House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill That Redefines Rape, Raises Taxes, Creates Rape Audit

[B_VinylBoy]

This thread has become proof positive that you can lead a horse to water, but if it drinks its own piss instead there's nothing you can do but watch and shake your head in disbelief.

You obviously have no experience whatsoever in legal terminology or wording.

There's no probable way you can come to this conclusion based on some trivial nonsense on a message board about big dicks. So spare yourself from making more shrouded attacks on my intellect and start thinking like an adult.

Lawyers, judges, politicians have to choose their words very carefully to convey a certain and specific meaning. So when there is disagreement they took at the carefully worded document and do as it is written.

And if you ask most lawyers, judges or politicians they would understand that a person having a right to an abortion and a right to choose to have one is essentially the same thing because WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH. And you have the gall to call people thickly skulled? How hard is it for you to comprehend that simple line of logic?

Beyond this, anyone can see through this legislation and see just how politically motivated it really is. Boehner claimed that his main focus while speaker would be to focus on the Economy and job creation. Meanwhile, the GOP has provided more legislation that challenges or tries to impede on a person's civil liberties instead and present them under the phony guise of "fiscal responsibility". The money that would be saved from passing this measure is insignificant to the amount of money necessary to properly address our wailing economy. Therefore, it is safe to say that this latest anti-Abortion bill is more pandering and GOP grandstanding to their far right, religious base in hopes that they run to the polls in 2012 to vote for them. On top of this, the bill affects women with low incomes who live in poor to bordering impoverished areas, especially in cities where people tend to vote Democrat. This is more proof that the passing of this bill has nothing to do with the Economy and all about winning elections. All this, and we haven't even began to discuss what will happen in the Senate. But since the GOP does not have a solid, filibuster proof majority, this legislation is already dead before it even breathes. That would bring the official trifecta of propagandizing BS to light.

And you want to sit here and demand that we acknowledge your fruitless and pathetic point about the wording of a law that would be interpreted as being the same thing if viewed through the minds of common sense and logic? You're not that deep or cryptic, so you can stop with this phony-ass "deep analysis" because it ain't fooling anybody.

 

[B_Jingoist]

This thread has become proof positive that you can lead a horse to water, but if it drinks its own piss instead there's nothing you can do but watch and shake your head in disbelief.



There's no probable way you can come to this conclusion based on some trivial nonsense on a message board about big dicks. So spare yourself from making more shrouded attacks on my intellect and start thinking like an adult.



And if you ask most lawyers, judges or politicians they would understand that a person having a right to an abortion and a right to choose to have one is essentially the same thing because WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH. And you have the gall to call people thickly skulled? How hard is it for you to comprehend that simple line of logic?

Beyond this, anyone can see through this legislation and see just how politically motivated it really is. Boehner claimed that his main focus while speaker would be to focus on the Economy and job creation. Meanwhile, the GOP has provided more legislation that challenges or tries to impede on a person's civil liberties instead and present them under the phony guise of "fiscal responsibility". The money that would be saved from passing this measure is insignificant to the amount of money necessary to properly address our wailing economy. Therefore, it is safe to say that this latest anti-Abortion bill is more pandering and GOP grandstanding to their far right, religious base in hopes that they run to the polls in 2012 to vote for them. On top of this, the bill affects women with low incomes who live in poor to bordering impoverished areas, especially in cities where people tend to vote Democrat. This is more proof that the passing of this bill has nothing to do with the Economy and all about winning elections. All this, and we haven't even began to discuss what will happen in the Senate. But since the GOP does not have a solid, filibuster proof majority, this legislation is already dead before it even breathes. That would bring the official trifecta of propagandizing BS to light.

And you want to sit here and demand that we acknowledge your fruitless and pathetic point about the wording of a law that would be interpreted as being the same thing if viewed through the minds of common sense and logic? You're not that deep or cryptic, so you can stop with this phony-ass "deep analysis" because it ain't fooling anybody.

No, they wouldn't come up with that? Do you want me to know how I know that? I don't make this shit up nor am I unqualified to comment on it for that reason.

This is very simple. If a woman had the right to an abortion she could force a doctor to perform it. She cannot do this, therefor she has no right to have an abortion, only to make a choice to have an abortion.

A doctor has the right to refuse to perform an abortion. They also have the right to perform an abortion as long as the doctor meets the necessary rules and regulations defined by the state to perform such a procedure.

With that being said, no one has the right to perform an abortion unless they are qualified, as outlined by the state, to perform one. Those rules are constitutional, but for a whole different reason.

Sure, this has political aspects. But it is completely constitutional and legal and there is a reason it will pass. Because women do not have the right to abortion. They do not have the right to medical care furnished by the Federal government. They do not have the right to use Federal funds to pay for an abortion and the Federal government is well within it's rights to pull that funding.

Medical care to the poor and sick is a not a right. The Federal governments see no reason to regulate funds to pay for abortions. They have no interest in it. They already provide free services to prevent women from getting pregnant, which is something they don't have to do. They will continue to pay for abortions in situations of rape, incest, or if the mothers life is threatened.

You clearly don't understand legal terminology, you clearly do not understand what a right is, you clearly do not understand the roll of the Federal government.


And you are uneducated and ignorant of these facts, you are basing your information on absolutely nothing other than misinformation you have heard from disreputable sources and you continue to remain an idiot in light of clearly evidence that you are wrong and talking out of your ass.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No, they wouldn't come up with that? Do you want me to know how I know that? I don't make this shit up nor am I unqualified to comment on it for that reason.

All you've done is talk and provide nothing besides your "intellect" as your defense. Given the current circumstances, forgive me if I don't just blindly believe you.

This is very simple. If a woman had the right to an abortion she could force a doctor to perform it. She cannot do this, therefor she has no right to have an abortion, only to make a choice to have an abortion.

Again, this is how stupid your reasoning is. Given that there are nearly 700 abortion clinics operating right now in America, a woman would never have to force any doctor to give them an abortion. This notion that there are pregnant women running into any hospital they can find, throwing themselves on a table with their legs wide open and shouting, "take this out of me!" is pathetic. This doesn't happen in a civilized, modern day society. Common sense should tell you this.

A doctor has the right to refuse to perform an abortion.

Considering that most doctors & physicians follow the modern interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, VERY FEW doctors will refuse to grant a woman an abortion if they asked for one. At the very least, the doctor would give the woman recommendations for other ones that would do it. Again, common sense applies here.

They also have the right to perform an abortion as long as the doctor meets the necessary rules and regulations defined by the state to perform such a procedure.

I already provided several links that state this, so you're just repeating what I already brought to the discussion.

With that being said, no one has the right to perform an abortion unless they are qualified, as outlined by the state, to perform one. Those rules are constitutional, but for a whole different reason.

Gee, did you come to this conclusion all by yourself?

Sure, this has political aspects. But it is completely constitutional and legal and there is a reason it will pass. Because women do not have the right to abortion.

They do regardless of how much you want to twist the language to fit your lousy argument. If you have any links that state otherwise, then please provide them because very few people here are going to just take your word for it.

They do not have the right to medical care furnished by the Federal government. They do not have the right to use Federal funds to pay for an abortion and the Federal government is well within it's rights to pull that funding.

More proof that you're not paying attention.
Most government funding for abortions are done on a state level. Despite the passing of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. Four of these states provide funding voluntarily. In thirteen others, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion. Another thirty-two states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law. One state fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions. - Public Funding for Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union

The political ploy about cutting federal funding is nothing more than a shrouded attack on Planned Parenthood. They are an organization that receives federal funding to provide health care services to women who need it. It has already been reported several times that none of the money they receive federally goes towards abortions. Alas, that doesn't stop you from not looking through the distortions and talking about stuff you clearly aren't informed on. You may want to try educating yourself on ALL the facts before you even try to come at me again with your nonsense. Just a suggestion, because after a while it does get boring debunking the intellectually defunct.

Medical care to the poor and sick is a not a right.

In most modern, civilized societies that actually care more about its people than profit it is. You're already losing the argument about abortion rights, so I suggest you don't try to walk down this path because you're not going to gather much support for such a hateful ideology.

And you are uneducated and ignorant of these facts, you are basing your information on absolutely nothing other than misinformation you have heard from disreputable sources and you continue to remain an idiot in light of clearly evidence that you are wrong and talking out of your ass.

And this is coming from someone who can't even provide a link or anything substantial to back his own craptastic, speculative scribe and continuous bouts of faulty intellect? LOL!!!!! Trust me, Aristotle... there's a reason why most people disagree with you on this thread and it has nothing to do with me. Although I'm sure you'll never be able to figure that out. But keep lowering yourself to such pathetic levels to try and get your point across. It'll only make your argument weaker, and your persona on this board even more insignificant.

 

[SilverTrain]

Continual repetition of your straw man argument begins to smell an awful lot like trolling.

Your arguments, based on logical fallacy and disingenuous assertions, lack any merit. Nevertheless, indications are that you'll cling to them even as the ship continues to sink. The ad hominem is further indication that there's nothing constructive to be had here.

As such, I'm done with this thread.

 

[B_Jingoist]

All you've done is talk and provide nothing besides your "intellect" as your defense. Given the current circumstances, forgive me if I don't just blindly believe you.



Again, this is how stupid your reasoning is. Given that there are nearly 700 abortion clinics operating right now in America, a woman would never have to force any doctor to give them an abortion. This notion that there are pregnant women running into any hospital they can find, throwing themselves on a table with their legs wide open and shouting, "take this out of me!" is pathetic. This doesn't happen in a civilized, modern day society. Common sense should tell you this.

Laws deal in absolutes. Those abortions clinics can close, doctors can stop performing abortions. It doesn't matter if you think it will never happen, the fact of the matter is that it CAN happen and the laws have to account for that potentiality. If the Supreme Court decided woman had the RIGHT to an abortion they would have to make provisions so that someone, somewhere is capable of performing an abortion.

sidering that most doctors & physicians follow the modern interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, VERY FEW doctors will refuse to grant a woman an abortion if they asked for one. At the very least, the doctor would give the woman recommendations for other ones that would do it. Again, common sense applies here.

But they can, if they want it. That is their right.

They do regardless of how much you want to twist the language to fit your lousy argument. If you have any links that state otherwise, then please provide them because very few people here are going to just take your word for it.

It isn't twisting the language, is is stating exactly what the Supreme Court has said. Want me quote it?

Straight from Roe V. Wade

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

Want more?

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.

Now if you can find anywhere, in any Supreme Court decision that states specifically that "A woman has the right to abortion" Then you have an argument, but that doesn't exist because a woman does not have the right to an abortion.

More proof that you're not paying attention.
Most government funding for abortions are done on a state level. Despite the passing of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. Four of these states provide funding voluntarily. In thirteen others, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion. Another thirty-two states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law. One state fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions. - Public Funding for Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union

What are you trying to prove here? Medical coverage, for whatever purpose is not a right. They can and do provide services voluntarily because they see an interest in it, however the government, Federal or State, is not obligated by the constitution to provide any medical care or coverage in any way shape or form. The ACLU link is complete bullshit saying the government shouldn't decide a womans choice, well the government doesn't have to pay for it.

The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases, from medical to school scholarships, the state can set any terms it wants on funding because it doesn't have to give it to you to begin with. You are not entitled to medical care.

The political ploy about cutting federal funding is nothing more than a shrouded attack on Planned Parenthood. They are an organization that receives federal funding to provide health care services to women who need it. It has already been reported several times that none of the money they receive federally goes towards abortions. Alas, that doesn't stop you from not looking through the distortions and talking about stuff you clearly aren't informed on. You may want to try educating yourself on ALL the facts before you even try to come at me again with your nonsense. Just a suggestion, because after a while it does get boring debunking the intellectually defunct.

And who cares? The government is under no obligation to provide ANY funding whatsoever to planned parenthood to begin with.

In most modern, civilized societies that actually care more about its people than profit it is. You're already losing the argument about abortion rights, so I suggest you don't try to walk down this path because you're not going to gather much support for such a hateful ideology.

Well every other country is not our country. We are founded on working on your own, being independent a small government that interferes as little as it has to. You want to be a socialist? Move, you have that right.

And this is coming from someone who can't even provide a link or anything substantial to back his own craptastic, speculative scribe and continuous bouts of faulty intellect? LOL!!!!! Trust me, Aristotle... there's a reason why most people disagree with you on this thread and it has nothing to do with me. Although I'm sure you'll never be able to figure that out. But keep lowering yourself to such pathetic levels to try and get your point across. It'll only make your argument weaker, and your persona on this board even more insignificant.

People who have no clue what they are talking about disagree with me.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I honestly had a long & detailed post to make here. But considering that this debate has been reduced to nothing more than a pseudo-Libertarian/Teahadist ranting about "oppressive government"and how it should not do anything to help out the less fortunate in order to adhere to some misguided fool's ideology of America, I realize that it's just not worth it. It'll all be ignored or completely twisted out of context, and after several pages of this nonsense I would rather let stupid people be stupid.

However, I will address this one point -

People who have no clue what they are talking about disagree with me.

Spare me your pathetic arrogance, kid. Don't pout because you came into an adult level discussion with infantile talking points and couldn't get your voice heard. If people who disagree with you have no clue, that would include Industrialisze, SilverTrain, and the OP. Considering their track record and the overall respect they've earned from other board members for contributing sensible and thought provoking posts (unlike yourself), it's safe to say that the person without a damn clue is you. If you think our government doing something to help the less fortunate is the wrong thing to do, then I honestly don't give a rat's ass about anything else you may believe. You and I will always disagree on whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion. If your goal was to try and change my mind, that was never going to happen. If you goal was to try and appear more intellectual and thoughtful than myself, you also failed miserably on that front. If your goal was to get me to argue for a few pages, then congratulations. Beyond that, you've done nothing to help this debate go forward. You're a waste of bandwidth and everyone else's time.

 

[B_Jingoist]

I honestly had a long & detailed post to make here. But considering that this debate has been reduced to nothing more than a pseudo-Libertarian/Teahadist ranting about "oppressive government"and how it should not do anything to help out the less fortunate in order to adhere to some misguided fool's ideology of America, I realize that it's just not worth it. It'll all be ignored or completely twisted out of context, and after several pages of this nonsense I would rather let stupid people be stupid.

However, I will address this one point -


Spare me your pathetic arrogance, kid. Don't pout because you came into an adult level discussion with infantile talking points and couldn't get your voice heard. If people who disagree with you have no clue, that would include Industrialisze, SilverTrain, and the OP. Considering their track record and the overall respect they've earned from other board members for contributing sensible and thought provoking posts (unlike yourself), it's safe to say that the person without a damn clue is you. If you think our government doing something to help the less fortunate is the wrong thing to do, then I honestly don't give a rat's ass about anything else you may believe. You and I will always disagree on whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion. If your goal was to try and change my mind, that was never going to happen. If you goal was to try and appear more intellectual and thoughtful than myself, you also failed miserably on that front. If your goal was to get me to argue for a few pages, then congratulations. Beyond that, you've done nothing to help this debate go forward. You're a waste of bandwidth and everyone else's time.

Congratulations, you are still wrong.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Congratulations, you are still wrong.

And as long as it's just in your mind, I have nothing to worry about.
Now stop trolling and stay on topic.

 

[Cuddler]

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.

Did you even read the part of your quote that I put in bold? Time to move along.

People who have no clue what they are talking about disagree with me.

That's just funny.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Did you even read the part of your quote that I put in bold? Time to move along.



That's just funny.

Did you not read the last line of that quote? It is pretty important.

 

[Cuddler]

Did you not read the last line of that quote? It is pretty important.

D'oh. Misread a word.