ralis

Right Wing War Against Pro Choice.

197 posts in this topic

A number of Republican state legislatures, composed of control freak goons, are introducing bills that would make it illegal for a woman to choose termination of a pregnancy. Right wing Republicans assume a pretense of; smaller government, while instituting draconian measures against privacy. Roe v Wade is settled law and what right wing authoritarian fundamentalists fail to intellectually grasp, is that the ruling was in regards to a woman's privacy.

 

 

 

 

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/15/government-sanctioned-rape-in-state-virginia-and-texas

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/15/outright-abortion-ban-introduced-to-iowa-house/

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about a straw man - looks like the democrats will do damn near anything to avoid discussing Obama's record and the direction he's taken the country. They even betrayed Stephanopolous' being in bed with them still by bringing this question "out of nowhere" when jeez, the administration had already planned this and had their media lackeys segue the national conversation right there for them!

 

Truly pathetic.

 

And while I'm at it, let me ask a very blatant question - how in the hell can this honestly be framed with the verbiage "we need to make sure people have access to bc" which is a crock of shit - we all "have access" - why in the mind of progressives and democrats does

 

Access = Government provided, free of charge

 

*shakes head* ridiculous.

 

Always relying on a jacked up context. Arguing these points are like fighting a guerrilla war, the progressives can never stand up and let their points be shown light on even par with other ideas. Run out from behind a building, take a shot, run to another building, take a shot, run away and hide, go plant a bomb so that when it goes off you dont have to be there for it... :rolleyes:

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about a straw man - looks like the democrats will do damn near anything to avoid discussing Obama's record and the direction he's taken the country. They even betrayed Stephanopolous' being in bed with them still by bringing this question "out of nowhere" when jeez, the administration had already planned this and had their media lackeys segue the national conversation right there for them!

 

Do you even know what a straw man argument is? Further, what does this have to do with a woman's right to privacy as settled law in the case of Roe v Wade?

 

 

 

Always relying on a jacked up context. Arguing these points are like fighting a guerrilla war, the progressives can never stand up and let their points be shown light on even par with other ideas.

 

You have some strange notion that all ideas must be treated on equal footing. All ideas are not the same and fall into what Korzybski termed the 'structural differential'. E.g. creationists argue that creationism (falsely framed as creation science) must be treated as equal to evolution and therefor must be taught in public schools as scientific fact. Creationism is biblical myth and has no scientific grounding and therefor can never be equated with rigorous scientific inquiry.

 

You have a very bad habit of derailing threads and continue to posit specious arguments! My point was a women's right to privacy and the Republican agenda to deny those rights. Are you denying there is a right wing movement against a woman's right to privacy?

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed, what does all of this have to do with roe vs wade?

 

Here's a hint: its not Obama's record! A straw man argument creates a new argument, a new focus, to shift focus away from an argument that someone does not want to have.

 

You think Obama promoters want to talk about his record? :lol: The piles of debt, the terrible results, the necessarily skyrocketing gas prices, the huge increases of welfare and food stamps, undermining the second amendment with fast & furious, undermining the first amendment here dictating what a religious institution should provide for its members, "the secretary shall determine" a thousand times over?

 

You have got me be kidding me! Seriously man, the only transparent thing about the Obama administration has been the lies, everything else is obfuscation to "change the fundamentals" of the country. He's damn near campaigning on getting people addicted to government assistance.

 

 

Hannan put it pretty presciently: there's but a few of us here in europe that are trying to halt us going over the cliff, and we look in our rear view mirror to find the USA with its foot firmly on the accelerator coming after us!

 

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed, what does all of this have to do with roe vs wade?

 

Here's a hint: its not Obama's record! A straw man argument creates a new argument, a new focus, to shift focus away from an argument that someone does not want to have.

 

 

No! A straw man fallacy is to substitute a distorted version which is a misrepresentation of the original point.

 

As usual you are way off topic and your narrative is replete with non sequiturs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! A straw man fallacy is to substitute a distorted version which is a misrepresentation of the original point.

 

As usual you are way off topic and your narrative is replete with non sequiturs.

wiki:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

---

 

I dont pretend to assume you'd understand how something logically follows. You cant logically follow the course of progressivism, so you're already five legs down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wiki:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

---

 

I dont pretend to assume you'd understand how something logically follows. You cant logically follow the course of progressivism, so you're already five legs down.

 

 

I am well versed in logic and math which is based in logic. I am not interested in your condescending attitude and derailment of my thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a deal to me, you stop posting contrived misinformation and I'll stop coming in and debunking it ^_^ You might assert your understanding of logic but then you come up with illogical things bent on serving a particular purpose, most of which relies on spreading misinformation in order to further a political ideology.

 

Fact of the matter is, there is no "right wing conspiracy to deny people access to contraceptives." The argument is that people should not be forced to purchase it if they dont wish, it has absolutely zero to do with "access" unless of course "access" means "government supplied" which is not access, it is forced subsidization...

 

...and toss in the government attempting to dictate to religious institutions what they must do no matter if it goes against their very religion or not and you have yet another constitutional transgression by the admin,

 

and a straw man argument was contrived in order to create an issue for an ideology to rally around - one that steers well clear of relevant, important, issues of the day - and it is plainly transparent that this is simply a misdirection, away from the performance of the president's policies.

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a deal to me, you stop posting contrived misinformation and I'll stop coming in and debunking it ^_^ You might assert your understanding of logic but then you come up with illogical things bent on serving a particular purpose, most of which relies on spreading misinformation in order to further a political ideology.

 

Fact of the matter is, there is no "right wing conspiracy to deny people access to contraceptives." The argument is that people should not be forced to purchase it if they dont wish, it has absolutely zero to do with "access" unless of course "access" means "government supplied" which is not access, it is forced subsidization...

 

...and toss in the government attempting to dictate to religious institutions what they must do no matter if it goes against their very religion or not and you have yet another constitutional transgression by the admin,

 

and a straw man argument was contrived in order to create an issue for an ideology to rally around - one that steers well clear of relevant, important, issues of the day - and it is plainly transparent that this is simply a misdirection, away from the performance of the president's policies.

 

Did you bother to read the OP here? I am not talking about contraceptives. The post was in regards to abortion and a woman's right to privacy in making decisions in her own best interest. Several states are engaged in passing legislation to deny or interfere with that right. Virginia and Iowa are mentioned in the links I provided.

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly wouldnt take such a narrow look at it as the "journalists" have done in writing - i.e. the rape correlation in the virgina consideration doesnt appear to be backed by the verbiage, and the Iowa one is quite devoid of information - a link to the actual bill would be helpful...unless of course if one read the entire bill one can come up with a different conclusion than the one asserted with such scant detail. It honestly seem odd that a bill would be introduced that would outlaw all abortions for any reason whatsoever in Iowa, but of course we dont know any of the other details from the OP because it was very careful in what was presented - because obviously that would go against roe vs wade, so it seems like there is more to the story than what is being presented...

 

...as usual.

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly wouldnt take such a narrow look at it as the "journalists" have done in writing - i.e. the rape correlation in the virgina consideration doesnt appear to be backed by the verbiage, and the Iowa one is quite devoid of information - a link to the actual bill would be helpful...unless of course if one read the entire bill one can come up with a different conclusion than the one asserted with such scant detail. It honestly seem odd that a bill would be introduced that would outlaw all abortions for any reason whatsoever in Iowa, but of course we dont know any of the other details from the OP because it was very careful in what was presented - because obviously that would go against roe vs wade, so it seems like there is more to the story than what is being presented...

 

...as usual.

 

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=HF2033

 

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=HF2175

 

A little reading of the journalist's article in question would have given you the info. from the Iowa state legislature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my money's on ralis

I'm sure hnjt will forgive you for making a decision based on the heart at the full exclusion of the mind "tempering" the decision :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you bother to read the OP here? I am not talking about contraceptives. The post was in regards to abortion and a woman's right to privacy in making decisions in her own best interest. Several states are engaged in passing legislation to deny or interfere with that right. Virginia and Iowa are mentioned in the links I provided.

and besides, there was already a kerfluffle regarding federally subsidized abortions anyway and this is merely an extension of that. nice attempt at separating the issues, though it doesnt quite work so long as one reads and informs oneself. you federally subsidize it and people pay for it that religiously believe against the whole notion. any notion that they would "keep funds separate" is a joke, especially in light of how they treat social security funds.

 

 

which, by the way, Obama is de-funding social security - isnt it ironic? democrats have for years made up the charge that republicans simply want to do away with social security, and who's the one that goes and rips out a very significant percentage of its funding mechanism?

 

 

can ya spell hypocrite? :wacko:

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha it was a random decision, i was just echoing HNJT's sense of humor

 

i don't take sides in conversations like that.. er this

 

to each their own man, politics is designed to keep people squabbling like you guys are doing, getting riled up over partisan issues and missing the point of community and togetherness and freedom. So when i hear two sides of a passionate arguement i just mind my own business. My post wasn't meant to endorse ralis.

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure hnjt will forgive you for making a decision based on the heart at the full exclusion of the mind "tempering" the decision smile.gif

 

 

lol that was kind of a retard comment :lol: im not sure i want to put $20 down anymore. maybe $5 :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D I used to not take sides, but then I decided that I should at least have an opinion if I'm to vote in an informed manner - so the more I read, the more I see the resurgence of a movement that was so despised they entirely discarded their moniker so that people would not longer associate their goals with what they used to be called.

 

Churchill was quite right when he quipped that if one isnt a liberal at some earlier point in his life he has no heart, and if he isnt a conservative by some later point in life, he has no brain :lol: The Taoist approach isnt necessarily assigning right or wrong on all issues, morally reprehensible as some may be - it understands that there is good and bad, positive and negative - and only by letting go of one's desires and jealousy can one truly live unfettered and in peace. So as I see it, let rich people make money and dont restrict the engine too much - you could have a thousand horsepower engine, but if you make the exhaust ports pinhole sized, it will run terribly, inefficiently, and still burn a ton of resources up (not to mention the engine itself.) The more local, state, federal governments weigh on job creators, the less jobs there will be; the higher the minimum wage gets pushed, the more it prices out those low skilled workers that will take a job for just about any wage (and it hits teenagers the hardest.) These are simple facts, yet some still think that going against man's desire to be free, ostensibly going against nature, is a viable path to prosperity.

 

But it all boils down to the fact that the government which tries to be all things to all people from cradle to grave needs to extract such a high price in resources from its working population that it serves to limit the potential of the people subjected to the chains. Greece doesnt look so good these days, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France are all precariously perched, and Germany doesnt have the resources to backstop it all - we're watching these policies in action; we're watching the future of the country here if we continue down that path. Its not one we want to take, because this country will fall much harder than those other microcosms.

 

/waits for ralis to try asserting that this has nothing to do with the OP ;)

Edited by joeblast
1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this is a means to make a potential mother "look her fetus in the face" before killing it.

 

 

That statement says it all about who you really are. "To make" is the operative phrase in your remarks. To make means; the use of force, to require without recourse to other alternatives etc. In this case the force is an invasive medical procedure.

 

I guess you are anti abortion? This proposed law is contrary to Roe v Wade and is a forced medical procedure against a woman's will! You rant about excessive big government and then advocate big government intruding on women's privacy. Notice that it is the males in these states and the right wing of the Republican party that advocates this bullshit abuse against women! Some might characterize this behavior as misogyny.

 

This movement against women goes back to the Middle Ages and prior to, when a woman was the property of a man. Women were used only as vehicles for child bearing, and that was their primary function among other things. The church also instituted the state of marriage so that a man could be guaranteed sex at any time. As late as the 1920's in the U.S., when a married woman's husband died, the court appointed a male guardian to manage her affairs. The reason for this is that women were seen as incompetent in the realm of finance and what were considered the institutions of male affairs. Moreover, women had no right to vote until the suffrage movement.

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wonder if you read the same article that I did. Ralis got that article from me.

 

"The first is a bill requiring the use of trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to a woman obtaining an abortion, the other is an egg-as-person bill. Like other failed "personhood" bills, the Virginia provision would outlaw not only abortion but also forms of hormonal birth control."

 

We are talking about rape of women to satisfy what I call the male privilge of ownership over women's sexual parts and reproductive freedom, not bc access or Republicans vs Democrats.

 

The only kind of analogy I can come up with is to make every male who wants Viagra (which is covered generally by health insurance whereas bc is not) have a prostate ultrasound and a transuretheral culture to check for STDs before getting a prescription.

 

Do you know what a transvaginal Ultrasound is? The place a woman on a table in an examining room table then lube up a very long probe and insert that into her vagina into her womb. That is so humiliating to begin with and then the idignity of having it forced on a women or even a 17 or 15 year old. Forced entry, without permission, into the vagina meets the legal definition of rape. A law saying that's OK doesnt make it right.

 

 

 

Honestly, if this gets passed, we will start seeing a lot of deaths from homemade abortions as we have seen in the past.

