Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   War on Women 4.6 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=752264)

  • Jul 8, 2013, 07:17 AM
    speechlesstx
    1 Attachment(s)
    While waiting on an answer or two as to why abortions should still be legal after 20 weeks or what stage of development a child in the womb deserves protection, if any, chew on this.

    The Chicago Tribune, USA Today and the LA Times refused to run a pro-life ad by Heroic Media allegedly because the image was too controversial. No, it wasn't hacked up aborted babies - it hit home harder than that.

    http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn....roicmedia3.png

    By the way, my nephew and his wife just became the proud parents of little Penny, born at 25 weeks and weighing 1 lb 13 oz. So when do they deserve to be treated as humans? I leave you with Penny...
  • Jul 8, 2013, 07:43 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:

    I never minded the 20 week deal.. I mind that you're closing MOST health clinics that poor women depend on. I mind the mandatory vaginal PROBE... I mind the NO EXCEPTIONS for RAPE..

    Why don't you defend THOSE?? Oh, that's right you did... You're SOOOOO concerned with women's health that you're going to close their clinics because their doorways aren't wide enough... That'll REALLY help 'em...

    excon
  • Jul 8, 2013, 08:02 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    I never minded the 20 week deal.. I mind that you're closing MOST health clinics that poor women depend on. I mind the mandatory vaginal PROBE... I mind the NO EXCEPTIONS for RAPE..

    Why don't you defend THOSE?? Oh, that's right you did... You're SOOOOO concerned with women's health that you're going to close their clinics because their doorways aren't wide enough... That'll REALLY help 'em...

    Excon

    Cut the crap, the Texas proposal has all the exceptions you guys demand but the one leaving women subject to unsafe, unregulated clinics, but I've already shown that and the need for door standards

    Quote:

    The grand jury noted that even after Gosnell's unqualified, unlicensed staff had (at his direction) given her a lethal overdose of local anesthetic, she might have still been saved but for the clinic's "cluttered," "narrow, twisted passageways" which "could not accommodate a stretcher" to get her out. Mongar still had a pulse when paramedics arrived, but they lost a critical 20 minutes just trying to get her out of the building.
    But go ahead, keep arguing against women's health and safety. Texas, Wisconsin and others are looking out for them. Unlike you we don't believe poor women should be subject to unsafe standards.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 08:07 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Mr. Lover of Regulations:

    What's better for woman's health? A clinic with narrow doorways, or no clinic at all?

    excon
  • Jul 8, 2013, 08:15 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Mr. Lover of Regulations:

    What's better for woman's health? A clinic with narrow doorways, or no clinic at all?

    excon

    They'll have a year to comply. Took me a couple days and a couple hundred bucks to widen my doorway, if they're interested in women's health they'll find a way.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 08:19 AM
    talaniman
    You SAY it's for a woman's safety but where does she go for service after you close the only place she can afford to go?
  • Jul 8, 2013, 08:33 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    You SAY it's for a woman's safety but where does she go for service after you close the only place she can afford to go?

    Personally I have no problem with abortion clinics closing, I don't consider most abortions to have anything to do with "health care." That's a ruse you've perpetrated on women by calling it anything but abortion and the child anything but a child. I'd rather be honest with women then use them as pawns. But like I said, if their "health" is that important they'll comply and they'll have a year to do so. Figure it out.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 08:48 AM
    talaniman
    I have figured it out and it obvious some women don't agree with you, or intend to let YOU tell them what to do. Maybe you need to figure THAT out.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:08 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    I have figured it out and it obvious some women don't agree with you, or intend to let YOU tell them what to do. Maybe you need to figure THAT out.

    Over 60 percent of Texans believe abortion should be restricted after 20 weeks, and only you and a few wackos believe women don't deserve a safe clinic.

    I would say your side's disregard for their safety is surprising but it isn't. It is abortion that they protect at all cost, not women and certainly not children and that's what some women need to figure out - their "protectors" are lying to them and using them.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:11 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Over 60 percent of Texans believe abortion should be restricted after 20 weeks

    Restricted or forbidden/outlawed?

    Why close all the clinics? Why not just say no abortions later than 20 weeks?
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Restricted or forbidden/outlawed?

    Texas' SB5 is not a ban, it has all the exceptions the abortion lovers demand - but I've already said that at least twice before.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:17 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    You SAY it's for a woman's safety but where does she go for service after you close the only place she can afford to go?

    Used to be that the left said abortion was needed so the women wouldn't have to go to back alley substandard places.
    My have times changed !
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:17 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Texas' SB5 is not a ban, it has all the exceptions the abortion lovers demand - but I've already said that at least twice before.

    So why are all the clinics being closed?
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:21 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    So why are all the clinics being closed?

    No clinics are being closed, they'll be subject to the same standards as any other ambulatory surgery center and they'll have a year to comply.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:24 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    No clinics are being closed, they'll be subject to the same standards as any other ambulatory surgery center and they'll have a year to comply.

    What about a pregnancy that is discovered, after 20 weeks, to contain a non-thriving fetus?
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:37 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    What about a pregnancy that is discovered, after 20 weeks, to contain a non-thriving fetus?

    Is IUGR a death sentence now ?
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:40 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    is IUGR a death sentence now ?

    It could be for the mother and why should she carry a dead or very ill-formed baby to term?
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:45 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    It could be for the mother and why should she carry a dead or very ill-formed baby to term?

    If her health is threatened there is an exception.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:46 AM
    tomder55
    Well let's put it this way... an IUGR infant has close to a 50% chance of survival . I don't know what the risks to the mother is ;but that is largely irrelevant since no one has said that a mother should take a baby to term if her life is at risk.
    An abortion leaves an infant zero % chance of survival. So no ;I don't think that is a legitimate reason by itself . Many underweight babies have been born and thive.
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:47 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    If her health is threatened there is an exception.

    So she won't have to carry a dead or non-viable baby for five more months? An abortion would be allowed?
  • Jul 8, 2013, 09:54 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    is IUGR a death sentence now ?

    Without the proper prenatal care yes it is. As are many other thing that can happen during a pregnancy.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 06:57 AM
    speechlesstx
    FYI, the Texas House passed it's save the children and protecting women's health bill, with 5 Democrats joining. Meanwhile, it's (not unexpectedly) come to this...

    Quote:

    CBO: 20+ Week Fetuses Aborted at Rate of 30 Per Day; Saves Money for Government-Run Health Care

    (CNSNews.com) - Unborn babies who have reached at least 20 weeks of age in utero are aborted at a rate of about 30 per day in the United States, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system.

    ...

    “CBO expects that most women who would be affected by H.R. 1797 would seek earlier abortions,” said CBO. “But how many women would do so is an important determinant of additional federal costs. For example, if 90 percent of women who would have sought an abortion 20 weeks or more after fertilization instead were to seek earlier abortions, federal spending would rise about $75 million over 10 years. If only half of those women were to obtain earlier abortions, then federal spending could rise by more than $400 million over 10 years.

    “For this estimate,” said CBO, “CBO assumes that around three-quarters of abortions that would occur 20 weeks or more after fertilization under current law would take place earlier, before the 20th week restriction is triggered, under the act. As a result, we estimate that the increase in federal costs for Medicaid would total $225 million over the 2014-2023 period.”
    That's right folks, late term abortions save you money and reduces the deficit according to the CBO. Some interesting thoughts from Guy Benson:

    Quote:

    (1) Are abortion advocates going to fleetingly morph into budget hawks over $17 million per year? After all, hospital births are expensive.

    (2) Since they've reduced the debate over the protection of innocent life to callous, green-eyeshade facts and figures, will CBO also score the effects of aborting hundreds of thousands of future taxpayers -- especially when it comes to annual cash-flow deficits in programs like Social Security?

    (3) If late-term abortions "reduce the deficit," how much would we "save" by aborting more children? How many of abortions would it take to make the whole enterprise deficit neutral? And while we're at it, why limit this experiment to very young human life? Surely the active killing of at least some indigent and infirm Americans would produce deficit savings, right?

    (4) Also, since we're indulging these amoral calculations, perhaps CBO could project the potential economic benefits and budgetary savings from the hypothetical re-institution of slavery. Second look at indentured servitude, CBO?

    (5) Does anyone remember the CBO's score of the Senate's gun control bill, or Politico's story about it? Did the CBO measure how much gun registries would cost to set up, or how many jobs would be lost if certain guns were outlawed? What about how much money taxpayers "save" in future welfare payments whenever children from dangerous neighborhoods are gunned down? I performed a cursory search for CBO reports on the Toomey-Manchin law and the proposed assault weapons ban, and came up empty. Am I missing those?


    UPDATE - I've contacted the CBO and inquired which member(s) of Congress requested this bill be scored, and a copy for any such request.


    UPDATE II - Ramesh Ponnuru emails: "One more point: as an argument for abortion, deficit reduction swings free from choice. Forced abortions save $ too. Next stop China."

    UPDATE III - I spoke to a representative at the CBO who asked that the entire conversation be off the record. It struck me as a bizarre request, and I said so. Still, I'll try to respect it. Broad strokes: CBO is mandated by law to score bills that are reported out of committee. Sometimes members make informal requests for specific scores, but CBO could not comment on whether that was the case on this particular bill. Question: Since the assault weapons ban was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, shouldn't that score be floating around somewhere? My search for various iterations of "S. 150" and "Assault Weapons Ban 2013" did not produce the score.


    UPDATE IV - An interesting point from a commenter below: CBO recently determined that granting legal status to illegal immigrants would significantly reduce deficits -- but not aborting would-be US citizens would increase them? I think the reason for this apparent disconnect is related to the "scoring windows." CBO concluded that adult illegal immigrants would be able to work and pay taxes immediately (thus affecting the ten-year window), whereas newborns are more of a long-term investment. Therefore, pre-born infants' deaths would cost less than their births in the short term. This entire discussion is surreal.
    Are we really reducing the value of human life to how much it costs taxpayers? Wait, you guys have been doing that for years - "are you going to pay for her "unwanted" pregnancy? Are you going to pay to raise the "unwanted" child? Who pays for the care of the "unwanted" child born with birth defects or serious health problems?

    How far are you willing to take it to save money and reduce the deficit?
  • Jul 10, 2013, 07:08 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Are we really reducing the value of human life to how much it costs taxpayers?
    Well yea, isn't that what the insurance companies do? Your health is a business that they want to profit from, and they do so... handsomely.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 07:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    I did not know insurance companies intentionally kill off their customers to make money. Who'd a thunk it?
  • Jul 10, 2013, 07:19 AM
    NeedKarma
    They don't, they need them sick to siphon more money out of them. Business 101.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 07:33 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    FYI, the Texas House passed it's save the children and protecting women's health bill, with 5 Democrats joining. Meanwhile, it's (not unexpectedly) come to this.


    Are we really reducing the value of human life to how much it costs taxpayers? Wait, you guys have been doing that for years - "are you going to pay for her "unwanted" pregnancy? Are you going to pay to raise the "unwanted" child? Who pays for the care of the "unwanted" child born with birth defects or serious health problems?

    How far are you willing to take it to save money and reduce the deficit?

    Naw, they passed a close the abortion clinics for poor and low income women bill. The alternative is unclear. So its not like it was a public service for safety because they would have provided an alternative. Interestingly abortion have to be inspected before a license is issued and most had been licensed for years already.

    Hell the bill sponsor didn't know what a rape kit was.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/texa...a_rape_kit_is/

    It's an insult to everyone intelligence to say this is about safety. They know full well with the financing and bid process a year at most is not enough time for upgrades. Worse till for the one that are up for relicensing now and the next few months.

    Another example of poor planning and implementation by righties with a clear agenda.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 07:34 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    They don't, they need them sick to siphon more money out of them. Business 101.

    I think you need to go to over that section again. They need lots of healthy customers to make money. But again, this isn't about insurance companies it's about how the CBO scored a ban on late term abortions. Try and stick to the subject.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 07:40 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Naw, they passed a close the abortion clinics for poor and low income women bill.

    Well that's bound to cost Texas lots of money, making all those women have babies.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 08:19 AM
    talaniman
    It is a poorly written law. Written for a social agenda only, banning abortions.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 08:59 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    It is a poorly written law. Written for a social agenda only, banning abortions.

    As opposed to what exactly that comes from Democrats? Obamacare? Environmental regulations? Immigration reform? What?
  • Jul 10, 2013, 09:13 AM
    talaniman
    The subject is the bill you righties in Texas wrote not if the dems write poor bills. They do but they aren't here in Texas governing YOU are.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 09:20 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    The subject is the bill you righties in Texas wrote not if the dems write poor bills. They do but they aren't here in Texas governing YOU are.

    You opened the door, I feel compelled to walk in.

    Tal:
    Quote:

    It is a poorly written law. Written for a social agenda only, banning abortions.
    Me:
    Quote:

    As opposed to what exactly that comes from Democrats? Obamacare? Environmental regulations? Immigration reform? What?
    We aren't governing the nation, you are.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 09:22 AM
    talaniman
    It's a slow process moving your noisy right wing dead weight.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 09:36 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    It's a slow process moving your noisy right wing dead weight.

    Right, because we're too stupid to know what's good for us so we need you to rescue us from ourselves. See Illinois, Detroit, Kalifornia, the UK's health system...
  • Jul 10, 2013, 10:12 AM
    N0help4u
    Something sure is breaking down society and if people can't see it they are just too blind. Everything all ties in, the economy, bringing in illegals (*Republican's paved that road), dead shacking up, beat dads, single moms, working women,. Biggest culprit our government system and corporations
  • Jul 10, 2013, 10:25 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Right, because we're too stupid to know what's good for us so we need you to rescue us from ourselves. See Illinois, Detroit, Kalifornia, the UK's health system...

    Stupid isn't my word, it's yours, uncompromising and single mindedness are the words I would use, in general. Conservative ideas are great but the process of implementation sucks to high heaven. The noise is nauseous, and the methods are discriminatory.

    As to motive I won't even guess but I doubt it serves any one but yourself.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 11:42 AM
    speechlesstx
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Stupid isn't my word, it's yours, uncompromising and single mindedness are the words I would use, in general. Conservative ideas are great but the process of implementation sucks to high heaven. The noise is nauseous, and the methods are discriminatory.

    As to motive I won't even guess but I doubt it serves any one but yourself.

    It's the attitude Tal and actions back it up. You have a habit of telling us personally on these pages we don't read enough or know enough or whatever and we should get out of the way of progress.

    In light of the implementation of Obamacare that's virtually universally recognized (except by you) as a train wreck, I'd be careful accusing others of sucking at implementing their great ideas. And the chutzpah it takes to say we're self-serving (see Obamacare, environmental regs, immigration reform, war on women, global warming hysteria, etc.) is off the charts.

    P.S. And just in time the perfect example lands right in my lap. Chuck Todd and other MSNBCer's along with WaPo's Greg Sargent make your case.

    Sabotage governing

    Quote:

    It’s not unusual to hear dirty hippie liberal blogger types (and the occasional lefty Nobel Prize winner) point out that today’s GOP has effectively abdicated the role of functional opposition party, instead opting for a kind of post-policy nihilism in which sabotaging the Obama agenda has become its only guiding governing light.

    But when you hear this sort of argument coming from Chuck Todd, the mild-mannered, well respected Beltway insider, it should prompt folks to take notice.
    Except it ain't true. Obamacare is self-destructing on its own.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 06:14 PM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Right, because we're too stupid to know what's good for us so we need you to rescue us from ourselves. See Illinois, Detroit, Kalifornia, the UK's health system...

    No one should read the article other than for the purposes of political spin.

    A lot of percentages figures lace the article but there are no references to be found in relation to these percentages.
  • Jul 10, 2013, 06:52 PM
    excon
    1 Attachment(s)
    Hello again,

    Right wingers WIN. No more abortions...
  • Jul 11, 2013, 05:14 AM
    Tuttyd
    There is nothing that I can see thus far whereby abortion is touted as being banned.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:18 AM.