Know what? I’m pretty sure there are abortions even under Taliban rule, just like there were before *Roe *in the US (do the Pashtun even *have *coathangers?).
The debate isn’t about *banning *abortion; that claim is naïve at best. It’s about how safe they’re allowed to be.
Er…kinda.
Both then, and now, we’re talking about Knights of Columbus.
Individuals have gotten too old to stand outside clinics and pray the rosary (which is all we do, by the way; we don’t initiate conversations with the clinic’s clientele) or have passed away, and younger members have joined and taken their places. So there are some faces still there from 20 years ago, but also some new ones.
I agree: assuming the exchange took place as reported, that’s the most plausible explanation.
He. Will. Never. Answer. You.
Just saying.
(Unless, of course, he decides to now because he’s been shamed into it. Seeing as how he’s so big on shame, that is. But perhaps that’s reserved solely for women?)
Agreed, in my experience as well. Most abortion protesters don’t politely stay back away from the path of egress, calmly and intelligently discuss their positions only with those interested, hand out non scare-tactic literature to passerbys or leave a situation alone immediately upon request. Wherever those types are, I’ve yet to encounter them. Maybe Bricker could point us to examples of some? If Annie’s experience runs so contrary to his own, surely there’ll be no doubt that’d be an easy find.
Well, I suppose it’s possible an abortion protester might have a stirring Sorkinesque speech in them, but more likely when put on the spot by someone confronting them (counter-confronting, one might say) won’t be able to shift gears fast enough to deliver it.
That’s true for a lot of people, though, so when someone has the perfect zinger comeback, it’s notable for its rarity.
A grandfather’s axe sort of situation? Fair enough. Thank you for answering.
My experience is that most of them are idiots, but a very small minority have been articulate and polite.
One guy stomped around, spitting on people, and cursing them cruelly. “Looks like that fat broad is goin’ to HELL!”
But…another guy, very quietly, apologized for the behavior of the first guy, and said, “All Christians aren’t like him.”
You are aware that the SCOTUS agrees with you, right?
The decision being discussed here specifically said that it only addressed “protests” and that already-existing statutes on intimidation and harassment were unaffected
What about cursing and screaming outside a store that sells furs coats among other things?
http://globalnews.ca/video/1068251/anti-fur-activists-protest-yaletown-clothing-store
Special pleadings on both sides of this debate. Or is it true scottsman? You can learn a lot About logical fallacies reading an abortion thread if only there was a play by play announcer like they have for the world cup.
Wow!
Well, our history would be different but if some mutagen was released tomorrow to make every man grow a uterus, I suspect that abortion would still be a debate. Its not about persecuting women, no matter how persecuted some women may feel.
Well, sure not to the same extent. Just like the Republicans wouldn’t be quite a nucking futz if there was a white man wasn’t in the white house, but they would still try to cut taxes for the rich and cut aid for the poor.
YES! That’s exactly what he’s saying. :smack:
Give me an example where a man COULD reasonably be subjugated to a law where a woman is not? If the draft and rape can be handwaved away then I’m at a loss as to what would conceivably be acceptable to you.
ETA: I think picketing an abortion clinic is a pretty low thing. You’re just making yourself feel self righteous at the expense of people who are between a rock and a hard place. If you want to go there with offers to adopt children like bricker’s friend, then fine, otherwise, you’re just there to make yourself feel holy and look down on some sluts that got themselves knocked up?
So you don’t think there is a substantive difference between sexual assault and rape?
It’s a subtle kind of difference, the difference between a set and one of its subsets.
I thought his claim was that women were just as likely to be pro-life as men. The “life begins at conception” crowd is a minority in almost all demographics; same for the “abortion should always be illegal” crowd but it doesn’t seem to tilt dramatically towards men in any event.
Take euthanasia. People might think something like that could justify two doctors making a public disclosure of the circumstances of the euthanasia with redacted names to protect privacy.
Why not just add a $1000 sin tax to it. Is there some point at which we are making first trimester abortions so onerous that the right has been overly burdened (I assume you are against first trimester abortions)?
YOU can maintain anonymity. Doctors have to report all sorts of stuff from infectious diseases to suspected abuse.
The draft isn’t going to happen. The draft hasn’t happened in over forty years. Abortion, however, happens on a daily basis and effects thousands of women’s lives. Do you really think these two things are even in the same ballpark?
And women CAN be charged with rape. Trying to make the argument that women can’t rape a man with her own penis, therefore she is not subjugated to the same laws as a man is crazy talk.
Plenty of people who pay taxes cannot vote. Resident aliens pay taxes but cannot vote. People here on work visas pay taxes but cannot vote. Felons pay taxes but cannot vote. Taxation without representation didn’t really link taxes and the vote at the individual level.
There was that Kermit Gosnell fellow.
There are 11,000 late term abortions (abortions in the 21st week or after) every year. We have previously seen people say that rape abortions were not “rare” because there are 1000 of them every year. So in that context, can we say that late term abortions are fairly common?
Why not just condemn late term abortions absent medical necessity? That way we can defend the 98.5% of abortions that occur before the 20th week (and we can certainly defend the 85% of abortions that occur in the first trimester.
Just a few charts:
If you outlaw abortions, then only outlaws will have abortions 
The second guy could have left out the word “All” Just saying you’re a Christian, doesn’t make it so.
Its subtle like the difference between carbon and diamonds.
Yes. It really doesn’t help your side of the argument to constantly accuse the other side of being solely driven by misogyny. Its not. Its not solely driven by religion either. If you can’t deal with their arguments without resorting to name calling, maybe you should leave the argument to people who don’t get as emotional about it because you’re not going to convince anyone that your’re right and you might convince some people you are wrong.
Apparently, in some states they can’t.
Did you mean to quote someone else because this doesn’t address my post at all.
One freak’n state! Idaho! That one outlier doesn’t exactly breakdown my axiom.
Is there any indication that any percentage of these late term abortions a result of anything *besides *medical necessity ?
Reality is illogical, of course, but ISTM that if you (theoretical you, not *you *you) wind up preggers and choose not to be, there’s precious little point in waiting for months on end before evicting the little squatter. I’ll generously grant, say, two-three months (8-12 weeks) delay for the “noticing you’re actually pregnant” part since some women, particularly young ones, can be slow on the uptake or simply ill-educated on what it means when you haven’t gotten your period in a while (“but I can’t be, I douched with Coke and everything !”); and I’ll also posit say a full month of agonizing over the decision, bringing us to 4 months or 20 weeks (i.e. when the overwhelming majority of abortions do take place, proving I’m not too wrong)…
But beyond that - and bullshit mandatory waiting periods & similar delays caused by deliberate speed bumps put in the path of elective abortions - there doesn’t seem to me to be any sensible reason to wait *five *months, or over half the pregnancy, before deciding that nope, bad idea, back to the drawing board.
Based on this, and admittedly nothing but this since I haven’t been able to find any actual data on the subject, I’m led to assume that those 5 remaining percent are most likely women who did in fact want to go the whole nine [del]yards[/del]months but hit a major snag.
If you have any reason to assume or assert otherwise, I’d be happy to hear about it.
No it was directed at your posts. Your arguments have been teetering between, “pro-lifers are misogynistic men” to “we never force men to do anything”
It doesn’t help your argument to say stuff that is only going to get a few nods from the folks ware waaaay over on your side.
Axioms aren’t supposed to have exceptions and I don’t know that Idaho is the only state that has this sort of law, do you know that for a fact?
I just think you would be better off dropping the notion that the law only places extra burdens on women and none on men or the notion that you can dismiss all the pro-life arguments because they are all woman haters.
The arguments do not lend themselves to clear conclusions otherwise this wouldn’t be such a controversy. You don’t need Jesus to think abortions are wrong. I think the original Hippocratic Oath (who came before Jesus) included a prohibition against providing abortions.
The biggest reason appears to be failure to recognize the pregnancy:
(Note: this is based on a Guttmacher survey of abortions after the 16th week, not the 20th week) medical necessity doesn’t seem to be a really big reason.
I don’t have time to rebut this right now but you’re talking nonsense. If this thread is still alive when I get some time off, I’ll explain why.