pBills Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Where is any mention of religion, all they are asking is that the women be givien all the information. Why are liberals always afraid of peopel being educated? "This law is extreme and patronizing to women in a variety of ways," Bebe Anderson, senior counsel for CRR, told HuffPost. "It hijacks the doctor-patient relationship, assumes what a woman must know to make a decision and forces doctors to say things to their patients that they otherwise shouldn't and wouldn't." My wife had a sonogram in every trimester of all her pregnancies, it's standard procedure, why should that be different if the woman is going to terminate? Please the majority of women know all of the information before they take on such a thing. This is just another attempt to sway her in changing her mind... not about educating her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Where is any mention of religion, all they are asking is that the women be givien all the information. Why are liberals always afraid of peopel being educated? "This law is extreme and patronizing to women in a variety of ways," Bebe Anderson, senior counsel for CRR, told HuffPost. "It hijacks the doctor-patient relationship, assumes what a woman must know to make a decision and forces doctors to say things to their patients that they otherwise shouldn't and wouldn't." My wife had a sonogram in every trimester of all her pregnancies, it's standard procedure, why should that be different if the woman is going to terminate? look, i am anti abortion. i would have no problem doing sonograms in this instance but i respect the right of colleagues to not do them for the same reason i want my colleagues to respect my refusal to prescribe the morning after pill, for example. and patients should have the right to choose a doctor whose beliefs coincide with theirs. your wife's sonograms were done for the purpose of ensuring a healthy birth, right? surely, you can see the difference in this situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 If the GOP had any balls whatsoever, they would run a TV ad where an abortion is taking place, up close and personal...with America the Beautiful playing in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 If the GOP had any balls whatsoever, they would run a TV ad where an abortion is taking place, up close and personal...with America the Beautiful playing in the background. http://www.theonion.com/articles/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex,20476/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 it's not hypocritical, if you believe that government intervention can be a good thing. that's the starting point for many progressives. Being forced to get a sonogram -- regardless of whether you want it? Evil and mean. Being forced to buy a product simply because you exist - regardless of whether want it - and face having money forcibly removed from your income for not complying? Smart and insightful because government intervention can be a good thing. Yep. No hypocrisy there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Being forced to get a sonogram -- regardless of whether you want it? Evil and mean. Being forced to buy a product simply because you exist - regardless of whether want it - and face having money forcibly removed from your income for not complying? Smart and insightful because government intervention can be a good thing. Yep. No hypocrisy there. A women's right to choose vs. an insurance mandate... teeny bit of a difference huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 except that the supreme court and thus the govt officially disagrees with you. a supreme court decision might be nuanced in process but not in application. Except that you were speaking of philosophical hypocrisy rather than legal precedent. Nice try though. A women's right to choosekill vs. an insurance mandate... teeny bit of a difference huh? fixed. Regardless of which side you fall it's a life or death issue, not a choice issue. If you are "pro-choice" you are asserting either that murdering a defenseless child is ok or you are arguing that the fetus isn't a human life. Hiding behind this "choice" euphemism is intellectual cowardice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 A women's right to choose vs. an insurance mandate... teeny bit of a difference huh? In other words, a woman's right to choose vs. an individual's right to choose. Nope. No difference that I can see. Oh, wait. There is one difference. In one of them, a woman can leave Texas to retain her right to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) Except that you were speaking of philosophical hypocrisy rather than legal precedent. no, it's you that is clouding the issue. the issue of hypocrisy is only tangentially related to abortion in this case. it's about big gov't vs small and govt interference vs none. focusing on abortion just makes the argument more emotional and less rational. liberals believe in big govt generally or at least in gov't intervention especially for society's most needy. conservatives generally don't. the new health care bill is entirely consistent with liberal beliefs. this abortion bill is entirely inconsistent with conservatives beliefs regarding govt intervention. it's really not that difficult a concept. at least try to comprehend it. Edited May 26, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Except that you were speaking of philosophical hypocrisy rather than legal precedent. Nice try though. fixed. Regardless of which side you fall it's a life or death issue, not a choice issue. If you are "pro-choice" you are asserting either that murdering a defenseless child is ok or you are arguing that the fetus isn't a human life. Hiding behind this "choice" euphemism is intellectual cowardice. Nothing needed to be fixed. It is a right to choose. Depending on individual beliefs is when a "life" begins. You may think it's cowardice or whatever but you still don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. In other words, a woman's right to choose vs. an individual's right to choose. Nope. No difference that I can see. Oh, wait. There is one difference. In one of them, a woman can leave Texas to retain her right to choose. Unless many Republican State leaders around the country get their way, then you will have this same issue throughout the country... then what? They have to leave the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) no, it's you that is clouding the issue. the issue of hypocrisy is only tangentially related to abortion in this case. it's about big gov't vs small and govt interference vs none. focusing on abortion just makes the argument more emotional and less rational. liberals believe in big govt generally or at least in gov't intervention especially for society's most needy. conservatives generally don't. the new health care bill is entirely consistent with liberal beliefs. this abortion bill is entirely inconsistent with conservatives beliefs regarding govt intervention. it's really not that difficult a concept. at least try to comprehend it. More government v less government is an arbitrarily broad place to stop when distinguishing the philosophical differences. Whereas this may apply in a very broad sense there are some areas where this generalization does not hold true, crime and punishment being one. And abortion doesn't simply make it more emotionally involved, it changes the dynamic entirely because you're no longer simply talking about government telling people what they can and can't do with their own property and lives, but rather whether or not they can kill another living being. Edited May 26, 2011 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 More government v less government is an arbitrarily broad place to stop when distinguishing the philosophical differences. Whereas it's true in a very broad sense there are some areas where this generalization does not hold true. Crime and punishment being one, and abortion doesn't simply make it more emotionally involved, it changes the dynamic entirely because you're no longer simply talking about government telling people what they can and can't do with their own property and lives, but rather whether or not they can kill another living being. But people having been disagreeing for years on definition of "living being". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 But people having been disagreeing for years on definition of "living being". No **** Sherlock. That's the point. No one really has the answer. You have two factions; one errs on the side of life, the other on the side of death. All the talk about choice and what one can do with their body (in this context) is simply rationalization for simpletons who are afraid to see it for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 26, 2011 Author Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) But people having been disagreeing for years on definition of "living being". This isn't something that people are all going to agree on, ever...the courts say one thing, ROB says another...Rob is always right! Edited May 26, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 More government v less government is an arbitrarily broad place to stop when distinguishing the philosophical differences. Whereas this may apply in a very broad sense there are some areas where this generalization does not hold true, crime and punishment being one. And abortion doesn't simply make it more emotionally involved, it changes the dynamic entirely because you're no longer simply talking about government telling people what they can and can't do with their own property and lives, but rather whether or not they can kill another living being. and that is where SCOTUS comes in and philosophy ends in regards to the govt role. they have judged abortion to be legal and to not be murder. just because you don't agree with it doesn't change that fact. and arbitrary? what is more arbitrary than saying there is no need for govt support for health care for poor, sick people well past the point of question in regards to the existence of life? refusing care is often life and death to them. isn't refusing care killing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 This isn't something that people are all going to agree on, ever...the courts say one thing, ROB says another...Rob is always right! And don't you forget it. and that is where SCOTUS comes in and philosophy ends in regards to the govt role. they have judged abortion to be legal and to not be murder. just because you don't agree with it doesn't change that fact. and arbitrary? what is more arbitrary than saying there is no need for govt support for health care for poor, sick people well past the point of question in regards to the existence of life? refusing care is often life and death to them. isn't refusing care killing them? We're done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 And don't you forget it. We're done here. you may be...speak for yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 No **** Sherlock. That's the point. No one really has the answer. You have two factions; one errs on the side of life, the other on the side of death. All the talk about choice and what one can do with their body (in this context) is simply rationalization for simpletons who are afraid to see it for what it is. Not understanding why you have to call people simpletons because they don't agree with your stance on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Please the majority of women know all of the information before they take on such a thing. This is just another attempt to save a life and by changing her mind... and about educating her. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Unless many Republican State leaders around the country get their way, then you will have this same issue throughout the country... then what? They have to leave the country? Now you're just trying to change the discussion based on speculation because you realize your original premise is flawed. Anyone even remotely concerned with "slippery slopes" would never also think Obamacare is a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts