|
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not.
Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally.
|
On August 16 2012 11:57 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 11:42 RCMDVA wrote:
Fastest way to get rid of planned parenthood is just to freaking make "The Pill" over the counter.
Then it would be the same price as a pack of M&M's each month.
It's probably the most widely tested drug out there behind Aspirn and Caffine.
STD testing, morning after pill, other forms of contraception like IUDs, the patch, the "shot", the "arm implant", free condoms , pap smears, breast cancer screenings and cervical cancer screenings are two of their biggest things they provide, etc They provide counseling on sex, gender, abortion etc. I don't think that just giving pill over the counter will make them go away. They offer inclusive services to everyone, including LGBTQ and they don't judge people.
OTC birth control pills without an annual pelvic exam requirement to get a new perscription would eliminate a significant majority of their customers. They would become more like a Free Clinic.
|
On August 16 2012 12:11 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not. Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally.
"At risk" isn't a 100% certainty of death.
There's also a difference between actively ending a life and failing to save a life.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 12:11 Whitewing wrote:On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not. Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally. "At risk" isn't a 100% certainty of death. There's also a difference between actively ending a life and failing to save a life.
Not a value difference there isn't, and that there is any real difference is debatable. Either way a life ends. There are reasonable arguments on both sides as to whether that is relevant or not.
And "at risk" is usually significantly higher than merely 'possible.'
Either way, he's is making a statement that he feels that if the mother dies but the child lives, that is a better outcome than a fetus dying and the mother living.
Anyway, I'm going back to avoiding this thread, just pointing out a logical fact about the anti-abortion position in cases of the mother's life being in danger. Feel free to respond to this so others can read it, but don't expect me to respond again.
For the record, I'm pro-choice not because I think abortion is a good thing (in fact, I think it's outright irresponsible in most cases), but I don't think I should have any right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body, and frankly, the fetus, until it reaches a certain stage of development, is nothing more than a parasite.
|
The aspect of the abortion debate that I find particularly offensive is that pro-choice proponents always focus on the need for the availability of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, while completely ignoring the fact that abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control (regardless of whether other forms of birth control was previously used).
|
On August 16 2012 12:45 xDaunt wrote:
The aspect of the abortion debate that I find particularly offensive is that pro-choice proponents always focus on the need for the availability of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, while completely ignoring the fact that abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control (regardless of whether other forms of birth control was previously used).
They certainly ARE seperate cases. Distinguishing between them gets into some shaky moral ground though as well. If we were to assume it is wrong to get an abortion (one viewpoint), what difference would it make how the pregnancy occured? It would still be ending a life. That viewpoint faces the flaw of ignoring the womans rights completely.
So really, both arguements have moral pitfalls. Gay rights for instance will eventually be solved. Abortion? The debate will never end because there are such good arguements on either side.
Personally, when morals aren't a good determining factor, it's time to look at reality. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, but it certainly make them less safe. I would rather have real doctors performing these procedures than backstreet ones. Instead, I would rather reduce the number of abortions. Beefing up sex education in schools (abstinance only doesn't work) while providing more women with contraception options seems like a prudent step to limit the number of abortions in the first place.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
On August 16 2012 13:27 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 12:45 xDaunt wrote:
The aspect of the abortion debate that I find particularly offensive is that pro-choice proponents always focus on the need for the availability of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, while completely ignoring the fact that abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control (regardless of whether other forms of birth control was previously used). They certainly ARE seperate cases. Distinguishing between them gets into some shaky moral ground though as well. If we were to assume it is wrong to get an abortion (one viewpoint), what difference would it make how the pregnancy occured? It would still be ending a life. That viewpoint faces the flaw of ignoring the womans rights completely. So really, both arguements have moral pitfalls. Gay rights for instance will eventually be solved. Abortion? The debate will never end because there are such good arguements on either side. Personally, when morals aren't a good determining factor, it's time to look at reality. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, but it certainly make them less safe. I would rather have real doctors performing these procedures than backstreet ones. Instead, I would rather reduce the number of abortions. Beefing up sex education in schools (abstinance only doesn't work) while providing more women with contraception options seems like a prudent step to limit the number of abortions in the first place.
The abortion debate may never be "solved" but it may diminish in importance. The abortion rate in this country has fallen by about 33% in the last 30 years. As birth control becomes even more effective (particularly on the male side) and more widely used, there will simply be fewer people even getting into a situation where abortion is something they consider.
|
On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 12:11 Whitewing wrote:On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not. Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally. "At risk" isn't a 100% certainty of death. There's also a difference between actively ending a life and failing to save a life.
Nothing is ever 100% certain. So, what's your point?
He's point was that you're statement that "Ryan's opinion [is that] the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother" is a misrepresentation of Ryan's view. Ryan's view is actually that the unborn child's right to life is greater than the mother's.
In the end, the abortion debate is one about opinions and views or who's rights matter more.
|
On August 16 2012 12:45 xDaunt wrote:
The aspect of the abortion debate that I find particularly offensive is that pro-choice proponents always focus on the need for the availability of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, while completely ignoring the fact that abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control (regardless of whether other forms of birth control was previously used).
I don't know who you're talking about, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who are pro-choice, period. Regardless of rape, incest or whatever.
My opinion is that a women's right to her body trumps the rights of a fetus that is unborn, (and depending on the stage of pregnancy) unconscious, and unfeeling. It's not a real person yet.
Going to the case of rape and incest is just to find out how extreme one is in their anti-abortion views.
|
On August 16 2012 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 12:11 Whitewing wrote:On August 16 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2012 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Ryan is anti-abortion. Got it.
No need to exaggerate beyond that.
Edit: no federal funding does not mean that Planned Parenthood goes away. Where am I exaggerating? I am saying that if a woman is faced with death, its from incest, or its from rape, she still should not have an abortion. All of that is cited. I don't think there is any need to exaggerate. As for planned parenthood, I think its safe to say that eliminating the funding for planned parenthood would at the very least severely cripple it and what it does. Planned parenthood is a good thing in the eyes of everyone except the far right. The junk posted from Ultra Violet is basically trying to paint him as anti-women. That's an exaggeration. As for Planned Parenthood I think its safe to say that federal funding could be redirected to other healthcare centers. Planned Parenthood isn't, by any remotely rational line of thinking, a necessary institution. So you're saying that being against an abortion in the case of it saving the pregnant woman's life...Is not anti-women? Can you elaborate on how that's not ridiculous? I'm not going to have an abortion debate with you. In Ryan's opinion the unborn child has just as much a right to life as the mother. So, if Ryan is anti-women then Obama anti-infant. You have an opinion about abortion. Ryan has a different opinion. There's nothing to debate or discuss beyond "my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong" so lets not. Um, if they both have an equal right to life, that makes either decision completely equal in value and result, so neither decision is worse than the other, and there wouldn't be a value reason to abort or not to abort. Thus, there'd be no reason to ban it. Being anti-abortion in the case of a woman's life being at risk is valuing the life of the child OVER the life of a woman, not equally. Ryan values a fetus over the potential mother, he does not value them equally. "At risk" isn't a 100% certainty of death. There's also a difference between actively ending a life and failing to save a life.
Easy for men to say ^^
Oh you just might die. In the end it's their bodies, not yours. You haven't got much to say in this.
I agree there should be a strict limitation. Must atleast abort in the first trimester. But after 10-12 weeks it gets iffy and gross, both spiritually and medically. Just 'force' the girl to take a stand before 10-12 weeks, and then if it turns out it threatens her life at a later stage, revisit the option of aborting.
Don't even have to talk about an "unborn fetus". You're not actually aborting an "unborn fetus" if you do it early enough.
Truth is that the girl is in charge. The baby is not. We have laws to protect the fetus, but can we really take away their freedom to abort eggs and cells? Simply because we know that at a later date it will become a child?
It's not like we force women to birth once a year, simply to make sure we have as many souls given a chance at life as possible at any given time
|
The problem with any Abortion debate is that it is being done by men. Congressional commities discussion legislation about it are made of men.
Funny and sad at the same time how you think you have any idea what your talking about.
|
On August 16 2012 19:22 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem with any Abortion debate is that it is being done by men. Congressional commities discussion legislation about it are made of men.
Funny and sad at the same time how you think you have any idea what your talking about.
Well, it's only sad when men are talking about restricting the rights of women.
|
The fact is that pregnancies can have a myriad of problems and there is no way to make blanket legislation that doesn't have serious impacts on pregnant women's healthcare. Some of this legislation disallows abortion even if the pregnancy is a failure, forcing the woman to carry around a dead fetus until it is naturally expelled. There have been cases of this. These are not exaggerations. Anti-abortion laws have always negatively impacted women's health.
I find it particularly offensive that assholes like xDaunt are defending this while calling themselves "conservative" or even more sickening, "libertarian." This is putting government between you and your doctor. This is government intervening in the most personal and dangerous of ways.
Politicians are not medical professionals, and they are making your medical decisions for you. These are draconian, sick laws and if you defend them then you are either ignorant about the impact they have or just straight up misogynistic.
|
|
|
On August 16 2012 12:45 xDaunt wrote:
The aspect of the abortion debate that I find particularly offensive is that pro-choice proponents always focus on the need for the availability of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, while completely ignoring the fact that abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control (regardless of whether other forms of birth control was previously used).
Debating the need for available abortions for rape victims offends you?
The only reason the debate exists is because some people in your party find the need to debate it. I mean, I guess we agree: Abortions for rape victims shouldn't be an issue. But it is an issue, due to right-wing religious fundamentalism. But instead of blaming them for taking a strict and unpopular position -- you blame the Democrats for making it an issue, even though their position in this particular case is the one that is currently reflected in our laws, which the vast majority of people agree with.
The Republicans, not the pro-choice Democrats, are the ones who've felt the need to differentiate abortion for cases of rape, from standard abortions. If you're pro-choice, that differentiation doesn't even exist. And yet, it's the Democrats fault for "focusing" on it? They don't focus on it. I hear Republicans all the time talk about "I'm pro-life except in cases of rape and incest". It is a pro-life position to make rape a separate issue, which is weird, because if the fetus is a human being then it should always be given full-protection, even if the mother is raped. Nonetheless, rape-conceived fetuses aren't as human as regular fetuses to most Republicans.
Blame the Democrats not for their position in a debate, but for simply engaging in a debate over an issue in which they represent the status-quo. Brilliant logic. Mind-blowing. The intellectual cowardice from Republicans on this issue has apparently taken a new level.
|
On August 16 2012 12:45 xDaunt wrote:
The aspect of the abortion debate that I find particularly offensive is that pro-choice proponents always focus on the need for the availability of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, while completely ignoring the fact that abortion is predominantly used as retro-active birth control (regardless of whether other forms of birth control was previously used).
That is an EXTREMELY strong claim you are making, and I would like you to support it with numbers. You are essentially accusing women of using abortion to support irresponsible promiscuity; either that, or you are stating the obvious (that women either use abortion in the case of personal danger, rape/incest, or accidental pregnancy) in a deliberately incendiary way.
What you meant to say was that abortion may be predominantly used in cases of accidental pregnancy. (I could find no numbers to either support or deny this). This is very different from "retro-active birth control."
|
Reasons for abortions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women.
25.9% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related.
|
xDaunt has been purposefully incendiary basically this whole thread. I think he gets leniency because he's one of the few conservative voices here. But he is perfectly open about trying to start shitstorms that would honestly get other people for trolling.
|
On August 16 2012 23:17 RCMDVA wrote:Reasons for abortions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[44] The source of this information, however, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, so these findings might not be typical for most American women. 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing 21.3% Cannot afford a baby 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job 7.9% Want no (more) children 3.3% Risk to fetal health 2.8% Risk to maternal health 2.1% Other So. Less than 10% are health/rape/incest related.
Those still occur however, and laws do not discriminate based on percentages. I fail to see relevance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
