California Rep. Jackie Speier defends PP, lays down smack

^^^

Do you by any chance like the guy who thinks that DND makes people become satan worshipping occultists?◊

Quiet man. If I didn't know who he was, I'd just think of him as the recluse neighbor down the street who doesn't cause trouble.

I wouldn't compare him to Charles Manson. Sure, his opinions are on par with Westboro Baptist Church levels of evil shithead, but his actions are pretty tame. Sure, he distributes that mostly garbage material he writes, but he doesn't really do anything offensive other than that.

I still think he's a repulsive bastard and I hope he chokes on his own bile.

For someone who doesn't like soldiers because we're individuals who are trained to be violent when the need arises, you sure are a psychopath SS.

edited 21st Feb '11 1:06:18 PM by Barkey

No, seeing as a) I play DND, b) he thinks Catholics like me will go to Hell and c) I believe in evolution.

Also, Cojuanco, I think that both sides really should try to compromise more often.

For example, I don't think that you'll find very many pro-choice people who want abortion to be a form of birth control. The only difference between the popular pro-life rhetoric and the popular pro-choice rhetoric, is that pro-life wants to completely ban all abortion, while pro-choice wants to allow abortions and work to reduce them through education and family planning.

I would be okay with keeping medically necessary abortions and restricting elective abortions if the other side would be okay with expanding the sex ed curriculum in public schools and promoting contraceptive use as a part of safe sex.

^

Pretty much how I feel about the whole thing, that's what I would consider a compromise.

And making it so under federal healthcare, the only types of abortions it will pay for are medically necessary ones.

Barkey@ I dont think I would ever actually DO anything violent, but that doesnt mean I cant enjoy the suffering of people I hate when it happens regardless, or hope that it will happen at a later date.

edited 21st Feb '11 1:09:46 PM by SilentStranger

Medically necessary ones and ones that are the product of rape.

edited 21st Feb '11 1:18:49 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

^^

One is often the path to another as many a criminal psychiatrist will state.

Medically necessary ones I have no problem with, for a given value of "medically necessary" (honestly, that word's been twisted out of recognition that both sides use it as a debating tool).

^^ Hey, if I havent killed anyone before, I doubt I will now. And trust me, I have been tempted. VERY tempted.

^^

I would say to leave it up to the attending physician, if it means the mother will die or that severe health complications for her are a risk, it should be ok. Anything other than that needs to be suggested by the doctor.

And honestly, I think we should allow it for rape victims. I try to empathize with that situation, and I can't help but feel anything other than that I would want an abortion.

As in, ones that have a high probability of killing the mother.

I personally would like to add severe deformity to the list, since it really only seems like unnecessary cruelty to not terminate pregnancies that will result in, say Harlequin-type Ichtyosis, or other such things that are easily diagnosed pre-birth and lead to fatality shortly after birth.

edited 21st Feb '11 1:33:53 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

In that case, I actually agree with you (though deformity is a really hard question) as a matter of practicality.

The thing is, of course, that the people with influence in politics would never let it happen, as it would mean they would lose a constituency that would reliably vote for them on this one issue alone.

edited 21st Feb '11 3:03:12 PM by Cojuanco

DG? Barkey? We already have restrictions on elective abortions. That was the compromise. It did jack shit as far as mollifying the anti-abortion side. Further restrictions will likewise be useless, because it shows them that they can get what they want if they take an extreme position and hold it, threatening violence unless we cave.

We do? I keep hearing that we don't.

It's state-by-state, but yes. There are restrictions on third-trimester abortions in much of the country. I probably should have clarified that this was not on the federal level

edited 21st Feb '11 5:11:13 PM by EnglishIvy

Actually there are federal restrictions on some late-term abortions as well.

It's less than most states that have them, but it's there.

@Thread: may I respectfully suggest that debating abortion is off-topic, and we should return to the matter at hand, which is Planned Parenthood's funding being cut.

As has been stated before, abortions really are only a small part of what PP does. And even the most ardent pro-lifer can't argue with free disease screening and rape counseling for the economically disadvantaged.

And if they do, may they be run over by a truck. Twice.

Unfortunately, there are people who argue that these things encourage people to be promiscuous, and thus are bad.

They rely on bad, easily-refuted arguments, yes.

@Blue Ninja: They can beg for mercy after I pour gasoline over their heads and flick a lit cigarette at them, but it'll do them about as much good.