The latest in abortion insanity

People who are actually moral find the idea of forcing a woman to act as an incubator for 9 months as punishment for allowing herself to be raped to be the sort of thing that belongs in a horror movie, not real life. If the badly broken extremists who are cool with horribly torturing a woman who is the victim of rape or incest were really honest about what they are doing, they’d never get any moderate support, and anti-abortion laws would go nowhere.

It’s almost as if there were Differing assumptions that are the basis of liberal and conservative positions.

I would also bet that the majority of those are for exactly the conditions listed as exempt: either a fatal abnormality is discovered or a victim of rape/incest conceals/is unaware of her pregnancy.

If you were actually interested in reducing the abortion rate, well, we know how to do it. Oddly the same people who are opposed to abortion are also often opposed to contraception.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/abstract
Most of these laws restricting abortion are clearly intended only to punish and control women. How dare a woman have sex! Lets force her to undergo a lot of unnecessary medical procedures as punishment. Pointless transvaginal ultrasounds that are kind of like getting raped, prolonged waiting periods, and now unnecessary drugs. That’s why they have the rape exemption-if you didn’t have sex voluntarily, no need to get punished.

This doesn’t just cover abortion- it covers contraception as well. Most women undergo all kinds of hassle and unnecessary medical procedures in order to obtain contraception. Ask around-most women are forced to undergo an unpleasant pelvic exam, that is completely medically unnecessary, every single year in order to obtain pills that should be available over the counter. No medical reason why they aren’t. A few states have started shifting them to semi-OTC status.

And of course, I have your word that it happened just as you say.

But if you’re a reliable reporter of facts, I’m sure that’s enough.

Tell me again what stopped you from recording this conversation?

Couldn’t grab my phone fast enough, actually. Ever had a supposed mature, professional, so-called leader of the country turn on you and spew a bunch of misogynist profanity at you? I haven’t, so I haven’t practiced what to do in such cases. It would have made a great video on youtube.

I don’t understand what motivates these people in their efforts to control the sexuality of women. I suppose it’s the same thought process (or lack thereof) that men use when they try to control the sexuality of their daughters. It’s a common theme in our society among the conservative set that fathers should try to prevent their daughters from having sex. Not just fathers, sometimes brothers. Beat up the boyfriends, lock the daughter in her bedroom, get mad at her for wearing sexy clothing. Perhaps these male GOPs are just transferring this odd mindset to all women. Of course then we have the Taliban, who have taken this woman-sexuality-control to a whole new and disturbing level. And we have countries that sexually mutilate girls in order to prevent them from having sex.
But oddly most men seem to want to have sex with women. Kind of a dichotomy. Makes no sense.

Has anyone seen spamforbrains and Der Trihs in the same place at the same time? :slight_smile:

No, I don’t think he is a sock, but he sure does play a damn good one on this MB!

Won’t someone think about the children?

Seriously, if you listen to the anti-abortion crowd, every “child” who was aborted would have grown up to be a marvelous, irreplaceable human being, not a mediocre member of society or even a criminal nutcase. That is, of course, provided they are adopted by a straight Christian couple.

It appears like it is humane to provide anesthesia or painkillers, we do it for animals we put down, or at least a quick kill. I don’t know how it would be done, nor how difficult it is to do for a fetus, nor the cost or risk and effect to the mother. All valid counterpoints. But if it’s just a simple modification to the abortion implement, safe, cost irrelevant and no effect on mom, there is reason not to IMHO.

Which is in line with my opinion on the abortion issue, yes it is a life and soul, yes it is fully her decision, morally given to her by God, and God will support that decision, so no one can condemn her. The mother and child soul are both in the hands of God, on their own path, and one’s life is not dependant on anyone’s else but self and God, with life eternal available independant of any person’s actions.

Seeing as how the whole “fetal pain” thing was an obvious emotional ploy by the anti-choicers, it should be ignored by actual doctors. No modification on the procedures are necessary

Even if it were, it still shouldn’t be required by legislation.

In this case, the conservative assumption is women are subhuman sluts whose purpose in life is to suffer in the name of God, and to serve men as live-in maids, sex slaves and breeding machines.

Malice, bigotry and tyranny are core values of conservatism.

It’s comforting to know that some things don’t change.

You might be. AIUI, Maastricht is in the land of Coldfire.

The law in questions is in the US, so that has nothing to do with the price butter in Amsterdam.

But yeah, 90% of all abortions in the US are done within the first 2 months. They continue to drop pretty sharply after that, so by the time you get to 20 weeks, abortion is pretty rare. Now, if you consider abortion to be murder, then “rare” is still not the best place to be.

Its almost impossible for me to get opiates for pain any longer, but a fetus can get anesthesia? I can’t get enough anti-anxiety meds to function because they are addictive, but a fetus gets anesthesia? But only if the fetus isn’t the product of rape or incest. Something is severely screwed up in the way we practice medicine in this country. Either than, or I’m the product of rape or incest.

I got it!

And you described the possibility as “illegally” recording the conversation because… um… because to grab it fast enough, your hand would have violated local speed limits?

Probably because he or she assumed that it was illegal to record someone without their permission.

Isn’t that the most obvious possibility?

You mean, other than the possibility that the story was just made up?

No Bricker, I believe she is saying the encounter wasn’t a planned sting operation with hidden cameras and microphones (and “creative” editing).