User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:34:28 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A pregnant woman that wants to kill her fetus will kill her fetus. Abortion goes back as far as written history does. You aren't going to legislate it away anytime soon. This is honestly an issue that doesn't matter that costs us votes. Get over it. I don't want to pay for it. And I call bull on PP saying taxes don't help their situation |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:35:36 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had to buy an emergency contraceptive once after a condom failed. I had to show ID to prove that I was over 18. IIRC, that changed a couple of years ago. What if it had been a 17 year old girl that had a condom fail? Should she have been forced to have the baby? Would it be easy for her to work a $9/hour part time job and go to high school? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Abortion should not be used as a mode of "on-demand" birth control with the numerous mechanical and chemical modes of birth control on the market. And, society should not be held liable for the irresponsible decisions of those who continue to bear children whom they cannot financially support themselves, oftentimes, numerous children by numerous yet unnamed fathers, because the breeder wants to play the welfare lives for $ game. Stop allowing abortion except in cases of medical necessity, and females will become more responsible for their conduct. Stop paying incremential welfare to women who cannot support even one child on their own, and they will stop getting knocked up, or, the sperm donors can be held financially responsible, DNA test mandatory. I had to buy an emergency contraceptive once after a condom failed. I had to show ID to prove that I was over 18. IIRC, that changed a couple of years ago. What if it had been a 17 year old girl that had a condom fail? Should she have been forced to have the baby? Would it be easy for her to work a $9/hour part time job and go to high school? She could....you know, not have sex at 17. But that's too hard. No need to kill an unborn child. No need to deal with the guilt associated with that. No need to struggle as a single parent. Heck, I don't know. Get married? Logic and decency are lost concepts |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:36:50 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The one that amazes me are the abortion advocates who object to clinics being required to meet the qualifications of an ambulatory surgical center. You're sticking a variety of instruments into the patient with a possibility of uterine and bowel perforation. They should have to meet the equipment and sanitation standards, plus have admitting privileges nearby in case transfer to a real hospital is required (not just dumping them on the staff physicians, but participating and taking responsibility for the patient's care). Kharn Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Like during a colonoscopy? No hospital standard required for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:38:30 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Spoken like a true liberal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:39:40 AM EST
[#5]
I wish there could be more abortions.
I also am ok with paying people to be sterilized. $10,000 for women, $5,000 for men. The savings would be recouped later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:44:17 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The young men may favor it due to the higher likelihood of them making some stupid life choices that would otherwise leave them on the hook for 18 years of child support or left holding a baby they never wanted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
while glad to see a reduction in the amount of babies murdered to ensure sluts are not inconvenienced by their bad decisions, I will simply note that, in my limited experience, those who are the most adamantly pro-abortion are those with the least statistical probability of getting pregnant; horrifically ugly feminists and young men. The young men may favor it due to the higher likelihood of them making some stupid life choices that would otherwise leave them on the hook for 18 years of child support or left holding a baby they never wanted. unquestionably. the young man support is entirely logical, though immoral. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:44:42 AM EST
[#7]
I'm against abortion, but as a Constitutionalist, under the current interpretation, it is a right. Tho ONLY business government should have in the process is to make certain the procedure is done in a safe and sterile facility and being performed by qualified, competent doctors.
"Regulated out of existence" is a phrase we gun owners know well, and should oppose at every turn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:45:20 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish there could be more abortions. I also am ok with paying people to be sterilized. $10,000 for women, $5,000 for men. The savings would be recouped later. I am down with this. Sterilization being a requirement for continued receipt of means tested welfare (1st year you can keep your naughty parts working) Completely voluntary and no dead little babies to worry about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:46:06 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm against abortion, but as a Constitutionalist, under the current interpretation, it is a right. Tho ONLY business government should have in the process is to make certain the procedure is done in a safe and sterile facility and being performed by qualified, competent doctors. "Regulated out of existence" is a phrase we gun owners know well, and should oppose at every turn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:48:12 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm against abortion, but as a Constitutionalist, under the current interpretation, it is a right. Tho ONLY business government should have in the process is to make certain the procedure is done in a safe and sterile facility and being performed by qualified, competent doctors. "Regulated out of existence" is a phrase we gun owners know well, and should oppose at every turn. Lol There's nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a right. Even Ginsburg said RvW is bad law. She's perfectly happy with it, because she doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution - but even she knows it's not right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:55:45 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am down with this. Sterilization being a requirement for continued receipt of means tested welfare (1st year you can keep your naughty parts working) Completely voluntary and no dead little babies to worry about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wish there could be more abortions. I also am ok with paying people to be sterilized. $10,000 for women, $5,000 for men. The savings would be recouped later. I am down with this. Sterilization being a requirement for continued receipt of means tested welfare (1st year you can keep your naughty parts working) Completely voluntary and no dead little babies to worry about. I think it should be a condition of receiving government assistance. Reversible sterilization, with the initial procedure paid for by taxpayers and the reversal paid for by the individual once they are off government assistance and can afford to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:05:38 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:While I can't condone such things as they are crimes, I strangely can muster little outrage at someone committing a victimless property crime and possibly saving thousands of lives. If I break into your home and damage it beyond repair, was it a victimless crime? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:14:31 AM EST
[#13]
Good
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:19:49 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The clinic I'm referring to is the black dot in MT that closed due to what they call hostile pressure in the article. I am actually curious about the rest of what you're saying. Why wouldn't the practicing physicians want to maintain admitting standards? What's involved and what would be the downside to complying with those standards? Well, there is more to it than maintaining admitting privileges, but let's look at those. To have hospital privileges one typically has to take call--this is, as you can imagine, a rather major lifestyle and time issue. Part of taking call is taking call on all comers--you can't refuse a consult even if you know that it's a charity case and you'll never be paid. So you end up spending more time working but usually don't get reimbursed for those extra hours working. It's price of doing business to keep your privileges. You also have to deal with hospital bureaucracy and that is a big unreimbursed time sink as well. Supervision. If you have a PA or nurse doing procedures the "supervising physician" has to be on site and readily available. I could make a lot more money if I could staff my satellite offices with nurse practitioners or PAs to do procedures all day long and then just sign off on paper as the "supervising physician." I can't do that. Every clinic has to have a physician present. This increases staffing costs. Physical plant--to do invasive procedures everybody else has to meet a myriad of OSHA, EPA, building codes, patient and employee safety codes, that would boggle your mind. All of this adds cost to the overhead. Abortion clinics were great money makers--since they were exempt from many of the above regulations they could have several clinics that did procedures all day long without the overhead costs that other clinics that do procedures of similar invasiveness and this provided a lot of easy revenue. When the same rules are applied to them, revenue goes down, costs and headaches go up, and thus they are not the cash cows they were so individuals and groups may stop running them--that's their fiscal choice, certainly, but it kind of belies the altruistic excuses you hear from many proponents of said clinics. They could easily continue to run every single one of those clinics--they just won't be as profitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:24:33 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, there is more to it than maintaining admitting privileges, but let's look at those. To have hospital privileges one typically has to take call--this is, as you can imagine, a rather major lifestyle and time issue. Part of taking call is taking call on all comers--you can't refuse a consult even if you know that it's a charity case and you'll never be paid. So you end up spending more time working but usually don't get reimbursed for those extra hours working. It's price of doing business to keep your privileges. You also have to deal with hospital bureaucracy and that is a big unreimbursed time sink as well. Supervision. If you have a PA or nurse doing procedures the "supervising physician" has to be on site and readily available. I could make a lot more money if I could staff my satellite offices with nurse practitioners or PAs to do procedures all day long and then just sign off on paper as the "supervising physician." I can't do that. Every clinic has to have a physician present. This increases staffing costs. Physical plant--to do invasive procedures everybody else has to meet a myriad of OSHA, EPA, building codes, patient and employee safety codes, that would boggle your mind. All of this adds cost to the overhead. Abortion clinics were great money makers--since they were exempt from many of the above regulations they could have several clinics that did procedures all day long without the overhead costs that other clinics that do procedures of similar invasiveness and this provided a lot of easy revenue. When the same rules are applied to them, revenue goes down, costs and headaches go up, and thus they are not the cash cows they were so individuals and groups may stop running them--that's their fiscal choice, certainly, but it kind of belies the altruistic excuses you hear from many proponents of said clinics. They could easily continue to run every single one of those clinics--they just won't be as profitable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The clinic I'm referring to is the black dot in MT that closed due to what they call hostile pressure in the article. I am actually curious about the rest of what you're saying. Why wouldn't the practicing physicians want to maintain admitting standards? What's involved and what would be the downside to complying with those standards? Well, there is more to it than maintaining admitting privileges, but let's look at those. To have hospital privileges one typically has to take call--this is, as you can imagine, a rather major lifestyle and time issue. Part of taking call is taking call on all comers--you can't refuse a consult even if you know that it's a charity case and you'll never be paid. So you end up spending more time working but usually don't get reimbursed for those extra hours working. It's price of doing business to keep your privileges. You also have to deal with hospital bureaucracy and that is a big unreimbursed time sink as well. Supervision. If you have a PA or nurse doing procedures the "supervising physician" has to be on site and readily available. I could make a lot more money if I could staff my satellite offices with nurse practitioners or PAs to do procedures all day long and then just sign off on paper as the "supervising physician." I can't do that. Every clinic has to have a physician present. This increases staffing costs. Physical plant--to do invasive procedures everybody else has to meet a myriad of OSHA, EPA, building codes, patient and employee safety codes, that would boggle your mind. All of this adds cost to the overhead. Abortion clinics were great money makers--since they were exempt from many of the above regulations they could have several clinics that did procedures all day long without the overhead costs that other clinics that do procedures of similar invasiveness and this provided a lot of easy revenue. When the same rules are applied to them, revenue goes down, costs and headaches go up, and thus they are not the cash cows they were so individuals and groups may stop running them--that's their fiscal choice, certainly, but it kind of belies the altruistic excuses you hear from many proponents of said clinics. They could easily continue to run every single one of those clinics--they just won't be as profitable. crony capitalism and murdering babies all in one neat little bundle. No wonder liberals love it so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:26:26 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............. crony capitalism and murdering babies all in one neat little bundle. No wonder liberals love it so much. For some stupid reason I never fully realized that the majority of women I see supporting killing babies is JUST AS YOU DESCRIBED THEM. Why I missed that is unknown. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:27:38 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I break into your home and damage it beyond repair, was it a victimless crime? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:While I can't condone such things as they are crimes, I strangely can muster little outrage at someone committing a victimless property crime and possibly saving thousands of lives. If I break into your home and damage it beyond repair, was it a victimless crime? Just as victimless as if someone kills an unborn child. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:29:06 AM EST
[#18]
GOOD !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:29:26 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol There's nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a right. Even Ginsburg said RvW is bad law. She's perfectly happy with it, because she doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution - but even she knows it's not right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm against abortion, but as a Constitutionalist, under the current interpretation, it is a right. Tho ONLY business government should have in the process is to make certain the procedure is done in a safe and sterile facility and being performed by qualified, competent doctors. "Regulated out of existence" is a phrase we gun owners know well, and should oppose at every turn. Lol There's nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a right. Even Ginsburg said RvW is bad law. She's perfectly happy with it, because she doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution - but even she knows it's not right. Does the Constitution grant government the authority to stop them? Our constitution is supposed to restrain government, not the people. I'm against abortion (as a product of rape and possibly incest I'm unmoved by those excuses, too) but until the Supreme Court gives a different interpretation it is what it is and government is wrong to interfere. Protesters can 1st amendment the shit outta the place, and I sure as heck won't be donating money to keep em' open, but government should only have a limited role (safe and clean) in the clinics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:31:48 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For some stupid reason I never fully realized that the majority of women I see supporting killing babies is JUST AS YOU DESCRIBED THEM. Why I missed that is unknown. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............. crony capitalism and murdering babies all in one neat little bundle. No wonder liberals love it so much. For some stupid reason I never fully realized that the majority of women I see supporting killing babies is JUST AS YOU DESCRIBED THEM. Why I missed that is unknown. Because abortion for abortion activists is a symbol. Any opposition to abortion is PROOF of the patriarchy keeping women from achieving their life's desires and being happy. So as long as anyone opposes killing babies, they have an excuse why they are ugly, bitter, disgusting women that no man could possibly find attractive. Now, this doesn't mean that all women who support abortion are this way. But the activists almost always are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:31:57 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yay! We've taken a perfectly safe medical procedure that has been all but perfected in the 40 years it's been in common practice and pushed it BACK into alleys and dark apartments where MORE people will die and be incarcerated as a result. Go big .gov, you're my hero! safe for who? certainly not for the baby |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:32:40 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the Constitution grant government the authority to stop them? Our constitution is supposed to restrain government, not the people. I'm against abortion (as a product of rape and possibly incest I'm unmoved by those excuses, too) but until the Supreme Court gives a different interpretation it is what it is and government is wrong to interfere. Protesters can 1st amendment the shit outta the place, and I sure as heck won't be donating money to keep em' open, but government should only have a limited role (safe and clean) in the clinics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm against abortion, but as a Constitutionalist, under the current interpretation, it is a right. Tho ONLY business government should have in the process is to make certain the procedure is done in a safe and sterile facility and being performed by qualified, competent doctors. "Regulated out of existence" is a phrase we gun owners know well, and should oppose at every turn. Lol There's nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a right. Even Ginsburg said RvW is bad law. She's perfectly happy with it, because she doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution - but even she knows it's not right. Does the Constitution grant government the authority to stop them? Our constitution is supposed to restrain government, not the people. I'm against abortion (as a product of rape and possibly incest I'm unmoved by those excuses, too) but until the Supreme Court gives a different interpretation it is what it is and government is wrong to interfere. Protesters can 1st amendment the shit outta the place, and I sure as heck won't be donating money to keep em' open, but government should only have a limited role (safe and clean) in the clinics. so as long as 5 judges say so, you will kneel before your judicial oligarchy. If Heller went 5-4 the other way, you would turn in your guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:34:13 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. So you think eugenics is a good idea. Does it occur to you that there are better ways of reducing the FSA than by murdering their unborn offspring? Doesn't sound like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:34:56 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some good news today. I agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:36:52 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want standards, not rules. I think the professionals who DO the work are in the best position to apply those standards and their customers are in the best position to judge the application. Roe v. Wade has me torn. Ultimately I think the states should decide what laws suit their inhabitants. However, I also believe that the right to do what you want to your own body IS a right that should be nationally codified. I also think people should be able to to choose euthanasia for themselves and I think if RvW says I can kill my fetus, it naturally follows I should be able to kill myself (but, I digress). This is a weird subject, for me. I firmly believe that abortion is morally reprehensible BUT, I think that is a choice that every mother should be able to make. I'm not going to argue the meaningless and esoteric philosophical points of the child's rights, murder vs surgery, fetus vs mass of cells, baby vs parasite, etc. It's all just tinsel, meant to hide the real argument. Should people be able to do with their bodies as they please? I think they should, and I hate that some people choose to abort babies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No it isn't--you simply do not know or understand the regulations and requirements behind an office based procedure that you didn't think was a big deal. OTOH, abortion clinics were exempted from the rules that cover the rest of us because it's like a sacred sacrament to the left. The laws which were presented and passed and argued as being an improvement to health and standards that we all must keep. Every discussion I saw presented that in that manner and wasn't about "shutting down abortion." Although that may have been an underlying motive, they were not presented that way in the legislature. I think your are being a tad bit disingenuous with that statement. You and I have very different recollections of the 2010-2013 legislative fury that gave rise to these "common sense regulations that the nation lived without for a bunch of decades without much ado." But, maybe you're right. My ignorance regarding the specifics of the procedure may be a hobbling point in this debate. I guess I assume that if the world is running well without interference from government it's ALWAYS best to leave it that way. Because if you think our problems are bad, just wait until you see the government's solutions. I doubt we're going to actually see a sharp decline in abortions. I think we're going to see a sharp decline in *reported* abortions and noticeable uptick in complications and self injury from a lack of available care, though. I hope I'm wrong. I just don't think that forcing clinic closures is the *most* effective way to end the wholesale slaughter of children. In fact, I doubt it will be very effective at all. I agree that you are correct--the government should leave things alone and leave decisions at the lowest level. However, by that standard, a federal ruling live Roe v.Wade that forced all the states to comply was much more a violation of the principle of less government than in infividual states passing rules. Obviously, you want some rules and standards and regulations because you've objected to untrained back alley coat hanger abortions earlier, yes? I want standards, not rules. I think the professionals who DO the work are in the best position to apply those standards and their customers are in the best position to judge the application. Roe v. Wade has me torn. Ultimately I think the states should decide what laws suit their inhabitants. However, I also believe that the right to do what you want to your own body IS a right that should be nationally codified. I also think people should be able to to choose euthanasia for themselves and I think if RvW says I can kill my fetus, it naturally follows I should be able to kill myself (but, I digress). This is a weird subject, for me. I firmly believe that abortion is morally reprehensible BUT, I think that is a choice that every mother should be able to make. I'm not going to argue the meaningless and esoteric philosophical points of the child's rights, murder vs surgery, fetus vs mass of cells, baby vs parasite, etc. It's all just tinsel, meant to hide the real argument. Should people be able to do with their bodies as they please? I think they should, and I hate that some people choose to abort babies. I tend libertarian. I agree that the issue is best left to the states (which is the case here.) S Standards enforced by whom? Certainly you don't want to see Bob's $5 rusty coathanger abortion vans popping up, yes? What's going to stop him? So he doesn't meet the state medical board's standards, if there is no rule stopping him, what does he care about the medical standards? You want providers to be trained and certified and that's where your standards become rules. If there is a standard but it has no enforcement, it might as well not exist. I agree, someone should be able to do with their own body what they will and also as a libertarian minded individual , I understand the conundrum. However, even the most wild-eyed libertarian would agree that you don't have the right to do anything to someone else's body without their consent which is where abortion becomes a sticky issue. It's not just one person involved, it's two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:38:25 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The abortions are being replaced with illegals. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:39:24 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is legal therefore not murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Well if murder makes other things better then lets have more of it! Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is legal therefore not murder. So the Nazis killed the Jews, but did not murder them. I understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:41:09 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. and there's the rub in a progressive Sanger esqe way. I don't like either. I'm not big fan of abortion but I'm not rabid against it either. I don't want to pay for people's poor choices either. It's the easy button for some. I sure as hell don't like paying for anybody else's shit when they can't think rationally or simply don't care that they're skimming the livelihood of everyone else. Frankly a mean hard life facing them will do more to influence their choices than a life of easy living on the dole. My views aren't as charitable as some. Then again I only think charity applies when given w/o government taking it to redistribute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:41:33 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yay! We've taken a perfectly safe medical procedure that has been all but perfected in the 40 years it's been in common practice and pushed it BACK into alleys and dark apartments where MORE people will die and be incarcerated as a result. Go big .gov, you're my hero! So if you think murdering the unarmed is a good idea you should be willing to give up your guns, right? I have no issue with murder being dangerous for the murderer. But again, I feel that education is a better option than using murder for birth control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:43:41 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Murder to save money. Sounds awesome. The true sign of a civilized and righteous society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:44:00 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. And crime..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:46:04 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmmmm.......... most folks don't look at it this way. You do have a very valid point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Hmmmm.......... most folks don't look at it this way. You do have a very valid point. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:50:47 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Godwin's Law. You lose. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is legal therefore not murder. So the Nazis killing Jews was not murder? Your statement means exactly that, there is no other way to take it. Care to revise your statement? Godwin's Law. You lose. The post was an accurate use of historical precedent to show the fallacy of the thought process. Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:51:45 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:52:14 AM EST
[#35]
Out of curiosity, how do people feel about the morning after pill? If arguing that life begins at conception, the definition of murder would apply here as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:53:05 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Purposely ending an innocent human life is not a surgical procedure. Removing an appendix is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I understand the major thrust of this is simply requiring surgical medical standards be upheld when they are performing a surgical procedure. They (many at least) are truly "butcher shops" which endanger women's health--and lives. Once she leaves, as in crossing the door's threshold, any complications after that aren't counted as "complications" of the procedure, so the incidence of problems directly related to abortion is vastly under counted. There is much more to this than "choice." Purposely ending an innocent human life is not a surgical procedure. Removing an appendix is. He's on our side. And all he's doing is pointing out what the legislation says in terms those willing to murder unborn babies will accept, although it is doubtful the target audience will be willing to concede the point. Witness the post upthread where someone carps about all the "clinic" closures meaning that women will have to go to a back alley to have this "procedure" performed. Yet no acknowledgement of Kermit Gosnell's disgustingly filthy, unhealthy (for the women), run down, "clinic" and his despicable practices (which was a major factor in numerous states passing this legislation) is ever made. A woman would probably have been safer going to a back alley abortionist than gong to Gosnell's "clinic". And numerous similar "clinics" have been found in the course of enacting/enforcing this legislation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:58:51 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Hmmmm.......... most folks don't look at it this way. You do have a very valid point.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViwbullshit. Here is why crime dropped. NO hypothesis required. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:00:00 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nononono. If abortion is made illegal, every woman who would've gotten one prior will now carry that child to term, even if it kills her, and give it up to the willing arms of adoptive parents. You know, because the amount of childless couples in this country outnumbers potential adoptees that no child, even ones who've been under government control for more than 10 years, is waiting for loving folks, and foster parenting is totally not an industry perpetuated by the left. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yay! We've taken a perfectly safe medical procedure that has been all but perfected in the 40 years it's been in common practice and pushed it BACK into alleys and dark apartments where MORE people will die and be incarcerated as a result. Go big .gov, you're my hero! "Blood in the Streets" argument? It's still legal. In this particular case, it's more likely than not. Women who want abortions are going to get them. Even if they have to resort to sub-par care or self harm. That's how it was before RvW and, it stands to reason, that's where it's likely to return absent access to clinics. I genuinely hope I'm wrong but, I don't think I will be. Nononono. If abortion is made illegal, every woman who would've gotten one prior will now carry that child to term, even if it kills her, and give it up to the willing arms of adoptive parents. You know, because the amount of childless couples in this country outnumbers potential adoptees that no child, even ones who've been under government control for more than 10 years, is waiting for loving folks, and foster parenting is totally not an industry perpetuated by the left. Abortion isn't illegal. You can get one today. But now your chance of dying or being permanently maimed by a back room, dark alley (what you claim to be afraid of) hack is reduced by holding those doctors to the same standard as your gastroenterologist is held. I mean, killing a baby in utero should at least be held to the same standards as a colonoscopy right? You people and your twisted bullshit "logic" never cease to amaze me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:00:53 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could there possibly be a correlation between the high rate of abortions and the lowering crime rate? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If abortion lowered the welfare rate, then why do the welfare rolls continue to grow despite our nation having committed 30,000,000+ abortions since Roe V. Wade? Could there possibly be a correlation between the high rate of abortions and the lowering crime rate? The abortion rate has been decreasing while crime has been decreasing, could there possibly be a correlation there? Or are facts to hard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:01:51 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The abortion rate has been decreasing while crime has been decreasing, could there possibly be a correlation there? Or are facts to hard? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If abortion lowered the welfare rate, then why do the welfare rolls continue to grow despite our nation having committed 30,000,000+ abortions since Roe V. Wade? Could there possibly be a correlation between the high rate of abortions and the lowering crime rate? The abortion rate has been decreasing while crime has been decreasing, could there possibly be a correlation there? Or are facts to hard? I tend to go more with what Sylvan's chart shows..............incarceration rates have gone up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:03:07 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the Constitution grant government the authority to stop them? Our constitution is supposed to restrain government, not the people. I'm against abortion (as a product of rape and possibly incest I'm unmoved by those excuses, too) but until the Supreme Court gives a different interpretation it is what it is and government is wrong to interfere. Protesters can 1st amendment the shit outta the place, and I sure as heck won't be donating money to keep em' open, but government should only have a limited role (safe and clean) in the clinics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm against abortion, but as a Constitutionalist, under the current interpretation, it is a right. Tho ONLY business government should have in the process is to make certain the procedure is done in a safe and sterile facility and being performed by qualified, competent doctors. "Regulated out of existence" is a phrase we gun owners know well, and should oppose at every turn. Lol There's nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a right. Even Ginsburg said RvW is bad law. She's perfectly happy with it, because she doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution - but even she knows it's not right. Does the Constitution grant government the authority to stop them? Our constitution is supposed to restrain government, not the people. I'm against abortion (as a product of rape and possibly incest I'm unmoved by those excuses, too) but until the Supreme Court gives a different interpretation it is what it is and government is wrong to interfere. Protesters can 1st amendment the shit outta the place, and I sure as heck won't be donating money to keep em' open, but government should only have a limited role (safe and clean) in the clinics. Are you serious? Do you have the foggiest idea what RvW did? The entire jurisprudence from RvW to today is SCOTUS directly violating the tenth amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:04:23 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The post was an accurate use of historical precedent to show the fallacy of the thought process. Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is legal therefore not murder. So the Nazis killing Jews was not murder? Your statement means exactly that, there is no other way to take it. Care to revise your statement? Godwin's Law. You lose. The post was an accurate use of historical precedent to show the fallacy of the thought process. Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald. Not that Godwin's law means anything remotely like what he said anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:16:48 AM EST
[#43]
RU486 should be available via Amazon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:21:51 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yay! We've taken a perfectly safe medical procedure that has been all but perfected in the 40 years it's been in common practice and pushed it BACK into alleys and dark apartments where MORE people will die and be incarcerated as a result. Go big .gov, you're my hero! Seems to be a fitting punishment for murder to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:23:49 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so as long as 5 judges say so, you will kneel before your judicial oligarchy. If Heller went 5-4 the other way, you would turn in your guns? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm against abortion, but as a Constitutionalist, under the current interpretation, it is a right. Tho ONLY business government should have in the process is to make certain the procedure is done in a safe and sterile facility and being performed by qualified, competent doctors. "Regulated out of existence" is a phrase we gun owners know well, and should oppose at every turn. Lol There's nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a right. Even Ginsburg said RvW is bad law. She's perfectly happy with it, because she doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution - but even she knows it's not right. Does the Constitution grant government the authority to stop them? Our constitution is supposed to restrain government, not the people. I'm against abortion (as a product of rape and possibly incest I'm unmoved by those excuses, too) but until the Supreme Court gives a different interpretation it is what it is and government is wrong to interfere. Protesters can 1st amendment the shit outta the place, and I sure as heck won't be donating money to keep em' open, but government should only have a limited role (safe and clean) in the clinics. so as long as 5 judges say so, you will kneel before your judicial oligarchy. If Heller went 5-4 the other way, you would turn in your guns? No, nor would I turn in my neighbors. I might even help my machinist friends crank out machineguns and silencers if it came to an outright ban. I'd be the back alley abortionist of the firearms world. 
I wouldn't bitch about the injustice of it all when I went to prison for it, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:27:03 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Out of curiosity, how do people feel about the morning after pill? If arguing that life begins at conception, the definition of murder would apply here as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:28:45 AM EST
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:32:18 AM EST
[#48]
There's a few market forces acting on abortion clinics in addition to the legal stuff that's gone on the last few years. Access to birth control is easier than ever. "Plan B" and similar emergency contraception is easily available. And then there's the abortion drugs available now... 1/3 of Planned Parenthood's reported abortions used the pill in the last data I saw. That doesn't require a surgical facility or an "abortion clinic".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:59:43 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not that Godwin's law means anything remotely like what he said anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is legal therefore not murder. So the Nazis killing Jews was not murder? Your statement means exactly that, there is no other way to take it. Care to revise your statement? Godwin's Law. You lose. The post was an accurate use of historical precedent to show the fallacy of the thought process. Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald. Not that Godwin's law means anything remotely like what he said anyway. Or that it's an actual law anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:01:47 AM EST
[#50]
The War on Women coming to an election near you.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
