BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:17 AM

Kendall.. Don Firth used that line 4 posts above.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:40 AM

As I was driving through a major intersection on Thursday, there were several people standing on a corner sidewalk holding full colour posters, about three feet (one metre) high, photos of aborted fetuses.
I'd heard of people doing this, but had never seen it before. I can't imagine it brought a lot of warm fuzzy feelings toward the people holding up the photos, or support for their cause.

They should have been arrested on public order charges.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:13 AM

Is it true that someone asked President Bush to define Roe v Wade and his answer was "That's the decision George Washington had to make to cross the Delaware."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: ragdall
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:44 AM

Funny you should mention this.
As I was driving through a major intersection on Thursday, there were several people standing on a corner sidewalk holding full colour posters, about three feet (one metre) high, photos of aborted fetuses.
I'd heard of people doing this, but had never seen it before. I can't imagine it brought a lot of warm fuzzy feelings toward the people holding up the photos, or support for their cause.

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:04 PM

I will not use the term "pro-life." That is an entirely inaccurate way of describing the people involved. The only correct term is anti-abortion. It accurately describes their stance without obfuscation or euphemism. "Pro-life" is utterly hypocritical. I don't know anyone who is anti-life. "Pro-choice" is a good way of describing those humane people who support women's right to decide what they do with their own bodies. "Pro-abortion" would be entirely inaccurate. We have a very high abortion rate in most parts of the world because of religions opposing sex education, banning contraception and belittling women. By that measure, the Catholic church, to give one example, is just about the most pro-abortion organisation on the planet. By promoting ignorance and dissing birth control, the Catholic church is a champion of abortion. I actually think that is quite deliberate. The people who are pro-choice are actually the people who genuinely oppose abortion, in that their philosophy, if employed, would reduce abortions drastically. Most pro-choice people I know want equality for women, good sex education and freely-available contraception and contraception advice. If that were enacted, we would cut the numbers of abortions spectacularly, without preaching and without moralising at women.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 07:17 PM

I find it fascinating that frequently the "pro-lifers" who are most opposed to abortion are also opposed to such things as welfare for dependent children or, God forbid, single mothers. Get 'em born, then to hell with them!
=======
I understand that Sarah Palin thought Roe vs. Wade had to do with a discussion between General George Washington and his men over how best to cross the Delaware River.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 01:17 PM

Are you sure it wasn't the mozzies?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 12:42 PM

I too like pine trees. :) My idea of heaven used to be living alone in a mountain cabin set in and surrounded by a dense forest of conifers.

Then I learned to love people and discovered that I need them. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 12:33 PM

It's equally interesting that many people who like jello don't really care for peanut butter.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 11:10 AM

It's quite interesting that many of those who oppose abortion because of the sanctity of life also support the death penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 10:04 AM

As for the subject...
When life begins has never been in question. Roe v. Wade was about a woman being able to get an abortion until a fetus is viable. No debate on "when life begins". But we have an awful lot of "life" inside us that can't become a person and can't live outside our bodies. Which matters mostly to Republicans and other parasites.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:51 AM

Oh. That explains it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:47 AM

Oi, I like pine trees. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:41 AM

Virtual thread closure in effect:
If you think it should be closed, don't open it
If you are stupid enough to open it, don't bitching about it to the world. As in "I think this thread is shit and should be closed, but as long as I'm here, I'll just add to the shit..."

We don't close threads because they're shit, because every now and then, a little blue flower grows out of the shit. Sometimes not, and it's yellow instead,or it's a stupid pine tree. Sometimes, it's just shit, but you keep walking around it, and eventually it sinks into the ground.
We don't close threads because someone gets their panties in a bunch over it.
If that were a valid reason to close, I'd get rid of every thread about politics, religion, or what sort of behavior is advisable around small wild animals.
Some people try way harder than they have to to be assholes. It's the internet. Read the comments on YouTube, and you'll realize that some of those attention-starved hate whores* are here. It's just the way things are. If you like fighting with them, you're as much of an asshole as they are. Maybe more, since you're ripe for them or anyone like them who comes along next time.

*That wasn't meant to be about Rand Paul. (If he's the future of the "party of 'stupid'", we're gonna have to come up with an adjective.)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:57 AM

I need the participant I am "attacking" to stop being patronising and condescending (which is precisely his way of attacking). He has a history of this in other threads. He is far from being the guru of all things he seems to profess to be. I tend to be fairly direct when I don't like what's going on. If that's a fault, well that's me. I would heartily welcome a return to a straightforward exchange of points. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 09:26 PM

I don't much want to fight with fellow Catters but if Eb wants this thread closed then close it 'cause ol hillbilly loves her...

BTW, I wish all the baby lovers loved 'um half as much after they were born than when they were residing in variuos stages in mommy's tummy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 09:07 PM

"And close the thread? Now how many times have I seen that failure of courage expressed on abortion threads..."

Steve, you are missing it- it is not a failure of courage. I suggested closing this thread not because of the subject but because you are attacking a participant.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 04:35 PM

Whether Bill is as liberal as me is not exactly beside the point (I don't really know what "as liberal" is supposed to mean, frankly - I'd rather define myself differently, if I really have to define myself at all). I find that patronising, quasi-avuncular, sneery attitudes get in the way of good debate. Let's be straightforward, put our points, not demand responses from particular individuals (we're not debating in the Oxford Union here) and see what happens. As for you, pete, you appear to understand nothing about anything, but you already know I think that so I won't bother saying it.

Oops...

And close the thread? Now how many times have I seen that failure of courage expressed on abortion threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Elmore
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 01:58 PM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 11:43 AM

Let's just close this thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 11:06 AM

i had not even joined this post yet steve.i,m sure you can more or less guess what my opinion is .maybe you are not up to a discussion with bill even though he is as generally liberal on the subject as you , so you try to broaden it?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 11:00 AM

I'm totally over it...
I did suspect that your disapproval of how I conversed with pete was at the root of your attitude toward me. I still think I could talk to him in person, even though I disagree with him. Though I usually agree with you on substance, I doubt we'd get along. Very strange.

"give out what you think from the hip" I thought I was! I just don't think that insulting folks is part of being candid.
-----------------------------------------------------------

YOU need to get over my *flowery embellishments * ;>)

bye...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:30 AM

A terrible loss to whom? Why don't you just do your own thing, quit the patronising and give out what you think from the hip? I am very mindful of how your approach, for example, makes pete ten times worse and gives him succour. Every time I see one of your posts full of your flowery embellishments I think you think we're all pete. Like everybody else round here, I pick up on points that I feel I have something to say about. There is nothing more annoying than someone telling me I didn't answer their points. If I've picked up on random things you've said it's because I felt I had something to say. If I don't pick up, it's because I have to do the shopping/cooking/learn tunes/go for a kip. Or have nothing to add or that I agree but don't feel the need to do a me-too post. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:10 AM

Very strange, Steve. What you have recently been remarking on is my reasoning and analysis. In the 3 major posts I made on the current topic, beginning with 06 Mar 13 - 05:46 PM, I used very few speech marks, and those only for emphasis, to emulate as closely as possible how I would talk. If you interpret that as patronizing, I suggest you are going out of your way to find fault. You did reply to the content, with no remarks about style. Now I am informed that my style is your major complaint. In 15 years, no one else that I can remember has been put off by it. In deference to your delicate sensibilities, I write this with no embellishment, but with an admitted modicum of patronizing.
   My post of 06 Mar 13 - 05:46 PM, was not specifically directed at you. Because a post in an open forum is for all to read, I will continue to compose my thoughts in my standard style. It will not be a terrible loss if you choose to avoid and ignore them. Somehow, I will manage to carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 09:27 AM

Am I back in the fifties?

Not quite yet, Elmore, but just give it time, just give it time.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 08:19 AM

I tend to avoid your posts if possible because of your excessive and tiresome use of capitals, dots, dashes, spaces, asterisks, bold and speech marks. It makes you look patronising, didactic and wholly distrustful of our ability to understand what you're saying. So if I don't answer one of your precious points it will be because I gave up the will to live before I reached that point in your post. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 10:16 PM

Steve... My posts are no more...or less..important than anyone else's. I didn't "demand", I asked a question. You have taken twice as long ridiculing my posts as it would have taken to give an answer...

Ok fine.. so be it. I'll still argue for women's rights to choose, whether you think I am too conservative on the topic or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Elmore
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 10:06 PM

This has to be deja vu. A bunch of guys squabbling over women's reproductive rights. Am I back in the fifties?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 09:13 PM

Take it how you like. I don't know what makes you think your posts are so important that you can demand responses from specific people. Post and be damned. If anyone wants to take you up, great. You are incredibly woolly and patronising. Especially patronising.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 09:00 PM

"Responding to you is something that is quite frequently very low down my list of priorities..."

Oh, I'm sure... especially when I ask a hard one. You certainly can pour out long paragraphs at almost any other time ...*wry grin*

"... but I have a life to live as well."

I'll take that as a "no, I can't think of how to actually make it all work."

As I said... you are hard to agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:42 PM

Steve, both of the parties need a swift kick in the butt. There's a shared responsibility there which a lot of guys tend to forget in the heat of the moment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:36 PM

Lotta folks perhaps need a refresher on what brought about Row v. Wade...

At the time the decision was very much about civil rights and opportunity...

Women of means (think white here) where taking those little vacations to Mexico (wink, wink)...

Women of no means were dieing in makeshift backroom abortion dens in gas stations and dry-cleaners by people who, frankly, knew ver4y little about medicine...

I think that someone needs to remind the folks (mostly Republicans) that that is the way it went down and guess what???

The women who were going to Mexico were of class who now are Republicans...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:31 PM

but you didn't respond to my question about how your ideal situation might be achieved.

I respond to all manner of people all the time but I have a life to live as well. Responding to you is something that is quite frequently very low down my list of priorities, frankly. If I don't respond you are perfectly at liberty to draw whatever conclusions you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:27 PM

If a woman is using abortion AS a method of birth control, she should be able to have the abortion, but should also receive a severe talking to and a swift kick in the butt!

Fine, Don, but it takes two to shag effectively, remember?

I agree with all the rest!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:21 PM

You bet, Don - a real back to the future. 1950 all over again. And its ALWAYS the poor that bear the brunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:07 PM

One solution that should be viable (if I can use that term in this context) is what is known as "Plan B," the "morning after pill. Birth control should be available to any woman who wants it, and should she have unprotected sex, she should have "Plan B" available as a backup.

What this does, as I understand it, is prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. "Pro-lifers" object to this as merely another form of abortion, but there are two unknowns here.

1) Perhaps the ovum in question was NOT fertilized, hence not a potential person.

2) Who knows how many ova that have been fertilized fail to implant?

Good sex education and available birth control should prevent the problem of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but if all else fails, abortion should be available to any woman who wants one.

If a woman is using abortion AS a method of birth control, she should be able to have the abortion, but should also receive a severe talking to and a swift kick in the butt!

One thing for sure:   if abortion is flat outlawed in this country, that won't stop wealthy women from taking a little vacation to somewhere where it is legal. Only the non-wealthy will be stuck with unwanted pregnancies.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 07:28 PM

Steve..You are a hard guy to agree with... I **do** think that any woman **should** be able to make her choices freely... but you didn't respond to my question about how your ideal situation might be achieved.

When I say I favor a practical step to get a bit closer to what we both seem to favor, you merely condemn any idea short of total agreement. Did you never hear the old saw: "50% of something is better than 100% of nothing."? I want an end to the system (at least here in the US) that allows rights that should not be messed with to be voted on and/or legislated by states, the Congress or the courts. In the meantime, we MUST be aware that there are Catholic doctors and deal with that reality.

About fallacies... your particular analogy is still fallacious, even IF 'some' have murmured silly things about the obese. It is perfectly possible to make a statement that is vaguely true, but arrive at it and use it in a fallacious way.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 06:43 PM

Well said SS.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: gnu
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 07:09 AM

Bill D. Very well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 05:29 AM

I don't care if a doctor makes a seamless, fast, moralising-free referral to another doctor. The bottom line is that no-one, whether a doctor or "the system", should have the right to put even the tiniest obstacle in the way of a woman who wants an abortion, and that includes, crucially, a time delay of any kind. What I would object to is any doctor taking it upon himself to be obstructive or preachy. If a doctor fears for his personal safety, it's a matter for the police.

Fallacy, eh? You haven't heard the murmurs in some quarters about obese people potentially being refused treatment?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 12:37 AM

Thank you, Ebbie, for starting this thread to let us know what "the other side" is trying to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 09:24 PM

Steve.. I take a practical view. On easpect of that is that there is no perfect answer.
   There ARE doctors... even OB/Gyns ..who are Catholic, and patients seek out such to share conform with their belief systems. Those who are not Catholic should be careful about which doctors they consult. There should, thus, be a system to advise potential patients about possible conflicts. Now... areas where there will be only a limited selection of doctors (very rural places) should require any doctor to pledge that they will honor the patient's preferences! Thus, Catholic doctors who refuse such limitations should limit their practice to certain venues.
Now, being a practical man, I also realize that this system is far from being reality, so my overriding concern is that no laws be enacted that restrict the rights of patients to have a choice! Several states in the US have used flimsy laws to do as this thread title says and sneak in rules to make abortions almost impossible to obtain, while not specifically ruling them illegal. This must be stopped!
Do you propose a system of laws and a design of a medical licensing setup which will achieve your ideal situation?

(and as an aside, your metaphor about GPs refusing to treat the obese is just not relevant.. ("slippery slope" fallacy)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 08:17 PM

So, does a doctor have a right to refuse to perform abortions on grounds of personal safety? Does the Hippocratic Oath compel him to place himself in the gunsights of the next nutcase who decides he's performing God's will by eliminating a baby murderer? The majority of OB/GYNs where I live don't perform abortions for precisely that reason. They refer abortion requests to clinics who are willing to take the risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 06:42 PM

no doctor who is against abortion should be asked to perform one.

I think this is completely wrong. A doctor need not enter the specific field of medical care that might involve abortions if he or she doesn't want to. But once a doctor is working in that field they have an absolute moral and professional obligation to serve the patient's needs as long as the request is within the law. Otherwise they should be struck off. To allow doctors such scope would be the thin end of the wedge. You might then get general practitioners who refuse to treat overweight or smelly people, schools which refuse to have children from broken homes, dentists who refuse people who eat garlic. You want to be a doctor and you oppose abortion? There are plenty of fields of medicine you can work in that won't conflict with your horrid prejudice, so stay out of obstetrics and make yourself useful elsewhere. Look at this from the patient's point of view. They need an abortion but they run up against a doctor who refuses them "on moral grounds". What a trauma for that woman. Time is of the essence. She has been made to feel like a piece of trash and she still has to find another doctor (and you can bet your life the refuser won't make it easy). If that's the scenario you wish to justify, Bill, well I think you're seriously misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 05:54 PM

* due* - but the mis-type was amusing!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 05:51 PM

With all die respect, the last time the doctor has a choice about performing surgery is when he qualifies as a doctor. After that he should not be a capitalist but a servant of his patient.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 05:46 PM

Let's cut to the chase.
The absolute, rock-bottom basis of most attempts to totally ban abortion is the religious notion that a 'soul' enters the zygote at the moment of conception.
First, it is highly presumptuous of anyone, even if they are sure of their belief in a god, to state categorically how the 'god' works.
Second, if "freedom of religion" means anything, it must include the right to NOT be religious! Therefore, there should be no compulsion to accept any specific claim about 'souls' or their creation.
Third, it should be obvious that this and many other similar issues are matters of personal opinion, and should not be subject to votes. They, like hair style and sexual preference are a matter for subjective consideration.

No one should be forced TO endure an abortion, and no doctor who is against abortion should be asked to perform one.

Abortion is, at best, a sad and unfortunate decision and society should pursue as many **non-coercive** ways as possible to reduce the incidence, but the ultimate decision must be left to those directly involved...parents and their chosen physician.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 03:34 PM

Sorry, I meant to say compulsory counselling, something mooted in the UK recently. I agree with counselling without moralising or preaching. Damn poor reviewing on my part.

The rate at which abortions have occured, and do occur, is certainly very much society's fault, for the reasons you've indicated. But provide all the education there is to provide, make contraception readily available and let everyone know it...and there will be decent young couples who start an evening together with no intention of having sex, and end up with a pregnancy. They're not "guilty" if it happens, and society isn't "guilty" because it happens.

Well that's right, but we can't exonerate ourselves as society until we know that we have done our best to educate, to make contraception freely available, to show young people how to respect others and themselves and to remove inequality. And your decent young couple would then possess the savvy to seek the morning-after pill, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: gnu
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 02:50 PM

"no "counselling"" required. Hmmm... I think I think (yes, I meant that) it should be the case for women under the age of majority but it should be standardized for an entire country and such standards should be developed by the most qualified docs that can be had. If religions wanna put in their two cents, fine.

Of course, this does bring up the question re the best before date. I dunno the answer but perhaps the date should be extended in the case of a minor who does not receive counselling prior to that date?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 02:05 PM

Steve, I respect your position so much, and agree with most of it so completely, but I have to disagree with you when you say "Abortions are not individual failures of women or couples. They are one hundred percent always all our fault, all of us. Society's fault."

The rate at which abortions have occured, and do occur, is certainly very much society's fault, for the reasons you've indicated. But provide all the education there is to provide, make contraception readily available and let everyone know it...and there will be decent young couples who start an evening together with no intention of having sex, and end up with a pregnancy. They're not "guilty" if it happens, and society isn't "guilty" because it happens.