RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas!

RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 11:45:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC OK... just so I'm clear... you dislike their views on abortion so your suggesting that their opinions aren't worth listening too because they're all fat bastards? You're missing a great career on fox news (does MSNBC even stoop that low?) No. They're so stupid and crazy that they don't understand their choice of obesity disqualifies them from being taken seriously about anything remotely medically related. Which, of course, their insane view that a soul is implanted at conception isn't worthy of any merit as a MEDICAL concept in the first place. Consequently, everything derived from being scientifically laughable.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 1:04:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle No. They're so stupid and crazy that they don't understand their choice of obesity disqualifies them from being taken seriously about anything remotely medically related. Watch it! I have seen plenty an arguement on here that it is a disease, or imposed on them by mcdonalds or wal-mart, not a choice. lol

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 1:19:12 PM)
Ok, this may be a bit off topic but as a European I have to ask: The article keeps bringing up (4 times I believe) that this would be "the most extreme, severe abortion law in the country". Am I missing something? Why on Earth would it matter whether or not the law would be the most extreme in the nation? I mean, simple math would indicate that SOME law needs to be the most extreme, so how is that in any way relevant to the debate (to the point that it needs to be repeated over and over again)? Is this just a case of horrible reporting, or is there another relevant legal factor I'm missing as a non-American?

JeffBC -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 1:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Is this just a case of horrible reporting, or is there another relevant legal factor I'm missing as a non-American? I'm not sure I see it as either. I find it relevant data to understand when I'm looking at something on the fringe. That doesn't mean I necessarily support it or don't support it. But I do like to know that it's "out there" relative to the norms.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 1:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Is this just a case of horrible reporting, or is there another relevant legal factor I'm missing as a non-American? I'm not sure I see it as either. I find it relevant data to understand when I'm looking at something on the fringe. That doesn't mean I necessarily support it or don't support it. But I do like to know that it's "out there" relative to the norms. I understand that, however if it's not relevant legally, I'd still consider it horrible reporting because of the needless repetitive nature of rehashing the statement repeatedly without adding new information. As an other complete aside, it may surprise most Americans that the Arkansas law isn't "extreme" to European standard. Belgian law for instance makes this proposed law seem liberal and progressive.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 2:03:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Is this just a case of horrible reporting, or is there another relevant legal factor I'm missing as a non-American? I'm not sure I see it as either. I find it relevant data to understand when I'm looking at something on the fringe. That doesn't mean I necessarily support it or don't support it. But I do like to know that it's "out there" relative to the norms. I understand that, however if it's not relevant legally, I'd still consider it horrible reporting because of the needless repetitive nature of rehashing the statement repeatedly without adding new information. As an other complete aside, it may surprise most Americans that the Arkansas law isn't "extreme" to European standard. Belgian law for instance makes this proposed law seem liberal and progressive. It would surprise most Americans. 1: The average American doesn't know shit about the rest of the world, nor cares (which is unfortunate) 2: There is this self loathing complex going with many liberal/"enlightened" Americans, who think all of Europe is one of the most enlightened places on Earth, and wouldn't have such laws.

JeffBC -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 2:09:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar As an other complete aside, it may surprise most Americans that the Arkansas law isn't "extreme" to European standard. Belgian law for instance makes this proposed law seem liberal and progressive. Is wikipedia lying to me? Both seem to use a 12 week (or first trimester) cutoff. And honestly... I might be more or less in sort of agreement with that. I know that 24 weeks leaves me very, very uncomfortable.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 2:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar As an other complete aside, it may surprise most Americans that the Arkansas law isn't "extreme" to European standard. Belgian law for instance makes this proposed law seem liberal and progressive. Is wikipedia lying to me? Both seem to use a 12 week (or first trimester) cutoff. And honestly... I might be more or less in sort of agreement with that. I know that 24 weeks leaves me very, very uncomfortable. 24 weeks makes me very uncomfortable....the wife is pregnant right now, the doctor said they consider 20 weeks now viable and several births have been successfully carried out that early.....I only asked because I wanted to what to do incase of a miscarriage. I was shocked when she told me that!

britwriter1111 -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 2:44:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Is wikipedia lying to me? OP - sorry, a little off-topic, but then again, where information comes from matters and JeffBC asked... In America, higher education institutions do not accept wikipedia as a reliable, or valid, source of information. It is considered to be a tool, of sorts, in that something may be posted there that can used as a springboard for ideas and concepts to research via credentialed sources of information. The debate goes like this... Wikipedia entries may be added to, changed or proven false: at any time and by any one, regardless of veracity. Some say this means that more people are participating in creating the information base, so errors are caught and more points of view are presented. Also, because contributors live anywhere in the world, the biases of nationalism, financial gain and governmental propaganda are minimized greatly. Therefore, some think that wikipedia is a more truthful source of information than can be found elsewhere. The other side of the debate is that control of information is power. Credentialed information includes things like academic journals, encyclopedias, and some reference books. To be considered valid, these research sources have been studied, tested and organized. Wikipedia allows anyone to present their opinion as fact. Some people have an agenda. Some are of limited intelligence and/or of limited education (remember Sarah Palin thought that Africa was a country?). In short, those who "rule the world," do not accept wikipedia as anything more than intellectual fun. They'd say, "Consider the source." when it comes to reading wikipedia.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 3:57:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar As an other complete aside, it may surprise most Americans that the Arkansas law isn't "extreme" to European standard. Belgian law for instance makes this proposed law seem liberal and progressive. Is wikipedia lying to me? Both seem to use a 12 week (or first trimester) cutoff. And honestly... I might be more or less in sort of agreement with that. I know that 24 weeks leaves me very, very uncomfortable. Wiki is correct, but incomplete. 12 weeks and the following conditions need to be met: - The pregnant woman must declare herself to be in a state of emergency, either mentally of physically, and the doctor must agree to this fact - The doctor must full inform the woman of all legalities involved, as well as counsel her towards other options available - The woman must go psychological screening to determine that she is of sound will, and sure of her decision - The doctor must again counsel the woman towards alternative options moments before the procedure - The procedure will happen no sooner than 6 days after the woman first declared to the doctor in question that she wants to terminate, and she must be counseled every day in between the original request and the eventual procedure So, the term is the same, but in Belgium it's hardly a case of walking into a clinic pregnant and walking out not pregnant. The fact that there is a required 6 day wait period also means that woman in practice only have 11 weeks and 1 day to decide, because the procedure needs to be completed before the 12 weeks are up. It's also not enough for a woman to just want an abortion, the doctor must determine she's "in a state of emergency". In practice you'll find that the doctors who will perform these procedures will most always agree that this is the case, but legally it's not just a matter of choice, and there have been instances where women have been refused abortions because the physician didn't agree there was an emergency, or didn't think the woman was of sound will. Once a woman is rejected, it's fairly difficult to find another doctor to overrule that decision, again due to the legalities involved. A term longer than 12 weeks can only be terminated if the mother is in mortal danger. Incidentally, this topic is so heavily debated in Belgium that in the 90s when it was first put into law our King refused to sign the law (something he's constitutionally not allowed to do) on moral grounds. The country almost went in riots over it. Finally, the King was declared "mentally unable to govern" for 44 hours, and the Prime Minister got ruling power and signed it in to law in the King's stead. [:D]

muhly22222 -> RE: Attention Women: Get the hell out of Arkansas! (3/7/2013 5:16:54 PM)
quote: Which, of course, their insane view that a soul is implanted at conception isn't worthy of any merit as a MEDICAL concept in the first place. Consequently, everything derived from being scientifically laughable. The soul isn't measurable in a scientifically acceptable manner. It is impossible to observe the creation or destruction of a soul, or even the mere fact of existence of a soul (well, except in gingers [8D]). The soul is a moral and theological concept. And people should feel strongly about the moral codes that they adopt, otherwise what's the point of having a moral code? You can argue whether that moral code should be imposed on others, that's fine. And if you don't believe in the existence of souls, that's fine, too. But admit that there's no way to scientifically prove either the existence or non-existence of the soul. And don't laugh at those who believe in the existence of a soul within every human being. If they do believe that, when are they supposed to believe that the soul exists? At birth? Perhaps. At viability? That's an artificial construct that has moved earlier and earlier throughout the years, a poor basis for placing the creation of something as ephemeral as a soul. At conception? Again, perhaps...that's an individual choice that each person has to make for themselves.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125