The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Why do conservatives always see things in punitive, tit-for-tat ways? "You want more restrictions on guns? Fine, then I want medically unnecessary and incredibly invasive and pointless procedures for women!" How on earth does that make any sense to someone?

 

No, I'm not going to spare you any "bulls***" about your sexist views on female reproductive rights and your made-up stats that just happen to confirm your pre-conceived notions or your complete lack of understanding of what these procedures are, why they're being required and when they're applicable.

[StrangeSox]

We need more poor women having babies they can't afford. I'm sure everyone will be glad to chip in to help raise them.

jenks has told us that the poors and even median-income families shouldn't be 'irresponsible' and have children they 'can't afford.'

[Jake]

I am all about responsibility, but let's keep in mind one party is continually held responsible for the mistakes of two.

 

One of the benefits of civilized society should be that you should be able to have sex as you please, provided the person(s) you do it with are consenting to it. No one likes to have abortions, even if it's "just a pill," so it isn't like people will intentionally shirk responsibility. s*** happens.

 

And no...the right to guns is nothing like the right to have sex and control what comes in and out of your vagina.

[Balta1701]

And no...the right to guns is nothing like the right to have sex and control what comes in and out of your vagina.

I for one agree. Anyone wanting to purchase a gun should have to go through the "Combined penis measurement and anal probe of shame" before they can do so.

[StrangeSox]

 

The subtext remains text

[Jenksismyhero]

We need more poor women having babies they can't afford. I'm sure everyone will be glad to chip in to help raise them.

 

IIRC, most women that get abortions are middle class white women. And this doesn't really stop anyone from getting a pill, it adds an extra step to the process.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Why do conservatives always see things in punitive, tit-for-tat ways? "You want more restrictions on guns? Fine, then I want medically unnecessary and incredibly invasive and pointless procedures for women!" How on earth does that make any sense to someone?

 

No, I'm not going to spare you any "bulls***" about your sexist views on female reproductive rights and your made-up stats that just happen to confirm your pre-conceived notions or your complete lack of understanding of what these procedures are, why they're being required and when they're applicable.

 

It's not tit for tat, it's calling out poor liberal logic when it comes to issues they care about versus issues conservatives care about. This is a bill with little to no chance of passing, just like there are bills out there that want more invasive background checks (medical health clearances, meaning your private medical records could potentially be turned over) on purchasing guns. Is it the exact same? No, obviously not. But it's the logic that when you think something is wrong you want barriers put up to keep people from performing that act. In that sense, it's the same.

 

How is it sexist to want to protect something that I believe is at least arguably life? You presuppose that the only person involved is the female, the person who had the choice in the situation. Spare me your bleeding heart liberal bulls*** about the freedom of a woman to do what she wants. We make difficult decisions infringing on peoples ability to act/treat their body as they see fit all the time. Why is abortion so different in cases where it's legitimately a choice of inconvenience versus medical necessity/rape/incest, etc? I'm not suggesting we overturn Roe v. Wade, just like this bill isn't. It's a barrier that slows the process and could potentially change some decisions.

 

I agree an absolute requirement that multiple trans-vaginal ultrasounds would be required is too invasive and and unreasonable restriction on the right to an abortion. But that's not the bill that I read, as explained in that article Balta posted.

[StrangeSox]

It adds time, expense and humiliation for absolutely no medical reason. It's entirely a punitive measure designed to make abortions more expensive and more difficult to get. It leads to less clinics offering these services and less access, especially for poorer women.

 

Should you be required to undergo a 7" rectal probe if you want to get checked out for high blood pressure? It's just an extra step, right??

[Jenksismyhero]

jenks has told us that the poors and even median-income families shouldn't be 'irresponsible' and have children they 'can't afford.'

 

Do you REALLY think that's a terrible position to have? WTF is this country coming to when someone expects people to not be irresponsible in BRINGING A LIFE INTO THIS WORLD WITHOUT THE MEANS TO DO IT?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It adds time, expense and humiliation for absolutely no medical reason. It's entirely a punitive measure designed to make abortions more expensive and more difficult to get. It leads to less clinics offering these services and less access, especially for poorer women.

 

Should you be required to undergo a 7" rectal probe if you want to get checked out for high blood pressure? It's just an extra step, right??

 

Gun requirements some liberals want add all of those. More time (background checks, wait periods), more expense (training classes/certification/registration/possibly insurance), and humiliation (having to disclose medical records even if you suffer from something "minor" like anxiety/depression) - all of which are unnecessary and with little to no proof they would result in ANY change and probably would effect the poor more than the rich.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It's not tit for tat, it's calling out poor liberal logic when it comes to issues they care about versus issues conservatives care about.

 

No, it's a terrible argument. You're not calling out any "poor logic" there.

 

This is a bill with little to no chance of passing,

 

Oh? There have been a huge number of state-level anti-abortion bills passed since the "small government! freedom and individual liberty!" tea party conservatives swept into office in 2011. This bill is already out of committee. Similar bills actually passed in Virginia last year, but were modified to be slightly-less-horrible after national pushback.

 

just like there are bills out there that want more invasive background checks (medical health clearances, meaning your private medical records could potentially be turned over) on purchasing guns. Is it the exact same? No, obviously not. But it's the logic that when you think something is wrong you want barriers put up to keep people from performing that act. In that sense, it's the same.

 

See, this is where your calling out of "poor liberal logic" falls apart. I don't want stronger background checks for gun purchases because I think owning a gun is a bad thing. I don't want that process in place because I want to make it as onerous and as difficult as possible to purchase again simply as a punitive measure to dissuade someone from getting a gun. On the other hand, that's exactly why this mandatory ultrasound bills are put in place: to punish those evil sluts who can't just keep their legs closed.

 

How is it sexist to want to protect something that I believe is at least arguably life? You presuppose that the only person involved is the female, the person who had the choice in the situation. Spare me your bleeding heart liberal bulls*** about the freedom of a woman to do what she wants. We make difficult decisions infringing on peoples ability to act/treat their body as they see fit all the time. Why is abortion so different in cases where it's legitimately a choice of inconvenience versus medical necessity/rape/incest, etc? I'm not suggesting we overturn Roe v. Wade, just like this bill isn't. It's a barrier that slows the process and could potentially change some decisions.

 

It's sexist to assume that women don't know what pregnancy is and what it entails and that it's only after they're forced to have a doctor shove a wand up their crotch that they'll truly understand.

 

I'm not going to spare you my bulls*** that a woman should be free to control her own body without having to undergo unnecessary and invasive medical procedures. I don't care why a woman is choosing an abortion, and I unconditionally oppose any unnecessary and purely punitive barriers that are put in place by anti-abortion lawmakers designed specifically to slow the process down and discourage a woman from seeking the medical care she desires.

 

I agree an absolute requirement that multiple trans-vaginal ultrasounds would be required is too invasive and and unreasonable restriction on the right to an abortion. But that's not the bill that I read, as explained in that article Balta posted.

 

Yes, it is. There's no other way to perform the procedure that would be required by this law at the stages where a pill would be effective. Over-the-stomach ultrasounds just don't work at those early stages, which means you're left with having to have a large wand shoved into your genitals. Not for any real medical reason related to the abortion, of course, just because.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Gun requirements some liberals want add all of those. More time (background checks, wait periods), more expense (training classes/certification/registration/possibly insurance), and humiliation (having to disclose medical records even if you suffer from something "minor" like anxiety/depression) - all of which are unnecessary and with little to no proof they would result in ANY change and probably would effect the poor more than the rich.

 

Even if you don't agree with them, you can't deny that there are rational reasons for things like background checks, gun training, registration, and mental health checks. These aren't simply "f*** yous" to people trying to own a gun.

[StrangeSox]

Do you REALLY think that's a terrible position to have? WTF is this country coming to when someone expects people to not be irresponsible in BRINGING A LIFE INTO THIS WORLD WITHOUT THE MEANS TO DO IT?

 

I think it's terrible to:

 

1) oppose egalitarian policies that would do something about the massive economic inequalities in this country that make it so that the median American family can barely afford to raise a kid or two

2) also oppose widespread access to birth control

3) also oppose abortion and attempt to make it as difficult as possible

4) also oppose adequate social welfare programs for children

 

procreation shouldn't be a luxury good reserved for the well-to-do.

[StrangeSox]

Gun requirements some liberals want add all of those. More time (background checks, wait periods), more expense (training classes/certification/registration/possibly insurance), and humiliation (having to disclose medical records even if you suffer from something "minor" like anxiety/depression) - all of which are unnecessary and with little to no proof they would result in ANY change and probably would effect the poor more than the rich.

 

Buying a gun isn't analogous to a woman's choices over her own body. There are legitimate goals behind all of those that aren't simply meant as a "f*** you" to someone trying to buy a gun.

[Jenksismyhero]

Buying a gun isn't analogous to a woman's choices over her own body. There are legitimate goals behind all of those that aren't simply meant as a "f*** you" to someone trying to buy a gun.

 

Right, because in your mind there's no legitimate basis to oppose abortion. I disagree, strongly. It's not a "f*** you" to women, it's a "i feel very strongly that there's a good argument that you're killing life by doing so, and while I respect your ultimate right to make that decision on your own, I have no problem making you wait, making you pay for it on your own, making you have to see a doctor, etc."

 

All of those gun restrictions are a "f*** you" to gun owners btw. 99.9% of gun owners never commit a crime with their guns. You have no evidence that those types of restrictions will change anything. And yet you and others want to put up barriers because you just don't value the right to guns like other people do.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Oh, klahoma

 

Insist That People Coexisted With Dinosaurs…and Get an A in Science Class!

[Jenksismyhero]

I think it's terrible to:

 

1) oppose egalitarian policies that would do something about the massive economic inequalities in this country that make it so that the median American family can barely afford to raise a kid or two

2) also oppose widespread access to birth control

3) also oppose abortion and attempt to make it as difficult as possible

4) also oppose adequate social welfare programs for children

 

procreation shouldn't be a luxury good reserved for the well-to-do.

 

Lol, so which is it - everyone should have the right to have kids or everyone should have the right to get rid of their kids? I don't get it. If having kids is such an important right, why are we making it so easy to get rid of them?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Lol, so which is it - everyone should have the right to have kids or everyone should have the right to get rid of their kids?

 

yes.

[CrimsonWeltall]

All of those gun restrictions are a "f*** you" to gun owners btw.

 

No, they aren't. Not one of them is remotely equivalent to making someone have an unnecessary invasive medical procedure.

[BigSqwert]

No, they aren't. Not one of them is remotely equivalent to making someone have an unnecessary invasive medical procedure.

Apparently to jenks, finding out whether someone beat the crap out of their girlfriend and robbed a 7/11 before selling them a deadly weapon is the same as shoving medical devices in a woman's vagina for no apparent reason.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Oh, klahoma

 

Insist That People Coexisted With Dinosaurs…and Get an A in Science Class!

 

Can't mark you wrong if your wrongness is based on religion

[StrangeSox]

Right, because in your mind there's no legitimate basis to oppose abortion. I disagree, strongly. It's not a "f*** you" to women, it's a "i feel very strongly that there's a good argument that you're killing life by doing so, and while I respect your ultimate right to make that decision on your own, I have no problem making you wait, making you pay for it on your own, making you have to see a doctor, etc."

 

Nope, still doesn't work.

 

You can argue that it's killing life, but you can't argue that these types of laws are anything but a big, gigantic f*** you to women. They are not medically necessary. They serve no purpose other than to make the process more difficult for women. And, despite statements that you respect their rights, you're a-ok with making it more difficult to exercise those rights simply because you don't like them. There's no justification for these laws outside of a literal "f*** you unnecessarily with a 7" wand" disrespect for a woman's autonomy.

 

All of those gun restrictions are a "f*** you" to gun owners btw. 99.9% of gun owners never commit a crime with their guns. You have no evidence that those types of restrictions will change anything. And yet you and others want to put up barriers because you just don't value the right to guns like other people do.

 

Nope, still wrong.

 

Those gun control measures are proposed to address the very real problem of gun violence in this country. You may disagree with their efficacy, but they are not proposed as 'punishment' for gun owners. They're proposed as ways to reduce gun violence in this country, which is a universally accepted goal.

[Jenksismyhero]

You think abortions are fine and guns are evil. I'm the opposite. That's literally the only difference here.

 

I've agreed with you that an ultrasound is too intrusive, but a waiting period, for example, is not. You'll disagree with me there and argue that's unnecessary and a punishment, but that's only because you believe a woman's right to an abortion is absolute. Well guess what, I think the same thing about gun ownership. Making a woman wait for an abortion would have the same incredibly small limited effect in changing the outcome as making someone wait 5 days instead of 3 days to get a gun. There will be a very minor change, but otherwise the result is the exact same.

 

Those abortion measures are proposed to address the very real problem of abortions in this country. You may disagree with their efficacy, but they are not proposed as 'punishment' for women. They're proposed as ways to reduce abortions in this country, which should be a universally accepted goal.

 

See how easy that was? You can keep saying that's different, but it's not. It's a barrier placed by society in an attempt to lessen the number of incidents that we don't like. It's the exact same f***ing logic.

[BigSqwert]

Some random woman getting an abortion does not affect your life whatsoever. A person getting a gun who probably shouldn't have one can have a direct impact on your life if you're in the wrong place/time.

[southsider2k5]

Some random woman getting an abortion does not affect your life whatsoever. A person getting a gun who probably shouldn't have one can have a direct impact on your life if you're in the wrong place/time.

 

Unless it is your kid...