1. #7381
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    He's not trying to be reasonable. He's trying to twist people in hypocritical knots and it's hilarious to watch him fail, now that I've decided how worthless his opinions on abortion are. It's fucking hilarious.
    It's his shtick. All he's interested in, is trying to gotcha people in his endless quest for purely partisan tit for tat fodder.

    I respond to him mostly for the sake of whoever reads the forums but doesn't post. It's likely an empty gesture either way, but there's no conversation to be had with someone who is this absolutely determined to prove to all how Democrats are the true bad guys.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  2. #7382
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    He's not trying to be reasonable. He's trying to twist people in hypocritical knots and it's hilarious to watch him fail, now that I've decided how worthless his opinions on abortion are. It's fucking hilarious.
    Yeah, I know. And while it bothers me a bit that discussion can be hijacked continuously by his same weak, unreasonable "arguments" obviously I'm not immune from responding either. Ah well, such is the nature of online forums.

  3. #7383
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Yeah, I know. And while it bothers me a bit that discussion can be hijacked continuously by his same weak, unreasonable "arguments" obviously I'm not immune from responding either. Ah well, such is the nature of online forums.
    I just acknowledge that he has an avatar of a sexual predator so any comments that are about abortion are just as anti-woman as the picture he portrays next to his name.
    “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)

  4. #7384
    If there were any justice in this forum...tehdang would have been banned long before he baited Chonogo into taking an infraction.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  5. #7385
    "Mommy mommy they keep accurately calling me out on my bullshit! Make the bad man go away!" and poof, the troll's wishes are granted.

    Fucking clownshoes.

  6. #7386
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Yeah, I know. And while it bothers me a bit that discussion can be hijacked continuously by his same weak, unreasonable "arguments" obviously I'm not immune from responding either. Ah well, such is the nature of online forums.
    I take it as an opportunity to sharpen my own arguments.

  7. #7387
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,384
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    When have the GOP ever showed compassion to anyone. And I mean genuine compassion.

    I was *going* to say that I remember a lot of outcry during a couple of mass shooting events that hit typically right-wing areas (A political rally at a baseball game and that christian school in Nashville), but then remembered none of the rhetoric was about the victims and more them just using those events as a means to continue publicly demonizing groups they don't like.

    So, yeah, I got nothing. At least nothing in recent memory.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    The problem with this argument is this - organ transplants. There are many other people who in deciding to not donate their body parts are participating in the medical decisions of others. The reason we don't force organ donations, even from corpses, relates to that pesky bodily autonomy issue that every anti-abortion person supports until it's on the topic of abortion. If they were truly "pro-life" as they claim then they would support forced non-lethal organ donation, blood donation, and harvesting every corpse for viable body parts.

    But they don't. Because they are all hypocrites.
    Last time I tried to bring this up I had the person I was arguing with pretty much go "NUH-UH! It's not the same!" And refused to elaborate until the thread moved on enough that they could pop back in with more wistfully misinformed bullshit.

    But it's an absolutely valid point on the issue of bodily autonomy, and shows how fragile the whole 'Pro-life' argument is when they can't even come up with a rebuttable that doesn't amount to either:

    A: Lmao then she shouldn't have had the sex
    or
    B: Organ transplants and Blood donations aren't natural tho and therefor your argument is totally invalid (let me ignore the broader context of this point on purpose).

  8. #7388
    11 Notifications on my account for Christmas:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Go ahead. I’ll go ahead and give a long list about why anti-abortion supporters are pro-death.

    Let’s start with:
    I responded specifically on the charge of relabeling. I know that in everybody's subjective appreciation, certain causes have no right to the label. And in your own mind, you could say the brand ought to be called anything from pro-terrorist to anti-human-existence. But when you're commenting publicly, you have the choice to use the terms each other would prefer to describe their position (or the commonly accepted ones), or pick your own for them. My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    The bolded part already pretty much negates anything else you have to say since your approach is based purely on ignorance and stupidity.

    You can keep droning on about "troubling reasons" and "post-viability" and "pregnancy as a health issue", but every time you do we're reminded that you have no idea what any of these things mean. I'm sure you'll continue to ignore those facts and pretend that you're trying to be reasonable, but there's nothing reasonable about your purposeful ignorance.
    It's the rest of the unquoted part of my post that explain what I mean by this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    you mean care and support for years right? Or are you like every other conservative who stops caring once the child is born?

    And if you don't understand bodily autonomy just say so. You waving your hands frantically didn't actually address my point.
    I don't think the time element to pregnancy and abortion lends itself towards making comparisons to organ donation or tumors or whatnot.

    There will always be a second body in bodily autonomy arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Because this is true.
    Every pregnancy carries a risk of death from just being pregnant.
    Here's a video of just what the body goes through during pregnancy. It's slightly NSFW from an american PoV as there's transparent female nipples in it.

    Every organ within the torso MOVES.
    This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.

    As pertains to the my post, the past debates in this thread involved "no doctor is going to do that" respecting late-term abortion and extremely late-term abortion. I quoted from an interview with a doctor who was asked about whether he would perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with no health issues at 30 weeks. He replied that every pregnancy is a health issue.

    If you have no particular attachment to whether or not elective abortions occur in the late term for prohibiting in law, then neither of those will matter to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Personally troubling, yes. But a whole load of, "Not my business." in the same way the battle over who had the power of attorney in the Terry Schiavo case was a whole load of, "Not my business." despite also involving life or death.

    I wasn't in the room when the deed was done. I wasn't in the room during the time the girl/woman carried the pregnancy. I wasn't in the room for the consultation with their physician. I have no fucking say in their health care decision in the same way I had no fucking say in Terry Schiavo's case.
    Thank you for helping me understand your moral perspective on it.

    Again, nobody has said it "never" happens literally (just figuratively). We don't speak in absolutes. Yes, fringe cases will happen and there are already laws against medical malpractice that would potentially cover that.

    You keep alluding to "dogma" and other religious elements in this discussion and projecting them onto our side and it continues to strike me as incredibly dishonest. As if you're upset that the religious basis for your position has been noted and you feel as if it's only fair if you accuse "the other side" of similar religious beliefs when there's nothing of the sort.
    I think you'll find more than one person saying that "no doctor will do that" or thereabouts when I argued for banning late-term abortions with exceptions. The argument was that such laws were unnecessary, not because no woman would request it, but that no doctor would provide it. It was due to the existence of such posters in this very thread in the past that I linked the late-term abortionist interview.

    I would be happy to learn if everyone posting that perspective at the time have since re-evaluated their perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    You'd have to be living under a rock to not understand that abortion is a particularly politically charged issue in the US. A lot of European legislatures do what you say- prevent late-term abortions but with a host of exceptions that are generally quite easy to invoke. Obviously there's loads of variations through the various countries and cultures there but we're speaking more of a trend. Abortion is an issue there - it is in practically every country- but it's not the elephant in the room it is in America.

    Because when things are left to the legislators in America, the result is what we've seen- States making exceptions so draconian that you basically can't meet them until you're already dying. States saying that voters should decide instead of some court in DC, then going to court when voters decide the wrong way. State legislatures showing a blatant lack of concern for how their sloppily written (at best) laws impact actual care on the ground and leave both doctor and patients unsure, if not afraid, on how to proceed. States clamoring for state's rights and then trying to find ways to stop women going someplace else to get their care.

    You say we shouldn't trust doctors as a professional body on this particular matter, without much in the way of data to back that assertion up, but then ask Democrats to just trust that a whole list of legislatures and Courts that have historically been inept on the subject -at best- would all independently find some compromise that would satisfy all. That trust needs to be earned and to say those legislatures aren't even close to that point is putting things mildly. You claim that this good faith exists but the evidence to the contrary is so blatant as to be overwhelming in far too many cases.
    I'm having trouble reconciling this post to the one you've responded to. The argument I was responding to was whether or not "doctors are in a better position to make the decisions than legislators." Whether or not that was true, or that it mattered to making laws. That involves more than just stating the existence of laws, or whether certain laws can be draconian, or have been inept. I don't even think the choice is every between trusting doctors and trusting legislators. Doctors continually are trusted to make decisions, while also being forced to abide by legal standards regarding (among other things) the standard of care and potential negligence in their duty. It would be about as absurd to say the laws and consequences are wrong, because they implicitly show distrust in doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    So I will yield that a post-viability termination could happen, but to reiterate: a) current evidence indicates it to be incredibly rare, b) current evidence also indicates that not legislating the issue would save more lives and result in more babies, and c) hospital review boards exist with the current practice of medical ethics. Doctors police each other because they all understand that nobody is perfect.
    Thank you for illuminating and extending your views regarding questions I had in your former post.

    Potentially a good law could be crafted, but this hinges entirely on good faith, and you'll be rather unsurprised to hear that I don't trust the GOP to operate in good faith in this regard. I'd have to think more about what the law would look like. In the meantime, medical ethical practices exist, so it's not like the Wild West out there or anything.
    I grasp the claims of bad faith, and why people would look askance at drafted laws in certain states. Not that I think productive discussion on accusations of bad faith can really be had, outside of specific laws and their deficiencies.

    I would also assume that "medical ethical practices" do admit for elective late-term abortions, since every pregnancy is a health issue in the eyes of some doctors. I'd like the law to give guidance on "only to save the life of the mother" or "only because the fetus is unlikely to survive infancy/grow past childhood," particularly to respect the second body that's quite far developed in the late term.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-12-26 at 03:03 AM.
    "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."

  9. #7389
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I responded specifically on the charge of relabeling. I know that in everybody's subjective appreciation, certain causes have no right to the label. And in your own mind, you could say the brand ought to be called anything from pro-terrorist to anti-human-existence. But when you're commenting publicly, you have the choice to use the terms each other would prefer to describe their position (or the commonly accepted ones), or pick your own for them. My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.
    Plenty of us are using "pro-life" just fine. Maybe you've got us on Ignore if you can't see our posts? Crafting yourself a specific echo chamber and then complaining about the acoustics really is a "you" problem.

    There will always be a second body in bodily autonomy arguments.
    1> No, there isn't. Stop insisting we accept your religious dogma as fact.
    2> Even if there wasn't, bodily autonomy always trumps right to life. Even if it's just convenience/preference on the part of the one expressing bodily autonomy. No pro-lifer has made a valid argument that I have ever seen for why pregnancy should be a special exception. Not without trying to appeal to misogyny or religious dogma, at least, either of which instantly invalidates their argument completely.

    This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.
    On what legitimate grounds?

    Again, no citation of misogyny or religious dogma, thanks. Any use of either instantly invalidates your argument.

    And just to be clear; it's for two different reasons. Misogyny invalidates because it's just shitty hatred and abuse. Religion invalidates because it doesn't apply to anyone not of your religion, or who chooses for themselves to not abide by those restrictions of your shared faith even if they do. Just completely irrelevant to the question. I'm trying to be clear so no one claims I'm equating the two.

    As pertains to the my post, the past debates in this thread involved "no doctor is going to do that" respecting late-term abortion and extremely late-term abortion. I quoted from an interview with a doctor who was asked about whether he would perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with no health issues at 30 weeks. He replied that every pregnancy is a health issue.
    And? He's correct. What's your issue?

    Is it that you don't understand the health impacts of pregnancy? That the question was a bad one and you're upset about the honest answer?

    If you have no particular attachment to whether or not elective abortions occur in the late term for prohibiting in law, then neither of those will matter to you.
    Nope. Do not. Medical ethics already more than adequately covers the issue completely, and I have no idea why you'd want to insert restrictive legal jargon written by those without medical training and experience into the equation.

    Thank you for helping me understand your moral perspective on it.
    What, the "moral perspective" of protecting women from abusive attempts to deny them self-ownership and control over their own bodies? Or were you going to make a shitty, misleading attempt to construe supporting abortion rights as somehow "immoral"?

    I think you'll find more than one person saying that "no doctor will do that" or thereabouts when I argued for banning late-term abortions with exceptions. The argument was that such laws were unnecessary, not because no woman would request it, but that no doctor would provide it. It was due to the existence of such posters in this very thread in the past that I linked the late-term abortionist interview.

    I would be happy to learn if everyone posting that perspective at the time have since re-evaluated their perspective.
    I still don't know what you think that even proves. It seems like all it's proven is that you really don't have a good grasp of how pregnancy affects women.

    If the doctor's actions were unethical, medical review boards will handle it. If not, you're hand-wringing over nothing.

