1. #6841
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    OMG please use pro-baby now. I need some laughs.
    How long until pedophilia is "Pro-child"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  2. #6842
    Funny if some Dems make a "Pro-Baby Act" with lots of policies for supporting babies after they are born. lol

  3. #6843
    Quote Originally Posted by Deianeira View Post
    Funny if some Dems make a "Pro-Baby Act" with lots of policies for supporting babies after they are born. lol
    Most are policies generally supported by Democrats. Would be a good way to see if Republicans will put their money where their mouth is.

    (We know they absolutely will not)

  4. #6844
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Most are policies generally supported by Democrats. Would be a good way to see if Republicans will put their money where their mouth is.

    (We know they absolutely will not)
    "We are Pro-Baby but the mother should have just crossed her legs. It is not up to the hard-working American tax payer to fund the egregious failure of responsibility of a woman getting pregnant. " --Republican Male Politicians....most likely.--
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  5. #6845
    I really want to start a "day trip to Canada for no particular reason at all" travel agency.

  6. #6846
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    I really want to start a "day trip to Canada for no particular reason at all" travel agency.
    Or Mexico, too.

  7. #6847
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Or Mexico, too.
    Someone from Mexico can do that one. I want the "abortion vacation travel for no particular reason" boom to go to the Canadian Economy :P

  8. #6848
    Just curious, but how exactly does that legislation square with the Constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of movement?

    I mean, I'm a little hazy on the details, since apparently while freedom of movement is a constitutional right it's not federally enforceable, but rather left to the states to enforce, but even still, one would think that threatening to arrest people for travelling to other states would be considered a direct violation of their Constitutional rights?

  9. #6849
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Just curious, but how exactly does that legislation square with the Constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of movement?
    It completely ignores it, because fuck you that's why. The only important amendments are the Second and the First (but only insofar as it lets evangelicals impose their beliefs on everyone else and not vice-versa), and the rest are just suggestions.

  10. #6850
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Just curious, but how exactly does that legislation square with the Constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of movement?
    Your first mistake was assuming they give the slightest shit about respecting people's rights. I mean...not respecting people's rights is basically one of the core pillars of their philosophy as a party.

  11. #6851
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,964
    Indiana sues hospital that provided abortion to Ohio resident, who, somehow, found a hospital in Indiana of all places when Ohio denied her.

    "Well she should have thought of that before having sex."

    She was raped.

    "Oh...um...well, surely there are other options for a healthy adult to handle the situation."

    She's ten.

    There is no common ground between pro-life and pro-choice.

  12. #6852
    https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...d/70890640007/

    The Indiana Supreme Court’s disciplinary commission filed a complaint Monday alleging that Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita violated professional conduct after his statements in 2022 about the case of a 10-year-old Ohio girl who sought an abortion in Indiana and the doctor who performed the procedure.

    The complaint alleges that Rokita violated professional conduct rules in statements he made about obstetrician-gynecologist Caitlin Bernard on a Fox News show hosted by Jesse Watters on July 13, 2022, specifically when the attorney general referred to Bernard as an "abortion activist acting as a doctor — with a history of failure to report.”

    Additionally, the complaint states that Rokita violated confidentiality requirements by making statements about an investigation into Bernard prior to filing a complaint with the Medical Licensing Board.

    In a statement, Rokita said he planned to respond to the commission's complaint, adding that the complaint "stemmed from grievances, which mainly referenced media reports."

    "We will continue defending Indiana’s laws and ensure that licensed medical professionals and other healthcare providers are held accountable when they violate their patients’ privacy and fail to obtain consent," Rokita said in the statement.

    The complaint, filed by the disciplinary commission’s executive director Adrienne Meiring and deputy director of litigation Stephanie Bibbs requests Rokita be disciplined for professional misconduct and pay required expenses.

    Bernard's legal counsel, Kathleen DeLaney, said her legal team cannot comment on the charges because they weren't involved.

    "We will watch how the Disciplinary Commission process proceeds and let the complaint speak for itself,” she said.
    Republicans, in their rush to show just how extremist they can be on this topic, find themselves likely violating ethics/professional guidelines when they stop following the rules and make shit up because it sounds good for their Fox News interview and they've got bigger political ambitions.

  13. #6853
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Indiana sues hospital that provided abortion to Ohio resident, who, somehow, found a hospital in Indiana of all places when Ohio denied her.

    "Well she should have thought of that before having sex."

    She was raped.

    "Oh...um...well, surely there are other options for a healthy adult to handle the situation."

    She's ten.

    There is no common ground between pro-life and pro-choice.
    So, are we at the point where it's morally acceptable for us to start forming mobs with pitchforks, torches, and shotguns to deal with these motherfuckers? Just asking for a friend. No advocation for violence here, no no, just some perfectly legal protesting, I assure you!

  14. #6854
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,964
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    So, are we at the point where it's morally acceptable for us to start forming mobs with pitchforks, torches, and shotguns to deal with these motherfuckers? Just asking for a friend. No advocation for violence here, no no, just some perfectly legal protesting, I assure you!
    Actually I think the question is if it's ethically okay. Mobs with torches and pitchforks are probably still illegal.

  15. #6855
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Actually I think the question is if it's ethically okay. Mobs with torches and pitchforks are probably still illegal.
    We really need to revisit the concept of violence, as a society, starting from scratch. Too many people try and argue "violence is never justified!" while simultaneously trying to argue "comply with the law and the police will stop tazing and shooting you!"

    Completely incapable of seeing the latter as "violence".

    Weirdly, these are usually the same people who like to talk about the 2nd Amendment as a response to tyranny, because they're completely fuckin' clueless about what they're saying.


  16. #6856
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/healt...ong/index.html

    Just when Beth and Kyle Long received the worst news of their life, an Ohio law made their searing pain even worse.

    For four years, the Longs tried to have a baby, enduring multiple rounds of grueling fertility treatments. In September 2022, Beth finally became pregnant.

    But an ultrasound four months later showed that most of the baby’s organs were outside the body.

    The condition, called limb body wall complex, is rare.

    “It’s just not survivable,” a doctor involved in Beth’s care told CNN.

    “They will die. There’s no way there will be a life,” said Dr. Alireza Shamshirsaz, a spokesperson for the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, who was not involved in Beth’s care.

    The condition posed dangers for Beth too, and the bigger the baby was, the higher the risk of complications, including dangerous bleeding that might require a hysterectomy. They say their doctor urged them to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible.

    But when the Longs tried to schedule the abortion, they found out that their insurance wouldn’t pay for it.

    Beth takes care of breast cancer patients at a state-owned hospital. She’s employed by the state of Ohio, and state law bans her health insurance from paying for abortions except in certain cases.

    Endangerment to the life of the mother is one of them, and although she was at an increased risk for potentially deadly complications, Beth’s life was not in imminent danger, and the Longs say their doctor told them the insurance wouldn’t cover the procedure.

    Beth and Kyle would have to foot the bill: between $20,000 and $30,000. After spending $45,000 on fertility treatments, they didn’t have the money.

    It took them three weeks to make arrangements to go to a hospital that could perform the complicated abortion at a lower price. It was hours away, in another state.

    During that three-week wait – a wait they had to endure only because of the Ohio law – the risk to Beth of potentially deadly complications grew. Their ability to try to have another baby was delayed, and their “agony” couldn’t end, Beth said.

    “I was in mental anguish,” Beth said.

    “It felt very inhumane for both our baby and for my wife,” Kyle added.

    The hospital they found was a three-hour drive away, in Pittsburgh. Away from their regular obstetrician, whom Beth had known for years; away from their doula; away from their friends and family. The Longs were alone.
    More on the kind of harm Republicans continue to allow to happen to women when they could prevent it.

    There was absolutely no reason for this woman to suffer a non-viable pregnancy that post a risk to her health, this is genuinely just a matter of health care and that's it as the developing fetus had no chance of survival ever. Kinda hard to live with organs on your outside.

    This is the kind of literal torture that Republicans appear to want to force women to risk when they get pregnant. This seems to continue to be a feature of Republican policy on this topic, not a bug.

  17. #6857
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/healt...ong/index.html

    More on the kind of harm Republicans continue to allow to happen to women when they could prevent it.

    There was absolutely no reason for this woman to suffer a non-viable pregnancy that post a risk to her health, this is genuinely just a matter of health care and that's it as the developing fetus had no chance of survival ever. Kinda hard to live with organs on your outside.

    This is the kind of literal torture that Republicans appear to want to force women to risk when they get pregnant. This seems to continue to be a feature of Republican policy on this topic, not a bug.
    Of course! Gotta punish those uppity women for fighting for the right to vote, to be considered people, to have their own property and jobs, to be able to divorce abusers, to be anything other than breeding machines and sex toys for them to abuse.

    This is what Republicans have wanted the whole time. This is why they talk about "the good ole days", the days where the only people who "mattered" were white men.

    I gotta agree with Endus here. We really should revisit the role violence plays in our society. If politicians are capable of forcing this kind of pain and suffering on people, why shouldn't we also be able to force equivalent pain and suffering on them?

  18. #6858
    Speaking of features and bugs, North Carolina legislators had an opportunity to craft a better bill, but sadly, moral compunctions would not allow that. Opinion piece commenting on and citing an article by Duke physicians in the New England Journal of Medicine:
    It is no secret that the medical establishment is chock full of abortion absolutists who loathe the idea of any meaningful limitations on abortion. But when North Carolina legislators reached out to Duke University OBGYN experts to target potential health exceptions to a post-twelve-weeks prohibition — in other words, to be nuanced — the self-righteous professors refused to help.

    And now they are bragging about it in the New England Journal of Medicine. From, “The Ethics of Abortion Care Advocacy–Making Exceptions to the Rule:”

    Lawmakers proposing abortion bans sometimes seek guidance from Ob/Gyns on potential lists of exceptions to incorporate into such bans. Creating lists defining when abortion is medically necessary places clinicians in the ethically fraught position of providing input on laws that will harm patients.

    Well, limitations sure don’t hurt the babies that are born–which from what I understand, are counted in the many thousands since Dobbs, precious people who will now have the opportunity live full lives.

    Despite our commitment to advocacy, when legislators asked us to provide lists of maternal or fetal health exceptions to incorporate into the law, we refused. We felt strongly that legitimizing exclusions was unethical, and we implored legislators to have compassion for people needing abortions after 12 weeks. Although 90% of abortions in the United States occur in the first trimester, bans based on gestational age disproportionately affect young people and low-income people, and the gestational-age limits used in such policies are often too early for many fetal genetic and anatomical diagnoses to be established.

    Although not providing a list of possible exceptions risked a less medically informed bill, we found it ethically problematic to attempt to protect certain patients’ access to abortion care while compromising care for others. If clinicians engage in negotiations that lead to restrictions on abortion, we fail to uphold our duty of nonmaleficence, since patients who have conditions that aren’t deemed “exception-worthy” are harmed.

    Of course, that ignores another patient, the gestating baby.

    Why allow a “less medically informed” law to be enacted? Ideology:

    Limiting access to abortion care by means of exclusionary lists exacerbates health injustices and disproportionately harms disenfranchised and marginalized patients, since more privileged patients are more likely to have timely access to care and to be able to travel for abortion care. Enacting exclusions also further stigmatizes abortion care and creates a false dichotomy between acceptable and unacceptable care. We care for patients with myriad personal and compelling reasons for seeking abortion care. These reasons often aren’t reflected in exceptions included in abortion bans. In addition, when legislators receive lists of exceptions from physicians, they tend to promote their legislation as being approved by doctors, even if the physicians involved were primarily trying to reduce harm.

    And then they yell that the laws passed in states restricting an atmosphere of open season against fetuses are ham-fisted.

    And they seem to prefer abortion to birth:

    When carrying a pregnancy to term is 14 times as likely as undergoing legal abortion to lead to death, some would argue that the risk associated with pregnancy alone is sufficient to merit care.

    By “to merit care,” they mean killing the gestating baby.

    There is a strongly implied threat to cease practicing obstetrics if abortion isn’t open-ended:

    How long can thoughtful, compassionate clinicians continue to practice obstetrics when laws prohibit them from providing necessary care to their patients? These laws exact a high cost not only on patients, but also on clinicians.

    And pro-lifers have to admit they are wrong!

    Until we find a way to start discussions from common ground — acknowledging that abortion is health care — the most effective way of advocating for our patients may be to bear witness to how care, or the absence of it, shapes their lives.

    For many Americans, abortion is fraught with conflicting ethical and moral considerations, and polls show, that majorities are not absolutists either way. But it seems to me that the pro-life side focuses on both protecting the unborn baby and helping mothers in need. In contrast, for these abortion absolutist professors, the baby’s life isn’t even worth a passing mention, and, it would seem, of no more importance than a burst appendix. Ugh.
    National Review

    I would laud legislators that are seeking bans on abortion with exceptions to reach out to medical doctors on how to define and what constitutes conditions putting the mother's life or the baby's life at substantial risk. But this article points out that lawmakers are sometimes turned down, and cites doctors at Duke University refusing to do so. The story on poorly crafted exceptions in the language appears to have two sides. One, doctors feel compunction in aiding a law they oppose, superseding feelings towards lessening harm as a result of passed legislation. In doing so, their profession is complicit in criticism directed at the laws by stating that their exceptions are poorly crafted. It also mitigates the force of certain appeals consisting of claims that the laws' unintended ambiguity on certain cases of fetal defect/life-threatening conditions was, in-fact, maliciously crafted to achieve ambiguity.

    I don't have access to the medical journal, so can't quote the entirety of sections that were quoted in the article from it. I wish and hope that this is an on-going discussion among doctors on the ethics of advising legislators. If you don't want shitty laws, advise and advocate for less shitty laws. If you don't want to get your hands dirty in laws you oppose as a whole, then kindly don't complain when they're less well-crafted and have to go through years of court wrangling and uncertainty. One nasty little consequence of this process is giving the impression that the progressive position is tolerating bad 6-week 12-week and 15-week bans, in the hopes of getting better representatives and better future laws with criticism of their defects. It might be political successful (time will tell), though very morally questionable, to say, "I oppose this bill for being rushed and poorly-written ... and object on moral grounds for using my medical expertise and time to advise better writing."
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  19. #6859
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,398
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Speaking of features and bugs, North Carolina legislators had an opportunity to craft a better bill, but sadly, moral compunctions would not allow that. Opinion piece commenting on and citing an article by Duke physicians in the New England Journal of Medicine:
    This is one of the most biased things I think I've seen you post. Please don't post garbage like this. The amount of misinformation and propaganda against abortion is fucking absurd. You wanna know why OB/GYNs don't want to say where exceptions should be? Because they know that they cannot account for every single exception, and if they give a list to politicians, those politicians will then make things as ironclad as possible to prevent anything BUT the list of exceptions they're given, and will point to the OB/GYNs and say, "LOOK?! SEE?! WE LISTENED TO THEM! THE SCIENTISTS! THE DOCTORS! YOU CAN'T BE MAD AT US FOR REMOVING YOUR RIGHTS AND LETTING WOMEN DIE!"

    That's fucking why. Holy god damn shit, it's not hard. It is not about them advising and advocating for 'less shitty laws', it's about not giving these scumbag politicians a stamp to stomp on women's rights even harder than they are now. If these people actually gave a fuck about "helping mothers in need", then they wouldn't be pursuing this crap to begin with.

    And god, that drivel about "precious people who will now have the opportunity live full lives". Yeah, I'm sure they'll live full lives with parents who didn't want them, weren't ready to have them, couldn't afford to have them, or wanted to spare them pain and suffering of existing with various medical issues. Especially when the people advocating for those precious people will not actually give one penny towards making their lives better. Such full, very precious, wow.

    Congratulations, you actually pissed me off on this one. Normally I'm able to just ignore the worst stuff you say, but this one actually made me mad.
    Last edited by The Stormbringer; 2023-09-19 at 07:25 PM.

  20. #6860
    the ban is morally questionable (abhorrent actually). a lot of concern trolling when the obviously evil lawmakers are the only party to blame here for adverse outcomes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •