South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait

[Busyman]

Take the Fifth
South Dakota's invitation to snuff your embryo.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, March 7, 2006, at 12:38 AM ET

Monday morning, Gov. Mike Rounds signed into law a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota. He called it a "direct challenge" to Roe v. Wade. But the ban also poses a direct challenge to the pro-life movement, and to itself, by permitting the destruction of what it calls unborn human beings.

According to Section 1 of the law, "life begins at the time of conception," and "each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization." Accordingly, Section 2 bans the administration "to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being." Section 5 defines "unborn human being" as "the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation."

In short, if you terminate life after fertilization, you've killed a human being, and you're going to jail.

Section 3, however, tells a different story: "Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing."

Look at that language carefully. It doesn't just say you can take a contraceptive drug before sex. It says you can take such a drug after sex, as long as it's before conventional tests can detect a pregnancy.

Conventional tests can't detect a pregnancy at fertilization. They detect hormonal changes at implantation, which begins around the fifth day after fertilization and can take another week to complete.

In other words, South Dakota gives you five days to kill what it calls your unborn child.

How? By taking a morning-after pill such as Plan B. According to the Food and Drug Administration, Plan B "acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)." Fertilized egg, in South Dakotan, means human being. And prevention of implantation means death.

Why the loophole? Are South Dakota lawmakers confused about when life begins? Section 2 of their legislation says the ban applies only to a "pregnant woman." Do they think, as some moderate pro-lifers do, that pregnancy and life begin at implantation? Nope. Section 5 of the ban defines "pregnant" as "having a living unborn human being within [your] body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation." Pregnancy begins at fertilization, as does life.

Is the loophole just a matter of enforceability? If conventional tests can't prove a woman was fertilized, prosecutors can't nail her pill provider for abortion. But that's an argument for omitting the loophole as unnecessary, not for inserting it.

What's curious about the loophole is that its supporters not only included it; they advertise it. In the second paragraph of his signing statement, Rounds pointed out that the ban "does not prohibit the taking of contraceptive drugs before a pregnancy is determined, such as in the case of rape or incest."

There's your answer. The purpose of the loophole is to give rape victims a grace period. Americans overwhelmingly think abortion should be allowed in cases of rape. Rape victims are the women most likely to know immediately after sex that they're at high risk of unwanted pregnancy. Give them morning-after pills, and you've solved the political problem.

But now you've got a scientific, moral, and legal problem. The South Dakota law purports to supersede Roe because "scientific advances since the 1973 decision" show that "life begins at the time of conception." It concludes that unborn children, "from fertilization to full gestation," have an "inalienable right to life." Nobody who seriously believed these things would give you five days to kill an embryo, any more than they'd give you five days to kill a baby. The loophole discredits the law's rationale.

Welcome to world of ambiguity, pro-lifers. Out of compassion for women in tragic but medically non-threatening circumstances, you agree that unborn life, up to a certain stage of development, may be aborted. Now we're just quibbling over the details.

I have always said if one believes life begins at fertilization then be fucking consistent. Giving an out for rape and incest with an excuse of "we can't verify if she's pregnant" is bullshit.:dry:

[vidcc]

But there is also the "Sodomized Religious Virgin Exception" as suggested by Bill Napoli.


I agree with your thinking Busy. I think it's a dilema of balance for most "pro life/anti choice" people. The hardliners are probably not the majority.

[JPaul]

It's a compromise.

The out is that they do not know if the pill ever causes an abortion, as by definition it will have terminated the pregnancy.

The woman in the rape circumstances takes the pill and neither she nor anyone else knows whether she was pregnant or not, or whether she aborted her baby or not.

[JPaul]

Double post.

[ilw]

I was listening to a clip from Crooks and liars.com (http://www.crooksandliars.com/)


Mike Stark takes it back to the streets and calls wingnut talk show host Andrew Wilkow. He asks the question that Jane put out the other day:

Jane:

I brought up one of my favorite forced birth conundrums the other day, guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?...read on"
In case you can't be arsed to listen basically he doesn't answer the question because he sees it as being an impossible choice, which i suppose qualifies him as a 'consistent pro lifer' (and a moron).

I thought it raised an interesting question though, how come we don't hear about pro lifers going nuts at fertility clinics because the number of fertilised eggs that get produced and chucked is huge. From the miniscule amount i know of it and have bothered to read, i think we're looking at about 30 eggs being extracted, a high percentage of these being fertilised and about 1-2 actually being born. I.e. killing about 20 "babies" a pop. It seems to me like they're being inconsistent and in the end don't care how many "babies" die as long as as many people as possible are born...

[Biggles]

Does anybody actually live in S. Dakota?

[Busyman]

But there is also the "Sodomized Religious Virgin Exception" as suggested by Bill Napoli.


I agree with your thinking Busy. I think it's a dilema of balance for most "pro life/anti choice" people. The hardliners are probably not the majority.
Then some of these prolifers need to STFU.

If any pro lifer's contention is that a fertilized egg is a person then....

1. There should be no compromise with the morning after pill. The fact is that the pill does, among other things, prevent an egg from attaching to the uterine wall AFTER fertilization. This is like firing a gun in a room with a person in it and the shooter's eyes are closed.

2. Rape and incest should never matter. How is it the "child's" fault.

These fucking people are idiots.

Some thoughts...

1. Government shouldn't regulate a woman's own body.

2. Prove that a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb.
If not (3)...
If so (4)...

3. It cannot be deemed separate from the mother...not a person.

4. Then government should use an apparatus to bring it to term themselves.

The father should have no decision making power in the matter.
The government should have no decision making power in the matter (unless 2 and 4 are satisfied).

Imagine if a huge mass of South Dakotan women wanted an abortion in SD under this abortion ban.

What is the governmnt gonna do....ban coat hangers? strap the women down for 8 months....then hand them a medical bill? open a chain of adoption agencies and orphanages?

The best thing for them to do is leave shit be.

[Busyman]

I was listening to a clip from Crooks and liars.com (http://www.crooksandliars.com/)


Mike Stark takes it back to the streets and calls wingnut talk show host Andrew Wilkow. He asks the question that Jane put out the other day:

Jane:

I brought up one of my favorite forced birth conundrums the other day, guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?...read on"
In case you can't be arsed to listen basically he doesn't answer the question because he sees it as being an impossible choice, which i suppose qualifies him as a 'consistent pro lifer' (and a moron).

I thought it raised an interesting question though, how come we don't hear about pro lifers going nuts at fertility clinics because the number of fertilised eggs that get produced and chucked is huge. From the miniscule amount i know of it and have bothered to read, i think we're looking at about 30 eggs being extracted, a high percentage of these being fertilised and about 1-2 actually being born. I.e. killing about 20 "babies" a pop. It seems to me like they're being inconsistent and in the end don't care how many "babies" die as long as as many people as possible are born...
:lol: :lol: Good one!

I'd love to hear what a pro lifer would say. Talk about being backed into a corner.

Either they look like a moron or are inconsistent.

One could simply argue the last on percentages but it seems to me fertility clinics are committing "mass murder" though.

[Tempestv]

I am right next door to SD Biggles.

what does the law say about women that go to another state to have an abortion? are there going to be women coming over this way to get an abortion in Montana?

I gotta agree with Busyman, the whole idea is stupid. Everything you've said about this is making sense.

[Biggles]

[quote=Biggles]
Does anybody actually live in S. Dakota? [quote]
right next door

what does the law say about women that go to another state to have an abortion? are there going to be women coming over this way to get an abortion in Montana?

Or Canada?

The numbers involved are hardly huge. Is this some sort of stalking horse to raise the debate elsewhere or will it simply be ignored in the more populated States?

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Tempestv][quote=Biggles]
Does anybody actually live in S. Dakota?

Or Canada?

The numbers involved are hardly huge. Is this some sort of stalking horse to raise the debate elsewhere or will it simply be ignored in the more populated States?
It goes against McCorvey Vs. Wade. They want the issue brought up again to the Supreme Court since there are now more conservative justices.

[Busyman]

I am right next door to SD Biggles.

what does the law say about women that go to another state to have an abortion? are there going to be women coming over this way to get an abortion in Montana?

I gotta agree with Busyman, the whole idea is stupid. Everything you've said about this is making sense.
I think she has to have an abortion in state for it to be a crime.

Otherwise, that's another can of worms. They'll have to prove the conception was in state.:lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Prove that a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb.


Prove a newborn can survive outside the womb, absent a nurturer.

Practically speaking (I assume that is your aim), there is no difference whatsoever.

You can't draw the line there, either.

[Busyman]

Prove that a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb.


Prove a newborn can survive outside the womb, absent a nurturer.

Practically speaking (I assume that is your aim), there is no difference whatsoever.

You can't draw the line there, either.
Eh?:huh: Very flawed. Did you read everything?


2. Prove that a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb.
If not (3)...
If so (4)...

3. It cannot be deemed separate from the mother...not a person.

4. Then government should use an apparatus to bring it to term themselves.


The nurturer doesn't have to be the mother either....unless you force her, but we can't do that now can we?

I know you are pro life but in what instances would you want abortion allowed?

[vidcc]

To be honest busy I think kev. is reasonable on the actual abortion part of the issue even though I don't agree with his "let people of individual states decide what women can and can't do in their neighbourhood" belief.
My view is that it is and should only be a private issue between the woman and her doctor and depending on circumstances the father. There should be no ban but term limits other than for health reasons shouldn't be objectionable to any reasonable person.

[Busyman]

To be honest busy I think kev. is reasonable on the actual abortion part of the issue even though I don't agree with his "let people of individual states decide what women can and can't do in their neighbourhood" belief.
My view is that it is and should only be a private issue between the woman and her doctor and depending on circumstances the father. There should be no ban but term limits other than for health reasons shouldn't be objectionable to any reasonable person.
My question to Kev has nothing to do with state's decision making though. My question goes past political mumbojumbo. It is direct.

