X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
spin,no spin,oreilly 10-Year Olds Need Abortions Too - Debate
Comments  playlists with this video LegalSift by gwaan
• Controversies by Krupo
who voted for this video HistNerd
- Gervaise
- peretz
- Wumpus
- Crazy-drummer
- dotdude
- pho3n1x
- sdswingr
- bamdrew
- Farhad2000
- sometimes
- vampirebear
- FancyL
who voted against this video theo47
- Fletch
- NTB
10-Year Olds Need Abortions Too - Debate Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(140 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Seriously, do you think a 10 year old girl possess the rationale to make a medical decisions? Ask yourself if it's alright for a woman to abort her pregnancy simply because she's depressed? She describes abortion as the business of saving women's lives, but depression is a mental health issue and not a physical health issue.
If someone is aborting because they suddenly panic and feel there not ready well then why the hell didn't you use contriceptives? No one's life is something to be taken lightly.
As for O'Reilly. Yeah the guy is a slimeball. He attacks the charicter of the individual and not the issue. The general form used for the ignorant. He's right, but he'd be better off if he did some research and had a debate instead of a fight.
What a fantastical douchebag. As are the people who watch his show.
Does the Third Wave Foundation support or oppose late term abortions, parental consent laws, medical records disclosure to law enforcement, or child rape on demand? Who really knows from this piece?
Does O'Reilly support any of the above? He pretends that there is a debate over whether people support rape. Presumably conservatives don't and liberals do. Reprehensible.
The problem with these types of shows is that they have no interest in disseminating information. They are nominal news shows with no particular skill in examining any issue with any kind of critical nuance. They exist for the shouting. And the late, great Morton Downey Jr. already did that so much better than O'Reilly.
More on the late-term abortion specialist targeted by O'Reilly. And here is the central issue shouted over by O'Reilly's high dudgeon:
The law of the state of Kansas allows late term or partial birth abortions. For practitioners, there is a reporting requirement to the State as to the reasons that one was performed and whether the pregnancy was still viable. A partial birth abortion in Kansas seems to be justified if the mother's life is endangered, evidence of substantial fetal abnormalities/no viability, or to prevent a substantial and permanent impairment to a major bodily function of the mother.
Dr. Tiller may be performing late term abortions for "temporary" rather than "permanent" impairments such as symptoms resembling post-partum depression. O'Reilly claims to have medical records supporting this, but has not published them in his no-spin zones or loofahed them. There are federal laws indicating that private medical records should probably not be turned over to every Fox News TV shouter.
Are you Red or Blue on this issue?
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-11-05-bill-oreilly_x.htm
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/06/abortion.records.ap/index.html
do we even know what this woman's arguement was? no. because o'reilly was too busy screaming accusations to listen, or to even let us listen. 'executing babies' was when it got sickening. does he really believe that? he needs to step out of his news room once in a while...
"I am OK with a ten-year-old who wants to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy to make [that decision]" is a chilling statement, however. Pretty clear, and I don't think out of context.
She seems to put an inordinate amount of authority on the physician (and outside of Baldwin in Malice - I AM GOD! - I don't think most practitioners want or need that kind of parental authority). I shudder to think about anyone arguing that a 10 year old has the capacity to make that kind of decision.
Nevertheless, I am not sure that raped, parentless 10 year olds seeking abortions is all that commonplace, but who am I to say that O'Reilly is building a stinky ten story man out of dung and straw.
On the other hand, under current abortion laws, females simply don't have the ability to do what they feel is right with a fetus whenever they feel it is right. Even Roe v. Wade provided for certain levels of government regulation per trimester. And now fetal viability is the standard. So it is unquestionably valid for a state to regulate abortion. And it is probably as extreme to treat a fetus merely as a female's temporary organ as it is to say that every abortion is a baby execution.
The intense irony of Bill telling her to join reality while she is the one actively working with the people in question is pretty over-the-top.
Even desired infants lose on that one because they are purely a cute, burbly economic drain.
http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/
we don't force people to buy homes, and yet raising a child can cost as much, if not more than some homes. I think it's revolting that anyone in this capitalist, "land of the free" country even considers it admirable to think that forcing a massive financial burden on someone is a good thing. Maybe if abortion is banned, we should make it like cars... you get insurance, you have an accident, the insurance company pays.
I think that nobody should have to be raised i a situation where their parents were unprepared, and uninterested in raising a child. Parents who care and who want children, tend to raise better children. How many problems in society would go away if nobody became a parent who didn't want to be a parent?
Motherfucker. Uncle JamesRoe . . .um . . .you want Lowell?
I disagree that conception is an "accident of biology." A certain intent goes into it even if the consequences can be overlooked by the lustful. But yes, I am with you that all children should be lucky enough to have kind, caring, financially stable parents.
But would you support a late-term abortion for someone who has changed her mind 8 months in?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6456189&ft=1&f=17
D&X is a vile, vile procedure. And it is a killing at that stage. Late term abortion is a difficult issue that cannot be explained away by simple cost-benefit analysis. There has to be better ways for society to absorb the putative costs.
Time and money are likely pretty high up there with maturity, mental or physical health, the father, etc..
Dismissing farhad's suggestion because it dehumanizes an emotionally charged issue misses the point of his suggestion, which was to rephrase the issue in terms of its real world complications.
Looking at quantifiable figures shouldn't be demonized simply because it purposely avoids the subjects of humanity and emotion.
I worry, though, when cost-benefit analysis is used in a dehumanizing way and sidesteps messy realities that are intrinsically human.
And unfortunately, it is all too easy for a government to extend cost-benefit analysis to inhumane extremes that devour societal ideals. It is probably far more cost effective to keep terrorist suspects and everyone else rounded up in secret prisons without legal process. It would likely be a tax boon to keep all the poor people from coming back to the Ninth Ward in New Orleans. It is definitely more cost-effective in the short run to pollute than it is to establish environmental safeguards. Where do you stop considering human life only as a cost unit for the purposes of state policy?
Personally, I support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. In many situations, and not only from a financial standpoint, it is the most prudent decision to make. However, I do believe that the state has a necessary role in defining the acceptability of late-term or post-viability abortions, spelling out the parameters of parental/spousal consent, and providing for the availability of counseling options as well as non-abortion altenatives.
She is not invited on the show for her own good, its for the good of the show. And I'm alright with that, love him or hate him, every show on TV or Radio is FOR ENTERTAINMENT. Even Limbaugh completely talks openly about being an entertainer in Talkers Magazine (a radio industry mag).
This is the type of person that makes the case for people like O'Reilly.
why does anyone think that saddling someone with a $200,000+ debt due to an accident of biology is admirable?
Owning the consequences of your actions shouldn't have to be admired. If you're old enough to be having sex, you either need to take extra measures to ensure you're baby-proof (that "condoms are uncomfortable" line is bullshit. Wear it, or prepare to shell out child support) OR own up to your actions.
Besides that, there have only been two cases I can think of where women have been too fat and stupid to know they're pregnant until they get to the hospital after they're in labor. There's absolutely no excuse for third-trimester abortions. If you know you won't be able to support a child, there are plenty of opportunities to "execute" it before the third trimester rolls around.