 

This is not about liberals, conservatives, et al. It's about humiliating and degrading women. So, we capture pregnant women and force them to have this procedure. They are suppose to have an empty bladder first. Who is going to stand around and watch and make sure she urinates first? Are we going to tie her to the gurney so she will lay still? Are we going to spread her legs apart and force it in? If she doesnt cooperate are the police going to come in and hold her legs open while someone not so gently puts the probe in her? Are we going to catheterize her first so her bladder will be empty so we can get a good picture? What if we puncture her bladder and her urethra? What if we give her a urinary tract infection because she is struggling and we can't keep things sterile for the procedure? Are we going to sedate her first? Does that mean start an IV? We aren't obtaining consent are we? So this is also a human rights issue?

 

This is lawsuit craziness waiting to happen for a hospital and a doctor. So does this mean we establish special enforcement clinics? Do we have VAG swat teams sweeping up women?

 

Jeezus fucking Christ....

 

s

 

Talk about a straw man - looks like the democrats will do damn near anything to avoid discussing Obama's record and the direction he's taken the country. They even betrayed Stephanopolous' being in bed with them still by bringing this question "out of nowhere" when jeez, the administration had already planned this and had their media lackeys segue the national conversation right there for them!

 

Truly pathetic.

 

And while I'm at it, let me ask a very blatant question - how in the hell can this honestly be framed with the verbiage "we need to make sure people have access to bc" which is a crock of shit - we all "have access" - why in the mind of progressives and democrats does

 

Access = Government provided, free of charge

 

*shakes head* ridiculous.

 

Always relying on a jacked up context. Arguing these points are like fighting a guerrilla war, the progressives can never stand up and let their points be shown light on even par with other ideas. Run out from behind a building, take a shot, run to another building, take a shot, run away and hide, go plant a bomb so that when it goes off you dont have to be there for it... :rolleyes:

2 people thank this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now that I am calmer.

 

this is a political ploy to gain votes.

 

it is unenforceable in the real world.

post-51345-132944509679_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and besides, there was already a kerfluffle regarding federally subsidized abortions anyway and this is merely an extension of that. nice attempt at separating the issues, though it doesnt quite work so long as one reads and informs oneself. you federally subsidize it and people pay for it that religiously believe against the whole notion.

 

I agree about this although "religion" doesn't need to be invoked imo. Back when I used to make enough money to pay taxes I wished there was an option on tax returns to pick and choose which military ventures and/or military research/awarded-private-sector contracts one's tax dollars should support (or check the box that says none at all).

 

Unfortunately I think I'd be labeled Anti-American for being in favor of such a Pro TaxPayer measure since the above logic extends out to anything where one is forced to pay into a pot that funds things he/she strongly doesn't believe in. :(

Edited by SereneBlue
1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with anything in the Tao as one side gains ascendancy it will invariably spawn counter effects.

 

If abortion is outlawed (and potentially contraceptive prescriptions as well) it may spur renewed interest in spreading methods like the following:

 

Some methods of NFP track biological signs of fertility. When used outside of the Catholic concept of NFP, these methods are often referred to simply as fertility awareness-based methods rather than NFP.[36] The three primary signs of a woman's fertility are her basal body temperature, her cervical mucus, and her cervical position.[37] Computerized fertility monitors may track basal body temperatures, hormonal levels in urine, changes in electrical resistance of a woman's saliva or a mixture of these symptoms.[38]

 

From these symptoms, a woman can learn to assess her fertility without use of a computerized device. Some systems use only cervical mucus to determine fertility. Two well-known mucus-only methods are the Billings ovulation method and the Creighton Model FertilityCare System. If two or more signs are tracked, the method is referred to as a symptothermal method. Two popular symptothermal systems are taught by the Couple to Couple League and the Fertility Awareness Method (FAM) taught by Toni Weschler.[39] A study completed in Germany in 2007 found that the symptothermal method has a method effectiveness of 99.6%.[40]

 

In Canada, the symptothermal method is taught by SERENA Canada which is an inter-denominational organization which has been developing the Symptothermal Method as a part of NFP since 1955. They are also not specifically affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. It is also taught by Justisse Healthworks for Women, a pro-choice feminist organization that allows and supports women to combine other methods of birth control with their fertility awareness practice.

 

 

 

 

However, knowing American society I highly doubt most teenage girls would be diligent in tracking those three signs daily and so we'd see a lot of teenage/very early-20s moms and dads. Lotsa guys would wake up to discover they were daddies with child support payments when they weren't even 20 themselves yet. So it's not as if only girls would see a change in their life significantly. Someone in society must take care of the baby and tons of case law clearly says its the "coupling" couple first rather than taxpayers. And with coming austerity measures in U.S. taxpayer funded programs I suspect that trend will only get more pronounced, not less.

 

 

 

 

 

*shrug*

 

 

 

 

 

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites