Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:49 pm

All I want is for them to take a more prominent role in the drafting of such legislation. Something they don't really get.

you seem to think that women are pretty well represented in this debate. of course, seeing how the filibuster ended, I'd disagree.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:20 am

They don't? Based on what data? Surely not solely based on something as ridiculously anecdotal as the Wendy Davis filibuster? Are you suggesting that only women can properly represent women on this issue? If so, then which women. Is it all women, those just the "medical women" you mentioned earlier, or women who've had kids, or women who've had abortions, or women who have never been pregnant at all? What about (gasp) Christian women...does their opinion count? I'm very curious as to the specifics on this.

Now that we are moving on to representation, I have no clue how you could have surmised my position, since it's never come up before, but honestly I really don't know. I can't say I've got my finger on the pulse of these various slices of women in Texas and how they might feel about the issue. I'm guessing, since nationwide abortions after twenty weeks poll really really low (and that was before this research) that in Texas it's likely to be at least a little bit lower, that it's entirely possible that such representation should be, by your own definition, insufficient to defeat this bill, but then I don't know which slice of women you consider valid and those who shouldn't have a say.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:01 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:However, seeing the Wendy Davis filibuster, I guess its pretty safe to assume its something women do not want.

Actually plenty do. I'm sure most women don't know who Wendy Davis is.


Fridmarr wrote:Now that we are moving on to representation, I have no clue how you could have surmised my position, since it's never come up before, but honestly I really don't know. I can't say I've got my finger on the pulse of these various slices of women in Texas and how they might feel about the issue.


Make your mind up. Do you know where women stand on the issue or not?

I mean, you keep saying that women are in favour of the bill, but you haven't tried to point to any examples, just kept pointing back to the men or the imaginary babies.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:38 am

Fridmarr wrote:By saying he shouldn't have a vote based on his gender, you are.

The impetus behind this legislation is some controversial research indicating that the baby can feel pain around 20 weeks. I don't think there's any reason to believe having a uterus makes someone more qualified in determining biologic attributes of a fetus. The logic around the whole uterus thing is a red herring and always has been.

You keep saying the "people affected" but keep ignoring the babies.


Under the current law, Klaud is correct in not giving the "babies" as you call them a vote. They aren't a person. They aren't granted rights.

I happen to agree with klaud. I don't have a problem with abortion prior to the fetus being a viable "person" outside of the womb.

That's probably, because unlike a lot of people here, I've been involved in the decision to go forward with an abortion. Is it fun? No. Is it a choice I ever want to be a part of again? FUCK NO. Did we decide that? Yes. Is it something we live with? Yes. Do I want some person who

1.) Isn't the doctor of the woman
2.) Not involved in the pregnancy
3.) pushing a moral agenda over the rights of the woman involved

making the decision? No.

Plain and simple, It's her body. And until the fetus is sustainable outside of the womb, I don't think that it's a person. It doesn't make the decision any less "hard" to make for those involved, but it ultimately comes down to the very idea that it is not a decision that should be relegated to governments, or people not involved.

Set a line in the sand where the Fetus is medically sustainable outside of the womb, and leave it at that. Stop trying to relegate some power or control over a woman because she carries babies in her belly.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:07 am

Like I said, my biggest beef is that the ones pushing all the legislation trying to limit abortion seem to be men, not women.

There doesn't seem to be even a commission where the lawmakers are discussing the legislation with doctors, scientists and women.

Look at North Dakota: http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/25/p ... rmalities/

Also, a good article on the Texas SB5: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/ ... gislation/

When Perry placed SB 5 on the special session agenda, his office released this statement:

“The horrors of the national late-term abortion industry are continuing to come to light, one atrocity at a time. Sadly, some of those same atrocities happen in our own state. In Texas, we value all life, and we’ve worked to cultivate a culture that supports the birth of every child,” Gov. Perry said. “We have an obligation to protect unborn children, and to hold those who peddle these abortions to standards that would minimize the death, disease and pain they cause.”

When Perry says he wants to “cultivate a culture that supports the birth of every child,” what he means is that he wants to force every pregnant person in Texas to carry their pregnancy to term, as demanded by a state government that thinks it knows Texans better than they know themselves—and that thinks it’s better qualified to practice medicine than members of the Texas Medical Association or the American College of Gynecologists.

If Perry cared about the health and well-being of pregnant women and infants and children in Texas, he could have:

* taken the federal Medicaid expansion, which would have helped alleviate the strain of providing quality health care to low-income Texans in a state with the highest percentage of uninsured people in the entire country.
* championed a bill sponsored by state Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) that would restore public funding to Planned Parenthood, which may be the most cost-effective, efficient provider of women’s health services in the state.
* championed any one of state Rep. Mary Gonzalez’s (D-El Paso) bills, which would increase access to contraception among teenage moms, particularly low-income teenage moms.
* championed a bill from state Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) that would protect the rights of breastfeeding mothers in Texas.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby aureon » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:56 am

The best thing about the Texas bill is that the problem is absolutely not the 20-week limit, but the exceptionally strict measures imposed on all abortion clinics, which will probably make all but 4 or 5 abortion clinics in Texas close.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:16 am

aureon wrote:The best thing about the Texas bill is that the problem is absolutely not the 20-week limit, but the exceptionally strict measures imposed on all abortion clinics, which will probably make all but 4 or 5 abortion clinics in Texas close.


Yup. It was a double whammy.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:31 am

KysenMurrin wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:However, seeing the Wendy Davis filibuster, I guess its pretty safe to assume its something women do not want.

Actually plenty do. I'm sure most women don't know who Wendy Davis is.


Fridmarr wrote:Now that we are moving on to representation, I have no clue how you could have surmised my position, since it's never come up before, but honestly I really don't know. I can't say I've got my finger on the pulse of these various slices of women in Texas and how they might feel about the issue.


Make your mind up. Do you know where women stand on the issue or not?

I mean, you keep saying that women are in favour of the bill, but you haven't tried to point to any examples, just kept pointing back to the men or the imaginary babies.

Those statements are not at all inconsistent with each other, and my very next sentence explained all of it. I'm not sure if you stopped reading or if I wasn't clear, but I'll spell it out more explicitly.

We have 300 million people in our country, the percentage of which that identify themselves as pro-choice is less than half. Polling data shows that as the gestation gets later, the percentage of people opposed to abortion grows. I'm certain, that includes "plenty" of women. That said, those polls are national and not broken down by gender, so I don't know where exactly the women of Texas shake out. I can make an educated guess, which I did in that next sentence.

Shoju wrote:Under the current law, Klaud is correct in not giving the "babies" as you call them a vote. They aren't a person. They aren't granted rights.
But under the current system we all get a vote, so that's kind of moot. If we are changing to a system where only those affected get a vote, then I think the fetus needs to be represented, otherwise if as we have now, recent research that indicates that there may be a reason to change that timeline, there's no advocate to bring it forward.

For the record, viability is more of a technological thing than a biological thing. It's certainly independent of when the fetus is a person.

Klaudandus wrote: Like I said, my biggest beef is that the ones pushing all the legislation trying to limit abortion seem to be men, not women.
Well the face of the legislation is men (duly elected by their constituency to represent them), but then that is going to be true of almost any legislation. My beef is that that shouldn't matter. Argue the legislation, but not the sexist notion that the people who authored it are of a gender that shouldn't have a say in the matter.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:45 am

Fridmarr wrote:Argue the legislation, but not the sexist notion that the people who authored it are of a gender that shouldn't have a say in the matter.


A legitimate argument will make sense regardless of the color, creed, gender, or nationality of the person making the argument. Invalidating an argument solely based on its author is the worst kind of identity politics.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:04 am

There were commissions on steroids in mlb, but i dont see any commissions on reproductive health.

The reason why i deride the as old white rich dudes is because i dont see them put any effort in getting educated, on hearing all sides of the argument -- instead they seem to drape themselves on this righteous agenda that they know better than anyone else.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:30 am

And that's just more of the same. You can feebly try to wrap it up in a pretty bow with whatever justification you'd like to conjure, but racial and gender attacks are just that. They have no substance. Fuzzygeek pretty much nailed the summation of it.

In all of two minutes (because the list is in alphabetical order -- Donna Campbell) I find a member of the Texas Senate who says she's 100% pro life, is a woman and is also an emergency room physician (she is white though, so I'm not sure if that discounts her...). Now, I really don't know if she is in support of this bill or not, but that isn't really my point. There is no reason to believe that these sorts of legislation don't have supporters and opponents from a broad range of demographics. Hopefully based on the contents of the legislation and not the race or sex of the authors.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:34 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Shoju wrote:Under the current law, Klaud is correct in not giving the "babies" as you call them a vote. They aren't a person. They aren't granted rights.
But under the current system we all get a vote, so that's kind of moot. If we are changing to a system where only those affected get a vote, then I think the fetus needs to be represented, otherwise if as we have now, recent research that indicates that there may be a reason to change that timeline, there's no advocate to bring it forward.

For the record, viability is more of a technological thing than a biological thing. It's certainly independent of when the fetus is a person.



If you truly believe that everyone currently has a vote, you are delusional. Not everyone gets a vote. Not everyone is represented. The winning party is represented, and not even then, can you say that everyone in the winning party's opinions are represented by the person that is elected.

Currently, yes. They are independent. I'm saying, we draw a line in the sand. This is when it can be independent via technology. This is when it is a person. Done. As technology advances, laws can be changed, and amended based on said technology. One day, we'll get to a point where it isn't abortion, but harvesting of the unwanted pregnancies, and they can be grown in a lab just like Brave New World, and we can mess with them with science.

But until that point, we need to respect that it's the woman's body. It's her choice. Period. It's not Sanscrotum's choice, or any of the team rape's choice. It isn't the Texas Governor's choice, and it shouldn't be their choice. It isn't Klaud's choice. Fuck, it wasn't even really my choice. That my wife and I made that choice together speaks volumes to her as a person. She could have just said, If I continue with this pregnancy, there are 3:1 to 4:1 odds that I'M GOING TO DIE, so I'm not doing it.

Or, she could have not told me.

But, ultimately, it's her choice. Period. By thinking that it's anyone else's choice, is to attempt to still hold some dominion over the woman, as if she is somehow inferior to anyone else, because of her pregnancy capabilities.

And, that's bullshit.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:36 am

Fridmarr wrote:And that's just more of the same. You can feebly try to wrap it up in a pretty bow with whatever justification you'd like to conjure, but racial and gender attacks are just that. They have no substance. Fuzzygeek pretty much nailed the summation of it.

In all of two minutes (because the list is in alphabetical order -- Donna Campbell) I find a member of the Texas Senate who says she's 100% pro life, is a woman and is also an emergency room physician (she is white though, so I'm not sure if that discounts her...). Now, I really don't know if she is in support of this bill or not, but that isn't really my point. There is no reason to believe that these sorts of legislation don't have supporters and opponents from a broad range of demographics. Hopefully based on the contents of the legislation and not the race or sex of the authors.


And in 30 seconds online, I found a member of the texas senate who believes that a rape kit in an ER can be used to keep you from becoming pregnant. Seriously.

Finding people who are mildly intelligent can be met by finding people who are completely ignorant, and they are all in the same political melting pot.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:48 am

Fridmarr wrote:We have 300 million people in our country, the percentage of which that identify themselves as pro-choice is less than half. Polling data shows that as the gestation gets later, the percentage of people opposed to abortion grows. I'm certain, that includes "plenty" of women. That said, those polls are national and not broken down by gender, so I don't know where exactly the women of Texas shake out. I can make an educated guess, which I did in that next sentence.

Okay, so "plenty" of women are against abortion later than 20 weeks. Define "plenty", and state your sources.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm asking you to back up your assertions.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:53 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:03 am

I think is that my points are taken reductio ad absurdum -- probably my fault for the language I use since I use a lot of hyperbolic, but it seems my point is then taken further to the extreme.

If women are not in charge of the legislation, then at least the legislators should try to meet them in the middle. What I mostly see is uninformed people trying to be self-righteous.

Example:
State Sen. Dan Patrick (R): "I spoke to my colleagues and said, when Jesus criticized the Pharisees, he criticized them because their laws and their rules were more important than actually taking care of people. And in my view, stopping a debate to save thousands of lives, well, saving the thousands of lives is more important than our tradition of, well, you should never stop someone."

State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R): "In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out. The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."

State Rep. Wayne Christian (R): "Of course it's a war on birth control, abortion, everything—that's what family planning is supposed to be about."

So tell me, how is it bad that I want informed people to help shape the legislation?
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:41 pm

Wait... Did I get a bad link?

That link showed that 53% said do not over turn, 29% said overturn, and 18% were unsure.

Wouldn't that mean that the majority SUPPORTS Roe V Wade? Or did I lose my mind?
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Flex » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:42 pm

We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.
User avatar
Flex
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:45 pm

Shoju wrote:Wait... Did I get a bad link?

That link showed that 53% said do not over turn, 29% said overturn, and 18% were unsure.

Wouldn't that mean that the majority SUPPORTS Roe V Wade? Or did I lose my mind?


Fridmarr's point is that 64% of those polled want to stop 2nd trimester abortions, and kysen was asking where those numbers came from.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:45 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:12 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Fridmarr's point is that 64% of those polled want to stop 2nd trimester abortions, and kysen was asking where those numbers came from.

Yeah, that's interesting. 2nd trimester can be a lot earlier than 20 weeks, too. Wonder how it varies depending on the specific question asked. (Not disputing the result - the question on that poll was very clear and direct. But people do change their answers for the oddest reasons when you vary phrasing around - or even if you ask different questions before that one.)
Last edited by KysenMurrin on Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:12 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Shoju wrote:Wait... Did I get a bad link?

That link showed that 53% said do not over turn, 29% said overturn, and 18% were unsure.

Wouldn't that mean that the majority SUPPORTS Roe V Wade? Or did I lose my mind?


Fridmarr's point is that 64% of those polled want to stop 2nd trimester abortions, and kysen was asking where those numbers came from.


Well, If a 2nd trimester is medically viable outside of the womb, I'm in favor. But, like with all laws, I feel that there needs to be a line in the sand where the law starts / stops, and I think that in this case, it's a reasonably easy line to create, by speaking in terms of real, scientific data.


Edit:
I should also add that I'm 100% in favor of pro-choice when there are circumstances regarding the life of the mother. Sacrificing one for the other should be a decision made exclusively by those involved, and there is no amount of line in the sand that will make me change my mind on that.

I'm probably biased, and i will admit it.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby aureon » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:40 pm

Thing is, the amount of weeks is NOT the point of the law at all.
0.3% of pregnancies are post 20 weeks, and they're nearly all for medical reasons, which would still be permitted (Since they're done when the mother's health is in grave danger)
The debate on the number of weeks is completely useless, irrelevant, and solved already.

The point is another: Texas Governor (And his party) used the excuse of that to draw up un-neededly strict restriction to abortion clinics, in order to get what they wanted (less abortions) without actually having to support their goal.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:55 pm

To be clear, I'm not advocating for this or any other legislation, just against the notion that only women should have say over this legislation, which is how we got on this tangent.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:41 pm

Question for you, Fridmarr (and really, anyone else who wants to jump in, I guess).

So way back when we were first trying to figure out what the hell was going on with me, I was explaining to my new doctor that I had menstrual cycles once every 9-12 months. Then they would last on superheavyragingriver flow for 2 weeks, which - every single time - kept me from work for 2-3 days minimum due to the cramping. He wanted to take a sample from my uterus, but presented me with a choice - do a pregnancy test first, to make sure I'm not pregnant, or skip the pregnancy test and accept that if I was pregnant, the procedure would terminate said pregnancy.

I wasn't pregnant by any means except immaculate conception, but in the event I might have been, should I have put the appointment on hold to discuss it with the sire first?

(Not sarcasm, btw, just truly curious how far you think this should go.)

Edit: Because I suck at forming sentences sometimes.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest