How can one murder a fertile egg? Would breaking a fertile egg kill a chicken?
On these boards you don’t have to dance around the fact that people are liars without calling them liars. You can cite to facts that prove that they are lying and presto, everyone knows they are a liar. Of course if you are calling them liars because they think their position on abortion makes them pro-life and you think their position on abortion makes them terrorists then that sounds like a difference of opinion rather than lying.
Wait, you can’t accuse posters of bigotry on this board? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen accusations of bigotry directed at other posters on Israel threads, race/IQ threads, affirmative action threads, tea party threads, etc.
No, I’m pretty sure that you are narrowing the definition of murder.
What?!
Are you saying that a fertile human egg can become a horse? Or are you high right now and trying to describe how a chicken fetus at 1 month looks like a human fetus at one month?
See, Finn’s analogy of being against killing homeless people without having any desire to provide for them.
I like my formulation better because when you ask people how many blastocysts is a newborn baby worth, it becomes really fucking clear that whatever “life” may exist at conception is nearly worthless compared to a newborn baby. But, somehow, its STILL important enough to deny women a choice.
I’ve had to dance around a lot of stuff on this board in dealing with people who were quite obviously racist, homophobic, or at times determinedly stupid as a strategy to refuse to understand why their delusions weren’t reality. I’m not sure I’d prefer a more “open season” attitude in GD, though, because invariably and rapidly it’d degenerate from “based on your statements, you are clearly a bigot” to “ur a fag lol”.
I think the “no use of ‘fuck you’ etc. in the Pit” rule is annoying, though. Some posters deserve exactly as much.
One very striking example of this effect is tribal female genital mutilations, which are often practiced by adult women against young girls. You’d think, if anyone in the world would be against the practice, it would be someone who had suffered from it, but, no, that isn’t the way it happens.
Can you identify Governor Vaginal Probe? Cuz a lot of people around here would know exactly who you were referring to.
I think that it might be useful to point out the ratio of anti-abortion/anti-gay/tax reduction bills have been voted on in the house versus how many bills have been voted on.
I think it might be useful to show that graph that shows the number of anti-abortion bills that have been voted on in state legislatures in the last two years versus the previous 20 years.
The most severe versions of FGM exist to serve the purposes of the older women in the first place. It’s the women who usually outright cut off the clitoris and other parts, while the men tend to just bind the girl’s labia shut (not that both aren’t barbaric). Destroying a younger girl’s ability to enjoy sex makes her less likely to compete with older women for men. Men are just interested in keeping the girl from having sex with other men. Interestingly, this has clear parallels in the animal kingdom; there are dominant female animals that use pheromones and terror to prevent lower status females from mating at all, while all sorts of males use various biological methods to plug up a female or otherwise prevent her from being inseminated by other males.
I know it is. And Prohibition was an honest desire to stop drunkeness, and teaching creationism is from an honest desire to keep kids from drifting from God’s own word.
We just don’t agree that it is murder. No one can prove that it is murder - it is a matter of opinion.
We mourn a person who dies from murder in much the same way as we mourn a person who dies from natural causes. But if a very small fetus is aborted - say by a morning after pill - these people call it murder, while if it dies naturally usually no one even knows a “person” existed.
If you don’t consider the proposal for intrusive vaginal probes a power trip to control womens bodies, I don’t know what to say.
I think the Catholic Church at least acknowledges that emergency contraceptives are not abortive. Premarital sex and using contraception are still viewed as grave sins, however.
It could be Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia or Governor Rick Perry of Texas.
I found this (handy graph at the link or click on handy graph here for only the graph and no article):
The problem with running on that* is the polling shows Americans to be on the other side of the issue. Most Americans (60%) think abortion should either be illegal or should have more restrictions than currently exist.
Go to the CBS Poll about 3/4 of the way down.
*“that” being: OMG, the GOP is trying to put more restrictions on abortions!
That may be how it polls but I am willing to bet if the pollsters related what these “restrictions” constitute people would not be as keen to side with the “more restrictions” crowd.
- Vaginal probes (for no medical reason)
- Tell your boss why you’re on the pill (this one beggars belief)
- Mandate that doctors tell women abortion causes breast cancer (factually untrue)
- Allow doctors to withhold information from their patient if they think that info could lead to an abortion (they cannot be sued for medical malpractice)
There’s more…lots more but those are the low hanging fruit ones that leap to mind.
We simply have no idea how easy people think abortion is to get, what restrictions they think are already in place and what new restrictions they think are in order.
It is a terribly vague and open ended question.
There have been numerous attempts to define a fertilized (but not yet implanted) egg as “human.” That would make any technique which prevented implantation murder. Your cite disputes that the morning after pill prevents implantation. Yes, if no egg was fertilized then no abortion has happened. One of the functions of the IUD is to prevent implantation (if the others have failed) which would make using it under these policies murder in certain cases.
And the Catholic Church would oppose the morning after pill in either case, so this does not demonstrate any sudden laxity on their part.
Well, your 2nd cite doesn’t say what your summary says it does, but on the ultrasound and waiting period issue as well as the health risk warnings, you’d lose that bet: Link.
For the 2nd cite (from my link):
So yeah…your employer can demand to know why you are on the Pill if you want it to be covered by employer provided insurance.
And I do not think you understand the other issues if you think that poll you cited indicates I am wrong.
-
The ultrasound I linked to is a vaginal ultrasound. They stick a probe up the woman’s vagina. The poll does not specify this rather dramatic invasion. Betting most people figure it is the non-invasive type on the tummy.
-
Waiting periods I never mentioned (although the poll specified 24 hours and there is one out there now which has a 72 hour waiting period).
-
Health risk warnings are one thing. The poll does not mention giving women a warning that is completely false from their doctor.
And polls aside it remains that republicans are waging a massive, hitherto unprecedented, assault on women’s reproductive rights as indicated by my earlier post.
No, it doesn’t say that. I’m not trying to defend the bill, but it doesn’t require you to “tell your boss why you’re on the pill”.
Your bet is your cite? If you think the facts support your view, bring facts. Don’t tell us about your bet. The poll I linked to is better than any you linked to (that is, none).
Besides, the VA bill never explicitly mandated vaginal probes, just “ultrasound”, and the Republicans put in wording for women to opt out of that type of examination once the topic was raised, so that the bill that ultimately passed did not require a vaginal probe ultrasound.
So, the question remains: do you want to be on the pro Ultrasound side or the anti side, if we’re talking about the politically smart position here?
True, but it’s the game Republicans can play against Democrat, who generally oppose such measures.
Then why don’t you bring in a poll that says most people don’t want doctors warning women about breast cancer? I have no idea what the result would be, and neither do you. People believe all sorts of nutty stuff about what does and does not cause cancer, and every year the government seems to flip on something either being good or bad for you. This is not a debate that can be won on the nuance of whether or not abortions increase the risk of breast cancer. Besides, the breast cancer warning was just one item on a list of other warnings. Are the Dems going to say they don’t want doctors to warn women about any risks?
Do you honestly think Democrats should be campaigning on making abortions easier to get, no matter what the issue is? Safe, legal and rare is the mantra. I don’t see anything to gain from the Dems trying to fight the “rare” aspect.
I really wish this were a tact the Dems could use to prevent the GOP from whittling away access to abortion for women. I’m hard core pro-choice. But the US is not very abortion friendly, and you’re playing with fire if you want to be on “pro-abortion side” of things-- which is the way it’s going to look if the Dems rally around that cause.
If you want your insurance to pay for the Pill and your employer objects to its use as birth control the woman needs to provide a medical reason from her doctor to the employer.
So yeah, if you want your prescription covered by your employer provided insurance and your employer demands it then you have to show your employer why you are on the pill. That one has been signed into law.
You did not provide a poll that asked about transvaginal ultrasounds.
But if you want to hang your hat on a poll (heh): Poll shows Virginia voters opposed to ultrasound bill
Here’s another poll showing people are against it.
The original bill (PDF) mandated a determination of gestational age via ultrasound. This can only be reliably done via a transvaginal ultrasound at an early gestational age (which is when most abortions are performed).
If you think it was not a part of the bill (which passed the Virginia House and Senate) did not include a transvaginal requirement then it is odd that the Governor and legislature worked to re-write the bill to omit that.
So, while the requirement ultimately did not get signed into law it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying on the republican’s part. It was only the governor balking at the end which changed it.
You want to be on the anti side if it is a transvaginal ultrasound.
And are you arguing political expediency or the ethics of assaulting women’s reproductive rights?
Not sure what your point is here.
Huh? Do you really think people, if asked, would say, “Yes, I want the government to force my doctor to lie to me.”?
Really? You really believe that? I doubt a poll is done on that because why would they even think to ask it? Who in their right mind would ever answer yes to that?
And who gives a shit about what “nutty” stuff people believe about what causes cancer? We are talking about your doctor who one would hope is not providing medical advice based on nutty stuff. I provided a link for you which unambiguously shows there is zero connection between abortions and breast cancer (from the American Cancer Society so I would think a trusted and unbiased source on this topic).
Indeed there is a slightly elevated risk of breast cancer if the baby is carried to term.
No one is saying a patient shouldn’t be apprised of the risks but you are defending the government mandating that doctors tell you lies? Did someone hijack your account because that does not sound like a dodge you’d let me get away with.
Here’s an idea. How about we remove the wrong information from the list? Simple eh?
Who said anything about making them easier to get?
The issue is a massive and unprecedented effort by republicans to make them harder to get. Yes dems should oppose that.
Of all the things this country has to deal with we need to spend time fighting to stop women having to have a probe stuck up their vagina for no other reason than to make an abortion that much more unpleasant and expensive and difficult to obtain?
Honestly I think republicans are working so hard on this to distract people from noticing what colossal fuck-ups they are on the major issues facing the country today. Get the masses focused on abortion and gay marriage and nevermind the economy or jobs.
Look. The abortion debate in US politics in not some nuanced GD debate. It’s going to boil down to Americans wanting abortion to be legal, but being very uncomfortable with making it “too easy”.
Politically, the Dems need to support Roe v Wade, and oppose Republican efforts to overturn it. Period
If they try to get down in the mud and debate policy over nuanced abortion legislation, they are going to lose that battle, because they are going to come off as “pro-abortion”.
If I were a Democrat running against a Republican, I would keep the argument at the highest level possible: Do you or do you not support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion? Let the Republicans try and defend making abortion illegal, which is their stated policy. That’s a losing proposition for the Republicans.
So, when republicans put forward an unprecedented number of anti-choice legislation that includes vile things like vaginal probes (imagine you were a woman who was raped seeking an abortion and they force that on you) dems should just step away and take the high road?
Not sure what you are suggesting here.
I’ve said what I have to say.