PDA

View Full Version : More Conservative Idiocy on Rape...This Time by a Woman


houghtam
06-24-2013, 01:48 PM
Some of you may remember me saying this to cut:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3866948&postcount=27

Now, if only the members of your party would get their heads out of their asses and stop putting their feet in their mouths, then maybe the GOP might be able to siphon some of the more fiscally conservative people who refuse to vote Republican because they think they're a bunch of cavemen.

But it won't happen. I can guarantee you, like clockwork, at least one GOP politician will say something stupid about either LGBT issues or rape/abortion THIS WEEK.Aaaaaand what do you know...and it's a woman this time that apparently doesn't even know how her own body works.

Texas Abortion Law Closer to Passing Even After Absurd Rape Comment

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/texass-drastic-abortion-law-closer-passing-even-absurd-171300998.html

"In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out. The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."

- Jodie Laubenberg (R)Just another example of a culture of ignorance that shuns science, technology and knowledge. And to think, this woman was once Chair of the Texas House Public Health Committee. And most of you still probably think prerequisites for committee positions are a bad idea.

And still another issue here is the constant chorus of conservatives (like Beavis) saying "Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere, you don't need to worry about losing your precious abortions" and yet here they are, passing laws like this that ban abortions after 20 weeks. Even if (when) the Supreme Court strikes it down, it will at the very least come out as a colossal waste of taxpayer time and money.

So much for fiscal conservatism.

Rigs11
06-24-2013, 01:54 PM
Republicans: Boehner's to Blame for GOP's Foot-in-Mouth Disease
R
epublicans are blaming House leadership for losing focus and giving divisive bills too much play.


Fetal masturbation. Rape doesn’t usually result in pregnancy. Grade-schoolers should be taught traditional gender roles.

A handful of House Republican lawmakers seem unable to stop making headlines on abortion and gay marriage. And Republicans on and off the Hill know who’s to blame:

House Speaker John Boehner.

GOP lawmakers, strategists, and insiders say Boehner and House leadership are enabling foot-in-mouth disease by allowing divisive social issues to reemerge at a time when Republicans were finally winning the daily messaging war against a controversy-plagued White House.

Republicans say they want leadership to start calling out the fringers, distancing the party from the lawmakers’ remarks. And they want leaders to stop bowing to interest-group pressure to put risky social issues on the House floor.

“Somebody, somewhere has got to strengthen their spine, and they have to man up and say to the groups, ‘These are not the kinds of conversations that are going to win elections and keep us in the majority,’ ” said Lisa Camooso Miller, a former House GOP leadership aide.

The current controversy began during debate on a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks. The plan’s Republican sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, said, “You know, the incidences of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.” Within hours, the Internet exploded with comparisons to former Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s infamous “legitimate rape” comments.

But it didn’t stop there.

A few days later, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, trying to argue that if a 15-week fetus can feel pleasure it can also feel pain, stumbled into what has become known as the fetal-masturbation argument. “If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to think that they could feel pain?” the former OB/GYN asked.

The next day, GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia took to the floor to support the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, by arguing that schools should teach traditional gender roles to kids in grade school.

The resulting trifecta was met in some Republican circles with the collective thwap of palms smacking foreheads.

“When there is an occasional Akin eruption, that very much undermines our messages on the issues that the American people care about,” said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa. “When these types of very incendiary comments are made, it brands other Republicans, who do not share those views, with those who make inflamatory, and I would argue uninformed, comments.”

Dent and others said leadership shouldn’t have put the abortion bill on the floor in the first place. They should be focused on the issues people care about, namely jobs and public distrust of government. Instead, he said, “we just had a debate on rape and abortion. Good grief.”

Or, as Camooso Miller put it, “After Trent Franks said what he said ... who in leadership in his right mind thought that it was a good idea to put that out? Anybody with half a brain would know that only more bad quotes would come from it.”

A GOP strategist went even further, calling it “leadership-sponsored ignorance.”

But a House GOP leadership aide defended the decision to put the bill on the floor, citing the Kermit Gosnell trial that saw the Philadelphia abortion doctor sentenced to life in prison for killing a baby born alive.

“It doesn’t make sense to pull a bill that has overwhelming support in the wake of something as horrible as the Gosnell trial because somebody said something that sounded inartful,” the aide said. “I’m sure that many of the same people sitting in booths in downtown restaurants saying we should have pulled the bill would be saying we lacked backbone” if we had pulled it.

Still, those “inartful” comments are particularly worrisome among Republican women.

“For every step forward Republicans have taken to promote positive messages on jobs, the economy, the recent scandals or the negative impacts of 'Obamacare,' comments from a small handful of members—ranging from the unbelievable to the absurd—have drowned them out,” said a female GOP strategist. “These comments are scaring and alienating women, and it’s sad because conservative policies help women far more than liberal policies do.”

Republican women lawmakers are “growing increasingly frustrated,” according to one GOP lawmaker. The leadership needs to weigh in. “It’s not changing people’s minds, it’s just saying, ‘Hey, don’t say stupid things,’ ” the lawmaker said.

But that’s exactly the problem: Leadership hasn’t told anybody to knock it off, according to another GOP lawmaker.

“Nobody wants to stick their neck out too far,” the legislator said. “The problem is, nobody confronts members.”

Of course, leaders can’t tell members what they can and can’t say. But, insiders argue, they can enforce message discipline through public shaming and reduce the opportunities for members to embarrass the party.

“Fetal masturbation? This is something that someone woke up and thought, ‘I’m going to bring this up.’ It’s just exasperating,” a GOP consultant said. “Instead of doing the things that are going to help us attract more voters and expand the reach of party from a messaging perspective, we’re in a position of continuing to alienate our own voters. It’s like extreme tyranny of the minority.”

But leadership maintains there’s not much they can do. “Each member of Congress is elected by their constituents and has First Amendment rights. I’m sure that former Speaker Pelosi wishes that Rep. Weiner, for example, had not said or tweeted some of the things he said and tweeted. That’s just part of life in a democracy,” the leadership aide said.

Then again, Weiner was forced to resign after sending a young woman a crotch selfie. Nobody’s arguing that the GOP lawmakers resign, but should Republicans who wander off the party’s talking points face some kind of discipline?

Dent wryly left the question unanswered saying, “Retribution can backfire very easily. But when one wants to respond to these types of situations, I would argue that retribution is a dish best served cold.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republicans-boehner-s-to-blame-for-gop-s-foot-in-mouth-disease-20130623

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 02:08 PM
Some of you may remember me saying this to cut:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3866948&postcount=27

Aaaaaand what do you know...and it's a woman this time that apparently doesn't even know how her own body works.

Texas Abortion Law Closer to Passing Even After Absurd Rape Comment

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/texass-drastic-abortion-law-closer-passing-even-absurd-171300998.html

Just another example of a culture of ignorance that shuns science, technology and knowledge. And to think, this woman was once Chair of the Texas House Public Health Committee. And most of you still probably think prerequisites for committee positions are a bad idea.

And still another issue here is the constant chorus of conservatives (like Beavis) saying "Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere, you don't need to worry about losing your precious abortions" and yet here they are, passing laws like this that ban abortions after 20 weeks. Even if (when) the Supreme Court strikes it down, it will at the very least come out as a colossal waste of taxpayer time and money.

So much for fiscal conservatism.

Didn't you once tell me that viability should be the big red abortion line?

peacepipe
06-24-2013, 02:25 PM
Didn't you once tell me that viability should be the big red abortion line?

Here's butthead beavis with his usual drive by distraction from the thread topic.

Pony Boy
06-24-2013, 02:30 PM
Just another example of a culture of ignorance that shuns science, technology and knowledge. And to think, this woman was once Chair of the Texas House Public Health Committee. And most of you still probably think prerequisites for committee positions are a bad idea.

And still another issue here is the constant chorus of conservatives (like Beavis) saying "Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere, you don't need to worry about losing your precious abortions" and yet here they are, passing laws like this that ban abortions after 20 weeks. Even if (when) the Supreme Court strikes it down, it will at the very least come out as a colossal waste of taxpayer time and money.

So much for fiscal conservatism.

I'm not sure why you have your panties in a wad ............. They will use a rape kit to collect all the evidence of the rape and then offer her Plan "B". How simple can that be and if they don't offer her plan "B" she can have her 12 year old daughter go buy her a pill from the local Walgreen’s.

houghtam
06-24-2013, 02:40 PM
Didn't you once tell me that viability should be the big red abortion line?

I don't believe I have ever said anything of the sort.

But since you brought up viability again, I will tell you that I've followed your take on viability while discussing with other posters, and it's a very nebulous definition.

You talk about having the technology to keep a baby alive, but to me, that's not "viability". Viability would be for the baby to be able to survive with standard medical attention for a healthy baby...