[j2k4]

To be honest busy I think kev. is reasonable on the actual abortion part of the issue even though I don't agree with his "let people of individual states decide what women can and can't do in their neighbourhood" belief.
My view is that it is and should only be a private issue between the woman and her doctor and depending on circumstances the father. There should be no ban but term limits other than for health reasons shouldn't be objectionable to any reasonable person.
My question to Kev has nothing to do with state's decision making though. My question goes past political mumbojumbo. It is direct.

I'm off to work ATM.

I'll nuke you later.

[Busyman]

My question to Kev has nothing to do with state's decision making though. My question goes past political mumbojumbo. It is direct.

I'm off to work ATM.

I'll nuke you later.
It's a simple question.

[Ava Estelle]

Rock on South Dakota!

Babies 1, Murderers 0.

@ Busyman: Get a womb or get a life.

[Busyman]

Rock on South Dakota!

Babies 1, Murderers 0.

@ Busyman: Get a womb or get a life.
You don't read well, Billy.

Fed > State

Oh and Billy, suck ass.

[Biggles]

Rock on South Dakota!

Babies 1, Murderers 0.

@ Busyman: Get a womb or get a life.

That would be that trolling thing then?

:lol:

[j2k4]

I know you are pro life but in what instances would you want abortion allowed?

I assume this is the question in question?

You are asking me, mind you, so I'll tell:

First of all, I see the "five-day-period" (during which viability cannot be clinically determined with certainty) as a "loophole", yes, but one that can be shaded either way.

You believe it should quite rightly be viewed as the undoing of the entire pro-life argument as it applies to the new law in South Dakota, which law (it should be noted) has been offered up in an attempt to create a test case for purposes of laying some groundwork for future legal understandings of the issue, and also to resolve the state's-rights issue.

However, if one accepts the circumstance of this short period of indefinite status on it's face, it could serve the purposes of both sides:

The pro-lifers could use it to backstop their belief that individuals should assume responsibility and control of/for their own lives, and that by doing so they might take advantage of the "second-chance" afforded by a morning-after pill (the first chance having been the decision of whether or not to practice unsafe/irresponsible sex, risking pregnancy or c.s.d.)

The pro-abortionists could use it to promote their "agenda" of privacy, self-determination, or whatever reasoning they prefer.

You see a problem, I see a solution.

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.

There will shortly be a female somewhere in South Dakota who will ante up a pregnancy for the legal-eagles' consideration, and, presumably, some sort of state referenda.

I say this with full knowledge you have a spasmodic compulsion to defer to the federal government in all matters, but I believe otherwise, and the proper resolution to several constituent concerns may well be determined in and amongst the upcoming legal shitstorm.

Back to your question:

You previously alluded you somehow knew what my beliefs were, relative to the matter of conception, and you extrapolate that I am rigid in my practical beliefs.

Here is what I believe should be a practical path-

I think youngsters should be bombarded from all quarters with a comprehensive message promoting responsible behavior, and I think it should take the form of a public campaign; this because, as we all know, parents cannot always be trusted to adequately communicate the concept to their kids.

I think promoting a message that combats the stigma that so unfortunately attaches to sex, pregnancy, s.c.d.s, and all related issues should be paramount.

I think accomodation for incest and rape must be made, and, again, every effort must be made to de-stigmatize the circumstance; offenders should be deprived of the ability to hide behind a socially-induced inclination to silence on the part of the victim.

I want to live in a society where unwanted pregnancies are absolutely minimized by dint of appropriate social pressures and norms, and the occasions wherein abortion would be considered are also minimized.

Social guilt is not a bad thing; it is what affords us what civility we do practice and enjoy.

You object to legal constraints on a women's self-determination?

I'll tell you something:

If a woman is sloppy in her personal management, if she cannot be bothered to practice safe sex, if she is dishonest in her personal relationships?

She deserves what she gets.

If she is ignorant, educate her.

If she is poor, provide her with the necessities to be safe.

However, if she is educated and has means?

Again, she deserves what she gets.

There would be some pain involved when social norms and expectations shift, but nothing good happens without a bit of pain, right?

BTW-If you call me an asshole for my beliefs, I'll call you an asshole for yours.

In other words, to do so serves no purpose whatsoever, so if you desire to post purposelessly...feel free.

I've rambled a bit here, and reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

[Busyman]

I know you are pro life but in what instances would you want abortion allowed?

I assume this is the question in question?

You are asking me, mind you, so I'll tell:

First of all, I see the "five-day-period" (during which viability cannot be clinically determined with certainty) as a "loophole", yes, but one that can be shaded either way.

You believe it should quite rightly be viewed as the undoing of the entire pro-life argument as it applies to the new law in South Dakota, which law (it should be noted) has been offered up in an attempt to create a test case for purposes of laying some groundwork for future legal understandings of the issue, and also to resolve the state's-rights issue.

However, if one accepts the circumstance of this short period of indefinite status on it's face, it could serve the purposes of both sides:

The pro-lifers could use it to backstop their belief that individuals should assume responsibility and control of/for their own lives, and that by doing so they might take advantage of the "second-chance" afforded by a morning-after pill (the first chance having been the decision of whether or not to practice unsafe/irresponsible sex, risking pregnancy or c.s.d.)

The pro-abortionists could use it to promote their "agenda" of privacy, self-determination, or whatever reasoning they prefer.

You see a problem, I see a solution.

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.

There will shortly be a female somewhere in South Dakota who will ante up a pregnancy for the legal-eagles' consideration, and, presumably, some sort of state referenda.

I say this with full knowledge you have a spasmodic compulsion to defer to the federal government in all matters, but I believe otherwise, and the proper resolution to several constituent concerns may well be determined in and amongst the upcoming legal shitstorm.

Back to your question:

You previously alluded you somehow knew what my beliefs were, relative to the matter of conception, and you extrapolate that I am rigid in my practical beliefs.

Here is what I believe should be a practical path-

I think youngsters should be bombarded from all quarters with a comprehensive message promoting responsible behavior, and I think it should take the form of a public campaign; this because, as we all know, parents cannot always be trusted to adequately communicate the concept to their kids.

I think promoting a message that combats the stigma that so unfortunately attaches to sex, pregnancy, s.c.d.s, and all related issues should be paramount.

I think accomodation for incest and rape must be made, and, again, every effort must be made to de-stigmatize the circumstance; offenders should be deprived of the ability to hide behind a socially-induced inclination to silence on the part of the victim.

I want to live in a society where unwanted pregnancies are absolutely minimized by dint of appropriate social pressures and norms, and the occasions wherein abortion would be considered are also minimized.

Social guilt is not a bad thing; it is what affords us what civility we do practice and enjoy.

You object to legal constraints on a women's self-determination?

I'll tell you something:

If a woman is sloppy in her personal management, if she cannot be bothered to practice safe sex, if she is dishonest in her personal relationships?

She deserves what she gets.

If she is ignorant, educate her.

If she is poor, provide her with the necessities to be safe.

However, if she is educated and has means?

Again, she deserves what she gets.

There would be some pain involved when social norms and expectations shift, but nothing good happens without a bit of pain, right?

BTW-If you call me an asshole for my beliefs, I'll call you an asshole for yours.

In other words, to do so serves no purpose whatsoever, so if you desire to post purposelessly...feel free.

I've rambled a bit here, and reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
Ok so under what circumstances would you want abortion allowed?

Do you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a person and entitled to the right to live?

[JPaul]

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.



What do you mean "all", old bean. I don't remember jumping to any unwarranted conclusions .... in this thread.

[JPaul]

Rock on South Dakota!

Babies 1, Murderers 0.

@ Busyman: Get a womb or get a life.

That would be that trolling thing then?

:lol:
Indeed, only wearing clown make-up.

[j2k4]

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.



What do you mean "all", old bean. I don't remember jumping to any unwarranted conclusions .... in this thread.

Ah, yes.

Exclusion granted, sir.

I meant Busyman and the other guy.

[Busyman]

Typical. I love it.:happy:

[vidcc]

I meant Busyman and the other guy.

which "other guy" ?

[Busyman]

I meant Busyman and the other guy.

which "other guy" ?
I guess he means ilw.:unsure:

[j2k4]

Ok so under what circumstances would you want abortion allowed?

When survival of the mother is jeopardized.

In case of rape.

In case of incest.

These are personal views; I don't expect resultant laws will be so constrictive, but then, I've got my vote, which I would freely use.



Do you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a person and entitled to the right to live?

I do, but logic restricts me to forcing the issue only at the point such can be positively determined to have occurred.

I would be pained to hold someone's access to a preventive "pill" on a mere presumption.

You realize, of course, that no one would be the wiser until pre-natal care is sought, so the point is, practically, (though sadly) moot.

Again, I reserve the right to revise and extend.

[j2k4]

which "other guy" ?
I guess he means ilw.:unsure:

Oh.

I forgot about Ian.

Other guyS, then. :P

[Busyman]

Ok so under what circumstances would you want abortion allowed?

When survival of the mother is jeopardized.

In case of rape.

In case of incest.

These are personal views; I don't expect resultant laws will be so constrictive, but then, I've got my vote, which I would freely use.



Do you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a person and entitled to the right to live?

I do, but logic restricts me to forcing the issue only at the point such can be positively determined to have occurred.

I would be pained to hold someone's access to a preventive "pill" on a mere presumption.

You realize, of course, that no one would be the wiser until pre-natal care is sought, so the point is, practically, (though sadly) moot.

Again, I reserve the right to revise and extend.
Thanks for finally answering.

How do you justify the killing of a person in cases of rape or incest?

How do you justify the possible killing of a person just because it's not provable?

You must understand that I see contradictions in your thinking.

Your logic...

1. A fertilized egg is a person.

2. This person can be killed to save the mother.

3. This person can be killed if the mother was raped.

4. This person can be killed if the mother was incestuous.

5. It ok to use the morning after pill since, in each instance of it's use, there is no proof that a person was killed. However, it has been proven that the morning after pill does kill a person in the womb but not in all instances.

[Busyman]

I guess he means ilw.:unsure:

Oh.

I forgot about Ian.

Other guyS, then. :P
Oh ok.

Biggles and vidcc (with his one comment).

I understand.

[vidcc]

Oh.

