Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

[Sigmund]

What are your thoughts?

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion


Posted by JeanneSager (http://www.babble.com/CS/members/JeanneSager.aspx)
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2009/03/FetusAbortion.jpg (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2009/03/FetusAbortion.jpg)Why Texas? Why?
Do you really think women who are headed in to have an abortion are all happy-go-lucky sorts who have no idea what they're getting into?
Because leading members of Texas' GOP (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6279158.html) are sponsoring a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that's not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.
According to the bill, the "pregnant woman may choose not to view the materials or avert her eyes." How sweet. If that's an option, how about just skipping the whole charade and letting women get on with it?
Its supporters have made clear they are looking to reduce abortion numbers, but they're also being careful throw a little "we're helping to cut down on medical malpractice" spin in there.
"I think that this bill will protect women from being at the hands of a doctor who is not performing best practices," study author Republican Sen. Dan Patrick said. But he's certainly sticking with the party line - he goes on to say, "secondly, it may change the thinking of that woman if she decides to look at that ultrasound, to hear that heart beat."
This move is right up there with North Dakota's recent declaration that "personhood" (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2009/02/20/north-dakota-passes-law-establishing-quot-personhood-quot-at-conception.aspx) is achieved at conception. Neither directly reverses Roe v. Wade, but they skirt the rights of a woman being trumped by that of an unborn fetus. As my colleague Kate recently pointed out, the right-to-life movement often neglects the idea that there is life AFTER birth.
The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman's mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she's been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; no matter the pain it inflicts.
Did these guys read the much-talked about Glamour piece on women who've gone through an abortion?
"In a perfect world, no woman would ever need to end a pregnancy," Liz Welch said just last month. (http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2009/02/the-serious-health-decision-women-arent-talking-about-until-now?currentPage=1) "But in reality, one in three women will have at least one abortion by the time she is 45, and these women run the gamut of ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs."

So Texas, just to give you an update women might not feel guilty or even wrong for doing it, but it isn't an easy choice. They don't need to hear a heartbeat or be beaten over the head with literature and a detailed ultrasound description to know that.
Image: PatDollard.com

[Moderator]

Are they requiring that the man who impregnated them also be present? Or that if the woman then changes her mind because of all their "good work" on her and the fetus's behalf, that there will be monetary support to help raise the child either from the father, doctor, or state? And are they including a provision to make sure that no federal funds be used for this counseling?

[motocop]

Wow, Texas never ceases to amaze me. What a horrible experience that must be. The pregnancy by rape thing is what gets me. They have the nerve to make you listen to the heartbeat of a fetus that was forced into your uterus and say, "your going to hell if you get rid of it". Makes me sick.

[Terry B]

Yeah and Texas wants GOD in all schools and wants to ban books the Christians don't approve of.

Had a friend (this was in Illinois in the 80's) who was forced to have an ultrasound to see her fetus before an abortion. To me THAT was unfair to her. BTW - she did it anyway and never looked back.

[cat in a bag]

Wyoming is trying to do something very similar right now. It has been shot down once, and the person responsible for introducing it in the first place came back with a slightly modified version, just changed a few words. It has passed the House and forwarded to the Senate, but to the AG COMMITTEE! Rep. Lisa Shepperson says this:

"After passing the House…..HB – 251 has been passed to the Wyoming Senate and has been assigned to our Standing Committee – Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources!! Yes….our Ag Committee!! Now, we realize that sometimes bills get assigned to strange committees due to work load, etc, but that is NOT the case here. It has been assigned to this committee to try to make SURE it comes out and goes to the floor.
Needless to say, Sue and I and quite a few other women legislators are furious! I guess maybe some of these men think we are livestock!?!?! I am a 5th generation rancher and am used to dealing with livestock and the issues with them….so it will be an interesting committee hearing for me. By the way, Sue is also a rancher….both her and I have spent our lives on issues dealing with ag. We just never dreamed we'd be in the Ag Committee dealing with this issue. We are strategizing now….trying to decide if we should show up to the Committee Meeting with our cow-bells on and mooing! The bill is tentatively scheduled to be heard on Thursday afternoon, upon adjournment."

It is plain ridiculous. Aren't there much more pressing issues for our state governments to be spending time on than something like this?

[fushingfeef]

I think the politicians sponsoring this bill should have to listen too--listen to women voters and men voters who support women's rights.
If these bozos really cared about preventing unwanted pregnancies they would be funding sex education and contraceptives--but wait, that would make too much sense. They'd rather be on their high horses and trying to assume some phony moral high ground and pretending to care about unborn children. What about children who were already born? Meanwhile if any of these politicians got their interns pregnant, they'd be shipping them off to the nearest abortion.

[Connie Reader]

I'm appalled and I'm kind of shaking over this. Why is it so important for (and please, I mean no offense but I'm mad) religious fanatics to force their agenda down the throats of women who should be able to make the choice they want with their body. Why don't they care about the fully formed and self sustainable human being that they are basically torturing just to get her to make the decision THEY want her to make. Being able to choose one's life path is something that no government should get in the way of. This is a sexist practice, there is no way they can make the father be there, and in most cases like this he wouldn't be anyway.
Like fushingfeef said, why don't they concentrate on the children already born who don't have parents and use their political might to try and make their lives better rather than encouraging mothers to give birth to a child they don't want??
I'm at a loss.

[fljoe0]

Proper education will prevent more abortions than any of this stupid stuff will.

[mojomofo]

Wow, talk about cruel and unusual. I can't even think of this as some misguided but well-meaning effort, partly because I think making the choice for an abortion would be extremely difficult and doesn't need to be complicated, and partly because I know some vindictive "Christians" who think a little more suffering is okay for a woman who finds herself in that position. Why the hell do these people think their moral codes should trump anyone else's?

[Terry B]

I'm appalled and I'm kind of shaking over this. Why is it so important for (and please, I mean no offense but I'm mad) religious fanatics to force their agenda down the throats of women who should be able to make the choice they want with their body. Why don't they care about the fully formed and self sustainable human being that they are basically torturing just to get her to make the decision THEY want her to make. Being able to choose one's life path is something that no government should get in the way of. This is a sexist practice, there is no way they can make the father be there, and in most cases like this he wouldn't be anyway.
Like fushingfeef said, why don't they concentrate on the children already born who don't have parents and use their political might to try and make their lives better rather than encouraging mothers to give birth to a child they don't want??
I'm at a loss.

You make an excellent point regarding children already born. This country needs to make adoption of American babies (and older kids) easier and less expensive. Why else do you see celebrities adopting kids from other countries? The rules in the US need to be eased to make it easier to adopt kids in the US. Why would I (as an American woman) want to give birth to a child knowing full well he or she will end up in the foster system most of their lives because people like Madonna, Angelina (and my sister-in-law) are adopting kids from other countries because it's easier.

[hossenpepper]

Life begins at moment of conception, eh? Well being that this sentiment is in the Old Testament theme of the physical sacrifice to appease God, and we have since been graced with the New Testament where we learn such things as "if you look at a woman and lust after her, you have sinned and committed adultery", which places the acts of sin in the heart and mind now, instead of physical acts, perhaps thinking about sex should be considered the moment life begins.

Or we could use the verse of said bible that clearly states multiple times that "the blood is the life and the life is the blood" to gauge when life begins. Since fetuses are not infused with blood until day 18-24, before then its a group of cells. If this is a sin to abort one of these, then noone should ever cut off a mole or anyother group of cells as yo uhave ended a life.

More proof Texas is for the most part a place where logic and forward thinking goes to die.

[CorbinKale]

Either abortion is murder, or it is not. That question has yet to be settled. Until it is settled, there will be incremental crusades to stop it, or promote it.

If I push my wife down the stairs because she refuses to get an abortion, and the baby dies as a result of her fall, am I guilty of murder, or did I merely interfere with her right to choose? Can a man force a woman to have a baby or have an abortion? A woman currently can make a man have a baby and pay for it for decades. That is NOT equality under the law. Are we truly equal, or do women hold superiority over men? What about the life of the child? Is that just a negotiable abstract to be manipulated for monetary gain?

Until these issues are settled, women who want to kill their babies but don't want to sit through a lecture about it, are free to get their procedure done in states other than Texas. If it upsets the 'pro-death' community, it must be a good thing.

[steelhorseclub]

Proper education will prevent more abortions than any of this stupid stuff will.
You have to understand, Texas politicians do not believe in a proper education. They believe 'fancy learn'n' is for liberal elitists.

[Becks19]

It's appalling and cruel to put a woman through this. Texas acts as if deciding to have an abortion is an easy flip decision for a woman.

[tower-obsession]

I'm a woman, and I've had 5 pregnancies. I have 4 children. In 1999, I had a "post-viability abortion." I wanted to hear his heartbeat, but it wasn't there. My Daniel was already gone, and I was in danger of losing my own life. Then where would the children I already had be? I was judged very harshly for having an abortion before the person knew what was going on (and she never found out, either; she wouldn't listen). I was married, and the baby was wanted and loved. But he died. That is, of course, a different situation than being irresponsible and ending a life, but it was still called an abortion. I hated it.

IMO, abortion of a live fetus is murder. If I became pregnant as a result of rape, I would not abort the baby. BUT there are women who don't feel this way, and who am I to make them suffer? They have their reasons. For me, it's murder, but I'm not going to judge anyone else for having an abortion, and I think this bill in Texas is ridiculous.

There are medical reasons for abortion, even of a live fetus. Who gets to say whose life is more important? The woman's life or the baby's life? Do we get to say, "I'm sorry ma'am, but you're going to die, because this child inside you has more right to live than you do." or do we make her listen to the heartbeat and then perform an abortion, and say, "Sorry, we know you wanted that child, but it was going to kill you. We had to make you listen to its heartbeat to appease the law before we put you through even more torture."

I don't know if I'm correctly saying what I'm thinking, but it's close.

[PatInTheHat]

Either abortion is murder, or it is not. That question has yet to be settled. Until it is settled, there will be incremental crusades to stop it, or promote it.

What do you mean it's not been settled, it's the well established & excepted law of the land, that abortions are legal in every sense of the Supreme courts decision, that even the staunchest Supreme is in agreement with that fact.
Right or wrong, for good or bad, it is a personal opinion, but legally, between a woman and her doctor, it ain't murder, and that's been settled....well you know, unless bein' chucked down staircase is involved.
Hmm, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the law is clear on that too, at least in my community.

"Pro death community":dunno:?...really?

[CorbinKale]

It's appalling and cruel to put a woman through this. Texas acts as if deciding to have an abortion is an easy flip decision for a woman.

Actually, Texas refuses to act like it is an easy flip decision, as opposed to the states that DO treat it as an easy flip decision.

[CorbinKale]

You have to understand, Texas politicians do not believe in a proper education. They believe 'fancy learn'n' is for liberal elitists.

How ironic that Texans provided your textbooks. :rofl:

[fushingfeef]

It's odd because I thought life was cheaper in Texas, from a death penalty standpoint they don't hold back much. So, let me get this right: State-sanctioned killing is okay, women deciding what happens in their own bodies is not.

[motocop]

It's odd because I thought life was cheaper in Texas, from a death penalty standpoint they don't hold back much. So, let me get this right: State-sanctioned killing is okay, women deciding what happens in their own bodies is not.

Wow, great point. They do like to kill. #1 state I believe. Can you imagine the dynamic: Rapist put to death, baby produced by rape must be born against mothers will. Good ole Texas. Wheres the Texans? Chime in.

[staropeace]

My aunt lived in San Antonio (a nun) and my brother is a nurse in that city. I love Texas. I will refrain from giving my opinion on this topic because it ALWAYS causes a storm that eventually turns into a tempest,but the rest of you carry on as if you are normal....:laugh: Joking doan hit me!

[hossenpepper]

I think unless you have had to experience this, you should probably keep your opinion to yourself.

A woman has more say because the connection between a mother and fetus is something a man could never understand. Just like women shouldn't necessarily get a say in penis-and-testicle-specific matters. I can see a few here who might get theirs removed violently if it was up to a woman to decide....

[CorbinKale]

What do you mean it's not been settled, it's the well established & excepted law of the land, that abortions are legal in every sense of the Supreme courts decision, that even the staunchest Supreme is in agreement with that fact.
Right or wrong, for good or bad, it is a personal opinion, but legally, between a woman and her doctor, it ain't murder, and that's been settled....well you know, unless bein' chucked down staircase is involved.
Hmm, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the law is clear on that too, at least in my community.

"Pro death community":dunno:?...really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the unborn baby she carried

Looks like the law is NOT so clear. In this case, killing an unborn child warranted a murder conviction. Don't get me wrong, I am part of the pro-death community, too. I believe either parent should have the legal authority to kill their children until they turn 18 and move out. We can just call the murder an abortion and it magically becomes 'not murder'. Cool, huh?

[Moderator]

Isn't the criteria in those sorts of situations that the fetus must be viable, i.e. capable of living on its own outside the uterus (24 weeks gestation)?

[CorbinKale]

Wow, great point. They do like to kill. #1 state I believe. Can you imagine the dynamic: Rapist put to death, baby produced by rape must be born against mothers will. Good ole Texas. Wheres the Texans? Chime in.

I'm chiming, brother! I think the death penalty should NOT be legal. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a good enough reason to take a life. In all pregnancies, the mother's life is in danger. If it becomes apparent that one or both will die, I think the choice should be made to save the mother. If it is just a matter of financial hardship, or the mother not loving the child conceived in rape, adoption is the better choice than adding a murder to the rape.

[CorbinKale]

I think unless you have had to experience this, you should probably keep your opinion to yourself.

We will miss your input. :sad:

[Sigmund]

... Are we truly equal, or do women hold superiority over men?
Women do not hold superiority over men.
However, it is the woman who becomes pregnant and has the resposibility and perhaps the burden, of making the choice of keeping the pregnancy or terminating it.
Right or wrong, the woman has the right to decide what is going to happen to her body. And this is pure and simple added torture, political and religious propaganda, and WRONG.

[PatInTheHat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the unborn baby she carried

Looks like the law is NOT so clear. In this case, killing an unborn child warranted a murder conviction. Don't get me wrong, I am part of the pro-death community, too. I believe either parent should have the legal authority to kill their children until they turn 18 and move out. We can just call the murder an abortion and it magically becomes 'not murder'. Cool, huh?

That's not the same thing morally, ethically, or legally.
Absolutely no where at anytime during all the media coverage that case received from beginning to end, did I once hear or read mentioned, that Lacy Peterson had at any time or in any way, consulted with her own doctor about wanting herself, & specifically her very own unborn child, to be brutally murdered by her husband.
I do not see the connection your making.

I do agree, and have often said, that your mothers right to abort you ends when you move out:wink2:.
Had me some suspicions, a few times when I hit my teens, that my name was going to end up on one of those anti-abortion bracelets that were so popular with the Catholic crowd I hung out with back then:oops:.
As a matter of fact, I still get that feeling on the occasion, and Mama lives in my house now:umm:.
Hmm, yep, I gotta say I side with mothers.

[CorbinKale]

Women do not hold superiority over men.
However, it is the woman who becomes pregnant and has the resposibility and perhaps the burden, of making the choice of keeping the pregnancy or terminating it.
Right or wrong, the woman has the right to decide what is going to happen to her body. And this is pure and simple added torture, political and religious propaganda, and WRONG.

Currently, a woman can give birth to a child a man does not want, and extort money from him for decades. He doesn't even have to be the biological father, though some states are taking steps to address this type of legalized fraud.

http://familylaw.mwortmanlaw.com/2009/07/articles/paternity-1/new-missouri-paternity-law-signed-by-governor-takes-effect-august-28-2009/

On the other hand, if a woman is pregnant with a child that the father wants, she has the right to kill his child, and he has no recourse. Legally, women are superior to men, in this instance.

[Moderator]

Currently, a woman can give birth to a child a man does not want, and extort money from him for decades. He doesn't even have to be the biological father, though some states are taking steps to address this type of legalized fraud.

Hard to believe in this day and age DNA testing isn't being used for proof of paternity before finding a man financially responsible. I don't mean that in the sense that I don't believe you but that it seems like it should be SOP. I agree that that's not fair, CK, but there are options the man could have used before the pregnancy. He also could have said no and/or used birth control. It's not just the woman's responsibility and if he doesn't want to find himself in that situation, it's not like he had no other choice.

[CorbinKale]

That's not the same thing morally, ethically, or legally.
Absolutely no where at anytime during all the media coverage that case received from beginning to end, did I once hear or read mentioned, that Lacy Peterson had at any time or in any way, consulted with her own doctor about wanting herself, & specifically her very own unborn child, to be brutally murdered by her husband.
I do not see the connection your making.

My point is that if abortion is not murder, Petersen would have been convicted of one count of murder and one count of practicing medicine without a license, rather than two murders.

[PatInTheHat]

My point is that if abortion is not murder, Petersen would have been convicted of one count of murder and one count of practicing medicine without a license, rather than two murders.

Hmmm...okay, I guess that's one way you could look at it:wink2:.

[Sigmund]

Mr. Kale,
I do not agree with your position, understanding, belief or argumnets but I do "Thank You" for your input. I think it is very important that people be aware of the many different, thought-provoking, astounding, incredible, and sometimes staggering, stance and convictions of others.
Peace

[CorbinKale]

Hard to believe in this day and age DNA testing isn't being used for proof of paternity before finding a man financially responsible. I don't mean that in the sense that I don't believe you but that it seems like it should be SOP. I agree that that's not fair, CK, but there are options the man could have used before the pregnancy. He also could have said no and/or used birth control. It's not just the woman's responsibility and if he doesn't want to find himself in that situation, it's not like he had no other choice.

I provided a link for easy verification of the law.

It is only fair to give the father the same option for abortion as the mother has. Either that, or allow the unwilling father to legally abdicate all financial responsibility, the same as the mother can with abortion. If either of those policies were made law, I am certain that the incidences of unwanted pregnancies would plummet. It would certainly remove the incentive for that classic fraud.

I use that arguement, not to really advocate for a man's right to abort his child, but to cause an outcry against a man having any control over a woman's body. Once we establish that, it is easy to refute the claims that the man is responsible to keep a woman from getting pregnant, or that he should be legally responsible for her offsring should she choose to not kill them. If all choice belongs solely to the woman, so does all the responsibility.

But that is getting off topic. If the difference between murder and legal abortion lies solely in the opinion of the killers, how can that be good law? It certainly isn't applied equally with regard to the parents. In fact, a good case could be made for gender discrimination.

[Suzana]

Proper education will prevent more abortions than any of this stupid stuff will.

I was going to say A LOT about this,, but this sentence pretty much sums it all up.

I'm NOT pro abortion, I'm sorry but I disagree with the majority of opinions I read here, and I know it must not be an easy and painless decision, but if we think about it for a second, it's not OUR body... It's a body that belongs to someone else we are talking about, even though it's inside ours; I agree with the whole rape thing, though. Of course I'm talking about, let's say, "ordinary" conditions, when the people involved have the means to raise a baby... I live in Brazil, so everyday I have the sad truth rubbed in my face, about people who have a gazillion kids and nothing to eat, so they put their kids to beg for them on the streets, and sometimes, they even sell them to have sex for money, at ages like 10, 12...
It's just something that ruins my day...

[Sigmund]

But that is getting off topic. .

Mr. Kale,
I beg your pardon. However, Your posts, so far, are 'off topic'.
The topic, was should Texas (or any state) require that women listen to fetal heratbeats, and be subjected to a 'lecture' by a doctor before they have an abortion.

[guido tkp]

no matter how you slice it...it is one group of people of one religiuos/political p.o.v., abusing their power, to force someone else to live life the way they view solely and only because of their religious convictions

this is the 21st century...we should be well beyond abusing the constitution to inflict upon others our own religious values.

as many have mentioned, and as most pro-choice people have always pointed out, education is the answer, not abroggating someones civil rights based on anothers religious tenets...or, more importantly, interpretations thereof..because that is all this really amounts to.

george tiller attended church, with his family, wife & childen, his whole life..was shot dead, in his church, by a man who had abandoned his family and child over this issue: the right wing does not have the true moral center on this issue at all...

i think it might be in montana, just this past week, the legislature shot down a proposal that would make it legal for a family member to shoot an abortion doctor if they thought the life of unborn relative was in peril...so...

dad rapes his twelve year old daughter, repeatedly...then, when she gets pregnant and tries to flee the horror, dad can now shoot the doctor, take his daughter back (to rape some more) and force her to give birth...

not possible, the 'oprah' show just 2 weeks ago featured two young girls who were repeatedly raped by their father and their brothers...

the catholic church i've disassociated myself with is as much guilty with priests preying on (and impregnating: read up on the magdelena laundries folks, no moral center, these types) young women as the headlines grabbing stories of young men.

none of these useless bible thumpers have any direct line to God: if the woman meant for there NOT to be abortion...it'd be the eleventh commandment

the quickest way to Hell is to assume you know what god wants

[Tery]

Once again, we see where it leads when religion is allowed to dictate law. It's NOT your decision unless you are a woman in a situation where this could be something you might have to think about. Men DO NOT have a say in it. Sorry, no. When they can carry a fetus to term then they can make the decision. Until then, keep it in your pants or STFU. :glare:

[bugaboosy]

I'm chiming, brother! I think the death penalty should NOT be legal. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a good enough reason to take a life. In all pregnancies, the mother's life is in danger. If it becomes apparent that one or both will die, I think the choice should be made to save the mother. If it is just a matter of financial hardship, or the mother not loving the child conceived in rape, adoption is the better choice than adding a murder to the rape.

wow i have to say that is one hard nut line there friend!!
"the mother not loving the child conceived in rape, adoption is the better choice than adding a murder to the rape."
how would you feel looking at your gf or wife or even sister, mother any female that you know and tell them to carry a child concieved in violent circumstances? a seriously depraved act and you have relegated it to a simple mother not loving a child..wow cold man real cold.
i am a mother and throughout my pregnancy i was happy in love the whole kit and kaboodle ..loved my daughter before she was born...i cant imagine being forced to carry a child to term knowing i was raped to have her and raped again by being forced to carry to term...and on that subject how on earth would that child feel being told that they were the product of rape???

[CorbinKale]

wow i have to say that is one hard nut line there friend!!
"the mother not loving the child conceived in rape, adoption is the better choice than adding a murder to the rape."
how would you feel looking at your gf or wife or even sister, mother any female that you know and tell them to carry a child concieved in violent circumstances? a seriously depraved act and you have relegated it to a simple mother not loving a child..wow cold man real cold.
i am a mother and throughout my pregnancy i was happy in love the whole kit and kaboodle ..loved my daughter before she was born...i cant imagine being forced to carry a child to term knowing i was raped to have her and raped again by being forced to carry to term...and on that subject how on earth would that child feel being told that they were the product of rape???

I don't see how you would have a problem with what I said. You loved your daughter, so you carried her to term. If you were raped, you would not love the child and would not carry the child to term. Killing the child to save it from the embarrassment of being the product of rape is not logical.

However, I see your point. I can't say that I wouldn't opt for abortion if I were raped and impregnated. My emotional state in that situation would probably override my logical thought process. Having conceded your point, it is still a question of killing a child because it is unloved.

[tower-obsession]

I have to say again, that if I were to become pregnant as a result of rape, I would NOT have an abortion. But adding to that, I don't think I would give the baby up for adoption either. I thought about this long and hard after my daughter brought up the subject a few years ago, and I concluded that I would keep the baby and raise it (and love it), because that baby didn't rape me, that baby never did anything to me. All that baby knows how to do is eat, poop, and trust that it will be taken care of. I don't expect anyone to understand my thinking, but that's what I would do.

If I were to decide on an abortion, I wouldn't want to have to sit through a forced ultrasound, be forced to listen to the heartbeat, or sit through some doctor's lecture about it. I don't think I have a right to do that to someone else either. Just because I wouldn't do it, doesn't meant I have the right to judge others for it.

[CorbinKale]

Mr. Kale,
I beg your pardon. However, Your posts, so far, are 'off topic'.
The topic, was should Texas (or any state) require that women listen to fetal heratbeats, and be subjected to a 'lecture' by a doctor before they have an abortion.

Your initial post was fairly broad in scope, addressing many issues with regard to abortion. From that, I gathered the general topic was abortion and what was right or wrong, such as the Texas proposal. I didn't want to go too far down the paternity / child support road, as that could be a whole new thread.

To address the Texas proposal specifically, yes it is right and proper. That is State's business. If the citizens of a State disagree with State legislation, they can campaign to repeal it, or they can move to a different State that more closely matches their philosophy. If this sort of thing was mandated at a national level, I would fight it, as unconstitutional. Because that power was not delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution, it is reserved to the States.

[JohnDalglish]

My emotional state in that situation would probably override my logical thought process.

Hi,

Hmm, so you 'ass-u-me' anyway.

I'm with Tery, I don't see why men have a vote on this subject.

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

Once again, we see where it leads when religion is allowed to dictate law. It's NOT your decision unless you are a woman in a situation where this could be something you might have to think about. Men DO NOT have a say in it. Sorry, no. When they can carry a fetus to term then they can make the decision. Until then, keep it in your pants or STFU. :glare:

My wallet? :oh:

[hossenpepper]

Even the perfect pregnancy is a life and death risk to the mother. Every birth is a potential risk of death for the mother. This is why they get more say. Period. Until it's born, the mother assumes all the health risk.

Even illogical Texans (especially males) can understand that, hopefully. And again, if you aren't experienced with this matter, you should really save your opinions for your little world where it means something. I am expressing my opinion as I am experienced with this both personally and professionally. Unlike some, I don't jaunt to Google to form my opinions about everything.

[cat in a bag]

I am in complete agreement with tower. I became a mom at a young age, 18, and a lot of people were pushing for me to have an abortion. But I knew in my heart that I would never ever be able to look myself in the mirror again if I did that. I chose to go forward, and I took care of him myself until I met and married my husband 8 years later. Did I receive help from my family, both financially and emotionally? Yes, but more emotional than financial. Was it hard? Absolutely, it was the hardest thing I have ever done. But I don't regret it for one second.

And for the record, the father walked away when told of the pregnancy, and I did NOT pursue him for any financial help. The state went after him, and I was against it whole heartedly. The state went after him I did receive assistance from the state, but only while I was attending college, and then I immediately got a job. The only way I could avoid the state from going after him was to go on record as saying I did not know who the father of my child was. I was not going to do that, I already had to find a way to hold my head up and keep going, I was not going to say something like that. So I was awarded the astounding amount of $50 a month. I never took him back to court on my own looking for more, he has never had anything to do with either of us since. That child is now 18 and in college himself.

So, while it would not be a choice I would or could make for myself, I do not hold it against a woman who does choose to, it is her choice. Sitting through an ultrasound and listening to the heartbeat makes an already very tough decision that much harder to make, and it is cruel to do so.

[CorbinKale]

Hi,

Hmm, so you 'ass-u-me' anyway.

I'm with Tery, I don't see why men have a vote on this subject.

Long days and pleasant nights

Because male babies are being murdered, too?

[Connie Reader]

My point is that if abortion is not murder, Petersen would have been convicted of one count of murder and one count of practicing medicine without a license, rather than two murders.

The baby Mrs Peterson was carrying could have survived outside of the womb at that point, therefore, murder in the eyes of the law. In most cases, abortions are performed within the first three months, a time which a fetus CANNOT live without the mother. Call it murder if you wish, but saying that is only an opinion.
Luckily we live in a country where women are able to make a choice about their bodies and until that fetus is capable of life outside the womb, it is part of the mother's body and the decision lies with her. Yes, that isn't fair to men who, for whatever reason, decide they want that baby and the mother does not. Men will never know the toll pregancy takes on the body, physically and mentally, and until they come up with a way for men to have babies, it's just something they have to swallow.
Women fought for centuries to be able to command what happens with our own bodies and this Texas practice is just a way of trying to control women. It's sexist and cruel and it's stinks with religious fanaticism.
As I said before, we have so many children in this country who have no one to love and care for them and to care more about a fetus than a fully formed, thinking, breathing on their own, trying to find their way in this world person is appalling.

[Connie Reader]

I provided a link for easy verification of the law.

It is only fair to give the father the same option for abortion as the mother has. Either that, or allow the unwilling father to legally abdicate all financial responsibility, the same as the mother can with abortion. If either of those policies were made law, I am certain that the incidences of unwanted pregnancies would plummet. It would certainly remove the incentive for that classic fraud.

I use that arguement, not to really advocate for a man's right to abort his child, but to cause an outcry against a man having any control over a woman's body. Once we establish that, it is easy to refute the claims that the man is responsible to keep a woman from getting pregnant, or that he should be legally responsible for her offsring should she choose to not kill them. If all choice belongs solely to the woman, so does all the responsibility.

But that is getting off topic. If the difference between murder and legal abortion lies solely in the opinion of the killers, how can that be good law? It certainly isn't applied equally with regard to the parents. In fact, a good case could be made for gender discrimination.


Saying such a statement as "...lies soley in the opinion of the killers" is asinine and inflammatory. Shame on you.

When a man can truly share the burden of pregnancy then he can have an equal say in what happens.

Native Americans used different herbs to bring on a miscarriage if the timing of the pregnancy wasn't right (too close to winter or they didn't store enough food or if a sickness was in the camp. You can search history books from all different countries and read about the ways women controlled when they brought a child into this world. The Victorian era ushered in a new age of sexism and these practices were kept under wraps, but they didn't die out.

Every situation is different....but the option for choices should be (and thank goodness it is in this and most countries) the same. I'm grateful for intelligent and like-minded people who stand up for women's rights.

[JohnDalglish]

Because male babies are being murdered, too?

Hi,

Kinda inflammatory language there, don'tcha thinkl?

Did you enjoy Insomnia?

Long days and pleasant nights

[LongTallSally]

I've just skimmed through this thread.

Couldn't a forced medical procedure be classed as ASSAULT against the woman wanting the abortion??? Feels that way to me, anyways.

[Sigmund]

"Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little."
-Samuel Johnson

Twas was ever thus.

[CorbinKale]

The baby Mrs Peterson was carrying could have survived outside of the womb at that point, therefore, murder in the eyes of the law. In most cases, abortions are performed within the first three months, a time which a fetus CANNOT live without the mother. Call it murder if you wish, but saying that is only an opinion.
Luckily we live in a country where women are able to make a choice about their bodies and until that fetus is capable of life outside the womb, it is part of the mother's body and the decision lies with her. Yes, that isn't fair to men who, for whatever reason, decide they want that baby and the mother does not. Men will never know the toll pregancy takes on the body, physically and mentally, and until they come up with a way for men to have babies, it's just something they have to swallow.
Women fought for centuries to be able to command what happens with our own bodies and this Texas practice is just a way of trying to control women. It's sexist and cruel and it's stinks with religious fanaticism.
As I said before, we have so many children in this country who have no one to love and care for them and to care more about a fetus than a fully formed, thinking, breathing on their own, trying to find their way in this world person is appalling.

I think the whole issue is appalling. A child can't live after birth unless it is fed, cleaned and cared for. Is the fact that it can't survive on its own justification for letting it starve or freeze to death? I don't believe that.

[CorbinKale]

Hi,

Kinda inflammatory language there, don'tcha thinkl?

Did you enjoy Insomnia?

Long days and pleasant nights

Inflammatory language from me?:eek2: Surely not!

Insomnia was ok. Worth one read, but I thought the movie was better.

[CorbinKale]

Even the perfect pregnancy is a life and death risk to the mother. Every birth is a potential risk of death for the mother. This is why they get more say. Period. Until it's born, the mother assumes all the health risk.

Even illogical Texans (especially males) can understand that, hopefully. And again, if you aren't experienced with this matter, you should really save your opinions for your little world where it means something. I am expressing my opinion as I am experienced with this both personally and professionally. Unlike some, I don't jaunt to Google to form my opinions about everything.

We appreciate your personal and professional opinions.

[CorbinKale]

I've just skimmed through this thread.

Couldn't a forced medical procedure be classed as ASSAULT against the woman wanting the abortion??? Feels that way to me, anyways.

"Doc, I want you to suck the brain out of my child, but if I hear one heartbeat, I am suing you for assault!" That would be an interesting legal case.

[GLewman]

I think the whole issue is appalling. A child can't live after birth unless it is fed, cleaned and cared for. Is the fact that it can't survive on its own justification for letting it starve or freeze to death? I don't believe that.

China thinks this a perfectly acceptable way to promote "women's health" and birth control. But our way is less barbaric, so I'm sure the pro-choice folks can sleep well at night?

[Moderator]

Whether you like it or not, choice is what is guaranteed to women by the US Supreme Court. If someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to have one but at least those who do make that choice have the right to one performed by a trained medical professional and it is up to their conscience as to whether or not it was the right decision.

[LongTallSally]

"Doc, I want you to suck the brain out of my child, but if I hear one heartbeat, I am suing you for assault!" That would be an interesting legal case.

I, for one, am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. If I was accidentally knocked up, there is no way in hell I would let that fetus live. It would be my life or its life, and I already have the fight of my life on my hands at the moment.

It's the forced medical procedure that I am against.

So darling Corbin, I take it you might not be against experimentation on women by your views. It's just how I feel. Try not to get your right wing jockeys in a knot over it.

It's bad enough a woman has to suffer a pregnancy that she does not want until she can find the doctor to terminate it. Don't abuse her any worse. Women are not here on this planet to breed just for the sake of breeding. Every child should be WANTED.

(Ms. Mod, if I am over the line, feel free to hit the magic delete button...)

[vickita]

Perhaps they'll start using the scarlet letter again too. There again, maybe it's just being publicized to appease the opposition.

[Becks19]

Actually, Texas refuses to act like it is an easy flip decision, as opposed to the states that DO treat it as an easy flip decision.

Corbin, Although I would personally never have an abortion. I defend the right for a woman to choose to have one. I do not agree with putting a woman through more emotional hell than she is already going through, by requiring them to listen to the fetal heartbeat. I find it unnecessarily cruel, in an already difficult situation.

[Suzana]

I have to say again, that if I were to become pregnant as a result of rape, I would NOT have an abortion. But adding to that, I don't think I would give the baby up for adoption either. I thought about this long and hard after my daughter brought up the subject a few years ago, and I concluded that I would keep the baby and raise it (and love it), because that baby didn't rape me, that baby never did anything to me. All that baby knows how to do is eat, poop, and trust that it will be taken care of. I don't expect anyone to understand my thinking, but that's what I would do.

If I were to decide on an abortion, I wouldn't want to have to sit through a forced ultrasound, be forced to listen to the heartbeat, or sit through some doctor's lecture about it. I don't think I have a right to do that to someone else either. Just because I wouldn't do it, doesn't meant I have the right to judge others for it.

100% agreed.

[hossenpepper]

We appreciate your personal and professional opinions.

Speak for yourself. It doesn't look to me like anyone else on this thread would want you speaking for them with these "fresh from the dark ages" opinions and attitude. You are pretty much on your on with your self perceived lesson of moral turpitude.

I have to applaud your arrogance, though. The high level of it is amazing. You know what everyone has done, thinks and also what it's like to be a woman carrying a child. And pontificate bloated balls of tripe to illustrate it.

Me personally, I would have given up or perhaps recounted my stance after the first 3 or 4 people told me how utterly disgusting my opinions are. But hey "don't mess with Texas" right?

:rofl: What a joke.

[hossenpepper]

Besides, wouldn't this fall under a government body telling someone what to do about their health care decisions by forcing this? I thought the neocon nuts were against that.

Who has to pay for this extra procedure and the training to do it proeprly? Taxes? Hell no!!!! That is the most immoral thing of all!!

[JayneH]

If it upsets the 'pro-death' community, it must be a good thing.

I am not pro death ... I am pro choice ... about what I wish to do with my own body. If I choose to abort a fetus then that is MY choice and no one elses .. not yours and especially not some politician who does not know me.

I really do take offence to your using the terms "women who want to kill" and "pro death"

In respect to your comments
A woman currently can make a man have a baby and pay for it for decades. That is NOT equality under the law. totally agree ... if a woman decides to have a child without the agreement of the sperm donor - then why should he have to pay for it for decades.
If a woman cannot afford to have a child and raise it herself ... then there are decisions to be made ... adopt, abort or find another way of getting the money required.

[Ayla]

I'm a firm believer that it is the womans choice as to whether or not to abort a pregnancy. I do however class myself as Anti Abortion. that being said, i do not hold anything against or blame women who have chosen to have one. What i am opposed to is the lack of options for women and parents who find themselves in situations where abortion is the only way out. If you want to fight abortion, stop attacking these poor women and the doctors trying to help them and start crusading the government. Better education is needed within schools, financial and emotional support is needed for married women who already have 4 kids and cant see a way to having the 5th. Better access to adoption services is needed right across the board. Support for fathers willing to take the baby, support for victims of rape etc etc. For gods sake people, stop fighting for a word where abortion is illegal and start fighting for a world where its unnecessary!!

To answer the original question, as cruel as it may seem, i dont have all that much against a woman having to listen to the heartbeat of the foetus. This is because not only do i believe in choice, i believe in an informed choice. All the women who choose to have an abortion know exactly what they would be giving up if they were to have the baby, but many of them dont understand what they give up when choosing to abort. This understanding can come much later on and can have a devastating effect to many women, long after their access to post abortion councilling is available. By forcing women to face what they are doing at the time, i think they can begin the process of healing that much faster. Whilst it may seem very very cruel, i think for many, in the long run, facing up to it at the beginning when more support is available to them is better then having that realisation 5 years or 10 years down the track when, potentially, after having spent so much time keeping the secret, there is NO ONE to help them. or at least, no one they feel they can turn too.

I am aware that i support something for a completely different reason then that of the politicians who raised it. and i do kinda hate myself a little...

[Sundrop]

Can a man force a woman to have a baby or have an abortion? A woman currently can make a man have a baby and pay for it for decades. That is NOT equality under the law. Are we truly equal, or do women hold superiority over men? What about the life of the child? Is that just a negotiable abstract to be manipulated for monetary gain?


Currently, a woman can give birth to a child a man does not want, and extort money from him for decades. He doesn't even have to be the biological father, though some states are taking steps to address this type of legalized fraud.

On the other hand, if a woman is pregnant with a child that the father wants, she has the right to kill his child, and he has no recourse. Legally, women are superior to men, in this instance.

Unless things have changed since I had sex ed in high school, a man cannot have a baby, whether someone wants to force him to or not....men do not have a uterus, and therefore, cannot carry a baby nor give birth. Therefore, no one can force a man to have a baby.

So are you saying that because you are a man, it would be just fine for you to have unprotected sex with a woman, make a child with her, and blame her for wanting to have the child...and say she is forcing you to pay for decades when you are asked to share the financial responsibility for raising the child?..... What if you rape a woman, conceive a child, and she decides to give birth?....legally you are still financially responsible.... Are you going to cry "foul"?



Actually, Texas refuses to act like it is an easy flip decision, as opposed to the states that DO treat it as an easy flip decision.


My wallet? :oh:

Who has the flippant attitude, now?...... Seriously?....after all your screeching, you're actually going to answer a sensible comment to keep it in your pants in this manner?

Sir, I believe your arrogant ignorance is beginning to show.
A woman cannot conceive an unwanted child without the participation of a man, after all.

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

Hear, hear, Sunny.

Long days and pleasant nights

[hossenpepper]

To answer the original question, as cruel as it may seem, i dont have all that much against a woman having to listen to the heartbeat of the foetus. This is because not only do i believe in choice, i believe in an informed choice. All the women who choose to have an abortion know exactly what they would be giving up if they were to have the baby, but many of them dont understand what they give up when choosing to abort.

I hear what you are saying here, but I would ask exactly what is this infroming the woman of that she doesn't already know? This is simply an attempt to use guilt to force a political agenda. I don't understand how this would make the decision clearer in any way. This also assumes that this was a snap decision, which my bet would be is less than 0.01% of cases.

Additionally, this is also using government regulation to force a medical requirement or procedure and a ideological agenda at the same time. It seems regulations are OK with the right wing when it's their agenda that is being forced by said regulation. But it's a STATE regulation, so that makes it OK. Equal protection is most definitely ensured by wildly different local requirements and regulations.... fancy!!

Another height of hypocrisy from the right. And just when I thought they were slipping. Way to go!

[Connie Reader]

I think the whole issue is appalling. A child can't live after birth unless it is fed, cleaned and cared for. Is the fact that it can't survive on its own justification for letting it starve or freeze to death? I don't believe that.

I'll clarify what I meant for you, even though I know you understand what I was getting at. I can see from all your comments that your brain lives in the dark ages, so maybe you really don't get it.
The reason that Mrs Petersons baby was considered one count of murder is because if that baby had been born right then, he or she would have been able to sustain it's own life (breath on it's own) outside of Mrs Peterson. An 8 week or 12 week fetus cannot. Do ya kennit?

I'm so done with this and arguing against someone who tries to be purposely ignorant and Mr Kale's completely backwards attitude towards women who have the right to make a choice about their own body. Until it can survive outside of the womb, that fetus is part and parcel of the woman's body and women have a choice whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Controlling what a woman does with her body is sexist and we have fought for CENTURIES to be able to take back control of our own bodies. I realize that other people's beliefs differ from my own and I accept that. If you are against abortions, don't have one. But don't presume to take that choice away from someone else. My mother is a devout catholic and she is anti abortion but is smart enough to know that it's wrong to force her beliefs on another person.

[Sigmund]

I'm a firm believer that it is the womans choice as to whether or not to abort a pregnancy. I do however class myself as Anti Abortion. that being said, i do not hold anything against or blame women who have chosen to have one. What i am opposed to is the lack of options for women and parents who find themselves in situations where abortion is the only way out. If you want to fight abortion, stop attacking these poor women and the doctors trying to help them and start crusading the government. Better education is needed within schools, financial and emotional support is needed for married women who already have 4 kids and cant see a way to having the 5th. Better access to adoption services is needed right across the board. Support for fathers willing to take the baby, support for victims of rape etc etc. For gods sake people, stop fighting for a word where abortion is illegal and start fighting for a world where its unnecessary!!

To answer the original question, as cruel as it may seem, i dont have all that much against a woman having to listen to the heartbeat of the foetus. This is because not only do i believe in choice, i believe in an informed choice. All the women who choose to have an abortion know exactly what they would be giving up if they were to have the baby, but many of them dont understand what they give up when choosing to abort. This understanding can come much later on and can have a devastating effect to many women, long after their access to post abortion councilling is available. By forcing women to face what they are doing at the time, i think they can begin the process of healing that much faster. Whilst it may seem very very cruel, i think for many, in the long run, facing up to it at the beginning when more support is available to them is better then having that realisation 5 years or 10 years down the track when, potentially, after having spent so much time keeping the secret, there is NO ONE to help them. or at least, no one they feel they can turn too.

I am aware that i support something for a completely different reason then that of the politicians who raised it. and i do kinda hate myself a little...

Hi! I understand your point of view.
I believe a woman struggles mightlily making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. I don't think the choice is made lightly. I think she imagines and considers all her choices and tries to imagine every possible avenue, every possible way to handle the situation the best way. I believe that she most likely has educated herself and resources. And finally decides to terminate.
You are correct that being forced to listen to the heart beat might change her mind. And when she is past the time when she can have an abortion, or five minutes after she has given birth, or one to eighteen years later and she cannot support, manage the child and/or her life she will realize that her original decision to terminate was the correct decision for her afterall. But, while she was in a vulnerable position, she was taken advantage of being forced to hear the heartbeat, the lecture, and changed her mind.
Where are all those people who 'informed' her when she is alone, struggling, the baby won't stop crying, the tweenie is rebeling, the teenager is acting out?
I have seen way too many child abuse cases and heard about too many infants, babies, being battered for months, years, before finally being beat to death. And why?
Why? Because abortion is 'wrong', 'murder' and the woman is judged or 'informed' about the termination. So pressured to keep a preganancy she didn't want?
I don't understand that. And I find it unacceptable and unneccesary.

[guido tkp]

a religious nut is a religious nut...i don't care if they are christian, muslim or buddhist...
your thoughts and interpretations are yours and yours alone...
congress (and that means any and every gov't body) shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion...or prevent the free excercise thereof...
insipid laws and cretinous arguments like these do exactly that on both counts: pro choice simply means the individual involved gets to make thier own choice, not what the gov't will allow them to do...

[CorbinKale]

Speak for yourself. It doesn't look to me like anyone else on this thread would want you speaking for them with these "fresh from the dark ages" opinions and attitude. You are pretty much on your on with your self perceived lesson of moral turpitude.

I have to applaud your arrogance, though. The high level of it is amazing. You know what everyone has done, thinks and also what it's like to be a woman carrying a child. And pontificate bloated balls of tripe to illustrate it.

Me personally, I would have given up or perhaps recounted my stance after the first 3 or 4 people told me how utterly disgusting my opinions are. But hey "don't mess with Texas" right?

:rofl: What a joke.

Thanks for the review. Try to stay focused on me, though. Your inability to withstand peer pressure is not relevant.

[CorbinKale]

Besides, wouldn't this fall under a government body telling someone what to do about their health care decisions by forcing this? I thought the neocon nuts were against that.

Who has to pay for this extra procedure and the training to do it proeprly? Taxes? Hell no!!!! That is the most immoral thing of all!!

I wouldn't know about neocon nuts. Legislation of this type is perfectly legitimate for individual States, as was Romneycare. It would be unconstitutional for this to be done on the Federal level, though, as was Obamacare.

Don't get flustered. Obstetrics personnel are already trained to hear the infant's heartbeat. Not a lot of extra training involved in turning up the volume for the mother to hear, too.

[Ayla]

to clarify...i dont think listening to the heartbeat will change many minds. What i believe is that listening to the heartbeat will force women to confront exactly what it is thay are terminating at the time they terminate. And i'm not talking about the physical termination because all women know what that is, i'm talking about the termination of the potential of a son or daughter. And i dont think many women know this. especialy younger ones.

Like most people my views are coloured by my own experiences in the world. in this case by a good friend who terminated a pregnancy at 20. at around 26, when thoughts ofstarting a family entered her head and the wanting of a child, she was overcome with guilt at what she had done years ago. She wound up very depressed and it almost cost her her marriage. She and i have spoken about it on occasion and she told me that when she terminated, 'it wasn't real'. she had felt no physical connection with the foetus. she had no sickness associated with it etc so all her pregnancy was to her was a blue line on a stick and whilst she went through through the moral and ethical pros and cons of terminating, they were more philosophical then reality based. I do think she still would have terminated the pregnancy had she heard the heartbeat. but i think making that pregnancy REAL for her, rather then the abstract it was, would have made her confront a lot of the feelings that needed confronting much earlier on.

And i believe i was quite clear that for those women and families who are considering abortion and instead choose to maintain the pregnancy, more financial and emotional support is needed. if i have to make a call right now...then i would say NO to hearing the heartbeat berfore terminating the pregancy if that support isn't there, and YES if it is.

[Tery]

This is what happens when women (or children) don't have a safety net:

13-yr-old self aborts with a pencil (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poconorecord.c om%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D%2F20100607 %2FNEWS%2F100609870)

The girl was raped. This is the direct consequence of anti-choice zealots: taking away what dignity, respect, and alternatives left were left to a 13 year old who is being controlled, manipulated, and raped by someone more than twice her age. Way to go "pro-lifers", what an awesome accomplishment: empowering rapists like Michael Lisk over 13 year old girls, leading her to desperately jab herself with a pencil.



While I'm here.... some facts concerning abortion and the impact of its legality/availability:

• The United States continues to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world—more than twice as in Canada (27.9 per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2006) or Sweden (31.4 per 1,000).
• Every year, roughly nine million new STIs occur among teens and young adults in the United States. Compared with rates among teens in Canada and Western Europe, rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia among U.S. teens are extremely high.
•In 2006–2008, most teens aged 15–19 had received formal instruction about STIs (93%), HIV (89%) or abstinence (84%). However, about one-third of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception; males were even less likely to receive this instruction than females (62% vs. 70%).
• Many sexually experienced teens (46% of males and 33% of females) did not receive formal instruction about contraception before they first had sex.
• About one in four adolescents (23% of females and 28% of males) received abstinence education without receiving any instruction about birth control in 2006–2008, compared with 8–9% in 1995.
• Among teens aged 18–19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms and 75% say they know little or nothing about the contraceptive pill.


A study by Kaiser found that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.


The study indicated that about 20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal.


The study also found that in Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 abortions per 1,000 women in 2003. The rate in the U.S. was 21 per 1,000 women in 2003, and in Western Europe, where abortion is legal and contraception is widely available, the abortion rate was 12 per 1,000 women (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kaisernetwork. org%2Fdaily_reports%2Frep_index.cfm%3FDR_ID%3D4814 2).

[hossenpepper]

Thanks TERY for some hard facts that are pretty much undeniable.

Being a parent, one thing has kept my daughters (We have two teenage girls: 13 & 17) on the straight and narrow: we talk to them about it. Kids just can't be turned loose without understanding the gravity of their actions, especially when it comes to sex. Moral turpitude is the worst deterrent there is. The town in Oklahoma where I lived until 12 years old had 64 churches in it. For a population of 5500. The town 30 miles away where I graduated High School had a population of 7000 and had at one point 58 churches in it. 3 years or so after I graduated I read a national story (I was living in Ft Lauderdale at the time) that ranked the highest per capita teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. and the town where I graduated HS was #1!! They actually built a day care in the school. And surprise surprise... no reproductive education of any kind. They have since implemented mandatory sex ed and the rates have dropped to 10% of what they were.

Now the south is filled with religious zealotry, but Oklahoma is the BUCKLE of the BIBLE BELT. If religion was going to work as a deterrent, I think the constant shoving of religious moral purity down your throat would have caught on there. However, this example, plus many more from the good old Sooner state (I do love my Sooner football though), seem to prove that just doesn't work. Sure there are a few, but as a blanket solution, it fails miserably.

I am sure that real world experience pale in comparison to a contradictory website, blog or pundit pontification, but I will go with the reality of the situation and know that my daughters are still both sex free, self respecting women that understand they are worth more than a quick lay in the back of a car or something. You see, I happen to believe that treating girls like they matter and respecting women makes them value themselves more and as such, typically avoid these types of things. But, regardless of the angle on this subject, in the end it's really about respecting women and their sacrifice when it comes to propagating our race.

[PatInTheHat]

Now the south is filled with religious zealotry, but Oklahoma[FONT=Tahoma] is the BUCKLE of the BIBLE BELT. If religion was going to work as a deterrent, I think the constant shoving of religious moral purity down your throat would have caught on there.

Makes me rather curious as to what the live birth adoption rates are for those bible belt (and buckle) areas, that are saturated with that very serious anti-abortion opposition.
I'd think it would and should, be freakin' astronomical in comparison to other parts of the country, you know, where most of us hell bound heathens, heretics, and your more plain garden variety of filthy fornicators can be found:eyebrow:.

[CorbinKale]

Listening to Heartbeats can be enjoyable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcv3v6XfEvM

[Sigmund]

Well, it's happening. Monday March 7, 2011 the Texas House has passed the bill that will require the woman to submit to a sonogram and listen to the fetal heartbeat of the pregnancy she seeks to terminate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20040146-503544.htmlhttp://feeds.cbsnews.com/~r/CBSNewsHorserace/~3/xKWfaYECO7Y/8301-503544_162-20040146-503544.html


The state Senate version of the sonogram bill would grant exemptions for victims of rape or incest. The state House, however, where Republicans hold a two-thirds majority, did not include such an exemption in its version. The state Senate version of the sonogram bill would grant exemptions for victims of rape or incest. The state House, however, where Republicans hold a two-thirds majority, did not include such an exemption in its version

But, hey, they aren't totally callous.

a woman would not be penalized for looking away from the image of the fetus, or wearing headphones to avoid hearing a heartbeat

You have to appreciate their thoughftulness!

Oh, in addition, the law will also include

Under the legislation, doctors who failed to provide a sonogram before performing an abortion would lose their medical license.

That's really grand! Doctors who are willing to providing this service, who risk their lives from fanatics who are willing and have murdered abortion physicians, will now be at risk to losing their medical license.

What the heck?

[cat in a bag]

Just an update from Wyoming, as well.


http://www.kgwn.tv/Global/story.asp?S=14144869

[JohnDalglish]

What the heck?

Hi,

Indeed, thankee for posting that, Siggy.

What percentage of the legislators were male, I wonder?

Shameful IMO, Texas takes another step into the nineteenth century!

Long days and pleasant nights

[Becks19]

The state Senate version of the sonogram bill would grant exemptions for victims of rape or incest. The state House, however, where Republicans hold a two-thirds majority, did not include such an exemption in its version

This whole legislation stinks....but this takes the cake in hardhearted callousness and maliciousness! How would these same legislators feel if it was their Mother or Sister who had been raped etc and were then forced to endure a sonogram....Somehow, I think they would be exempt.

[CorbinKale]

Hi,

Indeed, thankee for posting that, Siggy.

What percentage of the legislators were male, I wonder?

Shameful IMO, Texas takes another step into the nineteenth century!

Long days and pleasant nights

We are going to regress through the nineteenth, straight into the eighteenth. Progressives should flee north while there is still time.

[JohnDalglish]

We are going to regress through the nineteenth, straight into the eighteenth. Progressives should flee north while there is still time.

Hi,

Remember, you heard it here first!

Long days and plesasant nights

[Moderator]

We are going to regress through the nineteenth, straight into the eighteenth.


Really? Does that mean you'll also be giving up all your guns and ammunition that have been invented since then?

[JellybeanJay]

I just can't wrap my head around this one, its cruel and unusual punishment.

[Moderator]

It's just another step in the ongoing conservative measures to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that allow women the right to make choices about their reproductive rights and impose their (conservative) values upon all women. They can't do away with abortion rights as the law stands but their plan is to chip away at it to the point that it makes it more and more difficult for women to have one.

[CorbinKale]

Really? Does that mean you'll also be giving up all your guns and ammunition that have been invented since then?

Of course. As soon as you send someone (armed?) to collect them. The problem for the collectors will be what to do with all of the ammunition we insist they take first. MOLON LABE. :)

[Moderator]

Why would you need someone to forcibly collect it if you're apparently voluntarily willing to regress to the 18th century--ah, yes, silly me, I guess that's only the 18th century as long as it applies to women?

[PatInTheHat]

It's just another step in the ongoing conservative measures to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that allow women the right to make choices about their reproductive rights and impose their (conservative) values upon all women. They can't do away with abortion rights as the law stands but their plan is to chip away at it to the point that it makes it more and more difficult for women to have one.

Well, unless your wealthy enough to be able to afford it cash money out of pocket....or of course have a nice stiff coat hanger, or are willing to throw yourself down a steep flight of steps, just like them good ol' days o' yore:glare:.

[JohnDalglish]

Of course. As soon as you send someone (armed?) to collect them. The problem for the collectors will be what to do with all of the ammunition we insist they take first. MOLON LABE. :)

Hi,

I imagine that presents few problems to someone armed with, say, neutron bombs, and I have reason to believe that the US owns a LOT of weaponry, even your poilice (National Guard) have jets!

Long days and pleasant nights

[CorbinKale]

It's just another step in the ongoing conservative measures to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that allow women the right to make choices about their reproductive rights and impose their (conservative) values upon all women. They can't do away with abortion rights as the law stands but their plan is to chip away at it to the point that it makes it more and more difficult for women to have one.

That is true.

I only seek clarity in the law. Murder needs to be defined, clearly. Currently, there is MUCH to be clarified. Right now, the gender of the parent killing the child, and how well-developed the child is and whether the parent wants the child dead, is what determines whether it is murder, or merely choice.

That is terrible and conflicting law.

[CorbinKale]

Why would you need someone to forcibly collect it if you're apparently voluntarily willing to regress to the 18th century--ah, yes, silly me, I guess that's only the 18th century as long as it applies to women?

:laugh: I think we have shown what happens, throughout our history, when outside forces come to collect our arms.

No, I would not choose to trade one inequality for another. Once, women were mistreated and viewed as property under law. That is not much different from how some women view their progeny today.

[CorbinKale]

Hi,

I imagine that presents few problems to someone armed with, say, neutron bombs, and I have reason to believe that the US owns a LOT of weaponry, even your poilice (National Guard) have jets!

Long days and pleasant nights

Sometimes, governments assault their own citizens, as our Founders were well aware. The situation you point out is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was enshrined into the Constitution. The armed citizenry was to have uninfringed access to the same arms as the tyrants they would eventually have to defend against.

Politicians always tout hunting and home defense as reasons for the 2nd Amendment, but the Founders were very clear on that subject. It was meant as the final defense against tyranny.

Also, our ALL volunteer military is made up of the people, sworn to support and defend the Constitution and obey only lawful orders. Like in Egypt, I expect our armed forces to side with the people if such arms confiscations orders are issued again, as they were during Katrina. We KNOW that such orders are likely to be given again, and we are prepared to refuse those orders.

[Moderator]

That is true.

I only seek clarity in the law. Murder needs to be defined, clearly. Currently, there is MUCH to be clarified. Right now, the gender of the parent killing the child, and how well-developed the child is and whether the parent wants the child dead, is what determines whether it is murder, or merely choice.

That is terrible and conflicting law.

As much as I believe it should be a choice that a woman makes and no one else's, I don't personally believe in abortions beyond the first trimester unless it is for reasons of danger to the health of the mother or to deliver a fetus that has died (that procedure is still termed a medical abortion). In this day and age, pregnancy can be detected at a very early stage, long before a fetus is viable. For me, it's about when does human life begin, not just the potential for human life, but an actual human life that would survive birth. I would probably agree with you that a third trimester abortion is murdering a child and should only be allowed if carrying to term or delivering prematurely was not a medical option. But that's my view and I would fight tooth and nail for another woman to have the right to make her own choices and live with the consequences. And I feel that strongly even though I'm a mother, have lost a child, and might not even be here had abortion been legal when my mother became pregnant with me. You've expounded frequently on freedom and anything that would infringe it and IMO that's also what this is about--the freedom of a woman to make a choice about her body and deal with the choices as she sees fit.

