Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 236

Replaced_Texan · 07-12-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Who knew Penske was the voice of truth and reason?

The Book of Revelations?

robustpuppy · 07-12-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
Does anyone have any reliable stats on what percentage of abortions are done in the first trimester, due to a direct compromising of the mother's health? It would help me to formulate my thoughts on this if I knew how the breakdown goes, to know if the arguing points are at the fringes or in the middle, volume-wise. I don't, frankly, trust most of the stats I have seen, as they mostly come from agendaed sources. Count me in on the evolving views.

Are women or their doctors required to state the reason for the abortion, much like Banana Republic asks me why I'm returning a given item? (For the record, I usually say "shopped drunk," or "ass looks bigger at home.")

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I'M SOOOOOOOOOOOOO SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!

That is a start...................................

Hank Chinaski · 07-12-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The Book of Revelations?

I'm not old skool, but what I don't get is why Penske wasn't ran off like they did with the other halfwits that have shown up over the last few years. How is Penske any more entertaining than say loberry or burning bush or burberry bikini?

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
That's pretty close to where I am, too.

If gay marraige was legal I would propose..........runaway to Canada with me Not_bob!

taxwonk · 07-12-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Call me a cynic, but I don't think you were being sincere.

I wasn't. But then, I'm not Woodrow Wilson or Robert Byrd. Would you apologize for Pat Buchanan or David Duke?

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-12-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Who knew Penske was the voice of truth and reason?

Proof that people can change.

I'd be happy to take responsibility for sending along an ACLU application to him, as well as the complimentary boxed set of Oliver Stone movies.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Strangely enough, almost a perfect fit for me, too.

Translation (hi TM!): As horrifying a thought as this is, I agree with Penske.

taxwonk · 07-12-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Translation (hi TM!): As horrifying a thought as this is, I agree with Penske.

Translation: When I'm not busy spewing vitriol or just stirring up the shit, I tend to have a lot of common ground with many of the posters on this board on a lot of issues, at least when they're not spewing vitriol or just stirring up the shit.

nononono · 07-12-2005, 04:28 PM

No idea. Someone out there must have some idea, though. I have the opposite issue when shopping drunk - I get much cuter things, and more of them, so I want to keep them. Got to check the ass more, though, now that you mention it.

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Are women or their doctors required to state the reason for the abortion, much like Banana Republic asks me why I'm returning a given item? (For the record, I usually say "shopped drunk," or "ass looks bigger at home.")

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I don't know how people can even stand to have this argument. More so than any other political debate (and it's a crying shame that this issue is so central to American politics), you can never change anyone's mind on it, each side finds the other's viewpoint offensive because the rights on the other side are considered so fundamental, and any compromise point (such as "on demand" versus "when health is at risk")* is utterly arbitrary. It's just exhausting even to witness this debate, let alone to contemplate how it has shaped (or grossly distorted) American political life.

(*Although I will throw in here that this line seems impossible to draw if you concede -- and not everyone does -- that the health risks to women who seek to terminate pregnancies when on demand abortion is not available are relevant.)**

** (Just doing this made me tired.)

Interestingly I agree with some of the above and it is in fact the position I came to and posited back when Reagan was president and it really was morning in America. Also, interestingly, I was pro-choice based on my libertarianism. All of this remained solid until my mind started to change in the late 90s (this is where I diverge with the above, minds can change).

Nothing about my shift has anything to do with (1) politics or (2) religion. Just my thoughts about life and when a fetus/pre-birth infant gets basic rights. I wouldn't make this a litmus test (unlike my anti-tax litmus test) for voting nor would I make it a litmus test for or against a judicial nomination.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Who knew Penske was the voice of truth and reason?

[hi RP!]The same people who knew my socks don't suck.[/hi RP!]

bilmore · 07-12-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I don't know how people can even stand to have this argument.

Yeah, this is why I swore, months ago, to never discuss the topic on the internet ever again.

ltl/fb · 07-12-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
Does anyone have any reliable stats on what percentage of abortions are done in the first trimester, due to a direct compromising of the mother's health? It would help me to formulate my thoughts on this if I knew how the breakdown goes, to know if the arguing points are at the fringes or in the middle, volume-wise. I don't, frankly, trust most of the stats I have seen, as they mostly come from agendaed sources. Count me in on the evolving views.

I don't think there are any unagendaed sources on this. Anyway, I can't figure out how y'all are grouping things, or whether everyone who is agreeing is grouping things the same way. Is it:

(1) Any abortion in the first trimester (or so) fine
(2) Any abortion thereafter fine if (significant? how is this measured?) health risk to the mother (does mental count?)
(3) Any abortion thereafter fine if fetus not viable (what does this mean, anyway? would not be born alive? Baby would not live more than a day or two? Baby would be severely handicapped and would not live more than a year or two, and those years would be spent in a hospital hooked up to machines?)

OR

(1) Any abortion in the first trimester (or so) fine
(2) Any abortion thereafter fine if there is a health risk to the mother and the fetus is not viable?

???? I couldn't tell which one Penske originally posited, so I definitely can't tell what people are agreeing with. Plus there are all the unanswered questions.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-12-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
They can't be. By definition, one of the competing interests has to lose. That's what makes abortion such a Gordian knot.

True. Its a mess. When I see messes, I err on letting people decide for themselves. Hence, pro choice. To me its a no brainer.