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.

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...

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).

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)

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.

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?

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)

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Only $300- maybe she had a coupon?

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

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.

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?

pALEPHx wrote:

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

Dude, this was in Oakland!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?