The Great Abortion Compromise!

[manu1959]

If my base were more powerful than their base, I wouldn't be looking at a Supreme Court filled with Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts.

now you are talking about how to win friends and influence enemies....your base has never been any good at that....yall like to insult people.....my dad won elections for over a decade pointing that out....

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Kennedy will go along this time.

In some cases it obviously is a life-saving operation. I'll take the word of a doctor who has performed the operation many times over a pundit on a messageboard...


Your opinion is noted.

If it's so life-saving, why are they only done in the USA? Didn't the ban's exception for the life of the mother cover this?

This "doctor"...quack...might just have a self-interest for his own part.

Opinion = Viewpoint, yours is radical by any measure.

 

[Dr Grump]

If it's so life-saving, why are they only done in the USA? Didn't the ban's exception for the life of the mother cover this?

Who said it was only done in the US?

This "doctor"...quack...might just have a self-interest for his own part.

Maybe, maybe not. Truth is, you have no idea, only speculation. I doubt he would do it just for self-interest. He'd be a pariah amongst the community. Calling him a quack does nothing to aid your POV, only show your dislike of the guy.

Opinion = Viewpoint, yours is radical by any measure.

I'd suggest it is only radical mainly by pro-lifers with a heavily Christian agenda...

 

[jillian]

now you are talking about how to win friends and influence enemies....your base has never been any good at that....yall like to insult people.....my dad won elections for over a decade pointing that out....

See... that's where I think you're wrong, though I believe saying it over and over is probably a facile way to get votes.

What I really think is that Dems make certain essential mistakes. I think instead of staying "on message" like Repubs, we tend to scatter our focus on every different issue. We'll talk health care, we'll talk education, we'll take health insurance, all seemingly postive things.

Thing is, voters vote by "feel". They want shorthand for who the person is, they don't need issues, they infer... It's about three issues for the right, the rest, well not so important if the "feel" works for them.

Also, we do dumb stuff like... Donna Brazile blew Gore's campaign, so what does Kerry do.... hires Donna Brazile and doesn't fire her til she failed to respond to the swifties for about two weeks and the damage is already done.

 

[manu1959]

See... that's where I think you're wrong, though I believe saying it over and over is probably a facile way to get votes.

What really think is that Dems make certain essential mistakes. I think instead of staying "on message" like Repubs, we tend to scatter our focus on every different issue. We'll talk health care, we'll talk education, we'll take health insurance, all seemingly postive things.

Thing is, voters vote by "feel". They want shorthand for who the person is, they don't need issues, they infer... It's about three issues for the right, the rest, well not so important if the "feel" works for them.

Also, we do dumb stuff like... Donna Brazile blew Gore's campaign, so what does Kerry do.... hires Donna Brazile and doesn't fire her til she failed to respond to the swifties for about two weeks and the damage is already done.

yep my dad used to have three topics tops....and point out exactly what you said ...... clinton on the other hand played his campaign perfectly .... i was shocked when gore and kerry went back to the old playbook ..... pelosi and boxer seem to recite from that playbook daily.

 

[jillian]

yep my dad used to have three topics tops....and point out exactly what you said ...... clinton on the other hand played his campaign perfectly .... i was shocked when gore and kerry went back to the old playbook ..... pelosi and boxer seem to recite from that playbook daily.

I know... and it's ticking me off big time. Ijits...where's James Carville when ya need him? At least he knows how to win a campaign. See... I kind of felt like if Gore could take 8 years of relative peace, prosperity, balanced budgets and surpluses and manage to leave the election so close that it could come down to a Supreme Court decision, that he deserved to lose. The problem is what we were left with instead. Ah well...

I also think every campaign, or at least every presidential campaign, has a pivotal moment. Clinton/Bush I... the pivotal moment was at the Town Hall meeting when Bush didn't know what a supermarket scanner was and didn't understand the woman talking about how expensive things were... Enter Bill saying "I feel your pain". Now... hokey? yes. But it worked and sent a message...

Pivotal moment, Gore v Bush II.... Al Gore's convention speech. The minute he started talking about "the people versus the powerful", I knew we were in trouble. I was screaming at the television saying "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!?!?!"

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Maybe, maybe not. Truth is, you have no idea, only speculation. I doubt he would do it just for self-interest. He'd be a pariah amongst the community. Calling him a quack does nothing to aid your POV, only show your dislike of the guy.

Well, he doesn't do them from free. He IS a pariah in the medical community, as most abortion doctors are.

Calling him a quack isn't supposed to promote a POV, but to contrast with yours.

I'd suggest it is only radical mainly by pro-lifers with a heavily Christian agenda...

Then 'splain this, Lucy:

"Do you think partial-birth abortions -- an abortion procedure conducted late in pregnancy -- should be banned or not?"
.
Banned Not Banned Unsure
% % %
3/1/06 61 28 11
7/98 54 28 18
5/96 46 37 17

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

The "moderate" position on the abortion issue is on demand until some arbitrary point, usually around ten, twelve weeks of gestation, then only permitted to really save the mother's life. You're out there.

 

[Gunny]

No offense, but they are as powerful a lobby as doctors and insurance companies. Just a fact of life.

And again, nothing but liberal propaganda. They are "a" lobby. Powerful NOT. They have a voice just as you do, but they aren't driving the train.


I think that's a given. I just don't happen to believe any ethical physician would perform a D&E except in extreme situations. And let's go back to language... there is no medical procedure called a partial birth abortion. That's a made up term.

Since we all (well, except one of us) know what procedure "partial birth abortion" describes, let's not play semantics with it.


How so? Because I don't believe the procedure is being performed willy nilly just because someone asks for it?

You miss my point entirely. That's what happens when you jump in feet-first then look around to see that you aren't even close to where you thought you were.

I have not once stated partial birth abortions are performed "willy-nilly." From everything I have read, it is INDEED difficult to get one, and most doctors would not perform one for convenience.

But this topic seems to be feast or famine with little to no middle ground. The pro-choice bunch see ANY hinderance to ANY procedure they wish to have as some violation of their freedoms.

The other side see ALL partial birth abortion as something evil and would let both mother and child die rather than choose to save one of them.

Given those two choices only, I am going to take the latter because whether or not you want to hear it or will admit it, the former is the first step to making it a commonplace procedure used as a means of birth control just as the same thing happened with 1st trimester abortions.

I haven't forgotten that were originally supposed to be about medical necessity too, not a convenient out for irresponsible people.

 

[Gunny]

See... that's where I think you're wrong, though I believe saying it over and over is probably a facile way to get votes.

What I really think is that Dems make certain essential mistakes. I think instead of staying "on message" like Repubs, we tend to scatter our focus on every different issue. We'll talk health care, we'll talk education, we'll take health insurance, all seemingly postive things.

Thing is, voters vote by "feel". They want shorthand for who the person is, they don't need issues, they infer... It's about three issues for the right, the rest, well not so important if the "feel" works for them.

Also, we do dumb stuff like... Donna Brazile blew Gore's campaign, so what does Kerry do.... hires Donna Brazile and doesn't fire her til she failed to respond to the swifties for about two weeks and the damage is already done.

Y'all have harped on "Bush lied" as the central issue of your party for 6+ years. Looks pretty singular to me.'

The issues you mention used to be the issues of the Democrats. Now, a few of y'all still pay lip service to them, but not much more. What y'all stand for more than anything to me is TAXES. You want more of MY money that I earn to fund your pet handout programs that buys you minority votes.

No thanks.

 

[manu1959]

I know... and it's ticking me off big time. Ijits...where's James Carville when ya need him? At least he knows how to win a campaign. See... I kind of felt like if Gore could take 8 years of relative peace, prosperity, balanced budgets and surpluses and manage to leave the election so close that it could come down to a Supreme Court decision, that he deserved to lose. The problem is what we were left with instead. Ah well...

I also think every campaign, or at least every presidential campaign, has a pivotal moment. Clinton/Bush I... the pivotal moment was at the Town Hall meeting when Bush didn't know what a supermarket scanner was and didn't understand the woman talking about how expensive things were... Enter Bill saying "I feel your pain". Now... hokey? yes. But it worked and sent a message...

Pivotal moment, Gore v Bush II.... Al Gore's convention speech. The minute he started talking about "the people versus the powerful", I knew we were in trouble. I was screaming at the television saying "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!?!?!"

not sure it was carville....but let me ask you this.

if you got to pick three issues to run on what would they be?

 

[jillian]

You miss my point entirely. That's what happens when you jump in feet-first then look around to see that you aren't even close to where you thought you were.

I have not once stated partial birth abortions are performed "willy-nilly." From everything I have read, it is INDEED difficult to get one, and most doctors would not perform one for convenience.

But this topic seems to be feast or famine with little to no middle ground. The pro-choice bunch see ANY hinderance to ANY procedure they wish to have as some violation of their freedoms.

The other side see ALL partial birth abortion as something evil and would let both mother and child die rather than choose to save one of them.

Given those two choices only, I am going to take the latter because whether or not you want to hear it or will admit it, the former is the first step to making it a commonplace procedure used as a means of birth control just as the same thing happened with 1st trimester abortions.

I haven't forgotten that were originally supposed to be about medical necessity too, not a convenient out for irresponsible people.

See... to me, it's easy to say that you'd let both mother and child die rather than allow someone to make intelligent decisions about their body and their life tells me that you're so far out there on this issue, that there really has to be absolutely no power for you to control that issue at all. It's very easy to make that determination when you're not the one who could die.

And you don't mean "irresponsible people", you mean "irresponsible women" since it's not men who are affected by this.

Oh... and there already IS a compromise. Justice Blackman was very careful about making sure of it. And it's based on the continuum that exists between conception to birth and when the State's interest kicks in.

 

[jillian]

not sure it was carville....but let me ask you this.

if you got to pick three issues to run on what would they be?

That's an interesting question... for Carville, when he did Clinton's campaign, it was easy.... "it's the economy, stupid". But what he also said he did, was he looked at what people knew about Clinton... they knew he was a baby boomer, they knew he was a Rhodes Scholar, they knew he protested against the Vietnam War.... He knew that Clinton sounded like a baby-boomer, trust fund baby. So they did a film, "The Man From Hope" that showed how he came from an poor family and had to work his way up.... That's the kind of thing they needed to overcome the initial perception.

As for issues.... I think first, you have to pick a tone and a voice that resonates and it depends who the candidate is....

Whatever issues, I'd pick, I'd try to showcase them properly.

For example, it would be easy to focus on Bush's screw-ups and the poor direction in which Iraq is going, but, ultimately, if you want people to fire the folks in charge, you have to give them an alternative. Cause even if they're doing badly, folks don't like changing horses mid-stream.... hence Bush getting his second term even with horrific polls and most people thinking the country was/is moving in the wrong direction.

Say the Candidate is John Edwards (just a hypothetical); we know the right immediately paints him as "evil trial lawyer" and pounds on that.... So, the first thing that has to be done is the cases he did have to be showcased... like him suing the company that made the swimming pool filter which sucked a little child into it so hard it took her intestines out of her body.... that should de-fang the "evil trial lawyer" thing.

so for him, you have someone who protects the public.... point one...

protection of the public... point two.... bring that into the WOT and talk about how the Repubs haven't implimented the recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission.

protection of the public... point three.... talk about the link between energy and terrorists.... By using mid-east oil, we hand over our wealth to the very people who hand that money over to terrorists to use against us. Weaning off of oil is a security issue... link to environment.... raise CAFE standards, etc.

stagnant wages for everyone but the wealthiest... link to the above and how the pursuit of new energy sources will create a new job source and jumpstart the economy....

Not that difficult...

Simultaneously, you paint the Repubs as intractable... Stephen Colbert, in his speech at the Washington Press Corps dinner talked about Bush being "consistent"... he said "you know this man believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday..... no matter what happened on Tuesday". You take the whole party and show how they won't adjust to necessary data.

That gives you your themes, I think... just off the top of my head. Ask me again when we have our candidates set.

So how would you handle it?

 

[manu1959]

That's an interesting question... for Carville, when he did Clinton's campaign, it was easy.... "it's the economy, stupid". But what he also said he did, was he looked at what people knew about Clinton... they knew he was a baby boomer, they knew he was a Rhodes Scholar, they knew he protested against the Vietnam War.... He knew that Clinton sounded like a baby-boomer, trust fund baby. So they did a film, "The Man From Hope" that showed how he came from an poor family and had to work his way up.... That's the kind of thing they needed to overcome the initial perception.

As for issues.... I think first, you have to pick a tone and a voice that resonates and it depends who the candidate is....

Whatever issues, I'd pick, I'd try to showcase them properly.

For example, it would be easy to focus on Bush's screw-ups and the poor direction in which Iraq is going, but, ultimately, if you want people to fire the folks in charge, you have to give them an alternative. Cause even if they're doing badly, folks don't like changing horses mid-stream.... hence Bush getting his second term even with horrific polls and most people thinking the country was/is moving in the wrong direction.

Say the Candidate is John Edwards (just a hypothetical); we know the right immediately paints him as "evil trial lawyer" and pounds on that.... So, the first thing that has to be done is the cases he did have to be showcased... like him suing the company that made the swimming pool filter which sucked a little child into it so hard it took her intestines out of her body.... that should de-fang the "evil trial lawyer" thing.

so for him, you have someone who protects the public.... point one...

protection of the public... point two.... bring that into the WOT and talk about how the Repubs haven't implimented the recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission.

protection of the public... point three.... talk about the link between energy and terrorists.... By using mid-east oil, we hand over our wealth to the very people who hand that money over to terrorists to use against us. Weaning off of oil is a security issue... link to environment.... raise CAFE standards, etc.

stagnant wages for everyone but the wealthiest... link to the above and how the pursuit of new energy sources will create a new job source and jumpstart the economy....

Not that difficult...

Simultaneously, you paint the Repubs as intractable... Stephen Colbert, in his speech at the Washington Press Corps dinner talked about Bush being "consistent"... he said "you know this man believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday..... no matter what happened on Tuesday". You take the whole party and show how they won't adjust to necessary data.

That gives you your themes, I think... just off the top of my head. Ask me again when we have our candidates set.

So how would you handle it?

my critique of your issues are:

bad mouthing bush is a mistake ...you would never be able to make a trial lawyers greed go away.... show casing cases is good one of my dad's as well he always made a big deal out of defending the wrongly accused

self made man is always a good one....that was one of my dad's

straight A student / rohdes scholar always a good one .... that was one of my dad's

none of those were issues just used to define the man and his character and thus his credibility....

american's want to elect someone they can relate to......

someone that talks to them as equals...reagan and clinton in their first terms did that...for that mater so did fdr and jfk

my issues would be.....

family financial and emotional security...gold mine here

i am a negotiator and a win win kinda guy so i would spin the whole terrorist thing.....and make it the rest of the worlds issue

i believe in outsourcing to america......

and no matter what the other side said to me or about me i would not bite

 

[Gunny]

See... to me, it's easy to say that you'd let both mother and child die rather than allow someone to make intelligent decisions about their body and their life tells me that you're so far out there on this issue, that there really has to be absolutely no power for you to control that issue at all. It's very easy to make that determination when you're not the one who could die.

Clarification: I am willing to go with the status quo. It's a legal medical procedure when determined to be a medical necessity by (a) physician(s). I opposed Bush's attempt to ban it because it would not allow for the circumstances above.

When I said I would go with the right, it's as it is, not the extremists. I realize I misspoke, but there's nothing more to it than that. My whole point is that I will NEVER go with the side that wants to have complete unrestricted abortion on demand.

It's very easy to make THAT determination when you aren't the one being murdered.


And you don't mean "irresponsible people", you mean "irresponsible women" since it's not men who are affected by this.

Don't put words in my mouth. I meant EXACTLY what I said, so get off your feminist, black-or-white-only soapbox with me. It takes two. The man is just as responsible as the woman, and THEY, not just her, should share in whatever responsibility comes of their actions.

Oh... and there already IS a compromise. Justice Blackman was very careful about making sure of it. And it's based on the continuum that exists between conception to birth and when the State's interest kicks in.

There is no compromise. Abortion is used as a means of convenience to escape the consequences of irresponsible behavior. A human being is murdered for THAT. Some compromise.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, he doesn't do them from free. He IS a pariah in the medical community, as most abortion doctors are.

You got a poll of the medical community giving their opinion on doctors who perform abortions? Cool. Let's have it then...

Calling him a quack isn't supposed to promote a POV, but to contrast with yours.

In order for it to be in contrast with mine, I would have to think he was the epitome of what being an excellent doctor is (considering I think a quack is about as insulting as you can get when addressing a medical doctor directly). Thing is, I don't think that. Don't know him well enough to form an opinion of his expertise. Try again...

Then 'splain this, Lucy:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

And why do those polled feel the way they do? Have they read about PBA's and what they are, how often they are performed and for what reasons. Going by how ill-informed some folk are on the issue, it is not surprising they answered as they did. Emotive questions usually get emotive results.

The "moderate" position on the abortion issue is on demand until some arbitrary point, usually around ten, twelve weeks of gestation, then only permitted to really save the mother's life. You're out there.

I am anti-abortion. I think it should be a last resort, and if somebody asked me their opinion if she was pregnant I'd tell her to have the kid or put it up for adoption. You have it in your head that somebody who does not agree with abortion on principle, and does not see a feotus as a human being, as somehow having conflicting ideals. I don't. They are my ideals. You stick to yours, I stick to mine, and I won't tell you what yours are and vice versa...

 

[Dr Grump]

There is no compromise. Abortion is used as a means of convenience to escape the consequences of irresponsible behavior. A human being is murdered for THAT. Some compromise.

It is not murdered. I have no problems with two adult humans who like to have sex for fun. Contraception should be available and if an abortion is required, then that is their choice. The wrong choice IMO, but still their choice.

 

[glockmail]

It is not murdered. I have no problems with two adult humans who like to have sex for fun. Contraception should be available and if an abortion is required, then that is their choice. The wrong choice IMO, but still their choice.

So if I choose to murder you than my defense should be: "I made the wrong choice, but it was fun, and I have a right to make wrong choices"????

 

[jillian]

So if I choose to murder you than my defense should be: "I made the wrong choice, but it was fun, and I have a right to make wrong choices"????

Uh... HE'S a person... I do wish you guys would get that straight. Science and biology seem to elude you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Uh... HE'S a person... I do wish you guys would get that straight. Science and biology seem to elude you.

So when did biological life begin for you, sparky? Was it when you were conceived and started developing, or when you finally became a big bag of wind?

 

[dilloduck]

It is not murdered. I have no problems with two adult humans who like to have sex for fun. Contraception should be available and if an abortion is required, then that is their choice. The wrong choice IMO, but still their choice.

"THEIR CHOICE" WHo the hell are you kidding ???