You can't talk content, so you throw insults. 'nuff said I'll once again be the bigger man and not respond with insults back.
You don't think the gov't forcing your doctor to perform a procedure on you with the sole purpose to make you guilty isn't intrusive? Wow. How about I make you look at a picture of a homeless man everytime you cash a check?
Why is that even relevant? The mere fact you are making someone do something that might not even have any impact should be against everything you stand for. The fact that you can defend this shows that all your other arguments about gov't interference in our lives is a bunch of crap.
and the fact that you can see the BS in it shows you also see the BS in waiting periods for guns but don't care because you want them to be illegal.
I'm not sure I ever said it wasn't intrusive in the sense that they are involving themselves in our life, I said the procedure itself wasn't what I would call an intrusive one. At least I think that's what I said. Any act of government that impacts us personally is obviously an intrusion into our lives.
Eh, not exactly the same. A waiting period actually does reduce gun related violence. Reducing violence is good, almost no matter how we do it. The same cannot be said for reducing abortions. How we do it is very much key to whether or not the policy is successful in its goal of improving society. Plus a waiting period 1) doesn't cost anything and 2) there's also that whole thing about killing fully grown people with a gun isn't viewed the same as an abortion in the eyes of society. So yes, a waiting period is govt intervention (albeit super frickin minor compared to this, not personally invasive or cost prohibitive), but that comparison has all kinds of flaws to it since abortion has about as much to do with gun violence as Yao Ming does to Vern Troyer.
I have no idea why you have a problem with waiting periods. The equivalent would be forcing someone to watch videos of gun shot victims who were children and watch anti-gun groups propaganda. I don't want all guns to be illegal by the way.
Yep,I agree, that number is shocking. 90+% of women/parents in Europe that had a pre-screening and saw that their child had Down's Syndrome had them aborted, and 85-90% in the U.S.
To those I argued with regarding this yesterday...sorry if I was a jackass. Abortion is an issue with tons of different competing and valid values in play inside of me; but that doesn't mean I have to be a horse's ass to get my point across. That's pretty weak, actually.
That's nothing compared to the jackassery you display when arguing the Astros. I didn't think you were being a jackass. It was a good discussion that bogged down at times in minutia but I never felt any of it was over the line.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HKpg7WRFGTY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
They should put more focus on sex education and put funding into helping the majority of women that do are more like to get abortions; Women that are financially unstable, young, single or are in an abusive relationship. I think most women would choose to keep the child if they felt they could have a stable and secure life to not only support themselves but also the life they're bringing into this world. I think being Pro-Life is more than just ending abortion. To be truly Pro-Life I think its having the goal that every person enjoys a good (subjective) quality of life from birth until death at hopefully a very old and well lived age.
There is no 'hot button' visceral reaction, or front page news mentions in those policies and they cost money. There is reality and then there is politics.
On the bright side, at least Texas hasn't taken the South Dakota approach, though you have to give them credit for innovation... http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one. Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators. "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week. (continued at the link above)
Disturbing but also keep in mind that neither SD or ND have abortion providers. For awhile an OBGYN from Minneapolis would fly to SD once a month but has since stopped due to threats. If people in the Dakotas wants an abortion they have to travel to MN.
