Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-27-2016, 03:54 PM
 
Location: The analog world
17,077 posts, read 13,273,696 times
Reputation: 22904

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude View Post
You realize the irrelevance of yours?

Gosnell's house of horrors was in gross violation of pretty much all existing medical regulations governing abortion clinics in that state. The problem was lack of inspection and enforcement, not inadequate standards standards for abortion clinics.
Beat me to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2016, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,460,241 times
Reputation: 13258
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude View Post
You realize the irrelevance of yours?

Gosnell's house of horrors was in gross violation of pretty much all existing medical regulations governing abortion clinics in that state. The problem was lack of inspection and enforcement, not inadequate statutory standards for abortion clinics.

Gosnell has absolutely nothing to do with the debate over these overly restrictive regulations by Texas and other states. They did try to use Gosnell to justify these bull**** laws though, and it rightly failed.
/end thread
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 03:56 PM
 
Location: The analog world
17,077 posts, read 13,273,696 times
Reputation: 22904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine View Post
/end thread
Raises hand to second the motion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 03:59 PM
 
5,381 posts, read 2,819,809 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
So, in your opinion sex is only for procreation?
Procreation can ONLY be achieved naturally through sexual intercourse between male and female. Thus, every occurrence of natural intercourse between a male and a female COULD result in procreation. Is that not true? Discounting all arguments about infertility, etc., it is basically a given that engaging in unprotected (or even protected) sex CAN result in pregnancy.

So sex may not be ONLY for procreation, but the result of pregnancy from heterosexual intercourse is always a possibility where there is no issue of infertility. True or false?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 04:02 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,743,223 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
How is it any different than protecting surgery center patients regardless of gender? It's not any different. It's requiring the exact same standards. Equal treatment.

Why do you believe women aren't deserving of equal treatment?
I believe that women are deserving of equal treatment. Singling out abortion clinics, but not other outpatient clinics is not equal treatment. It's special treatment. Special treatment to deny access to a certain kind of healthcare. That's not equal treatment by anyone's definition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 04:04 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,743,223 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
And how many women lie to men about being on BC?

I've had three lie to me about it over the course of 20 years, and those are just the ones I know about.


Again, if women insist that men have no say in whether a woman has an abortion (because it's "her body"), then why should men bear any of the responsibility for the pregnancy?

Y'all wanna have your cake and eat it too.
Because once a man's has ejaculated, he's no longer part of the equation? You're the one wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 04:07 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,743,223 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
No.

Because he is accepting risk, in that he will be financially responsible for any child that is a result of his "benefiting" from sex if the woman decides to have the baby. Even if she said she was on BC.

So, for his "part" of contributing to the pregnancy, he should have zero say in his future or the future of the child, but still be "responsible"?

Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You're arguing that he shouldn't have to accept any risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 04:11 PM
 
5,381 posts, read 2,819,809 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude View Post
You realize the irrelevance of yours?

Gosnell's house of horrors was in gross violation of pretty much all existing medical regulations governing abortion clinics in that state. The problem was lack of inspection and enforcement, not inadequate statutory standards for abortion clinics.

Gosnell has absolutely nothing to do with the debate over these overly restrictive regulations by Texas and other states. They did try to use Gosnell to justify these bull**** laws though, and it rightly failed.
So the victims of Kermit Gosnell are irrelevant. Gotcha!

Gosnell is the Poster Child of the problem not the exception.

http://www.operationrescue.org/archi...s-not-so-rare/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...hinestate.html

http://www.redstate.com/matthewclark...e-court-today/

List of victims including 911 calls at link above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,901 posts, read 25,835,547 times
Reputation: 15444
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What's particularly concerning is that SCOTUS has now taken it upon themselves to make medical decisions. Are any of them doctors? No. Did any of the majority consider the fact that their ruling essentially treats women like 2nd class citizens as far as the quality of medical care they'll receive under this ruling? No.

Might as well rename SCOTUS ...MISOGYNYSTS.

Says the person who would gladly side with the opinion of Abbott and his lawyers.


The American Medical Association of Obstetricians filed a brief to SCOTUS indicating HB2 was unnecessary, did you read through it. What does Texas have to support their argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,901 posts, read 25,835,547 times
Reputation: 15444
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye state your name View Post
So the victims of Kermit Gosnell are irrelevant. Gotcha!

Gosnell is the Poster Child of the problem not the exception.

Exception or Rule? Gosnell
He is most certainly the exception unless you have more information. They had not inspected that clinic in 17 years, fast food restaurants are inspected more frequently. Texas inspects these clinics multiple times per year but they found no reason to shut them down, that's why they needed HB2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top