issue I was one.

On abortion deaths, worldwide, WHO's figure was actually higher than any of the three I found earlier: 68,000. (The 47,000 was from Planned Parenthood themselves.)

AMA has a rule of year and a day for complications, and they reported 90,000 overall malpractice deaths in the US.

WHO used the same rule and came up with 900,000.

Which is correct? Who knows. That's not the issue.

The API says that fracking wells produce 12 barrels per acre and decline slowly in yield over 30 years. The Sierra Club says that fracking wells produce 2 barrels of an acre the first year, and this declines to 0.5 barrels the second year.

Officially there zero fracking water contamination events and no one has died. I know personally that is not reality.

Officially, very few civilians have died in our war. Actually, officially, relatively few Americans have.

This is not about statistics, it's about reality.


Reality is, a dangerous pregnancy can be resolved by a number of treatments, including abortion.

A dangerous abortion cannot just be tossed aside. A pregnancy complication would be dealt with with adequate care, because there's already a known risk. Every source I went to agreed on the 17% hemorrhaging figuring. I actually don't think anyone with a 17% chance of hemorrhage should *not* have a recovery room or access to an ER.

As I already said, what Kansas is proposing, we already do here in NY, and yet, there are still abortions available. NY is so right wing we just legalized gay marriage.

It's hard for me to discount the possibility of conspiracy with an agenda given events like the holocaust: A conspiracy, with an agenda; and given the statements of the movement's founders, like Sanger, Stokes, and Francis Galton. And Ochsner, who also pioneered vasectomy, (which was still a very popular population control or eugenics program in the 1970s,) was a doctor a the U of IL, and proposed to the city council of Chicago his solution to crime: All apartment buildings should have a central ventilation system connected to poison gas tanks in the basement, which could then be specifically delivered during the night to apartments containing undesirables, crime families who carry criminal genes, so they could be silently exterminated, and then this tragedy could be blamed on "a gas leak."

You can see why I'm suspicious of these people. It's not just Sanger saying she wanted to exterminate the negro race; or Galton saying that Irish blood was an infection in the human race and it needed to be eradicated before it corrupted human evolution; or Stokes' love letters to Adolph Hitler (Oh, and she's not an obscure figure, she's the pioneer of abortion in the UK, who taught Sanger, who became the US pioneer) This sort of thing is endemic to the movement, not an obscure side detail that can be swept away.


I concur with Byte: View it as a women's rights issue if that's how you see it, but don't discount that there might be someone out there with an agenda.

From a women's rights perspective I see nothing wrong with raising the standard of care in Kansas to that of New York. To call this banning abortion is fishing for a fight, precisely because it's defending the very organizations I was just talking about, who are internationally routinely undercut local health standard laws so they can increase their extermination toll against the inferiors.

Personally? I take issues with Sanger. I'm part scottish-irish and part czech. The word from Sanger is that both are populations of undesirable inferior subhumans who breed like rabbits. The Czech republic now has the lowest birth rate in the world, less than one child per couple, and her goons are very active there making sure that's the case.

More personally? Sangers goons visited my mother in the hospital after my sister was born because my sister had a birth defect, and told my mother that she shouldn't have any more children, because of what she was doing to the poor children, and of course, the gene pool. If they had convinced her, I would not have been born. If it had been a surgical C-section, in their own facility, in 1967, they might have just sterilized her. That was still going on at the time. Now they have EC, they can slowly sterilize you without surgery.

These are very scary people. I'm hesitant to put them in charge of the next generation.


Mike,

welcome to the pile on ;)

I already said a couple of times, Kansas is trying to raise its health standards to that of New York, where we, yes, have abortion.

Quote:
Is this standard applied to EVERY place of business that does any kind of health-related work, such as blood draws, vaccines, etc.?


Depends. In NY you only need a recovery room if you perform surgery. Abortion is surgery. The rest you need regardless.

Quote:
Do they also have specific regulations on the size of their janitorial closets?


What planet did this come from?

Quote:
Or is this set of rules being specifically targeted solely at abortion services providers?


It's not here or in Kansas

Quote:
You speak a lot about agendas, DT, but I think you miss one key aspect of the anti-choice agenda in Kansas (and elsewhere).


Someone kills 42 million people a year and someone else opposes it and you're worried about the *opposition's* agenda?

Mike, meet priorities, priorities, meet Mike.

Quote:
And let me ask this question: Would you support such staunch and strict regulations if they were aimed at other kinds of businesses? Would you support regulations which specified that every oil refinery or gas station had to have a janitor's closet of a specific size in order to stay in business?


Again with the Janitor. I think you do not get the concept of recovery room. It's the most essential part of any operation, and the place where most life or death decisions actually happen.

Quote:
Will you support these same kinds of regulations for EVERY business, even the tomato growers out there?


Don't get me started, but tomatoes aren't killing people. I have half a mind to chuck some.

Quote:
You've complained long and loudly about being forced out of business by over-regulation. Odd to see you argue in favor of doing it to others.


Is abortion a for profit business? Is that what you're suggesting?


ETA: all this was purposefully snarky, I'm just here until someone shows up with a giant owl

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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 5:55 AM

1KIKI

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.


"The CDC can define what it wants, they didn't tally or report." Not for 2006, but they did for 2005, and the data is the same.

"AMA ... reported 90,000 overall malpractice deaths in the US. WHO used the same rule and came up with 900,000." Now you're just making shit up. Unless of course you care to cough up a link or a direct quote to search on. As an incentive, I have links that show completely different REAL figures. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

DT, I get that you are into global conspiracies and it seems very real and very urgent to you. And I won't argue that that the world is a happy wonderful place full of nothing but well meaning people. But you're going to do jack shit about it if you're stressing over random noises in the dark woods instead of the burglar in your house.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 6:37 AM

NIKI2

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


DT, ignoring your snark (which didn't address even one of my points), I was arguing your points with FACTS. But the biggest factor of all, the one you have completely refused to address (tho' I may have missed it, I didn't read everything) is:

THERE ARE FEW OPTIONS OF A HOSPITAL. The laws have been written/changed to make it all but impossible to get an abortion through a hospital. Hospitals get money from the government. Practically the entire debate about the new healthcare law is that no hospital can receive ANY FUNDING if they perform abortions, and no insurance company will cover abortion. Prove me wrong if you want to keep making hospitals your argument. That's the basis of this whole thing, by making it impossible for clinics to meet the same standards as hospitals, they make them impossible to get licensing, ergo to exist.

So in Kansas, at least (and more will follow, if they can), the option isn't clinic v. hospital, the option is essentially ONLY back-room abortions, since hospitals won't do them and clinics are being driven out.

Address THAT if you can; otherwise your entire argument goes out the window. In some cases, your facts have been proven wrong (as in deaths), but you insist on continuing to argue the point. I don't get it.


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


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

Monday, July 4, 2011 6:58 AM

1KIKI

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 put this in a new post DT in the hope you would read it.

Remember when you kept insisting Clinton reduced the deficit by selling US ports to Dubai? And you kept insisting on that even after I pointed out US ports aren't federal property and therefore not the Federal government's to sell, that anything to do with ports happened under GWBush not Clinton, and what was done was allow Dubai to gain the management contracts, not sale of property? The facts were - Bush, no sale, and nothing to do with the deficit under Clinton. Remember that?

Remember when you thought the person at Bagram infected with an ndm-1 germ was due to bio-experiments at Bagram, and you though so even after I pointed out the gene had been detected in Delhi years earlier, and the actual index case was years earlier in a person from Delhi, and that the case you were referring to was also a person from Delhi? The facts are ndm-1 is from Delhi. Remember that?

You can be and have been spectacularly wrong in your facts. Do you ever wonder in the odd moment how you get it so wrong?

Just saying.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 8:08 AM

NIKI2

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


Give it up, Kiki, it will have no impact. I can all but guarantee it.

Further on abortion:
Quote:
The Supreme Court confirmed women's right to choose abortion in 1973, and the courts have upheld that finding in subsequent cases. But access to abortion has been severely eroded. The most recent survey found that 88% of all U.S. counties have no identifiable abortion provider. In non-metropolitan areas, the figure rises to 97%. As a result, many women must travel long distances to reach the nearest abortion provider.