    I would also assume that "medical ethical practices" do admit for elective late-term abortions, since every pregnancy is a health issue in the eyes of some doctors.
    This is essentially you admitting to bad faith.

    Your assumption is something you made up in your own head, rather than taking the time to look up ethical guidelines and standards and trying to actually inform yourself about the reality. You'd rather deal with your imaginary boogeymen than the truth. This is why no one should take your argument as a good-faith interaction.

    I'd like the law to give guidance on "only to save the life of the mother" or "only because the fetus is unlikely to survive infancy/grow past childhood," particularly to respect the second body that's quite far developed in the late term.
    Again, nobody cares about your religious views. They're not an argument here and instantly invalidate any rationalizing you're attempting.


  10. #7390
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I don't think the time element to pregnancy and abortion lends itself towards making comparisons to organ donation or tumors or whatnot.

    There will always be a second body in bodily autonomy arguments.
    Yes, there is. However, when it comes to bodily autonomy, it doesn't matter what the second body wants. Hence, bodily AUTONOMY. It means that a person has the right to decide what they can or cannot have in their body. If a person wants to remove an organ, they should be able to do so REGARDLESS OF REASON. If a person wants to remove a fetus, they should be able to do so REGARDLESS OF REASON. Otherwise, we should MANDATE EVERYONE must get vaccines(you know, removal of bodily autonomy). We should MANDATE organ donation because IT SAVES LIVES.

    Why is it when it comes to a fetus, bodily autonomy goes out the window for the mother but when it comes to vaccines or organ donation, it is my body, my choice. I would love to know the reasoning behind that though process other than some religious dogma or double standard nonsense.

    This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.
    Every pregnancy is a health risk to the mother and the fetus. It is literally the most dangerous thing a woman can have outside of certain professions that would put them in harms way.

  11. #7391
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'm having trouble reconciling this post to the one you've responded to. The argument I was responding to was whether or not "doctors are in a better position to make the decisions than legislators." Whether or not that was true, or that it mattered to making laws. That involves more than just stating the existence of laws, or whether certain laws can be draconian, or have been inept. I don't even think the choice is every between trusting doctors and trusting legislators. Doctors continually are trusted to make decisions, while also being forced to abide by legal standards regarding (among other things) the standard of care and potential negligence in their duty. It would be about as absurd to say the laws and consequences are wrong, because they implicitly show distrust in doctors.
    You should read up on "medical standard of care." There is no comparison between that and the southern states abortion laws. Here is a simplified version of the US "medical standard of care."

    In medical malpractice cases, the standard of care definition is based on the customary practices of the average provider.

    This means the healthcare provider’s actions (or inaction) are judged based on what a reasonably competent provider with the same level of training would have done under the circumstances. If the care provider’s actions were reasonable, based on what a similarly-trained professional would have done, then the provider is not considered to be negligent.

    Because healthcare providers are compared against people with similar training, this means specialists are held to a higher standard than the average doctor. For example, an ER doctor who missed the symptoms of a heart problem may not necessarily be considered negligent while a cardiologist might be if the cardiologist missed the same symptoms.


    In short, the standard of care is basically what a reasonably prudent similar healthcare provider would do under similar circumstances. In light of this, there is flexibility for the standard of care to be tailored to the specific circumstances, such as with an emergency or other disaster.

    Not remotely comparable.

    Ultimately, if I have to choose to entrust the health of my wife to either a doctor with 12 - 15 years medical training or jackass politicians trying to win elections, I pick the medical doctor every time.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-12-26 at 05:17 AM.

  12. #7392
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    11 Notifications on my account for Christmas:

    I responded specifically on the charge of relabeling. I know that in everybody's subjective appreciation, certain causes have no right to the label. And in your own mind, you could say the brand ought to be called anything from pro-terrorist to anti-human-existence. But when you're commenting publicly, you have the choice to use the terms each other would prefer to describe their position (or the commonly accepted ones), or pick your own for them. My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.
    I'm not relabelling.

    I'm accurately stating their actions. The pro-death party does nothing but create more death despite very loudly proclaiming how much they love fetuses. But they don't love fetuses. Their actions create more dead fetuses.

    Barre Seid coughed up $1.5B to seat a bunch of pro-death judges. That money could've been better spent advocating for better maternal care, better sex education and other alternatives to abortion. I give you a pretty decent list of things that they could do but you'd rather whine about some "label".

  13. #7393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    I'm not relabelling.

    I'm accurately stating their actions. The pro-death party does nothing but create more death despite very loudly proclaiming how much they love fetuses. But they don't love fetuses. Their actions create more dead fetuses.

    Barre Seid coughed up $1.5B to seat a bunch of pro-death judges. That money could've been better spent advocating for better maternal care, better sex education and other alternatives to abortion. I give you a pretty decent list of things that they could do but you'd rather whine about some "label".
    The biggest irony to the "pro-life" movement, I mean, anti-abortion movement is the fact they refuse to want to teach proper sex education so they will ALWAYS have higher pregnancy rates. Hate to be the bearer of bad news to all pro-life people, teenagers will have sex. Teaching them both the good and the bad that comes with having sex, along with knowing how to prevent pregnancy like using a condom(either male or female) or other contraceptives, would go a LONG way to REDUCING abortions outright.

    Funny thing is, a lot of people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. They are for the ability to choose what you can and cannot have in their body. You know, the ultimate freedom. All other freedoms, like the ability to speak out against something, the ability to defend oneself or one's own property, comes from the ability to decide what you can and cannot do what yourself. Even if that means that someone else doesn't get help, or in the case of a fetus or someone needing an organ, the outright death of said being.

  14. #7394
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    The biggest irony to the "pro-life" movement, I mean, anti-abortion movement is the fact they refuse to want to teach proper sex education so they will ALWAYS have higher pregnancy rates. Hate to be the bearer of bad news to all pro-life people, teenagers will have sex. Teaching them both the good and the bad that comes with having sex, along with knowing how to prevent pregnancy like using a condom(either male or female) or other contraceptives, would go a LONG way to REDUCING abortions outright.
    My cynical side tells me that the idea is not to "prevent the need for abortion" but rather to force women to have consequences for having sex. A lot of them have come out wanting to ban Contraceptives as well. And I bet dollars to donuts that if Condoms didn't protect against STDs that they'd want to band Condoms too.

  15. #7395
    Quote Originally Posted by RampageBW1 View Post
    My cynical side tells me that the idea is not to "prevent the need for abortion" but rather to force women to have consequences for having sex. A lot of them have come out wanting to ban Contraceptives as well. And I bet dollars to donuts that if Condoms didn't protect against STDs that they'd want to band Condoms too.
    There's nothing cynical about it... That's exactly what it is. And it's quite literally Catholic policy to ban condoms, last I heard. Obviously protestants/evangelicals wouldn't care what the Vatican has to say, but the religious right in this country follows the same regressive playbook whenever it suits them.

  16. #7396
    Brewmaster Karreck's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by RampageBW1 View Post
    My cynical side tells me that the idea is not to "prevent the need for abortion" but rather to force women to have consequences for having sex. A lot of them have come out wanting to ban Contraceptives as well. And I bet dollars to donuts that if Condoms didn't protect against STDs that they'd want to band Condoms too.
    The Anti-Abortion movement has always been about controlling women.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  17. #7397
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It's the rest of the unquoted part of my post that explain what I mean by this.
    No, it doesn't because as pointed out your post is rife with ignorance and/or lies. If you don't even understand the concepts then you can't use them to back up fallacious arguments. The points below continue to prove that you're either too dense to comprehend some fairly simple points or you just don't mind that your position is predicated on ignorance because you continually push lies and misinformation.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.
    It's not an opinion that every pregnancy is a health risk (not in quotations), it's simply a fact. Therefore it is neither logical nor reasonable to object.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I think you'll find more than one person saying that "no doctor will do that" or thereabouts when I argued for banning late-term abortions with exceptions. The argument was that such laws were unnecessary, not because no woman would request it, but that no doctor would provide it. It was due to the existence of such posters in this very thread in the past that I linked the late-term abortionist interview.
    Again, you continue to reference that interview without even realizing that it contradicts your ridiculous position. Maybe you need to read the article again? Or maybe you never read it to begin with. Can you just not wrap your head around the fact that even your boogieman abortionist doctor has a cutoff that's well before full term because he *gasp* takes into account the safety and health of his patients? Can that fact sink in or are you going to continue making a fool of yourself by saying "up until birth"?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.
    Sure, but lets at least be accurate. "Pro-safe aborts" works since that's what the pro-choice side advocates for by putting the decisions in the hands of trained professionals working with their patients. Meanwhile, you can be labeled "pro-unsafe aborts" since that's what the legislation that you wish to push leads to.

    "Pro-aborts" doesn't work since abortion is simply a reality of our human condition. You wouldn't call someone who is in favor of criminal law "pro-crime", right? It has been around for thousands of years, far longer than the christofascists that want nothing more than to place more restrictions of women and sex. While I wish we lived in an ideal world where no one ever felt the need to get an abortion, that's not the reality we live in. You're either in favor of safe abortion or in favor of unsafe abortion.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-12-26 at 06:07 PM.

  18. #7398
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    It's his shtick. All he's interested in, is trying to gotcha people in his endless quest for purely partisan tit for tat fodder.

    I respond to him mostly for the sake of whoever reads the forums but doesn't post. It's likely an empty gesture either way, but there's no conversation to be had with someone who is this absolutely determined to prove to all how Democrats are the true bad guys.
    Nah I'm one of those who mostly read and rarely post, I channel my own public service while on the shitter into dunking on rude idiots with a barebones (if at all) comprehension of critical thinking in FB comments instead so take it from me that there is definite value in you guys making it crystal clear just how disingenuous and faulty some of our resident posters.
    Last edited by Gigantique; 2023-12-26 at 07:51 PM.

  19. #7399
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post

    This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.
    "If." And "health risk" in scare quotes, just to bring his rank ignorance home, apparently. <chef's kiss> These are the kinds of people who think they should be making women's health care and reproductive choices for them--men so ignorant they think the FACT that every pregnancy is a health risk is some kind of trick for women to sneak in casual third trimester abortions, and also too ignorant to know there's no such thing as a casual third trimester abortion, not that it's any of his fucking business. The arrogance and ignorance is vast and staggering, and a prime example of why he and men and women like him have no business anywhere near these decisions.

    There's only a handful of facilities in the US that perform them, and they cost thousands and thousands of dollars. And we know tehdang doesn't actually care, because if he and his pro-death friends cared about preventing third trimester abortions, they'd stop putting up so many obstacles to women getting first trimester abortions.

    "In this article, I examine the specific case of third‐trimester abortion, defined as abortions that take place at or after 24 weeks LMP. Third‐trimester abortion care in the United States is substantially different from first‐trimester abortion care. First, abortion in the first trimester is most available in the United States, with approximately 780 outpatient facilities providing such care, although access varies considerably by geography. 3 However, as gestation increases the number of facilities decreases. There are only four facilities that publicly advertise care after 24 weeks LMP. 4 This scarcity is in part an effect of state‐level gestation‐based bans. A total of 44 states generally prohibit abortion in the third trimester. 5 Although these bans typically have exceptions, they are so narrow that few cases fall under them. Further, only one of these four facilities is located in a major urban center. To obtain a third‐trimester abortion, then, pregnant people must travel, accruing attendant travel costs for transportation, accommodations, and food, which can represent a substantial burden. 6

    Second, third‐trimester abortion care is distinct in its cost. In 2020, while first‐trimester abortions had an average cost of $644 for medication abortion and $715 for aspiration abortion and the average cost of a second‐trimester abortion was $1068, 7 third‐trimester abortions cost much more: they range in cost from a few thousand dollars to over $25,000, depending on gestation and clinical complexity. Third‐trimester abortions typically take place over 3 days and can include laboring, which contributes to their high cost. Federal and state‐level bans on public insurance coverage in 34 states 8 and regulation of 9 or high deductibles in 10 private insurance mean that most people must pay out‐of‐pocket for abortion care. Given research that finds that the out‐of‐pocket costs of a first‐trimester abortion strain the finances of many abortion patients, 11 the cost of a third‐trimester abortion likely exceeds the financial capacity of most pregnant people.
    "

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/
    Last edited by Levelfive; 2023-12-26 at 11:18 PM.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  20. #7400
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post

    This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.
    There is nothing to consider. Every pregnancy is a health risk. That's just a fact. Women still die during childbirth.

    It's logical to point out that reasonable people should be able to decide whether they want to take that risk on for themselves.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

Posting Permissions

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