Being impregnated during a rape is just like getting a flat tire

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Don't distort the facts. As someone who lives in Texas I'm happy that Texas has passed this law which requires that the doctor must show the woman the ultrasound. If she still chooses to go through with it fine, but at least she is making a properly informed decision.

Part of this law is used to address a problem that I've heard about since living in Texas, which is that some women would request to see the ultrasound prior to the abortion and the Doctors denied the patients request.

I'm curious, who is paying for the ultrasound? The patient, insurance, medicare? thanks

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Roe v Wade pretty clearly determined the abortion issue in the US when it comes to rights.

Roe v Wade doesn't have a pony in this race. These laws don't take away a women's choice to do with her body whatever she wishes without any consideration for her child.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

How does insurance become a right?

Insurance is not a right. Kansas just stopped the folks who are opposed to abortion from paying for part of the costs of abortions in their State. There will still be coverage for those who want to be covered for abortion. These costs will now be carried by the willing users. That's fair.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

And why, in an alleged free market like the US, does the government have to dictate what a private company can and cannot offer to its customers?

You really should direct that question to Obama and the Democrats in both Houses. They have a lot more to answer for. As far as Kansas is concerned they do regulate insurers whithin their own State to protect the interests of their citizens. Remember Kansas isn't preventing insurers from insuring abortions. They simply aren't letting them lump that coverage in with a general policy. This gives every citizen the right to help fund insurance for abortions or not.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by photon

They should show videos of the symptoms of diabetes before buying a slurpee, otherwise no insurance coverage.

And videos of people falling down stairs before you can use stairs, otherwise no insurance coverage.

They should show videos of people diving on ice and faking injuries before they start cheering for the Canucks, otherwise no insurance coverage.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How?

Well some people simply seem to look at abortion as a method of childbirth. Really this will help women realize the humanity of their unborn children. Just so their are no misconceptions about the Texas law it has the following key points:

• abortionists will have to offer the woman the opportunity to hear the hearbeat of the child and seeing the childs sonogram image. The mother may decline
• the abortionist must describe her unborn child at that stage in his development, and describe what organs and limbs are formed as well
• Mothers who conceived through rape and incest, or whose unborn children have serious fetal abnormalities, do not have to hear the description

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by photon

They should show videos of the symptoms of diabetes before buying a slurpee, otherwise no insurance coverage.

And videos of people falling down stairs before you can use stairs, otherwise no insurance coverage.

Drinking a slurpee doesn't deny a life. I might not totally agree with everything Calgaryborn has said, but I can see the evolution of thinking if your stance is that abortion is killing. The reason why this debate rages on is because regardless of how it's been attempted to be fully rationalized, the concept of allowing and publically funding an abortion of a child (or fetus or whatever one wants to call it to help dehumanize the decision) on demand unsettles a good segment of the population.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I'm curious, who is paying for the ultrasound? The patient, insurance, medicare? thanks

As I mentioned before an ultrasound was already required prior to this law being enacted. I don't know who pays for the ultrasound or has been paying for it up to now, however, considering that this the US I suspect it's split between the patient and insurance coverage.

[Rockin' Flames]

nm

[moon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

abortion of a child (or fetus or whatever one wants to call it to help dehumanize the decision)

Its not called a fetus to dehumanize the decision it is because that is what it is.

It isn't a child at that point so why call it that?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Well some people simply seem to look at abortion as a method of birthcontrol. Really this will help women realize the humanity of their unborn children. Just so their are no misconceptions about the Texas law it has the following key points:

I corrected it to say birthcontrol, I'm assuming thats what you mean, if not ignore this.

This statement is so utterly and completely out to lunch it boggles the mind. While it may be true a tiny tiny percentage of women would honestly think of abortion as a form of birth control, the vast majority of women who decide on this option see it as a last restort and make a very difficult choice in their life to do it. Some might not take seriously enough, but to suggest they think of abortion as just another form of birth control is nuts.

• abortionists will have to offer the woman the opportunity to hear the hearbeat of the child and seeing the childs sonogram image. The mother may decline
• the abortionist must describe her unborn child at that stage in his development, and describe what organs and limbs are formed as well
• Mothers who conceived through rape and incest, or whose unborn children have serious fetal abnormalities, do not have to hear the description

Awesome choice of wording, abortionists instead of 'Doctor' Certainly sounds more shady. Its simple, the woman should consult her doctor, he should speak to her about the risks and options to keep the child with adoption as a real option. All doctors or counselors at these clinics take this job seriously, its not like its a 7-11 of abortions where people walk in, order up an abortion and get the fetus removed and go on about their merry way.

But to force a mother to go through anything she does not agree to, is utterly and completely ridiculous. Its astonishing to hear conservatives argue for this idea, while in any other issue it would have you and fox news screaming bloody murder in outrage of the government over stepping its bounds into the doctors office.

Let the doctor do their job, and let the patient have their rights.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I'm sorry did you answer my question?

I don't like to pay for missles killing people can I opt out? I don't know what Obama has to do with this.

Obama has everything to do with it. Who you elect determines what you can and can't opted out of. Want to stop paying for missiles; Vote for a leader who agrees with you on that front.

Originally Posted by SeeBass

When did Planned parenthood become political in nature like funding a lobbying group.

You have to live in a cave not to know Planned Parenthood's political aims. Just google Planned Parenthood Action Committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obama has everything to do with it. Who you elect determines what you can and can't opted out of. Want to stop paying for missiles; Vote for a leader who agrees with you on that front.

In an election between two people how are you supposed to choose one that agrees with everyone of your viewpoints?

Stop being ridiculous.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Thor

Awesome choice of wording, abortionists instead of 'Doctor' Certainly sounds more shady. Its simple, the woman should consult her doctor, he should speak to her about the risks and options to keep the child with adoption as a real option. All doctors or counselors at these clinics take this job seriously, its not like its a 7-11 of abortions where people walk in, order up an abortion and get the fetus removed and go on about their merry way.

But to force a mother to go through anything she does not agree to, is utterly and completely ridiculous. Its astonishing to hear conservatives argue for this idea, while in any other issue it would have you and fox news screaming bloody murder in outrage of the government over stepping its bounds into the doctors office.

Let the doctor do their job, and let the patient have their rights.

Just to be clear, she's not forced to look at the sonogram nor hear the hearbeat. However, I don't see what's the problem with telling her what stage of development the baby is in. When making big decisions like this I think an informed decision is good.

As for why conservatives argue this, well I can't speak for all conservatives, however, I consider it a murder of a child. Therefore why would I be upset if the government is trying to stop a murder.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

They should show videos of the symptoms of diabetes before buying a slurpee, otherwise no insurance coverage.

And videos of people falling down stairs before you can use stairs, otherwise no insurance coverage.

It is pretty standard to expect full disclosure before doing any intrusive medical procedure. In the case of abortion it is not uncommon for women to suffer regret after the death of their unborn child.

This is not limited to women who adhere to a religious community either. I have an inlaw myself who chose abortion early in her life only to lose the ability to have children a little later on. Her lack of religion hasn't kept her from regret.

If a look at the ultrasound is going to be the deal breaker for a women considering an abortion than I would suggest that abortion wasn't the right choice for her.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Drinking a slurpee doesn't deny a life.

No, but this isn't about the legality or morality of abortion itself. Or at least in theory.

If people disagree with abortion that's fine, they are free to not have one, or to put themselves through arbitrary hoops of attempts at emotional persuasion if they want.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...ends12011.html

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

In an election between two people how are you supposed to choose one that agrees with everyone of your viewpoints?

Stop being ridiculous.

There are far more than 2 choices involved. Look at the Republican party right now. They have a Libertarian candidate who would stop America from stopping missiles immediately.

Besides we are talking about Kansas here. The people of Kansas voted for people who agreed with them that they shouldn't have to help fund abortions. Good on them!

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Thor

I corrected it to say birthcontrol, I'm assuming thats what you mean, if not ignore this.

This statement is so utterly and completely out to lunch it boggles the mind. While it may be true a tiny tiny percentage of women would honestly think of abortion as a form of birth control, the vast majority of women who decide on this option see it as a last restort and make a very difficult choice in their life to do it. Some might not take seriously enough, but to suggest they think of abortion as just another form of birth control is nuts.

Awesome choice of wording, abortionists instead of 'Doctor' Certainly sounds more shady. Its simple, the woman should consult her doctor, he should speak to her about the risks and options to keep the child with adoption as a real option. All doctors or counselors at these clinics take this job seriously, its not like its a 7-11 of abortions where people walk in, order up an abortion and get the fetus removed and go on about their merry way.

But to force a mother to go through anything she does not agree to, is utterly and completely ridiculous. Its astonishing to hear conservatives argue for this idea, while in any other issue it would have you and fox news screaming bloody murder in outrage of the government over stepping its bounds into the doctors office.

Let the doctor do their job, and let the patient have their rights.

Facts, please. Otherwise, conjecture.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is pretty standard to expect full disclosure before doing any intrusive medical procedure.

Sure, no one says otherwise.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In the case of abortion it is not uncommon for women to suffer regret after the death of their unborn child.

It's also not uncommon for women to suffer regret after the birth of their unborn child.

You can also have regret while knowing you made the right decision, and you can have no regrets while making the wrong one, this point doesn't have any meaning.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This is not limited to women who adhere to a religious community either. I have an inlaw myself who chose abortion early in her life only to lose the ability to have children a little later on. Her lack of religion hasn't kept her from regret.

So? Regret is part of life, because things don't always go as planned, because situations and views change, and a million other variables.

Interesting how government intervention to prevent regret is suddenly desirable, when government intervention that doesn't happen to align with an ideology is undesirable.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If a look at the ultrasound is going to be the deal breaker for a women considering an abortion than I would suggest that abortion wasn't the right choice for her.

Or if it doesn't change a woman's choice (as is the goal of this whole fiasco) then they'll just jack up the requirements until they do get the desired result, as other states have been doing.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Facts, please. Otherwise, conjecture.

Why don't you provide some facts to disprove it then? Show us a study that a significant percentage of women consider this a form of b/c. Or one that shows these doctors don't take their jobs seriously. Because of the hundreds of women and maybe dozen doctors I know; I don't know of any that would fall into either group.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, no one says otherwise.



It's also not uncommon for women to suffer regret after the birth of their unborn child.

You can also have regret while knowing you made the right decision, and you can have no regrets while making the wrong one, this point doesn't have any meaning.



So? Regret is part of life, because things don't always go as planned, because situations and views change, and a million other variables.

Interesting how government intervention to prevent regret is suddenly desirable, when government intervention that doesn't happen to align with an ideology is undesirable.

I think you are underestimating the degree of regret we are talking about. Also, I don't know many women who regret the lives of their children. If anything they might regret the timing of the pregnancy which is different. It is pretty hard for a Mother or anyone in society to hold a baby and still see it as non-human or a leech that should be cut up and discarded.

Originally Posted by photon

Or if it doesn't change a woman's choice (as is the goal of this whole fiasco) then they'll just jack up the requirements until they do get the desired result, as other states have been doing.

Perhaps, but you don't know that. There are also limits to what a State can do because of Roe v Wade declaring the unborn to be non-human.

[Sliver]

I'm reluctantly pro-choice, but don't have a problem with women jumping through a few hoops before having an abortion. An ultrasound, watching a video, etc. all seem fine to me.

Rape is different - here's your abortion, no hassle, and we'll throw in some free counseling.

I find as I'm getting older (34 now) I have more of a problem with abortion. Probably because I'm moving away from the age where an unexpected pregnancy would feel like the end of the world. Also probably because I have kids now.