Prior experience and all, mostly with you know who, these things tangent out and distract, and you can end up discussing NASA's budget, the Civil War, and Texas toll road policy in the same thread... so I'll edit some stuff out too.



I think you're assuming I am accusing you of something, I'm not, at least nothing I didn't say we all do. Remember this sub-thread got started by Jens deciding to weigh in in nasty fashion about the US right's views on abortion and birth control, that's what I'm pointing at to accuse, you are the audience I'm making the argument for.



Well there's a difference between thinking the opposition is stark raving nutters and assuming their view is. I obviously consider Astrology to be a load of garbage, I don't consider it's fans to be idiots or lunatics in fact I see how a logical mind can be tricked into seeing truth in it. Alternatively as I was discussing with the ship-horizon round Earth stuff, most people regard Astrology as false not because they really understand why it is, merely because they've heard the claim repeated by smart and authoritative people a lot. This came up in another thread not that long back and I recall mentioning that the gravitational influence on you by Neptune paralleled the gravitational influence of your neighbor's RV. That's an eye roller to a physicist but from most people's rational perspective the mental follow up is to realize how much a RV parked next door does effect their life and think about how Neptune is doing that to everyone everywhere. "How can we even pretend something like that doesn't influence our actions and life, and presumably in a cyclical and thus predictable fashion?" is a wrong but very, very rational view to hold. "It won't happen to everyone, but the effects are generally recognizable, the RV might lower property values, might block sunlight on gardens or lawns, might invite burglars who wait till it goes away." and there's a gaping logical hole their big enough to drive that RV through but it's still potent and it will still be there, a mental dragon not slain, in the back of their head. They will seek out other parallels to reinforce it and give less credence to counter-arguments. This happens with virtually everything, I'm not implying that these people are nuts, very much the opposite, I am saying that when we encounter them on subjects that are, or are perceived to be, nuts, by us, we treat arguments made by them on the subject as absurdity. This will include the flip side, that we might be the person who thinks it's patently absurd to ignore the influence of an entire planet larger than ours.



Yes I have walked through the door, twice that I can think of, there were no demons hanging around laughing or signs informing women that abortion was the only way to save themselves from life implosion. There were also people there looking depressed, terrified, or glaze-eyed along with those clearly just there for more normal 'girly needs'.



Oh, I'm open to a spectrum of views, just not interested in Guttmacher's, for the reasons mentioned. I like to investigate my data sources, they're tainted.




No I guess that one misfired. Here's the comment that sparks my comment, "legislating anywhere in the middle is trying to force that moral load onto women, and I do not think that is fair or appropriate". A sole decision maker by definition carries 100% of the moral load for the consequences of a decision, especially when they did not have to make a decision quickly, that's implicit when we say things like 'the buck stops here' or 'I take full responsibility for the actions of my command'. If you believe, as you do, that it is a women's sole decision, it is by definition impossible for anyone to try to 'force' the moral load on her, because that's exactly where it belongs.

The gay thing is unrelated, I was vague because I was seeking to avoid violating Godwin's law, but you invoked it by saying abortion was legal with the implication that those of us who view it as the ending of a human life should just not our heads because the law permits it. Well I don't care what the laws says when it comes to morality. I don't believe the government has a right to dictate the nature of adult relationships or the terms applied to them in the absence of clear violence or psychological harm, the law be damned. It's unrelated to my views on abortion, merely to your bringing the law up about abortion in a fashion that implied those of us who oppose abortion should nod our heads on the subject over the law.



There are plenty of reasons why a woman may feel that is impossible or at least unnecessary. Those reasons aren't all good, and I'm really only interested in good reasons, I can't think of any.

As to the waiting period, I know about those, I know they are law in many states, I am not talking about adding on more and never have been, that is why I keep expressing puzzlement over your reaction. I would like all states to do that, I would not particularly object to a federal requirement to do that like is this case with firearms... remember? Early on? 'I think it would be ironic and appropriate if they used identical language and waiting periods'. Note how I keep referring to what I feel is a pre-existing narrative on your part, like your discussing things with someone else? I am not, and have never been, suggesting we tack on more to existing waiting periods, I'm talking about having a federal minimum for both guns and abortion, specifically 'first time purchasers' equal to what I'd consider a safe cooling off period. In many cases this is the same or less than existing state laws or clinic rules. I am not, and never have been, suggesting that a clinic that already requires a 4 day waiting period between initial discussion and procedure have to add 24 or 48 or 72 hours on to that, I'm suggesting an overall minimum.



Yes, the next paragraph, the one following the one where they bring up the other matter.



And yeah, look, alphabetical. With three options there's a 83.3% chance (5 in 6) that choice was deliberate, such being the case one asks 'why?', because when someone is writing up explanations on three things, alphabetical order is not usually a concern. I'll spare you the lecture on that but I deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis and I know the ways people try to cover their rear ends. PP probably did not hold a meeting to do that, but the author of the material definitely (well, 83.3%) did concern themselves with order, not a normal concern when discussing a short list. A very normal concern of someone who thinks their work will be attacked as promoting an agenda.



In this case you're wrong, I personally am rather notorious for boiling down almost any pre-meditated commentary for motives and theme, partially because I know how people do it. Go ask the guys on the RPG board as to my skill on that matter. Language, flavor, subtle little tricks that even if people see it and point it out only helps you because you can say "You're nuts, you're paranoid, Christ man they're simply in alphabetical order!" Hell I know people who have rearranged rooms in advance of a speech just to make an object so clearly 'visible' they can appear to spot it at random and drop a prepared remark. Yes people do that. It legitimizes off-the-cuff tangents that aren't actually off the cuff. It seems an invitation to paranoia but there's themes and trends and when you boil down several pieces of work and the 'coincidences' just happen to be like 90% of the time the ones that conveniently emphasize a given premise, yeah I take note and call that out.



Okay, 'instinct kick in'? No one has an instinct to go to a clinic. And again, I am not proposing existing waiting periods, be they require dor the byproduct of circumstance, be extended. As to those pre-clinic, the term 'too damn bad' comes to mind. I don't care if someone wanting to buy their first pistol comes into the shop and says "Hey, you can wave the waiting period, I've been thinking about this for a week already" I absolutely agree a couple of weeks is enough, I think a couple of days is enough, I just want to make sure we know that it's a couple of days in which they have definitely been in contact with experts and with examined, factual literature. If two girls find out they are pregnant, one goes in that day and the other goes in two weeks later, I want them both to have a sit down with a real medical professional who can explain the variables and with someone who actually has to present the non-medical aspects under a certain completeness and ethics. Not their friend Beth who 'knows all about it' or Google. This is the exact same advice I'd give to someone about accepting a career change, getting married, joining the service, getting a divorce or anything else. Sit down with someone who can definitely give you the variables, and 'sleep on it', 'take a couples days', 'this is a big decision that will permanently effect your life, at a minimum you don't want to look back and see you made it in haste when you didn't have to'. You seem to think this has to do with me wanting to just delay abortions as harassment. It's not, I want them to cease to be, but absent that I want people to make informed, cool decisions, and I am willing to support laws that make that happen. Just pragmatism via my pro-life stance, I think a panicked person is more likely to get one and I'd prefer they not. A couple days, a night's rest, they generally take the edge off. This is critical decision making 101 I'm supporting, you seem to agree with it conceptually.



These ones demonstrate that I've been on hand but not personally stressed and effected by events, that I've been of clear mind to observe people going through this process. Having already said in prior discussion that I'm quite familiar with the matter, and watching that bound off, I find it helpful to relate specifics rather than simply repeat "I'm not unaware of this stuff"



Gov't Spiel, whatever else can be said about it and I could say a lot, has the power of authority behind it. If you pick up a pamphlet from the USDA on proper corn growth you know it's been fact-checked to death and is comprehensive if short. It may not be right, it is not an absolute standard, but you know it contains no single one-sided non-experts view of things as opposed to some random gardening enthusiast's perspective on their own anecdotal experimentations in corn rearing. Paper's cheap, handing someone a government approved doc on gun safety and carry and conceal laws and a hotline for questions with reminders about what the law actually says on things like trespass and self-defense at a minimum does no harm. Some will read it, some won't, most will probably skim it over and catch the big bold words like 'Many people purchase a pistol for self-defense after some event which worried them, and this can distract them from gun safety resulting in accidents to themselves or their family, please make sure to review these tips on gun safety.' This stuff works, if maybe 3% note that and follow that you get maybe 3% less dumb accidents, for the price of a few thousand pamplets, 10-30 cents apiece, a very effective use of funds.



Well as a smoker I would general say that banning smoking is a bit more extreme than requiring people to wait 48 hours before getting cosmetic surgery, you know a lot of tatoo parlors by law or personal choice have rules about tattoos that are much the same. I have no desire to ban bigger boobs or tattoos, but there is a fairly serious consequence in terms of buyer's remorse on those things.



Seeing as it would pretty much only effect people who were rushing through the process or did get their medical opinion from Dr. Google I don't see your objection.



I consider pointing out the obvious, that it might cause depression, isn't the same as not pointing out that it has a very strong link to suicide, yeah, that kinda seems worth mentioning by objective people trying to give comprehensive advice. Again, it's not what they leave out or put in individually, its all the little coincidence just happening to lean a certain direction. You know almost everyone does mention stuff like increased suicide, all those other things in pamphlets and FAQs where they include comments like '...and even an increased risk of suicide'