Now THIS is an example of where anti abortionists actually just hate women.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@ladyfoxfyre

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.

I’m afraid I don’t understand the distinction. If a dingo keeps eating your babies it makes sense to pursue the short term goal of shooting the dingo, while also persuing long term changes such has building a dingo proof shelter.

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.

I guess I just don’t understand, trying to look at it from their perspective I don’t see why a baby UHC would save is any less worthy of protection than a baby an abortion ban would save.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

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?

For many fiscal conservatives UHC may mean better healthcare now but impossibly bad one in the future so the whole “more dead babies” kicks in.
More people will be killed by bad eating habits they learnt while babies/kids than by bullets. It’s not hypocritical to spend money in preventing/fighting crime even if that money would result in fewer death if put into “eating education”.

[The_Tooth]

One argument from an allegedly religious conservative on this board was that UHC would affect his personal income, and that other people aren’t his concern. If poor people are dying from lack of health care in the world’s wealthiest nation, well, it must be God’s will. I think it was more likely the religious conservative’s will, as God didn’t post in that thread. He couldn’t, being a mythical creature that doesn’t exist.

Mind you, the guy went from “my religion is all or nothing” to “only if Obama outlaws abortion first” when his church came out in favour of UHC, so looking for the logic behind the argument is a fool’s errand; there isn’t any.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

I’m afraid I don’t understand the distinction. If a dingo keeps eating your babies it makes sense to pursue the short term goal of shooting the dingo, while also persuing long term changes such has building a dingo proof shelter.

Perhaps to you, there is a corollary there but I have a strong sense that they do not see the inherent value in pregnancy prevention as a primary concern and rather are concerned with the more immediate and pressing issue of stopping abortions at all cost.

I guess I just don’t understand, trying to look at it from their perspective I don’t see why a baby UHC would save is any less worthy of protection than a baby an abortion ban would save.

Because you are trying to force two separate issues into this discussion. This isn’t about defunding Planned Parenthood, or abstinence-only education. This is about stopping abortions by stopping providers from knowing how to do them. So you see a cognitive dissonance between supporting two seemingly contradictory beliefs when nobody here is talking about the second half, which you have brought up as evidence of that contradiction, but is not actually part of the discussion.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

Eh. This is no different than not using federal funds to perform abortions. If you’re pro-life, why would you want to expend federal funds to teach doctors how to kill? I don’t see this as evidence of misogyny. It is an example of the unintended consequences of getting the federal government involved in health care-- you are going to get national standards set by people who may not agree with you.

Sort of reminds me of people who cry censorship when the government withholds funds for “objectionable” art. Get your own funding.

The Hyde Amendment has a exception for rape victims and for pregnancies that threaten the life or health of the mother. When you stop training doctors on how to perform abortions you are not allowing for that exception.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

Doctors make good money. They can pay for their own training. There isn’t enough private money to train the few doctors needed to perform those abortions? :dubious:

n.b.: I’m pro-choice. But I don’t see why we need to spend federal money to train doctors.

I would agree with you except that doctors get their training during residency. The government heavily subsidizes all the residency programs in America. Doctors barely make enough to eat during residency never mind pay for extra training (never mind they barely have any free time to engage in that extra training). If it doesn’t happen during residency, then it generally just doesn’t happen.

[John_Mace]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The Hyde Amendment has a exception for rape victims and for pregnancies that threaten the life or health of the mother. When you stop training doctors on how to perform abortions you are not allowing for that exception.

Welcome back!

This doesn’t stop training doctors how to perform abortions. The number of non-elective abortions (eg, rape and life of the mother) is miniscule compared to the total number.

I would agree with you except that doctors get their training during residency. The government heavily subsidizes all the residency programs in America.

Maybe it shouldn’t. If residency programs need subsidies in certain states, then the states should provide the money.

Doctors barely make enough to eat during residency never mind pay for extra training (never mind they barely have any free time to engage in that extra training). If it doesn’t happen during residency, then it generally just doesn’t happen.

At any rate, I still see no evidence of woman hating. *Roe *says that states can’t prevent women from getting abortions (under certain conditions). It doesn’t say that we all have to pay to make sure abortion doctors are available.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

No. If the funding wasn’t a legitimate government expense in the first place, you don’t get to claim it’s overreaching government to eliminate that spending.

And what makes for a legitimate government expense?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

I’m a pro-choice libertarian leaning guy. I’m fully in favor of abortion on demand, up until some point of “viability”, as defined the current science. But I’m not in favor of government funding for any medical school training. So, you’re asking the wrong guy about that question.

However, since money is fungible, it would seem consistent with the pro-life position to agree with the tweak you are suggesting. However, politics is the art of the possible, and it is unlikely that you would get enough Republican support to essentially withdraw all funding from medical schools.

But we do in fact subsidize all medical school training. That the propnents of this bill have their way. Then we subsidize all medical school training except when it comes to this one medical procedure.

There has ALWAYS been a distinction in the abortion debate between elective abortions and medically necessary abortions. This legislation basically says, I don’t give a fuck about the difference, I don’t want doctors trained to perform something abortions that might save lives because doctors might also decide to perform elective abortions. I just don’t see any other way to read this. And even if it is grandstanding and not likely to ever be passed into law, the posture that the proponents of this bill are taking is that they don’t even want medically necessary abortions to occur. For the record, I am pretty close to your position on abortions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

Nope. You’d have to demonstrate that without this federal funding, there would not be enough abortion doctors to perform the bare minimum allowed by pro-life politicians. That would be a tiny fraction of the ~1M abortions performed every year in the US. And there are enough staunchly pro-choice people in this country who, if they really feel that strongly about the issue, can fund any amount of abortion training they want.

How can you justify this extra hurdle applied to medically necessary abortions when noone suggests applying this hurdle to medically necessary heart bypass surgeries?

There are a lot of ways to skin a cat but this is the wrong way to do it unless your objective is to punish women for having complications during pregnancy.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

Nope. You’d have to demonstrate that without this federal funding, there would not be enough abortion doctors to perform the bare minimum allowed by pro-life politicians. That would be a tiny fraction of the ~1M abortions performed every year in the US. And there are enough staunchly pro-choice people in this country who, if they really feel that strongly about the issue, can fund any amount of abortion training they want.

There is no per se reason that this must be a government function.

What makes for a per se government function?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

Well, if enough of them came to power, then it would reflect the will of the people. Living in a democracy means that sometimes the government is going to do things you don’t agree with.

Yes but OUR democracy has some safety features that protect minorities from the will of the majority. One of them is the prohibition of the establishment of religion. When you start excluding medical training for abortions regardless of its therapeutic value, you have to start to wonder if it is religion rather than ethics is that drives that particular decision.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@TriPolar

And that doesn’t make them woman haters either.

Yes buts ome of them are.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Apparently they want a life of suffering.

It builds character.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

But keep in mind that some of us don’t like any federal funds going to subsidize doctor training of any kind.

Yes but this legislation is not driven by the desire to reduce subsidy of medical education. it is driven by the desire to eliminate abortions from the repertoire of US trained doctors.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Kobal2

nod. But because the abortion debate is so emotionally charged (and retarded), let’s try a different tac.

**John Mace: **imagine you’ve been in an accident, and are rushed to the ER bleeding, barely conscious and with an open leg fracture. The on duty ER doc doesn’t believe in reducing fractures and thinks it’d in fact be powerfully bad juju now that the Bone Spirit is gone. He cuts your leg off instead.
Do you want that guy to remain a doctor because hey, that’s his free speech and right to free religion right there, the government doesn’t get to infringe on that ? Or do you want that asshole run out of the medical community with torches and pitchforks ?

Oh, and don’t fight the hypothetical. You don’t get to argue his personal Holy Bones religion is spurious and somehow not as valid as Christian views.

Its not even that. Its as if they didn’t teach doctors how to do that stuff during medical school and residency because there are congressmen that thnk its powerful bad juju.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Kobal2

Ah, now you’re moving the goalposts, we’re making progress (sort of).
But what if that doctor thinks referring the woman to another doctor who will perform the abortion breaks the same ethical taboo as performing it himself ? That’s not an absurd position to hold, either, as it could be construed as being complicit to and enabling the crime. God won’t be fooled !
Are you going to disallow that poor man from being a doctor unless he is willing to break his religious principles ? Tssk, tssk.

A doctor should not be forced to act contrary to his religious beliefs but he is professionally not permitted to allow a patient to die because of those religious beliefs. The upshot is that each whacko doctor can be the cause of one such death before they throw away a decade of medical training and never get to practice medicine again.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@TriPolar

Damuri, you haven’t returned to this thread since starting it. I agree that a principled person can’t support this thing. But I’m curious how you categorize this as hating woman in particular. For instance, I do find tea-baggers have no concern for anybody but themselves, but not that they direct their disregard for others specifically at women. From the start of your statement, it sounds more like you are contrasting someone’s concept of woman hating as applied to you because you once said something controversial (like claiming all women are not perfect and superior to all men), to this idiotic proposal and its actual detrimental effect on women.

Because this law is not designed to prevent elective abortions, it is designed to eliminate a medical procedure from the repertoire of American trained doctors. You are no longer just trying to save the lives of unborn babies, you just don’t give a shit anymore, you are so dead set against abortions that you don’t care how many women have to die to prevent abortions. When you are so focused on eliminating abortions without any concern for when these abortions might be necessary to save the life of the mother, then everything that Der Trihs has to say about you is true. You can only support this legislation if you have a depraved indifference to a pregnant woman’s life.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@margin

They pick a fetus over an adult living breathing woman. In addition, they support legislation which makes it difficult in general for women to do anything but have babies they don’t want if they dare to have sex. They place no such restrictions on men. To judge by the legislation they support what they say they want and what they accomplish are so radically different as to be incompatible with intelligence.

In most medically necessary abortions, the fetus is going to die no matter what. In some cases (third trimester and perhaps late second trimester) I simply place the near term fetus’ rights ahead of the mother’s right not to have to go through labor.

[Trepa_Mayfield]

You know there’s a multiquote button? The little +, between the quote and the pad. Hit it for each post you want to quote and then hit new reply, and all of the quotes will be in post.