Women's Rights

[tzor]

Well if James Madison can privately be a slave-owner and found a country that doesn't endorse slavery, why can't Margaret Sanger privately endorse eugenics and found an organization that doesn't endorse eugenics?

What's this "privately" thing you claim. It was public. And you just made a error in your logic.

James Madison didn't "endorse" slavery. It wasn't until the early 19th century that people started "endorsing" the peculiar institution.

[Symmetry]

Well if James Madison can privately be a slave-owner and found a country that doesn't endorse slavery, why can't Margaret Sanger privately endorse eugenics and found an organization that doesn't endorse eugenics?

What's this "privately" thing you claim. It was public. And you just made a error in your logic.

James Madison didn't "endorse" slavery. It wasn't until the early 19th century that people started "endorsing" the peculiar institution.

Huh, who knew thar nobody endorsed slavery till the 19th century. I mean, most folks would consider that to be nonsense that you'd have to walk back. But hey, I think you should say this to as many people as possible.

[Metsfanmax]

Well if James Madison can privately be a slave-owner and found a country that doesn't endorse slavery, why can't Margaret Sanger privately endorse eugenics and found an organization that doesn't endorse eugenics?

What's this "privately" thing you claim. It was public.

I meant privately in the sense that it was her part of her personal beliefs and didn't play into the founding principles of Planned Parenthood. Can you find any founding documents of Planned Parenthood or other information which proves otherwise?

[Metsfanmax]

Well if James Madison can privately be a slave-owner and found a country that doesn't endorse slavery, why can't Margaret Sanger privately endorse eugenics and found an organization that doesn't endorse eugenics?

What's this "privately" thing you claim. It was public. And you just made a error in your logic.

James Madison didn't "endorse" slavery. It wasn't until the early 19th century that people started "endorsing" the peculiar institution.

Huh, who knew thar nobody endorsed slavery till the 19th century. I mean, most folks would consider that to be nonsense that you'd have to walk back. But hey, I think you should say this to as many people as possible.

Hey, give him a shot, he's not Phatscotty. I think there's at least a chance he can recognize how stupid that comment was, and apologize for it.

[Symmetry]

Well if James Madison can privately be a slave-owner and found a country that doesn't endorse slavery, why can't Margaret Sanger privately endorse eugenics and found an organization that doesn't endorse eugenics?

What's this "privately" thing you claim. It was public. And you just made a error in your logic.

James Madison didn't "endorse" slavery. It wasn't until the early 19th century that people started "endorsing" the peculiar institution.

Huh, who knew thar nobody endorsed slavery till the 19th century. I mean, most folks would consider that to be nonsense that you'd have to walk back. But hey, I think you should say this to as many people as possible.

Hey, give him a shot, he's not Phatscotty. I think there's at least a chance he can recognize how stupid that comment was, and apologize for it.

Ok- that's fair comment. Tzor, you have your shot.

[PLAYER57832]

While I am working on a more extensive argument, I would like to ring up this article about something that will be appearing in the Supreme Court. Are Safety Requirements at Abortion Clinics Now Undue Burdens?

Last year, Lakisha Wilson, 22, received an abortion at a clinic in Ohio during which she bled profusely and went into shock. She subsequently suffered cardiac arrest and fatal brain damage from lack of oxygen.

Ms. Wilson’s abortion was performed on the third floor of a building with only a small elevator to provide access for a gurney. That elevator malfunctioned on the day Ms. Wilson suffered her complications, delaying the arrival of emergency medical technicians. When the EMTs finally reached her, they allegedly found Ms. Wilson with a pediatric oxygen mask, not a full adult mask, strapped to her face. Her IV had apparently been pulled out accidentally in the cramped surgical room.

The medics were unable to provide full emergency treatment for Ms. Wilson in the operating room, such as intubation, because to do so would have required that she lie flat on the gurney. The building’s elevator, however, was too small to accommodate a flat gurney. Care had to be delayed until Ms. Wilson reached the lobby.

There is a big difference between requiring safer conditions for abortion clinics and requiring the restrictions proposed in Texas and other places. Among other issues, there is no logical reason why an abortion clinic would even have a pediatric mask. IVs do get pulled out, even in the best of hospitals, but they also get reinserted.

This type of "example" is part of what I dislike about this "debate". This is a case of an unsafe procedure, not what should happen. BUT... that these types of facilities are increasing is precisely because of the anti-abortion lobby. THAT is the disgusting part in this, to me.

The concern of those who spend their lives terminating unborn babies’ lives is not the health or well-being of women who have abortions – it’s making sure that a steady stream of patients go through their doors as quickly and inexpensively as possible so as to maximize profits.

An opinion, without even the source given. I would guess it was part of the legal rhetoric voiced by those wanting to promote the legislation. Remember, lawyers argue to win, not necessarily because their arguments are what they believe, what is really just or any other measure.

Getting back to Women's Rights: Cognitive dissonance blinds many people who support a so called "woman's right" to abortion will fail to see that the entire "industry" in the United States is designed for the continued employment of the members through increasing demand and cutting operating costs.

I see, well, I guess women are just stupid, then, because that is what you are claiming. Even if your claims were true, abortions are not like T-shirt sales, sorry. Those women who think about it as such are , well, those who don't need any encouragement to have an abortion. For the others... encouragement is hardly the word I would use.

Basically, this is something you have found printed, but you have not researched it, not sourced it out, not found the real evidence. I know this because if you had, you would not make these claims. They are false.

These same people, who operate with the same morality of those who were employed in the Tobacco industry, only see those women as sources of revenue, which they can use, abuse and throw away because there are always more potential customers out there.

You said this before, but still failed to provide any evidence. And no, not that disgusting Planned parenthood video. The WHOLE video does not support your claims. The version that does is highly edited. and, contrary to the many claims, PP is actually a legal not for profit.

. If we can at least agree on one thing it that standards should always maintained because women's lives are literally at stake from substandard facilities.

[/quote][/quote][/quote] Yes, but that has nothing to do with most of the recent laws put forward. THAT is the point.

Sad that you did not bother to verify, but are instead just putting forward as facts things that are just not the case.

[tzor]

Huh, who knew that nobody endorsed slavery till the 19th century. I mean, most folks would consider that to be nonsense that you'd have to walk back. But hey, I think you should say this to as many people as possible.

I can search a number of examples of late 18th century founders who all thought that the slavery issue was a problem but there were too many of them at the time and most of the people were too flat broke (one of the problems of an exporting agricultural society at the time; Washington was the one exception because he changed his crop from the export only tobacco crop to wheat, which he could turn into whiskey and store in case the market went south). It was only in the early 19th century do we start to see the arguments about how it was "God's will" that the white man should "rule" the back man because he was incapable of doing so on his own. The institution went from peculiar to noble.

Consider Jefferson's own arguments (or really the lack of such arguments) on both slavery and the ability of slaves to govern themselves (somewhere else as Jefferson would have preferred) compared to that of Jefferson Davis. Source 1

1801 “Could we procure lands beyond the limits of the U S to form a receptacle for these people?” Canada is perhaps too cold; as for Spanish territory, it poses similar question to that of Ohio: “Should we be willing to have such a colony in contact with us? However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, & cover the whole Northern, if not the Southern continent with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, & by similar laws: nor can we contemplate, with satisfaction, either blot or mixture on that surface. … The West Indies offer a more probable & practicable retreat for them. Inhabited already by a people of their own race & colour; climates congenial with their natural constitution; insulated from the other descriptions of men; Nature seems to have formed these islands to become the receptacle of the blacks transplanted into this hemisphere. Whether we could obtain from the European sovereigns of these islands leave to send thither the persons under contemplation, I cannot say: but I think it more probable than the former propositions, because of their being already inhabited more or less by the same race. The most promising portion of them is the island of St. Domingo, where the blacks are established into a sovereignty, de facto, & have organised themselves under regular laws & government. I should conjecture that their present ruler might be willing, on many considerations, to receive even that description which would be exiled for acts deemed criminal by us, but meritorious perhaps by him. The possibility that these exiles might stimulate & conduct vindictive or predatory descents on our coasts, & facilitate concert with their brethren remaining here, looks to a state of things between that island & us not probable on a contemplation of our relative strength, and the disproportion daily growing and it is overweighed by the humanity of the measures proposed, & the advantages of disembarrassing ourselves of such dangerous characters. Africa would offer a last & undoubted resort, if all others more desireable should fail us..” – Letter to James Madison, Washington, November 18, 1801; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 9

Source 2

Before he became the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis had said: "The condition of slavery with us is ... nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority." (He said this in the Senate on February 29, 1860)

Davis painted a rosy picture of the enslavement of millions of Americans, saying: "... under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction."

[Metsfanmax]

Way to miss the point entirely, tzor.

[Lord Arioch]

How many how u posting here are women ....?

[mrswdk]

We got too many people/politicians who oppose abortion. YET, they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

Not to mention many right wing Republicans feel more inclined to protect the unborn, but don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

A stance like that is rooted in religious belief, as far as I am aware. Are American politicians allowed to root their policy decisions in Christianity, when American is supposed to be a secular country?

[tzor]

A stance like that is rooted in religious belief, as far as I am aware. Are American politicians allowed to root their policy decisions in Christianity, when American is supposed to be a secular country?

That's one of your problems. You really don't know US very well. You think you know US, but you are mistaken.

America is not a "secular" country; that would be France.

Separation of Church and State doesn't mean that politicians never play the "Religion" card.

[thegreekdog]

We got too many people/politicians who oppose abortion. YET, they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

Not to mention many right wing Republicans feel more inclined to protect the unborn, but don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

And indeed, many opponents of abortion simply close their eyes to the reality of making abortion illegal. It does not stop abortions, it merely makes it more dangerous. Anti-choicers rarely acknowledge the deaths their rhetoric can cause. They like to skirt around it, or bury their heads.

You guys crack me up.

[PLAYER57832]

How many how u posting here are women ....?

I am, why?

We got too many people/politicians who oppose abortion. YET, they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

Not to mention many right wing Republicans feel more inclined to protect the unborn, but don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

And indeed, many opponents of abortion simply close their eyes to the reality of making abortion illegal. It does not stop abortions, it merely makes it more dangerous. Anti-choicers rarely acknowledge the deaths their rhetoric can cause. They like to skirt around it, or bury their heads.

You guys crack me up.

Why? Those are very good points.

[thegreekdog]

Why? Those are very good points.

They ignore some probably relevant things.

(1) Yet they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

These things are, unfortunately, not free. Thus the opposition may not be so much about the efficacy or use of birth control pills and condoms, but rather the cost. Additionally, "they" are opposed to requiring religious institutions to give out those things (which may be against the tenets of that religious institution... which is unconstitutional). Also, you know what else prevents pregnancies? Not having unprotected sex.

(2) "They" don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

Again, it's not that "they" don't want to take care of disadvantaged children. They don't want the government to take care of disadvantaged children.

(3) Illegal abortions = death

You know what prevents someone from having an illegal abortion, thereby engaging in a dangerous pursuit that could result in death? Not having unprotected sex.

Again, I have no skin in the game here. Abortions are legal and it is very likely they will remain legal in the foreseeable future; so there is no point in arguing about whether or not abortion should be illegal or not. However, it cracks me up to see these kind of arguments made as they are largely irrelevant and argue against something that is simply not true. And, of course, there is the easier alternative - don't choose to have unprotected sex - that tends to get ignored in these sorts of arguments. That is not to say that I think the consequence of having unprotected sex (i.e. a baby) should be foisted on a woman who does not want the baby; that's not fair to the baby frankly. But I do get a chuckle when the concept of "illegal backroom death abortions" and "free condoms" are thrown about as potential issues when there is a simple alternative to both.

[PLAYER57832]

Why? Those are very good points.

They ignore some probably relevant things.

(1) Yet they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

These things are, unfortunately, not free. Thus the opposition may not be so much about the efficacy or use of birth control pills and condoms, but rather the cost. Additionally, "they" are opposed to requiring religious institutions to give out those things (which may be against the tenets of that religious institution... which is unconstitutional). Also, you know what else prevents pregnancies? Not having unprotected sex.

(2) "They" don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

Again, it's not that "they" don't want to take care of disadvantaged children. They don't want the government to take care of disadvantaged children.

Are you saying this is the position of these individuals specifically or that these are more general arguments?

(3) Illegal abortions = death

You know what prevents someone from having an illegal abortion, thereby engaging in a dangerous pursuit that could result in death? Not having unprotected sex.

[sigh]
You do realize that this includes a lot of married women? (just to name one point)

Again, I have no skin in the game here. Abortions are legal and it is very likely they will remain legal in the foreseeable future; so there is no point in arguing about whether or not abortion should be illegal or not.

Its definitely being heavily restricted right now. That this is happening while so many people still say its perfectly legal is probably the biggest concern of all. Its one thing when something is outlawed up front, something else when it happens through "legal creep".

But I do get a chuckle when the concept of "illegal backroom death abortions" and "free condoms" are thrown about as potential issues when there is a simple alternative to both.

Hmm... except that was very much the precise reason why a large part of the medical profession was in favor of abortion at the time it was made legal. As my grandmother put it "we felt at least one life could be saved..."

[thegreekdog]

Are you saying this is the position of these individuals specifically or that these are more general arguments?

Those appear to be Bernie Sanders's and Symmetry's positions. My counters are what I'm pretty sure are most pro-lifers positions (assuming they are fiscally conservative Republicans in the case of the cost issue).

[sigh]
You do realize that this includes a lot of married women? (just to name one point)

Yes, I do. I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not making a moral point. I'm making a practical point. People don't magically need to have an abortion. They engage in some activity, usually by choice, the result of which may be something negative. By not engaging in that activity, the people can avoid the negative implications.

Its definitely being heavily restricted right now. That this is happening while so many people still say its perfectly legal is probably the biggest concern of all. Its one thing when something is outlawed up front, something else when it happens through "legal creep".

Yeah, but what legal creep? These are also arguments I just don't understand. The state says you can't have an abortion after X weeks? Then have the abortion before X weeks. I don't understand what the big fucking deal is other than "OH NOES, THEY ARE COMING AFTER OUR ABORTIONS AND VIOLATING WOMENS RIGHTS!" It's a political game, not a real one. I have the same beef with gun control morons, if that helps (in short - "OH NOES, MORE BACKGROUND CHECKS... WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?!? SECOND AMENDMENT!")

Hmm... except that was very much the precise reason why a large part of the medical profession was in favor of abortion at the time it was made legal. As my grandmother put it "we felt at least one life could be saved..."

And again, if you don't want to have an illegal abortion, don't have unprotected sex.

[PLAYER57832]

Are you saying this is the position of these individuals specifically or that these are more general arguments?

Those appear to be Bernie Sanders's and Symmetry's positions. My counters are what I'm pretty sure are most pro-lifers positions (assuming they are fiscally conservative Republicans in the case of the cost issue).

I would disagree with the last, but since you are not arguing your position, I will leave it lie.

[sigh]
You do realize that this includes a lot of married women? (just to name one point)

Yes, I do. I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not making a moral point. I'm making a practical point. People don't magically need to have an abortion. They engage in some activity, usually by choice, the result of which may be something negative. By not engaging in that activity, the people can avoid the negative implications.

My point was that you are being simplistic, but I would say intentionally so. Since you don't really want to get into the debate, I will leave it at that.

Its definitely being heavily restricted right now. That this is happening while so many people still say its perfectly legal is probably the biggest concern of all. Its one thing when something is outlawed up front, something else when it happens through "legal creep".

Yeah, but what legal creep? These are also arguments I just don't understand. The state says you can't have an abortion after X weeks? Then have the abortion before X weeks. I don't understand what the big fucking deal is other than "OH NOES, THEY ARE COMING AFTER OUR ABORTIONS AND VIOLATING WOMENS RIGHTS!" It's a political game, not a real one. I have the same beef with gun control morons, if that helps (in short - "OH NOES, MORE BACKGROUND CHECKS... WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?!? SECOND AMENDMENT!")

No, I am surprised to say that you actually do not understand the situation then. Folks trying to limit guns are truly just trying to limit some guns and to put some limits, not (despite claims of the second amendment folks), for the most part trying to eliminate all guns. The anti-abortion movement, to contrast truly is trying to pass limits that are intended to make it more difficult to have an abortion, until abortions are no longer available for most women, even if technically legal. This is hardly an esoteric argument for women in Texas or the Dakotas, Alabama, etc.


You have said you don't want to engage in this debate, so I will respect that and not get into a full debate here, though I did offer one correction. It is something easy enough for you (or anyone else) to verify.

[thegreekdog]

No, I am surprised to say that you actually do not understand the situation then. Folks trying to limit guns are truly just trying to limit some guns and to put some limits, not (despite claims of the second amendment folks), for the most part trying to eliminate all guns. The anti-abortion movement, to contrast truly is trying to pass limits that are intended to make it more difficult to have an abortion, until abortions are no longer available for most women, even if technically legal. This is hardly an esoteric argument for women in Texas or the Dakotas, Alabama, etc.

I do understand the situation. Let's run it through:

There is a problem we're trying to solve - having an unwanted pregnancy.
There are a few ways to solve this problem:
(1) Don't have sex.
(2) Don't have unprotected sex.
(3) Have an abortion.

If we make (3) illegal, there are still options (1) and (2). Also, I used the term "pregnancy" and not "baby" or "child" for a reason (namely, if it was an unwanted child, there is a fourth solution to that problem: adoption).

So, it's the same argument with guns. The problem we are trying to solve is "too many shootings." There are any number of ways to do this. If one of those ways is to have a longer waiting period or less assault weapons, that still allows people to get guns (just as the example above still allows people to not have unwanted pregnancies), it just eliminates the ease.

And yes I'm being simplistic. But I'm being simplistic because if the problem we're trying to solve is "death by back alley abortion" then I really think (1) and (2) are more reasonable solutions than "Conservatives are crazy motherfuckers who want us to get abortions in back alleys!" In other words, it's alarmist bullshit.

But, like I said at the start, none of this really matters because abortions will be legal in the US for the foreseeable future. It's all a way for politicians to drum up support. If you're a Republican politician you beat the pro life drum and stupid conservatives will go out and vote for you thinking that you'll change something. If you're a Democratic politician you beat the women's rights drum and stupid liberals will go out and vote for you thinking they will prevent Republicans from changing something.

[PLAYER57832]

We got too many people/politicians who oppose abortion. YET, they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

Not to mention many right wing Republicans feel more inclined to protect the unborn, but don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

A stance like that is rooted in religious belief, as far as I am aware. Are American politicians allowed to root their policy decisions in Christianity, when American is supposed to be a secular country?

They not only can, it many cases the populace demands it.

But hey, here I thought you were an expert....

[PLAYER57832]

No, I am surprised to say that you actually do not understand the situation then. Folks trying to limit guns are truly just trying to limit some guns and to put some limits, not (despite claims of the second amendment folks), for the most part trying to eliminate all guns. The anti-abortion movement, to contrast truly is trying to pass limits that are intended to make it more difficult to have an abortion, until abortions are no longer available for most women, even if technically legal. This is hardly an esoteric argument for women in Texas or the Dakotas, Alabama, etc.

I do understand the situation. Let's run it through:

There is a problem we're trying to solve - having an unwanted pregnancy.
There are a few ways to solve this problem:
(1) Don't have sex.
(2) Don't have unprotected sex.
(3) Have an abortion.

#1. You start with a false assumption, that abortions are about unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children. That is definitely not always the case, most particularly in later term situations.
#2. To have options means being aware of them, which requires education and education as a whole, sex education in particular is being threatened. What passes for "sex education" in my area is not much more than the old Roman Catholic "abstinence is good, sex is bad unless you are married" pablum that does little to educate teenagers who are not from a household holding to those values already.

If we make (3) illegal, there are still options (1) and (2). Also, I used the term "pregnancy" and not "baby" or "child" for a reason (namely, if it was an unwanted child, there is a fourth solution to that problem: adoption).

I use the term "child" mostly because those opposed to legalizing the operation try to claim that those of us in favor of keeping it legal have no idea of what we speak, think its not about a child at all. But, yes, there is a difference.

So, it's the same argument with guns. The problem we are trying to solve is "too many shootings." There are any number of ways to do this. If one of those ways is to have a longer waiting period or less assault weapons, that still allows people to get guns (just as the example above still allows people to not have unwanted pregnancies), it just eliminates the ease.

Except, those restrictions you call reasonable are the actual demands of the so-called "anti gun" lobby. A few extremist certainly want to see all guns eliminated, but they are in an extreme minority.

In the case of abortions, restrictions are being used in a calculated campaign, designed very much after the civil rights movement, to eventually make abortion all but impossible or actually impossible.

So, again, you are misinformed.

And yes I'm being simplistic. But I'm being simplistic because if the problem we're trying to solve is "death by back alley abortion" then I really think (1) and (2) are more reasonable solutions than "Conservatives are crazy motherfuckers who want us to get abortions in back alleys!" In other words, it's alarmist bullshit.

No, it actually is not, and I am, again, surprised that you have repeated this without even bothering to check it out.

Here, just one direct quote, one I found in just a couple of minutes incompetent searching:

"Our goal ultimately is to live in a society where abortion is no longer even considered," says Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, whose offices overlook the statehouse in Columbus. He's the key architect of a strategy even opponents call brilliant. Gonidakis calls his approach incremental and says it's driven by concern for civil rights.

Also, I never said that THE problem we are trying to solve is "death by back alley abortion". I said it is one of a few major reasons. You tried to say it was a minor and invalid reason. I am simply saying it is valid, and a big part of the argument, not that it is the only reason.

But, like I said at the start, none of this really matters because abortions will be legal in the US for the foreseeable future.

Really? Do you have any idea how many clinics have closed recently? Half of those in Ohio have closed since 2011 (one for safety violations, but the rest largely because of legal restrictions that made it basically impossible for them to function. Among the laws often cited is the one requiring all out-patient clinics to have an emergency relationship with hospitals, even though those same hospitals are prohibited from establishing such a relationship with abortion clinics. (the Texas law is worse) Abortion is still legal, but that is irrelevant when its not actually available in most places. It is getting more and more difficult . Worse, women are having to wait beyond the 12 week first trimester in many localities because the doctors are so overrun with patients.

It's all a way for politicians to drum up support. If you're a Republican politician you beat the pro life drum and stupid conservatives will go out and vote for you thinking that you'll change something. If you're a Democratic politician you beat the women's rights drum and stupid liberals will go out and vote for you thinking they will prevent Republicans from changing something.

Actually, opinions have not changed on abortion much since 1975, but laws absolutely have.

And, the sad part is that people are less and less informed. Last time I posted on this, I seem to remember you were pretty informed and gave some very reasoned and heart-felt opinion. Now, not so much. If this is representative, then its pretty scary.

[thegreekdog]

#1. You start with a false assumption, that abortions are about unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children. That is definitely not always the case, most particularly in later term situations.
#2. To have options means being aware of them, which requires education and education as a whole, sex education in particular is being threatened. What passes for "sex education" in my area is not much more than the old Roman Catholic "abstinence is good, sex is bad unless you are married" pablum that does little to educate teenagers who are not from a household holding to those values already.

#1 - Agreed. Come up with the percent and get back to me.
#2 - Okay. So what?

Except, those restrictions you call reasonable are the actual demands of the so-called "anti gun" lobby. A few extremist certainly want to see all guns eliminated, but they are in an extreme minority.
In the case of abortions, restrictions are being used in a calculated campaign, designed very much after the civil rights movement, to eventually make abortion all but impossible or actually impossible.
So, again, you are misinformed.

I'm just going to post this here. And you call me misinformed. Jeez.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/ameri ... years.aspx

Of the people polled, only 19% of US adults would make abortion illegal in all circumstances. Among people identifying as "pro-life" that number goes to 37%. So, basically, what you're insinuating is that somewhere between 19% and 37% of US adults are engaged in a calculated campaign, designed after the civil rights movement, to make abortion actually impossible.

Actually, opinions have not changed on abortion much since 1975, but laws absolutely have.

See above.

No, it actually is not, and I am, again, surprised that you have repeated this without even bothering to check it out.

And here is the point where I can't discuss things with you. You're simply not understanding my point. And this goes back to the age old question of whether you willfully don't understand my point because you want to make your own point, even if your point has nothing to do with my point or whether you just don't get my point.

Are there pro life people who are trying to make all abortions illegal? Yes.
Are those people going to be successful? Of course not.
How do I know? Because they haven't been successful in 40 years and views on abortion are shifting more towards pro choice, so it's not like there's some groundswell of support to make abortions illegal that's any greater now than it was before.

So when you toss out anecdotal stories and personal experience, it just proves my point that abortion is simply an issue that actually divides Democrats and Republicans (although not as much as it used to) and therefore is something that politicians can use to energize the base with random stupid stories that people think are indicative of a larger problem or issue.

[PLAYER57832]

#1. You start with a false assumption, that abortions are about unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children. That is definitely not always the case, most particularly in later term situations.
#2. To have options means being aware of them, which requires education and education as a whole, sex education in particular is being threatened. What passes for "sex education" in my area is not much more than the old Roman Catholic "abstinence is good, sex is bad unless you are married" pablum that does little to educate teenagers who are not from a household holding to those values already.

#1 - Agreed. Come up with the percent and get back to me.

OK, will do

#2 - Okay. So what?

You don't think that lack of information equals lack of ability to make a real choice?

Except, those restrictions you call reasonable are the actual demands of the so-called "anti gun" lobby. A few extremist certainly want to see all guns eliminated, but they are in an extreme minority.
In the case of abortions, restrictions are being used in a calculated campaign, designed very much after the civil rights movement, to eventually make abortion all but impossible or actually impossible.
So, again, you are misinformed.

I'm just going to post this here. And you call me misinformed. Jeez.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/ameri ... years.aspx

Of the people polled, only 19% of US adults would make abortion illegal in all circumstances. Among people identifying as "pro-life" that number goes to 37%. So, basically, what you're insinuating is that somewhere between 19% and 37% of US adults are engaged in a calculated campaign, designed after the civil rights movement, to make abortion actually impossible.

[sigh]

I am not sure why you thought that poll said anything disagreeing with me. It shows that there has been very little change in people's opinion of abortion. Though the headline seemed to indicate otherwise, they were talking about a swing of a couple percentage points. Given the inherent bias in opinion polls, (everything from the influence just the tone of the person asking can have on answers to the impact of exact wording to the company one is in when asked, etc, etc, etc), it is not really that significant. (note, the "statistical significance" referred to is a mathematical term, has nothing to do with the validity of the questions or validity of actual responses)

Actually, opinions have not changed on abortion much since 1975, but laws absolutely have.

See above.

Yes, please do. A 4-5% swing is not much for this type of study. (in other, more empirical data based studies it would be more significant)

No, it actually is not, and I am, again, surprised that you have repeated this without even bothering to check it out.

And here is the point where I can't discuss things with you. You're simply not understanding my point. And this goes back to the age old question of whether you willfully don't understand my point because you want to make your own point, even if your point has nothing to do with my point or whether you just don't get my point.

Are there pro life people who are trying to make all abortions illegal? Yes.
Are those people going to be successful? Of course not.
How do I know? Because they haven't been successful in 40 years and views on abortion are shifting more towards pro choice, so it's not like there's some groundswell of support to make abortions illegal that's any greater now than it was before.

See, here is where the misunderstanding lies. You are under the impression that if the opinion has not changed, the reality has not changed.

The facts are otherwise. I did put down some data on this, but thought you would at least do your own verification before, again, insisting I was wrong.


Also, your comparison was to the gun lobby. The right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment. Even minor restrictions face serious legal challenge and debate at each point. Folks with NRA and the like try to say that any limit on guns will mean soon we lose all guns, but the evidence does not back that assertion up. Having guns is very much a part of being American. Again, even if people wanted to do away with all guns (and most even in the most left-wing lobby really do not want that, truly) the second amendment would prohibit it.

Abortion is made legal pretty much just by virtue of a Supreme Court ruling (yes, a little more than that, but not much). Another ruling could take that away from us. And, unlike the gun lobbyists, the anti-abortion groups really do have STATED positions to gradually make abortion more difficult until i

t may still be legal but is virtually impossible to get.

I posted only one state's information because I thought you would surely verify before again stating that I was just wrong.

Overall, there have been 54 clinic closures since 2010, leaving 724 still operational. When you look at how those clinics are placed, you see that its not even just that the numbers are high, its that access has been cut off in many areas.

these two give the outline of what I have been saying. They are opinion, but do contain a lot of referenced data to back up what they are saying:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ccess.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/2 ... 04529.html


This study is more science, goes into it in more detail and is duly referenced:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170109.html
a couple of quotes from that study:

An unprecedented wave of state-level abortion restrictions swept the country over the past three years. In 2013 alone, 22 states enacted 70 antiabortion measures, including previability abortion bans, unwarranted doctor and clinic regulations, limits on the provision of medication abortion and bans on insurance coverage of abortion. However, 2013 was not even the year with the greatest number of new state-level abortion restrictions, as 2011 saw 92 enacted; 43 abortion restrictions were enacted by states in 2012.1

Ironically, Operation Rescue claims even more closures:

From Operation Rescue

Operation Rescue has concluded an exhaustive survey of abortion clinics in the U.S. and is pleased to announce that it has documented a record number of abortion clinic closures in 2013, during which time 87 surgical abortion clinics halted abortions.

The total number of surgical abortion clinics left in the U.S. is now 582. This represents an impressive 12% net decrease in surgical abortion clinics in 2013 alone, and a 73% drop from a high in 1991 of 2,176.

Another, also from the Guttmacher Institute:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/16/2/gpr160207.html

Waiting periods. Inaccurate counseling scripts. State-mandated ultrasounds. Over the years, these have been among the many favored obstacles antiabortion activists have thrown in the path of women seeking to terminate their pregnancies—all under the guise of protecting women’s health. Hundreds of these requirements are now law across the country at the state level. And at this point, having mostly exhausted legal means of discouraging women from choosing abortion, opponents recently have stepped up their efforts to block clinics from providing them. More than half the states now have laws instituting onerous and irrelevant licensing requirements, known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws, which have nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with shutting down clinics.

So when you toss out anecdotal stories and personal experience,

So you think an article saying that 8 out of 16 abortion clinics in Ohio have closed and a quote from the head of the Ohio Right to Life movement where he flat out says his plan is to make abortion so difficult it is impossible to happen are just "anecdotal stories and personal experience" ? Really?

[Symmetry]

We got too many people/politicians who oppose abortion. YET, they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

Not to mention many right wing Republicans feel more inclined to protect the unborn, but don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

And indeed, many opponents of abortion simply close their eyes to the reality of making abortion illegal. It does not stop abortions, it merely makes it more dangerous. Anti-choicers rarely acknowledge the deaths their rhetoric can cause. They like to skirt around it, or bury their heads.

You guys crack me up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8305217.stm

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.