What a vile, scumbag organization!

[fj1200]

Yes, contraception that is 100% or even 99% effective will prevent unplanned pregnancies, the cause of medical terminations.

Your side fights Planned Parenthood, the premier family planning clinics in our country, tooth and nail. Some of the extremists on your side think only abstinence is the appropriate contraception.

Don't you dare call me a killer or a murderer.

Planning prevents unplanned pregnancies. Perchance if the anti-life ;) extremists would acknowledge that simple things like partial-birth abortion is evil and unnecessary then moderation would be easier to attain. They fight tooth-and-nail for anything that would infringe on a woman's "right" don't they?

[Howard Roark]

. Additionally, funding services for women and children would support their anti-abortion agenda.

More irony. The typical 'pro life' individual also supports cutting back 'wasteful' spending on programs that would do exactly what you suggest above.

They aren't really 'pro life'. They're 'pro birth'. After that, they don't want to hear about your problems.

[logroller]

Of course all intelligent people are subject to a change of opinion. Your question assumes that women arbitrarily opt to just go and remove an embryo from the lining of their uterus, as if it were as easy as getting their teeth cleaned.

I'm quite sure that the majority suffer great emotional pain, before they opt for the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Again... staunch anti abortion advocates should focus attention on rounding up families for adoption.

Their time would be better served in that endeavor, as opposed to picketing womens' health clinics.
Rather you choose to believe it or not, some women do, in fact, make an arbitrary choice to have an abortion, multiple in fact. Received from the exact same facility which gives out birth control. I know this occurs. As I mentioned earlier my sister's friend did so. Why she didn't take advantage of the preventative care? Your guess is as good as mine. How she did it, though, is easily explained: it was her choice. Now I'm not segueing against her choice in doing so; merely
mentioning that it's not as though every woman who receives an abortion is responsible. Passing out contraceptives on every street corner or going door to door rounding up willing adoptive parents won't change that.

I know a couple who have adopted. They were fertile but the wife didn't want to birth kids, so they chose to adopt. The first baby they got at 2 weeks, raised it for six months and then the mothers grandmother decided she'd raise it. So they get another, this time at two days old; same thing. After 18 months the mother changed her mind. Third time, they were successful. After five years of trying to adopt, it was finalized. On the flip side, my cousin's best friend, who's a bit of a burn out, was contacted that an ex-gf of his had a baby and put it up for adoption. His son, now 14 months old, was living with a family who were unable to conceive. He is now raising his son. I'm not rallying one way or the other. I believe in the solemn right of a parent to raise their own; such periods of waiting serve to ensure this right is preserved.
What I'm saying is, its not a lack of willing adoptive parents. It's lack of parents willing to deal with irresponsible pregnant women who act only in their interests; failing to consult their family and the father in regards to how others may be willing to assist, lend support or bear the burden of child-rearing. You know who does do those things-- adoption agencies who operate under the laws of the state which require them to do so.

[Wind Song]

More irony. The typical 'pro life' individual also supports cutting back 'wasteful' spending on programs that would do exactly what you suggest above.

They aren't really 'pro life'. They're 'pro birth'. After that, they don't want to hear about your problems.

They're "pro-fetus". After the baby is born they could give a shit about funding nutrition programs, poverty programs, health programs or education.

[logroller]

Planning prevents unplanned pregnancies. Perchance if the anti-life ;) extremists would acknowledge that simple things like partial-birth abortion is evil and unnecessary then moderation would be easier to attain. They fight tooth-and-nail for anything that would infringe on a woman's "right" don't they?
The prochoicers are arguing for partial- birth adoption.

[fj1200]

They're "pro-fetus". After the baby is born they don't feel the need to endlessly support wasteful government programs that incentivize destructive behavior and ineffective governmental-education monopolies.

That would have been true.

[Wind Song]

Planning prevents unplanned pregnancies. Perchance if the anti-life ;) extremists would acknowledge that simple things like partial-birth abortion is evil and unnecessary then moderation would be easier to attain. They fight tooth-and-nail for anything that would infringe on a woman's "right" don't they?


Planning prevents pregnancies. Using contraception when having sex prevents unplanned pregancies.

Are you calling me an 'anti-life extremist'? Terminating a pregnancy means that life is terminated. No one is denying that. I've said many times (and been completely ignored each and every time) that I'd prefer women have sound counsel from doctor, priest, and supportive partner and community when making this decision.

Anti-abortion, pro-choice. NOT "anti-life extremist".

IMO, giving birth is living giving. It's preferable to abortion.

[logroller]

They're "pro-fetus". After the baby is born they could give a shit about funding nutrition programs, poverty programs, health programs or education.
Hell I'm prochoice; but if I pay for it, I get to decide who gets em. Deal?

[Wind Song]

Hell I'm prochoice; but if I pay for it, I get to decide who gets em. Deal?

That would be you working it out with whoever you got pregnant. It's not up to me.

[fj1200]

Are you calling me an 'anti-life extremist'?

Where did I do that? I'm just taking a page out of your book and attempting to paint you by the actions of the extremists.

[Wind Song]

Where did I do that? I'm just taking a page out of your book and attempting to paint you by the actions of the extremists.

You folks jump all over me when I do this and now you do it. Later for you.

[libertine]

:laugh2: :lame2:

Mitt Romney to Fundraise With Plan B Maker Pharmaceutical Magnate Phil Frost


As Think Progress noted, after complaining and fearmongering about the mandate that will require insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives at no cost, and lying and calling emergency contraception "an abortion pill," which it's not, now he going to be fundraising with the drug manufacturer's chairman.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mitt-romney-fundraise-plan-b-maker-pharmac

[Wind Song]

:laugh2: :lame2:

Mitt Romney to Fundraise With Plan B Maker Pharmaceutical Magnate Phil Frost



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mitt-romney-fundraise-plan-b-maker-pharmac


Why am I not surprised? Political hypocrisy on either side? Business as usual. Big business buys votes.

[logroller]

That would be you working it out with whoever you got pregnant. It's not up to me.
well that's not now it works though, is it? It's the woman's choice.
Regardless, the taxpayer didnt get anyone pregnant. Yet the taxpayer is obligated to fund contraception and the upbringing of that child should a woman choose to have and keep that child.

[logroller]

You folks jump all over me when I do this and now you do it. Later for you.
FWIW, I've enjoyed this discussion with you. We may disagree; but we're still agreeable-- if that makes sense.

[jimnyc]

They're "pro-fetus". After the baby is born they could give a shit about funding nutrition programs, poverty programs, health programs or education.

People should be responsible when potentially creating a baby; having sex. People should also be responsible for the things you mention above, as parents and as "personal responsibility". Too many times people have sex and then loko around with there hands out asking for others to get them out of their problems.

[Wind Song]

FWIW, I've enjoyed this discussion with you. We may disagree; but we're still agreeable-- if that makes sense.
Me too. I've enjoyed talking to you and I'm happy that we're on friendly terms again.

[jimnyc]

Mitt Romney to Fundraise With Plan B Maker Pharmaceutical Magnate Phil Frost

Has Romney changed his stance as a result? Is he taking money directly from the manufacturer or individual? Or is he having a fund raiser at this man's house? No doubt a hypocritical move to an extent, but I believe his position has remained the same, no?

