Walker survives recall election in Wisconsin

[Parkbandit]

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker beat back a recall challenge Tuesday, winning both the right to finish his term and a voter endorsement of his strategy to curb state spending, which included the explosive measure that eliminated union rights for most public workers.


The rising Republican star becomes the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall attempt with his defeat of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and the union leaders who rallied for months against his agenda.

With 37 percent of precincts reporting, Walker was ahead 59 percent to Barrett's 40 percent, according to early returns tabulated by The Associated Press.

A Barrett spokesman said the campaign was not conceding, citing ongoing voting in Milwaukee, Madison and Racine.
"We feel very confident when those come in, Tom Barrett is going to win," Phil Walzak said.
Democrats and organized labor spent millions to oust Walker, but found themselves hopelessly outspent by Republicans from across the country who donated record-setting sums to Walker. Republicans hope the victory carries over into November and that their get-out-the-vote effort can help Mitt Romney become the first GOP nominee to carry the state since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
The recall was a rematch of the 2010 governor's race. Throughout the campaign, Walker maintained his policies set the state on the right economic track. Defeat, he said, would keep other politicians from undertaking such bold moves in the future.

"We're headed in the right direction," Walker said many times. "We're turning things around. We're moving Wisconsin forward."
Barrett repeatedly accused Walker of neglecting the needs of the state in the interests of furthering his own political career by making Wisconsin "the tea party capital of the country." He said Walker had instigated a political civil war in Wisconsin that could be quelled only by a change in leadership.

"I will end this civil war," Barrett promised in a debate. "That is something the people of this state want."
Walker ascended into the national spotlight last year when he surprised the state and unveiled plans to plug a $3.6 billion budget shortfall in part by taking away the union rights of most public workers and requiring them to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits. It was one of his first moves in office.
Democrats and labor leaders saw it as a political tactic designed to gut the power of his political opposition. State Senate Democrats left Wisconsin for three weeks in a sort of filibuster, as tens of thousands of teachers, state workers and others rallied at the Capitol in protest.

But the tea-party supported fiscal conservative remained steadfast: Walker believed his plan would help him control the state budget, and his opponents could not stop Republicans who control the state Legislature from approving his plans.
Walker went on to sign into law several other measures that fueled calls for a recall, including repealing a law giving discrimination victims more ways to sue for damages, making deep cuts to public schools and higher education, and requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Both sides mobilized thousands of people and millions of dollars to influence voters, whom polls showed were more divided than ever. Signs calling for Walker's removal and those supporting the 44-year-old son of a minister dotted the state's landscape all spring at a time normally devoid of political contests.

Turnout was strong across the state with few problems reported as some voters waited in line to cast their ballots.

"Typically we wait until 5 in the afternoon, but we were chomping at the bit to just get it over and done with because I think it has been an unjust campaign waged against the governor," said Jeff Naunheim, a warranty analyst from St. Francis who voted for Walker first thing Tuesday.

Naunheim said the recall was a waste of money.

"I think the Wisconsin voters voted in 2010 to vote Walker in," he said. "I don't think he did anything illegal."

Barrett supporter Lisa Switzer of Sun Prairie said Walker went too far.

"Even if it doesn't turn out the way we want it to, it proves a point," said Switzer, an occupational therapist and single mother on BadgerCare, the state's health insurance program for the working poor. "People in Wisconsin aren't just going to stand by and let a governor take over the state and cut social services."

More than $66 million was spent on the race as of May 21, making it easily the most expensive in Wisconsin history. That money was spent on an all-out barrage of television ads, direct mail, automated calls and other advertising that permeated the state for months.

Walker used the recall to raise millions from conservative donors and bolster his own political fame in the face of the fight. National GOP groups, including Americans for Prosperity and the Republican Governors Association, poured money into the contest.
Unions got behind the recall drive, which started with the collection of more than 900,000 signatures over two months to force the vote. Barrett defeated the union-favored candidate in the Democratic primary in May and then tried to use that to his advantage, while also courting union support. He pledged to call a special legislative session to restore the collective bargaining rights Walker took away.

Also Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and three Republican state senators also faced recall elections, and a fourth open Senate seat was also to be filled. Democrats hoped to win at least one of the Senate seats, which would give them a majority at least through the end of the year.

The recall also focused as much on his record creating jobs as on the divisive union proposal. Walker promised in 2010 to create 250,000 jobs over four years as governor, and just how many jobs were created under Walker was a major point of contention. Walker relied on new data showing the state added about 23,000 jobs in 2011, while a different survey that Barrett favored found the state had lost about 34,000.
Walker expressed no remorse during the campaign, saying he was sticking with his convictions. "I'm not afraid to lose," he said during a May interview with The Associated Press. "I plan to win, I'm running to win, but I'm not afraid to lose to do the right thing."

But that doesn't mean the public will see a changed Walker after the recall.

"I still think people elected me before in November 2010 and they'll elect me again because they want me to fix things," Walker said in the interview. "They want me to keep the focus and attention on fixing things. We're just going to make sure we've got a more comprehensive and inclusive process to get there."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WISCONSIN_RECALL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-05-21-51-27

Looks like he will be the first Governor to ever win a recall election.

[msconstrew]

There is no way they can accurately call it this early. The NYT doesn't show more than a few counties at 100%, and there are a ton of absentee ballots from students who voted before they went home. I still think Walker is going to win (unfortunately, because he is an uneducated buffoon); I just think the prediction is pretty premature.

[Parkbandit]

There is no way they can accurately call it this early. The NYT doesn't show more than a few counties at 100%, and there are a ton of absentee ballots from students who voted before they went home. I still think Walker is going to win (unfortunately, because he is an uneducated buffoon); I just think the prediction is pretty premature.

Wait, you think it's too early to tell who is going to win.. but you think he's going to win anyway?

:rofl:

Looks like they accurately called it that early.

[msconstrew]

Wait, you think it's too early to tell who is going to win.. but you think he's going to win anyway?

:rofl:

Looks like they accurately called it that early.

Yes. It was too early because, as I said, there was no way that the votes were completely counted when they called it. I thought he was going to win because of the fact that he had a ton of outside/national help in terms of money, and had a longer time to campaign against Barrett. They are distinct issues.

Walker's auto insurance reforms have been excellent for my industry, so I don't think he is all terrible. But he is anti-choice and has enacted legislation that makes it more difficult to obtain a nonsurgical abortion in Wisconsin, which makes him absolutely repugnant in my book.

[Parkbandit]

Yes. It was too early because, as I said, there was no way that the votes were completely counted when they called it. I thought he was going to win because of the fact that he had a ton of outside/national help in terms of money, and had a longer time to campaign against Barrett. They are distinct issues.

Is this the first election you have ever watched unfold on TV before? Most elections are called WELL before all the votes are counted. They have access to polling data, demographic makeup for polling stations, etc... At the time of the "official" call, he was up by 15% and all indications were that this lead was far too big for him to make up at other polls. It's pretty rare that they call an election result too early and end up being wrong.. last one I really remember was 2000 Florida.



Walker's auto insurance reforms have been excellent for my industry, so I don't think he is all terrible. But he is anti-choice and has enacted legislation that makes it more difficult to obtain a nonsurgical abortion in Wisconsin, which makes him absolutely repugnant in my book.

Abortion is such a very small issue in the grand scheme of things in my book. Putting the state on a path back into the black and getting people back to work is far more important.. and he has made great strides in the right direction.

[BriarFox]

Abortion is such a very small issue in the grand scheme of things in my book. Putting the state on a path back into the black and getting people back to work is far more important.. and he has made great strides in the right direction.

Money is more important than women's rights. Check.
Money is more important than worker's rights. Check.
Balancing budgets on the backs of the working class is perfectly fine. Check.

Want to add anything else?

[Gelston]

It is a small issue in your book, but your book isn't the same as hers.

[Latrinsorm]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker beat back a recall challenge Tuesday, winning both the right to finish his term and a voter endorsement of his strategy to curb state spending, which included the explosive measure that eliminated union rights for most public workers.lol

[msconstrew]

It is a small issue in your book, but your book isn't the same as hers.

Clearly. It is probably because he's too old to have to worry about the effects of an unwanted/unintended pregnancy, unless he's got daughters or granddaughters. Except, no, he will worry about the effects of an unwanted or unintended pregnancy, but only to the extent that women who have such pregnancies shouldn't be entitled to any kind of State aid because it was their choice to have sex and bring that unwanted bundle of joy into the world.

Or maybe it's just because, as BriarFox points out, money trumps individual autonomy. That's, like, totally cool.

[AnticorRifling]

So wait...is it because he's anti-choice or because he's anti-paying for it? Those are two different things I think.

I don't think pro choice means pro funding does it? It means you're for letting someone have the option right, not you're for letting someone have the free option?


THREAD GRENADE!

[BriarFox]

So wait...is it because he's anti-choice or because he's anti-paying for it? Those are two different things I think.

I don't think pro choice means pro funding does it? It means you're for letting someone have the option right, not you're for letting someone have the free option?


THREAD GRENADE!

That's a good distinction, but it's not the issue. Msconstrew said that Walkar was anti-choice, and PB said that choice wasn't important as long as the state was in the black.

[msconstrew]

So wait...is it because he's anti-choice or because he's anti-paying for it? Those are two different things I think.

I don't think pro choice means pro funding does it? It means you're for letting someone have the option right, not you're for letting someone have the free option?


THREAD GRENADE!

I don't think I said anything about whether the government pays for it. It is because he's anti-choice.

To whatever extent the government pays for healthcare, I do think that birth control and any legal abortion procedure should be provided/offered. First, the drugs and procedures are legal, so there is no criminal basis for the government to refuse to pay for birth control and/or legal abortions. And second, the only reason I can discern for the government to not want to pay for birth control/abortion has to do with religious mores. Since the First Amendment essentially mandates a secular government, it's my feeling (and I do understand that there are well-reasoned arguments against this position, by the way) that any law prohibiting the government from providing or paying for birth control/abortion is an adoption of a religious position and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.

If you're wondering what law I'm referring to, it's the hilariously (not really) named "Coercive and Web Cam Abortion Prevention Act". It requires women seeking non-surgical abortions to visit the same doctor three times before taking the pill. It also makes the doctor responsible for determining that a woman has not been coerced into an abortion. Additionally, it prohibits the use of web cams (used for physician consult) during medication abortions. As a result, both Planned Parenthood and the University of Wisconsin Medical System (the only two abortion providers in the State) now refuse to provide non-surgical abortions because the law itself is ambiguous. Yay.

[AnticorRifling]

I guess I made an assumption when you were slamming PB on his position saying he'd be against the government paying for it.

Personally I'm pro choice but I don't want it to get special funding any more or less than any other health care program. If it gets funding it should be in line with other practices/preventative care. If it doesn't get funding it shouldn't be because it's birth control/abortion.

I would like to hear why we should pay for part or all of the above though. I've spent roughly zero time researching either side of the argument so I really don't know the pro pay position any more than I do the anti pay position.

[Jarvan]

I don't think I said anything about whether the government pays for it. It is because he's anti-choice.

To whatever extent the government pays for healthcare, I do think that birth control and any legal abortion procedure should be provided/offered. First, the drugs and procedures are legal, so there is no criminal basis for the government to refuse to pay for birth control and/or legal abortions. And second, the only reason I can discern for the government to not want to pay for birth control/abortion has to do with religious mores. Since the First Amendment essentially mandates a secular government, it's my feeling (and I do understand that there are well-reasoned arguments against this position, by the way) that any law prohibiting the government from providing or paying for birth control/abortion is an adoption of a religious position and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.

If you're wondering what law I'm referring to, it's the hilariously (not really) named "Coercive and Web Cam Abortion Prevention Act". It requires women seeking non-surgical abortions to visit the same doctor three times before taking the pill. It also makes the doctor responsible for determining that a woman has not been coerced into an abortion. Additionally, it prohibits the use of web cams (used for physician consult) during medication abortions. As a result, both Planned Parenthood and the University of Wisconsin Medical System (the only two abortion providers in the State) now refuse to provide non-surgical abortions because the law itself is ambiguous. Yay.

Or you.. know.. practice safe sex, or keep your legs closed. I am pro Choice, mainly because I am a man, and it's not my body. But if I was a woman, I would be Pro Life. I Personally don't believe in the use of Abortion to correct a "mistake". -Oh damn, I screwed that really hot guy from the bar the other week, now I'm pregnant, i'll just kill it- Rape, Incest, carrying Baby to term will kill you.. those are not mistakes, and I can understand it in those cases. But why should I pay for you to have an abortion because it would be a problem for you to have a kid? Pay for it your damn self.

Frankly, if my tax money is going to be paying for your abortions/birth control, I want my money's worth. I demand Video!

[AnticorRifling]

Please note the above comments by Jarvan do not reflect the opinions of anyone that can read above a third grade level.

[AnticorRifling]

That's a good distinction, but it's not the issue. Msconstrew said that Walkar was anti-choice, and PB said that choice wasn't important as long as the state was in the black.

Not important or not the topic at hand?

I don't think he's saying it's not important but rather it's not priority when there are other looming issues. Maybe? Yes?

[Liagala]

I'd rather see a woman have an abortion because she screwed the hot guy at the bar, than see a child attempt to grow up with a crackhead mother who beats him.

[Delias]

Or you.. know.. practice safe sex, or keep your legs closed. I am pro Choice, mainly because I am a man, and it's not my body. But if I was a woman, I would be Pro Life. I Personally don't believe in the use of Abortion to correct a "mistake". -Oh damn, I screwed that really hot guy from the bar the other week, now I'm pregnant, i'll just kill it- Rape, Incest, carrying Baby to term will kill you.. those are not mistakes, and I can understand it in those cases. But why should I pay for you to have an abortion because it would be a problem for you to have a kid? Pay for it your damn self.

Frankly, if my tax money is going to be paying for your abortions/birth control, I want my money's worth. I demand Video!

You are looking at it wrong. The more children we prevent from being born today, the less people we have on welfare tomorrow.

[Back]

Frankly, if my tax money is going to be paying for your abortions/birth control, I want my money's worth. I demand Video!

I want my money back for what ever public school you went to.

[Kitsun]

I am pro-abortion but I have a hard time buying that it should be used as a method of birth control. If tax payers need to pay for someone's abortion, it should come with a mandatory tube tie.

[Atlanteax]

+1 to "Pro-Choice, but not necessarily pro-funding" here.

[Atlanteax]

Money is more important than women's rights. Check.
Money is more important than worker's rights. Check.
Balancing budgets on the backs of the working class is perfectly fine. Check.

Want to add anything else?

a) see side-bar about how being pro-choice does not imply pro-funding
b) Wisconsin unions can still collectively bargain over wages ... and he actually improved worker's rights with eliminating automatic union dues (which only fuels patronage system)
c) Wisconsin union members salary/benefits is still 22% higher than private sector peers (down from 28%) http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/opinion/bennett-walker-victory/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Is it your position that public service workers should 'by default' be making significantly more than those in the private sector?

[msconstrew]

+1 to "Pro-Choice, but not necessarily pro-funding" here.

So, personal responsibility is your mantra, right?

Smoke? Get cancer? No government funded healthcare for you, buddy.

It's a logically flawed argument to say that abortion should be legal, but taxpayers shouldn't fund it. Unless you're willing to go all the way with that argument and ferret out what is, in fact, someone's "fault" and then state unequivocally that the government can't pay for it, it's just singling out a single procedure for no particular reason. In fact (and, by the way, I am not accusing you of this before you get all "ad hominem attack!" on me), I would go so far as to say that that argument is more about punishing women who make the "mistake" of having sex and getting pregnant than it is about personal responsibility.

[Liagala]

I would go so far as to say that that argument is more about punishing women who make the "mistake" of having sex and getting pregnant than it is about personal responsibility.
I'm pretty sure that letting someone suffer the consequences of their actions is at the core of a belief in personal responsibility.

[BriarFox]

Where is this "funding" issue even coming from? It distracts from the issue of whether abortion should be legal (it should). As it stands, abortion is not publicly funded; even Planned Parenthood doesn't use government funding for abortions. The issue that introduced this discussion was whether it was all right to ignore women's right to have an abortion because a state might do well financially otherwise. No one in their right mind could support that position.

[msconstrew]

I'm pretty sure that letting someone suffer the consequences of their actions is at the core of a belief in personal responsibility.

No question there. I'm just asking for a little bit of internal consistency with the position.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So, personal responsibility is your mantra, right?

Smoke? Get cancer? No government funded healthcare for you, buddy.

It's a logically flawed argument to say that abortion should be legal, but taxpayers shouldn't fund it. Unless you're willing to go all the way with that argument and ferret out what is, in fact, someone's "fault" and then state unequivocally that the government can't pay for it, it's just singling out a single procedure for no particular reason. In fact (and, by the way, I am not accusing you of this before you get all "ad hominem attack!" on me), I would go so far as to say that that argument is more about punishing women who make the "mistake" of having sex and getting pregnant than it is about personal responsibility.

I'm completely against government funded healthcare, so yeah. I'm also against government funded abortions. In fact, I think people should pay for their own healthcare.

That said, I also realize not everyone can do this, and I also realize it would be inhumane to turn away people who in fact need healthcare. I'm personally torn. I would be for some form of assisted healthcare, for anyone who needs it, funded via taxes even - if the government somehow ran efficiently. But it doesn't - and until that is rectified, I'm against it.

Have to run to a meeting, so I'll add more color to this later.

[diethx]

I'm completely against government funded healthcare, so yeah. I'm also against government funded abortions. In fact, I think people should pay for their own healthcare.

That said, I also realize not everyone can do this, and I also realize it would be inhumane to turn away people who in fact need healthcare. I'm personally torn. I would be for some form of assisted healthcare, for anyone who needs it, funded via taxes even - if the government somehow ran efficiently. But it doesn't - and until that is rectified, I'm against it.

Have to run to a meeting, so I'll add more color to this later.

So you realize the need and feel for those who aren't lucky enough, like yourself, to be able to afford it... and yet you don't care because a bunch of bureaucratic assholes can't stop fighting long enough to do something good for the people of this country?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

[Fallen]

I don't understand how anyone who is pro-choice and for keeping the cost of government down would be against free birth control and abortions, especially when an abortion can amount of someone taking a pill while a doctor watches via webcam. I can't think of a better way to keep costs down than to make these two options as widely and readily available as possible.

[AnticorRifling]

Where is this "funding" issue even coming from? It distracts from the issue of whether abortion should be legal (it should). As it stands, abortion is not publicly funded; even Planned Parenthood doesn't use government funding for abortions. The issue that introduced this discussion was whether it was all right to ignore women's right to have an abortion because a state might do well financially otherwise. No one in their right mind could support that position.

The funding issue probably came from me but can you discuss the legalization without the funding. Would you be willing to make it legal with zero funding and then at a later date discuss the possibility of funding? I don't think most people would.

Delaying evaluation and correction of issue A while you fix issue B isn't ignoring issue A BF. You're saying it's being ignored.

[Liagala]

I don't understand how anyone who is pro-choice and for keeping the cost of government down would be against free birth control and abortions, especially when an abortion can amount of someone taking a pill while a doctor watches via webcam. I can't think of a better way to keep costs down than to make these two options as widely and readily available as possible.
This has nothing to do with cost of government or whether or not I think abortion should be legal, but I'm not sure I like the idea of an abortion being that easy. Stroll in on your lunch break, wave hello to the camera, pop a pill, and be gone in 5 minutes? What does it do for responsibility and the need to think/exercise restraint when it's easier to lose a baby than it is to lose the 5 pounds you put on over the holidays? There's got to be some middle of the road here, some way for it to still be possible and available, without it being so easy that it becomes the preferred method of birth control. People don't do well when actions stop having meaningful consequences. We're kinda dumb like that, as a race.

[AnticorRifling]

So, personal responsibility is your mantra, right?

Smoke? Get cancer? No government funded healthcare for you, buddy.

I don't think you'll find anyone that's against that...

[Androidpk]

This has nothing to do with cost of government or whether or not I think abortion should be legal, but I'm not sure I like the idea of an abortion being that easy. Stroll in on your lunch break, wave hello to the camera, pop a pill, and be gone in 5 minutes? What does it do for responsibility and the need to think/exercise restraint when it's easier to lose a baby than it is to lose the 5 pounds you put on over the holidays? There's got to be some middle of the road here, some way for it to still be possible and available, without it being so easy that it becomes the preferred method of birth control. People don't do well when actions stop having meaningful consequences. We're kinda dumb like that, as a race.

So people should have to jump through hoops if they want an abortion? If someone wants to have an abortion it SHOULD be easy for them get it.

[Atlanteax]

I don't understand how anyone who is pro-choice and for keeping the cost of government down would be against free birth control and abortions, especially when an abortion can amount of someone taking a pill while a doctor watches via webcam. I can't think of a better way to keep costs down than to make these two options as widely and readily available as possible.

'Free' as in provided/funded by volunteer / non-profit organizations?

I think part of the hesitation is 'moral hazard' akin to what the Fed Reserv says about bailing out companies (not wanting to bail out Lehman Brothers) in the sense that should abortions be 'free' then there is less of a deterrent in place to discourage people from engaging in risky/riskier lifestyle choices that are prone to result in getting knocked-up.

'Free' birth control would seem to logically be more of a non-issue since it (presumably with 99% effectiveness) prevents unwanted pregnancies ... but there is that 'moral hazard' argument in a similar vein (as above) resulting in STDs being more readily transmitted (since BC does not protect against STDs).

[msconstrew]

This has nothing to do with cost of government or whether or not I think abortion should be legal, but I'm not sure I like the idea of an abortion being that easy. Stroll in on your lunch break, wave hello to the camera, pop a pill, and be gone in 5 minutes? What does it do for responsibility and the need to think/exercise restraint when it's easier to lose a baby than it is to lose the 5 pounds you put on over the holidays? There's got to be some middle of the road here, some way for it to still be possible and available, without it being so easy that it becomes the preferred method of birth control. People don't do well when actions stop having meaningful consequences. We're kinda dumb like that, as a race.

I am not going to deny that people may use abortion as a form of birth control. I've never seen it happen, I have a hard time believing it happens, but I can't say it doesn't.

What I can say is that I've known women who've had both non-surgical (the pill) and surgical (D&C and post-20 weeks due to defects) abortions. The pill is not as easy as "pop a pill, get an abortion." It is bloody, and painful, and unpleasant and lasts for days. I would personally probably opt for a D&C over a non-surgical abortion based on what I've seen. Similarly, though, the consequences of a D&C and especially the consequences of a late-term abortion are also painful and difficult. So while I'm not going to say that abortion is never used for birth control, I will say that I think it's a straw man argument that's often posited by people who want to misdirect the conversation sort of like Reagan's putative "welfare queen".

Might people use abortion as birth control? Yes, they might. Is the possibility that people might use abortion as a form of birth control a solid basis for making it more difficult to obtain an abortion? No. There are always going to be those who abuse the system. You do what you can to ferret them out and prevent it, and assume that the rest are using the system in good faith, and doing what they need to do when they're making an incredibly different life choice.

[Jarvan]

yeah.. they don't use public funds for abortions. They use public funds for everything else.

If your a druggie, and you don't have food cause you spend your paycheck on drugs, and you get money from a friend to buy food. Did they buy you food? Or give you money for drugs? You didn't spend THEIR money on drugs, just all your own.

Giving money to someone and telling them they can't use THAT money on something is a flawed idea. It doesn't work. Period.

[AnticorRifling]

I don't think people are going to have more or less sex if abortions are legal. People are gonna do what people are gonna do. I just want people to have the choice. I don't, however, think I should pay for people's choices in this area any more or less than I do with other areas of medicine. I don't want to see abuse of the system, I don't want to see abuse of persons, I do think the solution is a lot more complex then ZOMG MAKE IT LEGAL AND PAY FOR IT or FUCK YOU NO LEGAL DEATH BABY OPTION. There is a middle ground that needs to be found.

[Liagala]

So people should have to jump through hoops if they want an abortion? If someone wants to have an abortion it SHOULD be easy for them get it.
I'm still sorting this out in my own head, so it's going to come out disjointed, retarded, and possibly contradictory. That said... yeah. They should have to jump through a couple hoops. Abortions should not be easier than birth control and common sense. People should not be able to say, "I don't want to buy condoms because the guy at the register is cute and I'm embarassed. It doesn't matter, I'll just get an abortion if anything happens." The hoops shouldn't be prohibitive, but they should exist. I'd love to say they're not necessary, but people are just not that intelligent/responsible/pick your word, in general. If abortion is the easiest form of birth control it will be the predominant one, and it will teach more irresponsibility, etc. It's like parents who want to sue the school because their kid got a C on a test and it hurts his feelings. That kid is never going to learn to be responsible if his parents make everything nice and smooth all the time without any effort on his part whatsoever.

The problem with this argument is that the government is sure as hell not my Mommy and Daddy, nor do I want them to be. So go ahead, wander on down that slippery slope. I told you, this is still turning over in my head and doesn't entirely make sense yet.

[Jarvan]

LOL, Wake the hell up. What world do you live in? You have a hard time believing people don't use abortion as birth control?

You really are living in a fantasy world if you seriously believe that.

[AnticorRifling]

Jarvan is just afraid they'll make 144th trimester abortions illegal.

[msconstrew]

LOL, Wake the hell up. What world do you live in? You have a hard time believing people don't use abortion as birth control?

You really are living in a fantasy world if you seriously believe that.

I guess I must be living in one, then. I can only speak to my personal experience, and I've never seen it happen, nor have I ever seen any evidence or proof that it happens except out of people's mouths. You'll have to excuse me if I expect more than "he said so" for me to believe it as an incontrovertible fact. Do you have proof of it, aside from your incredulous disbelief that I could possibly be so naive and unreasonable as to require actual evidence? Further, since you seem to have some difficulty with reading comprehension, I'll point out that even though I've never seen it, I accept that it MAY happen and even though it MAY happen, I still think abortions should be easily obtainable.

As for Liagala's point about there needing to be some hoops through which to jump to obtain one, agreed. You get a script for BC (nurse practitioner, one visit, once per year, no follow up needed) or use condoms (pharmacy) to prevent pregnancy. You go to a doctor, have an appointment and an exam, in order to even START the process of getting an abortion. No one is suggesting that you should be able to get one from Nick Riviera Hollywood Upstairs Medical Clinic on an on-demand, as-needed basis.

[Delias]

They can make abortion illegal. They can't make it illegal to "fall" down the stairs.

[Gelston]

Just do you abortions the old fashioned way. At the end of the first trimester go out horseback riding a lot.

[Wrathbringer]

I guess I must be living in one, then. I can only speak to my personal experience, and I've never seen it happen, nor have I ever seen any evidence or proof that it happens except out of people's mouths. You'll have to excuse me if I expect more than "he said so" for me to believe it as an incontrovertible fact. Do you have proof of it, aside from your incredulous disbelief that I could possibly be so naive and unreasonable as to require actual evidence? Further, since you seem to have some difficulty with reading comprehension, I'll point out that even though I've never seen it, I accept that it MAY happen and even though it MAY happen, I still think abortions should be easily obtainable.

As for Liagala's point about there needing to be some hoops through which to jump to obtain one, agreed. You get a script for BC (nurse practitioner, one visit, once per year, no follow up needed) or use condoms (pharmacy) to prevent pregnancy. You go to a doctor, have an appointment and an exam, in order to even START the process of getting an abortion. No one is suggesting that you should be able to get one from Nick Riviera Hollywood Upstairs Medical Clinic on an on-demand, as-needed basis.

According to the most recent statistics, just made available by the New York City Department of Health:

There were 208,541 pregnancies in New York City in 2010. They resulted in 124,791 live births and 83,750 abortions, a 40% abortion rate.
Among non-Hispanic blacks there were far more abortions than births, 38,574 to 26,635, or 60%. So for every 1,000 African-American babies born, 1,448 were aborted.
Among Non-Hispanic black teens, the abortion rate was even greater - 5,956 abortions to 2,265 live births, or 72%. For every 1,000 African-American babies born to teens, 2,630 were aborted.
The abortion rate among teens as a whole was 63% - 12,139 abortions to 7,207 live births. For every 1,000 babies born among New York City teens 1,684 were aborted.
16% of all pregnancies in New York City - 14% of abortions - were with teen mothers.
54% of abortions were with mothers in their 20's;
30% of abortions were with mothers in their 30's or 40's;
14% of abortions were with married mothers.

Now tell me people don't use abortion as birth control.

[msconstrew]

According to the most recent statistics, just made available by the New York City Department of Health:

There were 208,541 pregnancies in New York City in 2010. They resulted in 124,791 live births and 83,750 abortions, a 40% abortion rate.
Among non-Hispanic blacks there were far more abortions than births, 38,574 to 26,635, or 60%. So for every 1,000 African-American babies born, 1,448 were aborted.
Among Non-Hispanic black teens, the abortion rate was even greater - 5,956 abortions to 2,265 live births, or 72%. For every 1,000 African-American babies born to teens, 2,630 were aborted.
The abortion rate among teens as a whole was 63% - 12,139 abortions to 7,207 live births. For every 1,000 babies born among New York City teens 1,684 were aborted.
16% of all pregnancies in New York City - 14% of abortions - were with teen mothers.
54% of abortions were with mothers in their 20's;
30% of abortions were with mothers in their 30's or 40's;
14% of abortions were with married mothers.

Now tell me people don't use abortion as birth control.

Interesting. I don't think the summary proves anything, but you're right that it's highly suggestive. And, anyway, I guess that abortion is always a "form of birth control" in that it prevents a fetus from turning into a human. When I see people saying it's a "form of birth control", I generally interpret that to mean that they forego any other type of birth control because they know that if they get pregnant, they can "just" get an abortion later.

Anyway, thanks for the stats! I still stand by my argument that abortion should be legal and easily obtainable, though.

[Warriorbird]

New York City's rate is far higher (nearly double) the rest of the country's and represents a decline from ten years ago.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Now tell me people don't use abortion as birth control.

Well, this is kind of a one sided argument, because by definition, abortion is birth control.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So you realize the need and feel for those who aren't lucky enough, like yourself, to be able to afford it... and yet you don't care because a bunch of bureaucratic assholes can't stop fighting long enough to do something good for the people of this country?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

Never finished my thoughts from before. Essentially it boils down to this - if our shitty leaders can propose something that is sustainable, pays for itself through taxes or something else, isn't a total entitlement for some and a complete burden for others, yeah, I'd support it. If it boils down to lets give the freeloaders another handout, not a handup, then I'm pretty much against it.

I wasn't always "lucky enough". I spent many years working two jobs so I could have insurance, and only the bare minimum coverage. For awhile I rode a bicycle to/from work and didn't own a car because I couldn't afford the car insurance, much less a car. I lived in a single wide trailer, behind a dog kennel, with 3 roommates in a 8x10 room without a door, but I had insurance and paid my own way through college and graduated with no debt and two degrees.

Today I'm enjoying the fruits of some of the sacrifices I made years ago. I'd have loved to have been able to purchase a better insurance plan back then, and that's why I'm for it - but because I did it, I know others can do it too. I'd be willing to pay a little more in taxes though, to make it easier on people like me when I was younger, but not pay for it wholesale. There needs to be some skin in the game from everyone.

[Wrathbringer]

Well, this is kind of a one sided argument, because by definition, abortion is birth control.

Kudos, Captain Obvious. I think it's perfectly clear what is being discussed, and besides that, two posts ago msconstrew already said what you posted. Pretty sure that "by definition" that's trolling.

[Jarvan]

I guess I must be living in one, then. I can only speak to my personal experience, and I've never seen it happen, nor have I ever seen any evidence or proof that it happens except out of people's mouths. You'll have to excuse me if I expect more than "he said so" for me to believe it as an incontrovertible fact. Do you have proof of it, aside from your incredulous disbelief that I could possibly be so naive and unreasonable as to require actual evidence? Further, since you seem to have some difficulty with reading comprehension, I'll point out that even though I've never seen it, I accept that it MAY happen and even though it MAY happen, I still think abortions should be easily obtainable.

As for Liagala's point about there needing to be some hoops through which to jump to obtain one, agreed. You get a script for BC (nurse practitioner, one visit, once per year, no follow up needed) or use condoms (pharmacy) to prevent pregnancy. You go to a doctor, have an appointment and an exam, in order to even START the process of getting an abortion. No one is suggesting that you should be able to get one from Nick Riviera Hollywood Upstairs Medical Clinic on an on-demand, as-needed basis.

I take it you spend all your time in an abortion clinic then that you keep repeating you have never SEEN it happen, nor SEEN any proof? How often do the DR's let you into the room to watch and question people?

I have Personally never SEEN a terrorist or someone kill someone else. So therefor, it must not happen?

Sounds stupid doesn't it. Yes, yes it does. Now reread what you wrote.

[Parkbandit]

Money is more important than women's rights. Check.
Money is more important than worker's rights. Check.
Balancing budgets on the backs of the working class is perfectly fine. Check.

Want to add anything else?

Re-read what I said and get back to me when you can understand it.

I'll even clue you in, since it's painfully obvious you require someone to help you:

Top 10 issues of 2012 election (I've bolded the ones we were talking about):

1) Balanced Budget
2) Jobs
3) Immigration
4) Foreign Policy
5) Healthcare
6) Role of Government
7) Marriage
8) Supreme Court
9) Energy
10) Education

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/392/10/Education-Top-ten-issues-of-the-2012-election-cycle.html

Notice which one isn't on that top 10 list? Notice which one isn't a top priority right now?

Don't worry though.. as soon as you get enough money back in the government, you can continue with the work Planned Parenthood set out to accomplish.. destroying minority life.

[Parkbandit]

Clearly. It is probably because he's too old to have to worry about the effects of an unwanted/unintended pregnancy, unless he's got daughters or granddaughters. Except, no, he will worry about the effects of an unwanted or unintended pregnancy, but only to the extent that women who have such pregnancies shouldn't be entitled to any kind of State aid because it was their choice to have sex and bring that unwanted bundle of joy into the world.

I have 2 teenage daughters... but since abortion is legal in the US, if that is the choice they come to, then what is to prevent them from getting an abortion? What piece of legislation exactly is it that is preventing women in Wisconsin from getting an abortion? Be specific, because I've looked and can't find any laws in Wisconsin that has prohibited abortions.



Or maybe it's just because, as BriarFox points out, money trumps individual autonomy. That's, like, totally cool.

I wouldn't put too much faith in what BriarFox posts.. most of it is nonsense (especially in the political threads).

[Tgo01]

I think everyone should be on birth control, even men (I don't know, pills that kill sperm?), and we should just grow all of our children in a factory, like in the book "Brave New World." No need for abortions or any of that stuff, we can control our the numbers of our population perfectly.

I may or may not be serious with this argument.

[BriarFox]

Re-read what I said and get back to me when you can understand it.

I'll even clue you in, since it's painfully obvious you require someone to help you:

Top 10 issues of 2012 election (I've bolded the ones we were talking about):

1) Balanced Budget
2) Jobs
3) Immigration
4) Foreign Policy
5) Healthcare
6) Role of Government
7) Marriage
8) Supreme Court
9) Energy
10) Education

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/392/10/Education-Top-ten-issues-of-the-2012-election-cycle.html

Notice which one isn't on that top 10 list? Notice which one isn't a top priority right now?

Don't worry though.. as soon as you get enough money back in the government, you can continue with the work Planned Parenthood set out to accomplish.. destroying minority life.


Mhm. Here's what you said:


Abortion is such a very small issue in the grand scheme of things in my book. Putting the state on a path back into the black and getting people back to work is far more important.. and he has made great strides in the right direction.

Giving you the most extreme benefit of the doubt, the best that can be said is that you're willing to sacrifice women's autonomy over their own bodies as long as the budget is balanced. Feel free to retract that statement.

[AnticorRifling]

BF are you saying you want everyone to be unemployed and the state should be in debt as long as abortions are legal?

[Tgo01]

Giving you the most extreme benefit of the doubt, the best that can be said is that you're willing to sacrifice women's autonomy over their own bodies as long as the budget is balanced. Feel free to retract that statement.

How would your top 10 list look at the moment?

[msconstrew]

What piece of legislation exactly is it that is preventing women in Wisconsin from getting an abortion? Be specific, because I've looked and can't find any laws in Wisconsin that has prohibited abortions.

I was specific later on in the thread. I am not going to copy and paste it into this one because I'm sure you can find it.

The law obviously does not make abortion illegal. It makes non-surgical abortions impossible to obtain in the State because the two abortion providers in the State (Planned Parenthood and the UW system) now refuse to offer that service within the State. So while you may play at semantics (a game of which I am fond, too) and say that the Act does not, in fact, prohibit non-surgical abortions, it certainly has the practical effect of prohibiting them because it is now impossible to get them within the State.

[AnticorRifling]

So because UW and PP (lol PP) make the choice to refuse wouldn't that make them pro choice? HEAD ASPLODE!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I was specific later on in the thread. I am not going to copy and paste it into this one because I'm sure you can find it.

The law obviously does not make abortion illegal. It makes non-surgical abortions impossible to obtain in the State because the two abortion providers in the State (Planned Parenthood and the UW system) now refuse to offer that service within the State. So while you may play at semantics (a game of which I am fond, too) and say that the Act does not, in fact, prohibit non-surgical abortions, it certainly has the practical effect of prohibiting them because it is now impossible to get them within the State.

In WI, you can only get a non-surgical abortion from Planned Parenthood or the UW system? No one else in the entire state can offer it at all?

[Tgo01]

It makes non-surgical abortions impossible to obtain in the State because the two abortion providers in the State (Planned Parenthood and the UW system) now refuse to offer that service within the State.

Why are they refusing to offer that service in the state?

[msconstrew]

In WI, you can only get a non-surgical abortion from Planned Parenthood or the UW system? No one else in the entire state can offer it at all?

There is one other provider, Affiliated Medical Services, but they also stopped offering them. Wisconsin has a lot of private gynecologists/OBs that refuse to perform abortions because we've had a lot of violence towards abortion providers here. Consequently, yes, there are only three providers in the State. The UW system is throughout the State, as is PP, but neither offer the service any longer. The statistics I was able to find indicate that 25% of the abortions in the State are non-surgical abortions, so it could have a significant, profound effect on people within the State.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I just read about it, and from what I read it says "The law requires women visit a doctor at least three times before having a drug-induced abortion, forces physicians to determine whether women are being coerced into having an abortion and prohibits women and doctors from using web cams during the procedure."

Not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem to actually stop them from having a non-surgical abortion. It just makes them have 3 visits (what a fucking pain in the ass that must be), and no web cams...

Seems like a retardo law but I don't see how it stops a person, myself.

[Riltus]

New Law:

In order to access the interstate women must first make two loops around the beltway and prove it.

Officer: "Sorry ma'am, you can't get on the interstate until you can prove that you've completed two loops on the beltway."

Woman: ''Well, that's stupid. How do I prove it?"

Officer: "You need form B.S. 473162A from the officer in the toll collector's booth. It must have a medallion signature guarantee."

Woman: "A medallion signature guarantee? I'm not transferring securities. Are they trying to prevent women from driving on the interstate?"

Officer: Absolutely not, ma'am. You have a perfectly legal right to drive on it anytime you like."

Woman: "Do men have this same requirement?"

Officer: "Only if they're pregnant."

Mark

[msconstrew]

Why are they refusing to offer that service in the state?

According to their official press releases (which is all I have access to), they are refusing to provide the service because the law, as written, is ambiguous and imposes criminal consequences on providers who fail to follow the law. The physician who provided the medication could potentially be charged with a Class 1 felony for failing to obey the law, along with a $10,000 fine, 3 1/2 years in jail, or both.

I assume that what will happen here is that some group or another will move for an injunction on the law to determine if it's constitutional. But no one has done so yet, and the physicians are playing the "better safe than sorry" game (not that I blame them).

[Latrinsorm]

If abortion is the easiest form of birth control it will be the predominant one, and it will teach more irresponsibility, etc.Would it, though? I started googling around trying to find information on condom/pill usage, figuring that would be a good comparison as easiest birth control, but it turns out nothing makes any freaking sense.

Teenagers more (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/health/04sex.html?_r=1) likely to protect themselves than adults (?????)
In the same article, 7% self-identify as non-heterosexual, but 1 in 7 guys over(!!) 40 say they have performed oral sex on another man.

Then there's this quote:
"While most men said they had experienced orgasm the last time they had sex, and 85 percent believed their partner had also, only two-thirds of the women surveyed said they had achieved orgasm the last time they had sex. And a startling number of women — almost one-third — said they had experienced pain the last time they had sex (only 5 percent of men did)."

Or from this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9574299/ns/health-sexual_health/t/many-us-playing-risky-game-sex/#.T8-0xLBYtCg) article: "At least 50 percent of the participants, especially the younger ones, worry about contracting herpes from oral sex. Yet despite anxiety over herpes — which is nonfatal — about 42 percent don't know or aren't even sure of their current partner's HIV status."
And two thirds of respondents reported having unprotected sex after drinking.

So my overall point is... it is absolutely impossible to predict how Americans will respond to a given piece of legislation when they clearly do not behave rationally about sex. 42% don't even bother to check on HIV status, 42%!!! They're not going to be poring over the recent acts of their state legislature.

[msconstrew]

I just read about it, and from what I read it says "The law requires women visit a doctor at least three times before having a drug-induced abortion, forces physicians to determine whether women are being coerced into having an abortion and prohibits women and doctors from using web cams during the procedure."

Not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem to actually stop them from having a non-surgical abortion. It just makes them have 3 visits (what a fucking pain in the ass that must be), and no web cams...

Seems like a retardo law but I don't see how it stops a person, myself.

If medical providers refuse to offer the service, then it "stops a person" because they can't get access to the service. ;)

[Tgo01]

New Law:

In order to access the interstate women must first make two loops around the beltway and prove it.

Officer: "Sorry ma'am, you can't get on the interstate until you can prove that you've completed two loops on the beltway."

Woman: ''Well, that's stupid. How do I prove it?"

Officer: "You need form B.S. 473162A from the officer in the toll collector's booth. It must have a medallion signature guarantee."

Woman: "A medallion signature guarantee? I'm not transferring securities. Are they trying to prevent women from driving on the interstate?"

Officer: Absolutely not, ma'am. You have a perfectly legal right to drive on it anytime you like."

Woman: "Do men have this same requirement?"

Officer: "Only if they're pregnant."

Mark

Good point. If the law required having 3 doctor visits before having a vasectomy I think it should apply to men and women.

[BriarFox]

BF are you saying you want everyone to be unemployed and the state should be in debt as long as abortions are legal?

My point is that there's no reason why these two issues should be seen as connected. It's perfectly possible for abortion to be legal and the state to balance its budget. Trying to make one dependent on the other is a fool's game.

[Tgo01]

According to their official press releases (which is all I have access to), they are refusing to provide the service because the law, as written, is ambiguous and imposes criminal consequences on providers who fail to follow the law. The physician who provided the medication could potentially be charged with a Class 1 felony for failing to obey the law, along with a $10,000 fine, 3 1/2 years in jail, or both.

That sounds like a lame excuse though. I would hope if someone breaks the law they face criminal consequences so that should be a no brainer. They are refusing to offer the service because the law is written ambiguously? I'm not a lawyer or anything but aren't there procedures for situations like this where they get clarification for these types of laws so they don't indeed get charged with a crime?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If medical providers refuse to offer the service, then it "stops a person" because they can't get access to the service. ;)

Valid argument. Wisconsin, it appears I can get to the border of it from anywhere within it within 3 hours. I'd make an appointment and take a car ride I guess.

The law should be overturned, and likely will - unfortunately it'll take time.

[Jarvan]

Jarvan is just afraid they'll make 144th trimester abortions illegal.

Why, is that the trimester your in?

Frankly, I tell my mom all the time she's an idiot for having more then 1 kid -I'm the middle child-

[Jarvan]

I guess I must be living in one, then. I can only speak to my personal experience, and I've never seen it happen, nor have I ever seen any evidence or proof that it happens except out of people's mouths. You'll have to excuse me if I expect more than "he said so" for me to believe it as an incontrovertible fact. Do you have proof of it, aside from your incredulous disbelief that I could possibly be so naive and unreasonable as to require actual evidence? Further, since you seem to have some difficulty with reading comprehension, I'll point out that even though I've never seen it, I accept that it MAY happen and even though it MAY happen, I still think abortions should be easily obtainable.

As for Liagala's point about there needing to be some hoops through which to jump to obtain one, agreed. You get a script for BC (nurse practitioner, one visit, once per year, no follow up needed) or use condoms (pharmacy) to prevent pregnancy. You go to a doctor, have an appointment and an exam, in order to even START the process of getting an abortion. No one is suggesting that you should be able to get one from Nick Riviera Hollywood Upstairs Medical Clinic on an on-demand, as-needed basis.

So, you only believe anything you have seen or personally experience? How do you make it thru the day?

Have you seen Africa yet? How do you know it's really there? Maybe people are lying to you cause "He said" it's there when your teacher talked about it.

People call me immature on here all the time, I don't give two shits what they say really, but you really take the cake if your going to use the "If I didn't see it it doesn't happen" line. As for me having proof, yes, yes I do. Two aunts and a sister who have used it as Birth control numerous times. Three college friends as well. Honestly, I would say , in my opinion, any woman who has had more then one is using it as birth control. How many "Mistakes" do these people make after all?

[msconstrew]

That sounds like a lame excuse though. I would hope if someone breaks the law they face criminal consequences so that should be a no brainer. They are refusing to offer the service because the law is written ambiguously? I'm not a lawyer or anything but aren't there procedures for situations like this where they get clarification for these types of laws so they don't indeed get charged with a crime?

You can call your lawyer and say, "Lawyer, tell me what you think this law means." And your lawyer can say, "I think this law means XYZ." But if your lawyer is wrong, there's no real remedy for you because lawyers can only speculate (maybe on a more educated basis than a layperson, but it's still speculation) about the meaning of a law until a court clarifies it. And courts do not issue "advisory opinions", meaning you can't call a court and ask them to tell you what a law means or how it will be interpreted until a challenge to the law, or an issue involving the law, is before the court.

It does sound like a lame excuse, yeah. I don't even know how they'd prosecute it, to be honest. But that's not the issue.

[msconstrew]

So, you only believe anything you have seen or personally experience? How do you make it thru the day?

Have you seen Africa yet? How do you know it's really there? Maybe people are lying to you cause "He said" it's there when your teacher talked about it.

People call me immature on here all the time, I don't give two shits what they say really, but you really take the cake if your going to use the "If I didn't see it it doesn't happen" line. As for me having proof, yes, yes I do. Two aunts and a sister who have used it as Birth control numerous times. Three college friends as well. Honestly, I would say , in my opinion, any woman who has had more then one is using it as birth control. How many "Mistakes" do these people make after all?

Dude, can you read? I don't think you're immature, I just think you're dumb. I specifically said that I ACCEPT THAT IT HAPPENS ON THE BASIS OF FAITH EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IT.

Does putting it in all caps help you, maybe? Let me break it down.

Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (double negatives too difficult for you?) But even if it DOES happen, I still think abortion should be easily obtainable because minor abuse of the system should not invalidate the system for all users. (too many syllables? compound sentence? use of personal pronouns too much?)

[Parkbandit]

Mhm. Here's what you said:

Giving you the most extreme benefit of the doubt, the best that can be said is that you're willing to sacrifice women's autonomy over their own bodies as long as the budget is balanced. Feel free to retract that statement.

Using your logic, you never stated that you don't want child molesters prosecuted in Wisconsin.. that your only issue was to make abortion easier to get. Obviously you must be a pro-child molester. Don't bother retracting that statement, we know the truth.


Pretty stupid game you are playing... but hey, we're used to it.

I'll dumb down my position to you.. since you and Misconsrue are the only ones that seems to be misunderstanding it:

Governments that are clearly in the deep red should prioritize their time to address the needs of getting their fiscal house in order. Clearly, I'm not asking them to stop everything else while they work on this and obviously I am not looking for every other issue in the entire universe to be put on hold while they do, but a government that is in the black should be their top priority.

By the way, Simpleton, I'm actually pro-choice... and anti-child molester.

[Parkbandit]

Valid argument. Wisconsin, it appears I can get to the border of it from anywhere within it within 3 hours. I'd make an appointment and take a car ride I guess.

The law should be overturned, and likely will - unfortunately it'll take time.

What about people with no cars???????????????????????

What about people with no legs who can't get into cars????????????????????????????????????????????

Why do you hate that .00000001% of people so much?

[AnticorRifling]

They shouldn't be getting laid....just giving bj's to sean.

[BriarFox]

Ignoring the 80% of your post that's ad hominem attacks and fanciful thinking, your position is clearer now, and I agree with it in general. If for some reason there had to be a choice made between a state government going bankrupt and passing pro-choice legislation, I'd go with the former, too. As I said, however, that's generally a false choice.

[msconstrew]

. . . that's generally a false choice.

But what if there was a gun to your head? WHAT THEN? It's not a false choice because it could happen, and then you'd HAVE to choose.

[BriarFox]

The thing that bothers me about false choices like this one is that they willingly subordinate important human-rights issues to the needs of the moment. There's a long train of oppression and corpses in history from that choice.

[crb]

I thought this thread would be about the death of forced unionism in the workplace... instead I find it to be about abortion. I am surprised.

I'm both pro life and pro choice. I believe a woman has the right to choose to have sex, and to choose to use birth control, and then to choose to use the morning after pill, and then to choose to get a prompt abortion. If she fails to do all of these things, well, I think she has made her choice.

Murder is wrong right? Killing of a human life... so when does life begin? Is a premie born at 25 weeks alive? Would it be illegal to walk into a hospital and kill it? What about the 25 week old still inside the uterus? The babies might be the exact same developmentally, but do we define life based on what side of the uterus you're on? Is life defined based on to what extent you're an inconvenience to your mother? Seems stupid to me.

So do we then define life as beginning when the baby can survive outside of the womb? So 100 years ago life began at like 36 weeks, but now we evolved and life begins at 23 or 24 weeks, or 22 sometimes, and as our science progresses the definition of life changes? Seems stupid to me.

We have to define life based on some biological fact, not a mother's inconvenience, not the limits of our medical technology. When is it? When the heart beats? When the brain shows activity? When the baby responds to stimulus? I don't know when it happens, but I know it is way before 25 weeks.

Many people who are against the death penalty feel that way because, what if we're wrong and execute an innocent man? They want to err on the side of caution and not do it. Well, why not provide the same protection to an innocent baby? Lets err on the side of caution, and make sure there is no consciousness there if we're going to abort things, and then pad it a week, maybe, just to be sure?

I'm an atheist, but I really can't support abortions past 10 weeks or so. I personally think anyone who does, who isn't just a sociopath, is lying to themselves. If you believe murder is wrong, and you're not so ignorant to thing human life begins based on which side of the uterine wall the organism is on or medical technology, then you're just lying to yourself.

[BriarFox]

No one's been debating the ethics of abortion, CRB. The thread has been about public policy relating to abortion, with particular regard to finance and availability. It has a couple of embedded points about false dichotomies in politics and murky legal language.

Thanks for sharing, though.

[crb]

Oh, I didn't read the whole thing, no time.

I would agree that if it is legal, which it shouldn't be, government has no business making a religious decision to not pay for it... because we have separation of church and state. Likewise, government has no business forcing a priest to buy a coed birth control, for the exact same reason. And gay marriage should be legal, for the exact same reason.

[Tgo01]

Oh, I didn't read the whole thing, no time.

I would agree that if it is legal, which it shouldn't be, government has no business making a religious decision to not pay for it... because we have separation of church and state. Likewise, government has no business forcing a priest to buy a coed birth control, for the exact same reason. And gay marriage should be legal, for the exact same reason.

I think gay marriage should be legal as well but are you saying you think gay marriage is illegal because religions say it's a sin?

EDIT: Meh, on second thought I guess you're right, a lot of people do seem to use that reasoning as their logic for wanting gay marriage to be outlawed.

[Latrinsorm]

I'll dumb down my position to you.. since you and Misconsrue are the only ones that seems to be misunderstanding it:Remember when SSTDave used to intentionally misspell peoples' handles? Good times.

[Delias]

"Murder is negotiable" - George Carlin

[Alfster]

I'm just glad this shit is over. It's been a mess here for well over a year...

My personal feelings. Both Barret and Walker are retarded. We're fucked either way. :(

[Parkbandit]

Remember when SSTDave used to intentionally misspell peoples' handles? Good times.

No I don't Latrinesorm... why don't you give us a statistical anal-ass-is like you normally do when you don't know what you are talking about?

[Parkbandit]

Ignoring the 80% of your post that's ad hominem attacks and fanciful thinking, your position is clearer now, and I agree with it in general. If for some reason there had to be a choice made between a state government going bankrupt and passing pro-choice legislation, I'd go with the former, too. As I said, however, that's generally a false choice.

There were only two people that didn't understand my position. No one with any sort of intelligence would think that what I really meant was money is more important to woman's rights.

[Warriorbird]

No I don't Latrinesorm... why don't you give us a statistical anal-ass-is like you normally do when you don't know what you are talking about?


http://currentlyhot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/great-white-shark-jumping.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Should I bother reading this thread, or just write it off before I even start?

[Delias]

Should I bother reading this thread, or just write it off before I even start?

The second course of action is the one I advise... but then, maybe you feel like beating your head against a wall. Who am I to judge?

[BriarFox]

The latter. It's mostly posturing and irrelevance.

[msconstrew]

The latter. It's mostly posturing and irrelevance.

This is true.

[4a6c1]

The religious movement to deny women reproductive rights is a big deal in the Republican party right now. It's being called something else in financial circles and LOL at that. "It's not a war against women it's just a coincidence that this is happening in all these states right now!!!" Number one contributor for most of these state campaigns against reproductive rights: Rome.

In Texas: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/texas-planned-parenthood-defunding_n_1465161.html

[AnticorRifling]

The latter. It's mostly posturing and irrelevance.

BF forgot to say "on both sides" but that is because he is clearly a racist.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

When did Planned Parenthood become the bastion of Women's Rights? Did I miss a bulletin or something?

[AnticorRifling]

One of my clients has a distribution center that's near a planned parenthood. Everytime I go visit that DC I drive by the planned parenthood and there are people protesting, it's fun to stop and talk to those people.

[Parkbandit]

When did Planned Parenthood become the bastion of Women's Rights? Did I miss a bulletin or something?

When did abortion = the entirety of woman's rights?

While I am personally pro-choice, I can understand how the religious right wants to protect innocent life. I might not agree with their definition of "life" and the timeline they provide.. but I can understand their stance.

PS - The way the left paints the Republican Party as a racist organization.. I have to wonder why they aren't on board with the founding principles of Planned Parenthood.

[Parkbandit]

One of my clients has a distribution center that's near a planned parenthood. Everytime I go visit that DC I drive by the planned parenthood and there are people protesting, it's fun to stop and talk to those people.

Yea.. I've been passing a sketchy looking abortion clinic on my way to work for the past month and I routinely see really old people barely able to hold up signs as they protest the place.

[Parkbandit]

The latter. It's mostly posturing and irrelevance.

You believe women's rights are irrelevant now. Check.

Holy shit, the BF game IS fun!

[AnticorRifling]

Yea.. I've been passing a sketchy looking abortion clinic on my way to work for the past month and I routinely see really old people barely able to hold up signs as they protest the place.

Highschool classmates of yours?

[Parkbandit]

Highschool classmates of yours?

No jackass.. not even close

Probably my Dad's though... :(

[Kitsun]

Highschool classmates of yours?


No jackass.. not even close

Probably my Dad's though... :(


Yeah, dude. Like they were totally in the freshman year when he was graduating. So that doesn't count.

[Parkbandit]

I may or may not be slightly sensitive to my old age.. given that my eldest daughter graduated high school yesterday.

:(

Then one of my insulation installers comes in today, complaining how old he feels because he hit 27 yesterday. I told him to fuck off.

[AnticorRifling]

Dude between you and Bob we get a senior discount on our equipment repairs for our guild.

[Tisket]

I thought this thread would be about the death of forced unionism in the workplace... instead I find it to be about abortion. I am surprised.

I'm both pro life and pro choice. I believe a woman has the right to choose to have sex, and to choose to use birth control, and then to choose to use the morning after pill, and then to choose to get a prompt abortion. If she fails to do all of these things, well, I think she has made her choice.

Murder is wrong right? Killing of a human life... so when does life begin? Is a premie born at 25 weeks alive? Would it be illegal to walk into a hospital and kill it? What about the 25 week old still inside the uterus? The babies might be the exact same developmentally, but do we define life based on what side of the uterus you're on? Is life defined based on to what extent you're an inconvenience to your mother? Seems stupid to me.

So do we then define life as beginning when the baby can survive outside of the womb? So 100 years ago life began at like 36 weeks, but now we evolved and life begins at 23 or 24 weeks, or 22 sometimes, and as our science progresses the definition of life changes? Seems stupid to me.

We have to define life based on some biological fact, not a mother's inconvenience, not the limits of our medical technology. When is it? When the heart beats? When the brain shows activity? When the baby responds to stimulus? I don't know when it happens, but I know it is way before 25 weeks.

Many people who are against the death penalty feel that way because, what if we're wrong and execute an innocent man? They want to err on the side of caution and not do it. Well, why not provide the same protection to an innocent baby? Lets err on the side of caution, and make sure there is no consciousness there if we're going to abort things, and then pad it a week, maybe, just to be sure?

I'm an atheist, but I really can't support abortions past 10 weeks or so. I personally think anyone who does, who isn't just a sociopath, is lying to themselves. If you believe murder is wrong, and you're not so ignorant to thing human life begins based on which side of the uterine wall the organism is on or medical technology, then you're just lying to yourself.

Very well said. Although I have to wonder why anyone would be surprised when PC thread content doesn't match thread title.

[Tisket]

Remember when SSTDave used to intentionally misspell peoples' handles? Good times.

Except it wasn't intentional. SST is an unvarnished moron with no imagination. Don't bother attributing any to him now.

[diethx]

Very well said.

Yeah. I would be surprised if anyone on this forum felt that abortions beyond the first trimester were okay.

[Buckwheet]

Yeah. I would be surprised if anyone on this forum felt that abortions beyond the first trimester were okay.

Depending on the reason given, I would have no problem pulling the plug on a pregnancy during the second trimester. Convenience is not one of those reasons. Having just gone through this type of soul searching less then 4 months ago I am comfortable with my position.

Edit: I do not support terminating the pregnancy if the doctors feel the baby would survive by being born at the tail end of the second trimester.

[diethx]

I mean just a normal, I-don't-want-to-be-pregnant abortion. Not one that's done for medical reasons/safety of the mother.

[AnticorRifling]

We all agree that it's wrong only if the baby is a male though right? I mean I know that's a given but I just wanted to make sure.

[diethx]

We all agree that it's awesome only if the baby is a male though right? I mean I know that's a given but I just wanted to make sure.

FTFY

[Tisket]

Depends on whether you are Chinese or not.

[Kitsun]

Trying to wrap my mind around the gendercide in China makes my head hurt. There is a mount of little female baby fetsuses that should haunt their nightmares for that.

[diethx]

There is a mount of little female baby fetsuses that should haunt their nightmares for that.

How much would people in wow love that. A mount made entirely of little female baby fetuses.

[Buckwheet]

I mean just a normal, I-don't-want-to-be-pregnant abortion. Not one that's done for medical reasons/safety of the mother.

Pretty much this. I have a friend who was so anti-abortion she once said it was the mother's duty to die for her child during the pregnancy/birth process.

It was "amusing" when she was dying during her eclampsia with just massive seizures, when her father and mother were holding her hand and her dad asked her "Are you ready to die today?" She had the abortion later that day. I think it takes going through something and making your own choice before you can really understand what its like.

Edit: And by amusing I mean, she prepped everyone that she was going to die for her baby because it was "Gods will" and all that jazz. So basically we were just waiting for the word she and the baby died and then she sends an email saying she had the abortion.

[AnticorRifling]

Pretty much this. I have a friend who was so anti-abortion she once said it was the mother's duty to die for her child during the pregnancy/birth process.

It was "amusing" when she was dying during her eclampsia with just massive seizures, when her father and mother were holding her hand and her dad asked her "Are you ready to die today?" She had the abortion later that day. I think it takes going through something and making your own choice before you can really understand what its like.

Edit: And by amusing I mean, she prepped everyone that she was going to die for her baby because it was "Gods will" and all that jazz. So basically we were just waiting for the word she and the baby died and then she sends an email saying she had the abortion.

How far along was she? When the wife went in for the same she was at 31 weeks. I was told that if the boys weren't delivered in 24 hours or less I'd probably end up losing her and the boys. It was kind of a no brainer I was like "CUT HER MICK!" which was akward since the doc's name wasn't Mick.

[AnticorRifling]

How much would people in wow love that. A mount made entirely of little female baby fetuses.

Would there be a tabard to coordinate?

[AnticorRifling]

I mean just a normal, I-don't-want-to-be-pregnant abortion. Not one that's done for medical reasons/safety of the mother.

So to clarify you're saying first trimester is a go for anyone for whatever reason, second trimester would be on a case by case basis depending upon multiple factors to include safety of mother; what about quality of life of the baby (I'm thinking about my neighbor as an example their child lived about 2 days after birth because of severe issues...no kidneys and other stuff)? Third trimester?

[BriarFox]

You believe women's rights are irrelevant now. Check.

Holy shit, the BF game IS fun!

My logical inference based on your post /= your deliberate misunderstanding of mine.

[Buckwheet]

How far along was she? When the wife went in for the same she was at 31 weeks. I was told that if the boys weren't delivered in 24 hours or less I'd probably end up losing her and the boys. It was kind of a no brainer I was like "CUT HER MICK!" which was akward since the doc's name wasn't Mick.

I believe she was 18 weeks. Might have been +/- 1 week.

[msconstrew]

Yeah. I would be surprised if anyone on this forum felt that abortions beyond the first trimester were okay.

Wrong.

[diethx]

So to clarify you're saying first trimester is a go for anyone for whatever reason, second trimester would be on a case by case basis depending upon multiple factors to include safety of mother; what about quality of life of the baby (I'm thinking about my neighbor as an example their child lived about 2 days after birth because of severe issues...no kidneys and other stuff)? Third trimester?

Yes, I agree. Second and third trimester on a case by case basis depending upon multiple factors to include safety of mother, health/viability of fetus. If a baby is going to be born with anencephaly, Tay-sachs, or something equally unsurvivable, and they don't realize it until the second or third trimester, yes I'm okay with aborting it.

[Buckwheet]

Yes, I agree. Second and third trimester on a case by case basis depending upon multiple factors to include safety of mother, health/viability of fetus. If a baby is going to be born with anencephaly, Tay-sachs, or something equally unsurvivable, and they don't realize it until the second or third trimester, yes I'm okay with aborting it.

Same here.

[Parkbandit]

My logical inference based on your post /= your deliberate misunderstanding of mine.

Lulz.

Your logic is extremely flawed... but you knew that already, right?