[CorbinKale]

As much as I believe it should be a choice that a woman makes and no one else's, I don't personally believe in abortions beyond the first trimester unless it is for reasons of danger to the health of the mother or to deliver a fetus that has died (that procedure is still termed a medical abortion). In this day and age, pregnancy can be detected at a very early stage, long before a fetus is viable. For me, it's about when does human life begin, not just the potential for human life, but an actual human life that would survive birth. I would probably agree with you that a third trimester abortion is murdering a child and should only be allowed if carrying to term or delivering prematurely was not a medical option. But that's my view and I would fight tooth and nail for another woman to have the right to make her own choices and live with the consequences. And I feel that strongly even though I'm a mother, have lost a child, and might not even be here had abortion been legal when my mother became pregnant with me. You've expounded frequently on freedom and anything that would infringe it and IMO that's also what this is about--the freedom of a woman to make a choice about her body and deal with the choices as she sees fit.

I am happy that you weren't aborted. The world is a better place because you are in it, Marsha.

[Moderator]

Thank you. I also believe that my, and everyone's for that matter, soul transcends the physical body and that I would have been here even if she had--but with a different parent--if it was meant for me to be here in this time and place. Which apparently it is, because here I am. :smile2:

[hossenpepper]

For me, it's about when does human life begin, not just the potential for human life, but an actual human life that would survive birth.

But MM, you must remember this is the ideology you are up against here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

[Tery]

Disgusting.

[fromTull]

Selfish insensitive sick bastards. This is no one's business save the mother's, who happens to be a patient so keep your pov out of her doctor's office. If this twisted measure slinks by then they should also be forced to pay for the therapy these poor woman will need after their meddling in their private business. And I will suggest a new proposal: That we should contact the mothers of everyone involved in coming up with this gross and inhumane idea, so that we might suggest time travel and retro abortions to them.

[CorbinKale]

Selfish insensitive sick bastards. This is no one's business save the mother's, who happens to be a patient so keep your pov out of her doctor's office. If this twisted measure slinks by then they should also be forced to pay for the therapy these poor woman will need after their meddling in their private business. And I will suggest a new proposal: That we should contact the mothers of everyone involved in coming up with this gross and inhumane idea, so that we might suggest time travel and retro abortions to them.

"Death to all who oppose us!" Classic.

[Moderator]

I'll be surprised if this legislation isn't challenged in the courts because of the requirement for a medical procedure. Seems to me the only ones who are going to benefit on this are the ones who get paid for the procedure.

[CorbinKale]

I'll be surprised if this legislation isn't challenged in the courts because of the requirement for a medical procedure. Seems to me the only ones who are going to benefit on this are the ones who get paid for the procedure.

As I said, it will be an interesting case. The argument that one can go into a clinic to undergo a medical procedure, then sue because of hearing a heartbeat, is one that has not been tried, yet. Make no mistake, lawyers are going to profit from this, too.

I came up with a progressive billboard idea: "ABORTION. Do it for the children." I think it'll be effective.

[Moderator]

I think more effective would be all Texas women refusing to have sex with men since we all know that abstinence is the only 100% effective birth control.

[Tery]

Now, here is where the anti-choice crowd wants to go....

http://news.change.org/stories/pregnant-iowa-woman-arrested-for-falling-down

and more:

http://news.change.org/stories/doctor-gets-court-order-to-confine-pregnant-woman-against-her-will

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11049/1126272-455.stm


This is about control. Small government my behind :glare:

I republished my article on the history of abortion today in light of these rights violations.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/14/956223/-A-Brief-History-of-Abortion

[JohnDalglish]

I think more effective would be all Texas women refusing to have sex with men since we all know that abstinence is the only 100% effective birth control.

Hi,

Umm.

'Plus ca change plus ca meme chose'
(The more everything changes the more it remains the same')

Lysistrata

The Trojan Women

Long days and pleasant nights

[GLewman]

I think more effective would be all Texas women refusing to have sex with men since we all know that abstinence is the only 100% effective birth control.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[Moderator]

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

See? It's working already! :biggrin2:

[fromTull]

"Death to all who oppose us!" Classic.

Well you have to do SOMETHING with nosy folks who think they've bought an opinion in an innocent woman's life. JOKE!! If a retro abortion was possible though, I'm sure you would call it retro death and a waste of retro potential. As it stands however, you just used the word DEATH on me ONE time! Impressive. To some extremists (oh, not pro choice folks) the word "death" is tossed around so often. Always falling out of their always flapping mouth. What you gonna do about haters?!! It's a scary world, no? Terrorists abroad and terrorists picketing Dr.'s offices. Terrorists in legislature. Representing "life" when "death" comes out of their mouth so much easier and with more frequency. No one's out to get pro lifers, and when you say "oppose us" it implies we are in a war (you know DEATH is a part of war I heard). That creeps me out how easily death, war, and murderous implications fall out of the hardcore ones. Going by your screen name (correct me if I'm wrong), I assume you're a guy too so lets both go find something to do that concerns us and get out of other's business. I overstepped my bounds with my initial post and am now wishing I never posted in this thread. Please don't send a REAPER for me. Ah . . .our familiars.

[bugaboosy]

this is an incredibly interesting thread to read and keep up with.
i have just had a thought about it whilst reading the last couple of pages ...... if these insensitive 'professionals' and trust me with what they are proposing i use the term professional loosely, follow on with what they want to do, what do they propose to do to the dead beat dads and the walking sperm donor males who seem to run around impregnating everyone they can? or is this acceptable and its only the womans fault pregnancy happens? and only her responsibility?
from my sex education i do believe it takes two to make a baby so to put this on only the women is what i would call sexist.

[PatInTheHat]

I think more effective would be all Texas women refusing to have sex with men since we all know that abstinence is the only 100% effective birth control.

Hey that reminds me, in less then two days, and for just a 24 hour window each and every year (in Texas or Kentucky...hmm, or Vermont, Iowa, Utah....), I most definitely may be referred to as Patty, or Paddy if that's a cultural preference of some kind, it certainly makes no never mind to me:rolleyes:.
I hope this causes confusion:oo:...uhh, I mean confection, yeah that's it, it is a holiday after all, and just who doesn't love some sugar on a holiday:love:.

[lovely1]

Women should always have a choice on what happens to their bodies and their lives, no government, religion or men should legislate this. It is a very personal decision left up to the individual. Listening to the heart beat won't change a woman's mind if it is already made up and she sees that her decision is in her best interest and her family's best interest.

What should be done is creating better financial, care and emotional support systems in society for women to have their children if they choose this, but since this privilege is a long long way into the distant future choice is all we women have whether to have or not to have a baby. And sex is not a sin it can be a wonderful thing between two consenting adults. Accidents happen in life no matter how careful we are. That's life.

Women have a womb and men don't therefore that gives us a very great power to decide to bring life into the world or not to bring life into this world. I am proud to be a woman and have the power to choose the quality of my life and the lives of those around me we women bear an awesome burden, a blessing and responsibility.

[Lily Sawyer]

Wow. Maybe the people who abuse toddlers and children of other ages should be outfitted with stethoscopes so that they, too, can listen to the sound of the child's heartbeat before they beat the holy hell out of it.

[hossenpepper]

I HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS ENTIRE ABORTION DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Allow science to solve this problem. Lets operate on a few assumptions here. First, if a baby is "unwanted" there are surely a lot of parents to be that either can't or don't want to reproduce themselves tah twould gladly take a new healthy american baby. Second, that there will be women who want to terminate a pregnancy that will allow this to happen.

So very simple: make an artificial womb that grows in a lab. Remove the baby from the highly immoral mother that doesn't want it and put it in the artificial womb. Grow the baby to term and adopt it out. Hell think of the jobs!!

I would call it the "Brave New World Adoption Agency"

But the necons will have to drop a few fights first: stem cell research, cloning and underfunding scientific pursuits of things that aren't based on a profitable product or killing machine of some type. And yeah, this would require tax funding. But wouldn't you gladly trade a few bucks to save the lives of those fetuses? Or is money more important than life?

With dedication to this project and unlimited funding to make it happen, it shouldn't take long at all to perfect this process. Plus, think of the multitude of other discoveries that will come of this too! Many diseases, paralysis, organ failure, and more all eliminated! Think of the fine care we could give our proud veterans wounded in combat! Maybe regrow limbs, damaged portions of organs, etc. the possibilities are mind blowing. And the abortion debate goes away.

Volley your direction neocons. Though I expect sycophantic rhetoric in response...

[guido tkp]

i believe, at the present moment, a fertilized egg can be removed and stored/transfered...if so, maybe all the prolifers should use all their time, energy & money to offer this up as an option (with them paying the entire costs out of pocket, of course) to clinics and patients, as opposed to creating all these unconstitutional, treasonous laws forcing their religious beliefs upon others

thanks, tery, so very much for the series of very enlightening articles.

we've been hearing glew, corby and every right wing nut job bleat on endlessly about the progressives...the (d)'s.... the liberals...but it seems more than clear that the only slippery slope to big govt telling us what we can or cannot do is coming solely and only from the right wing & conservatives

[randallFlaggfan1]

Seeing as how I am 110% against abortion, I really don't think this is too terribly bad. Why? Because what if the woman later regrets her decision to terminate the life of her unborn child? If this were a requirement, I think there would be lower abortion rates, because the mother would-more than likely-decide not to go through with it, after hearing and seeing her ultrasound.

If I were a mother, I certainly couldn't go through with it..

BTW, I think the father should have to be in attendence, too.

[lenona]

Texas is it's own country

[omm poppa mow mow]

Whew. Strong feelings, all around. Was happy to read "adoption" before I got to the bottom of the first page. Guns came up, too. Choice. I'd hope that those on either side of the aisle could accept the idea that those on the other side mean well. Those who are opposed to abortion are opposed because they believe all life is precious, even that life that begins growing at the moment of conception.

The legislation seems silly to me and the intent seems to be designed to direct the world's thoughts and views toward the never-adequately viewed life that grows only in a woman's womb.

It's terrible that our society is such that this is an option, even worse, that if it isn't available, that some poor lost soul would use a pencil.

The ironies abound. I've often looked at the issue, looked at who has lined up on one side or the other, and have wondered why those who insist on calling it a "choice" are more than willing to limit the same kind of choices when it comes to the 2nd amendment. What? A woman doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms, etc etc?

And if being forced to listen to a heartbeat is wrong, how much more being forced to buy health insurance?

What's the answer? A best-of-seven series? Winner takes all? A no-fly zone?


The general public has long been divided into two parts those who think science can do anything, and those who are afraid it will. Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon




Now science has seen to it that monstrous decisions don't need popular support. John Irving, Setting Free the Bears.

I don't think anyone should be comfortable with the idea of government and health care working hand-in-hand, even less so when it requires legislation to accomplish.

I have no doubt that those women (and unfortunately girls much-too young) who become pregnant desire, want, are eager to listen to heartbeats, view the sonograms, etc. Telling, I think it is, that so much of the what the issue is about--that pic on the thread opener shows it best--that handful of pink--is something that isn't even given the same accord an xray or other medical imaging of diseased tissue is given.

[Sigmund]

Hey Randall!

I posted and tried to answer a post much like yours earlier in the thread.

Here is my post.



Hi! I understand your point of view.
I believe a woman struggles mightlily making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. I don't think the choice is made lightly. I think she imagines and considers all her choices and tries to imagine every possible avenue, every possible way to handle the situation the best way. I believe that she most likely has educated herself and resources. And finally decides to terminate.
You are correct that being forced to listen to the heart beat might change her mind. And when she is past the time when she can have an abortion, or five minutes after she has given birth, or one to eighteen years later and she cannot support, manage the child and/or her life she will realize that her original decision to terminate was the correct decision for her afterall. But, while she was in a vulnerable position, she was taken advantage of being forced to hear the heartbeat, the lecture, and changed her mind.
Where are all those people who 'informed' her when she is alone, struggling, the baby won't stop crying, the tweenie is rebeling, the teenager is acting out?
I have seen way too many child abuse cases and heard about too many infants, babies, being battered for months, years, before finally being beat to death. And why?
Why? Because abortion is 'wrong', 'murder' and the woman is judged or 'informed' about the termination. So pressured to keep a preganancy she didn't want?
I don't understand that. And I find it unacceptable and unneccesary

[Tery]

I'm against abortion, too. So I have never had one. But it's not my choice. It's each woman's choice. And nobody has any right to make her do anything to "qualify" for it. It is LEGAL in this country. Period.

Why do so many men think that it's not a difficult decision? It's not like a woman just casually says; "Oh, I think I'll get an abortion today after my manicure." It is a VERY difficult decision. And making it harder on the woman is not going to do anything but cause undue emotional trauma. It's hard enough already to get an abortion, what with so few qualified doctors (who can blame them when they are used for target practice by the religiously deranged?) and with self-righteous jerks yelling at you as you go in the clinic (even if you're only there for a check-up you'll get yelled at because these idiots don't care). This is, plain and simply, a religious roadblock to womens health care. And we don't make laws according to religious dogma. This is about control. Men controlling women. It has always been about control. If you'd read my article, you'd know this.

You want lower abortion rates? Make birth control cheaper and easier to get. Teach sex education in the schools. Tell teens about the consequences of unprotected sex. Show them pictures of STD symptoms. But making abortion next to impossible to get will only give us more poverty and sickness and starvation and death. Because, while these horrible religious nuts care SO much about a fetus, they don't give a rat's arse what happens to an unwanted baby after it comes. Hypocrites. :mad:

[omm poppa mow mow]

Well, we could begin by placing more value on life. That seems to be the bottom line, before and after. I'm not aware of anyone, man or woman, who has minimized the decisions one faces with a pregnancy. A society can be moral w/o being religious. We can all agree that the commandment do not murder applies whether we attend church, or not.

Name calling never changed anyone's mind, although it may take some of the pressure off the boiler inside. All that is, is so much rants behind the glass of the monitor, whether or not those w/control call it such or not.

But maybe if we started placing more value on life--there's many couples who cannot have children for one reason or another. This happens. There is a demand for life. That demand is strong. Unfortunately, rather than reward the bearers of life, we have chosen the other route. How much easier would it be for a woman to carry that life if she was rewarded when that life is born? How many couples have spent a lot of money trying to conceive, trying to adopt, trying to share in that life that too many too often want only to avoid?

[randallFlaggfan1]

Hi, I appreciate your post, Sigmund. Thank you!


I realize that this is a very controversal topic (it certainly isn't one-sided,) and everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and choices. Nevertheless, I will always stand by my previous statement: abortion is murder. Period.

[tower-obsession]

I agree, abortion is murder. For me. I still have no right to force another person to live by my standards. Period.

[PatInTheHat]

But maybe if we started placing more value on life--there's many couples who cannot have children for one reason or another. This happens. There is a demand for life. That demand is strong.


Hear Hear, I'm all for valuing life:y::y:!!!
A strong demand for life, hmm, now that I'm not so sure about.
I mean there's a whole lot of kids out here (some actual orphans, so many more not), that could sure use a couple that can't have children (or even ones that can), many of which that are supposedly on that very front line of valuing life...and often very strongly, and vocally, on that same front line.
Well okay, value it if it's poppin' fresh out the oven that is, I mean really, just how many want bread from the day old bread store anyway...now personally I don't mind, I often find it's a great value.

[omm poppa mow mow]

Hear Hear, I'm all for valuing life:y::y:!!!
A strong demand for life, hmm, now that I'm not so sure about.
I mean there's a whole lot of kids out here (some actual orphans, so many more not), that could sure use a couple that can't have children (or even ones that can), many of which that are supposedly on that very front line of valuing life...and often very strongly, and vocally, on that same front line.
Well okay, value it if it's poppin' fresh out the oven that is, I mean really, just how many want bread from the day old bread store anyway...now personally I don't mind, I often find it's a great value.

I'm reminded of a number of things, e.e. cummings poem(s). Some like it hot, some like it cold, some like it in the ______, nine months young. Or it is old? Or maybe it isn't even e.e. cummings? But you bet, Pat! I get what you're saying: some like it fresh.

By demand, consider the young couple who wakes up to find the wife is carrying not one, oh no, that'd be too simple. They wake up to find they are the proud parents of not one, not twins, but seven, eight, sheesh, what's the record? Eight or nine? I recall a story from the last year or so where everyone seemed to be deadset against the lady who gave birth to whatever number it was.

So...on the one hand you have couple who for whatever reason cannot have a baby. They go to all manner of length and breadth to have a baby. What happens? Something. A prayer is answered, with feeling, and they now have ten. Oboy! Oboy! Or, Okay, Houston, we have five boys, three girls, and we haven't had time to check on the others! Help!

So...yes, there is a demand for life. There is a demand other kinds of life, transplants. People what, die all the time waiting for that kind of life? So yes, there is a demand for life. You'd think there'd be a way to help them out.

And maybe there'd be more who would seek adoption if they didn't find that there was someone somewhere more than ready to kick the **** out of them every time they put one step forward. In other words, perhaps the system set up for that needs a look at? You think? Is there an adoption center on every corner? Are they federally funded?

[JayneH]

Hi, I appreciate your post, Sigmund. Thank you!


I realize that this is a very controversal topic (it certainly isn't one-sided,) and everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and choices. Nevertheless, I will always stand by my previous statement: abortion is murder. Period.

out of your post one part really stands out "everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and choices" and this is the very reason why Abortion should remain legal and this silly notion of forcing a woman to listen to the hearbeat should be put in the trash.

I totally respect your view on the subject as I do everyone elses .... but regardless of whether someone believes it is murder ... it should always come back to the choice of the individual and respecting that persons choice. (not having a go at you individually - I am not familiar with your views on the choice vs no choice discussion - just others on here are very hard line on making it illegal)

[PatInTheHat]

So...yes, there is a demand for life.


You make very good points, and I agree with every one of them.
But I'll stick with my assertion that there isn't any kind of a "strong" demand for actually giving a life to a child that needs one, unless it's brand spankin' new..uhh, brand unspanking new, to be politically correct that is..no 1-800-kids calls please.:wink2:.
And ya know, I'm not sure all that many of those are in a very high demand if they're not so perfect...and hey, I get that, I mean even each and every couple that have their own children, want theirs to be perfect in every way.

My point is really about the screamers, the shouters, the practically militant (I'll not include the actual militant, they shouldn't be allowed near a carnival goldfish), and especially, the politically pandering politicos.
All who talk a good talk, but most don't seem all that very interested in doin' the actual walk, and while it's true many can't afford taking in another human being into their homes, especially with special needs (the ones that need a loving home the most), a whole lot 'em of sure could is what I'm sayin'!
Now while I know there are some seriously hip & happenin' folks are out there to be sure (sooo many pro choice by the way, maybe even more), being everything from foster parents, to actual adoptive parents to older children, volunteering in homes for unwanted children and/or even actual orphans, become mentors to kids with no one else, by and large it's just a lot of talk, talk more often than not, fueled by religious convictions, and with no other considerations than that...just self righteous make themselves feel good, talk.
That's great, folks can have those religious convictions, any religious conviction in this country, but in this country, they can stuff those, along with their weekly pittance right into in the collection plate, when it comes to telling another human being what they can or can't do with their own bodies.
Or here's a really novel idea, they can step up to the plate, because talk's (and that pittance) cheap, and a hell of lot cheaper than raising a child that nobody else wants.
Right here in my little corner of the world, a corner that is very "pro life" (and really, who isn't pro life), our local family services is literally begging for foster homes, and that's not hyperbole, they're begging.
They're putting up billboards and actually sticking placards (just like political and those, "Make 500.00 A Day Working From Your Home" signs) in yards all over the county, taking out newspaper ads, stapling sheets on poles, and sending out flyers in those bags along with the grocery flyers they can never seem to get anywhere near my door ...I'm willing to bet my county isn't the only one.
So where in the hell is all of those "pro life", all human life is sacred, we care more than all of you baby murderin' anti life gonna burn in hell sinners, at?

Now while the desire and deep personal convictions to save the unborn is a most noble & worthy cause, unless there's an equal desire & conviction from the same kinda folks to stand up and save the already born, it just sounds a lot like a lot of folks are just wanting something akin to baby farms for those that have that strong desire, that strong desire for only a newborn that is...the blatant hypocrisy turns my stomach, and makes me angry.
Nah, while there is a demand for some life, there's no strong demand, at least for the have already have been living for a while, and really, especially for the more out spoken among them, what could possibly be the difference between an unborn, an infant, and a ten year old, or a teenager?
You know, if life is life, and the unwanted are the unwanted, and all the unwanted children need to be saved, and all that really cool & groovy stuff?..so what's the difference?
Just seems to me, that some are more unwanted than others, most a lot less, and some not at all...eh, too bad, life's tough, and them's just the breaks I suppose, and I reckon once your already past your prime and the no longer an infant expiration date, it's the ol', 'God helps those that help themselves', thingy.
And whole bunch of 'em will, when they finally hit the streets at eighteen, but thankfully we have prisons, and are building more, and so many privatized ones too, so I guess there's a lot of 'em that can end up being contributors to society after all, at least in some small way, well, to a shareholder that is...can I get an Amen!
Heeyyy Batter Batter Batter!...ah man, they stepped up to wrong plate..again:down:.

[GLewman]

I had a cousin that became an orphan when he was 10. He fell into that "unwanted" category PITH. He had some serious emotional issues and needed 24 hour supervision. I was surprised to learn that there were foster homes that specialized in kids with his problems. The one my cousin ended up in probably saved his life. The couple in charge were strong people though and my cousin considers them more of his family than the one he lost (which was a horrible situation itself). I'm not sure I would make a good role model for kids...I tend to treat them like adults...You know...with all the cussing and dirty jokes and laughing at bad behavior when I shouldn't be. My brother frowns a lot when I'm hanging out with my niece and nephew and they start saying things like JESUS CHRIST! Or telling the car next to us to "STAY IN YOUR OWN LANE YOU DIRTY BA***RD!" With me laughing afterward, of course. :biggrin2:

[JohnDalglish]

I'm not sure I would make a good role model for kids... :

Hi,

Ya think?

Long days and pleasant nights

[tower-obsession]

You make very good points, and I agree with every one of them.
But I'll stick with my assertion that there isn't any kind of a "strong" demand for actually giving a life to a child that needs one, unless it's brand spankin' new..uhh, brand unspanking new, to be politically correct that is..no 1-800-kids calls please.:wink2:.
And ya know, I'm not sure all that many of those are in a very high demand if they're not so perfect...and hey, I get that, I mean even each and every couple that have their own children, want theirs to be perfect in every way.

My point is really about the screamers, the shouters, the practically militant (I'll not include the actual militant, they shouldn't be allowed near a carnival goldfish), and especially, the politically pandering politicos.
All who talk a good talk, but most don't seem all that very interested in doin' the actual walk, and while it's true many can't afford taking in another human being into their homes, especially with special needs (the ones that need a loving home the most), a whole lot 'em of sure could is what I'm sayin'!
Now while I know there are some seriously hip & happenin' folks are out there to be sure (sooo many pro choice by the way, maybe even more), being everything from foster parents, to actual adoptive parents to older children, volunteering in homes for unwanted children and/or even actual orphans, become mentors to kids with no one else, by and large it's just a lot of talk, talk more often than not, fueled by religious convictions, and with no other considerations than that...just self righteous make themselves feel good, talk.
That's great, folks can have those religious convictions, any religious conviction in this country, but in this country, they can stuff those, along with their weekly pittance right into in the collection plate, when it comes to telling another human being what they can or can't do with their own bodies.
Or here's a really novel idea, they can step up to the plate, because talk's (and that pittance) cheap, and a hell of lot cheaper than raising a child that nobody else wants.
Right here in my little corner of the world, a corner that is very "pro life" (and really, who isn't pro life), our local family services is literally begging for foster homes, and that's not hyperbole, they're begging.
They're putting up billboards and actually sticking placards (just like political and those, "Make 500.00 A Day Working From Your Home" signs) in yards all over the county, taking out newspaper ads, stapling sheets on poles, and sending out flyers in those bags along with the grocery flyers they can never seem to get anywhere near my door ...I'm willing to bet my county isn't the only one.
So where in the hell is all of those "pro life", all human life is sacred, we care more than all of you baby murderin' anti life gonna burn in hell sinners, at?

Now while the desire and deep personal convictions to save the unborn is a most noble & worthy cause, unless there's an equal desire & conviction from the same kinda folks to stand up and save the already born, it just sounds a lot like a lot of folks are just wanting something akin to baby farms for those that have that strong desire, that strong desire for only a newborn that is...the blatant hypocrisy turns my stomach, and makes me angry.
Nah, while there is a demand for some life, there's no strong demand, at least for the have already have been living for a while, and really, especially for the more out spoken among them, what could possibly be the difference between an unborn, an infant, and a ten year old, or a teenager?
You know, if life is life, and the unwanted are the unwanted, and all the unwanted children need to be saved, and all that really cool & groovy stuff?..so what's the difference?
Just seems to me, that some are more unwanted than others, most a lot less, and some not at all...eh, too bad, life's tough, and them's just the breaks I suppose, and I reckon once your already past your prime and the no longer an infant expiration date, it's the ol', 'God helps those that help themselves', thingy.
And whole bunch of 'em will, when they finally hit the streets at eighteen, but thankfully we have prisons, and are building more, and so many privatized ones too, so I guess there's a lot of 'em that can end up being contributors to society after all, at least in some small way, well, to a shareholder that is...can I get an Amen!
Heeyyy Batter Batter Batter!...ah man, they stepped up to wrong plate..again:down:.

I'd take the ones no one else wanted, if I could. As it is, I have enough love for all of them, enough room for a couple, enough money for none. :down:

[randallFlaggfan1]

out of your post one part really stands out "everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and choices" and this is the very reason why Abortion should remain legal and this silly notion of forcing a woman to listen to the hearbeat should be put in the trash.

I totally respect your view on the subject as I do everyone elses .... but regardless of whether someone believes it is murder ... it should always come back to the choice of the individual and respecting that persons choice. (not having a go at you individually - I am not familiar with your views on the choice vs no choice discussion - just others on here are very hard line on making it illegal)

Hi, JayneH! :biggrin2:

I respect your opinion, as well (along with everyone else's,) thank you.
It's good to know that you and I are in agreement about us all having a choice in the manner. I believe that there's ALWAYS a choice, in any given situation. One might not like the alternative, but there'll always be free-will. Having said that, you know where I stand when it comes to the aborting of human life, and I'm aware of your pro-choice stance.

[bugaboosy]

i love this thread!!
Dustin, i have found the one thing we disagree on...finally lol
i dont believe in abortion as a birth control (and i have seen this happen in my line of work) but i do believe it has its place in the world.
we already have far too many children in the system unwanted and unloved, if we got rid of all abortions the only thing we would do would be create more of these children and every child has the right to be loved and wanted. we would also bring back those lovely dim dark days of the back yard abortions done by untrained and normally unhygienic ppl and bring back needless infections and deaths.
what we need to do is make more use of education, and make birth control totally accessible for all.
i am not advocating teen sex, i have a teen and personally am scared for the day that she comes to me and tells me she is having sex (and with my daughter and our relationship she will tell me!) i know a few of her friends are already at it, with little to know education and to quote someone famous, in this day and aids pregnacy is just one of the worries with unprotected sex.

[Sigmund]

Sorry I have been gone for awhile.
I think we can all agree that if the world was perfect only pregnancies that were wanted would be conceived. If the world was perfect everyone who truly wanted and was able to love and care for a child would be able to have a child. If the world was perfect there would be no unwanted pregnancies. Alas, the world is far from perfect.

To those people who state that the woman who doesn't want the pregnancy/child should go ahead, carry the pregnancy and then give it up for adoption:

Pray tell, what is this woman supposed to do for the nine months that she is carrying this fetus? Her spouse and family that are going to have to live with her due to your demands.?

Pregnancy takes a toll on the body.
Having to lose work before and after the prenancy (Money that is needed to pay the bills). Medical conditions that can manifest due to preganancy. High blood pressure, gestational (sp) diabetes, anemia, miscarriage, bleeding, complications that would require bed rest for weeks or months. Placental complications. The very real possibilty of stroke during labor. Infertility due to complications. Post natal depression. Death.
What then?
Call me cynical. But, in the same breath, call me realistic.
Where are all these people who insisted, demanded, that she go through with the pregancy, going to be?
B*tching and whining. Cutting back on medical care, long term care, benefits, support and resources. And pontificating about 'irresposible' women who had children they should not have had. Judging, pointing and shaking their finger at women that had children who are adding to the already overwhelmed , burdened, and poorly funded system that has 'hard to place', 'difficult to adopt' innocent children.
Step up and state that you are willing to pay more taxes, contribute to agencies, and/or willing to take the hundreds, thousands of children who were brought into the world because YOU decided what was right.
Peace.

[guido tkp]

again, regardless of how each of us feels as individuals: it still boils down to one group, with a particular imterpretation of religious teachings, using the law to subvert the rights of anyone else who does not agree with their religious point of view...

"congress shall make no law..."

can any of you say unconstitutional act of treason ?

[omm poppa mow mow]

There's a line in the Bible: He is able to lead gently those w/young.

Yeah, well, burn me at the stake for sharing that with you. I thought I'd responded to this thread the other day, but I likely pressed the wrong button. Nothing short of an Act of God is going to change things soon. It does get rather tiring, though, to read posts filled w/emotion, the kind that reduce the world to an either/or situation, you're either for us or you're against us. If you're this, you're damned, if you're this, you are numbered among the righteous. Does anyone else see any irony in any of this?

I don't have any numbers in front of me, can't speak to that, but I can speak from experience. And sad to say, I've long known that experience is as easily tossed out with the bathwater as everything else. I know a man (a couple) who went to Russia (from here in the states) to seek a child. Not one fresh out of the oven, as Pat phrased it earlier, but a child. After a long, drawn-out process, they have a boy. While the man made however many trips he made over there, this one boy'd been calling him "Daddy" and the boy had a buddy. The boy, bless his heart, encouraged "Daddy" to do whatever so that his "brother" (they'd had different parents/orphanage) could continue to be his brother. The brother, too, called the man "Daddy".

So, anyway, I don't know about "all those who shout! shout! shout it on out!" or whoever "they" and "them" and the whole shebang. I'd ask, why was it easier for this couple to travel to Russia to acquire a family?

People will bitch about something? Fine, that's what makes the world go round. We came down from the trees, where we bitched at each other, hey! hey! you! you! get out of my tree! And now we bitch still. There is nothing new under the sun.

There could be more emphasis placed on adoption. That could be done. The easiest answer isn't always the right answer.

I think how abortion is treated, how it is talked about, is telling.

How is this! going to happen! How is that! going to happen! Well, we can work it out, can't we? Would it be impossible?

But yeah, I return again to the idea that nothing short of an Act of God is going to change things. We've evolved so far.

[Terry B]

There's a line in the Bible: He is able to lead gently those w/young.

Yeah, well, burn me at the stake for sharing that with you. I thought I'd responded to this thread the other day, but I likely pressed the wrong button. Nothing short of an Act of God is going to change things soon. It does get rather tiring, though, to read posts filled w/emotion, the kind that reduce the world to an either/or situation, you're either for us or you're against us. If you're this, you're damned, if you're this, you are numbered among the righteous. Does anyone else see any irony in any of this?

I don't have any numbers in front of me, can't speak to that, but I can speak from experience. And sad to say, I've long known that experience is as easily tossed out with the bathwater as everything else. I know a man (a couple) who went to Russia (from here in the states) to seek a child. Not one fresh out of the oven, as Pat phrased it earlier, but a child. After a long, drawn-out process, they have a boy. While the man made however many trips he made over there, this one boy'd been calling him "Daddy" and the boy had a buddy. The boy, bless his heart, encouraged "Daddy" to do whatever so that his "brother" (they'd had different parents/orphanage) could continue to be his brother. The brother, too, called the man "Daddy".

So, anyway, I don't know about "all those who shout! shout! shout it on out!" or whoever "they" and "them" and the whole shebang. I'd ask, why was it easier for this couple to travel to Russia to acquire a family?

People will bitch about something? Fine, that's what makes the world go round. We came down from the trees, where we bitched at each other, hey! hey! you! you! get out of my tree! And now we bitch still. There is nothing new under the sun.

There could be more emphasis placed on adoption. That could be done. The easiest answer isn't always the right answer.

I think how abortion is treated, how it is talked about, is telling.

How is this! going to happen! How is that! going to happen! Well, we can work it out, can't we? Would it be impossible?

But yeah, I return again to the idea that nothing short of an Act of God is going to change things. We've evolved so far.

Good points. My brother and his wife adopted a girl from Korea 30+ years ago. My niece Kim is a true delight. She has a family of her own now and my great nephew is adorable. She also has a family (her mother is still alive) in Korea and has even been there to visit them. It was one of those situations where the family was so poor they had to give up their children for adoption rather than watch them starve to death. Why did my brother and his wife go to Korea? Adoption procedures in the United were (and still are) so convoluted that they could not afford a child here. My sister-in-law would have loved to adopt a child from this country, especially one from a poor area like the Appalachians, where there were many children born to dirt poor families - but it was easier to go out of the country.

This is a lot of the reason abortion is a "choice" in America. Not the only reason but a reason nonetheless. Why carry a baby to term just so that he/she can spend most of their formative years bouncing between foster homes? I'm not saying its OK to just kill a baby because of the adoption problems. Never - but wouldn't it make the choice easier for a scared young woman if she knew her baby would be adopted right away by a good family? A family that didn't have to go through hoops to get a child or spend the equivalent of a college tuition to get it done? All I'm saying is that this "choice" should involve more than abortion. As for Texas and their holier-than-thou attitudes about everything - don't get me started.

[sknut70]

so lets have the young girl listen to the fetal heart beat. the young girl who already has no partner, no parental support, no job, and is agonizing over this decision to terminate a life. If she goes through with it, shes a horrible murderess. going to die in the pits of hell forever. This same girl when she hears the heart beat and cant go through with it, and she has the baby and gets her self signed up for welfare and foodstamps so she can feed and cloth the baby. then these same people who made her listen to the heartbeat look at her and say.. "another one of "those People" get her self knocked up so she can live off the state. im sick and tired of my money going to pay for programs for them... those people... who let them reproduce? disgusting i tell you.. get a job looser.."

people suck

[CorbinKale]

again, regardless of how each of us feels as individuals: it still boils down to one group, with a particular imterpretation of religious teachings, using the law to subvert the rights of anyone else who does not agree with their religious point of view...

"congress shall make no law..."

can any of you say unconstitutional act of treason ?

The Texas law, in accordance with the First Amendment, neither establishes a religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise of any religion. Now, launching an assault on a foreign country without Congressional approval would be an unconstitutional act, but not listening to a heartbeat.

[CorbinKale]

You make a great case for snuffing out those inconvenient lives. The world would be great, if not for all of the inconvenient lives we are forced to deal with.


so lets have the young girl listen to the fetal heart beat. the young girl who already has no partner, no parental support, no job, and is agonizing over this decision to terminate a life. If she goes through with it, shes a horrible murderess. going to die in the pits of hell forever. This same girl when she hears the heart beat and cant go through with it, and she has the baby and gets her self signed up for welfare and foodstamps so she can feed and cloth the baby. then these same people who made her listen to the heartbeat look at her and say.. "another one of "those People" get her self knocked up so she can live off the state. im sick and tired of my money going to pay for programs for them... those people... who let them reproduce? disgusting i tell you.. get a job looser.."

people suck

[sknut70]

You make a great case for snuffing out those inconvenient lives. The world would be great, if not for all of the inconvenient lives we are forced to deal with.

my comment was meant to point out how these people are treated. not why we should have abortions. I personally wouldnt want to choose to have an abortion but i feel it is a womans right to choose.

[JohnDalglish]

i feel it is a womans right to choose.

Hi,

And that is surely the crux of the matter; not pro- or anti- abortion.

But pro- CHOICE.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Sigmund]

Hi,

And that is surely the crux of the matter; not pro- or anti- abortion.

But pro- CHOICE.

Long days and pleasant nights

Hi Mr.D! A human being choosing what to do or not to do regarding their own body? What a novel, logical, respectful and decent idea!

[guido tkp]

corby...really ??

i did give you more credit than that...i was very wrong

must be the new texas way to back up your ethical foundation: run away from it

[Becks19]

This is a bill on it's way to the House. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/ohio-abortion-heartbeat-b_n_842725.html ( Ms. Mod, I hope the link works. I couldn't get the box to work.)

[Terry B]

This is a bill on it's way to the House. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/ohio-abortion-heartbeat-b_n_842725.html ( Ms. Mod, I hope the link works. I couldn't get the box to work.)

Saw this on the news this morning. With all this anti-abortion legislation and union busting and all the other conservative causes, the US is making a drastic turn back to the dark ages before protections for it's citizens were ever instituted. My God - heaven help our children and grandchildren.

[sknut70]

there are plenty of obstacles for women to get an abortion already. and now you will add the additional trip to a hospital and listen to a fetal heartbeat. they may not be able to get there, and they may not be able to handle it. they could try to do something to themselves. or do something to the baby , that turns out to be botched abortion.

It could be like it was pre roe vs. wade .. all clothes hangers and stairways again

I hear about how the left side wants government out of our daily lives. those same left sided want the government to tell us what to do with our bodies? this sounds very contradictory

[Moderator]

Not the left side--that's considered the liberals.

[sknut70]

Not the left side--that's considered the liberals. _ LOL thanks ms mod . i knew that ! i was gonna say tea party but i didnt think it encompanssed enough

[randallFlaggfan1]

Hi,

And that is surely the crux of the matter; not pro- or anti- abortion.

But pro- CHOICE.

Long days and pleasant nights


Greetings, Sai John! :biggrin2:

While I'm sure that everyone's in agreement about pro-life/pro-choice being the "crux of the matter," I believe it's much more complicated than that.

[~Ally~]

While I'm sure that everyone's in agreement about pro-life/pro-choice being the "crux of the matter," I believe it's much more complicated than that.

Would you care to expand as to why you believe this? :smile2:

I agree it is complicated. Unfortunately I don't have time to mention my beliefs at the moment--I hear a collective sigh of relief :biggrin2:--yet I shall return next week. In the meantime I'm interested in the reasoning behind your statement if you'd like to share.

[guido tkp]

no, randy, you are quite wrong...it is not more complicated...it is about freedom, something the extreme right, antichoice hate groups do not understand...

forcing ones religious dogma, and that is all that this crap is, on others is not about bringing about freedom..or getting govt out of our lives...it is the single most intrusive b.s. around...and it is almost entirely the work of the right wing, the tea partiers and thier republican lackeys

just goes to show the ethics of those who continue to try and claim it is about anything other than forcing their firmly held relgious beliefs (never mind anyone elses, right ?) that drive this entire issue...so much for the antiamerican antichoicers having any real solid, ethical basis to stand on

sknut...you really ought to do a bit of research into political reality before you post: nearly the entirety of this issue is one driven by the hard right of the republican agenda & the tea party...NOT the left, who tend to believe in a wider amount of freedom for all...i only wish my dying party still did the same

[Moderator]

sknut...you really ought to do a bit of research into political reality before you post: nearly the entirety of this issue is one driven by the hard right of the republican agenda & the tea party...NOT the left, who tend to believe in a wider amount of freedom for all...i only wish my dying party still did the same

See Post #149:
Not the left side--that's considered the liberals.


_ LOL thanks ms mod . i knew that ! i was gonna say tea party but i didnt think it encompanssed enough

[Tery]

I'm with you guido! How can people on the Right - the "small government" folks - support this intrusive law? They are the ones crying "Tyranny!" and whining about the government being too big or spending too much or placing too many restrictions on us. But if it's something THEY want... well, it's perfectly fine to have more Federal laws, spending and regulations. And to have the Government overseeing every pregnancy in the country to make sure it turns out the way THEY want it to. Then they ignore the children - and their Mothers - and deny them food, shelter and healthcare. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

This is a First Amendment issue: religion should never enter into the law-making process. It's a fundamental freedom to not have to follow a religious dogma or to have the government make you do so. Period.

[sknut70]

that is exactly what i was trying to say if you want government to stay out of the business of telling you what to do, how can you want them to tell us what to do with our bodies?

(i made the mistake of saying left instead of right. jeesh sorry. glad Mis Mod noticed it. and cleared it up.. thats what i meant I meant RIGHT .. i know what political party does what here)

[Becks19]

What Ohio has proposed is making it illegal to obtain an abortion at the first detectable heartbeat....that is 6 wks!

[exzel]

I wouldn’t touch this subject with a 10 foot Cephalotribe.

[xkittyx]

What Ohio has proposed is making it illegal to obtain an abortion at the first detectable heartbeat....that is 6 wks!

I just read about that in our local paper last night. It passed the Ohio Senate and is now moving to the House. Heck, when I was pregnant with my son, it took me a little more than a month to even realize that I was pregnant, so this bill (the way it seems to me anyway) is pretty much outlawing it altogether, just without coming out and directly saying it that way.

[Moderator]

Yes, that's exactly what they're doing. They can't overturn the Supreme Court decision so they're attempting to find loopholes to outlaw it. Let's get all up in arms about having TSA do a body pat down or use screening machines because it's an invasion of a person's body but it's no big deal when it's a woman who wants to have control over her body. :glare: And when are they beginning the counting of the 6 weeks--is it 6 weeks from conception which could be 2 weeks before a woman has missed a period depending upon when she ovulates and which would then reduce the time a woman would have to even be aware she's pregnant or 6 weeks from a missed period.

[sknut70]

all this will result in high traffic at the kentucky, Indiana and pennsylvlania aborition clinics. Planned parenthood of Ohio should request a grant for a bus system

[Sigmund]

What Ohio has proposed is making it illegal to obtain an abortion at the first detectable heartbeat....that is 6 wks!

Hi Ms. Mookie!
It's just another pathetic, insulting way to try to get around Roe v Wade. If, if , they chip away at a woman's right they will be able to basically out-law abortion. If they pass the no abortion when there's an audiible fetal heartbeat, they will then move on to...no abortions if the the egg split can be seen under a 1000x microscope. Eventually, they will pass a 'law' that there can be no abortions if the woma's eggs can penetrated and fertilized.

BTW-Anyone notice, back when abortions were illegal there were a number of women who could afford medical attention who had D & C's?

[randallFlaggfan1]

Would you care to expand as to why you believe this? :smile2:

I agree it is complicated. Unfortunately I don't have time to mention my beliefs at the moment--I hear a collective sigh of relief :biggrin2:--yet I shall return next week. In the meantime I'm interested in the reasoning behind your statement if you'd like to share.

Hi, Ally!

Prior to getting involved in this thread, I suppose you could say I was a little ignorant: pro-life v. pro-choice. But I've come to realize that there are issues to consider. Let's just say a woman decides to go through with the pregnancy, but opts to put her child up for adoption. Years later, that child could become resentful, and very angry at his/her mother, because of her chioce. The child could possibly view the adoption as merely giving him/her away (although it is-by no means-a simple decision.)
Or say that another woman also endures her pregnancy, but feels compelled to raise him/her. Will she provide sufficiently, or hardly at all? What kind of envirnment is the child experiencing/learning? It can be good, bad, or indifferent, depending on the circumstances. I think that quality-of-life is important...and should be considered.

[Moderator]

What many men (and they seem to be the ones who are the most negatively opinionated about this topic) cannot relate to either is the bond that is formed by the woman with the child she is carrying. They blasely suggest that the woman should just give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it herself. That can lead to circumstances just as you've described because at that point the woman may change her mind after having formed that bond and that may not be the best choice for either mother or child. As I've said before, I do not believe in late term abortions but I also don't believe that a woman should not be able to choose in the very early stages of a pregnancy.

[JayneH]

I was wondering if it was just me that was noticing that it seemed to be a male orientated view point on not letting the woman have the choice with her own body. Thanks for noticing it as well Ms Mod.

If I got pregnant and considered an abortion - no man (or woman) is going to tell me what I can or cannot do about it.

I really do not understand how there can be so much division about this. Too me it is cut and dried ... MY BODY - MY CHOICE

If these Pro Life people continue to push abortion laws - they will drive women back into the backyard or alleyway abortion clinics. There will be increased rates of infection and more than likely death from unclean instruments or rooms. Do we really want to go back to that era?

[Sigmund]

I was wondering if it was just me that was noticing that it seemed to be a male orientated view point on not letting the woman have the choice with her own body. Thanks for noticing it as well Ms Mod.

If I got pregnant and considered an abortion - no man (or woman) is going to tell me what I can or cannot do about it.

I really do not understand how there can be so much division about this. Too me it is cut and dried ... MY BODY - MY CHOICE

If these Pro Life people continue to push abortion laws - they will drive women back into the backyard or alleyway abortion clinics. There will be increased rates of infection and more than likely death from unclean instruments or rooms. Do we really want to go back to that era?

No offense, but, yes. They do want to go back to that era.
If women start turning up dead or dying because of 'illegal' abortions those holier-than -thou people will have a hey-day pontificating, pointing fingers, and judging 'loose' women who got pregnant (All by themselves! Heaven forbid that they mention the man/men who was responsible or should have been responsible.) The women who were, OMG!, having s-e-x for fun and not solely for pro-creation! Any woman who gets pregnant (even by abuse, violence, rape) should do her 'duty' and keep the pregnancy, don't-you-know? And, by the way, you should go through with the pregnancy, have the unplanned child...and smile.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts, these people would do a 180 if their daughters, wives, girlfriends, mistresses came up with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. They would hot-tail it to their personal doctor and get/arrange for a 'therapeutic' D & C.

[randallFlaggfan1]

What many men (and they seem to be the ones who are the most negatively opinionated about this topic) cannot relate to either is the bond that is formed by the woman with the child she is carrying. They blasely suggest that the woman should just give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it herself. That can lead to circumstances just as you've described because at that point the woman may change her mind after having formed that bond and that may not be the best choice for either mother or child. As I've said before, I do not believe in late term abortions but I also don't believe that a woman should not be able to choose in the very early stages of a pregnancy.


Hi, you raise an excellent point, Ms. Mod.:biggrin2: Thank you!
The bond formed between mother and child is yet another thing to be considered, IMO.

[tower-obsession]

I was talking over this topic with a "friend" last weekend. She hurt my daughter badly by judging her for her views on abortion. She called my daughter a "baby-killer," because my daughter believes there are valid reasons for some abortions. So I told this "friend" about my own abortion, and why I had to have it. And I told her, "Rachel feels that way because if I hadn't been able to get an abortion, her mother would be dead. She's not a baby-killer. She's never had an abortion, and I don't believe she ever would. She just knows there are reasons for abortion sometimes." I went on to tell my "friend" that I cannot judge anyone else for their actions. She's a Christian, so she should already know that, but apparently she doesn't. She said, "Well then, who should judge them?" Well, who do you think, numbskull?? It says right in that Bible you love to shake at me, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." God is the Judge.

"I've made mistakes
I've done good things too
And I will answer for it all,
When my life is through

But when it comes my time,
One thing I know is true
When I stand before the Throne,
My Judge will not be you."

~Tawn Hoffman, 2010

I wrote that for other reasons than abortion, but I try to live by it myself. I don't have any right to judge anyone. I have enough to do judging my own actions.

[randallFlaggfan1]

That is right, Tawn: only God can judge us.

[Sigmund]

Dear Ms. t.o,

"I've made mistakes
I've done good things too
And I will answer for it all,
When my life is through

But when it comes my time,
One thing I know is true
When I stand before the Throne,
My Judge will not be you."

~Tawn Hoffman, 2010



Wow! That is EXCELLENT! Truly, Wonderful. Thank you, for sharing that. If you don't mind, I will be using that and make sure I give you full credit
Hugs.
Peace.

[staropeace]

When younger, I believed in ProLife. I now see that life isnt that clear cut. I am not always right...not always wrong. I sorta just feel that folks do the best they can...that's all one can do with honor and grace in this world.

[Sigmund]

When younger, I believed in ProLife. I now see that life isnt that clear cut. I am not always right...not always wrong. I sorta just feel that folks do the best they can...that's all one can do with honor and grace in this world.

Thank you. You said that PERFECTLY!

Peace.

[Tery]

I have a question for all the "pro-life" folks. Why, if the intended outcome of all of the back-handed ways around the Federal law is no more abortions, why is contraception an issue? Please don't try to argue that it's not; recent actions by states show that it is. This whole brouhaha about Planned Parenthood funding is about contraception and poor women's health. Why? Why do "pro-lifers" want poor women and their babies to die? De-funding PP will result in exactly that. Even more important, PP's publicly funded family planning services (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/23/index.html) prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions nationwide each year. That's almost a million abortions prevented by Planned Parenthood EVERY YEAR.

These bills that are being introduced and passed are about one thing and one thing only; controlling women. Especially poor women. Because the rich ones can get anything they want, including illegal abortions. But what of the poor women who will have no choice but to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term? Many end up on public assistance. They can't work because there is no child care. So they must live on the dole to make sure their babies don't starve. And what future do these children have? What future when conservative programs cut education funding? And the girls? No family planning, no contraception, no education. Can you say "vicious circle"? Because that's what this creates.

When those who call themselves "pro-life" actually stop and think about what their piety and self-righteous bellowing about "poor unborn babies" creates, then I might believe that they are "pro-life." Until then, they are "anti-woman and child" as far as I'm concerned.

[omm poppa mow mow]

http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1261866457p2/3389.jpg (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodreads.com% 2Fauthor%2Fshow%2F3389.Stephen_King) "On the day of my judgment, when I stand before God, and He asks me why did I kill one of his true miracles, what am I gonna say? That it was my job? My job?"
— Stephen King (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodreads.com% 2Fauthor%2Fquotes%2F3389.Stephen_King) (The Green Mile Book Box Set (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodreads.com% 2Fwork%2Fquotes%2F15599))

[Terry B]

I have a question for all the "pro-life" folks. Why, if the intended outcome of all of the back-handed ways around the Federal law is no more abortions, why is contraception an issue? Please don't try to argue that it's not; recent actions by states show that it is. This whole brouhaha about Planned Parenthood funding is about contraception and poor women's health. Why? Why do "pro-lifers" want poor women and their babies to die? De-funding PP will result in exactly that. Even more important, PP's publicly funded family planning services (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/23/index.html) prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions nationwide each year. That's almost a million abortions prevented by Planned Parenthood EVERY YEAR.

These bills that are being introduced and passed are about one thing and one thing only; controlling women. Especially poor women. Because the rich ones can get anything they want, including illegal abortions. But what of the poor women who will have no choice but to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term? Many end up on public assistance. They can't work because there is no child care. So they must live on the dole to make sure their babies don't starve. And what future do these children have? What future when conservative programs cut education funding? And the girls? No family planning, no contraception, no education. Can you say "vicious circle"? Because that's what this creates.

When those who call themselves "pro-life" actually stop and think about what their piety and self-righteous bellowing about "poor unborn babies" creates, then I might believe that they are "pro-life." Until then, they are "anti-woman and child" as far as I'm concerned.

People see Planned Parenthood and ALL they see are abortions. "They" have no idea what good Planned Parenthood actually does for women in this country.

[GLewman]

I have a question for all the "pro-life" folks. Why, if the intended outcome of all of the back-handed ways around the Federal law is no more abortions, why is contraception an issue? Please don't try to argue that it's not; recent actions by states show that it is. This whole brouhaha about Planned Parenthood funding is about contraception and poor women's health. Why? Why do "pro-lifers" want poor women and their babies to die? De-funding PP will result in exactly that. Even more important, PP's publicly funded family planning services (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/23/index.html) prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions nationwide each year. That's almost a million abortions prevented by Planned Parenthood EVERY YEAR.

These bills that are being introduced and passed are about one thing and one thing only; controlling women. Especially poor women. Because the rich ones can get anything they want, including illegal abortions. But what of the poor women who will have no choice but to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term? Many end up on public assistance. They can't work because there is no child care. So they must live on the dole to make sure their babies don't starve. And what future do these children have? What future when conservative programs cut education funding? And the girls? No family planning, no contraception, no education. Can you say "vicious circle"? Because that's what this creates.

When those who call themselves "pro-life" actually stop and think about what their piety and self-righteous bellowing about "poor unborn babies" creates, then I might believe that they are "pro-life." Until then, they are "anti-woman and child" as far as I'm concerned.

Step away from the blogs...:rofl:...On the one hand you say that abortions and government funding are such a miniscule amount that we "anti-woman and child" folks are "bellowing" for no reason...Then you turn around and say that 2 million pregnancies and several hundred thousand abortions will happen if this miniscule amount is cut? I have to tell you that I considered myself "pro-choice" until a friend of mine told her aunt about some of the things I had said on the subject...I was shocked when her aunt was in my face crying that she could never have kids and every child aborted was such a HUGE waste of a chance for not only the kid, but a for her and millions of women and families that wait for years just to give those unborn children an opportunity to experience this world that we take for granted...I picture my friends aunt (D. Woitte is her name PITH) when I think about it now...Put a woman hating, anti-child label on it if you want Tery...All I can say is I see an unborn child the same as I see a new born...Perhaps you haven't seen the look in a woman's eyes when she knows she will never have a child of her own?

[JohnDalglish]

"bellowing" for no reason...

Hi,

Sounds familiar.

If the cap fits .....

Long days and pleasant nights

[PatInTheHat]

Step away from the blogs...:rofl:...On the one hand you say that abortions and government funding are such a miniscule amount that we "anti-woman and child" folks are "bellowing" for no reason...Then you turn around and say that 2 million pregnancies and several hundred thousand abortions will happen if this miniscule amount is cut? I have to tell you that I considered myself "pro-choice" until a friend of mine told her aunt about some of the things I had said on the subject...I was shocked when her aunt was in my face crying that she could never have kids and every child aborted was such a HUGE waste of a chance for not only the kid, but a for her and millions of women and families that wait for years just to give those unborn children an opportunity to experience this world that we take for granted...I picture my friends aunt (D. Woitte is her name PITH) when I think about it now...Put a woman hating, anti-child label on it if you want Tery...All I can say is I see an unborn child the same as I see a new born...Perhaps you haven't seen the look in a woman's eyes when she knows she will never have a child of her own?

Every one of 'em huh?
So what, you sayin' every aborted fetus was destined to be a wonderful warm & fuzzy human being, not a future child abuser or simple everyday ax murderer in the bunch?...you a solid nurture over nature kinda guy too are ya?

For anyone suffering from such a conundrum of finding a child to love and keep care of to raise right, may I suggest the Yellow Pages, peruse under, "Orphanage".
You can find waste in all shapes and sizes, colors & conditions, in them there joints, but all the kiddos, they do have one thing in common, they all need, too.

I gotta reckon there'll be quite a few more of those places poppin' up all over the place, if the GOP has it's way and destroys Planned Parenthood like the, only true way Crusaders, it likes to think it is.
And I just can't wait to see to the conservative minded support that will be offered to them ('Please sir, I'd like...well, watery tasteless gruel is good, but gee whiz we ain't picky, we'll except anything'!).
:oo: Hey, what's that in the future I see?
Is that a 21st century style Rent-A-Kid program, (probably faith based, all the popular monetary based faiths included), or just outright kiddo sales?...well ya gotta earn your keep and bring in some coin is what I'm sayin', or it's flat out socialism, right?
Happened to my Mama during the depression, she was for all intents & purposes, sold, but of course it was called, a donation, to the Holy Roman Church.
Oh silly me, that could never occur again, now could it:glare:?
By the way, how much overstock do ya think they'll have on the shelves of children with those serious medical and/or developmental problems?
As a lot of abortions are performed when a fetus has been diagnosed with some very bad cards dealt to them, many with absolutely no future but their immediate one in an incubator, and many without even that much of a future, so I kinda doubt the line for those adoptions (much less at the rental division), is going to be a very long one.
I'll expect to see you in that line.


Oh, and before you get all shocked, dismayed, flabbergasted (or even flastergasseded), with your patented G-Man, oh golly jeepers innocent eyed piety, and try & make it fit like I'm advocating abortions, simply because a fetus is discovered to have a serious condition of some kind, please, allow me to offer you some well deserved help...
http://candobetter.net/files/high-horse.jpg

[GLewman]

So what, you sayin' every aborted fetus was destined to be a wonderful warm & fuzzy human being, not a future child abuser or simple everyday ax murderer in the bunch?...you a solid nurture over nature kinda guy too are ya?

Curious that I said no such thing, but you justify killing unborn children with this argument? Sorry about that...I meant killing "theoretical" children...I believe I said every unborn child deserves an opportunity...No matter the conditions...A chance is a chance in my book. Also, thanks for the ladder. My high horse appreciates it :biggrin2:

[JohnDalglish]

Also, thanks for the ladder. My high horse appreciates it :biggrin2:

Hi,

A 'High horse', eh?

Well. we all know what pride comes before, don't we?

Long days and pleasant nights

[GLewman]

Well. we all know what pride comes before, don't we?

I didn't realize people were subject to large and catastrophic falls for communicating thoughts or beliefs...I always figured those were the things that kept us grounded...Or maybe I look at it like being human is all about rising and falling...being knocked down and getting back up...I can tell you that if I fall right now, it won't be a long drop. But hey...you can keep wishing :wink2:

[PatInTheHat]

Curious that I said no such thing, but you justify killing unborn children with this argument? Sorry about that...I meant killing "theoretical" children...I believe I said every unborn child deserves an opportunity...No matter the conditions...A chance is a chance in my book. Also, thanks for the ladder. My high horse appreciates it

I did not say that you did, thus, the question (?) marks.
(however, I did say you'd attempt to flavor me...OooOOooo and with, "Justify", sweet word..~sniff~..for me:love:?
A chance is a chance in your book?...that is what you say?...that's what your sayin' you believe?
Hmm:eyebrow:...'k, we'll run with it..for a while:wink2:.



Can always be a miracle on the horizon I suppose, after all, they happen all willy nilly like all of the time, right?...why they're barely even miraculous anymore if ya ask me, kinda like cell phones.
Yyyep yep yep, the possibility for miracles to up and *POOF* go all miracle-izin' on a forced birth newborn, medically deemed hopeless, quite possibly even pre-birth, is what I want to hang a key piece of state & national hot button legislation on, I mean everybody believes in 'em, so why the hell not, right?
We can call it, 'The Miracles Happen All The Time Amendment'!

And I also suppose, that the medical sciences are juuust smart enough to keep a body alive, or a body with not even enough mind to keep it's own body alive, or a body without even enough body and/or mind to keep it's own very self alive, alive, then that's just enough of them medical sciences bein' all sciencey and stuff.
No way they could be smart enough for using all of that medical knowledge for anything other than for the prolonging of a life, just for the sake of prolonging a new life, now could they?
Like deciding what might be best given all of that accumulated knowledge, I mean holy smoke, that's your and the GOP's business to decide, certainly not a pregnant woman privately with her doctor.
(best git a jump on in thar boy, I believes they's commencin' to be whisperin' all that unholy mortal sinnin' stuff agin...coulds be the devil is conjurin' all manners o' evil abominations & wicked tarnations:oo:...hey I know, let's legislate, and we'll legislate more Christian values, and hey hey, let's do it on bicycles...well, I figures that be a pretty good way to exercise ol' Beelzebub on out, 'cause we gotta be makin' room for big brother to move on in)

[Homer403]

Give life a chance!!!

[Sigmund]

Give women the right to do what they choose with their own bodies.

If you read the thread Mr.Homer, we have discussed the parameters of when the woman can choose to terminate. And all the things to consider when a woman is forced to have a child she cannot raise, support or manage. Also, how the people who insist the woman have the child will not offer the resources to help her.

In addition, you may want to peruse the Government Enforced Vasectomies thread.

Peace.

[Homer403]

:smile2:Women do have the right to choose what they can do with their own bodies.But do they have the right to choose what they can do with the life inside them??
I think it is about protecting those that are incapable!
How many adopted people,lets say now in their 30's or 40's wish they were aborted? Probably none.
How many woman who choose life,lets say 20yrs later,regret it? Probably none.
Abortion has become a form of birth control and this is very tragic.
Give Life a Chance.
I think this is not about fertility!

[Sigmund]

Dear Mr. Homer,

I would like to apologize to you. My post answering your post was uncalled for. I was terse, curt and hostile. I beg your pardon. I could say that I feel very, very strongly about women's rights and I feel a deep need to defend them but, that would just be an excuse. There is no excuse for my post and behavior.
Again, I apologize and hope that you can forgive my rude, ugly behavior. Please.

Peace.

[Homer403]

Siggy,No worries!!!

[randallFlaggfan1]

Sigmund-

I don't think you came off sounding hostile, rude, or anything like that at all!:love:

[PatInTheHat]

.But do they have the right to choose what they can do with the life inside them??

Yes.

[PatInTheHat]

Abortion has become a form of birth control and this is very tragic.

That could be a valid argument, at least in how it might relate to the Planned Parenthood discussion, not necessarily a great argument, but an argument none the less.
Now prove it.
No no nuh uh, and none of that 'feeling' or what you might think stuff, give up real numbers to back up your hypothesis that this has become prevalent, if you want to make it relevant.

[Tery]

:smile2:Women do have the right to choose what they can do with their own bodies.But do they have the right to choose what they can do with the life inside them??
I think it is about protecting those that are incapable!
How many adopted people,lets say now in their 30's or 40's wish they were aborted? Probably none.
How many woman who choose life,lets say 20yrs later,regret it? Probably none.
Abortion has become a form of birth control and this is very tragic.
Give Life a Chance.
I think this is not about fertility!

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that NOBODY is advocating abortion as a form of birth control. Our problem is with draconian laws that attempt to circumvent a legal medical procedure that is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary. We note that it is mostly men who make these laws and they do so as a form of control over women. We also note that these same people who decry unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion, want to curb birth control, too. Nor are they interested in social programs and health care for these unwanted children they claim to love so much.

It's the hypocrisy that we hate.

[GLewman]

That could be a valid argument, at least in how it might relate to the Planned Parenthood discussion, not necessarily a great argument, but an argument none the less.
Now prove it.
No no nuh uh, and none of that 'feeling' or what you might think stuff, give up real numbers to back up your hypothesis that this has become prevalent, if you want to make it relevant.

Ummm...If a woman's life isn't in danger or pregnant by rap/incest, then by definition, isn't it a form of birth control?

http://www.nrlc.org/factsheets/fs03_abortionintheus.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/t/more-us-women-dying-childbirth/

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

So...150 per 1.2 million have health problems and 13000 because of rape/incest...That means that .01 percent are outside of a strict definition of "abortions as birth control"...The pill is 95-98% effective...and condoms about 90-95% effective...People dumb enough to believe the withdrawl or rhythm method is effective are the target demographic for Margeret Sanger's vision of "population control".

[JohnDalglish]

Ummm...If a woman's life isn't in danger or pregnant by rap/incest, then by definition, isn't it a form of birth control?

Hi,

I never thought you would use sophistry in a post.

Sophistry

Long days and pleasant nights

[PatInTheHat]

Ummm...If a woman's life isn't in danger or pregnant by rap/incest, then by definition, isn't it a form of birth control?

No.

[GLewman]

<font face="Arial"><font size="3"><font color="#0000ff">I never thought you would use sophistry in a post.</font></font></font>

:rofl:...That is what you get for thinking JD :biggrin2: ....What exactly was specious about my post? Your boy, PITH, obnoxiously asked for stats and numbers and I gave them...If two healthy, consenting adults have sex and a healthy pregnancy occurs, then what exactly is it if the woman "chooses" to have a doc break out the vacuum? Inconvenient? Avoiding punishment? (Our President's reasoning for unlimited abortions INCLUDING partial birth abortions). 53+ million abortions since this lady fought for women's rights...No wonder she is trying to get right Jesus...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MUUvcvjEg

[JohnDalglish]

:rofl:...That is what you get for thinking JD :biggrin2: ....What exactly was specious about my post? Your boy, PITH, obnoxiously asked for stats and numbers and I gave them...If two healthy, consenting adults have sex and a healthy pregnancy occurs, then what exactly is it if the woman "chooses" to have a doc break out the vacuum? Inconvenient? Avoiding punishment? (Our President's reasoning for unlimited abortions INCLUDING partial birth abortions). 53+ million abortions since this lady fought for women's rights...No wonder she is trying to get right Jesus...

Hi,

And there was me thinking for a moment that you were going to be coherent in future.

Long days and pleasant nights

[~Ally~]

Ummm...If a woman's life isn't in danger or pregnant by rap/incest, then by definition, isn't it a form of birth control?

I wasn't aware women could be impregnated by rap. You really are the font of all knowledge Glewman.
I will believe it's true because you've said it and it's written on the internets. :y:

[JohnDalglish]

I wasn't aware women could be impregnated by rap. You really are the font of all knowledge Glewman.
I will believe it's true because you've said it and it's written on the internets. :y:

Hi,

Dat bad ole rap!

Long days and pleasant nights

[Alexandra19]

I haven't read all the comments on this thread so I'm just going to give my point of view, even if some of you have probably said the same thing and probably better : Texas is insane.
I won't speak about rapes and such cases, but just focus on a classic scheme including an accident (even with birth control, it does happen).
I don't think any woman loves having an abortion, we are all aware about what it is and there's nothing cool about it. Plus it is often a better idea not to carry the child if you didn't want it from the beginning and if you know that you don't have what it takes (money, maturity, etc) to provide him with a good life.
In a lot of cases, having an abortion means taking ones responsabilities to me, so why are people trying to make it harder ?

I'm glad we don't have all these pro-life lobbies in France, some people happen to be judgmental but it's nothing compared to it.

[JohnDalglish]

I'm glad we don't have all these pro-life lobbies in France.

Hi,

So am I in the UK.

Some people seem determined to bring America kicking and screaming into the Dark Ages.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Homer403]

Although there are situations in which abortion is in response to health concerns of the mother or fetus, or in response to pregnancy arising from abuse, the majority of abortions are obtained for social and financial reasons.This is called birth control.

[Homer403]

Do people really think women using abortion as birth control is rare?

More than 25% of women who have abortions have had at least 1 previous abortion. More than 20% of women who have had abortions have had more than 2 previous abortions. Is this rare? 1/4 of women having abortions have had at least one and almost one quarter of women having abortions have had at least 2 previous abortions. Doesn't that mean that for roughly half of the women having abortions, it isn't the only one they ever had? How is that rare?? They are using abortion as a method to keep themselves from giving birth to children. Last I heard, that was called "birth control".

[PatInTheHat]

Ummm...If a woman's life isn't in danger or pregnant by rap/incest, then by definition, isn't it a form of birth control?

http://www.nrlc.org/factsheets/fs03_abortionintheus.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/t/more-us-women-dying-childbirth/

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

So...150 per 1.2 million have health problems and 13000 because of rape/incest...That means that .01 percent are outside of a strict definition of "abortions as birth control"...The pill is 95-98% effective...and condoms about 90-95% effective...People dumb enough to believe the withdrawl or rhythm method is effective are the target demographic for Margeret Sanger's vision of "population control".

Oh Sparky, I'm soooo jealous how you have the power to not only redefine definitions, but definition, itself:rolleyes:.


Do people really think women using abortion as birth control is rare?

More than 25% of women who have abortions have had at least 1 previous abortion. More than 20% of women who have had abortions have had more than 2 previous abortions. Is this rare? 1/4 of women having abortions have had at least one and almost one quarter of women having abortions have had at least 2 previous abortions. Doesn't that mean that for roughly half of the women having abortions, it isn't the only one they ever had? How is that rare?? They are using abortion as a method to keep themselves from giving birth to children. Last I heard, that was called "birth control".

Lets cut the crap and get down to it shall we, and lets try it without more defining, or redefining as the case may be (must less judging) other peoples motives, much less much less, putting a straight jacket on my dictionary...very quaint, you know, in a puritanical colonialist kind of way...but I do so looooves me some big ol' buckles on me giant hat..and boots, belt..hmm, and probably chastity belts:laugh:.

Those kinds of statements are meant to convey only one thing, and that's how there must be some kind of a growing problem, a more & more prevalent problem, of thousands & thousands of women marching to clinics, all laying claim that abortion is their primary form of birth control, like they might say, "Oh I don't use the pill, an IUD, rubbers or cream & jellies, why should I when I can just have another abortion. 'cause abortion is my favorite kind of birth control"...that's #@*$ed up stupid no matter how you want to say it.
Now did I just say that there were absolutely no sadly uneducated, nutty, or totally unbalanced folks out there that don't say something akin to that, much less practice that kind of behavior?
Give me a couple of days, and I could most likely find you a whacky dude carryin' some doomsy gloomsy placard sayin' that too, but that certainly wouldn't make it a prevalent growing problem.
But hey, let us for the sake of argument say it is, do you think those few kind of folks will stop getting abortions?...that black market abortions will cease to exist?...nay, that they won't actually become, prevalent?...oh, and how & why is it any of your business one way or the other to begin with?
(notice pert near nobody ever wants to say how & why it's any of their damn business, now why is that?)
Re-define me some of them little green apples.

[hossenpepper]

But hey, let us for the sake of argument say it is, do you think those few kind of folks will stop getting abortions?...that black market abortions will cease to exist?...nay, that they won't actually become, prevalent?

I believe PITH that this very thing was one of the primary reasons why a law was needed regarding this in the first place; if I have my history right. Of course, that doesn't really matter, people are going to suddenly become "moral" (in contrast to their evil, immoral ways beforehand) once they have to see an ultrasound or hear a heartbeat. Because after all, every case is the same and in all cases it's because the mother is evil and immoral. Or maybe half... but whatever, even if it's 1 in a million that is enough to implement GOVERNMENT CONTROL in an area of moral debate in people's PERSONAL lives. More right wing hypocrisy.

Government control is OK when it comes to things to which they morally object. The death penalty (government sanctioned murder of a citizen) and wars where thousands upon thousands are slaughtered like farm animals are OK. But an abortion of a clump of cells that knows nothing of life or self awareness, that is the real evil that must be controlled.

Major burrito time in hypocrite village (which I heard is missing at least one of its idiots... hmmmm...)

[Sigmund]

Thank you, Mr.Pith.

[omm poppa mow mow]

So anyone know anyone in Texas plugged in w/the headset in the room w/the view? Thump thump! Thump thump! Be a hoot, woodn't id? If someone listening in heard the gears grinding and then a noisome stretch of what sounds like burning rubber....thump thump! thump thump!

Did the Freds let some more weapons slip across the border whilst this was going on? And say it didn't?

[Tery]

Well, now it's Virginia's turn to propose outrageous laws --


On Tuesday, the Virginia House of Representatives passed two of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country. By a vote of 66-32, the Republican majority passed House Bill 1 (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+HB1), which defines personhood as beginning at conception and effectively bans any woman from having an abortion, even if she is raped. The bill also would restrict contraceptives and an amendment to the bill would allow civil lawsuits against any doctor that performs an abortion. The bill is by far the most restrictive bill passed by any Republican controlled legislature in many years.

Okay, that's bad enough - and unconstitutional - but get a load of this:


A second bill was also passed that forces women to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound, which is a serious violation of the body, before being able to get an abortion. Of course if House Bill 1 passes the Senate as it is expected to, women won’t be able to get an abortion at all.



That's right, every woman who seeks an abortion -- no matter the reason -- has to have an invasive unnecessary medical procedure against her own and her doctor's wishes. This is state-sanctioned rape. Just because it uses an object doesn't excuse it. Have you seen one of these wands they use?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Db9VKr9nWYg/TchDA2lTDeI/AAAAAAAABV0/BGjfKNKde18/s1600/transvaginalimage01.jpg

That, my friends, is invasive. Any physical violation of a woman without her consent is rape. The Commonwealth of Virginia is not just condoning this, they are requiring it. What. The. F**K? Is this America??!?


Read the entire article:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/14/gop-controlled-virginia-legislature-passes-two-of-the-most-restrictive-anti-abortion-bills-in-the-nation/

[guido tkp]

sadly...this is becoming the norm...because too, too many everyday people are unwilling to simply say 'enough"

it seems to me that mystical, magical frickin' slippery slope every (r) warned us about for all those years, on every issue, is (thanks mostly to the growing ignorance of the voting population) all sliding the way of the right wing religious fundamentalists view things...

now, even the some of the (r)'s running for president are talking about banning contraceptives...AND NO ONE IN MY PARTY IS UTTERING A PEEP !!!

if rick santorum has his way (and neither newt nor ron paul are really all that different)....if you, your daughter, your wife, your sister, your aunt...that nice new neighhbor who just moved in with her newlywed husband...is gang raped by a relative and the local clegy and becomes with child...her baby is nothing less than an act of god and she has no...zero...zilch choice in the matter

if you or some loved one is faced with that infamous 'it's either the baby or your wife' scenario...than, again....you have no choice...

and someone's going to try and convince me that freedom is going to be diminished if obama gets re-elected...fat chance i'd believe that for a second

you want to see freedom go away even faster than it already is on this, or any issue...vote for any republican currently in the race for president

[Garriga]

Proper education will prevent more abortions than any of this stupid stuff will.


So will adoption, and that is all I have to say about that. But someday I'll--

write the book

[Tery]

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd103/laserspray/internet%20stuff/smilies/facepalm.gif

[Garriga]

This topic hits me hard. It just so personal. I don't have to rant about what I think about abortion. My family and friends know where I stand on this.

However, I don't know if forcing a woman to listen to the babies heartbeat will prevent an abortion. I think she would go ahead with it, but she will carry more guilt, and I don't think putting more guilt on her is right. So, despite my opinion on abortion, I don't think a woman should have to listen to the heart beat before having an abortion.

[themadone06]

I think it should be left up to the doctor. Government shouldn't be legislating things like this. If a doctor wants to require that their patients listen to a heartbeat, then that is perfectly fine with me. In all honesty, before a women choses an abortion, she should probably be shown these things. It isn't invasive and just gives a little education. I'm not advocating the things that were being talked about in Virginia. Just a simple scan and listening to the heartbeat is all that is necessary. If I was a doctor, I would be giving women all the information possible. It is a big choice that could affect the rest of their lives. If they still chose that they would want to abort their pregnancy, then that is their right.

But, the government shouldn't require it.

[Lilly]

An evil plot comes to mind. Let me come to the meeting. I could place a small pillow beneath my shirt to indicate early pregnancy, or better yet, a small stuffed cow, since it's the ag committee. I could pull it out and say, "Politicians and the ag committee should stay out of my uterus....unless, of course, invited."

[Frederick J. Parker]

Quite frankly, I don't really care if women want to get abortions, but I do not think that abortion should be utilized as a method of birth control. This is especially true in cases where the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill, and especially true in cases where this behaviour is repititive.

Now, I can understand that no one's perfect and everyone is capable of making a mistake, and sure, maybe this might necessitate an abortion. In a case like that, along with the abortion, there should be counselling about birth control. If there is a second occurrance, then maybe the counselling could be graphic, with pictures or even making the irresponsible party view the results. The third time should call for mandatory sterilization, since it is obvious that some people are just plain stupid, and likely would never make a good parent anyway.

Oh, and yes, by all means involve her partner in this situation as well.

[Neesy]

Well this is kind of a sideline comment but did you hear about the poor woman who was in a coma and got pregnant? It turned out to be a nurse's aid or male orderly who impregnated her. He was responsible for looking after her personal hygiene, giving her sponge baths, etc. Hmmm - guess he got carried away. Anyway, the parents of the woman in the coma allowed the pregnancy to continue and rather than abort it, just adopted the baby once it was at term. I can only assume she had a Caesarean? This is from around 1999 I think. I did not google it but I do remember how appalled I was at the time. So if you equate what is going on in Texas with what happened there, I would say that they view women as nothing more than incubators for new life. Or in other words, the potential life of the unborn is more important than the mother's life.

[Tery]

This is especially true in cases where the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill

Despite what the Pro-birth crowd says, the Hyde Amendment made it illegal for tax dollars to pay for abortions. So this is an invalid argument.

[Frederick J. Parker]

That's fine, but if you actually read the article you referenced, you will note that this refers only to Federal funds, and even notes that State funds have been used to finance abortions. One pays both Federal and State taxes, do they not?

[~Ally~]

I suppose we could always go back to the good ole days where women risk their lives attempting 'do it yourself' abortions?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diy-abortion-vinegar-death-mum-843819 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diy-abortion-vinegar-death-mum-843819)

[guido tkp]

anyone who is stupid enough to think that any women is not aware of what is going on in her body when she goes to see a doctor on this issue...who thinks they need some 'education'.???

probably needs more than a little education...especially constitutional practise and theory themselves, first

no matter how you want to frame it...it is still a religious group forcing thier religious viewpoint on others...and in mighty dangerous ways, too

'congress shall make no law..' means you cannot take your interpretation of life, the universe and everything and be constitutional able allowed to force everyone to do it your way...

when good people of strong ethical, moral and religious standing disagree...the govt must recognize that neither is right, neither is wrong and build the laws to reflect the diversity of views...not bludgeon one side, as is now happening, simply because you can muster enough votes for it at that time

but i certainly don't have the right to tell you how to live your lives...or what medical procedures you can or cannot have...or, even, if your own insurance co. can pay for it, based on my religious beliefs...

[Neesy]

I replied to this thread once before but it was a while back and I guess you don't get approval from Miss Mod right away. I just want to comment on the picture showing a tiny fetus. It is as if they took a much older fetus i.e. maybe 19 or 20 weeks old and shrunk it down to the size of a perhaps 5 or 6 week old fetus. I don't know all that much about fetal development but to me this picture is very misleading. I am pretty sure that when a fetus is this small it does not have the development shown here and kinda looks a bit like any other animal embryo. Just my opinion as it seems like propaganda

[Todash]

You know ... I cannot conceive of any circumstance where I would get an abortion. And truly, if I knew someone who was planning to get one, depending on our relationship, I'd probably try to gently and kindly talk her out of it (just once, no haranguing). But I'd never assume it had been an easy decision in the first place, and I would never try to force anyone either way. I believe that God wants the hearts of mankind—actions are secondary—and laws cannot impact that.

[guido tkp]

but one must admit...we more often feel that way because of our deeply held religious beliefs, right ?

and, as such every true american should now know that creating laws outlawing anything based on ones religion is very probably unconstitutional

there are many religions...there are many religious sects that allow, under certain conditions, for this procedure to be a completely moral and valid one

any move that restricts activities by one religious group over the objections of another is not legal...it doesn't matter how we feel...we do not achieve true freedom by having majority rule over constitutional issues...that's what all the checks and balances are supposed to be for...to protect the minority view from the big-ass foot of the majority

so often, throughout history, we've gotten this wrong...it seems a shame that when we finally are getting somewhere, we keep having the same battles

moreover...one would have to admit that the power of god, and his word, is diminished when mere mortals have to lie, cheat, steal and strongarm those who do not agree...the only truth of god is that which we know to be true...clearly a large percentage of the world does not buy into this version of life, the universe and everything: and by that, i mean choice on abortion...even a huge percentage of catholics do not agree 100% with the current papal thinking..and one would be lying to say otherwise

and where does that leave one in gods eyes...for some, that path to hell is paved with good intentions, that's for sure...

but isn't it god who makes that judgement ?

god does not need our help in this..would it not be in the best interest of furthering gods ideal if there were no laws whatsoever about this...that religious leaders taught gods message without all the baggage many find discerning (almost no two religions actually agree wholeheartedly on all that minutae, anyway, so why make it so much an imperative* ?)...and, when the word of god is less filtered by mans prejudices, then people will want to choose a better path...rather than having one forced upon them

*right off the bat, i thought someone will whine about how a defenseless, unborn life is not either 'minutae' or a non-ipmerative: however, not all religions agree life automatically begins at conception...moreover most of the religions/religious leaders who are consistently trying to overturn roe v wade are also the first to try and end hunger programs, end health programs, currently stand in the way of changing our whole healthcare system away from for-profit...are distinctly pro gun, pro death penalty and pro war...none of which are in any manner, way or form pro life activities...

when the entirity of the pro life movement begins to defund the military with the passion they are trying to defund planned parenthood, then i might believe they are prolife...until then, they are all basically, liars looking for power over our lives

as one who values freedom for all americans, seems the slippery slope only has meaning if one thinks a (d) and his evil, liberal hordes are behind it

[Todash]

when the entirity of the pro life movement begins to defund the military with the passion they are trying to defund planned parenthood, then i might believe they are prolife...until then, they are all basically, liars looking for power over our lives

That's a weird dichotomy, isn't it? I truly do not understand how some of the most militant, kill-'em-and-let-God-sort-'em-out people are also "pro-life." You would think that someone who was trying to stop abortion would also be working very hard to stop capital punishment and military action, but I'm pretty sure it just ain't so. :dunno:

[PatInTheHat]

but one must admit...we more often feel that way because of our deeply held religious beliefs, right ?


I don't, but then I don't lay claim any religious beliefs, much less even the more shallow ones.
Thing is, now while it would definitely take more than both of my hands to count how many people I've met in my entire existence that actually have them there genuine supposed "deeply held religious beliefs", I could most probably actually count them, and in numbers that do not impress me at all, primarily because I could probably actually count them...and I'm not really all that hard to impress, honest, I mean balance a ball on your nose whilst jugglin', hell, or just juggle, and I'm fan boy putty in your hands:biggrin2:.
So in closing, I ask please, don't talk the talk, unless you really walk the walk, around me anyway is what I'm sayin', but only because I find it more than mildly annoying...and if I find it annoying (yeah yeah, so maybe I am relatively easy to annoy, butt still:laugh:), can ya just imagine what them invisible all knowing controlling & powerful omnipotent beings/deities/whatevers must think about it:eyebrow:...mmm hmmm:oops:.

[guido tkp]

no worries pat...my biggest firmly held religiuos belief these days is that most, not all---most, 'religious' folks , of any type, got it all wrong !

but....then, there are some that surprise even me...

[if-so-Grrl]

*right off the bat, i thought someone will whine about how a defenseless, unborn life is not either 'minutae' or a non-ipmerative: however, not all religions agree life automatically begins at conception...moreover most of the religions/religious leaders who are consistently trying to overturn roe v wade are also the first to try and end hunger programs, end health programs, currently stand in the way of changing our whole healthcare system away from for-profit...are distinctly pro gun, pro death penalty and pro war...none of which are in any manner, way or form pro life activities...


Well, yes; these people seem to think that life - or at least our responsibility to it - begins at conception, but ends at birth.

[Todash]

Well, yes; these people seem to think that life - or at least our responsibility to it - begins at conception, but ends at birth.

Yeah, it's weird. I got nothin'. :umm:

[Tery]

This is why I refer to them as Pro-birth. They care nothing for life, really. Just birth. Once that person is out of the womb, they don't give a rat's arse about them. No child care, no food banks, no pre-school, no ANY school (oh, religious schools are ok), no treatment, no health care... nope. Once you're out of there, you are on your own, baby.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd103/laserspray/internet%20stuff/smilies/smiley3831.gif

[PatInTheHat]

This is why I refer to them as Pro-birth. They care nothing for life, really. Just birth. Once that person is out of the womb, they don't give a rat's arse about them. No child care, no food banks, no pre-school, no ANY school (oh, religious schools are ok), no treatment, no health care... nope. Once you're out of there, you are on your own, baby.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd103/laserspray/internet%20stuff/smilies/smiley3831.gif

Thus the phrase,'Baby needs new shoes", oft times leading to that other famous catchy phrase, 'Get a job', baby!...well I'm sure there's a factory out there what needs someone rather tiny to crawl into those big ol' manglin' machines for a good cleanin' ever now & again, and hopefully for about a whole dollar an hour no less (duh uh, your a dumb baby, like SN:laugh:RT whatta you know:rofl:???)...okay okay, so probably less, and definitely no payed strained apricot breaks dammit, 'cause I'd like to remind mind you lil' ankle biters there's a mess of babies out there needin' shoes too ("mess of", is I think what you call them in a group:rolleyes:), and most don't even care if they're new, so be there or be sqaure y'all buncha whiny 'entitled' pouty pablum pukers, and stop actin' like such big babies!
Oh gee whiz I'm so very sorry, I truly didn't mean to give some righteous hard liners out there pocket rocket like wood with me goofy little diatribe, I mean come on, we still do have child labor laws ya know, but you can still perchance the dream, and maybe, just maybe, one day....:glare:.

[guido tkp]

i actually had a guy tell me it was imperative that we overturn roe v wade because he and his wife could not concieve naturally...invitro was too expenisve...and all the adoptable kids were too old, even though they'd visited kids as young as two and three...guess they aren't real kids if they didn't just pop out...

they would not settle for anything less than an infant..it took 'em a few years to adopt one, but they got their wish: all was fine, until a few years later, they started popping out their own !

they then treated the adopted one like second hand news..all the natural kids got cars at 16, the adopted one had to save and buy his own...the real kids got college paid for, the adopted one never got to go...

nowadays, he is one of the nicest people i've ever met, hard working and a great dad..and, i might add, an SK fan..especially the dark tower !

couldn't be all that bad, right ?

unfortunately, he has zero relationship with his adoptive family now: not that he hasn't tried, but they've pretty much disowned him

oh, yeah...the adoptive parents ?

they are highly active in their church...go figure

[cat in a bag]

i actually had a guy tell me it was imperative that we overturn roe v wade because he and his wife could not concieve naturally...invitro was too expenisve...and all the adoptable kids were too old, even though they'd visited kids as young as two and three...guess they aren't real kids if they didn't just pop out...

they would not settle for anything less than an infant..it took 'em a few years to adopt one, but they got their wish: all was fine, until a few years later, they started popping out their own !

they then treated the adopted one like second hand news..all the natural kids got cars at 16, the adopted one had to save and buy his own...the real kids got college paid for, the adopted one never got to go...

nowadays, he is one of the nicest people i've ever met, hard working and a great dad..and, i might add, an SK fan..especially the dark tower !

couldn't be all that bad, right ?

unfortunately, he has zero relationship with his adoptive family now: not that he hasn't tried, but they've pretty much disowned him

oh, yeah...the adoptive parents ?

they are highly active in their church...go figure

That is a very sad story.

[Chuggs]

Yeah and Texas wants GOD in all schools and wants to ban books the Christians don't approve of.
So tell me, what is the difference between this and wanting no God in all schools? Cause I don't see any.

[Chuggs]

I think the politicians sponsoring this bill should have to listen too--listen to women voters and men voters who support women's rights.
If these bozos really cared about preventing unwanted pregnancies they would be funding sex education and contraceptives--but wait, that would make too much sense. They'd rather be on their high horses and trying to assume some phony moral high ground and pretending to care about unborn children. What about children who were already born? Meanwhile if any of these politicians got their interns pregnant, they'd be shipping them off to the nearest abortion.

What people don't understand is that these politicians are supporting certain people. It is not just these politicians getting on a "moral high horse" This is a touchy issue, one which I am kinda in the middle about, honestly. One problem is, there are too many hypocrits on both sides, and not really many (politician or otherwise) willing to listen to the other side.

[Chuggs]

Why the hell do these people think their moral codes should trump anyone else's?

For the same reason that anyone else thinks the same thing. Peolpe on both sides are the same, wanting to push their own beliefs, moral code, or whatever onto other people. Don't pretend that its just one side. Me, I'm kinda on both sides, believe it or not. So I stay clear of the argument.

[Chuggs]

Life begins at moment of conception, eh? Well being that this sentiment is in the Old Testament theme of the physical sacrifice to appease God, and we have since been graced with the New Testament where we learn such things as "if you look at a woman and lust after her, you have sinned and committed adultery", which places the acts of sin in the heart and mind now, instead of physical acts, perhaps thinking about sex should be considered the moment life begins.

Or we could use the verse of said bible that clearly states multiple times that "the blood is the life and the life is the blood" to gauge when life begins. Since fetuses are not infused with blood until day 18-24, before then its a group of cells. If this is a sin to abort one of these, then noone should ever cut off a mole or anyother group of cells as yo uhave ended a life.

More proof Texas is for the most part a place where logic and forward thinking goes to die.

This proves my point that both sides like to force their ideals on the other. It is not just Christians. I am a Christian, I am not ashamed to admit, but I'm on the fence about the issue. But your comment about moles is just silly, and your comment about Texas is offensive, and I'm not even from there.

[Chuggs]

It's appalling and cruel to put a woman through this. Texas acts as if deciding to have an abortion is an easy flip decision for a woman.

For some women it is. Just as leaving children alone while going out to party it up, and like locking children in closets and not feeding them because they wet themselves. IT is certainly not an easy decision for most women--or men for that matter--but lets not group every woman in the same group. There are crappy women just like there are crappy men.

[Chuggs]

It's odd because I thought life was cheaper in Texas, from a death penalty standpoint they don't hold back much. So, let me get this right: State-sanctioned killing is okay, women deciding what happens in their own bodies is not.

This argument makes no sense. Convicted criminals are not unborn children.

[Chuggs]

This is my last post on this issue for now, and it’s notreally on the issue at all, but on the people of both sides. Both sides are thesame (not everyone, obviously, but a great many) in that they want to pushtheir beliefs on others, no matter what. It happens in issues all of the time,religious, political and otherwise. Arguing one's point is fine, but forcing isanother issue entirely. We are civilized people and should act that way.Bashing all supporters of abortion, all those against abortion, non-religiousfolk, and religious folk, is just silly. Saying blank statements about a wholegroup of people, or people in a certain state is ridiculous as well. I knowthat we all do it, heck, I’m sure I do it all of the time, but it is somethingthat we should all try to avoid. As far as the issue goes, I really do stand inthe middle. I lean more to one side, for sure (and it’s probably not the sidethat most of you would think) but I am in the middle. If there is one thingthat I have learned over my thirty some-odd years of life, it’s that there are hypocriteson both sides of almost every issue.
There are certain issues that will likely be solved, andit could be that they are not meant to be solved. It would just be nice if wecould all get along better, even if we disagree.

[Todash]

This argument makes no sense. Convicted criminals are not unborn children.
Actually, this particular argument does make sense. If you are going to argue that unborn children are humans, have life, however you choose to frame it, then that raises the question: should we take any lives? It's not my business to answer that question for others, but for me, personally, my answer is no. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't have an abortion (though I wouldn't prevent you from doing so). I also wouldn't kill a person already born, except as self-defense or defense of others in immediate danger, and even then, my aim wouldn't be to kill but to escape. By that I mean that I won't take up arms against another. I won't consign another to death in a court of law. This is not merely academic; I've been excluded from jury duty because of my stance. Of course other people draw the line at different places for their own reasons. But it absolutely does make sense to me that, for the same reason I would not have an abortion, I also would not kill someone already born, outside of the exceptions I've already mentioned.


This is my last post on this issue for now, and it’s not really on the issue at all, but on the people of both sides. Both sides are the same (not everyone, obviously, but a great many) in that they want to push their beliefs on others, no matter what. It happens in issues all of the time, religious, political and otherwise. Arguing one's point is fine, but forcing is another issue entirely. We are civilized people and should act that way. Bashing all supporters of abortion, all those against abortion, non-religious folk, and religious folk, is just silly. Saying blank statements about a whole group of people, or people in a certain state is ridiculous as well. I know that we all do it, heck, I’m sure I do it all of the time, but it is something that we should all try to avoid. As far as the issue goes, I really do stand in the middle. I lean more to one side, for sure (and it’s probably not the side that most of you would think) but I am in the middle. If there is one thing that I have learned over my thirty some-odd years of life, it’s that there are hypocrites on both sides of almost every issue.
There are certain issues that will likely be solved, and it could be that they are not meant to be solved. It would just be nice if we could all get along better, even if we disagree.

Indeed and well said.

[guido tkp]

well...let's start at the beginning: there is no law about not having god in school: there is a constitutional legal theory, based on the written words and the intent of the founding fathers, that says you cannot pick just one or give any sort of preference to just one: if you are going to teach it, you must teach them all; the constitution is menat to be blind as to the validity of all of these various religions..and, thus, the schools must be as well...that is why religous teaching is best left to the family and the church.

every president since the ruling has said, and the SCOTUS rule was as such...one can have god...even prayer, in school, but to do so you have to let any and all all have equal access and teaching.

now, remind me...rather than lying everyday about this for the past 40-50 years...which christian organization/s have offered up a constitutionally valid plan for accomplishing this ?

second...and i must admit, i'm kinda lost on this one, chuggsy: please point me to the woman who would prefer to have the govt invade their most private moments...the woman who dearly feels that she has been taught so badly and led so far astray that she the needs to have uncle sam right by her side when she goes to visit her gynecologist...

'cause i've searched the world over (and except for a few hookers who'll do anything for an extra $20) this fictional woman...who won't have a problem with the govt and some bassackward legislator/preacher shoving a probe up her personal areas (just because they don't like the way she thinks), does not exist...

as i said, i'm kinda lost on that one...but if you've found a passellful of one-step-behind-their-man/barefoot and pregnant wimps, please let us all know...i'm sure there's a few cro-magnons just ready to make great husbands to these subservient wenchs


and, no, both sides are not the same on this issue...the left in no manner way or form has tried to force its beliefs on anyone: with the left, anyone, as a free citizen encumbered by (or unencumbered) whatever religious philosophy you follow or believe in, can make a choice on your own

the current right wing political philosophy, as evidenced throughout all of these laws and statutes, does not allow for any form of freedom of thinking/choice under any circumstances on this issue: not for serious medical situations...not in cases where a mothers life is at risk - i have 3 daughters...you think i'm gonna let the govt or any frikkin' preacher and his flock of numbnuts decide during a medical emergnecy, who is to live...

not in cases of rape...gang rape...not in cases where a parent rapes a child: most of these bills force a girl raped by her father to get his permission if there is any chance of an abortion being sought...

most are currently worded in ways that could ban most, if not all, birth control...

yup, that's ethical -- and, where exactly is the left just like the right on any of these issues...what law is there that forces anyone to do anything at all against thier will as all of these right-wing laws do?

nowhere, of course...anyone who would say otherwise is competely lying...and in that lie, it tells me 100% of everything i need to know about their version of truth, honesty and how their 'religion' has them deal with real, everyday ethical dilemas: by banning any that do not conform to their way of thinking...once again, something the left has done anywhere on any aspect of this issue.

[exzel]

On the 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade, I’ve got to give Salon kudos' for having the guts to publish an honest, poignant, and painfully truthful piece.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

[Moderator]

Really good piece--thanks for sharing that link.

[Robert Gray]

You have to remember that Texas has been gerrymandered into oblivion using the same methods that Virginia is considering to disfranchise the majority of voters. So please bear that in mind and remember that the voices of the majority are not reflected in the legislative process. Consider it a cautionary tale because it can happen to any State.

[guido tkp]

quite true, RG...i got to have a bit of a front row seat of the tail end of all that some years back...and watched, aghast and embarrased, as members of my party used those tactics in various other states, too

it is shocking that the people simply do not understand...or refuse to even get the slighest clue, that in most states, where it 'seems' the R's have a good, honest vice grip on the electorate..they really have just used/abused the system to completely stack the decks in ways far more devious than anyone had ever tried...

and they've, by and large, got away with it...not just in texas, though...nearly everywhere: want to know why you're center/seemingly blue state suddenly has so many R's, or tea partiers...it's not because you and your neighbors have switched and are lying to each other...no, no...the decks have been stacked, as of the previous census', ten...even twenty years ago.

i find all this shameful beyond reproach: i'd rather win an election with the best ideas...not by carving out, literally house by house, an electoral map that guarantees victory under nearly all circumstances

truth is, though...no one is listening to those of us who talk of such things...all they want is thier taxes lowered and to be told they are not the bad ones...it's alawys those other guys who are the bad ones, right ?

...that's all too many care about anymore...i/me/mine