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

[OldDutch]

Coming from someone who has a 4 month old, I was and always be Pro Choice. I think forcing ultra sounds on a woman is wrong.

I speak from actual experience, seeing my son on the ultrasound at 3 months was a moving experience, bigger than anything I have experienced before. So to me, forcing a woman to view this is equal to emotional manipulation, and just plain wrong.

If a woman wants to see it great, pass a law to force doctors to comply with the request, not the other way around. Quit trying to emotionally hurt the very people you wish to save, just so you can feel better about yourself.

I grew up Christian but lately the Church has drove me away with this stuff. I believe in God, but I have come to grips that the Church is not for me. I don't need people like Calgaryborn getting anointed by other Men and given the right to tell my family what to do. I'm smarter than that.

I think the Church is running into that a lot right now. People are either turning atheist or just saying they are spiritual. All due to the obvious manipulation by Church leaders and right wing politicians. People are smart, quit treating them like their stupid and can't make decisions for themselves.

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

Ooh snap. The Republican from Kansas District 81 has won an election. How can I go on, knowing that I don't measure up to this legendary public servant?

Along this ######ed line of logic, how do you cope, knowing that the Kenyan Muslim Communist Atheist Nazi President accomplishes more every day than you have in your entire life?

My guess is you cope by not believing this nonsense.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

Yeah yeah yeah, jail or no jail? What happens to her?

Really though, you are doing what you always do -- ignoring the fact that (while we are all free to discuss it on the internet for fun) you don't have the right to tell strangers what they can legally do with their own reproductive organs.

Spare us the crap about taxpayers rights and bla bla bla. We all know exactly where this is coming from.

Five seconds of "research" tells me this DeGraaf guy is a fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortion crusader. He's not doing this to save the 0.00000000000001 of the budget that might go towards providing an abortion to a woman who has been impregnated by a rapist. We all know it. He's doing it because of his religion. He is using his position in government to push his particular brand of Christianity on the people in that State.

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

If a woman wants to see it great, pass a law to force doctors to comply with the request, not the other way around. Quit trying to emotionally hurt the very people you wish to save, just so you can feel better about yourself.

And here is one of the top posts in this thread, especially this paragraph. If there's a level of doubt, she will ask. That simple.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

So to me, forcing a woman to view this is equal to emotional manipulation, and just plain wrong.

If a woman wants to see it great, pass a law to force doctors to comply with the request, not the other way around.

And this is exactly what the law that was passed in Texas does. No ones forced to see the ultrasound but it must at least be offered instead of what's currently happening where doctors are refusing to show the ultrasounds when the woman requests to see it.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Nuje

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!

Nope. Not saying that at all. I'm saying that she should pay higher premiums for wanting abortions covered. That's kind of how insurance works. You want more coverage, you pay higher premiums. This is simple stuff.

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?

That's not ridiculous at all. There's all kinds of different coverage packages with auto insurance, from collision, liability, fire and theft, etc. If all I am paying for is liability and someone steals my car, then guess what? I'm not covered by my insurance.

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.

Your analogy is something akin to the Chewbacca Defense. It makes no sense and isn't relevant to this discussion at all, but I guess if people look at the silly monkey, maybe they won't catch on.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The people of Kansas don't want to be forced by their insurance companies to pay for the killing of unborn children. That is more than reasonable. They are not preventing insurance carriers from offering coverage but, simply don't want it part of general coverage wherein they would be in part paying for it.

Rep Pete DeGraaf suggested that a sexually active women who would consider abortion as an option in the case of pregnancy should pay for it. If not at the time of the procedure than before as a rider on her health insurance coverage.

It is not outrageous to expect a driver to plan for the possiblity of a flat tire nor is it outrageous to expect a sexually active women from planning for a possible pregnancy. Imagine that: A women taking responsibility for her own body!

How come Liberals always demand rights which are no rights and then expect others to pay for them?

Calgaryborn, what you've just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Calgaryborn, what you've just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Could you perhaps go into why you think it is a stupid post, rather than rehashing some ######ed quote from an equally ######ed movie? Just think of it like having a discussion.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Could you perhaps go into why you think it is a stupid post, rather than rehashing some ######ed quote from an equally ######ed movie? Just think of it like having a discussion.

Okay, a simple wrong would've done just fine.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ooh snap. The Republican from Kansas District 81 has won an election. How can I go on, knowing that I don't measure up to this legendary public servant?

