| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2012 10:55:14 PM · #1051 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, it IS a ludicrous law IMO, but that's not really why. Doctors have done this forever. Since nobody can know exactly when a pregnancy began, doctors set the "age" of a pregnancy as of the day of a woman's last period. Since THIS law prohibits abortions after 18 weeks, they need to define WHEN a pregnancy begins, and the best they can do is use the doctors's notional formula. |
For doctors, having a "known" date is a convenient reference point since the end date could be off by several weeks with no major repercussions. However, in this context it sets a specific legal cutoff earlier than Federal law that's both highly unlikely to be accurate and serves no other purpose than to reduce a woman's constitutional liberty. That's EXACTLY why. |
Look, Shannon, I understand that, I'm not stupid. And I think it's a terrible law. Based on all sorts of faulty premises. But it's just absurd and over-the-top to say that Arizona has now defined life as beginning 2 weeks before conception. They've done no such thing. That's not reasoned discourse, that's slinging slogans.
The kind of thing you hate when other people do it...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2012 05:28:49 PM · #1052 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And I think it's a terrible law. Based on all sorts of faulty premises. |
I'm interested in your thinking here. It really only lops 2-4 weeks off the time an abortion is allowed (the article I read said the cutoff was at 20 weeks. I'm not positive where you got 18 weeks from). It allows for medical emergencies (as is reasonable). I respect your view and am interested in why you think it is terrible and what faulty premises it is based upon?
EDIT: Just to make sure we're talking about the same bill, this one was House Bill 2036.
Message edited by author 2012-04-11 17:29:52. |
|
|
|
04/11/2012 06:27:13 PM · #1053 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[...And the legal arguments are hardly my concern. Do I think it's morally unacceptable to not care for your baby in utero? Yes. |
The legal arguments are hardly your concern... surely you jest.
Morality issues are subjective at best, situational and based in a lot of instances on religious convictions.
Nothing wrong with any of these, but surely you must understand that the your mindset, mores, morals and religious persuasions are not necessarily homogenous throughout the land.
There exist a myriad of moralistic issues that are acceptable in certain milieus that would not withstand general scrutiny or interpretation of what the ensemble of the population would tolerate.
Just because you find something morally unacceptable does not mean that it should be outlawed.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/11/2012 07:14:02 PM · #1054 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
For doctors, having a "known" date is a convenient reference point since the end date could be off by several weeks with no major repercussions. However, in this context it sets a specific legal cutoff earlier than Federal law that's both highly unlikely to be accurate and serves no other purpose than to reduce a woman's constitutional liberty. That's EXACTLY why, and the repercussions can be as severe as condemning the woman to death— especially since the other bill allows doctors to withhold critical information from the patient. Representative Heinz (a doctor) strongly opposed the bill stating, "I cannot think of a time that it is right to withhold information from a patient that would cause them pain or death. That is not consistent with the Hippocratic Oath." |
If I were a woman living in the State of Arizona today, the first thing I would do after these bills are signed into law is question my doctor about his views on abortion. If the doctor is anti-choice, I would immediately begin looking for someone else. So among all the other reasons that these laws are harmful can be added that they destroy the relationship of trust between doctor and patient. |
|
|
|
04/11/2012 08:01:04 PM · #1055 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[...And the legal arguments are hardly my concern. Do I think it's morally unacceptable to not care for your baby in utero? Yes. |
The legal arguments are hardly your concern... surely you jest.
Morality issues are subjective at best, situational and based in a lot of instances on religious convictions.
Nothing wrong with any of these, but surely you must understand that the your mindset, mores, morals and religious persuasions are not necessarily homogenous throughout the land.
There exist a myriad of moralistic issues that are acceptable in certain milieus that would not withstand general scrutiny or interpretation of what the ensemble of the population would tolerate.
Just because you find something morally unacceptable does not mean that it should be outlawed.
Ray |
I understand, but I disagree. You have a lot of thoughts so I'll try to respond point for point.
