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

[Yasa]

I view all gametes as potential human lives, and since that's the case then I'm responsible for a hundred (million) abortions per day.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Thor

Ok sorry that was my misunderstanding of your original comment:

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:



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

I guess when in doubt the best thing is to really look at the legislation itself instead of using the wonderful filter of the media. Directly from the bill, this is what the woman will need to sign off of prior to having the abortion:

"(5) before receiving a sonogram under Subdivision (4)(A) and before the abortion is performed and before any sedative or anesthesia is administered, the pregnant woman completes and certifies with her signature an election form that states as follows:
(1) THE INFORMATION AND PRINTED MATERIALS DESCRIBED BY SECTIONS 171.012(a)(1)-(3), TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND EXPLAINED TO ME.
(2) I UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF AN ABORTION.
(3) TEXAS LAW REQUIRES THAT I RECEIVE A SONOGRAM PRIOR TO RECEIVING AN ABORTION.
(4) I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE THE OPTION TO VIEW THE SONOGRAM IMAGES.
(5) I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE THE OPTION TO HEAR THE HEARTBEAT.
(6) I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED BY LAW TO HEAR AN EXPLANATION OF THE SONOGRAM IMAGES UNLESS I CERTIFY IN WRITING TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
I AM PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT, INCEST, OR OTHER VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OR THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE I REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT DOING SO WOULD PUT ME AT RISK OF RETALIATION RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY."

As you can see like I've been saying the woman has the option to view the sonogram and hear the heartbeat, but the only requirement is the description of the development of the baby. Also as I mentioned before I believe that an ultrasound was already a requirment prior to having an abortion prior to this bill.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I guess when in doubt the best thing is to really look at the legislation itself instead of using the wonderful filter of the media. Directly from the bill, this is what the woman will need to sign off of prior to having the abortion:

"(5) before receiving a sonogram under Subdivision (4)(A) and before the abortion is performed and before any sedative or anesthesia is administered, the pregnant woman completes and certifies with her signature an election form that states as follows:
(1) THE INFORMATION AND PRINTED MATERIALS DESCRIBED BY SECTIONS 171.012(a)(1)-(3), TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND EXPLAINED TO ME.
(2) I UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF AN ABORTION.

Sounds like this is enough right there.

(3) TEXAS LAW REQUIRES THAT I RECEIVE A SONOGRAM PRIOR TO RECEIVING AN ABORTION.

Absolutely intrusive legislation IF there is no medical reason for it. Sounds like its used solely for the purpose of trying to convince the woman out of her decision.

(4) I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE THE OPTION TO VIEW THE SONOGRAM IMAGES.

(5) I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE THE OPTION TO HEAR THE HEARTBEAT.

All very reasonable if medically necessary for her to have the sonogram.

(6) I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED BY LAW TO HEAR AN EXPLANATION OF THE SONOGRAM IMAGES UNLESS I CERTIFY IN WRITING TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

I AM PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT, INCEST, OR OTHER VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OR THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE I REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT DOING SO WOULD PUT ME AT RISK OF RETALIATION RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY."

Not reasonable, big government intruding itself into the vagina of women

As you can see like I've been saying the woman has the option to view the sonogram and hear the heartbeat, but the only requirement is the description of the development of the baby. Also as I mentioned before I believe that an ultrasound was already a requirment prior to having an abortion prior to this bill.

Which is whats wrong with this legislation. You approach this from the side of hoping this dissuades her to drop the abortion, while the rest of us see it as another attempt to pressure women out of an abortion by the pro life lobby.

The fact she has to have a sonogram, by the way which is done by a trans vaginal probe is stepping beyond what a government should legislate. Its not the job of government to step in here, she has the legal right, she shouldn't be forced to have the sonogram unless there is a medically important reason, other than to help dissuade the woman.

But since you approach this from a religious viewpoint will either of us change our minds or change each others?

BTW, trans vaginal probe:

[valo403]

The thing that nobody has mentioned, oddly, is that this proposed Kansas legislation will have to go through a legal dogfight before it ever comes into effect. There are multiple constiutional arguments here, and you better believe each one will be bitterly fought over. IMO the most obvious challenege is based in discrimination on the basis of gender, a protected class, as only women would ever have the need to obtain additional insurance.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by valo403

The thing that nobody has mentioned, oddly, is that this proposed Kansas legislation will have to go through a legal dogfight before it ever comes into effect. There are multiple constiutional arguments here, and you better believe each one will be bitterly fought over. IMO the most obvious challenege is based in discrimination on the basis of gender, a protected class, as only women would ever have the need to obtain additional insurance.

I'd been very suprised if the ACLU wasn't all over this but, I doubt that they will stop it. Just think about your argument against discrimination: Do men need insurance for abortions?

I'm also sure that all States have regulations on what insurance companies can and can't do. It will be hard to argue that this particular law is intrusive on insurance companies rights. Insurance companies will probably see this as a money maker.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'd been very suprised if the ACLU wasn't all over this but, I doubt that they will stop it. Just think about your argument against discrimination: Do men need insurance for abortions?