Along this ######ed line of logic, how do you cope, knowing that the Kenyan Muslim Communist Atheist Nazi President accomplishes more every day than you have in your entire life?

My guess is you cope by not believing this nonsense.

Listen I never called Obama a "certifiable moron". That is how you treat those who you disagree with.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah yeah yeah, jail or no jail? What happens to her?

Sorry you don't get to ask all the questions while ignoring the unborn human life.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Really though, you are doing what you always do -- ignoring the fact that (while we are all free to discuss it on the internet for fun) you don't have the right to tell strangers what they can legally do with their own reproductive organs.

Yes this is a forum and we discuss things here and yes you don't agree with everything that is said.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Spare us the crap about taxpayers rights and bla bla bla. We all know exactly where this is coming from.

Five seconds of "research" tells me this DeGraaf guy is a fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortion crusader. He's not doing this to save the 0.00000000000001 of the budget that might go towards providing an abortion to a woman who has been impregnated by a rapist. We all know it. He's doing it because of his religion. He is using his position in government to push his particular brand of Christianity on the people in that State.

He is doing it because he and others find supporting abortions financially to be offensive. I don't doubt he would like to see protection for unborn children but, that isn't the purpose of this law. You've got no proof otherwise.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by zuluking

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

But you are the one requesting proof. Basically it boils down to either:

-A significant number of women use abortion as a form of b/c.
-The number of women use abortion as a form of b/c is not significant.

You are the one saying there are numbers for your arguement. If you disagree with what was said; you have numbers to back it up, and you are the one making the arguement, prove it.

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by Ark2

That's not ridiculous at all. There's all kinds of different coverage packages with auto insurance, from collision, liability, fire and theft, etc. If all I am paying for is liability and someone steals my car, then guess what? I'm not covered by my insurance.

Yes, but what if I wanted to say that $0 of my premiums should go to drunk driving accidents, accidents caused by improper use of a roundabout, accidents caused by people stopping in merge lanes, and accidents where the at-fault party is over the age of 75. That would be ridiculous. These are all literally things that would never happen to me (ok, perhaps that last one could happen in 50 years). But I can't do that. Also, while I just made that assertion, the only one I can prove is my age. The only thing that sets my scenario apart from the insurance scenario outlined in this thread, is people who are morally opposed to abortions.

I understand where you may come from, but then when someone posts a picture of a fetus in extremely early development, comparing it to a baby, the "pro-life" camp immediately ignores the difference between the picture of that fetus, and a baby who's minutes away from being born. This is why we, on this side of the argument, view the other side as being ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Ark2

Your analogy is something akin to the Chewbacca Defense. It makes no sense and isn't relevant to this discussion at all, but I guess if people look at the silly monkey, maybe they won't catch on.

We're in a thread, talking about crazy religious politicians comparing rape to spare tires, and the general issue of health insurance covering abortions, and you're talking about Chewbacca. It doesn't make sense.

....I can play that game too.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by ken0042

you are the one making the arguement, prove it.

I didn't think religious people needed to or in fact, could prove anything - their core beliefs and arguments are inherently unprovable.

They call it faith.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Listen I never called Obama a "certifiable moron". That is how you treat those who you disagree with.

I disagree with lots of people, but I don't call them all certifiable morons. The guy that thinks having a spare tire in your car is the equivalent of "being prepared to pay for an abortion after you've been raped" is a moron.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sorry you don't get to ask all the questions while ignoring the unborn human life.

I'm not asking all the questions, just the one, and I'll even make it mulitiple choice: If abortion is outlawed and someone gets an abortion, what should the consequences be A) Jail B)Execution C) take your pick.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He is doing it because he and others find supporting abortions financially to be offensive. I don't doubt he would like to see protection for unborn children but, that isn't the purpose of this law. You've got no proof otherwise.

It's been pointed out numerous times -- we all find things our taxes pay for objectionable. It doesn't get us out of paying for them.

As for proof of his motivation, he runs some crackpot anti-choice ministry, he is a fundamentalist Christian and the subject of getting rid of choice is right there on his website. Common sense is the proof. His motivation is his religion.

It's a weasely, rat-fink way of promoting his own religion. To deny it on the basis of some "financially to be offensive" nonsense isn't fooling anybody.

He'll probably use it in his campaign literature.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

And this is exactly what the law that was passed in Texas does. No ones forced to see the ultrasound but it must at least be offered instead of what's currently happening where doctors are refusing to show the ultrasounds when the woman requests to see it.

The recently passed Sonogram law requires a sonogram and requirement that the doctor explain the fetus to the person (except in cases where there is an exemption such as rape). Also note that the ultrasound performed at the first trimester is not the wand on the belly type you usually see on TV, but instead a probe is inserted into the vagina.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by Young-Sneezy

just imagine the bat utility belt of stuff we would be carrying around if we had to plan for all the insane #### that happens these days...

Forever imprinted in my mind is this scene from an episode of Batman.

[Wormius]

Maybe this is just semantics but doesn't the $20 "morning after pill" solve most of the issues that surround this? First off if sperm doesn't meet egg, no religious scruples about fetus/child abortion? Obviously this doesn't help after a few days, but I think if the sex was not consensual, you wouldn't wait until the fetus was visible on ultrasound before deciding what to do?

[CrusaderPi]

I believe life begins at conception, I just have no problems with ending a life.

[V]

Should I carry cancer insurance, just in case I might get cancer? It's incredibly expensive to treat, or so I hear.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

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?

To me its when the brain activity really starts, we are our brains and to me that's life. Organs pumping blood, recognizable features, is all pointless if there isn't a brain.

I'm not a doctor nor have I honestly given the matter serious thought, but I think 2-3 months max; earlier the better.

Neuroscientists are becoming more confident in saying when the fetus feels pain for example

However, there may be an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections" (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.

But ultimately having to decide a set fast date is difficult, its a horrible choice to abort at any point, I would look at the 9-16 week as the area where we would seperate a fetus from real life.

Week 9 to 16


Fetus attached to placenta, approximately 12 weeks after fertilization.


The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week.[1] At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 millimetres (1.2 in) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams.[1] The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size.[8] Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[9] The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.[10][11]
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and may not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.[12] At this point in development, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop.[13]

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.

As long as she's not forced to, no law should mandate what the doctor should do with their patient. I hope the doctor lets he know all the facts, where the baby is in development, risks, options, etc..

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?

She should be informed, we fully agree on this point. It is just a matter of passing laws forcing a woman to view an ultrasound, in what free society do you not become bothered by the state doing this to an individual choosing a legal procedure?

I want to make this clear, because often people who support pro choice are looked upon as heartless and misguided human beings. I hate the idea of ending life, even if its very early on. But I strongly feel the woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body, and we can only legislate within reasonable bounds to allow women the right up to a point when they can end their pregnancy.

One of my sisters had an abortion a long time ago when she was only 23, it was a very difficult decision for her and the family really stepped up to comfort and support her. I can't imagine living in a country where she didn't even have the option, that to me is unacceptable and that is the prevailing opinion in the vast majority of the free western world.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

And this is exactly what the law that was passed in Texas does. No ones forced to see the ultrasound but it must at least be offered instead of what's currently happening where doctors are refusing to show the ultrasounds when the woman requests to see it.

Ok sorry that was my misunderstanding of your original comment:

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.

A doctor should upon request do what his patient asks, couldn't agree more then with the law.

If the law was stating that a woman was forced to look at an ultrasound, forced to listen to the heartbeat or something similar, then thats where I and many others protest.

However this is not the case in Texas:

Women seeking an abortion would have to first get an ultrasound under a measure approved on Thursday by the Texas House of Representatives. The proposal, the first significant bill considered by the House this year, was designated by Republican Governor Rick Perry as an emergency priority. A similar measure has already been approved by the state Senate.
Women would have to get an ultrasound between 24 and 72 hours before an abortion, the bill says. They would view the sonogram, hear an explanation of the image and listen to the heartbeat, if it is audible.
"We want to make sure that they're fully informed, that they understand the medical consequences, the psychological consequences and everything involved in the procedure," said the bill's author, Republican state Rep. Sid Miller.
Opponents said that the requirement would traumatize women already in a difficult situation. During debate on the House floor, bill opponent Rep. Carol Alvarado held up a trans-vaginal probe used for sonograms early in pregnancy to illustrate what she called a "very intrusive process."
"This is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think," said Alvarado, a Houston Democrat. "This is government intrusion at its best."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7230VK20110304