Legal arguments, especially pointing out silly interpretations of current law, are putting the cart before the horse in my view. One must first work out the reasoning for the position before working out the specific legal verbage to carry it out. So, of course it matters to me in the end, but right now, in these conversations, I find purely legal application arguments to be uninteresting.
Just because I find something morally unacceptable does not meant it should be outlawed. I agree. However, just because I reject something on moral grounds does not mean there is no need to outlaw it. You would be disregarding a large portion of the legal code, and probably those laws most dear to us, if we removed all laws based on moral considerations. So, in the end, I think this sentiment doesn't carry much weight. Yes, many issues are split in this country, but that only guarantees that someone will disagree. There is no reason, in this specific case, that the Supreme Court couldn't reverse their decision based on the personhood of the fetus and disappoint the portion of the population that is currently satisfied (while making the currently dissatisfied happy). Such an idea does not favor either side, so why bring it up? |
|
|
|
04/20/2012 11:37:50 AM · #1056 |
| I forget who was offended by the "war on women" label. It might have been the doc, but this sums it up soooo nicely... link |
|
|
|
04/20/2012 01:54:56 PM · #1057 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I forget who was offended by the "war on women" label. It might have been the doc, but this sums it up soooo nicely... link |
These can be added to the list, from headlines I've run across in the press lately.
Obama's War on Appalachia
The Administration's War on Coal
The Obama Administration's War on Carbon Dioxide
The Obama Administration's War on the Catholic Church
Obama Declares War on Free Enterprise
Obama Regime Declares War on Moms
Obama's War on Women
Romney Promises to End Obama's War on the Rich
Would Obama's War on Speculators Really Reduce the Price of Oil?
Obama's War on Marijuana Rolls on in 'Oaksterdam' Raid
|
|
|
|
04/20/2012 02:17:01 PM · #1058 |
That much warmongering, and yet they claim Obama (or any Democrat, I suppose) is "soft on defense" ...
Message edited by author 2012-04-20 14:17:42. |
|
|
|
04/20/2012 02:23:46 PM · #1059 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That much warmongering, and yet they claim Obama (or any Democrat, I suppose) is "soft on defense" ... |
Well, duh... This ain't DEfense, it's nekkid aggression! Free Enterprise better watch out, Barack's out kill its ass...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2012 02:39:57 PM · #1060 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That much warmongering, and yet they claim Obama (or any Democrat, I suppose) is "soft on defense" ... |
Well, duh... This ain't DEfense, it's nekkid aggression! Free Enterprise better watch out, Barack's out kill its ass...
R. |
That would be the myth that you can have an economy where everyone can be rich?
Back on the main topic, isn't it amazing how conservatives are in favor of complete personal liberty and freedom ... for themselves? |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 05:08:48 PM · #1061 |
Religious liberty questions to Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health and Human Services) from Rep. Trey Gowdy. Pretty much sums it up.
Gowdy questions Sebelius about Mandate |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 05:59:46 PM · #1062 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Religious liberty questions to Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health and Human Services) from Rep. Trey Gowdy. Pretty much sums it up.
Gowdy questions Sebelius about Mandate |
Actually NO...Judicial issues are NOT the exclusive domain of politicians. The final decisions rests with the courts and I for one will await the results of due process and then deal with the results accordingly.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/30/2012 07:12:49 PM · #1063 |
Who's now being bullied?
One side: Ellen DeGeneres Talks To Extremely Inspiring 14-Year-Old Graeme Taylor
Other side: Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance: Daniel Glowacki
The "homophobic things" were, "The homosexual lifestyle is against my Catholic religion."
Times are changing. Christians will be bullied for standing up for what we think is right.
Edit: Damn! Wrong thread. Oops.
Message edited by author 2012-05-01 14:33:13. |
|
|
|
04/30/2012 09:05:31 PM · #1064 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Times are changing. Christians will be bullied for standing up for what we think is right. |
Not necessarily, but now people who don't agree with some of the things that your church holds onto that are senseless and archaic won't be burned at the stake or put on the rack.
