Congress introduces a national abortion ban on its first day back.

[Yabby]

If funding influences her choice, then how can you say it doesn't also govern it?

So, if we keep the funding, we are giving her the ability to make a choice, thus governing it?

If we take the funding away, she doesn't have the choice, thus also governing it?

Is this what you are saying?

Edit: Just reread that, sounds bad. I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to see your point.

[RKenshin]

If you want to start drawing lines, why stop there?!?! kill all these systems right?

You are a stone skip away from hyperbole.

Nothing I said was hyperbolic... unlike your response.

There is no other reasonable scenario I can think of where the government/insurance plan can say "well, if you didn't want lung cancer you shouldn't have smoked, so the bill is on you." Please feel free to provide an actual counter-point/example, or provide a reasonable explanation as to why abortion is an exception here (and one that doesn't involve 'because religion' - since last I checked that isn't enough to make a law a law). I wasn't being rhetorical or facetious.

Look, I'm trying to look at this shit through imaginary bipartisan glasses. The right wants to do away completely with a womans right to choose, for "moral" reasons. While the left is frantically trying to hold onto logic and reason against the machine of disinformation that is Republican politics, more so the Tea Party. Removing federal funding from the very things that they are against is a step closer to getting rid of it completely, I realize, but the supreme court would be out of their fucking minds to ever overturn Roe vs. Wade, let alone leave the states to govern themselves on the matter.

Let them have the federal funding removal, so we can keep abortions available. Its a compromise I'm willing to agree to. Although I'm sure they won't ever stop trying to get rid of it, which will cost them every presidential election from here on out.

I get your point, but needless to say I don't find it to be a fair compromise (as a few others here seem to as well). The poor are the ones that need access to this the most, removing that might as well hamstring the entire effort.

[Yabby]

Nothing I said was hyperbolic... unlike your response.

There is no other reasonable scenario I can think of where the government/insurance plan can say "well, if you didn't want lung cancer you shouldn't have smoked, so the bill is on you." Please feel free to provide an actual counter-point/example, or provide a reasonable explanation as to why abortion is an exception here (and one that doesn't involve 'because religion' - since last I checked that isn't enough to make a law a law). I wasn't being rhetorical or facetious.

You said, why fund one thing and leave the rest, going to an extreme of things that cause death (Like lung cancer).... hyperbole.

Ether way it doesn't matter, because we are not arguing to fund abortions because it should be her choice, at least i'm not. I'm arguing that the logic in defunding it is wrong. They don't want to do it because it is using tax payer money, i'm stating it will cost even more money to the tax payer to not fund it.

It's the same thought process they are using for unemployment. Everyone on unemployment should take a drug test. They think it will save them tax payer money, which it doesn't. It just costs the tax payer more, for no reason.

[Gredival]

Look, I'm trying to look at this shit through imaginary bipartisan glasses. The right wants to do away completely with a womans right to choose, for "moral" reasons. While the left is frantically trying to hold onto logic and reason against the machine of disinformation that is Republican politics, more so the Tea Party. Removing federal funding from the very things that they are against is a step closer to getting rid of it completely, I realize, but the supreme court would be out of their fucking minds to ever overturn Roe vs. Wade, let alone leave the states to govern themselves on the matter.

I don't know how closely you follow SCOTUS, but we are at a historical amount of 5-4 votes with Kennedy sitting with the conservatives. I believe if it came down to it, Kennedy and maybe Roberts would still uphold it, but Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would be all for overturning.

Let them have the federal funding removal, so we can keep abortions available. Its a compromise I'm willing to agree to. Although I'm sure they won't ever stop trying to get rid of it, which will cost them every presidential election from here on out.

I think it's just such a insignificant issue that the GOP needs to let it go. But they are desperately trying to find a way back into the White House and they can't do it with ONLY fiscal conservatism (unfortunately their pandering to the religious right trades off with their appeal to women and ethnic demographics)

Edit: Actually, what are the odds this shit gets vetoed or doesn't pass in the senate?

Warren and Boxer at the very least will filibuster this to the ground.

You said, why fund one thing and leave the rest, going to an extreme of things that cause death (Like lung cancer).... hyperbole.

He's making the fair point that the logic behind Waraji's compromise isn't tailored to abortion, it's merely an after-the-fact justification. It's a fair criticism of the justification for the law.

The plain truth of the matter is that some legislators (and other pandering to their districts) feel it's immoral and are just trying to restrict it as much as possible.

[Yabby]

He's making the fair point that the logic behind Waraji's compromise isn't tailored to abortion, it's merely an after-the-fact justification. It's a fair criticism of the justification for the law.

The plain truth of the matter is that some legislators (and other pandering to their districts) feel it's immoral and are just trying to restrict it as much as possible.

I understand the point now, i misread the reason behind his statements (Waraji's Compromise).

[RKenshin]

You said, why fund one thing and leave the rest, going to an extreme of things that cause death (Like lung cancer).... hyperbole.

My point wasn't a comparison of abortion to cancer/death causing illnesses, it was a comparison of things you can prevent vs personal responsibility.

Waraji's original point was that if you can prevent it, you should be responsible in paying for it. And the fact is there are a whole range of medical conditions you can take steps to prevent (and/or greatly decrease the chances of getting), but you don't see other legislation using that same logic to force people to pay for not making those choices.

Lung cancer just happens to be a great example of that - because, you know, the whole smokers and choosing to smoke and lung cancer statistics thing.

[kuronosan]

So, if we keep the funding, we are giving her the ability to make a choice, thus governing it?

If we take the funding away, she doesn't have the choice, thus also governing it?

Is this what you are saying?

Edit: Just reread that, sounds bad. I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to see your point.

No.

There is no law right now that says "fund abortions". If you pass a law that says "don't fund abortions" you are passing a law that governs a woman's ability to choose.

Aks's argument was that the debate was about governing, not funding. But if you take away the most important factor (fund availability) then you are pretty much governing their choice.

[Yabby]

No.

There is no law right now that says "fund abortions". If you pass a law that says "don't fund abortions" you are passing a law that governs a woman's ability to choose.

Aks's argument was that the debate was about governing, not funding. But if you take away the most important factor (fund availability) then you are pretty much governing their choice.

I see what you are saying, thank you for clarifying

[wipers]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-gi...r-abortion-905

[kuronosan]

Sorry, no. 20 weeks? Not going to tell her she can't make her own choice but that's fucking stupid.

I'm broke and I'm this and I'm that and I don't want to be a mom, but I'm going to get a kitten, and I'm going to raise money to pay for an operation that I can't have by the time I raise the money for it?

That's just grossly irresponsible. I really hope she gets her funding, because I totally agree she doesn't need to be breeding.

[Andalusian girls]

for societal well-being i would donate heavily to both her abortion and her sterilization

[Yabby]

for societal well-being i would donate heavily to both her abortion and her sterilization

Second

[Waraji]

Would only if both.

[Tyrath]

Edit: Nvm shits old.

[Kuya]

Is it considered irony that we've had a rush of feminism bashing in this forum while the first thing the republican congress wants to do is try to ban abortions?

[Blubbartron]

Is it considered irony that we've had a rush of feminism bashing in this forum while the first thing the republican congress wants to do is try to ban abortions?

Only if you assume those two necessarily go together, which they don't. I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds modern feminism ridiculous, but fully supports a woman's right to choose, and loathes the bullshit tactics Republicans are using to make abortions impossible without outright banning them.

[Kuya]

I suppose it's only ironic if you consider only specific examples. I know in a few instances videos or images were posted of women explaining why they don't need feminism. Yet, our republican Congress feels the need to legislate vaginas. I think that would be an example of irony.

[Blubbartron]

A lot of the people that oppose abortion are doing it because they equate it with murder. They're mostly good people, although idiots. Some very few are doing it out of twisted desire to have and use power. Women only need feminism if there was some massive conspiracy to try to make them into second-class citizens again, which there isn't (until proven otherwise).

[Kuya]

A lot of the people that oppose abortion are doing it because they equate it with murder. They're mostly good people, although idiots. Some very few are doing it out of twisted desire to have and use power. Women only need feminism if there was some massive conspiracy to try to make them into second-class citizens again, which there isn't (until proven otherwise).

Considering that the people who do most of the fighting for the right to have abortions are feminists, it seems curious that you feel women should have a right to abortion but that feminism should only exist to fight massive conspiracies.

[Blubbartron]

Considering that the people who do most of the fighting for the right to have abortions are feminists, it seems curious that you feel women should have a right to abortion but that feminism should only exist to fight massive conspiracies.

I think it's more curious that you're phrasing it as if women don't currently have that right (which they do). If you were referring to people fighting AGAINST the people trying to take away a woman's right to choose, I think it's more likely that the divide will fall along party lines than by those that identify as feminist.