California's Brown Signs Bill Permitting Non-Physician Abortions

[JoeB131]

Here's where I changed my mind about abortion.

When I was just out of college and in active duty military service, one of my fellow NCOs had this girlfriend. Asian, Catholic, seemingly nice but really manipulative. College educated and smart enough to know better. And when he didn't make good on his promises to marry her, she stopped taking birth contol. She got knocked up, pulled the old, "Marry me or else" bit, and then did the Or Else. Because she didn't want her parents knowing she wasn't a virgin at 22.

They broke up, got back together, and right before I realized I needed a better class of friend, pretty much did the same shit again.

Now, besides instituting rule #7 (never get involved in other people's soap operas) the one thing I took away from that is you are never going to bully people into not having abortions. It just isn't going to happen. As long as people make bad choices, they are going to want an eraser.

oh, just stop repeating tht crap over and over again. a scumbag ( your friend) and even a bigger scumbag ( his girlfriend) have nothing to do with your stance on convenience about killing children in utero.

Well, that's partly true. I just got those people out of my life after that... and was better off for it.

You know what really changed my mind.

When I realized what CHUMPS the Koch Brothers and their kind play you pro-lifers for.

Hey, guess what, Abortion is still legal after 40 years, and the Koch Brothers put the Kay-bosh on candidates who actually believe that stuff. Hense, why they would rather lose with McCain and Romney than take a chance that Santorum or Huckabee might win.

If you guys were serious about reducing the number of abortions, you'd support sex education, family and medical leave, strong workers' rights, and universal health care.

But you don't. You just want to lord over women who are largely ignoring you anyway.

 

[koshergrl]

The lie is that any of those things actually prevent abortions.

They don't. Not if you are also preaching to women that they are also obligated to engage in sex with the most unlikely of characters from the age of about 11. Not when you train children that they are *sexual* from birth, and not expected to restrain any sexual urge.

Combine THAT with the eternal lament that children are "problems" and "medical waste"...and what you have is exactly what did happen upon the advent of legalized abortion, easily obtainable birth control, and the de-criminalization of sex crimes:

Abortion rates that sky rocketed, beyond what anyone ever could have imagined, and which have only begun to drop slightly in the last 20 years or so...an increase in child abuse, and the destruction of the social structure of an entire nation.

Which is just about when more traditional values started to come back into vogue, after 30 years or so of completely unhinged, un-restricted and un-challenged pro-sexual depravity marketing.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Hey, I didn't know you were pro-choice! Sweet!

Welcome aboard.

You haven't been reading very closely.

Oh, sure I have! You just advocated choice. And I figure if you can do that retroactively, then you can do it now, too.

I mean, you seem like SUCH a nice guy. Surely you didn't take the low road just so you could be a dick to Joe.

Hon, I never said I was against abortion. That was your interpretation. I do think abortion is barbaric, but I have never been a woman with a fetus growing in my body that I didn't want. Hence, I'll let the women involved make that decision and then they can try to live with their conscience.

I have worked with women as a therapist that have been through an abortion, or contemplated it. The entire process can be devastating. For some women it is no more important than a bowel movement. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. But in this instance you've made assumptions about me that are incorrect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So a child is a problem? Right then, keep the legs closed during a one night stand and that would help in getting rid of unwanted problems too. Oh well, guess self restraint isn't taught anymore these days.

Nope, a fetus isn't a "child".

Can we kind of get that straight?

Never heard a woman who was getting an abortion call it a "child" or a "baby". It was always, "that problem I need to take care of!"

And all the preaching and pictures of medical waste and screaming at people isn't going to change the reality that given a choice between ending a pregnancy and screwing up their entire lives, most women WILL Have an abortion.

Yes, HE IS.

A fetus IS a child.
Even if you close your eyes and ears - it is still going to bug you - a fetus IS a child. A child which has not been born yet. But it is still a child, a human being, a man or a woman.
And you are advertizing the murder of those children.

and it is never a "problem". That "problem" haunts those who performed abortions for the rest of their lives. Always. Even if those women deny it.
Psychiatrists KNOW

In your subjective, personal opinion, not as a fact of law.

Which is fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, with the understanding it will never change, and no one will attempt to change it.

 

[kaz]

the abomination of liberty is lowering the standards of care in order to lower the costs.

All hail the great government God who is protecting us from making our own decisions about our own wallets and our own bodies.

do you equate a human being with a wallet? and a human body INSIDE mother's body IS NOT HER BODY.

I don't. Do you? That's pretty sick.

 

[Noomi]

the abomination of liberty is lowering the standards of care in order to lower the costs.

All hail the great government God who is protecting us from making our own decisions about our own wallets and our own bodies.

do you equate a human being with a wallet? and a human body INSIDE mother's body IS NOT HER BODY.

It is attached to her body, feeds off her body, and uses her body to survive. She deserves complete control of it for that reason.

 

[koshergrl]

Nope, a fetus isn't a "child".

Can we kind of get that straight?

Never heard a woman who was getting an abortion call it a "child" or a "baby". It was always, "that problem I need to take care of!"

And all the preaching and pictures of medical waste and screaming at people isn't going to change the reality that given a choice between ending a pregnancy and screwing up their entire lives, most women WILL Have an abortion.

Yes, HE IS.

A fetus IS a child.
Even if you close your eyes and ears - it is still going to bug you - a fetus IS a child. A child which has not been born yet. But it is still a child, a human being, a man or a woman.
And you are advertizing the murder of those children.

and it is never a "problem". That "problem" haunts those who performed abortions for the rest of their lives. Always. Even if those women deny it.
Psychiatrists KNOW

In your subjective, personal opinion, not as a fact of law.

Which is fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, with the understanding it will never change, and no one will attempt to change it.

Let's ask the Nazi doctors if they had the legal authority to do what they did...

Oh wait, you can't...they were EXECUTED for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. You see, sometimes the law is wrong. If you commit human rights violations, even if it is LEGAL (and it very often is) that doesn't mean that you aren't doing anything wrong. Laws do not define humanity, and laws cannot remove humanity. When you have laws that do, then you're in a very bad place.

 

[JoeB131]

The lie is that any of those things actually prevent abortions.

They don't. Not if you are also preaching to women that they are also obligated to engage in sex with the most unlikely of characters from the age of about 11. Not when you train children that they are *sexual* from birth, and not expected to restrain any sexual urge.

Actually, they do. Which is why France has half the abortions we have. Or Germany. Or Japan. Once you tell the religious fucks to sit down and shut up, and put your policy on changing attitudes, it usually works just fine.

Combine THAT with the eternal lament that children are "problems" and "medical waste"...and what you have is exactly what did happen upon the advent of legalized abortion, easily obtainable birth control, and the de-criminalization of sex crimes:

Abortion rates that sky rocketed, beyond what anyone ever could have imagined, and which have only begun to drop slightly in the last 20 years or so...an increase in child abuse, and the destruction of the social structure of an entire nation.

except they didn't skyrocket. They were just reported. Again, here's the thing. If Children who would have normally been born were now being aborted, the birth rate would have DROPPED in 1973. It didn't. It levelled off. Which proves that women before 1972 were probably having nice safe abortions in their gynocologists office, and they wrote something else down on the chart.

Which is just about when more traditional values started to come back into vogue, after 30 years or so of completely unhinged, un-restricted and un-challenged pro-sexual depravity marketing.

Uh, no, not really. What usually happens is that people look aback at your traditional values, and wonder how people could have ever been so stupid, or how this was ever accepted.

 

[Stephanie]

All hail the great government God who is protecting us from making our own decisions about our own wallets and our own bodies.

do you equate a human being with a wallet? and a human body INSIDE mother's body IS NOT HER BODY.

It is attached to her body, feeds off her body, and uses her body to survive. She deserves complete control of it for that reason.

are you talking about a tick, a flea, or what?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Last, “this whole thing’ is simply about the right of individuals to be free from unwanted and unwarranted government interference concerning matters both personal and private. That you ‘disapprove’ of how adults might conduct their private lives is thankfully irrelevant, and we have the Constitution and its case law to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate you manifest.

If individuals are to be free from government influence, then organizations such as Planned Parenthood can rely on private funding and keep our government completely out of any "influential" role towards a woman's decision on whether or not she should seek an abortion. If it's to accurately be solely a woman's right to "privacy" then government has no place to take a side through funding such a procedure. Let them remain completely neutral, to include contraception, and allow women to make a choice on the basis of their own individual situation WITHOUT the ease and convenience of Federal aid to influence them. If you're a strong proponent of Congressional funding of Planned Parenthood, then you are not being honest in your view of government interference concerning personal and privacy matters.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If individuals are to be free from government influence, then organizations such as Planned Parenthood can rely on private funding and keep our government completely out of any "influential" role towards a woman's decision on whether or not she should seek an abortion. If it's to accurately be solely a woman's right to "privacy" then government has no place to take a side through funding such a procedure. Let them remain completely neutral, to include contraception, and allow women to make a choice on the basis of their own individual situation WITHOUT the ease and convenience of Federal aid to influence them. If you're a strong proponent of Congressional funding of Planned Parenthood, then you are not being honest in your view of government interference concerning personal and privacy matters.

Again, if Libertarianism was such a swell idea, how come there isn't one Libertarian Country in the world today?

I mean, maybe Somalia- the have no government, crazy people with guns, and no taxes, but that was by accident, not by design.

 

[koshergrl]

Why don't you start a thread about that, joe, so we can delete your irrelevant post above from this thread?

Stick to the fucking subject. As St. Patrick says in Braveheart.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And yes, it's true...contraception isn't 100 percent effective.

So people choosing to have sex should consider the fact that not all contraceptive is 100 percent effective, before they actually have sex. There is no method of birth control, aside from abstinence, that is 100 percent effective.

That's a part of the "choice" you make.

abortion is also 100% effective in getting rid of unwanted problems.

So there's that.

So a child is a problem? Right then, keep the legs closed during a one night stand and that would help in getting rid of unwanted problems too. Oh well, guess self restraint isn't taught anymore these days.

Apparently the left is only capable of comprehending the term choice, once their view of "a problem" begins.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

If individuals are to be free from government influence, then organizations such as Planned Parenthood can rely on private funding and keep our government completely out of any "influential" role towards a woman's decision on whether or not she should seek an abortion. If it's to accurately be solely a woman's right to "privacy" then government has no place to take a side through funding such a procedure. Let them remain completely neutral, to include contraception, and allow women to make a choice on the basis of their own individual situation WITHOUT the ease and convenience of Federal aid to influence them. If you're a strong proponent of Congressional funding of Planned Parenthood, then you are not being honest in your view of government interference concerning personal and privacy matters.

Again, if Libertarianism was such a swell idea, how come there isn't one Libertarian Country in the world today?

I mean, maybe Somalia- the have no government, crazy people with guns, and no taxes, but that was by accident, not by design.

So much for government interfering in the personal privacy rights of women, remove Federal funding from the equation and you have Joe here throwing a little ranting fit

 

[koshergrl]

[

If individuals are to be free from government influence, then organizations such as Planned Parenthood can rely on private funding and keep our government completely out of any "influential" role towards a woman's decision on whether or not she should seek an abortion. If it's to accurately be solely a woman's right to "privacy" then government has no place to take a side through funding such a procedure. Let them remain completely neutral, to include contraception, and allow women to make a choice on the basis of their own individual situation WITHOUT the ease and convenience of Federal aid to influence them. If you're a strong proponent of Congressional funding of Planned Parenthood, then you are not being honest in your view of government interference concerning personal and privacy matters.

Again, if Libertarianism was such a swell idea, how come there isn't one Libertarian Country in the world today?

I mean, maybe Somalia- the have no government, crazy people with guns, and no taxes, but that was by accident, not by design.

So much for government interfering in the personal privacy rights of women, remove Federal funding from the equation and you have Joe here throwing a little ranting fit

That's because if the whores have to pay for it themselves, there goes his profit margin....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the abomination of liberty is lowering the standards of care in order to lower the costs.

All hail the great government God who is protecting us from making our own decisions about our own wallets and our own bodies.

do you equate a human being with a wallet? and a human body INSIDE mother's body IS NOT HER BODY.

Justice O’Connor already addressed this in Casey:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently, the Court wisely and correctly determined that the rights of the woman are paramount prior to viability and birth, where there are greater restrictions upon the state and its desire to preempt the woman’s right to privacy.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Let's ask the Nazi doctors if they had the legal authority to do what they did...

Oh wait, you can't...they were EXECUTED for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. You see, sometimes the law is wrong. If you commit human rights violations, even if it is LEGAL (and it very often is) that doesn't mean that you aren't doing anything wrong. Laws do not define humanity, and laws cannot remove humanity. When you have laws that do, then you're in a very bad place.

Actually, the vast majority of Nazis were acquitted of war crimes, and Germany passed a law in the 1960s immunizing most of its citizens from prosectution... Mengele was hidden with help from the German authorities for decades.

But again, why do you never advocate arresting the women who have them? I mean, if they never showed up at abortion clinics, there wouldn't be any abortions.

Oh. Right. The Porn INdustry made them do it! Nasty old Porn industry.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If individuals are to be free from government influence, then organizations such as Planned Parenthood can rely on private funding and keep our government completely out of any "influential" role towards a woman's decision on whether or not she should seek an abortion. If it's to accurately be solely a woman's right to "privacy" then government has no place to take a side through funding such a procedure. Let them remain completely neutral, to include contraception, and allow women to make a choice on the basis of their own individual situation WITHOUT the ease and convenience of Federal aid to influence them. If you're a strong proponent of Congressional funding of Planned Parenthood, then you are not being honest in your view of government interference concerning personal and privacy matters.

Again, if Libertarianism was such a swell idea, how come there isn't one Libertarian Country in the world today?

I mean, maybe Somalia- the have no government, crazy people with guns, and no taxes, but that was by accident, not by design.

So much for government interfering in the personal privacy rights of women, remove Federal funding from the equation and you have Joe here throwing a little ranting fit

NOt at all. The government merely helps women find birth control. PP doesnt' need government money for that, Abortion is a service that pays for itself.

And frankly, if you guys were serious about there wanting less abortions, you'd want more birth control. If you had a lick of sense.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again, if Libertarianism was such a swell idea, how come there isn't one Libertarian Country in the world today?

I mean, maybe Somalia- the have no government, crazy people with guns, and no taxes, but that was by accident, not by design.

So much for government interfering in the personal privacy rights of women, remove Federal funding from the equation and you have Joe here throwing a little ranting fit

NOt at all. The government merely helps women find birth control. PP doesnt' need government money for that, Abortion is a service that pays for itself.

And frankly, if you guys were serious about there wanting less abortions, you'd want more birth control. If you had a lick of sense.

.... or if people like you had any lick of sense, you'd make sure you'd use ANY appropriate measures to avoid finding yourself in that position in the first place. Seems to me, someone is not using some basic common sense. Instead you look to the "taxpayer" to bail you out of your personal misfortune, while still claiming they remain out of your bedroom. So why should I contribute my tax dollars to help get you out of a situation you yourself consider to be a private matter and personal decision?

 

[JoeB131]

[

.... or if people like you had any lick of sense, you'd make sure you'd use ANY appropriate measures to avoid finding yourself in that position in the first place. Seems to me, someone is not using some basic common sense. Instead you look to the "taxpayer" to bail you out of your personal misfortune, while still claiming they remain out of your bedroom. So why should I contribute my tax dollars to help get you out of a situation you yourself consider to be a private matter and personal decision?

I think it's more of a pay me now or pay me later.

If you are too poor to afford a child, the state's going to end up taking care of him.

So, yeah, a $300.00 abortion is a bargain compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars making that kid a ward of the state.