What a vile, scumbag organization!

[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/showthre...623#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/showthre...623#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/showthre...623#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 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/p...o-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.