#2 2008-06-24 14:05:05

Hell, even giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, the fact that he supposedly didn't even ask "What's wrong?" identifies him as a complete asshole. But his concern for family values, I believe, more than makes up for such a deficit.

Offline

 

#3 2008-06-24 14:19:49

I've known the going rate for it over 20 years now, but I think this is the first time it ever struck me: "$300 for an abortion? Hmm. I've paid more for dental work." Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-choice (or 'no choice,' as I don't possess a uterus), but it seems like the sort of thing that should either be free, or have prohibitively high costs like other kinds of elective surgery. I can think of arguments for both, but they mostly depend on who's doing the aborting. In this case, the guy can say he had no idea what she was doing, but can she say she had no clue about his political aspirations?

Offline

 

#4 2008-06-24 15:33:06

The whole abortion thing is a sinkhole of confusion.  After all in most cases the woman/couple did make a choice at the start of the entire episode - they chose to forgo protection; on the other hand statistics say that it may have had a role in the reduction in crime rates, and finally with hundreds of thousands of uncared for/abused kids (and their exploits we see documented here) it's hypocritical to argue that the sanctity of life is the question.

the entire discussion sends me tottering towards the bottle...

Offline

 

#5 2008-06-24 16:25:26

pALEPHx wrote:

"$300 for an abortion? Hmm. I've paid more for dental work."

I imagine it depends a lot on where in the country you're talking about.  The last time I needed to be aware of such things, a no-special-exceptions abortion was two GRAND, and that was in the late 80s (in the Southeast).

Another thing:  Abortions are not performed at hospitals or regular doctors' offices--they're either stand-alone clinics or "women's health centers."  He drove her to the facility?  He knew exactly what she was there for.  Fucking hypocrite.

Offline

 

#6 2008-06-24 16:45:39

George Orr wrote:

I imagine it depends a lot on where in the country you're talking about. The last time I needed to be aware of such things, a no-special-exceptions abortion was two GRAND, and that was in the late 80s (in the Southeast).

Another thing: Abortions are not performed at hospitals or regular doctors' offices--they're either stand-alone clinics or "women's health centers." He drove her to the facility? He knew exactly what she was there for. Fucking hypocrite.

$2K. Dang, gurlfren. Thass some mad mon-ay. My guess is the service in our American South was prohibitively expensive for all the wrong reasons. Coming from the Northeast, I was almost ready to say they haven't changed it much from $3-400, but I should have suspected that--despite being a federally protected right--the "value" would change a great deal from state to state.

But yes, I am entirely aware that most abortions are not done in the traditional medical settings (ERs, hospitals, one's own GP, etc.). It is, indeed, difficult to presume she was having something else done, but an abortive practices surgery can look as much like a dentist, plastics, or podiatrist, for that matter. I give absolutely no credit to the cad politician, but as Emmeran succinctly pointed out, they're both on the hook for having unprotected sex (or sex at all, if his "family values" don't preclude knocking up someone 12 years your junior).

Offline

 

#7 2008-06-24 18:05:07

$2k is way over what what most of the country was paying then or now. $300 to 400 is more the average. Heck I paid just $800 or so for one to be done in the private office suite of my girl's gyno partners rather then a clinic to help ease her anxiety when we were not prepared to have a child yet.

Offline

 

#8 2008-06-24 18:34:27

pALEPHx wrote:

It is, indeed, difficult to presume she was having something else done, but an abortive practices surgery can look as much like a dentist, plastics, or podiatrist, for that matter. I give absolutely no credit to the cad politician, but as Emmeran succinctly pointed out, they're both on the hook for having unprotected sex (or sex at all, if his "family values" don't preclude knocking up someone 12 years your junior).

He is lying little pandering weasel if even part of her account is true. Being told your gal is pregnant leaves its mark on every man. Just how did he think she became unpregnant?

The Oregonian has more claims from her and her friends involved with the abortion.

She couldn't recall exactly when she learned she was pregnant, or when she told Erickson. But she did tell him, she said.

"I just remember him being fairly solemn about it. He didn't tell me I had to get an abortion. He didn't force me," Tawnya said.

During the drive, he told her that because of work he couldn't stay, she said.

Oetken held her hand during the procedure and drove her home afterward.

"She cried the entire time," said Oetken, 36, who is a recruiter for a Portland-area high-tech company. "I was just being a friend but lecturing her at the same time, 'You need to be rid of this guy, and I hope this is the last straw.' "

Oetken said she called Erickson later that day and left him a scathing voice mail.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-24 18:37:37)

Offline

 

#9 2008-06-24 19:27:17

So what's the guy's obligation anyway?  He apparently didn't pressure her into the abortion, but he did pay for it.  Women need to decide what men are supposed to do in these situations, tell them, then shut the fuck up about it.

Offline

 

#10 2008-06-24 19:35:17

phreddy wrote:

So what's the guy's obligation anyway?

Well, one obligation would be to refrain from running for public office as an anti-abortion crusader.

Women need to decide what men are supposed to do in these situations, tell them, then shut the fuck up about it.

Well, a couple of the things men are supposed to do in these situations are
A. refrain from lying about it later on; and
B. refrain from running for public office as an anti-abortion crusader.

I hope you took notes.

Offline

 

#11 2008-06-24 19:43:19

George Orr wrote:

phreddy wrote:

So what's the guy's obligation anyway?

Well, one obligation would be to refrain from running for public office as an anti-abortion crusader.

Women need to decide what men are supposed to do in these situations, tell them, then shut the fuck up about it.

Well, a couple of the things men are supposed to do in these situations are
A. refrain from lying about it later on; and
B. refrain from running for public office as an anti-abortion crusader.

I hope you took notes.

Phwed is having Flashbacks about his own churlish behaviour(s) with the female of the species over the years.

Go Soft on him Georgette, you don't want him actually to engage synapses do you?

Offline

 

#12 2008-06-24 19:54:17

George, once again, you've missed the point. If anti-choice Republicans had intended for a ban on abortion to apply to them, Erickson obviously would not have paid for that whore's abortion. Babykilling is wrong only if you're poor or stupid or both. The elite need to keep reproduction under tight reins because childbirth should not interfere with their ability to promote a God-fearing agenda that benefits all society. Poor people produce the individuals necessary to maintain the service economy.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Offline

 

#13 2008-06-24 20:23:30

I did forget one other thing:

C: if you offer to "go with her" to the clinic, do not jet off as soon as she steps out of your car, leaving her sniffing fumes in the parking lot.  Things like that tend to irritate a woman, especially if she's in a delicate condition.

Offline

 

#14 2008-06-25 00:22:43

Traditional Republican Rules For Abortion


1.  Abortion is always wrong for the lower classes.

2.  For the well to do and opinion makers, situation ethics apply as in:

(a)    Suzie the preacher’s kid gets knocked up by her school’s negro quarterback; an abortion is mandatory.

(b)    John Rich Brat knocks up a lower status female while sowing his wild oats; a discreet abortion is the preferred option.  Under no circumstances may John marry beneath his station without losing his privileged class status.

(c)    Robert Solid Citizen knocks up a trollop; abortion of the fetus is the preferred option.  Murder of the trollop before or after pregnancy termination may be indicated in some circumstances.

Last edited by fnord (2008-06-25 03:46:23)

Offline

 

#15 2008-06-25 00:44:58

Only $300- maybe she had a coupon?

Last edited by icangetyouatoe (2008-06-25 00:45:41)

Offline

 

#16 2008-06-25 00:53:36

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Only $300- maybe she had a coupon?

Maybe she finally filled up her Frequent Fetal Disposal Club card.

Offline

 

#17 2008-06-25 13:02:49

Abortion is not an ethical morass, and only idiots buy into "the debate." Because "the debate" is not a debate.
it's an emotional lever used by the right to consolidate their constituency and jimmy votes out of middle-grounders.
Apparently, even some of you are silly enough to buy into it.
Like everything from the right, and almost everything from the left, hypocrisy is part&parcel.
Fnord's post is spot on. (The "spot" is a bit of a pun, for those who've been there.)
I've held women's hands through procedures. It's not exactly fun, but it's better than having a kid.
Women should be given free abortions, and door prizes on the way out of the clinic.

Offline

 

#18 2008-06-25 14:24:54

In the East bay, an abortion costs ~$500. I know this from recent experience.

Now don't be judging me you freaks, I paid half.

Offline

 

#19 2008-06-25 14:35:29

orangeplus wrote:

In the East bay, an abortion costs ~$500. I know this from recent experience.

Now don't be judging me you freaks, I paid half.

But which one of you had the abortion?

Offline

 

#20 2008-06-25 14:41:08

Taint wrote:

But which one of you had the abortion?

Depends on how you look at it. I didn't. She looked the same coming out of the joint as going in (perhaps a bit more surly, you know those motherfuckers make you do an ultrasound and show you the pics before they give the damn pill? total dick move.) I would say the once possible but no longer rug-rat had the procedure done to it, but hey, who's counting?

Offline

 

#21 2008-06-25 16:17:20

orangeplus wrote:

(perhaps a bit more surly, you know those motherfuckers make you do an ultrasound and show you the pics before they give the damn pill? total dick move.)

This always struck me as a barbaric and highly unnecessary assertion of the Christian Right in a place they have no business being at all. Not all states do this, as I'm sure you're aware (not all practitioners provide chemical abortions, either...but now we have outside pharmacists refusing to dole it out, so they have to give it on site).

Offline

 

#22 2008-06-25 16:23:01

pALEPHx wrote:

Not all states do this, as I'm sure you're aware

Dude, this was in Oakland!

Offline

 

#23 2008-06-25 17:26:50

orangeplus wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Not all states do this, as I'm sure you're aware

Dude, this was in Oakland!

I'm assuming this wasn't Planned Parenthood, or was it?

Offline

 

#24 2008-06-25 17:34:08

orangeplus wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Not all states do this, as I'm sure you're aware

Dude, this was in Oakland!

That's scary, but I'm curious about the same thing as Taint. That I understood, there were only a handful of jurisdictions that had already secured the putative "right" to force people undergoing a medical procedure to view such dissuasive material. You don't hear about people going in for dialysis and being compelled to watch videos of a patient with, say, jaundice.

Offline

 

#25 2008-06-25 17:50:18

No it was called Family Specialists something or other, twas a for-profit enterprise, I can assure you. I would have had her go to someplace in the city, or at least get advice from Planed Parenthood, but you just don't argue with a girl about her choice of abortion providers. In fact, you just don't argue with her about anything.

Last edited by orangeplus (2008-06-25 17:52:21)

Offline

 

#26 2008-06-25 17:52:14

pALEPHx wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Not all states do this, as I'm sure you're aware

Dude, this was in Oakland!

That's scary, but I'm curious about the same thing as Taint. That I understood, there were only a handful of jurisdictions that had already secured the putative "right" to force people undergoing a medical procedure to view such dissuasive material. You don't hear about people going in for dialysis and being compelled to watch videos of a patient with, say, jaundice.

I don't think there is anything that would legally prevent any for-profit enterprise from doing that.  It's just that in California it's not legally required by the state.

Offline

 

#27 2008-06-25 17:56:45

tojo2000 wrote:

I don't think there is anything that would legally prevent any for-profit enterprise from doing that. It's just that in California it's not legally required by the state.

Well, yeah, unfortunately. As already indicated, it wasn't a Planned Parenthood, so they could show patients films of D&Cs all day long if they felt like it, under the presumption that abortion "consumers" had the knowledge, finances, or wherewithal to "shop elsewhere" if they wanted. The practice [of showing sonograms] has only one purpose, vitiates the federal ruling, and should therefore be outlawed regardless of who the provider may be.

Especially in Oakland, CA.

Offline

 

#28 2008-06-25 17:57:49

I just found this organization in Oakland. They don't mention anything about the pre-operation procedure, and while the abortion itself "takes the doctor 10 to 15 minutes to perform" the overall visit can last up to five hours.

Seems like they could be a little more forthcoming about what to expect during the visit.

Offline

 

#29 2008-06-25 17:59:35

Taint wrote:

I just found this organization in Oakland. They don't mention anything about the pre-operation procedure, and while the abortion itself "takes the doctor 10 to 15 minutes to perform" the overall visit can last up to five hours.

Seems like they could be a little more forthcoming about what to expect during the visit.

That was them! Hateful motherfuckers.

Should have made her Yelp beforehand:

http://www.yelp.com/biz/womens-choice-c … 20planning

Oh Internets, why had we forsaken you?

wait, I did make her Yelp before hand, that's how we got in the mess in the first place

Last edited by orangeplus (2008-06-25 18:01:19)

Offline

 

#30 2008-06-25 18:01:18

orangeplus wrote:

[small]wait, I did make her Yelp before hand, that's how we got in the mess in the first place[/small]

Psst.  Don't look now, but your small is showing.

Offline

 

#31 2008-06-25 18:01:52

tojo2000 wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

[small]wait, I did make her Yelp before hand, that's how we got in the mess in the first place[/small]

Psst.  Don't look now, but your small is showing.

I fixed it you speed posting bitch

Offline

 

#32 2008-06-25 18:53:44

Georgi wrote:

Well, a couple of the things men are supposed to do in these situations are
A. refrain from lying about it later on; and
B. refrain from running for public office as an anti-abortion crusader.
C.  if you offer to "go with her" to the clinic, do not jet off as soon as she steps out of your car, leaving her sniffing fumes in the parking lot.  Things like that tend to irritate a woman, especially if she's in a delicate condition.

Well, none of these situations would have come up if the woman involved would have done what I asked and that was, "Women need to decide what men are supposed to do in these situations, tell them, then shut the fuck up about it."

Apparently women don't feel a compulsion to discuss their illicit affairs and abortions unless the guy involved happens to be famous or running for office.  Then, all of a sudden, it becomes a feminism issue.

Offline

 

#33 2008-06-25 19:40:19

Phreddy, I can only imagine the compulsion you felt to discuss Biilly's willy at the time.

Hard to say much to the tail end of his car after he has dumped you at the curb in front of the abortion clinic with some lame excuse. I do think it was rather timely what her girlfriend must have said when she called him up after the procedure to call him out for being so cold. 

Given the shared knowledge of the affair amongst her girlfriends I would wager they discussed it quite a bit before he ever ran for office.

Your living on planet Phred if you think women are ever going to stop talking far and wide, let alone let you forget, about every single caddish thing you have ever done.

Offline

 

#34 2008-06-25 20:17:31

phreddy wrote:

Georgi wrote:

Well, a couple of the things men are supposed to do in these situations are
A. refrain from lying about it later on; and
B. refrain from running for public office as an anti-abortion crusader.
C.  if you offer to "go with her" to the clinic, do not jet off as soon as she steps out of your car, leaving her sniffing fumes in the parking lot.  Things like that tend to irritate a woman, especially if she's in a delicate condition.

Well, none of these situations would have come up if the woman involved would have done what I asked and that was, "Women need to decide what men are supposed to do in these situations, tell them, then shut the fuck up about it."

Apparently women don't feel a compulsion to discuss their illicit affairs and abortions unless the guy involved happens to be famous or running for office.  Then, all of a sudden, it becomes a feminism issue.

I hate to tell you, Phreddy, but the only person trying to turn it into a feminism issue here is you.  This was basically a thread about this one guy's hypocrisy.  Maybe that's  why the answers you're getting aren't satisfying you?

Offline

 

#35 2008-06-25 20:38:12

I would think even Phred would have a few qualms about this GOP candidate's judgement before pulling the lever.

Not a good idea to send pictures of yourself with babies to try and solicit the vote of the jezebel who you had to have scraped.

   

Tawnya, a registered Republican, said she received a campaign flier with a photo of Erickson next to a baby, touting his endorsement by the anti-abortion group Oregon Right to Life.

The mailer made him out to be "some sort of safe haven for babies, and honestly, it made me sick," she said.

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com