Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    13 Mar '12 11:30
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/third-female-lawmaker-introduces-bill-limit-men-viagra-204340160.html

    "Turner's bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'"

    ==

    Turnabout is fair play...
  2. 13 Mar '12 12:03
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/third-female-lawmaker-introduces-bill-limit-men-viagra-204340160.html

    "Turner's bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'"

    ==

    Turnabout is fair play...
    Dont forget "all men seeking Viagra would have to first get a rectal exam." She has a point, 'it takes two to tango'.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Mar '12 12:07
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/third-female-lawmaker-introduces-bill-limit-men-viagra-204340160.html

    "Turner's bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'"

    ==

    Turnabout is fair play...
    yuk yuk

    My, how clever.



    Now, if only there weren't the issue of the pesky fetus being a form of human life, it would be downright hysterical.

    Elected officials using the legislative process on the taxpayer's dime to play games and make stupid analogies.

    Yeah. That's just great.
  4. 13 Mar '12 13:29
    Originally posted by sh76
    yuk yuk

    My, how clever.



    Now, if only there weren't the issue of the pesky fetus being a form of human life, it would be downright hysterical.

    Elected officials using the legislative process on the taxpayer's dime to play games and make stupid analogies.

    Yeah. That's just great.
    Hey.. one useless, idiotic bill deserves another. I have no problem with a mockery being made of an obviously idiotic government body. It only serves to put their idiocy on display and hopefully get people involved in reversing it.

    They campaign on "jobs jobs jobs" and then try to put in legislation in to force doctors to perform unnecessary medical procedures mostly intended to shame people.

    Abortion is and should be legal. The republicans are avoiding actually dealing with even making the argument based on those terms. Instead of simply putting up a law banning it and pushing it to overthrow roe vs. wade they simply aim to put up hurdles and shame the "sluts" who dare to want one.

    In Kansas they are proposing a bill that will potentially require doctors to lie to their patients and tell them that abortion causes breast cancer. Hey... I guess the ends justifies the means? Does that qualify as the government getting in between the doctor and the patient or is it just "obamacare" that does that?

    Also, the Kansas legislation includes absolving doctors from any malpractice lawsuit if they choose to lie or withhold information about a baby's possible deformities or health issues (even if it could harm the mother). The one exception is if the mother actually dies then they can sue - but if she's only permanently injured then the doctor's malpractice is legally protected.

    It's also these regressive idiots who want to reduce one major thing that will help prevent abortion more than anything else - the ready availability of contraception and the education about it. In Utah they are considering legislation that will ban the discussion of contraception in schools.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Mar '12 13:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Hey.. one useless, idiotic bill deserves another. I have no problem with a mockery being made of an obviously idiotic government body. It only serves to put their idiocy on display and hopefully get people involved in reversing it.

    They campaign on "jobs jobs jobs" and then try to put in legislation in to force doctors to perform unnecessary medical pr are considering legislation that will ban the discussion of contraception in schools.
    ===Abortion is and should be legal.===

    Great. That's your opinion. (It also happens to be my opinion in many cases.) But that's not the only legitimate opinion out there. Some people sincerely believe that abortion is murder. There are certainly colorable arguments to be made in favor of that argument and believing it does not make one a "regressive idiot," just a person with a different opinion that you have.

    This clown who introduced the Viagra bill doesn't really believe that men need a rectal exam and to be counseled on the benefits of celibacy before filling a Viagra prescription.

    Of course I agree that the Kansas legislation you're referencing is stupid. So, your position is that it's appropriate for an Ohio legislator to get back at the Kansas legislature by introducing an insincere bill in the Ohio legislature?
  6. 13 Mar '12 13:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    ===Abortion is and should be legal.===

    Great. That's your opinion. (It also happens to be my opinion in many cases.) But that's not the only legitimate opinion out there. Some people sincerely believe that abortion is murder. There are certainly colorable arguments to be made in favor of that argument and believing it does not make one a "regressive idiot," back at the Kansas legislature by introducing an insincere bill in the Ohio legislature?
    There are certainly colorable arguments to be made in favor of that argument and believing it does not make one a "regressive idiot," just a person with a different opinion that you have.

    You completely misunderstand me. I'm not calling the people who make logical and coherent arguments against abortion regressive idiots. I'm calling those that take on the view that the ends of preventing abortions justifies the means of FORCING women to undergo unnecessary procedures and putting through other stupid and regressive legislation all under the banner of ending abortion regressive idiots.

    The problem is that in most/all of these legislatures we are not seeing people making logical and coherent arguments against abortion, they are putting forward legislation whose purpose is to shame women who dare try to get a legal procedure.

    If they truly had such a noble and right cause then they wouldn't have to lie and try to implement legislation to force doctors to lie in order to achieve it.

    This clown who introduced the Viagra bill doesn't really believe that men need a rectal exam and to be counseled on the benefits of celibacy before filling a Viagra prescription.

    Do you think I don't know that? The problem is that a woman who want/needs an abortion also doesn't usually need to have a transvaginal ultrasound and be forced to look at it in order to have an abortion but they wanted to force this too. Heck.. if you're going to force one unnecessary medical procedure just to put someone through a hurdle then what's good for the goose is good for the gander and vice versa.

    I think it's a much sadder comment on that legislature that the clown who introduced the forced ultrasound legislation actually DOES think his legislation is necessary.

    So, your position is that it's appropriate for an Ohio legislator to get back at the Kansas legislature by introducing an insincere bill in the Ohio legislature?

    My position is that it is as much of a waste of taxpayer money as their slut shaming via unnecessary ultrasound legislation and it serves it's purpose - not to actually pass the legislation, but to point out and demonstrate the absurdity of both pieces of legislation. I don't like it from the standpoint of it being a waste of taxpayer money, but I think it's one way of pointing out the absurdity of their opposition.

    Legislators debate legislation that has no chance of passing all the time after all.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Mar '12 14:13
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    [b]There are certainly colorable arguments to be made in favor of that argument and believing it does not make one a "regressive idiot," just a person with a different opinion that you have.

    You completely misunderstand me. I'm not calling the people who make logical and coherent arguments against abortion regressive idiots. I'm calling thos ...[text shortened]... islators debate legislation that has no chance of passing all the time after all.[/b]
    Okay, all that is fair.

    However, I do not like this divisive grandstanding of introducing an insincere bill. You want to criticize the ultrasound bill in the same terms? Okay.
  8. 13 Mar '12 15:17
    An ultrasound actually is used for abortions quite often. Just thought I'd throw that out there. How often does any doctor use a rectal exam as part of prescribing viagra? I would hope legislators would stay out of medical decisions altogether.
  9. 13 Mar '12 15:28
    Originally posted by dryhump
    An ultrasound actually is used for abortions quite often.
    Yes it is - to determine how far along the pregnancy is. If the pregnancy is far enough along then you do not need a transvaginal ultrasound.

    The virginia legislation originally required a transvaginal ultrasound in ALL cases - even in the cases where it was not medically necessary in order to determine the state of the pregnancy.

    Even so, it should be up to the doctor to prescribe what is medically necessary - not the legislature.

    Also, some of these bills are doing things like requiring that the woman face the ultrasound or attempts to try and make the woman look at it. There is NO medical necessity for that whatsoever.
  10. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    13 Mar '12 15:33
    Originally posted by sh76
    Okay, all that is fair.

    However, I do not like this divisive grandstanding of introducing an insincere bill. You want to criticize the ultrasound bill in the same terms? Okay.
    A minority of lawmakers who don't like that abortion is legal and who are trying to sabotage the laws permiting abortion are being shown what it feels like when their tactics are used against them.

    Divisive grandstanding was already at work, and one can fight fire with fire.
  11. 13 Mar '12 15:44
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    A minority of lawmakers who don't like that abortion is legal and who are trying to sabotage the laws permiting abortion are being shown what it feels like when their tactics are used against them.

    Divisive grandstanding was already at work, and one can fight fire with fire.
    Are there other current situations where you would like this tactic to be used?
  12. 13 Mar '12 15:54
    Originally posted by sh76
    yuk yuk

    My, how clever.



    Now, if only there weren't the issue of the pesky fetus being a form of human life, it would be downright hysterical.

    Elected officials using the legislative process on the taxpayer's dime to play games and make stupid analogies.

    Yeah. That's just great.
    So for you it's no abortions, no matter why. Is that correct?
  13. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    13 Mar '12 15:58
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Yes it is - to determine how far along the pregnancy is. If the pregnancy is far enough along then you do not need a transvaginal ultrasound.

    The virginia legislation originally required a transvaginal ultrasound in ALL cases - even in the cases where it was not medically necessary in order to determine the state of the pregnancy.

    Even so, it shou ...[text shortened]... ttempts to try and make the woman look at it. There is NO medical necessity for that whatsoever.
    It is well known that sitting for long periods places one at risk of hemorrhoids, so I propose that on commencing each session, members of legislative bodies should submit to a rectal probe exam to make sure that their intestines will be able to stand the strain.

    Legislators should also be given mandatory counseling on voluntarily imposing terms limits on their service.
  14. 13 Mar '12 16:27
    Originally posted by JS357
    So for you it's no abortions, no matter why. Is that correct?
    To be fair to sh76,

    He responded to my saying:
    "Abortion is and should be legal"

    with:

    "Great. That's your opinion. (It also happens to be my opinion in many cases.)"

    So I don't think his view can be accurately characterized as "no abortions, no matter why."
  15. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    13 Mar '12 16:33
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Are there other current situations where you would like this tactic to be used?
    The abortion question should be decided not in the Supreme Court or in the Kansas State Legislature but in a national referendum. It is one of those questions that there is no other way to settle.