An abortion is not birth.
|
An abortion is not birth.
LOL, you're seriously going to take this line of reasoning? If it leaves the womb alive that's a birth. Eyes, nose, fingers, toes, brain, a beating heart... you kill that 'fetus.'Quote:
An abortion is not birth.
Wikipedia: "Birth (calving in livestock and some other animals, whelping in carnivorous mammals) is the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring."
Abortion is not "bearing" or "bringing forth." Therefore, going by what you are saying, every birth is also an abortion.
Sorry, but I cannot possibly take you seriously.
It makes perfect sense. If abortion = birth, then birth = abortion. Tell me how that doesn't work for you.
I don't see you and Ex agreeing at all. He supports viability. It appears you do not. How is that the same ?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
Even though the debate still rages, and opinions vary, the law of the land says abortions are legal in the first semester. Now many states conservatively governed have passed laws that add to that with all kinds of restriction. That's fine as long as they are legally done, but making viability at the moment of conception is a stretch since only two people can know that, and one is a doctor. IF you are smart enough to see one, but beyond all this moral stuff, its choice and family planning that becomes an economic issue with many who make up more than half the population.
Barefoot and pregnant is no joke, neither is not having some sort of support in a life threatening and life changing situation. The hypocrisy comes in when those that have the means to have choices and supports, deny the choice for others, and worse, when the choice is in the hands of those that never have to be pregnant in the first place.
Even more so hypocritical when its not your female you are denying choice to, nor your child that you made, and have NO intention to raise that child until they reach the age of maturity, and actively seek to erode and deny any type of support to mother and child.
So this viability is opinion and conjecture and is only as REAL as your intentions to step up and do the right thing to make sure a child is raised properly. If you are NOT willing to raise this child you choose to make others have, you should do like the rest of the irresponsible punks, and disappear, and stay the freak out of the way while real men do the right thing!
Funny how we regard the viability more important than the development until maturity, and that's as backward as it gets. Yeah defend the baby until it gets here then walk away.
How is that moral, or a viable acceptable course of action? Don't answer, because its NOT!
I just wonder why the VP outright lied in the debate about the mandate that violates religious institutions 1st amendment rights. It's their policy ,they own it .Why can't they just admit they are forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception and abortifacients for their employees ?
Are they ashamed of their policy ? Or is that just a deception like the Stupak compromise ,giving their followers who have moral objections an out ?
All the more reason not to take you seriously.Quote:
It makes perfect sense. If abortion = birth, then birth = abortion. Tell me how that doesn't work for you.
We have had that debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes we have . VP Biden was opposed to the policy on religious grounds ;and mumbled a defense of the policy during the debate . It was easy to see that he had lost his energy to do the goody laughs and interuptions during that segment . That is because he was very uncomfortable supporting a policy that everyone knows he opposed for moral reasons.
Another major adm official ,Bill Daley also opposed the policy .When he lost the internal debate between him and the Valerie Jarret ,and Sebellius cabal of hardliners ,he had the integrity to resign.
This was a policy that violated the President's word to the Blue Dogs, who got suckered into voting for Obamacare .Many of them lost their seats in 2010 over their vote. Many more Dems in Congress will lose their seats next month for their support of the radical progressive policies of the President .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Many more Dems in Congress will lose their seats next month for their support of the radical progressive policies of the President
So, you think they'll elect, vaginal juice stops pregnancy, Todd Aiken?? You think, congress is 50% communist, Alan West will survive? How about Joe, won't pay child support, Walsh??
Nahhh... The dems might not take back the House, but they'll make gains. Those losers above will LOSE and Michelle Bachmann too.
In terms of Todd Aiken, I don't know WHY you guys don't learn... He's Sharron Angle all over again.. IF you HAD a chance to take the Senate, running an extreme right winger killed it for you again..
Excon
So Biden lied about not imposing his beliefs on others? Great spin Tom, we will see. Seems to me despite your 4 year war on this president, and all the tactics to undermine him, he still is running ahead of you guys and the right wing.
Another month and we see how repeal and replace (?) works in the 21st century.
I didn't put Akin out there, we're voting in a young gun Hispanic named Cruz.
You think there is a war on women you really should speak to Julia Gillard
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politics...013-27jul.html
It would have nothing to do with the fact that she is a radical lefty flake ?
No when they call you Juliar and the wicked witch how could it, these traints aren't confined to the left, however she now thinks all her opponents are mysoginst. She could be right most of the country hate herQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,
While the REST of the country is talking about Roe v Wade being overturned, our resident right wingers would rather look the other way... They think I'm bonkers for bringing it up.
That's fine.. It leaves the playing field to ME... And, to ME, it's CLEAR that if Romney wins, Roe is toast..
My support of Roe has LESS to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether it can be controlled. I say, that no matter WHAT you write down in your lawbooks, if some lady WANTS an abortion, she'll get one... Rich ladies will travel to where they're legal, and poor ladies will seek back alley ones...
I don't know WHY you'd want to condemn ladies to that. Ok. Yes, I do.. You'll just DENY that it's happening.
excon
The NY Slimes editorial board is the rest of the country ? That op-ed is just a desperate attempt for OFA to counter their reverses in the so called gender gap. They are finding out that women are more concerned with the jobs their families have lost ,with the jobs their new graduate children don't have ,than whether some life time activist student at Georgetown can get a free contraception pill.
Here's a thought for you . Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (because there is more than one person's health involved ) on the premise that health care decisions like abortion are a private matter and government has only limited authority to intervene in private health care decisions. Obamacare on the other hand is based on a philosophy that there is no right to privacy in health care. Government can control what health care people can obtain ;and can mandate health care decisions .
You want to talk about health care privacy ? Obamacare requires that all medical files be submitted and maintained in a federal database.The court just upheld a reversal in the concept of health care privacy. It is your side that is eroding health care "choice " . I'm going under the premise that if Roe is overturned ,that the Obamacare decision gave the justices the rationale and precedent to make that call .
Further the expanded power of the Sec HHS can also work both ways. Imagine a DHHS czar saying that abortion coverage is prohibitted . If they can force churches to provide contraceptives ,the next adm can equally deny coverage.
Hello again, tom:
I can't tell exactly, but it LOOKS like you agree with me. If Romney is elected, Roe is dead.
excon
I can only go by Romney's past. I was opposed to him in the primaries to a large degree because of his prior abortion positions. Do I think a guy who made sure that abortions were available and subsidized in Mass .would move to kill Roe ?
That back alley abortion thing is for the most part, a myth. But I understand, your whole strategy is based on mythical fears.
I was a teen during the '50s and '60s when girls my age suffered and even died from self-induced and back-alley abortions. They were trying to hide pregnancies from their church-going parents. Once the parents found out, if the daughter was still pregnant, she was quietly shipped off to "Aunt Melba" in Nebraska.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, tom:
Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would "get rid of" funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.. . “There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.
The Romney campaign walked back the remark within two hours of the Register posting its story. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the National Review Online's Katrina Trinko that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."
I agree that he's flipped flopped so many times on the issue, that you have NO idea what his REAL position is.. But, as I explained before, he doesn't have to DO anything other than appoint a conservative justice, and a case will work its way to their doorstep on it's OWN accord.
excon
Really?Quote:
That back alley abortion thing is for the most part, a myth.
When you pull your head out of the sand simply click your heels three times and say, "Take me back to the real world".
You might too young to remember but back in the 60 you could stand near the back door of the doctors office on a Sunday and get high off the ether fumes as he performed abortions. And if Mit has his way we will be jerked back in time to the "coathanger" days.
Is that what you REALLY want? Regards, Tom
And I go by the position that actions speak louder than words. Under Romneycare abortion was legal ,and covered with a modest $50 copay . He used the courts to circumvent parental consent .Quote:
I agree that he's flipped flopped so many times on the issue, that you have NO idea what his REAL position is.. But, as I explained before, he doesn't have to DO anything other than appoint a conservative justice, and a case will work its way to their doorstep on it's OWN accord.
Excon
But if he does appoint a consevative judge ;and a case makes it's way to SCOTUS ,and if by some strange circumstance SCOTUS overturns Roe... you won't see me mourning the decision.You can blame the Obamacare case for the precedent that gave them the opening .
Give me stats. Real ones.Quote:
I was a teen during the '50s and '60s when girls my age suffered and even died from self-induced and back-alley abortions.
You know darn well there aren't any. No one talked out loud about stuff like that back then. It was a family secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Sarasota Fl. 1965.Quote:
Give me stats. Real ones.
Dr, Wiel King. Sentenced to 50 years for running a "pill mill" and performing illegal abortions.
That's the doctor I mentioned in my other post. Convinced? Tom
"In the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimate 800,000 abortions a year." Boyer, Ed. By Paul S. (2006). The Oxford companion to United States history. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. pp. 3. ISBN 978-0-19-508209-8.
Dude, even before Roe the majority of abortions were done by licensed physicians in good standing.Quote:
Really?
When you pull your head out of the sand simply click your heels three times and say, "Take me back to the real world".
You might too young to remember but back in the 60 you could stand near the back door of the doctors office on a Sunday and get high off the ether fumes as he performed abortions. And if Mit has his way we will be jerked back in time to the "coathanger" days.
Is that what you REALLY want? Regards, GTom
Legalizing abortion "had no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion" according to the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1978.Quote:
An illegal abortion may be called a "back-alley", "backstreet", or "back-yard" abortion.
The wire coat hanger method was a popularly known illegal abortion procedure, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1970 printing of the American Journal of Public Health:
"Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind, second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."
That's the real world.
Exactly, licensed physicians... just like I said above.Quote:
"In the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimate 800,000 abortions a year."
By 1900 abortion was largely illegal in every state. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Women knew which doctors were willing to do abortions after hours. My mother was furious when my sister choose as her baby doctor a man who had been doing illegal abortions before 1973.
There are no statistics on self-induced abortions.
Hello Carol:
There's NO proving this to Steve.. It's a MYTH. That is what he believes... Just like he believes that NOBODY dies in this country because they don't have health insurance, and they really don't bust pot smokers.. According to him, those are myths too.. He'll NEVER believe otherwise.
Right wingers LOVE their rose colored glasses..
excon
Dear excon:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Are you telling me to give up?
Adoringly,
WG
Hello again, Carol:
I'm suggesting that you post to the world ABOUT the wrongheadedness of his positions. He's the perfect foil.
Lovingly, excon
Sheesh, get a room.
You guys are the ones fear mongering over something you can't back up. I posted what is known by sources you should approve, Planned Parenthood and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology - not some right to life group. Carol even affirmed my argument that most [illegal -ed. By WG] abortions were performed by licensed physicians.
Are you seriously going to argue that 90 percent of our doctors are quacks that wouldn't follow the same standard of care "after hours" they did during during business hours?
Steve
P.S. There is nothing "wrongheaded" about trying to save a child's life.
There is something wrong headed by telling a female or anyone else that YOUR choice should be hers only choice!
Considering I have never told anyone any such thing that's just one more myth shot down. Ironically though you seem to have no problem telling religious employers that your choice is the only choice.Quote:
There is something wrong headed by telling a female or anyone else that YOUR choice should be hers only choice!
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Are you seriously going to argue that 90 percent of our doctors are quacks that wouldn't follow the same standard of care "after hours" they did during during business hours?
That would depend on how many years in the slam they're risking. My take is that they won't risk ANY. What? You're not going to attach a PENALTY for breaking the law? I know, let's put the women in the slam. What's appropriate for murder?
Therefore, since I don't think ANY doctor in good standing is going to risk it, the only ones who WILL are the ones who AREN'T in good standing... I.E. The back alley guys.
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 PM. |