Quote:A University of Missouri doctoral student plans to continue research for her dissertation on the effects of the state’s recently imposed 72-hour waiting period for abortions, despite a state legislator’s push to block the research, the student told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview.

“I stand by my research project,” Lindsay Ruhr said Wednesday. “I feel that my research is objective, and that the whole point of my research is to understand how this policy affects women. Whether this policy is having a harmful or beneficial effect, we don’t know.”

(11-13-2015, 04:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/11/missouri-senator-aims-to-block-students-dissertation-on-abortion.html


The article goes on to point out that the student has received no grant or scholarship money to fund the research and it is not research by the university, but by the student. Rather interesting that there is so much attention being paid to her topic.

(11-13-2015, 04:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Read that yesterday.  Seems a real stretch by the pol.  But then its MO.  Kansas' slightly dumber younger brother.

(11-13-2015, 04:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You are reading aljazeera?

State run media for Qatar. Do you also read Russia today to see what The Russian government want you to know as well?

State run media is dangerous.

(11-13-2015, 04:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: After reading the article there is a connection to Pp if he has it then it shouldn't be allowed .

(11-13-2015, 04:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's odd that the university has a relationship with PP to train their students. I guess if a nursing student doesn't believe in harvesting babies then they are out of luck for training unless they just have to grin and bear it ...

(11-13-2015, 04:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: State run media is dangerous.

(11-13-2015, 05:25 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Corporate run media isn't?

Al Jazeera has its obvious biases, but it also reports stuff the American corporate media tends to distort or ignore. For that reason it's beneficial to read it.

(11-13-2015, 05:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's on other sources as well. This was just the link I saw first to copy and paste.


Are you supporting the politician, or are you saying the adviser for the dissertation should not allow it?


Schools partner with multiple places for training their nurses. No one would be forced to train at PP.

(11-13-2015, 05:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If the pol. Has a connection to push forward his actions then he should be supported. As far as the advisor goes .... That's more of a issue with what relationships the school has with PP. the same could be said of they were partnered with a pro life group. I don't have enough info to make a call one way or another with the advisor.

I look forward to more info on this story. I wonder when young people choose these controversial topics... Where is it coming from... Kinda reminds me of the preface of the movie Gods not Dead. (Not sure if you have seen this) young kid was faced with defending an uncomfortable topic.

(11-13-2015, 05:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So why should the politician move forward if the impetus for their claim is public funds going towards abortions and what not, while the student is receiving no public funding and the topic of the research is not supporting abortions?

(11-13-2015, 05:25 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Al Jazeera has its obvious biases, but it also reports stuff the American corporate media tends to distort or ignore. For that reason it's beneficial to read it.

(11-13-2015, 11:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Whatever the outcome, it seems like a very worthwhile endeavor.  If women suffer trauma because they can't get an abortion in 30 minutes or less, we need to know that.

(11-13-2015, 11:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or is women suffer trauma from being forced to wait by politicians...not doctors...we need to know that too.

(11-13-2015, 11:42 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, no.

I'm not going to say we should ban abortion.  And I'm not saying nearly all women don't struggle with this decision.  But I don't view the fetus as a parasite, either.  And if it's not going to have a right to life, I'm at least going to grant it 3 days of a complete passive advocacy on its behalf.

If it saves one life....where have I heard arguments like that before?

(11-14-2015, 12:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: What?

(11-14-2015, 12:19 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm saying it's a serious decision, one that involves more than a "parasite"...waiting 3 days isn't harmful, it's responsibility.  I don't support drive thru abortions.

(11-14-2015, 02:50 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Hyperbole much?

I thought the one thing that most pro-lifers and pro-choicers could agree on is if it is going to happen (abortion that is), the sooner the better.  But now you want people to go through out an arbitrary waiting period?  Hell why not a week? How about two weeks?  How long of a waiting period do you want people (that you don't know) to go through to make a decision that affects you in no way?