B-Man Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 As a quick reminder, here is why the Obama administration first brought up, and wants everyone discussing birth control. New Washington Post-ABC News poll "Gas prices sink Obama’s ratings on economy" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) As a quick reminder, here is why the Obama administration first brought up, and wants everyone discussing birth control. New Washington Post-ABC News poll "Gas prices sink Obamas ratings on economy" . Well, let me ask...if the birth control issue was a controversy totally created by the Obama adminstration to distract from the real isssues, what does it say about the Republicans that they cannot abstain from talking about it...it was hilarious, last debate...the four candidates started out, agreeing that birth control was not the issue, and there were more important issues to discuss...then they did nothing but talk about birth control for another 30 minutes... Edited March 12, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 That the doctor needs? An MRI gives my doctor information; doesn't mean he requires one every time I have joint pain. I'm not suggesting anyone needs the procedure done. I'm not advocating that we mandate something like an ultrasound. My point was to Buftex that the ultrasound law is more geared towards diagnosing the health of the fetus than that of the mother. Basically echoing the point of the legislation isn't to cover women's health. So if the legislation isn't about women's health, why bring up a new law concerning men's health and say they're equivalent? It's an apples and oranges argument that he's not understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Ron Paul may personally think it's immoral but show me where he stated that he believes it's the governments role to enforce morality upon others? That is a fair point you (and DC Tom earlier) made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) And this is another example of complete "intellectual dishonesty" or ignorance by Republicans. Utrasounds are a normal part of an abortion procedure, not transvagianl ultrasounds. This is another example of your bias or you're behind the times on the latest information out there. The one particularly contentious point has been that these bills require a woman to receive whichever type of ultrasound provides the best picture of the fetus — which, since women typically get abortions early on in the pregnancy, means that the most effective ultrasound is transvaginal, an invasive procedure that opponents of the measure decried as “”state-sponsored rape.” Amid public outcry and media scrutiny, lawmakers in Alabama and Virginia have backtracked, and instead looked to pass ultrasound bills in which a transvaginal ultrasound is optional. Talking Points Memo ALL that is required is an ordinary ultrasound (of whichever type), which is standard enough practice that Planned Parenthood itself performs one as a matter of routine before any abortion. The law only legislates a procedure that is considerd part of "best practices" among many abortion providers, including the largest one in the country. Let's look at the language of the law: "Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, [emphasis mine] contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable." So that is obviously going to leave it to the discretion of the practitioner--whether he/she opts for an abdominal or a trans-vaginal ultrasound. You may read the bill here . As to your Republicans and the debate silliness, they answered the questions that the media brought up. . Edited March 12, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) I'm not suggesting anyone needs the procedure done. I'm not advocating that we mandate something like an ultrasound. My point was to Buftex that the ultrasound law is more geared towards diagnosing the health of the fetus than that of the mother. Basically echoing the point of the legislation isn't to cover women's health. So if the legislation isn't about women's health, why bring up a new law concerning men's health and say they're equivalent? It's an apples and oranges argument that he's not understanding. That is not accurate Joe. The woman has already decided, at that point....the health of the fetus is not an issue for her. According to the way the proposal was written, she would be required to look and listen to the results of the ultra-sound, to give her the "rigth to choose" if she really wants to have the abortion or not. Like I said, in response to Rob, I understand the opposition to abortion, and it will likely never go away. If they want to change it, take the necessary steps to overturn the abortion laws. But, the procedure is legal in the US, so to harass women, who have already made their choice, or attempt to guilt them into changing their mind, at the last minute, by forcing an unnecessary medical procedure on them is just wrong. Transvaginal ultrasounds are normally used in the earliest stages of a pregnancy, to more accurately determine a specific due date Once the decision has been made to perform an abortion, there really is no medical reason for a transvaginal ultrasound. This is another example of your bias or you're behind the times on the latest information out there. Talking Points Memo ALL that is required is an ordinary ultrasound (of whichever type), which is standard enough practice that Planned Parenthood itself performs one as a matter of routine before any abortion. The law only legislates a procedure that is considerd part of "best practices" among many abortion providers, including the largest one in the country. Let's look at the language of the law: "Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, [emphasis mine] contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable." So that is obviously going to leave it to the discretion of the practitioner--whether he/she opts for an abdominal or a trans-vaginal ultrasound. You may read the bill here . As to your Republicans and the debate silliness, they answered the questions that the media brought up. . Yes, the Virginia House had to backtrack, and re-write their bill, after they were educated, and found out how off they were with their original proposal...so, they passed a law, basically saying, "keep on doing what you have been doing"... a proud moment for conservatives! Edited March 12, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 That is not accurate Joe. The woman has already decided, at that point....the health of the fetus is not an issue for her. According to the way the proposal was written, she would be required to look and listen to the results of the ultra-sound, to give her the "rigth to choose" if she really wants to have the abortion or not. Like I said, in response to Rob, I understand the opposition to abortion, and it will likely never go away. If they want to change it, take the necessary steps to overturn the abortion laws. But, the procedure is legal in the US, so to harass women, who have already made their choice, or attempt to guilt them into changing their mind, at the last minute, by forcing an unnecessary medical procedure on them is just wrong. Transvaginal ultrasounds are normally used in the earliest stages of a pregnancy, to more accurately determine a specific due date. It is accurate. Right or wrong, that's actually the point of the law. Enough lawmakers felt that you are right, and the health of the fetus wasn't an issue for mothers. Enough lawmakers feel that a fetus is a living human whose rights aren't being protected. So they passed this law. This law is to try to protect the health of that living human. Disagree all you want, but that's accurate. This is not a law about women's health. So to write a bill about a new law for Viagra and say that the two are the same is stupid. The viagra bill is a juvenile and asinine attempt to try to make a political point. Do I like the ultrasound law? No. 2 main reasons: 1) I wish the gov't would get out of the baby business altogether. I despise abortions, but I don't see a law against abortion fixing the issue. 2) As I stated above, this law is an attempt to protect the fetus's life. It doesn't do that at all. So why is it necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It is accurate. Right or wrong, that's actually the point of the law. Enough lawmakers felt that you are right, and the health of the fetus wasn't an issue for mothers. Enough lawmakers feel that a fetus is a living human whose rights aren't being protected. So they passed this law. This law is to try to protect the health of that living human. Disagree all you want, but that's accurate. This is not a law about women's health. So to write a bill about a new law for Viagra and say that the two are the same is stupid. The viagra bill is a juvenile and asinine attempt to try to make a political point. Do I like the ultrasound law? No. 2 main reasons: 1) I wish the gov't would get out of the baby business altogether. I despise abortions, but I don't see a law against abortion fixing the issue. 2) As I stated above, this law is an attempt to protect the fetus's life. It doesn't do that at all. So why is it necessary? One positive aspect of this is that it enables the woman to see what she's killing before she kills it. The abortion activists have established a myth that it's just an inanimate mass of cells, not unlike a tumor. Of course half these abortion activists think it's ok to rip a baby's skull apart during delivery as long as you can kill the little mother!@#$er before he gets all the way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 One positive aspect of this is that it enables the woman to see what she's killing before she kills it. The abortion activists have established a myth that it's just an inanimate mass of cells, not unlike a tumor. Of course half these abortion activists think it's ok to rip a baby's skull apart during delivery as long as you can kill the little mother!@#$er before he gets all the way out. While I appreciate the sentiment that the mother should actually be aware of her actions, I just don't think that seeing an ultrasound accomplishes that intent. And I don't believe that it's the government's role to dictate that sentiment. I highly doubt that the legality of abortions, and the legality of mandatory ultrasounds has any direct influence on the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies we see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Ron Paul may personally think it's immoral but show me where he stated that he believes it's the governments role to enforce morality upon others? Haven't been out to a nightclub recently? No, it's not the government's role, it's the lunatic fringe's role- on both sides. It is accurate. Right or wrong, that's actually the point of the law. Enough lawmakers felt that you are right, and the health of the fetus wasn't an issue for mothers. Enough lawmakers feel that a fetus is a living human whose rights aren't being protected. So they passed this law. This law is to try to protect the health of that living human. Disagree all you want, but that's accurate. I cringe at any laws about this because 1. You can tell me it isn't a human life and I can't prove you wrong 2. You can tell me it is a human life and I can't prove you wrong 3. You can tell me it is a parasite and you may technically be right, but that is idiotic All belief about what it is, is based on personal belief alone. Edited March 12, 2012 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Weekly Standard Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate BattleWashington Post poll contradicts Washington Post narrative about female voters. How's the great contraception mandate battle of 2012 playing out? If you read the Washington Post's news coverage, the issue is supposedly killing Republicans among female voters. But the newest Washington Post/ABC poll tells a different story. During the first few days of February, about a week before Obama declared a so-called "accommodation" to the contraception/abortifacient mandate, a Washington Post/ABC poll showed Obama's approval rating at 50 percent, with 46 percent of Americans disapproving. Then, from March 7 to 10--a week into the national media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's degrading remarks about Georgetown Law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke--Washington Post/ABC conducted another poll. It found Obama's approval rating at 46 percent, down four points from February, and his disapproval rating at 50 percent, up four points from February. In February, Obama was leading Mitt Romney, 51 percent to 45 percent among registered voters. In March, Obama was trailing Mitt Romney, 47 percent to 49 percent among registered voters. The Post/ABC pollster finds that Obama "did better among men and women alike last month, and has lost ground slightly among both sexes this month." Per that same Washington Post/ABC poll referenced earlier, apparently after a month of war on women propaganda, women are largely unmoved. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Weekly Standard Per that same Washington Post/ABC poll referenced earlier, apparently after a month of war on women propaganda, women are largely unmoved. . Women typically don't care about men calling other women names. They are catty. Unmoved? If Obama wanted to move women all he would need are credit cards and shopping centers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 Women typically don't care about men calling other women names. They are catty. Unmoved? If Obama wanted to move women all he would need are credit cards and shopping centers. So what you are saying is that women would prostitute themselves and turn into sluts for Obama if he paid them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So what you are saying is that women would prostitute themselves and turn into sluts for Obama if he paid them? I wouldn't say that unless you are talking about a public figure like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. The tricky part with them even is that you can only criticize them when they are being politicians. Sometimes they do other things as private citizens like when Palin goes hunting. Bachmann is an entertainer of sorts with exhibits at local county fairs called the Michele Bachmann filet show. . In her act she performs amazing feats with boneless meats. It is unfair to call her bad names as an entertainer but as a politician she is fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 I wouldn't say that unless you are talking about a public figure like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. The tricky part with them even is that you can only criticize them when they are being politicians. Sometimes they do other things as private citizens like when Palin goes hunting. Bachmann is an entertainer of sorts with exhibits at local county fairs called the Michele Bachmann filet show. . In her act she performs amazing feats with boneless meats. It is unfair to call her bad names as an entertainer but as a politician she is fair game. So Sarah goes hunting and Michelle is fair game? You've spent too much time with JiA and are getting the Dick Cheney syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So Sarah goes hunting and Michelle is fair game? You've spent too much time with JiA and are getting the Dick Cheney syndrome. How did I get involved in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 How did I get involved in this? Just joking with Crayonz and since you are so competent with head shots you became part of it my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Anything other than procreational. The Catholic Churhc does not believe that, for married couples, sex is only for "making babies." Not even close. So why would Santorum? He's a Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The Catholic Churhc does not believe that, for married couples, sex is only for "making babies." Not even close. So why would Santorum? He's a Catholic. Does it really matter- with Romney and Santorum, people are talking way too much about religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Does it really matter- with Romney and Santorum, people are talking way too much about religion. What people are you referring to? The same people talking about contraception? Those people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts