Nope. Every time we get in a discussion, you come out looking a fool. Don't do it again, I'm starting to feel bad for you.
So, in other words, (a) "they" weren't "talking pro abortion," they were talking about how the restrictions placed on abortion were, in fact, attempts to get round constitutional protections on the right. (b) even if some of the guests on THAT show were in fact in favor of protecting the rights of women to have abortions, I'm betting "they're" not the same people as... ...these people. And, once again, your description of the actual show does not back up your previous summary of it as "they were anti death penalty". From all you've described, they could be perfectly in favor of the death penalty per se, just not this particular method. So you've just shown your previous self to have in fact been bullshitting. For you not to have been, you would have to have been listening to the same people actually having both positions. You haven't shown that anybody had either position. I didn't call you a liar, I called you a bullshitter. That's not quite the same thing. Bullshitters often don't even know they're not telling the truth.
So is the requirement that abortion doctors need to have admitting privileges within 30 miles unreasonable, or even a restriction? I am pro choice, but I don't think it's reasonable to require an abortion clinic in every woman's back yard.
Actually, the worse requirement that was upheld was some kind of ban on using chemical abortifacents. If such pills were readily available you would have the equivalent of an abortion clinic in every Rite Aid, put there willingly by good capitalists out for a buck.
I'm not so sure. Morning after is one thing, but 9 weeks after could be a bloody mess with complications.
Actually, that's fair enough. I was being a smug asshole and I apologize. But only for this one instance. No apologies for all the other times.
What's the point of it? You know that the real point is to try to drive abortion clinics out of business. Is that reasonable? Are there the same kind of restrictions on, say, fertility clinics? (Incidentally, where's the (non-Catholic) conservative outrage at fertility clinics? They destroy thousands of fertilized human eggs as a matter of cause. Tiny holocausts all over the place!)
Point? To protect women from taking a drug that can cause a bloody mess and serious complications, and without supervision. Seems like the opposite of driving clinics out of business. The 30 mile thing may drive some out of business, but it don't see an unreasonable burden on women seeking abortions. Abortions may be pretty safe, but they are botched from time to time. Having an ER nearby seems like a benefit. I don't see how fertility clinics are relevant to making abortions safer for women.
But the requirement is not that there is an ER nearby. The requirement is that the doctor have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. There's a difference. barfo
So they're asking that those clinics who perform abortions have a doctor on staff. Again, it seems to favor the safety of the women.
No, they aren't 'asking' that there be a doctor on staff. Read it again. The requirement is a doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital w/in 30 miles. barfo
Go read up on what admitting privileges are. The guy has to be a member of the staff of a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. He doesn't even have to show up at the clinic.
It's self defense! :MARIS61: Yes you actually said that, as pathetic as it sounds, as a general commentary on abortion. I don't do signatures, but that is close to being sig-worthy. Kingspeed, is that you?
Last response (a) The attitude and in fact, entire tone of the interview was pro abortion, listen to it your self if you like. I have no desire to debate the reason I would ask a question especial with a self admitted ass. Your schtick is tiresome. (b)n I never claimed that the guests were the same people, so who fucking cares. My comment was made in an off hand manor, and intended in a friendly tone. You have continually proven that you prefer to be contentious by design. My reference was to the host. You split hairs. Bullshitter, is the same as a liar in my book. I invite you to speak to my face the way you behave online, or rather, explain to me the difference between the two and see if all of your teeth remain in your smart mouth. Again, I do not talk to people any different on line than I do in person
