(06-28-2013 09:05 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  which one was the zealot with delusions of grandeur?

Now you're thinking of Muhammod and Allah.

(06-28-2013 09:05 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:00 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 08:27 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 09:26 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Pssst... I'm not really a Reverend, or Jerry Falwell. Sorry for the disappointing news, but he died.

Probably his single greatest contribution to this country.

You're confusing JF with Jesus.

which one was the zealot with delusions of grandeur?

Haha, that's rich coming from a gay rights advocate.

(06-28-2013 09:15 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:05 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  which one was the zealot with delusions of grandeur?

Now you're thinking of Muhammod and Allah.

All those myths start to blend together.

Any of you Libs have a picture of Muhammod you want to share?

(06-28-2013 10:21 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Any of you Libs have a picture of Muhammod you want to share?

and?

Lazy Tom (just being funny)

Understand something. I don't support this bill because I haven't been shown evidence that it really accomplishes anything. By that I mean, unless someone has figures I haven't seen, the frequency of incidences where the "problem" that this law seeks to solve is extremely rare... and the cost of compliance is relatively high for that solution. I would think there could be some "happy ground" that requires a little less compliance and still deliver the same efficacy.

What I am against is the constant penchant to turn any attempt to treat abortion like a medical procedure that should be rightfully regulated as one as opposed to treating it like putting a band aid on a boo boo as some sort of backhanded attempt to end abortions. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting and only serves to make the problem worse, not better. I am similarly offended by any attempt to turn something like "plan b" which is fundamentally no different than being on the pill beforehand into some kind of backhanded attempt to allow delivery room abortions. Moving the decision date from 24 weeks to 20 doesn't take a way a woman's right to choose... it merely makes her decide more quickly because her delay infringes upon the child's rights.

The fact is, MORE people in this country (by poll anyway... assuming an equal bias against both extremes) support abortions in the delivery room than would ban them. Certainly there are Republicans who would ban them... but there are more Democrats who would allow them a week before delivery. It is my opinion and you may or may not agree... but I think BOTH sides are equally wrong and equally manipulative and equally dangerous. In the middle are those who seek to downplay the seriousness of the procedure to make them slightly more available (or slightly less of a social stigma) and those who seek to use the social stigma and the seriousness of the procedure to generally discourage, but not in any way ban them.

Frankly, I think we're going about abortion wrong at this stage. A slight majority of people in this country support limited abortion. When you add to that the percentages of the far left and right who, if given the power to choose would choose an extreme, but ultimately would accept a compromise... a fairly substantial majority supports limited abortions and we merely disagree on where the line should be drawn. As there are clearly competing rights here... and one party or the other is "infringed" by the decision, I would go about answering the question differently...

Rather than look at the rights of the child to determine "by when" the mother should have to decide, I'd ask how long is reasonable to give a mother to decide. What I mean is, in the case of rape or incest, you generally know right away that it happened and should be able to make a decision quickly. This may not be true for an abused child or something... but that would end up in court anyway as you can't force non life saving medical care on a child without parental consent or court order. If you know you had sex, then you know that pregnancy is a risk. If we make EPTs as readily available as condoms, say encouraging their bi-weekly use by people who are sexually active (at all) then they will know VERY EARLY that they are pregnant and can use relatively non-confrontational methods to end the pregnancy before it goes very far at all.

Who are these people who need 3-6 months to decide to have a baby after having sex? Why are we disassociating the decision to have sex so much from the decision to have the baby? It seems to me that in virtually EVERY way, a decision to have an abortion or not made EARLY is best for all involved. I can't think of any reasonable situations where deciding later is "better".

I think an appropriate law would be more like this...

1) encourage bi-weekly EPTs for those who have sex like we do condoms and birth control. As it isn't a contraceptive, even many of those opposed to contraceptives wouldn't oppose this and they aren't at all invasive.

2) Past 24 weeks or so... life/severe health of the mother or PERHAPS severe medical issues for the child (which are both in the Texas law) should be the only exceptions.

3) Inside of, and I am pulling a number out of thin air... I'd want doctors to direct this... 10 weeks (that's still more than 2 months to decide)... abortions on demand. They would be cheap, effective and virtually risk-less to the mother's health (thus no need for requirements as in the Texas bill) and could literally be made available virtually anywhere.

4) between 10 and 24 weeks, you have to have a damn good story... and you will be subject to more medical scrutiny as in the Texas bill because the procedure IS more dangerous to both you AND the baby. By danger to the baby, let's avoid the hyperbole that either way the child dies so it is not more dangerous... and accept that the only thing worse for the child than abortion would be a failed abortion that resulted in a delivered baby that was then allowed to or forced to die anyway. Note that abortions aren't banned in this time. They just come with a heavier burden because they come at a higher cost to society and the mother and child. The seriousness of the delay should be emphasized. I wouldn't allow an exception for someone who knew at 4 weeks that they were pregnant and waited until 14 weeks to decide to have the abortion... though I would allow them to argue their case before someone. They MIGHT get a sympathetic ear. Republicans can still appoint people who would grant few exceptions and democrats could still appoint people who granted most of them... and people can take their chances if they wait past 10 weeks.

The advantage of the above is that everyone at some point in the middle gets what they claim to want. We'd obviously have to look at studies and medical evidence and other things like the effectiveness of oral/outpatient treatments to determine that 10 week date and to determine what constitutes a damn good story. The only really good one I can come up with is the sexually inactive girl who was roofied and had sex but didn't know it. She didn't do the EPT because as far as she knew, she wasn't active... and didn't realize she was pregnant until much later. a) it should be pretty easy to tell if she suspected she was pregnant and b) the guy certainly knew they had sex. To avoid being scammed, put something in place like... she gets the abortion, but she has to give evidence to help find the father... and the father is brought up on charges of some sort unless he can show that he checked with her about any "result" in which case SHE is brought up. I'm not talking about major charges, but something. Community service, a fine to cover the cost of the procedure... SOMETHING... A simple text message would suffice as evidence that he checked. This would put some responsibility on the father as well. Remember, we're talking about sexually inactive people who get pregnant... and apparently didn't have sex by choice. It's not rape, but it isn't consensual either. If she CHOSE to have sex and then CHOSE not to pee on the stick, then I would probably be against an exception.

Is this more strict than we currently are? Yes; but it would come along with easy availability of contraception, EPTs and "plan b" type abortion methods. Both sides get something they want very much in exchange for something they don't want but aren't diametrically opposed to. Those minorities who are diametrically opposed to compromises like this will be minimized but can claim "moral" victories if they want

(06-28-2013 09:22 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:15 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:05 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  which one was the zealot with delusions of grandeur?

Now you're thinking of Muhammod and Allah.

All those myths start to blend together.

It's really hard to fake feeding thousands with 3 fish. It's really hard faking thousands flocking to see miracles. People witnessed Jesus' miracles.

How about Muhammad? The only thing miraculous about raping a 9 year old is not getting stoned to death for it.

(06-28-2013 10:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lazy Tom (just being funny)

Understand something. I don't support this bill because I haven't been shown evidence that it really accomplishes anything. By that I mean, unless someone has figures I haven't seen, the frequency of incidences where the "problem" that this law seeks to solve is extremely rare... and the cost of compliance is relatively high for that solution. I would think there could be some "happy ground" that requires a little less compliance and still deliver the same efficacy.

What I am against is the constant penchant to turn any attempt to treat abortion like a medical procedure that should be rightfully regulated as one as opposed to treating it like putting a band aid on a boo boo as some sort of backhanded attempt to end abortions. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting and only serves to make the problem worse, not better. I am similarly offended by any attempt to turn something like "plan b" which is fundamentally no different than being on the pill beforehand into some kind of backhanded attempt to allow delivery room abortions. Moving the decision date from 24 weeks to 20 doesn't take a way a woman's right to choose... it merely makes her decide more quickly because her delay infringes upon the child's rights.

The fact is, MORE people in this country (by poll anyway... assuming an equal bias against both extremes) support abortions in the delivery room than would ban them. Certainly there are Republicans who would ban them... but there are more Democrats who would allow them a week before delivery. It is my opinion and you may or may not agree... but I think BOTH sides are equally wrong and equally manipulative and equally dangerous. In the middle are those who seek to downplay the seriousness of the procedure to make them slightly more available (or slightly less of a social stigma) and those who seek to use the social stigma and the seriousness of the procedure to generally discourage, but not in any way ban them.

Frankly, I think we're going about abortion wrong at this stage. A slight majority of people in this country support limited abortion. When you add to that the percentages of the far left and right who, if given the power to choose would choose an extreme, but ultimately would accept a compromise... a fairly substantial majority supports limited abortions and we merely disagree on where the line should be drawn. As there are clearly competing rights here... and one party or the other is "infringed" by the decision, I would go about answering the question differently...

Rather than look at the rights of the child to determine "by when" the mother should have to decide, I'd ask how long is reasonable to give a mother to decide. What I mean is, in the case of rape or incest, you generally know right away that it happened and should be able to make a decision quickly. This may not be true for an abused child or something... but that would end up in court anyway as you can't force non life saving medical care on a child without parental consent or court order. If you know you had sex, then you know that pregnancy is a risk. If we make EPTs as readily available as condoms, say encouraging their bi-weekly use by people who are sexually active (at all) then they will know VERY EARLY that they are pregnant and can use relatively non-confrontational methods to end the pregnancy before it goes very far at all.

Who are these people who need 3-6 months to decide to have a baby after having sex? Why are we disassociating the decision to have sex so much from the decision to have the baby? It seems to me that in virtually EVERY way, a decision to have an abortion or not made EARLY is best for all involved. I can't think of any reasonable situations where deciding later is "better".

I think an appropriate law would be more like this...

1) encourage bi-weekly EPTs for those who have sex like we do condoms and birth control. As it isn't a contraceptive, even many of those opposed to contraceptives wouldn't oppose this and they aren't at all invasive.

2) Past 24 weeks or so... life/severe health of the mother or PERHAPS severe medical issues for the child (which are both in the Texas law) should be the only exceptions.

3) Inside of, and I am pulling a number out of thin air... I'd want doctors to direct this... 10 weeks (that's still more than 2 months to decide)... abortions on demand. They would be cheap, effective and virtually risk-less to the mother's health (thus no need for requirements as in the Texas bill) and could literally be made available virtually anywhere.

4) between 10 and 24 weeks, you have to have a damn good story... and you will be subject to more medical scrutiny as in the Texas bill because the procedure IS more dangerous to both you AND the baby. By danger to the baby, let's avoid the hyperbole that either way the child dies so it is not more dangerous... and accept that the only thing worse for the child than abortion would be a failed abortion that resulted in a delivered baby that was then allowed to or forced to die anyway.

The advantage of the above is that everyone at some point in the middle gets what they claim to want. We'd obviously have to look at studies and medical evidence and other things like the effectiveness of oral/outpatient treatments to determine that 10 week date and to determine what constitutes a damn good story. The only really good one I can come up with is the sexually inactive girl who was roofied and had sex but didn't know it. She didn't do the EPT because as far as she knew, she wasn't active... and didn't realize she was pregnant until much later. a) it should be pretty easy to tell if she suspected she was pregnant and b) the guy certainly knew they had sex. To avoid being scammed, put something in place like... she gets the abortion, but she has to give evidence to help find the father... and the father is brought up on charges of some sort unless he can show that he checked with her about any "result" in which case SHE is brought up. I'm not talking about major charges, but something. Community service, a fine to cover the cost of the procedure... SOMETHING... A simple text message would suffice as evidence that he checked. This would put some responsibility on the father as well. Remember, we're talking about sexually inactive people who get pregnant... and apparently didn't have sex by choice. It's not rape, but it isn't consensual either. If she CHOSE to have sex and then CHOSE not to pee on the stick, then I would probably be against an exception.

Is this more strict than we currently are? Yes; but it would come along with easy availability of contraception, EPTs and "plan b" type abortion methods. Both sides get something they want very much in exchange for something they don't want but aren't diametrically opposed to. Those minorities who are diametrically opposed to compromises like this will be minimized but can claim "moral" victories if they want

If you think that those encouraging this bill care one whit about health care, I'd encourage you to see how those reps vote on expanding health care access to the poor and middle class here in Texas.

Anyone who actually thinks this is about making abortion safer is delusional. Its about ending abortion and forcing women to carry a fetus to term against their wishes, regardless of rape or incest.

(06-28-2013 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 10:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lazy Tom (just being funny)

Understand something. I don't support this bill because I haven't been shown evidence that it really accomplishes anything. By that I mean, unless someone has figures I haven't seen, the frequency of incidences where the "problem" that this law seeks to solve is extremely rare... and the cost of compliance is relatively high for that solution. I would think there could be some "happy ground" that requires a little less compliance and still deliver the same efficacy.

What I am against is the constant penchant to turn any attempt to treat abortion like a medical procedure that should be rightfully regulated as one as opposed to treating it like putting a band aid on a boo boo as some sort of backhanded attempt to end abortions. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting and only serves to make the problem worse, not better. I am similarly offended by any attempt to turn something like "plan b" which is fundamentally no different than being on the pill beforehand into some kind of backhanded attempt to allow delivery room abortions. Moving the decision date from 24 weeks to 20 doesn't take a way a woman's right to choose... it merely makes her decide more quickly because her delay infringes upon the child's rights.

The fact is, MORE people in this country (by poll anyway... assuming an equal bias against both extremes) support abortions in the delivery room than would ban them. Certainly there are Republicans who would ban them... but there are more Democrats who would allow them a week before delivery. It is my opinion and you may or may not agree... but I think BOTH sides are equally wrong and equally manipulative and equally dangerous. In the middle are those who seek to downplay the seriousness of the procedure to make them slightly more available (or slightly less of a social stigma) and those who seek to use the social stigma and the seriousness of the procedure to generally discourage, but not in any way ban them.

Frankly, I think we're going about abortion wrong at this stage. A slight majority of people in this country support limited abortion. When you add to that the percentages of the far left and right who, if given the power to choose would choose an extreme, but ultimately would accept a compromise... a fairly substantial majority supports limited abortions and we merely disagree on where the line should be drawn. As there are clearly competing rights here... and one party or the other is "infringed" by the decision, I would go about answering the question differently...

Rather than look at the rights of the child to determine "by when" the mother should have to decide, I'd ask how long is reasonable to give a mother to decide. What I mean is, in the case of rape or incest, you generally know right away that it happened and should be able to make a decision quickly. This may not be true for an abused child or something... but that would end up in court anyway as you can't force non life saving medical care on a child without parental consent or court order. If you know you had sex, then you know that pregnancy is a risk. If we make EPTs as readily available as condoms, say encouraging their bi-weekly use by people who are sexually active (at all) then they will know VERY EARLY that they are pregnant and can use relatively non-confrontational methods to end the pregnancy before it goes very far at all.

Who are these people who need 3-6 months to decide to have a baby after having sex? Why are we disassociating the decision to have sex so much from the decision to have the baby? It seems to me that in virtually EVERY way, a decision to have an abortion or not made EARLY is best for all involved. I can't think of any reasonable situations where deciding later is "better".

I think an appropriate law would be more like this...

1) encourage bi-weekly EPTs for those who have sex like we do condoms and birth control. As it isn't a contraceptive, even many of those opposed to contraceptives wouldn't oppose this and they aren't at all invasive.

2) Past 24 weeks or so... life/severe health of the mother or PERHAPS severe medical issues for the child (which are both in the Texas law) should be the only exceptions.

3) Inside of, and I am pulling a number out of thin air... I'd want doctors to direct this... 10 weeks (that's still more than 2 months to decide)... abortions on demand. They would be cheap, effective and virtually risk-less to the mother's health (thus no need for requirements as in the Texas bill) and could literally be made available virtually anywhere.

4) between 10 and 24 weeks, you have to have a damn good story... and you will be subject to more medical scrutiny as in the Texas bill because the procedure IS more dangerous to both you AND the baby. By danger to the baby, let's avoid the hyperbole that either way the child dies so it is not more dangerous... and accept that the only thing worse for the child than abortion would be a failed abortion that resulted in a delivered baby that was then allowed to or forced to die anyway.

The advantage of the above is that everyone at some point in the middle gets what they claim to want. We'd obviously have to look at studies and medical evidence and other things like the effectiveness of oral/outpatient treatments to determine that 10 week date and to determine what constitutes a damn good story. The only really good one I can come up with is the sexually inactive girl who was roofied and had sex but didn't know it. She didn't do the EPT because as far as she knew, she wasn't active... and didn't realize she was pregnant until much later. a) it should be pretty easy to tell if she suspected she was pregnant and b) the guy certainly knew they had sex. To avoid being scammed, put something in place like... she gets the abortion, but she has to give evidence to help find the father... and the father is brought up on charges of some sort unless he can show that he checked with her about any "result" in which case SHE is brought up. I'm not talking about major charges, but something. Community service, a fine to cover the cost of the procedure... SOMETHING... A simple text message would suffice as evidence that he checked. This would put some responsibility on the father as well. Remember, we're talking about sexually inactive people who get pregnant... and apparently didn't have sex by choice. It's not rape, but it isn't consensual either. If she CHOSE to have sex and then CHOSE not to pee on the stick, then I would probably be against an exception.

Is this more strict than we currently are? Yes; but it would come along with easy availability of contraception, EPTs and "plan b" type abortion methods. Both sides get something they want very much in exchange for something they don't want but aren't diametrically opposed to. Those minorities who are diametrically opposed to compromises like this will be minimized but can claim "moral" victories if they want

If you think that those encouraging this bill care one whit about health care, I'd encourage you to see how those reps vote on expanding health care access to the poor and middle class here in Texas.

Anyone who actually thinks this is about making abortion safer is delusional. Its about ending abortion and forcing women to carry a fetus to term against their wishes, regardless of rape or incest.

Don't be stupid, LazyTom. Nobody is ending abortion or forcing women todo anything. You are the only one delusional here.

(06-27-2013 03:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 03:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Odd. I thought Republicans were for smaller government.

Lets get rid of rape laws, that'll shrink the government a bit as well...

Good idea since there is no such thing as rape.

(06-28-2013 10:57 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:22 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:15 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:05 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  which one was the zealot with delusions of grandeur?

Now you're thinking of Muhammod and Allah.

All those myths start to blend together.

