Abortion ... the wiki

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:54 pm

So now the hinge is on consent.

If someone puts a gun to your head, and says, "blow me or die" and you do it. are you consenting.

What if they say, "if you want to keep your job/children/etc" are you consenting?

What if they say, "If you want to have access to this completely legal medical procedure, you have to blow me first." And you desperately want said procedure for a variety of reasons. Are you consenting?

Tzor would say yes. Human beings would say no.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:43 pm

sabs wrote:What if they say, "If you want to have access to this completely legal medical procedure, you have to blow me first."

I would say this was Bill Clinton's fantasy when his wife was pushing Hillary-care.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:47 pm

And once again tzor lets the 'consent' pitch sail past.

Are we done yet?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:34 pm

Yeah.. I think Strike 3, you're out applies here.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:57 pm

Yeah, I tried to give him a point by point to make it easier, and he passed after one attempt. As soon as someone says something that he can switch his focus to, he does.

Best case scenario, he doesn't know how to argue this one, but his "common sense" tells him that it can't be right. Best case.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:52 pm

Women Having Abortions Up Premature Birth Risk 34% Next Time

A new study conducted in the United Kingdom finds women who have abortions are 34 percent more likely to deliver a baby prematurely when they become pregnant the next time and to suffer from other pregnancy complications.

Sohinee Bhattacharya, who led the research at the University of Aberdeen, examined more than 1 million pregnancies in Scotland over 26 years and he found that women who have one abortion increase their risk of premature birth in a subsequent pregnancy 34 percent. Women who have a historic risk of giving birth prematurely up that risk another 73 percent when they have an abortion.

The risk is increased enough, because of the abortion, that 10 percent of all women who have an abortion will give birth prematurely in their subsequent pregnancy that they carry to term, the researchers found.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:36 pm

Lifenews again. Joy. Because they're not a bunch of fucking liars at all (psst, yes they are).

The risk is increased enough, because of the abortion, that 10 percent of all women who have an abortion will give birth prematurely in their subsequent pregnancy that they carry to term, the researchers found.

For reference, the U.K. has a collective premature birth rate of about 8%. The U.S. has >12%. The women in this study who got abortions have less of a chance of premature birth than the average U.S. woman.

dangerous RU 486 abortion drug (which has killed dozens of women and injured more than 1,100 in the United States alone).

1) Citation needed.
2) Dangerous? That's retarded. Here are the actual numbers:

Wikipedia wrote:A maternal mortality rate for the U.S. of 24 per 100,000 was reported for 2008

Wikipedia wrote:of about 1.52 million women who had received mifepristone until April 2011 in the US, fourteen were reported to have died after application. Eight of these cases were associated with sepsis; the other six had various causes like drug abuse and suspected murder.

We'll throw out the 6 cases of drug abuse and suspected murder, because side effects of mifepristone cannot possibly include "an addiction to cocaine and being stabbed." That's eight cases of potential death by mifepristone.

Mortality rate of having a baby: 24 in 100,000
Mortality rate of taking mifepristone: .5 in 100,000.
Taking mifepristone is 48 times safer than not taking mifepristone. Calling that dangerous makes you a lying asshole. Lifenews, as well-established by now, are a bunch of lying assholes.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:09 am

I say we refuse to respond to new things Tzor says until he responds to our refutations of his previous points, instead of letting him change the subject over and over again to keep this train wreck going.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:45 pm

Don't worry, I won't bother posting anything "new" from now on.

Enjoy the hell you have created for yourselves. I'm out of here.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:48 pm

tzor wrote:Don't worry, I won't bother posting anything "new" from now on.

Enjoy the hell you have created for yourselves. I'm out of here.

I thought we had already established that things were better when you were not fucking here, because we didn't have stupid rape apologists.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:29 pm

Isn't this like the second time he's ragequit?

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:19 pm

Koumei wrote:Isn't this like the second time he's ragequit?

At minimum.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:51 pm

He'll be back, he loves to troll to much to stay away.

Red Archon · Post by **Red Archon** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:55 pm

Damn. I miss his sick ass already.

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:25 pm

I don't, fuck that guy

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:21 am

tzor wrote:Enjoy the hell you have created for yourselves.

Free abortions and secular muslim homosexual turtle marriage agendas for all! WOOOOH! Party!

edit: ...aaand say hello to the most visual annoying signature I have ever had...

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:41 am

I wouldn't celebrate too much. He will be back after all.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:13 am

Kaelik wrote: He will be back after all.

It's ONLY five boogie Emoticons.

And yeah, he will be back in approximately six months saying he doesn't know what the fuck anyone is talking about his pro rape probe thread? What pro rape probe thread? He never said that and doesn't know what you are even referring to!

After all I was somewhat closely involved the LAST time he left worked out and it was exactly like that, with all the "There IS no Economic Crisis! I'm an economicalismz EXPERT!" ... six months later... "I left for six months right after making that ridiculously embarrassing claim in the middle of the crisis actually already hitting, er, and I left for, um... for no reason related to shame or anything, and now I'm back and I never said that and I hate and ignore anyone who mentions it or was involved at the time even though it didn't even happen!"

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:23 am

Koumei wrote:Isn't this like the second time he's ragequit?

How ironic. It was my NPR thread that brought him out of hiding last time, too. This seems very fitting.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:54 am

Well, now that that unpleasantness is out of the way, let's continue.

What prompted this ridiculous concerted U.S. right-winger flip-out anyway? I mean, this ain't just a thing in Virginia and Texas, they're doing similar measures for Iowa and Idaho. If Scott Walker wasn't already being beset on all sides from unrelated issues I'm almost positive that similar bills would have been considered for Wisconsin.

I'm not going to say that this represents a change of heart, because it's not, I'm just wondering about the timing. If I was a Coathanger Coalition douchebag I would've done the Virginia thing as a trial balloon (though maybe not even that, after how much Mississippi's efforts went down in flames) and then shuffled off to the corner and waited when no one was looking. By making this a cross-country thing is raises voter awareness and makes the party look bad nationally rather than just in a particular state.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:48 pm

I'd assumed it's because it doesn't look like Roe vs Wade is getting overturned anytime soon, so they're looking at ways to slowly but surely get their way.

It kind of reminds me of the ways states are slowly adding medical marijuana laws to the books despite it being illegal on a federal level. Perhaps, on both counts, they think if they have enough states leaning one way, the federal government will eventually follow suite.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:58 pm

Well, there's that, but I suspect it also has something to do with whipping the conservative fundamental crazies into a frothing mass that will show up and vote out Obama. The Republicans don't know how to appeal to anyone but their hardcore base anymore, so "Democrats are baby-murderers, women can't be trusted to make decisions; Christian values are the best!"

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:21 pm

Santorum listened to Kennedy's speech about a secular government where the president of the US wasn't going to let the Pope tell him what to do. Where it didn't matter if you were Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish.

What he got out of it? That he was sickened listening to it, because Kennedy wanted to keep people of faith out of politics.

Sometimes I wonder what bizaro universe Santorum is from.

A Georgetown Law student sat before congress and testified that the cost of birth control for students was too expensive, at 3k per year. Now, I think that birthcontrol should be covered by health insurance. But really, you're paying 100+k for law school, but the cost that's going to break your back is the 3k of birthcontrol?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:45 pm

sabs wrote:But really, you're paying 100+k for law school, but the cost that's going to break your back is the 3k of birthcontrol?

Yes. There is this thing called FAFSA. One of the things it does is allow me to take out more loans than I would otherwise be qualified for individually, using effectively my education as collateral. It does however, only allow me to do so for the assumed costs of education, and then I can't take out any other fucking loans.

So yes, the fact that I am allowed to borrow 100k over the course of 4 years, but not allowed to borrow 112k over that same period means that birth control is what breaks the bank.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:55 pm

DSMatticus wrote:Well, there's that, but I suspect it also has something to do with whipping the conservative fundamental crazies into a frothing mass that will show up and vote out Obama. The Republicans don't know how to appeal to anyone but their hardcore base anymore, so "Democrats are baby-murderers, women can't be trusted to make decisions; Christian values are the best!"

Pretty much this.

sabs wrote:Sometimes I wonder what bizaro universe Santorum is from.

Sometimes I wonder what bizaro universe I live in, where Santorum can actually win primaries with that shit.