And now, just a few posts later, you're suggesting that this method should be banned because it ends VIABLE pregnancies and that this ban would STOP late-term abortions??
Kind of off-topic, and lying to call me a liar is a liitle insulting.
My personal views have nothing to do with the facts. Let's play nice and debate openly, k?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
We're arguing a very hypothetical and unlikely scenario,
I'm sorry, are you an obstetrician, gynecologist, family medicine doctor, or any other kind of women's health professional? I need to see some credentials, please.
Otherwise, when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists says one thing and you disagree, why would your little opinion have more validity than the consensus from the professionals?
Are you saying that if you support this legislation you help a great many and hurt no one? If so, how so?
Well, according to the legislation, developed "by concensus", the procedure is destrucive to the woman. Add on top of that the actual viable preganancies terminated by the proceedure...
you're going to have to fix a lot of freakin' legs to justify that. There just aint that many leg problems in our society, I'm afraid.
I'm sorry, are you an obstetrician, gynecologist, family medicine doctor, or any other kind of women's health professional? I need to see some credentials, please.
Otherwise, when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists says one thing and you disagree, why would your little opinion have more validity than the consensus from the professionals?
I didn't know I was debating a doctor, am I?
franlky, at the end of the day, I'm more interested in putting more Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the world than what they themselves think. Or fixing hip problems, or glandular irregularities.
I'm more sensitive to the overall welfare of our society than I am to affording people every single ooportunity to abdicate their own personal responsibility, extremely rare cases excepted.
That's off-topic, though. we're dabeting the merits of the legislation, so let's get back to that.
Well, according to the legislation, developed "by concensus", the procedure is destrucive to the woman. Add on top of that the actual viable preganancies terminated by the proceedure...
you're going to have to fix a lot of freakin' legs to justify that. There just aint that many leg problems in our society, I'm afraid.
ACOG is the official voice of American Ob/Gyns. They are the professional organization of Ob/Gyns. They set the standards of care when it comes to obstetrics & gynecology. Doctors are expected to follow the guidelines set by this organization, and if they're sued for malpractice and they didn't follow these guidelines, they're screwed.
The statement in this law was according to a "consensus" by whom? Politicians? Lawyers? A few dissenting doctors? They do not set the standards of medical care.
You say supporting the ban helps the "viable pregnancies terminated by the procedure". But this ban does not keep any of these pregnancies - viable or otherwise - from being terminated. IT HAS NOT SAVED ONE UNBORN CHILD. Women still get their abortions - they just use a different method.
You are debating the official statements of doctors, presented to you by a women's health professional whose job is, in part, to teach doctors about abortion, including abortion legislation.
the best solution for moral issues such as abortion. The only resolve to a ban on abortion would be a strategy that would involve assistance to those unwanted children. Isn't that what it's about?
Why do the same people that scream that abortions kill babies can't see past the abortion to the actual future of the child?
Generally speaking... those that are anti-abortion are typically against any welfare resolve for the children in question.
Not all babies are born in your perfect white-picket fence world and attend the christian church of your choice.
Those that are against abortions....namely churches and their followers...should "buck-up" for the all encompassing trip of the unwanted children.
You are debating the official statements of doctors, presented to you by a women's health professional whose job is, in part, to teach doctors about abortion, including abortion legislation.
Not to be snide, but since you keep going off-topic:
What you have accidentally revealed is that you actually are is a LOBBYIST to protect abortion rights. You go about handing out your pamphelts, and putting on your slide shows, about how abortion is so great. Thats about it.
So save it.
My mother in law is a "women's health professional" so spare your assertions of superiority. You're making a pretty weak case, at any rate, especially if you "teach doctors". I didn't know that doctors get their education from "womens health professionals" Not everyone's a moron.
Sad for you as a "women's health professional" that you're not fighiting to put more "women's health professionals" in this world by supporting this incredibly sensible legislation.
Not to be snide, but since you keep going off-topic:
What you have accidentally revealed is that you actually are is a LOBBYIST to protect abortion rights. You go about handing out your pamphelts, and putting on your slide shows, about how abortion is so great. Thats about it.
So save it.
My mother in law is a "women's health professional" so spare your assertions of superiority. You're making a pretty weak case, at any rate, especially if you "teach doctors". I didn't know that doctors get their education from "womens health professionals" Not everyone's a moron.
Sad for you as a "women's health professional" that you're not fighiting to put more "women's health professionals" in this world by supporting this incredibly sensible legislation.
Back to the merits of the legislation...
What the fuck are you talking about????
First of all, I haven't gone off topic at all. You directly asked me a question and I directly answered it. I had asked you the question about whether or not you are qualified to refute medical consensus. Apparently you are not. (Yeah, I *know* a doctor too... :rolleyes: )
Secondly, I am not a fucking lobbyist by any stretch of the imagination. I work for the state, at a medical school/hospital. The residents are REQUIRED by their national accreditation organization learn about abortion, because it is a medical issue. I run the program that teaches them about not only this, but all other women's health issues. I don't hand out any fucking pamphlets. You're just demonstrating your ignorance when you say doctors are never taught anything by non-doctors.
Third, I have presented to you the official statement of the doctors' organization. I am not asserting my superiority. I am asserting THEIR superiority. Their PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OPINION far outweighs your Joe-six-pack opinion. You know this - and that's why you're pissed off and taking it out on me.
Fourth, you keep saying this legislation will put more people in this world but, as I've said numerous times, it WON'T. Women will still get the abortions - just using a different method. What part of that do you not understand?
this ban does not keep any of these pregnancies - viable or otherwise - from being terminated. IT HAS NOT SAVED ONE UNBORN CHILD. Women still get their abortions - they just use a different method.
thank your for finally pointing out the folly of your own argument.
There is no infringement on the right to abort whatsoever, as you adequately put.
Part of the "concensus" is that the procedure is cruel and disgusting, as well as unnecesaary, even if it was great and wonderful for the mother.
If you wanna tell me that some ways are "better" for the mother than others, that's bullshit too. Abortion reaks massive havoc on a waman's reproductive mechanisms, regardless of method.
And if it's so gruesome and unnecessary, and there are other options available, where again is the disagreement?
First of all, I haven't gone off topic at all. You directly asked me a question and I directly answered it. I had asked you the question about whether or not you are qualified to refute medical consensus. Apparently you are not. (Yeah, I *know* a doctor too... :rolleyes: )
Secondly, I am not a fucking lobbyist by any stretch of the imagination. I work for the state, at a medical school/hospital. The residents are REQUIRED by their national accreditation organization learn about abortion, because it is a medical issue. I run the program that teaches them about not only this, but all other women's health issues. I don't hand out any fucking pamphlets. You're just demonstrating your ignorance when you say doctors are never taught anything by non-doctors.
Third, I have presented to you the official statement of the doctors' organization. I am not asserting my superiority. I am asserting THEIR superiority. Their PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OPINION far outweighs your Joe-six-pack opinion. You know this - and that's why you're pissed off and taking it out on me.
Fourth, you keep saying this legislation will put more people in this world but, as I've said numerous times, it WON'T. Women will still get the abortions - just using a different method. What part of that do you not understand?
You're a beaurocrat, not a lobbyist. my mistake.
Okay, lets give you that the "professional medical opinion" is absolute. I mean, the majority of all OBs agree that this D&E does not adversely affect a mothers health (which I know is frakin' buuuuuushiat but anyway):
It is still cruel and disgusting
There is still no infringement on the right to abort, and other methods are readily available, as you just said.
Where again is the opposition to this legislation.
that d&e is the least cruel and disgusting method of abortion at this term
that d&e is the least harmful of late-term abortion methods, or somehow necessary to prevent SPECIFIC health problems to women that other methods may not
then please articulate that arguement, because I'll buy that.
that's not what I've been hearing though.
thank your for finally pointing out the folly of your own argument.
There is no infringement on the right to abort whatsoever, as you adequately put.
Part of the "concensus" is that the procedure is cruel and disgusting, as well as unnecesaary, even if it was great and wonderful for the mother.
If you wanna tell me that some ways are "better" for the mother than others, that's bullshit too. Abortion reaks massive havoc on a waman's reproductive mechanisms, regardless of method.
And if it's so gruesome and unnecessary, and there are other options available, where again is the disagreement?
It's true that there is no infringement on the right to ABORT... I never said there was... that's not the argument. (I swear, do you even know what this conversation is about??)
The infringement is on a women's right to have the procedure that it in the best interest of her HEALTH.
People can sit around all day and come to a consensus that this procedure is cruel and distgusing... whatever. Plenty of medical procedures are considered cruel and disgusting - but they are not outlawed, and that's the difference.
Regardless, "cruel & disgusting" is irrelevant to the conversation about whether or not this particular procedure is sometimes in the best interest of the woman's health.
If you wanna tell me that some ways are "better" for the mother than others, that's bullshit too. Abortion reaks massive havoc on a waman's reproductive mechanisms, regardless of method.
is not only ignorant, but it demonstrates your desire to remain ignorant. Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it true.
I have demonstrated to you that the medical consensus among Ob/Gyns contradicts your opinion. If the opinion of medical professionals wasn't any more valid than the opinion of laypeople, we wouldn't need to go to doctors at all. We could just take Joe Schmoe's medical advice. You can do whatever you want, but I'll continue to go to medical professionals when I need medical opinions.
(Now that I think about it, I kind of like your insistence on the idea that doctors are unnecessary. If all the people who thought that way stopped going to doctors, we would be rid of those people before long.)
Okay, lets give you that the "professional medical opinion" is absolute. I mean, the majority of all OBs agree that this D&E does not adversely affect a mothers health (which I know is frakin' buuuuuushiat but anyway):
It is still cruel and disgusting
There is still no infringement on the right to abort, and other methods are readily available, as you just said.
Where again is the opposition to this legislation.
AGAIN - The infringement is on the woman's right to receive the medical treatment her doctor says is in the best interest of protecting her health. Politicians should not stand between patients and their doctors.
And, I'm a beaurocrat? Oh, please! :rolleyes: You sound like a little baby grasping at straws to call me names. Grow up.
People can sit around all day and come to a consensus that this procedure is cruel and distgusing... whatever. Plenty of medical procedures are considered cruel and disgusting - but they are not outlawed, and that's the difference.
Regardless, "cruel & disgusting" is irrelevant to the conversation about whether or not this particular procedure is sometimes in the best interest of the woman's health.
I have demonstrated to you that the medical consensus among Ob/Gyns contradicts your opinion.
well, that's kinda what america is all about, so whatever your distain with consensus. Sorry the medical opinion (as stated by a "women's health professional") is only one facet of that consenus.
and "cruel & disgusting" is more than relevant, according to the "concensus", if we're talking about a 4-1/2 month old fetus, your assertion to the contrary is pretty freakin' cold, according the the "concensus" That woman better be in some serious shit, according to your hated "concensus"
Go ahead and show me in the report you keep paraphrasing wher it says:
that d&e is the least cruel and disgusting method of abortion at this term
that d&e is the least harmful of late-term abortion methods, or somehow necessary to prevent SPECIFIC SERIOUS health problems or risk to women that other methods may not
show what methods we really should be concerned about.
thank your for finally pointing out the folly of your own argument.
There is no infringement on the right to abort whatsoever, as you adequately put.
Part of the "concensus" is that the procedure is cruel and disgusting, as well as unnecesaary, even if it was great and wonderful for the mother.
If you wanna tell me that some ways are "better" for the mother than others, that's bullshit too. Abortion reaks massive havoc on a waman's reproductive mechanisms, regardless of method.
And if it's so gruesome and unnecessary, and there are other options available, where again is the disagreement?
Are you a woman?
I haven't read every post here but I did read your statement...and had to address it. Abortion does NOT reak massive havoc on a woman's reproductive mechanisms regardless of method. period. Please don't use words like massive and be so dramatic unless you really know - so what that you know someone that is a health professional. Abortion can be a very simple "in & out" procedure.
Peace Out
PEARL JAM in 2024! Dark Matter and MORE ! THANK YOU!! Peace Love & Pearl Jam forever!!
Are you a woman?
I haven't read every post here but I did read your statement...and had to address it. Abortion does NOT reak massive havoc on a woman's reproductive mechanisms regardless of method. period. Please don't use words like massive and be so dramatic unless you really know - so what that you know someone that is a health professional. Abortion can be a very simple "in & out" procedure.
Peace Out
well, you're kinda late to the party, then.
to get up to speed, may i suggest reading what you glossed over?
that d&e is the least cruel and disgusting method of abortion at this term
that d&e is the least harmful of late-term abortion methods, or somehow necessary to prevent SPECIFIC health problems to women that other methods may not
then please articulate that arguement, because I'll buy that.
that's not what I've been hearing though.
Before "partial birth abortions" were invented, the method used for late-term abortions was dilation & evacuation. During this procedure, the fetus is dismembered while still inside the uterus and then removed piece by piece. This method was not banned.
This method is less than ideal because it can cause severe blood loss and can lacerate the cervix. Blood loss, if severe enough, can be fatal. Cervical laceration can cause future pregnancies to end in miscarriage.
Intact D&E, also known as dilation & extraction (D&X), is what the National Right to Life Committee was referring to when they coined the term "partial birth abortion," and it's what is banned by the law in question.
This method was invented because it is safer for the woman than dilation & evacuation in that it reduces the risk of severe blood loss and cervical laceration because the fetus does not have to be dismembered prior to removal from the uterus. There may be other reasons why it is safer for a particular woman under particular circumstances, but doctors would have to determine that on a case-by-case basis.
The partial birth abortion ban outlaws the second procedure, but not the first one, thereby leaving the first, more dangerous procedure as the remaining option for a woman who is going to have a late-term abortion. So it doesn't ban late-term abortions, it only makes the procedure more dangerous.
If people want to ban all late-term abortions, that's a different issue. And, remember, Obama said he would support a ban on late-term abortions.
I hope this helps to clarify what I've been trying to say. I'm sorry I called you a baby (kind of).
thanks for sharing, then why are we not banning the former before the latter?, in your opinion
Dude, that's a whole different issue.
My opinion is that the National Right to Life Committee saw an opportunity to coin a catchy, horrendous, sensational phrase that could be used to get the public up-in-arms about abortion without them learning the details of any of the issues. It worked.
Are you a woman?
I haven't read every post here but I did read your statement...and had to address it. Abortion does NOT reak massive havoc on a woman's reproductive mechanisms regardless of method. period. Please don't use words like massive and be so dramatic unless you really know - so what that you know someone that is a health professional. Abortion can be a very simple "in & out" procedure.
Peace Out
Originally Posted by prytoj
first of all, at least in california, planned parenthoods are like 7-11. let's be real. There's one within a 10 min walk of where I went to school. In Orange, Ca, right on the santa ana line. a 20 min. drive from anywhere in OC.
And you walk right in, pay your money, they hand you some stupid abstinence pamphlets, you flll out the form , and they send your lady right in. I know from experience as a morally ambiguous youth. It's a cold bitch of an experience, and most will tell you that much at least.
But no on'es telling my kids that they cannot abort at the expense of their own lives, all minutia aside. There's just no real threat of that happening.
The argument you present is detail oriented, unless I missed something.
I'm trying to present a big picture view, if possible. But the view is my own.
and...
Originally Posted by prytoj
Hey, I'm pro-choice. I've never seen world through the eyes of a woman.
Comments
Are you saying that if you support this legislation you help a great many and hurt no one? If so, how so?
Kind of off-topic, and lying to call me a liar is a liitle insulting.
My personal views have nothing to do with the facts. Let's play nice and debate openly, k?
I'm sorry, are you an obstetrician, gynecologist, family medicine doctor, or any other kind of women's health professional? I need to see some credentials, please.
Otherwise, when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists says one thing and you disagree, why would your little opinion have more validity than the consensus from the professionals?
Huh???
Seriously... huh???
Well, according to the legislation, developed "by concensus", the procedure is destrucive to the woman. Add on top of that the actual viable preganancies terminated by the proceedure...
you're going to have to fix a lot of freakin' legs to justify that. There just aint that many leg problems in our society, I'm afraid.
I didn't know I was debating a doctor, am I?
franlky, at the end of the day, I'm more interested in putting more Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the world than what they themselves think. Or fixing hip problems, or glandular irregularities.
I'm more sensitive to the overall welfare of our society than I am to affording people every single ooportunity to abdicate their own personal responsibility, extremely rare cases excepted.
That's off-topic, though. we're dabeting the merits of the legislation, so let's get back to that.
ACOG is the official voice of American Ob/Gyns. They are the professional organization of Ob/Gyns. They set the standards of care when it comes to obstetrics & gynecology. Doctors are expected to follow the guidelines set by this organization, and if they're sued for malpractice and they didn't follow these guidelines, they're screwed.
The statement in this law was according to a "consensus" by whom? Politicians? Lawyers? A few dissenting doctors? They do not set the standards of medical care.
You say supporting the ban helps the "viable pregnancies terminated by the procedure". But this ban does not keep any of these pregnancies - viable or otherwise - from being terminated. IT HAS NOT SAVED ONE UNBORN CHILD. Women still get their abortions - they just use a different method.
You are debating the official statements of doctors, presented to you by a women's health professional whose job is, in part, to teach doctors about abortion, including abortion legislation.
the best solution for moral issues such as abortion. The only resolve to a ban on abortion would be a strategy that would involve assistance to those unwanted children. Isn't that what it's about?
Why do the same people that scream that abortions kill babies can't see past the abortion to the actual future of the child?
Generally speaking... those that are anti-abortion are typically against any welfare resolve for the children in question.
Not all babies are born in your perfect white-picket fence world and attend the christian church of your choice.
Those that are against abortions....namely churches and their followers...should "buck-up" for the all encompassing trip of the unwanted children.
Not to be snide, but since you keep going off-topic:
What you have accidentally revealed is that you actually are is a LOBBYIST to protect abortion rights. You go about handing out your pamphelts, and putting on your slide shows, about how abortion is so great. Thats about it.
So save it.
My mother in law is a "women's health professional" so spare your assertions of superiority. You're making a pretty weak case, at any rate, especially if you "teach doctors". I didn't know that doctors get their education from "womens health professionals" Not everyone's a moron.
Sad for you as a "women's health professional" that you're not fighiting to put more "women's health professionals" in this world by supporting this incredibly sensible legislation.
Back to the merits of the legislation...
What the fuck are you talking about????
First of all, I haven't gone off topic at all. You directly asked me a question and I directly answered it. I had asked you the question about whether or not you are qualified to refute medical consensus. Apparently you are not. (Yeah, I *know* a doctor too... :rolleyes: )
Secondly, I am not a fucking lobbyist by any stretch of the imagination. I work for the state, at a medical school/hospital. The residents are REQUIRED by their national accreditation organization learn about abortion, because it is a medical issue. I run the program that teaches them about not only this, but all other women's health issues. I don't hand out any fucking pamphlets. You're just demonstrating your ignorance when you say doctors are never taught anything by non-doctors.
Third, I have presented to you the official statement of the doctors' organization. I am not asserting my superiority. I am asserting THEIR superiority. Their PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OPINION far outweighs your Joe-six-pack opinion. You know this - and that's why you're pissed off and taking it out on me.
Fourth, you keep saying this legislation will put more people in this world but, as I've said numerous times, it WON'T. Women will still get the abortions - just using a different method. What part of that do you not understand?
thank your for finally pointing out the folly of your own argument.
There is no infringement on the right to abort whatsoever, as you adequately put.
Part of the "concensus" is that the procedure is cruel and disgusting, as well as unnecesaary, even if it was great and wonderful for the mother.
If you wanna tell me that some ways are "better" for the mother than others, that's bullshit too. Abortion reaks massive havoc on a waman's reproductive mechanisms, regardless of method.
And if it's so gruesome and unnecessary, and there are other options available, where again is the disagreement?
You're a beaurocrat, not a lobbyist. my mistake.
Okay, lets give you that the "professional medical opinion" is absolute. I mean, the majority of all OBs agree that this D&E does not adversely affect a mothers health (which I know is frakin' buuuuuushiat but anyway):
It is still cruel and disgusting
There is still no infringement on the right to abort, and other methods are readily available, as you just said.
Where again is the opposition to this legislation.
if you're saying that the Court is wrong,
that d&e is the least cruel and disgusting method of abortion at this term
that d&e is the least harmful of late-term abortion methods, or somehow necessary to prevent SPECIFIC health problems to women that other methods may not
then please articulate that arguement, because I'll buy that.
that's not what I've been hearing though.
It's true that there is no infringement on the right to ABORT... I never said there was... that's not the argument. (I swear, do you even know what this conversation is about??)
The infringement is on a women's right to have the procedure that it in the best interest of her HEALTH.
People can sit around all day and come to a consensus that this procedure is cruel and distgusing... whatever. Plenty of medical procedures are considered cruel and disgusting - but they are not outlawed, and that's the difference.
Regardless, "cruel & disgusting" is irrelevant to the conversation about whether or not this particular procedure is sometimes in the best interest of the woman's health.
This statement: is not only ignorant, but it demonstrates your desire to remain ignorant. Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it true.
I have demonstrated to you that the medical consensus among Ob/Gyns contradicts your opinion. If the opinion of medical professionals wasn't any more valid than the opinion of laypeople, we wouldn't need to go to doctors at all. We could just take Joe Schmoe's medical advice. You can do whatever you want, but I'll continue to go to medical professionals when I need medical opinions.
(Now that I think about it, I kind of like your insistence on the idea that doctors are unnecessary. If all the people who thought that way stopped going to doctors, we would be rid of those people before long.)
AGAIN - The infringement is on the woman's right to receive the medical treatment her doctor says is in the best interest of protecting her health. Politicians should not stand between patients and their doctors.
And, I'm a beaurocrat? Oh, please! :rolleyes: You sound like a little baby grasping at straws to call me names. Grow up.
well, that's kinda what america is all about, so whatever your distain with consensus. Sorry the medical opinion (as stated by a "women's health professional") is only one facet of that consenus.
and "cruel & disgusting" is more than relevant, according to the "concensus", if we're talking about a 4-1/2 month old fetus, your assertion to the contrary is pretty freakin' cold, according the the "concensus" That woman better be in some serious shit, according to your hated "concensus"
Go ahead and show me in the report you keep paraphrasing wher it says:
that d&e is the least cruel and disgusting method of abortion at this term
that d&e is the least harmful of late-term abortion methods, or somehow necessary to prevent SPECIFIC SERIOUS health problems or risk to women that other methods may not
show what methods we really should be concerned about.
and I'll listen, k? let's go from there.
Are you a woman?
I haven't read every post here but I did read your statement...and had to address it. Abortion does NOT reak massive havoc on a woman's reproductive mechanisms regardless of method. period. Please don't use words like massive and be so dramatic unless you really know - so what that you know someone that is a health professional. Abortion can be a very simple "in & out" procedure.
Peace Out
Peace Love & Pearl Jam forever!!
well, you're kinda late to the party, then.
to get up to speed, may i suggest reading what you glossed over?
http://www.voteyesforlife.com/docs/Induced%20AB%20and%20risk%20of%20PTB,%20summ.doc
a quick search on "negative effects of D&E abortion" seem to disagree with the ACOG finding. Wonder if this made it into the concensus?
Before "partial birth abortions" were invented, the method used for late-term abortions was dilation & evacuation. During this procedure, the fetus is dismembered while still inside the uterus and then removed piece by piece. This method was not banned.
This method is less than ideal because it can cause severe blood loss and can lacerate the cervix. Blood loss, if severe enough, can be fatal. Cervical laceration can cause future pregnancies to end in miscarriage.
Intact D&E, also known as dilation & extraction (D&X), is what the National Right to Life Committee was referring to when they coined the term "partial birth abortion," and it's what is banned by the law in question.
This method was invented because it is safer for the woman than dilation & evacuation in that it reduces the risk of severe blood loss and cervical laceration because the fetus does not have to be dismembered prior to removal from the uterus. There may be other reasons why it is safer for a particular woman under particular circumstances, but doctors would have to determine that on a case-by-case basis.
The partial birth abortion ban outlaws the second procedure, but not the first one, thereby leaving the first, more dangerous procedure as the remaining option for a woman who is going to have a late-term abortion. So it doesn't ban late-term abortions, it only makes the procedure more dangerous.
If people want to ban all late-term abortions, that's a different issue. And, remember, Obama said he would support a ban on late-term abortions.
I hope this helps to clarify what I've been trying to say. I'm sorry I called you a baby (kind of).
Dude, that's a whole different issue.
My opinion is that the National Right to Life Committee saw an opportunity to coin a catchy, horrendous, sensational phrase that could be used to get the public up-in-arms about abortion without them learning the details of any of the issues. It worked.
+1
Originally Posted by prytoj
first of all, at least in california, planned parenthoods are like 7-11. let's be real. There's one within a 10 min walk of where I went to school. In Orange, Ca, right on the santa ana line. a 20 min. drive from anywhere in OC.
And you walk right in, pay your money, they hand you some stupid abstinence pamphlets, you flll out the form , and they send your lady right in. I know from experience as a morally ambiguous youth. It's a cold bitch of an experience, and most will tell you that much at least.
But no on'es telling my kids that they cannot abort at the expense of their own lives, all minutia aside. There's just no real threat of that happening.
The argument you present is detail oriented, unless I missed something.
I'm trying to present a big picture view, if possible. But the view is my own.
and...
Originally Posted by prytoj
Hey, I'm pro-choice. I've never seen world through the eyes of a woman.