Technology is great, but if the family cannot afford to pay for the technology to keep its child alive, then is the answer really "welp, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place"? Are people really suggesting that you should not have children (and thus not have sex) until you are financially prepared to pay for all contingencies for your child's birth? Watch the birth rate go down to zero.



And all of this is over and above what I said before, which is that we hear over and over from conservatives just like you "don't worry, Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere", and then the minute we point out that members of your party are still trying to work around the law after 40some years, you start playing the "redefining viability" game.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 02:56 PM
Technology is great, but if the family cannot afford to pay for the technology to keep its child alive, then is the answer really "welp, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place"? Are people really suggesting that you should not have children (and thus not have sex) until you are financially prepared to pay for all contingencies for your child's birth? Watch the birth rate go down to zero.

This is one of your dumber arguments. It's not about doctor bills. It's about viability and personhood. There is a line somewhere. Where?

Otherwise Kermie was just providing a "valuable" public service. Free Kermie!

houghtam
06-24-2013, 03:13 PM
This is one of your dumber arguments. It's not about doctor bills. It's about viability and personhood. There is a line somewhere. Where?

Otherwise Kermie was just providing a "valuable" public service. Free Kermie!

Viability is most definitely at least partially about doctor bills, just as euthanasia is. Man, for a conservative, you apparently don't (read: pretend not to) realize how much money makes the world go round.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 03:41 PM
Viability is most definitely at least partially about doctor bills, just as euthanasia is. Man, for a conservative, you apparently don't (read: pretend not to) realize how much money makes the world go round.

Sorry, but if we're talking pure $.$$, late 2nd and early 3rd trimester abortion makes zero sense.

Oh, and this isn't euthanasia. More like putting a bullet in the back of Grandpa's head unannounced because you were afraid he might need some expensive heart surgery in a few months.

houghtam
06-24-2013, 04:02 PM
Sorry, but if we're talking pure $.$$, late 2nd and early 3rd trimester abortion makes zero sense.

Oh, and this isn't euthanasia. More like putting a bullet in the back of Grandpa's head unannounced because you were afraid he might need some expensive heart surgery in a few months.

Might? Most abortions performed on the basis of catastrophic medical issues are done after its already known.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 04:31 PM
Might? Most abortions performed on the basis of catastrophic medical issues are done after its already known.

How about those performed because Mommy didn't want to miss prom?

houghtam
06-24-2013, 04:38 PM
How about those performed because Mommy didn't want to miss prom?

Ban them, as long as the other policies are put in place which I addressed when I discussed this very topic with Dr. Brownstain weeks ago. Banning abortion without addressing the causes of abortion does not actually reduce the incidence of abortion.

Requiem
06-24-2013, 04:42 PM
♡♥♡♥♡♥¤÷¤♥♡♥♡♥♡ this woman is your next weekend

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 04:59 PM
Ban them, as long as the other policies are put in place which I addressed when I discussed this very topic with Dr. Brownstain weeks ago. Banning abortion without addressing the causes of abortion does not actually reduce the incidence of abortion.

So you're on board with the 20 week ban so long as it has the right list of exceptions.... rape, incest and life of the mother were already carved out in there. What other ADA-compliant provisions would you like added?

peacepipe
06-24-2013, 05:05 PM
How about those performed because Mommy didn't want to miss prom?

As if women are getting abortions in order to go to a dance,these decisions aren't made so lightly. They never are made so easily. With that said,if a women decides to have an abortion for the simple reason she wants to go to a dance then so be it. It's a legal medical procedure our constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS,gives every woman a RIGHT to. The rights we have do not require majority support.

houghtam
06-24-2013, 07:34 PM
So you're on board with the 20 week ban so long as it has the right list of exceptions.... rape, incest and life of the mother were already carved out in there. What other ADA-compliant provisions would you like added?

Depends.

Are you actually interested in reducing the number of abortions, or are you just looking for more to argue about?

houghtam
06-24-2013, 07:36 PM
As if women are getting abortions in order to go to a dance,these decisions aren't made so lightly. They never are made so easily. With that said,if a women decides to have an abortion for the simple reason she wants to go to a dance then so be it. It's a legal medical procedure our constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS,gives every woman a RIGHT to. The rights we have do not require majority support.

It's the same ole **** from the righties. They hear a story somewhere (they can't remember where), and therefore it's an epidemic.

It's like the Obamaphone or voter fraud. One idiot posts a YouTube video and all the sudden it's on Fox News with dramatic music and a "NATION IN CRISIS" headline.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 07:01 AM
As if women are getting abortions in order to go to a dance,these decisions aren't made so lightly. They never are made so easily. With that said,if a women decides to have an abortion for the simple reason she wants to go to a dance then so be it. It's a legal medical procedure our constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS,gives every woman a RIGHT to. The rights we have do not require majority support.

Free Kermie!

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 07:04 AM
Depends.

Are you actually interested in reducing the number of abortions, or are you just looking for more to argue about?

No. It really doesn't depend. Somewhere between conception and preschool the "medical procedure" becomes murder. Where that line is drawn is more than an argument.

TonyR
06-25-2013, 07:11 AM
Banning abortion without addressing the causes of abortion does not actually reduce the incidence of abortion.

Winner. Winner. Chicken dinner.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 07:36 AM
Winner. Winner. Chicken dinner.

Not really consistent with a gun grabber's logic. But prohibitions only work when you tell them to amirite?

TonyR
06-25-2013, 07:45 AM
LOL You're seriously comparing gun control and reproductive rights? Next you'll be saying girls get abortions so they can go to prom. Oh, wait, you already did that...

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 08:18 AM
LOL You're seriously comparing gun control and reproductive rights? Next you'll be saying girls get abortions so they can go to prom. Oh, wait, you already did that...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortionists-license-stripped-for-irresponsibly-facilitating-teens-partial/

The state of Kansas stripped a doctor of her medical license after finding she routinely facilitated George Tiller’s partial birth abortions on young girls for “mental health” reasons as banal having to attend a prom or the stress the teen would experience from hiring a babysitter in order to attend rock concerts.

You remember MSNBC Champion of Choice, Dr George Tiller, don't you?

houghtam
06-25-2013, 08:23 AM
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortionists-license-stripped-for-irresponsibly-facilitating-teens-partial/



You remember MSNBC Champion of Choice, Dr George Tiller, don't you?

Hooray! Anecdotal evidence dictating broad policy! Everyone wins!

TonyR
06-25-2013, 08:25 AM
Hooray! Anecdotal evidence dictating broad policy! Everyone wins!

He's ramping up his intellectual laziness to new heights today.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 08:29 AM
Hooray! Anecdotal evidence dictating broad policy! Everyone wins!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1OmD-QimMXE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bam

houghtam
06-25-2013, 08:29 AM
No. It really doesn't depend. Somewhere between conception and preschool the "medical procedure" becomes murder. Where that line is drawn is more than an argument.

Yes, it really does.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3832128&postcount=499

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 08:32 AM
Yes, it really does.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3832128&postcount=499

So what you're saying is since Casey Anthony wasn't supported with enough federal programs, the government was needlessly meddling with her right to choose.

Free Kermie?

houghtam
06-25-2013, 08:51 AM
So what you're saying is since Casey Anthony wasn't supported with enough federal programs, the government was needlessly meddling with her right to choose.

Free Kermie?

Nice reduction. I only hope you're trying to be cute, and this really isn't what you took away from that discussion.

No. You can play all the logic games and attempt to define and redefine life and viability all you want. What I'm saying is that if you correct the problems which cause most people who have abortions to get them, then you can start talking about banning abortion all together. Unless and until that happens, you're just paying lip service to a problem and not solving it.

If you solve the majority problem, you take away the need for people to cry foul about their "reproductive rights". Sure, there will always be people who keep pounding that drum (like, peacepipe), just as there will always be people who refuse to make exceptions for some abortions because "it's a LIFE, by gum!" (like Tombstone). But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of liberals - 80%+ - would be willing to ban abortion in most instances if we were actually making any real attempts to address very simple problems, like "who is watching my kid while I work/look for a job", as well as "you are not 'above' any job, your kids need you, you're not holding out for a management position, you're working at Target." In fact, in my own circle, where most of the people I associate with are more liberal than I am, I haven't found a single person who wouldn't support a ban on most abortions under those circumstances.

I mean, let's use your own argument about gun laws...since when has banning abortion actually reduced the number of abortions? This is why people favor comprehensive gun control, and not just banning ****. This is also why it doesn't matter how you define or redefine all those words that have to do with a woman's body. If you don't solve the reasons why she might, it still remains an option for her, regardless of the legality.

