[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:52 am

Yeah, the meltdown was pretty much the make-or-break moment. When the collective American populous looked around at the carnage and their groin-kicked future decade+ and the end of American Empire... they more-or-less collectively succumbed to apathy. Those that didn't ended up on the fringes and the only ones to make anything of THAT were the Tea Party folk, and that was only because they were co-opted by the establishment. We market socialists/socio-capitalists didn't have enough RAAAAAGE, I suppose. Perhaps we were too busy enjoying the fact that the educations that had turned us on to the idea of an empathic, large-view capitalism were also responsible for plugging us into the machine and making us so comfortable that no one wanted to bother agitating ...but I still do post all kinds of provocative shit on Facebook, yo, and that's how I Keep It Real.

Whatever's gonna happen, it's not gonna happen here. We're circling the drain and I pray that I and my progeny can manage to stay on the white and rich side of things.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:00 am

Wait until Americans start literally starving, then you'll see rebellions much as you've seen elsewhere. In the Great Depression, we had lots of farmers, so starvation for most people was avoidable. In the Greater Depression that may well come, the US is not the same kind of country as it was last time around.

People will take all sorts of abuse, but the game changes when they are literally starving.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:15 am

there are levels of survival we are prepared to accept

K · Post by K » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:21 am

People are living in tent cities right now. Trust me, bad is here.

The only problem is that it can always get worse.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:12 am

This has probably been brought up before, but I'm lazy. So, what does the Gaming Den think of the idea of governments handing out business start-up loans/grants without regulating the businesses created by them any more than existing businesses are regulated?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:42 am

Chamomile wrote:So, what does the Gaming Den think of the idea of governments handing out business start-up loans/grants without regulating the businesses created by them any more than existing businesses are regulated?

The difference between government money and private money is that the people who spend government money do not actually own it. If they do especially good things with that money, they do not get to pocket extra profits, or get any rewards for their sound business practices, or anything at all except they maybe might get to make a soundbyte out of "I'm good with money," which people may or may not believe because there's plenty of people who are very, very bad at economic policy who claim the exact same thing (see: Reagan, whose verbally proclaimed economic policy is credited with saving the country, while his actual economy policy wasn't his verbal economic policy. People worship this man for what he said, with no idea that what he said is a tenth of what he actually did).

Now people with private money actually own that money. When they fuck up with it, that's less money in their pocket. When they hand it out to friends, that's less money in their pocket. So when you give a greedy asshole a chance to spend government money, they try to hand it to someone they hope will reciprocate by scratching their back. When you let a greedy asshole spend his own money, he looks for ways to turn that money into more money.

Choosing which specific business ventures get started and which ones don't is decidedly the realm of the private market, because in the hands of a government employee he stands to gain by cheating the system. The private banker only cheats himself, and that would be stupid. In this case, rational self-interest will lead to selection of the most profitable/strong business ventures (with notable exceptions, but in general it's safer).

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:46 pm

OK, I'm just going to throw this out here. It would be interesting to see the "reaction" to this. After all, shouldn't a person who is pro-choice be against anyone who attempts to force an abortion on anyone?

Louisiana: Gov Jindal Signs Bill to Stop Coerced Abortions

Governor Bobby Jindal is signing a bill today designed to prevent women from being pressured into having an abortion they may not otherwise want and that the state legislature approved by large margins.

The bill makes it so signs may be posted at abortion centers across the state advising women of alternatives to abortion and that they have the right to refuse an abortion. The signs must measure no smaller than 16 inches by 20 inches and must be posted in the waiting area of abortion centers in Louisiana.

The signs inform women that they can’t be forced to abort against their will, the father is liable for support, adoptive parents may pay costs of prenatal care and childbirth, and there are many public and private resources to help during and after pregnancy.

The legislation also creates a Department of Health and Hospitals website and mobile/smartphone platform to deliver info about public and private pregnancy resources, free ultrasound, abortion health risks, the development of the unborn child, etc. In addition to being posted on the sign, the web address must be given by phone or email at the initial contact seeking an appointment.

Benjamin Clapper, the director of Louisiana Right to Life, was one of the key supporters of the bill during the legislative process.

“Did you know 64% of women who choose abortion felt coerced or pressure to make that decision, often against their will?” he told LifeNews.com. “HB 586 is a product of many months of planning, along with in-depth discussions with the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) and Secretary Bruce Greenstein. We are proud to be a prime sponsor of this legislation.”

“Women deserve love and commitment. But a tragic consequence of Roe is that it enables men to use women and then subtly or overtly coerce abortion. Often it is an employer, friend or parent who pressures a woman to abort,” Clapper explained. “We believe this legislation modernizes Louisiana’s Women’s Right to Know Law and helps reach women considering abortion with the essential information and the numerous agencies and resources available to assist them both before and after birth.”

During the committee hearing, Bruce Greenstein, secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals, said the agency would pay for the signs and distribute them because, as the Daily World reported him saying, “more educational information is better. Our goal is to protect the health and safety of all residents. This will help protect women in the state by assuring that they understand their rights.”

“No one can force a woman to have an abortion, not even a young woman’s parents,” he said.

If 64% feel coerced then where is the choice? That's why I do maintain that the best way to reduce abortions in general is not to simply ban the practice but to provide information, understanding and alternatives. It is the way we currently handle smoking in the United States and it generally works (although I'm certainly not in favor of "abortion taxes" like we have placed on tobacco; I can just see women driving to Native American reservations to avoid the aboriton tax).

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:42 pm

I think that 64% of people who quote statistics are lying sacks of shit who made the statistic up in the first place.

Doctors should give women the full range of choices available to them. Also, I bet that MANY women who choose not to have an Abortion but keep the baby and give it up for Adoption felt coerced by their parents/family.

Where's the percentage on that. How many women who gave up their children for adoption, felt coerced into having the baby and giving it up because of their Family's Religious or Social Morals.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:15 pm

Even though "Pro-Horrific-Murder-Of-The-Unborn-To-Sacrifice-To-The-Science-God-Who-Sits-Upon-The-Throne-Of-Logic" would be an awesome sounding stance to take, yes, yes I feel people should have the choice to keep their child rather than abort it. They should have both choices.

And yes, it's good that they be told the various alternatives, preferably at as early a point as possible (ideally "before pregnancy occurs"). People who are informed generally make better decisions for themselves.

What sabs says is very much worth considering, but basically... I don't see a problem with the idea of giving women the choice to have babies if they want to, and letting them know it's okay to do that and there are options. I'm not as pro-death as some might claim - I oppose the death penalty, nuclear proliferation and plenty of wars.

Sorry there was no rage about it, no violent disagreement, or even levelling wild accusations at you, but don't worry, there's always next time!

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:30 pm

I would like to couple the bill that says that sign has to be on abortion clinics, with an amendment that makes it illegal to protest at Abortion Clinics, or to try and coerce people who are there into NOT having abortions.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:44 pm

What? You got your big giant poster on the wall, and the door.

Now stop harassing people, and go do something useful with your life.
Screaming at people that they are baby killers, while they are trying to get Medical assistance borders on mental anguish.

P.S. In case you're a complete idiot. I did not say constitutional amendment, I said amendment to the bill.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:23 pm

Ugh guys. When Tzor is talking about "information" and "being coerced" oddly enough he is being a lying shit bag peddling a disgusting agenda.

See his pro life faction run their own rival clinics for pregnant women considering abortions. These clinics to all appearances look like places that might offer you an abortion or real information about an abortion or both. But notably they do not actually ever offer either of those things to anyone under any circumstances and will not even refer you to anyone who does.

Instead however they basically lock you in a room for hours on end force you to watch disgusting videos of late term abortion fetuses, outright lie to you about the medical "complications and risks" and if all that fails to throw you into a wild panic will then outright pray at you right in your face. It's lies, it's propaganda and it's religious oppression and it's outright emotional abuse and psychological violence.

THAT is what Tzor's current line is a dog whistle for. That is what he is pushing here when he says "women need to be allowed to make a more informed choice".

You are taking his dog whistle and without the appropriate information ASSUMING he is talking about something sane and sensible he isn't, but that mistake is exactly what dog whistle arguments are FOR.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:15 pm

First, let me state that I have no problem with that sign being posted...it does not strike me as coercive, exploitative, threatening, or guilt-inducing.

But the reasoning behind it?

tzor wrote: If 64% feel coerced then where is the choice?

The question is, DO 64% really feel coerced? Or is that statistic a line of shit? Let's see what google says...

Oh fuck, look at this:

Here's the key part:

Unruh gives no citation for this wild statistic, but Google does.

Elliot Institute director David Reardon, co-authored a Medical Science Monitor study of American and Russian women with the 64 percent figure.

His new report, Forced Abortion in America, documents cases of violence against women who refused to have an abortion [Steven Ertelt, "New Report Exposes Forced Abortions, 64 Percent of Women Feel Pressure," LifeNews.com, 2009.09.08].

Rebuttal:

1. David Reardon admits he uses rhetoric, not rigorous science, to plant seeds of doubt. You cannot trust any “study” with his name on it.
2. Reardon’s work is the only study claiming this 64 percent figure.
3. The 64 percent study appears in Medical Science Monitor, an online journal in which authors pay $950 to get published.
4. Reardon, co-authoring here with two Rues and fellow anti-abortion B.S. artist Priscilla Coleman, looks at 331 Russian women and 217 American women.
5. If you’re going to believe the study, it finds American women reported feeling “pressured” by others. Only 37.2% of the Russian women reported feeling “pressured” by others.
6. Russian women reported receiving more adequate counseling beforehand and lower incidence of self-reported stress following their abortions… this in a country where more women support the right to have an abortion and where abortion is a commonly accepted and easily accessible medical procedure. So it’s not the abortion that causes the stress but the social stigma imposed by crusaders like the Unruhs.

In other words, the only source for Unruh’s 64 percent coercion claim is horsehockey six ways to Sunday.

tl/dr: should we trust this guy as an unbiased source for that 64% figure?

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:25 pm

sabs wrote:Screaming at people that they are baby killers, while they are trying to get Medical assistance borders on mental anguish.

I can't recall any abortion clinic protest that would involve screaming, at least none in my neck of the woods (Long Island). I know the LI Coalition for Life would never condone that and I know that the Knights of Columbus would never condone that. Such things are rude, crude and obnoxious, and I agree does border on mental anguish. I would suspect that those who do that sort of shit don't get many "rescues" either.

Here is something I found on the web that describes the process these people should be following.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:32 pm

Now stop harassing people, and go do something useful with your life.
Screaming at people that they are baby killers, while they are trying to get Medical assistance borders on mental anguish.

your words cause me mental anguish

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:56 pm

tzor wrote:I can't recall any abortion clinic protest that would involve screaming, at least none in my neck of the woods (Long Island).

Hi everyone. It's time to play "the shit stuck to his own face that Tzor didn't notice".

As usual the rules are simple. Take a thing he said he was "not aware" of, type like 3 words into google, and come back in less than five minutes with something that makes his claims UTTERLY LAUGHABLY STUPID.

Today we check to see if Long Island anti-abortion protesters are as polite and pleasant as Tzor seems to remember them being...

Less than 3 minutes on Google... wrote:The first arson attack against a clinic took place in 1977, four years after Roe v. Wade. It was aimed at a Long Island, N.Y., clinic owned by abortion rights advocate Bill Baird. In the next six years, the pace picked up, with 29 bombings and arsons by 1983.

Yes ladies and gentlemen that's right THE FIRST arson attack against an abortion clinic ever. ON LONG ISLAND, executed of course by those polite long island anti abortion protesters. Though I admit, there is no particular claim of the arsonist screaming per say... I imagine that might have given away the arson attempt after all... (though that doesn't rule it out, they set fire to a medical clinic, these guys could well have been screaming biblical gibberish, speaking in tongues and throwing molotov cocktails.)

But remember the thing to take away from this is, once again Tzor makes himself LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT AND A LIAR.

Edit: [quote="added bonus 1 minute more on google...]signs were found posted at four clinics in Long Island saying, "Danger: This is a War Zone. People are being killed here like in Boston. You risk injury or death if you are caught on or near these premises," [/quote]
So Long Island anti abortionists, they may or may not scream at you because of the emotional anguish. They just threaten to kill you and then try and set you on fire. Editedit: Well technically I think the time line goes they try and set you on fire THEN they threaten to kill you. That's worth extra points.

Edit Edit Edit: Then they try and shoot your doctor in one of multiple attempts to kill him...

Five minutes later on google wrote:Bill Baird, a veteran abortion rights activist, was shot at outside his home on Long Island. He was not injured in the attack. This was the second attempt on his life in two years.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:23 am

imo abortion clinic bombings are okay as long as no one is inside at the time

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:27 am

Let me see if I can summarize Phonelobster's argument in another way. Slavery is good, man. Those dudes who are against slavery, they are evil. Why just look at this evil abolitionist.

It seems that your side is free to dreg up the fruitcases but my side is not?

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:31 am

This thread is an excellent place to harvest sig quotes.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:07 am

tzor wrote:Let me see if I can summarize Phonelobster's argument in another way. Slavery is good, man. Those dudes who are against slavery, they are evil. Why just look at this evil abolitionist.

It seems that your side is free to dreg up the fruitcases but my side is not?

Maybe because there are just so many, many fruitcases to choose from on your side.

You have a point, Tzor (albeit a very tiny one). The way to answer it is like this:

John Brown was a violent abolitionist. How many more were like him?
PL pointed out that in 6 years, there were about 5 arson/bombings a year. How many "Harpers Ferry" equivalents were there?

If there are 100 guys on each side, but there is 1 crazy and 99 sane people on one side and 50 crazies and 50 sane people on the other side, are those 2 sides equivalent?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:27 am

funny thing individuals like PL will decry anti-abortionists for bombing abortion clinics but will breathlessly defend muslims against claims of terrorism because they're victims of stereotyping and bigotry

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:42 am

PoliteNewb wrote:The way to answer it is like this...

While that was a pretty good way to answer it isn't where I would have gone this time.

The particular point that anti abortionists are murderous lying religious fanatics and much more extreme and evil in general than their opponents is old news everyone knows that, Tzor isn't even trying to fight it. It's a lost cause, anti-abortionist activists are, as a general rule, total fuckers.

BUT Tzor specifically made the claim that on Long Island everything was peachy because no one in his parochial backyard is capable of any evil and as far as he recalls (hilariously implying he personally HAS stood outside of abortion clinics harassing innocent women and medical professionals) the abortion protesters that are all his local buddy pal guys are like TOTALLY caring and would never inflict emotional harm on women.

His specific claim was specifically wrong. He went out of his way to say "well THESE specific guys in this specific place aren't total fuckers" I presented evidence that even his VERY NARROW claim of non-fuckery was totally fucking wrong. Because the guys TZOR thinks go out of their way not to cause emotional distress... try to set you on fire, shoot at you and only THEN threaten to kill you.

And in another angle...

HEY TZOR YOU DUMB FUCKER! You STILL haven't answered Lago's question about how to punish abortions in your utopian anti abortion ideal world.

So when you literally compare the anti-abortion movement to the anti-slavery movement one immediately has to ask what YOU think the punishment for keeping slaves should be?

Because if it's in line with your waffling attempts to NOT answer the question on abortion, then you think there shouldn't actually be any punishment for enslaving people and it's not like its really real people slavery despite all your language about slaves being real people with real people rights from conception and gosh darn no actual punishment will be required once your faction gets their way you totally promise!

Or you know, alternatively the comparison between the movements and the importance of their fights was you know, totally bullshit and dishonest on your part. You wanna apologize to all slaves ever now? Should we hold our breath for that? Just like we are still holding our breath for the apology from that time you rather remarkably implied that aborting a cluster of barely conceived cells was pretty much exactly the same as race hate murders?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:36 am

Psychic_Robot wrote:PL will decry anti-abortionists for bombing abortion clinics but will breathlessly defend muslims against claims of terrorism

You wanna run the numbers on percentage of terrorist anti-abortion activists vs percentage of terrorist muslims?

And what PL was actually throwing all that information around for was not necessary to immediately slander everyone who makes anti-abortionist claims, it was to illustrate Tzor is a dumbass for claiming he was unaware militant anti-abortionists exist. And he did so by digging up information about militant anti-abortionist activity in Tzor's backyard. Which is a pretty effective way to demonstrate Tzor made a pathetic, laughable cop-out attempt.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:36 am

A fetus is not a human being. You become a human being once you are born, not before.

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:03 pm

Fuchs wrote:A fetus is not a human being. You become a human being once you are born, not before.

Well that settles it. We can all totally stop talking now.