Times *have* changed!
|
|
|
|
04/30/2012 09:07:48 PM · #1065 |
If "standing up for what you think is right" means interfering in the affairs of non-christians and pushing to stomp on the rights of other human beings, then I hardly think people fighting BACK is 'bullying'.
Who is the bully? |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 06:00:18 AM · #1066 |
.
Message edited by author 2012-05-02 06:13:16. |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 01:17:14 PM · #1067 |
Wow.
The words of a homophobic North Carolina preacher are reverberating around the Internet today, following a sermon in which he advocated physically assaulting toddlers with "limp wrists."
Message edited by author 2012-05-02 13:45:11. |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 03:41:31 PM · #1068 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Wow.
The words of a homophobic North Carolina preacher are reverberating around the Internet today, following a sermon in which he advocated physically assaulting toddlers with "limp wrists." |
Hey, you beat me to it! Did you see that he's now totally lying about ever advocating violence?
"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed."
"Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male."
Versus his current:
"I did not say that children should be squashed. I have never suggested children or those in the LGBT lifestyle should be beaten, punched, abused (physically or psychologically) in any form or fashion."
And did you see the link about the wife of the NC Amendment 1 author who said they were protecting the 'Caucasian' authors' intentions for the 'Caucasian' Constitution?
They have to prevent gay marriage to ensure that enough whites are breeding to maintain a white majority in the USA. They're going to sacrifice legal protections for children and against domestic violence on the altar of bigotry... the amendment is so broadly written it calls into question ANY legal relationship between unmarried partners, gay or straight!
Horrifying.
But at least this is kind of on topic, they seem to consider birth control a side effect of gay relationships.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2012 03:55:38 PM · #1069 |
I should just create a thread where I document the DAILY abuses of faith and morality by conservatives against gay people.
Perhaps it would change people's outlook on the right's underlying motivations. Or you could, you know, go educate yourselves on your own.
The silver lining here is that more and more conservatives are showing their true colors when subjected to the crucible of our progressive advance. It's harder to obfuscate your true intentions when you don't have a majority to hide behind, and when Twitter is only a pants pocket away.
It must totally suck realizing that what you think of as your moral foundation is rotten to the core, and pretty embarrassing when confronted by the reality of someone like me, someone who is fair, just, responsible, and gay... happy about his sexuality, and not looking to change... in a long term, mutually supportive relationship, with an extended family that loves and supports us... basically showing how false the characterizations of people like me have been for centuries. Embarrassing that you see me as a threat. Embarrassing that I'm a better example of a successful marriage than 50% of straight couples.
Keep on banging that bible and telling me I'm a sinner and an abomination. Evidence points to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2012 04:12:43 PM · #1070 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I should just create a thread where I document the DAILY abuses of faith and morality by conservatives against gay people.
Perhaps it would change people's outlook on the right's underlying motivations. Or you could, you know, go educate yourselves on your own.
The silver lining here is that more and more conservatives are showing their true colors when subjected to the crucible of our progressive advance. It's harder to obfuscate your true intentions when you don't have a majority to hide behind, and when Twitter is only a pants pocket away.
It must totally suck realizing that what you think of as your moral foundation is rotten to the core, and pretty embarrassing when confronted by the reality of someone like me, someone who is fair, just, responsible, and gay... happy about his sexuality, and not looking to change... in a long term, mutually supportive relationship, with an extended family that loves and supports us... basically showing how false the characterizations of people like me have been for centuries. Embarrassing that you see me as a threat. Embarrassing that I'm a better example of a successful marriage than 50% of straight couples.
Keep on banging that bible and telling me I'm a sinner and an abomination. Evidence points to the contrary. |
That would be one huge thread. ;D
Maybe you should. |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 06:12:38 PM · #1071 |
This is slightly off subject but still in the same direction.
Abortion....In texas Planned Parenthood is fighting for funds...and they support abortion. I do not think that taxpayers should pay for abortions. In my opinon there are only 2 reasons to get an abortion....1. the mother's life is in jeapordy. If the mother is more than likely going to die during childbirth...ok it is understandable. 2. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant then I think she should have an abortion if she wants.
