...and still the war against women continues

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, August 5, 2011 05:21
VIEWED: 6677
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

NIKI2

Friday, July 29, 2011 6:16 PM

The damned pro-life extremists who swept into office on a tidal wave of fear are still quietly destroying women's rights...no surprise to anyone

Quote:
Women seeking an abortion in North Carolina will have to wait 24 hours, receive counseling and be presented with an ultrasound image of the fetus under an informed consent law passed on Thursday over the governor's objections.

Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue had vetoed the measure. But the state Senate voted on Thursday to override the veto, two days after the House of Representatives took similar action, which means the bill is now law and will take effect in October.

North Carolina joins 25 other states that require pre-abortion counseling that goes beyond basic medical "informed consent," according to Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with Guttmacher Institute in Washington.

It is the tenth state to include the additional requirement of an ultrasound, which has drawn legal challenges in several states, Nash said.

The North Carolina law will require that an ultrasound image be presented and the sound of the fetal heartbeat be offered, though a woman is free to look away and ignore an explanation and medical description of what is on the screen.

Perdue, a Democrat and North Carolina's first female governor, vetoed the bill on June 27. In her veto message, she called the legislation a "dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors."

Republican Representative Ruth Samuelson, the primary sponsor of the bill, has defended it as providing crucial information for women who are making a major and irrevocable decision.

North Carolina's General Assembly had been relatively moderate among Southern states in regulating abortion, but momentum for change grew last November when Republicans took control of both legislative chambers for the first time in more than a century.

Paige Johnson, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, said this week that women don't need "state-scripted" counseling before they consent to a procedure they have already considered.

"Women give this decision great thought, and these legislators have passed legislation that assumes women are not capable of making this decision," Johnson said. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/us-abortion-northcarolina-id
USTRE76R6LW20110728

They won't stop trying to force bad laws on us until we get rid of them, folks. We can only wait and see what's next...and it ain't gonna be good!

HERO

Friday, July 29, 2011 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
They won't stop trying to force bad laws on us until we get rid of them, folks. We can only wait and see what's next...and it ain't gonna be good!

Liberals are against informed consent.

There's a slogan for you, 'Vote Democrat so you can make important life decisions with as little information as possible.'

I guess the right to choose means the right to be uninformed.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NIKI2

Friday, July 29, 2011 7:09 PM

THAT is just pure bullshit. This has nothing to do with informed consent; forcing women to endure an unnecessary procedure AND LISTEN TO THE HEARTBEAT has nothing whatsoever to do with informed consent. It's totally about harrassing women who seek an abortion. If you don't know that, I'd say hooo, boy are you naive, but I know you're not and your response is nothing but a slur! "Women don't need "state-scripted" counseling before they consent to a procedure they have already considered". THAT's what it's about. There is nothing whatsoever in this new law about "INFORMING" the woman, only that she MUST be subjected to an ultrasound and MUST be made to hear the fetal heartbeat. If you are snarking about "informed consent", then you are being deliberately disingenuous; actually, it's an out-and-out lie.

I'm offended that you are using a Raptor technique to lie about what the actual issue is, then expanding the lie further about all liberals.

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

TRAVELER

Friday, July 29, 2011 8:09 PM

What does an ultrasound have to do with being informed? The woman already knows she is pregnant. So what new information does an ultrasound have to offer? How can you force a woman to look at an ultrasound? They have taken her rights away.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

DREAMTROVE

Friday, July 29, 2011 9:06 PM

I believe this horse is not tired, it is dead. Perhaps it's time to try something else. On second thought, keep posting it.

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.

STORYMARK

Friday, July 29, 2011 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I believe this horse is not tired, it is dead. Perhaps it's time to try something else. On second thought, keep posting it.

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.

Everybody got that? DT's tired of the topic, and as the arbiter of what is discussion worthy, this issue is done.

OR

You have the option of not reading it if you're not interested. Had that not occurred to you in your hurry to bitch?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, July 30, 2011 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:
What does an ultrasound have to do with being informed? The woman already knows she is pregnant. So what new information does an ultrasound have to offer? How can you force a woman to look at an ultrasound? They have taken her rights away.

Agreed. This is emotional abuse as far as I can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 30, 2011 12:25 AM

Great job, North Carolina !

Welcome to the 21st century !

AWESOME !

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

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 12:45 AM

Yup, Traveler, that's about it in a nutshell. And yes, Magons, emotional abuse indeed. If some individual forced a woman to watch and ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat before FORCING an abortion on her, nobody'd question whether it was abuse. Of course, when legislators...well, you know...

Sorry you find the issue so boring, DT; we'll try to be more entertaining in other threads. This IS a real world DEVELOPMENT; they just passed it. It's happening in other states, this is just the newest one to come along. Apparently that means nothing to you; to the women of that state, I'd wager it means something.

Tho' of course since it bores you, we won't post about such things again (NOT!).

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

BYTEMITE

Saturday, July 30, 2011 1:39 AM

...My understanding is that you can't hear a fetal heartbeat until four months. I'm not exactly sure how this law would even work, aren't there limitations on all this anyway past the first trimestre?

Not that I expect these politicians to understand the very basics of pregnancy, anatomy, or even the fetuses they're concerned about, but this law doesn't even make sense.

EDIT: Hmm. Apparently through a vaginal ultrasound you can pick up the heartbeat earlier. So the law essentially requires a vaginal ultrasound.

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 1:47 AM

Quote:
Not that I expect these politicians to understand the very basics of pregnancy, anatomy, or even the fetuses they're concerned about, but this law doesn't even make sense.

You answered it yourself, love.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 30, 2011 1:47 AM

Well, I've already make it clear what my perspective is, this is less about womens rights than the fact that women have rights, which is offensive to the GOP, and shows their true colors every time they do shit like this.

This is about punishing women for daring to exercise their rights, their will, at all, is what it is - the pyschological and emotional version of taking them out back and whipping them into line.

And no less offensive - just because scars on the soul are not as visible as those on the body, doesn't mean damage hasn't been done.

Consider also this - if YOU did something like this to your wife, you'd be very much guilty of spousal abuse, so why the hell should the State get a free pass, and why should any doctor, who mind you swore a fucking oath to do no harm, ever comply with such a horrific act ?

Any of em who do should be charged with malpractice and have their license revoked, because in *MY* eyes, a sworn oath of person supercedes the law of the State, because you swore that personally, of your own free will, and your obligation to obey the State springs from nothing more than the random chance of being born within its borders.

Oh, and lemme offer this, cause I might not have mentioned it before - shortly after getting certed in personal protection, I offered my services for a mere pittance to clinics and patients as an escort to "run the gauntlet" of nasty bastards hell bent on forcing THEIR will upon others - and on occasion did indeed dish out some hostility of mine own, personal and physical.
I've seen what these scumbags are, at point blank range, and honestly... I *enjoyed* hurting them when they tried to lay hands on my protectee, far more than I should have, sure - but the notion of deliberate abuse toward someone who already has to make that horrible decision enrages me on a level I don't even have words for.

They can protest and bitch all they like, but when one attempts to use force, either of their own, or using the State as proxy for it, it is at that point I've no real issue with using force on them - understand ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 30, 2011 1:51 AM

I stand corrected. Your dead horse still runs. IIRC, last time you forced this debate, it pretty much killed the forum, I have to assume that was the goal. Unfortunately, you think that this issue will win support to the left side, but I am certain it is a losing one.

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.

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
They won't stop trying to force bad laws on us until we get rid of them, folks. We can only wait and see what's next...and it ain't gonna be good!

Liberals are against informed consent.

There's a slogan for you, 'Vote Democrat so you can make important life decisions with as little information as possible.'

I guess the right to choose means the right to be uninformed.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

Remember, people, this is coming from the guy who proudly proclaimed "I voted for Bush twice, and intellegence [sic] have very little to do with it."

Of course, he also supported going to war with as little information as possible... Because, y'know, going to war isn't any kind of "important life decision" or anything.

