Women's Rights

[Bernie Sanders]

Do middle aged white men in the Republican Party want to control a woman's reproduction organ? Are they just pandering to the extreme right wing of the party? What if they could give birth, would they be quick to deny contraceptives and abortion availability?

[tzor]

I like you Bernie. You are so funny. "We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions."

No silly, we are already there. Haven't you seen the videos? Haven't you heard about Dr. Gosnell? There are many "abortion facilities" in the United States that are a disgrace ... they might have been acceptable in ... I don't know ... the 18th century ... in terms of sanitation and provisions for the health of the women who undergo surgical procedure there, but for the 21st century, they are a bloody disgrace that make the days of "back-room" abortions seem a step forward.

Safety Claims Questioned: Spokane Planned Parenthood Tears Hole in Abortion Patient’s Womb
Planned Parenthood Worker Featured in Shock Video Calls 911 for Bleeding Abortion Patient
Mom’s Premonition Saves Botched Abortion Victim’s Life
911 Carnage: Woman Hemorrhages, Possibly Dies from Botched Abortion

No, you love Sweeney Todd running the abortion industry. Admit it.

[saxitoxin]

Do middle aged white men in the Republican Party want to control a woman's reproduction organ?

What's the solution to middle-aged white men?

Elderly white men!

[degaston]

No, you love Sweeney Todd running the abortion industry. Admit it.

[DaGip]

I loved Edward Scissorhands!

[jimboston]

No silly, we are already there. Haven't you seen the videos? Haven't you heard about Dr. Gosnell? There are many "abortion facilities" in the United States that are a disgrace ... they might have been acceptable in ... I don't know ... the 18th century ... in terms of sanitation and provisions for the health of the women who undergo surgical procedure there, but for the 21st century, they are a bloody disgrace that make the days of "back-room" abortions seem a step forward.

So you're in favor of Abortions... and you support increased investment to update these facilities?

[Bernie Sanders]

Back alley abortions returning to America

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/back-alley-abortions_n_5065301.html

[Army of GOD]

I prefer to get my Abortions at McDonalds

[PLAYER57832]

No silly, we are already there. Haven't you seen the videos? Haven't you heard about Dr. Gosnell? There are many "abortion facilities" in the United States that are a disgrace ... they might have been acceptable in ... I don't know ... the 18th century ... in terms of sanitation and provisions for the health of the women who undergo surgical procedure there, but for the 21st century, they are a bloody disgrace that make the days of "back-room" abortions seem a step forward.

So you're in favor of Abortions... and you support increased investment to update these facilities?

Oh please! No one is "in favor of abortions". some people are, however in favor of legalization. Abortion is never a wonderful choice, but sometimes it is the "less worse" option.

If you want to prevent abortion, denying women safe access to clinics is not the way to do it. Face it, your "education" measures (in quotes because the same groups opposing abortion are also against proper sex education, though it is proven to reduce the rate of abortions!). Similarly, denying women health care, by claiming that paying the miniscule portion of insurance policy premiums is somehow denying religious freedom, is ridiculous.

[tzor]

So you're in favor of Abortions... and you support increased investment to update these facilities?

The answers to both are no and no.

I am not in favor of abortions. However, a lot of things happen that I am not in favor of. I deal with it.

Most of these facilities can not be safely "updated." Planned Parenthood can go to hell for all I care. I would prefer that the procedures be done in hospitals or facilities that are close to hospitals in the event of complications. Abortions need to be a secondary or tertiary function of the facility so that the facility would not be pressured to increase the number of procedures in order to meet financial quotas.

[tzor]

Oh please! No one is "in favor of abortions".

Actually, some people are. Some people actually derive a profit from the procedure and allow the existing so called "pro-choice" (who really only support a persons right to choose to have the abortion, never to choose not to have one) mentality to allow them to make a considerable profit in an unregulated business which they really have no business to be in at all.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh please! No one is "in favor of abortions".

Actually, some people are. Some people actually derive a profit from the procedure and allow the existing so called "pro-choice" (who really only support a persons right to choose to have the abortion, never to choose not to have one) mentality to allow them to make a considerable profit in an unregulated business which they really have no business to be in at all.

This is utter and total bullsh*t perpetrated by folks who want to claim abortion is evil and therefore are happy to believe any negative lie.

It is a medical procedure. Most are done in non-profit facilities, but to the extent they profit, it is no different than any other medical procedure.

AND... lest you try to bring up the planned parenthood video, try reviewing the WHOLE thing. It was a set-up, pure and plain. And, per the rest, there are idiots and even evil people in EVERY profession, including police, fire, teachers, pastors/priests, shopkeepers and doctors. Tot he extent abortion has more, its because running a clinic or being a doctor known as performing abortions puts you under such serious scrutiny that many honest people just don't want the risk. That is not a "win", it is a few extrermely uninformed people feeling they have the right to dictate medicine for people who's lives they cannot bother to understand.

Why don't you ask your friends and colleagues about their miscarriages, menstrual cycles and other female issues? No? Yeah.. "embarrassing". How about asking pregnant people you see about their medical histories, genetic issues, any potential issues with their children? No?

you won't enter into those conversastions, but feel you have the perfect right to just decide when an abortion is and is not OK. That is fine within your church, but we have FREEDOM of religion for plenty of reasons and this is exactly one. Until a child is viable, its entire existence depends on the body of the mother. If that mother is not fully and 100% capable of raising that child, then forcing her to carry it is not good for the child or the society that will have to deal with the consequences. Every child DESERVES to be loved and wanted, not put in a home of abuse, not subjected to repeated pain.. be it from abuse or serious unpreventable medical conditions.

[Woodruff]

tzor, you seem to have gone further off the deep end in the last year or so.

That's unfortunate. My memory tells me that you used to be relatively level-headed and interested in facts over partisanship. That no longer appears to be the case.

[warmonger1981]

John P Holdren in Ecoscience wrote: Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal.

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”


So what happens when a person has no rights to their own body?



Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions.

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Is it a good idea for the government to decide if a single mother who is a minor to keep their children?

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock.

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."

Maybe it's better when the government says who can and can not have children?


Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth controll. Involuntary fertility control
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Maybe it's better when the government does it?

[PLAYER57832]

Oh please! No one is "in favor of abortions".

Actually, some people are. Some people actually derive a profit from the procedure and allow the existing so called "pro-choice"

You had better come up with some evidence for that... and NOT illegal operations. A major reason abortion was legalized in the first place was to do away with "back room" "facilities" where women often died or were severely injured. The anti-abortion movement is reversing history and bringing back a time when women die from unsafe abortions.

The idea that Abortions need to be in a hospital sounds great on the surface, but the move for this has little to do with real safety. Abortions in reputable clinics have very, very few complications. What IS making abortions unsafe, hard to get and forcing many women to go to underground, shady and unsafe places is the anti-abortion movement.

As for Planned Parenthood, funny that you claim Christianity, but feel you have the right to judge without getting full information. THAT is my main point. Most of those links you posted are just NOT CORRECT, they are highly edited.

(who really only support a persons right to choose to have the abortion, never to choose not to have one) mentality to allow them to make a considerable profit in an unregulated business which they really have no business to be in at all.

You are truly and utterly disgusting. Yes, YOU.. not those performing abortions, but folks like you who think you have the right to dictate medical procedures based no your personal, religious opinion and NOT FACTS, worse you cannot be bothered to verify your facts.

Feel free to bring up your evidence.. but it had best be real. Among other issues, despite the claims to the contrary, fetal tissue cannot be sold for profit, despite what a few people who saw a piece of a very carefully cut video like to claim. And, beyond that -- abortion is nasty. The question is whether shutting down clinics, making the procedure utterly unsafe or even just unavailable in many areas is the answer. Seems like if you cannot convince someone prior to having an abortion that its a bad idea, there MIGHT just be more involved than your personal opinions are willing to acknowledge. Seems like maybe your "sensible arguments" are not so persuasive after all.

OH, yeah, there is still only one credible study on Abortions. Funny how every side seems to claim it supports their position. Might rather be a clue that most of you have never bothered to read it!

I like you Bernie. You are so funny. "We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions."

The part you fail to explain is that it is that way because of folks like you, NOT some imaginary folks out to kill babies for mere profit.

And it would be really nice if you actually researched your opinions before declaring them as fact.

[muy_thaiguy]

tzor, you seem to have gone further off the deep end in the last year or so.

That's unfortunate. My memory tells me that you used to be relatively level-headed and interested in facts over partisanship. That no longer appears to be the case.

The last year or so this place has more or less sunk to what flame wars was just before it was taken out. A few exceptions, but yeah. It's turned into an even bigger troll fest than what it was a year ago.

[BoganGod]

I prefer to get my Abortions at McDonalds

Cheap procurement of abortions. Step 1, purchase any McDonald's product made from pink slime. Step 2, ingest said product along with some soft curd cheese and salmon dip. Step 3, Imagine Ronald McDonald talking sexy to Wendy.....

[PLAYER57832]

tzor, you seem to have gone further off the deep end in the last year or so.

That's unfortunate. My memory tells me that you used to be relatively level-headed and interested in facts over partisanship. That no longer appears to be the case.

The last year or so this place has more or less sunk to what flame wars was just before it was taken out. A few exceptions, but yeah. It's turned into an even bigger troll fest than what it was a year ago.

yeah, welcome to you both.

Sadly, the worst offenders seem to simply not understand what honest debate entails. Sadly they seem to equate anyone disagreeing with their opinion with "trolling".

[Phatscotty]

Do middle aged white men in the Republican Party want to control a woman's reproduction organ?

What's the solution to middle-aged white men?

what we have already..... tolerable overt systemic government funded anti-white racism

[Phatscotty]

No silly, we are already there. Haven't you seen the videos? Haven't you heard about Dr. Gosnell? There are many "abortion facilities" in the United States that are a disgrace ... they might have been acceptable in ... I don't know ... the 18th century ... in terms of sanitation and provisions for the health of the women who undergo surgical procedure there, but for the 21st century, they are a bloody disgrace that make the days of "back-room" abortions seem a step forward.

So you're in favor of Abortions... and you support increased investment to update these facilities?

Oh please! No one is "in favor of abortions". some people are, however in favor of legalization. Abortion is never a wonderful choice, but sometimes it is the "less worse" option.

If you want to prevent abortion, denying women safe access to clinics is not the way to do it. Face it, your "education" measures (in quotes because the same groups opposing abortion are also against proper sex education, though it is proven to reduce the rate of abortions!). Similarly, denying women health care, by claiming that paying the miniscule portion of insurance policy premiums is somehow denying religious freedom, is ridiculous.

Um, actually there are quite a few people who are against abortion because they think it's murder, and others are against abortion because they believe every human being has rights, especially to life, and to many of these pro-life people it has NOTHING to do with sex education whatsoever. wut?

Um, yes, there are also quite a few people who are very much in favor of abortions. Maybe you've heard of people being pro-choice? wut?

and, UMMM, who in the hell even said anything about religious freedom??? WUT? And the final UMmmm, people are in favor of legalization? oh, cuz abortions are illegal? WUT??

(bottle comments withheld - for now)

[/]

No silly, we are already there. Haven't you seen the videos? Haven't you heard about Dr. Gosnell? There are many "abortion facilities" in the United States that are a disgrace ... they might have been acceptable in ... I don't know ... the 18th century ... in terms of sanitation and provisions for the health of the women who undergo surgical procedure there, but for the 21st century, they are a bloody disgrace that make the days of "back-room" abortions seem a step forward.

So you're in favor of Abortions... and you support increased investment to update these facilities?

Oh please! No one is "in favor of abortions". some people are, however in favor of legalization. Abortion is never a wonderful choice, but sometimes it is the "less worse" option.

If you want to prevent abortion, denying women safe access to clinics is not the way to do it. Face it, your "education" measures (in quotes because the same groups opposing abortion are also against proper sex education, though it is proven to reduce the rate of abortions!). Similarly, denying women health care, by claiming that paying the miniscule portion of insurance policy premiums is somehow denying religious freedom, is ridiculous.

Um, actually there are quite a few people who are against abortion because they think it's murder, and others are against abortion because they believe every human being has rights, especially to life, and to many of these pro-life people it has NOTHING to do with sex education whatsoever.

Current legal rights currently covered in the US (contraception, early-term termination) destroy a "life" of less cognitive, cellular, nervous, or any other sort of measurable function than a chicken. Strict pro-lifers have less ethical justification than a "meat is murder" PETA protester.

To play devil's advocate, even assuming there is some special quality that make every human life valuable, there has always been a flaw in mainstream rhetoric. Does prohibition work? Time and time again, you, along with many other libertarian leaning posters and politicians have consistently claimed that prohibition does not solve problems; not guns, not drugs, etc. If this is true, then as player and op have pointed out, the alternative to a legally regulated doctor is an unscrupulous DIY/blackmarket alternative. If this is so, then the only thing accomplished through a ban is greatly increasing the risk that two lives are lost in every incident rather than one.

[PLAYER57832]

First, I am seriously glad to see you back here now. You and I disagree, but you mostly tend to at least maintain a civil discourse.. or at least you did. That is what debate is about.. discussion with people who do not agree.

Um, actually there are quite a few people who are against abortion because they think it's murder, and others are against abortion because they believe every human being has rights, especially to life, and to many of these pro-life people it has NOTHING to do with sex education whatsoever. wut?

My post was a response to Tzor, who is against both.
Even so:
The biggest so called "pro-life" groups (Roman Catholic church members, Latter Day Saints, many Fundamentalist Christian groups, etc.) are against sex education, often claiming that it actually encourages kids to engage in sex rather than just informing them of what is involved including risks, ways to minimize some risks (not prevent), etc. and yes.. this IS proven and I have previously provided you data showing a clear link between sex education and a reduction in both teen pregnancies and abortions across the board.

There is also a strong link between those groups who are anti-abortion and those groups who want taxes cut -- period, and seem to think this things have nothing at all to do with abortion, despite evidence that both proper sex education, access to birth control and social service help seriously reduce the rates of abortion. Aside from the obvious (women having access to birth control allows them to highly reduce the chance of getting pregnant), social services also go far to ensuring the health of women, both before and during pregnancy, but particularly beforehand. A healthy mother is far more likely to have a healthy baby and is more likely to be able to handle having that baby. Healthy babies far reduce a major (and ignored by the so-called "right to life" group) cause of abortion, namely serious a debilitating health issues in either the mother or child.

Um, yes, there are also quite a few people who are very much in favor of abortions. Maybe you've heard of people being pro-choice? wut?

No, we are in favor of LEGALIZED abortion. There is a big difference. No one sane likes abortion -- definitely not the doctors performing it, not the vast majority of women undergoing the procedure, basically no one sane. It is, however sometimes BETTER than the alternative. Yep, death is not the worst thing that can happen to a child, by far. People in favor of legalized abortion are not folks who don't like kids. In fact, a major reason women have an abortion is so they can safely have a healthy child later -- a child that won't tear up their fallopian tubes, uterus, or put the mother at serious risk of own death. Similar are the number of women who plain realize that they cannot at that time, carry, give birth to a child in a manner that will keep that child healthy. And, though you may disagree, a lot of women feel it is better to not have a child than to put the child into our adoption programs. I don't agree with that last, but this is not about just my beliefs.

and, UMMM, who in the hell even said anything about religious freedom??? WUT? And the final UMmmm, people are in favor of legalization? oh, cuz abortions are illegal? WUT??

You, Tzor believethat human life begins at conception, that the soul enters then. OK, but that is a religious position, it is not biological position.


And as for any comments withheld.. I have previously engaged in this debate with you. I will engage again, but if you insist on reducing yourself to slurs and nasty pictures.. well, then it shows you have no real argument. I am well aware of all the facts. Abortion is nasty. So is life for many children. And again, that is where religion, not fact, comes into play.

Also, I repeat something I said earlier..

How many women do you know who have had miscarriages? Abortions? Do you routinely discuss female issues? Do you really know how a woman can tell if she has had a miscarriage versus just a heavy period? Do you have any idea what the real rate of miscarriage is or why women have abortions? No?

The real truth is that these subjects are not things that most people feel comfortable talking about. There is a LOT of misinformation and distortion because talking about women's reproduction just is not a comfortable topic. You won't ask a woman about her menstrual cycle, probably would be slapped if you did in most contexts, but yet you feel you have the perfect right to tell a woman that you know better than her doctor or clergy whether an abortion is OK in her particular case or not. There are more than a few things wrong with that!

Also, per datat -- Note that there is only one real study done on those things. Funny how everyone on all sides seems to cite it. Might indicate most either have not read it or just don't understand what it actually says.

[strike wolf]

I loved Edward Scissorhands!

Well he'd be better at abortions than Sweeney Todd.

[tzor]

This is utter and total bullsh*t perpetrated by folks who want to claim abortion is evil and therefore are happy to believe any negative lie.

No the bullshit is with you and everyone else who tries to associate a crappy organization founded on the principles of eugenics with motherhood and apple pie.

It is a medical procedure. Most are done in non-profit facilities, but to the extent they profit, it is no different than any other medical procedure.

Again, cry me a river. "It's a medical procedure." Only, by law, it doesn't come with any of the standard regulations of a medical procedure. Let's go through Geico Meme's 101. What do abortion doctors do? Why they do abortions; it's what they do. They are a one procedure pony. Even a gastroenterologist‎ will perform proctoscopes and endoscopes. Forget about the notion of "profit" ... if you want a salary you have to do what you do. Yes it's not different from any medical procedure, except it has a supreme court decision and people are more than willing to look the other way.

AND... lest you try to bring up the planned parenthood video,

Actually I wasn't going to bring up any video. Most "facilities" are never properly inspected to ensure they comply with proper medical standards, whose facilities are not near hospitals and when they are whose "doctors" do not have privileges in those hospitals performing procedures that have a real chance of resulting in a critical uterine wall tear.

NO, I don't have to bring up the planned parenthood video. Kermit Gosnell is not a unique occurrence. (Movie coming soon.) While not everyone are that level of killing, there area lot of facilities out there that would not pass proper medical inspection whose "doctors" can't get proper employment if held to proper medical standards.

Why don't you ask your friends and colleagues about their miscarriages, menstrual cycles and other female issues? No?

I'm not sure what that has to do with an organization that takes unfair advantage of women, but whatever. I'm more than willing to discuss these things. Miscarriages suck, both emotionally and physically. As to "female issues" I would be more than willing to discuss these things as well, although obviously as a person who doesn't have those sort of things.

you won't enter into those conversastions, but feel you have the perfect right to just decide when an abortion is and is not OK.

We determine all sorts of medical procedures as OK or not OK. The moral questions are the same for euthanasia as it is for abortion.

That is fine within your church, but we have FREEDOM of religion for plenty of reasons and this is exactly one.

I would be very careful going down this argument. By that argument a radical Islamist have every right (according to his religion) to cut your head off with a knife). Freedom of religion is what you believe not how you act.

Until a child is viable, its entire existence depends on the body of the mother. If that mother is not fully and 100% capable of raising that child, then forcing her to carry it is not good for the child or the society that will have to deal with the consequences.

So we are only talking about pre-viable abortions? This whole notion of "forcing" is nonsense. It is the abortion industry that looks to pressure women who are facing tough choices into the easy fix of the quick abortion. It is the same abortion industry that tries to shut down those who want to help both the woman and the pre-born at the same time by addressing the problems that underlie the stress of that woman carrying that child to term.