But distance is not the only barrier women face. Many other factors have contributed to the current crisis in abortion access, including a shortage of trained abortion providers; state laws that make getting an abortion more complicated than is medically necessary; continued threats of violence and harassment at abortion clinics; state and federal Medicaid restrictions; and fewer hospitals providing abortion services.

In 1973 the Supreme Court struck down state laws that had criminalized abortion. Doctors working in hospital emergency rooms and ob-gyn units before that time knew first-hand about the medical devastation that women suffered as a result of self-induced abortions or black market abortions performed by unlicensed practitioners. Today, many of those doctors are retiring. The younger physicians replacing them have little direct experience with the consequences of illegal abortions and the public health benefits of ensuring that safe abortions remain available.

Even those young doctors who are committed to providing safe abortions to their patients may have trouble getting the training they need. A survey in 1998 revealed that first trimester abortion techniques are a routine part of training in only 46% of America's ob-gyn residency programs. About 34% offer this training only as an elective, and 7% provide no opportunity at all for young doctors to learn to provide safe abortions.

National polling consistently shows that the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose, but many legislators are committed to bringing an end to legal abortion and have passed laws that have drastically diminished access to abortion. One of these is Biased Counseling Laws, which require that clinic personnel lead their patients through detailed, state prescribed "scripts" contain information that is designed to frighten and dissuade women from having abortions. These coercive scripts are completely incompatible with the goal of true informed consent.

Today, about 95% of women who need abortions have them in clinics or in private doctors' offices. This pattern of abortion service delivery represents a significant shift away from hospital provided abortion care, which was far more common in the early years after the laws criminalizing abortion were struck down. This has serious implications for abortion access. Women in rural areas where there are no abortion clinics, and low-income women who depend on hospital emergency services for medical care, are left unserved when hospitals do not provide abortions. When hospitals do not offer abortions, young physicians they train have no opportunity to learn to provide safe abortions.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/access_abortion.html

June 23, 12011:
Quote:
Apparently, seven anti-abortion bills aren't enough for some legislators. Now some anti-choice state senators have latched on to the budget bill as a means to punish my patients and their families. These lawmakers want to ensure that certain hospitals and clinics that now provide abortions will lose their public funding if they continue to do so. The affected hospitals and clinics would be permitted to make exceptions only in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment.

As a physician caring for these women, I know who these hospitals and clinics would have to turn away. I treat patients whose very desired pregnancies have put their health in jeopardy, although they are not yet on the brink of death -- women with conditions like heart disease, severe diabetes or cancer. I see women who have learned their babies have genetic conditions incompatible with life.

These patients, and every other woman my colleagues and I see, deserve treatment from the hospitals and clinics of Ohio, not the cold shoulder. They need a safe, legal, vital medical procedure, and they should not be made to suffer for it.

Lisa Perriera, M.D., Cleveland Heights
http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2011/06/unfair_abortion_obstacles.ht
ml

In 1992, the Court upheld the basic right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, it also expanded the ability of the states to enact all but the most extreme restrictions on women's access to abortion.

You can find out, state by state, what is available in the way of abortion providers, at http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/sfaa.html To say it's changed dramatically in the last ten years is a huge understatement; many states now have NO abortion providers at all. I can't find figures beyond 2008; if anyone else can, that would be great (since I think it's even less now). In 2008, 87% of U.S. counties had no abortion provider. 1/3 of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2006, nonhospital providers estimate that 27% traveled at least 50 miles. Some examples, as of 2008:
Quote:
-- 97% of Arkansas counties had no abortion provider. 79% of Arkansas women lived in these counties

-- 94% of Tennessee counties had no abortion provider. 59% of Tennessee women lived in these counties.

-- 92% of Texas counties had no abortion provider. 33% of Texas women lived in these counties.

-- 75% of Oregon counties had no abortion provider.

-- 98% of Kentucky counties had no abortion provider. 77% of Kentucky women lived in these counties

-- In 2008, 97% of Utah counties had no abortion provider. 64% of Utah women lived in these counties

-- 96% of West Virginia counties had no abortion provider. 84% of West Virginia women lived in these counties


As of January 2011, in many states a woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion. As above, these scripts "biased" because they contain information that is designed to frighten and dissuade women from having abortions. These coercive scripts are completely incompatible with the goal of true informed consent. Additionally, in several states, counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility. California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Wyoming, Massachussetts, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and a few other states don't have these restrictions. In other words, in strongly "red" (or conservative) states, they make it as hard as they can; in the West and Northeast, they don't. But the number of providers is pretty much nationally what you see above. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/sfaa.html

Federal Medicaid does not cover abortion, and abortion coverage is excluded from the coverage of all Federal employees and dependents, including those in the military and their families, prisoners, and those dependent on Indian Health Services. Thirty-three states ban state Medicaid funds from covering abortion except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
Quote:
In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which, among many other things, provides for the establishment of state-level health care exchanges to assist individuals and small businesses in purchasing a private health insurance plan. Despite the fact that these exchanges will not be operational until 2014, some states have already enacted laws restricting the abortion coverage that will be available in plans purchased through the exchanges. But although federal health care reform may have renewed the debate around restricting insurance coverage of abortion, restrictive state abortion insurance policies are not a new phenomenon. Several states already restrict private insurance coverage of abortion; these restrictions will also apply to plans sold on the exchanges. More often, states have banned abortion coverage in public employees’ insurance policies or in other cases where public funds are used to insure employees.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RICA.pdf

June 6:
Quote:
The Texas House amended a health bill on Wednesday to target Travis County's health care district over its funding of agencies that provide abortion. The language by state Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center , would bar hospital districts from contracting or affiliating with any organization that provides abortions or abortion-related services or refers women to an abortion provider.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/bill-changed-to-target-ce
ntral-health-over-paying-1527772.html

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has come under fire for balking at signing Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge, saying
Quote:
Its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/06/in-other-words-those-thousands-of-ho
spitals-romney-is-unwilling-to-defund-all-commit-abortions/

Indianapolis, June 2011:
Quote:
A spokesperson for the IU School of Medicine confirmed to 24-Hour News 8 that about 70 women at IU Health and Wishard hospitals have been denied abortions in the six weeks since the law took affect. Doctors - fearing the loss of Medicaid funding - refused to do abortions even in cases where the patient's health was at risk or there was no chance the fetus would survive.

Dr. Elizabeth Ferries-Rowe, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Wishard, wrote a scathing letter to the Indianapolis Star, saying the GOP-controlled legislature "tied the hands of physicians attempting to provide medically appropriate, evidence-based care in the setting of routine obstetrics and gynecology" in "a politically motivated move to de-fund Planned Parenthood."
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/some-hospitals-refuse-to-perfor
m-abortions-in-wake-of-controversial-state-law-change

Those are just a sampling. Please address those issues, DT, rather than just ignoring them and snarking at me. Given that in most states, there is little or no option to obtain an abortion from a hospital, and/or few providers at all what option(s) do you see as viable?


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


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

Monday, July 4, 2011 8:39 AM

KWICKO

"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:
Mike,

welcome to the pile on ;)



Sorry, I didn't realize that no more than one person is allowed to disagree with you at a time. Can you maybe point that out to me in the forum rules? I'm sure you'd agree Haken's just trying to make this a 21st Century forum by doing so, right? ;)

(And yes, THAT is snark.)

Quote:

I already said a couple of times, Kansas is trying to raise its health standards to that of New York, where we, yes, have abortion.


And they're in such a rush to do it that the inspections took place three days after the law was rushed into place. Because they're so very, VERY progressive about regulations and modernization, after all. ;)

Quote:

Quote:
Is this standard applied to EVERY place of business that does any kind of health-related work, such as blood draws, vaccines, etc.?


Depends. In NY you only need a recovery room if you perform surgery. Abortion is surgery. The rest you need regardless.


Is it? Is abortion actual surgery?

I can't recall ever being required to go to the recovery room at my dentist after a root canal. And after all, a root canal is surgery, is it not?

Quote:

Quote:
Do they also have specific regulations on the size of their janitorial closets?


What planet did this come from?


Planet Kansas. The new law has a specific size requirement for janitorial closets, which must be at least 50 square feet. Look it up, since I'm sure you don't believe me.

Quote:

Quote:
Or is this set of rules being specifically targeted solely at abortion services providers?


It's not here or in Kansas

Quote:
You speak a lot about agendas, DT, but I think you miss one key aspect of the anti-choice agenda in Kansas (and elsewhere).


Someone kills 42 million people a year and someone else opposes it and you're worried about the *opposition's* agenda?


Who kills 42 million people a year? Planned Parenthood? A clinic in Kansas? Do you have ANY cites that show that there are 42 million abortions a year in Kansas? If you're just going to pull numbers out of your ass, PN style, why not go REALLY big, and claim it's more than 300 trillion abortions a year? I mean, really, if you're going to be a complete douchenozzle about it, go for broke!

Quote:

Mike, meet priorities, priorities, meet Mike.


Says the guy who's convinced a swamp fire equals the destruction of the planet.

Quote:

Quote:
And let me ask this question: Would you support such staunch and strict regulations if they were aimed at other kinds of businesses? Would you support regulations which specified that every oil refinery or gas station had to have a janitor's closet of a specific size in order to stay in business?


Again with the Janitor. I think you do not get the concept of recovery room. It's the most essential part of any operation, and the place where most life or death decisions actually happen.


And I think you do not get the concept of a janitor's closet, or how to read a bill or law. Seriously, go look it up.

Quote:

Quote:
Will you support these same kinds of regulations for EVERY business, even the tomato growers out there?


Don't get me started, but tomatoes aren't killing people. I have half a mind to chuck some.


Tainted produce kills plenty of people every year. I'm not going to claim it's FORTY-TWO MILLION, but I'd say it's a problem. I apologize if you're not ready to join the rest of the world in the 21st century, though. ;)

Quote:

Quote:
You've complained long and loudly about being forced out of business by over-regulation. Odd to see you argue in favor of doing it to others.


Is abortion a for profit business? Is that what you're suggesting?


In many places, it absolutely is. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be? Should it be covered by insurance, or paid for by the government? Should it be done by, say, Catholic Charities?

Quote:

ETA: all this was purposefully snarky, I'm just here until someone shows up with a giant owl


Snark is fine, but don't get your panties in a bunch if you're snarked back.

And, as you've pointed out before, you have absolutely zero interest in ever having a reasonable or fair discussion about this matter, so maybe you shouldn't talk about it at all, if you can't divorce your feelings about it from actual FACTS, of which you refuse to provide any, stating that it's not worth your time, all while wasting more time here than just about anyone else.

"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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 8:48 AM

1KIKI

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.


"Give it up, Kiki, it will have no impact. I can all but guarantee it."

I've read, and it makes sense to me, that inside all of us, underneath our conditioning, our desires, our fear and even under our pain, resides the quiet observer. I'm just hoping to have a conversation with DT's observer.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 9:14 AM

NIKI2

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


Quote:
But as I'm being attacked just for being RTL, a position held by over half the country
DT, you keep saying you're being "piled on". It's not because it's "just you" or because you're a right-to-lifer, as far as I can see, it's more because you keep making sweeping generalizations without any backup, and statement that are so far outside the realm of logic that it triggers others.

For one, tho' polls are imperfect, I challenge your assertion that your position is held "by over half the country. As of May:
Quote:
The number of Americans who self-identify as abortion rights supporters grew while the number identifying as anti-abortion rights advocates shrank, according to a new national poll. The new distribution marks the first time in about three years that Americans who believe a woman should have the right to choose have the numerical advantage over those who do not.
#
Currently, 49 percent of Americans label themselves as “pro-choice” while 45 percent say they are “pro-life,” according to the results of a new Gallup poll. The two groups technically remain about, even statistically speaking, because according to the survey the margin of error was 4 percent.
http://floridaindependent.com/31163/poll-more-americans-favor-abortion
-rights

You can make any statements you wish, but if you aren't willing to provide facts and figures, and back up your statements, we have every right to question them.

Statements such as "This is just part of an overall propaganda machine that comes from a eugenicist elite" and "This is about Anglo-Germanic supremacy of the upper classes, still is, and always was. This idea came from the same intellectual elite that dreamt up the holocaust" are never backed up by you with FACTS or anywhere we can get information to decide for ourselves. You back up your claims about eugenics and the holocaust again and again by saying it affected your family; that would more likely point to a bias than to any inside knowledge of actual facts.
Quote:
I am generally led to the conclusion that the emotional buttons of people have been pressed by an elitist group with an ideological agenda of selective depopulation
That may be your BELIEF, but it's not fact. For women, it's something that may affect their own lives, their entire lives. That's not about some "elite" group and eugenics, it's about RIGHTS to decide for oneself about one's life and body. That it has to be some huge conspiracy, or a "wedge issue", actually denigrates women like myself who care about the rights of other women. It is, in fact, misogynistic to claim it is otherwise.

As to hospital privileges, New York is among those with a number of abortion providers, and has its own set of laws. The fact that those clinics have hospital privileges does not in any way mean that other states do, some of which have no hospitals near any of their clinics, some of which have no hospital privileges because their laws de-fund any doctor OR any hospital the doctor works at which provides abortion, some of which de-fund any doctor (or the hospital where he works) for even REFERRING to a clinic. How does one overcome that?

You are wed SO strongly to your stance that you seem unable or unwilling to see the truth. It's not a panic button; it's a continuation of a serious problem which has existed for some time and which is getting massively worse currently. You're essentially saying that anyone who thinks these laws (and the MANY other ones passed recently) are an attempt to limit or make impossible access to abortion don't CARE about women dying; that it's okay if all abortion clinics are something out of Afghanistan, and I don't know what else. I don't want to know; much of your verbiage is degrading to those of us who care about women's health and recognize that these laws have nothing to do with same.

You apparently believe that forcing a woman to go to a clinic twice, no matter how far away it is, in order to force her to sit through horrific lectures and pictures intended to frighten or guiltify her from having an abortion, is okay. I, and others, do not.

Saying New York is right wing is wild; making same-sex marriage legal doesn't mean a damned thing. California has long been considered ultra-liberal, yet we struck DOWN same-sex marriage.
Quote:
New York certainly has a reputation for economic, social and political liberalism. How would one even go about measuring liberalism? One way of measuring liberalism is by voter registration. New York is heavily Democratic. As of early this year (2007), 67.6 percent of registered voters in New York City’s five boroughs were Democrats, 16.6 percent were not affiliated with a party, 12.1 percent were Republicans and 3.7 percent were members of other parties.

John H. Mollenkopf, a political scientist who directs the Center for Urban Research at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, said that New York City voters have at times given roughly one-quarter to one-third of their votes to Republican candidates in presidential elections in recent decades.

To be sure, party affiliation and political ideology do not always run together. New York’s Republicans have been liberal in many respects: La Guardia was closely identified with the New Deal and Lindsay ran as a strong civil rights supporter.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/name-americas-most-libera
l-city/
Quote:
Kansas is trying to raise its health standards to that of New York
Perhaps that would be true if Kansas had similar access to abortion providers as New York. Per that data I put up about various states, as of 2008 39% of New York counties had no abortion provider. 7% of New York women lived in these counties. So a very tiny percentage of women in New York don't have access to abortion. In contrast, 97% of Kansas counties had no abortion provider. 57% of Kansas women lived in these counties. OVER HALF of the women in Kansas have no access to abortion, and almost ALL of Kansas counties have no abortion providers. Once again, in reality you are saying that, by making demands on those few clinics available which are impossible to meet, the only option THAT IS POSSIBLE is illegal abortion. So you'd rather have women go to back-street abortion providers than get decent treatment (and not just for abortion; see the info I provided on the services Planned Parenthood provides). New York has none of the restrictions on abortions that Kansas has, including that legally-required "script" women have to sit through.