So again, "Hero" here is somebody who really knows what he's talking about when it comes to being uninformed! He actually makes a living at it!

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

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:05 AM

Were you addressing me? I don't believe I've ever "forced" a debate, and we've discussed pro-life v. pro-choice several times since I came here, none of which ever came close to "killing" the forum, so I must be missing something. I get virtually no "notifications", for whatever reason, so I can't know to whom you are responding.

If you think I think this debate "will win support to the left side", you're out of your gourd. It's not political to me, it's a wrong thing, pure and simple. A lot of what Frem said is valid, and I hate, hate, HATE people being able to legally force things like this on women, right or left, and I don't care which side is standing up to call this sort of stuff out, left or right. For me, this leaves politics behind; if anything, it's about religion v. morality, not politics. The unfortunate thing right now is that we have a party whohave come into power and tho thinks it's ultra-religious and that should give it the power to do whatever they want, legal OR illegal, to stop abortions.

But maybe you were addressing Frem, I dunno; if so, ignore the above.

p.s. Good for YOU Frem. I'd volunteer to do some of that, too, only we don't HAVE those kinds of problems in Marin. Maybe not the whole Bay Area, I dunno.

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

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I stand corrected. Your dead horse still runs. IIRC, last time you forced this debate, it pretty much killed the forum, I have to assume that was the goal. Unfortunately, you think that this issue will win support to the left side, but I am certain it is a losing one.

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.

I don't remember it 'killing the forum' so much; I remember YOU disappearing quite suddenly for a while. Most others were still here, discussing lots of other things.

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

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:
What does an ultrasound have to do with being informed? The woman already knows she is pregnant. So what new information does an ultrasound have to offer? How can you force a woman to look at an ultrasound? They have taken her rights away.

Somehow, they view THIS government-mandated healthcare as "the good kind", and they view THIS big government intervention as a positive thing. They want to shrink the government to where it's the size that it can get its hands in every woman's vagina.

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

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Great job, North Carolina !

Welcome to the 11th century !

AWESOME !

Fixed that for ya, dear.

The Taliban cheers North Carolina's new law. No wonder the tea-bagging GOP are so into it!

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

TRAVELER

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:24 AM

The people screaming that big government is terrible and then they create laws like this that give government power over peoples rights. This is what I call big government. So big it smothers your civil rights.
First they try to tell women they don't have rights over their own bodies and then they try to submit this. Actually forcing their will on these women's bodies. This is BS. Civil liberty rules against any such acts. This law will not stand.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:32 AM

It'll stand, because it infringes on no one's civil liberties.

LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The first of these Rights being so aptly pointed out, and for good reason.

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

TRAVELER

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:41 AM

The government has no right to inflict any procedure on person without due process. There is no crime here. So the government has no rights to touch another persons body in a obtrusive way. No court will allow this. The police don't have such rights.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

STORYMARK

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I stand corrected. Your dead horse still runs. IIRC, last time you forced this debate, it pretty much killed the forum, I have to assume that was the goal. Unfortunately, you think that this issue will win support to the left side, but I am certain it is a losing one.

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.

I don't remember it 'killing the forum' so much; I remember YOU disappearing quite suddenly for a while. Most others were still here, discussing lots of other things.

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

Some folk think that if they don't see it, it isn't there. Most outgrow this right out of the peek-a-boo phase, some not so quickly.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

STORYMARK

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

It'll stand, because it infringes on no one's civil liberties.

LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The first of these Rights being so aptly pointed out, and for good reason.

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

Good ol' Rethug thinkin'!

Government bad! Unless it keeps women in their place.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

It'll stand, because it infringes on no one's civil liberties.

LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The first of these Rights being so aptly pointed out, and for good reason.

Where is that in the Constitution? (Hint: Herman Cain doesn't know either!)

By the way, nice to see that you fully support the government being able to order you to have medical procedures without your consent.

How very "libertarian" of you.

GEEZER

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:58 AM

Politicians vote for this kind of legislation because they believe that it'll get them re-elected. In some places (like North Carolina) it probably will. Unfortunately, in some cases the will of the people isn't what some of us think is appropriate. Folks who think this legislation is wrong have to convince the voters who support it that they may have an incorrect perception of the situation. Screaming that they're bigots, sexists, or at war with women isn't gonna convince them. It'll just harden them in their erroneous position.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:08 AM

Found out an abortion clinic is opening downtown. Despite my personal feelings I look forward to prosecuting anyone who illegally interferes with their right to operate their facility or interferes with those who choose to make use of their services.

I'm as much a pro law guy as a pro life guy.

Ironically I hate Thai food, but I make the same pledge about the Thai place two doors down from the clinic. The fracking used car dealer is on his own.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:26 AM

Aw-Right Hero! You go, man, you're a person of principle! We may not like one another (I know you don't like ME), but on this issue, I respect your decision.

Quote:
Politicians vote for this kind of legislation because they believe that it'll get them re-elected.

Geezer, you're absolutely right and of course this is at the bottom of the new laws. What you missed is that it wasn't the "will of the people" in the FIRST place! These neophite Republicans/Tea Partiers were elected out of fear, hoping they'd improve the situation because they kept screaming "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" What the people GOT was union busting and anti-abortion legislation. I don't believe it was the will of the majority of people at ALL.

Over in another thread I started a joking "Raptor Rules". This fits, too, so I'll add it.

Raptor's Rules

1. You can always tell what an entire political movement stands for by the worst actions of any one of its members

2. Big government is terrible except when WE create laws that give government power which WE determine doesn't infringe on anyone's civil rights.

Anyone suggest a #3?

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

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:27 AM

Damn. Double post. That hasn't happened in a while...

GEEZER

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What you missed is that it wasn't the "will of the people" in the FIRST place!

Having been born in the South and having lived among the folks there for a good bit of my life, I have to respectfully disagree. I would say that a majority of them, including some of my kinfolk, have no problem with this type of legislation. Fifty years ago they had no problem with 'Seperate but equal', but eventually saw that it wasn't right. Change is slow there, and takes gentle, logical persuasion. Saying it ain't so, or treating them as wrongheaded, will just get their backs up and then they'll never change, even if they realize it's the right thing to do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:48 AM

You're absolutely right, Geezer, you know the state better than I ever could. Given such a law wouldn't have an iceburg's chance in hell in Califorian, I don't know shit about it.

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

BYTEMITE

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:11 AM

Kwicko: That's not fair, even I've been a little scarce lately. And when I'm not scarce I've been spamming the RWED because all the topics are about economics and the tea party.

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Kwicko: That's not fair, even I've been a little scarce lately. And when I'm not scarce I've been spamming the RWED because all the topics are about economics and the tea party.

Which rather proves my point that discussion of abortion in no way is "killing the forum".

I get tired of people whinging about this or that thing "killing the forum". If a forum dedicated to a half-season TV show that was cancelled nearly a decade ago hasn't been killed yet, then I don't really worry that discussing a single divisive issue is going to be the death knell for it.

This is probably about the thirty-seventh thing that I've heard people claim is "killing this forum", and I bet nobody even remembers what the other 36 were.

We talk about things that are in the news. DT talks about fracking, which few people seem to want to discuss in much detail or with much vigor. I don't accuse him of "spamming" the place with it, or of "killing the forum" with it. Everybody has their own issues that are close to their heart and important to them. For Niki, reproductive choice is one of those issues, as it is one of mine, even though I'll never have an abortion in my life.

DT seems to be insisting that Niki stop posting about an issue that she cares about, simply because (a) he's against it, and (b) he's been unable to support his position with facts and win others over to his position. So rather than simply accepting the truth of the matter and simply staying out of such threads, he feels the need to try to portray himself as superior and talk down to everybody in telling them how uncouth they are for "killing the forum" by discussing something which he doesn't want to discuss.

My simple advice for anyone who doesn't want to discuss an issue is this: Shut the fuck up about it, then. DON'T discuss it if you're against discussing it.

And if you're against abortion, my advice is this: Don't have one.

Is it really that hard?

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

BYTEMITE

Saturday, July 30, 2011 5:00 AM

Sure.

But it's also not cowardly to lose interest in the board for a while either.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 30, 2011 5:42 AM

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

It'll stand, because it infringes on no one's civil liberties.

LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The first of these Rights being so aptly pointed out, and for good reason.

Where is that in the Constitution? (Hint: Herman Cain doesn't know either!)

By the way, nice to see that you fully support the government being able to order you to have medical procedures without your consent.

How very "libertarian" of you.

Never said it was in the Constitution, genius.

And further more, what 'medical procedure' is being ordered here ? No one is ordering, or denying any gorram procedure.

I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.

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

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:44 AM

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

It'll stand, because it infringes on no one's civil liberties.

LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The first of these Rights being so aptly pointed out, and for good reason.

Where is that in the Constitution? (Hint: Herman Cain doesn't know either!)

By the way, nice to see that you fully support the government being able to order you to have medical procedures without your consent.

How very "libertarian" of you.

Never said it was in the Constitution, genius.

Then what makes you think that it's a "right"?

Quote:

And further more, what 'medical procedure' is being ordered here ? No one is ordering, or denying any gorram procedure.

You honestly don't think an ultrasound sonography is a medical procedure?

Do you think you can stop off and pick one up at the 7-11? Do you think they're performed by the guy at the Jiffy Lube? If it's such an important decision, are you NOT requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed medical professional? Really?

Speaking of which, who is paying for this mandated procedure? Are you planning on taking MY money and using it to pay for these medical procedures? Or are you planning on telling every pregnant woman that she MUST have such a procedure, and MUST pay for it out of her own pocket? I thought you used to have a problem with government telling people how and where to spend their money...

I think it is you who has a problem with your brain being missing. Certainly seems that way.

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, July 30, 2011 8:00 AM

You shouldn't even be forced to have one even if you intending on carrying through with the pregnancy.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 30, 2011 10:55 AM

I actually counted posts. They slowed down considerably, and if you discount abortion threads: came to a stand-still.

This is completely apart from my feelings on the subject, or my strong suspicion that every time we bring it up we're handing the republicans an automatic victory, just as the GOP does for us on immigration. Just consider the demographics: The national is absolutely filled with christians and latinos, who are almost all catholics. If either party wanted to win debates, it would be the democrats forcing debates on immigration and the republicans forcing debates on abortion.

But why win debates? That's not what we're here for. From the point of view of FFF, I will say what I have posted many times over the years on such threads: "That's what really interested me about Firefly: The abortions."

This is idiocy. So, now let's make it 66 threads about abortion. Yay. It's an emotional issue and we are easily tricked into a pointless debate. People posting nasty stuff are not douchebags, they have been emotionally affected and so they go off. I did it, Frem did it, everyone can do it.

As for the issue? I posted a thread on women's issues, and only Byte and Magon were at all interested in the topic, and both also went on to post about abortion. It just derails the conversation. Everyone posting is looking to gain an upper hand against their fellow browncoats by doing so. This is not a constructive way for us to collectively behave.

Mike,

Me and Byte off board came to the conclusion that ultrasound basically served as a form of female infanticide. This argument might not work if you're not RTL, but statistically, it's worth measuring in to your equation.

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.

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You shouldn't even be forced to have one even if you intending on carrying through with the pregnancy.

Exactly. You shouldn't be FORCED to have one, period.

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Mike,

Me and Byte off board came to the conclusion that ultrasound basically served as a form of female infanticide. This argument might not work if you're not RTL, but statistically, it's worth measuring in to your equation.

There are absolutely risks and side effects, and not all of them are known. Forcing it on people seems about as well-advised as pRick Perry's attempt to force Gardasil on every schoolgirl.

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:37 PM

Wow

Quote:
what 'medical procedure' is being ordered here ? No one is ordering, or denying any gorram procedure.

It is, as Mike said, DEFINITELY a medical procedure, and it is DEFINITELY being "ordered", if the woman has chosen to have an abortion. It's being ordered BY LAW. It's the equivalent of forcing men to watch a gory movie about abortion and get lectured about the sanctity of life if they want to get a vasectomy. Those aren't even medical procedures, but the concept is similar.

The basic premise is that the government shouldn't have it's fingers in reproductive rights, and it's obvious that these people do NOT want smaller government, they just want government to enforce what they want. It's not fiscally responsible, either, given it requires people to do the procedures and those people have to be paid; all for a totally unnecessary procedure THEY're also forced to do by law.

As to DT, "what Mike said". The board isn't any slower that I can see than it's been since I came. If anything, it's less vicious right now, and a LOT of people were either driven off or come less often because of the ugliness here; you wanna make the forum busier? Put up your own posts on other subjects. This IS the Real World Events forum; this IS a real world event (given, as I said, the law was JUST passed), and your remark about Firefly is stupid. Virtually every other forum here is about Firefly or Firefly related, etc., you can go to those if you wish. This one is about events which we're interested in.

Essentially your argument is purely "I don't want to see any more threads on this subject", but nobody's forcing you to even read any thread on the subject, much less contribute to the thread. Saying they came to a "stand still" is insane; I come here every morning, and there are ALWAYS active threads and ALWAYS new threads about things besides abortion. Actually, your statement that "if you discount abortion threads: came to a stand-still" is a prime example of why we disagree. It's not true, yet you state it as a fact. It might be your IMPRESSION, but that doesn't make it true, and it definitely isn't.

Quote:
People posting nasty stuff are not douchebags, they have been emotionally affected and so they go off

BullSHIT! We have people who are nasty because that's their WAY, they don't care about being civil and they make that completely obvious and you know it.

Because you posted about something and there was little interest has nothing to do with anything. I post stuff every day (or try to) and a number of those threads don't catch on, or else they get thread-jacked. I don't mind, I CERTAINLY don't take it personally as you seem to; people contribute to threads they're interested in. I don't even read some threads whose titles indicate something of no interest to me. You can do the same. There are many threads on unimportant topics posted here; some issues come back up because of recent developments, some are purely personal diatribes, some are silly. The content is up to those who put threads up, whether they take hold or not is up to what interests people.

It comes down, basically, to something I used to get accuse of when I'd plead for civility: That you want to control us. You disapprove of this subject, for whatever reason(s), and want us not to discuss it further. You have no right to do so. End of story.

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

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:50 PM

Quote:
...and your remark about Firefly is stupid. Virtually every other forum here is about Firefly or Firefly related, etc., you can go to those if you wish. This one is about events which we're interested in.

Excellent point, Niki. To paraphrase DT, "You know what drew me into Firefly? All the talk of hydraulic fracturing and deforestation."

We get it, DT: Women's reproductive rights aren't your thing. But you are absolutely free to NOT comment on them. You have that power.

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

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
...and your remark about Firefly is stupid. Virtually every other forum here is about Firefly or Firefly related, etc., you can go to those if you wish. This one is about events which we're interested in.

Excellent point, Niki. To paraphrase DT, "You know what drew me into Firefly? All the talk of hydraulic fracturing and deforestation."

We get it, DT: Women's reproductive rights aren't your thing. But you are absolutely free to NOT comment on them. You have that power.

Notice me not commenting on them, but please don't lie: this has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights, which, like all women's rights are perpetually stamped on by the proponents of this recurrent wedge issue. Just see how the support for that issue among the core abortionists holds up when it comes to quiverfull, flds, eugenics or issues like abolishing one child policies. Rather, they seem to tend to criticize those who choose to reproduce quite harshly, i've seen a fair number of references to breeding idiots, etc. I exempt Frem and Magon from this snark, as I can't recall them ever taking this position. But it's a common one. Anyone who really csred a out "reproductive rights" would be really concerned about eugenics. I think a limitation on the number of children you can have, or on custody, or stealth coersion and forced sterilizations are an issue, as is adoption, a very major one: if you can't afford to support the child but with to have it, then they absolutely have the right to have it, as we all know there are many out there willing and able to take care of it.

So, yes, I have and will call rigt-to-lifers who don't support a comprehensive world view hypocrites, but I damn well am going to do the same to pro-choicers. If someone's not comprehensive and consistent, you're left with two possibilities: they're either a hypocrite, and are hiding some other agenda, or they are dupes of some agenda monkey and should really think about it more, one side or the other.

I suspect there are a couple depopulationists here on the board, but if they claim that their position is womens rights, that's hypocritical, iow they're lying.

I don't think niki really has a position, i think she's playing a political game, because i think she's far more like finn than like anyone else. That's perfectly okay with me, but I reserve the right to point it out to you guys when she does it, just as I do when anyone does it. You remember my systematic deconstruction of Finn's right wing power gaming political threads, right? That's all I'm doing here: shooting skeets.

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.

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:09 PM

Can you show me any instances of Planned Parenthood sponsoring legislation which would, BY LAW, restrict the number of children a woman may have?

By the way, I reserve the right to point out when you're pushing an agenda as well.

And you've consistently lied and invented facts in your narrative against reproductive rights. As you yourself said, you have no intention of being fair when it comes to this issue.

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:30 PM

Now you're starting to really piss me off, so this will be the last thing I have to say before I start sounding like Sig or Mike:

Quote:
this has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights

BULLSHIT!!! It's about just that, the right to choose what to do with our bodies, whether we wish to procreate or not. That's what it's about for ME, and "quiverfull, flds, eugenics" don't come into it for me; I don't even know what the first two ARE and eugenics is your obsession, not everyone's, not mine, and I don't believe it's anything LIKE the issue you obviously do. You've never, EVER heard "breeding idiots" from me, or anything even close to it!

Quote:
If someone's not comprehensive and consistent, you're left with two possibilities: they're either a hypocrite, and are hiding some other agenda, or they are dupes of some agenda monkey and should really think about it more, one side or the other.

Gawd, that really makes me madder than hell: YOU judge that unless someone is what YOU consider "comprehensive and consistent", they're a hypocrite hiding something or a dupe. Your judgments are YOURS, and yours alone, they are not fact, and I don't give a SHIT about comprehensive and consistent (tho' my position on choice has always been consistent and always will be).

Although I recognize the many aspects of the issue, some valid, some not, it's a very simple issue for me: Women should have the right to choose whether to have a child or not. I recognize that right would be abused by some, but consider them the minority, and I have the brains to recognize that abortion WILL HAPPEN, whether legal or not, whether pro-lifers' efforts to circumvent the law of the land is successful or not, whether they find a MILLION ways to minimize women's access to abortion. It's just plain WRONG, period. Certainly I'm as prejudiced about the issue as you are about MANY, for the same reason: Your relatives endured the holocaust, so things related to that are things you feel strongly about. My mother had an illegal abortion in her youth; it screwed her up and affected our family seriouly. If abortion was legal then, I'd have sisters and/or brothers. It's what she wanted and I'd have loved it, so the issue is personal to me as others are personal to you. Tho' I chose not to have children and am too old to choose otherwise now, my heart is with women like my mother and their RIGHT to have children or not.

I'm playing a political game, eh? I don't play games. It should be obvious to anyone here with half a brain by now that I say what I think, whether anyone agrees with me or not. Mike plays games with others; I don't. I believe Raptor plays (and I KNOW Kane played) games. It sickens me when people play games, political or otherwise, and it's part of the reason I'm not very social anymore. I've been around long enough to see games of all kinds, too many kinds to list, and a lot of them aren't even intentional, they're subconscious; I don't want to play them, so I don't. I'm really seething now; I KNOW you do these things, make flat statements that you believe (or say?) "everyone knows", which are actually so far out of reality NOBODY actually believes them, but now it's getting personal, you're accusing me of lying and being a hypocrite.

I have NEVER accused you of deliberately being anything negative, I've said I think you make flat statements which are in reality only your opinion; I've lamented that you don't put up facts and figures to back up your points; I've disagreed heartily with some of the things you've said; I've also agreed with you at times, and I believeD (past tense) that a lot of the things you write come from a subconscious bias, not a conscious desire to harm. Wwhat you've perceived many times as "pe

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 30, 2011 9:28 PM

Considering I defended the FLDS, up to and including personal involvement to the point of on-site, hands-on (I drove some of em back to their folks) - despite the fact that I seriously despise them, which is entirely mutual I assure you...

You're damn well told I don't have any position on reproduction other than one should have that choice, and my opinion on stealth or forced sterilization - which no one bloody asked me, but to end any possibility of assumption, is that it's downright evil, ESPECIALLY when done under cover of vaccination cause that also demeans and undermines the trust of the medical establishment and further discredits the idea of vaccination itself, which despite there obviously being better alternatives, still does have a use in much of the third world since we've not invested the proper time and research into those alternatives to make them viable.

Far as it goes, my position is what it ALWAYS is - you gotta right to do your thing, what you AIN'T got, is the right to *force* OTHERS to, whether you deliver that force yourself or misuse the machinery of Government as your fucking proxy.

When it comes to civil rights infringement, I'll stand up for anyone, Fred Phelps, the FLDS, Rightwing sorta-nazi wackjobs - ANYONE.

Because to do *any* less is to reduce civil rights to a fucking caste system, which we already have regarding youth, which we did at one time regarding women, and the folks behind this wish to roll back the clock to that time.

What you DO with those rights, is up to you, no matter how offensive your use of em, no matter that the manner in which you express em makes me grind my teeth - cause for damn sure the way *I* express and use mine prolly drives a lotta folk batshit, but hey, that's ok, so long as it's a level playing field.

Either the rules apply to EVERYONE, or they apply to NO ONE.
Break that maxim, and you'll wind up crossing irons with me, guaranteed.
Is *THAT* clear enough ?

Frem
PS. Seriously, DT, don't be such a whiner, it makes you look like a petulant little brat and does no wonders for your own credibility.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, July 31, 2011 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

As for the issue? I posted a thread on women's issues, and only Byte and Magon were at all interested in the topic, and both also went on to post about abortion. It just derails the conversation. Everyone posting is looking to gain an upper hand against their fellow browncoats by doing so. This is not a constructive way for us to collectively behave.

I'm not like you, DT. I don't mind threads that meander on and off topic. Thread hijacks don't worry me. I basically reply to posts as they come up and interest me.

I've started a number of threads that have had no or little response, which is disappointing but that is just the nature of these boards. There are also numerous threads which don't interest me and I don't often comment in them.

I don't find the abortion issue to be any more or less destructive than any other thread, it's just that its one that people tend to feel passionate about, one way or another. We may never persuade one another of anything on these boards, but most of us still enjoy coming in for the debate. I get that you are tired of the issue and don't think it is a useful conversation to have. Well, don't have it and leave it to those who wish to do so. Sounds easy to me.

Quote:

Me and Byte off board came to the conclusion that ultrasound basically served as a form of female infanticide. This argument might not work if you're not RTL, but statistically, it's worth measuring in to your equation.

They might lead to infanticide, but they are not a form of it. They can be useful for other reasons. As someone who had an ectopic pregnancy, I had lots of them, not always with happy results. But they saved my health and possible my life on a number of occasions.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 2:31 AM

Quote:
Mike,

Me and Byte off board came to the conclusion that ultrasound basically served as a form of female infanticide. This argument might not work if you're not RTL, but statistically, it's worth measuring in to your equation.

...I don't remember that at all... Are you sure it was me? Maybe it was CTS.

But, I'm against this vaginal ultrasound law thing anyway I think, so I'd definitely be open to hearing the specifics.

1KIKI

Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:52 AM

"... presented with an ultrasound image of the fetus under an informed consent law passed on Thursday ..."

I thought informed consent was about MEDICAL things you needed to know before a treatment or procedure. Couldn't the legislature be held liable for practicing medicine without a license?

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:18 AM

Firefly, by post count, is clearly mostly about abortion. It's just gorram pathetic.

It is not that I am personally tired of the subject, it's that it's an emotional and manipulative topic. I recall posting an abortion thread with a spoiler up top that said "If you respond to this post you are a mindless sheep" and it got a good few hundred responses posted. Around post 100, I reposted that line without the spoiler brackets, and the next 100 posts rolled on anyway without a hitch.

My problem is while y'all are busy being mindless sheep, you're not out solving the world's problems, whatever they might be, you're being manipulated.

Frem,

I did exempt you and Magon that snark.

But I'm *so* not interested in the wedge issue, only in that it silences intelligent debate, as it does routinely.

Magon

Threadjacks don't worry me either. It was rather the somewhat totalitarian stamping out of them I was referring to.

Ectopic pregnancy is pretty rare, but sure, good point, but I thought they had some pretty obvious secondary symptoms.

Since ultrasound is already well established to cause mental deficiencies in the child I think it is generally now avoided unless there is already a complication; the reference was to third world applications. Anyway, statistically, it's worth noting that 75% of abortions that follow an ultrasound are, or would have been, girls.

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.

STORYMARK

Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

But I'm *so* not interested in the wedge issue,

that you can't stop responding to
Quote:
only in that it silences intelligent debate,
so in defense of debate, you'll demand this topic be off limits

Quote:
as it does routinely.

Psycho.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Since ultrasound is already well established to cause mental deficiencies in the child I think it is generally now avoided unless there is already a complication; the reference was to third world applications. Anyway, statistically, it's worth noting that 75% of abortions that follow an ultrasound are, or would have been, girls.

I've never seen any research to link ultrasound to mental deficiencies. By all accounts my son should be a class a moron, given that I must have had about 4 during his gestation. I'd be interested in you had any links to any research to back your claims.

Ultrasounds are routinely used throughout the western world. A 12 week ultrasound is used to detect ectopic pregancy, which occur in about 2% of all pregnancies, although mine was a very rare one, being on the ovary rather than in the fallopian tube. It is also now routinely used to measure the nuchal fold at this stage, an early way of detecting down syndrome. 20 week scans are also routine to check the foetal development. All scans are optional, but most pregnant women I've known have had at least one ultrasound during their term. You may not be able to understand this, but pregnancy can be quite an anxious time for women and testing can be very reassuring, as well as picking up problems.

Most abortions that follow ultrasounds would be due to an indicator of foetal abnormality, usually followed by other tests to confirm. I'm speaking of western countries here, where girls are probably more desired than boys. Better clothing range for your baby, dahling. A lot of women have ultrasounds even if they have no intent to abort an abnormal foetus, but find it useful to prepare themselves and their families for difficult times ahead.

It sometimes feels as if you and I live in different universes rather than different countries, our understanding of the world is so different.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 31, 2011 8:02 AM

No, it provokes intelligent debate, just intelligent (albeit passionate) debate that doesn't agree with you.

And since there's no moderator to run crying to when you fact-deficient and illogical arguments get smashed to powder, you're reduced to throwing a temper tantrum about us discussing a topic you don't like, in a fashion you disagree with.

I need not point out the irony of you whinging about us discussing a topic, in that topic itself, but I will anyway cause you've been deliberately insulting, and playing passive-aggressive bullshit games - if you don't wanna participate, don't - but if you wanna troll the topic and wreck it cause you don't like what is being discussed or how, you've no cause to be surprised or offended if I choose then to treat you like a fucking vandal about it.

You wanna discuss, discuss, you don't, don't.
But don't come here and whinge and whine and whimper that you don't wanna discuss is, cause what the hell, exactly, ARE you doing, then ?

-Frem
PS. I can be more progressively insulting, believe it, cause you're all but begging for it, you look ridiculous and petty.

I do not serve the Blind God.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 31, 2011 1:53 PM

Quote:
Speaking of which, who is paying for this mandated procedure? Are you planning on taking MY money and using it to pay for these medical procedures? Or are you planning on telling every pregnant woman that she MUST have such a procedure, and MUST pay for it out of her own pocket? I thought you used to have a problem with government telling people how and where to spend their money...

A woman comes in to a clinic, on her own, seeking to get a medical procedure. And no one is denying that 'right'. As part of the deal, she has to get a ultrasound. And pay for it. That's the price of doing business.

Don't like it ? Don't opt for the procedure.

Simple.

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

KWICKO

Sunday, July 31, 2011 2:13 PM

So by the same logic, you'd fully support a state law that said in order to buy a home, you are required by law to join a homeowners' association, and you are required by law to pay.

Right?

I mean, if you don't want to join, just don't buy a home.

Simple.

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

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 31, 2011 2:43 PM

Don't buy a home 'there'.

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

HERO

Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I mean, if you don't want to join, just don't buy a home.

What if you get drunk at a party and the next morning wake up in bed with a real estate agent and a couple weeks later you find out your a homeowner?

Thats how I got my condo.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:35 PM

At what point should a woman's right to choose overrule a child's right to live? I don't think counciling and a 24 hour wait are unreasonable precautions when making the decision to end a fetus's life. It is kind of a big deal. However this mandatory ultrasound procedure sounds costly and unnecessary.

This has probably been said before, but you are unlikely to win over hearts and minds when you brand your opposition as 'sexist.' Is it sexist to be concerned about the fate of an unborn child? The fetus could be female too after all.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:44 PM

Magons: DT said "vaginal ultrasounds" are more risky as far as I can see, not that regular ultrasounds result in immediate child death or brain damage.

Kwicko: Um. Are we comparing sex to owning a house? Because I know some people put sex in the same hierarchy of needs as shelter, but that is just an entirely bizarre and foreign concept to me.

Not to say there aren't different kinds of shelter... You know what, I think maybe this thread just got too metaphorical for me.

KWICKO

Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons: DT said "vaginal ultrasounds" are more risky as far as I can see, not that regular ultrasounds result in immediate child death or brain damage.

Kwicko: Um. Are we comparing sex to owning a house? Because I know some people put sex in the same hierarchy of needs as shelter, but that is just an entirely bizarre and foreign concept to me.

No, we're comparing being forced to have a child because you can't afford a medical procedure to buying a home - another important and life-changing decision.

Hey, suppose that every man who ever wants Viagra be forced to undergo a full EKG and heart stress test before he's allowed to get Viagra. Oh, and he has to pay for all that out of pocket, and insurance will never be allowed to help pay for it.

Nobody really *NEEDS* Viagra, Cialis, or any of that crap, after all.

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

BYTEMITE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:59 PM

Quote:
Hey, suppose that every man who ever wants Viagra be forced to undergo a full EKG and heart stress test before he's allowed to get Viagra. Oh, and he has to pay for all that out of pocket, and insurance will never be allowed to help pay for it.

Nobody really *NEEDS* Viagra, Cialis, or any of that crap, after all.

Huh. Kwicko, I think you just invented a viable form of male birth control.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons: DT said "vaginal ultrasounds" are more risky as far as I can see, not that regular ultrasounds result in immediate child death or brain damage.

Kwicko: Um. Are we comparing sex to owning a house? Because I know some people put sex in the same hierarchy of needs as shelter, but that is just an entirely bizarre and foreign concept to me.

Not to say there aren't different kinds of shelter... You know what, I think maybe this thread just got too metaphorical for me.

Byte, Magon

Ultrasounds of the foetus damage the baby's brain and so whould be used sparingly. Longer exposure does more damage. This has been all over the news for years, it's hardly a controversial idea or even in the realm of theory. The waves break up the formation of new synapses. Anyone at all familiar with neurology would have predicted this anyway. The sensible thing is, use sparingly. Also, post ultrasound abortions are 75% females, so bear that in mind from a women's rights perspective.

Anyway, a simple google search returns hundreds of studies, here's the top searhc result I got:

http://www.naturalchild.org/research/yale_ultrasound.html

It's scientifically obvious. Probably a better imaging system is around the corner, but we really want to think about pre-natal gender identification and how that will effect gender ratios. I can tell you right now that in countries where women actually *are* a minority, women's rights are headed for zero. We were just talking about women as slaves in china. That's new. 20 years ago, women had close to equal rights. Now it's heavily backsliding, because china is becoming a male dominated society.

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.

KWICKO

Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:54 PM

In other words, if you're going to FORCE women to get ultrasounds, you'd damned well better give them an abortion afterwards, since you've already fried the fetus's brain...

BYTEMITE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:12 PM

Ah. That does seem rather conclusive.

Well, I point again to what I said about politicians not understanding science. I doubt many people would support this new law if they knew about these consequences.

JONGSSTRAW

Sunday, July 31, 2011 8:30 PM

I feel that it's very wrong to force women to undergo bureaucratic delays prior to having an abortion. It's already been a difficult choice or a necessitated one for the mother, and it's ridiculous to believe that all the personal options haven't already been considered. Just give the gals what they want or need. Religious zealots step aside.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:34 PM

Mike,

Someone asked a scientific question. The effect is similar to being struck with an electrical current, the longer the exposure, the worse it gets. There are times when it's essential to do, but it shouldn't be done frivilously.

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.

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:50 PM

I looked at the site you posted Dreamtrove, and did a search of my own. I only found a few studies in which many of the websites are referring to. Unfortunately I can't find the Yale Study itself. I'm skeptical of any findings that come from only a few studies, and more so of websites that referred to them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, July 31, 2011 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Ultrasounds of the foetus damage the baby's brain and so whould be used sparingly. Longer exposure does more damage. This has been all over the news for years, it's hardly a controversial idea or even in the realm of theory. The waves break up the formation of new synapses. Anyone at all familiar with neurology would have predicted this anyway. The sensible thing is, use sparingly. Also, post ultrasound abortions are 75% females, so bear that in mind from a women's rights perspective.

Anyway, a simple google search returns hundreds of studies, here's the top searhc result I got:

http://www.naturalchild.org/research/yale_ultrasound.html

It's scientifically obvious. Probably a better imaging system is around the corner, but we really want to think about pre-natal gender identification and how that will effect gender ratios. I can tell you right now that in countries where women actually *are* a minority, women's rights are headed for zero. We were just talking about women as slaves in china. That's new. 20 years ago, women had close to equal rights. Now it's heavily backsliding, because china is becoming a male dominated society.

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.

Thanks for providing a link. I did a quick scan of some of the information available on the net. From what I can see, the meta research indicates 'just don't know' rather than any conclusive results, and that the best advice is unless you are in danger of having a high risk pregnancy, less is better. Makes sense. I don't particularly like the routine nature of ultrasounds for pregnancy these days, but they can be useful and sometimes save both mother and baby's lives. I can see that the research has been jumped on by natural medicine sites, but frankly some of the natural childbirth advocates are complete nutty and would have us, along with the anti abortion crowd, living back in the dark ages as far as pregnancy and childbirth are concerned. As someone pointed out not so long ago, pregnancy is a high risk activity. A hundred or so years ago, it was the highest cause of female deaths.

DT, you keep bringing up female infanticide. Can you show me any links to data which suggests ultrasounds are linked to aborting female fetuses in western countries?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 1, 2011 12:32 AM

Magon,

Not off hand, I'm not aware that it's a problem, I thought we were on abortion, internationally. No question the figures are much lower for any problems in most developed nations than in third world countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

Wikipedia suggests that it's a probably in Korea if you count that as a western nation, but the real trouble spots are India and China. My off-hand guess would be that there would be a slight tendency, but that overall women who have ultrasounds in the US are not considering abortion.

Not sure why the feminist perspective would be western centric though. I see the benefits of ultrasound as neonatal care, but I also just wanted to point out the dangers. I suspect the studies that showed the brain damage risk might have been funded by feminists from the other side, worried about the gender imbalance in India/China which is translating into a threat to women's rights, but the idea of synaptic interruption through ultrasound is certainly scientifically sound. This is basically the klingon disrupter, and that's how it's used in medicine. As I said, better imaging will come along, but for now, I think it's safe if you just use it sparingly, and be aware of the risks.

The question about how much information is dangerous is always going to be one for society. I could certainly picture a Philip K. Dick style world in which parents know the whole lives of their children, and select to create football captains and cheerleaders, and perhaps the occasional nobel scientist, but without a world full of people whose work made those breakthroughs possible...

A couple I know just deliberately skipped the ultrasound so as not to know, and named the boy Ogden, and then had to change course when it was born a girl.

The boy bias is strange, but ingrained at some level. All our weird little quirks of humanity are in danger of coming out in chaotic and destructive ways if we fail to keep an eye on them ourselves. As technology advances, the impact of one random human nature glitch is just going to be multipled ad nauseum.

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.

1KIKI

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:12 AM

I think DT may be mixing up ultrasound and MRI. Ultrasound uses sound waves, like sonar. MRI uses powerful shifting magnetic fields which MAY induce small wavelength short-distance currents in the body similar to how cell phones seem to kick up brain activity with their (electromagnetic) broadcasts.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I think DT may be mixing up ultrasound and MRI. Ultrasound uses sound waves, like sonar. MRI uses powerful shifting magnetic fields which MAY induce small wavelength short-distance currents in the body similar to how cell phones seem to kick up brain activity with their (electromagnetic) broadcasts.

Kiki, the story was all over the place, I'm a little surprised everyone here didn't already know it, it was a couple years ago, but I just posted it. It had been suspected in epilepsy for year, but in the 90s and 2000s they started seriously studying it. The conclusion of the vibrations disrupting the formation of new synapses came at a time when my nephew was still in the womb, so I can really pinpoint it precisely.

I have no reason to believe that MRI would cause any synaptic damage.

I humbly suggest that people google things rather than ask me. I'm familiar with the subject, but google and wikipedia are sure to know far more than I do.

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

1KIKI

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:41 AM

This is the part where you went astray "the effect is similar to being struck with an electrical current". No, it's not.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:11 AM

Kiki

I mean in terms of the way in which synaptic connections are broken. Obviously a sound wave is not an electric current. The effect on the brain is similar. It's also similar to a small tumor in that regard. Synapses are the communicating part of the cell, often at the end of long protrusions like axons and dendrites, which is what enables cells to communicate even though they are not co-located. It's actually the protrusions themselves which tear under the stress of sympathetic vibration, which can be caused by a sound wave, or electrical current. A higher electrical current will actually constrict the fibrils holding the brain structure in place, pulling the synapses apart and ripping the dendrites et al. A tumor can do something similar: pushing the cells apart, causing the dendrites and axons to stretch and break apart, breaking the synaptic connection.

All of these methods will have similar effects on the brain structure and cognitive function. It's a bad idea to do it intentionally, which was meant really as health advice, not a political statement.

Politically, in asia, ultrasound is used to select out girls so people can have more boys, which I suspect is an evolutionary glitch: In a tribal society, successful boys would have more offspring than girls. For an entire society, the practice seems evolutionarily moronic, but I can see how it would evolve on a very small clan level, and find its way, by nature or nurture, into cultures. At any rate, it's important to recognize that people behave this way, and so not to encourage it.

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:39 AM

The thing with technology in general is that it can often be put to bad use as well as good, generally however once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff them back in.

While I find the idea of aborting a foetus on the basis of gender personally abhorrent, I don't see that blaming ultrasounds for this practice useful. And if the alternative is abandoning or killing female born babies, as probably was past practice, I'd say termination of a foetus was preferable. I'd support things that changed the mindset, rather than the technology which enables it, which is also, as I have stated earlier, useful technology, especially for women in the 'high risk pregnancy' category.

I've also had ultrasound for other medical conditions, administered by a physio and used differently, to promote healing. Quite a useful tool.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:50 AM

Magon, ultrasound has lots of useful applications, including neonatal care and identifying problem pregnancies. The problem with the comparison of selective abortion and female infanticide is that while you might be right on an anecdotal personal level, it fails on a statistical level. The gender imbalance society will and does oppress women, fairly radically, as in the reintroduction of female de facto slavery in China. Female infanticide was a problem, yes, but did not create this level of statistical imbalance. I see both as serious problems, but different ones.

Lots of technology is available but held at bay. A couple things that could be done to remove the damaage is use short bursts of ultrasound, or test different frequencies, maybe try not to hit the baby's brain, but certainly not keep the machine running for an hour at a time. Another one is a professional code of conduct that would not reveal the gender of the child.

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon,

Not off hand, I'm not aware that it's a problem, I thought we were on abortion, internationally. No question the figures are much lower for any problems in most developed nations than in third world countries.

Oh, I thought we were talking about abortion in the US and I was just, as usually, confusing things by talking about Australia.

I think different experiences inform different opinions on this emotive issue. You come at it from what I consider a very unusual perspective, the eugenics angle, something I've not really encountered from many anti abortionists.

My family background is Catholic. You have to realise that in the past the Church controlled all elements of peoples lives, what they did, said, how they behaved, how they brought their families up. In many countries and cultures it still does. The mentality of the Church was that married couples had a duty to have children and lots of them. Preventing conception in any way was forbidden, although in later years they gave a nod to ineffective practises such as withdrawal and the rhythm method.

Q what do you call people who practise the rhythm method?
A Parents

That was a Catholic joke.

People were basically kept in the dark about a lot of things, not just Catholics. Sex, contraception, abortion *gasp horror* were pretty much forbidden subjects, or the information given about them was limited. It caused great unhappiness for a whole truck load of reasons, and basically people were kept ignorant and unable to make informed choices about how they could live their lives.

A few people here have asked about the mother vs the foetus in terms of importance, but you see for many years in the Western world, women were given lower priority than their unborn babies, or the potential life that they could produce. It didn't matter how poor, sick, or miserable you were, you just produced baby after baby, through either duty or ignorance. It wasn't unusual in history for a woman to die in childbirth and her child survive, through choices made by her husband!! Women were really just seen as brainless breeding machines. Some of those kind of ways of thinking still exist in the countries that practise female infanticide.

The eugenics movement was born out of that kind of world. It saw the misery that the poor were in and thought it had solutions. Unfortunately, it missed a vital one, the one of offering choice to people and instead taking it away from them once again.

It's that important concept of choice that leads me to my stance on abortion, even if I find the reasons that people sometimes have them unethical or immoral, I still believe in choice. And yes, I value the choices of the born over the existence of the unborn, and while I often feel qualms about that, that is, I believe the most humane way of living.

I hope this explains why I feel the way I do, and why I choose to keep discussing this issue even when it divides people. It feels to me that removal of choice is moving us backwards to a time when choice was not available.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, August 1, 2011 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Lots of technology is available but held at bay. A couple things that could be done to remove the damaage is use short bursts of ultrasound, or test different frequencies, maybe try not to hit the baby's brain, but certainly not keep the machine running for an hour at a time. Another one is a professional code of conduct that would not reveal the gender of the child.

Eh, I've never seen it used like that. Never an hour at a time, more like 5 to 10 minutes and never static. Vaginal ultasounds can last even less time, mainly because they are damned uncomfortable, and mainly because they usually are only used to detect heartbeat in very early embryos/foetuses.

If you claim that ultrasound led to mental retardation then everybody I know should have mentally retarded children. The truth is that a lot of us have very smart children ;) I guess all medical procedures carry a risk, but ultrasounds have less than amniocentesis and other more intrusive prenatal testing.

And again, I'd reiterate, don't blame the technology, blame the ideology. If you restrict medical testing because it might contribute to abortion rate, YOU are once again making the choice on behalf of others based upon what YOU see as right.

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 1, 2011 9:21 PM

One of the groups I really enjoyed , 10,000 Maniacs, had a song - What's the matter here

One line, in particular, has a significant message...

I'm tired of the excuses everybody uses, he's your kid, do as you see fit,
but get this through that I don't approve of what you did to you own flesh and blood.

The song, for those who don't know, is about child abuse.

Is not abortion a form of child abuse ?

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

NIKI2

Monday, August 1, 2011 10:53 PM

Hee, hee, hee; Hero, I love it! How about what if your scenario has added to it that the real estate agent comes around to tell you she's pregnant and gonna dun you for child support for the rest of your life unless she can get an abortion? Would you go watch the ultrasound and listen to the fetus and gory details told you by the doctor so that she could have the abortion (while she puts her earphones on and listens to her iPod?).

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

NIKI2

Monday, August 1, 2011 10:54 PM

Happy, IF counseling wasn't a ploy by which to try and horrify/guiltify the woman not to have an abortion, no problem. It is. There's nothing wrong with a 24-hour waiting period and counseling, but that's not the INTENT. That's the issue. And it's not sexist if it's necessary, but it's not; it's a deliberate effort to try and enforce things that will make abortion less possible.

How about the one where a doctor can't be sued if a woman's child ends up having horrible conditions that will break the woman/parents to care for and the doctor chose not to tell them? How about where a woman's life might be jeopardized by pregnancy and the doctor refuses to tell her, and he can't be held accountable? Both exist now, you know. Until someone tells me they're willing to adopt the child in the first example, they have nothing to say to me.

It's not about the health of the child, period. It absolutely isn't.

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

NIKI2

Monday, August 1, 2011 10:55 PM

Hey Mike, here's one: What if every male who wants a vascetomy were forced by law to see a gory movie about abortions, hear all the details, see an ultrasound complete with sounds of a fetal heartbeat, wait 24 hours, drive 500 miles and then come BACK 500 miles before they could get it? I think that's just as fair as doing it to a woman... Of course, aside from the inconvenience, there's a lot of men who wouldn't care about the rest...

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

NIKI2

Monday, August 1, 2011 10:56 PM

Quote:
I feel that it's very wrong to force women to undergo bureaucratic delays prior to having an abortion. It's already been a difficult choice or a necessitated one for the mother, and it's ridiculous to believe that all the personal options haven't already been considered. Just give the gals what they want or need. Religious zealots step aside.

AMEN JS, you nailed it in a nutshell (excuse the mix of metaphors).

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

JAMERON4EVA

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:27 PM

In the pro-life vs. pro-choice, im in the middle, cuz while it's bullshit to force a law that invades privacy on someone, it's also fucking bull shit to think it's all of a sudden alright to kill a life. Abortion is no different an act then that of in China, and like the Casey Anthony case, it's still murder. But thats where i differ from N.C. cuz women shouldn't be forced to do this ^^ crap. It violates females rights under a little tiny thing called the Constitution. Remember im a republican saying this. I dont agree with abortions, and i dont really think there is any excuse, but to force a law thats so assinine it makes my point that polititons are idiots that much stronger. Then again, we are under the Obama admin, which has gotten more soldiers killed in 2-3 years than the Bush admin did in a near decade.

"Mom, he has her chip. He has her."
John Connor,"Born To Run", TSCC EP 2x22

"We mustn't over stimulate young minds. Das ist verboten!" - Rappy

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:50 PM

I agree with most of that. A look on wikipedia suggests the last part is accurate, however I'm not sure the only factors are who the president is, as neither president was particularly gifted in military strategy. Rather, I'd suggest that increasing casualties may be the result of having worn out our welcome, and having increased the regional coverage of our forces instead of staying within Kabul.

NIKI2

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 3:51 PM

Hey, a reasonable (so far), rational Republican! Worth your weight in gold, if you continue to be civil (sorry, just so few ARE, and I don't remember you very well). Welcome back.

I like your logic about abortion; I can't imagine ANYONE who actually likes it or does it easily, on that I think you'll find anyone with any sanity in agreement. But what the RTLers are doing is disgusting...if it was done to THEM on some other issue, they'd scream bloody murder. You can't force through laws how people think; If you can't convince someone of something, laws won't change them.

I don't think I'd correlate it with China, if you mean where they put girl babies out on hillsides to die. If it's to that which you are referring, I think they're QUITE different. It takes a long time for a baby to die of exposure/hunger/whatever.

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

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Is not abortion a form of child abuse ?

No, it is a fetus until born. That is why we don't allow post birth abortions.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Is not abortion a form of child abuse ?

No, it is a fetus until born. That is why we don't allow post birth abortions.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Is not abortion a form of child abuse ?

Do you bury fetuses if there has been miscarraiage? Have a funeral service? Headstone?

Actually you might, depending on the stage of the pregnancy. I knew someone who lost pregnancy at 6mths who did that - but it doesn't happen pre 3 - most miscarried fetues end up down the loo or disposed of with hospital waste. Mostly people will not even mention the loss to others. NOt the way we treat 'born' humans. Because we recognise there is a diiference.

TRAVELER

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 10:42 PM

If you're against abortion, then fight abortion. Don't pass laws that pretend to give a woman options when all these laws are doing are depriving a woman of her civil rights.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NIKI2

Thursday, August 4, 2011 7:06 PM

Quote:
Don't pass laws that pretend to give a woman options when all these laws are doing are depriving a woman of her civil rights.

Amen.

Unfortunately, it's something they've learned; the law will never be changed (gawd willing), so they can't outlaw it. The next best thing (along with harassing doctors and clinics and killing doctors who provide it) is to remove financing and then pass laws that make it as difficult as humanly possible to GET one. So much for smaller government...

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

AURAPTOR

Thursday, August 4, 2011 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Is not abortion a form of child abuse ?

Do you bury fetuses if there has been miscarraiage? Have a funeral service? Headstone?

Actually you might, depending on the stage of the pregnancy. I knew someone who lost pregnancy at 6mths who did that - but it doesn't happen pre 3 - most miscarried fetues end up down the loo or disposed of with hospital waste. Mostly people will not even mention the loss to others. NOt the way we treat 'born' humans. Because we recognise there is a diiference.

Miscarriages aren't really part of the discussion, as they're not actions of intent.

I used the 10,000 Maniacs song for a few reasons. Not only do the words - " I'm tired of the excuses everybody uses, it's your child, do as you see fit " apply to child abuse, but can also apply to the 'excuse' of it being a woman's body, so she can do pretty much anything she wants, as well.

Which I find doubly powerful, because Natalie Merchant , to the best of my knowledge, is far from a TEA party / Pro- Lifer type. ( Hey, cool if she is, but I've not seen her at any rallies ) She seems to be in tight w/ Michael Stipe (REM) and more of a Lilith Fair sort.

Plus, I really like the song, aside from the social commentary.

Also... " I don't approve of what you did to your own flesh and blood ".

Tell me how that can't also a commentary on both child abuse as well as abortion.

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

BYTEMITE

Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:20 PM

Quote:
but can also apply to the 'excuse' of it being a woman's body, so she can do pretty much anything she wants

I do not think you meant what you just said.

Broaden this to men and women and consider the issue of suicide a parallel.

Now, you and I will probably agree that a suicide is pretty tragic, and I'm pretty sure it's a crime under law. The comparison with abortion is that in both cases, someone dies, which society in general likes to discourage. But they are not one-hundred percent similar, as I imagine all of us have some familiarity with the concept of a mercy death for someone in extreme pain, in which case we would still find suicide tragic, but perhaps understandable.

Clearly, the issue you have between suicide and abortion isn't that someone is doing harm to their own body, but rather that a woman is doing harm to an unborn fetus/child/whatever.

So saying that you don't believe a person has a choice what to do with their own body is an incorrect way of phrasing what it is you believe. It also sets you up for people misinterpreting you. I think perhaps you should choose your words better to better get across your meaning.

Unless, of course, you really DID just mean that women should have no choice in what happens to their body... In which case I will inform the governor that we should remove rape as a crime from the books.

This is why I think a valid point of research would be to find a way to preserve the life of the fetus after it has been removed, perhaps through artificial wombs or some kind of transplant surrogacy. The later, BTW, has happened, though the success rate is still too low for it to be a really viable alternative.

The women does have a choice in her body, and I think eventually we can get to a point where it doesn't mean infringing on any "rights" for her unborn child.

Until then, I am not for or against, just as when two soldiers meet on the battlefield in a struggle for their life or livelyhood, I don't blame one or the other, but I do blame the mechanisms which pit the two against each other in that manner.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:29 PM

Byte - you're extrapolating far and away off the topic here.

And, taking my entire sentence in context, not just 1/2 of it, is EXACTLY what I meant to say.

The song, to which I refer, speaks of child abuse. Not suicide.

The words from the song, and the video, speak for themselves.

I invite you to watch it, if you've not done so already. And if you have, then watch it again.

It's a good song.

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

BYTEMITE

Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:31 PM

I'm saying that I really doubt that you meant what you said in that particular instance because even IN context it's loaded with unfortunate implications that I'm almost sure you didn't intend.

I know that you don't support rape. This is obvious. But you weren't being clear, so I clarified for you.

The suicide was just an analogy to show WHY it's obvious you don't mean it that way.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm saying that I really doubt that you meant what you said in that particular instance because even IN context it's loaded with unfortunate implications that I'm almost sure you didn't intend.

I know that you don't support rape. This is obvious. But you weren't being clear, so I clarified for you.

The suicide was just an analogy to show WHY it's obvious you don't mean it that way.

Rape, suicide are nothing but straw men in this discussion.

A woman ( or a man ) beating a child, because it belongs to her/ him, is pretty darn close to a mother aborting her child. It's her body, her own 'flesh and blood', as it were.

My previous position on the matter of abortion, that a woman has full rights and domain of her body, but gradually gives up those rights to the unborn as it grows, has been posted here before. I don't feel the need to continuously re-post my views, every time someone wants to misrepresent my comments.

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

BYTEMITE

Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:52 PM

Apparently you don't understand my intentions. Very well. Your comments may stand without clarification if you wish.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 4, 2011 11:25 PM

Quote:
Posted by Some Moron:

Then again, we are under the Obama admin, which has gotten more soldiers killed in 2-3 years than the Bush admin did in a near decade.

Seriously, dude? Really?

Post up your numbers. I call.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 4, 2011 11:31 PM

Rappy doesn't believe people have freedom to make health choices regarding their own bodies?

How very libertarian of him. I'm shocked.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, August 4, 2011 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Some Moron:

Then again, we are under the Obama admin, which has gotten more soldiers killed in 2-3 years than the Bush admin did in a near decade.

Seriously, dude? Really?

Post up your numbers. I call.

He's actually right if you just look at Afghanistan.

I haven't yet tried to factor in Iraq yet though. I found a graphic, but it doesn't go past 2008 for the comparison. About 4,000 soldier deaths in Iraq though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_wa
r_in_Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#U.S._armed_for
ces

AURAPTOR

Thursday, August 4, 2011 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rappy doesn't believe people have freedom to make health choices regarding their own bodies?

How very libertarian of him. I'm shocked.

And Kwickie can't pass reading comprehension 101.

I stated the exact opposite of what he claims I believe.

KWICKO

Friday, August 5, 2011 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Some Moron:

Then again, we are under the Obama admin, which has gotten more soldiers killed in 2-3 years than the Bush admin did in a near decade.

Seriously, dude? Really?

Post up your numbers. I call.

He's actually right if you just look at Afghanistan.

I haven't yet tried to factor in Iraq yet though. I found a graphic, but it doesn't go past 2008 for the comparison. About 4,000 soldier deaths in Iraq though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_wa
r_in_Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#U.S._armed_for
ces

Too bad he didn't say "just in Afghanistan", then.

http://icasualties.org/

It's closer to 5000 in Iraq, with about 250 of them on Obama's watch. Afghanistan's total is a bit more than half the Iraq total, with about 55% of those coming under Obama's watch.

Bush got more soldiers killed in Iraq - more than TWICE AS MANY, in fact - than Obama has gotten killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined so far.

You can be against Obama and his wars. I am. But if you start inventing bogus claims and false figures, expect to get called on it.

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

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE