Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

a reply to: neo96

So, in your august opinion, this Bill was just presented as a philosophical exercise? Is a Bill not presented to become LAW?

A semantic dodge Neo ... a cut above the usual ...

As to your last, I'm not surprised that you see your "commands" being ignored as "dictatorial."

You don't seem to mind tyranny, as long as you agree with it!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Abysha

People get a real sex education on the 'internets' for better or worse.

To call pregnant women "dogs in heat" is just a gross.

I clearly did not say that.

I said PEOPLE could stop acting like dogs in heat.

Is that were you got an education in sex?

I get the distinct impression from your replies that you believe everyone should think the way you do. The fact of the matter is, simply because you don't "like" something doesn't make you "right" about that something.

How you choose to conduct your life isn't how other people should conduct theirs. You have no moral authority over another human, dictating how or when they should have sex. Your personal choices are your own, and you cannot force your will and your beliefs onto others.

What another human being does with their body has no effect on you and your body. When someone chooses to abort a baby that is their decision, not yours -- and they, not you have to live with whatever the consequences are.

How many babies have been aborted in my lifespan? Many. How many of these abortions have somehow impacted how I chose to live my life? None.

When you take the position of the moral authoritarian, you are no better than the oppressive overbearing government which I see you continually rant against. You can't have it both ways. Do you own your body? I'd like to believe you'd answer yes. If so, does someone else have the authority over you to dictate what you can and cannot do with it?

You don't have the "right" to force other people to think and act as you do, and the ways in which you think and act (believe it or not) may not agree with other people.....despite how badly you think everyone should see things the way you do.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

How you choose to conduct your life isn't how other people should conduct theirs. You have no moral authority over another human, dictating how or when they should have sex. Your personal choices are your own, and you cannot force your will and your beliefs onto others.

That was simply PRICELESS.

That is what American politics is about, and that is perfectly acceptable for left wingers.

So why isn't it acceptable for a 'right' winger?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

This is about a specific law in a specific State that is forcing individuals to discard their own privacy in order to practice their trade.

Do you stand in agreement with the State of Alabama doing that ... or not?

Ok, fine. I'll play. No one else seems to want to engage their own latent contradictions, so here I go:

I am, for lack of a better term, an anarchist. So the simple, obvious answer to your question is: no, I do not agree with Alabama's proposal on this matter, nor would I support any political means of rectifying the abortion "problem".

This problem is a spiritual problem that no amount of state intervention can ever fix.

Which brings me to sentiment, and where my hypocrisy lies. Do I agree with the sentiment behind the proposal? Do I believe we should do all that can be peaceably done to prevent the murders of innocent children?

Yes. Even if it means... *gasp* disregarding our coveted, so-called "laws". I guess that means I really don't care if it makes the doctor uncomfortable, I really don't care if it hurts his business, and I couldn't give a damn about his privacy rights while he's killing babies.

Does that make me a hypocrite? I suppose it depends on your perspective.

I propose disclosure from all the pill pushers in the big pharma industry to show their income every time somebody dies from prescribed drugs in the nation that has been approved by the FDA.

How about that.

originally posted by: marg6043
I propose disclosure from all the pill pushers in the big pharma industry to show their income every time somebody dies from prescribed drugs in the nation that has been approved by the FDA.

How about that.

The failure of the FDA to approve experimental treatments may actually cause even more deaths.

The Right to Try: How the Federal Government Prevents Americans from Getting the Lifesaving Treatments They Need

One thing is for sure, the FDA is counterproductive.

This sounds like a good idea.

Make these profiteering bastards show their cards every day.

They get enough public funding and support.

Why not let people see their greed and their bank statements too.

originally posted by: neo96

That is what American politics is about, and that is perfectly acceptable for left wingers.

So why isn't it acceptable for a 'right' winger?

False equivalency killed the American dream. You can't kill it any more than it already is....just put that stick down.

"Turnabout is fair play" has to be the worst governmental strategy I have ever heard.

The right wing specializes in the abuse of power.

It will be the right wing that will destroy this country.

Their always concocting laws that try to go around the constitution and sometimes do it without laws

They’ve tried in the Nixon Watergate crimes, the Reagan, Iran Contra period, and the worst, the Bush regime with 911, Katrina, and Iraq...

As they are again doing it in this Supreme Court nominee

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is nothing false about it.

'The rich should pay their fair share'. Someone preaching morality.

'I have to submit to a invasion of privacy to practice my second amendment RIGHT. Because someone was preaching 'morality'.

'Poor' people should have access to healthcare. Even though under someone else's morality. Medicaid became LAW.

Then again another does of 'morality' is how we ended up with the 'affordable' care act.

And I can't forget climate change. The climate is out to git us. There is some more 'morality'

No one said anything about 'turn about is fair play'.

I posed a simple question. The LEFT loves legislating their version of 'morality', and throws a hissy fit when a 'right' winger does it.

I say people that live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Well, the abortion provider might be like all those doctors Obama says recommend unnecessary tonsillectomies just make money. He (or she) might be financially motivated to discuss abortion because it makes him (or her) more money than other alternatives, like adoption.

Give me break.
You don't up-sell abortions.

If people need an abortion they have their mind set on getting that abortion before they even call the clinic to get the abortion.

No one gives two s#### what their care provider makes, they will want the abortion either way.

What a waste of time!

f'it

a reply to: neo96

All the right wing does and has ever done was react negatively to progress and change.


They are against anything that makes life better and easier for people because it lessens the power of the powerful


..And their so hypocritical.

They want to save unborn children so they can starve them when their alive!

originally posted by: xuenchen
This sounds like a good idea.

Make these profiteering bastards show their cards every day.

They get enough public funding and support.

Why not let people see their greed and their bank statements too.

That's the spirit!

Beat down your foes with that good ol' Statist Hammer (and Sickle?)

It's so good to see folks letting their light shine!

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Gryphon66

This is about a specific law in a specific State that is forcing individuals to discard their own privacy in order to practice their trade.

Do you stand in agreement with the State of Alabama doing that ... or not?

Ok, fine. I'll play. No one else seems to want to engage their own latent contradictions, so here I go:

I am, for lack of a better term, an anarchist. So the simple, obvious answer to your question is: no, I do not agree with Alabama's proposal on this matter, nor would I support any political means of rectifying the abortion "problem".

This problem is a spiritual problem that no amount of state intervention can ever fix.

Which brings me to sentiment, and where my hypocrisy lies. Do I agree with the sentiment behind the proposal? Do I believe we should do all that can be peaceably done to prevent the murders of innocent children?

Yes. Even if it means... *gasp* disregarding our coveted, so-called "laws". I guess that means I really don't care if it makes the doctor uncomfortable, I really don't care if it hurts his business, and I couldn't give a damn about his privacy rights while he's killing babies.

Does that make me a hypocrite? I suppose it depends on your perspective.

Well, I sit corrected.

Thank you for your refreshing honesty.

a reply to: NthOther

Scary- no. (Really?)


Ridiculous- in the extreme.
They might get a few naive teens to change their minds with the ultra sound ploy. Oh look here's your baby.
This? Who are they going to discourage? Woman who hate rich doctors? We all know doctors make a good living. Thats why our mama's want us to marry them. I don't see the point but it seems more geared to drive a wedge between the haves and have nots than a way to discourage abortions.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Have anything OTHER than personal snips, and bills that are not even law?

I am gonna guess 'wildly' no.

a reply to: NthOther

Yes the providers. What business is it to the patient? Why should the doctor have to tell every patient how much they make?
To what end?