Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Mar 13, 2012.
Agreed, after 20 weeks I have no problem with a mother having her baby safely removed.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Cool! So ensure the law allows late-term abortions, change the word abortion to removal and everyone's happy.
The law already allows late term abortions if the mother's life is at risk (or even of risk for serious injury) but if those two conditions don't apply, then removal of the baby has to be done like the birth of any other baby, done in such a way as to maximize the chances of survival, including after delivery.
Bells and others would apparently like to change that to be simply if the mother is having a bad day and no longer wants it, even after the baby is viable, then just kill it.
Because Arthur says so ....
You're right; I was incorrect when I suggested the provision you noted was "part of the revised bill pushing its way through the Georgia legislature". I had not realized that the revised bill passed.
And Bells has noted that the bill as past was amended.
Yet this is your change of subject. Rhetorical contortions. Remember?
Bells was quite correct:
"The right will come up with a variety of contortions to defend their misogyny and to deny women rights over their own bodies. We are mere cattle."
From the outset, you deliberately misrepresented the issue:
"And I'm having a hard time getting all worked up over a law that says women have 5 months to decide to keep the baby, but after that, if the baby is healthy and not harming the mother, it's too late to kill the baby because to do so would be cruel to what is by then a new life."
What Bells referred to was the form of the bill that died in the Georgia senate. You changed the subject to the law that was passed in order to whitewash the attitudes of Georgia Republicans.
Compared to an acknowledged misunderstanding of the original bill status, I think your blatant dishonesty in trying to avoid examples of widespread conservative misogyny is the real problem in this discussion.
Ah, yes. That tired bit. Arthur knows more about the words used by the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing than the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing. And Arthur knows more about medicine than doctors. You know, because Arthur says so.
And that's the only thing that counts, isn't it? Whatever Arthur says, because Arthur says so.
She noted that it was amended only after I told her Tiassa.
See that's the point of a forum like this, to update people when things change.
Bells thought that was what the law contained and I pointed out the actual law didn't do that.
Why yes, and she linked to too OLD articles, and so I went to check on the law and saw that it had passed and so of course I'm going to discuss the ACTUAL law, and not issues raised in an article nearly a month old that, like you and her, is out of date.
Yes some people supported more extreme legislation, but it didn't pass and I never commented on or wrote anything in support of those exteme positions.
Again, more BS Tiassa.
There was nothing at all dishonest in my post since, unlike you or Bells, I wasn't posting about things that were no longer true and I never once said that I supported the Bill when it was under consideration or supported the orator that Bells linked to.
I'm laughing so hard I can't see straight.
Do you think we are a net exporter of OIL Tiassa?
Do you honestly think that Hydrocarbon Processing EVER said that we were a net exporter of OIL?
Because, No Tiassa, they didn't say that.
Indeed you can NOT come up with a quote from that link that says, with these words strung together to form a sentence, from anywhere in that article that supports your claim that:
YOU, simply read something that wasn't actually there into the HEADLINE.
So, I'm not claiming I know more about OIL then do the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing, but I know how to read as well as know that the US is, by far, a net importer of OIL.
I included some of the article from "Hydrocarbon Processing" to show that it doesn't support this gross distortion of reality:
The article that Tiassa is referring to when he says that it supports that bogus claim:
US sees lower 2011 oil use, becomes net exporter
This appears to be the headline that Tiassa misread and the source of all his confusion.
Note though that the headline does not actually say WHAT we became a net exporter of. It certainly doesn't say we were a net exporter of oil as there is no period, the sentence just trails off....
Of course the headline isn't well written and one could easily misread it, as Tiassa apparently did, but then immediately following that short headline there's a second slightly smaller type headline that makes the fact very clear that we aren't a net exporter of OIL:
US oil demand in all of 2011 dropped 1.8%, or by 345,000 bpd, from 2010 to a two-year low of 18.835 million bpd, government data released Wednesday show. US oil output climbed 7.4% to 5.877 million bpd, the highest level since 1999.
Now just a little math and we note that our DEMAND for OIL was 18.8 million bpd which minus our OIL OUTPUT of 5.8 million bpd Equals our OIL IMPORTS of ~13 MILLION bpd.
So clearly we are importing a LOT of oil
So what did the article actually claim that we were a net exporter of then?
Like I've been trying to explain (over and over and over) to Tiassa, it's not oil.
Oil is the input to our refineries, and we have to import far more oil than we produce, but in 2011 we were a net exporter of Refined Fuels, which are the outputs of our refineries,
So to answer your question Tiassa, Hydrocarbon Processing used the terms Gasoline and Fuel for what was our net exports. They did NOT use the term OIL.
What is quite clear is they NEVER said this:
Nice dodge. Again, more intellectual dishonesty from you.
Are you now claiming that women are not being arrested and charged with murder in the US for trying to kill themselves while pregnant or because they may have ingested a drug while pregnant? Are you saying that no one in the US is being denied medical treatment while they miscarry because the doctor refuses to perform abortions? And just in case you weren't aware, your Republicans in Congress just passed a bill through the lower house and are now trying to pass it through the Senate, which would allow doctors to let women die rather than perform an abortion on them, even if the woman is miscarrying or her life is at grave risk due to the pregnancy. Are you also claiming that Republicans in the US are not comparing women to cattle, saying that women should simply not be having sex at all and that they are not restricting their access to the contraceptive pill through laws that allows employers to deny them access through their ensurers, through allowing doctors and chemists to not prescribe it based on their own personal beliefs, to laws which would allow employers to fire women for actually using contraceptives for contraceptive reasons? How about laws in Arizona which will protect doctors who lie to their pregnant patients and withhold information about their babies, such as the baby has a severe disability or issue which could result in the parents deciding to abort and not be sued for malpractice. And Arizona is not alone.
None of this is happening? Really? Is this because Arthur says so?
How about in Virginia, for example, which recently passed laws that would force women to undergo an ultrasound if they decide they want to have an abortion? The original Bill caused an outcry pretty much around the world as it would force women to undergo a vaginal ultrasound, which is rape, as if you are forcing something into a woman's vagina without her explicit consent, that's rape. The Governor of Virginia had to request that part be ammended from the Bill after the public outcry, which would allow women to opt out of the vaginal ultrasound and instead be forced to have an abdominal ultrasound. Other States are currently proceeding with their own versions of the laws. But it is now law. In your country.
But hey, none of this is happening because well, Arthur says so. Women are not being charged with murder for a miscarriage or if they deliver a still birth baby, because Arthur says so:
In 2006 in Mississippi, Rennie Gibbs, who became pregnant at the age of 15, lost her baby in a stillbirth at 36 weeks into the pregnancy. Prosecutors charged her with the “depraved-heart murder” of her child after they discovered she had abused cocaine, although there was no evidence that the baby’s death was connected to the mother’s substance abuse. The murder charge carries a mandatory life sentence.
Some 70 organizations across the US have filed amicus briefs in support of Ms. Gibbs in this ongoing case. In particular, they take aim at the claims by anti-abortion forces that such prosecutions protect mothers and their unborn children. One of the briefs says that to treat “as a murderer a girl who has experienced a stillbirth serves only to increase her suffering.”
Another woman, Bei Bei Shuai, has been imprisoned for the last three months without bail in Indianapolis, Indiana, charged with murdering her baby. According to police records, the 34-year-old woman attempted suicide last December 23 by ingesting rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her when she was 33 weeks pregnant.
Shuai was rushed to the hospital and survived, giving birth to her baby the next week. The baby died four days later, and in March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted feticide.
Alabama has prosecuted at least 40 cases brought under the state’s “chemical endangerment” law, which was introduced in 2006. The law, purportedly designed to protect children from fumes inhaled from methamphetamine being cooked by their parents, is now being used to criminalize pregnant women who miscarry.
Alabama mother Amanda Kimbrough delivered her baby prematurely in April 2008, and the baby died 19 minutes after birth. Kimbrough learned during her pregnancy that her child possibly suffered from Down’s syndrome, but she chose to carry the child to term.
Six months after the birth, she was arrested and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs while pregnant. She denies the claim.
“That shocked me, it really did,” Kimbrough told the Guardian. “I had lost a child, that was enough.” She is now awaiting an appeal ruling in the Alabama courts. If she loses her appeal, she will begin a 10-year prison sentence. “It’s just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids,” she said. “They say I’m a criminal, how do I answer that? I’m a good mother.
Women are not being lied to by their doctors anywhere in America, because the doctor is pro-life and does not want the prospective parents to abort a child which has severe birth defects and thus, lies to the patient and tells them the baby is healthy, because Arthur says so:
The state of Oklahoma just decided, and by an appallingly high margin I might add, that a doctor is protected from being sued if he or she chooses not to tell a woman that the baby she is carrying has a birth defect.
State legislators made this decision Tuesday, voting 36-12 in the Senate and 84-12 in the House to override Gov. Brad Henry's veto of this law. (The Legislature also overrode the governor's veto of a second egregious law, HB 2780, which forces women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion.)
Oklahoma, what have you done?
Under this new law, a doctor may withhold information, mislead or even blatantly lie to a pregnant woman and her partner about the health of their baby if the doctor so much as thinks that fetal test results would cause a woman to consider abortion.
I could go on, but really, what's the point. None of it is happening because you say so. As I said earlier in this thread, you aren't fooling anyone on this site Arthur. You are inherently dishonest.
THIS is the specific quote that I took from your post and responded to:
So the discussion about these things you mentioned that I said were not yet laws did NOT cover any of these other issues you just brought up.
Which I will be glad to discuss, but only after I have time to actually research them.
No, Bells, I never said any of those things you just brought up (or even other things you brought up in previous posts) , you simply took where I was replying to a SPECIFIC quote and acted like it applied to all these things it was never intended to apply to.
Which I'm going to just take as a mistake on your part, and not even call you dishonest.
And as I pointed out and provided links, women are going septic during miscarriages because doctors refuse to operate on them and remove the miscarriage because the fetus has a heartbeat. This is happening in your country. I also provided links which describe in detail how this is happening in your country. And you claim it is not happening and it's not law. The people you are here defending are now currently trying to make sure it is law. Contrary to what you may believe, doctors are legally allowed to refuse to treat women and to perform abortions, even on women who are miscarrying and who have ectopic pregnancies, because of laws Republicans passed in the Bush era. They can also refuse to refer women for reproductive health care because of their religious beliefs. That is law in the US.
But here is the thing, you not only said it is not law, but you then went on to claim:
And I provided links of women actually having lived through it. So stop lying. Just as you blatantly lied and misrepresented me when you made this claim about me:
So stop lying Arthur.
At least one State in your country has passed a Bill and it is now law, which also allows doctors to withhold information and lie to pregnant women, about the health of their baby, if they suspect the woman may get an abortion if the fetus has a severe abnormality. That's law.
You mean like where I apparently claimed that women in late in their pregnancy should just be allowed to "kill their babies" because they suddenly feel like it? When what I actually did say that women who suffer from mental illness and where the pregnancy poses a risk to their life and health are granted late term abortions here and I also advised that these women do have to undergo psych evaluations to determine their mental health. And what do you twist that to? That I apparently said that women should be allowed to "kill their babies" because they suddenly feel like it when they are in their late pregnancy stage.
Don't expect me to turn your blatant dishonesty into "mistakes".
Because you make so many "mistakes" on this forum that the only conclusion is that you are either incompetent or dishonest. Apply whichever you think applies to you best.
NO Bells, now you are being dishonest.
It was quite clear. I took a paragraph from you, quoted it and responded to THAT QUOTE.
You can't take my response to that specific Quote and claim that I said it applies to data found in one of your links many posts ago.
Like I said at the time, I'll be glad to discuss those issues with you ONCE I've had time to research them.
Edit: Subsequent parts of your post have changed my mind though (see below).
There is clearly no way to have any rational discussion with you on these issues
No Bells, that's not what you said, you didnt' say anything about "mental illness" or that there was a requirement that the pregnancy poses a risk to their life and health, you said Women only have to declare they feel depressed and they can be granted a late term abortion.
And you didn't claim that it had to have anything to do with ACTUAL mental illness, all that is required is her mere ASSERTION:
they will grant it if she tells them that having a child will endanger her mental health
And you said this right to kill them extended to completely viable nearly full term babies.
So YES Bells, this is clearly the SAME as my claim about your position:
Here's your previous post (bolding mine):
So YES, you indeed said the bar to killing their near full term baby was: "they only have to declare they feel depressed" and the only test of this was simply because "she tells them", and when queried about this applying to a nearly full term viable baby, you said, sure, it's not for you to deny a woman the right to kill her baby as long as it is in utero.
Which is consistent with your previous assertion:
Which as you explained what that actually means in detail above, is indeed incredibly BARBARIC.
The net of this Bells is your behavior is so dishonest about this subject that I have no further desire to discuss any of this with you.
As you showed yourself in quoting me, I also advised she would have to get counselling before they approved it and if she can prove to them that it would endanger her mental health and they agreed with her, she could be granted the termination.
So do you want to be that little bit more dishonest Arthur?
And then in another post, I made it even clearer, that if her doctor believes that the pregnancy will endanger the mother in any way, including because of her mental health, the mother can be granted an abortion:
So you want to lie some more?
Yep, I said that if the mother wants to keep her child, then it is her decision and how I personally feel should not impact with another person's decision over her own uterus and what it contains. Here is the direct quote:
So again, you can stop lying and misrepresenting what I have said now.
Right, because you are the one blatantly lying about what I actually said, trying to misrepresent it and quote it in a fashion and highlighting certain parts to make it seem that I had actually put it like that, when I had not. Don't lie.
Also, before you call anyone's views barbaric, you support a system that is now allowing doctors to refuse to treat women with ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages because they don't want to perform an abortion - and your heroic Republican Congressmen and women are trying to push this to protect doctors on a Federal level so that doctors who refuse to treat pregnant women who have an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage due to their personal beliefs about abortions, cannot be sued. You also support a system that, in at least two states now and with others looking to pass similar laws, will give doctors the right to lie to pregnant women and their partners about the health of their fetus, even if that fetus has a severe abnormality or genetic disease which could result in the parents wanting to abort.. Those doctors can blatantly lie and withhold critical and vital information about the child's health... You also support a system that is currently working to deny women equal access to contraception, when one considers the current Bills and conscious clauses in laws that already exist, in which doctors and chemists can refuse to prescribe or provide contraception to women.
Personally, I find the abject refusal of doctors and lawmaker support of doctors who refuse to treat women with possibly fatal conditions such as ectopic pregnancies and during miscarriages as well as the support in denying women reproductive health care to not only be barbaric, but also backwards, misogynistic and sexist. The same applies to people who support and try to come here and defend such lawmakers and doctors.
Last post since you continue to be dishonest Bells.
You made it quite clear that all they have to do is DECLARE THEY FEEL DEPRESSED to get a late term abortion.
You clearly did NOT say she had to "prove" anything.
they will grant it if she tells them that having a child will endanger her mental health
"if she tells them" = DECLARE
You think that all a woman has to do is say she feels depressed, go through a little "councelling" and you are fine with allowing her to terminate the life of a fully developed healthy baby simply because it hasn't managed to get one foot out of the womb long enough to dry off.
And that is indeed the LOW bar that you put out there that a woman has to get over to get a late term abortion, up till the kid has a dry foot, which when asked you have said that could be as late as 8 months, 3 weeks, which just happens to be a week more gestation than both my perfectly healthy children were born at.
Adios Bells, You remain dishonest and I am no longer interested in discussing this level of Barbarism with you.
Lie more Arthur. This is typical you. And then skip the thread.. Again, typical you. Because that's what you do isn't it? Lie and then skip away. You even go so far as to encourage people to skip town during murder investigations.. You are an inherently dishonest human being.
No Bells, I'm not skipping this THREAD I'm just not going to waste my time discussing it with someone as dishonest as you have proven yourself to be.
I don't think you've understood the role of the counselers in all of this.
Bells, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Australian system works the same as the NZ system, in that the counsellers have to be convinced that there is a genuine threat to the mothers mental well-being before they will authorize anything, correct?
The sessions are quite intensive and these aren't just counsellors off the street, but psychiatrists and psychologists who treat mental illness.
It involves a full psych evaluation, sometimes with more than one psychiatrist.
But shhhh... best not say anything that will contradict Arthur's 'say so'.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But Trippy, that's exactly what I argued with Bells about, that it wasn't easy to get a late term abortion:
Her whole point is that it isn't hard to get a late term abortion.
Of course I don't believe her.
My whole point is that advanced states all around the world start limiting abortions after about 20 weeks, but she insists this isn't the case in Australia where she claims:
Which is why I don't believe much of what she posts about on certain issues.
So in Australia, as in the US, after ~20 weeks, it is NO LONGER just her decision either.
Thanks, glad we got that resolved.
So now we can revisit the original argument:
Well let's ask Trippy, shall we?
And does Bells agree that she can no longer decide to unilaterally have her babies life terminated after 20 weeks?
Again, you leave out the vital point in your highlighting what I said. And again, very dishonest of you:
So stop lying.
Separate names with a comma.