“They” don’t “pick” a fetus over a woman. “They” think a fetus is a person, and you don’t kill an innocent person. And “they” are just as likely to be women as men (or close enough for government work).
“They” certainly advocate child support for men, but men can’t have babies, so it’s hard to place “restrictions” on them.
They don’t think you kill innocent people to accomplish anything. It’s really that simple.
I pointed out the reasons these idiots could back this legislation without hating women. I’ve pointed out laws that affect men and not women, proving you were wrong about that, and wrong when you say I haven’t done that. You’ve done nothing but claim hatred of women without pointing to any indication why. By the way, this law would apply to any pregnant men wouldn’t it? If you have any way to show that the reason for this stupid law is hatred of women, say so. The fact that this law only applies to women so far might have something to do with only women being pregnant so far. But that doesn’t mean hatred of women is the reason for it. Which is something that would be obvious to all but idiots as stupid as those legislators.
But it’s OK to kill the innocent pregnant woman?
But, but, but…the woman had SEX, so she can’t be innocent! Who cares if a slut dies? Any woman who has sex (even with her husband) is a slut, didn’t you know that? And sluts must pay for having sex!
What perceont of pro-life people advocate for abortion bans even when the life of the mother is at risk? What percent of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother?
You’re talking about a fringe group’s position to a a rare event. Rare, relative to the total number of abortions.
But if your goal is to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find some group, somewhere who “hate women”, then maybe you’ve hit pay dirt. Maybe.
It matters when someone is attempting to remove funding so that doctors in that rare of rare events can perform a procedure that would save a woman’s life. They’re demonstrating that when push comes to shove, they would rather doctors be uneducated about performing the procedure in any circumstances, rather than discuss the acceptable terms for when they feel an abortion is necessary. Why they feel the need to set the standards of when it is performed and not the physician of the patient in question, I will never understand. But they’ve clearly shown that they have no regard for the health of the woman in cases where the scenario arises because they simply do not want doctors to be trained to do abortions.
Pretty much all of them.
"Abortion, when legally performed in developed countries, is among the safest procedures in medicine. In such settings, risk of maternal death is between 0.2–1.2 per 100,000 procedures. In comparison, by 1996, mortality from childbirth in developed countries was 11 times greater. Unsafe abortions (defined by the World Health Organization as those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities) carry a high risk of maternal death and other complications. For unsafe procedures, the mortality rate has been estimated at 367 per 100,000 (70,000 women per year worldwide) (and five million disabilities).
Once again, compelling women to carry fetuses to term carries an eleven-fold greater risk of death than legal therapeutic abortion in developed nations. Which anti-abortion rights advocates acknowledge and exhibit concern over this?
And which anti-abortion rights advocates acknowledge the inevitable outcome if their dream of ending safe legal abortion comes true (soaring incidence of death and disability from sepsis and other complications of illegal abortions)?
I look forward to answers to these and other compelling questions sometime in the next 50 thread pages. :dubious:
So? There are places that ban abortion outright, for any reason. Apparently that fringe group of yours is managing to wield quite a bit of power over a significant number of women.
Oh please. If you think that any opposing view must come from “anti-abortionists hate all women” then perhaps you should look at your motives.
And guess what? There are groups who hate women! You don’t think reducing a woman to a vessel which must carry all pregnancies to term no matter what might indicate at least a lack of concern for women?
Heh heh heh.
OTOH, if a wife having sex with her husband is a slut, what does that make the man? :dubious: 
This thread started out as nonsense and went downhill from there.
Only because you don’t agree with it. Your opinions are more important than everyone elses?
I dunno, I’ve been trying to have a reasoned debate with you about the issue. You seem to be ignoring me lately though, how disappointing. Or going on about the importance of placating the legislative whims of the extreme pro-life community, or asking that we somehow justify just how many lives would be saved so the aforementioned pro-life legislators could decide if it was really in the best interests of medicine after all. All the while, the closest we’ve gotten to discussing the merits of congress line-item vetoing medical curriculums is your declaration that it is not appropriate for the government to subsidize student loans for doctors. Yeah, I can’t imagine why it’s gone downhill.
So why do they kill babies by fighting UHC which is shown to reduce infant mortality?
What principle makes them fight against UHC that’s more important than the sanctity of one’s own body?
How come Republicans pushed a war of false claims that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, including American service personal, and Iraqis with no real regret?
Are American service personal not innocent? Are Iraqis not innocent because they’re Iraqi?
Why are you trying to undermine the discussion about the revocation of funds for abortion training by spewing all this unrelated bullshit? For fuck’s sake, you are not helping your side.
I’d believe that if we weren’t nearly 40 years into this battle, with several protracted periods of a nominally “pro-life” majority in Congress with a “pro-life” president.
And I’d believe that if any of the leading lights of the activist “pro-life” movement were actually arguing from any position that was congruent with an actual belief that abortion is indeed murder. No one who isn’t seen as a dangerous extremist is advocating jailing (or harming) doctors or women (in the U.S. at least). They’re not agitating for widely available contraceptives, they’re not pushing for better sex education.
I’d believe it if any “pro-life” politicians had actually pushed for any of those things legislatively and our current position was where we landed out of legislative compromise, but they haven’t, and they aren’t trying to.
Instead, both the activists and the politicians are just dicking around with adding more and more access barriers – the activists’ physical, the politicians’ legal – without regard to the hazards that those barriers create for women’s lives and wellbeing.
You are basing your questions from a false premise. My posts stem from the fact that I don’t buy the claim put fourth in this thread that Republicans feel they’re protecting innocent life. They’re not.
True or false does evidence of UHC success mean more or less dead babies thanks to Republican opposition?
They’re all for not meddling in companies, but all for meddling in a person’s own body. I’d just like to know why companies are off limits but violating a person’s control of their body is perfectly fine. Surely that question has an answer?
You’re making yourself look like a talking point moron. Focus on one subject at a time and maybe someone will take the rest of your shit seriously. If you want to point out some broad brush inconsistencies, do it. But don’t expect anyone to fall for your juvenile baiting.
You don’t have to buy the claim that it’s all about life, but John Mace is presenting the case from a pro-lifer’s perspective specifically on the topic of abortion as it relates to funding in medical education. Until you can sit down and have a discussion about one topic at a time, without screaming like a crazy person out of the corner “Bbbut b…b..ut…Iraq! Corporations! UHC! WAH!” then don’t expect to get answers to your non sequitor questions.
I could have phrased that better. What I’m asking is if Republicans are for protecting innocent life, as claimed in this thread, why do they oppose UHC which has proven to have a higher infant survival rate compared to the current system?
They oppose UHC so either they’re okay with the all needlessly dead babies their agenda will kill, or feel there’s things more important saving babies. I’d like to know what this thing is, and why it’s more importan than control of one’s body.
This funding is just an example of their antiabortion agenda.
For the record, we probably feel similarly about many of those topics, but the bottom line is that you are playing into John Mace’s stereotype of liberals who can’t see things from other perspectives and want to whine about topics unrelated to a subject to try and draw out some false Gotcha Ya! when they are two unrelated topics of discussion. So if that’s what you’re trying to do, and make our side appear to be every bit as unable to follow a simple discussion as you seem to be, have at it. But don’t get righteous by thinking you’re pointing out some wild inconsistency and somehow the pro-lifers in question will bow to your superior intellect.
Dude, I am pro-choice but even I can see the logic behind that. They don’t care about enacting long-term systemic changes that have evidence of decreasing infant mortality, they do have an interest in stopping immediately abortions which they feel kill babies. So just because they have not pursued the goals which will result in the maximum number of babies saved and/or given proper medical care, does not mean that is hypocritical to support an end to abortion as it would pose (to a pro-lifer) the most immediate threat to a fetus. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s an incremental (in their eyes) way of decreasing the number of “babies” being killed.
nvm already answered in in above post.