I forgot about Ian.

Other guyS, then. :P

was this the "unwarrented conclusion" :unsure:


To be honest busy I think kev. is reasonable on the actual abortion part of the issue

[j2k4]

I do, but logic restricts me to forcing the issue only at the point such can be positively determined to have occurred.

I would be pained to hold someone's access to a preventive "pill" on a mere presumption.

You realize, of course, that no one would be the wiser until pre-natal care is sought, so the point is, practically, (though sadly) moot.

Again, I reserve the right to revise and extend.
Thanks for finally answering.

How do you justify the killing of a person in cases of rape or incest?

How do you justify the possible killing of a person just because it's not provable?

You must understand that I see contradictions in your thinking.

Indeed I do, and I freely acknowledge them, but would you throw over the whole argument against abortion because of a narrowly-applicable insolubility?

Do you see any contradictions in the pro-abortion stance, at all, at all.

Your logic...

1. A fertilized egg is a person.

2. This person can be killed to save the mother.

3. This person can be killed if the mother was raped.

4. This person can be killed if the mother was incestuous.

5. It ok to use the morning after pill since, in each instance of it's use, there is no proof that a person was killed. However, it has been proven that the morning after pill does kill a person in the womb but not in all instances.

Okay, have it your way, then:

In a perfect world, the pregnant victim of a rape wants the baby, carries it to term, and gives birth.

The rapist is found, guilt is determined, and he is summarily (but humanely) euthanized.

In a perfect world, the victim of incest (presumably a minor) wants the baby, carries it to term and gives birth.

The incestuous offender will be found, tried for guilt, and summarily shot.

If it is determined the baby has been born with any congenital defect, the incestuous offender will be shot twice.

Users of RU-486 or the like get a pass, owing to the aforementioned "loophole".

[j2k4]

was this the "unwarrented conclusion" :unsure:


To be honest busy I think kev. is reasonable on the actual abortion part of the issue

I am reasonable, but since you were enamored of dragging in shit from other threads, I figured I'd try it to see how it worked.

If you sincerely desire an exclusion of your own, I will grant it, but only after you state your case, so I can determine if it is...reasonable.

It's a goose/gander thing, you see. ;)

[Busyman]

Indeed I do, and I freely acknowledge them, but would you throw over the whole argument against abortion because of a narrowly-applicable insolubility?

Do you see any contradictions in the pro-abortion stance, at all, at all.
Actually I do throw out most of the argument against abortion because the crux of the argument is that a fertilized egg is a person. Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables

It's quite simple.

What's the pro-abortion stance?

[vidcc]

but since you were enamored of dragging in shit from other threads,don't be so harsh on yourself, I may often disagree with your posts, and sometimes wonder how someone can type so much and not actually say anything, but I never think of your posts as "shit":P

[j2k4]

Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables

The guilty person; yes.

It's quite simple.

What's the pro-abortion stance?

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.

[Busyman]

Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables

The guilty person; yes.
Exactly my point. How is the child guilty due to those cases?
It's quite simple.

What's the pro-abortion stance?

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.
Where's the contradiction?:ermm: I don't think there is one pro choice or pro life stance.

While I don't agree with the stance you laid out, it make more sense than your stance. The basic point of your stance is inconsistent. You aim is to protect the unborn 'cause it's a person yet would kill it either due to YOUR perceived inconvenience or ignorance of there being a killing when it has been proven that certain medicine does kill.

[Carcinus]

Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables

The guilty person; yes.

It's quite simple.

What's the pro-abortion stance?

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.

I don't know about the American stance, but in Britain, there is no "unfettered access". Every woman stepping up to the plate, so to speak, has to go through three doctors and a councillor before she makes a decision, and even then it may be denyed to her. Don't think that decision is Ever taken lightly. The younger a woman is, the more questions are asked, and the more provisions are made for her aftercare, both physical and mental. There are only two possible abortion procedures, either surgical, where the operation is performed ,or medical, where the woman is given a pill for the procedure to happen at home, followed by a check up, if under 12 weeks. This is legal and accountable, both to the woman herself, and to the medical staff. Where's the "shroud of non-accountability."?

[Busyman]

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.

I don't know about the American stance, but in Britain, there is no "unfettered access". Every woman stepping up to the plate, so to speak, has to go through three doctors and a councillor before she makes a decision, and even then it may be denyed to her. Don't think that decision is Ever taken lightly. The younger a woman is, the more questions are asked, and the more provisions are made for her aftercare, both physical and mental. There are only two possible abortion procedures, either surgical, where the operation is performed ,or medical, where the woman is given a pill for the procedure to happen at home, followed by a check up, if under 12 weeks. This is legal and accountable, both to the woman herself, and to the medical staff. Where's the "shroud of non-accountability."?
I don't know what he refers to either, Blight.

[Carcinus]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid. What public enquiry is he talking about? Unless I've either missed a point, or it's something which pertains to America and not here.

[Busyman]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid.
I've known this for some time.:happy:

He'd fit right in as an American politician. Problem is this ain't Congress.

[Carcinus]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid.
I've known this for sometimes.:happy:

He'd fit right in as an American politician. Problem is this ain't Congress.

It's really annoying when you read a non-argument disguised as a highly articulate point, that when deconstructed means very little. Either say what you mean, or get off the pot. Hiding weak arguments behind verbosity is the sign of an over-inflated, slighty insecure ego. :shifty:

[Busyman]

I've known this for sometimes.:happy:

He'd fit right in as an American politician. Problem is this ain't Congress.

It's really annoying when you read a non-argument disguised as a highly articulate point, that when deconstructed means very little. Either say what you mean, or get off the pot. Hiding weak arguments behind verbosity is the sign of an over-inflated, slighty insecure ego. :shifty:
Post 22?

[j2k4]

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.
Where's the contradiction?:ermm: I don't think there is one pro choice or pro life stance.

While I don't agree with the stance you laid out, it make more sense than your stance. The basic point of your stance is inconsistent. You aim is to protect the unborn 'cause it's a person yet would kill it either due to YOUR perceived inconvenience or ignorance of there being a killing when it has been proven that certain medicine does kill.

I assumed you would tumble to my reference to the "guilty" as the perpetrator of the rape or incest.

Back to my personal beliefs, then-

All life is precious, and all pregnant women should bear their children, even unto death.

However, reality intrudes, as well you know.

I trust that is satisfactory.

How about you?

[Carcinus]

Fair point.

Too many words. Hurt my poor girl eyes...Only one in 16 made sense, all I think about is sex and makeup, not the consequences of my actions.

However, there always should be provision for accidents occuring. Very few women use abortion as a contraceptive, or having got that far and gone through it once, will be very careful in terms of contraception from there on in. Accidents happen, and shouldn't be paid for in the ruination of lives, the womans, her childs, and if he is interested, the father's.

[j2k4]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid. What public enquiry is he talking about? Unless I've either missed a point, or it's something which pertains to America and not here.

It is something that applies here, but apparently not there.

Apparently the possiblility you'd missed something did not preclude your impertinence, eh?

[Carcinus]

Where's the contradiction?:ermm: I don't think there is one pro choice or pro life stance.

While I don't agree with the stance you laid out, it make more sense than your stance. The basic point of your stance is inconsistent. You aim is to protect the unborn 'cause it's a person yet would kill it either due to YOUR perceived inconvenience or ignorance of there being a killing when it has been proven that certain medicine does kill.

I assumed you would tumble to my reference to the "guilty" as the perpetrator of the rape or incest.

Back to my personal beliefs, then-

All life is precious, and all pregnant women should bear their children, even unto death.

However, reality intrudes, as well you know.

I trust that is satisfactory.

How about you?

Easy to say from the point of view of someone that will never happen to. There is no point in a pregnant woman who is not interested, or able, to have the welfare of her child at heart, in having that child. Women who undertake abortions know exactly what they are doing, and live with their decisions, but weigh them up with what the alternatives would be. It's easy to theorise and judge, but not so easy to empathise and listen.

[j2k4]

Very few women use abortion as a contraceptive,.

Another presumptive impertinence.

The opposite is true here in the U.S.

I trust this post is not too wordy for your overtaxed facilities?

[Carcinus]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid. What public enquiry is he talking about? Unless I've either missed a point, or it's something which pertains to America and not here.

It is something that applies here, but apparently not there.

Apparently the possiblility you'd missed something did not preclude your impertinence, eh?


Your choice in calling me impertinent implies percieved superiority. That is not the case here. I stated I was aware I may have missed the full argument. I was pointing out your needless verbosity, which, if anything, detracts from your intellectuality.

[Carcinus]

Very few women use abortion as a contraceptive,.

Another presumptive impertinence.

The opposite is true here in the U.S.

I trust this post is not too wordy for your overtaxed facilities?


How exactly do you know my facilities are overtaxed hmm? I am neither presumptive, nor impertinent. Shall I paraphrase.. Very few women will use abortion as a contraceptive as it is a horrible and traumatic experience and those that find themselves there, will very rarely go there again, if indeed they have gone down the route of neglecting contraception.

[j2k4]

There is no point in a pregnant woman who is not interested, or able, to have the welfare of her child at heart, in having that child.

Granting accidents happen, there is even less point in an "unintended" pregnancy, isn't there?

Why do you assume I do not/have not listened and/or empathized?

Are you congenitally presumptive?

[Carcinus]

There is no point in a pregnant woman who is not interested, or able, to have the welfare of her child at heart, in having that child.

Granting accidents happen, there is even less point in an "unintended" pregnancy, isn't there?

Why do you assume I do not/have not listened and/or empathized?

Are you congenitally presumptive?

Unintended pregnancies are exactly that. Unintended, resulting in the woman having to make a harsh decision as to whether she can or will provide adequate care for that child. If there was any point in an "unintended" pregnancy, it wouldn't be unintended would it?


Why do you assume I do not/have not listened and/or empathized?

Because you either ignore the points other people make, or drown in your own convaluted overblown tormentation of the English language before you understand what other people are trying to say.