It's really hard to fake feeding thousands with 3 fish. It's really hard faking thousands flocking to see miracles. People witnessed Jesus' miracles.

How about Muhammad? The only thing miraculous about raping a 9 year old is not getting stoned to death for it.

Wow.

(06-28-2013 11:03 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 10:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lazy Tom (just being funny)

Understand something. I don't support this bill because I haven't been shown evidence that it really accomplishes anything. By that I mean, unless someone has figures I haven't seen, the frequency of incidences where the "problem" that this law seeks to solve is extremely rare... and the cost of compliance is relatively high for that solution. I would think there could be some "happy ground" that requires a little less compliance and still deliver the same efficacy.

What I am against is the constant penchant to turn any attempt to treat abortion like a medical procedure that should be rightfully regulated as one as opposed to treating it like putting a band aid on a boo boo as some sort of backhanded attempt to end abortions. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting and only serves to make the problem worse, not better. I am similarly offended by any attempt to turn something like "plan b" which is fundamentally no different than being on the pill beforehand into some kind of backhanded attempt to allow delivery room abortions. Moving the decision date from 24 weeks to 20 doesn't take a way a woman's right to choose... it merely makes her decide more quickly because her delay infringes upon the child's rights.

The fact is, MORE people in this country (by poll anyway... assuming an equal bias against both extremes) support abortions in the delivery room than would ban them. Certainly there are Republicans who would ban them... but there are more Democrats who would allow them a week before delivery. It is my opinion and you may or may not agree... but I think BOTH sides are equally wrong and equally manipulative and equally dangerous. In the middle are those who seek to downplay the seriousness of the procedure to make them slightly more available (or slightly less of a social stigma) and those who seek to use the social stigma and the seriousness of the procedure to generally discourage, but not in any way ban them.

Frankly, I think we're going about abortion wrong at this stage. A slight majority of people in this country support limited abortion. When you add to that the percentages of the far left and right who, if given the power to choose would choose an extreme, but ultimately would accept a compromise... a fairly substantial majority supports limited abortions and we merely disagree on where the line should be drawn. As there are clearly competing rights here... and one party or the other is "infringed" by the decision, I would go about answering the question differently...

Rather than look at the rights of the child to determine "by when" the mother should have to decide, I'd ask how long is reasonable to give a mother to decide. What I mean is, in the case of rape or incest, you generally know right away that it happened and should be able to make a decision quickly. This may not be true for an abused child or something... but that would end up in court anyway as you can't force non life saving medical care on a child without parental consent or court order. If you know you had sex, then you know that pregnancy is a risk. If we make EPTs as readily available as condoms, say encouraging their bi-weekly use by people who are sexually active (at all) then they will know VERY EARLY that they are pregnant and can use relatively non-confrontational methods to end the pregnancy before it goes very far at all.

Who are these people who need 3-6 months to decide to have a baby after having sex? Why are we disassociating the decision to have sex so much from the decision to have the baby? It seems to me that in virtually EVERY way, a decision to have an abortion or not made EARLY is best for all involved. I can't think of any reasonable situations where deciding later is "better".

I think an appropriate law would be more like this...

1) encourage bi-weekly EPTs for those who have sex like we do condoms and birth control. As it isn't a contraceptive, even many of those opposed to contraceptives wouldn't oppose this and they aren't at all invasive.

2) Past 24 weeks or so... life/severe health of the mother or PERHAPS severe medical issues for the child (which are both in the Texas law) should be the only exceptions.

3) Inside of, and I am pulling a number out of thin air... I'd want doctors to direct this... 10 weeks (that's still more than 2 months to decide)... abortions on demand. They would be cheap, effective and virtually risk-less to the mother's health (thus no need for requirements as in the Texas bill) and could literally be made available virtually anywhere.

4) between 10 and 24 weeks, you have to have a damn good story... and you will be subject to more medical scrutiny as in the Texas bill because the procedure IS more dangerous to both you AND the baby. By danger to the baby, let's avoid the hyperbole that either way the child dies so it is not more dangerous... and accept that the only thing worse for the child than abortion would be a failed abortion that resulted in a delivered baby that was then allowed to or forced to die anyway.

The advantage of the above is that everyone at some point in the middle gets what they claim to want. We'd obviously have to look at studies and medical evidence and other things like the effectiveness of oral/outpatient treatments to determine that 10 week date and to determine what constitutes a damn good story. The only really good one I can come up with is the sexually inactive girl who was roofied and had sex but didn't know it. She didn't do the EPT because as far as she knew, she wasn't active... and didn't realize she was pregnant until much later. a) it should be pretty easy to tell if she suspected she was pregnant and b) the guy certainly knew they had sex. To avoid being scammed, put something in place like... she gets the abortion, but she has to give evidence to help find the father... and the father is brought up on charges of some sort unless he can show that he checked with her about any "result" in which case SHE is brought up. I'm not talking about major charges, but something. Community service, a fine to cover the cost of the procedure... SOMETHING... A simple text message would suffice as evidence that he checked. This would put some responsibility on the father as well. Remember, we're talking about sexually inactive people who get pregnant... and apparently didn't have sex by choice. It's not rape, but it isn't consensual either. If she CHOSE to have sex and then CHOSE not to pee on the stick, then I would probably be against an exception.

Is this more strict than we currently are? Yes; but it would come along with easy availability of contraception, EPTs and "plan b" type abortion methods. Both sides get something they want very much in exchange for something they don't want but aren't diametrically opposed to. Those minorities who are diametrically opposed to compromises like this will be minimized but can claim "moral" victories if they want

If you think that those encouraging this bill care one whit about health care, I'd encourage you to see how those reps vote on expanding health care access to the poor and middle class here in Texas.

Anyone who actually thinks this is about making abortion safer is delusional. Its about ending abortion and forcing women to carry a fetus to term against their wishes, regardless of rape or incest.

Don't be stupid, LazyTom. Nobody is ending abortion or forcing women todo anything. You are the only one delusional here.

You are really stupid.

(06-28-2013 11:25 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 11:03 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 10:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lazy Tom (just being funny)

Understand something. I don't support this bill because I haven't been shown evidence that it really accomplishes anything. By that I mean, unless someone has figures I haven't seen, the frequency of incidences where the "problem" that this law seeks to solve is extremely rare... and the cost of compliance is relatively high for that solution. I would think there could be some "happy ground" that requires a little less compliance and still deliver the same efficacy.

What I am against is the constant penchant to turn any attempt to treat abortion like a medical procedure that should be rightfully regulated as one as opposed to treating it like putting a band aid on a boo boo as some sort of backhanded attempt to end abortions. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting and only serves to make the problem worse, not better. I am similarly offended by any attempt to turn something like "plan b" which is fundamentally no different than being on the pill beforehand into some kind of backhanded attempt to allow delivery room abortions. Moving the decision date from 24 weeks to 20 doesn't take a way a woman's right to choose... it merely makes her decide more quickly because her delay infringes upon the child's rights.

The fact is, MORE people in this country (by poll anyway... assuming an equal bias against both extremes) support abortions in the delivery room than would ban them. Certainly there are Republicans who would ban them... but there are more Democrats who would allow them a week before delivery. It is my opinion and you may or may not agree... but I think BOTH sides are equally wrong and equally manipulative and equally dangerous. In the middle are those who seek to downplay the seriousness of the procedure to make them slightly more available (or slightly less of a social stigma) and those who seek to use the social stigma and the seriousness of the procedure to generally discourage, but not in any way ban them.

Frankly, I think we're going about abortion wrong at this stage. A slight majority of people in this country support limited abortion. When you add to that the percentages of the far left and right who, if given the power to choose would choose an extreme, but ultimately would accept a compromise... a fairly substantial majority supports limited abortions and we merely disagree on where the line should be drawn. As there are clearly competing rights here... and one party or the other is "infringed" by the decision, I would go about answering the question differently...

Rather than look at the rights of the child to determine "by when" the mother should have to decide, I'd ask how long is reasonable to give a mother to decide. What I mean is, in the case of rape or incest, you generally know right away that it happened and should be able to make a decision quickly. This may not be true for an abused child or something... but that would end up in court anyway as you can't force non life saving medical care on a child without parental consent or court order. If you know you had sex, then you know that pregnancy is a risk. If we make EPTs as readily available as condoms, say encouraging their bi-weekly use by people who are sexually active (at all) then they will know VERY EARLY that they are pregnant and can use relatively non-confrontational methods to end the pregnancy before it goes very far at all.

Who are these people who need 3-6 months to decide to have a baby after having sex? Why are we disassociating the decision to have sex so much from the decision to have the baby? It seems to me that in virtually EVERY way, a decision to have an abortion or not made EARLY is best for all involved. I can't think of any reasonable situations where deciding later is "better".

I think an appropriate law would be more like this...

1) encourage bi-weekly EPTs for those who have sex like we do condoms and birth control. As it isn't a contraceptive, even many of those opposed to contraceptives wouldn't oppose this and they aren't at all invasive.

2) Past 24 weeks or so... life/severe health of the mother or PERHAPS severe medical issues for the child (which are both in the Texas law) should be the only exceptions.

3) Inside of, and I am pulling a number out of thin air... I'd want doctors to direct this... 10 weeks (that's still more than 2 months to decide)... abortions on demand. They would be cheap, effective and virtually risk-less to the mother's health (thus no need for requirements as in the Texas bill) and could literally be made available virtually anywhere.

4) between 10 and 24 weeks, you have to have a damn good story... and you will be subject to more medical scrutiny as in the Texas bill because the procedure IS more dangerous to both you AND the baby. By danger to the baby, let's avoid the hyperbole that either way the child dies so it is not more dangerous... and accept that the only thing worse for the child than abortion would be a failed abortion that resulted in a delivered baby that was then allowed to or forced to die anyway.

The advantage of the above is that everyone at some point in the middle gets what they claim to want. We'd obviously have to look at studies and medical evidence and other things like the effectiveness of oral/outpatient treatments to determine that 10 week date and to determine what constitutes a damn good story. The only really good one I can come up with is the sexually inactive girl who was roofied and had sex but didn't know it. She didn't do the EPT because as far as she knew, she wasn't active... and didn't realize she was pregnant until much later. a) it should be pretty easy to tell if she suspected she was pregnant and b) the guy certainly knew they had sex. To avoid being scammed, put something in place like... she gets the abortion, but she has to give evidence to help find the father... and the father is brought up on charges of some sort unless he can show that he checked with her about any "result" in which case SHE is brought up. I'm not talking about major charges, but something. Community service, a fine to cover the cost of the procedure... SOMETHING... A simple text message would suffice as evidence that he checked. This would put some responsibility on the father as well. Remember, we're talking about sexually inactive people who get pregnant... and apparently didn't have sex by choice. It's not rape, but it isn't consensual either. If she CHOSE to have sex and then CHOSE not to pee on the stick, then I would probably be against an exception.

Is this more strict than we currently are? Yes; but it would come along with easy availability of contraception, EPTs and "plan b" type abortion methods. Both sides get something they want very much in exchange for something they don't want but aren't diametrically opposed to. Those minorities who are diametrically opposed to compromises like this will be minimized but can claim "moral" victories if they want

If you think that those encouraging this bill care one whit about health care, I'd encourage you to see how those reps vote on expanding health care access to the poor and middle class here in Texas.

Anyone who actually thinks this is about making abortion safer is delusional. Its about ending abortion and forcing women to carry a fetus to term against their wishes, regardless of rape or incest.

Don't be stupid, LazyTom. Nobody is ending abortion or forcing women todo anything. You are the only one delusional here.

You are really stupid.

Any facts to support that the Texas law aims to end abortion or force women to do anything. Really Roberta, you are such a moron.

Another year your vacation is spent at home doing nothing.... Loser.

(06-28-2013 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you think that those encouraging this bill care one whit about health care, I'd encourage you to see how those reps vote on expanding health care access to the poor and middle class here in Texas.

Anyone who actually thinks this is about making abortion safer is delusional. Its about ending abortion and forcing women to carry a fetus to term against their wishes, regardless of rape or incest.

Anyone who claims they know the motivations of others so clearly is worse than delusional.

Did I or anyone else say anything about expanding access? No. I only spoke about regulating something that governments can clearly regulate. You can't get liposuction at the quickie-mart either. Do you accuse people who wouldn't want this of not supporting access to elective surgery? The fact that you have to lie says a lot about you. Not "them", you.

You're the problem Tom, as bad or worse than the people you claim to be fighting. You're willing to make claims you can't support and lie about what things say and make gross generalizations about what people feel to advance your goals.

I don't see where the law says anything about rape or incest that would change it from what it already is, and yet despite being corrected you keep spreading that lie without showing how it does what you claim.

Are there people on the right who would do as you suggest? Yes. Are there people on the left who would support aborting children just weeks before birth? Yes. According to the polls, about an equal number. WOuld it be accurate to describe you as someone who supports abortion in the birth canal? If so, then you're sick. If not then you're their stooge. WHat you AREN"T doing is helping ensure access to safe abortions.

(06-28-2013 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you think that those encouraging this bill care one whit about health care, I'd encourage you to see how those reps vote on expanding health care access to the poor and middle class here in Texas.

Anyone who actually thinks this is about making abortion safer is delusional. Its about ending abortion and forcing women to carry a fetus to term against their wishes, regardless of rape or incest.

Anyone who claims they know the motivations of others so clearly is worse than delusional.

Did I or anyone else say anything about expanding access? No. I only spoke about regulating something that governments can clearly regulate. You can't get liposuction at the quickie-mart either. Do you accuse people who wouldn't want this of not supporting access to elective surgery? The fact that you have to lie says a lot about you. Not "them", you.

You're the problem Tom, as bad or worse than the people you claim to be fighting. You're willing to make claims you can't support and lie about what things say and make gross generalizations about what people feel to advance your goals.

I don't see where the law says anything about rape or incest that would change it from what it already is, and yet despite being corrected you keep spreading that lie without showing how it does what you claim.

Are there people on the right who would do as you suggest? Yes. Are there people on the left who would support aborting children just weeks before birth? Yes. According to the polls, about an equal number. WOuld it be accurate to describe you as someone who supports abortion in the birth canal? If so, then you're sick. If not then you're their stooge. WHat you AREN"T doing is helping ensure access to safe abortions.

Come on guys, we know exactly what SB5 is all about. Its about ending access to abortion for most of Texas. And it is deliberate. Any supporters of SB5 support legal abortion in the Texas Legislature? No.

Sure, Toms.

Now point to a lefty who supports any reasonable limitation of abortions.

Even most pro-choice people believe that partial-birth abortions are out of line, and many think once you reach a certain point of gestation, it should be off the table.

Any real discussion of that brings out the shrill cries of "War on Women!", though.

Lazytom you are stupid,

(06-28-2013 01:29 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Lazytom you are stupid,

Wow. What insight.

(06-28-2013 01:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Come on guys, we know exactly what SB5 is all about. Its about ending access to abortion for most of Texas. And it is deliberate. Any supporters of SB5 support legal abortion in the Texas Legislature? No.

Most of Texas?? 88% of Texans live in cities of greater than 100,000 which pretty well eliminates those as not being within 30 miles of a hospital... and MOST reasonable doctors would have no problem getting privileges to admit or even round at those hospitals... a decent portion of the remaining 12% still live in cities large enough to be within 30 miles of a hospital... Texas has like 250 counties and even your own argument is that 39 of the 42 (or something like that) women's health facilities in the state wouldn't currently comply. Even if we assumed that they couldn't qualify, that's still 210 of 250 counties, and by far the most populous not impacted at all by this... so "most" is a bunch of hooey. You live in Houston, so you've seen all of the "urgent care" and outpatient day spa facilities around town. It doesn't take much to qualify for that level of care... which tells you how shoddy some of these places must currently be. I can't believe you'd really want a woman you cared anything about to undergo a procedure that could require hospitalization and not have an appropriate facility within 30 miles.

Let's back up on that claim about the votes as well, Tom. If I were in the legislature, I wouldn't support SB5... but not for anything LIKE the reasons you imply... thus your "evidence" is only evidence because I can't go poll Senators.

The reality is that a decent number of those who don't support it know it won't pass and/or don't need the "brownie" points with their constituencies. Sure. Those that vote yes anyway probably represent constituencies who would ban abortions. So what? Aren't they entitled to representation as well? Surely you'd admit that some of those who voted no represent constituencies who have no problem with late term, even last minute abortions.

I have no problem with setting pretty high medical standards for abortion clinics or any other medical procedure... particularly for the sorts of procedures with the greatest risks.

DO YOU? Serious question.

I'm not convinced (though I COULD be) that the incidence of the problem that this attempts to address is high enough to be impacted by these measures. I'm convinced that this is a lot of attempt to look like they are serious about improving safety in the wake of Gosnell without really accomplishing very much... However, in the "liberal" spirit of valuing every life... It is easily arguable that making someone drive 2 hours more FOR AN ELECTIVE PROCEDURE to get to a suitable facility to save just ONE life is worth it.

If you had a reasonable position on this debate, you would have expressed it. Instead, your position apparently is that "it's coming from bad people so its bad" without regard to what it really is.

(06-28-2013 03:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 01:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Come on guys, we know exactly what SB5 is all about. Its about ending access to abortion for most of Texas. And it is deliberate. Any supporters of SB5 support legal abortion in the Texas Legislature? No.

Let's back up on that, Tom. If I were in the legislature, I wouldn't support SB5... but not for anything LIKE the reasons you imply... thus your "evidence" is only evidence because I can't go poll Senators.

The reality is that a decent number of those who don't support it know it won't pass and/or don't need the "brownie" points with their constituencies.

I have no problem with setting pretty high medical standards for abortion clinics or any other medical procedure... particularly for the sorts of procedures with the greatest risks.

DO YOU? Serious question.

I'm not convinced (though I COULD be) that the incidence of the problem that this attempts to address is high enough to be impacted by these measures. I'm convinced that this is a lot of attempt to look like they are serious about improving safety in the wake of Gosnell without really accomplishing very much... However, in the "liberal" spirit of valuing every life... It is easily arguable that making someone drive 2 hours more FOR AN ELECTIVE PROCEDURE to get to a suitable facility to save just ONE life is worth it.

If you had a reasonable position on this debate, you would have expressed it. Instead, your position apparently is that "it's coming from bad people so its bad" without regard to what it really is.

Under this law, the 500,000 persons in the panhandle will have to drive 12+ hours.