Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 02:54 PM) Awesome, so you're on board with repealing the 2nd amendment! I've said i'm ok with some restrictions on gun use/ownership, just not outright bans. My opinion on abortion is basically the same. (and of course we'll ignore that little stat about abortion has 100% success rate while gun ownership leading to murder happens .01% of the time)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) No, there's an important difference there. The act I don't want people to perform is "gun violence," and gun control is one mean of obtaining that end. There are other ways as well, like addressing poverty. The act you don't want people to perform is "abortions," and you are more than happy to allow the government to override what a patient and a doctor deem to be medically necessary and sufficient. Your end is restricting abortions, so there's not some alternative policy you could hypothetically support that gets around restricting abortions. Fine, the act I want to control is "murder" and abortion control is one mean of obtaining that end. There are other ways as well, including poverty, education and the like.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) They're attempting to lesson the number of abortions through shame. Forcing people to go through an unnecessary procedure and absorb a lecture. That's the difference you're ignoring in your previous post. If I require everyone buying a gun to undergo a colonoscopy, fewer people will have guns, and that will save lives. Of course, it would never stand up to any reasonable person's muster, because why the bleep are you sticking things into people's colon as a requirement for a gun? And I love how "performing an ultrasound at a point where only an internal ultrasound is an option" = a doctor's visit. Well, sorry, I don't buy that being forced to talk to a doctor is a "lecture" or "shaming." It's educational. It's a requirement with any other prescription drug you get for the first time. You can't just go to Walgreens and ask for a bottle of anti-biotics because you've read an article on WebMD. And I've already said an internal ultrasound is too invasive. Waiting periods, a doctor visit, informing your parents....those aren't IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) So then, can the state put a requirement on gun ownership solely for the purpose of shaming the owners? Not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but just to make everyone who wants a gun go through some embarrassing test to make sure they feel appropriately bad about making the decision to get one. Abortion restrictions aren't about shaming, they're attempting to lessen the number of abortions. I love too how "waiting periods" and "doctor visits" is akin to a walk of shame where everyone in the world now knows you've just had an abortion. GMAB.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:09 PM) Still confusing direct and indirect effects and means vs. ends. Gun control laws are attempts to limit gun violence via limiting, controlling, or allowing for the tracking of firearms. They are not put in place as punitive laws to discourage gun ownership itself. Not every law that you don't like is intentionally antagonistic to you. Anti-abortion laws, like the proposed law in Indiana or dozens of others passed recently, are intentionally antagonistic. That's a distinction without a difference. Direclty or indirectly you're punishing everyone that owns a gun and discouraging gun ownership by placing BANS on certain types of weapons and restrictions on others. The nature of the two are different sure, but the idea that society can place barriers in the way of people performing acts we don't want them to perform is the exact same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) So then...can the state put limits on people's rights to keep guns for the same reason? That certain people shouldn't have them? I've never argued otherwise. Criminals shouldn't have guns. What's your point?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) I want to put restrictions on guns because I want to limit gun violence, not because I want to limit guns themselves. You want to put restrictions on abortions because you want to eliminate abortions themselves. The purpose of these pills or procedures is to get an abortion, which is what you want to stop. Unless you're going to argue that the purpose of owning a gun is to commit gun violence, then your analogy fails. Here's a more explicit difference: I'm not interested in eliminating guns because I have a moral problem with guns themselves. I actually think we could do more to address the gun violence in this country by focusing on poverty and would rather follow those means anyway. This doesn't hold up when you switch to abortions, because your end is to restrict abortions themselves. Means vs. ends, direct vs. indirect. By all means, though, keep comparing a woman's bodily autonomy to purchasing firearms. Convince your congressional candidates to do the same, too. So a handgun or assault weapon ban isn't limiting the availability of the guns themselves, it's limiting gun violence? Gotcha.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 12:55 PM) Can the state put limits on people's rights to have kids? I.e. require them to do things (get off drugs, clean up their life) or the kids will be taken away? To have kids? No. To keep the kids? Yes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) Nope. I don't think guns are evil. I think some things done with guns are evil and would like to take steps to address those problems. Some of those steps will result in increased burdens on gun owners. That's distinctly different from these abortion policies which are designed to limit abortions themselves. What is the goal of gun restrictions? To limit the purchase of guns and gun violence. How is that any different than wanting to limit abortions? You're buying a pill just like you're buying a gun. That's a good, and you're fine with putting restrictions on the availability of that good so why the hell can't I? No, i'm really not. You're refusing to admit that the means and the ends are the same. You want it in one instance, and you don't one it in the other. That's the only difference between the two.

Good, yesterday sucked.

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. 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.

Anyone going to the Big Ten tournament? A couple of friends and I looked but the tickets were kinda pricey, like 400 bucks for the weekend. Sold out now of course, so it doesn't matter, but we decided to take off Friday and head to a bar for the day instead. The tournament should be a lot of fun to watch this year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:35 AM) 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?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:37 AM) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:22 AM) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 09:36 PM) 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?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 09:36 PM) 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.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 09:00 PM) 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.

Whelp, the Bulls didn't realize there was a game tonight apparently.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 08:32 PM) 1) you've got that backwards, regular ultrasounds don't work early on. neither are in any way medically necessary for what they're being required for. 2) f*** off with your "Close your legs!" bulls***. Here's an idea: stop trying to control female sexuality. Oh f*** that, the truth hurts. 99.9% of abortions are the result of choice. I see no good reason why I have a thousand barriers in my way that the government puts up for bulls*** reasons, and a woman can't go through one or two before making a difficult decision. You're going to make me go through a thousand extra steps to own a gun, what's the difference? Both infringe on a right. And yes, spare me with that bulls*** about women having already decided. Many do and many don't. When you make an abortion simply taking a pill you're taking the thought process out of the equation.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) Ultrasound Bill in Indiana actually requires double ultrasound. Once before and then after. Double Ultrasound Bill In Indiana Passes Out Of Senate Committee Hi, welcome to the conversation. Try to keep up. The 2nd ultrasound isn't enforceable, the woman doesn't have to show up. And the vaginal ultrasound isn't normally used in the early weeks of pregnancy, so no, it wouldn't be a requisite. That's going to be a doctor's determination only if for some reason a normal ultrasound doesn't work. Which guess what, they'd probably do that anyway before they hand out prescriptions. Yes, they could take blood or urine tests, but those are more expensive (and time consuming) than a simple ultrasound at the time you're visiting your doctor to get the abortion pill anyway. Here's an idea: if you don't want a barrier to an abortion, close your legs!

So typical.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 03:14 PM) For once I actually feel really confident playing Penn St. Uh oh. The number that scares me is 0-13. You know they're going to pull one out at some point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) Congrats Indiana. Your state legislature is now considering the transvaginal ultrasound abortion-punishment bill. It says in the article it doesn't actually specify a vaginal ultrasound. And then it totally fails to explain why that person thinks it's a requirement, but makes sure to give a nice visual of the invasive "procedure!" Basically this is a - if you're going to have an abortion, you need to get checked out first. The horror! They might show a woman a beating heart and she might change her mind! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 12:32 AM) Was it discussed in here that Hanks and Spielberg are going to be producing a 3rd series for HBO set in WWII? This one is going to be focused on the air war against Germany. I'm looking forward to this already as Band of Brothers is probably my favorite series/show that has ever been on TV and The Pacific was also fantastic. I hadn't seen that. I'd be stoked for a new mini-series. BoB and The Pacific are amazing.