[j2k4]

Very few women will use abortion as a contraceptive

If you know this to be true in the U.K. (I'll trust that you do), you can trust that I am correct as to what occurs here.

as it is a horrible and traumatic experience

Again, the "family-planning" movement here is geared to assuage any guilt or trauma which might otherwise attach.

and those that find themselves there, will very rarely go there again, if indeed they have gone down the route of neglecting contraception.

And over here the presumption is an inquisitive, precocious and irresponsible young lady who can't be expected to think of contraception before sex.

Do you wish to continue in this vein?

[j2k4]

Unintended pregnancies are exactly that. Unintended, resulting in the woman having to make a harsh decision as to whether she can or will provide adequate care for that child. If there was any point in an "unintended" pregnancy, it wouldn't be unintended would it?

Then you put no stock in the idea that forethought as to consequence might be of even small benefit?


Why do you assume I do not/have not listened and/or empathized?

Because you either ignore the points other people make, or drown in your own convaluted overblown tormentation of the English language before you understand what other people are trying to say.

Are you pregnant?

BTW-as one who apparently disdains largish words, your spelling of even small words really sucks.

[Carcinus]

Very few women will use abortion as a contraceptive

If you know this to be true in the U.K. (I'll trust that you do), you can trust that I am correct as to what occurs here.

as it is a horrible and traumatic experience

Again, the "family-planning" movement here is geared to assuage any guilt or trauma which might otherwise attach.

and those that find themselves there, will very rarely go there again, if indeed they have gone down the route of neglecting contraception.

And over here the presumption is an inquisitive, precocious and irresponsible young lady who can't be expected to think of contraception before sex.

Do you wish to continue in this vein?


Since when was a presumption the truth?

Do all men leave the toilet seat up? Are all women bitches?

Go to any abortion clinic. You will see women from all walks of life. Young ones form the minority, but are paying the price for their ignorance, unlike young men, who are not betrayed by biology. The majority of women attending will probably be women in their twenties to fifties, who have made a decision to pay the mental price for doing what they consider to be the right thing in terms of their unborn child.

[Carcinus]

Then you put no stock in the idea that forethought as to consequence might be of even small benefit?

Unintentional belies forethought.

Yes contraception should be in the forethought of anyone getting down and dirty, but there should be provision for mistakes. Or are you perfect?

Goodnight.

[j2k4]

And over here the presumption is an inquisitive, precocious and irresponsible young lady who can't be expected to think of contraception before sex.

Do you wish to continue in this vein?


Since when was a presumption the truth?

Do all men leave the toilet seat up?

Not that I'm aware of.

Are all women bitches?

No; the few I know who'll admit to it are raher proud of it, though.

Go to any abortion clinic. You will see women from all walks of life. Young ones form the minority, but are paying the price for their ignorance, unlike young men, who are not betrayed by biology. The majority of women attending will probably be women in their twenties to fifties, who have made a decision to pay the mental price for doing what they consider to be the right thing in terms of their unborn child.

I have done, and I go by what I know.

If things are different there, fine, then I'm not talking about the U.K., and, in any case, Roe v. Wade is American, rather than U.K., law.

If I make a statement about how things are here, the lone fact you are female does not entitle you to dispute what I say.

You are entitled to advocate for women, as am I.

My objection is with a flawed system, and the fact of my manhood does not preclude my commenting on it.

We believe differently; of that there is no doubt.

The rest is socio-geographic.

I will unilaterally agree to disagree with you; sorry, but I'm an American, and you know how we are.

As to your spelling, I'm sure you don't remember your pointing out a mistake I made a few days ago; my compulsion to point out your mistake is nothing but another goose/gander thing.

I'm sure you understand.

Goodnight to you, too.

[Busyman]

Where's the contradiction?:ermm: I don't think there is one pro choice or pro life stance.

While I don't agree with the stance you laid out, it make more sense than your stance. The basic point of your stance is inconsistent. You aim is to protect the unborn 'cause it's a person yet would kill it either due to YOUR perceived inconvenience or ignorance of there being a killing when it has been proven that certain medicine does kill.

I assumed you would tumble to my reference to the "guilty" as the perpetrator of the rape or incest.

Back to my personal beliefs, then-

All life is precious, and all pregnant women should bear their children, even unto death.

However, reality intrudes, as well you know.

I trust that is satisfactory.

How about you?
Eh? You said life is precious yet condone killing a child due to rape or incest and the possible killing with medication through no fault of the child.

That makes no sense, j2.

[Ava Estelle]

Rock on South Dakota!

Babies 1, Murderers 0.

@ Busyman: Get a womb or get a life.
You don't read well, Billy.

Fed > State

Oh and Billy, suck ass.

The name's Nancy actually, and if sucking your ass, wherever it is situated, would save a single life, I would gladly oblige.

[Busyman]

You don't read well, Billy.

Fed > State

Oh and Billy, suck ass.

The name's Nancy actually, and if sucking your ass, wherever it is situated, would save a single life, I would gladly oblige.
Whatever, Billy.

[j2k4]

I assumed you would tumble to my reference to the "guilty" as the perpetrator of the rape or incest.

Back to my personal beliefs, then-

All life is precious, and all pregnant women should bear their children, even unto death.

However, reality intrudes, as well you know.

I trust that is satisfactory.

How about you?
Eh? You said life is precious yet condone killing a child due to rape or incest and the possible killing with medication through no fault of the child.

That makes no sense, j2.

On the other hand, turning a blind eye to abortion does?

Or excusing it by not defining it as killing?

You've witnessed how abortion can now be performed on a half-born baby...what's next, killing them in the crib, by way of continually expanding women's rights?

[Busyman]

Eh? You said life is precious yet condone killing a child due to rape or incest and the possible killing with medication through no fault of the child.

That makes no sense, j2.

On the other hand, turning a blind eye to abortion does?

Or excusing it by not defining it as killing?

You've witnessed how abortion can now be performed on a half-born baby...what's next, killing them in the crib, by way of continually expanding women's rights?
Then focus on banning late-term abortions......

[ilw]

Then focus on banning late-term abortions......
I agree, but it just shifts the argument to one of 'how late is late?' and i don't think there is a good answer to that.


Just out of interest j2 & jpaul, as the resident pro-lifers (or the closest thing we have) where do you stand on fertility clinics? I'm betting that neither of you having any big objection to them, despite the contradictions this presents.

[JPaul]

Then focus on banning late-term abortions......
I agree, but it just shifts the argument to one of 'how late is late?' and i don't think there is a good answer to that.


Just out of interest j2 & jpaul, as the resident pro-lifers (or the closest thing we have) where do you stand on fertility clinics? I'm betting that neither of you having any big objection to them, despite the contradictions this presents.
You a betting man then, do you lose a lot.

It is my belief that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. As such they have the human rights of every other human being. I do not believe that the mother or father has the right to take that life, because they will not be able to provide properly (in their opinion) for the child.

As such I consider it wrong to fertilize eggs then throw them away. Particularly if the only justification for it is a better hit rate.

Re your two year old v fertilized eggs scenario, I find it ridiculous. The two year old would be saved every time. For a myriad of reasons.

[j2k4]

I agree, but it just shifts the argument to one of 'how late is late?' and i don't think there is a good answer to that.


Just out of interest j2 & jpaul, as the resident pro-lifers (or the closest thing we have) where do you stand on fertility clinics? I'm betting that neither of you having any big objection to them, despite the contradictions this presents.
You a betting man then, do you lose a lot.

It is my belief that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. As such they have the human rights of every other human being. I do not believe that the mother or father has the right to take that life, because they will not be able to provide properly (in their opinion) for the child.

As such I consider it wrong to fertilize eggs then throw them away. Particularly if the only justification for it is a better hit rate.

Re your two year old v fertilized eggs scenario, I find it ridiculous. The two year old would be saved every time. For a myriad of reasons.

What you said.

As to JPaul and myself, I am relatively confident that our views parallel each other closely where this issue pops up, and we both are possessed of a tolerance many in the pro-"choice" crowd lack.

We hold our views firmly, will argue unto death the rightness of our convictions, and, although we may judge, we condemn no one for believing differently.

I cannot dismiss others so easily.

The world embraces us all.

[Busyman]

What you said.
:dry:

Hmm I forgot about fertility clinics. Your beliefs still contradict a child's right to life even in a rape, incest, or "unproven gunshot in the dark".

It's like saying "moment of conception...oh wait".

[j2k4]

What you said.
:dry:

Hmm I forgot about fertility clinics. Your beliefs still contradict a child's right to life even in a rape, incest, or "unproven gunshot in the dark".

It's like saying "moment of conception...oh wait".

I notice your own specific views are conspicuously missing.

Correct this oversight and we can see about you, then.

[Busyman]

:dry:

Hmm I forgot about fertility clinics. Your beliefs still contradict a child's right to life even in a rape, incest, or "unproven gunshot in the dark".

It's like saying "moment of conception...oh wait".

I notice your own specific views are conspicuously missing.

Correct this oversight and we can see about you, then.
Oh I'm pro-choice. Ya heard.

Rape, incest, her own life threatened, unwanted child, morning after pill...those cases of abortion are the right of the mother. She will have to deal with any mental or physical consequences.

[JPaul]

What you said.
:dry:

Hmm I forgot about fertility clinics. Your beliefs still contradict a child's right to life even in a rape, incest, or "unproven gunshot in the dark".

It's like saying "moment of conception...oh wait".
No, the child's right to life is paramount.

However I can see instances where there is an argument to take that right away, much as I disagree with the argument I can see why people would make it. As you suggest, rape may be one such example.

That is to make the distinction between such a case and for example abortion as a matter of convenience (career /lifestyle), or cosmetics.

I can also see an examples where it is the better of two choices. If the mother will die if she carries on with the pregnancy, perhaps leaving other children and family behind.

Unfortunately it is not the straightforward issue you suggest.

[j2k4]

I notice your own specific views are conspicuously missing.

Correct this oversight and we can see about you, then.
Oh I'm pro-choice. Ya heard.

Rape, incest, her own life threatened, unwanted child, morning after pill...those cases of abortion are the right of the mother. She will have to deal with any mental or physical consequences.

Late-term abortion; the works, I'm sure.

Should the man have a similar right to unilaterally withdraw from the situation once a prospective pregnancy becomes hard fact?

[Busyman]

Oh I'm pro-choice. Ya heard.

Rape, incest, her own life threatened, unwanted child, morning after pill...those cases of abortion are the right of the mother. She will have to deal with any mental or physical consequences.

Late-term abortion; the works, I'm sure.

Should the man have a similar right to unilaterally withdraw from the situation once a prospective pregnancy becomes hard fact?
Define late-term abortion.

What's "the works"?

What's the difference between a man withdrawing from the situation and a man unilaterally withdrawing from the situtation?

What's the difference between a pregnancy and a prospective pregnancy?

[j2k4]

Late-term abortion; the works, I'm sure.

Should the man have a similar right to unilaterally withdraw from the situation once a prospective pregnancy becomes hard fact?
Define late-term abortion.

Partial-birth abortion.

What's "the works"?

Anything goes, in any and every circumstance; the decision belonging solely to the woman.

What's the difference between a man withdrawing from the situation and a man unilaterally withdrawing from the situtation?

As when a woman procures an abortion absent consultation with the father.

What's the difference between a pregnancy and a prospective pregnancy?

When a pregnancy has been medically confirmed, as opposed to merely suspected or stated.

[Busyman]

Define late-term abortion.

Partial-birth abortion.

PBA is a made up term referring to a procedure. However you originally had "term". I don't know much about the procedure.

What's "the works"?

Anything goes, in any and every circumstance; the decision belonging solely to the woman.

You are too vague. Tell me what "goes".:huh:

What's the difference between a man withdrawing from the situation and a man unilaterally withdrawing from the situtation?

As when a woman procures an abortion absent consultation with the father.

Then your original question makes no sense. First off, you haven't explained the difference in his withdrawal versus his unilateral withdrawal. Second, what right does he have since he bears no burden in the actual carrying of the baby and it's birth? He of course has a domestic say but nothing should be legal.

What's the difference between a pregnancy and a prospective pregnancy?

When a pregnancy has been medically confirmed, as opposed to merely suspected or stated.

Oh ok, when she's pregnant then.:mellow:

Either way, the answer is above in red.

Btw, italicizing sentences within a quote is unnecessary. The quote tags do it for you.

[j2k4]

When a pregnancy has been medically confirmed, as opposed to merely suspected or stated.

Oh ok, when she's pregnant then.:mellow:

Either way, the answer is above in red.

Btw, italicizing sentences within a quote is unnecessary. The quote tags do it for you.

When the baby "crowns", it is being born, is it not?

At this point, the attending physician takes a sharp instrument (usually scissors) and plunges it through the soft aperture on top of the baby's head, and rummages around (much as you would, if you were trying with a knife to scrounge from a nearly empty jar of peanut butter), causing massive and fatal injury to the infant's brain.

That is what "PBA" is; the 'made-up procedure you know nothing of, apart from it's acronym.

As to your question about the "unilateral withdrawal" of the father from the event of a pregnancy:

I intended you to conclude the father copped out with notification to the mother, but without consultation as to her wishes; hence my use of the word, unilateral.

If I had used both terms ("withdrawal" as well as "unilateral withdrawal"), I might consider I owe you an explanation; however, I used the single formulation, which I'll continue with.

Back to the point:

The woman's decision to bear the child is hers alone, so you say.

Now, you, as a black man, and as an advocate for "choice", must purchase the idea of unqualified equality, correct?

Do you, as a male, abdicate the entire decision for yourself as well as the rest of the male population?

Oh, hell-here, read it yourself-

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/LIFESTYLE/603090385/1005

[Busyman]

Oh ok, when she's pregnant then.:mellow:

Either way, the answer is above in red.

Btw, italicizing sentences within a quote is unnecessary. The quote tags do it for you.

When the baby "crowns", it is being born, is it not?

At this point, the attending physician takes a sharp instrument (usually scissors) and plunges it through the soft aperture on top of the baby's head, and rummages around (much as you would, if you were trying with a knife to scrounge from a nearly empty jar of peanut butter), causing massive and fatal injury to the infant's brain.

That is what "PBA" is; the 'made-up procedure you know nothing of, apart from it's acronym.

Sounds icky. At what stage of pregnancy is the procedure performed?

As to your question about the "unilateral withdrawal" of the father from the event of a pregnancy:

I intended you to conclude the father copped out with notification to the mother, but without consultation as to her wishes; hence my use of the word, unilateral.

If I had used both terms ("withdrawal" as well as "unilateral withdrawal"), I might consider I owe you an explanation; however, I used the single formulation, which I'll continue with.

Unilateral still makes no sense. He either withdraws or not.

Back to the point:

The woman's decision to bear the child is hers alone, so you say.

Now, you, as a black man, and as an advocate for "choice", must purchase the idea of unqualified equality, correct?

Do you, as a male, abdicate the entire decision for yourself as well as the rest of the male population?

Oh, hell-here, read it yourself-

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/LIFESTYLE/603090385/1005
I just read the title and nothing else. He fucked her, he bears financial responsibility...how much is another story. Wear a condom.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4]

When the baby "crowns", it is being born, is it not?

At this point, the attending physician takes a sharp instrument (usually scissors) and plunges it through the soft aperture on top of the baby's head, and rummages around (much as you would, if you were trying with a knife to scrounge from a nearly empty jar of peanut butter), causing massive and fatal injury to the infant's brain.

That is what "PBA" is; the 'made-up procedure you know nothing of, apart from it's acronym.

Sounds icky. At what stage of pregnancy is the procedure performed?

And that last sentence demonstrates the intellectual engagement you normally practice, I see...

I just read the title and nothing else. He fucked her, he bears financial responsibility...how much is another story. Wear a condom.

She fucked him, too, right?

But she continues to fuck him, and he's decided (late, as women often do), he wants to say "NO".

That fits the definition of rape, seems to me...;)

[Busyman]

She fucked him, too, right?

But she continues to fuck him, and he's decided (late, as women often do), he wants to say "NO".

That fits the definition of rape, seems to me...;)
Nah the rape, in some cases, is how much he has to pay.

Last time I checked, the entire adult male populace knew that sex can produce babies and that people govern their own bodies.


Sounds icky. At what stage of pregnancy is the procedure performed?
And that last sentence demonstrates the intellectual engagement you normally practice, I see...
At what stage of pregnancy is the procedure performed...oic.

[j2k4]

Nah the rape, in some cases, is how much he has to pay.

Last time I checked, the entire adult male populace knew that sex can produce babies and that people govern their own bodies.


Is the entire female population exempt from the same knowledge?

BTW-You really should read the article.

[Busyman]

Nah the rape, in some cases, is how much he has to pay.

Last time I checked, the entire adult male populace knew that sex can produce babies and that people govern their own bodies.


Is the entire female population exempt from the same knowledge?
No.

[Ava Estelle]

Define late-term abortion.

You really want to know?

WARNING! Do NOT click on the following link if you're squeamish.

Partial Birth Abortion, WARNING, graphic content! (http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm)

Let's hear you justify this Busyman.

[j2k4]

Define late-term abortion.

You really want to know?

WARNING! Do NOT click on the following link if you're squeamish.

Partial Birth Abortion, WARNING, graphic content! (http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm)

Let's hear you justify this Busyman.

Yes, let's. ;)

Actually, that's not fair, Ava.

It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.

[vidcc]

Actually, that's not fair, Ava.

It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.
why?

[j2k4]

Actually, that's not fair, Ava.

It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.
why?

Because it is effective.

Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.

[vidcc]

why?

Because it is effective.

Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.


Again I ask why you say it is out of bounds. Just "because it is effective" is not a reason. It appears you are trying to make statements on behalf of the "opposition" making it seem that they want as many people to have abortions as possible and would make them comulsory given the chance. I could just as easily make the case that for the familiy research council any scientific evidence that counters their satements is out of bounds and not open to discussion.
scientific medical facts are not out of bounds, for either side......... mistruths are....on both sides.

I'm sure there is some nut out there that wants compulsory abortions, and I'm sure some nut will try to pin that person to "liberals". However even planned parenthood is not encouraging women to have abortions, no matter how anyone tries to frame it that just by performing them they are. They are simply allowing people to make the choice themself. And that's how it should be.

[j2k4]

Because it is effective.

Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.


Again I ask why you say it is out of bounds.

Humorous that you fail to recognize rhetoric when you are not the one employing it.

I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate substantial numbers of these women change their minds about having an abortion on-the-spot.

Along those same lines, I guess PP assumes (rightfully) that minds might be changed, too, by showing graphic evidence of partial-birth-abortion, and that's bad for business.

What other reason could they have for obscuring and denouncing such techniques as "biased"?

Do you feel such efforts are out-of-line?

[vidcc]

I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate substantial numbers of these women change their minds about having an abortion on-the-spot.
Along those same lines, I guess PP assumes (rightfully) that minds might be changed, too, by showing graphic evidence of partial-birth-abortion, and that's bad for business.

What other reason could they have for obscuring and denouncing such techniques as "biased"?

Do you feel such efforts are out-of-line? And if such a campaign were done....say in the media.... and if said campaign contained facts and only facts and not just rhetoric then no problem.... Making such a campaign compulsory and forcing clinics to show graphic images.... problem.

Do you think that these groups that are trying to get the cervical cancer vaccine banned "because it might encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show pictures of dead cancer victims?

[j2k4]

I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate substantial numbers of these women change their minds about having an abortion on-the-spot.
Along those same lines, I guess PP assumes (rightfully) that minds might be changed, too, by showing graphic evidence of partial-birth-abortion, and that's bad for business.

What other reason could they have for obscuring and denouncing such techniques as "biased"?

Do you feel such efforts are out-of-line? And if such a campaign were done....say in the media.... and if said campaign contained facts and only facts and not just rhetoric then no problem.... Making such a campaign compulsory and forcing clinics to show graphic images.... problem.

Do you think that these groups that are trying to get the cervical cancer vaccine banned "because it might encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show pictures of dead cancer victims?


Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh:

[vidcc]

Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh: One would assume they would see them when showing them in an attempt to ban the vaccine surely.
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)

[JPaul]

But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)
Watching people enjoying sex, I can do that, gissa job.

For anyone who doesnt understand that reference, it relates to "Boys from the Black Stuff", in which one of the characters (Yosser Hughes) says similar in relation to just about any job. e.g. "Bricklaying, I can do that, gissa job". The story, amongst other things, details his spiral into despair, caused by unemployment and his fight to keep his children.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/36497000/jpg/_36497967_yosser_bbc_150.jpg

It is a powerful indictment of Thatcherite Britain.

[j2k4]

Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh: One would assume they would see them when showing them in an attempt to ban the vaccine surely.
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)

Okay, sure.

We'd have each group offering (for voluntary consumption, of course) that which they believe would influence a desired outcome:

One shows two graphic examples (an ultra-sound photo and film of an abortion procedure) in the hope that fewer pregnant women will choose abortion, knowing that the result will be successful .

Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.

Yes, I can't see what you mean.

[vidcc]

Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.

Yes, I can't see what you mean.

You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:


Either way the idea of compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.

The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.

[JPaul]

The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
I think the baby should have some rights. Even tho' he or she is unable to claim them.

[j2k4]

Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.

Yes, I can't see what you mean.

You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:

That makes utterly no sense. You began by saying they ought to show cancer victims; stick with that.

Either way the idea of compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.

Who said "compulsory"?

Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?

You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.

The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.

Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing?

Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?

Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?

[j2k4]

Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.

Yes, I can't see what you mean.

You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:

So then what does it matter who shows the film?

Either way the idea of compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.

Who said compulsory?

No one in this whole equation has exclusive ability to claim what is or is not acceptable.

I think you'll find every set of debate rules states neither side can unilaterally declare anything unacceptable.

The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.

With all due respect, that is bullshit.

[vidcc]

That makes utterly no sense. You began by saying they ought to show cancer victims; stick with that.
Why? you want to show abortions and graphic images in clinics in the hope the woman will run out crying and still carrying...... so if they want to ban vaccines they should show the "evil sex".




Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?

You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.

and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.



Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing? The man made his choice by not wearing a condom. I appreciate it take two to tango but there it is. If the woman decides not to have the baby then by your example the man is released is he not?. If she decides, as you would like, to have it then the two take equal responsibility.


Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?

Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?
compulsory abortions at the behest of the male huh ? not going to fly. Of course if men feel they want to have sex and not have children they can always have the snip............. do you think he should ask a woman or the state for permission to do that?

[vidcc]

With all due respect, that is bullshit.

Why?

Why should someone you don't know have to seek your approval to do anything that doesn't affect you?:dry:

[JPaul]

With all due respect, that is bullshit.

Why?

Why should someone you don't know have to seek your approval to do anything that doesn't affect you?:dry:
Fair point, let people go about their business, if it doesn't affect you personally.

I'm a middle class, white person, living in the UK, with a good standard of living and disposable income. So long as it doesn't affect me everyone else can do what they want.

Wait a minute. vidcc = republican. :blink:

[j2k4]

Why? you want to show abortions and graphic images in clinics in the hope the woman will run out crying and still carrying...... so if they want to ban vaccines they should show the "evil sex".

You didn't even answer about the ultrasound thingie; nothing about that should prompt any crying, I don't think.

The purely informational aspect of this would seem fairly benign, don't you think?

As to the other, I suppose the natural curiousity about the prospective procedure is somewhat attenuated by that which actually is apparent, huh?



Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?

You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.

and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.

So say the "feds", huh?



Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing? The man made his choice by not wearing a condom. I appreciate it take two to tango but there it is. If the woman decides not to have the baby then by your example the man is released is he not?. If she decides, as you would like, to have it then the two take equal responsibility.


Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?

Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?
compulsory abortions at the behest of the male huh ? not going to fly. Of course if men feel they want to have sex and not have children they can always have the snip............. do you think he should ask a woman or the state for permission to do that?

Where do you keep coming up with this compulsory shit?

If the woman decides to have the child, it is her decision only; if, in the name of true equality, the man decides he wants no part of a pregnancy, why should the woman be allowed to unilaterally include him?

As you state things, she has control over the degree of responsibility she herself exercises, and control of his as well.

Logic dictates a man have the right to disengage as well.

[vidcc]

Where do you keep coming up with this compulsory shit?


laws are in process to try to make it mandatory...hence the compulsory however.---

Actually, that's not fair, Ava.

It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.



Because it is effective.

Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.


I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.


They want to take a picture and say "look look you evil sinner you are going to kill this baby...may it haunt you in nightmares for the rest of your days...but at least you will have days".

[vidcc]

Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation


A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."

"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."

The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."source (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/afa/142006e.asp)

typical.

Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea :dry:

[Busyman]

Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation


A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."

"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."

The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."source (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/afa/142006e.asp)

typical.

Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea :dry:
Well that Democrat is an idiot but he is consistent. He is saying government will force a woman to have a child and then add that government will do more in helping to take care of the child. Consistent but I disagree.

I'm pro-choice and pro-welfare reform (in the opposite direction). I believe this legislation would encourage baby making which is something the welfare system does already.

It's laughable how this bill is offering the welfare olive branch to make banning abortion more palpatable.

I've been around my share of ghetto betheans that will have more babies to get another check.

This will in fact encourage irresponsible behavior.

[j2k4]

Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation


A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."

"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."

The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."source (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/afa/142006e.asp)

typical.

Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea :dry:


And the cure for all the ills is to KILL THE BABY/FETUS/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, right?

Y'know, I've wondered for quite some time now:

If abortion is "right", what on earth could ever be thought wrong?

[vidcc]

If abortion is "right", what on earth could ever be thought wrong?
Religion

edit: sorry not religion.....organised religion

[j2k4]

That's fine, then.

I think the circles we are going in are small enough for me to have called this thread quits a page or so back.

So, belatedly....

[Busyman]

That's fine, then.

I think the circles we are going in are small enough for me to have called this thread quits a page or so back.

So, belatedly....
Belated whatever....yet you still post.

[j2k4]

I read this today; from a 4/22 column by Robert Novak.

This is the sort of thing the liberal media tends to overlook, as it would provide the type of "balance" to their reportage which has the effect of turning conventional thought on it's head.

So to speak. ;)

ABORTION FUZZY MATH

The widely publicized claim by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that state-funded contraception aid cuts down abortion as prevention of unwanted pregnancies is contradicted by figures from the same abortion think tank the senators relied on for an April 18 op-ed in the Albany, N.Y., Times Union.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that California spends more than three times as much on contraception as South Dakota for each woman who requests such services. However, California's rate of abortion per one thousand women is 31.2 percent, nearly six times as high as South Dakota's 5.5 percent.

Reid and Clinton chided South Dakota for passing an anti-abortion law while being "one of the most difficult states" for low-income women to get contraceptive devices, which the senators claim drives up abortion.

[vidcc]

Maybe in Novak Land, this comparison makes sense. Contraceptives are widely available in California, but California has plenty of abortions. South Dakota barely spends anything on making contraception available, and yet, the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country. This, as far as Novak is concerned, helps prove that Dems are wrong — if less contraception led to more abortion, South Dakota's wouldn't have such a miniscule abortion rate.

Except Novak is leaving out a few pertinent details, such as the overwhelming obstacles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600747.html) women who want to end their pregnancies face in South Dakota.

The last doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions stopped about eight years ago; the consensus in the medical community is that offering the procedure is not worth the stigma of being branded a baby killer.

South Dakota is one of only three states to have only one abortion provider — North Dakota and Mississippi are the other two — but at nearly 76,000 square miles, the Mount Rushmore State is the biggest of the three. What's more, the state's lone clinic offers abortions once a week, but which day each week depends on when out-of-state doctors will visit.

Of course, South Dakota is also home to some of the nation's poorest counties, which makes it awfully difficult for women with meager resources to travel several hundred miles.

Given these conditions, Novak's analogy is painfully stupid. Of course South Dakota's abortion rate is extremely low — they've had a de facto ban in place for years. This doesn't prove that limited access to birth control has no effect on unwanted pregnancies; it proves that if you limit a large state to one clinic that most women find inaccessible, there won't be many abortions in a state.

I don't expect much from Novak, but this is ridiculous, even for him.

[Busyman™]

I read this today; from a 4/22 column by Robert Novak.

This is the sort of thing the liberal media tends to overlook, as it would provide the type of "balance" to their reportage which has the effect of turning conventional thought on it's head.

So to speak. ;)

ABORTION FUZZY MATH

The widely publicized claim by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that state-funded contraception aid cuts down abortion as prevention of unwanted pregnancies is contradicted by figures from the same abortion think tank the senators relied on for an April 18 op-ed in the Albany, N.Y., Times Union.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that California spends more than three times as much on contraception as South Dakota for each woman who requests such services. However, California's rate of abortion per one thousand women is 31.2 percent, nearly six times as high as South Dakota's 5.5 percent.

Reid and Clinton chided South Dakota for passing an anti-abortion law while being "one of the most difficult states" for low-income women to get contraceptive devices, which the senators claim drives up abortion.
Good find. The only way contraception works is if it's used EVERY time. One slip up and all that state funded contraception to reduce the pregnancy rate means shit.

She fucks with contraception today
She fucks with contraception tomorrow
The next day she doesn't. Boom. Pregnant.

The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.

I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.

[j2k4]

Maybe in Novak Land, this comparison makes sense. Contraceptives are widely available in California, but California has plenty of abortions. South Dakota barely spends anything on making contraception available, and yet, the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country. This, as far as Novak is concerned, helps prove that Dems are wrong — if less contraception led to more abortion, South Dakota's wouldn't have such a miniscule abortion rate.

Except Novak is leaving out a few pertinent details, such as the overwhelming obstacles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600747.html) women who want to end their pregnancies face in South Dakota.

The last doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions stopped about eight years ago; the consensus in the medical community is that offering the procedure is not worth the stigma of being branded a baby killer.

South Dakota is one of only three states to have only one abortion provider — North Dakota and Mississippi are the other two — but at nearly 76,000 square miles, the Mount Rushmore State is the biggest of the three. What's more, the state's lone clinic offers abortions once a week, but which day each week depends on when out-of-state doctors will visit.

Of course, South Dakota is also home to some of the nation's poorest counties, which makes it awfully difficult for women with meager resources to travel several hundred miles.

Given these conditions, Novak's analogy is painfully stupid. Of course South Dakota's abortion rate is extremely low — they've had a de facto ban in place for years. This doesn't prove that limited access to birth control has no effect on unwanted pregnancies; it proves that if you limit a large state to one clinic that most women find inaccessible, there won't be many abortions in a state.

I don't expect much from Novak, but this is ridiculous, even for him.

You've missed the point.

Again.

Oh, well.

BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?

One more thing:

You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.

If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.

Why is this, do you think?

And then there's this:

If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary.

[vidcc]

You've missed the point.

Again.

Oh, well.

I didn't miss the point at all, what I did was c&p a response to the c&p theory of novak.. He contends that access to contraception has the reverse effect on call for abortion because there is less abortion in a place where the obstacles are many to obtaining one.
His theory was based on cherry picked snippets and ignored a whole range of other influences. It also compared two different parts of the country that are like chaulk and cheese and made no wonder as to what the same "high pregnancy" community statistics would be if the level of contraception available in that community were reduced.
It was an ideological theory..... real life doesn't play by those rules.



BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?
Could go one way or stay the same, I don't care. My stance on the subject all along is that it is a private choice. I am not for mandating abortion clinics be set up widely, I am against mandatory exclusion to access.


One more thing:

You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.

If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.

Why is this, do you think?
Whatever reason (could be the lower population levels) it doesn't matter. It is up to the individual to make their own choices on how they lead their lives. Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will, as long as they are both adults it's nobody elses concern. I am not for the kind of social engineering you appear to be. I do however think it wise to allow and possibly encourage that whatever the choice to act responsibly, and make birth control accessible......not harder to get

And then there's this:

If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary. Probably not, but then I repeat....it's a private matter.

[What'spunk.]

The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.

I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.
Agreed

[j2k4]

I didn't miss the point at all, what I did was c&p a response to the c&p theory of novak.. He contends that access to contraception has the reverse effect on call for abortion because there is less abortion in a place where the obstacles are many to obtaining one.
His theory was based on cherry picked snippets and ignored a whole range of other influences. It also compared two different parts of the country that are like chaulk and cheese and made no wonder as to what the same "high pregnancy" community statistics would be if the level of contraception available in that community were reduced.
It was an ideological theory..... real life doesn't play by those rules.



BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?
Could go one way or stay the same, I don't care. My stance on the subject all along is that it is a private choice. I am not for mandating abortion clinics be set up widely, I am against mandatory exclusion to access.


One more thing:

You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.

If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.

Why is this, do you think?
Whatever reason (could be the lower population levels) it doesn't matter. It is up to the individual to make their own choices on how they lead their lives. Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will, as long as they are both adults it's nobody elses concern. I am not for the kind of social engineering you appear to be. I do however think it wise to allow and possibly encourage that whatever the choice to act responsibly, and make birth control accessible......not harder to get

And then there's this:

If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary. Probably not, but then I repeat....it's a private matter.



If "humans are human" as you've posited over and over in your time here, the statistics would mirror each other, period, and there is no way around the fact.

Fact.

Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway. ;)

BTW-

Social engineering?

Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?

I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary? :huh:

[j2k4]

The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.

I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.
Agreed

Cue vid's civil rights objection...:P

[vidcc]

If "humans are human" as you've posited over and over in your time here, the statistics would mirror each other, period, and there is no way around the fact. rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.



Fact.

Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway. ;)

BTW-

Social engineering?

Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?

I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary? :huh: WHat is she going to engineer? letting people decide for themslef? dangerous social engineering indeed.... I mean that would mean you can't tell consenting adults to stop doing things in ther own homes :cry:

[vidcc]

Agreed

Cue vid's civil rights objection...:P

So you would be for that :huh: I was not aware that you were supportive of chinese style politics.... I mean you haven't exactly shown any love for them.

[j2k4]

rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.

Yes, humans are individual, but statistics are not, other than in a catagorical sense.

You are wrong again, again.



Fact.

Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway. ;)

BTW-

Social engineering?

Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?

I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary? :huh: WHat is she going to engineer? letting people decide for themslef? dangerous social engineering indeed.... I mean that would mean you can't tell consenting adults to stop doing things in ther own homes :cry:

You can't be serious.

You really have no idea?

OhmyGod...:huh:

[vidcc]

[QUOTE=vidcc]rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.

Yes, humans are individual, but statistics are not, other than in a catagorical sense.

You are wrong again, again.

statistics are not uniform... we have red states and blue states don't we? By your theory if 60% of SD vote for one party then surely 60% of every state would vote for the same party.....they mirror each other...right ?
Humans are indiviuals and if the bulk of humans act in one way in one area that doesn't mean the bulk of humans will act the same way in another.
Perhaps if the neocons realised this then we would have been a bit better prepared in Iraq instead of thinking they would welcome us (because "they think and act the same as us").

[Busyman™]

Cue vid's civil rights objection...:P

So you would be for that :huh: I was not aware that you were supportive of chinese style politics.... I mean you haven't exactly shown any love for them.
I don't think that's Chinese style. It would be a requirement for getting state money. Surely you wouldn't want mom's to receive state money, have no job, and just sit on her ass (or laying on her back) getting pregnant so the state will kick out MORE money?

You have to know that this would exacerbate the problem since there is a new infant tying mom down to take care of.

I mean she could always refuse and not receive state money. No civil rights would be violated either way.

The cost of that shot would outweigh the cost kicked out for a newborn. That's for sure.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4] statistics are not uniform... we have red states and blue states don't we? By your theory if 60% of SD vote for one party then surely 60% of every state would vote for the same party.....they mirror each other...right ?
Humans are indiviuals and if the bulk of humans act in one way in one area that doesn't mean the bulk of humans will act the same way in another.
Perhaps if the neocons realised this then we would have been a bit better prepared in Iraq instead of thinking they would welcome us (because "they think and act the same as us").

Why are you having so much trouble concentrating?

We are talking about human behavior, which, (you've said) as to the matter of sex/pregnancy/abortion, is uniform and accepted to be so by women across the nation...that these attitudes and behaviors are formed not by cogent thought processes, but by biological imperative.

This does not allow such discrepancies as have been noted, vid.

Now-how do you account for the difference in the rates of abortion relative to monies spent?

[Busyman™]

[QUOTE=vidcc]

Why are you having so much trouble concentrating?

We are talking about human behavior, which, (you've said) as to the matter of sex/pregnancy/abortion, is uniform and accepted to be so by women across the nation...that these attitudes and behaviors are formed not by cogent thought processes, but by biological imperative.

This does not allow such discrepancies as have been noted, vid.

Now-how do you account for the difference in the rates of abortion relative to monies spent?
How do you account for it?

[j2k4]

How do you account for it?

Social mores are different in South Dakota than in California.

Social influence is effective.

Vid denies society's entree (influence-wise) in such matters; what's more, he denies it's ability to effect any change, whatsoever.

Those numbers he dismisses give lie to all that, you see.

[ilw]

Is S Dakota a religious sorta place? high church attendance and all the rest of it? I think religion, the urban-rural mix (i.e. percentage living in small communities) and various other things will probably make direct comparisons between states hard

[vidcc]

ffs kev. who do you borrow your straw men from?

Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will
just because x amount of people that behave one way live in one area doesn't mean a mirror happens in another and well you know it.
Statistics can be manipulated to prove or disprove anything if you cherrypick and ignore other aspects. and well you know it.

Are there lower teenage pregnancy rates in states with abstinance only programs? Is the divorce rate lower in red states with these intrusive "moral behaviour" rules?.....
Newsflash, humans are individuals

[vidcc]

I don't think that's Chinese style. It would be a requirement for getting state money. Surely you wouldn't want mom's to receive state money, have no job, and just sit on her ass (or laying on her back) getting pregnant so the state will kick out MORE money?

You have to know that this would exacerbate the problem since there is a new infant tying mom down to take care of.

I mean she could always refuse and not receive state money. No civil rights would be violated either way.

The cost of that shot would outweigh the cost kicked out for a newborn. That's for sure.So you don't see any similarity to chinese child producing policy?

I agree with all the bit about not wanting someone on welfare to keep producing children. To me welfare should be a safety net, not an alternative wage source to allow people to become parasites. There are lots of things wrong with the system including the minmum wage being so low discouraging people with families from working...but that's a different subject.
Linking mandatory contraception to welfare payments, no matter how it's justifed, leads us down the chinese human rights road we condemn.

[j2k4]

ffs kev. who do you borrow your straw men from?

Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will
just because x amount of people that behave one way live in one area doesn't mean a mirror happens in another and well you know it.
Statistics can be manipulated to prove or disprove anything if you cherrypick and ignore other aspects. and well you know it.

Are there lower teenage pregnancy rates in states with abstinance only programs? Is the divorce rate lower in red states with these intrusive "moral behaviour" rules?.....
Newsflash, humans are individuals

Well, then.

Can you finally acknowledge the propriety of state's rights as a method of influencing/determining the milieu in which one wishes to live?

The effect of societal preference is there, and cannot be denied.

If they want limit abortion by legal means, who is to say they are wrong?

Societal pressure is applied by making certain actions unlawful (within applicable jurisdictions) or, minimally, inconvenient (pushing certain behaviors outside state boundaries).

There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as it is the will of the majority of the people.

Nothing will stop a South Dakotan desiring an abortion from crossing a border to obtain one (no one has broached the idea of prosecuting those who do), and any who feel that the availibility of the procedure is integral to their happiness are FREE to relocate to, say, California.

Neat, huh? :)

[vidcc]

[

Well, then.

Can you finally acknowledge the propriety of state's rights as a method of influencing/determining the milieu in which one wishes to live?
Up to a limit there is and should be a right to dictate things that go on in the public square. I cannot accept that this should extend to private affairs which are and should be nobody elses business.


The effect of societal preference is there, and cannot be denied.

If they want limit abortion by legal means, who is to say they are wrong?

Societal pressure is applied by making certain actions unlawful (within applicable jurisdictions) or, minimally, inconvenient (pushing certain behaviors outside state boundaries).

There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as it is the will of the majority of the people. You think you should have the right to make decisions for individuals you have never met and have no relation to in private matters with which you have no relation or direct interest (eg. you are not the father)
I do not.


Nothing will stop a South Dakotan desiring an abortion from crossing a border to obtain one (no one has broached the idea of prosecuting those who do), and any who feel that the availibility of the procedure is integral to their happiness are FREE to relocate to, say, California.

Neat, huh? :)

you sure about that? (http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/B8/20060320/NEWS01/603200302/1002&template=B8) I will look into all the SD proposals later to see if anyone there has "broached the idea"

Why should someone have to relocate because they don't share your personal values?.

[j2k4]

Up to a limit there is and should be a right to dictate things that go on in the public square. I cannot accept that this should extend to private affairs which are and should be nobody elses business.


The effect of societal preference is there, and cannot be denied.

If they want limit abortion by legal means, who is to say they are wrong?

Societal pressure is applied by making certain actions unlawful (within applicable jurisdictions) or, minimally, inconvenient (pushing certain behaviors outside state boundaries).

There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as it is the will of the majority of the people. You think you should have the right to make decisions for individuals you have never met and have no relation to in private matters with which you have no relation or direct interest (eg. you are not the father)
I do not.

No, I don't think I have the right to make such decisions, but society surely does.

These "individuals" you speak of occasionally seek to form a united entity for the purpose of expressing societal concerns.


Nothing will stop a South Dakotan desiring an abortion from crossing a border to obtain one (no one has broached the idea of prosecuting those who do), and any who feel that the availibility of the procedure is integral to their happiness are FREE to relocate to, say, California.

Neat, huh? :)

you sure about that? (http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/B8/20060320/NEWS01/603200302/1002&template=B8) I will look into all the SD proposals later to see if anyone there has "broached the idea"

Why should someone have to relocate because they don't share your personal values?.

See above.

[vidcc]

No, I don't think I have the right to make such decisions, but society surely does.
Yes you do, you are part of this "society" and society is made up of individuals each expressing their opinion. It doesn't matter if it's done by group or individual, you think you have the right to make that choice. Now I am fine with society expressing an opinion on private matters, I am not fine with society getting involved in private matters. You either think the line extends into private matters and/or you don't think that the issue is a private matter.




These "individuals" you speak of occasionally seek to form a united entity for the purpose of expressing societal concerns.


Up to a limit there is and should be a right to dictate things that go on in the public square. I cannot accept that this should extend to private affairs which are and should be nobody elses business.

[Busyman™]

How do you account for it?

Social mores are different in South Dakota than in California.

Social influence is effective.

Vid denies society's entree (influence-wise) in such matters; what's more, he denies it's ability to effect any change, whatsoever.

Those numbers he dismisses give lie to all that, you see.
I agree with your social reference. You also must add population density.

[Skweeky1]

I don't know about the American stance, but in Britain, there is no "unfettered access". Every woman stepping up to the plate, so to speak, has to go through three doctors and a councillor before she makes a decision, and even then it may be denyed to her. Don't think that decision is Ever taken lightly. The younger a woman is, the more questions are asked, and the more provisions are made for her aftercare, both physical and mental. There are only two possible abortion procedures, either surgical, where the operation is performed ,or medical, where the woman is given a pill for the procedure to happen at home, followed by a check up, if under 12 weeks. This is legal and accountable, both to the woman herself, and to the medical staff. Where's the "shroud of non-accountability."?


You might want to get your facts right Carcinus.
It's nowhere near that in Britain at the moment.

I had an abortion in Britain a couple of years ago and this is what I got:

Told my GP about it, he asked me what the reason was I wanted an abortion.
(about a 10sec conversation)
Got appointment in hospital where bloodpressure etc got taken and echo, no questions asked.
Went into hospital two days later to take abortion pill, nurse who gave it to me simply said that there was no way back after taking the pill and was sent home without any further information.
Went back to hospital 2 days later to have actual procedure, no explanation about what was about to happen whatsoever. Spent 8 hours in hospital and got sent home.
No after care, no conversation, no counsillor. Nothing.

I was 13 weeks pregnant which means they induce early labour, you're allowed to do that up until 20 weeks. Up until 12 weeks you do indeed just get sent home or they can use 'suction'


It's a terrible system they use in Britain.
If anyone would have bothered to talk to me for only 5 minutes it would have been clear I was in no position to take such a decision. ( was more or less forced into it by boyfriend at the time...)
Unfortunately, it's a decision I'll always regret and I still really haven't come to terms with.

The South Dakota thing is extreme, but by God, the way it works in Britain is almost inhumane. Laws should be a lot stricter and there should be psychological tests before anyone should be allowed to make such a decision.

It's no surprise there are so many teenage pregnancies around here. There's no barrier. Abortion is such an easy option and there's no questions asked.

[j2k4]

I don't know about the American stance, but in Britain, there is no "unfettered access". Every woman stepping up to the plate, so to speak, has to go through three doctors and a councillor before she makes a decision, and even then it may be denyed to her. Don't think that decision is Ever taken lightly. The younger a woman is, the more questions are asked, and the more provisions are made for her aftercare, both physical and mental. There are only two possible abortion procedures, either surgical, where the operation is performed ,or medical, where the woman is given a pill for the procedure to happen at home, followed by a check up, if under 12 weeks. This is legal and accountable, both to the woman herself, and to the medical staff. Where's the "shroud of non-accountability."?


You might want to get your facts right Carcinus.
It's nowhere near that in Britain at the moment.

I had an abortion in Britain a couple of years ago and this is what I got:

Told my GP about it, he asked me what the reason was I wanted an abortion.
(about a 10sec conversation)
Got appointment in hospital where bloodpressure etc got taken and echo, no questions asked.
Went into hospital two days later to take abortion pill, nurse who gave it to me simply said that there was no way back after taking the pill and was sent home without any further information.
Went back to hospital 2 days later to have actual procedure, no explanation about what was about to happen whatsoever. Spent 8 hours in hospital and got sent home.
No after care, no conversation, no counsillor. Nothing.

I was 13 weeks pregnant which means they induce early labour, you're allowed to do that up until 20 weeks. Up until 12 weeks you do indeed just get sent home or they can use 'suction'


It's a terrible system they use in Britain.
If anyone would have bothered to talk to me for only 5 minutes it would have been clear I was in no position to take such a decision. ( was more or less forced into it by boyfriend at the time...)
Unfortunately, it's a decision I'll always regret and I still really haven't come to terms with.

The South Dakota thing is extreme, but by God, the way it works in Britain is almost inhumane. Laws should be a lot stricter and there should be psychological tests before anyone should be allowed to make such a decision.

It's no surprise there are so many teenage pregnancies around here. There's no barrier. Abortion is such an easy option and there's no questions asked.

I am so sorry to hear this, Sonja.

I don't know what to say...:(

[Skweeky1]

It's ok Kev,

I suppose it was just another one of life's hurdles...

You'll be pleased to know G and I are starting to thionk about wee uns :)

I was just trying to prove a point.
Something like that has a major impact on our life and it should NEVER be that easily accesible

[j2k4]

It's ok Kev,

I suppose it was just another one of life's hurdles...

You'll be pleased to know G and I are starting to thionk about wee uns :)

I was just trying to prove a point.
Something like that has a major impact on our life and it should NEVER be that easily accesible

Then I guess you could say we are in complete agreement.

An intellectually honest person will grant that a certain number of abortions is going to occur, for a variety of reasons.

It was/is a terrible mistake to make policy so as to open the floodgates.

[Skweeky1]

I agree completely.
People make mistakes and should have the right to rectify them, however, when it concerns something this magnitude...

Maybe some decent counselling is in order instead of a simple 'are you sure you want to do this?'

[Busyman™]

I think counseling would be in order for an underage person but adults can make their minds up without the need for counseling if they choose to do so.

Some women think it's a decision of great magnitude and some don't. Any woman can regret having an abortion in hindsight. Sometimes that hindsight can be 10 years later.

[chriss_ee]

i never knew this this is very interesting

[chriss_ee]

i think this could lead to a lot of problems

[Biggles]

Some women think it's a decision of great magnitude and some don't. Any woman can regret marriage in hindsight. Sometimes that hindsight can be 10 years later.


:naughty:

[Busyman™]

I don't think that's Chinese style. It would be a requirement for getting state money. Surely you wouldn't want mom's to receive state money, have no job, and just sit on her ass (or laying on her back) getting pregnant so the state will kick out MORE money?

You have to know that this would exacerbate the problem since there is a new infant tying mom down to take care of.

I mean she could always refuse and not receive state money. No civil rights would be violated either way.

The cost of that shot would outweigh the cost kicked out for a newborn. That's for sure.So you don't see any similarity to chinese child producing policy?

I agree with all the bit about not wanting someone on welfare to keep producing children. To me welfare should be a safety net, not an alternative wage source to allow people to become parasites. There are lots of things wrong with the system including the minmum wage being so low discouraging people with families from working...but that's a different subject.
Linking mandatory contraception to welfare payments, no matter how it's justifed, leads us down the chinese human rights road we condemn.
Nnnnno it doesn't.

Our government would not be saying that women simply cannot have kids.

Our government would be saying that they don't want women having kids that the government must pay for while the woman is trying to get on her feet.

It is sensationalist to say it parallels the Chinese.

A - Woman receives welfare, is looking for a job, gets pregnant, needs more welfare, harder to look for a job.

B- Woman receives welfare, had the shot, looks for a job, no more money is kicked out by the state, doesn't have a kid (or more kids) to take care of while receiving de mooney

Doing this helps curb the cycle welfare. Come on man get on board. It's an original Busyman idea. Write yo congress(wo)man and shit.