I'm also sure that all States have regulations on what insurance companies can and can't do. It will be hard to argue that this particular law is intrusive on insurance companies rights. Insurance companies will probably see this as a money maker.

Well at least you made it clear you don't understand the issues. Of course men don't need insurance for abortions, that's the point. A law requiring that individuals purchase insurance for abortions falls completely upon women, creating the discriminatory impact on a protected class.

I'm not sure where your second point came from, certainly not from anything I posted, but the fact that there is regulation doesn't mean that states can regulate in any manner they feel like.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

BTW, trans vaginal probe:

Thor I will agree that this probe is intrusive if it is only administered because of this law. We don't know this. An abortion is a medical procedure with many risks. I find it highly unlikely one would be preformed without somehow viewing the uterus before hand. This probe might be the only safe and cheap way to do this.

The other thing you might not have considered is these nurses and Doctors make their money through the business of preforming abortions. They probably have a high level of commitment to what they see as the benefits of their work. Those 2 factors don't make these professionals the best candidates to council a young women making such an important decision. The fact that lawmakers felt they needed to pass a law that compelled these professionals to provide certain information upon request suggests there have been problems.

Government guidelines that include manditory disclosers and optional ones is reasonable.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well at least you made it clear you don't understand the issues. Of course men don't need insurance for abortions, that's the point. A law requiring that individuals purchase insurance for abortions falls completely upon women, creating the discriminatory impact on a protected class.

I'm not sure where your second point came from, certainly not from anything I posted, but the fact that there is regulation doesn't mean that states can regulate in any manner they feel like.

Women can get pregnant; Men can't. That isn't government discrimination. It is nature. Moreover many if not most women wouldn't consider abortion insurance to be desireable. Many women oppose abortion; Others would welcome a child into this world; Some aren't sexually active.

Rape is really a red herring here. There is the morning after pill. There is agencies who provide abortions for lower income women. There is also the possibility of the women paying for the procedure out of pocket. I seriously doubt that a women would consider purchasing abortion insurance if her only concern was rape. There are cheaper options.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thor I will agree that this probe is intrusive if it is only administered because of this law. We don't know this. An abortion is a medical procedure with many risks. I find it highly unlikely one would be preformed without somehow viewing the uterus before hand. This probe might be the only safe and cheap way to do this.

The other thing you might not have considered is these nurses and Doctors make their money through the business of preforming abortions. They probably have a high level of commitment to what they see as the benefits of their work. Those 2 factors don't make these professionals the best candidates to council a young women making such an important decision. The fact that lawmakers felt they needed to pass a law that compelled these professionals to provide certain information upon request suggests there have been problems.

Government guidelines that include manditory disclosers and optional ones is reasonable.

1. Don't speak for Doctors and Nurses and the education and counseling they do with women before having an abortion. From the people I have talked to that work in abortion clinics they do discuss the different options with the client.

2. I have relatives who have Huntington's chorea - if she has a child the child will have a 50% chance of having a fatal disease which I wouldn't wish upon anyone. Why should she have to pay extra money for the possibility of having to have an abortion, not because she made a mistake or she was raped, but because she wants to have healthy children who won't die of a debilitating and horrible disease. Why should she have to jump through hoops to satisfy your religious beliefs? But most importantly - why do you think it is right to force someone extra heartache and pain because they can't have a healthy child and they are going through hell because of that?

I hope you actually do think about that, although I doubt you will.

3. Don't tell someone who has been raped how to act and what they should do. Yeah thinking about it logically - they should get an ECP but you know what, people who have gone through a traumatizing experience, often at the hands of someone they know, they don't think logically. They do this small thing called trying to repress awful memories. As someone who is not in that position and never will be in that position I have no idea why you think you should be telling someone exactly what to do.

4. I do know some people get abortions as a means of birth control - I think she is crazy, legitimately crazy, but she is the last person who I would want as a mother raising the damn child. Sure she could put it into social care but that costs hundreds of thousands if not millions more than an abortion - so from a financial standpoint that argument is awful. Really the only argument you can effectively make is from a religious or an ethical standpoint.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Women can get pregnant; Men can't. That isn't government discrimination. It is nature. Moreover many if not most women wouldn't consider abortion insurance to be desireable. Many women oppose abortion; Others would welcome a child into this world; Some aren't sexually active.

Rape is really a red herring here. There is the morning after pill. There is agencies who provide abortions for lower income women. There is also the possibility of the women paying for the procedure out of pocket. I seriously doubt that a women would consider purchasing abortion insurance if her only concern was rape. There are cheaper options.

So you're pro Plan B or Morning After but against abortion? So, by your definition life doesn't start at conception, but at the zygote's implantation?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Women can get pregnant; Men can't. That isn't government discrimination. It is nature. Moreover many if not most women wouldn't consider abortion insurance to be desireable. Many women oppose abortion; Others would welcome a child into this world; Some aren't sexually active.

It's actually kind of fun watching you flail away searching to grasp a point and failing miserably time and time again. I'm trying to figure out how to get this through to you but it's looking rather hopeless. I'll try once more.

A law. That impacts one gender. In a disproportionate manner. Is discriminatory.

This law. Impacts women. Exclusively.

See how that works? The fact that only women are impacted is the whole crux of the argument, whether that is due to biological differences doesn't matter. The state is imposing a burden on one gender through the requirement to purchase certain insurance policies individually. No man will ever be impacted by this law, every single woman is potentially impacted. There are certainly counter arguments, but to suggest that this isn't actually discriminatory shows an astounding degree of ignorance.

Btw, what's with the throwing in a completely unrelated comment in every reply? Just hoping that people will latch on to that so you can duck out of an issue you don't understand?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

Please reread my posts and restate my argument.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by chemgear

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.

What are you talking about? Reread my posts. Requesting proof for some absolute statements is neither taking a position or invoking faith.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by V

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

You could. It's offered by life insurance companies. It's up to you based on your own risk tolerance and/or feelings of immortality.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

So you're pro Plan B or Morning After but against abortion? So, by your definition life doesn't start at conception, but at the zygote's implantation?

Most birth control at least in commited relationships involve the pill which does the same think with the fertilized egg: It inhibits implantation. Of couse the morning after pill itself has a lot of health risks associated with it. It would be a poor choice for birth control in normal circumstances.

At the moment of implantation the egg starts to grow into what will become a human being. I think at that point his/her mother has a responsibility towards the child. I also believe the Father at that point becomes responsible to provide for that new life.

I know some leans towards the moment when they feel pain and others when doctors can detect a heart beat or brain activity. The problem with those indicators is they are changing all the time as medical science advances. At the moment of implantation nature or God depending on your beliefs has give that mother a sacred trust. We as a society can help her with that burden but, it is hers.

For those of you who are pro-abortion when do you think a child should have a right to life? I sure hope that you don't think it is a women's right to abort a baby shortly before he/she was due to be born.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

For those of you who are pro-abortion when do you think a child should have a right to life? .

Up to about the age of 8. Some kids are real a**holes...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Most birth control at least in commited relationships involve the pill which does the same think with the fertilized egg: It inhibits implantation. Of couse the morning after pill itself has a lot of health risks associated with it. It would be a poor choice for birth control in normal circumstances.

At the moment of implantation the egg starts to grow into what will become a human being. I think at that point his/her mother has a responsibility towards the child. I also believe the Father at that point becomes responsible to provide for that new life.

I know some leans towards the moment when they feel pain and others when doctors can detect a heart beat or brain activity. The problem with those indicators is they are changing all the time as medical science advances. At the moment of implantation nature or God depending on your beliefs has give that mother a sacred trust. We as a society can help her with that burden but, it is hers.

For those of you who are pro-abortion when do you think a child should have a right to life? I sure hope that you think it is a women's right to abort a baby shortly before he/she was due to be born.

[Thor]

lol this is to both sides, we should stop with the pro-abortion anti-abortion labels.

Nobody is pro abortion, they are pro womens reproductive rights. So pro choice and pro life are fine labels, even though pro life makes it sound like the opposite is pro death lol.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
For those of you who are pro-abortion when do you think a child should have a right to life? .

I already answered this earlier, but curious when do you think a bunch of cells becomes life?

I sure hope that you think it is a women's right to abort a baby shortly before he/she was due to be born.

lol wtf?

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I sure hope that you think it is a women's right to abort a baby shortly before he/she was due to be born.

I think that's called "giving birth."

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

1. Don't speak for Doctors and Nurses and the education and counseling they do with women before having an abortion. From the people I have talked to that work in abortion clinics they do discuss the different options with the client.

I've talked to women who have recieved abortions in Canada who say they did feel pressured by the health professionals. As Rob Kerr likes to say the truth will be some place in the middle. Again information isn't a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

2. I have relatives who have Huntington's chorea - if she has a child the child will have a 50% chance of having a fatal disease which I wouldn't wish upon anyone. Why should she have to pay extra money for the possibility of having to have an abortion, not because she made a mistake or she was raped, but because she wants to have healthy children who won't die of a debilitating and horrible disease. Why should she have to jump through hoops to satisfy your religious beliefs? But most importantly - why do you think it is right to force someone extra heartache and pain because they can't have a healthy child and they are going through hell because of that?
I hope you actually do think about that, although I doubt you will.

I know a women in Creston with the same condition. She and her husband chose not to have children because of the possibility of passing on the disease. She acts child like which I guess is part of the disease's progression. I honestly can't imagine a women trying to get pregnant knowing that there is a 50% chance that the child would have the disease and she would be killing it. I also can't imagine wanting children when you know that child will have to watch you slowly die at a young age.

Most Canadians are offended by folks useing abortion to select the gender of their child. I don't see any difference in what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

3. Don't tell someone who has been raped how to act and what they should do. Yeah thinking about it logically - they should get an ECP but you know what, people who have gone through a traumatizing experience, often at the hands of someone they know, they don't think logically. They do this small thing called trying to repress awful memories. As someone who is not in that position and never will be in that position I have no idea why you think you should be telling someone exactly what to do.

Useing your logic a women shouldn't be allowed the morning after pill either because her thinking might not be rational. Perhaps in a few days or weeks she would regret her decision. She is responsible for her actions and people who HATE abortion shouldn't be forced to help pay for her choices.