Boycott Virginia - new abortion law, new personhood law..... War on woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

Again the issue here is not inserting the government between the patient and doctor. There is a large population of the US that believes the life begins during the time it is deemed ok to abort. If there is proof that life begins during this time then it is considered a separate life and not controlled by the woman's body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

If you are the same poster who claimed earlier that the government mandates that we have to have air blown in our eyes, I am not sure I believe you. But I invite you to cite a source that says the government now mandates that conversation.

If they do mandate that conversation - are you comparing a conversation with a vaginal wanding? Because if so, I'm guessing you are a guy.

Perhaps my internet sarcasm is broken. I'm on your side. For the record, no such requirement exists because Obama caved to the Palinites (back when she was relevant). And the people who were horrified that such a conversation would be required are the same people who think it's A-OK to compel a woman to submit to a vaginal probe.

Of course I'm not comparing the two. Coerced, medically unnecessary vaginal wanding is several orders of magnitude more intrusive. And the only words that can be used to describe people who are OK with the new Va. requirement but not a mandated end-of-life conversation are "intellectually bankrupt."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

Again the issue here is not inserting the government between the patient and doctor. There is a large population of the US that believes the life begins during the time it is deemed ok to abort. If there is proof that life begins during this time then it is considered a separate life and not controlled by the woman's body.

So what if it is? In my earlier post, I noted that we don't require adults to surrender their bodies for the sake of other living adults, even to save their lives (we don't require blood or organ donations, for example). Why would we do so here?

[Anonymous]

Again the issue here is not inserting the government between the patient and doctor. There is a large population of the US that believes the life begins during the time it is deemed ok to abort. If there is proof that life begins during this time then it is considered a separate life and not controlled by the woman's body.

That issue has been decided. You lost. Can't we move on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

Again the issue here is not inserting the government between the patient and doctor. There is a large population of the US that believes the life begins during the time it is deemed ok to abort. If there is proof that life begins during this time then it is considered a separate life and not controlled by the woman's body.

So what if it is? In my earlier post, I noted that we don't require adults to surrender their bodies for the sake of other living adults, even to save their lives (we don't require blood or organ donations, for example). Why would we do so here?

Interesting argument. So you are stating that if it is alive but because it is not alive on it's own we don't mandate other living adults to save their lives? If the fetus is considered alive then the doctors oath as well as the law would mandate everything would be done to preserve or save the life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.

No actually I haven't. I have heard that some are personally against using birth control but think it should be available (Santorum) and others don't think the government should mandate that all employers provide free contracptives to their employees but no, I haven't heard almost all say that it is bad. Where did you hear that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again the issue here is not inserting the government between the patient and doctor. There is a large population of the US that believes the life begins during the time it is deemed ok to abort. If there is proof that life begins during this time then it is considered a separate life and not controlled by the woman's body.

That issue has been decided. You lost. Can't we move on?

So you are stating that all issues decided in the past shouldn't be revisited? In the last 40 years we have progressed GREATLY in technology and can use it to determine this test. What is everyone so afraid of? is it because you can't see or hear the fetus, is it because the fetus is hidden so there is nothing to see?
By this logic, slavery, gay marriage etc.. shouldn't have or should not changed

Look until there is a scientific study proving that there is no pain and no consciousness I cannot say without doubt that life begins at 25 weeks or whatever the cut off for abortion is. I do not believe anything stated 40 years a go that was not scientifically determined.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.

No actually I haven't. I have heard that some are personally against using birth control but think it should be available (Santorum) and others don't think the government should mandate that all employers provide free contracptives to their employees but no, I haven't heard almost all say that it is bad. Where did you hear that?

I always hear how people supporting conservative ideals are stupid, white trash etc... but by hearing some of the ignorant and made up ideas of the republican candidates I have deemed a new stereotype, "over reactive and full of paranoia". The idea that some how Republicans are going to take away birth control and mandate religion is the same as the ridiculous Obama not born in the USA or 911 was an inside job.

[Anonymous]

My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.

No actually I haven't. I have heard that some are personally against using birth control but think it should be available (Santorum) and others don't think the government should mandate that all employers provide free contracptives to their employees but no, I haven't heard almost all say that it is bad. Where did you hear that?

No, if Santorum is elected he plans to let states decide the legality of birth control themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

[Anonymous]

Google Rick Santorum and birth control. Newt's not far behind with his post conception birth control arguments. They are pushing Mitt further right on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Not a joke. What I was taught in my Reform Jewish temple. A law that says life begins at conception is contrary to my religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.

No actually I haven't. I have heard that some are personally against using birth control but think it should be available (Santorum) and others don't think the government should mandate that all employers provide free contracptives to their employees but no, I haven't heard almost all say that it is bad. Where did you hear that?

I always hear how people supporting conservative ideals are stupid, white trash etc... but by hearing some of the ignorant and made up ideas of the republican candidates I have deemed a new stereotype, "over reactive and full of paranoia". The idea that some how Republicans are going to take away birth control and mandate religion is the same as the ridiculous Obama not born in the USA or 911 was an inside job.

Yes, except Obama hasn't appeared on TV to proudly tell us that he was not born in the USA. Meanwhile, we get treated to long explanations from top GOP candidates telling us that birth control is bad for women, etc, etc... Sorry if we non-GOP types are in the habit of listening to the things that people say, and assuming that those things have some relation to their beliefs.

Of course, when your front-runner is Mitt Romeny, a man who will take any position he feels might help him get elected, then switch his position at the drop of a hat, I suppose you kind of have to turn that part of your brain off for a while.