The National Right to Life Committee is loudly claiming that the health care bill promoted by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) would allow federal funds to subsidize abortions. Imagine my surprise, if you will, to discover that this claim is false.
2 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:25:44pm |
I'm reminded about the old joke when Dan Quayle was asked about the abortion bill before Congress, and he responded that the Congress should pay it.
| 3 |
Kragar Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:27:18pm |
Now how are they supposed to throw a raging hissy when facts keep getting in the way?
| 5 |
Mich-again Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:29:25pm |
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
/
| 6 |
Chekote Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:30:26pm |
Their over the top, hysterical rhetoric. Their propensity to spead misinformation. In sum, RTL has done more to harm the cause of reducing the number of abortion than any good.
| 8 |
Mich-again Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:31:12pm |
"A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on" - Mark Twain
| 11 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:32:41pm |
I'm pro choice, so even if it were true, I don't have a problem with it.
| 12 |
albusteve Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:33:19pm |
too bad an independent organization has to interpret the bill to explain what it says, or doesn't say
| 13 |
MandyManners Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:36:39pm |
re: #8 Mich-again
"A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on" - Mark Twain
I thought it was pants.
| 14 |
researchok Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:36:53pm |
Abortion is legal.
Women have the right to access legal medical services and there is nothing the right to lifers can do to change that.
The feds will have a 'subsidy' outside the healthcare bill to fund abortion and thus claim the procedure falls outside the bill. That kind of 'way out' will be supported by members on both sides of the aisle.
With all the crap this nation faces, wasting time on meaningless efforts is monumentally stupid.
The next election is the GOP's to lose. Posturing on abortion will make the loss that much more inevitable.
| 16 |
ryannon Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:37:42pm |
Are we all flounced out here or what?re: #15 Guanxi88
The truth don't need pants, just boots.
That's why they call it the naked truth.
| 17 |
MandyManners Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:38:17pm |
| 18 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:39:17pm |
Okay, Charles, I've imagined your surprise ...
... AND NOW I'M YAWNING TOO ... DAMMIT !
/it's all your fault for suggesting it
| 19 |
Mich-again Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:39:22pm |
re: #7 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
"God willing, your end will be at the hands of the Muslim nation, so that the world and history will be free of your crimes and lies," he said addressing Obama at the end of the two-part video.
That would be the same God who watched on and did nothing when the Israeli missile blew up Sheikh Yassin in his wheelchair. In fact, if that God gave half a crap about you, you wouldn't have to live in hiding. Note to Zawahiri. Why rely on the will of that God of yours when its obvious he hasn't willed anything good for you in years.
| 20 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:39:35pm |
From the references of the article above:
Does Health Care Cover Abortion or Not? Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
To understand requires us to take a journey into the legislative weeds but here's my bottom line: those who claim abortion clearly is covered and those who say it clearly isn't are both wrong.
Rape, Incest and Life of the Mother. Let's start with the most clear-cut issue. The House legislation would require that the public health care option government cover abortions in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother.* This is relatively non-controversial because even currently extant restrictions on federal funding for abortion (such as the Hyde Amendment) allow for this exception.
Can Cover vs. Must Cover vs. Probably Will Cover. When advocates claim that the "public plan" - a government-administered health care option -- does not cover abortion, they're being literally accurate... but slippery. The two main bills (so far) do not, in fact, require a public option to cover abortion. However, they don't prohibit abortion coverage either, instead leaving it up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide, later, whether abortion would be included in a basic benefits package.
Pro-life activists say that if abortion can be covered, it will be covered. It's certainly not an unreasonable prediction, given that the Secretary and the President are both pro-choice (though neither side talks about the flipside: when President Palin is in the White House she could reverse the policy through a simple executive order).
| 21 |
funky chicken Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:40:11pm |
re: #14 researchok
With all the crap this nation faces, wasting time on meaningless efforts is monumentally stupid.The next election is the GOP's to lose. Posturing on abortion will make the loss that much more inevitable.
yep
| 22 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:40:57pm |
Derangement only needs a target.
/not facts
| 23 |
Guanxi88 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:41:19pm |
This is what happens when the sphere of the political expands into fields like health care and health insurance - everything gets turned into a political battle.
| 24 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:42:41pm |
re: #23 Guanxi88
This is what happens when the sphere of the political expands into fields like health care and health insurance - everything gets turned into a political battle.
This issue is so sensitive to both sides...it's hard to keep a clear mind.
| 25 |
Guanxi88 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:42:54pm |
re: #23 Guanxi88
This is what happens when the sphere of the political expands into fields like health care and health insurance - everything gets turned into a political battle.
To expand a bit - instead of leaving it up to the consumers and the carriers, the issue of abortion must, once more, become a football and rallying cry for folk on all sides of the issue. A pro-choice President will fund it just as surely as a pro-life one won't, and they'll both be dead wrong for ever venturing into this territory in the first place.
| 26 |
MandyManners Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:43:01pm |
re: #20 Desert Dog
From the references of the article above:
Does Health Care Cover Abortion or Not? Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
Let's start with the most clear-cut issue. The House legislation would require that the public health care option government cover abortions in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother.* This is relatively non-controversial
But, it's not non-controversial. There are many who are against it for ANY reason.
| 27 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:44:01pm |
re: #1 MandyManners
I was expecting this any day.
There's a pun in there, especially given the thread's topic, however ...
/*crickets* ... the best form of self-preservation ... :D
| 28 |
Guanxi88 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:45:46pm |
re: #24 Desert Dog
This issue is so sensitive to both sides...it's hard to keep a clear mind.
All the more reason to remove it from control by any and all parties with political agendas. Hands off is the safest approach to matters such as these, as any involvement can only make matters worse.
| 29 |
albusteve Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:45:51pm |
Plaxico is headed for the poky, tears in his eyes...c'ya, dumbass
| 30 |
Racer X Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:46:03pm |
Most abortions are performed on poor minorities using it for birth control. Conservatives are all racists. Ergo - racist conservatives should be all for government funded abortions.
/
| 31 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:46:37pm |
re: #26 MandyManners
But, it's not non-controversial. There are many who are against it for ANY reason.
And, there are many on the other side that think it's never a bad idea to have one either. I am fiercely Pro-life, but I also realize this is a decision for someone else to make, not me. It should be up to the woman and, hopefully, the man that impregnated her. I just hope they choose life.
| 32 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:47:40pm |
re: #29 albusteve
Plaxico is headed for the poky, tears in his eyes...c'ya, dumbass
2 years seems excessive...are the gun laws that strong in NYC?
| 34 |
MandyManners Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:48:35pm |
re: #31 Desert Dog
And, there are many on the other side that think it's never a bad idea to have one either. I am fiercely Pro-life, but I also realize this is a decision for someone else to make, not me. It should be up to the woman and, hopefully, the man that impregnated her. I just hope they choose life.
In the case of rape or incest, the man should have NO input.
| 35 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:49:42pm |
| 36 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:49:47pm |
re: #32 Desert Dog
2 years seems excessive...are the gun laws that strong in NYC?
A state that charges $10.10 for a pack of cigarettes, and you think 2 years is extreme? Imagine how many months he will have to work in the pokey to afford one pack of cigarettes.
Who's Plaxico? Sounds like a dental product.
| 37 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:50:06pm |
re: #34 MandyManners
In the case of rape or incest, the man should have NO input.
Good point. I updinged both Desert Dog's and yours.
| 38 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:50:25pm |
re: #28 Guanxi88
All the more reason to remove it from control by any and all parties with political agendas. Hands off is the safest approach to matters such as these, as any involvement can only make matters worse.
Too late for that...unfortunately
| 39 |
Digital Display Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:50:40pm |
re: #29 albusteve
Plaxico is headed for the poky, tears in his eyes...c'ya, dumbass
1. Had a gun in his waistband
2. Had a shell chambered
3. Safety was off
You can't buy more stupid than that..
That said..How is it fair to go prison for 2 years for shooting yourself?
| 40 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:51:24pm |
re: #3 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
Now how are they supposed to throw a raging hissy when facts keep getting in the way?
I strongly suspect that they will ignore the facts. A lot of the health care argument seems to go: "But there's no actual legislation to do that." "Well, is there legislation to prevent it from happening? No? HA!"
| 42 |
funky chicken Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:52:00pm |
re: #29 albusteve
Plaxico is headed for the poky, tears in his eyes...c'ya, dumbass
seeing as how he only shot himself, I think jail time is kinda dumb in this case.
| 43 |
albusteve Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:52:50pm |
re: #32 Desert Dog
2 years seems excessive...are the gun laws that strong in NYC?
20 months minimum...carrying illegal loaded guns around and mishandling them to the point they go off is pretty serious to me...it went off in a friggin night club
| 44 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:52:51pm |
| 46 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:53:42pm |
re: #41 buzzsawmonkey
Self-assault with a deadly weapon is still assault. Of course, in this case "assault" is pronounced "asshole."
Or perhaps a second cleavage -- this one on the front of the body.
/yeah, I know what you'll say ... ... "Smoooth, real smoooth."
| 47 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:53:50pm |
| 48 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:55:20pm |
re: #36 Walter L. Newton
A state that charges $10.10 for a pack of cigarettes, and you think 2 years is extreme? Imagine how many months he will have to work in the pokey to afford one pack of cigarettes.
Who's Plaxico? Sounds like a dental product.
There is (or was?) a dentist in Stillwater, OK named Plaxico.
| 49 |
Desert Dog Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:55:25pm |
re: #39 HoosierHoops
1. Had a gun in his waistband
2. Had a shell chambered
3. Safety was off
You can't buy more stupid than that..
That said..How is it fair to go prison for 2 years for shooting yourself?
Sounds like he is being used to make an example. 2 years is a long time for being an idiot.
| 50 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:55:54pm |
re: #36 Walter L. Newton
A state that charges $10.10 for a pack of cigarettes, and you think 2 years is extreme? Imagine how many months he will have to work in the pokey to afford one pack of cigarettes.
Who's Plaxico? Sounds like a dental product.
A football player, Plaxico "Plaxo" Burress. He was part of the NY Giants squad that beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl several years ago.
| 51 |
The Shadow Do Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:57:20pm |
Two years for being dangerous stupid?
Gonna' need more prisons.
| 52 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:57:30pm |
re: #39 HoosierHoops
That said..How is it fair to go prison for 2 years for shooting yourself?
Well, when you say it like that...
Has he offered any coherent explanation of why he had a gun in his sweats at a nightclub to begin with?
| 54 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:58:30pm |
re: Baucus' claim: There were some talking heads discussing this the other day and one said - "it doesn't have to be actually written into a bill, all it takes is one court decision and you have your right to gov't health- care plan abortion."
| 55 |
albusteve Tue, Sep 22, 2009 3:59:16pm |
re: #49 Desert Dog
Sounds like he is being used to make an example. 2 years is a long time for being an idiot.
tough luck...I say it's fair
| 56 |
sattv4u2 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:00:02pm |
re: #47 Desert Dog
Please come out of your cave, you sniveling coward. Come on out, and hold this up.
Nahhh ,,, I want him alive
Then I want to build a 100 story office tower out in the middle of the dessert. Take Bin Laden to the top and tie him to a flagpole. Have a remote control commuter 747 pass by closer and closer each time, at last slamming into the building 30 or so stories below the top
| 57 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:00:47pm |
re: #50 bofhell
A football player, Plaxico "Plaxo" Burress. He was part of the NY Giants squad that beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl several years ago.
Subsequently, he went to a nightclub in New York with a loaded handgun of some kind tucked into his sweatpants. It went off.
| 58 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:01:15pm |
re: #55 albusteve
tough luck...I say it's fair
In a public place with a round chambered and the safety off?
Eminently fair!
| 60 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:01:59pm |
Laws were wisely written to exclude people from bars while carrying concealed weapons, legally or not.
| 61 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:02:01pm |
re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist
Subsequently, he went to a nightclub in New York with a loaded handgun of some kind tucked into his sweatpants. It went off.
There are people in New York who feel that they should add another two years to his sentence for wearing sweatpants in a public place.
| 62 |
Racer X Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:02:59pm |
| 63 |
Joshua Cohen Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:03:00pm |
"You ever notice how the ones against abortion are for capital punishment? Typical fisherman's attitude: throw 'em back in when they're small and kill them when they're bigger."
Quoting E. Boosler
And many of them even have such a fish like looking sticker on their bumper...
Coincident?
| 64 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:03:12pm |
re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist
Subsequently, he went to a nightclub in New York with a loaded handgun of some kind tucked into his sweatpants. It went off.
Alas, a quote that describes an increasing number of professional athletes.
| 65 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:05:02pm |
re: #59 buzzsawmonkey
This is my pistol, this is my gun
The first one went off, and now I have none...
Are you saying he shouldn't have done that, foreskin is so fragile?
| 66 |
Digital Display Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:05:43pm |
re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist
Well, when you say it like that...
Has he offered any coherent explanation of why he had a gun in his sweats at a nightclub to begin with?
Hi you!
Hope today finds you well...
I hate to defend this guy...A lot of athletes have body guards or carry guns..They are world famous.. They walk out of a nightclub and somebody may be there to take the 5000 dollar gold chain..Cash etc..
We always have shootings around Indy ..Mostly Pacers protecting themselves..
I know it's easy to say..Well you are a world famous millionaire Athlete you should just hang out at home...And It's not just Athletes.. I talked about this to Charles once..A lot of Musicians place a gun in the back of their amps...
It was and may still be a common practice..
But in NYC..They prefer you be completely unarmed and perfect victim..
Yes plax is an idiot..But so is NYC
| 68 |
aboo-Hoo-Hoo Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:10:20pm |
Now I'm pissed:
Late Sunday night, the United Nations issued its Monday Journal, which lists the heads of state who are addressing the opening of the 64th U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. Tucked in between Colombia and Russia is Honduras — but the legitimate president of Honduras will not be speaking. The U.N., a majority of whose member states are not “fully free” (according to Freedom House), has invited the ousted would-be dictator of Honduras, disgraced former president Manuel Zelaya, to deliver the address.This is an outrageous decision, but don’t expect President Obama to stand up for justice and the rule of law.
...and we all should be.
But wait...wait...wait it's coming!!!
| 69 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:11:00pm |
re: #66 HoosierHoops
Hi you!
Hope today finds you well...
I hate to defend this guy...A lot of athletes have body guards or carry guns..They are world famous.. They walk out of a nightclub and somebody may be there to take the 5000 dollar gold chain..Cash etc..
We always have shootings around Indy ..Mostly Pacers protecting themselves..
I know it's easy to say..Well you are a world famous millionaire Athlete you should just hang out at home...And It's not just Athletes.. I talked about this to Charles once..A lot of Musicians place a gun in the back of their amps...
It was and may still be a common practice..
But in NYC..They prefer you be completely unarmed and perfect victim..
Yes plax is an idiot..But so is NYC
Carrying is one thing.
Carrying chambered and hot is stupid.
| 70 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:12:51pm |
re: #69 bofhell
Carrying is one thing.
Carrying chambered and hot is stupid.
Firearms safety training is essential and practice makes perfect.
| 71 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:16:01pm |
re: #70 Capitalist Tool
Firearms safety training is essential and practice makes perfect.
Sage advice, but concepts that generally elude the Stupid.
| 72 |
Digital Display Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:16:15pm |
re: #69 bofhell
Carrying is one thing.
Carrying chambered and hot is stupid.
I said earlier
1. Gun in waistband
2. Shell in Chamber
3. Safety off
Completely stupid...Careless..But not worth 2 years..
We don't understand what it is like to walk into any place on the planet and be recognized for being world famous...I would always have a body guard cause when you win the Super bowl there is a good chance somebody wants to f*ck up your world...
Bodyguards and Limos.. What is hard about that concept?
| 73 |
Right Brain Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:18:31pm |
Its meaningless as to what the bills states about abortions: any restrictions would be immediately overturned by the courts re: Roe v. Wade as a necessary medical procedure.
| 74 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:19:21pm |
re: #72 HoosierHoops
I said earlier
1. Gun in waistband
2. Shell in Chamber
3. Safety off
Completely stupid...Careless..But not worth 2 years..
We don't understand what it is like to walk into any place on the planet and be recognized for being world famous...I would always have a body guard cause when you win the Super bowl there is a good chance somebody wants to f*ck up your world...
Bodyguards and Limos.. What is hard about that concept?
Dunno. We could get into all sorts of "what-if" scenarios that might justify two years, but at the same time, such scenarios have more dire consequences than shooting oneself in the foot.
On the scale of injustices this world faces, this is one I'm not so worried about.
| 75 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:19:25pm |
re: #73 Right Brain
Its meaningless as to what the bills states about abortions: any restrictions would be immediately overturned by the courts re: Roe v. Wade as a necessary medical procedure.
You are correct.
| 76 |
Joshua Cohen Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:20:11pm |
| 77 |
aboo-Hoo-Hoo Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:21:06pm |
re: #69 bofhell
Carrying is one thing.
Carrying chambered and hot is stupid.
Then why carry?
/God help us.
| 78 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:24:15pm |
re: #67 buzzsawmonkey
He should have had the foresight not to place foresight and foreskin in close proximity.
And his excuse is getting even limper.
| 79 |
albusteve Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:25:05pm |
re: #72 HoosierHoops
I said earlier
1. Gun in waistband
2. Shell in Chamber
3. Safety off
Completely stupid...Careless..But not worth 2 years..
We don't understand what it is like to walk into any place on the planet and be recognized for being world famous...I would always have a body guard cause when you win the Super bowl there is a good chance somebody wants to f*ck up your world...
Bodyguards and Limos.. What is hard about that concept?
I could care less about fame...it's irrelevent
| 80 |
Joshua Cohen Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:26:03pm |
re: #69 bofhell
Carrying is one thing.
Carrying chambered and hot is stupid.
And I think you will not like revolvers either...
| 81 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:28:02pm |
re: #80 Joshua Cohen
And I think you will not like revolvers either...
Only because there are better products on the market today.
| 82 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:29:36pm |
re: #80 Joshua Cohen
And I think you will not like revolvers either...
Although one day I would very much like to own a Colt SAA.
| 83 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:36:38pm |
re: #73 Right Brain
Its meaningless as to what the bills states about abortions: any restrictions would be immediately overturned by the courts re: Roe v. Wade as a necessary medical procedure.
As they should be.
| 84 |
Joshua Cohen Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:41:10pm |
re: #81 bofhell
Only because there are better products on the market today.
Really?
Did you ever have a misfire in a automatic...in a critical moment and not a second hand free?
A .38 or even .357 snub as backup - always my choice.
| 85 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:42:39pm |
Obama also said he would support a conscience clause. Some who are for choice want to force doctors and pharmacists to act against their morals. Most of the country is pro life, but would allow it under certain conditions. I think, if they can get the conditions right, would garner support from the majority of Americans on this issue.
I've been thinking about the illegal alien issue. If they are not covered, and there are enforcement mechanisms, what happens when they show up at emergency rooms? Won't the Hippocratic obligation to render treatment still exist?
| 86 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:47:05pm |
re: #84 Joshua Cohen
Really?
Did you ever have a misfire in a automatic...in a critical moment and not a second hand free?
A .38 or even .357 snub as backup - always my choice.
No, I can't say I have, but then again, I lead a boring life.
| 87 |
rwmofo Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:47:44pm |
An abortion thread that's been up for over an hour and no flouncers yet?
Ahhh, the day is still young...
| 88 |
Dainn Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:56:19pm |
This is an interesting article. The Baucus bill tries hard to work the language so that the cost of abortion services are extracted from subsidies. Government funds would go to companies in the exchange that fund abortions, but presumably the cost of those abortions would be passed on to the insured. So, yeah the Republicans are barking up the wrong tree here.
The rub will be when the bills are combined. If there is a public option back in the final bill, and that public option pays for abortions, then will the poorest woman on the plan be expected to pay a premium for that service? If not, it's hard to argue that that is not funding abortions.
Amazing that almost everything in American politics comes down to a Pro-life v. Pro-choice debate. If the Republicans keep this up they will be a third party soon enough. Perhaps they should be.
| 89 |
Joshua Cohen Tue, Sep 22, 2009 4:57:22pm |
| 90 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:01:25pm |
re: #89 Joshua Cohen
Maybe I should try this.
I used to lead a more exciting one, but my Saving the Galaxy days are over.
| 91 |
Joshua Cohen Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:05:51pm |
re: #90 bofhell
I used to lead a more exciting one, but my Saving the Galaxy days are over.
Tell us about it!
| 92 |
Dainn Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:05:51pm |
re: #85 Ian MacGregor
Obama also said he would support a conscience clause. Some who are for choice want to force doctors and pharmacists to act against their morals. Most of the country is pro life, but would allow it under certain conditions. I think, if they can get the conditions right, would garner support from the majority of Americans on this issue.
I've been thinking about the illegal alien issue. If they are not covered, and there are enforcement mechanisms, what happens when they show up at emergency rooms? Won't the Hippocratic obligation to render treatment still exist?
Why do you think most of the USA is Pro-life? The most recent data I've seen shows the nation evenly divided on this issue (Gallup as of August).
If undocumented aliens are not covered by Obamacare, they will have to keep using the emergency rooms. This has been our "universal health care" for years, sadly.
| 93 |
bofhell Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:08:29pm |
| 94 |
Joshua Cohen Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:10:48pm |
| 95 |
Velvet Elvis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:17:00pm |
If you get screwed repeatedly by the government, it's only fair for the government to pony up for the abortion.
| 97 |
cman70 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:33:13pm |
re: #88 Dainn
Amazing that almost everything in American politics comes down to a Pro-life v. Pro-choice debate. If the Republicans keep this up they will be a third party soon enough. Perhaps they should be.
Please! It has been this way as long as I remember and guess what? They're still here. It really cracks me up when anyone predicts "the end of the Democratic/Republican party".
| 98 |
meeshlr Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:46:31pm |
re: #85 Ian MacGregor
I've been thinking about the illegal alien issue. If they are not covered, and there are enforcement mechanisms, what happens when they show up at emergency rooms? Won't the Hippocratic obligation to render treatment still exist?
Probably immediate emergency care but nothing more.
Even if illegals aren't covered, they can still be treated but the government can't be billed for services. The hospital/clinic would have to get the patient to pay or just take the loss.
| 99 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:19:21pm |
re: #92 Dainn
Yes the country is quite evenly divided, last I looked pro-lifers were in the majority. I did not mean to convey that the majority was large. Indeed with the cold-blooded murder of an infamous provider of late-term abortions it may have very well have swung back to the other side, but an abortion protester, the kind with the dead baby pictures, was also recently murdered for expressing his views. The murder was which was applauded by some, as was that of the provider.
Even on this site, people often resort to ad-hominem attacks rather than considering the points being made. But in the end I believe the majority of the people can reason to a compromise on the issue.
| 100 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:25:32pm |
re: #85 Ian MacGregor
Obama also said he would support a conscience clause. Some who are for choice want to force doctors and pharmacists to act against their morals. Most of the country is pro life, but would allow it under certain conditions. I think, if they can get the conditions right, would garner support from the majority of Americans on this issue.
Conscience clauses are a backdoor way for the anti-choice people to gain a foothold. It's really pretty simple: if you're going to be a doctor or a pharmacist, you'd damn well better make sure your conscience allows for that before you get your qualifications. You don't get to pick and choose what treatments/services you will and won't cover ex post facto. That violates the Hippocratic Oath, for one thing.
If you have a problem with the idea of performing abortions, don't be an ob/gyn. If you have a problem dispensing birth control, don't be a pharmacist.
And it really isn't as simple as saying "hey, let the pharmacist do what he wants." In some places there isn't another pharmacy or pharmacist you can get to easily. And that is HIGHLY relevant when dealing with something as time-sensitive as emergency contraception. But it's also relevant for a woman who works long hours during the week, doesn't have a car, is 50 miles from the next nearest pharmacy, and needs her birth control prescription filled on her lunch break.
We wouldn't countenance the idea of 'conscience clauses' for viagra or high blood pressure medication or anti-depressants for a doctor or pharmacist who was a Christian Scientist. Strangely, the only time the issue of 'conscience clauses' ever comes up is when it comes to controlling women's sexuality and fertility. Why is that?
BTW-- You're wrong when you say the majority of the country is pro-life. That's false. The majority of the country in every reputable poll doesn't want to see Roe v Wade overturned, although many people are comfortable with the idea of some restrictions on abortion, specifically parental notification laws for girls under 16. You have to look carefully at the polls and the questions asked, because this is probably the area where I have seen the most skewing done by pollsters and those who repeat their data. The result i just reported is typically spun as "Americans are pro-life." Again, false.
| 101 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:26:56pm |
re: #98 meeshlr
The hospital now passes those costs on to us. If they could not do so, they would be in danger of closing.
| 102 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:29:08pm |
re: #99 Ian MacGregor
an abortion protester, the kind with the dead baby pictures, was also recently murdered for expressing his views. The murder was which was applauded by some, as was that of the provider.
This also is false. The abortion protestor's murder hasn't been proven to have anything to do with the fact that he was protesting abortion; the man who murdered him had already shot someone else for a wholly different reason. He also had a list of targets.
And I know of no one who 'applauded' his murder, unless you're going to go dumpsterdiving over at DU and find some random comments.
| 103 |
mikey_dallas Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:30:13pm |
The courts will put it into effect, no doubt under "equal protection". There is really no doubt. It's stealth abortion funding.
| 104 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:32:08pm |
re: #98 meeshlr
Probably immediate emergency care but nothing more.
Even if illegals aren't covered, they can still be treated but the government can't be billed for services. The hospital/clinic would have to get the patient to pay or just take the loss.
[Link: www.politifact.com...]
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants.
| 105 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:34:41pm |
re: #103 mikey_dallas
The courts will put it into effect, no doubt under "equal protection". There is really no doubt. It's stealth abortion funding.
That's false. Did you even read Charles' link?
[Link: www.politifact.com...]
| 106 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 22, 2009 6:58:55pm |
re: #66 HoosierHoops
Hi you!
Hope today finds you well...
I hate to defend this guy...A lot of athletes have body guards or carry guns..They are world famous.. They walk out of a nightclub and somebody may be there to take the 5000 dollar gold chain..Cash etc..
We always have shootings around Indy ..Mostly Pacers protecting themselves..
I know it's easy to say..Well you are a world famous millionaire Athlete you should just hang out at home...And It's not just Athletes.. I talked about this to Charles once..A lot of Musicians place a gun in the back of their amps...
It was and may still be a common practice..
But in NYC..They prefer you be completely unarmed and perfect victim..
Yes plax is an idiot..But so is NYC
You know, I can sort of see that--but a gun in your sweatpants with the safety off is just stupid. Nothing wrong with a bodyguard. Or, for that matter, a real holster.
| 107 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:00:24pm |
re: #73 Right Brain
Its meaningless as to what the bills states about abortions: any restrictions would be immediately overturned by the courts re: Roe v. Wade as a necessary medical procedure.
What part of Roe would produce this effect?
| 108 |
John Neverbend Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:02:34pm |
re: #68 aboo-Hoo-Hoo
He'll have to deliver his speech from the inside of the Brazilian embassy, as I can't see how he's going to get out of there without being promptly arrested.
| 109 |
lostlakehiker Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:02:45pm |
re: #100 iceweasel
(begin excerpt) Conscience clauses are a backdoor way for the anti-choice people to gain a foothold. It's really pretty simple: if you're going to be a doctor or a pharmacist, you'd damn well better make sure your conscience allows for that before you get your qualifications. You don't get to pick and choose what treatments/services you will and won't cover ex post facto. That violates the Hippocratic Oath, for one thing.
If you have a problem with the idea of performing abortions, don't be an ob/gyn. If you have a problem dispensing birth control, don't be a pharmacist.
And it really isn't as simple as saying "hey, let the pharmacist do what he wants." In some places there isn't another pharmacy or pharmacist you can get to easily. And that is HIGHLY relevant when dealing with something as time-sensitive as emergency contraception. But it's also relevant for a woman who works long hours during the week, doesn't have a car, is 50 miles from the next nearest pharmacy, and needs her birth control prescription filled on her lunch break.
We wouldn't countenance the idea of 'conscience clauses' for viagra or high blood pressure medication or anti-depressants for a doctor or pharmacist who was a Christian Scientist. Strangely, the only time the issue of 'conscience clauses' ever comes up is when it comes to controlling women's sexuality and fertility. Why is that?
(end excerpt)
The way you've put this, any MD must be, as a condition of practicing, be willing to perform any legal procedure. Surely you didn't intend it that broadly.
Leave out sex, please. Might a doctor refuse to perform a heart transplant if he knew the heart in question had been obtained as the result of an execution? It's legal that way right now in China. Who's to say it can never happen here?
What if the state wants a troublesome prisoner lobotomized? May a doctor refuse to perform the operation? What about executions, for that matter? I hold that execution is a morally legitimate penalty for certain kinds of murder, and that is our law. It is also the law that the execution must be performed by lethal injection, and this requires the participation of medical personnel. Nevertheless, I think medical workers ought to have the right to refuse to be part of it. Do you?
Now, getting back to sex, take castration. Gelding a man makes him more tractable. A good remedy for a troublesome criminally insane patient? Whether you approve or not, shouldn't doctors have the right to refuse to perform that procedure even if some judge has signed off on it?
If you're going to insist on a rule that any doctor who is medically capable of performing an abortion must do so on demand, at least refrain from putting the case for your rule in such general terms.
The sweeping rule you propose would force a large number of doctors to quit the profession when ordered to perform an unconscionable procedure.
| 110 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:06:04pm |
The Baucus bill does not explicitly fund elective abortion. However, citing the Capps amendment in HR3200 is contradictory evidence.
There are presently 39 members of the Blue Dog Caucus in the House that are opposed to HR3200 containing the Capps Amendment. These 39 members support applying "Hyde language" to HR3200. Hyde Language is explicit limits on any and all funding through HHS for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or the birth threatens the LIFE of the mother. Not the "health", but the "life. This is language to build a fence around what SCOTUS has defined "health" to be anything from physical health, mental health, to financial health.
My review of Politifact is that their check is incomplete. I've submitted information to correct their reporting.
| 111 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:09:55pm |
Conscience clauses are a backdoor way for the anti-choice people to gain a foothold. It's really pretty simple: if you're going to be a doctor or a pharmacist, you'd damn well better make sure your conscience allows for that before you get your qualifications.
There are no facts to support this opinion. Not one fact.
Prove it iceweasel.
I'll point you to nation states that have already passed conscience clauses to protect nurses and doctors in the implementation of a state operated and financed health care system. These states actually respect the views of their people and do not resort to such gutter obscenities as you espouse here.
| 112 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:12:01pm |
re: #109 lostlakehiker
The fact remains that no one has proposed conscience clauses for any of your hypotheticals. Why is that? It's pretty obvious.
Abortion and birth control and emergency contraception are legal. Doctors and pharmacists don't get to decide after the fact that they won't provide those services. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't be an ob/gyn. It's simple.
And pharmacists should no more be granted a dispensation to avoid handing out birth control than they should be granted one for refusing to fill prescriptions for Ritalin for children, or Viagra for young men, or anti-depressants. It's not their job.
| 113 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:13:01pm |
re: #111 Axiom
There are no facts to support this opinion. Not one fact.
Prove it iceweasel.
I'll point you to nation states that have already passed conscience clauses to protect nurses and doctors in the implementation of a state operated and financed health care system. These states actually respect the views of their people and do not resort to such gutter obscenities as you espouse here.
You consider the word 'damn' to be a 'gutter obscenity'?
Maybe your doc can prescribe you some smelling salts to go along with your fainting couch.
| 114 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:18:33pm |
re: #100 iceweasel
"First do know harm." Abortion itself can be seen to violate that oath. It cures nothing. Also a patient cannot force a doctor to provide treatment. You cannot go to your doctor and demand that he kills you. Nor, should someone be able to go to a doctor and demand an abortion be done.
The Christian Scientists doctor? I have not heard of the government compelling such a doctor, or a naturopath, or a homeopath to treat someone with medicines which actually work. Certainly the government has stepped in in the case of minor children to compel treatment when their parents refuse. This is proper.
You would forego allowing talented doctors to treat the sick, and save lives because their consciences prevent them from terminating life.
A women's right to chose must not compel someone to act against his or her moral compass. Nor must the government. If the government can compel a doctor to perform an abortion, then why does it not have the right to compel a women to have one?
Being able to act according to your conscience is a very basic human right. Are you saying that the right to abortion trumps that right? Are you saying the doctors who want to only to save lives have such malformed consciences that society must be protected from them becoming doctors?
We've come a long way from Roe v. Wade. Going back to the original decision would significantly curtail the number done. If you are saying that most of the country is not for a complete ban on abortions, you are correct. But most of the country does not like the current situation either. I think most want to prevent it, except under special circumstances.
| 115 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:26:23pm |
re: #113 iceweasel
You consider the word 'damn' to be a 'gutter obscenity'?
Maybe your doc can prescribe you some smelling salts to go along with your fainting couch.
Last time I saw someone act like this over the mildest of cuss-words here, the deranged pseudo-sanctimonious little freak worked himself up into an apoplectic fury, got himself banned, then registered at 2.0 seconds later and proceeded to call everyone here a bunch of fucking c*nts and whores!
So as far as I'm concerned, wingnuts who pretend to get all light headed over mild swearies can go fuck themselves and stuff their fake piety where the sun don't shine.
| 116 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:27:30pm |
re: #114 Ian MacGregor
"First do know harm." Abortion itself can be seen to violate that oath. It cures nothing.
It's "do NO harm", you gobshite. And it's utterly false to say that abortion cures nothing. In many cases it's a necessary procedure for the health or life of the mother.
And it's legal and going to stay that way. Deal.
| 117 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:29:55pm |
The fact remains that no one has proposed conscience clauses for any of your hypotheticals. Why is that? It's pretty obvious.
You just make things up. The Bush Administration did propose such a conscience clause. They did do it in a rather horrible matter in my view. Last second executive orders just won't carry the day.
Obama revoked these conscience clauses in his first 30 days. I don't think his reasoning was very good either, but he did have a rushed denial to explain a rushed decision.
Conscience clauses are essential. Without them the supply side of health care will be decimated. Costs will rise as practitioners exercise their civil rights, perhaps even in acts of civil disobedience. Hospitals will close or be seized by the government. None other than a single payer advocate himself in Tony Blair urged his colleagues to exercise caution against ravaging the health care system deploying your view of ethics.
The British NHS is now seeing the results of these acts.
| 118 |
doubter4444 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:32:42pm |
re: #115 Jimmah
Last time I saw someone act like this over the mildest of cuss-words here, the deranged pseudo-sanctimonious little freak worked himself up into an apoplectic fury, got himself banned, then registered at 2.0 seconds later and proceeded to call everyone here a bunch of fucking c*nts and whores!
So as far as I'm concerned, wingnuts who pretend to get all light headed over mild swearies can go fuck themselves and stuff their fake piety where the sun don't shine.
Yeeha!
| 119 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:32:58pm |
In many cases it's a necessary procedure for the health or life of the mother.
The word to make this true is "incredibly rare" cases. See Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood.
| 120 |
Bloodnok Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:33:26pm |
re: #115 Jimmah
Last time I saw someone act like this over the mildest of cuss-words here, the deranged pseudo-sanctimonious little freak worked himself up into an apoplectic fury, got himself banned, then registered at 2.0 seconds later and proceeded to call everyone here a bunch of fucking c*nts and whores!
So as far as I'm concerned, wingnuts who pretend to get all light headed over mild swearies can go fuck themselves and stuff their fake piety where the sun don't shine.
Fuck yeah.
| 121 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:33:33pm |
re: #115 Jimmah
Last time I saw someone act like this over the mildest of cuss-words here, the deranged pseudo-sanctimonious little freak worked himself up into an apoplectic fury, got himself banned, then registered at 2.0 seconds later and proceeded to call everyone here a bunch of fucking c*nts and whores!
So as far as I'm concerned, wingnuts who pretend to get all light headed over mild swearies can go fuck themselves and stuff their fake piety where the sun don't shine.
Interesting, isn't it? It's the ones who feign moral indignation over a word like 'damn' or 'butthurt' that turn out to be seekrit and not so seekrit commenters in a shithole like the stalker blog, where they can really get down and get their God on-- posting prayer lists mixed in with wishes of harm and violent abusive language about people here.
Just like they pretend to be oh so morally offended that a woman might exercise her right to choose when to become a mother and who to fuck, but have no qualms whatsoever about turning this country into a theocracy where women bleed to death in hotel rooms after trying to self-perform abortions.
Because we can't force pharmacists to do their fucking jobs, now can we? Oh heavens no. Conscience clause!
Please. They don't know the meaning of the word 'conscience'.
| 122 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:37:12pm |
This is a gutter obscenity.
Conscience clauses are a backdoor way for the anti-choice people to gain a foothold. It's really pretty simple: if you're going to be a doctor or a pharmacist, you'd damn well better make sure your conscience allows for that before you get your qualifications.
This is a reasonable opinion.
If you are saying that most of the country is not for a complete ban on abortions, you are correct. But most of the country does not like the current situation either. I think most want to prevent it, except under special circumstances.
They both come from the same keyboard of iceweasel. The reasonable view has actual data to support it. The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data.
| 123 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:37:54pm |
re: #117 Axiom
You just make things up. The Bush Administration did propose such a conscience clause. They did do it in a rather horrible matter in my view. Last second executive orders just won't carry the day.
Obama revoked these conscience clauses in his first 30 days. I don't think his reasoning was very good either, but he did have a rushed denial to explain a rushed decision.
Bollocks. The Bush admins conscience clauses were but one part in the anti-choice movement's attempt to redefine conception itself so as to allow birth control to be classified as a form of abortion too. They stonewalled on emergency contraception for years. They lied and distorted and appointed theocrats to the FDA in order to get the results they wanted-- all in the service of a so-con agenda with the goal of controlling women.
[Link: mediagirl.org...]
[Link: mediagirl.org...]
| 124 |
doubter4444 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:38:39pm |
re: #117 Axiom
You just make things up. The Bush Administration did propose such a conscience clause. They did do it in a rather horrible matter in my view. Last second executive orders just won't carry the day.
Obama revoked these conscience clauses in his first 30 days. I don't think his reasoning was very good either, but he did have a rushed denial to explain a rushed decision.
Conscience clauses are essential. Without them the supply side of health care will be decimated. Costs will rise as practitioners exercise their civil rights, perhaps even in acts of civil disobedience. Hospitals will close or be seized by the government. None other than a single payer advocate himself in Tony Blair urged his colleagues to exercise caution against ravaging the health care system deploying your view of ethics.
The British NHS is now seeing the results of these acts.
This is possibly one of the most delusional comments I've seen, ever.
Hospitals wlll be seized because Doctors en-mass will group together in acts of civil disobedience over... what exactly? Providing abortions? Over being forced to provide abortions?
Do you live in the world of "The Handmaids Tail" or something?
This is truly weird.
| 125 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:38:53pm |
According to a CBS News/New York Times Poll in June of thiis year, 62% of people polled consider the Roe vs. Wade decision to be a good thing, 32% consider it to be a bad thing, 3% consider it to be both, and 3% are unsure. 29% of people polled want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, while 64% do not, with 7% unsure.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll in May of this year, 30% of people polled want Roe vs. wade overturned, while 68% do not, with 1% unsure.
According to a Jly-August Time poll, 46% of people want abortion to always be legal in the first trimester, with another 46% wanting it to be legal in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the woman's life, with 10% wanting it to be illegal under all circumstances, and 4% unsure.
According to a June Time Poll, 43% of people polled want abortion to be freely available until fetal viabil;ity (mid second trimester), with another 41% wanting it to be available under extenuating circumstances, with 10% opposed and 6% unsure.
It goes on and on; this issue has been polled to death. The consensus seems to be that first trimester abortions and abortions in cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life enjoy wide public support.
| 126 |
Bloodnok Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:39:21pm |
re: #121 iceweasel
Interesting, isn't it? It's the ones who feign moral indignation over a word like 'damn' or 'butthurt' that turn out to be seekrit and not so seekrit commenters in a shithole like the stalker blog, where they can really get down and get their God on-- posting prayer lists mixed in with wishes of harm and violent abusive language about people here
And crow about the "freedom" they have there that they didn't have here (which is pretty much just the freedom to post "First!" which they never seem to get sick of). Oblivious to the fact that they were most of the ones trying to stifle the conversation by trying to drum up false outrage over words that made their computers sad.
| 127 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:39:38pm |
re: #122 Axiom
The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data.
And this is word salad, a common symptom of schizophrenia and some other mental illnesses.
I like this sentence, though. I think I will put it in a surrealist poem.
| 128 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:40:06pm |
Is there an Amen Caucus on LGF now?
Come on guys. Reason. Intellect. Justice. These need not a deity or idol for support.
| 129 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:41:14pm |
re: #124 doubter4444
The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data!
Nomination for rotating title...
| 131 |
Bloodnok Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:42:21pm |
re: #129 iceweasel
The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data!
Nomination for rotating title...
Seconded and shit.
| 132 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:43:00pm |
| 134 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:46:43pm |
Bollocks.
Bollocks back. Your own links don't even city any conscience data.
If you're going to refute a viewpoint you might want to address the subject instead of weaving strawmen.
| 135 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:47:01pm |
The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data.
These need not a deity or idol for support.
I have measured out my life in malthusian coffee spoons
whilst in the room women come and go
talking of Michaelangelo
OMG WTF RAT ALLEY!
September is the cruelest month, bringing
Lilacs out of the dead land, breeding
Crazed tea partiers, teabaggers, Luap Nor!
Drink to me only with thine eyes,
And i'll reply with mine
or but leave a kiss in the furry teacup
And I'll reply with mine.
| 136 |
doubter4444 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:47:22pm |
re: #121 iceweasel
Interesting, isn't it? It's the ones who feign moral indignation over a word like 'damn' or 'butthurt' that turn out to be seekrit and not so seekrit commenters in a shithole like the stalker blog, where they can really get down and get their God on-- posting prayer lists mixed in with wishes of harm and violent abusive language about people here.
Just like they pretend to be oh so morally offended that a woman might exercise her right to choose when to become a mother and who to fuck, but have no qualms whatsoever about turning this country into a theocracy where women bleed to death in hotel rooms after trying to self-perform abortions.
Because we can't force pharmacists to do their fucking jobs, now can we? Oh heavens no. Conscience clause!
Please. They don't know the meaning of the word 'conscience'.
You go girl, you're on a roll!
| 137 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:48:26pm |
re: #134 Axiom
Bollocks back. Your own links don't even city any conscience data.
If you're going to refute a viewpoint you might want to address the subject instead of weaving strawmen.
Dude, you're the one creating bizarre fantasies of doctors en masse being forced to perform abortions or go on strike in some sort of Amazonian hellhole. And being roundly mocked for it, I might add!
| 138 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:49:07pm |
[Link: www.gallup.com...]
May 15, 2009
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
[Link: www.gallup.com...]
August 4, 2009
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
Poll data won't move this debate one way or the other. It's not worth the time to keep trying.
| 139 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:49:11pm |
I cited a tankerload of public opinion data from beaucoup polls.
#130
And it shows that roughly 2/3 of Americans do NOT want Roe vs. Wade repealed.
| 140 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:50:06pm |
re: #138 Axiom
[Link: www.gallup.com...]
May 15, 2009
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time[Link: www.gallup.com...]
August 4, 2009
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First TimePoll data won't move this debate one way or the other. It's not worth the time to keep trying.
They miss the point; people can be pro-life and still for safe, legal abortion.
| 141 |
doubter4444 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:50:20pm |
re: #125 Salamantis
According to a CBS News/New York Times Poll in June of thiis year, 62% of people polled consider the Roe vs. Wade decision to be a good thing, 32% consider it to be a bad thing, 3% consider it to be both, and 3% are unsure. 29% of people polled want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, while 64% do not, with 7% unsure.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll in May of this year, 30% of people polled want Roe vs. wade overturned, while 68% do not, with 1% unsure.
According to a Jly-August Time poll, 46% of people want abortion to always be legal in the first trimester, with another 46% wanting it to be legal in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the woman's life, with 10% wanting it to be illegal under all circumstances, and 4% unsure.
According to a June Time Poll, 43% of people polled want abortion to be freely available until fetal viabil;ity (mid second trimester), with another 41% wanting it to be available under extenuating circumstances, with 10% opposed and 6% unsure.
It goes on and on; this issue has been polled to death. The consensus seems to be that first trimester abortions and abortions in cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life enjoy wide public support.
Thanks for that, I knew he was full of shit, but did not have the ammo.
All the best.
| 142 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:50:35pm |
re: #139 Salamantis
I cited a tankerload of public opinion data from beaucoup polls.
#130
And it shows that roughly 2/3 of Americans do NOT want Roe vs. Wade repealed.
Every reputable poll always shows that. It doesn't change.
| 143 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:51:38pm |
Iceweasel: Cribbing from the Lakoff moral indignation complex now are we?
Attempts to raise the psychological data on abortion and its debate will not be very good for your POV.
Maybe I could page Zombie.
| 144 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:51:50pm |
Many people will erroneously figure that the opposite of pro-life is anti-life, and think to themselves that they're surely not that - which is precisely what the propagandists intend.
| 145 |
doubter4444 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:52:42pm |
re: #129 iceweasel
The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data!
Nomination for rotating title...
Just when you think it won't get weirder...
(going to look up just what the hell "malthusian" means!)
| 146 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:53:48pm |
re: #143 Axiom
Iceweasel: Cribbing from the Lakoff moral indignation complex now are we?
Attempts to raise the psychological data on abortion and its debate will not be very good for your POV.
Maybe I could page Zombie.
Go ahead; Zombie is pro-choice.
| 147 |
cliffster Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:53:51pm |
re: #139 Salamantis
I cited a tankerload of public opinion data from beaucoup polls.
#130
And it shows that roughly 2/3 of Americans do NOT want Roe vs. Wade repealed.
Something to consider - Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court issue, and the Supreme Court (by design) is immune to public opinion. Not only that, but I would guess that less than 1/3 of your 2/3 even know what Roe v Wade really means.
| 148 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:54:08pm |
They miss the point; people can be pro-life and still for safe, legal abortion.
The moderate view is rather huge. I am not arguing against that. It is where I lay.
| 149 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:55:32pm |
Many people will erroneously figure that the opposite of pro-life is anti-life, and think to themselves that they're surely not that - which is precisely what the propagandists intend.
Do they?
Prove it.
| 150 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:55:52pm |
re: #143 Axiom
Iceweasel: Cribbing from the Lakoff moral indignation complex now are we?
Attempts to raise the psychological data on abortion and its debate will not be very good for your POV.
Maybe I could page Zombie.
Are you planning on peddling the thoroughly bullshit, and thoroughly debunked claims that abortion is bad for women's psychological health?
Good luck with that. I think Sal and I are going to enjoy shredding you on that.
By all means, go page your flying monkeys who also peddle bullshit data. You're going to need the help.
Better warn them about my dirty words though. Make sure they have health insurance! I hear Pfizer's markup on smelling salts is through the roof.
| 151 |
jaunte Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:57:06pm |
re: #145 doubter4444
Just when you think it won't get weirder...
(going to look up just what the hell "malthusian" means!)
Find your Malthusian Fantasy Date on Ebay!
| 152 |
doubter4444 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:57:26pm |
| 153 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:58:36pm |
re: #147 cliffster
Something to consider - Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court issue, and the Supreme Court (by design) is immune to public opinion. Not only that, but I would guess that less than 1/3 of your 2/3 even know what Roe v Wade really means.
It's a good thing that the Supreme Court is all about the rational rule of law, rather than about legally ratifying emotion-driven prejudices.
But considering how much political shit as has been stirred over Roe vs. Wade in the last 35+ years, I sincerely doubt if 2/9 (1/3 of 2/3, more than 20%) of the American people don't know that Roe vs. Wade legalized first trimester abortion in America.
| 154 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:58:44pm |
Go ahead; Zombie is pro-choice.
I know. That's the point.
| 155 |
doubter4444 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:58:45pm |
re: #151 jaunte
Find your Malthusian Fantasy Date on Ebay!
Bidding is closed as soon as the flounce is announced!
| 156 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:58:52pm |
re: #151 jaunte
Find your Malthusian Fantasy Date on Ebay!
WIN!
I found my Malthusian Fantasy Date and all I got was this lousy obscenity...
| 157 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:01:57pm |
re: #149 Axiom
Do they?
Prove it.
If they were honest, they would admit that they were anti-abortion and anti-choice (because they're anti that choice). Too many of them are inconsistent and tie themselves in moebius gordian knots to justify their simultaneous support for the death penalty.
And then a tiny few of them gun down abortion doctors and clinic escorts. Three have been murdered, in two separate incidents, by 'pro-life' murderers in my hometown alone. And a shitload more cheered the murderers on, all over the blogisphere; Charles has documented it in posts on this very list.
| 158 |
cliffster Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:02:03pm |
re: #153 Salamantis
It's a good thing that the Supreme Court is all about the rational rule of law, rather than about legally ratifying emotion-driven prejudices.
But considering how much political shit as has been stirred over Roe vs. Wade in the last 35+ years, I sincerely doubt if 2/9 (1/3 of 2/3, more than 20%) of the American people don't know that Roe vs. Wade legalized first trimester abortion in America.
Roe v Wade ruled that state laws against abortion are unconstitutional. People think that "Overturning Roe v Wade" is synonymous with "Making abortion illegal". And this view is completely false.
| 159 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:04:26pm |
re: #158 cliffster
Roe v Wade ruled that state laws against abortion are unconstitutional. People think that "Overturning Roe v Wade" is synonymous with "Making abortion illegal". And this view is completely false.
That depends upon which state you live in; several of them would immediately ban it.
I really don't think that placing abortion, a medical procedure, on a par with gambling and prostitution (Nevada, anyone?) is the way to go. Why should some women be denied the rights that other women have, simply because they're in diffeent states?
| 160 |
Axiom Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:04:29pm |
rather than about legally ratifying emotion-driven prejudices.But considering how much political shit as has been stirred over Roe vs. Wade in the last 35+ years, I sincerely doubt if 2/9 (1/3 of 2/3, more than 20%) of the American people don't know that Roe vs. Wade legalized first trimester abortion in America.
Justice Blackmun couldn't really issue a "rational" decision when starting with a flawed set of facts, could he?
Cyril Means historionics on English Common Law were all wrong. Villanova Joseph Dellapenna had to write an entire book about English Common Law just to correct the history. Bernard Nathanson admitted that they, at what is now known as NARAL, made up all the data they needed to support Roe. Means provided the historical myth.
| 161 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:07:03pm |
re: #122 Axiom
This is a gutter obscenity.
They both come from the same keyboard of iceweasel. The reasonable view has actual data to support it. The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data.
And with that, you have convinced everyone that you are a complete and utter freak! Congrats.
| 162 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:08:06pm |
re: #160 Axiom
Justice Blackmun couldn't really issue a "rational" decision when starting with a flawed set of facts, could he?
Cyril Means historionics on English Common Law were all wrong. Villanova Joseph Dellapenna had to write an entire book about English Common Law just to correct the history. Bernard Nathanson admitted that they, at what is now known as NARAL, made up all the data they needed to support Roe. Means provided the historical myth.
Bernard Nathanson and Sarah McCorvey have made tidy livings shilling against the causes they used to support. Others have died for refusing to waver.
And what ARE the flawed set of facts? The fact that women were ending up in ERs and morgues with toxic infections are bled out before Roe vs. Wade?
Slavery was once legal, too, as was sexual chattelhood; that didn't make them right.
| 163 |
cliffster Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:09:13pm |
re: #159 Salamantis
That depends upon which state you live in; several of them would immediately ban it.
I really don't think that placing abortion, a medical procedure, on a par with gambling and prostitution (Nevada, anyone?) is the way to go. Why should some women be denied the rights that other women have, simply because they're in diffeent states?
I'm not debating whether Roe v Wade is a good thing. I'm saying that the vast majority don't understand what Roe v Wade really means.
| 164 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:10:52pm |
re: #163 cliffster
I'm not debating whether Roe v Wade is a good thing. I'm saying that the vast majority don't understand what Roe v Wade really means.
What it means is that states are not allowed to blanket outlaw the procedure.
| 165 |
cliffster Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:11:42pm |
re: #164 Salamantis
What it means is that states are not allowed to blanket outlaw the procedure.
Correct.
| 166 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:16:25pm |
"The keyboard of iceweasel."
| 167 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:18:08pm |
| 168 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:20:57pm |
re: #143 Axiom
Iceweasel: Cribbing from the Lakoff moral indignation complex now are we?
Whose cribs these are I think I know
His complex is in the village though
he will not see me standing here
To watch the trolls caper and blow.
My gutter obscenities must think it queer
To stop without a Malthusian sneer.
We hope for some fantasy data here
Moral indignation blooms, from year to year.
| 169 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:22:16pm |
Niiice, Ice!
You wanna serious poem or two of mine?
| 170 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:22:30pm |
re: #168 iceweasel
Whose cribs these are I think I know
His complex is in the village though
he will not see me standing here
To watch the trolls caper and blow.My gutter obscenities must think it queer
To stop without a Malthusian sneer.
We hope for some fantasy data here
Moral indignation blooms, from year to year.
Brilliant...:)
| 171 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:25:08pm |
re: #169 Salamantis
Niiice, Ice!
You wanna serious poem or two of mine?
Cheers, Sal! you bet. I always like your poems.
Btw, I have decided all my responses on this thread will either be parodies of famous poems or literary allusions, so...
yes she said yes i will yes
| 172 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:26:12pm |
Autumn in Spring
Gazing upon the morning dew which guilds the grass
I see between the new green shoots the older brown.
My mind returns to memories of previous frosts
And lingers there, bemused by visions swirling round.
The budding leaves become for me dead rattlings
Fallen and blown about a bleak and lifeless ground
And seeing nesting birds feed hungry hatchlings
I conjure up migrating flocks equator-bound.
And so I wonder what has caused this turn of mind
That seems to poison all viewed youth with its demise
My answer comes: it’s my own nearing fall I find
That’s coloring with decadence the season’s rise.
For well I know that coming warmth shall surely fade
And cold will follow, as a born thing surely dies
Strutting through growth and vigor in a sad parade
Then withering until with worms its carcass lies.
| 173 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:27:45pm |
re: #170 Jimmah
Brilliant...:)
"Cribbing from the Lakoff moral indignation complex" is going straight into my book next to "The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data."
I had a crib in the Lakoff Moral Indignation Complex. Got foreclosed on. :(
| 174 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:29:14pm |
Winter Day
Brown leaves skitter on hard-skinned snow
As black arms clack in a cold dry breeze.
The grey sky sheaths the sun's hidden glow
And drifts have stacked atop gnarled knees.
The pond is coated with a solid shield;
Its frigid wetness trapped below,
And the dark woods loom beyond bare fields;
Their fence posts cloaked round blanketed rows.
The firewood is split and piled in lumps
With a path well-trodden from fuel to door
And a wood-axe nestles its head in a stump;
With finger grooves well in handle worn.
The cabin is boxy and strongly built
Secure beneath its quiescent crown;
Its roof lies covered with a pallid quilt
That seems to bed the homestead down.
The chimney reels out a cheerful trail -
A sign of the toasty warmth within;
The windows are clad in silver veils
And crystals dangle from eaves of tin.
Its logs are sealed with chink and joint
Which bar the chill and contain the heat
That radiates from the cozy hearth
Into the den and through bare feet.
| 175 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:33:41pm |
re: #174 Salamantis
re: #172 Salamantis
Those are great Sal. lot of autumn imagery; it's reminding me of someone-- Donald Hall, possibly? Seamus heaney for sure, but there's a great poem by I think Donald Hall about the death of his wife and it's all with autumn imagery of their farm, IIRC. Anyway, thank you for sharing those! great stuff.
Also reminded me of this, naturally
| 176 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:36:54pm |
Icicle Moon
The cave was a toasty cozy place
With a blaze of branches well alit
The blizzard raging outside its space
Could not intrude within one bit.
The blowing wind was broken by
Cascaes of frozen waterfall
And even the wolves knew not the way
Inside this den tucked in the cliff wall.
But then the snow clouds blew beyond
As silvery flickers leaked inside
And gazing through the warped pane fronds
I saw the source of the glow I'd spied.
A gibbous shining did hugely hang
As if 'twere poised to give birth soon
And my heart invaded my throat and sang
To the wondrous sight of that crystal moon.
| 177 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:37:20pm |
re: #173 iceweasel
"Cribbing from the Lakoff moral indignation complex" is going straight into my book next to "The obscenity has nothing short of malthusian fantasy data."
I had a crib in the Lakoff Moral Indignation Complex. Got foreclosed on. :(
Laugh? You nearly gave me an Alinskyite embolism with Ehrlichian complications there, iceweasel. :)
| 178 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:37:48pm |
That's enough for now...more occasionally later...;~)
| 179 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:39:31pm |
| 180 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:42:43pm |
re: #178 Salamantis
That's enough for now...more occasionally later...;~)
Fab! Thanks for sharing them! {sal}
Think we ran off our troll though, oh well.
| 181 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:43:39pm |
re: #177 Jimmah
Laugh? You nearly gave me an Alinskyite embolism with Ehrlichian complications there, iceweasel. :)
It's in the Alinsky playbook, Jimmah-ski. :)
Make em buy you some fine wines, make em laugh. Etc.
| 182 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:43:58pm |
Evocative stuff Sal, reminds me of some of the paintings of Breughel(the elder) on the seasons:
| 183 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:44:18pm |
BTW: I'm conceited enough to consider myself to be a strong poet.
I'm putting together a chapbook of poems entitled Heart Palm Nectar - because that's what poetry is for me: I distill the muse's nectar from my heart and palm it on a page...;~)
| 184 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:48:01pm |
re: #182 Jimmah
Evocative stuff Sal, reminds me of some of the paintings of Breughel(the elder) on the seasons:
[Link: www.harpers.org...]
[Link: www.myartprints.com...]
Love Breughel, Jimmah.
About suffering they were never wrong,
The Old Masters: how well they understood
Its human position; how it takes place
While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully
along;
How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting
For the miraculous birth, there always must be
Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating
On a pond at the edge of the wood:
They never forgot
That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course
Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot
Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer's horse
Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.
In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the plowman may
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water; and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,
Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.
Auden, Musee des beaux Artes
| 185 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:50:03pm |
And yes, I recognized the homage to Frost's Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening and the last line of Joyce's Ulysses.
| 186 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:52:18pm |
re: #181 iceweasel
It's in the Alinsky playbook, Jimmah-ski. :)
Make em buy you some fine wines, make em laugh. Etc.
Yep - a spoonful of sugar makes the Communism go down. ;-)
| 187 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:52:48pm |
re: #185 Salamantis
And yes, I recognized the homage to Frost's Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening and the last line of Joyce's Ulysses.
of course you did! I'm sure you recognised the references to Eliot's Wasteland and Love Song of J Alfred prufrock and Ben Jonson's "to Celia" I shoehorned into my earlier parody too!
Good luck with your chapbook, keep us posted!
I can't write poetry and wouldn't try, but I do love it.
| 188 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:55:02pm |
re: #187 iceweasel
of course you did! I'm sure you recognised the references to Eliot's Wasteland and Love Song of J Alfred prufrock and Ben Jonson's "to Celia" I shoehorned into my earlier parody too!
Good luck with your chapbook, keep us posted!
I can't write poetry and wouldn't try, but I do love it.
I sure did. But since we're discussing homages, I'll post one more poem of mine: a homage to Andrew Marvell's To His Coy Mistress:
If life could last th’eternal day
And love trap time within its sway
Branding Possum and Pound both liars
By boundless fuel-ed passion-fires
The love’s delay, reluctant, coy
T’would not dismay me to employ.
But time rolls on and youth grows old,
And summer flames bank winter cold,
And at our ends rot dankest graves:
Chance lost to spend the love we’ve saved.
Dead Helen’s skull can move no crowd:
Entombed tumescence stirs no shroud.
So let us chew our halcyon days
With avid mouths, and make them pay
All pleasures we in life are due.
So feast on me, and I on you,
So when our earthly deeds are done,
Our ecstasies shan’t pass unplumbed.
| 189 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:55:20pm |
re: #116 iceweasel
I made an error in relying on the spell checker rather than proofreading.
If the effort to save a woman's life will result in the loss of her fetus. The doctor would must render that treatment. Conscience clauses are not about such situations.
If the patient is in extremis, and the only way to stave off her imminent death is via abortion, the doctor is obligated to perform the procedure. The woman's life takes precedence. In doing nothing he would also have killed, perhaps both the woman and her unborn child. Of the abortions performed in this country each year how many concern this type of situation?
If the doctor knows that the pregnancy may result in such dangerous complications, he is obligated to advise the patient of that and of his objections to abortion. The woman is free to seek another doctor.
Even in these situations the abortion cured nothing. Pregnancy is not a disease.
| 190 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:01:45pm |
re: #188 Salamantis
I sure did. But since we're discussing homages, I'll post one more poem of mine: a homage to Andrew Marvell's To His Coy Mistress:
Oh great! One of my favourites!
BTW, I maintain the Rolling Stones were doing an unwitting (perhaps) cover of it here. Compare:
Who would believe you were a beauty indeed
When the days get shorter and the nights get long
Lie awake when the rain comes
Nobody will know, when you're old
When you're old, nobody will know
that you was a beauty, a sweet sweet beauty
A sweet sweet booty, but stone stone cold
You're so cold, you're so cold, cold, cold
You're so cold, you're so cold
And...
Thy beauty shall no more be found, 25
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song: then worms shall try
That long preserved virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust: 30
The grave 's a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires 35
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapt power. 40
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun 45
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
[Link: www.bartleby.com...]
One of my favourite poems of all time.
| 191 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:02:07pm |
re: #189 Ian MacGregor
I made an error in relying on the spell checker rather than proofreading.
If the effort to save a woman's life will result in the loss of her fetus. The doctor would must render that treatment. Conscience clauses are not about such situations.
If the patient is in extremis, and the only way to stave off her imminent death is via abortion, the doctor is obligated to perform the procedure. The woman's life takes precedence. In doing nothing he would also have killed, perhaps both the woman and her unborn child. Of the abortions performed in this country each year how many concern this type of situation?
If the doctor knows that the pregnancy may result in such dangerous complications, he is obligated to advise the patient of that and of his objections to abortion. The woman is free to seek another doctor.
Even in these situations the abortion cured nothing. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Some pregnancies are life-threatening maladies in and of themselves; ectopic pregnancies, for instance. And many other types where malformed or mispositioned fetuses can be fatal.
Then there are the cases where a medical condition that the woman has - frequently a condition that only manifested after conception - renders carrying the pregnancy through to childbirth a hazardous or permanently maiming prospect. Pregnancy-onset diabetes, for instance, can result in heart attack, renal failure requiring lifelong kidney dialysis, stroke-induced coma or paraluysis, or permanent blindness - not to mention death - if the fetus is carried full term.
| 192 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:07:26pm |
re: #189 Ian MacGregor
Even in these situations the abortion cured nothing. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Tell that to the 14 year old impregnated by her father and denied an abortion by him. Tell that to the 18 year old supporting herself and struggling to go to college. Tell that to the woman trapped in an abusive marriage and trying to leave, whose husband flushed all her birth control pills down the toilet and has raped her every night since, deliberately to impregnate her.
In such situations, the women do think of their condition as harmful. It is harmful. And it's not for you to decree that their abortions were unnecessary, or 'cured nothing'.
| 193 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:09:07pm |
re: #122 Axiom
Uh, Iceweasel wrote the first comment. I wrote the second. Iceweasel has not demonstrated any cognitive dissonance over the abortion issue.
| 194 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:09:35pm |
re: #184 iceweasel
Yes, the poet captured it well - one man's epic drama is another man's barely heard noise. I like how Breughel juxtaposes these perspectives, often so that the epic drama is a minor detail in the greater picture of everyday life he paints.
| 195 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:14:26pm |
I'm gonna go ahead and post two of my love poems, simply because I'm proud of them. In my opinion, they are truly heart-melting - but then again, because they're mine, I'm biased...;~)
After this, I'll quit for a while; I promise!
Only Human
If I were Herne the Hunter, or satyr Pan divine
I’d melt through you until our spines
Like serpents met and intertwined
And penetrate you like a dart
Until I held your heaving heart
Caressed your soul and thrilled your mind
And your sweet love forever bind.
But I am only human; the best that I can do
Is give you all the human love it’s in my power to.
I’ll necklace you with kisses till you sprinkle me with sighs
And drink the lava torrents pouring from your searing eyes.
I’ll woo you with an ardor at once steady and intense
And lay my heart between your feet not asking recompense
And watch you as you’re sleeping, smiling your Goddess smile
And thank the Gods you granted me your favor for a while.
For I am only human, no avatar on high –
All I can do is try.
The Topography of Love
Love can’t let go
For true love can’t constrain.
Love can’t condemn
For true love harbors all.
Love can’t withhold
For true love lives to share.
Love can’t complete
For true love overflows.
Love can’t demand
For true love ever gives.
Love is a buffalo blanket
Warm beside a winter campfire
Love is a mellow sun
Beaming on a balmy afternoon.
Love is seeing the perfect Being whom one’s Beloved is
Shining in luminous eyes
And seeing reflected in that beholding
One’s own self transfigured
Into a being more radiant than one might hope to dream.
Love is when two people see each other
More clearly than they see themselves
It is when two souls touch
And revel in the touching.
| 196 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:22:51pm |
re: #191 Salamantis
I agree there is no choice but to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, and in the case of such a serious condition as pregnancy-onset diabetes, the patient needs to be monitored and advised termination of the pregnancy may be necessary. These are cases where the doctor whose conscience does not let him perform abortions must refer the patient to someone who will.
I also want to thank you for keeping this discussion civil.
| 197 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:26:39pm |
re: #196 Ian MacGregor
I agree there is no choice but to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, and in the case of such a serious condition as pregnancy-onset diabetes, the patient needs to be monitored and advised termination of the pregnancy may be necessary. These are cases where the doctor whose conscience does not let him perform abortions must refer the patient to someone who will.
I also want to thank you for keeping this discussion civil.
One of those doctors was Dr. Tiller. But since an antiabortion zealot murdered him in the foyer of his Kansas church, there are now only two such late term abortion physician options nationwide.
| 198 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:27:59pm |
re: #195 Salamantis
Nice! I like the topography of love conceit; works well both for the notion of lovers exploring each other's bodies, and the notion of love as a new country to be explored, a geography to be mapped.
Here's one of my favourites-- was rereading Adrienne Rich's 21 love poems earlier today:
[The Floating Poem, Unnumbered]
Whatever happens with us, your body
will haunt mine - tender, delicate
your lovemaking, like the half-curled frond
of the fiddlehead fern in forests
just washed by sun. Your traveled, generous thighs
between which my whole face has come and come -
the innocence and wisdom of the placee my tongue has found there -
the live, insatiate dance of your nipples in my mouth -
your touch on me, firm, protective, searching
me out, your strong tongue and slender fingers
reaching where I had been waiting years for you
in my rose-wet cave - whatever happens, this is.
| 199 |
Pythagoras Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:33:05pm |
re: #153 Salamantis
It's a good thing that the Supreme Court is all about the rational rule of law, rather than about legally ratifying emotion-driven prejudices.
But considering how much political shit as has been stirred over Roe vs. Wade in the last 35+ years, I sincerely doubt if 2/9 (1/3 of 2/3, more than 20%) of the American people don't know that Roe vs. Wade legalized first trimester abortion in America.
Hell, I'll bet you 2/9 of the population thinks the supreme court is where the NCAA final four tournament is played. If you say, "Roe v. Wade," 2/9 will think V. Wade is in the NBA.
Ever taken a close look at how stupid the average American is? Ever watch "Jay-walking" on the old Jay Leno show?
Surveys about Roe v. Wade are a joke. We might as well take a survey on string theory.
| 200 |
Pythagoras Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:36:51pm |
re: #196 Ian MacGregor
I agree there is no choice but to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, and in the case of such a serious condition as pregnancy-onset diabetes, the patient needs to be monitored and advised termination of the pregnancy may be necessary. These are cases where the doctor whose conscience does not let him perform abortions must refer the patient to someone who will.
I also want to thank you for keeping this discussion civil.
Ectopic pregnancies are terminated in almost every hospital in the US (including, for example, Catholic hospitals) and aren't even counted as abortions.
| 201 |
Flavia Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:37:48pm |
re: #63 Joshua Cohen
There is no actual analogy - criminals have done something.
What conservatives call a baby has done nothing.
(Just explaining why you got downdinged, I'm sure - me, I'm
pro-choice. Of course, I am also pro-capial punsihment, so,
by the flawed logic of Boosler's comedy, I'm consistent.)
| 202 |
Genosaurer Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:39:46pm |
re: #40 SanFranciscoZionist
A lot of the health care argument seems to go: "But there's no actual legislation to do that." "Well, is there legislation to prevent it from happening? No? HA!"
What is unreasonable about that attitude?
How much have government mandates like the Great Society programs expanded since they were put into effect? Why would you expect anything different from a government health care program?
Honestly, I'm not even sure that wording strictly prohibiting something is enough to ensure that it won't be added to the program after it's in place.
| 203 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:40:25pm |
re: #198 iceweasel
Nice :) And a theme poets, artists and musicians have dwelt on many times:
I admire the curves,
The golden landscape.
I wanna be there
Right with you.
That's where I'm staying,
Where no-one can find me
In the depths of the valleys
Magnificent landscape
| 204 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:41:52pm |
re: #197 Salamantis
What percentage of Dr. Tiller's late term procedures were necessary to save a women's life or to prevent conditions on par with what you discussed in connection to pregnancy on-set diabetes? Of these what percentage could the same results be achieved by delivery?
What percentage was elective? How do you know?
| 205 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:49:19pm |
re: #200 Pythagoras
Ectopic pregnancies are terminated in almost every hospital in the US (including, for example, Catholic hospitals) and aren't even counted as abortions.
Interestingly, the procedure now known as partial birth abortion was not originally counted as an abortion either, nor were several of the surgical procedures that terminate late term pregnancies in cases where the fetus is already severely damaged and/or the mother's life or health are at risk.
Again, this was due to the anti-choice, so-con, theocrat agenda. And the Bush Admin's acquiesence to it. They successfully redefined these procedures as 'abortions', and have been moving to do the same with even birth control and emergency contraception.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
This is the history of the use of this term for political purposes:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
And finally, here is a story about what that legislation actually accomplished: it denied mothers, who desperately wanted to carry their pregnancies to term, a chance to say goodbye.
[Link: barryyeoman.com...]
The entire purpose of the legislation was to redefine abortion and make it easier to outlaw all forms of abortion-- and to prosecute doctors for performing them, and intimidate them into not performing them.
There has been an ongoing war on reproductive rights in this country for years. It is myopic to see it purely in terms of Roe v Wade. It is not.
| 206 |
lostlakehiker Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:54:51pm |
re: #112 iceweasel
The fact remains that no one has proposed conscience clauses for any of your hypotheticals. Why is that? It's pretty obvious.
Abortion and birth control and emergency contraception are legal. Doctors and pharmacists don't get to decide after the fact that they won't provide those services. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't be an ob/gyn. It's simple.
And pharmacists should no more be granted a dispensation to avoid handing out birth control than they should be granted one for refusing to fill prescriptions for Ritalin for children, or Viagra for young men, or anti-depressants. It's not their job.
I was asking that when you write the law the way you want it, do not say that the doctor may never exercise his or her conscience. Write it so that the doctor is only forced to leave conscience at the door when it comes to these specific things: abortion and birth control.
That's still a bad law, but it's less bad because it doesn't outlaw doctors having a conscience across the board.
| 207 |
BARACK THE VOTE Tue, Sep 22, 2009 9:55:48pm |
re: #206 lostlakehiker
I was asking that when you write the law the way you want it, do not say that the doctor may never exercise his or her conscience. Write it so that the doctor is only forced to leave conscience at the door when it comes to these specific things: abortion and birth control.
That's still a bad law, but it's less bad because it doesn't outlaw doctors having a conscience across the board.
I can get behind that. :) Sorry for misreading you.
| 208 |
Genosaurer Tue, Sep 22, 2009 10:08:35pm |
re: #192 iceweasel
Tell that to the 14 year old impregnated by her father and denied an abortion by him. Tell that to the 18 year old supporting herself and struggling to go to college. Tell that to the woman trapped in an abusive marriage and trying to leave, whose husband flushed all her birth control pills down the toilet and has raped her every night since, deliberately to impregnate her.
There's a quote (the origin is muddled, usually attributed to Elanor Roosevelt) that goes like this:
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
Whenever I see someone attempting to reduce something to human interest stories, I immediately become suspicious. I consider it a solid indicator that their position cannot stand on reason, so they are attempting to appeal to emotion instead.
"Oh, you think the US invasion of Iraq was overall a positive development in the region? Well, tell that to the poor woman who lost her house and her children and her husband and all her immediate family and her childhood best friend and also she was horribly disfigured by a US bomb that missed its target?!"
The fact that this might have actually happened doesn't make it any less specious when used as an argument.
(This does not necessarily mean I am opposed to the position you are taking; just disapproval of the means you've chosen to use to argue it. It's a technique that I think is depressingly common on both sides of many debates, not just you and not just on this topic.)
| 209 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 10:12:48pm |
re: #204 Ian MacGregor
What percentage of Dr. Tiller's late term procedures were necessary to save a women's life or to prevent conditions on par with what you discussed in connection to pregnancy on-set diabetes? Of these what percentage could the same results be achieved by delivery?
What percentage was elective? How do you know?
The overwhelming majority of them were. Dr. Tiller reviewed the cases. A Kansas-law-mandated independent physician reviewed the cases. And of course the referring physicians nationwide reviewed the cases before referring them.
| 210 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 10:16:57pm |
re: #208 Genosaurer
There's a quote (the origin is muddled, usually attributed to Elanor Roosevelt) that goes like this:
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
Whenever I see someone attempting to reduce something to human interest stories, I immediately become suspicious. I consider it a solid indicator that their position cannot stand on reason, so they are attempting to appeal to emotion instead.
"Oh, you think the US invasion of Iraq was overall a positive development in the region? Well, tell that to the poor woman who lost her house and her children and her husband and all her immediate family and her childhood best friend and also she was horribly disfigured by a US bomb that missed its target?!"
The fact that this might have actually happened doesn't make it any less specious when used as an argument.
(This does not necessarily mean I am opposed to the position you are taking; just disapproval of the means you've chosen to use to argue it. It's a technique that I think is depressingly common on both sides of many debates, not just you and not just on this topic.)
Yes, but all of these cases ultimately resolve to individual circumstances. If they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis - and they must be - it is only fair and proper that individual circumstances be referenced to make the general case.
| 211 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 10:18:00pm |
re: #192 iceweasel
Okay, so how did the abortions stop the abuse? I would think the vast majority would find abortions to be acceptable in the case of rape and incest. I don't think most of the country supports abortion for financial reasons.
But most abortions have nothing to do with such things. People weigh the fact that a new human life has been created and is developing, against the situation the woman is in, often by thinking what if it were me or my daughter?
That's why the country will not accept a complete ban, but also are saddened by the numbers performed today.
| 212 |
Salamantis Tue, Sep 22, 2009 10:23:42pm |
re: #211 Ian MacGregor
Okay, so how did the abortions stop the abuse? I would think the vast majority would find abortions to be acceptable in the case of rape and incest. I don't think most of the country supports abortion for financial reasons.
But most abortions have nothing to do with such things. People weigh the fact that a new human life has been created and is developing, against the situation the woman is in, often by thinking what if it were me or my daughter?
That's why the country will not accept a complete ban, but also are saddened by the numbers performed today.
The personal hypocrisy surrounding this issue is astounding. As a NOW escort, I can remember when a minister who bussed his congregation to the clinic every week for protests used some pretext to suspend that tactic for one week, when his pregnant teenaged daughter who had willingly had sex with an underaged boy of another race was secretly admitted for the procedure. When the political became personal, it made all the difference for him.
The next week, his bussed-in congregation was back, as if nothing had happened. And as far as they knew, and as far as we would tell them, nothing had.
| 213 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 10:37:37pm |
re: #205 iceweasel
Conception is the joining of egg and sperm resulting in a new life. Certain means of birth control do not prevent conception, but block implantation. These have been thought of as contraceptives for years even though by definition they are not. I think the medical definition of contraceptives includes products which prevent conception and implantation. Certainly one can see why the inclusion of devices which prevent implantation but allow for conception as contraceptives could be bothersome. Such devices stop a newly formed human life from developing.
The same thing applies to emergency contraception. It may indeed prevent conception, or it may result in the loss of a new human life.
| 214 |
Ian MacGregor Tue, Sep 22, 2009 11:34:09pm |
re: #197 Salamantis
If these late term-abortions were medically necessary, and there are only two doctors who perform them nationwide, should we not be seeing an increase in women who have died from complications of their pregnancy? Perhaps inducing labor for a vaginal delivery , or performing a C-section are just as effective?
Or is the number so small that the two doctors can handle it, plus perform some elective late term abortions.
| 215 |
SixDegrees Tue, Sep 22, 2009 11:40:34pm |
re: #213 Ian MacGregor
Conception is the joining of egg and sperm resulting in a new life. Certain means of birth control do not prevent conception, but block implantation. These have been thought of as contraceptives for years even though by definition they are not. I think the medical definition of contraceptives includes products which prevent conception and implantation. Certainly one can see why the inclusion of devices which prevent implantation but allow for conception as contraceptives could be bothersome. Such devices stop a newly formed human life from developing.
The same thing applies to emergency contraception. It may indeed prevent conception, or it may result in the loss of a new human life.
That depends on who you talk to, and is an essentially religious question.
As such, government needs to keep it's nose out of it, and leave such decisions to the individuals involved.
Those with a yearning to ram their own religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else need to rethink what it means to be an American.
| 216 |
Salamantis Wed, Sep 23, 2009 12:16:05am |
re: #214 Ian MacGregor
If these late term-abortions were medically necessary, and there are only two doctors who perform them nationwide, should we not be seeing an increase in women who have died from complications of their pregnancy? Perhaps inducing labor for a vaginal delivery , or performing a C-section are just as effective?
Or is the number so small that the two doctors can handle it, plus perform some elective late term abortions.
They are indeed rare, about 1000 or so per year, out of more than a million annual abortions (the overwhelming majority of which occur during the first trimester), because many medically necessary abortions are performed in the second trimester, as soon as such problems crop up.
But three doctors could make it a full time job. Two are undoubtedly sorely pressed. One doctor would find the workload to be impossible, and many patients woukd be triaged to death. And no doctors would result in a thousand deaths a year.
| 217 |
BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Sep 23, 2009 12:46:52am |
re: #208 Genosaurer
There's a quote (the origin is muddled, usually attributed to Elanor Roosevelt) that goes like this:
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
Whenever I see someone attempting to reduce something to human interest stories, I immediately become suspicious. I consider it a solid indicator that their position cannot stand on reason, so they are attempting to appeal to emotion instead.)
In that case you would be wrong.
The women's movement used the argument "the personal is political" for a reason. Not because they were appealing to emotion or incapable of employing reason, but because they recognised how individual lives and circumstances were themselves political-- and the political intrudes even into our bedrooms.
You can't discuss the abortion argument without discussing individual lives, because that is what it is fundamentally about: individual women, their lives, and their right to control their lives and bodies.
| 218 |
Genosaurer Wed, Sep 23, 2009 1:31:29am |
re: #215 SixDegrees
As such, government needs to keep it's nose out of it, and leave such decisions to the individuals involved.
Those with a yearning to ram their own religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else need to rethink what it means to be an American.
The government enforces the sixth and eighth commandments.
Is this an example of the government forcing religious beliefs onto us? Technically, yes, but obviously not really; there are plenty of valid secular reasons for not allowing people to commit murder or steal other people's stuff.
A religion or religious group having an opinion on an issue does not automatically turn it into a religious issue.
re: #217 iceweasel
The women's movement used the argument "the personal is political" for a reason.
I'll say.
re: #217 iceweasel
Not because they were appealing to emotion or incapable of employing reason...
Errr... nope, you lost me.
Of course it's because they were appealing to emotion. The rhetoric of both sides consists almost entirely of appeals to emotion. It's endemic in the debate.
It's the same thing Obama does in speeches - instead of arguing the merits of your position, just throw out some emotionally charged "true in spirit" anecdotes, and attempt to pare the entire debate down to the plight of whoever you think is most likely to generate sympathy among the audience.
I can't stop you from doing that, of course. But it's bad form if you have any interest at all in a rational discussion.
| 219 |
AllanHateMe Wed, Sep 23, 2009 6:09:34am |
That's pretty weak. All it really says is they must 'segregate funds'. That's like saying the money in your left pocket is different from the money in your right pocket. Is it? If I want a cheeseburger and fries, but my mom's money in my left pocket can only be used for the cheeseburger, does it really matter which pocket the money came from for the fries? I couldn't have bought both without both sets of money. By subsidizing part, you are in effect subsidizing all. You are splitting hairs with spin. We can't have an honest debate about healthcare while people on both sides are parsing words and spinning meaning. It's like Obama claiming the mandate is not a tax. It's ridiculous.
| 220 |
Abdul Abulbul Amir Wed, Sep 23, 2009 9:21:49am |
In a separate item, we examine a claim from Johnson that the Baucus bill "contains provisions that would send massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion." The Baucus plan would, in fact, allow private companies participating in the exchange, as well as the co-op, to offer abortion services. And people in both those plans could see federal subsidies. We looked at this issue in some detail here, and we ruled the claim True.
Charles. Perhaps you missed this portion of the item you linked. The feds are in 100% control in what must be offered and what may not be offered to be on the exchange.
Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory Just Captured Ominous Signals About the Planet’s Health Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory just captured an ominous sign about the pace of global warming. Atmospheric levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide aren’t just on their way to yet another record high this year - they’re rising faster than ever, ...
Cheechako
The Good Liars at the Schnecksville Trump Rally [VIDEO] New theories, great tunes and SHOCKING breaking news. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!WASHINGTON D.C. MAY 23RD: https://www.unionstage.com/shows/good-liars-fix-america/NASHVILLE, TN JUNE 6TH: https://www.etix.com/ticket/p/42992972/the-good-liars-nashville-the-lab-at-zaniesSAN FRANCISCO, CA JUNE 25TH: https://www.livenation.com/event/G5vYZbavGvggG/the-good-liars SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-good-liars-tell-the-truth/id1731178442Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7mgfiwzr32907N4y68eFOCJoin this channel ...
teleskiguy
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