But no, you're not interested in solving anything, just like the Republicans. You want to bluster away, condemn, and stand up on your soap box and dictate policy for people whose lifestyle you could never hope to understand. You're not interested in reality. You're interested in ideology. Reducing abortions is boring, but firebranding? Now that's fun!!

B-Large
06-25-2013, 09:26 AM
I don't think conservatives should ever give up their pursuit to one day find all abortion a things of the past- I find their effort noble and moral...

that being said, in a effort to make the above statement true, they should be MILITANT about sex education, contraception, and making adoption so easy its a no brainer... instead, in irony, they still espouse shame and fear around the issue of sex... think about all the girls of conservative parents who got pregnant, are terrified and seek an abortion because of the closed mindedness of their parents... how in this day and age when kids are having sex at 11 can someone still think preaching abstinence still works? Don't get me wrong, I think absitenace should be the goal, but god forbid not the only thing we arm out kids with...

That is what makes the GOP modern day social issue knuckledraggers...

houghtam
06-25-2013, 09:43 AM
I don't think conservatives should ever give up their pursuit to one day find all abortion a things of the past- I find their effort noble and moral...

that being said, in a effort to make the above statement true, they should be MILITANT about sex education, contraception, and making adoption so easy its a no brainer... instead, in irony, they still espouse shame and fear around the issue of sex... think about all the girls of conservative parents who got pregnant, are terrified and seek an abortion because of the closed mindedness of their parents... how in this day and age when kids are having sex at 11 can someone still think preaching abstinence still works? Don't get me wrong, I think absitenace should be the goal, but god forbid not the only thing we arm out kids with...

That is what makes the GOP modern day social issue knuckledraggers...

I don't think ANYONE should give up the goal of wanting to make abortions (except of course in certain rare cases) a thing of the past.

But yes, you're right. Conservatives routinely cite inner-city pregnancy statistics without examining right in their own backyard. Like I said in the other thread, to think this isn't just as bad in rural ("Christian!") America is ignorant.

It's also ignorant to think parents can do a better job of educating your children about sex than a medical professional. Guess what? They can't. Or maybe I should rephrase that...even if they "can", they too often "don't". It's a failure of responsibility in the social contract, and it's gone on for far too long. "Sorry parents, you've proven that you, as a whole, cannot or will not teach your kids responsibly about sex...now we're going to do it for you whether you like it or not."

Now watch as the outrage roils up..."how dare you suggest taking away my rights to teach my kids about how the pee pee goes into the thingy!" As if sex were some sacred act that some disembodied voyeur watched and judged you on at every turn, instead of a natural biological process that our animal instincts urge us to do in order to continue the species.

"WHAT?! YOU THINK WE'RE ANIMALS NOW, YOU LIBERAL PINKO??"



See why it's so hard to reduce the number of abortions? It's easier just to say "ban it" and be done. What really confuses me though, is when people like Beavis (or the Texan lawmakers) go out of their way to make all these legal arguments about when and where and why and how life begins...it seems to me it would be a hell of a lot easier to just talk about the actual problem.

Fedaykin
06-25-2013, 09:52 AM
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortionists-license-stripped-for-irresponsibly-facilitating-teens-partial/



You remember MSNBC Champion of Choice, Dr George Tiller, don't you?


The first was Phill Kline, a conservative radio host and fierce abortion opponent who was elected attorney general of Kansas in 2002 and promptly opened an investigation into Dr. Tiller.

In 2004, Mr. Kline subpoenaed case files of 60 women and girls who had late-term abortions performed at Dr. Tiller’s clinic. (He also sought 30 files from Planned Parenthood in Overland Park.) Mr. Kline said his inquiry centered on potential violations of the late-term abortion law and a second law requiring physicians to report evidence of sexual abuse against minors.


...

Mr. Kline’s investigators tried to identify patients anyway, court records show. Mr. Kline also hired medical experts recommended by anti-abortion groups and gave them access to the files without requiring them to pledge confidentiality.

One expert, Paul McHugh, a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, then discussed the files — though not identities — in a videotaped interview arranged by anti-abortion activists that quickly made its way to Mr. O’Reilly and others in the news media.

Calling Mr. Kline’s conduct “inexcusable,” the Kansas Supreme Court reprimanded him in an opinion that questioned his ethics and honesty. “Essentially, to Kline, the ends justify the means,” the justices said.

...

According to Dr. McHugh, the files he saw contained diagnoses like adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression that to his eyes were not “substantial and irreversible.” He also claimed that some women offered “trivial” reasons for wanting an abortion, like a desire to play sports. “I can only tell you,” he said in his taped interview, “that from these records, anybody could have gotten an abortion if they wanted one.”

Yet Dr. McHugh’s description of the files left out crucial bits of context. He failed to mention, for example, that one patient was a 10-year-old girl, 28 weeks pregnant, who had been raped by an adult relative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/us/26tiller.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


Tiller was pretty much constantly under scrutiny. Several times his case was brought to grand jury (because KS allows grand jurys to be held ad the request of the general public.

None of those Grand Jury's chose to indict Tiller. In the oh so liberal KS.

B-Large
06-25-2013, 09:52 AM
I don't think ANYONE should give up the goal of wanting to make abortions (except of course in certain rare cases) a thing of the past.

But yes, you're right. Conservatives routinely cite inner-city pregnancy statistics without examining right in their own backyard. Like I said in the other thread, to think this isn't just as bad in rural ("Christian!") America is ignorant.

It's also ignorant to think parents can do a better job of educating your children about sex than a medical professional. Guess what? They can't. Or maybe I should rephrase that...even if they "can", they too often "don't". It's a failure of responsibility in the social contract, and it's gone on for far too long. "Sorry parents, you've proven that you, as a whole, cannot or will not teach your kids responsibly about sex...now we're going to do it for you whether you like it or not."

Now watch as the outrage roils up..."how dare you suggest taking away my rights to teach my kids about how the pee pee goes into the thingy!" As if sex were some sacred act that some disembodied voyeur watched and judged you on at every turn, instead of a natural biological process that our animal instincts urge us to do in order to continue the species.

"WHAT?! YOU THINK WE'RE ANIMALS NOW, YOU LIBERAL PINKO??"



See why it's so hard to reduce the number of abortions? It's easier just to say "ban it" and be done. What really confuses me though, is when people like Beavis (or the Texan lawmakers) go out of their way to make all these legal arguments about when and where and why and how life begins...it seems to me it would be a hell of a lot easier to just talk about the actual problem.

Its very hardline- so really not inconsistent with how that party views other issues.... its oneof the underlying reasons they lose elections, moderates are tired of it.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 10:05 AM
I don't think ANYONE should give up the goal of wanting to make abortions (except of course in certain rare cases) a thing of the past.

But yes, you're right. Conservatives routinely cite inner-city pregnancy statistics without examining right in their own backyard. Like I said in the other thread, to think this isn't just as bad in rural ("Christian!") America is ignorant.

It's also ignorant to think parents can do a better job of educating your children about sex than a medical professional. Guess what? They can't. Or maybe I should rephrase that...even if they "can", they too often "don't". It's a failure of responsibility in the social contract, and it's gone on for far too long. "Sorry parents, you've proven that you, as a whole, cannot or will not teach your kids responsibly about sex...now we're going to do it for you whether you like it or not."

Wrong answer. Blue-tinted mandatory-sex-ed states tend to have the highest abortion rates. Yokelsberg Red states have similar or even higher pregnancy rates, but fewer abortions. It's a straight morality play. Legitimization encourages. There's no argument.

Now watch as the outrage roils up..."how dare you suggest taking away my rights to teach my kids about how the pee pee goes into the thingy!" As if sex were some sacred act that some disembodied voyeur watched and judged you on at every turn, instead of a natural biological process that our animal instincts urge us to do in order to continue the species.

"WHAT?! YOU THINK WE'RE ANIMALS NOW, YOU LIBERAL PINKO??"



See why it's so hard to reduce the number of abortions? It's easier just to say "ban it" and be done. What really confuses me though, is when people like Beavis (or the Texan lawmakers) go out of their way to make all these legal arguments about when and where and why and how life begins...it seems to me it would be a hell of a lot easier to just talk about the actual problem.

Selfishness isn't the only part of the problem, but it's inarguably the largest part. Murdering another for the sake of your own lifestyle and comfort is wrong. Hiding the assault behind the uterine wall does not make it better. Having teachers tell students there's nothing wrong with that during 'sex education' makes it even worse.

houghtam
06-25-2013, 10:20 AM
Wrong answer. Blue-tinted mandatory-sex-ed states tend to have the highest abortion rates. Yokelsberg Red states have similar or even higher pregnancy rates, but fewer abortions. It's a straight morality play. Legitimization encourages. There's no argument.


My statement about rural vs. urban was in regard to his statement about sex education vs. unwanted pregnancy. I also specifically said unwanted pregnancy in the post I linked from April.

And yes, they have the highest legal abortion rates. What data do you have on the actual abortion rates?

Selfishness isn't the only part of the problem, but it's inarguably the largest part. Murdering another for the sake of your own lifestyle and comfort is wrong. Hiding the assault behind the uterine wall does not make it better. Having teachers tell students there's nothing wrong with that during 'sex education' makes it even worse.

Keep demagoguing. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can talk about wrong, immoral, selfish all you want. Do it til you're blue in the face.

The fact remains that as as long as you and yours continue to do that, you will do absolutely NOTHING to actually reduce the number of abortions.

All blame, no substance.

Fedaykin
06-25-2013, 10:35 AM
Wrong answer. Blue-tinted mandatory-sex-ed states tend to have the highest abortion rates. Yokelsberg Red states have similar or even higher pregnancy rates, but fewer abortions. It's a straight morality play. Legitimization encourages. There's no argument.


Actually, making any valid statement about abortion rates at the federal level is more or less impossible, for at least several reasons:

* There is not national reporting requirement of abortion data
* Most states and localities have no reporting requirement, except when child abuse is involved
* There is a vast difference in reporting rate between different demographics.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 10:42 AM
And yes, they have the highest legal abortion rates. What data do you have on the actual abortion rates?

That 'illegal' abortion constitutes a statistically significant share in Roe V Wade America is a bold (and unsupportable) claim.

Besides, good ol' Kermit's 'abortions' would've been 'legal' under your high-minded statistical standards right up until they weren't. This old "only Blue Stateseses does it right" canard had it's day. It passed.

Keep demagoguing. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can talk about wrong, immoral, selfish all you want. Do it til you're blue in the face.

The fact remains that as as long as you and yours continue to do that, you will do absolutely NOTHING to actually reduce the number of abortions.

All blame, no substance.

You know things are effed up when "Murder is Wrong" is taken as a statement of blame.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 10:50 AM
Actually, making any valid statement about abortion rates at the federal level is more or less impossible, for at least several reasons:

* There is not national reporting requirement of abortion data
* Most states and localities have no reporting requirement, except when child abuse is involved
* There is a vast difference in reporting rate between different demographics.

"It's hard to study, therefore do what we say"

Federally approved stats or no... there is still plenty of data. And virtually none of it says sex ed or progressive politics reduces abortion...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html

But many other socially conservative regions (particularly in the South) feature higher rates of unwed and teenage parenthood than in the country as a whole.

Liberals love to cite these numbers as proof that social conservatism is a flop. But the liberal narrative has glaring problems as well. To begin with, a lack of contraceptive access simply doesn’t seem to be a significant factor in unplanned pregnancy in the United States. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed more than 10,000 women who had procured abortions in 2000 and 2001, it found that only 12 percent cited problems obtaining birth control as a reason for their pregnancies. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of teenage mothers found similar results: Only 13 percent of the teens reported having had trouble getting contraception.

At the same time, if liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect “blue” regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar “red” regions.

But that isn’t what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. “Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.

What’s more, another Guttmacher Institute study suggests that liberal states don’t necessarily do better than conservative ones at preventing teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place. Instead, the lower teenage birth rates in many blue states are mostly just a consequence of (again) their higher abortion rates. Liberal California, for instance, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than socially conservative Alabama; the Californian teenage birth rate is only lower because the Californian abortion rate is more than twice as high.

Enter Hough to tell us that Alabama's abortion rate would suddenly double if we counted wire coat hangers.

houghtam
06-25-2013, 11:04 AM
Let's see here...

- Lack of contraceptive access is not a significant factor
- Poor sex education is not a significant factor
- The ability to provide for a family is not a significant factor
- Access to child care is not a significant factor
- Level of education is not a significant factor

I wonder why I listed all of those things in one post...

Do you understand the word "comprehensive"? How about "complex"?

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 11:12 AM
Let's see here...

- Lack of contraceptive access is not a significant factor
- Poor sex education is not a significant factor
- The ability to provide for a family is not a significant factor
- Access to child care is not a significant factor
- Level of education is not a significant factor

I wonder why I listed all of those things in one post...

Do you understand the word "comprehensive"? How about "complex"?

Sometimes 'comprehensive' turns out to mean "just try **** until something works"

The fact of the matter is most kids know how to prevent pregnancy. And have the means to do so. They're just very very very short-sighted and hormone driven. So they don't.