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
Ok now I'm off my soapbox
|
|
|
|
05/02/2012 06:34:18 PM · #1072 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This is slightly off subject but still in the same direction.
Abortion....In texas Planned Parenthood is fighting for funds...and they support abortion. I do not think that taxpayers should pay for abortions. In my opinon there are only 2 reasons to get an abortion....1. the mother's life is in jeapordy. If the mother is more than likely going to die during childbirth...ok it is understandable. 2. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant then I think she should have an abortion if she wants.
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
Ok now I'm off my soapbox |
I think that's a valid opinion which many others, including some women, hold. But isn't it so nice to be a guy and be able to have sex for fun, and as much as you want, WITHOUT EVER WORRYING if it will result in a life-altering pregnancy to you? Isn't it so nice to be able to tell women who only wanted to enjoy an intimate, sexual experience that due to some slip-up, margin-of-error mistake or inattention for which both parties are liable and responsible, that now her life MUST be dramatically changed, but never have to stand in her shoes and experience that actual dilemma yourself? This is where the issue lies and the problem arises: the insidious idea that somehow women cannot be trusted to make this decision for their own bodies in a responsible way. I read somewhere a quote attributed to Bill Clinton: Abortions should be affordable, accessible and rare. While there are always irresponsible people in the world, that isn't the majority of women. For the majority of women, it is an agonizing decision when considering abortion. Don't insult us by telling us we aren't qualified to make that gut-wrenching decision. |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 06:41:46 PM · #1073 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This is slightly off subject but still in the same direction.
Abortion....In texas Planned Parenthood is fighting for funds...and they support abortion. I do not think that taxpayers should pay for abortions. In my opinon there are only 2 reasons to get an abortion....1. the mother's life is in jeapordy. If the mother is more than likely going to die during childbirth...ok it is understandable. 2. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant then I think she should have an abortion if she wants.
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
Ok now I'm off my soapbox |
I think that's a valid opinion which many others, including some women, hold. But isn't it so nice to be a guy and be able to have sex for fun, and as much as you want, WITHOUT EVER WORRYING if it will result in a life-altering pregnancy to you? Isn't it so nice to be able to tell women who only wanted to enjoy an intimate, sexual experience that due to some slip-up, margin-of-error mistake or inattention for which both parties are liable and responsible, that now her life MUST be dramatically changed, but never have to stand in her shoes and experience that actual dilemma yourself? This is where the issue lies and the problem arises: the insidious idea that somehow women cannot be trusted to make this decision for their own bodies in a responsible way. I read somewhere a quote attributed to Bill Clinton: Abortions should be affordable, accessible and rare. While there are always irresponsible people in the world, that isn't the majority of women. For the majority of women, it is an agonizing decision when considering abortion. Don't insult us by telling us we aren't qualified to make that gut-wrenching decision. |
+1
And Planned Parenthood may provide abortions, but taxpayer money does not pay for it. "Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law enjoyed bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families' control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare. Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."[41] ..."By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions" |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 06:47:21 PM · #1074 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
|
Really? Then why are so many children waiting to be adopted? This might just open your eyes a little further... |
|
|
|
05/02/2012 06:50:26 PM · #1075 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This is slightly off subject but still in the same direction.
Abortion....In texas Planned Parenthood is fighting for funds...and they support abortion. I do not think that taxpayers should pay for abortions. In my opinon there are only 2 reasons to get an abortion....1. the mother's life is in jeapordy. If the mother is more than likely going to die during childbirth...ok it is understandable. 2. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant then I think she should have an abortion if she wants.
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
Ok now I'm off my soapbox |
Let us assume for one moment that you were the potential father... would you be prepared to take care of this child till it reached adulthood, pay for all expenses including university studies, health care and housing, and if not...why not.
I have heard a lot of men spout off on the responsibility or women, but seldom do I see men standing and hold themselves accountable for their actions.
Real easy to sit on the sidelines and make decisions for others, but when it come down to crunch time, no so much...lots of talk, no much action.
Ray |
|
