So even though the law specifically states partial birth abortions won't be allowed unless to protect the life of the mother, which btw, the average American you keep sighting would agree should be allowed, it's going to effectively let virtually every partial birth abortion to occur. That's right wing paranoia. The law specifically states otherwise, period. So even when it says that, you're saying otherwise.

Past that btw, are you saying that if a woman didn't abort the baby she would die, they should be legally required to have the baby anyway? Here's the problem; even if what you said is true that the floodgates for partial birth abortions would open, all you're proving is the impossibility to enforce the law. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against partial birth abortion bans that don't allow exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

There are plenty of laws where it's just impractical to enforce properly. I think if the entire US would abide by Prohibition, our society would be much better off without alcohol in the end, considering rates of alcoholism, etc. But it was impossible to enforce, so it was a bad law. I don't personally drink, and both my parents are recovering alcoholics, but I'd never be in favor of Prohibition.

Regardless, FOCA is not far left. It's not. This isn't intellectual dishonesty. I don't even care honestly if it passes or not. But it's not far left. Far left would not contain provisions at all to limit partial birth abortions. It would outright say parental consent laws are superceded and invalid. Etc. FOCA hasn't a single one of those things. It's center-left. But you're calling it far left because it's in any degree more left than where we are now. Same thing with what you're saying about moving any direction to the left on gay marriage. That's ridiculous. This is why we can't make any progress anymore legislatively or politically. Everyone thinks giving up an inch, even when it's a reasonable concession, is a slippery slope, the flood gates will open, Armageddon is coming, blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is while we're split on abortion, probably 70% of Americans would agree that we should limit partial birth abortions, but we should have exceptions for rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. FOCA is a reasonable compromise to move a tick to the left. Instead, it's tared and feathered as hard left, with many allegations that are outright lies, not just bending of the truth. Your point about the parental involvement requirements as a case in point. That's utter horsecrap, and you know it.

Prove provisions of the Obamacare is causing your mother's current health insurance coverage to be eliminated, and her premiums to go up. Prove it, explain what's going on, and show me where in Obamacare it's causing this. Until you can prove that, I'm calling BS.

I'm not saying companies don't end certain insurance policies because of Obamacare. I have a friend who works for Microsoft, and they're ending their health insurance plan in favor of another because the current plan falls under the category of a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, and will be penalized via a tax. So he'll go from super-awesome health insurance better than virtually any plan you could hope to find to a darn good one. He's pissed as hell because of this, but when I asked him did he look at this from the perspective of if this is good policy for society as a whole, he looked dumbfounded, as if why should he even consider that. If society as a whole is better off, I don't really care he has health insurance coverage a little closer to what the rest of us have. That should be the debate, not people deciding based on their own selfish interests.

The simple fact of the matter is health insurance premiums were already going up well before Obamacare was ever passed, but a lot of people now blame current premium increases conveniently on Obamacare when they don't know that was the reason why. Forget facts, it's that dang communist Obama!

I have a warped view of what's center-left vs hard left? If the only thing concerning gay marriage that Obama is advocating changing is that the federal gov't will begin recognizing the marriage legal IF and ONLY IF the couple's state considers it legal, explain how that's far left. If the only change to abortion laws is ensuring exceptions to partial birth abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother, explain how that's hard left. Explain how Obamacare, which largely keeps the same health care system we already have in place, is hard left. By definition, if we still have employee sponsored health insurance, no public option, no single payer, that's not a hard move to the left. It's not. The conservative right paints them all as these extreme measures, but every single one are compromises. Every single one of them, period.

And here's the result - Conservatives are urging the Supreme Court to dismantle the most significant health care reform since the invention of Medicaid to go back to a system everybody knows is broken, with no plan ready to fix it. We haven't even let Obamacare take effect quite honestly, but it's not stopping the GOP from claiming it's killing the economy. Ridiculous.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.
Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.
Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.
I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.
What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.
>> ^heropsycho:

It doesn't matter if this type of thing happens in other countries.. it give's no one the right to do horror simulations to someone else (regardless of their age) without them knowing what's going on.. in this case with or without parents consent just to teach them what the conductor thinks is a good lesson.
Where is the research to show this does good for a person? I've never seen it and it's one of the type of studies/subject i pay attention to.

Physical abuse can cause broken bones, damaged to tissue and ligaments etc, these things are more effectively treated by surgeons if ill-advised to be left to heal over time (not necessarily including extreme cases, also not condoning).
Whereas psychological abuse can lead to psychotic breakdowns that potentially destroy a persons personality and grasp on reality causing mental destabilization that can last a lifetime and currently be irreparable.

Using kids in videos like this, especially without parent consent is poor judgement, but come on, this is American sexuality hysteria at its worst. You need more tits on tv and just relax a little.

i believe that anyone able to consent should be legally permitted to do so. as it stands, people under 18 are not considered able to do this--they require parental consent in addition. at some age, this is invalid as even if the minor consents, they really don't know what they are doing. any number chosen will be arbitrary so i cannot defend it, and what the age should be i don't know.

currently, that age is 18. whether that is too low/high i don't know. my argument was that people should be able to freely make choices about their own lives, if it is physically/mentally possible for them to do so.

so to answer your queston, i support the legality of any non-conformist relationship as long as both parties consent.



In reply to this comment by ehtteop:
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:

as long as people are legally permitted to enter into civil unions with whomever they are want, thats what I care about.

Now, I'm not trying to be insulting, nor am I trying to imply anything by my next question (which I actually registered to ask).

Does this mean that you're in support of any non-conformist relationship, as long as long as both parties consent or appear to give consent?

These include, boy-man, boy-woman, etc type relationships that society tends to look down upon. Further, these are things that have legislation passed making them illegal, much like polygamy.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter.

I disagree with any assertion that there is something wrong with, or any moral reason not to, have an abortion during the first 3 months of pregnancy. Women should not have to jump through hoops like parental consent or talking to a pro-life counselor before having an abortion, Netrunner.

Geez, this is like putting a bandaid on a wound that needs stitches. As snippy a bitter pill as Jonny's being this weekend, I hate to agree w/ him but I do on a point.
You CAN'T examine or medicate underage children in this country (US) without parental consent. You wait, soon there will be lawsuits towards the district by the parents and good for them. Yet another freedom in this country is threatened..how sad.
Treating children behind parent's backs is wrong, I'm sorry. I'm not saying turn our backs on the problem, but this just cannot be the solution. Instead of leaving the parents out of the picture, why aren't the schools attempting to reach out to the parents more to work together on this problem?

Wow, my daughter is 11 and I can only imagine how upset I would be if a school was giving my daughter medication without knowing her medical history or what other medications she may or may not be on? If she isn't going to tell ME the truth about getting the pill from school, who's to say SHE'LL be telling the school the truth about her own medical history and meds from home?
What if something happens to the child from a bad reaction? Then the county is responsible for the child's illness and/or death.

My daughter has multiple allergies. When my children were in public school, I had to jump through HOOPS with paperwork and doctor's permission slips just to be able to leave an epi-pen and benedryl with the school nurse. They were protecting themselves against liability of course!

I've been considering letting my daughter try the new school where we're moving. Thanks for making me reconsider that decision! I'll be looking for a good homeschool co-op instead...

in addition....
People wonder why the homeschooling movement is growing by leaps and bounds in this country! Oh and the states are trying to take that right away from parents too. There are drugs, guns and promiscuity in our schools...OH, and they just might not be able to read or write when they graduate in some states. It's infuriating so much tax comes out of our income with out our consent for a failing school system we loathe!

Ok, SG's "to hell in a handbasket" rant over now...

Sorry about that, Farhad and Raven. I meant to post here, but I dropped the ball on that.

Raven: I am in no way against birth control, but I just think that a girl in middle school really ought to at LEAST have parental consent to get it.

WTF is wrong with society MGR is that there ARE middle schoolers having sex, and then they are popping out babies, and of course they have no fucking clue as to how to raise these babies, so the babies get pawned off on parents or relatives and what the hell kind of life are they going to have?? And as for parental consent, that argument is ridiculous, because the kids having sex certainly aren't getting consent to do that... better they get educated at a young age and prevent them from ruining their lives young.

PS SiftTalk is really not the place for conversations like this, as it, supposedly, is for discussions about the Sift. In the future, if you want to start up something like this and get me all riled up in defense of family planning I suggest you post this over on the Sexuality Channel.

I remember a long while back after I finished training I was selected for hometown recruiting duty. I spent two weeks at the office near my hometown and had to visit the mall with the recruiters. I had to make calls to everyone on a list of highschool students asking if they were interested in learning more about a career in the military. Every student on the list though had expressed interest in some way already. It may have changed now, but the recruiters never started calling/pursuing people who did not provide their own information first either through a sign up sheet or online. I hated making those calls though. Usually the parents would answer and start cursing at me, calling me a murderer, baby killer, rapist, or worse. The parents would freak out thinking I was trying to draft their kids.

As for school records being sent to recruiters now, I believe that parents can tell the schools not to release the information. As part of the "No Child Left Behind Act," students over 18 have control over their records release, and the parents of minors can "opt out" of records release to the military. I can understand why parents would be wary of the military giving information to their children, but unless they're 18 (when they have control over their own records release anyway) they can't do anything without parental consent.

One of the many problems with O'Reilly is that he invites a guest to his Special Comment. At least Olberman does not have to shout over someone during his monologue.

Does the Third Wave Foundation support or oppose late term abortions, parental consent laws, medical records disclosure to law enforcement, or child rape on demand? Who really knows from this piece?

Does O'Reilly support any of the above? He pretends that there is a debate over whether people support rape. Presumably conservatives don't and liberals do. Reprehensible.

The problem with these types of shows is that they have no interest in disseminating information. They are nominal news shows with no particular skill in examining any issue with any kind of critical nuance. They exist for the shouting. And the late, great Morton Downey Jr. already did that so much better than O'Reilly.

Wumpus, what does it matter what his age now is? That sounds like you are trying to stretch things. First of all, the outed IM page is a false flag operation. Cast doubts on one page, and you blur what happened with the others.

Facts, the emails that started this all off came from a 16 yrs old.
Fact, three other IM chat logs have come out, from other pages.
Fact, Foley met these pages in a Congressional young intern program.
Fact, Foley took pages out to dinner alone (had to get parental consent)
and showed up drunk at the page dorm bldg drunk at 10pm trying to get in.

Fact, Rove outs ONE page and claims his IM chat was when he was 17/18
so people like Wumpus throw out the whole conversation and ignore everything
else. Did you know this page you claim was 18 and is now 21.. .in fact works
for the Istook campaign in OK, and Rove just two days ago spoke at a fundraiser
for Istook. And this page is now represented by the lawyer for Timothy McVeigh.