If you look at the info I posted, there are places where no legal abortion can be provided, EVEN IF THE WOMAN'S LIFE IS IN DANGER. Apparently you prefer that.

In response to
Quote:
is this set of rules being specifically targeted solely at abortion services providers?
you said
Quote:
It's not here or in Kansas
That's not true. Please show where these laws apply to anything BUT abortion providers. And Mike's remark about the janitors' closets, which you made fun of, is a prime example of how the laws are written deliberately to make it impossible for clinics to abide by them.

If anyone here has an agenda, or a closed mind, I say it is you. And nobody's "piling on" you because of that agenda, if anything it's because you flatly refuse to see anything OUTSIDE that agenda, irregardless of fact. Not to mention that for someone who cheerfully dismisses the entire topic as unimportant and only a distration issue, you sure spend a LOT of time writing about it. For me, it's no wedge issue, it's war on womens' rights to choose, and yes, it's VERY important. You're male, so you'll never face the issue; I'm old enough that I'll never face it. The difference between us is that I CARE and am willing to defend the rights of women to choose what to do with their bodies. Thus I am willing to spend a LOT of time debating this issue, far more than I should perhaps, but it's worth it to refute the over-the-top and just-plain-wrong things you insist on saying, for the informative value it might provide to OTHERS who could be misinformed by what they read from you.

Trust me; it's not a wedge issue for MANY of us on both sides. By the way, I'd LOVE to see the furor if they tried to make Viagra illegal!!!!

If you bother to respond, please post facts and cites, not just your opinion, what you've experience, heard or extrapolated.


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


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

Monday, July 4, 2011 10:09 AM

KWICKO

"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:
But as I'm being attacked just for being RTL, a position held by over half the country



Is that the deciding factor, if "over half the country" believes in something, that makes it so?

More than half the country wants government health care and the public option.

More than half the country want the rich to pay more taxes.

More than half the country want us out of Afghanistan, like, yesterday.

More than half the country supports gay marriage.

More than half the country wants no cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

If only supporting a position would make it so, or stop one from being disagreed with about it...

"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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 10:19 AM

KWICKO

"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)


By the way, DT, you insist that Kansas is simply trying to make women safer while still offering them legal abortion services.

So do you think that blocking funding of Planned Parenthood makes all women safer? After all, 97% of PP's services AREN'T abortion-related. Can you show me where removing access to pap smears and breast cancer screening makes women safer?

Are Kansas women safer when doctors are being murdered in churches by terrorists? Is this your idea of making women safer?

BTW, if you're wondering, that's only about half snark.

"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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 12:36 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

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.

Niki, Thanks. I appreciate your response to my post, but I don't think my position is really that rare from a pro-lifer. I have family and friends who, like me, are either disgusted or religiously conflicted by the act of abortion, but we all feel that America can never go back to the ways of the past. No one can control or legislate morality anymore, and consequential social punishment of impregnatees is ludicrous. So what's left other than abortion option for these girls?.....

..Carry the baby for future adoption or sale? Hey, I saw Juno! No girl should have to carry to term because abortion is not an option.

..Repeal Roe-v.-Wade? Hey, I saw Love With The Proper Stranger! God, the onset of the abandoned- building folding table procedure made even macho-guy Steve McQueen wanna cry and puke, and he ran out of there with Natalie as fast as he could.

..Never have un-protected sex? Sure.


So since I defintely believe in choice for the woman, how can I be a pro-lifer? I balance it out by thinking it would be nice if the guy stepped up (like McQueen ) and did the honorable thing, and they married and had the child in a loving household. Also, if the girl would be informed and consider other options. So that part covers my "pro-life". My "pro-choice" sensibility is just an acceptance of reality, and individual personal needs that transcend my judgement.











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

Monday, July 4, 2011 1:16 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
I put this in a new post DT in the hope you would read it.

Remember when you kept insisting Clinton reduced the deficit by selling US ports to Dubai? And you kept insisting on that even after I pointed out US ports aren't federal property and therefore not the Federal government's to sell, that anything to do with ports happened under GWBush not Clinton, and what was done was allow Dubai to gain the management contracts, not sale of property? The facts were - Bush, no sale, and nothing to do with the deficit under Clinton. Remember that?

Remember when you thought the person at Bagram infected with an ndm-1 germ was due to bio-experiments at Bagram, and you though so even after I pointed out the gene had been detected in Delhi years earlier, and the actual index case was years earlier in a person from Delhi, and that the case you were referring to was also a person from Delhi? The facts are ndm-1 is from Delhi. Remember that?

You can be and have been spectacularly wrong in your facts. Do you ever wonder in the odd moment how you get it so wrong?

Just saying.


Quote:
Says the guy who's convinced a swamp fire equals the destruction of the planet.


These have nothing to do with the current conversation.

I respond here mostly because the first post was approaching very close to the highly interpretable territory of the speculative conspiracy theory - difficult to substantiate, but a very important field none-the-less. Details might be off, but the big picture may still be compelling.

Also, I felt they were unfair.

I believe this conversation is now heading towards a flame war. Perhaps a new thread about abortion, if further discussion of this particular law is wanted, and I doubt DT will post there.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 1:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:


So since I defintely believe in choice for the woman, how can I be a pro-lifer? I balance it out by thinking it would be nice if the guy stepped up (like McQueen ) and did the honorable thing, and they married and had the child in a loving household. Also, if the girl would be informed and consider other options. So that part covers my "pro-life". My "pro-choice" sensibility is just an acceptance of reality, and individual personal needs that transcend my judgement.


I too appreciate your stand, and that is why I really don't get the rampant anti abortion crowd. I don't get people like DT who claim to be Taosists, which is a personal spiritual path, but wish to impose their views on others.

For the records, I know plenty of pro choice people who would never have have a termination themselves.

My ownly gripe with your post is this last paragraph. Please don't assume that young, unmarried women are the prime users of this service. In my experience, women who have abortions cross the class, age, race, and marital status boundaries. They might be 15 and unmarried, but they also might be 45 and have four children.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:00 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Oh PR, I'm sorry I never responded to your post. Must have lost sight of it in the flames. I rather enjoyed how we were able to disagree and still be more or less civil.

Quote:
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.


I'll try with an example. If I use a condom, none of my sperm can fertilize an egg and start a growing life. An abortion though requires we exert an outside force to end a life that has already started growing. Maybe the life would never have made it all the way anyway but we still used our power to end it. We intentionally ended it.

It's a terrible choice and I feel sorry for anyone who's had to make it. Overriding the embryo that may become a child's right to live should not be done without a damn good reason in my opinion. It's unfortunate that there are reasons that can make this necessary.

Quote:
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.


Looks like we pretty much agree here. I just don't consider abortion being prevention like I do contraceptives. Still, I think most of us on either side can agree that abortions are certainly not preferable.

The 'life is pain' reference was kind of a variant on a princess bride quote that seemed appropriate. You were a little more accurate than me though. I should have said life has pain and struggle, which doesn't define life and doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation. It could mold someone into a better person, or they could fall into a dark spiral. I'd just prefer if we didn't interfere with any human's life having that chance. I know this ain't always possible, but I think it's a worthy goal to work towards.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:14 PM

1KIKI

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.


And I thought my post was neutral.

I don't think there can be a compelling big picture if the facts disprove it. It's not a matter of minor details being 'off', most 'facts' DT posted were flat-out wrong. Seriously, I'd have to go back through to see if ANY were right at all.

You CAN posit worldwide conspiracies - they exist! People in power want to stay in power and get even richer. People close to power but out of it want to get it and get even richer.

Look at the Koch brothers - they single-handedly bought a bunch of republican governors to hammer through union-busting measures, since unions are more likely to vote democratic; passed a series of budgetary give-aways to businesses while taking money from public employees, the poor, the sick, and the disabled; and are pushing through laws to make it harder for students, minorities, the poor and the disabled to vote ... in order to get even richer. **It happens!

BUT - as I pointed out to DT - you're not going to get anywhere stressing about random noises in the dark woods while ignoring the burglar already in your house.

If you're at the point where you have to start making up multiple 'facts' to support your foregone conclusion and ignoring multiple fatcs that don't support it, you're on the wrong track - mentally as well.


Now, if you want to get a bead on what's REALLY going on - subscribe to PEER and GCN Daily, and watch Rachel Maddow (I say this as a person who really is not a political wonk).

PEER is where I got the tidbit about the EPA advisory resetting acceptable environmental radiation levels.

GCN Daily is where I got this bit - http://gcn.com/articles/2011/06/29/darpa-video-analysis-tools.aspx?adm
garea=TC_DEFENSE

New analysis tools help troops sift through mountains of video data

The constellation of ground-based and airborne sensors deployed by U.S. forces in Southwest Asia has been both a blessing and a curse. Although it allows warfighters to track and identify activities such as the planting of improvised explosive devices, the sheer volume of incoming data often works against them.
To control the information fire hose that wastes both manpower time and resources, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched two related programs to provide warfighters with automated tools to quickly sift through large volumes of data. The Image Retrieval and Analysis Tool (VIRAT) and the Persistent Stare Exploitation and Analysis System (PerSEAS) are designed to identify and tag certain types of actions in raw video streams to bring them to a human operator’s attention.

Rachel Maddow is where I found out about the Koch brothers.




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

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:14 PM

DREAMTROVE




Kiki

You think you won that one on NDM-1? How the hell do you think you transcribe a gene into a genetically engineered organism if yiu had never discovered it? What do you think we do? Write the genes ourselves? How? Are we psychic?

As to the UN/WHO report on medical malpractice in the US, that was a news story, posted here, and the WHO criticized the AMA for it's 90,000 figure, whereupon the AMA changed it to 180,000.

Quote:
Remember when you kept insisting Clinton reduced the deficit by selling US ports to Dubai? And you kept insisting on that even after I pointed out US ports aren't federal property and therefore not the Federal government's to sell, that anything to do with ports happened under GWBush not Clinton, and what was done was allow Dubai to gain the management contracts, not sale of property? The facts were - Bush, no sale, and nothing to do with the deficit under Clinton. Remember that?


No. I never made that claim. Clinton sold the ports to a British company. Why would I defend Bush. I'm a democrat. The kind that actually goes to party meetings. I can't stand Bush. He's one of my least favorite presidents. I also hated Clinton. I work to ensure that we get better democrats. I fail, look at Cuomo.   

I'm also a conservative. That's around 15% of the party. If dems lose the conservative vote, they will be a permanent minority party. 

I'm also not monolithic. Some of my stances are:

Pro-environment
Libertarian
Anti-war
Right to life
Pro-gay rights
Pro-civil rights
Pro-immigration
Fiscally conservative

Me and mike were just discussing budgets. We both agreed that clinton was more fiscally conservative than bush. I hold obama is worse, fiscally. This isn't why i hate clinton: he's a warmonger, and a corporate cretin, also a globalist stooge. He gave us NAFTA, he sold out to Dick Cheney, and handed Halliburton control of the QMC, etc. 

Lately, Rap has made a lot of sense to me. I think it's because he's criticizing bad govt, rather than defending it. Obama has a lot more in common with Bush than they have different.

But when it comes to voting? I'm a one issue voter, and that issue is the environment. I've posted that many times over the years. That's why I voted socialist in 2010. I hate socialism. But i voted my one issue. My logic? If you don't destroy the Earth, we'll fix the damage you did to the budget later. If you do destroy the Earth, We can't fix that.



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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:17 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
I put this in a new post DT in the hope you would read it.

Remember when you kept insisting Clinton reduced the deficit by selling US ports to Dubai? And you kept insisting on that even after I pointed out US ports aren't federal property and therefore not the Federal government's to sell, that anything to do with ports happened under GWBush not Clinton, and what was done was allow Dubai to gain the management contracts, not sale of property? The facts were - Bush, no sale, and nothing to do with the deficit under Clinton. Remember that?

Remember when you thought the person at Bagram infected with an ndm-1 germ was due to bio-experiments at Bagram, and you though so even after I pointed out the gene had been detected in Delhi years earlier, and the actual index case was years earlier in a person from Delhi, and that the case you were referring to was also a person from Delhi? The facts are ndm-1 is from Delhi. Remember that?

You can be and have been spectacularly wrong in your facts. Do you ever wonder in the odd moment how you get it so wrong?

Just saying.


Quote:
Says the guy who's convinced a swamp fire equals the destruction of the planet.


These have nothing to do with the current conversation.

I respond here mostly because the first post was approaching very close to the highly interpretable territory of the speculative conspiracy theory - difficult to substantiate, but a very important field none-the-less. Details might be off, but the big picture may still be compelling.

Also, I felt they were unfair.

I believe this conversation is now heading towards a flame war. Perhaps a new thread about abortion, if further discussion of this particular law is wanted, and I doubt DT will post there.


It's tiresome constantly defending yourself on multiple fronts when you would rather be discussing the thread topic. This is why I have more or less of a planned ignore policy concerning kiki. I think we've all gotten frustrated and thrown a personal jab, attack or few but kiki seems pretty damn consistent about it. I'm going to try and start ignoring what I perceive as irrelevant personal questions or attacks, but we'll see how that goes. I'm only human after all.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:25 PM

1KIKI

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.


And yet THT, when challenged to point out posts YOU felt compelled to ignore, you bailed. Next time I reply TO YOU and YOU feel compelled to ignore it, point it out, OK? Because I have posted many on-topic snark-free questions TO YOU which YOU apparently couldn't be bothered to answer.

BTW - next time I post TO YOU, I will point out exactly why it is on topic AND snark free. OK? Just so we understand each other. If you choose not to answer, then we'll all know the reason it's not.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:30 PM

1KIKI

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

Take a deep breath. Pay attention to the observer inside of you. The neutral, quiet observer who observes how you feel but doesn't feel it.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 2:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

Quote:
Is it? Is abortion actual surgery?


Yes. A major arterial network is built to supply blood and nutrients to the baby. Until the baby can synth its own blood, it needs blood. Cut that, and you will have massive bleeding, and can die.

Quote:
I can't recall ever being required to go to the recovery room at my dentist after a root canal. And after all, a root canal is surgery, is it not?


Really? I was. I guess Texas is keeping the middle ages alive. No wonder you guy still have slavery (Been to Kenedy county lately?) ;)

Quote:
Who kills 42 million people a year?


Abortion, numbskull, according to the WHO, not my favorite group of people, but I have no reason to doubt their numbers.

Quote:
Says the guy who's convinced a swamp fire equals the destruction of the planet.


Okay, this really pissed me off. I don't know if this is what you're aiming for, but the Georgia swamp fire is a major issue. Wildfires are a major issue. In fact, they're the #1 issue on the planet. If you give me a candidate who will deal with habitat destruction, I don't care what else they support. I'll vote a socialist dictator into office if I am certain that it will end habitat destruction.

If you don't care about this issue, then we have nothing to talk about.

Quote:
And I think you do not get the concept of a janitor's closet, or how to read a bill or law. Seriously, go look it up.


I'll concede that is a bit odd.

I've spent some time in Kansas. Lot of friends there. Nice place. They're responsible for much of our science fiction. I'm not certain they have a good reason for this clause, but they might.

Quote:
it absolutely is. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be?


Absolutely. We don't call hitmen a legitimate free market enterprise. (Okay, most of us don't)

Quote:
Catholic Charities?

That was funny, in a sick way.

I didn't think there was anything particularly dickish in that post. A thin line between dick and snark.


Quote:

Is that the deciding factor, if "over half the country" believes in something, that makes it so?


Hmm. Maybe I should move to a democracy ;)

Quote:

More than half the country wants government health care and the public option.


I agree with them. They should work locally and by state, and they might get that. They're wasting their time on national.

Quote:

More than half the country want the rich to pay more taxes.


I disagree. I don't care how much the rich pay, but I want the federal govt. to have less revenue because I don't like how it spends the money: Corporate welfare and world wars.

Quote:
More than half the country want us out of Afghanistan, like, yesterday.


80% in fact. I agree completely.

Quote:
More than half the country supports gay marriage.


I also agree with them. Now, in NY, it is so. We did it in a solidly bipartisan manner, on a state level, the way things should be done.

Quote:
More than half the country wants no cuts to Medicare and Social Security.


Is this really true? I think that the majority of americans want to see us negotiate for drug companies, that's a cut. I think the majority of americans want to see an end to welfare checks sent to households with assets in excess of a million dollars, that's a cut.

Quote:

If only supporting a position would make it so, or stop one from being disagreed with about it...


My point wasn't that it should be law, but that I was not holding an esoteric position.


Again, no argument here, really.


Quote:

By the way, DT, you insist that Kansas is simply trying to make women safer while still offering them legal abortion services.


I insisted nothing. The proposed legislation railed against is at the top of the thread.

Quote:
Planned Parenthood makes all women safer? After all, 97% of PP's services AREN'T abortion-related.


Nonsense. PP is abandoning abortion in favor of EC, and assisted EC, which is through the second trimester, the full legal range.

These people are, what they always were: a eugenics operation.

Quote:
Are Kansas women safer when doctors are being murdered in churches by terrorists? Is this your idea of making women safer?


I was unaware that this was the official position of the govt. of Kansas.

Quote:
BTW, if you're wondering, that's only about half snark.


Nah, it wasn't even that. I'll give you quarter-snark.

You know, of course, that far more women are killed by abortion than by terrorism. I've peppered in some others that will all get shot down. Here's another: Unnecessary blood transfusions. I think both me and Byte have mentioned this issue, and maybe one or two others here, but it hasn't gotten a lot of discussion. Instead, always back to this wedge issue. People are fucking sheep, man.


Oh, and Mike, that was an awful lot of responses. The only one that ticked me off was the comment about the okefenokee


Kiki,

My observer says "You needed Maddow to tell you about the Koch bros?" Maddow is a total hack.

If you only take in information from radical extremists, you will hold to an extremist position. Extremists never get anything done. As they say in chess, the most powerful position is center board.

Read all positions and data from all sources, and you may some day get the picture. I'm not convinced you have a bead on what it really going on yet, but you seem reasonably intelligent, you just have not exposed yourself to enough unbiased, or biased but conflicting information.

Go to the four corners of the non-mainstream political world. Watch no television. Read intelligent blogs that disagree with you, and with one another. Then you might someday see what's really going on.

But it's not going to be a pretty picture. Right now, my honest opinion is that you're living in a very comfy fantasy world painted for you by far-left ideologues. I think you're capable of grasping more than that, but it's not going to make your life more comfortable.

I'm off to watch fireworks, happy fourth, all.


As to abortion, I leave it to the other RTLers here. I'm sick of the topic, as I was many posts ago


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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:04 PM

1KIKI

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.


"Read all positions and data from all sources ..." Oh, I do. I don't JUST get my info from TV and obscure publications and organizations. I look at a lot of data from a lot of places.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:14 PM

1KIKI

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.


BTW, in case anyone is interested in where DT went wrong on his figures ... I went back to 2000. At that time, the AMA was owning up to 225,000 iatrogenic deaths. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:OG37-6AQf_QJ:www.jhsph.edu/p
cpc/Publications_PDFs/2000_JAMA_Starfield.pdf+ama+who+iatrogenic+%22world+health+organization%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjZjEyhA3Rb4MqBXiS-JSYYT_LJTpcnvdBNKa890qu1leewm5pFp9xOWltFONlO9WJumlcgWbSfuOA6oMU5TKoueogzL3JXMqw0pk8nD1tnrzXFEfnK5nx8i4-hq7dwqRu7VmBK&sig=AHIEtbSrFMc5Cptj62ho0V7Fo-ILjGxrEQ

WHO put the figure at 51,000. "Furthermore, health systems make costly, even fatal mistakes far too frequently. In the United States alone, medical errors in hospitals cause at least 44 000 needless deaths a year, with another 7000 occurring as a result of mistakes in prescribing or using medication ..." http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HAPPY:

How do you feel about the death penalty?

How do you feel about war?

RAPPY
Quote:
At some point, 'embryo's ' heart begins to pump, their synapses in their brain begin to fire...and they become a person.
Unless they're rag-heads, in which case...

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:34 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


DT, I don't understand your postion. You disagree with abortion because it is a medical procedure that may result in loss of life for the mother, or you believe that termination of an unborn life is unethical.

Your intitial argument is an odd one. All medical procedures carry risk. Are you saying you want safer services for procuring abortions or you want it abandoned because it is NEVER safe? Do you also want other surgery banned? Knee and hip reconstructions? Heart bipasses? D & C's for non termination purposes? Are we to have life without surgerical intervention because it might result in death? I'm confused by your argument.

I know that all surgery does carry risk, and that patients should be made aware of such risks. In my experience, doctors have been almost alarmist in their explanation of risk. But isn't any elective surgery really a choice then for a patient?

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Earth tremor. Creepy.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Earth tremor?

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 3:50 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


The room began to shake as I was writing. I'm just waiting for the bolt of lightening.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 4:01 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HAPPY:

How do you feel about the death penalty?

How do you feel about war?

Quote:
At some point, 'embryo's ' heart begins to pump, their synapses in their brain begin to fire...and they become a person.
Unless they're rag-heads, in which case...


er... that quote is not mine... and you've made a strange addition to it. I hope you're not trying to project a racist attitude on me.

As for your questions, I am against both war and the death penalty.

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 5:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, I was combining a reply to you and Rappy, sorry for not being clear! I'll add a clarification. So, at least you're consistent. Many ppl aren't.

Another question: When faced with a choice between higher profits or higher death rates, which do you choose?

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 5:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Just thought I'd weigh in on some abortion stats from australia.

http://www.drfeelgood.com.au/articles/tests/abortion_in_australia.htm

Note that the rate is steadily declining, despite their being no significant changes in legislation. Also note that teenagers are not the most significant age group to procure them, and that the numbers for 35+ age group is increasing - increased availability of testing of fetuses? whoopsie pregnancies?

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

Monday, July 4, 2011 6:20 PM

DREAMTROVE


Magon,

sorry, my post got deleted. My position is probably the majority american position:

1) Abortion should be avoided when possible

2) When circumstances, such as the mother's health, require it, the best possible care should be available.

3) controversial techniques such as EC, or chemical abortion as birth control, which critics claim lead to high casualty and sterilization rates should be avoided unless the situation shows them to be safer than surgical abortion

4) groups tied to questionable organizations and with dubious histories relating to racist policies and eugenics should be restricted from performing "medical services" which would help them fulfill a racist agenda.

You wouldn't allow the KKK to run a clinic in a black neighborhood, so why would you let PP? The latter has stated the extermination of blacks as a goal and has ties to the NSDAP.

As early as 1920, Marie Stokes founded "controlled parenthood" with partner Margaret Sanger, and again by Sanger when she started what would become the American counterpart, "Planned Parenthood" the following year. Both stated very early on their intent to remove blacks and non-germanic europeans, particularly slavs, from the gene pool. Still, today, this is balance of abortion activity by their international networks.

Selective population control is a very suspect agenda. I personally do not trust the WHO at all, given the HIV infection rate at WHO operations in Africa and the former USSR vastly exceeding all other medical malpractice HIV infections, and would prefer that this be kept within the purview of local hospitals to avoid any untoward agenda.

Personally, the number of times these programs were have been dodged by my ancestors just in order that I exist today counts at least three occasions. I like existing, so I oppose the groups and agendas that did their level best to prevent me from existing. That doesn't seem like an illogical position. I also oppose their racist agenda in general.


Kiki

Different study. Perhaps it was accidental deaths, including pharmacist error, patient error, faulty or dangerous medications, ie pharmaceutical error, etc. The story was posted here on the forum and discussed at length. I'm not interested in continuing to defend myself against your incessant attempts to call me a kook and a liar. (I'm not even interested in the topic, I'm answering magon because she asked a question.)

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  

Monday, July 4, 2011 6:31 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Another question: When faced with a choice between higher profits or higher death rates, which do you choose?


Higher profits. I oppose higher death rates. Profits are not particularly important to me, but they are better than death, so I choose profit

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  

Tuesday, July 5, 2011 9:55 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I was combining a reply to you and Rappy, sorry for not being clear! I'll add a clarification. So, at least you're consistent. Many ppl aren't.

Another question: When faced with a choice between higher profits or higher death rates, which do you choose?


Shiny. I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to the topic, but I'm in a pretty good mood and I don't mind sharing right now.

I'm guessing you meant to ask higher profits vs fewer deaths, in which case I would be in favor of fewer deaths. Aside from ideological reasons, I don't understand how higher death can equate to higher profit without the quality of the operation/product/venture being significantly degraded.

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

Tuesday, July 5, 2011 10:07 AM

PHOENIXROSE

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


Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Oh PR, I'm sorry I never responded to your post. Must have lost sight of it in the flames. I rather enjoyed how we were able to disagree and still be more or less civil.

Quote:
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.


I'll try with an example. If I use a condom, none of my sperm can fertilize an egg and start a growing life. An abortion though requires we exert an outside force to end a life that has already started growing. Maybe the life would never have made it all the way anyway but we still used our power to end it. We intentionally ended it.

True enough, but I would argue that the condom is, itself, an outside force. And believe me, I am very, very in favor of condoms. And spermicide and pills, for that matter. But all those are exertions of an outside force to prevent a potential child from happening. I see abortion in a similar light. I understand that you don't, but it really is all directed towards the same goal, and in general I view that goal as a good one. As I said, it's a quality of life thing. There's a quote somewhere by Aristotle that talks about the importance of a birth control system to ensure quality of life. Millennia ago! one of the many things that makes the man a hero of mine.

Quote:
The 'life is pain' reference was kind of a variant on a princess bride quote that seemed appropriate. You were a little more accurate than me though. I should have said life has pain and struggle, which doesn't define life and doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation. It could mold someone into a better person, or they could fall into a dark spiral. I'd just prefer if we didn't interfere with any human's life having that chance. I know this ain't always possible, but I think it's a worthy goal to work towards.

Yeah, it made me think of the movie. It's not something I really subscribe to, though. Having gone through a great deal of pain in my life, and finally having it limited, my greatest goal has become limiting it in others. You might see that as an interference in a human's life and their chance to do whatever with pain, but there are things that no one should have to deal with. And really, compared to a lot of the world, my life has not been bad. That just makes me want to limit pain and struggle more. My focus certainly isn't on birth control (it's neuroscience) but in all its forms it does help with limiting pain and struggle. Humans are at no risk of dying off, and reasonably limiting our birth rate is a good step to take in ensuring that our children and ourselves have fewer struggles and a little less pain. I don't think I'm the only one who has decided persistent pain and struggle is not humanity's friend; one of the reasons Frem and I tend to agree on a great many principles. Interfering? Sure it is. So is setting and splinting a broken bone. Interference with the aim of improving life in general is arguably not a bad thing.


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  

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 1:57 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Quote:
Who kills 42 million people a year?


Abortion, numbskull, according to the WHO, not my favorite group of people, but I have no reason to doubt their numbers.



In the U.S.? In Kansas?

Or are you suggesting we start telling other people in other nations how they should believe and behave?

I thought you were talking specifically of Kansas and their law. At least, that's what you SAID you were talking about.

Shall we pass laws regarding the size of janitor's closets in China as well? ;)

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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 4:20 AM

BYTEMITE


Limiting pain? There might have once been a time I'd felt the same way. But nowadays, I think a person should only limit pain in others if they've been asked for the help, and I'm not really sure why someone would want to limit pain in themselves.

I'm talking emotional pain more than anything. The kind that lets you know you're alive, and hones you like a steel edge. What I mean is, maybe there's good kinds of pain.

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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 4:45 AM

NIKI2

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


JS, I understand. That's logical. Maybe it's just that the rampant anti-abortionists are so noisy and in your face...you know, squeaky wheel and all that...

At least I'd like to believe what you say is true. So I will! The fact that over half the country believes in choice kinda reflects that, I think; I find it hard to believe over half the country are liberals!


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



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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 5:37 AM

NIKI2

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


Pizmo, I tend to agree. They're smart enough, and many other species immitate, so it's more likely that's the explanation. Especially as they tried to jump, that's not something most critters would think to do on their own.

I think they COULD have gotten it to "work"...trampolines don't work that wall if you just jump up once and come down...you have to bend your legs slightly and push yourself off to get any height, and notice the foxes who tried it just jumped once and came down straight legged. Admittedly they're light and it wouldn't work as well as with a human, but I'll betcha they could have got it to bounce!



DT, for someone who lost interest in the topic a while back, you continue to post looong posts in it, which is weird. I've been debating things you've said, and your only response has been to diss me.

I showed that over half the country DOES believe in a woman's right to choose, yet you continued to claim otherwise. You also said the percentage is much higher for the whole world; that doesn't make sense given that such a large part of the world is Muslim, for whom abortion is inconceivable. Even if they did believe in it, they'd never voice that opinion, surely!

Also, it's a good point that you don't say whether "42 million" are killed by abortion in America or the whole world. Given you quoted the WHO, I would tend to think the latter, in which case it has less validity. You snarked it once again to Mike, but again didn't clarify if the number was the US or globally. I'd like to know which it is.

I agree with Kiki. It's telling that you say she thinks she's "won"--I wasn't aware any of us here were trying to WIN, only to have a discussion and provide facts to back up our statements. I think it says something about you that you view it as winning and losing. A lot of the supposed facts you posted on this issue were just plain wrong, and I cited material showing why. I believe a lot of what you post is your opinion, to which you are definitely entitled. But to put them forth as accepted fact is wrong, and I pointed it out in some cases. Which was totally ignored by you.

I also agree with Kiki about the Koch Brothers. And not because of Maddow (who I rarely watch anymore, her slant has gotten too much for me). I, too, read a lot of stuff, and when it comes to the Koch Brothers, there are just too many facts and their activities are just too overt to make me believe they are NOT part of a "conspiracy", if you will, to further the GOP's interests (and those of big business). They've funded many things without being up-front about their funding, and many, many more things. I can listthem if you like,

As to Kiki pointing out that you kept insisting Clinton reduced the deficit by selling US ports to Dubai, I remember that too. Mike is our "go to" guy when it comes to ferreting out old posts (ferret on, Mike!), but I remember that you did say that--if I recall correctly, you said that ports were sold to a British company who then sold them to Dubai. I refuted that along with Kiki by giving examples of ports HERE that were never "sold", and she gave facts about the rest. I remember that.

Regarding the "recovery room" thing, my husband and I have BOTH had "major" dental surgery, and never been taken to a recovery room. Snarking that Texas is keeping to the Dark Ages because they DON'T put you in a recovery room is pretty over the top.

Mike accused you of thinking swamp fires will "destroy the planet", he never said they weren't a serious problem. You responded by saying WILDFIRES are the #1 issue on the planet (which is not what Mike was disagreeing with), and then went on to say DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT was a major issue, which is different from wildfires which is different from a swamp fire. Do you see at all? You make a statement, someone disagrees, and you expand on the statement to say they're wrong.

On the janitorial closet issue, you are so wedded to your position that even about that, which is an absurd clause, you give them the benefit of the doubt:
Quote:
I'm not certain they have a good reason for this clause, but they might.
I think quite possibly the one who sees this as a "win or lose" debate is you. You seem completely unwilling to give an inch on any of the things you've stated, even when shown to be wrong.

You doubted
Quote:
More than half the country wants no cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
That is a fact, shown by numerous polls--one poll says little, but the same figures having been come up with many over a period of time does indicate that very FEW people want cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Your response was about negotiating with pharm companies and welfare checks to rich people, but that has nothing to do with CUTTING Medicare and Social Security, those are about lessening the cost of care.

How can you say you haven't been arguing
Quote:
that Kansas is simply trying to make women safer while still offering them legal abortion services.
That's been your point from the very beginning, made in many ways in many different posts.

Have you facts and figures proving more women are killed by abortions than by terrorism? If so, I'd be sincerely interested in being able to read it for myself.

Your belief that Kiki is living in a very comfy fantasy world painted for you by far-left ideologues seems to be rather dramatic, and judgments like these are typical of you; at least this time you said it was your opinion; we'd disagree a LOT less if you stated much of what you post as your opinion (which I believe it is) and not flat-out fact. Nonetheless, if you're basing that opinion on her belief that the Koch Brothers are a problem and represent a conspiracy, I'd suggest YOU investigate that one. I don't know where you get your belief they're not and only extremists believe they are, but I'd like to know what you think after you investigate the issue.

I'm sure you'll totally ignore this, as you have my other posts to you. I'm asking questions to; most likely that won't be a reason to respond to me, as you said it was to respond to Magons, but all it shows is that you aren't willing to defend your stance, not that you are right. It's easy to make blank statements bout what's real and what's not, but defending them takes time and work. I took the time and work to refute your statements; it would be nice if you'd address those issues.



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



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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 5:50 AM

KWICKO

"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:
DT, for someone who lost interest in the topic a while back, you continue to post looong posts in it, which is weird. I've been debating things you've said, and your only response has been to diss me.



You noticed that too, huh?


Funny, for all the complaining about "piling on", DT has shown very little restraint from engaging in direct, personal attacks.

I questioned his facts, so his response? Not to cite facts, but to call me a "numbskull". I guess the Great and Mighty DreamTrove is not to be questioned. He demands that we subjugate ourselves to HIS facts, HIS claims, and never question him or them, just take his word for it.

And he complains when he feels that governments do that to people.

Odd juxtaposition, eh?

And should you question his "facts" or outright disprove them, he jumps straight to "piling on" - calling names while claiming victimhood for himself.

It's something I see more and more from the right (which DT claims to NOT be a part of, while simultaneously citing Rappy as a "true patriot", which is laughable in its outrageousness!)

"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  

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 6:14 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
I agree with Kiki. It's telling that you say she thinks she's "won"--I wasn't aware any of us here were trying to WIN, only to have a discussion and provide facts to back up our statements. I think it says something about you that you view it as winning and losing.


That wasn't what he was saying. He was saying that you guys are pretty interested in proving him wrong on stuff, not that he particularly cares if he convinces you or not. When he posts, he's not really posting to us, he's posting to the lurking thousands who sometimes swarm onto our boards and consider our opinions.

Quote:
I, too, read a lot of stuff, and when it comes to the Koch Brothers, there are just too many facts and their activities are just too overt to make me believe they are NOT part of a "conspiracy", if you will, to further the GOP's interests (and those of big business). They've funded many things without being up-front about their funding, and many, many more things. I can listthem if you like.


He also wasn't saying that the Koch Brothers AREN'T a conspiracy, rather he was saying that they ARE, but that you don't need Maddow to tell you that. Which you just proved.

Meh. See? Now this thread isn't even about abortion anymore.

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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 8:12 AM

KWICKO

"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 Bytemite:
Quote:
I agree with Kiki. It's telling that you say she thinks she's "won"--I wasn't aware any of us here were trying to WIN, only to have a discussion and provide facts to back up our statements. I think it says something about you that you view it as winning and losing.


That wasn't what he was saying. He was saying that you guys are pretty interested in proving him wrong on stuff, not that he particularly cares if he convinces you or not. When he posts, he's not really posting to us, he's posting to the lurking thousands who sometimes swarm onto our boards and consider our opinions.


That makes an even stronger case for posting supporting evidence and facts, which DT steadfastly refused to do, even when asked point-blank to do so. At that point, he went all Rappy and in essence claimed we weren't worth talking to and thus were unworthy of his esteemed response. THAT is no way to talk to the lurking hordes, is it?

Quote:

Quote:
I, too, read a lot of stuff, and when it comes to the Koch Brothers, there are just too many facts and their activities are just too overt to make me believe they are NOT part of a "conspiracy", if you will, to further the GOP's interests (and those of big business). They've funded many things without being up-front about their funding, and many, many more things. I can listthem if you like.


He also wasn't saying that the Koch Brothers AREN'T a conspiracy, rather he was saying that they ARE, but that you don't need Maddow to tell you that. Which you just proved.

Meh. See? Now this thread isn't even about abortion anymore.


Sometimes, in the course of my day, I'll hear something on Maddow, or on NPR, or on BBC, that I haven't heard anywhere else, and this causes me to go and look deeper into the issue. Should we NOT try to get information from other sources?

"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  

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 8:33 AM

BYTEMITE


We can question DT's methods, though I'm not sure it would make much difference. But yes, generally I don't really think any of us are posting to remain unheard, right? We all know that most of the other board member's minds are made up about whatever subjects we believe, we all know that we'd rather not argue and fight with each other. We would prefer a robust discussion about what if scenarios centered around the crew of Serenity, Saffron, and various capers they could get into.

The reason any of us are here on the RWED is because we want to shine a light out into the world with our words.

Every argument from one side or the other, someone else reads and never responds but thinks, "yeah, right on." PN has an audience, you know? All of us have audiences. Well, maybe not me. But the point is, the friends and enemies we make, the reputations we defend, those are things for ourselves, those are how we create the board structure and build the community that maintains all this. But our arguments, they're for something bigger than that, and bigger than us.

Quote:
Should we NOT try to get information from other sources?


Well... But calling her a source is like calling Glen Beck a source. Maybe they're journalists some of the time, maybe they even do good journalistic work when they do. But when they present their findings, it's in a format that it's not easy to give credibility to. Neither of them are technically news shows, they're editorials.

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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 10:52 AM

PHOENIXROSE

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


Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm talking emotional pain more than anything. The kind that lets you know you're alive, and hones you like a steel edge. What I mean is, maybe there's good kinds of pain.

I never encountered a pain I would call good, and I've experienced all sorts of emotional pains. Never honed, only dull and gray and terrible. It's not something I would go back to. I have much more purpose, drive, and interest without it, and I'm indebted to my doctor for helping me out of that pit.
There are better ways to be reminded that one is alive.


I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 11:19 AM

BYTEMITE


But without that pain, you never would have gone to that doctor, and never would have grown into the person you are today.

This is paradoxical.

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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 3:46 PM

NIKI2

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


Kiki: I agree, and understand.

Frem: Dinna fash yerself, I kinda figured that would be the last we'd see of DT in this thread. He has no defense and was called out probably one too many times, so I assume he's permanently outta here. No biggie; I made my points, and to me, it IS an important issue.


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


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

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 3:53 PM

BYTEMITE


Some people still like DT, Niki, and still think he makes valid points. As I implied before a weak link in citations or data does not discredit an argument in it's entire.

I am not entirely thrilled that he is gone. But then, I'm not entirely thrilled by all of the things he has said recently either.

In any case, I guess that's it on the DT front, and there's no longer any reason for me to defend him. If you wanted to discuss abortion without interruption, this might be your opportunity.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
An American education: Classrooms reshaped by record migrant arrivals
Thu, December 12, 2024 08:17 - 4 posts
CNN, The Home of FAKE NEWS
Thu, December 12, 2024 08:16 - 3 posts
The Hill: Democrats and the lemmings of the left
Thu, December 12, 2024 08:11 - 13 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 01:38 - 4931 posts
COUP...TURKEY
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:38 - 40 posts
Dana Loesch Explains Why Generation X Put Trump In The White House
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:21 - 7 posts
Alien Spaceship? Probably Not: CIA Admits it’s Behind (Most) UFO Sightings
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:18 - 27 posts
IRAN: Kamala Harris and Biden's war?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:34 - 18 posts
Countdown Clock Until Vladimir Putins' Rule Ends
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:32 - 158 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:04 - 251 posts
Who hates Israel?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:02 - 77 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:59 - 4839 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL