I'm leery of imposing limits at any time. I'm working off the assumption that a woman who decides to have an abortion knows her reasons for it, and doesn't need a bunch of dudes trying to interrogate her reasons.

Uh... late in the term (7+ months in) the fetus is probably deserving of protection given how close it is to being an infant. It's not anything based on the woman not knowing what she's doing, I don't think anyone being reasonable/actually critically thinking about the issue would seriously argue that women are just stupid and ignant (and yes, that does mean I'm calling a lot of "pro-life" politicians unreasonable and uncritical thinkers). There is a legitimate argument that if we're protecting babies under law then we should protect rather late-term infants. I use six months as the barometer because fetal viability breaks the 50% mark around that point, and I'm thinking that since at six months they're not far off from being babies *and* they're more likely to survive than die if birthed *and* that the woman has had plenty of time to abort before either of those were true, it's fair to draw a line there.

Definitely has nothing to do with "fuck your reasons and bear this fetus, you useless baby factory" or anything like that

(not saying you or anyone else said that when I put it in quotes, btw, I'm in class and actually about to leave so I'm typing quickly)

I know what you mean.
But a hypothetical. What would you say about a woman who want's an abortion because a complication arose 6.5 months into her pregnancy, that makes it unlikely she would survive giving birth, but an abortion would save her life? Should she be forced to carry the fetus to term, knowing that it will kill her? (BTW this is a hypothetical, not a counterfactual, this happens...not all the time, but it's not unheard of).

*wants

Evidently Fulham's friends are busy attacking 8 year old girls who come to their door with cookies. Stay classy, "pro-lifers".

Draugnar & Eden believe doctors/state governments can mandate women have sex with them prior to an abortion because after all, they "knew" about it prior to getting an abortion.

Fucking shameless.

" There is a legitimate argument that if we're protecting babies under law then we should protect rather late-term infants. I use six months as the barometer because fetal viability breaks the 50% mark around that point, and I'm thinking that since at six months they're not far off from being babies *and* they're more likely to survive than die if birthed *and* that the woman has had plenty of time to abort before either of those were true, it's fair to draw a line there."

The only reason any late-term abortion occurs is because it is medically necessary. In fact that's the law of the land virtually everywhere. So you and your "libertarian" inclination to control women's bodies can kindly go to hell.

Mafia: I should have clarified that position a bit more. Shame that not everyone in here can be as civil about a statement made in a hurry - so I thank you for doing so. In *any* instance, irrespective of time, where a woman's life or health is in danger, I support the right to abort.

Putin: what the fuck are you on about? Firstly I don't even understand what the fulham's friends reference means. Secondly I said I disagreed with the proposed bill and called it unconstitutional, repeatedly, and very explicitly, so no, I don't believe that, you incompetent illiterate moron. Thirdly, take a lesson from Mafia on how to address a potential problem in someone's statement - I even stated *in the post* that I was in a hurry and writing quickly, so naturally an oversight like that could happen (and did).

Honestly, how in the world do you conclude anything that you concluded in your last three posts? I know your reading comprehension is above that of a middle schooler and I know that a middle schooler can understand "I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL, AS IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NEEDLESSLY INVASIVE AND A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY" to mean "I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL." So presuming you have a middle schooler's reading comprehension - which, as a TA, I should hope is the case - you cannot possibly conclude with any level of logical coherency that I support this bill.

And then amazingly you come to the ridiculous conclusion that because I didn't explicitly cover a given hypothetical in one post, while I'm typing quickly, that I must support the control of women's bodies by government policy and sending them to an entirely preventable death. It's even more amazing because we've had this conversation before and I've explicitly stated before that I supported the right to abort in any circumstance which threatened the woman's life or health. Even if you forgot that (which would be understandable), your conclusion is awe-inspiring in how plainly it shows how little you thought through what you say before you say it.

As an intelligent, rational human being, you should be ashamed of yourself for those posts. Is it any wonder we have threads like the obi thread right below this one?

The bill is plainly state-sanctioned rape. And you, a fucking libertarian, whose little friends constantly call every little government action "rape", and compare getting a TSA pat down to the worst tyranny on earth, are here claiming shoving an 8 inch wand up a woman's vagina in order to get a medical procedure isn't rape, and me and Mafiaalligator, NOW, and the women in the Virginia state legislature are all "sensationalizing" this issue.

The Fulham's friends bit referred to the fact that pro-lifers are busy attacking the girlscouts, and verbally berating girlscouts who come to their door with long lectures about the evils of abortion and lesbianism.

"The bill is plainly state-sanctioned rape."

Swing and a miss.

"And you, a fucking libertarian"

Single to right field!

"whose little friends constantly call every little government action 'rape'"

Do I know you? Who are these friends about whom you speak?

"and compare getting a TSA pat down to the worst tyranny on earth,"

Swing and a miss.

"are here claiming shoving an 8 inch want up a woman's vagina in order to get a medical procedure isn't rape"

Funny how you ignored my C-section question. C-sections are increasingly used as delivery procedures, sometimes recommended by doctors even if not totally necessary in the interest of the patient's health. A C-section involves taking a knife to a woman's reproductive organs and cutting them open. Is that rape, or mutilation, or what have you? Because it's not like we're shoving a dildo up there. The wand is an ultrasound probe, which can provide useful medical information. Unnecessary, unconstitutional, yes. Rape? No more than any other remotely intrusive, unnecessary procedure that might be desired to be avoided.

"and me and Mafiaalligator, NOW, and the women in the Virginia state legislature are all "sensationalizing" this issue."

Actually, Mafia and NOW both provided reasonable, level-headed arguments for their case. You should stop insulting them by comparing their statements to your foaming-mad illogical barrages.

"The Fulham's friends bit referred to the fact that pro-lifers are busy attacking the girlscouts, and verbally berating girlscouts who come to their door with long lectures about the evils of abortion and lesbianism."

And that's terrible of them. Not to mention of questionable relevance to our discussion...



At least you got on base with this post. Keep practicing.

"C-sections are increasingly used as delivery procedures, sometimes recommended by doctors even if not totally necessary in the interest of the patient's health."

What part of recommended don't you understand? C-sections aren't required for delivering babies. Women have the option to reject 'recommended' procedures and still have the doctor delivery the baby vaginally. There isn't a choice with the transvaginal ultrasound. Get that through your libertarian head.

Really, so everybody else who calls the procedure rape isn't sensationalizing it, but you previously said the mere calling it rape warranted you and your buddies here hijacking this thread and attacking me.

"Who are these friends about whom you speak?"

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rapecon.shtml
http://www.escapeartist.com/Roger_Gallo/Harry_Brownes_Freedom_Principles/

""and compare getting a TSA pat down to the worst tyranny on earth,"

Swing and a miss."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3558/rand-paul-and-ron-paul-overreact-to-tsa-pat-downs

Really, so you're disowning your boy Ron Paul now? Weird how cultists disavow their leader at opportune times.

"What part of recommended don't you understand? C-sections aren't required for delivering babies. Women have the option to reject 'recommended' procedures and still have the doctor delivery the baby vaginally. There isn't a choice with the transvaginal ultrasound. Get that through your libertarian head."

Interesting. I figure that male doctors strongly recommending procedures which fall under your definition of rape to underprivileged vulnerable women would set off your "THAT IS RAPE YOU MISOGYNIST ASSHOLE" reflex. Something about how even though the procedure isn't strictly mandatory, men with a dominant position in society exercise their patriarchal privilege authority voodoo magic coerce and pressure women into doing things they shouldn't. Guess I was wrong. You're improving!

"Really, so everybody else who calls the procedure rape isn't sensationalizing it, but you previously said the mere calling it rape warranted you and your buddies here hijacking this thread and attacking me."

No, I said YOUR sensationalizing warranted people calling you out on being a sensationalist flamebaiter. Which is exactly what people did. Try to keep up.

"<links to people I've never heard of>"

Oh, so you don't actually *know* me, my friends, or anyone with whom I associate, you're just making blanket stereotypical assumptions without a shred of empirical data to back them. Sorry I made the mistake of taking you seriously here. And you were even starting to improve, too...

"http://www.policymic.com/articles/3558/rand-paul-and-ron-paul-overreact-to-tsa-pat-downs

Really, so you're disowning your boy Ron Paul now? Weird how cultists disavow their leader at opportune times."

>citing an egregiously partisan website's op-ed as objective fact
>calling Ron Paul "my boy" when I've stated on the forum more than once that I don't like his states' rights approach, would prefer Gary Johnson by miles and only back him because he's the liberty movement's best shot at being relevant in 2012
>calling me a cultist after the above

Strike, strike, and that's three, you're out buddy. And Jesus Christ, I would hope a member of academia would know better than to site a partisan site's op-ed as objective fact, ESPECIALLY when the SUBJECT MATTER IS SUBJECTIVE (whether one "over" reacts to something, implying a normative standard, implying a necessary degree of subjectivity). Lemme guess, you let your students cite Wikipedia too?

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/222/946/pmsaT.gif