I don't get democracy.

Hmm....is it, government by a certain sort of people in line with some linear, self-indulgent, sociopathological-narcissistic principles?? This fits well with ANY 'ocracy' in the long list historically.

Rachel Maddow and Al Jazeera: Like cold-coffee stirred with a soggy cigarette

The right wing rarely 'thinks' about anything...instead they usually 'believe', which requires no proof and never requires defense of their stance and allows them to degrade, debase, and dehumanize anyone that doesn't 'believe' what they do. Asshattery.

You know how it is, thinking is hard work and hard work is for the lower and middle class.

Such a shame. These laws are actually being introduced in several countries around the globe these days. I really don't get it. Where r the women? They repent more than 50% of the population... Time to stand up for yourselves!

Conservative women lack empathy as much as conservative men.

I read a report from a person who worked in an abortion clinic. The same people were parked in front of the clinic week after week. One woman in particular was vicious to women who came for services.

The worker was surprised when the woman showed up for an abortion. Upset and needing it desperately. Stayed professional, did the service.

Two weeks later, this same woman was out front, yelling just as loud as before.

The disconnect to reality is strong with some of these people. It's a baby being murdered, until you need the service for yourself.

It really is mind-boggling how little spine some people have. She's probably out there at the behest of a pastor and she wants to be looked up to in her little anti-abortion community. She clearly doesn't believe any of it, as she uses it herself (or a hypocrite), but she goes through the song and dance anyway, just to fit in. The power of peer pressure.

I did a bad job of painting a picture of this woman. It was clear that she was delusional, and filled with honest hate and outrage and spittle-spewing anger that anyone, ANYONE, could kill an innocent little babe. And then her desperation at wanting an abortion for her own reasons, and her desperation at being found out. Then the delusion -- as if it had never happened -- back outside, veins standing out from her neck, furious furious FURIOUS that anyone could kill an innocent little babe.

The woman clearly wasn't well based on her behavior in the three stages that the clinic worker observed.

Delusional. And as someone on the Sift said somewhere -- belief, not facts. She was great at not facing inconvenient facts -- she couldn't even empathize with herself.

Do you mean me?...see above.

Yep! I knew it was around somewhere -- I was too lazy to look for it.

That was a great comment you made -- matches my experience with some of my conservative relatives. I bring logic and progression from point to point -- which leads to I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

Don't you want some facts?

NO.

I am not exaggerating. Absolute rejection of facts, if it would make them think. And these are smart people, for the most part. Engineers. You'd think they would be hungry for facts.

I'm confused why is this statement such a big deal?

It's against his religion so why would he bother trying to figure out why someone would want to do it?

That's what I was thinking. I agree with all the arguments people in this thread have made, that abortion is a good thing and that more people should fight for a woman's right to make their own choices about their body.

But I can't help but feel they're all missing the point. You're absolutely right, he hasn't thought about it because it's completely irrelevant to his reasons for wanting the bill.

Twist it round a little bit and imagine they were talking about actual murder of grown up people, and bringing in a law to stop it. The reporter asks the bill's sponsor if they've thought about why the murderer wants to murder. It would seem like a ridiculous question. What difference does it make? Killing people is wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to do it, regardless of how much you might want to.

Obviously that's a hypothetical situation, but from the republican/christian point of view it's an identical argument. The question is irrelevant.

Exactly

Um, the reason for a murder is always the main focus of a murder trial . . . Well, that and proving it was said person.

So apparently there's a great Al Jazeera documentary out there about abortion rights! Rachel Maddow likes it! Boy, I sure would like to see that!

...

Oh, yeah, here it is... http://videosift.com/video/The-Abortion-War

States dictating free-will is fascist no matter one's particular passion or leaning in any direction or another. Would this not be the simplest way to express everything said above? Unplanned or unwanted pregnancies most often occur when two people with little or no thought as to the resulting responsibilities incurred, boink for fun.
Unwanted pregnancies taken to term more often than not lead to the formation of an individual with damaged imprints. Against abortion personally for these reasons and others but more-so, am wholly against any legislation or state-sanctioned nose in one's personal business.

I would simply love, if everyone who finds it necessary to type, say, or think the word "clearly," while expressing their views would stop it. Pretentious, smug, arrogant and fucking irritating.

The Abortion War has been added as a related post - related requested by xxovercastxx on that post.

*news *controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy, News) - requested by MrFisk.

Was gonna come on to say exactly that.

It's too bad that having an actual debate on abortion is nearly impossible.

People that believe life begins at conception are morally opposed to abortion as based on that belief abortion is taking a human life and only tolerable or forgivable if done to save another life.

People who do not believe life begins at conception are morally opposed to dictating what a pregnant human can and can not do with their body, again based on that belief.

The debate IMHO must, absolutely must, be around when life begins but nobody wants to talk about that. People want to decry the baby killers and the woman hating religious bigots.

Meanwhile, that digging in of everyone's heals leads to abortion clinics being bombed to save the children, and people lobbying for abortions to be legal up until the day before the child would be born(current Canadian law I'll add). I'd dare say neither extreme is supported by the majority, but people's biases on the subject don't seem to allow enough compromise to condemn the extreme ends of there own 'side'.

At a trial it is important (although not the main focus, proving there was a murder and whether or not the defendant committed the murder is). But this senator isn't at trial or talking about a trial, he's talking about introducing a law and for that purpose the motive is (for him) irrelevant.

Think about the murder example. It's illegal for one person to deliberately kill another person. There are many noble reasons why you might want to kill someone and there are certain circumstances where it's OK (self defence or soldiers at war) but in every other case it's illegal. It's even illegal if the person being murdered wants to be murdered.

I personally think that last bit is as wrong as the anti abortion laws but that's another debate entirely...

But for the purposes of the law the motivation behind the murder really doesn't matter. You could be doing it for the best of reasons but it's still murder. Same for the senator and his legislation. The reasons are just irrelevant. Maybe they would be relevant if a person was brought to trial under the laws proposed in the legislation, but that's for the courts to decide.

You bring up valid points, but I think there was a slight misunderstanding.

As for the motive being the main focus, the reason is that the punishment varies based on motive. If it's premeditated then it's a 1st degree life without parole type deal verses we got into a fist fight over beer and I accidentally killed the person.

I see pro-choice laws in the same light. Yes, in the end it's an abortion just like in the end, it's still murder. But the reason for said act, just as you mentioned with self-defense and assistant suicide, does in fact make a world of difference.

For instance, if the woman is simply wanting an abortion because of convenience verses she was raped by her father. Hence why the law can be so disastrously dangerous if they're not considering the motivations as well. The law on murder does consider motivation, which is why there are so many degrees of murder on our law books and case studies.

I worry about the Law of Unintended Consequences with this senators outlook.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/When-Did-You-Choose-To-Be-Straight

I saw this again the other day, and it reminded me of this video.

When Did You Choose To Be Straight? has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2.