Assuming no teen-years detainment or forced contraception, there will always be tons of unwanted pregnancies to deal with. Always has been. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just about the most monstrous way to "deal with them" that could ever be devised. The law should reflect that. Yet you specifically make threads calling that out. While calling other demogogues. LOL

houghtam
06-25-2013, 11:40 AM
Sometimes 'comprehensive' turns out to mean "just try **** until something works"

The fact of the matter is most kids know how to prevent pregnancy. And have the means to do so. They're just very very very short-sighted and hormone driven. So they don't.

Assuming no teen-years detainment or forced contraception, there will always be tons of unwanted pregnancies to deal with. Always has been. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just about the most monstrous way to "deal with them" that could ever be devised. The law should reflect that. Yet you specifically make threads calling that out. While calling other demogogues. LOL

As you just lamented in another thread, you're not interested in discussion of facts and will never change your mind, so what's the point?

And your post still doesn't address the other myriad of issues discussed in that thread, such as stigmatism, social safety net, and the like.

Your wanting to ban abortions at a certain point without addressing anything else is essentially the equivalent of only banning "assault rifles" (also loosely defined, much like "viability").

Oh and by the way, the Supreme Court will inevitably strike it down like they've done so many others in the same style, too. So congratulations on wasting more of those taxes you guys so love to hate.

LOL

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 12:05 PM
As you just lamented in another thread, you're not interested in discussion of facts and will never change your mind, so what's the point?

That's not really a fair characterization. 20 weeks or anything near it is a huge compromise position for many who'd like much sooner. Meanwhile, they're greeted with a retort of "Nope, keep aborting 'em until their college is prepaid." The breakdown of communication isn't nearly as one-sided as you like to paint it.

Fedaykin
06-25-2013, 12:07 PM
Beavis: What happened in and since the early 90's that has resulted in a ~50% decline in teen pregnancies and nearly the same drop in abortions since that time?

houghtam
06-25-2013, 12:13 PM
Beavis: What happened in and since the early 90's that has resulted in a ~50% decline in teen pregnancies and nearly the same drop in abortions since that time?

Wasn't DOMA 1996?

LOL LOL

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 01:17 PM
Beavis: What happened in and since the early 90's that has resulted in a ~50% decline in teen pregnancies and nearly the same drop in abortions since that time?

Part A is a complicated question with many possible answers... better contraception options, less social stigma/parental acceptance to using them?

Part B (decline in abortions) would logically follow Part A.

Fedaykin
06-25-2013, 01:25 PM
Part A is a complicated question with many possible answers... better contraception options, less social stigma/parental acceptance to using them?

Part B (decline in abortions) would logically follow Part A.

In other words, even you agree a realistic approach to comprehensive sex eduction is effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions.

Glad we can agree on that much at least.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 01:32 PM
In other words, even you agree a realistic approach to comprehensive sex eduction is effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions.

Glad we can agree on that much at least.

I don't have an issue with public sex ed. My kids will go through some or all of it (depending on what it looks like) I only have an issue with it being made mandatory. Or with it presenting abortion as a birth control option.

Fedaykin
06-26-2013, 05:44 AM
I don't have an issue with public sex ed. My kids will go through some or all of it (depending on what it looks like) I only have an issue with it being made mandatory. Or with it presenting abortion as a birth control option.

You claimed it didn't reduce unwanted pregnancies or abortions, citing crap data. That's what we're dealing with here.

Why should comprehensive sex ed not be mandatory? Where do you see harm in educating people about their bodies?

houghtam
06-26-2013, 07:58 PM
So for those who are interested, the filibuster (a REAL filibuster, not one of those pussy Republican fake threatened ones) combined with some confusion on the Republican side, caused the measure to fail.

And predictably, Rick Perry has called another special session for next week to try and push this thing through, even though if/when it passes, it will get struck down by the Supreme Court anyway.

What a waste of time and money. They might as well be voting to overturn the ACA like their Washington friends.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 06:33 AM
You claimed it didn't reduce unwanted pregnancies or abortions, citing crap data. That's what we're dealing with here.

Why should comprehensive sex ed not be mandatory? Where do you see harm in educating people about their bodies?

The problem with your take is that pregnancy is down everywhere. Even in the yokel states you say aren't following the right prescription. It has far more to do with the mainstream social acceptance of birth control and improved contraception options.

Regardless, its not middle school teachers really driving that.