User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:50:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. That's some derp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:51:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean from 90 to 08 the number of abortions did go down and the amount spent on welfare did continue to go up. I could probably think of more effective ways at decreasing welfare than killing babies though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
More abortions=less welfare? Lol, maybe. http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2014/12/CP-Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2014-08-2-anti-poverty_HIGHRES.jpg http://www.abortionreason.com/pics/reportedabortions.jpg No fair using not-feels! I mean from 90 to 08 the number of abortions did go down and the amount spent on welfare did continue to go up. I could probably think of more effective ways at decreasing welfare than killing babies though. Assuming the graphs are correct, the number of abortions decreased about 25% while welfare spending increased by about 250%. The graphs show absolutely no correlation whatsoever. Although you could prove anthropogenic global warming with numbers like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:51:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is my estimation as well. I don't think many people apt to get welfare (or want it) were high on the abortion clinic list anyway. 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. This is my estimation as well. I don't think many people apt to get welfare (or want it) were high on the abortion clinic list anyway. Ummmmmmmmm, you really need to do a little checking on the most prolific abortion seekers. Hint: The vast majority of clinics are in "ghetto" areas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:51:17 PM EDT
[#4]
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! But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:51:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. 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. That's illogical. Financial constraints have never been justification for taking a human life. Preventing one crime does not limit one from complaining about another. You might as well say that if you make theft illegal you can't complain about the welfare the thieves need if they don't have your cash. Besides, they are not being "forced out of business," there is a combination of laws that limit public funding for this private medical procedure and regulations that make abortion clinics rise to the same regulations and standards of any other medical clinic that provides treatments of the same level of invasiveness. If a clinic does not want too meet the same medical standards that every one else has to, then tough. A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:53:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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." Yep. An abortion clinic's method of dealing with a complication is "go to the ER." I am required to maintain admitting privileges to do do procedures in my office--so should they. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:56:23 PM EDT
[#7]
How about Kermit Gosnell? That is the reason for this legislation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:57:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. An abortion clinic's method of dealing with a complication is "go to the ER." I am required to maintain admitting privileges to do do procedures in my office--so should they. 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." Yep. An abortion clinic's method of dealing with a complication is "go to the ER." I am required to maintain admitting privileges to do do procedures in my office--so should they. Many seem to have forgotten the horrible video of the closed down clinic from a couple of years ago. You didn't need to be medically trained to understand having blood all over, as well as tissue, etc. is not how a surgical suite is to be run. 
Is that video still around? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:58:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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! But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:59:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming the graphs are correct, the number of abortions decreased about 25% while welfare spending increased by about 250%. The graphs show absolutely no correlation whatsoever. Although you could prove anthropogenic global warming with numbers like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
More abortions=less welfare? Lol, maybe. http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2014/12/CP-Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2014-08-2-anti-poverty_HIGHRES.jpg http://www.abortionreason.com/pics/reportedabortions.jpg No fair using not-feels! I mean from 90 to 08 the number of abortions did go down and the amount spent on welfare did continue to go up. I could probably think of more effective ways at decreasing welfare than killing babies though. Assuming the graphs are correct, the number of abortions decreased about 25% while welfare spending increased by about 250%. The graphs show absolutely no correlation whatsoever. Although you could prove anthropogenic global warming with numbers like that. You dont see that little dip in welfare in 80? Its obviously a result of the doubling or abortions a few years earlier. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:00:41 AM EDT
[#11]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:03:48 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about Kermit Gosnell? That is the reason for this legislation. I extremely despise how much this man set back abortion rights , but still support 100% a women's right to choose. I almost hate to bring it up here... But I also hate how much this man set back a mans right to decide... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:04:26 AM EDT
[#13]
Meanwhile, abortion remains an option for the rich. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:04:32 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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! But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. You don't think putting successively larger stainless steel rods into the cervix followed by a sharp steel curette has the potential for a complication requiring admission? I have to ask you your medical credentials that merits such an absolute statement as " no compelling need to have admitting privs to do routine outpatient surgery." I can think of a dozen right off the bat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:04:41 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. An abortion clinic's method of dealing with a complication is "go to the ER." I am required to maintain admitting privileges to do do procedures in my office--so should they. 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." Yep. An abortion clinic's method of dealing with a complication is "go to the ER." I am required to maintain admitting privileges to do do procedures in my office--so should they. Instead of arguing *for* more restraint and government oversight on others, you might consider arguing for less constraint and government oversight on yourself and, by extension, others. I've had routine outpatient surgery in an office. I really didn't care if the doctor had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Given the vast majority of circumstances likely to arise, "go to the ER" seems reasonable enough for any procedure that CAN be performed outside a hospital by a competent physician. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:07:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Bullshit. They are both wrong. Being against both of them is not inconsistant at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:08:05 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. That "study" was debunked long ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:08:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Instead of arguing *for* more restraint and government oversight on others, you might consider arguing for less constraint and government oversight on yourself and, by extension, others. I've had routine outpatient surgery in an office. I really didn't care if the doctor had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Given the vast majority of circumstances likely to arise, "go to the ER" seems reasonable enough for any procedure that CAN be performed outside a hospital by a competent physician. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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." Yep. An abortion clinic's method of dealing with a complication is "go to the ER." I am required to maintain admitting privileges to do do procedures in my office--so should they. Instead of arguing *for* more restraint and government oversight on others, you might consider arguing for less constraint and government oversight on yourself and, by extension, others. I've had routine outpatient surgery in an office. I really didn't care if the doctor had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Given the vast majority of circumstances likely to arise, "go to the ER" seems reasonable enough for any procedure that CAN be performed outside a hospital by a competent physician. So you don't know. Go that. I have absolutely no problem with less governmental regulations. It sure would save me a lot of money. However, if we have them, they must apply to everyone--no sacred cows. No exemptions and no special snowflakes-those are the hallmarks of the overreaching government you claim to complain about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:09:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. How 'bout less welfare? Like voting it out of existence? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:10:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't think putting successively larger stainless steel rods into the cervix followed by a sharp steel curette has the potential for a complication requiring admission? I have to ask you your medical credentials that merits such an absolute statement as " no compelling need to have admitting privs to do routine outpatient surgery." I can think of a dozen right off the bat. 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! But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. You don't think putting successively larger stainless steel rods into the cervix followed by a sharp steel curette has the potential for a complication requiring admission? I have to ask you your medical credentials that merits such an absolute statement as " no compelling need to have admitting privs to do routine outpatient surgery." I can think of a dozen right off the bat. I have no medical credentials but, you knew that. Is this the part where you invoke the "if you're not a doctor you don't get to have an opinion" defense? I *do* have the ability to look at the last 40 years from the lens of someone who lived through them and determine that it hasn't been a big enough issue to get anyone but anti-abortion zealots riled up. None of the laws, not a single one, was presented as a "common sense approach to health care." Every. Single. Legislature. passed them as a "way to shut down clinics." Arguing otherwise is simply dishonesty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:12:23 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. 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. That's illogical. Financial constraints have never been justification for taking a human life. Preventing one crime does not limit one from complaining about another. You might as well say that if you make theft illegal you can't complain about the welfare the thieves need if they don't have your cash. Besides, they are not being "forced out of business," there is a combination of laws that limit public funding for this private medical procedure and regulations that make abortion clinics rise to the same regulations and standards of any other medical clinic that provides treatments of the same level of invasiveness. If a clinic does not want too meet the same medical standards that every one else has to, then tough. A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:14:38 AM EDT
[#22]
murder
CAll it what it is......murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:15:24 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have no medical credentials but, you knew that. Is this the part where you invoke the "if you're not a doctor you don't get to have an opinion" defense? I *do* have the ability to look at the last 40 years from the lens of someone who lived through them and determine that it hasn't been a big enough issue to get anyone but anti-abortion zealots riled up. None of the laws, not a single one was presented as a "common sense approach to health care." Every. Single. Legislature. passed them as a "way to shut down clinics. Arguing otherwise is simply dishonesty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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! But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. You don't think putting successively larger stainless steel rods into the cervix followed by a sharp steel curette has the potential for a complication requiring admission? I have to ask you your medical credentials that merits such an absolute statement as " no compelling need to have admitting privs to do routine outpatient surgery." I can think of a dozen right off the bat. I have no medical credentials but, you knew that. Is this the part where you invoke the "if you're not a doctor you don't get to have an opinion" defense? I *do* have the ability to look at the last 40 years from the lens of someone who lived through them and determine that it hasn't been a big enough issue to get anyone but anti-abortion zealots riled up. None of the laws, not a single one was presented as a "common sense approach to health care." Every. Single. Legislature. passed them as a "way to shut down clinics. Arguing otherwise is simply dishonesty. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:15:37 AM EDT
[#24]
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. That's illogical. Financial constraints have never been justification for taking a human life. Preventing one crime does not limit one from complaining about another. You might as well say that if you make theft illegal you can't complain about the welfare the thieves need if they don't have your cash. Besides, they are not being "forced out of business," there is a combination of laws that limit public funding for this private medical procedure and regulations that make abortion clinics rise to the same regulations and standards of any other medical clinic that provides treatments of the same level of invasiveness. If a clinic does not want too meet the same medical standards that every one else has to, then tough. A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. 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. Hey Doc, words mean things. That part there, that I highlighted, that concept doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:17:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey Doc, words mean things. That part there, that I highlighted, that concept doesn't exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. That's illogical. Financial constraints have never been justification for taking a human life. Preventing one crime does not limit one from complaining about another. You might as well say that if you make theft illegal you can't complain about the welfare the thieves need if they don't have your cash. Besides, they are not being "forced out of business," there is a combination of laws that limit public funding for this private medical procedure and regulations that make abortion clinics rise to the same regulations and standards of any other medical clinic that provides treatments of the same level of invasiveness. If a clinic does not want too meet the same medical standards that every one else has to, then tough. A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. 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. Hey Doc, words mean things. That part there, that I highlighted, that concept doesn't exist. Josh isn't a Doc but I agree--a property crime is not "victimless." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:18:56 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Actually, there is no proof of that either way. Show me the data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:20:39 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Plus popularized the tattoo Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nazi death camps were an industry too. They produced a lot of medical knowledge and got a lot of labor done. Plus popularized the tattoo People were dying to get them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:21:48 AM EDT
[#28]
The ironic thing is that the laws passed put those abortion clinics more in standing with the left's much lauded European system where it is very difficult to find an abortion outside of most cities. There are not facilities doing abortions in every town and hamlet over there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:22:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some good news today. Women voters probably won't think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:24:38 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ummmmmmmmm, you really need to do a little checking on the most prolific abortion seekers. Hint: The vast majority of clinics are in "ghetto" areas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. This is my estimation as well. I don't think many people apt to get welfare (or want it) were high on the abortion clinic list anyway. Ummmmmmmmm, you really need to do a little checking on the most prolific abortion seekers. Hint: The vast majority of clinics are in "ghetto" areas. Lol, white people don't want that shit in their neighborhoods. Pregnant middle class white girls have to go to the ghetto for their weed and their abortions. This is well known. The next time some liberal tells you how evil it is that republicans want to close abortion clinics, just ask them if they want one in the suite next to their dentist's office. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:24:38 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:25:20 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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! But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. You're seriously arguing medical care standards with a doctor? There's a lot of things where I think both of you are as fucked up as football bats, but if you want to talk about medical care standards, sorry -- I'm going to have to listen to the MD over the IT guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:25:57 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ironic thing is that the laws passed put those abortion clinics more in standing with the left's much lauded European system where it is very difficult to find an abortion outside of most cities. There are not facilities doing abortions in every town and hamlet over there. Prior to 2013 there were 44 clinics in the entire state of Texas. Hardly one on every street corner or even in every town and hamlet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:26:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. I surely hope this is your lame attempt at trolling and not an accurate reflection of your critical thinking ability and overall intelligence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:28:18 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're seriously arguing medical care standards with a doctor? There's a lot of things where I think both of you are as fucked up as football bats, but if you want to talk about medical care standards, sorry -- I'm going to have to listen to the MD over the IT guy. 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! But that's entirely not true. They were simply required to meet the same standards I have to meet. There is simply no compelling reason a doctor should be required to have admitting privs at a nearby hospital to perform a routine outpatient surgery. There is no reason a woman who takes a morning after pill should receive mandatory oversight. If those things were necessary we should be able to objectively prove their necessity with the piles of dead pregnant women littering the streets from the sub-par care they received over the last half century. When you reduce access to legal clinics by an order of magnitude in states "taking the high road for the unborn" you must accept that women are going to have abortions anyway and, they are going to get sub-par care in the absence of those clinics which, until very recently, were providing adequate service. Before we get much deeper into the fray, I want to point out that I am against abortion, morally and fundamentally. You're seriously arguing medical care standards with a doctor? There's a lot of things where I think both of you are as fucked up as football bats, but if you want to talk about medical care standards, sorry -- I'm going to have to listen to the MD over the IT guy. Oh, I agree. I would take his advice over mine in a heartbeat on medical topics (probably a bunch of others too). I'm arguing my opinion based on my incredibly limited experience and exposure. Part of debate is the opportunity to learn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:28:37 AM EDT
[#36]
I'm out of the loop on this subject but didn't a morning after pill come out in the last few years ? I know the have shots now that last days or months maybe new types of birth control are taking affect?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:29:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I surely hope this is your lame attempt at trolling and not an accurate reflection of your critical thinking ability and overall intelligence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. I surely hope this is your lame attempt at trolling and not an accurate reflection of your critical thinking ability and overall intelligence. Oh, you'd be surprised at how many people actually "think" on this level. I doubt he's trolling. I've heard this argument too many times by too many people to think it's only a troll argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:30:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:30:27 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or make it easier to adopt, don't reward hood rats for getting knocked up, better sex Ed... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. Or make it easier to adopt, don't reward hood rats for getting knocked up, better sex Ed... Whats your address, so they can send their pre-natal care bills directly since you are big-brothering them to carry a pregnancy to term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:30:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 12:33:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A single act of vandalism does not relate to these closings. The local clinic was broken into and torn up by methheads looking for drugs . They had insurance. They are still open. I wouldn't say making abortion clinics keep the same standards I do " back door." They were exempted from medical standards to spread abortion. All medical clinics that perform outpatient procedures should be held to the same standards or nine should. Nothing reprehensible about true equality with no exemptions for pet causes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. That's illogical. Financial constraints have never been justification for taking a human life. Preventing one crime does not limit one from complaining about another. You might as well say that if you make theft illegal you can't complain about the welfare the thieves need if they don't have your cash. Besides, they are not being "forced out of business," there is a combination of laws that limit public funding for this private medical procedure and regulations that make abortion clinics rise to the same regulations and standards of any other medical clinic that provides treatments of the same level of invasiveness. If a clinic does not want too meet the same medical standards that every one else has to, then tough. A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. A single act of vandalism does not relate to these closings. The local clinic was broken into and torn up by methheads looking for drugs . They had insurance. They are still open. I wouldn't say making abortion clinics keep the same standards I do " back door." They were exempted from medical standards to spread abortion. All medical clinics that perform outpatient procedures should be held to the same standards or nine should. Nothing reprehensible about true equality with no exemptions for pet causes. 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:33:37 AM EDT
[#42]
How about free depo provera for poor women.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:34:46 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:35:20 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats your address, so they can send their pre-natal care bills directly since your are forcing them to have a baby. 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. Or make it easier to adopt, don't reward hood rats for getting knocked up, better sex Ed... Whats your address, so they can send their pre-natal care bills directly since your are forcing them to have a baby. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:35:59 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A clinic not carrying insurance is run by fools. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. That's illogical. Financial constraints have never been justification for taking a human life. Preventing one crime does not limit one from complaining about another. You might as well say that if you make theft illegal you can't complain about the welfare the thieves need if they don't have your cash. Besides, they are not being "forced out of business," there is a combination of laws that limit public funding for this private medical procedure and regulations that make abortion clinics rise to the same regulations and standards of any other medical clinic that provides treatments of the same level of invasiveness. If a clinic does not want too meet the same medical standards that every one else has to, then tough. A church youth broke into the local clinic after hours and did enough property damage that repair was not financially viable for the practice. That's kind of "forced out of business'. I do feel that abortion is not a moral act under most circumstances, but I'm not sure I can agree with backwards methods to close the clinics vs direct legislation by the will of the people. That smells like the methods of the other side. It went deeper than insurance. I'm pretty sure there was a continuing escalation of anti-abortion activity and that was the final straw that broke the camels back for the provider. Either way, I don't have to drive by the protesters now on the way to work, from work, or any time I go down that street. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:37:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol, white people don't want that shit in their neighborhoods. Pregnant middle class white girls have to go to the ghetto for their weed and their abortions. This is well known. The next time some liberal tells you how evil it is that republicans want to close abortion clinics, just ask them if they want one in the suite next to their dentist's office. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you oppose abortion, because of "murdering babies"--then you can't whine too much about welfare. More abortions = less welfare. This is my estimation as well. I don't think many people apt to get welfare (or want it) were high on the abortion clinic list anyway. Ummmmmmmmm, you really need to do a little checking on the most prolific abortion seekers. Hint: The vast majority of clinics are in "ghetto" areas. Lol, white people don't want that shit in their neighborhoods. Pregnant middle class white girls have to go to the ghetto for their weed and their abortions. This is well known. The next time some liberal tells you how evil it is that republicans want to close abortion clinics, just ask them if they want one in the suite next to their dentist's office. Bingo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:38:09 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:39:35 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:41:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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." This post nails it. I'm pro-choice, but these butcher chops are unethical. Its good that standards are being forced. I'm all for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:41:51 AM EDT
[#50]
I have friends who adopted a crack baby. He is now 12, they are about at their wits end.
|
|
|
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.