[Wind Song]

Has Romney changed his stance as a result? Is he taking money directly from the manufacturer or individual? Or is he having a fund raiser at this man's house? No doubt a hypocritical move to an extent, but I believe his position has remained the same, no?

His position is he's priveleged and clueless about the poor.

[jimnyc]

His position is he's priveleged and clueless about the poor.

What SPECIFICALLY makes you say he is clueless about the poor?

[logroller]

Has Romney changed his stance as a result? Is he taking money directly from the manufacturer or individual? Or is he having a fund raiser at this man's house? No doubt a hypocritical move to an extent, but I believe his position has remained the same, no?

One's official position and who they take money from aren't necessarily the same. Call it hypocrisy if one wishes, but it's politics. Romney did sign a healthcare plan into law as governor of mass, a rather liberal state. Regardless of his personal feelings, he did what the people he represented wanted and were constitutionally entitled to demand. I think that's a valued trait IMO, and one of the reasons Romney is a superior candidate than Obama.

[jimnyc]

One's official position and who they take money from aren't necessarily the same. Call it hypocrisy if one wishes, but it's politics. Romney did sign a healthcare plan into law as governor of mass, a rather liberal state. Regardless of his personal feelings, he did what the people he represented wanted and were constitutionally entitled to decide. I think that's a valued trait IMO, and one of the reasons Romney is a superior candidate than Obama.

ANd personally against gay marriage, what happened in Mass with him as governor? Things that make you go hmmmmmm......

[Wind Song]

What SPECIFICALLY makes you say he is clueless about the poor?


Some of the idiotic things he's said. "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

[jimnyc]

Some of the idiotic things he's said. "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

You'll have to give me more than a quote with no source of context! You state some, please be more specific. I'm curious what and how he has stated things to make you think he doesn't care about the poor. His track record in liberal Mass paints a much different picture.

[jimnyc]

Some of the idiotic things he's said. "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Also, in the same breath did he not say he cared about ALL Americans? And did in the next sentence he state that if there was something broken for the very poor, that he would fix it?

Context is key!

[Wind Song]

You'll have to give me more than a quote with no source of context! You state some, please be more specific. I'm curious what and how he has stated things to make you think he doesn't care about the poor. His track record in liberal Mass paints a much different picture.


What do you care why I'm not voting for him? It's none of your damn business. I don't trust the guy to look out for my interests at home or abroad.

[jimnyc]

What do you care why I'm not voting for him? It's none of your damn business. I don't trust the guy to look out for my interests at home or abroad.

It concerns me when someone fucking lies, and is so fucking gone in their heads mentally, and yet still has the power to vote. I'm done with you, as you say.

[Wind Song]

It concerns me when someone fucking lies, and is so fucking gone in their heads mentally, and yet still has the power to vote. I'm done with you, as you say.


Bye.

[jimnyc]

For people with operational craniums:

Mitt Romney did in fact make that statement, here is the full quote...


Mitt Romney won big in Florida on Tuesday night, but by Wednesday he was back to putting his foot in his mouth.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor," he told CNN's Soledad O'Brien in an interview the morning after beating rival Newt Gingrich.

"I’m in this race because I care about Americans," Romney said. "I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it."

The GOP frontrunner did make a point to note that he also does not care about the wealthy — and that his target audience are the people in the middle of those two extremes.

Sounds to me like he was being clear that he is not centering in on poor or wealthy, that his job would be to ALL Americans.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-01/news/31014929_1_mitt-romney-focus-tax-returns

[Wind Song]

There are many things praiseworthy about Romney but I won't vote for him. The handling of the “managed bankruptcies” and federal rescue of General Motors and Chrysler is probably the best example of what troubles me about Romney. Perhaps, you forgot his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" trip. He didn't have the vision to see that a “rescue” was perfectly compatible with restructuring the car companies.

Romney's main ideas are cutting taxes for corporations and attacks on unions. He's a "drill baby drill" guy.

What about his off shore bank accounts? What about his involvement in "divident recapitalizations"? Very distasteful business practice, although legal. Where are his tax returns?

Romney and I share some values. He's faithfully married, devoted to his faith, and successful in the world. On social issues, we part company.

[Howard Roark]

For people with operational craniums:

Mitt Romney did in fact make that statement, here is the full quote...



Sounds to me like he was being clear that he is not centering in on poor or wealthy, that his job would be to ALL Americans.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-01/news/31014929_1_mitt-romney-focus-tax-returns

He's vowing to kill funding for many aspects of that 'safety net'.

Looks like Windsong was right.

[jimnyc]

He's vowing to kill funding for many aspects of that 'safety net'.

Looks like Windsong was right.

So we're supposed to see you post a talking point and take your word for it? How about links and lists of these things he plans on killing funding for, that are going to hurt the very poor. We can look at the facts you speak of and see if it's correct or not.

[Wind Song]

Don't mind Jim, Howard. He gets nervous if they're more than one liberal posting on any given thread.

Despite numerous TV interviews at the time of the “bailout” where Romney is on tape opposing the use of government funds to “bailout” the auto industry, and his op ed saying let Detroit go bankrupt, Mitt Romney said today that he is “taking a lot of credit for the bailout.” It was all his idea.
http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-s-etch-a-sketch-targets-the-auto-industry-bailout

[jimnyc]

Don't mind Jim, Howard. He gets nervous if they're more than one liberal posting on any given thread.

Howard can at least happily go forward that I won't cry victim as a result of his opinion, and then accuse him of saying things he never wrote, and then starting a thread about him in the cage. I think Howard and I are capable of exchanging ideas/POV's without things getting shitty. Worry about your own issues, Howard doesn't have any.

[jimnyc]

Despite numerous TV interviews at the time of the “bailout” where Romney is on tape opposing the use of government funds to “bailout” the auto industry, and his op ed saying let Detroit go bankrupt, Mitt Romney said today that he is “taking a lot of credit for the bailout.” It was all his idea.
http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-s-etch-a-sketch-targets-the-auto-industry-bailout

Yeah, I can see how a businessman, not agreeing to a bailout = means he has it in for the very poor! :lol:

[Wind Song]

Howard can at least happily go forward that I won't cry victim as a result of his opinion, and then accuse him of saying things he never wrote, and then starting a thread about him in the cage. I think Howard and I are capable of exchanging ideas/POV's without things getting shitty. Worry about your own issues, Howard doesn't have any.

You do.

[jimnyc]

You do.

Yeah, and I suppose that further shows that Romney has it in for the very poor! :lol:

[Wind Song]

Yeah, and I suppose that further shows that Romney has it in for the very poor! :lol:


I'm tired.

[jimnyc]

I'm tired.

Take a nap.

[Howard Roark]

So we're supposed to see you post a talking point and take your word for it? How about links and lists of these things he plans on killing funding for, that are going to hurt the very poor. We can look at the facts you speak of and see if it's correct or not.
Talking point? Really? You haven't been watching the primaries at all? For the sake of this thread, Romney has stated that he will 'do away with Planned Parenthood'. Do you need a link for that?

Because Romney changes his positions with the weather, he maintains the ability to deny he's made any specific claims about anything.

And he's been pretty vague on specifics, but his budget proposal reads like this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658

During his campaign, Governor Romney has made four proposals that would significantly affect the overall level of federal spending, taxes, and the deficit:
■Cap total spending: "Reduce federal spending to 20 percent of GDP by the end of my first term" and "cap it at that level." [1]
■Increase defense spending: "Set a core defense spending floor of 4 percent of GDP."[2]
■Cut taxes: Permanently extend the 2001-2003 tax cuts, eliminate taxation of the investment income of most individuals, reduce the corporate income tax, eliminate the estate tax, and repeal the taxes enacted in the 2010 health reform legislation.[3]
■Balance the budget: Put the federal government "on a path to a balanced budget."[4]


Increase defense spending? That's ridiculous. As well, if you examine his tax cuts, the top earners reap the vast majority of the benefit, while lower income families continue to struggle.

Are you demanding links to the obvious because you haven't been following his campaign, or because you just hope I'll leave the thread?
This is stuff he brags about.

[Kathianne]

Talking point? Really? You haven't been watching the primaries at all? For the sake of this thread, Romney has stated that he will 'do away with Planned Parenthood'. Do you need a link for that?

Because Romney changes his positions with the weather, he maintains the ability to deny he's made any specific claims about anything.

And he's been pretty vague on specifics, but his budget proposal reads like this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658



Increase defense spending? That's ridiculous. As well, if you examine his tax cuts, the top earners reap the vast majority of the benefit, while lower income families continue to struggle.

Are you demanding links to the obvious because you haven't been following his campaign, or because you just hope I'll leave the thread?
This is stuff he brags about.

Planned parenthood according to 'those in the know' get so few funds, shouldn't be an issue.

[jimnyc]

Talking point? Really? You haven't been watching the primaries at all? For the sake of this thread, Romney has stated that he will 'do away with Planned Parenthood'. Do you need a link for that?

Because Romney changes his positions with the weather, he maintains the ability to deny he's made any specific claims about anything.

And he's been pretty vague on specifics, but his budget proposal reads like this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658



Increase defense spending? That's ridiculous. As well, if you examine his tax cuts, the top earners reap the vast majority of the benefit, while lower income families continue to struggle.

Are you demanding links to the obvious because you haven't been following his campaign, or because you just hope I'll leave the thread?
This is stuff he brags about.

I fail to see how ANYTHING you posted shows Romney to be completely out of touch with very poor people or how he has it in for them. What does defense spending have to do with poor people? Capping total spending? Cutting taxes? What does any of this have to do with what you said WS was correct about?

It sounds like someone who has a plan, that he feels, would be best for reviving a shitty economy. I don't see what you posted to be against poor people, nor do I see it as things being cut that effect poor people.

As you can see, I demand links because people get lost and sometimes forget what the hell they are talking about. But maybe next time you respond, you can remember what the topic is, and backup the comments that I actually asked you about.

[SassyLady]

^no more invasive than what got one pregnant to begin with; and with few exceptions, that was elective. Not to mention, abortion is an elective invasive procedure.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[SassyLady]

The pro-choice crowd fights anything designed to take a woman's choice away. It's about choice. Women have the legal rights to their own bodies. You want the fetus to have more rights than the woman. So your side will throw up anything it can to lessen a woman's ability to choose whether to carry or terminate her pregancy.

Heavy handed, as usual.

It's true abortion stops a beating heart, (if the fetus is that developed to have one.) but so does heart surgery. Both are elective medical procedures.

How can having more information regarding a procedure be viewed as "lessening a woman's ability to choose"? This doesn't make sense to me.

Windsong ... if you were buying a car, wouldn't you want to know as much information about the car as you could before you purchased it? If a woman has to make a choice to take the life of her unborn baby shouldn't she have as much information about the procedure as possible?

Why is it that the pro-choice people are so afraid to show sonograms? Is it because you know that it will save more babies? Are you afraid that the woman will NOT have a choice if she's seen the sonogram?

Your argument holds no water.

[SassyLady]

You can't even read the thread topic or poster, let alone respond to an argument; how in the hell are you gonna debate me?

But what the hell--Let's give it a try. Here's my argument:

Requiring a sonogram as a contingency for an elective abortion is entirely reasonable.

Abortion is legal in the United States.
Society is obligated to respect the woman's rights, as well the rights of the fetus (should they exist).
Legally, the rights of the fetus began at a certain stage of development.
Establishing the stage of development is best done by use of sonograms.
Though sonograms are invasive, they are less invasive than the abortion procedure.
A woman who voluntarily elects to have an abortion does so with the understanding it involves an invasive procedure above and beyond the level of invasion performed by a sonogram.
Thus, a woman cannot claim her right to privacy while coextensively electing a procedure which involves that exact same level of invasion. Therefore, requiring a sonogram serves to protect the rights of an unborn child without violating the rights of the woman, and it would be reasonable to impose such a precondition to abortion.

And, no one says the woman has to actually look at the sonogram. It's more about showing the stage of development so that the abortion doesn't fall into the "illegal" range.

[Howard Roark]

I fail to see how ANYTHING you posted shows Romney to be completely out of touch with very poor people or how he has it in for them.
I fail to see why you are addressing me about the above statement.

What does defense spending have to do with poor people? Capping total spending? Cutting taxes? What does any of this have to do with what you said WS was correct about? As I've already stated, he plans to make cuts to programs that affect the 'safety net' he referred to.
He backs Ryan's budget, which among other things, plans to kill Medicare/Caid. He believes that handing a senior a voucher for $5000., and telling them to shop for insurance is going to afford them better care than they have now.

If he's going to ramp up defense spending, where do you think his cut will come from? Food stamps, for one.

C'mon....this isn't something that's been kept a secret.


It sounds like someone who has a plan, that he feels, would be best for reviving a shitty economy. I don't see what you posted to be against poor people, nor do I see it as things being cut that effect poor people.Yes. He has a plan to continue to give the top earners more pocket change, while squeezing the middle class. Why not pay down debt with all these phantom savings?

My point stands. His plan is to make cuts to the safety net he refers to. He's 'not worried' about the very poor.




As you can see, I demand links because people get lost and sometimes forget what the hell they are talking about. But maybe next time you respond, you can remember what the topic is, and backup the comments that I actually asked you about

The topic is abortion, in case YOU forgot. Romney will do away with Planned Parenthood. You weren't aware?

I could accuse you of entering a discussion without the benefit of the facts.

But I won't.

Maybe next time

[SassyLady]

Good. It's the right move. Contraception is much cheaper procedure than abortion.

Why should insurance pay for either?

[SassyLady]

Planning prevents pregnancies. Using contraception when having sex prevents unplanned pregancies.

Are you calling me an 'anti-life extremist'? Terminating a pregnancy means that life is terminated. No one is denying that. I've said many times (and been completely ignored each and every time) that I'd prefer women have sound counsel from doctor, priest, and supportive partner and community when making this decision.

Anti-abortion, pro-choice. NOT "anti-life extremist".

IMO, giving birth is living giving. It's preferable to abortion.

So, why isn't showing the pregnant mother the sonogram part of that "sound counsel" you so ardently advocate?

[SassyLady]

For people with operational craniums:

Mitt Romney did in fact make that statement, here is the full quote...



Sounds to me like he was being clear that he is not centering in on poor or wealthy, that his job would be to ALL Americans.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-01/news/31014929_1_mitt-romney-focus-tax-returns

He was making a dig at Obama who wants to redistribute the earnings of the wealthy to the poor. Talk about being out of touch ... What is Obama doing for the middle class of America?

[logroller]

Talking point? Really? You haven't been watching the primaries at all? For the sake of this thread, Romney has stated that he will 'do away with Planned Parenthood'. Do you need a link for that?

Because Romney changes his positions with the weather, he maintains the ability to deny he's made any specific claims about anything.

And he's been pretty vague on specifics, but his budget proposal reads like this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658



Increase defense spending? That's ridiculous. As well, if you examine his tax cuts, the top earners reap the vast majority of the benefit, while lower income families continue to struggle.

Are you demanding links to the obvious because you haven't been following his campaign, or because you just hope I'll leave the thread?
This is stuff he brags about.on the 4% of GDP military floor, we spend more than that now! Up from 2008; percentage wise.

The graph on page 17 provides some perspective on these figures. As we see, last year’s $700 billion military budget represented 4.7 percent of the country’s GDP. This was higher even than in 2008, Bush’s last year in office, when defense was 4.3 percent of GDP. In 2000, Bill Clinton’s final year in office and before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, military spending was 3 percent of GDP. In today’s economy, the difference between a military budget at 3 percent of GDP versus 4.7 percent is $260 billion. Thus, if we were to return just to the 2000 level of defense spending as a share of the economy, that would itself entail “budget cuts” of about $1 trillion over four years (i.e., $260 billion per year for four years).
http://www.thenation.com/article/167811/dont-buy-spin-how-cutting-pentagons-budget-could-boost-economy
not saying its all hunky dory to have high spending on military, but it's not unique to Romney; bush and Obama did it too.

[tailfins]

There are many things praiseworthy about Romney but I won't vote for him. The handling of the “managed bankruptcies” and federal rescue of General Motors and Chrysler is probably the best example of what troubles me about Romney. Perhaps, you forgot his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" trip. He didn't have the vision to see that a “rescue” was perfectly compatible with restructuring the car companies.

Romney's main ideas are cutting taxes for corporations and attacks on unions. He's a "drill baby drill" guy.

What about his off shore bank accounts? What about his involvement in "divident recapitalizations"? Very distasteful business practice, although legal. Where are his tax returns?

Romney and I share some values. He's faithfully married, devoted to his faith, and successful in the world. On social issues, we part company.

If an entity is insolvent, there should be a standard bankruptcy process so the insolvency isn't politicized. If Obama gets re-elected, we keep eating the same crap sandwich. You may not notice because you live with near-minimum wage jobs. I refuse to accept it. And it isn't partisan either. Except for Rhode Island, New England is doing pretty well. At least here I can understand re-electing public figures. Over the country as a whole: Enough of the crap sandwich.


Drill baby drill? Why not? Do you want a return of the 1973 lines at gas stations with exorbitant prices?


By the way: It's obvious you're voting for Obama no matter what.

[Howard Roark]

on the 4% of GDP military floor, we spend more than that now! Up from 2008; percentage wise.
http://www.thenation.com/article/167811/dont-buy-spin-how-cutting-pentagons-budget-could-boost-economy
not saying its all hunky dory to have high spending on military, but it's not unique to Romney; bush and Obama did it too.

We know Bush did it. In fact, he spent more than his records show, due to his fancy accounting.

Obama inherited two wars. In my opinion, he hasn't scaled back enough. I'm guessing he took advice from the Pentagon.


What we need to do is cut the military budget in the future...not increase it.

Moreover, we need to employ our soldiers, and fire the privatized military.

[Nukeman]

We know Bush did it. In fact, he spent more than his records show, due to his fancy accounting.

Obama inherited two wars. In my opinion, he hasn't scaled back enough. I'm guessing he took advice from the Pentagon.


What we need to do is cut the military budget in the future...not increase it.

Moreover, we need to employ our soldiers, and fire the privatized military.
How about the education budget??? Should we also cut that?? I mean we arent getting our monies worth out of that at all.

[Howard Roark]

How about the education budget??? Should we also cut that?? I mean we arent getting our monies worth out of that at all.

Now you're just steering the discussion into the abyss.

[Nukeman]

Now you're just steering the discussion into the abyss.how so you said we should cut the military budget and as such we should also cut the education budget, they are if memory serves me correctly about the same amount when you factor in the amount the states and fed spend!!! So if YOU are going to bring themilitary budget into this thread why do we NOT get to bring other budgets into it??? YOU the only one that gets to pick what will and wont be cut??

[Howard Roark]

how so you said we should cut the military budget and as such we should also cut the education budget, they are if memory serves me correctly about the same amount when you factor in the amount the states and fed spend!!! So if YOU are going to bring themilitary budget into this thread why do we NOT get to bring other budgets into it??? YOU the only one that gets to pick what will and wont be cut??

Maybe you should start a new thread. This one is about abortion, and Romney's vow to kill Planned Parenthood.

[Nukeman]

Maybe you should start a new thread. This one is about abortion, and Romney's vow to kill Planned Parenthood.So why did YOU bring up cutting the funding for the military?? Now you tell me to start a new thread!!! WOW!!!! Why don't YOU stick to the topic at hand.. Glass houses, stones, all that you know!!!

[Howard Roark]

So why did YOU bring up cutting the funding for the military?? Now you tell me to start a new thread!!! WOW!!!! Why don't YOU stick to the topic at hand.. Glass houses, stones, all that you know!!!

One of the fallacies of piling on, is that one member demands proof of something, and then another member jumps on one aspect of said proof, and attempts to steer the discussion in a different direction.

You are free to start a thread on any topic you wish, and I may or may not join the discussion.

[jimnyc]

One of the fallacies of piling on, is that one member demands proof of something, and then another member jumps on one aspect of said proof, and attempts to steer the discussion in a different direction.

You are free to start a thread on any topic you wish, and I may or may not join the discussion.

YOU said it appeared WS was correct in what she said to me, and offered no proof. I in turn asked you for proof that Romney was out of touch with the very poor. YOU provided budget information that suits what YOU like. When someone offered budget information in addition, you claimed they were off topic. If you have no interest in this thread backing up WS's commments or your own, and would rather discuss planned parenthood and abortion - then WHY did you jump in head first to a discussion that was about Romney and the "very poor"? I'm confused.

[logroller]

YOU said it appeared WS was correct in what she said to me, and offered no proof. I in turn asked you for proof that Romney was out of touch with the very poor. YOU provided budget information that suits what YOU like. When someone offered budget information in addition, you claimed they were off topic. If you have no interest in this thread backing up WS's commments or your own, and would rather discuss planned parenthood and abortion - then WHY did you jump in head first to a discussion that was about Romney and the "very poor"? I'm confused.
Perhaps it's that Romney is out of touch with how desperately the poor need abortions.

[jimnyc]

Perhaps it's that Romney is out of touch with how desperately the poor need abortions.

Sad thing is, FAR too many abortions are performed simply so that the "parents" can save money. I got news for them - a condom or pill is much cheaper than an abortion.

Planned Parenthood discussions always end up around the pill, condoms and abortion <------ can someone tell me what any of those have to do with "parenthood"?

[logroller]

Sad thing is, FAR too many abortions are performed simply so that the "parents" can save money. I got news for them - a condom or pill is much cheaper than an abortion.

Planned Parenthood discussions always end up around the pill, condoms and abortion <------ can someone tell me what any of those have to do with "parenthood"?
Perhaps they could use a rebranding....

Prego prevention and more

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps they could use a rebranding....

Prego prevention and more

"You spread 'em, we dead 'em"

"Planned Deathhood"

[fj1200]

You folks jump all over me when I do this and now you do it. Later for you.

Hmm, irony lost.

[Gator Monroe]

I'm all for Abortion Free on Demand (In Every Turd World Neiborhood & Village & Town & City)

[Howard Roark]

YOU said it appeared WS was correct in what she said to me, and offered no proof. I in turn asked you for proof that Romney was out of touch with the very poor. YOU provided budget information that suits what YOU like. When someone offered budget information in addition, you claimed they were off topic. If you have no interest in this thread backing up WS's commments or your own, and would rather discuss planned parenthood and abortion - then WHY did you jump in head first to a discussion that was about Romney and the "very poor"? I'm confused.

I see that you are confused.




I agree Howard. I also think they would be better served supporting contraceptive services for women and not fighting Planned Parenthood. Additionally, funding services for women and children would support their anti-abortion agenda.

WS then mentioned that Romney doesn't care about the poor. You countered with his comment about a 'safety net'.
I told you that he wants to cut that safety net.

Are you going to tell me that you weren't aware of his position on PP?

[logroller]

Hey Howard ; you'd said my source refuted my argument. Couldn't find what you were talking about. Responded to you : http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35060-What-a-vile-scumbag-organization!&p=545623#post545623

[Howard Roark]

Hey Howard ; you'd said my source refuted my argument. Couldn't find what you were talking about. Responded to you : http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35060-What-a-vile-scumbag-organization!&p=545623#post545623

I'll check it out...thanks

[Howard Roark]

However, there are a couple of points. In very early stage abortions, a standard sonogram wouldn't show much.


If you read carefully, you'll see that your link shows at what stage of development a sonogram is usually performed.

That alone refutes your argument, when it comes to the early stage abortions.


Hey Howard ; you'd said my source refuted my argument. Couldn't find what you were talking about. Responded to you : http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35060-What-a-vile-scumbag-organization!&p=545623#post545623


Your source shows that sonograms are typically used for women who are at least 12 weeks pregnant.

As you can see, I mentioned that for early stage abortions, sonograms aren't necessary...rather...punitive.


I believe you attempted to defend sonograms as common for any abortions.

[logroller]

Your source shows that sonograms are typically used for women who are at least 12 weeks pregnant.

As you can see, I mentioned that for early stage abortions, sonograms aren't necessary...rather...punitive.


I believe you attempted to defend sonograms as common for any abortions.

No. I said sonograms are routinely used to establish the stage of fetal development; that was it. They are performed routinely at 12 weeks on pregnant women; but not the transvaginal type, as cited in my post. Transvaginal sonograms are most useful for early on in pregnancies (before 12 weeks), whereas the obstetric sonogram (the type performed on the belly), which most are more familiar with, are performed after 12 weeks. On a typical pregnancy a fetal heartbeat monitor is all that is used in the first trimester. I suppose if some abnormality is detected, a transvaginal sonogram would/could be prescribed. That's not meant to be punitive; merely a diagnostic test. If someone is going to abort, having them wait until 12 weeks, when obstetric sonograms would be more conclusive, would be more punitive; wouldn't you agree?

[jimnyc]

I see that you are confused.



.

WS then mentioned that Romney doesn't care about the poor. You countered with his comment about a 'safety net'.
I told you that he wants to cut that safety net.

Are you going to tell me that you weren't aware of his position on PP?

And how does defense spending affect this differently than direct PP funding or perhaps educational funding? WHY is it ok to point out defense spending, which has jack shit to do with PP, but you claim others veer off topic when they do similar? Defense spending, and other things you pointed out, have NOTHING to do with PP, or a safety net for the poor.

[Howard Roark]

And how does defense spending affect this differently than direct PP funding or perhaps educational funding? WHY is it ok to point out defense spending, which has jack shit to do with PP, but you claim others veer off topic when they do similar? Defense spending, and other things you pointed out, have NOTHING to do with PP, or a safety net for the poor.

Answer me. Were you aware of Romney's position on PP?

If so. why did you demand links to Romney's plans to cut funding for low income programs?

So you address me with a smartass comment about links. When I give you a broad spectrum of Romney's plans, which starts with the foundation of his agreement with Ryan's budget, you now want to address the scope of my rebuttal?

You either need me to walk you through this stuff, or you don't. Make up your mind.


Now kindly tell us if you were aware of Romney's position re. PP?

[Missileman]

No. I said sonograms are routinely used to establish the stage of fetal development; that was it. They are performed routinely at 12 weeks on pregnant women; but not the transvaginal type, as cited in my post. Transvaginal sonograms are most useful for early on in pregnancies (before 12 weeks), whereas the obstetric sonogram (the type performed on the belly), which most are more familiar with, are performed after 12 weeks. On a typical pregnancy a fetal heartbeat monitor is all that is used in the first trimester. I suppose if some abnormality is detected, a transvaginal sonogram would/could be prescribed. That's not meant to be punitive; merely a diagnostic test. If someone is going to abort, having them wait until 12 weeks, when obstetric sonograms would be more conclusive, would be more punitive; wouldn't you agree?

If it's less than 12 weeks, that too can be determined with the obstetric sonogram. They don't have to establish the exact stage of development, just ensure it's less than (22 weeks?) the legal line. The transvaginal sonogram is being used as a weapon against women seeking abortion, plain and simple.

[Howard Roark]

No. I said sonograms are routinely used to establish the stage of fetal development; that was it. They are performed routinely at 12 weeks on pregnant women; but not the transvaginal type, as cited in my post. Transvaginal sonograms are most useful for early on in pregnancies (before 12 weeks), whereas the obstetric sonogram (the type performed on the belly), which most are more familiar with, are performed after 12 weeks. On a typical pregnancy a fetal heartbeat monitor is all that is used in the first trimester. I suppose if some abnormality is detected, a transvaginal sonogram would/could be prescribed. That's not meant to be punitive; merely a diagnostic test. If someone is going to abort, having them wait until 12 weeks, when obstetric sonograms would be more conclusive, would be more punitive; wouldn't you agree?


Here's my argument:

Requiring a sonogram as a contingency for an elective abortion is entirely reasonable.
Abortion is legal in the United States.
Society is obligated to respect the woman's rights, as well the rights of the fetus (should they exist).
Legally, the rights of the fetus began at a certain stage of development.
Establishing the stage of development is best done by use of sonograms.
Though sonograms are invasive, they are less invasive than the abortion procedure.
A woman who voluntarily elects to have an abortion does so with the understanding it involves an invasive procedure above and beyond the level of invasion performed by a sonogram.
Thus, a woman cannot claim her right to privacy while coextensively electing a procedure which involves that exact same level of invasion.

Again...I said that sonograms are useless in early stage abortions. Why is this so hard for you to understand?



Therefore, requiring a sonogram serves to protect the rights of an unborn child without violating the rights of the woman, and it would be reasonable to impose such a precondition to abortion.

Severely flawed logic. How is an unnecessary sonogram 'protecting the rights to an unborn child', if it isn't meant solely to be punitive in nature, or serve to dissuade the woman from having the procedure? What you consider 'reasonable' is of no consequence in this discussion.


Further, Texas now requires both the sonogram, and a 24 hour waiting period. Both unnecessary, and punitive in nature.

Because you refuse to answer my question...I'll ask for the 4th time.

Is there anyone in the medical field who has weighed in on this legislation? Was any woman's health specialist consulted?

I think not.

[jimnyc]

Answer me. Were you aware of Romney's position on PP?

If so. why did you demand links to Romney's plans to cut funding for low income programs?

So you address me with a smartass comment about links. When I give you a broad spectrum of Romney's plans, which starts with the foundation of his agreement with Ryan's budget, you now want to address the scope of my rebuttal?

You either need me to walk you through this stuff, or you don't. Make up your mind.


Now kindly tell us if you were aware of Romney's position re. PP?

You think you can dictate rules of a debate/discussion, and it doesn't work that way. YOU made comments and that makes it up to YOU to prove them. Thus far the only thing you have proved is that you can't comprehend the difference between defense spending and PP. But if you're going to bring up Romney's handling of spending or budget issues, then you don't get to just toss out what you don't like and call it irrelevant. Well, you can, and I'll respond like this and state it anyway.

YOU claimed he is out of touch with poor people. EVEN IF he would like to reduce spending for PP, it could be part of the status quo for certain conservatives within his group, but I hardly see how that has anything to do with poor people. He was successful with hi budget in Mass and didn't have a problem with poor people there. You want to pick apart something YOU don't like and blame Mitt for being out of touch. When someone responds, to counter, if you don't like it you will just try and dismiss. Lame.

[Howard Roark]

You think you can dictate rules of a debate/discussion, and it doesn't work that way. YOU made comments and that makes it up to YOU to prove them. Thus far the only thing you have proved is that you can't comprehend the difference between defense spending and PP. But if you're going to bring up Romney's handling of spending or budget issues, then you don't get to just toss out what you don't like and call it irrelevant. Well, you can, and I'll respond like this and state it anyway.

YOU claimed he is out of touch with poor people. EVEN IF he would like to reduce spending for PP, it could be part of the status quo for certain conservatives within his group, but I hardly see how that has anything to do with poor people. He was successful with hi budget in Mass and didn't have a problem with poor people there. You want to pick apart something YOU don't like and blame Mitt for being out of touch. When someone responds, to counter, if you don't like it you will just try and dismiss. Lame.

Circular logic. You started to act like a smartass, and you backed yourself into a corner. You got snotty with me first. You demanded links. That's a catch 22 for me. The standard ploy is to either discredit the source, claim that I haven't offered enough info, or in this case, seek to sway the discussion toward one aspect of a broad spectrum of information, in an attempt to cloud the waters.

I've been on too many boards to fall for that.

You can't apply Windsong's comments to my posts. I never said anything about 'out of touch'.

That's what happens when you try to cloud the waters with piling on, thanked posts, and nonsensical demands. I've posted the quotes already. I'm not going back to find them.

Lest we forget: This started when you attempted to defend the claim that Romney didn't really mean that he 'isn't concerned with the very poor'.

You're defending an idiot politician's position, that isn't defensible.

Now stop trying to cloud the waters with crap. Unless of course, you just want a crap discussion.

[jimnyc]

Circular logic. You started to act like a smartass, and you backed yourself into a corner. You got snotty with me first. You demanded links. That's a catch 22 for me. The standard ploy is to either discredit the source, claim that I haven't offered enough info, or in this case, seek to sway the discussion toward one aspect of a broad spectrum of information, in an attempt to cloud the waters.

I've been on too many boards to fall for that.

You can't apply Windsong's comments to my posts. I never said anything about 'out of touch'.

That's what happens when you try to cloud the waters with piling on, thanked posts, and nonsensical demands. I've posted the quotes already. I'm not going back to find them.

Lest we forget: This started when you attempted to defend the claim that Romney didn't really mean that he 'isn't concerned with the very poor'.

You're defending an idiot politician's position, that isn't defensible.

Now stop trying to cloud the waters with crap. Unless of course, you just want a crap discussion.

I tossed out smartass comments and will continue to. It was you that jumped in to claim WS was correct, and yet STILL HAVEN'T give ONE SINGLE THING to back that up, and then act like a little baby when someone presents more to the discussion that you don't like. Tough shit. Nonsensical demands? LOL It's hardly nonsensical to ask someone to simply backup their comments. I suppose I would get pissy too if I failed horribly, but that's me.

I have yet to see anything posted as of yet that shows Romney as being "out of touch" with poor people OR that "he isn't concerned with the very poor".

I still fail to see how defense spending has anything at all to do with PP or the poor. How about we discuss that one nugget first? Or will you find yet another reason to whine instead of simply answering?

[Howard Roark]

I tossed out smartass comments and will continue to. It was you that jumped in to claim WS was correct, and yet STILL HAVEN'T give ONE SINGLE THING to back that up, and then act like a little baby when someone presents more to the discussion that you don't like. Tough shit. Nonsensical demands? LOL It's hardly nonsensical to ask someone to simply backup their comments. I suppose I would get pissy too if I failed horribly, but that's me.

I have yet to see anything posted as of yet that shows Romney as being "out of touch" with poor people OR that "he isn't concerned with the very poor".

I still fail to see how defense spending has anything at all to do with PP or the poor. How about we discuss that one nugget first? Or will you find yet another reason to whine instead of simply answering?

Fine. We've beat this thing sufficiently enough to kill it. If you're interested in my position, read the thread one more time, and try to understand what I mean this time. Sometimes the threads move rather quickly.

Smartass is SOP on boards. If that's your thing, that's your thing.

[jimnyc]

I still fail to see how defense spending has anything at all to do with PP or the poor. How about we discuss that one nugget first? Or will you find yet another reason to whine instead of simply answering?


Fine. We've beat this thing sufficiently enough to kill it. If you're interested in my position, read the thread one more time, and try to understand what I mean this time. Sometimes the threads move rather quickly.

Smartass is SOP on boards. If that's your thing, that's your thing.

It's one very simple question. I've read all your posts in this thread several times, and still see no relation between defense spending with either PP or the poor. You say sufficient where I say you haven't even started. You gave one post to backup your comments and now won't even expand on it when questioned. I think it's obvious why, as defense spending has zilch to do with PP or the poor. But if it makes you feel better to blame it on me, that's cool.

[logroller]

Again...I said that sonograms are useless in early stage abortions. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Severely flawed logic. How is an unnecessary sonogram 'protecting the rights to an unborn child', if it isn't meant solely to be punitive in nature, or serve to dissuade the woman from having the procedure? What you consider 'reasonable' is of no consequence in this discussion.


Further, Texas now requires both the sonogram, and a 24 hour waiting period. Both unnecessary, and punitive in nature.

Because you refuse to answer my question...I'll ask for the 4th time.

Is there anyone in the medical field who has weighed in on this legislation? Was any woman's health specialist consulted?

I think not.
Its hard for me to understand because you're wrong. Transvaginal ultrasounds are routinely performed under 12 weeks in abortion facilities.

UPDATE: Commentary magazine reporter Alana Goodman indicates (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/) one Planned Parenthood officials has admitted Planned Parenthood policy alreadyrequires ultrasounds before abortion procedures.“That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group’s national standards.
Schreiber said there are several options at that point. If the woman is uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, which is more invasive, she can wait until the fetus is large enough to opt for a transabdominal ultrasound.
“But if she’s uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she’s not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure,” Schreiber told me. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

So tell me, does an official at a PP regional office qualify as a medical pro or woman rights advocate? I don't know what else to tell you, other than check your bias...it's running high.

[logroller]

If it's less than 12 weeks, that too can be determined with the obstetric sonogram. They don't have to establish the exact stage of development, just ensure it's less than (22 weeks?) the legal line. The transvaginal sonogram is being used as a weapon against women seeking abortion, plain and simple.

What if there's a problem? Say a tubal pregnancy, too early to be detected by a transabdominal ultrasound, just for example.

[Missileman]

What if there's a problem? Say a tubal pregnancy, too early to be detected by a transabdominal ultrasound, just for example.

The ultrasound isn't being done to look for a problem, it's being done to establish stage of development.

[logroller]

Mm. Take a step back from the politics for just a minute. Abortion is a medical procedure, not a pedicure. Performing an ultrasound to positively diagnose pregnancy, the gestational development and overall reproductive health is a medical standard. This is much ado about nothing.

[Missileman]

Mm. Take a step back from the politics for just a minute. Abortion is a medical procedure, not a pedicure. Performing an ultrasound to positively diagnose pregnancy, the gestational development and overall reproductive health is a medical standard. This is much ado about nothing.

Sure, but if the fetus is too small to be picked up on a obstetric ultrasound, then can there be any doubt the fetus is less than the legal (22 weeks?) stage?

And you have these procedures being dictated by POLITICIANS, not doctors...so quit trying to pass this off as a medical standard.

[logroller]

Sure, but if the fetus is too small to be picked up on a obstetric ultrasound, then can there be any doubt the fetus is less than the legal (22 weeks?) stage?

And you have these procedures being dictated by POLITICIANS, not doctors...so quit trying to pass this off as a medical standard.
It's planned parenthood's standard too.

[Missileman]

It's planned parenthood's standard too.

To do a transvaginal before every abortion?

[logroller]

To do a transvaginal before every abortion?
Under 12 weeks
http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=546315

[Wind Song]

Mm. Take a step back from the politics for just a minute. Abortion is a medical procedure, not a pedicure. Performing an ultrasound to positively diagnose pregnancy, the gestational development and overall reproductive health is a medical standard. This is much ado about nothing.

No, it's not a medical standard. The ultrasound is an optional procedure. The whole point of forced ultrasounds is to humiliate the women. It will not reduce the number of pregnancy terminations.

[logroller]

No, it's not a medical standard. The ultrasound is an optional procedure. The whole point of forced ultrasounds is to humiliate the women. It will not reduce the number of pregnancy terminations.
Wait for it.....


“Vaginal ultrasound was always performed before the early surgical abortion at 59 (83%) sites, under certain conditions at 11 (16%) sites, and never at one (1%) site,” the study noted. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early surgical abortion at 18 (26%) sites, under certain conditions at 46 (66%) sites, and never at 6 (8%) sites.”Similar numbers were seen regarding vaginal ultrasounds before a mifepristone abortion.
“Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it,” the study continued. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site.”...



“That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group’s national standards.
Schreiber said there are several options at that point. If the woman is uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, which is more invasive, she can wait until the fetus is large enough to opt for a transabdominal ultrasound.
“But if she’s uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she’s not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure,” Schreiber told me.http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ultrasoundstudy.pdf

I found actual data proving my claim WS. Do you have data disputing what I found?

[Wind Song]

Consider the source of your data. Stop pretending the anti-choice crowd doesn't want this procedure to discourage women from terminating their pregnancies. You know perfectly well the whole thing is an effort to shame women into not terminating their pregnancies.

[logroller]

Consider the source of your data.
I certainly did...the data was published in an academic journal: Contraception. Names are quoted from the regional office in Washington DC. Read it and weep...you're wrong!

[logroller]

Consider the source of your data. Stop pretending the anti-choice crowd doesn't want this procedure to discourage women from terminating their pregnancies.
I'm not pretending anything; I'm stating the facts. You just don't like it when the facts don't fit your biases. Admit my data is good, and transvaginal ultrasounds are performed with great frequency on women who CHOOSE to have abortions in the first trimester. Interestingly, its notably common on those who wish to receive RU486. Did you even bother to read the journal research, its informative!

[Wind Song]

I certainly did...the data was published in an academic journal: Contraception. Names are quoted from the regional office in Washington DC. Read it and weep...you're wrong!
I'm not weeping.

"Lifenews.com" No bias there.

[logroller]

I'm not weeping.
You don't have to concede; I know I'm right. At least read the data. Maybe you can use it to fine tune your future arguments for women's rights.

[logroller]

I'm not weeping.

"Lifenews.com" No bias there.
Don't shoot the messenger. It was published in Contraception 67 (2003) 287–294
Seriously, read the research. Find contradictory evidence. But merely dismissing it because it refutes your belief is ignorant and naive.

[Wind Song]

You don't have to concede; I know I'm right. At least read the data. Maybe you can use it to fine tune your future arguments for women's rights.


Thank you.

[Shadow]

Don't shoot the messenger. It was published in Contraception 67 (2003) 287–294
Seriously, read the research. Find contradictory evidence. But merely dismissing it because it refutes your belief is ignorant and naive.

Do you really think that people like WS... who demonize thoughts and opinions they don't like rather than debating them,will do anything besides close their eyes,plug their ears,and run around screaming "I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALA"? :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Consider the source of your data.

You complain about the source, or "lifenews", when not only are they just the messengers of published medical data, the quote he put in HUGE letters stating it was standard procedure was from an official at planned parenthood in Washington, DC.

I know you and others might not like what Logroller has presented, but not only is it factual, it comes from general medical sources and the followup from PP. In other words, you're arguing with the very people who perform the abortions. Even they say it's a standard.

[Missileman]

Wait for it.....



http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ultrasoundstudy.pdf

I found actual data proving my claim WS. Do you have data disputing what I found?

If it were the medical standard, it would be performed 100% of the time. And of course, there are always contradictory sources available: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf


BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. Since routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to the cost of the procedure.
HIGHLIGHTS:
 11 states require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services.
 20 states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers.
 7 states mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion, and require the provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image.
 9 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image if her provider performs the procedure as part of the preparation for an abortion.
 5 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image.

[Missileman]

You complain about the source, or "lifenews", when not only are they just the messengers of published medical data, the quote he put in HUGE letters stating it was standard procedure was from an official at planned parenthood in Washington, DC.

I know you and others might not like what Logroller has presented, but not only is it factual, it comes from general medical sources and the followup from PP. In other words, you're arguing with the very people who perform the abortions. Even they say it's a standard.

Actually, not so much. See post #349

[jimnyc]

Actually, not so much.

I have no idea specifically what you're referring to. Are you stating that PP "didn't" state it was standard procedure?

[Missileman]

I have no idea specifically what you're referring to. Are you stating that PP "didn't" state it was standard procedure?

Sorry, should have added a pointer...it's there now.

[jimnyc]

If it were the medical standard, it would be performed 100% of the time. And of course, there are always contradictory sources available: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf





Actually, not so much. See post #349


Sorry, should have added a pointer...it's there now.

Standard does not mean 100% of the time. I would lean more towards the "majority" of the time. I would say standard meas more like "normal" procedure, but as with ANY medical procedure, sometimes standards can't be or simply aren't followed. There are "industry standards" for almost every known medical procedure, but I'm willing to bet that these standards are not followed every single day somewhere in the US.

But I'll admit to your point, that it's certainly not always and everywhere. But that doesn't change the fact that it's considered standard in the majority of states by the majority of doctors - and that includes PP themselves.

[Missileman]

But that doesn't change the fact that it's considered standard in the majority of states by the majority of doctors - and that includes PP themselves.

I think you totally ignored the data I posted. Ultrasound is only mandatory in 7 states. That's not even half, let alone a majority. As for PP standards, I'll bet ultrasounds are procedures for which government funding CAN be used and they're being performed even though not medically necessary.

[jimnyc]

I think you totally ignored the data I posted. Ultrasound is only mandatory in 7 states. That's not even half, let alone a majority. As for PP standards, I'll bet ultrasounds are procedures for which government funding CAN be used and they're being performed even though not medically necessary.

Didn't ignore it at all. Unless you're stating that they won't ever perform these procedures unless it's mandatory. I'm betting, along with Log's data, that it's still fairly standard in states where it is not mandatory. Are you saying that PP policy is "standard" to perform these procedures in 7 states but that they don't perform them in cases of 22 weeks or under in the other 43 states at all?

[jimnyc]

I still fail to see how defense spending has anything at all to do with PP or the poor. How about we discuss that one nugget first? Or will you find yet another reason to whine instead of simply answering?


Fine. We've beat this thing sufficiently enough to kill it. If you're interested in my position, read the thread one more time, and try to understand what I mean this time. Sometimes the threads move rather quickly.

Smartass is SOP on boards. If that's your thing, that's your thing.


It's one very simple question. I've read all your posts in this thread several times, and still see no relation between defense spending with either PP or the poor. You say sufficient where I say you haven't even started. You gave one post to backup your comments and now won't even expand on it when questioned. I think it's obvious why, as defense spending has zilch to do with PP or the poor. But if it makes you feel better to blame it on me, that's cool.

Howard, new day and it's sunny outside. Wanna try and start over beginning with this question? I am aware of Romney's stance on PP, but I'm of the belief that this hardly makes him out of touch with the poor. With that said, can you explain to me how the defense spending has any relevance? Then after I understand that, we can move on to other things that you feel explain how he is out of touch with the poor, or however one would label it with him and his understanding of poor people.

[logroller]

If it were the medical standard, it would be performed 100% of the time. And of course, there are always contradictory sources available: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf




Whatever mm. 92% of the time said always, 1% said never. Obviously you're not in the habit of evaluating data; but that's strong statistical support. Your source talks about what state policy states; not empirical data from actual medical practices. Seriously, read the data, who produced it and why. It's all there, black and white; ultrasounds are regularly performed prior to abortions. It's planned parenthood's policy. Should I post the data once more. Actual hard data on the exact thing I'm talking about: actual abortions being preceded and after ceded by ultrasounds.

[Abbey Marie]

Romney is less out of touch with the poor, than Howard is out of touch with the beating heart of a baby in utero.

[logroller]

Romney is less out of touch with the poor, than Howard is out of touch with the beating heart of a baby in utero.
Abbey, are you really a man who cares nothing about women's health?;)

[Missileman]

Whatever mm. 92% of the time said always, 1% said never. Obviously you're not in the habit of evaluating data; but that's strong statistical support. Your source talks about what state policy states; not empirical data from actual medical practices. Seriously, read the data, who produced it and why. It's all there, black and white; ultrasounds are regularly performed prior to abortions. It's planned parenthood's policy. Should I post the data once more. Actual hard data on the exact thing I'm talking about: actual abortions being preceded and after ceded by ultrasounds.

You can spin the study any way you like, but your own fact that one site never does one is proof it's not a medical necessity OR PP policy. You can post the data over and over again, it won't change that fact.

[jimnyc]

Not sure if this was posted already or not, but here's another take from a Planned Parenthood in Virginia:


“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

And from the article:


From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying.

I'm wondering, if these procedures were not done, and something like the bold should happen, or a patient is injured as a result of something that could have been detected with an ultrasound - would they want any type of recourse, whether monetarily or against a physicians right to practice. I would almost go as far as to say it's up to the doctor. Should something go wrong, they can be held liable for malpractice. At any rate, there are other articles out there just like this one but from other states. It seems the more I find the more I believe that PP's policy is like this all over.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/#more-784472

[logroller]

You can spin the study any way you like, but your own fact that one site never does one is proof it's not a medical necessity OR PP policy. You can post the data over and over again, it won't change that fact.
What exactly am I spinning? Odds are the reason one site didn't offer vaginal ultrasound was because they lacked the equipment. Take a look at the 13 barriers to early abortions; youll find vag ultrasounds(equipment/training) to be two of those barriers. If anyone is spinning something it's those who claim vaginal ultrasound is a punitive procedure; controverted by the regularity of the procedure, as documented by a study conducted at the behest of the National Abortion Federation. I suppose you think they're spinning the facts too.
It's not my fact, it is fact. There are always exceptions; even if the law requiring an ultrasound were passed, there'd be exceptions. Indeed 8% of respondants reported using neither a blood or urine pregnancy tests before performing an abortion; so i suppose you'd say pregnancy tests aren't a medical standard either. Talk about spin!

Btw, the study wasn't just planned parenthood facilities; it included independent facilities. Maybe try reading it before you dismiss it. Or don't, but ignorance is unbecoming.

[Missileman]

What exactly am I spinning? Odds are the reason one site didn't offer vaginal ultrasound was because they lacked the equipment. Take a look at the 13 barriers to early abortions; youll find vag ultrasounds(equipment/training) to be two of those barriers. If anyone is spinning something it's those who claim vaginal ultrasound is a punitive procedure; controverted by the regularity of the procedure, as documented by a study conducted at the behest of the National Abortion Federation. I suppose you think they're spinning the facts too.
It's not my fact, it is fact. There are always exceptions; even if the law requiring an ultrasound were passed, there'd be exceptions. Indeed 8% of respondants reported using neither a blood or urine pregnancy tests before performing an abortion; so i suppose you'd say pregnancy tests aren't a medical standard either. Talk about spin!

Btw, the study wasn't just planned parenthood facilities; it included independent facilities. Maybe try reading it before you dismiss it. Or don't, but ignorance is unbecoming.


99% of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities do them beforehand.


Actually, I did.

And you keep offering arguments(bolded) that establish transvaginal ultrasounds are not medical necessity.

[logroller]

Actually, I did.

And you keep offering arguments(bolded) that establish transvaginal ultrasounds are not medical necessity.
Did I ever claim they were a medical necessity? I claimed they were a medical standard for early abortions; planned parenthood stated the same, and data from a study supports that. you claimed they were punitive; do you think planned parenthood implements a standard of care which is punitive...which side are you arguing to anyways? You're sounding more like a pro-lifer.:poke:

[Abbey Marie]

Fixed that for you:


Abbey, are you really a wealthy WASP man who cares nothing about women's health?;)