Abortion is acceptable, but..

[magnifier661]

I dunno if that would have helped, think that goes against the whole vegan thing as well.

Hahahaha

 

[blazerboy30]

If you are an anti-abortion male, wear a condom.

As a male who can't be impregnated, that should be the extent of your activism.

False.

 

[blazerboy30]

You're simply wrong again.

Nope.

Every time we get in a discussion, you come out looking a fool. Don't do it again, I'm starting to feel bad for you.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nope.

Every time we get in a discussion, you come out looking a fool. Don't do it again, I'm starting to feel bad for you.

You scare me.


And nope.

Your silly and pathetic non-answers won't do.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

First off, you have zero importance to me, but I do not respond well to being called a liar. 103.1 is the only station I listen to, so fuck you and your smug tone. The first program I made reference to was explained somewhere in this mess, but for your simple ass mind I will again refer to the program. They were talking about how unfair the new laws in Texas were in regards to abortion clinics, how some of the regulation, like requiring that the Attending physician have admitting privileges to a hospital within thirty miles was unreasonable etc. As far as providing a link, you have enough information to find it your self.

So, in other words,
(a) "they" weren't "talking pro abortion," they were talking about how the restrictions placed on abortion were, in fact, attempts to get round constitutional protections on the right.
(b) even if some of the guests on THAT show were in fact in favor of protecting the rights of women to have abortions, I'm betting "they're" not the same people as...

The second program I made reference to was on the same day, and as stated. It was the first in a series of several on the death penalty and haw cruel it was. The second the next day covered the different drugs used for lethal injection, and shortages of the originally approved drugs. How the replacement drugs were in the opinion of the author of the piece, an painful evil way to murder someone..based on speculation the he thought that the person suffered because they did not fall asleep as fast...

...these people. And, once again, your description of the actual show does not back up your previous summary of it as "they were anti death penalty". From all you've described, they could be perfectly in favor of the death penalty per se, just not this particular method.

So you've just shown your previous self to have in fact been bullshitting. For you not to have been, you would have to have been listening to the same people actually having both positions. You haven't shown that anybody had either position.

And again, fuck you and your smug attitude, I am no liar and I resent like hell you accusing me of being one. I do not respond to any one on here in any manor that I would not speak to them in person. I extend that honor to you, any time you would like to call me a liar.

I didn't call you a liar, I called you a bullshitter. That's not quite the same thing. Bullshitters often don't even know they're not telling the truth.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I would have told her to eat a dick and get the fuck out

I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have been in your apartment to begin with.

 

[Denny Crane]

So is the requirement that abortion doctors need to have admitting privileges within 30 miles unreasonable, or even a restriction?

I am pro choice, but I don't think it's reasonable to require an abortion clinic in every woman's back yard.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

So is the requirement that abortion doctors need to have admitting privileges within 30 miles unreasonable, or even a restriction?
I am pro choice, but I don't think it's reasonable to require an abortion clinic in every woman's back yard.

Actually, the worse requirement that was upheld was some kind of ban on using chemical abortifacents. If such pills were readily available you would have the equivalent of an abortion clinic in every Rite Aid, put there willingly by good capitalists out for a buck.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, the worse requirement that was upheld was some kind of ban on using chemical abortifacents. If such pills were readily available you would have the equivalent of an abortion clinic in every Rite Aid, put there willingly by good capitalists out for a buck.

I'm not so sure. Morning after is one thing, but 9 weeks after could be a bloody mess with complications.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

fuck you and your smug tone.
And again, fuck you and your smug attitude,

Actually, that's fair enough. I was being a smug asshole and I apologize.

But only for this one instance. No apologies for all the other times.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

So is the requirement that abortion doctors need to have admitting privileges within 30 miles unreasonable, or even a restriction?

What's the point of it? You know that the real point is to try to drive abortion clinics out of business. Is that reasonable? Are there the same kind of restrictions on, say, fertility clinics? (Incidentally, where's the (non-Catholic) conservative outrage at fertility clinics? They destroy thousands of fertilized human eggs as a matter of cause. Tiny holocausts all over the place!)

 

[Denny Crane]

What's the point of it? You know that the real point is to try to drive abortion clinics out of business. Is that reasonable? Are there the same kind of restrictions on, say, fertility clinics? (Incidentally, where's the (non-Catholic) conservative outrage at fertility clinics? They destroy thousands of fertilized human eggs as a matter of cause. Tiny holocausts all over the place!)

Point? To protect women from taking a drug that can cause a bloody mess and serious complications, and without supervision.

Seems like the opposite of driving clinics out of business.

The 30 mile thing may drive some out of business, but it don't see an unreasonable burden on women seeking abortions. Abortions may be pretty safe, but they are botched from time to time. Having an ER nearby seems like a benefit.

I don't see how fertility clinics are relevant to making abortions safer for women.

 

[magnifier661]

Can we just abort this topic? Too many fascist pigs celebrating national tofu day

 

[barfo]

The 30 mile thing may drive some out of business, but it don't see an unreasonable burden on women seeking abortions. Abortions may be pretty safe, but they are botched from time to time. Having an ER nearby seems like a benefit.

But the requirement is not that there is an ER nearby. The requirement is that the doctor have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. There's a difference.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

But the requirement is not that there is an ER nearby. The requirement is that the doctor have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. There's a difference.

barfo

So they're asking that those clinics who perform abortions have a doctor on staff.

Again, it seems to favor the safety of the women.

 

[barfo]

So they're asking that those clinics who perform abortions have a doctor on staff.

Again, it seems to favor the safety of the women.

No, they aren't 'asking' that there be a doctor on staff. Read it again. The requirement is a doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital w/in 30 miles.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, they aren't 'asking' that there be a doctor on staff. Read it again. The requirement is a doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital w/in 30 miles.

barfo

Go read up on what admitting privileges are. The guy has to be a member of the staff of a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. He doesn't even have to show up at the clinic.

 

[blazerboy30]

You scare me.


And nope.

Your silly and pathetic non-answers won't do.

It's self defense! :MARIS61:

Yes you actually said that, as pathetic as it sounds, as a general commentary on abortion.

I don't do signatures, but that is close to being sig-worthy. Kingspeed, is that you?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

So, in other words,
(a) "they" weren't "talking pro abortion," they were talking about how the restrictions placed on abortion were, in fact, attempts to get round constitutional protections on the right.
(b) even if some of the guests on THAT show were in fact in favor of protecting the rights of women to have abortions, I'm betting "they're" not the same people as...

...these people. And, once again, your description of the actual show does not back up your previous summary of it as "they were anti death penalty". From all you've described, they could be perfectly in favor of the death penalty per se, just not this particular method.

So you've just shown your previous self to have in fact been bullshitting. For you not to have been, you would have to have been listening to the same people actually having both positions. You haven't shown that anybody had either position.

I didn't call you a liar, I called you a bullshitter. That's not quite the same thing. Bullshitters often don't even know they're not telling the truth.

Last response

(a) The attitude and in fact, entire tone of the interview was pro abortion, listen to it your self if you like. I have no desire to debate the reason I would ask a question especial with a self admitted ass. Your schtick is tiresome.

(b)n I never claimed that the guests were the same people, so who fucking cares. My comment was made in an off hand manor, and intended in a friendly tone. You have continually proven that you prefer to be contentious by design. My reference was to the host.

You split hairs. Bullshitter, is the same as a liar in my book. I invite you to speak to my face the way you behave online, or rather, explain to me the difference between the two and see if all of your teeth remain in your smart mouth. Again, I do not talk to people any different on line than I do in person

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Last response

(a) The attitude and in fact, entire tone of the interview was pro abortion, listen to it your self if you like. I have no desire to debate the reason I would ask a question especial with a self admitted ass. Your schtick is tiresome.

(b)n I never claimed that the guests were the same people, so who fucking cares. My comment was made in an off hand manor, and intended in a friendly tone. You have continually proven that you prefer to be contentious by design. My reference was to the host.

You split hairs. Bullshitter, is the same as a liar in my book. I invite you to speak to my face the way you behave online, or rather, explain to me the difference between the two and see if all of your teeth remain in your smart mouth. Again, I do not talk to people any different on line than I do in person

Sweet! Our first Mt Tabor bout of the season!

 

[Denny Crane]

No, they aren't 'asking' that there be a doctor on staff. Read it again. The requirement is a doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital w/in 30 miles.

barfo

You know what? I take it back. I think a hospital within 30 miles is reasonable, not the admitting privileges requirement.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

You know what? I take it back. I think a hospital within 30 miles is reasonable, not the admitting privileges requirement.

I have been on the sideline enjoying the discussion. Why would you be against requiring that the doctor have admitting privileges? It sounds reasonable to me, as well as the majority of Texans who voted it into law.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Sweet! Our first Mt Tabor bout of the season!

hmm I should not let him pull my chain, I realize he does this shit to troll people. I just do not tolerate being called a liar. I know he would never have the stones to speak to me face to face as he does behind his little puter screen. Moot.

 

[barfo]

I have been on the sideline enjoying the discussion. Why would you be against requiring that the doctor have admitting privileges? It sounds reasonable to me, as well as the majority of Texans who voted it into law.

That's the majority of state legislators, not the majority of Texans. It was legislation, not an initiative.

The reason it was struck down is that it doesn't make any sense - why does it matter if the doc has admitting privileges?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's the majority of state legislators, not the majority of Texans. It was legislation, not an initiative.

The reason it was struck down is that it doesn't make any sense - why does it matter if the doc has admitting privileges?

barfo

Admitting privileges would mean the clinic is strongly affiliated with a hospital. And that does have certain advantages, no doubt, like better funding.

That said, it isn't required to make abortions any safer.

A hospital nearby in the ~1% chance something goes wrong seems like a good idea, though.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

That's the majority of state legislators, not the majority of Texans. It was legislation, not an initiative.

The reason it was struck down is that it doesn't make any sense - why does it matter if the doc has admitting privileges?

barfo

meh, I stand corrected. Slight point. I have only followed this by what NPR has had to say. They have not reported how it had became law, their focus has been more about how unreasonable and unfair the law is, from their point of view.

You opine that the law was "struck down because it does not make any sense", while others believe that it is of benefit to the mother to be. To me, I dont care one way or the other.

 

[Further]

First off, you have zero importance to me, but I do not respond well to being called a liar. 103.1 is the only station I listen to, so fuck you and your smug tone. The first program I made reference to was explained somewhere in this mess, but for your simple ass mind I will again refer to the program. They were talking about how unfair the new laws in Texas were in regards to abortion clinics, how some of the regulation, like requiring that the Attending physician have admitting privileges to a hospital within thirty miles was unreasonable etc. As far as providing a link, you have enough information to find it your self.

The second program I made reference to was on the same day, and as stated. It was the first in a series of several on the death penalty and haw cruel it was. The second the next day covered the different drugs used for lethal injection, and shortages of the originally approved drugs. How the replacement drugs were in the opinion of the author of the piece, an painful evil way to murder someone..based on speculation the he thought that the person suffered because they did not fall asleep as fast...

Both stories had the tone as I have stated. My question was in earnest, well thought out and fairly asked, not a troll question.

And again, fuck you and your smug attitude, I am no liar and I resent like hell you accusing me of being one. I do not respond to any one on here in any manor that I would not speak to them in person. I extend that honor to you, any time you would like to call me a liar.

You need to look inward.

 

[barfo]

You opine that the law was "struck down because it does not make any sense", while others believe that it is of benefit to the mother to be. To me, I dont care one way or the other.

I didn't opine that. The court that struck it down opined that. I was merely reporting.

barfo

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I didn't opine that. The court that struck it down opined that. I was merely reporting.

barfo

I dont have the audio..but I doubt they said "it does not make any sense" hahahhaaahaaa if that is the case, we all need better judges than what we have..errr, hmmm could be the case

 

[barfo]

I dont have the audio..but I doubt they said "it does not make any sense" hahahhaaahaaa if that is the case, we all need better judges than what we have..errr, hmmm could be the case

You are of course right, I was paraphrasing. What they actually said was "the act’s admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis". You can decide if I misrepresented...

barfo