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

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

CalgaryBorn

I want to understand your stance better. Do you believe in the use of contraceptives, condoms,pill, and such that prevent pregnancies?

Yes

Originally Posted by SeeBass

If you do... do you believe that some of these items should be allowed on people's health plans?

Yes

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I am in favour and I would think most of us would that the less abortions the better.
Would you also believe that anything our society would do to cut down on unprotected sex is a good thing?

Sounds like a loaded question. I'm in faviour of age appropriate sex Ed as long it isn't used to define social norms. Contraceptive education as well as instructions on STDs are fine as well. My children participate in such a program within the public school system.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

They're not supposed to, but I've certainly been to church services that have promoted specific candidates from the pulpit. I even attended a church who's pastor ran in his riding (though I wasn't attending at that time).

What your talking about is illegal in Canada. It also isn't what a church is for.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Surely in a free market economy it would be up to the insurance companies to offer coverage at a price that matches the needs of the people of Kansas.

The problem is that most people get their insurance through their employer in a group plan. Sure an insurer could offer a group plan that didn't include abortion but, they would be sticking their neck out. Planned Parenthood would call for a boycott of that particular insurer. Most Unions would at the least join in. Any company looking for a health plan might purposely avoid that one insurer just to avoid controversy. In short it wouldn't be good for business so. It would never happen.

With this law the people who want the abortion coverage will pay for it. The rest won't have to contribute to something they find offensive.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What your talking about is illegal in Canada. It also isn't what a church is for.

In the States many evangelicals actively advocated from the pulpit for the election of George Bush. Since the debate of this thread is regarding the United States, the argument is valid IMO.

Churches shouldn't be tax exempt regardless. Their exception is outdated, particularly since so many oppose equality for homosexuals and women (although not all).

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

In the States many evangelicals actively advocated from the pulpit for the election of George Bush. Since the debate of this thread is regarding the United States, the argument is valid IMO.

Churches shouldn't be tax exempt regardless. Their exception is outdated, particularly since so many oppose equality for homosexuals and women (although not all).

He and I were talking about conditions in Canada. We purposely used the word "Canada" to let others know we weren't talking about State law. I can't speak on American Law because I don't know it.

If political discussion/ activity is allowed in American churches than fine. At least unlike Planned Parenthood they are self supporting.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He and I were talking about conditions in Canada. We purposely used the word "Canada" to let others know we weren't talking about State law. I can't speak on American Law because I don't know it.

If political discussion/ activity is allowed in American churches than fine. At least unlike Planned Parenthood they are self supporting.

To a point, but if they are not paying taxes they do benefit with some services.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What your talking about is illegal in Canada. It also isn't what a church is for.

Unless one disagrees with the law, then civil disobedience is ok...

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

To a point, but if they are not paying taxes they do benefit with some services.

true

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You don't think it is a live baby until it comes through the birth canal? I hope that isn't your position because that isn't logical or scientific.

If that isn't your position than you see humanity in the unborn at some point. Which point would that be? When he/she looks human to the eye? When he/she can survive outside of the mother's body? When he/she begins to grow and divide?

Once it's determined when the child reaches the lofty hieghts of human than the question of accountability can be looked at. What if any obligation does a mother have towards her child? What rights does she have?

With the advancements in science children born earlier and earlier can survive. Should a women who desires to abort a viable child be rather given only the option of delivering the child early? Also in such a situation should she be held financially accountable for the child like the father is without a choice?

This is a good question and I would be interested to hear various opinions on it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Unless one disagrees with the law, then civil disobedience is ok...

Yes that is true and I suppose they could rest on their right to free speech.

It still lacks a biblical grounding. Churches get involved in too many things that they aren't called to. For a christian civil disobedience should be reserved for laws that are contrary to scripture.

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

Well you got it right there - "I would suggest...".

What you fail to understand is nobody cares what your suggestions are. Nobody cares what mine are either. It's not our decision. Do you get that?

It's not for us to decide.

Constantly putting up petty roadblocks and invoking the Master of the Universe does not change the fact that is not for your (or me) to decide.

The procedure is legal in the States. Some bible-thumping dimwits don't change that. This certifiable moron talking about how women should be prepared for unwanted pregnancy in the case of rape, no matter how many fools believe him, doesn't change that either.

Anyway, if your dream of ending abortion/forcing your religious beliefs on strangers were to come true, what would you suggest happens to the women who still manage to get an abortion? Should they go to jail and their children sent to orphanages that the compassionate conservatives don't want to pay for? Hey, maybe they should be executed!

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

Because I didn't make the statement. Who said anything about disproving? I merely requested proof.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Thor

Right, which is why this debate is doomed from the start, because of religious beliefs clouding the issue.

I approach it from a science viewpoint, and even then I like to err on the side of keeping abortions legal only up to a certain length of time, based on what we know of fetus development.

The idea that a few week old fetus is equivalent a child is to me word games and the whole problem of the situation. I see it as a argument from logic and reason, you see it from faith and conviction.

Which is why religious interpretation of these laws is a bad idea, if you yourself are religious by all means don't have an abortion, but to push your illogical thinking of a fetus being equivalent to a child on to those who do not share this belief is wrong. You can argue your belief all you want, just keep out of the courts and stop trying to insert more obstacles to women's right to choose since you know going up against roe v wade is not feasible.

It reminds me too much of the religious rights attempts to re-brand creationism as intelligent design. Can't ban abortion? why not try everything else to make it as hard as possible for the woman. The tactic is obvious.

I won't deny that this is partially faith based, however, it's also based upon the fact that you, and I and, every other person walking around in this world including the mother was once a fetus.

From your scientific viewpoint when is a fetus a living human being?

I don't see how telling a woman at what point of development the fetus is and even offering to allow the woman a choice to hear the hearbeat and see the child is an obsticale. If the woman doesn't want to see the child and doesn't want to hear the heartbeat she's not forced to. Getting information should be considered a good thing to make an informed decision. If it changes her decision to get the abortion than that is a fully informed decision she made. If she decides to proceed with the abortion again at least she made an informed decision. Why is providing relevant information considered an obsticle?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

invoking the Masters of the Universe

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well you got it right there - "I would suggest...".

What you fail to understand is nobody cares what your suggestions are. Nobody cares what mine are either. It's not our decision. Do you get that?

It's not for us to decide.

Constantly putting up petty roadblocks and invoking the Master of the Universe does not change the fact that is not for your (or me) to decide.

Where have I invoked the Master of the Universe in this thread? Where have I put up any road blocks? I havn't. Also if you think nobody cares about your conversation why post. You weren't forced to post or even read this thread.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The procedure is legal in the States. Some bible-thumping dimwits don't change that. This certifiable moron talking about how women should be prepared for unwanted pregnancy in the case of rape, no matter how many fools believe him, doesn't change that either.

Nobody has been arguing that abortion is illegal in the States. Also this "certifiable moron" has managed to accomplish more than you in his life. He has actually won public office and passed laws. This particular law is a good one: It causes the users of abortion services to pay for that service.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyway, if your dream of ending abortion/forcing your religious beliefs on strangers were to come true, what would you suggest happens to the women who still manage to get an abortion? Should they go to jail and their children sent to orphanages that the compassionate conservatives don't want to pay for? Hey, maybe they should be executed!

Your doing what you always do: Ignoring the personhood of the unborn child. When you've got that extablished in your heart than you can start looking at what is in the best interest of the Mother and child. When it comes to family law I would think the underlining principle should always be the edification of the family. And long before the law is involved soceity could do a lot more to support healthy choices.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Nobody has been arguing that abortion is illegal in the States. Also this "certifiable moron" has managed to accomplish more than you in his life. He has actually won public office and passed laws. This particular law is a good one: It causes the users of abortion services to pay for that service.

You're defending a guy who thinks abortions are something a woman should be prepared for, even if that situation is rape.

Jesus dude, don't you have an ounce of humanity in that soul of yours? Can't you just call a spade a spade? Do you have to defend stupid crap like this, when you probably (hopefully) don't believe it?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You're defending a guy who thinks abortions are something a woman should be prepared for, even if that situation is rape.

Prepared for financially. Let's try and not lose sight of what is actually being discussed here.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Prepared for financially.

No, prepared for, as in buy insurance to cover the cost of a potential abortion.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

No, prepared for, as in buy insurance to cover the cost of a potential abortion.

Exactly. Prepared for financially. He's not saying that women should be ready to get raped (ridiculous thread title btw). Frankly, I'm not sure what is so wrong about his statement. It's not infringing on a woman's right to choose, just saying that people that do not support abortion will not be required to pay for others to have them. Maybe I am missing something here, but what is the big deal?

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Prepared for financially. Let's try and not lose sight of what is actually being discussed here.

And here-in lies the point. You're saying that she should pay her own money, either by paying for an abortion directly, or by higher insurnace premiums, for getting raped! Y'know what? Let's take a page from Mr. Preacher's book. I pay auto insurance premiums. But I only want mine to cover accidents that meet a certain set of criteria, because I follow the majority of traffic laws very strictly. Now, is that ridiculous? Of course it is. Now, take that, and add in somebody getting assaulted in one of the worst possible ways imaginable by a complete monster, and you have what this absolute piece of crap is suggesting be made law.

Re: When a fetus becomes a person
The fact is, I'm not informed enough to make a good judgement here, I'm really not. However, I assume that the majority of women who are raped, and aren't strictly pro-life, would normally get a pregnancy test ASAP, and get the fetus aborted ASAP, as it's something that they want to move on with, and not be reminded of in the form of a child.

As far as non-abortion cases, everybody I know, had they become pregnant in the form of a contraception fail, or maybe just a reckless night out, would also get that taken care of as soon as they found out they were pregnant (the menstrual cycle is a nice indicator to begin)

Now, the big issue is, when you do come to that threshold where people aren't agreeing what the difference between a fetus and a child is, these laws forcing them to see an ultrasound/hear a heartbeat/hear an outline of the development of the fetus, exist only to aid in increasing the level of guilt someone has were they to go through with it. You say an informed decision helps prevent a lifetime of guilt. I say, in some cases, the decision was made in advance (and it's not impossible, that the choice was made by a pro-life, anti-premarital sex religious man, who is also slightly abusive and threatening, that didn't want a child out of wedlock because HIS abusive father would kill him). Perhaps without being offered/forced to listen to that description, the woman would have the abortion, promptly disappear from that prick's life, and move on without too much of an issue. This legislation in Kansas does not help.

You don't think it is a live baby until it comes through the birth canal? I hope that isn't your position because that isn't logical or scientific.

And seriously? You looked at those 2 pictures and saw the exact same thing on 2 sides of a birth canal? Give me a break! My own brother was born extremely premature (just a smidge under 3 months). While tiny, he still was a full person when he came out. NOT what's in the first picture there.