Are the Anti-Choice all religious? [W:608]

[sangha]

If that's true, and multiple pharmaceutical websites were wrong, I stand corrected but I don't apologize for the source.

But how would "old information" matter.
If the chemical in Plan B alters the endometrium, thus inhibiting the implantation of an egg, how does "new information" change that? The chemical doesn't do that anymore?


(your link is bad)

Preventing implantation is not "abortion"

 

[Brooks]

That's not an abortion because pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. No pregnancy = no abortion.

The information on the drug turned out to be wrong so it's academic at this point.

 

[Jerry]

The information on the drug turned out to be wrong so it's academic at this point.

My dear Brooks, its always acidemic.

 

[sangha]

If you're still saying moral fascists (maaann you love that word) then you don't really understand it "just fine".

No, it shows that I really do. It's about people who want the govt to dictate morality because the power of their perverse ideas can't do the job.

If you went to the traditional Hindu village mentioned earlier and told them that they shouldn't be throwing unwilling widows onto funeral pyres they'd call you a moral fascist.

This shows how you don't understand. I have no problem with the Moral Fascists expressing their opinion. However, their insistence on codifying their perverted moral code into law is what makes them Fascists. They are so confident in the superiority of their perverted morality that they can't bear the idea of the law being inconsistent with their beliefs, just as you have misrepresented my objection with criminalizing abortion as an objection to their belief that abortion is wrong

But the only difference between you and them is that you think she has the right to live and they don't.
What actions on your part aren't justified at that point?
Would you protest? Would you try to change the law? Would you try to bring politicians into it? Would you try to block the killers' access to the pyre?

What do pro-lifers do to save, what they believe is, a life that you wouldn't do to save what you believe is a life?

Wanting to save a life doesn't make pro-lifers moral fascists anymore than it would make you a moral fascist.

As I said earlier, you have misrepesented my position on the legality of abortion as an opposition against believing abortion is immoral.

And you question why so many people mistrust the abortion banners. :lol:

 

[Removable Mind]

That is an absurd statement. By definition, human beings are people.

The preborn are human life...but not people.

Care to address the other comments I made in my post?

 

[sangha]

It doesn't really matter what it sounds like.

Yes, I already know that the facts mean nothing to the lying abortion banners

 

[sangha]

If you can find a poll with less extrapolation on your part

Says the poster who (dishonestly) used extrapolation to falsely claim that 97% of the pregnant women who went to PP ended up getting an abortion.

Suddenly, you're against extrapolation! :roll:

 

[sangha]

So this:

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:

“ Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

...is bad information?
Has it been overturned?

It says nothing about financial considerations being a legal justification.

 

[minnie616]

So this:

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:

“ Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

...is bad information?
Has it been overturned?

All Doe vs Bolton does is it allows Drs to take into consideration the mental health as well as the physical health in accordance to the states laws.

For example Kansas requires a second physician to determine that irreparable damage to a major bodily function ( including her mental health ) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

 

[minnie616]

You linked me to a genetic illness not to an article about Doe v Bolton.

If what you're saying is true, wouldn't the court decision have referred to the health problems of the baby?
In reality Justice Blackmun said the doctor’s medical judgment as to the health of the mother may be “exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”

ALL of this refers to the mother, not the health of the offspring.

Doe vs Bolton refers to the familial health ( genetic health ) .

 

[minnie616]

Whoa, the government is getting waaay too involved

LoL

Darn auto correct.

 

[Brooks]

My dear Brooks, its always acidemic.

Very good.

 

[Brooks]

No, it shows that I really do. It's about people who want the govt to dictate morality because the power of their perverse ideas can't do the job.

If you believed someone was taking a life (I used the Hindu widow tradition as an example) what would you NOT do that the pro-lifers are currently doing?
And spare me from "shooting abortion doctors" please.

This shows how you don't understand. I have no problem with the Moral Fascists expressing their opinion. However, their insistence on codifying their perverted moral code into law is what makes them Fascists.

There are times in certain discussions where one is asked to understand even if they don't agree. You clearly haven't made that separation yet.
What is morally fascistic about pro-lifers? That they believe what's inside the woman is a life?

...just as you have misrepresented my objection with criminalizing abortion as an objection to their belief that abortion is wrong.
As I said earlier, you have misrepesented my position on the legality of abortion as an opposition against believing abortion is immoral.

Then please tell me specifically. What do you believe, what did I say that mischaracterized you and what did you really mean.
My intent with this series of posts wasn't even to address what you're saying here.

 

[Brooks]

Says the poster who (dishonestly) used extrapolation to falsely claim that 97% of the pregnant women who went to PP ended up getting an abortion.

First, that "extrapolation" was based on Planned Parenthood numbers.
Second, if you spent more time on that thread having a decent discussion rather than calling me a fascist it might have been a better debate.
Third, if you're still interested we can go back to that thread if you like.

 

[Brooks]

Suddenly, you're against extrapolation! :roll:

Or, you can just find the statistics you claimed were represented by the polls you linked.

 

[sangha]

If you believed someone was taking a life (I used the Hindu widow tradition as an example) what would you NOT do that the pro-lifers are currently doing?
And spare me from "shooting abortion doctors" please.

Again, because we live under a system that includes a concept known as "the rule of law"

It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that it's you who does not understand the issue and the positions the various sides take. Maybe that's why, no matter how many times it is explained to you, you still keep asking the same stupid questions.

There are times in certain discussions where one is asked to understand even if they don't agree. You clearly haven't made that separation yet.
What is morally fascistic about pro-lifers? That they believe what's inside the woman is a life?

Case in point. No matter how many times it is explained to you, you keep asking why it is morally fascistic to want the law to reflect ones' own personal morality.

Then please tell me specifically. What do you believe, what did I say that mischaracterized you and what did you really mean.
My intent with this series of posts wasn't even to address what you're saying here.

[/quote]

And again, you continue to ask questions that I've already answered. I'll do it one more time in the hopes that it might finally be understood

Yo dishonestly misrepresented my remarks as objecting to the Moral Fascists right have and express their opinion when all I object to is the idea that a behavior should be criminalized simply because their perverted moral code finds it objectionable.

 

[sangha]

First, that "extrapolation" was based on Planned Parenthood numbers.
Second, if you spent more time on that thread having a decent discussion rather than calling me a fascist it might have been a better debate.
Third, if you're still interested we can go back to that thread if you like.

First, your #'s were not based on PP's #'s. They were based on your dishonest assumption that no pregnant woman went to PP for a breast exam, STD test, counseling, etc. IOW, when it came to the # of pregnant women who went to PP, you just made the # up because PP doesn't ask every woman if she's pregnant.

My #'s weren't made up. They came right from the polls, which do ask how many people consider themselves to be "pro-life"

Secondly, if you spent less time being dishonest about how many pregnant women who went to PP, you might not be treated like someone who posts dishonest claims

Third, only if you want to admit how you made up those #'s. Otherwise, I don't see the point in reading another repetition of your dishonest claim

 

[sangha]

Or, you can just find the statistics you claimed were represented by the polls you linked.

I already posted the link

 

[Brooks]

It says nothing about financial considerations being a legal justification.

From Justice White's Doe vs. Bolton opinion:
"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons -- convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure."

Now that was a pain to find.
Does it mean anything to you? Was there any point in my finding it.

 

[Brooks]

Doe vs Bolton refers to the familial health ( genetic health ) .

See prior post.

 

[sangha]

From Justice White's Doe vs. Bolton opinion:
"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons -- convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure."

Now that was a pain to find.
Does it mean anything to you? Was there any point in my finding it.

That quote doesn't say that abortions after viability are allowed for financial reasons. It comes from the part of the decision where Justice White describes the issue in front of the court. Once again you have dishonestly misrepresented the facts

 

[sangha]

See prior post.

Your prior post was dishonest

 

[Brooks]

Again, because we live under a system that includes a concept known as "the rule of law"
It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that it's you who does not understand the issue and the positions the various sides take. Maybe that's why, no matter how many times it is explained to you, you still keep asking the same stupid questions.
Case in point. No matter how many times it is explained to you, you keep asking why it is morally fascistic to want the law to reflect ones' own personal morality.
And again, you continue to ask questions that I've already answered. I'll do it one more time in the hopes that it might finally be understood
Yo dishonestly misrepresented my remarks as objecting to the Moral Fascists right have and express their opinion when all I object to is the idea that a behavior should be criminalized simply because their perverted moral code finds it objectionable.

We've done this dance too often, you and me.
Eventually you stop answering and just keep telling me you've already explained it so many times.

I want to simplify this as best as I can because the purpose of my original post was to make things clearer, not find agreement.
I can tell by what you're saying that i haven't done that yet.
These questions are incredibly simple.

1. Is it morally fascistic to believe that what is inside the woman is a life?
2. If you believed you were saving a life, what would you NOT do that the pro-lifers ARE doing?

 

[Brooks]

First, your #'s were not based on PP's #'s. They were based on your dishonest assumption that no pregnant woman went to PP for a breast exam, STD test, counseling, etc. IOW, when it came to the # of pregnant women who went to PP, you just made the # up because PP doesn't ask every woman if she's pregnant.

My #'s weren't made up. They came right from the polls, which do ask how many people consider themselves to be "pro-life"

Secondly, if you spent less time being dishonest about how many pregnant women who went to PP, you might not be treated like someone who posts dishonest claims

Third, only if you want to admit how you made up those #'s. Otherwise, I don't see the point in reading another repetition of your dishonest claim

As I said, join me in that other thread if you like. I'll be waiting.

 

[Brooks]

I already posted the link

They didn't address your claim.