Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed her state's version of the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" yesterday (we've been calling it "the Nebraska bill" after the state where it originated under the same name last year). It bans abortion after 20 weeks except to save a woman's life or prevent "irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." Oklahoma is the fourth state to sign such a bill.
The ban is based on the scientifically-disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain starting at 20 weeks. And Oklahoma's version of the new law -- like Nebraska's and Kansas' and Idaho's -- is almost certainly unconstitutional under the precedents set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Proposals that mirror the Nebraska bill have been introduced in about a dozen other states this session, too.
Last week on the show, Rachel addressed the strategy behind the original Nebraska bill that became law in 2010, in all its likely unconstitutional glory, and all the subsequent Nebraska bills that are populating the state legislatures this year. Why do anti-abortion lawmakers seem so intent on making unconstitutional laws? The answer is that they seem to be looking for a Supreme Court battle. And why haven't abortion rights advocates mounted that challenge yet? Perhaps, Rachel said, they're looking at the make-up of the Supreme Court right now and they're afraid of what might happen once they get there. Then she put the question to NOW President Terry O'Neill:
MS. O‘NEILL: The problem with bringing a lawsuit in federal court to challenge these—to challenge these state laws is exactly what you said. We are afraid that the Supreme Court actually might take the opportunity to overturn Roe versus Wade. ... This is a court that is extremely activist when it wants to be. And I am really afraid that under Roberts' leadership and with Samuel Alito on the court, we could have a 5-4 decision either overturning Roe versus Wade or so gutting it that it might as well be overturned.
This week, Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights -- a group that defends abortion rights and launches legal challenges -- told Politico the organization hasn't challenged the Nebraska bill because it regulates only the small number of abortions that happen in later pregnancies.
"We don't jump just because the anti-choice movement jumps. . . . We're focused on pursuing cases that ensure that women have access to all abortion services. They're trying to move the agenda to a small percentage of cases, but we're not fighting on their turf."
If there was any doubt that anti-abortion lobbyists and lawmakers consider this battle to be "their turf," consider the following:
Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee, which helped write the Nebraska bill, tells Politico this week, "This is all an explosion, which we think if presented to the court, they would recognize the rights of the fetus. ... I was surprised it wasn't challenged, and I would like to see that."
State Rep. Lance Kinzer (R-Kansas), who sponsored his state's version of the Nebraska bill, told the Kansas City Star last week, "We believe there is a good argument that we can find five justices on the Supreme Court who would agree that development of an unborn child to the point where they are capable of feeling pain is a judicially manageable standard to link restrictions on abortion."
Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition tells CBN News this week, "We don't have to see Roe v. Wade overturned in the Supreme Court to end it. . . . We want to. But if we chip away and chip away, we'll find out that Roe really has no impact. And that's what we are doing." (h/t Dahlia Lithwick)
Leave a Comment:
I have nothing to add to this debate any longer. It's stupid and time wasting. We have too many people on the planet already and the ones who support measures like these are against all the programs to care for the babies once they're born.
The official picture of Governor Fallin is the most creepy, disturbing image I've seen in a very long time...she looks like she is personally going to "chip away" at Roe v. Wade with her teeth.
Same here!
Me Too.
But I must ask, what in the world is she thinking? What in the world are women like her in politics thinking? Are the only two sensible female elected officials in the states, who happen to be Republican, those two ladies from Wyoming?
Or are they thinking at all? I am a male and I am way confused by their behavior especially after decades of being assured by women of my acquaintance that things like this would not happen if and when women rose to power. Yet they are rising and it is happening.
Very confusing.
Count me in too, please....
What is an appropriate number of people for the planet?
And she's wearing a crucifix. Some Christian! Doesn't she know God said abortions are fine?
"Flesh gives birth to flesh" John 3
Since aborted fetuses are not born they are not "flesh" that is, human.
I'd like to see where Gospel attacks abortion.
SO, you guys are actually advocating causing a painful death to a fetus? Really? Women and the rise to power.......along with power comes great responsibility. At 20 weeks, you would really advocate the abortion? Take a look at this link http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-20-weeks. The law has provisions that allow it to save a mothers life.
No. Also see my post #7.
It also has no exceptions for fetuses that are not viable, and those cases are normally the ONLY times women seek an abortion at that late a stage in the pregnancy.
The way Republicans (and some of their evangelical cronies) prate about "judicial activism", you'd think they'd be disturbed by some of the activitism coming out of statehouses like the one in Oklahoma. (It makes me glad I was just born and not raised there.) Like it or not, and I think abortion is used too much as a birth control device, Roe v Wade is still the law of the land and governors, especially female ones, should be putting restrictions like this on it. It never ceases to amaze me that members of the GOP want to force women to have children yet when budgets are being cut--poor women with children are some of their first targets. That in my book is hypocrisy.
Small correction to my earlier post--I met shouldn't, not should. Despite what some of our Republican friends think, a word can make a difference.
Some people have all the luck Gerry. Fortunate are the ones able to escape. Far too often others unwittingly come in and are doomed to wander here. FOREVER! They may escape, but it is only temporary for they find themselves inexorably drawn back for Oklahoma is a soul destroying vortex. Nothing with a soul thrives here. I was born here and I pray to God I don't die here. Stay away. Stay away, very far away from here.
But nothing like the pain of being born into a dysfunctional, abusive, no-hope situation. Nothing like the pain of being born to drug adict parents, or abject poverty, or living in tenements with gangs and drug dealers. And don't talk adoption because very few want to adopt crack babies or less than perfect babies.
Thank you....Oh, and no one wants to feed the children on "Foodstamps" too much socialism...Or if the babies are babies of color, then they aren't adopted either.....
I've always said that there are much worse things than NOT being born.
So it is better to abort that let a child be born into a less than optimal situation? It is really ok in your mind, for you to determine whether someone should have a chance? Your logic scares me. Would it be OK to kill gay men since so many of them experience a painful aids-related death anyway? Is is ok to kill the disabled because afterall, they have a pretty tough time in life.We all know that not one of us would say that was ok...... Why then would you say it is ok to kill someone that may have a tough time in life. They may not....
Katy264, if you had a gay man in your uterus and he was dependent on you for his oxygen and nutrients, I would fully support your decision to expel him from your uterus. All your hyperinflated analogizing completely ignores the fact that the fetus is actually *inside* the mother's body, and as such, she gets the absolute right to decide what happens to it. Comparing that to killing a completely independent person who is not affecting another in any way is highly disingenuous. No one should have to have her body put to a use they find morally objectionable, not to mention physically painful. And, yes, as a practical matter, forcing people to carry pregnancies to term does cause the resulting future-humans a great deal of pain and suffering in their lives.
Those who truly care for the unborn shall vote for a safety net that ensures care for them, both before and after birth.
The point is that its not for you or the government to decide. Whether or not a woman has an abortion, SHE lives with the consequences. And thanks to the policies you favor, the consequences of keeping a child that she cannot afford are as ugly and unenviable as can be and can only get worse the more your ilk get their way. Your love affair with that child ends the instant it leaves the womb and becomes just another burden on society. Do I need to reiterate the rates of insured children, child abuse and death at the hands of parents and caretakers in Oklahoma? Lovely lovely Conservative Oklahoma? And recall, this IS Oklahoma we are talking about!
But that's not your problem, not your concern. Is it?
a friend and co-worker this morning told me that crime was rampant back in the 70's and some time in the 80's it just fell dramatically. they tried figuring out why...and it was because of legalizing abortion.
children who are not wanted...or feel like a burden or who don't have a good connection with their parents are more likely to commit crimes. i'm not saying its absolute that they do, but it's more likely.
god, or nature, gave a woman the complete ability to determine her reproduction viability. if a woman determines that it's no good, she decides.
to clamor that one shouldn't have sex then, is distorted. many people, and many different species, have sex without reproducing in mind. its a social construct, as well as a healing exercise, for both the mind and body, as long as its consensual.
Don Q: A human has the right to life. it is hard to look at the link I posted above at what a baby looks like at 20 weeks and then not have compassion for it. We wouldn't let a woman kill the baby after birth, even though she doesn't want it. I have mixed feelings about abortion, but I think the left doesn't really take it seriously enough. There is absolutely NO REASON that a woman can't decide before 5 months what she wants to do. To let the baby nearly fully develop and then decide she can't be bothered is ridiculous and shows no mercy or compassion for the life she carries, even being willing to inflict pain and suffering.
A baby is not a baby unless it can survive on its own. And you have absolutely NO mixed feelings on abortion! And unless you are going to step in and help with the child directly and personally after it has been born, it is absolutely none of your business!
If she even KNOWS she's pregnant, if she has the use of a place like Planned Parenthood. Assuming that she's not been smoking drinking doing drugs taking medications having diseases that will SERIOUSLY impact that child's developement and quality of life. But again, once it is outside the womb, it ceases to be a concern of yours doesn't it? I can only speak for myself but your mercy and compassion smells like pure hypocrisy. Save it. Tell us all the things that should be done for children AFTER they've been born.
Don, I will take all the babies. I don't mind taking care of babies, it is their worthless, parasitic parents that bother me.
Just what do you think the babies grow up into?
Well, some become conservatives instead!
Don
"A baby is not a baby unless it can survive on its own."
First off, says who? I didn't know you were the one to determine when life begins. Second, if that's true then why don't we make it illegal to keep people alive who are on life support? I mean, whey can't live on their own. I guess they're not alive either. And besides, have you ever heard of a preemie? They regularly live as early as 37 weeks or earlier. Are they not alive? Should we just kill all preemies just in case? Your argument is paper thin my friend.
Katy
And if they don't become conservatives you just take them to the vet have have them euthanized right? Better that than let them grow up to be a burden on society.
eap1
Until it is viable, it is a fetus. A baby is something seperate from its mother. Until then it is essentially another organ. Adam did not live until God breathed the breath of life into him. A child is not alive until it breathes. As for life support, Terri Schiavo ring any bells? A person who is brain-dead can be kept breathing with respirators, but would you call that life? That's the whole point of end of life counselling and living wills, yeah? Or are you one of those cyanide Kool-aid drinkers who believes that's all death panel stuff?
Again, that's not fior you to decide, or the govt. That's between the individual and their physician. Or is that too much preson freedom for anyone to be trusted with?
And also? Women are NOT life support machines.
Yeah, assuming she knows she preganant. Many women, for a variety of reasons don't find out until they're past that. Furthermore, what about situations where there's something horribly wrong with the baby? Go google Dr. Tiller's patient's testamonials. They're heartbreaking. Many are married couples who desperately wanted their baby but then found out late that the baby had some horrifying defect. (Defects, I might add, that are becoming increasingly common.)
Most women are smarter than your average dog. If they know their pregnant, then they do make the decision of whether to carry to term or not pretty early in the pregnancy. But if they don't know about the pregnancy, or some other situation arises, why should they be forced to give birth for the sole reason that they didn't know they were pregnant? Especially after 20 weeks, when they now have far less time to plan and prepare?
And last of all, you never responded to Don's argument about the fact that Republicans are constantly trying to sever the social safety net all while also trying to ensure that more children come into the world. It's a vicious paradox.
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already. The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the lower extremities. The transducer is then held in position over the lower extremities. The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina. By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure. With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way. While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient. The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm suction curette. The procedure ends.
Not very pretty! This is what usually happens at 20 weeks because the tissue is tougher.
The reports I read, said that women still don't make the decision sooner (but wish they had) because they are scared of the procedure or uncertain about the abortion so they put it off....
In response to Don, I think that conservatives also agree with a safety net for those that really need it. But define "need"? There are people scamming the system which is not good for the system or for their own individual growth and prosperity. I am all for making it harder to scam the system! And, there should be organizations that help. Why does it have to be the government who we all know is inefficient at managing anything? I wonder if all the money poured into the political process (think about how much money is being donated to Obama's campaign) were put to real useful purposes, then we wouldn't have a problem!
Reference for the procedure is http://eileen.250x.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Haskell_Desc.html
Because despite the fact that there are no obstacles to charity and churches helping the poor and needy, charity is NOT NEARLY enough. And it sure AS HELL not enough when churches and religious organizations are dumping truckloads of cash into the pockets of right wing politicians, against gay rights and against abortion. That is just fascism hiding behind a cross.
No they don't, they absolutely do not. And what NEED does the 2% have for more tax cuts when all of their business is in manufacturing overseas, or in Wall Street 3 Card Montey scams, or in getting billions of dollars in oil and energy subsidies straight from the tax payer's teat? They create no jobs! The whole premise is a lie, otherwise Bush would have created more than 1/20th the jobs Clinton did!
If you punish the parents as parasites, you punish the children...and despite your claims to the contrary, that doesn't bother you. If it did you would recognize that money that goes into the social safety net is an investment...none more so that public education. The alternative is welfare via the prison industrial complex. We, Oklahoma...THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!!!...rank 4th lowest in per pupil spending and third highest in number of people in prison. We are a VERY Conservative state.
You'd be better off worrying about corporate welfare cheats. They eat a hell of a lot more tax dollars.
Did we really need a copy and paste of the blow by blow of a really sad medical procedure? JFC....shame on you!
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis
or hiding behind it, don. :)
The medical procedure is fact! Why stick your head in the sand? This is what is happening at 20 weeks and we shouldn't sugar coat it. No shame accepted. The shame should be on those that don't acknowledge the seriousness.
Don, again, everyone wants schools that work. But more money hasn't helped! Everyone knows we need education reform. Obama has his program that is now responsible for changes in the Detroit system, that everyone on here is complaining about on another Maddow Blog post.
Everyone wants reform, but the teachers unions are powerful and unwilling to change to ensure that good teachers are rewarded and bad ones are fired.
By the way Maggie, why do you think it is sad? I mean, if you believe it is just a thing and not a person (not saying that IS what you feel), but if you feel that way, they why is it sad?
Shut the @!$%# up Katy...you don't know my stand on anything...it's pathetic that you posted that.
I acknowledged that I don't know your stand on this, Maggie. So, not sure what your point is there.
Secondly, a medical procedure is factual, not opinion, and IMO not a violation of any of the site rules. But when the blog is about abortion at 20 weeks, it should be appropriate to acknowledge exactly what that means.
I suppose if the moderators disagree they (he/she) will let me know.
Your source was from 1992 and describes a procedure that is now illegal. Let's try something a bit more modern and quite a bit less designed to create a dramatic response. Note that one of the the steps in the 3-4 day process involves injecting the fetus with a drug to stop its heart. Any procedure used after that step is meant to maximize the safety of the woman.
Procedures done from 26 weeks onward are designed to basically induce pre-term labor and result in an intact fetus for the parent/t to hold, grieve over autopsy and/or bury as part of the grief process if they so desire.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/surgicalabortions.html
Here is a more recent reference. The same basic procedure is taking place at 21 weeks (Dilation and Extraction), and very similar at 20 weeks (Dilation and Evacuation) Are you saying that those procedures are not in use today?
Several websites for women explain these procedures. Or are you trying to minimize the reality?
My point is Katy, you could have given the link...and given us the choice to read it instead of posting a graphic abortion procedure. I don't care if it's a violation I just found your "fact" to be distasteful.
Your parenthetical weaseling on how I may or may not feel about it is just your way that continues to charm everyone here who loves you so much for it.
The women who have the procedure are fully cognizant of the seriousness of the procedure. And thanks to what you posted, those women who've already had it, get to relive it in living color. Compassion, right.
What we have seen is that defunding schools does NOT help! That has been the theme since the Reagan Administration and we are now mid-twenties in the world, behind third world countries, in math and science. What DID work was the Johnson Great Society initiatives which provided a World Class educational system.
As for what is going on in Michigan, that is all entirely on Snyder. That is was "States Rights" on education looks like. To blame it on Obama is a bald faced lie.
Right Katy. They scrape fetuses out with a rusty spoon. That is cause for joy and celebration, especially for the women who've had to undergo the procedure and you in your infinite compassion understand that. Sure.
There is a word for the loving detail you slathered over this procedure. Pornographic.
And again...you are side-stepping your gross hypocrisy. Abortion is wrong. But the women who forego the procedure and have children that they would not otherwise have are parasites who must be punished, as must the children they give birth to. Not a single tax dollar must go to support them or educate them. That is your position Katy and there is not a scrap of compassion or indeed even logic to be found there ANYWHERE!
Well stated Don...Katy is over the top this time with her .... ughhh. I know she gets to you as she does to me...and she revels in that...time for another time out.
Maybe we should go ahead and post the surgical process for circumcision, or what happens in an autopsy, (I have read a bunch of those, and believe me, it isn't pretty, and in many cases, it is just downright embarrassing). After all, we wouldn't want to stick our heads in the sand and annoy Katy, would we?
Not where they've been made illegal under the "partial birth abortion ban" no.
I don't see what difference it makes HOW the fetus is removed once it's been euthanized, unless it's via a procedure that's safer for the woman or unless she mother wants it removed as intact as possible for her own reasons. Except the IDX procedure, which is also referred to as the "partial birth abortion", IS the one that's actually safer for her than dismembering the fetus in the uterus and then removing the pieces.
Yeah, we needed to read that @!$%# in detail....not.
I guess I don't see the problem. Everyone here seems to think the procedure is ok. What's the problem with posting it? If it's a little sickening to you then maybe you need to rethink your position. Everyone here seems to think abortion is rainbows and lolly pops.
Everyone here? What you took a poll? You don't know my @!$%#ing position eap1...so stfu.
Well Maggie, that was uncalled for. I commend your on your mastery of the English language.
You haven't got a clue. Just because people here agree that the procedure should be available, AS ALLOWED BY LAW, doesn't mean we think it's all "rainbows and lollipops", as you put it. Maybe we should post details and pictures of the grievous wounds suffered by US soldiers in the course of war in Iraq, as the right seems to think war is all "rainbows and lollipops", as you say. Why be squeamish about a soldier being disemboweled by an IED, or having half of his head blown off, or a soldier losing a couple of legs? Let's go into the same excruciating detail as Katy's abortion description, describing their agony as they watch their blood flow out onto the dusty landscape, their intestines lying around them, crying in pain as they look at their best buddy next to them, missing the right side of his head, leaving his brains oozing out onto the road. Now don't get squeamish on me, Katy and eap, because remember, if you don't like it, maybe you should "rethink your position", as you recommended to us. And don't even waste your breath reporting me to the moderator, as you apparently think Katy's description, which is far, far longer than mine, is just hunky dory.
Better yet, go ahead and report me, and put your hypocrisy on full display for all to see.
Wow Uffdaguy, I'm neither "on the right" nor do I think we should have soldiers at war right now. Mighty presumptuous of you. And hell, maybe you should post that kind of thing. Oh wait, you guys did when Bush was in office, now you don't care any more.
But it is interesting that you're comparing abortion to soldier dying on the battlefield. I mean earlier someone said that a fetus is just an organ. I don't know if anyone would get upset about a description of a doctor removing a spleen.
Why would I report you to a moderator? You're the one that's getting all emotional and making an ass out of yourself. That's the problem with liberals. You get emotional and forget to actually think about the issue.
My GAWD! What parallel universe does this *%&$()— inhabit? Where America is NOT at war and we watch spenectomies and abortions as entertainment?
Calling me names doesn't help your position. I never, ever said that a fetus is an organ....but it is not something that can live outside the womb at the stage when most abortions take place, except for late stage abortions that are banned. I was simply trying to put this in a context that the typical war-loving rightie would understand. Apparently my attempt sailed completely over your head, which is really no surprise.
In general, most people get a little queasy at the thought of blood and guts, surgery, death and the like. I'm not a big fan of gory horror movies, as even though I fully understand what happens when a knife opens up an abdominal cavity, I have no desire to actually witness it taking place, even in a simulated fashion in a movie. If I have open heart surgery, I know full well what happens during the surgery, and understand the need to have it done, but I sure as heck don't want it displayed to me in full 1080p high def on my tv. It's bad enough that I have to read autopsy reports and look at autopsy pics, but it's part of the job.
Like I said, you're free to play the game however you want....blood from a fetus described in pornographic, loving detail as in Katy's post is no different from the blood spilled by a mortally wounded soldier....except that we know for damn sure that the soldier can feel pain and comprehend what is happening to him, unlike the fetus.
Hey Don, I didn't say we weren't at war. I said "I think we should have soldiers at war right now." Thanks for losing your self control and once again proving my point.
Who said I was war loving or on the right Uffdaguy? I just told you I don't want us at war. Not everyone who disagrees with you is "the right,"And how do you know a fetus doesn't feel pain? There's evidence to the contrary. And I fail to see her description as "pornographic." It seems rather accurate to me.
I think the reason that everyone's getting upset over the description is because it brings to light how violent this procedure is. I can't see it as anything but cold and brutal. Maybe if it gets such a visceral reaction out of everyone then there's something wrong with it.
Well eap...I commend you on your psychic abilities to suggest I need to re think my position on things. What kind of response did you think you would get with that?
Oh gee eap...let me go over my entire life experiences for you just now so I can fit into your world view of things. ugggh
That was totally uncalled for and that is why you got my mastery of the English language. How dare you suggest that to anyone!
My guess is that you are a man...I don't know that a woman would ever say such a thing....er..sorry guys...;)
Ohhh I see...eap1 is a noob...or perhaps just trying to hang with the sheep?
eap, I think I explained why people have such a visceral reaction to abortion....it is a medical procedure, and most people are naturally squeamish about those things. My wife is deathly afraid of shots, so by your logic, as you say, maybe there's something wrong with getting a shot. Doesn't matter if it may actually be the best thing for you....if you have a visceral reaction to it, it must be wrong.
We have absolutely no evidence that a fetus feels pain. It can and does react to outside stimuli, but because it can't tell us what it is feeling, we have no idea if it is anything more than an automatic reflex movement. When a baby cries, sometimes you have no idea why....is it hungry, does it need to be changed, is it mad, is it scared? If we can't even be sure why a baby that has been born is reacting in the way it would if it were in pain, how can you be so absolutely sure that you know why a fetus is reacting to a stimulus. Simple answer: you can't.
Uffdaguy, are you implying that since we can't prove that babies can't feel pain we can kill them too? What about people in a coma? Why don't we pull the plug? What about quadriplegics? They don't feel "pain." Can we off them too? I didn't know that was the definition of life, beings that can feel pain.
Magiee, a noob? You don't fail to impress. How about you calm down, collect a rational thought and then let me know what you think instead of what everyone tells you to think.
This particular account you have now eap...started 4/2011...that's this month...makes you a noob...a newbie?...not here long? I don't know what your name was before.
You certainly don't know me at all to suggest I spout whatever others tell me...stick around...I am not here to impress you.
What I think is that you are a man... who may hate women...and that you have had another account here before.
What about people in need of organ transplants in the state of Arizona? There is a real life bona-fide death panel going on there. Maybe all of the reasons you've listed above may be fair arguments NOT to kill people. But what about just because private prisons need state money more than around 90 people need to live? Or does pain and suffering actually trump fiscal prudence? And if it does, why don't you tell that to Republican Arizona govenor Jan Brewer?
Maggie, a man that might hate women? I've never had an account here before but thank you for doing your due diligence. I can only base my comment on what you've said to me so far, which is a collection of rambling expletives and sarcasm. None of which is original and makes you appear uneducated or at the very least immature.
Don, I don't think you'd like my answer to the Arizona question. I think people should be able to sell their organs. Donors get organs and people that want a little extra cash make out. I believe you made a typo or two in your statement about prisons and I would like you to clarify so I can give you a sufficient response.
That's fine eap you won't hear from me again...
So you are pro-death panel. At least that much is clear.
Don, I fail to see how you got that from my comment. I asked you to clarify what you said.
What about that is giving you trouble. You are saying that Uff set the bar for euthanasia too low. I ask you about the moritorium on organ transplants in Arizona, which is a genuine death panel set up by Jan Brewer. Why was it set up? Because she felt that the private prison industry needed the money more than about 90 people needed life saving surgury. I.e. a death panel justified by fiscal prudence. You then say that people should be able to sell their own organs. Problem?
Wow Don, unlike some people on this blog I don't give opinions about things which I'm not informed. Maybe it would help if you used proper grammar and asked a coherent question, which I asked you to do. Reread the unintelligible mess you wrote before you get snarky again.
But when I looked it up I saw that the patient that died refused to pay for his procedure, so I guess he killed himself. This is exactly why the government needs to stay out of the insurance business. If the patient had private insurance he'd probably still be alive. This is the typical liberal nanny state position, "I shouldn't have to take care of myself, the government should take care of me."
Its a MORATORIUM dumbass! Its not one patient who died but 98 who WILL.
So you are clearly on the side of Death Panels. People who are broke, or just poor should die. That's your position.
Don, I also congratulate you on your mastery of the English language. It's amazing that you liberals can't seem to make a point without losing your tempers and resort to name calling. You act like a child. I don't even know why I'm trying to reason with you.
If you read what I said, pause, and think really hard (which I assume might be difficult for you to do without slobbering on yourself) then you'll see that I don't agree with death panels. It's not the government's job to hand out health care. So since you say these people are going to die I assume you think that they value their lives less than the money it would cost to get the transplant. I know if my life was on the line I'd mortgage everything I own. But being a liberal, you think that everything should be taken care of for you by good big government (you only think that when Democrats are in charge.)
Please, think before you speak.
eap, the reason those people don't "mortgage everything they own" is that the procedure they need far exceeds their assets and their ability to pay. If you need a transplant that costs $250K, and selling all you own nets you only $150K, you are going to die, no ifs, ands or buts. I realize that kind of social darwinism is at the heart of the right wing's ideology...the rich get to live longer, have better medical care, better education because doggone it, their rich, they're better than the rest of us, and they deserve it.
Uffdaguy, I'm not right wing, I'm a libertarian.
The rich don't "get to live longer, etc.." Think about this for a second. if you work really hard, save up some money and buy a new house, do you "get" to live in a better house or did you put yourself in a position to own a better house. I don't fault people for getting waht they've worked for.
I truly pity those that are in a position that they can't afford a transplant but that is not the government's job. Perhaps if people were willing to mortgage everything they own, insurance companies or the doctors might be willing to work with them.
Truthfully, if they really needed it, they could fly to Asia and have it done for much cheaper where there is an organ market. That's why we should have one here. Think of how many lives that would save.
It's not about social Darwinism. All most people want is to enjoy the fruits of their labor without the government coming in and snatching up what they've worked hard for to give it to someone who doesn't work. And I know there are old people and the feeble that need help. I'm all for that. The problem is there are literally millions of people leaching off the system that don't really need any help at all. Our government is enabling them.
Sorry I mistook you for a rightie....I'm just amazed that anyone will admit to being a libertarian, which is even lower on the scale in my opinion.
From what you are saying, I get the idea that you have no clue as to how many people live. You seem to think like Sue Lowden, old "pay your doctor bill with chickens". Insurance companies fight to keep from paying legitimate claims by customers who pay their monthly premiums. I challenge you to go to your insurance company and tell them that you can't afford that cancer treatment that will save your life, so could they please cut you a break? Better yet, do the same at a hospital, or at a doctor's office. They will tell you that there honestly isn't anything they can do to help, and then when you are gone, they will collapse in laughter to think that anyone was so naive to think they'd cut a break to anyone for any reason.
If you don't have money for American healthcare, it is apparently ok in your book to take a risk by flying to Asia and getting an organ from a donor that probably hasn't been screened for disease. Again, unless you are rich, you aren't even a second class citizen....you are just a piece of garbage to be discarded.
Yeah, let's stop the stinking government from coming in and snatching up what you've worked hard to get. Fire the damn police, the fire department, the military, the teachers, the EMTs, the librarians, the road crews, and everyone else who sponges off of your tax money. Obviously, every single one of us will be far better off if we pay monthly bills for all of those services. And heck, if you can't afford your monthly police bill, you deserve to die when that person breaks into your home; you deserve to lose everything in a fire if you don't pay your monthly fire bill; you don't deserve to drive on the road if you don't pay your monthly road bill.
I wish I could say I understand folks like you, but honestly, I just can't. I worked for a friend who was also a libertarian, and years of being around him convinced me that libertarianism is the naive belief that everything will be fine if we just let business do whatever it wants, and individuals should be subservient to business. To me, libertarians still live in a make believe world where all was great when we were all rugged pioneers. That world never existed, and never will, because you're positing a world where everyone was a hermit, as even a family or tribe works as a unit, something libertarians can't understand. If you want to have a functioning society, you need to have all members of the society work together. Libertarianism is a group of unconnected individuals who are interested in only themselves and their lives. If you look at the world around you, you won't find a single society like that. Even the stone age tribes in Borneo are better organized than that.
Wow. Rich. One, the rich DO get to live longer. They can shell out a few hundred grand and not think a thing about it. It is the hedge fund managers who are living longer. Not the janitors.
Also rich. You really had to use that as an example, unbelieveable. You realize there IS a housing crisis going on. Millions of people are being turned out of their homes by rotten foreclosure schemes that are making a tiny number of people VERY wealthy. You should also realize that there is a recession going on and employment is still very high, more and more people are making do with less and less and, again, a tiny number of people are becoming fabulously wealthy.
Get a clue. If the need of an organ transplant is a death sentence because you can't afford it, then it is the result of a DEATH PANEL. "For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."
That is exactly what it is about. The socially and economically strong thrive while the weak perish. And let fire rid us of the deadwood. It is not the business of govt to coddle the poor and under-priviliged. THAT'S Social Darwinism. So you aren't a conservative? You are a liar and a hypocrit if you call your self a Christian.
No, you aren't. That is a bald-faced lie.
Well then it is a damn good thing that Arizona has its death panel in place to weed out the undeserving, huh?
people do work hard and yet still get caught in the system. they can try to save, but not everyone can be the fortunate one...but it just means they didnt wok hard enough. a lot of our safety nets are for those who do work hard. yes, there are people who abuse the system.
but there are people and corporations who abuse the system that are very wealthy.
Uffdaguy, fortunately I'm not at all concerned by your opinion of me. It's funny that you say I don't know how many people live. Neither do u you. You hate the rich but I bet you don't know anything about them or their lives. Yes I do think it's worth the risk to fly to Asia. Wouldn't you if your life depended on it? Or would you stand in your living room throwing a temper tantrum, stomping your feet, yelling "it's not fair!"
Did I say we didn't need the police or firemen? No I said we don't need to support millions of lazy people that don't want to work. You see, there's this thing called basic services. Paying people to pop out children every year is not a basic service. And it's nice to know that you think I should die for my opinions. Once again, use that noggin' and stop getting so emotional. That's why you can't win an argument.
Don, what's wrong with janitors? The world needs janitors too. Not everyone needs a college education. True, there is a housing crisis. I didn't buy because I saw this coming. I don't feel sorry for anyone that was dumb enough to fall for it. You can blame the banks all you want but Barney Frank was convincing everyone that banks are racist, so they had to lend to people that they knew couldn't pay it back. That's government regulation for you.
Nice to see that you can read my heart and determine if I'm a "bald-faced" liar. Or determine the worth of whatever religious beliefs that I have. Where did you pick up that skill? It sounds to me like you're just saying that because you don't agree with me. You guys never fail to impress. You can't make it through one post without insulting someone. There's that liberal level headedness that you guys are so famous for. Maybe if you calmed down and used your intellect instead of your emotions you might actually make some kind of coherent point.
Carrie-Anne, thank you for being reasonable and not losing your temper. I agree, there are people who get caught in the system. I just feel like most people in this country can save but choose not to. I have an emergency fund and I've had to dip into it from time to time, but I've had to do without to have that money. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice to plan ahead. The truth is, those people aren't really the problem. They're the minority and most people are just gaming the system, taking advantage of you and me. I find it awfully convenient that by making so many people "dependent" on government money that the Democratic party has in effect created a huge block of slave voters desperate to not lose their government hand outs. Pretty brilliant if you ask me.
You seem to believe there are millions of lazy people out there, sponging money off of you. I'm glad you feel that way...I'll happily send a few million long-term unemployed your way so you can tell them in person.
I can't win an argument with you? I don't have to, because you have done a splendid job of winning it for me. You say we can't make it through a post without insulting someone? I guess saying there are millions of lazy people out there popping out babies isn't an insult in your book.
As for the rich, I don't hate them....I just want to make sure that if I am being asked to make sacrifices, that they are too. Instead, it turns out their "sacrifice" is more tax cuts tossed in their direction. Please, let some of the rest of us make those same "sacrifices".
There are millions of lazy people out there and that has nothing to do with unemployment. There were millions of people who've never worked a day in their lives sucking up welfare money before this job crisis. I'm not sure how that win's your argument though. It just sounds like you thought that would be something clever to say.
I didn't insult you. And I don't think saying someone is lazy is an insult.
The rich pay way more than most people in taxes, so how much should they sacrifice? And what are you asked to sacrifice? If you're middle class, you're asked very little. If you're poor, nothing is asked of you.
Back to the topic at hand...eap. You are a libertarian...who is in support of Death Panels, believes that you should be able to sell your own organs. But that women should be denied the right to exercise their reproductive freedom. Goldwater understood that freedom included a woman's right to choose, as does Ron Paul, what ever anyone else thinks about it is none of her concern.
Scratch any so called Libertarian and over 90% of the time you will find a religious fascist. You are operating in really bad faith.
As for the black organ markets in Asia, while you are there you could buy some children off the street to screw while you are at it. Its about as morally savory. Who says the organs you are buying belonged to the person you are paying. This is ESPECIALLY true when dealing with organs like lungs, liver, heart or entire digestive tracts. Someone literally had to die to provide you with those items. Sex with child prostitutes is downright wholesome by comparison. If you think that is acceptable, then you are a really sick individual indeed. Another thing about black market organs, its a "no questions asked" kind of thing. Who regulates for diease and quality? What about organ typing? Unless you are of Asiatic descent from the area you are buying it from, it would be super-unlikely that the organ DOESN'T kill you from incompatibility.
As for the question regarding Christianity...yeah. You are no Christian. Christ was very specific on a number of points that you have issue with. Like taxes, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's. Like the high regard you hold the rich. Jesus knocked over the tables of the moneychangers. He said that that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. And not least, he said this.
Another liberal athiest quoting the bible....
I have stated before that I have mixed feelings about abortion. Of course, "mind-reader Don" will probably say (again) that he knows my thoughts better than I do.
I am troubled by the pro-choice argument that it isn't human and she can abort if she wants to, yet we have laws like the Unborn Victims of Violence act that makes it a crime for someone to kill an unborn child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
It is hard to make the argument that the only time it is a human is when the woman wants it. Just doesn't make sense to me. No violence unless it is perpetrated by its own mother!
But I have sympathy for the women who find themselves in situations that seem hopeless.
I've heard it all on this blog and the most ridiculous one is that not allowing abortions is a way to keep women't sexuality in check. I don't think that is on the mind of anyone.
I think there are probably many Americans that feel as I do, but there is no one in the middle making recommendations that take both the mother and the baby into consideration. So, 20 weeks seems reasonable to me.
I have no problem posting the procedure. And, I think everyone contemplating an abortion at this stage, should be counseled on what takes place (not just handed a pretty pamphlet). It should be treated as a serious decision.
Don, your lack of education on religion is astounding. Almost as astounding as your apparent belief in your ability to read minds. I'm not sure that I can break my belief against death panels down a lower level without resorting to crayon pictures for you. I find it interesting that you think raping children is worse than buying an organ. You may not be aware of this, but you have organs that can be donated and you will still live. I can provide links to medical websites but I'm sure you won't understand the content.
I see you have no hopes of bettering yourself through work or education but I strongly recommend it. You might want to look into anger management. You are seething. It clouds your thinking.
Katy, your feelings on abortion are unequivocal. There is no "mixed" anything about your stand on abortion. Abortion is wrong, but the women who go on ahead and have their babies are parasites who need to be punished. Every law is fine with you except the one that gives women the right to their own reproductive choices.
I never claimed to read minds. But if you are sincere in your adoration of wealthy people and belief that people deserve to die if they can't afford their own organ transplant (Death Panels!,) then I defy you to show me explicitly where that squares with the teaching of Christ. What I get from my own studies is that it doesn't.
Unlike the organs donated here in America, there is no guarantee in Asia that those who "donated" the organs died an accidental death. China has done brisk business in the organs of people they'd executed. THAT makes it immoral. Its not like going to market and ordering five lbs of of liver and 2 lbs of heart. You seem to think these the organs you'd be getting are farm raised. Hell it would be even worse if it was. If you see nothing wrong in the selling of human flesh, then you are monstrous.
And still no response to how you square your libertarian beliefs with a woman's right to choose? Hypocrit much?
Don, don't quit your day job to pursue a career in mind reading.....oh yeh, you don't have a day job...
I believe there are many responsible parents in America, who work, pay taxes, and contribute to society. There are also plenty of parents and non-parents who would rather live on the government cheese.
Don, if you take the time to re-read what I wrote, I never said that I "adore" rich people. I'm just not in favor of punishing them for their success like you are. I also never said anyone deserved to die. What I said was, that if it was me, I would sell everything that I own or go to Asia to get an organ. Apparently you think that makes me a bad person. I don't. I'd rather take my chances than sit in my living room feeling sorry for myself because the big bad world dealt me a bad hand.
As far as the "right to chose." One of the most fundamental rights I believe in is the right that people have to protection from their government. We can argue all day about weather the fetus is alive or not. I believe that it is. I also think that no one can truly know, therefore since it is better to err on the side of caution, it should be treated as such.
It is a common liberal myth that anyone pro-life is really against women's rights or some nonsense. The abortion issue has nothing to do with that for me.
ROTFL! A trust fund? Let's look at the truth brother. Life doesn't deal you much. It's what you make of it.
And I really wish I could break this down for you in a more simple manner. It. is. not. the. government's. job. to. take. care. of. you. Read that really slow and maybe you'll get it. I don't believe in death panels because I don't believe in socialized health care. Is that really too hard to comprehend? I'm really starting to wonder about your level of intelligence. All you've done is cut and past what I've said, made a comment, and not explained yourself. Maybe this is just too complicated for you.
I mean, simple facts seem to escape you. The American population is the most upwardly mobile in the world. Poor people come here and become middle class and then wealthy. You seem bitter. I'm guessing that you're not successful. If you're not, then I guess it makes sense why you hate people that have made something out of their lives.
And finally, because I believe a baby is alive, I'm like the Taliban? Please don't respond to this. I thought I could come to this message board and find some semblance of intelligence. You can't even answer or respond to the simplest of questions.
To answer your question about Jesus, he was a business man. A carpenter remember? He worked. Something you seem unfamiliar with. The poor he speaks of were the young, the old, and the crippled. That makes up what, maybe a few percent of the people that cry and moan because they're sooo "poor." Obviously you've never seen what really poor is otherwise you wouldn't be crying for all the "poor" in America. Even those on welfare here are far from poor.
That is the death panel's position.
What was called "death panels" by Caribou Barbi was end of life counseling. What is also also called "living wills."
http://www.naswdc.org/practice/bereavement/standards/default.asp
Further:
Which means that Medicare and Medic-Aid are all wrong and must be stopped immediately so that nature can take its course and thin out the herd of the old, the poor, and the sick, the way nature intended. Now that is one GIANT-ASSED DEATH PANELyou are envisioning slick! Now gosh, there's a word for it, a phrase really...now what is that? Oh yeah. SOCIAL DARWINISM! Being a business man, I'm sure that Christ could see all the savings that would make for the tax payers. Oh course he would approve! Let tham ALL die, God will sort them out!
That might have been true from WW2 until the Viet Nam War wrecked the economy and that might have been the myth that Reagan pedalled his campaign on...and it was true for a brief-assed moment during the Clinton Administration. But if you believe that is true now then you are a) willing to eat any manure that a "reliable source" calls caviar b) lying to yourself and expecting everyone else to support you in that, or c) what I said from the very beginning which is that you hail from an alternate dimension.
Oh yes I will respond to this! And the answer is YES. If every fetus is a living human being then every miscarriage must be investigated as a possible murder. So much for small none intrusive government. But of course since its only women we are talking about, what's it matter? Its not like they can be trusted with their own reproductive decisions can they? Keep their heads covered and keep them off the street and nothing bad will happen to them. If not, then whatever happens, well they were asking for it weren't they? Being all brazen showing their faces wrists and ankles like that. They were just asking to get raped! Right?
Nobody's asking you to stick around.
Oh, the richness. I asked for chapter and verse and you tell me what his job was. Christ may have been a carpenter, but it was Judas who was the business man. He sold Christ to the Romans for 40 silver. Problably because such a commie and threat to the American Way of Life. Simple question. Chapter and verse.
has anyone ever thought that part of the dependency on welfare occurred due to wars? the general scope of the family unit was broke during the wars we've been in. pushing women to work and claim government help, or just government help. my nana received a pension till the day she passed away, having lost my grandfather in w.w.2.
not all women felt, and still feel, the work place is for women. the whole structure and dynamics changed.
losing a family member to war is devastating, especially if that family member was the sole provider.
I have no doubt that has a lot to do with it. Taking handouts is like taking drugs. Once someone's in there, they're hooked. There are people who don't know a family member who has ever worked because it's so many generations deep. It's been going on for a while.
Sure ask the top two percent who get tax cuts for nothing more than being wealthy. The energy industries, the tobacco lobby, all the other corporate welfare queens.
I guess you think all the nice stuff you have fell out of an elf's ass. You do know that corporations actually make all that nice stuff you have. I guess I don't understand why you're supporting them if they're so evil. That makes you an enabler.
All of the corporations that make the nice stuff, make the nice stuff overseas where they don't have to pay American wages or follow American regulations. For that, they get tax cuts.
Would you take tax cuts? Do you keep your tax return? Do you even pay any taxes?
Presently I don't even make enough to get taxed. When I do, I pay them proudly as the price of doing business in the best nation in the world and don't try to skive out of it as so many of the more fortunate and far less patriotic do. The only money I've ever accepted from the govt was my tax returns. Fecking ingrate.
eap1,
yes i do, but then again i make less then $18,000 a year. i might not pay the earned income tax, but just about every dollar i spend gets taxed. my return will help me put some new windows in and help buy a new furnace ..and i'm hoping to do some other things to my home.
i just have one question, have there always been enough jobs for every american within working age? i know it's not the government's job to provide a job...but please answer...
Don, I dinged that post for the child prostitute line. Let me know if you want the text to repost without that part.
Carrie, I applaud you for having a job and trying to make it work! Good luck!
I'm not sure there's ever been a time like that and that's a tough question. Job's are kind of a 20th century thing. For most of the country's history most people were either small business owners or training to become one. I'm not sure that full employment is even possible because a lot of people don't want to work any way. I'll have to think on that one.
Sure Will. My apologies to you if not others.
jobs shouldn't be a 20th century thing.
if we pursue to continually groom our country to be just a pencil pushing corporate or a "would you like fries with that", we'll be undermining the strength of what really makes us strong.
as for abortion, i couldn't 18 years ago...it was not in me. i searched. it was not my path. i am glad i choose to not abort my son.
that said, i believe in choice, because not everyone has the same path.
What I'm saying is we should be striving for people to start businesses not to be looking for jobs.
I congratulate you on your choice. It's not easy to do the right thing. I'm sure your son thinks the same thing :)
absolutely, we need more people to strive to start businesses...and new innovations.
the right thing for me is what i choose 18 1/2 years ago - just as for another women the right thing for her is what she choose. but thank you :)
Not true Don! Didn't you get three meals a day and free housing while you were in prison?? Who do you think paid for that?
If you think its so copecetic, then you really should give it a try. I repaid my debt to society, my court costs, restitutions, and fines. Prison ain't free.
Not me Don. I don't steal from others!
But, you paid for everything but your free housing, meals, uilities. I didn't say it was fun as it shouldn't be, but you still cost us a pretty penny for having to lock you up, all because of your own stupid choices.
It is no surprise that you think you are entitled to other people's money (rich or poor). The best predictor of the present is the past. You felt then that someone else's stuff was yours and I hear that echoed in your posts today. You know, the BIG BAD RICH people making $250K a year!
Not to mention the fact that the only person Christ guaranteed a place at his side in Heaven was one of the thieves who was also being executed by crucifixion.
Ergo, folks in the Deep South are still lynching blacks like the Klan did, or waging quiet campaigns of intimidation and murder the the White Citizens Council used to, who were applauded by Haley Barbour. And it is an absolute foregone conclusion that Republicans will destroy the economy and our nation the way Reagan and Bush the Younger did. The are busy as beavers working on that even as we speak.
Don ... I dunno what her deal is with you...but you have my respect friend. It's some sort of pathology with her...let it go bud...it's all about the good vibes. She's not worth your effort here.
:)
If I was dealing with someone who was honest or rational, the conversation would have ended long ago. But dealing with people who are WRONG can help you find exactly what is right and improve your skill as a debater. For my own part, I never change my position unless I am shown good reason to. I am guided by a coherent philosophy which prevents me...as Newt Gingrich had regarding intervention in Libya...from adopting every position under the sun based solely on my opponents position.
If katy ever said something I agreed with, I would either say so or more likely just leave it alone.
Abortion foes will pushing other dubious claims to support new laws. Eventually, the pro-abortion forces will have to take a challenge on the laws because someone is prosecuted under these new laws. There is an interesting aspect that the more rights the fetus gains at the expense of women, these women will be prosecuted for their own conduct. This is not a place we want to go because it muddies the legal waters.
You just KNOW this thread is going to attract the christofascists like a military funeral attracts the Westboro Baptist Church.
I'm surprised that certain people aren't here already.
They might not be wanting to due to questions about the Governor aside from this issue. Newty (and to be fair, Bubba) type questions. Might want to just take their win here and head for the exit on this one.
Fabulous analogy, Uff.
Funny that the only ones that ever bring up religion on this blog are the liberals.
Okay, Katy, now you are being a troll. That's not true and you know it. This blog is comprised mostly of liberals. Pretty much any topic introduced on the blog is introduced by liberals. It's a liberal blog.
I agree CoraH.
At least Katy serves a useful purpose....as a negative example. It's hard to believe people can have such ugly attitudes, so uncaring, but Katy does her best every day to show that there certainly people out there that can shock and disappoint us in ways we can't imagine.
@Uff- Both sides see it that way. I find abortion uncaring. Does that make you uncaring? Probably not. Does Katy's opinion make her uncaring. Probably not.
Yep...and I agree with that too Uffy...I can't help think that there may some pathology there ...
eap, I base the "uncaring" remark not on Katy's stance on abortion, but from too-long experience with her on a variety of issues.
If she holds the parents of the children who are carried to term in so little regard, then she doesn't mind seeing the babies punished as well, despite her talk. She wants babies the way some people have dogs. She wants to hoard them. What happens as they grow up is not her concern. Those "paraites" that she hates so much were also babies once. And if this generation of aborted fetuses could be saved and carried to term, she would hate them too and call them parasites as well when they cease to be so cute.
You guys are being too sensitive.
It is true that very few conservatives on here bring up religion. Mostly it is the atheist and agnostics.
I am one of the most caring people you will ever meet.
Take the example of a child that is a drug addict. Is it a more caring parent that provides them with money that allows them to do the drug in the house? Or is it the more caring parent that says no and doesn't enable them? Caring is not the issue. Evidence supports that conservatives are very caring people. They volunteer, provide to charity, etc., etc. So, the issue is not in whether we are caring, but what we think is the more caring thing to do.
I have no problem with a safety net used wisely, with the goal of making the individual self sufficient (if at all possible), which trickles down to their children's outlook on life, work, and their own future. I question the government's ability to administer such a program effectively. I think we should make it clear that it is charity, so that people don't feel entitled to it. Not to shame them, but also not to disguise it either as something they are getting for free. It costs your neighbors, your friends, your family, etc.
Such lies and hypocrisy can't be good for the soul. Maybe you should stop while you are ahead.
I don't give any credibility to individuals who are not professionals or parents to even talk about what it means to raise children.
Where is the lie Don?
How do you know what my credentials are Maggie?
Because of what you say here maybe?
Exactly, you have no idea.
I don't believe you are a mother...or a professional who works with children...if you are...say it. For that much...I have a pretty good idea.
Credentials and credibility are not the same...you can have every credential in the world and still not be credible.
Lie.
Like depriving poor of the means to properly education their children. Depriving children of families that may be loving supporting environmnet but are headed by gays or lesbians, depriving children of insurance or basic medical care, punishing the parents who have children AND the child as parasites when abortion would have been a reasonable option.
Lie. Rank hypocrisy.
If charity was up to the task and was so very effective, then there would be no sick or hungry or uneducated children and families would not be turned out of their homes by the millions. If Christian love was up to the job, no-one would be called "parasite."
I repeat, these lies and hypocrisy can't be good for the soul. Stop while you are ahead.
Don, why are you quoting the bible??
Because if we are to believe what you post, you don't follow the bible. I'm telling you explicitly where you are wrong. And what Christ says is that you damn yourself by your own hard heartedness. I don't share your belief that the people who struggle are "parasites,' and I really doubt Jesus would either. That's Pharisee talk.
I didn't say people who struggle are parasites, but some people who don't work are! Some people don't try Don! Those are the parasites!
Don, are you are Christian?
And did Jesus said it was for you to decide who? I really don't thinks so. Judge not! Hypocrit.
Whether or not I'm a Christian is between me and God. The things that Christ had to say have everything to do with my political philosophy and belief. You want to challenge me? Then do it chapter and verse. New Testament. How do you justify your politics with your Christianity?
Back at ya Don! See, if you are a Christian, you have no right to judge me either or use the mean sprited language you use on this post, including cursing and calling people liars, etc. Since you do that and then post biblical scriptures, I would say that YOU are the hypocrit.
If you are not a Christian, then you are manipulating the Bible (just as the devil did) to try and provoke a response.
Either way, YOU LOSE! I don't argue about the Bible, Don. I have already told you that. I find that most people on this blog are agnostics or atheist and they use the bible to play a game. Then claim that we are a secular society and there is no place for the bible in public policy or the discussion. I won't engage you in that losing battle.
Christ had harsh words for the Pharisees, who were all devout followers of the Old Testament. Baptists are far more concerned with following the Old Testament, and are to my mind, the ones most similar to the old school Pharisees who Christ called a generation of vipers. Too, Southern Baptists had no problem with slavery. Or KKK, or Jim Crow. Anyone lighter than a paper bag or the wood in the doorway were welcome in their church.
In any case Christian and Muslim fundamentalists are both so much alike that really the basic differences are just semantics. Gays should be killed. A womans body is not her own and she is not to be trusted with her own reproduction. Jesus, Allah, meh - whatever. Both are equal threats to American freedom and liberty.
As for you arguing the bible, the reason you don't do it is because you can't. The one time you tried I asked you to find a New Testament passage justifying capital punishment. You came back then a sentence fragment about "it isn't what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out"...cherry picked by one Bob Enyart who specializes in that kind of thing was "reformed" homosexual who had been found guilty of beating his girlfriend's 7 yr old boy till he bled. Yeah, with that kind of record I wouldn't try either. Not unless I had actually READ the New Testament...
Most "Christians" that I know of are awfully quick to use the bible to justify depriving a woman full rights to her own body, or to deprive LGBTs of full rights and participation in our society, or to deprive people Freedom FROM as well as Freedom OF Religion, to deprive Muslims of the right to worship or build mosques without harassment.
But the parts that mean the most to me..."when I was hungry, etc" as well as Render unto Caesar..., Easier for a Camel..., A man cannot serve both money AND God..., his knocking over of the moneychangers table...
All of that is regarded as the most violent forms of lunacy guaranteed to destroy the nation if it was ever practiced as federal, fiscal, or social policy. The way it stands now, this is a nation of the rich for the rich, by the rich. But if it is easier for a camel to enter heaven than for a rich man to enter heaven...then it is a nation of damned, for the damned, by the damned. Want to talk taxation policy? The poor widow who gave two mites gave more than the countless gold of the wealthy, because she gave EVERYTHING. Prompting the comment, "easier for a camel..." Not that you would know anything about that.
Don, there are plenty of websites for atheist that want to argue the New Testament..... this blog is about abortion!!
In Oklahoma. What business is it of yours?
i saw the perfect bumper sticker recently.
just wanted to post that :D
Jesus was a filthy pinko commie socialist who Christian fundamentalists would not hesitate to kill because of the threat his ideas present to our proud nation. And that is why I am proud to call him friend and stand at his side.
I don't believe that the people of the U.S. will allow the Supreme Court to vacate Roe. v. Wade. Or, let's say, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade I don't believe the people of the U.S. will tolerate the law to stand. We will have another popular uprising that will force the court to reinstate a woman's right to choose.
Popular sentiment has forced the court to overturn unpopular rulings in the past. Give the people of the U.S. credit. The U.S. will never tolerate abortions being against the law. When the first person is put in jail for getting an abortion or the first doctor is prosecuted for proforming an abortion the vast majority of the U.S. population will demand redress and reform. We will not go backward! Challange these new illegal laws. Force the anti-choice people to publicly and vigorously defend these laws.
Do not take it for granted that the SCOTUS will not overturn Roe v. Wade. The judges are appointed for life and insulated from political pressure. The Roberts court is an activist court that is pushing the conservative agenda. The downside is that if the SCOTUS overturns the decision or severely restricts abortion, the GOP is going to lose a lot of women voters. That could be very costly in swing districts and states. Anti-abortion groups are very active on the state level and have made gains in the state laws, but not federal laws.
I think calling it "scientifically disputed" is a falsehood, and it shows just how good the right is at rebranding issues and framing the debate. The fact that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks is NOT a disputed scientific theory, it is just a lie. There is overwhelming evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that this is just NOT the case.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 1997 and 2010 reports are a good place to start. Also, interesting article here that in part talks about the definition of pain. I know this may be hard to believe, but the anti-choice crowd may just be simplifying very complicated subjects to lather up a particular segment of the country. Responses to stimuli do not equate to feeling pain. (http: //www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/ocr_ethical_iss_4.php)
I'm a guy too, and I honestly cannot understand how this isn't more of an issue for most women. Two days ago the Indiana Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass their version of this nonsense, and I was one of about 50 or so people there to rally against it. I do not understand that. As long as Mitch Daniels doesn't veto the bill, which there is no reason to think he will, it could be Indiana law by next week.
Birth itself is probably painful for the baby. Is the Christian Defense Coalition also going to ban live births, and force every woman to have a C-section, so that the baby feels no discomfort?
i've always argued how can we say in an absolute fact that anything can or can not feel without being in that exact position? we can only imagine. if you're compassionate enough, flowers can feel pain if cut at the stem.
i'm not standing up for this chipping away, just adding my 2 cents on that point.
If they knew anything about how late-term abortions are performed, they'd know that the fetus is usually injected with a drug to stop it's heart. That's no worse than what they do during surgery on pre-term fetuses.
The whole thing should be moot.
I will tell you up front I am Pro Choice. To me, it is immoral to ask a woman/girl to bear the child of her attacker in cases of rape/incest.
Not only that, women/girls are often embarassed to speak of such atrocities. I believe more often than not these incidences go unreported. I believe the statistics on rape/incest do not reflect reality. One only has to look at the way women are treated around the world (mid-East, Japan, China, etc.) to understand that even though in the USA and other countries women are treated better, some of the same attitudes still exist even in these countries.
It is a personal decision and I respect that. I could never make that decision for another woman and wouldn't want to. A woman's body is hers alone and the decisions regarding her body should be hers alone as well.
Did any of you read the recent article I read about the deacon in the church who had raped and impregnated a 14-year-old girl? I tried to find that link again but haven't found it yet. It's a very interesting article. The church required the young girl to go before her congregation and admit to HER sin, with that deacon sitting in the congregation. Honestly, how twisted is that?
Regarding the incident in your last paragraph, that sort of malign patriarchal thinking is still all too common.
As an Okie I can only reiterate just how ass-backward this law and this whole state is. This is just one of another arsonal of weapons against a woman's right to choose their own reproductive decisions. Others include huge questionaires where she must provide personal information and why she is having the abortion, being forced to submit to sonograms wherein the transponder is vaginally inserted. That's just Oklahoma.
And after the baby is born? We don't like property taxes so we underfund public education. We lead the nation in high school dropouts, teen pregnancy, rates of incarceration, children without insurance, and children who are abused or killed by their parents and caretakers. We are also Anti-Union, Anti-worker, Pro-Business, Fire at Will. In short, we are a sorry ass third world nation. Despite being an American state, we HELD ON TO Prohibition until the 1950s. [It is because of that fact that I personally met an old boot legger from back in the day when I was in prison - the very best pagan and Good Ole Boy a soul could ever hope to meet (RIP Lucky.)] Nor did we give up cock fighting until ten years ago.
But hey, that's just Oklahoma.
Okay, so where are the progressives in Congress? They do exist, or so I've been told. Furthermore, the excuse of "the makeup of the Supreme Court doesn't look good right now" seems really weak to me. Tough case? Come up with a damn good defense. One that is so bulletproof that it leaves no room for the Justices to vote against the freedom of choice without having their impartiality called into question. This method of standing idly by while people slowly take away women's rights is not acceptable. This is going to bring back the days of illegal abortions and The Wire Hanger. Women are going to die. This is more than ideological.
I have had it straight up to here with the religious right in this country forcing me to conform to their worldview by legislating their religion. And I'm also sick and tired of everyone else just apathetically letting them do it because "the fight probably would go badly." If this goes too much further, we're going to be a third world country again while Europe continues advancing into the next century. If the religious fanatics continue to run things they way they have been for the last ten years, I'm peacing out to Canada, France, or the Netherlands. If we continue down the road they've set us on, atheists and other non-Christians are headed for jail or worse, and I for one don't plan to be around if that starts happening.
Hell, I'm heading for Mars.
Well Corah, if you don't mind a bargain basement Okie genius, his paleolithic goddess of a wife and her 8 lb shih-poo enforcer, then it is well past time that there as an international sequel to The Grapes of Wrath. If that doesn't work out, we'll escape the planet and it'll be like Firefly.
Hey, if we're going all Firefly, can I be Captain Mal? Please, please, please, Mr. Kotter, choose meeeeeeeeeee!
Only if you can wear the trousers as well as Captain Tightpants.
Yep, I can definitely do that!
Okay...but I get to be the knee-cappin' Shepherd Book. I nominate Mouser for River Tam. Not because Mouser is clinically insane, but because she is brilliant and tough as nails.
Still lookin' to fill out the rest of the crew. I think I need to do extensive "interviews" before we choose Zoe!
Yes to all of the above.
So, Cora, which crew slot are you applying for?
I already have the right kind of leather vest and a "thing" for witty geeks. I'm not very good at shooting things, though.
If you have the leather vest and a thing for witty geeks, the shooting can be worked on!
Well, I have a confession to make here...I've never actually seen Firefly. I have however, seen the covers for the seasons. It looks like an interesting show, I've just never watched it.
How about I let y'all pick? It has to be someone really cool and chill but kind of bitchy all at the same time.
Okay, but pick the right Wash!
Cora, you missed one of the best shows ever to grace our benighted tv screens. If you like old movies with rapid fire witty dialog, you'd love Firefly. If you have Netflix, you can stream it instantly, or get the DVDs if you like.
Shannoscubie, anyone who wants to play Wash has to have a fine appreciation of plastic dinosaur interactions and politics....knowledge that seems to be all so lacking in our modern world. We need a plastic dinosaur whisperer!
Inara?
And he must never expect home-made bao.
Ahh, Inara! Once again, a lot of in depth interviewing will be needed before a decision can be made there!
How are you at home-made bao? If Wash can't expect to ever get it, I suppose it doesn't matter.
I think Katy must be a member of the Alliance!
I have no idea. I'm not exactly sure what it is. But I can make up for it in something with slink.
Captain Mal approves! :)
Zoe's forte wasn't marksmanship (markswomanship?,) Mal Jayne Book and especially River having that skill rolled up. Zoe had stealth and could be relied upon to get the element of surprise on someone and have them staring down the barrel of her hog's leg iffin' she didn't crack them upside the head with it first. She complemented Mal's style of hell bent for leather chargin shouting at the top of his lungs balls and bayonets frontal assault. Also, anyone applying for the position of Mal has to be absolutely innured to pain and torture and able to handle getting shot - frequently, getting electrocuted and having bits cut off. Like Niska did his ear. Just saying.
Cool, laid back and bitchy? DEFINITELY Inara. Classically trained, supporter of Re-unification (Boo! Hiss!) BUT she is a Companion. Like a highest dollar Call Girl...but FAR more like an Ancient Greek Hetaira or Japanese Geisha. She was also known as the Diplomat. It was because of the respectability she provided their operation that they were able to work in areas that would otherwise be closed to them. She was master of savior-faire, seduction...and actual diplomacy. Badass in her fashion, she was often imperious, dignified, classy, and compassionate. And as discrete as you would expect from a consummate professional.
As for the show itself...and for all you other benighted souls who never watched it...it was like a Space Western. Mal and Zoe were soldiers on the losing side of a galactic Civil War...the Browncoats. The winning side was the Alliance of Central Planets. The war is over years ago. Ended at Serentiy Valley where Mal and Zoe were the last to surrender. After the war, they by the Firefly space ship which they christen Serenity where they gather a motley assortment of crew and try to find work, more or more often less than legal... and stay one step ahead of the authorities.
Remaining crew...we need a Jayne, a Kaylee Fry, and River Tam's bro Simon - the physician. Do we also have a Wash yet?
Either one of the Hands of Blue, or more likely one of their victims.
Unless it's in front of Inara. In which case, he's a total wuss.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the role of "That's your plan? You think it's a good idea to add to the statistics proving that the life expectancy for men is shorter than women? Let's try my idea."
Zoe: You don't think that changes the situation a bit?
Mal: I surely do. It makes it more fun.
Zoe: Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.
Mal: Ship like this will be with you 'til the day you die.
Zoe: That's 'cause it's a death trap.
Ooh, heck. We are SO way off topic for this thread. I grovel in abject apology. :-|
[On knees in the rain and hail in the middle of the night, clothes torn to rags, tearing own flesh and howling in earth-shattering anguish and pain]
"FIREFLYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!
i know i'm comin' late to this party, but can i be kaylee? i would need some lessons in engine upkeep, but i'm darn cute, and there ain't no power in the 'verse can keep me from bein' cheerful when i set my mind to it!
and DQ - i'm with ya out there...sobbing unconsolably...
You are officially the new Kaylee. She was always one of my favorites, and I always hated it when someone hurt her, like Simon.
Ah Kaylee, the floozy prarie harpy with the heart of gold and mechanical empathy. I loved her too.
Jender, may you fill that role with distinction. And if we can find you a suitable Simon, may he (or she...don't want to jump to any conclusions or deny any possibilities) not have to wait to the end of a series and its motion picture coda to become hip to your beauty.
How much do you like strawberries?
um...i ADORE strawberries! and poufy, frilly dresses (well...maybe not so much as the strawberries).
and yeah - what was up with Simon anyways? just goes to show ya that book learnin' ain't always the end all and be all of havin' smarts! (our distinguished dr. maddow being the exception, of course!...and um, we do still need a dr...don't we?)
It is bad enough when men start to take womens rights, but when women do it, that leaves a really bad taste. When did women forget what lives were like before Roe Vs Wade? Women before us fought hard and long for the women of today to have the rights we have. Abortion would never have been for me, but every woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. So why in the world are women governors making decisions that is none of their business. When they broke the glass ceilings they blew up their brain cells.
Like I said, we didn't give up on Prohibition until the 1950's and cockfighting until about 10 years ago. It problably won't be another 30 til we cotton on to the idea of reproductive freedom.
As I've written before, to deny the psychological harm of mothers to be is to kill our soldiers.
These people are killing more of our troops than Al-Qaeda is. What more do they have to do to qualify for treason?
You are right. Certainly more assassinations and abortion clinic bombings will set the nation to rights.
What people are you talking about? Your post is confusing.
except to save a woman's life or prevent "irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."
Note the usual GOP play to exclude psychological harm. Mental illness is swept under the rug and denied.
Now what is the most common cause of death for American troops? It is suicide. Why can't our brave troops reach out for help, instead of a gun? Because the GOP has denied the existence of mental illness.
So who is killing our troops? It's the Republicans.
Eventualy enough old men on the Suprme Court will die and be replaced with (maybe) some women or men who are a little more enlightened. When that happens these laws will be swepted away into the dustbin of history along with all the other rules and laws focussed on controling women.
Personaly, speaking as an old white guy myself, I gave up trying to control women many years ago. It is always a loosing proposition.
Maybe if we say this enough times those extreme individuals will start to believe... "If you were serious about stopping abortions you would work harder at reducing unwanted pregnancy." To attack a doctor after the fact of conception, well that's shear ignorance.
So Rachel please say this as much as you can and maybe they will start to believe.
Anti-abortion ("right to life") is conservative socialism where the govt controls the reproductive rights of all families. I know, it sounds weird, Just follow the logic.
1. If someone supports "right to life" then, by definition, they believe a "person" was created at conception--and that person has a "right" to live, including the power to compel someone else to provide for its needs. We have now established compulsory servitude to the state (the govt)--because there is no other way to keep the newly-conceived "person" alive for the remainder of its development.
2. There is no valid or logical reason why that "right to life" would change at birth. Thus, that same person has the *right* to food, clothing, shelter, care, education, training, and so on (based on the same *conservative* logic).
3. As there is no certainty a child would get what it needs (mentioned in #2, above), because the state has *already* mandated compulsory servitude to care for the person *before* it was born, there is no reason why the same rules would not apply *after* it was born. Thus, the state would take *all* children and raise them. Who else could provide *every new person* what the state mandated? The wealthy *might* be able to get around this because they would have the resources to show they could pay for those state mandates, but that would be an interesting argument--especially if the public got ahold of it.
4. No need for each locality to pay for schools, buses, teachers, etc. So, taxes go down.
5. What does the public give up? LOL !!!
You know what really ticks me off? These same people "working" so hard to abolish abortion--essentially telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies--are the same ones who will sit there and rail against the government for interfering in their lives, trying to take away their guns, taking money out of their pockets to help "slackers" and use every derogatory name against people with different beliefs than them. Apparently, government is only big when it regulates things they are against. HYPOCRITES!!! I am so sick of these self-righteous, self-proclaimed "good people" who "praise the lord" but will stab their neighbor in the back for some supposed wrong. They make me sick.
I used go to church until I realized there is more bullying, more intolerance and more hypocrisy in organized religion than anywhere else. These are NOT God's people.
this is what happens when you let repub madness scare you during mid-terms. if alot of people had not turned into turn-coats then we would not half to deal with all of this radical repub madness!
I've often wondered how the following is defended or rationalized by pro-life activists....."Defend a fetus from abortion, once it is born, we are done, who cares what happens to it, but, once it is old enough, if it commits a crime worthy of the death penalty, kill it......if it grows up to be an abortion provider, kill it........i it....Additionally...it is OK to kill human beings be it war or crime or even for being someone that we consider sub-human/not like us (example: of another race or sexual persuasion)"...............isn't pro-life a term for being against the very nature of ending human life?........or am I just calling it all hypocracy?
Fallin is also an ardent supporter of the death penalty...and Oklahoma uses it more than just about any other state... exception Texas
Which makes perfect sense.
Who better to decide who lives and who dies than really big government?
Answer: Really Big Corporations.
That's why they want death panels. I mean they're starting to use them in other countries with nationalized health care.
Unlike America, where we like our private death panels, aka insurance companies.
And still absolutely no proof of any government death panels...except for Jan Brewer's.
Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition..hey I thought Sharia law was outlawed in Oklahoma
By rights it out to limit the degree can interfere with governing. But we all know that's not how it was intended. But maybe we can still hold them to that standard anyway.
...monkey see and monkey do...no originality in Rep run legislatures and obviously no sense of humanity.
Or history.
That's the question I keep asking -- the pro-lifers want to get rid of Roe vs Wade. They will keep at it until they win. Will the repubs adopt all the children born (even those with disabilities) if they get their wish? I think not. They aren't concerned about children after they are born. Take notice of all the programs they want to get rid of. The repubs state they want to get rid of big government and have less intervention in peoples lives, but then they turn around and stick their noses into a woman's most private life. Repubs are such hypocrites!!!!
Only 1.5% of abortions happen after 20 weeks, and the majority of those are because of substantial risk to the life/health of the mother or because the fetus is not viable. Women don't wake up one morning 6mos pregnant and think "Jeez, I'm going on a cruise next month and this pregnancy is TOTALLY going to make me look like a$$ in a swimsuit."
The facts do not support your assertion. Very few at 20 weeks are because of the mother's health risk or something wrong with the baby. Of the 1.5%, less than 2% of that cite that as a reason.
Show us "facts"...
This is where a cite or a link is important...not a graphic description of an abortion procedure because that is the topic...I still can't believe you posted that, but is says heaps about you.
What about Shanno showing me the facts she cites!
Let me put how you might say this...
Those liberals....always deflecting when you ask a direct question.