+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 216

Thread: The war on women

  1. #151
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Horn21 View Post
    tantric,

    by "non-viable", what definition are you using? most definitions seem to include "not capable of living or developing". are you using the point at which 50% chance of long-term survival is reached? would you then be against abortion once gestation has reached the point that the baby would survive? what if advances continue to be made and that point gets lower and lower? it just seems to be such a grey area to me if that is your metric.
    The whole issue is grey. That is why you and the state should should keep out of it. And advances will make it a situation where vialbity is determined to be earlier and earlier.

    and you mentioned that you would be for making it illegal for a woman to end a life if there was a societal reason to do so.
    I don't think I mentioned that.

    what happens if in 15 years we reach a sub-replacement fertility rate and our immigration supporting it drops as well? what if we have an aging population problem without a means to support our society (and hypothetically) it is commonly believed at some point in the future (again, hypothetical) that abortion plays a significant role, would that be considered a worthy societal reason to ban it?
    No.

    this is a very sensitive topic, obviously, but you do seem to be taking on an unneccessary inflamatory role. is there a specific point at which a person's rights become subserviant to the life of another? you mention non-viable...but i am curious what exactly you mean by that.
    If it sounds inflammatory, it is because guys like to set up these straw men -- these "typical" opponents, who they ascribe arguments to, and then try to defeat those ascribed arguments.

    I think the viablity argument is the best compromise. There are plenty of definitions that support your argument that the definition is necessarily going to be vague and problematic. To me, the critical issue is the states involvement in a personal decision regarding constitutionally protected rights. I have no problem with a woman's rights being affected by an increasingly shortened non-viablity period.

  2. #152
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by El Guapo View Post
    It's only a "constitutional right" because in this case 7 people said so.
    Yep. Scoreboard.

    The Constitution itself says nothing about it at all. If anything, any fair reading would at best leave it to the states to decide.
    Nope. I think Griswold and Roe v. Wade were correctly decided.

    Would you be arguing for separate but equal if Brown v. Board of Education had never happened? I mean, that was "constitutional" at the time, too.
    Nope. I'd always be arguing that seperate but equal was unconsitutional. But I'm not a white $#@!. I am a colored $#@!.

    And what will you do if Ron Paul is elected and appoints justices who share his views on Roe and Griswold?
    I'd start working the state legislators I guess.

    Will you be similarly as zealous in your criticism of abortion as unconstitutional because Paul's guys said it wasn't, as you are in your support of it because certain others said it was?
    I support the right to abortion because I believe its in the constituion. If it is overturned that won't change my view. but the right will no longer be protected.

    Is the SC infallible to you?
    No.

    Whatever they say goes and we can never question it?
    No.

    Do you have blind faith in all SC decisions, or just those that result in the ruling that you personally prefer?
    No blind faith, but I agree with the ones that go my way and disagree with the others.

    I don't pretend that a right exists when it doesn't. So I am not going to pretend that a non-viable fetus has rights. If a woman's right to abortion is taken away by the court I am not going to pretend that it exists.

  3. #153
    no longer an asshat TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    rarely on the US mainland
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    I suppoort abortion and life individual lives end but there is no "beginning of life". The woman has her eggs when she is born and the eggs are alive and sperm is alive. The specific genetic code of the individual is imparted at conceptioin. The only life that "begins" at conception in mammals I guess could be spontaneous generation.

    I guess it is easier to argue against a theoretical imaginary "pro abortion person" that you set up, however, so have at it.
    Then tell me when it begins. Until you you do my position is the most logical and scientifically sound

  4. #154
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by TexonLongIsland View Post
    Then tell me when it begins. Until you you do my position is the most logical and scientifically sound
    Try again. It doesn't "begin". Conception is the product of an egg that has been alive for at least 12 years and a sperm that is alive before the egg is fertilized. There is no "beginning". There is only an end when a person dies and he or she is incapable of procreating (in the absence of some harvesting of his or her genetic material). Everything that preceeded the death was a continuous and unbroken evolutionary chain going back to when the species began.

    Your science is not sound at all.

    As stated before, the individual's genetic makeup is set soon after fertilization I believe, but I am not sure of the particular replicating or fusing occurances that set the genertic makeup.

  5. #155
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    The fact that life is truly a continuum further complicates the question of when
    a new life commences. Most human beings are produced from the union of two
    preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from
    living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely
    to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells,
    defining the beginning of a new organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or
    the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
    These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary
    considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species.
    Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of “personhood” to the
    eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are
    arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity under
    consideration.


    http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/...life_print.pdf

    Hence, you ultimately will go back to linux's concern, which seems to be about defining personhood or individuality or some point -- necessarily somewhat arbitrary -where some sort of moral rights begin. Most people would intutively say that an individual sperm doesn't have rights, but that is somewhat arbitrary.

    Given the successful parthenogenetic birth of mammals (development without fertilization from a single egg), the question of the sacredness of the sperm is not so silly.

  6. #156
    no longer an asshat TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    rarely on the US mainland
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    Try again. It doesn't "begin". Conception is the product of an egg that has been alive for at least 12 years and a sperm that is alive before the egg is fertilized. There is no "beginning". There is only an end when a person dies and he or she is incapable of procreating (in the absence of some harvesting of his or her genetic material). Everything that preceeded the death was a continuous and unbroken evolutionary chain going back to when the species began.

    Your science is not sound at all.

    As stated before, the individual's genetic makeup is set soon after fertilization I believe, but I am not sure of the particular replicating or fusing occurances that set the genertic makeup.

    So let's try a different tack, since you dodge again. What point, specifically, on the time scale does the unilateral ending of life constitute murder and why?

    Your bizarre theory seems to imply there are no individuals what so ever.

  7. #157
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by TexonLongIsland View Post
    So let's try a different tack, since you dodge again. What point, specifically, on the time scale does the unilateral ending of life constitute murder and why?

    Your bizarre theory seems to imply there are no individuals what so ever.
    No, two things are going on.

    1) You don't seem to know to understand that your "life begins at conception" is irrelevant to an argument that accepts that a fetus is alive but places a high value on the liberty interest of the woman. That's basic Roe v. Wade

    2) Now you can't use the bull$#@! straw man you started your participation in this thread with.

    In Texas it appears that various forms of murder can occur to any individual who is alive including any post fertilization fetus. It depends on the state as to what murder is defined as.

  8. #158
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    What part of this is confusing to you Texon?

    The fact that life is truly a continuum further complicates the question of when
    a new life commences. Most human beings are produced from the union of two
    preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from
    living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely
    to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells,
    defining the beginning of a new organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or
    the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.

  9. #159
    no longer an asshat TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    rarely on the US mainland
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    No, two things are going on.

    1) You don't seem to know to understand that your "life begins at conception" is irrelevant to an argument that accepts that a fetus is alive but places a high value on the liberty interest of the woman. That's basic Roe v. Wade

    2) Now you can't use the bull$#@! straw man you started your participation in this thread with.

    In Texas it appears that various forms of murder can occur to any individual who is alive including any post fertilization fetus. It depends on the state as to what murder is defined as.

    1) Our Constitution recognizes individuals, not classes. You claimed, in your theory, that fetuses, eggs, and the fully developed are the same. How you now carve out higher value interests for some sets you firmly in the camp that Plessy vs Ferguson was correctly decided.

    2) no strawman was used

    Although I'm anti-death penalty, Texas law regarding the death penalty doe not allow the unilateral murder of an individual.


    Again I ask, under your theory that "life doesn't begin", when on the time scale exactly does one become eligible for protection from unilateral murder? You must have a specific point. Roe Vs Wade picked the 1st trimester, but science has pushed that back. What is your arbitrary point in time?

  10. #160
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by TexonLongIsland View Post
    You claimed, in your theory, that fetuses, eggs, and the fully developed are the same.
    No I didn't.

    How you now carve out higher value interests for some sets you firmly in the camp that Plessy vs Ferguson was correctly decided.
    Other than going with the idea that I am weighing in the woman's liberty interest, absolutely no idea how you are bringing in Plessy.

    Although I'm anti-death penalty, Texas law regarding the death penalty doe not allow the unilateral murder of an individual.
    The death penalty is a legal punishment. Murder is a legal definition for a crime.

    Again I ask, under your theory that "life doesn't begin", when on the time scale exactly does one become eligible for protection from unilateral murder?
    See above where I identify the Texas law.

    Roe Vs Wade picked the 1st trimester, but science has pushed that back. What is your arbitrary point in time?
    I think Roe picked the third trimester. As stated above, I am fine with viability.

    You take a while to process info.

  11. #161
    no longer an asshat TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    rarely on the US mainland
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post


    You take a while to process info.
    Done

  12. #162
    asshat Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    15,224
    Quote Originally Posted by El Guapo View Post
    Oh really? A medically unnecessary procedure, you say. Brisket, I'm about to make you a very wealthy man.

    See, as I've been trying to tell you people ever since this issue first came up in the session last year, abortion clinics were ALREADY DOING THE SONOGRAMS. The bill required NOTHING they weren't already doing except to disclose the results to the patient.

    Don't believe me? Here you go, listen to this professional pro-choice liberal:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double...hem_rape_.html
    " But I have considerable concerns about what calling these ultrasounds “rape” and “unnecessary” will mean for abortion patients and providers. The reality is that most abortion patients do receive an ultrasound to date their pregnancies. Since most abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy, many of these ultrasounds are performed with a transvaginal probe, the most effective method for viewing early-stage pregnancies. In the end, whether an ultrasound is performed, and which method is used, reflects either the practice of the abortion provider, the patient’s medical history, or—for a relatively small number of women—an aversion to the transvaginal method. Most of the time, however, the transvaginal ultrasound is a useful and common tool that helps providers perform abortions safely and well."

    In Texas, none other than Planned Parenthood itself didn't even bother to contest this:

    http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...n-1237219.html
    "Patrick pointed out — and Sarah Wheat of Austin's Planned Parenthood confirmed — that sonograms are already a standard part of abortion procedures, a fact that would make such a law's fiscal impact negligible."

    So, it would appear that, according to Brisket, abortion providers have been performing a medically unnecessary procedure on hundreds of thousands of Texas women for quite some time. You're a lawyer, let's turn that outrage of yours into cold hard cash.

    Per this http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...tions-are-per/ , Texas has about 80,000 abortions per year. Let's be conservative and say that, I dunno, 75% of them had sonograms done, since the pro-choice lady did say "most". So, 60,000 vulnerable little flowers, preyed upon by these abortion clinics to the tune of, what's a sonogram cost - $100 minimum per this: http://www.compareultrasoundcost.com/, and these ladies are being ripped off to the tune of $6,000,000 per year. Hell, let's give the abortionists another benefit of the doubt and only assign them $50 per. That's still $3,000,000 per year they've stolen from distraught pregnant women.

    Now, just to make it simple, let's choose the 10 year period prior to the sonogram law taking effect and we're looking at $30,000,000 in unnecessary medical procedures, by your own admission. Treble those damages to teach the bastards a lesson, as you lawyers like to do (or maybe it falls under DTPA, I dunno), and we're easily looking at a $120,000,000 potential judgment. Take your third of that, buy out Franklin, and tell the world to suck it.

    So there you go, my man. You can either be true to your belief and sue the bejeebus out of these evil abortion clinics who did all these "medically unnecessary procedures" (your words) - and make yourself a rich man in the process - or you can admit that you didn't know what the $#@! you were talking about.

    Because really, there is no middle ground here.
    Tried to reply last night, but Tapatalk $#@! the bed.

    In short, what a stupid, assinine post. "Really, there is no middle ground here." Are you high?

    I don't believe that all transvaginal ultrasounds are medically unnecessary per se, just like I don't believe that all appendectomies, colonoscopies, rectal exams, heart bypass surgeries, etc. are medically unnecessary. In many cases, they are what the doctor and patient decide to do. But a BLANKET mandate that all persons receiving procedure X must also undergo an appendectomy, colonoscopy, etc., would unquestionably result in some number of patients undergoing a procedure that is NOT what they or their doctor would otherwise choose to do. That's the very definition of "medically unnecessary."

    In those cases where the doctor/clinic chooses to perform a transvaginal ultrasound because that is what is required pursuant to their best medical judgment, groovy. Clearly, BY THE VERY ARTICLES YOU CITED, that is not always the case:

    "most abortion patients do receive an ultrasound to date their pregnancies."

    So, MOST. Not all. Most. And that is an ultrasound, not necessarily a transavaginal ultrasound. Then, the article goes on:

    "Since most abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy, many of these ultrasounds are performed with a transvaginal probe,"

    So, of those MOST (but not all) abortions, MANY (but not all) have transvaginal ultrasounds. So we're talking about a subset of a subset. The Venn diagram would be a large circle for abortions, a smaller circle within that for those wherein there is an ultrasound, and a smaller circle within that wherein there is a transvaginal ultrasound. And some legislatures have proposed requiring a transvaginal ultrasound for the largest circle -- all abortions. By definition, every legislatively required transvaginal ultrasound that is performed on someone in the largest circle, but outside the smallest, inner circle, is "medically unnecessary." Are you allergic to logic, or is your avoidance simply a matter of personal preference?

    By your logic, we could argue the same thing if the legislature ordered full rectal exams and colonoscopies of every person applying for a car title. I would object to those as requiring medically unnecessary tests, and you would then argue "LET'S GET RICH! EVERY PERSON WHO GETS A RUBBER GLOVED FINGER UP THEIR BUTT IS A PLAINTIFF!" The logical fallacy is so pathetic . . . hell, what a waste of $#@!ing time.

    And . . . how is the decision made to perform a transvaginal ultrasound?

    "In the end, whether an ultrasound is performed, and which method is used, reflects either the practice of the abortion provider, the patient’s medical history, or—for a relatively small number of women—an aversion to the transvaginal method."

    WHAT? You mean the physician and the patient decide, based on the circumstances of the case and the patient? Hmm, that sounds a lot like a determination whether a procedure is medically necessary or not.


    As for this:

    "Patrick pointed out — and Sarah Wheat of Austin's Planned Parenthood confirmed — that sonograms are already a standard part of abortion procedures, a fact that would make such a law's fiscal impact negligible."
    They were talking about the performance of an ultrasound, period -- NOT a transvaginal ultrasound. And while I still have a problem with a legislature requiring ANY medical procedure like this, it's important to note that they were NOT talking about the invasive kind of ultrasound, which was not the subject of the Texas legislation. The more onerous portion of the Texas legislation is what is required AFTER the ultrasound -- showing it to the patient, providing certain commentary, etc. But if we're talking about the problem of legislatures proposing a particular type of ultrasound (transvaginal ultrasound) that is invasive and is often medically unnecessary, then the article quoted is innapposite.

    Only in certain abortion cases, even many of them, but NOT all of them, is a transvaginal ultrasound what is called for by the doctor. In the remainder of those cases, it is NOT medically necessary. Yet the social conservatives want to require it in all cases, necessarily including those in which it is not medically necessary. There's no getting around that fundamental truth.

  13. #163
    asshat ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses ndawg grows his own roses
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ATX
    Posts
    3,773
    It's funny watching a bunch of privileged white males pretend to be experts about what is and isn't oppression.

    Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions is about as egregious an intrusion on the practice of medicine as I can think of. Certainly hypocritical coming from the party that supposedly thinks that the government needs to get out of the private sector.

  14. #164
    asshat El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo grows his own roses El Guapo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    God bless Texas
    Posts
    4,352
    Texas doesn't mandate that it be a transvaginal sonogram

  15. #165
    asshat Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    15,224
    Quote Originally Posted by El Guapo View Post
    Texas doesn't mandate that it be a transvaginal sonogram
    I know. And for that matter, neither does Virginia -- they dialed back the proposed law after getting significant pushback. The point of discussing that particular subject was not to discuss what the law actually is at this very moment, and the discussion certainly wasn't limited to Texas . . . so I'm not sure what this little tangent is about. The point of discussing the proposals to require transvaginal ultrasounds is that this is the sort of measure that the social conservative movement aligned with the Republican party has been proposing and pushing in multiple jurisdictions. Those efforts are visible, and folks see and hear about them. So far, those efforts have largely failed . . . but the fact that they're trying is not lost on anyone.

    We started out discussing a broad concept of the "war on women." When we are talking about the perceptions of female voters, proposals such as the mandatory transvaginal ultrasound legislation are exactly the kind of thing that is relevant to those perceptions. If the Republican party keeps pushing for mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds, they will likely be alienating voters -- that was the broad point of the this discussion. Or at least that's what I thought we were talking about. By this point, this thread has descended into a dozen different tangents.

  16. #166
    no longer an asshat TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland Shaggy Gold Club TexonLongIsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    rarely on the US mainland
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisketexan View Post
    Or at least that's what I thought we were talking about. By this point, this thread has descended into a dozen different tangents.

    seems like threads about women are actually just like a conversation with a women

  17. #167
    asshat Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    15,224
    Quote Originally Posted by texonlongisland View Post
    seems like threads about women are actually just like a conversation with a women
    i don't like your tone.

  18. #168
    Dark and Stormy washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn can play the whole course with a 4 iron. At night. washparkhorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    6,389
    Politically, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on women appear to be rousing sideshow distractions.

    The cacophony of stupidity that emanates from "news" organizations hides the fact that neither party gives a damn about iceberg dead ahead.

    Please - carry on with idiotic Joe Scarboring and Mika Brezbimbo talking points. It's fascinating.


  19. #169
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisketexan View Post
    We started out discussing a broad concept of the "war on women." When we are talking about the perceptions of female voters, proposals such as the mandatory transvaginal ultrasound legislation are exactly the kind of thing that is relevant to those perceptions. If the Republican party keeps pushing for mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds, they will likely be alienating voters -- that was the broad point of the this discussion. Or at least that's what I thought we were talking about. By this point, this thread has descended into a dozen different tangents.
    Agreed. Some of the earlier posts were about how this is mostly just a function of MSM shennanigans. It's not. It's a funciton of the practical realities of the issue.

    washpark's point is even more correct regarding a sideshow as the iceberg approaches.

  20. #170
    asshat Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    15,224
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    Agreed. Some of the earlier posts were about how this is mostly just a function of MSM shennanigans. It's not. It's a funciton of the practical realities of the issue.

    washpark's point is even more correct regarding a sideshow as the iceberg approaches.
    Agreed with both points. What's going on is utter bull$#@! in my mind, and is bassackwards . . . but the worst thing about it is that it's WAY down the list of $#@! we should be discussing. The multi-trillion dollar debt iceberg is the thing. It's as if we were debating such pointless $#@! while we were waging WWII. Except that in the grand scheme, the debt bomb may be a greater threat to our continued existence and viability than the Axis ever was.

    But, we'll let both sides distract us with "the culture wars" while they kick the can down the road . . .

  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by linux View Post
    But do you at least agree that aborting an embryo is in no way killing? For example opposing embryonic stem cells being the most idiotic opposition I have ever seen (a debate sidestepped by that same science that was maligned). Morning after pill is a form of abortion that can be practiced as a sport and it would not be in anyway amoral.

    A fetus on the other hand has a nervous system after 6 months (more or less) leading to the late term abortion debates, that is where the real question lies, is it human life? with cognition and awareness? or just organic life? which is easily disposed of in society for the simplest of reasons.
    NO- I don't think you and I agree on where life begins, but that doesn't really matter and isn't particularly important since that's not the point of what I'm saying and I was not in way intending to have an abortion debate. But, I think it should be comletley beyond debate that life ='s protection and the woman has to carry pregnancy to term b/c she would lose every single balancing test that does not have her probable death on the other side of the coin. And, I suppose to be logically consistent that would have to inclued rape and incest babies.
    Again, the idea isn't to punish women for having sex, it is to balance the value of life on one hand against the inconvenience (and again I'm not minimizing this- it seems awful from watching my wife walk through it for the 2nd time in 3 years right now) of pregnancy.

  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Foosters Galore View Post
    I would think implantation would be the more logical choice regarding the abortion debate, but not necessarily as the beginning of life.
    I think this has a ring of truth to it. Before implantation I'm not sure what you have, but it's not really a separate organism in my mind. My own personal viewpoint is separate beating heart

  23. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by El Guapo View Post
    It's only a "constitutional right" because in this case 7 people said so. The Constitution itself says nothing about it at all. If anything, any fair reading would at best leave it to the states to decide.
    I've always contended that there are only 3 logical ways to treat this from a constitutional perspective
    1) abortion is illegal (except in cases of life of mother) b/c the fetus is a life that is deserving of protection and thus giving it citizenhood

    2) Abortion is a matter for the states to decide, on their own, as it's clearly part of their police powers (the actual element that I'd prefer)

    3) Constitutional amendment permitting abortion.

  24. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by linux View Post
    Cognition and awareness is what defines human life.

    Terri Schaivo was no longer a human being because she was brain dead, you could have cut her off any simple reason, like putting a dog to sleep.



    It is difficult, and it has to be case by case, taking the easy way out and just put a legal age is not the way to go, but yeah there is that hard to define moment after birth and before awareness.



    But so is your sperm, by that token you murder billions of people because you seriously can never impregnate that many women.

    By ignoring the possibility of what "could be" you make the argument more manageable. Either it is alive, it can suffer and it is like a pet, or it is alive because it knows it is alive and it is murder.
    So are you pro-infanticide like those bio ethicists that were linked a month or two back, who said you can't have personhood until 3 or 4 months?

  25. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by TexonLongIsland View Post
    seems like threads about women are actually just guys posting

    fify

  26. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisketexan View Post
    I know. And for that matter, neither does Virginia -- they dialed back the proposed law after getting significant pushback. The point of discussing that particular subject was not to discuss what the law actually is at this very moment, and the discussion certainly wasn't limited to Texas . . . so I'm not sure what this little tangent is about. The point of discussing the proposals to require transvaginal ultrasounds is that this is the sort of measure that the social conservative movement aligned with the Republican party has been proposing and pushing in multiple jurisdictions. Those efforts are visible, and folks see and hear about them. So far, those efforts have largely failed . . . but the fact that they're trying is not lost on anyone.

    We started out discussing a broad concept of the "war on women." When we are talking about the perceptions of female voters, proposals such as the mandatory transvaginal ultrasound legislation are exactly the kind of thing that is relevant to those perceptions. If the Republican party keeps pushing for mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds, they will likely be alienating voters -- that was the broad point of the this discussion. Or at least that's what I thought we were talking about. By this point, this thread has descended into a dozen different tangents.
    I agree with your summation of what the thread is about, even if, after reviewing the numbers posted in polls by escriva I reject your conclusion (about women fleeing the party b/c of this). Women seem less bothered, on the whole, by this than do men. Also, that fits my anecdotal evidence.

    I asked you before how you felt the Republican Party was waging a war on women (or what could be perceived as a war on women) and this was your answer. Fair enough- and I get why you could see it that way.

    Got anything else? And I say this not as a smart ass but seriously looking for stuff. I get why a hispanic could feel war's being waged on them, or minority (I don't agree necessarily- but there is lots of data points) but I just don't see the argument from women (outside of reproduction- but again- I think the RR isn't fighting against women it's fighting for life- and I don't particularly like the RR at all so I'm not a fan boy).

  27. #177
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Wulaw Horn View Post
    But, I think it should be comletley beyond debate that life ='s protection and the woman has to carry pregnancy to term b/c she would lose every single balancing test that does not have her probable death on the other side of the coin. And, I suppose to be logically consistent that would have to inclued rape and incest babies.
    You aren't really balancing. You are saying something is completely "beyond debate".

    It is clear that you value life above all else. I don't think that follows what almost any ethicist would say because they would say that there are situations a single life (or fetus) is outweighed by some greater good. That the greater good is the "liberty of the mother" is not going to persuade you. That's fine. That is where the debate lies.

    But to say that something like this is "beyond debate" is certainly not representative of the history of this issue. It's merely one argument -- the one that does not reflect the current state of the law or the vast majority of public opinion -- even though it may be the strongest quiver in the anti-abortion argument.
    Last edited by tantric superman; 05-02-2012 at 11:43 AM.

  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by washparkhorn View Post
    Politically, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on women appear to be rousing sideshow distractions.

    The cacophony of stupidity that emanates from "news" organizations hides the fact that neither party gives a damn about iceberg dead ahead.

    Please - carry on with idiotic Joe Scarboring and Mika Brezbimbo talking points. It's fascinating.

    I agree completely, which is why I said that I don't give a $#@! about any of this as a voting issue if one side presents someone that will fix the deficit debt crisis and reform entitlements to something manageable. I'm discussing this b/c it's a topic I find interesting, not b/c it's a litmus test for how I'd vote (it's a secondary or tertiary issue at best for me behind sane fiscal policy)

  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Knight View Post
    fify
    Considering that the shag in general is probably 95% dudes, and the cloak room in particular is 99% dude's why exactly should this be a surprise?

  30. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Wulaw Horn View Post
    Considering that the shag in general is probably 95% dudes, and the cloak room in particular is 99% dude's why exactly should this be a surprise?
    It's not a surprise, but it also makes this conversation worthless.

  31. #181
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Knight View Post
    It's not a surprise, but it also makes this conversation worthless.
    Considering that conversations in the shag are generally 95% worthless, and conversations in the cloak room in particular are 99% worthless why exactly should this be a surprise?

  32. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    Considering that conversations in the shag are generally 95% worthless, and conversations in the cloak room in particular are 99% worthless why exactly should this be a surprise?
    I find some of the conversations on the cloak room to be intellectually stimulating. This one in particular is just dishonest and is really indicative of the mentality behind the "war on women"

  33. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by ndawg View Post
    It's funny watching a bunch of privileged white males pretend to be experts about what is and isn't oppression.

    Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions is about as egregious an intrusion on the practice of medicine as I can think of. Certainly hypocritical coming from the party that supposedly thinks that the government needs to get out of the private sector.
    I understand that that's the Rachel Maddow/Debbie Wasserman-Brisket talking point. Again, it doesn't square with the facts.

    Vaginal ultrasound was always performed before the early
    surgical abortion at 59 (83%) sites, under certain conditions
    at 11 (16%) sites, and never at one (1%) site.
    Furthermore, from
    1996–97, Planned Parenthood conducted a multi-site clinical
    trial of methotrexate. Thirty-five (87%) reported using
    only methotrexate, 1 (3%) reported using only mifepristone,
    and 4 (10%) reported offering both methotrexate and mifepristone
    for early medical abortions. Vaginal ultrasound
    was very common before the medical abortion, with 37
    (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it.
    http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/u...soundstudy.pdf

    This only affects actual medical procedures on the margin (and the idea that doctors are supermen above the law is non-sensical). What this is about is the clincs wanting to keep from showing the ultrasoun to the women because informed consent is bad for business. Unfortunately, they've found some gullible sheep wiling to regurgitate their talking points.

  34. #184
    bunghole Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard. Horn21 slams and goes hard.
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    469
    Every poll regarding abortion that I have seen shows women at a higher % against it than men. How is this a war on women, again? Unless we are only talking about the ultrasound issue only, but we all know that this supposed war about a woman's freedom to choose is rooted in abortion on its own. Not only that, statistics also show that 1 in 5 abortions are attributed to "my husband/partner/parents wanted me to get one." But by all means, feel free to continue to speak for all women that there is some manufactured war on them.

    I am with Brisket on the issue of forcing someone to do something that they do not want to do (which I feel is different than keeping someone from doing something that they want to do). So the ultrasound issue has me a bit more torn. However, considering that Roe herself is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade after seeing a baby at 10 weeks gestation and knowing that my wife has had friends who regret their abortions every day of their lives and wished they would have seen the baby's heartbeat before they made such a life changing decision makes me really wish that each woman who is considering having one would watch an ultrasound...not just for the baby's sake, but her own as well.

  35. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    So both sides of a man's argument lack a bit of crediblity. The pro-choice side which is marred by the financial aspect of him wanting to get out of the birth and the pro-life side of him not bearing the price of being forced to go to term.

    You've convinced me. Only women should be allowed to debate this issue.
    So both sides of the woman's argument lack a bit of credibility. The pro-choice side which is marred by wanting to get out of the birth, and the pro-life side of her not bearing the price of supporting the kid for 18 years.

    You've convinced me. Only men should be allowed to debate this issue.

    Or maybe everyone has self-serving biases, and everyone should get to debate?
    Last edited by longhornmatt; 05-02-2012 at 02:20 PM.

  36. #186
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by longhornmatt View Post
    Or maybe everyone has self-serving biases, and everyone should get to debate?
    Or we can keep it simple. The woman has to punch out a watermellon out of her front bottom or go into an office and have someone shove his hands up her front bottom. And the guy has to read Field and Stream while this is going on.

    Is your position that men have as much to gain and lose in the debate as women?

    (Credible wasn't the right word I guess -- maybe I should have said men have less skin in the game and left it at that.)
    Last edited by tantric superman; 05-02-2012 at 03:01 PM.

  37. #187
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Horn21 View Post
    I am with Brisket on the issue of forcing someone to do something that they do not want to do (which I feel is different than keeping someone from doing something that they want to do). So the ultrasound issue has me a bit more torn. However, considering that Roe herself is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade after seeing a baby at 10 weeks gestation and knowing that my wife has had friends who regret their abortions every day of their lives and wished they would have seen the baby's heartbeat before they made such a life changing decision makes me really wish that each woman who is considering having one would watch an ultrasound...not just for the baby's sake, but her own as well.
    I guess some would say $#@! you for your presumption.

    I presume you have your own woman freinds and don't have to get things hearsay from your wife's freinds. So ask them directly -- are you in favor of restricting abortions -- are you in favor of forcing women, against their will, to carry for months a baby that they do not want?

    Or are you just in favor of being able to go back in time to make a wiser or at least more informed decision -- outside of government intrusion?

    The two most radically pro-choice women I know have spoken to me about their own lives. Both are happily married and raising two children. Both had prior abortions. Both are guilty about the earlier decisioin, would don't think they made the wrong decision make them again, because it allowed them to eventually get their $#@! together so that they could finish their educations and raise two very nice families. (I use the term radically pro-choice not because they go out and march, but because they are really passionate about the issue when it is brought up.)

    I am curious about what those women would tell you if you have the ability to actually speak to them. I think they'd probably hightlight exactly what Brisket has been arguing.

    I regret not going to a service academy when I got out of high school. That's not the same thing as me regretting there not being a draft in place so I would have been forced into the military.
    Last edited by tantric superman; 05-02-2012 at 03:05 PM.

  38. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Knight View Post
    I find some of the conversations on the cloak room to be intellectually stimulating. This one in particular is just dishonest and is really indicative of the mentality behind the "war on women"
    Just curious, but if politicians or the court were debating over whether or not to institute a military draft again would women be allowed to speak on the subject? Allowed to vote? They sure as $#@! did both in the 60's and it did not affet them one damn bit. I'm sure there are other examples but that popped into my head after about 5 minutes as being a lot more important than say women talking about the NFL or the NBA or something which they clearly will never play in.

    Your argument does not match how the world works. Nobody is being dishonest on this thread either.

  39. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Wulaw Horn View Post
    Just curious, but if politicians or the court were debating over whether or not to institute a military draft again would women be allowed to speak on the subject? Allowed to vote? They sure as $#@! did both in the 60's and it did not affet them one damn bit. I'm sure there are other examples but that popped into my head after about 5 minutes as being a lot more important than say women talking about the NFL or the NBA or something which they clearly will never play in.

    Your argument does not match how the world works. Nobody is being dishonest on this thread either.
    Conscription has never been up for a popular vote, and if it was re-instituted don't you think that women would be eligible for the draft? If the discussion was about what it was like to play in the NFL or the locker room culture of the NBA you might have a point. But whens the last time you had a pap smear?

    Last edited by Michael Knight; 05-02-2012 at 05:33 PM.

  40. #190
    asshat TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser Shaggy Gold Club TheCruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chapt. Mtg. w/Smitty
    Posts
    17,161
    Why women allow the debate on whether or not to level fundamental Islam is beyond me.

  41. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Knight View Post
    Conscription has never been up for a popular vote, and if it was re-instituted don't you think that women would be eligible for the draft? If the discussion was about what it was like to play in the NFL or the locker room culture of the NBA you might have a point. But whens the last time you had a pap smear?

    There is not a chance in hell women would ever be conscripted (especially into any area where people are shootin at them and they have a serious risk of death) in this society, you are looney toons bonkers if you feel otherwise- like around the bend full of $#@! crazy out of your mind.

    ANd when did we get to have a vote on abortion? Yeah, it's exactly analogous. Would you be shouting down anyone with a vagina that had an opinion on conscription? I seriously $#@!ing doubt that. That sure didn't happen in the 60's. Your playing identity/plantation politics. The left is very good at that.

  42. #192
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Wulaw Horn View Post
    There is not a chance in hell women would ever be conscripted (especially into any area where people are shootin at them and they have a serious risk of death) in this society, you are looney toons bonkers if you feel otherwise- like around the bend full of $#@! crazy out of your mind.
    If you believe a draft would ever happen where women would NOT be conscripted in some way to do non-combat duty you pretty much haven't followed any of the history of discriminaton laws and issues in the last 50 years. Or the development of military technology. As if a draft would happen.

    Are you desparately trying to argue that women have as much skin in the game in terms of draft laws as men have in terms of the abortion debate? That's fine.

    I think there is a pretty obvious ethical and practical difference between a mom or a sister arguing about their 17 year old son than you arguing about some zygote in a woman's body 1000 miles away in Nebraska who you want to save, but hey, I may have a warped sense of the difference between a sister's concern and love for someone she grew up with and your love for a blastocyst.

    If you continue to believe that a man's opinion is just as valuable in the abortion debate, that is no big deal. The fact that sentient men don't have as much to lose in the abortion debate is pure factual biology.

  43. #193
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    That being said, your arguments on abortion are deserving of respect. Arguments that women need to be forced to look at any particular pictures and meet with any particular people so they can "make an informed decision" -- that kind of reeks of presumption and patronization and if not a war on women, is at least might be seen, at least by the educated ones, as an insulting shot.

  44. #194
    asshat The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link slams and goes hard. The Missing Link's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Hyrule
    Posts
    6,056
    Doctors have the duty to fully inform the patient. It's a conflict of interest for the clinic to say anything that might deter the patient, but at the same time they are required by law to do so. But the new laws are redundant - we already have medical battery laws to protect against this. If a woman feels like the doctor withheld information that would have impacted her decision, she can file a malpractice suit.

    I guess the argument is that in a traumatic or taboo procedure the doctor needs additional scrutiny. I feel like most women know what they are getting into - a lot of information is readily available - but then again some people can't even get ID cards correctly.
    Last edited by The Missing Link; 05-03-2012 at 11:49 AM.

  45. #195
    and in this exhibit, ladies and gentlemen, you'll see effects of over 40 years of trolling, mainly from second wave feminists, on rational adult males. next exhibit: "i totally give up - thanks sweden!" a video illustrated timeline of how america solved its urinal crisis (narrated by matt damon).

  46. #196
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rode my bike 35 miles.
    Posts
    18,999
    You're not a full bird colonel.

    I can tell.

  47. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    You're not a full bird colonel.

    I can tell.
    I worked for Kermit Hyman many years ago.

    He wwas quite a bust.

  48. #198
    Cowboys and Texans fan ! tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? tx 3 putt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Charlie's Bait Camp
    Posts
    48,873
    women belong in the bedroom making babies or in the kitchen making sandwiches !

  49. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    I think there is a pretty obvious ethical and practical difference between a mom or a sister arguing about their 17 year old son than you arguing about some zygote in a woman's body 1000 miles away in Nebraska who you want to save, but hey, I may have a warped sense of the difference between a sister's concern and love for someone she grew up with and your love for a blastocyst.
    You're doing it again. You just as easily could use the example of the zygote's father having more skin in the game than some woman who wants to save someone else's kid 1000 miles away in Nebraska from going to war.
    Last edited by longhornmatt; 05-04-2012 at 04:13 AM.

  50. #200
    Rep-A Ponzi Scheme MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5 Shaggy Gold Club MP5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Like a Boss.
    Posts
    16,885
    Quote Originally Posted by longhornmatt View Post
    You're doing it again. You just as easily could use the example of the zygote's father having more skin in the game than some woman who wants to save someone else's kid 1000 miles away in Nebraska from going to war.
    How does that help him prove himself to be an intellectually dishonest, insufferable $#@!? These people need not logic, they need to legitimize their derangement.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Home .. Advertise .. ShaggyShop .. PanchoChat
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont