What a vile, scumbag organization!

[tailfins]

Bowl-a-Thon Group Touts Raising Funds for 14-Year-Old’s Abortion

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bowl-thon-group-touts-raising-funds-14-year-old-s-abortion


The Tiller Fund raises money for abortions performed after 20 weeks in honor of the late-term abortionist, who was murdered in 2009.

[Noir]

...you would of forced a 14 year old to have a baby?

[tailfins]

...you would of forced a 14 year old to have a baby?

Especially after more than 20 weeks: Twenty weeks is just two weeks before established viability.

http://www.nysun.com/national/youngest-premature-babys-survival-called-a-miracle/49036/

[Wind Song]

Typical culture war news story by a Christian broadcasting station.

[Noir]

Especially after more than 20 weeks: Twenty weeks is just two weeks before established viability.

http://www.nysun.com/national/youngest-premature-babys-survival-called-a-miracle/49036/

At no point does it say how many weeks pregnant the 14 year old girl was.

[tailfins]

Typical culture war news story by a Christian broadcasting station.

You see, that's how get the full story. Just like in a trial, no reasonable person would just look at exclusively the defense nor exclusively look at the prosecution. The same principal goes with agenda driven articles.

[tailfins]

At no point does it say how many weeks pregnant the 14 year old girl was.

It's implied by the targeted beneficiaries of the "George Tiller Fund".

[darin]

...you would of forced a 14 year old to have a baby?

would of? Would 'have' :)

And yes, but it wouldn't HAVE been forced. The girl would be taught right from wrong; the young girl would HAVE been taught "killing this baby won't FIX anything - and it's murder".

[Wind Song]

We won't have less abortions by recriminalizing abortion. We will have more dead 14 year olds.

[Noir]

It's implied by the targeted beneficiaries of the "George Tiller Fund".

That funds description is that it "helps women to pay for later abortion care and helps those who need to travel out of state for an abortion or those who live in a state that lacks an abortion fund (http://fundabortionnow.org/explore/start)."

Given her problem was a lack of funding (with no mention of travel costs) for the abortion, it is reasonable to assume it could either of been late term, or of been in lieu of a state provided abortion fund. But you can't (on the evidence i've seen) state is is definitely one or the other.

[darin]

We won't have less abortions by recriminalizing abortion. We will have more dead 14 year olds.

'fewer' abortions...


We'll have fewer deaths by restricting whole-sale killing of infants/babies based SOLELY upon convenience. Yes, some may seek high-risk procedures for the sake of 'they aren't "ready" to be a momma' - but I'm not in a position to say their lives are worth MORE than that of their baby. I CARE too much about lives. :)

I'd support simply requiring the Father of the baby's consultation and agreement before a woman kills the baby. That'd be a SMALL step towards justice and true reproductive freedom.

[Wind Song]

'fewer' abortions...


We'll have fewer deaths by restricting whole-sale killing of infants/babies based SOLELY upon convenience. Yes, some may seek high-risk procedures for the sake of 'they aren't "ready" to be a momma' - but I'm not in a position to say their lives are worth MORE than that of their baby. I CARE too much about lives. :)

I'd support simply requiring the Father of the baby's consultation and agreement before a woman kills the baby. That'd be a SMALL step towards justice and true reproductive freedom.


No, we'll just have more dead women. This post shows that you don't value the woman's life at all. It's only fetal life you care for. The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be.

[fj1200]

No, we'll just have more dead women. This post shows that you don't value the woman's life at all. It's only fetal life you care for. The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be.

Hyperbole baby; when it's all you have left. :poke:

[tailfins]

No, we'll just have more dead women. This post shows that you don't value the woman's life at all. It's only fetal life you care for. The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be.

Then why is there such opposition to at the very least educating the woman (or girl in this case) what an abortion actually is? I don't see much effort being made to have a bias toward carrying a pregnancy to term. Terminating a pregnancy is the "business" of the abortionist and is left unfettered to do a "sales job" on someone with a crisis pregnancy.

[Wind Song]

Hyperbole baby; when it's all you have left. :poke:


It happens to be true that prior to Roe, many women died from unsafe, back alley abortion procedures. Others committed suicide. Do you care about the woman's life at all?

In all these cases, the fetus AND the woman died.

Do you want to punish any woman who terminates her pregnancy by imprisoning or killing her?

[darin]

No, we'll just have more dead women. This post shows that you don't value the woman's life at all. It's only fetal life you care for. The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be.

it shows I care for ALL life. I value babies as much as people; killing one life to POTENTIALLY save women from their own CHOICES is at its core, hateful. If you want to solve this issue through body-count, how about we take the number of babies NOT killed and subtract from that the number of ladies who willingly take back-alley abortions and end up dead. Which 'saves' more life - abolishing abortion on demand, OR allowing wide-spred infanticide?

"the fetus" - Your word choice betrays a hateful disposition; your disregard for life seems at odds with your claimed Buddhism.


It happens to be true that prior to Roe, many women died from unsafe, back alley abortion procedures. Others committed suicide. Do you care about the woman's life at all?

In all these cases, the fetus AND the woman died.

Do you want to punish any woman who terminates her pregnancy by imprisoning or killing her?

How many? How many vs. the number of babies slaughtered in the name, solely in the name of convenience? I have NO problem with anybody engaging in dangerous behaviour. Babies do not GET to choose. That's the problem. Maybe we allow them to be born, grow up, THEN decide if they want to die?

[tailfins]

It happens to be true that prior to Roe, many women died from unsafe, back alley abortion procedures. Others committed suicide. Do you care about the woman's life at all?

In all these cases, the fetus AND the woman died.

Do you want to punish any woman who terminates her pregnancy by imprisoning or killing her?


In an ideal world, imprisoning yes. In a less than ideal world, from a pro-life perspective, take what you can get. In this case, take what you can get means not letting the abortionist do an unfettered sales job on a woman with a crisis pregnancy.

[Wind Song]

Oklahoma: When a zygote-personhood bill came before the state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson penned an amendment declaring that ejaculating anywhere outside a woman’s vagina constitutes “an action against an unborn child.”

Texas: Contesting a bill mandating sonograms before abortions, Rep. Harold Dutton unsuccessfully offered three amendments in a row. The first would have required the state to pay the college tuition of children born to women who decide against an abortion after seeing a required ultrasound image. The second would have subsidized the children’s health care costs until age 18. When that failed, he lowered the age to 6. That didn’t fly, either.

Those two bills really get at the heart of the issue, and address the oh-so inconvenient truth about why most women seek abortion in the first place: for economic reasons. Not, as the righties would have you believe, because we women are either murderous monsters or too stupid to know what’s up in there. We know the incredible burdens of pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing. We know the lifelong emotional trauma of adoption.

The fetus-fetish cult are the worst hypocrites. They’re not pro-life, they’re not even pro-family or even pro-fetus. They’re anti-sex and not just any sex, they’re anti sex outside of a wholesome Christian marriage for the sole purpose of procreation. And not just that, they’re anti-women having sex outside of a wholesome Christian marriage for the sole purpose of procreation, because they are stubbornly attached to the traditional idea that men are horn-dogs who can’t control their urges (as God intended!) while women are delicate little flowers who graciously submit to the icky nasty but really don’t like it (also as God intended!). All straight out of the “Advice To Young Brides” manual (http://www.squaredancecd.com/Bride/brides.htm).


http://southernbeale.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/pro-woman-legislators-are-not-amused/

[Wind Song]

In an ideal world, imprisoning yes. In a less than ideal world, from a pro-life perspective, take what you can get. In this case, take what you can get means not letting the abortionist do an unfettered sales job on a woman with a crisis pregnancy.


Thank you for confirming your position. How about execution? It's "murder" according to you, isn't it?

You want your folks to do an unfettered sales job making the woman have no choice in the matter. Pretty hypocritical of you to criticise clinics who offer women their legal choice.

[darin]

Hi! I'm Wind Song. In usual form, because I cannot fully argue my point of view; because my ONLY ability is to SHOUT MY OPINION from the rooftops, I change the topic when I can't support my position using reason, data, or even proper polite disagreement

Fixed that for you.

[tailfins]

Oklahoma: When a zygote-personhood bill came before the state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson penned an amendment declaring that ejaculating anywhere outside a woman’s vagina constitutes “an action against an unborn child.”

Texas: Contesting a bill mandating sonograms before abortions, Rep. Harold Dutton unsuccessfully offered three amendments in a row. The first would have required the state to pay the college tuition of children born to women who decide against an abortion after seeing a required ultrasound image. The second would have subsidized the children’s health care costs until age 18. When that failed, he lowered the age to 6. That didn’t fly, either.

Those two bills really get at the heart of the issue, and address the oh-so inconvenient truth about why most women seek abortion in the first place: for economic reasons. Not, as the righties would have you believe, because we women are either murderous monsters or too stupid to know what’s up in there. We know the incredible burdens of pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing. We know the lifelong emotional trauma of adoption.

http://southernbeale.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/pro-woman-legislators-are-not-amused/

OK, so we have established that state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson might not be well-versed at writing legislative amendments. I propose we send her to a class on writing professional legislation.

It also appears that Rep. Harold Dutton is adept at sabotaging legislation. At least have the honesty to state the intent of his amendments.

[Wind Song]

Then why is there such opposition to at the very least educating the woman (or girl in this case) what an abortion actually is? I don't see much effort being made to have a bias toward carrying a pregnancy to term. Terminating a pregnancy is the "business" of the abortionist and is left unfettered to do a "sales job" on someone with a crisis pregnancy.


There is a big difference between educating a woman on what termination of a pregnancy means and forcing her to submit to a sonogram against her will.

[Wind Song]

OK, so we have established that state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson might not be well-versed at writing legislative amendments. I propose we send her to a class on writing professional legislation.

I suggest you recognize that there is difference of opinion on the choice issue and that you don't own everyone else's minds.

[tailfins]

Thank you for confirming your position. How about execution? It's "murder" according to you, isn't it?

You want your folks to do an unfettered sales job making the woman have no choice in the matter. Pretty hypocritical of you to criticise clinics who offer women their legal choice.

Tobacco is also legal, but there are warning messages on the package.

[Wind Song]

Tobacco is also legal, but there are warning messages on the package.

That's fine. If anyone asked me to counsel a pregnant woman I would lean against advising her to terminate the pregnancy. What it sounds like you want is for her to have no choice.

Force pregancy to term or else, face imprisonment or death.

[tailfins]

There is a big difference between educating a woman on what termination of a pregnancy means and forcing her to submit to a sonogram against her will.


How is requiring a sonogram before an abortion different than requiring a building permit before building a shed on your own property?

[darin]

Wind Song banned for 24hrs; posting Rep comments in public forum w/o consent of the author/giver of those comments.

[Thunderknuckles]

The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be.
That about sums up the very nature of the problem WS.
Thank you.

[fj1200]

It happens to be true that prior to Roe, many women died from unsafe, back alley abortion procedures. Others committed suicide. Do you care about the woman's life at all?

In all these cases, the fetus AND the woman died.

Do you want to punish any woman who terminates her pregnancy by imprisoning or killing her?

I recall another poster stating that more? women die getting abortions present day than those before Roe v. Wade but I don't recall your response.

I also disagree with your premise that overturning Roe will make all abortions illegal; that simply isn't true. Will you acknowledge that legalizing a behavior legitimizes the practice, even those that you seem to acknowledge is morally wrong?

[Abbey Marie]

I recall another poster stating that more? women die getting abortions present day than those before Roe v. Wade but I don't recall your response.

I also disagree with your premise that overturning Roe will make all abortions illegal; that simply isn't true. Will you acknowledge that legalizing a behavior legitimizes the practice, even those that you seem to acknowledge is morally wrong?

YES! A thousand times, yes!

Aand that is EXACTLY why she so badly wants to have gay marriage legalized.

[Gator Monroe]

SPLC ? MECHA ?? La Raza??? Iranian Students League ????

[Howard Roark]

Rather than using an article like this to raise 'tax deductible' donations, why doesn't CNS begin a fund that will help subscribers with the costs involved in order to adopt these unwanted babies?

They could even have a bowl a thon for adoption.


At the very least, they should start a database of people who are willing to adopt these babies.

Oh, wait...those people don't exist.

[fj1200]

^There are plenty of people who want to adopt, they just go overseas to avoid all the issues with adopting domestics.

[Gator Monroe]

Oh, I thought this thread was about Vile Despicable Organizations , like CPUSA ...

[Howard Roark]

^There are plenty of people who want to adopt, they just go overseas to avoid all the issues with adopting domestics.

Then they should mind their own business re. abortions in this country.

[Abbey Marie]

Then they should mind their own business re. abortions in this country.

They wouldn't have to go overseas if it wasn't so difficult here. Why should they, of all people, mind their business?

[Kathianne]

I got to say that today I was happily amazed at the health class I had to attend with the ELL students I am subbing for this week. Freshmen. It's a unit, I was with them last week when they were having a quiz on female/male reproductive systems.

Today was pregnancy. The teacher had all the facts, stages with images, two pics of herself pregnant at 5 months and 2 days before giving birth. She spoke of her miscarriage before the successful pregnancy and in response to one of the students questions said that, 'Yes, it is called an abortion in medical terms, but we wanted that baby and had to deal with the grief of losing it.' She spoke of the happiness she and her husband had while waiting. Never did she make a statement on abortions by choice, but made it clear that as husband and wife they wanted their children. The kids paid attention.

When we got to the 3 stages of birth she spoke of having an epidural and asked me if I'd kids and did I accept drugs? The kids were all looking at me and I said, 'When I was having kids, the push was on for not having anything.' I didn't. She winced and laughed, 'I don't think I could do that, though I didn't like the feeling of not feeling.' I laughed and said my daughter has said, 'No way would I go without drugs.' LOL! The kids laughed and kept asking both of us questions. They were in awe of the video showing the birth.

While I'm not an advocate of showing kids how to apply condoms and such, basic information on their bodies, where babies are in development en utero, I think is great.

One of the pics was at like 9 weeks gestation, she pointed out the eyes, ears, hands, and feet. Counted the toes. Nothing anti-life about that.

I might point out that this is a very 'progressive' school.

[Howard Roark]

How is requiring a sonogram before an abortion different than requiring a building permit before building a shed on your own property?

That's a horrible analogy.

Why require taking a picture of the lawn, before you build a shed?

[libertine]

That's a horrible analogy.

Why require taking a picture of the lawn, before you build a shed?

Actually it's not a horrible analogy; it's an excellent one in that it illustrates how the womb is seen as a birthing vessel deemed the dominion of the law, not the mother.

[Howard Roark]

They wouldn't have to go overseas if it wasn't so difficult here. Why should they, of all people, mind their business?

That's my point. Instead of the right wing rag using the abortion issue to garner donations, why don't they start a database of willing adopters, and push for easier terms in this country?

[Howard Roark]

Actually it's not a horrible analogy; it's an excellent one in that it illustrates how the womb is seen as a birthing vessel deemed the dominion of the law, not the mother.

Well, when you put it that way.....:thinking5:

[SassyLady]

Actually it's not a horrible analogy; it's an excellent one in that it illustrates how the womb is seen as a birthing vessel deemed the dominion of the law, not the mother.
It is a birthing vessel. The child being raised inside has less rights than the mother?

[Missileman]

It is a birthing vessel. The child being raised inside has less rights than the mother?

Not only less rights than the mother before it's born, but until it reaches 18 years of age. Things that make you go hmmm.

[Kathianne]

That's a horrible analogy.

Why require taking a picture of the lawn, before you build a shed?

On what grounds?

[Kathianne]

Actually it's not a horrible analogy; it's an excellent one in that it illustrates how the womb is seen as a birthing vessel deemed the dominion of the law, not the mother.

Actually, it's not different than anywhere else in nature. Mature of the species procreate. Yes, humans have managed to figure out how to copulate without the burden, but that doesn't equal abortion as an alternative to planning.

[ConHog]

They wouldn't have to go overseas if it wasn't so difficult here. Why should they, of all people, mind their business?

There aren't enough people willing to adopt for every abortion performed in this nation.

I'm okay with abortions being legal. what I oppose is abortions being performed as routine birth control. Get on the pill you dumb bitches............ Use condoms you stupid assholes. That would get us down to having about 10% of the abortions we currently see going on.

[fj1200]

Then they should mind their own business re. abortions in this country.

So... they should mind their own business except when you think they should be included in a database of willing adopters.


At the very least, they should start a database of people who are willing to adopt these babies.

Oh, wait...those people don't exist.

But you don't think they exist and if they do they should shut up?

At least you don't want to have it both ways. :rolleyes:

[DragonStryk72]

Rather than using an article like this to raise 'tax deductible' donations, why doesn't CNS begin a fund that will help subscribers with the costs involved in order to adopt these unwanted babies?

They could even have a bowl a thon for adoption.


At the very least, they should start a database of people who are willing to adopt these babies.

Oh, wait...those people don't exist.

Really? SO there are NO adoptions of US Born babies? Odd, it seemed like there was a lineup of people willing to adopt them, and its our own system that's screwing us over, because if you're not the "perfect" family, they don't want to release a kid to you. My cousin Mikey was brought from overseas because of the bullcrap in the US adoption system. We HAVE people look for babies in the US. Ever watched the movie Juno? Yeah, that basic premise, of a women giving her baby up to a loving couple has now become a thing. Then there's the somewhat stupidly lucrative field of surrogacy.

So, rejoice, because abortions are not actually needed.

[DragonStryk72]

There aren't enough people willing to adopt for every abortion performed in this nation.

I'm okay with abortions being legal. what I oppose is abortions being performed as routine birth control. Get on the pill you dumb bitches............ Use condoms you stupid assholes. That would get us down to having about 10% of the abortions we currently see going on.

Yeah, but that requires personal accountability and responsibility, and come on, what would all that sort of crap lead to? Oh, right...

[Howard Roark]

So... they should mind their own business except when you think they should be included in a database of willing adopters.



But you don't think they exist and if they do they should shut up?

At least you don't want to have it both ways. :rolleyes:

Clearly, you are confused.

[Howard Roark]

Really? SO there are NO adoptions of US Born babies? Odd, it seemed like there was a lineup of people willing to adopt them, and its our own system that's screwing us over, because if you're not the "perfect" family, they don't want to release a kid to you. My cousin Mikey was brought from overseas because of the bullcrap in the US adoption system. We HAVE people look for babies in the US. Ever watched the movie Juno? Yeah, that basic premise, of a women giving her baby up to a loving couple has now become a thing. Then there's the somewhat stupidly lucrative field of surrogacy.

So, rejoice, because abortions are not actually needed.

And your friends are confusing you. Read back through the thread.

[logroller]

What exactly is the debate here?

Were it not for an organization like this, what would be the result?

Are people rushing into the alleyways for illegal late-term abortions; is that what they're trying to avoid?

A side point/ question; why do women get late-term abortions anyways? Did they not know they were pregnant; or is there some medical reason that develops later, necessitating the procedure?

[fj1200]

Clearly, you are confused.

Confused by your lack of a coherent position? Possibly, but that would be on you. ;)

[DragonStryk72]

A side point/ question; why do women get late-term abortions anyways? Did they not know they were pregnant; or is there some medical reason that develops later, necessitating the procedure?

Most usually, it's women who do in fact have a life-threatening medical problem, to where they have to make the choice: You or the baby? I'll never fault a woman, or anyone, for choosing life.

I'm, in general, against abortion, as it is the killing of life. Sorry, but that's the facts, if you simply continue to go about your daily routine, the kid would get born, but I do understand that exigent circumstances exist, such as rape and/or incest. As to the legality, I think the best we could possibly hope for is the 3 strikes approach. Third time you get pregnant, you're keeping it, cause clearly, you just don't get that birth control works if you use it.

[logroller]

Most usually, it's women who do in fact have a life-threatening medical problem, to where they have to make the choice: You or the baby? I'll never fault a woman, or anyone, for choosing life.

I'm, in general, against abortion, as it is the killing of life. Sorry, but that's the facts, if you simply continue to go about your daily routine, the kid would get born, but I do understand that exigent circumstances exist, such as rape and/or incest. As to the legality, I think the best we could possibly hope for is the 3 strikes approach. Third time you get pregnant, you're keeping it, cause clearly, you just don't get that birth control works if you use it.
That's really weird you'd say that about three strikes. My sister has a friend who had two abortions, then kept the third. She told my sister, seriously, I don't think you can get into heaven if you have three abortions. WTF you say? Yea, she's not the sharpest spoon in the drawer; but apparently she finds guys who aren't too concerned with her intelligence.

[DragonStryk72]

That's really weird you'd say that about three strikes. My sister has a friend who had two abortions, then kept the third. She told my sister, seriously, I don't think you can get into heaven if you have three abortions. WTF you say? Yea, she's not the sharpest spoon in the drawer; but apparently she finds guys who aren't too concerned with her intelligence.

My friend Whitney got an abortion some years ago, and was telling me about how there were women there who'd been there 5+ times, and this is in Virginia, and Norfolk isn't that big a place. I can only what it would be like in say, NYC, where there are far more people

[tailfins]

What exactly is the debate here?

Were it not for an organization like this, what would be the result?

Are people rushing into the alleyways for illegal late-term abortions; is that what they're trying to avoid?

A side point/ question; why do women get late-term abortions anyways? Did they not know they were pregnant; or is there some medical reason that develops later, necessitating the procedure?


I can offer a possible scenario: A teen hides her pregnancy until she can't hide it anymore. No longer able to hide it, she thinks about abortion.


That's really weird you'd say that about three strikes. My sister has a friend who had two abortions, then kept the third. She told my sister, seriously, I don't think you can get into heaven if you have three abortions. WTF you say? Yea, she's not the sharpest spoon in the drawer; but apparently she finds guys who aren't too concerned with her intelligence.


For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 .


That being said, I would like to offer this advice to your sister: Spend too much time around a turd and you'll eventually stink.

[logroller]

I can offer a possible scenario: A teen hides her pregnancy until she can't hide it anymore. No longer able to hide it, she thinks about abortion.




For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 .


That being said, I would like to offer this advice to your sister: Spend too much time around a turd and you'll eventually stink.


Oh, my sister's knows that; really its just childhood friend, ya know. Those bonds last, even if its just a b-day wish on FB.

[Wind Song]

How is requiring a sonogram before an abortion different than requiring a building permit before building a shed on your own property?

Building permits are required and sonograms are not. Sonograms are elective and they are invasive procedures.

[logroller]

^no more invasive than what got one pregnant to begin with; and with few exceptions, that was elective. Not to mention, abortion is an elective invasive procedure.

[Wind Song]

That about sums up the very nature of the problem WS.
Thank you.

That's correct. A fetus does not have legal status until the second and third trimesters.

[Wind Song]

^no more invasive than what got one pregnant to begin with; and with few exceptions, that was elective. Not to mention, abortion is an elective invasive procedure.


What's the difference between manual rape--inserting a stick into the vagina against the woman's will-- and inserting a sonogram tube in the woman's vagina against her will?

Both are invasive and as you propose it, both are against the woman's will. You favor FORCED sonograms.

[tailfins]

That's correct. A fetus does not have legal status until the second and third trimesters.

And that's only due to hard work from the pro-life movement.

By the way: I think it stinks that you got banned.


What's the difference between manual rape--inserting a stick into the vagina against the woman's will-- and inserting a sonogram tube in the woman's vagina against her will?

Both are invasive and as you propose it, both are against the woman's will. You favor FORCED sonograms.

Simple: If she doesn't want a sonogram, don't have an abortion.

[Wind Song]

YES! A thousand times, yes!

Aand that is EXACTLY why she so badly wants to have gay marriage legalized.

Why don't you ask me why I want a marriage license instead of TELLING me why I want it? It's for practical legal reasons.

I don't want your approval, nor do I accept your moral condemnation of me as a lesbian.

Your religion is very important to you, and I accept that. I hope you'd accept other religions support marriage equality and see it for the civil rights issue that it is.

It's CIVIL law.

[logroller]

What's the difference between manual rape--inserting a stick into the vagina against the woman's will-- and inserting a sonogram tube in the woman's vagina against her will?

Both are invasive and as you propose it, both are against the woman's will. You favor FORCED sonograms.

What's the difference? What's the difference between manual rape-- inserting a speculum into the vagina, dilating the cervix and removing a fetus? What's the difference between a sonogram and an abortion? Gee, I don't know; I guess nothing. Both are invasive and as you propose it, both are against the woman's will. You favor FORCED abortions.

[jimnyc]

By the way: I think it stinks that you got banned.

You don't think the written rules of the board need to be enforced? We RARELY ban, but sometimes have little choice. AND, her ban was lifted and a PM sent to her explaining why she was banned, and that she was welcome back. I'm not so sure that "stinks".

[jimnyc]

You don't think the written rules of the board need to be enforced? We RARELY ban, but sometimes have little choice. AND, her ban was lifted and a PM sent to her explaining why she was banned, and that she was welcome back. I'm not so sure that "stinks".

I meant to say that the ban was lifted only several hours after implemented.

[tailfins]

You don't think the written rules of the board need to be enforced? We RARELY ban, but sometimes have little choice. AND, her ban was lifted and a PM sent to her explaining why she was banned, and that she was welcome back. I'm not so sure that "stinks".

View my post through the lens of corporate culture. I'm not faulting you. Now I see what makes HR people earn their pay.

[jimnyc]

View my post through the lens of corporate culture. I'm not faulting you. Now I see what makes HR people earn their pay.

This is why we have a rule about staff decisions being discussed publicly. Regular members don't always have the benefit of knowing what we know. But I can assure you, and long time members can back this up, we take bans seriously and rarely resort to moderating. So if you see that someone was given a 24hr timeout, 99.99% of the time they deserved a little vacation.

[logroller]

This is why we have a rule about staff decisions being discussed publicly. Regular members don't always have the benefit of knowing what we know. But I can assure you, and long time members can back this up, we take bans seriously and rarely resort to moderating. So if you see that someone was given a 24hr timeout, 99.99% of the time they deserved a little vacation.
Wait, you're giving out vacations? I thought you just banned them. I should have been more inquisitive about these staff decisions.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Wait, you're giving out vacations? I thought you just banned them. I should have been more inquisitive about these staff decisions.:laugh:

It's like total recall for rule breaking members!

[tailfins]

This is why we have a rule about staff decisions being discussed publicly. Regular members don't always have the benefit of knowing what we know. But I can assure you, and long time members can back this up, we take bans seriously and rarely resort to moderating. So if you see that someone was given a 24hr timeout, 99.99% of the time they deserved a little vacation.

I'm not doubting you. Think of it this way: An employee comes back from a suspension and the HR manager says "I think it stinks that you got suspended". That HR manager is not saying they oppose the suspension, just that they are sad to see someone get suspended. Then they might say "Let's not dwell on it and let's move forward".

[jimnyc]

Then they might say "Let's not dwell on it and let's move forward".

:thumb:

[logroller]

Some people just don't know any better.
Once I implemented her logic, showing that she favors forced abortions, she had to return her regular diatribe. Its sad really...but in a funny way... like AIDS.

[Wind Song]

Logroller--

Get a clue. Either debate the topic with me or put me completely on ignore and leave me alone.

Your choice.

wind

[Abbey Marie]

Building permits are required and sonograms are not. Sonograms are elective and they are invasive procedures.

Very few sonograms are at all invasive; and certainly not the type you get to check on the development of the baby.

[Wind Song]

Very few sonograms are at all invasive; and certainly not the type you get to check on the development of the baby.


The ones that go up your vagina are invasive. Any procedure that is FORCED against someone's will is invasive.

[jimnyc]

The ones that go up your vagina are invasive. Any procedure that is FORCED against someone's will is invasive.

When are sonograms forced? To prisoners who are pregnant? I seriously don't understand what this is about forced sonograms. I thought they were to checkup on pregnancies, no? How is that "forced"?

[Abbey Marie]

What's the difference between manual rape--inserting a stick into the vagina against the woman's will-- and inserting a sonogram tube in the woman's vagina against her will?

Both are invasive and as you propose it, both are against the woman's will. You favor FORCED sonograms.

I had every sonogram suggested to me when I was pregnant, and NOT ONE was invasive The intra-vaginal sonograms you are describing were not the standard operating procedure, and I doubt they are today.

Standard sonogram: gel on the abdomen, wand moving over the abdomen, picture of baby on the screen. Nothing invasive. Actually, I always found them fun and fascinating.

Now, a colonoscopy, that's invasive!

[jimnyc]

I had every sonogram suggested to me when I was pregnant, and NOT ONE was invasive The intra-vaginal sonograms you are describing were not the standard operating procedure, and I doubt they are today.

Standard sonogram: gel on the abdomen, wand moving over the abdomen, picture of baby on the screen. Nothing invasive. Actually, I always found them fun and fascinating.

Now, a colonoscopy, that's invasive!

Yes ma'am, but even that I wouldn't consider forced. It's not like doctors and nurses are running down men and women and forcing us to have sonograms and rectal exams! I understand that many procedures can be uncomfortable, and even evasive, but I don't get the forced part.

[Wind Song]

When are sonograms forced? To prisoners who are pregnant? I seriously don't understand what this is about forced sonograms. I thought they were to checkup on pregnancies, no? How is that "forced"?


Some slick anti-choice activists want to punish women who would elect to terminate their pregnancies by forcing them to have sonograms. They want to make an elective procedure involuntary and tied to the termination decision.

It's forced if you don't get to choose what is ordinarily an elective medical procedure.

[Wind Song]

I had every sonogram suggested to me when I was pregnant, and NOT ONE was invasive The intra-vaginal sonograms you are describing were not the standard operating procedure, and I doubt they are today.

Standard sonogram: gel on the abdomen, wand moving over the abdomen, picture of baby on the screen. Nothing invasive. Actually, I always found them fun and fascinating.

Now, a colonoscopy, that's invasive!


Listen, if you start making laws that force women to have procedures that are normally elective that's violating their rights. Admit that it's a punitive and humiliating strategy drummed up by the anti-choice side.

[jimnyc]

Some slick anti-choice activists want to punish women who would elect to terminate their pregnancies by forcing them to have sonograms. They want to make an elective procedure involuntary and tied to the termination decision.

It's forced if you don't get to choose what is ordinarily an elective medical procedure.

How do they perform abortions, by rubbing gel on the woman's body and placing a scanner over it to look for the baby and learn more? I was always of the belief that an abortion was rather invasive. I'm no woman, but I would think I would prefer a sonogram over yanking.... Nevermind, suffice to say I would think one who is prepared to take a human life, and prepared for the procedure it entails, wouldn't find a sonogram so offensive.

[Abbey Marie]

Listen, if you start making laws that force women to have procedures that are normally elective that's violating their rights. Admit that it's a punitive and humiliating strategy drummed up by the anti-choice side.

So by the change of subject, are you now admitting you were wrong about standard sonograms for fetal development being invasive?

[jimnyc]

Listen, if you start making laws that force women to have procedures that are normally elective that's violating their rights. Admit that it's a punitive and humiliating strategy drummed up by the anti-choice side.

An exam and a procedure in order to get the elective procedure of abortion done.

Do you know HOW MANY elective procedures there are out there that require invasive procedures done before hand in order to qualify one for the elective?

[Abbey Marie]

An exam and a procedure in order to get the elective procedure of abortion done.

Do you know HOW MANY elective procedures there are out there that require invasive procedures done before hand in order to qualify one for the elective?

You are right.

Really it comes down to this: The pro-abortion crowd fights anything and everything that might give the mother-to-be pause before killing her own child. They absolutely hate when pictures of fetal growth are shown, or even a waiting period to think about what you are doing first.
A sonogram showing the hands and feet and little heart beating, would be the absolute worst thing for their killing cause.

[tailfins]

An exam and a procedure in order to get the elective procedure of abortion done.

Do you know HOW MANY elective procedures there are out there that require invasive procedures done before hand in order to qualify one for the elective?

Darn skippy! When Nexium first came out and was even more expensive than it is now, the insurance company wanted a tube down my stomach before authorizing the prescription. It sure seemed like they just wanted to inflict discomfort to stop you from spending their money. I wonder how much of Obamacare has special "carve-outs" for abortion when care starts to get rationed. I hope we never find out.


You are right.

Really it comes down to this: The pro-abortion crowd fights anything and everything that might give the mother-to-be pause before killing her own child. They absolutely hate when pictures of fetal growth are shown, or even a waiting period to think about what you are doing first.
A sonogram showing the hands and feet and little heart beating, would be the absolute worst thing for their killing cause.

Correct. They seem to want a timeshare-style sales job done on the patient where the abortionist profits from a snap decision.

[Wind Song]

Yes ma'am, but even that I wouldn't consider forced. It's not like doctors and nurses are running down men and women and forcing us to have sonograms and rectal exams! I understand that many procedures can be uncomfortable, and even evasive, but I don't get the forced part.

If you make it a law that you MUST have a rectal exam and colonscopy then you are forcing someone to have medical procedure that is no longer elective.

[Wind Song]

You are right.

Really it comes down to this: The pro-abortion crowd fights anything and everything that might give the mother-to-be pause before killing her own child. They absolutely hate when pictures of fetal growth are shown, or even a waiting period to think about what you are doing first.
A sonogram showing the hands and feet and little heart beating, would be the absolute worst thing for their killing cause.

The pro-choice crowd fights anything designed to take a woman's choice away. It's about choice. Women have the legal rights to their own bodies. You want the fetus to have more rights than the woman. So your side will throw up anything it can to lessen a woman's ability to choose whether to carry or terminate her pregancy.

Heavy handed, as usual.

It's true abortion stops a beating heart, (if the fetus is that developed to have one.) but so does heart surgery. Both are elective medical procedures.

[tailfins]

The pro-choice crowd fights anything designed to take a woman's choice away. It's about choice. Women have the legal rights to their own bodies. You want the fetus to have more rights than the woman. So your side will throw up anything it can to lessen a woman's ability to choose whether to carry or terminate her pregancy.

Heavy handed, as usual.

I don't see how subjecting a woman to a high pressure sales job gives her an enhanced choice.

[Wind Song]

I don't see how subjecting a woman to a high pressure sales job gives her an enhanced choice.


You're incorrectly stating what happens in pregnancy counseling. The high pressure sales pitch comes from the anti-choice crowd.

[tailfins]

You're incorrectly stating what happens in pregnancy counseling. The high pressure sales pitch comes from the anti-choice crowd.


And how many women have you seen go to an appointment at an abortion clinic and be talked out of it by the staff? I seem to remember an undercover video where an abortion clinic agreed to cover up for a statutory rape.

[logroller]

Logroller--

Get a clue. Either debate the topic with me or put me completely on ignore and leave me alone.

Your choice.

wind

You can't even read the thread topic or poster, let alone respond to an argument; how in the hell are you gonna debate me?

But what the hell--Let's give it a try. Here's my argument:

Requiring a sonogram as a contingency for an elective abortion is entirely reasonable.

Abortion is legal in the United States.
Society is obligated to respect the woman's rights, as well the rights of the fetus (should they exist).
Legally, the rights of the fetus began at a certain stage of development.
Establishing the stage of development is best done by use of sonograms.
Though sonograms are invasive, they are less invasive than the abortion procedure.
A woman who voluntarily elects to have an abortion does so with the understanding it involves an invasive procedure above and beyond the level of invasion performed by a sonogram.
Thus, a woman cannot claim her right to privacy while coextensively electing a procedure which involves that exact same level of invasion. Therefore, requiring a sonogram serves to protect the rights of an unborn child without violating the rights of the woman, and it would be reasonable to impose such a precondition to abortion.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't see how subjecting a woman to a high pressure sales job gives her an enhanced choice.

Pretty much what I was going to respond. :thumb:

[Abbey Marie]

You can't even read the thread topic or poster, let alone respond to an argument; how in the hell are you gonna debate me?

But what the hell--Let's give it a try. Here's my argument:

Requiring a sonogram as a contingency for an elective abortion is entirely reasonable.

Abortion is legal in the United States.
Society is obligated to respect the woman's rights, as well the rights of the fetus (should they exist).
Legally, the rights of the fetus began at a certain stage of development.
Establishing the stage of development is best done by use of sonograms.
Though sonograms are invasive, they are less invasive than the abortion procedure.
A woman who voluntarily elects to have an abortion does so with the understanding it involves an invasive procedure above and beyond the level of invasion performed by a sonogram.
Thus, a woman cannot claim her right to privacy while coextensively electing a procedure which involves that exact same level of invasion. Therefore, requiring a sonogram serves to protect the rights of an unborn child without violating the rights of the woman, and it would be reasonable to impose such a precondition to abortion.

All good points with the minor change being sonograms are not invasive.

[Wind Song]

And how many women have you seen go to an appointment at an abortion clinic and be talked out of it by the staff? I seem to remember an undercover video where an abortion clinic agreed to cover up for a statutory rape.

I can only speak for my own experience in pregnancy counseling at the health department in Oregon back in the late seventies. We didn't try and influence the woman one way or another. Before we received counseling training we had to admit our own biases and work to try and keep them away from another woman's decision.

Its unfair to characterize the entire field of professionals in women health care as being heavy handed in swaying a woman one way or another.

[logroller]

All good points with the minor change being sonograms are not invasive.

Arguably no, but it depends on the circumstance. If I showed up at your door with an ultrasound machine and proceeded to gel up your belly; I could understand your feeling as though your privacy had been violated. If you show up for a pregnancy checkup, not a violation, as you've consented to treatment.

[Abbey Marie]

Arguably no, but it depends on the circumstance. If I showed up at your door with an ultrasound machine and proceeded to gel up your belly; I could understand your feeling as though your privacy had been violated. If you show up for a pregnancy checkup, not a violation, as you've consented to treatment.

I'm pretty sure Wind is talking about ultrasound as a prerequisite for abortion. Not something the police will show up at your door to force on you.

Even if they did, though, it is still not an invasive procedure, in a medical sense of the term.

[logroller]

I'm pretty sure Wind is talking about ultrasound as a prerequisite for abortion. Not something the police will show up at your door to force on you.

Even if they did, though, it is still not an invasive procedure, in a medical sense of the term.

I'm not talking so much from a medical perspective in terms of invasion, but rather the rights of those involved ( privacy/ life); as that's what the whole abortion debate hinges upon.

[Wind Song]

I'm pretty sure Wind is talking about ultrasound as a prerequisite for abortion. Not something the police will show up at your door to force on you.

Even if they did, though, it is still not an invasive procedure, in a medical sense of the term.

It's coercive. You want to force women to have sonograms if they elect to terminate their pregnancy.

YOUR position is punitive, IMO. That's what comes of being a moral absolutist. You seek to restrict other people who don't share your religious values. You want to own ALL women's bodies.

You don't.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm not talking so much from a medical perspective in terms of invasion, but rather the rights of those involved ( privacy/ life); as that's what the whole abortion debate hinges upon.

That's not what Wind was arguing. She was arguing against ultrasounds based on instruments being inserted into private parts.

If you are switching to arguing about privacy, invasiveness of procedures is a misleading argument.

[Abbey Marie]

It's coercive. You want to force women to have sonograms if they elect to terminate their pregnancy.

YOUR position is punitive, IMO. That's what comes of being a moral absolutist. You seek to restrict other people who don't share your religious values. You want to own ALL women's bodies.

You don't.

Abortion is coercive, punitive and restrictive to the baby. You want to own the babies' bodies.

I don't.

I want to see them live a free, non-punitive, non-restrictive life. Basically, I want them to breathe.

[tailfins]

I can only speak for my own experience in pregnancy counseling at the health department in Oregon back in the late seventies. We didn't try and influence the woman one way or another. Before we received counseling training we had to admit our own biases and work to try and keep them away from another woman's decision.

Its unfair to characterize the entire field of professionals in women health care as being heavy handed in swaying a woman one way or another.

In a private enterprise there is pressure from management to boost sales. This would include enterprises that do abortions such as Planned Parenthood.

[logroller]

It's coercive. You want to force women to have sonograms if they elect to terminate their pregnancy.

YOUR position is punitive, IMO. That's what comes of being a moral absolutist. You seek to restrict other people who don't share your religious values. You want to own ALL women's bodies.

You don't.
It's not coercive; it's balancing the rights of the woman with those of an unborn child. You do believe the fetus, at some point in utero, has a right to life; don't you?

[Wind Song]

Abortion is coercive, punitive and restrictive to the baby. You want to own the babies' bodies.

I don't.

I want to see them live a free, non-punitive, non-restrictive life. Basically, I want them to breathe.

No, that's not true of my position. I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice. That means that I don't own the babies and I don't own the women's uterus.

I'm in favor of safe, non-punitive medical procedures.

I know you don't understand that moral position because you're Christian and I'm a Buddhist.

Yes, late term abortions should be restricted to only those that save the life of the mother. The morning after pill is not the termination of a baby. You are inserting feelings that aren't always present in early embryonic and fetal development.

At least, that's what I know of your position so far, correct any misconceptions please.

[logroller]

No, that's not true of my position. I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice. That means that I don't own the babies and I don't own the women's uterus.

I'm in favor of safe, non-punitive medical procedures.

I know you don't understand that moral position because you're Christian and I'm a Buddhist.

Yes, late term abortions should be restricted to only those that save the life of the mother. The morning after pill is not the termination of a baby. You are inserting feelings that aren't always present in early embryonic and fetal development.

At least, that's what I know of your position so far, correct any misconceptions please.

How is "late-term" determined?

[Gator Monroe]

Late Term could be if the Woman is Driving to Clinic for Abortion & she has an Accident/Crash and Baby pops out and Cries and moves around , then Abortion of it should be taken off table .:clap:

[Wind Song]

It's not coercive; it's balancing the rights of the woman with those of an unborn child. You do believe the fetus, at some point in utero, has a right to life; don't you?


Balancing the rights of the woman with the life of the fetus makes sense. For me, it's a question of balancing extremes. On one side of the pendulum we have anti-choice activists who would deny women the right to terminate a pregnacy the morning after unprotected sex, and some so extreme that ANY form of contraception beside abstinence is considered abortive.

On the other side, are women who use abortion as their birth control. We don't know exactly when sentience is present (until we have fetal brain development and spinal column). I object to making abortion illegal again. Recriminalizing doesn't seem to be the answer.

We really need to have a conversation about when does sentience begin?

What I object to is the government telling the woman what her decision MUST be. It's her conscience, it's her life, and yes, she does have the right to determine whether the embryo or fetus continues to birth.

It's very heavy karmically. I would NOt want any woman to not understand that she is taking life, even when it's life at it's most primitive state.

[Gator Monroe]

Late Term could be if the Woman is Driving to Clinic for Abortion & she has an Accident/Crash and Baby pops out and Cries and moves around , then Abortion of it should be taken off table .:clap:

Bump for effect

[logroller]

Kind of on topic; is getting a pelvic exam and papsmear as a condition to receiving a contraceptive pill, a violation of a woman's privacy? Is that punitive?

[Gator Monroe]

Late Term could be if the Woman is Driving to Clinic for Abortion & she has an Accident/Crash and Baby pops out and Cries and moves around , then Abortion of it should be taken off table .:clap:

Bump for Log & Windy

[Wind Song]

How is "late-term" determined?

If I'm not mistaken, it's 22 weeks. But I'd have to check that. We should not have abortions at 22 weeks unless the woman's life is in danger. A fetus can survive on its own that early in some cases.

[Gator Monroe]

Late Term could be if the Woman is Driving to Clinic for Abortion & she has an Accident/Crash and Baby pops out and Cries and moves around , then Abortion of it should be taken off table .:clap:

Bump for Logroller (Since Windy is on Fence)

[Wind Song]

Kind of on topic; is getting a pelvic exam and papsmear as a condition to receiving a contraceptive pill, a violation of a woman's privacy? Is that punitive?

Of course not. Ultrasounds are not necessary unless there is some medical reason for it. Your side wants the ultrasound for a NON medical reason, which is coercive YOU MUST not terminate the pregnancy reason.

Pelvic and paps are needed and standard medical procedure for getting contraception. It's also annually recommended regardless of whether contraception is needed or requested.

[logroller]

Balancing the rights of the woman with the life of the fetus makes sense. For me, it's a question of balancing extremes. On one side of the pendulum we have anti-choice activists who would deny women the right to terminate a pregnacy the morning after unprotected sex, and some so extreme that ANY form of contraception beside abstinence is considered abortive.

On the other side, are women who use abortion as their birth control. We don't know exactly when sentience is present (until we have fetal brain development and spinal column). I object to making abortion illegal again. Recriminalizing doesn't seem to be the answer.

We really need to have a conversation about when does sentience begin?

What I object to is the government telling the woman what her decision MUST be. It's her conscience, it's her life, and yes, she does have the right to determine whether the embryo or fetus continues to birth.

It's very heavy karmically. I would NOt want any woman to not understand that she is taking life, even when it's life at it's most primitive state.
Let's be honest here wind, that conversation on sentience has been argued since the dawn of man, specifically in reference to abortion for atleast forty some-odd years and we've yet to find any consensus; so I think further conversation will amount to little. I accept the Row v. Ruling's determination on the matter from an administrative policy perspective. Women can get an abortion up to the 22nd week, right? Well whatever it is, there's a line; and that line is determined by some objective state of physical development which can be measured using a sonogram. I just don't see how a woman can allow a D&C, but object to a sonogram as invasive-- can you, really?
I do understand what you mean by punitive, sorta. The first time I saw an image of each and every one of my children it brought tears to my eyes. Were I considering an abortion going in, the pain of seeing how human-like that little bundle of cells had become, I think I'd feel pain. I could work through it if I thought that's what was best, though. And, of course, the woman should have the option of not seeing it. I just think its a diagnostic tool that would assure everyone's rights are respected.

[logroller]

Of course not. Ultrasounds are not necessary unless there is some medical reason for it. Your side wants the ultrasound for a NON medical reason, which is coercive YOU MUST not terminate the pregnancy reason.

Pelvic and paps are needed and standard medical procedure for getting contraception. It's also annually recommended regardless of whether contraception is needed or requested.
You do agree that at some point in fetal development; you must not have an abortion, right? (medical reasons aside, of course)

Just like pelvic and paps are std med practice, so too are ultrasounds std in establishing fetal development; which I'm sure you know is a determinant for ones eligibility for elective abortions.

[Wind Song]

How is "late-term" determined?

Some sources make it 16 weeks--others go up to 22 weeks. It should be any time when the fetus is viable, (able to live on it's own outside the woman's uterus).

[Wind Song]

Let's be honest here wind, that conversation on sentience has been argued since the dawn of man, specifically in reference to abortion for atleast forty some-odd years and we've yet to find any consensus; so I think further conversation will amount to little. I accept the Row v. Ruling's determination on the matter from an administrative policy perspective. Women can get an abortion up to the 22nd week, right? Well whatever it is, there's a line; and that line is determined by some objective state of physical development which can be measured using a sonogram. I just don't see how a woman can allow a D&C, but object to a sonogram as invasive-- can you, really?
I do understand what you mean by punitive, sorta. The first time I saw an image of each and every one of my children it brought tears to my eyes. Were I considering an abortion going in, the pain of seeing how human-like that little bundle of cells had become, I think I'd feel pain. I could work through it if I thought that's what was best, though. And, of course, the woman should have the option of not seeing it. I just think its a diagnostic tool that would assure everyone's rights are respected.

Exactly. Perhaps, "invasive" is the wrong term. Coercive may be more on the mark.

[logroller]

Some sources make it 16 weeks--others go up to 22 weeks. It should be any time when the fetus is viable, (able to live on it's own outside the woman's uterus).
How does a doctor know how many weeks pregnant the woman is?

Menstral cycles vary, some women dont keep track and there is a possibility a woman could lie about how long it's been because she really wants an abortion. Do you think it would be OK o have a few late term abortions occur; that the rights of the fetus are determined by the woman, not necessarily the stage of development?

[logroller]

Exactly. Perhaps, "invasive" is the wrong term. Coercive may be more on the mark.

So the procedure itself isn't the problem. A simple, "I'm going to give you an ultrasound to determine the fetal development. Do you wish to see?" would satisfy your concerns?

[jimnyc]

It's coercive. You want to force women to have sonograms if they elect to terminate their pregnancy.

YOUR position is punitive, IMO.

Again, hundreds of ELECTIVE procedures require crappy procedures prior to the main elective. These are REQUIRED for an ELECTIVE procedure. No difference, other than those electing to have an abortion bitch about the procedural testing needing to be done prior.

[keyser soze]

Again, hundreds of ELECTIVE procedures require crappy procedures prior to the main elective. These are REQUIRED for an ELECTIVE procedure. No difference, other than those electing to have an abortion bitch about the procedural testing needing to be done prior.
NO they aren't. There is no medical reason to have these procedures...only punitive, religious reasons. There is no reason for this other than an effort to thwart a woman's choice and her legal rights. This should get Tbaggers up in arms..but the fact that it doesn't points to the fact that the baggers are nothing if not a culture war organization and anything but grass roots.

[jimnyc]

NO they aren't. There is no medical reason to have these procedures...only punitive, religious reasons. There is no reason for this other than an effort to thwart a woman's choice and her legal rights. This should get Tbaggers up in arms..but the fact that it doesn't points to the fact that the baggers are nothing if not a culture war organization and anything but grass roots.

"teabaggers" and "baggers"? I can see you're a far left wing idiot who lives off of blogs for her mindless drivel.

A medical reason? HOW is a doctor to know, FOR SURE, the term of the baby, the viability of living on his/her own and whether there will be unpresented complications from the ELECTIVE procedure? Don't like the ELECTIVE procedure, then don't get it, or go elsewhere, go out of state.... but doctors are ALWAYS going to err on the side of caution, and with the fetus in mind as well. IMO, they would be irresponsible if they simply ignored everything and ripped out a fetus without any prior testing at all.

[keyser soze]

"teabaggers" and "baggers"? I can see you're a far left wing idiot who lives off of blogs for her mindless drivel.

A medical reason? HOW is a doctor to know, FOR SURE, the term of the baby, the viability of living on his/her own and whether there will be unpresented complications from the ELECTIVE procedure? Don't like the ELECTIVE procedure, then don't get it, or go elsewhere, go out of state.... but doctors are ALWAYS going to err on the side of caution, and with the fetus in mind as well. IMO, they would be irresponsible if they simply ignored everything and ripped out a fetus without any prior testing at all.
Much as they try to deny it Tbagger is a term the group chose for itself...so live with it.

A doctor can tell. Period. Vaginal sonograms are not required. It's science. Probably something you reject or don't understand real well.

[tailfins]

NO they aren't. There is no medical reason to have these procedures...only punitive, religious reasons. There is no reason for this other than an effort to thwart a woman's choice and her legal rights. This should get Tbaggers up in arms..but the fact that it doesn't points to the fact that the baggers are nothing if not a culture war organization and anything but grass roots.

That describes the Occupiers quite well. Occupy DC is in fact funded by the unions and pay people to show up.

[jimnyc]

Much as they try to deny it Tbagger is a term the group chose for itself...so live with it.

A doctor can tell. Period. Vaginal sonograms are not required. It's science. Probably something you reject or don't understand real well.

I only reject idiocy, which is on full display here. You can choose to discuss and debate things with people, or you can choose to come barging in here with your insults. Only one of us looks like an asshole. Oh, and you chose that term all for yourself.

[jimnyc]

That describes the Occupiers quite well. Occupy DC is in fact funded by the unions and pay people to show up.

Occupiers = filthy scumbags < ---- and they sure as hell chose that term for themselves too! :lol:

[tailfins]

Much as they try to deny it Tbagger is a term the group chose for itself...so live with it.

A doctor can tell. Period. Vaginal sonograms are not required. It's science. Probably something you reject or don't understand real well.

Real is not a synonym for very. I'm just sayin'.

[keyser soze]

That describes the Occupiers quite well. Occupy DC is in fact funded by the unions and pay people to show up.

I will ask you to source that. It is well know that Tbaggers and the Tparty is funded by Dick Army and his organization...they bussed people in for their rallies and provided the signs etc....not so the Occupy movement...so please provide a credible link to support your assertion.

[keyser soze]

Occupiers = filthy scumbags < ---- and they sure as hell chose that term for themselves too! :lol:
Yes..well...it's clear you have nothing of value to contribute.

[jimnyc]

Yes..well...it's clear you have nothing of value to contribute.

People that don't shower for months, deal drugs, rape, and then shit and piss in the streets = scumbag. Don't like the label for them? Tough, then they shouldn't have been scumbags doing all of the above, and MUCH more.

[tailfins]

I will ask you to source that. It is well know that Tbaggers and the Tparty is funded by Dick Army and his organization...they bussed people in for their rallies and provided the signs etc....not so the Occupy movement...so please provide a credible link to support your assertion.

Just Google "Occupy DC Union", if that it too much to ask, here:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/05/09/seiu_paying_occupy_dcs_rentreally

If that isn't enough, if you visited any Occupy camps, you might have noticed that it was a dodge to camp on prime real estate for free. Tea Partiers on the other hand show up for a couple of hours and go home.

[Abbey Marie]

Balancing the rights of the woman with the life of the fetus makes sense. For me, it's a question of balancing extremes. On one side of the pendulum we have anti-choice activists who would deny women the right to terminate a pregnacy the morning after unprotected sex, and some so extreme that ANY form of contraception beside abstinence is considered abortive.

On the other side, are women who use abortion as their birth control. We don't know exactly when sentience is present (until we have fetal brain development and spinal column). I object to making abortion illegal again. Recriminalizing doesn't seem to be the answer.

We really need to have a conversation about when does sentience begin?

What I object to is the government telling the woman what her decision MUST be. It's her conscience, it's her life, and yes, she does have the right to determine whether the embryo or fetus continues to birth.

My MIL has Alzheimers. She needs to be washed, dressed, fed, and baby-sat or she might hurt herself or wander off. She lives with my SIL. My MIL cannot survive on her own. Should it be up to my SIL as the caretaker to determine when she no longer wants the old woman to live and continue drain her resources and energy?

It's very heavy karmically. I would NOt want any woman to not understand that she is taking life, even when it's life at it's most primitive state.

OMG, that is EXACTLY why you should be for a pre-abortion ultrasound.

.

[keyser soze]

I only reject idiocy, which is on full display here. You can choose to discuss and debate things with people, or you can choose to come barging in here with your insults. Only one of us looks like an asshole. Oh, and you chose that term all for yourself.
It has been my experience that anyone who comes here and posts a different opinion will be considered 'insulting'...you and your's don't like being challenged...the status quo is more your speed...oh, was that insulting?...sooo sorry...thin skin much?

[Howard Roark]

NO they aren't. There is no medical reason to have these procedures...only punitive, religious reasons. There is no reason for this other than an effort to thwart a woman's choice and her legal rights. This should get Tbaggers up in arms..but the fact that it doesn't points to the fact that the baggers are nothing if not a culture war organization and anything but grass roots.

You'd think that SOMEONE would consult physicians before ramming through laws that punish women who seek abortions.

And yes, the continuing irony re. the 'small govt.' politicians is apparent.

[keyser soze]

People that don't shower for months, deal drugs, rape, and then shit and piss in the streets = scumbag. Don't like the label for them? Tough, then they shouldn't have been scumbags doing all of the above, and MUCH more.
You seem to believe whatever you read or hear on Breitbart and Fox News...so much for your understanding and information level...LMAO

[logroller]

NO they aren't. There is no medical reason to have these procedures...only punitive, religious reasons. There is no reason for this other than an effort to thwart a woman's choice and her legal rights. This should get Tbaggers up in arms..but the fact that it doesn't points to the fact that the baggers are nothing if not a culture war organization and anything but grass roots.
How about you provide some credible links to support your assertions about how a doctor can just "tell" how far along a pregnancy is? You want to debate this, I'm game; as im always looking for another pompous asshole to make choke on their tongue. Without blatant exagerrations and name calling, youre nothing but a blithering idiot.

Or maybe just troll and run because you can't hang; you're choice.

[keyser soze]

How about you provide some credible links to support your assertions about how a doctor can just "tell" how far along a pregnancy is? You want to debate this, I'm game; as im always looking for another pompous asshole to make choke on their tongue. Without blatant exagerrations and name calling, youre nothing but a blithering idiot.

Or maybe just troll and run because you can't hang; you're choice.
Why don't you provide some credible links to support your assertions? I notice that you are the one calling names...must be a sign that I win eh?

[jimnyc]

It has been my experience that anyone who comes here and posts a different opinion will be considered 'insulting'...you and your's don't like being challenged...the status quo is more your speed...oh, was that insulting?...sooo sorry...thin skin much?

*Yawn* :lame2:

You can participate like an adult, or troll, your choice.

[MtnBiker]

I think someone spilled a bag of troll food in this thread. Its like watching a pig at a trough.

[jimnyc]

You seem to believe whatever you read or hear on Breitbart and Fox News...so much for your understanding and information level...LMAO

I saw it with my own eyes. I don't watch Fox news.

[jimnyc]

I think someone spilled a bag of troll food in this thread. Its like watching a pig at a trough.

Ever get the feeling that you're being trolled, or someone with a new IP address 'thinks' they are smart? I don't mind trolls when they have brains, but...

[logroller]

Why don't you provide some credible links to support your assertions? I notice that you are the one calling names...must be a sign that I win eh?
Refute my assertions with logic... I'll bump my argument ; meanwhile
Heres a link to the mayo clinic on what ultrasounds do.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fetal-ultrasound/PR00139

[tailfins]

*Yawn* :lame2:

You can participate like an adult, or troll, your choice.

He/She/It makes a good urinal splash guard. I wonder if they sell those with an Obama likeness on them.

Anyway, He/She/It makes a good target where we can verbally relieve ourselves.

[logroller]

Bumped for soze.

Here's my argument:

Requiring a sonogram as a contingency for an elective abortion is entirely reasonable.

Abortion is legal in the United States.
Society is obligated to respect the woman's rights, as well the rights of the fetus (should they exist).
Legally, the rights of the fetus began at a certain stage of development.
Establishing the stage of development is best done by use of sonograms.
Though sonograms are invasive, they are less invasive than the abortion procedure.
A woman who voluntarily elects to have an abortion does so with the understanding it involves an invasive procedure above and beyond the level of invasion performed by a sonogram.
Thus, a woman cannot claim her right to privacy while coextensively electing a procedure which involves that exact same level of invasion. Therefore, requiring a sonogram serves to protect the rights of an unborn child without violating the rights of the woman, and it would be reasonable to impose such a precondition to abortion.

[MtnBiker]

He/She/It makes a good urinal splash guard. I wonder if they sell those with an Obama likeness on them.

Nope, you get the likeness for free using the other device in the bathroom.

[jimnyc]

He/She/It makes a good urinal splash guard. I wonder if they sell those with an Obama likeness on them.

Anyway, He/She/It makes a good target where we can verbally relieve ourselves.

Urinal splash guard! I like that one. But don't they actually serve a purpose?

[logroller]

Why don't you provide some credible links to support your assertions? I notice that you are the one calling names...must be a sign that I win eh?
You argue like you read, poorly. I didn't say I didn't call people names douchebag; I said that you're nothing without it. I've laid down my argument; refute it or commence gargling my teabagging nuts!

[Howard Roark]

NO they aren't. There is no medical reason to have these procedures...only punitive, religious reasons. There is no reason for this other than an effort to thwart a woman's choice and her legal rights. This should get Tbaggers up in arms..but the fact that it doesn't points to the fact that the baggers are nothing if not a culture war organization and anything but grass roots.

There is no medically sound reason for this legislation. It's nothing more than an attempt to make the providers go out of business, or make the procedure more of a hassle for the woman.
Now, 2 days off from work will be required.

Physicians don't agree with the bogus decisions that uneducated lawmakers are ramming through.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/2011-abortion-sonogram-bill/abortion-providers-sonogram-law-complication/

[keyser soze]

*Yawn* :lame2:

You can participate like an adult, or troll, your choice.
I'm not the one making assertions and demanding backup then whining when expected to provide the same...

[keyser soze]

You argue like you read, poorly. I didn't say I didn't call people names douchebag; I said that you're nothing without it. I've laid down my argument; refute it or commence gargling my teabagging nuts!
You are not worth answering...what argument? Name calling is your game and being all 'macho'...go for it...enjoy

[keyser soze]

I saw it with my own eyes. I don't watch Fox news.
Saw what? It?!

[keyser soze]

I think someone spilled a bag of troll food in this thread. Its like watching a pig at a trough.
Well, I never called them pigs...or trolls...

[jimnyc]

Saw what? It?!

It's obvious you have no desire to discuss the topic and even more obvious that you want to be a troll to this thread.

[logroller]

You are not worth answering...what argument? Name calling is your game and being all 'macho'...go for it...enjoy
Refute my argument with logic. Not one line dismissals. If u can.

[logroller]

Well, I never called them pigs...or trolls...
I never saw you post an argument either. It is a debate site.

[logroller]

Bumped again, for soze

Refute this:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35060-What-a-vile-scumbag-organization!&p=545373#post545373

[jimnyc]

Refute my argument with logic. Not one line dismissals. If u can.

I gave her a vacation from this thread, or the "total recall" package. This WAS a decent thread for quite a bit, then a troll came in and veered it into a tree. Hopefully others can bring it back on course, minus the trolling of course.

[logroller]

You are not worth answering...what argument? Name calling is your game and being all 'macho'...go for it...enjoy
You're incapable of answering. It's logically sound; legally just and rationally prudent. You can't go into a thread that has been discussed at length and expect to participate without getting up to speed on what's already been discussed. It's insulting to those who've take the time to actually read and consider other people's posts and the time and energy they put in to their posts. If you can't recognize that then you deserve whatever name calling you receive.

[Howard Roark]

I gave her a vacation from this thread, or the "total recall" package. This WAS a decent thread for quite a bit, then a troll came in and veered it into a tree. Hopefully others can bring it back on course, minus the trolling of course.

Well, 'decent' is a matter of opinion. I don't go for the personal attacks, but the core here tends to pile on, while avoiding the issues. Same as any message board. If you guys prefer to sit and agree with yourselves all day long, that's fine.

Are there any physicians who have been consulted over this legislation? I'm not talking about physicians who are anti abortion. I'm talking about physicians who treat all women for a variety of health related matters.

[jimnyc]

Well, 'decent' is a matter of opinion. I don't go for the personal attacks, but the core here tends to pile on, while avoiding the issues. Same as any message board. If you guys prefer to sit and agree with yourselves all day long, that's fine.

Are there any physicians who have been consulted over this legislation? I'm not talking about physicians who are anti abortion. I'm talking about physicians who treat all women for a variety of health related matters.

The "core" here doesn't pile on. In THIS thread I would say those against abortion have "piled on" those pro-choice. But for the most part, it was a decent and adult-like discussion free of "trolling" and name calling.

I don't see anyone wanting solely to agree or avoiding issues that others bring up.

[Howard Roark]

The "core" here doesn't pile on. In THIS thread I would say those against abortion have "piled on" those pro-choice. But for the most part, it was a decent and adult-like discussion free of "trolling" and name calling.

I don't see anyone wanting solely to agree or avoiding issues that others bring up.

It was 'decent' because nobody challenged the assertions that filled these pages. On 3 occassions now, in this thread I asked a question.

I'd suggest you read the last few pages of filth, and ask who needed to be removed from the thread.

All because the term tbag is offensive here.

But not comments about urinals?

[Missileman]

So the procedure itself isn't the problem. A simple, "I'm going to give you an ultrasound to determine the fetal development. Do you wish to see?" would satisfy your concerns?

Opinions aside, is there currently a requirement for the doctor to determine development before performing an abortion? Is there a line of development beyond which the abortion cannot be legally performed?

[jimnyc]

It was 'decent' because nobody challenged the assertions that filled these pages. On 3 occassions now, in this thread I asked a question.

I'd suggest you read the last few pages of filth, and ask who needed to be removed from the thread.

All because the term tbag is offensive here.

But not comments about urinals?

Oh well, we aren't going to allow new members to come here, try and insult the entire community - and then dictate to us how we should run the place. I'd much prefer if everyone tried to remain on topic, and TRY to keep things as civil as possible, and not purposely enter threads with the desire to troll and instigate trouble. Sorry if you see it differently, but that is exactly what "soze" did here.

[Howard Roark]

Oh well, we aren't going to allow new members to come here, try and insult the entire community - and then dictate to us how we should run the place. I'd much prefer if everyone tried to remain on topic, and TRY to keep things as civil as possible, and not purposely enter threads with the desire to troll and instigate trouble. Sorry if you see it differently, but that is exactly what "soze" did here.

Well, yes. She did come in with guns blazing.

And she was met with the same. This is a pretty heated topic. I'd hardly call the response to someone who doesn't agree with the core here 'civil'.

I don't know that anyone is dictating anything about running the board. I chose to stay out to the topic, because there was nothing but opinion being bandied about.
And yes...being new, my opinion isn't as welcome as someone elses. But there comes a point where someone asks a question that requires more than opinion, and the discussion goes right to the sewer.


Such is the nature of political message boards. Believe it or not, I've seen meltdowns on Hummingbird message boards.

Go figure.

[jimnyc]

But there comes a point where someone asks a question that requires more than opinion, and the discussion goes right to the sewer.

I'm not condemning anything you did, posted, or asked. I think you've been pretty darn civil since you came here. But to enter a thread and immediately refer to everyone as "teabaggers" is not merely asking a question that requires more than an opinion. If you're referring to yourself and your own inquiries, you have my apologies, but this Soze character came into this thread to troll, and I suspect thus far more than just this thread.

[jimnyc]

I've reinstated KS to the thread. I'm of the belief that he/she is trolling, but I suppose I could be wrong. I'll let his/her future posts answer that question. But I don't want people already crying favoritism/bias and all that other crap.

[Howard Roark]

I'm not condemning anything you did, posted, or asked. I think you've been pretty darn civil since you came here. But to enter a thread and immediately refer to everyone as "teabaggers" is not merely asking a question that requires more than an opinion. If you're referring to yourself and your own inquiries, you have my apologies, but this Soze character came into this thread to troll, and I suspect thus far more than just this thread.

Nope..I didn't think you were referring to me. I have noticed that the term tbaggers is automatically assessed as a personal attack here, even though the term wasn't aimed at a member....rather, the group.

It's no different than the epithets used to describe liberals here.

If you don't want the term used at all, then it could be in the rules, or it could be filtered out.

If not, then I believe the general use of the term should not be construed by teaparty members here, as a personal attack



This is her post:



NO they aren't. There is no medical reason to have these procedures...only punitive, religious reasons. There is no reason for this other than an effort to thwart a woman's choice and her legal rights. This should get Tbaggers up in arms..but the fact that it doesn't points to the fact that the baggers are nothing if not a culture war organization and anything but grass roots.


Now, I read this as a comment about the politicians in the states that are ramming through this moronic legislation. Typically, we see politicians who either ran as teaparty, or affirm the concepts espoused by same.

I find it ironic that the 'small govt' crowd affirms legislation that address both...a very personal choice...and a very personal healthcare issue.


At no point was the medical community involved in this process. It's punitive to both the patient, and the provider.

If you hate the thought of abortion, at least admit that the legislation is nothing more than punitive, and that you agree that it should be.


And the suggestion that women (in general) take abortion lightly, is despicable.

[jimnyc]

Nope..I didn't think you were referring to me. I have noticed that the term tbaggers is automatically assessed as a personal attack here, even though the term wasn't aimed at a member....rather, the group.

It's no different than the epithets used to describe liberals here.

If you don't want the term used at all, then it could be in the rules, or it could be filtered out.

If not, then I believe the general use of the term should not be construed by teaparty members here, as a personal attack

All fair enough. But just as an Fyi - we have the "C" word filtered here, the one and only word filtered. While I'm no fan of being referred to as a teabagger, or bagger, I won't moderate based on the terminology, and didn't. I initially removed him as It appeared he was solely trying to start trouble, but I'm willing to admit I could have rushed to judgment.


Now, I read this as a comment about the politicians in the states that are ramming through this moronic legislation. Typically, we see politicians who either ran as teaparty, or affirm the concepts espoused by same.

I find it ironic that the 'small govt' crowd affirms legislation that address both...a very personal choice...and a very personal healthcare issue.


At no point was the medical community involved in this process. It's punitive to both the patient, and the provider.

If you hate the thought of abortion, at least admit that the legislation is nothing more than punitive, and that you agree that it should be.


And the suggestion that women (in general) take abortion lightly, is despicable.

As far as I can recall, there are like 18 states with similar legislation. I would 'possibly' consider a vaginal sonogram to be punitive, but I wouldn't consider the typical to be punitive. It IS a "life" being taken, or at least the sonogram can determine IF and at what stage a life is being taken. While I agree the woman has rights to her body, I'm of the belief that SOMEONE needs to stand up for the rights of the unborn child. If the mother won't do so, who will?

[Wind Song]

How does a doctor know how many weeks pregnant the woman is?

Menstral cycles vary, some women dont keep track and there is a possibility a woman could lie about how long it's been because she really wants an abortion. Do you think it would be OK o have a few late term abortions occur; that the rights of the fetus are determined by the woman, not necessarily the stage of development?


That's true. You'd have to ask a doctor how they determine how many months pregnant a woman is if she's that out of it that she really doesn't know.

No, I don't think late term abortions are appropriate unless there is a medical risk of carrying the pregnancy to term.

[Howard Roark]

All fair enough. But just as an Fyi - we have the "C" word filtered here, the one and only word filtered. While I'm no fan of being referred to as a teabagger, or bagger, I won't moderate based on the terminology, and didn't. I initially removed him as It appeared he was solely trying to start trouble, but I'm willing to admit I could have rushed to judgment.



As far as I can recall, there are like 18 states with similar legislation. I would 'possibly' consider a vaginal sonogram to be punitive, but I wouldn't consider the typical to be punitive. It IS a "life" being taken, or at least the sonogram can determine IF and at what stage a life is being taken. While I agree the woman has rights to her body, I'm of the belief that SOMEONE needs to stand up for the rights of the unborn child. If the mother won't do so, who will?

I posted a link...that nobody was interested in checking...from Texas. Now, the doctor is required to do a sonogram instead of a lesser staff member. As well, the woman must now go home, and come back the next day.

That's clearly not 'small govt.', nor is it necessary. It does advance the goal of having clinics shut down, and attempt to have less women seek the procedure.

I agree with your assessment re. standard sonogram. However, there are a couple of points. In very early stage abortions, a standard sonogram wouldn't show much. As well, the reason for the forced sonogram is to force the woman to see the fetus, not for any 'need' in order to perform the procedure.

The act of undergoing an abortion is NOT taken lightly by the overwhelming majority of women. It's a humiliating, extremely uncomfortable procedure. I'm sure most women suffer emotional stress before, and certainly after.


What I find is that anti abortion people always think of a late term procedure. Personally, I believe that once a functioning brain/nerve network is established, where the fetus can feel 'pain', an abortion should be illegal unless there are mitigating factors.


I see no reason for outlawing morning after pills, for a woman who thinks she may have become pregnant from unprotected sex the night before.

[Wind Song]

I only reject idiocy, which is on full display here. You can choose to discuss and debate things with people, or you can choose to come barging in here with your insults. Only one of us looks like an asshole. Oh, and you chose that term all for yourself.


Hey Jim,

Has it occurred to you that newbies have to come on like gangbusters around here?

[Wind Song]

I've reinstated KS to the thread. I'm of the belief that he/she is trolling, but I suppose I could be wrong. I'll let his/her future posts answer that question. But I don't want people already crying favoritism/bias and all that other crap.

This is a new member. KS will settle in. I'm happy to see some new liberal members here. How about extending your friendship? I've had to reach out and do that for every friend I have here.

[Wind Song]

Again, hundreds of ELECTIVE procedures require crappy procedures prior to the main elective. These are REQUIRED for an ELECTIVE procedure. No difference, other than those electing to have an abortion bitch about the procedural testing needing to be done prior.

It's political. It's not a necessary procedure for a termination to have a sonogram. Your side wants to make a woman have that and pay for it to coerce her into not carrying through with the termination.

Your side pushes, the other side pushes back. This is women's reproductive health politics.

WTF. Why don't you guys just get vasectomies and keep women from getting knocked up?

[jimnyc]

Hey Jim,

Has it occurred to you that newbies have to come on like gangbusters around here?


This is a new member. KS will settle in. I'm happy to see some new liberal members here.

I fully understand that new members feel inundated if they post an opposing view. And I really don't even care if they "come on like gangbusters". But immediately resorting to insults, to an entire board, is wrong. If someone insults a new member, the new member is just as entitled to give it back. But it looks odd when someone comes here out of the blue and goes out of their way to try and insult everyone.

[jimnyc]

It's political. It's not a necessary procedure for a termination to have a sonogram. Your side wants to make a woman have that and pay for it to coerce her into not carrying through with the termination.

Your side pushes, the other side pushes back. This is women's reproductive health politics.

WTF. Why don't you guys just get vasectomies and keep women from getting knocked up?

I'm from the land of "Personal Responsibility" and don't automatically think it's one or the other. BOTH have a responsibility to take precautions. It's silly to solely push it towards the men if women are "getting knocked up".

[Howard Roark]

It's political. It's not a necessary procedure for a termination to have a sonogram. Your side wants to make a woman have that and pay for it to coerce her into not carrying through with the termination.

Your side pushes, the other side pushes back. This is women's reproductive health politics.

WTF. Why don't you guys just get vasectomies and keep women from getting knocked up?

Damn...that's a different approach.

How about a mandatory colonoscopy before they can get viagra?

[Wind Song]

I fully understand that new members feel inundated if they post an opposing view. And I really don't even care if they "come on like gangbusters". But immediately resorting to insults, to an entire board, is wrong. If someone insults a new member, the new member is just as entitled to give it back. But it looks odd when someone comes here out of the blue and goes out of their way to try and insult everyone.


All you can do is what you do best, Jim. Tell it like it is. Let him know what works and doesn't work. And consider that when someone is new and they come into something they don't understand they make their best observation of what's going on and that can involve a negative perception and insults.

[Wind Song]

Damn...that's a different approach.

How about a mandatory colonoscopy before they can get viagra?


Woo hoo. See how they feel about that!

[Wind Song]

I'm from the land of "Personal Responsibility" and don't automatically think it's one or the other. BOTH have a responsibility to take precautions. It's silly to solely push it towards the men if women are "getting knocked up".


Men have no responsibilities for conception? If so, STFU about abortion.

[jimnyc]

Men have no responsibilities for conception? If so, STFU about abortion.

Men DO have responsibility, if you read what I wrote. BOTH are responsible.

A woman should ALWAYS make sure precautions are taken if she doesn't want to get pregnant.
Men should ALWAYS take precautions if they don't want a baby.

BOTH are responsible. BOTH.

[tailfins]

But not comments about urinals?

I've been a BAD BOY.:fart:

[logroller]

I posted a link...that nobody was interested in checking...from Texas. Now, the doctor is required to do a sonogram instead of a lesser staff member. As well, the woman must now go home, and come back the next day.

That's clearly not 'small govt.', nor is it necessary. It does advance the goal of having clinics shut down, and attempt to have less women seek the procedure.

I agree with your assessment re. standard sonogram. However, there are a couple of points. In very early stage abortions, a standard sonogram wouldn't show much. As well, the reason for the forced sonogram is to force the woman to see the fetus, not for any 'need' in order to perform the procedure.

The act of undergoing an abortion is NOT taken lightly by the overwhelming majority of women. It's a humiliating, extremely uncomfortable procedure. I'm sure most women suffer emotional stress before, and certainly after.


What I find is that anti abortion people always think of a late term procedure. Personally, I believe that once a functioning brain/nerve network is established, where the fetus can feel 'pain', an abortion should be illegal unless there are mitigating factors.


I see no reason for outlawing morning after pills, for a woman who thinks she may have become pregnant from unprotected sex the night before.
I know for fact my doctor makes his patients wait a week after counseling before performing a vasectomy; and a vasectomy is more reversible than an abortion. I see nothing wrong with making sure a patient is positively in favor of a procedure so permanent. If doctors are more concerned with keeping their doors open than taking reasonable steps to ensure the patient doesn't experience buyers remorse...they shouldn't be practicing medicine IMO.

[fj1200]

They want to make an elective procedure involuntary and tied to the termination decision.

Kind of like forcing private insurance companies to cover birth control?

Well that was off-topic... or was it?

[fj1200]

The pro-choice crowd fights anything designed to take a woman's choice away. It's about choice. Women have the legal rights to their own bodies. You want the fetus to have more rights than the woman. So your side will throw up anything it can to lessen a woman's ability to choose whether to carry or terminate her pregancy.

Heavy handed, as usual.

It's true abortion stops a beating heart, (if the fetus is that developed to have one.) but so does heart surgery. Both are elective medical procedures.

Do you have that post on your clipboard for quick copy/paste?

[logroller]

That's true. You'd have to ask a doctor how they determine how many months pregnant a woman is if she's that out of it that she really doesn't know.

No, I don't think late term abortions are appropriate unless there is a medical risk of carrying the pregnancy to term.

I don't need to ask, I know; its an ultrasound.
From wikipedia: I could get a more scholarly source, but I don't think it'll say much different.

AccuracyCalculations of gestational age from LMP are sometimes incorrect due to normal variation from the average ovulation date. The gestational age of an individual infant can be more accurately estimated from:


The woman's knowledge of the date of sexual intercourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse).
The woman's knowledge of fertility signs related to ovulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovulation). The needed observations are normally made by woman who use fertility awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_awareness) methods to get pregnant.
Examination of the newborn infant. In the twentieth century, doctors (especially pediatricians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pediatrician)) were trained to recognize the physical changes occurring to the fetus in the latter half of pregnancy so that a maturational age could be estimated.
An obstetric ultrasound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetric_ultrasonography) ("dating scan", in the UK routinely offered around 12 weeks) during the pregnancy, whereby sizes of certain fetal body parts are measured.

[fj1200]

That's what comes of being a moral absolutist. You seek to restrict other people who don't share your religious values. You want to own ALL women's bodies.

Deft use of the talking points but, not speaking for Abbey and the others of course, I don't consider myself overly religious but feel that the logic based position is pro-life. If you accept the priority of the natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) of life, liberty, and property I feel you would naturally come to the life position. You are free to take any liberty with yourself and your property but once they infringe on the rights of another you then become subject to society's laws. The question then becomes at what point does life start? There are certainly stages of development, viability, etc. but there is arguably no point in time that the life began other than conception.

I have a friend on another board and he put it this way, "I'm not religious at all, but I recognize a human being for a human being. "The bottom line" is when a woman gets pregnant, she is sharing her body with someone else. Like a conjoined twin that will separate after nine months."

[Missileman]

Deft use of the talking points but, not speaking for Abbey and the others of course, I don't consider myself overly religious but feel that the logic based position is pro-life. If you accept the priority of the natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) of life, liberty, and property I feel you would naturally come to the life position. You are free to take any liberty with yourself and your property but once they infringe on the rights of another you then become subject to society's laws. The question then becomes at what point does life start? There are certainly stages of development, viability, etc. but there is arguably no point in time that the life began other than conception.

I have a friend on another board and he put it this way, "I'm not religious at all, but I recognize a human being for a human being. "The bottom line" is when a woman gets pregnant, she is sharing her body with someone else. Like a conjoined twin that will separate after nine months."

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.

[logroller]

Im still waiting for someone to refute my argument. As much as I enjoy being a master debater, I was hoping to have a tea party with an adversary. ;);)



Requiring a sonogram as a contingency for an elective abortion is entirely reasonable.

Abortion is legal in the United States.
Society is obligated to respect the woman's rights, as well the rights of the fetus (should they exist).
Legally, the rights of the fetus began at a certain stage of development.
Establishing the stage of development is best done by use of sonograms.
Though sonograms are invasive, they are less invasive than the abortion procedure.
A woman who voluntarily elects to have an abortion does so with the understanding it involves an invasive procedure above and beyond the level of invasion performed by a sonogram.
Thus, a woman cannot claim her right to privacy while coextensively electing a procedure which involves that exact same level of invasion. Therefore, requiring a sonogram serves to protect the rights of an unborn child without violating the rights of the woman, and it would be reasonable to impose such a precondition to abortion.

[Kathianne]

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.

But they are not 'clumps of cells.' Much earlier than previously thought, the ability to fell and shun sources of pain; the obvious development of sensory organs, much earlier than thought years ago.

This is a topic where 'science' really is killing the progressives.

[logroller]

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.
Well then one shouldn't mind seeing a sonogram said clump.

[fj1200]

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.

Well, if that clump doesn't become a person then no harm as it miscarries, if it does become a person then why isn't it entitled to personhood? But that does get to the underlying question of that clump being property or life. I think life is the more logical position especially over convenience.

[fj1200]

That's clearly not 'small govt.', nor is it necessary. It does advance the goal of having clinics shut down, and attempt to have less women seek the procedure.

Why shouldn't there be an attempt to have less women seek the procedure? That would seem like good public policy. And it's not a 'small govt.' issue to NOT advance legislation that protects innocent life; It's a function of government to do so unless you think it's big government intrusion to investigate murder.

[Missileman]

Well, if that clump doesn't become a person then no harm as it miscarries, if it does become a person then why isn't it entitled to personhood? But that does get to the underlying question of that clump being property or life. I think life is the more logical position especially over convenience.

The question is rather, at what point during the pregnancy does the fetus attain personhood and the right to life? You've just tacitly acknowledged the line is some time after conception.

[fj1200]

The question is rather, at what point during the pregnancy does the fetus attain personhood and the right to life? You've just tacitly acknowledged the line is some time after conception.

Not really.


... but there is arguably no point in time that the life began other than conception.

I used "person" based on your reference. The question is at what point is the fetus granted personhood and the right to life?

[Wind Song]

Deft use of the talking points but, not speaking for Abbey and the others of course, I don't consider myself overly religious but feel that the logic based position is pro-life. If you accept the priority of the natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) of life, liberty, and property I feel you would naturally come to the life position. You are free to take any liberty with yourself and your property but once they infringe on the rights of another you then become subject to society's laws. The question then becomes at what point does life start? There are certainly stages of development, viability, etc. but there is arguably no point in time that the life began other than conception.

I have a friend on another board and he put it this way, "I'm not religious at all, but I recognize a human being for a human being. "The bottom line" is when a woman gets pregnant, she is sharing her body with someone else. Like a conjoined twin that will separate after nine months."


The morning after pill interrupts a fertilzed egg so that it is unable to implant. I don't consider the development at that stage a "baby", do you?

The most important point IMO, is when does sentience begin? We don't know for sure until there is brain and spinal development in a fetus. It's still human cells, embryo, fetus. I think life begins at conception but that is spiritual belief not something that can be proven scientifically.

The fetus does not have legal status until 22 weeks if I understand Roe. Theres a huge amount of time and fetal development going on between the day after and 22 weeks.

Viability is the current standard for late term abortions--which are mostly illegal anyway. The discussion goes to the wings with the moralists taking the extreme view that even contraception itself is abortive--all the way to those who want abortion to be free of choice complications in the first three months to those who'd like to push it further to four months.


Bottom line. You have a thinking, feeling, adult human being who has the right to decide whether that fertilized egg becomes a human baby or not.

Each side makes a mistake. The pro-life crowd is pro-fetal life but completely judging and unsympathetic of the woman who has the unplanned and unwanted pregancy and you have the pro-choice side that emphasizes the woman's right and de-emphasizes fetal right to develop into a human baby.

Where I stand on this issue is anti-abortion and pro-choice. I do not want to return to back alley or coat hanger abortions or the suicides of pregnant women.

I don't trust the so-called "pro-life" crowd because they don't seem to give a shit about the woman's life. They indicate they think they own the woman's body and have the right to make everyone elses moral decisions for them.

That's wrong IMO.

[fj1200]

The morning after pill interrupts a fertilzed egg so that it is unable to implant. I don't consider the development at that stage a "baby", do you?

The most important point IMO, is when does sentience begin? We don't know for sure until there is brain and spinal development in a fetus. It's still human cells, embryo, fetus. I think life begins at conception but that is spiritual belief not something that can be proven scientifically.

A definitional argument eh? What will it be if you do nothing?

Sentience is certainly an argument and so is ensoulment but if you think life begins at conception why work to create an environment that legitimizes harm.


Where I stand on this issue is anti-abortion and pro-choice. I do not want to return to back alley or coat hanger abortions or the suicides of pregnant women.

I don't trust the so-called "pro-life" crowd because they don't seem to give a shit about the woman's life. They indicate they think they own the woman's body and have the right to make everyone elses moral decisions for them.

That's wrong IMO.

:rolleyes:

[Wind Song]

A definitional argument eh? What will it be if you do nothing?

Sentience is certainly an argument and so is ensoulment but if you think life begins at conception why work to create an environment that legitimizes harm.



:rolleyes:


Let's figure out how to help the pregnant woman, for petesakes, or does her life not matter to you? Pro-lifers are pro FETAL life only.

[logroller]

Let's figure out how to help the pregnant woman, for petesakes, or does her life not matter to you? Pro-lifers are pro FETAL life only.
Explain how abortion helps a pregnant woman? A woman, perhaps, but not a pregnant woman.
Tha be like saying I'm helping an employed woman by accepting her resignation. It helps her, but not her status as employed. Regardless, the woman I trust is capable of looking out for her own life; the fetus on the other hand is far less capable.

[Howard Roark]

Kind of like forcing private insurance companies to cover birth control?

Well that was off-topic... or was it?Insurance companies PREFER to pay for contraception. Just ask them.


Im still waiting for someone to refute my argument. As much as I enjoy being a master debater, I was hoping to have a tea party with an adversary. ;);)

If you read carefully, you'll see that your link shows at what stage of development a sonogram is usually performed.

That alone refutes your argument, when it comes to the early stage abortions.

[Wind Song]

Explain how abortion helps a pregnant woman? A woman, perhaps, but not a pregnant woman.
Tha be like saying I'm helping an employed woman by accepting her resignation. It helps her, but not her status as employed. Regardless, the woman I trust is capable of looking out for her own life; the fetus on the other hand is far less capable.

I'm not defending abortion. I support keeping abortion a legal option so that women do not die in unsafe medical procedures. If it was up to me, I'd tried and talk women out of having abortions.

It's NOT up to me, it's up to the woman facing the decision.

What you object to, is that she has the decision. It's NOT YOURS to make.

[fj1200]

Let's figure out how to help the pregnant woman, for petesakes, or does her life not matter to you? Pro-lifers are pro FETAL life only.

I'm glad you're able to carry on the discussion with repeating yourself. :rolleyes: I didn't realize pregnancy was a terminal disease.


Insurance companies PREFER to pay for contraception. Just ask them.

Doesn't matter, you miss the point. It appears you prefer to be against coercion except when you're for it.

[darin]

I'm not defending abortion. I support keeping abortion a legal option so that women do not die in unsafe medical procedures. If it was up to me, I'd tried and talk women out of having abortions.

It's NOT up to me, it's up to the woman facing the decision.

What you object to, is that she has the decision. It's NOT YOURS to make.

You don't see the irony in promoting a "medical procedure" that KILLS baby women in an effort to save a tiny, nearly statistically-improbable amount of grown-up women?

Gawd you're so full of hate.

[Wind Song]

I've never had an abortion. I don't want women to have abortions, AND I think recriminalizing abortions will ensure more women die from unsafe procedures.

Here's what I've decided after being away for a day and coming back yesterday.

I've been called a fraud, a hater, a baby killer, a supporter of child molestation, and more than I can remember at the moment.

I know why KS has come on board here and given all shit. YOU deserve it.

[darin]

I've never had an abortion. I don't want women to have abortions, AND I think recriminalizing abortions will ensure more women die from unsafe procedures.

Here's what I've decided after being away for a day and coming back yesterday.

I've been called a fraud, a hater, a baby killer, a supporter of child molestation, and more than I can remember at the moment.

I know why KS has come on board here and given all shit. YOU deserve it.

Does legalization result in MORE dead babies, though? Compared to when Abortion was only used, legally, in the case of health/risk to the mother?

Which are more important: Human Baby women or human adult women?

[Wind Song]

Which is more important? That's not the question. Who has the legal right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term or terminate? The pregnant woman in the first four months.

Both lives have importance and meaning. The so-called "pro-life" crowd is only concerned with the importance of fetal life or potential human life and could give a shit about the women.

Women have always sought a way out of forced breeding. Abortive methods have been practiced for millenia. Overturning Roe isn't the answer.

70,000 women died of unsafe abortions worldwide and 85% of them were in sub-saharan Africa where abortion is banned.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/56136.php

[fj1200]

Which is more important? That's not the question. Who has the legal right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term or terminate? The pregnant woman in the first four months.

Why do you answer a natural rights question with a legal rights response?

[Wind Song]

Why do you answer a natural rights question with a legal rights response?

Why do you continually try and change the question after you ask it and I answer it?

You suggest that the fertilized egg should have the deciding vote. That's a clump of cells versus a living breathing thinking and feeling adult woman. The natural rights go the human being who can make the decisions.

[fj1200]

Both lives have importance and meaning. The so-called "pro-life" crowd is only concerned with the importance of fetal life or potential human life and could give a shit about the women.

:slap: :slap: :slap:


70,000 women died of unsafe abortions worldwide and 85% of them were in sub-saharan Africa where abortion is banned.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/56136.php

Yeah, that's the only thing that kills women in sub-Saharan Africa. :rolleyes:

[Wind Song]

70,000 women die annually because of unsafe abortions where abortion is outlawed. If it's up to you, from now until the end of time women who elect to terminate pregnany, (consider how hungry people are in sub-Saharan Africa), they all continue to die if it's up to you.

You folks cannot handle the fact that I can be against abortion, yet pro-choice.

[fj1200]

Why do you continually try and change the question after you ask it and I answer it?

Because you don't answer the question asked. You answer with something that really isn't in dispute.


You suggest that the fertilized egg should have the deciding vote. That's a clump of cells versus a living breathing thinking and feeling adult woman. The natural rights go the human being who can make the decisions.

So you fall on the fetus as property argument. Fine, logically unstable in my opinion, but fine.

[Wind Song]

Because you don't answer the question asked. You answer with something that really isn't in dispute.



So you fall on the fetus as property argument. Fine, logically unstable in my opinion, but fine.

The fetus is the "property" of the woman who is pregnant. Legally, that's the fetuses status. Logically unstable? What a bunch of crap. Who else does the fetus belong to?

YOU?

[fj1200]

The fetus is the "property" of the woman who is pregnant. Legally, that's the fetuses status. Logically unstable? What a bunch of crap. Who else does the fetus belong to?

YOU?

Themselves of course. Did you miss my post that discussed life versus property? I could find it if necessary.

[darin]

The fetus is the "property" of the woman who is pregnant. Legally, that's the fetuses status. Logically unstable? What a bunch of crap. Who else does the fetus belong to?

YOU?

So - you place a value judgment on the baby. That's fine. That's your hate - you own that evil, morally bankrupt point of view.
People do NOT belong to anyone anymore.


What I HATE - maybe the biggest part of the abortion-on-demand...the Father of the baby gets NO input. In fact, a woman can punch herself in the stomach to try and cause an abortion - however if she asks a MAN to do it; even the father of the human inside her, HE goes to Jail; she gets celebrated for exercising 'her choice'.

You poor broken person. Your mind is so f'ed up you love evil, and hate good.

[Wind Song]

I gave you a chance and all you're doing is personally attacking me. You're not debating the topic, dmp. We're done today.

[darin]

You are broken, honey. Seek emotional band aids or simply fix the disease. Your choice.

[Wind Song]

You are broken, honey. Seek emotional band aids or simply fix the disease. Your choice.

Your analysis is off topic, Mr "I'm such a great debater, you should take lessons from me".

You've done nothing but demonstrate personal attack/ ad hominem today. I already know how to do personal attack.

[Howard Roark]

Doesn't matter, you miss the point. It appears you prefer to be against coercion except when you're for it.

Back atcha.

Even though your point is misguided. Trust me...if insurance companies didn't want to cover contraception, they wouldn't.

[fj1200]

Back atcha.

Even though your point is misguided. Trust me...if insurance companies didn't want to cover contraception, they wouldn't.

I oppose all sorts of coercion. My point is not misguided as you clearly are not aware of it. I am unconcerned if an insurance company decides on its own to cover contraception or not.

[Wind Song]

I oppose all sorts of coercion. My point is not misguided as you clearly are not aware of it. I am unconcerned if an insurance company decides on its own to cover contraception or not.


Right. Why should YOU care about contraception being covered or not covered by insurance. YOU don't get pregnant.

[fj1200]

Right. Why should YOU care about contraception being covered or not covered by insurance. YOU don't get pregnant.

There are so many misconceptions present in two sentences. First, my wife does, and has, get pregnant so in fact WE do. Second, why should insurance, think risk management, cover a planned event? Third, government should not mandate private behavior.

[Wind Song]

There are so many misconceptions present in two sentences. First, my wife does, and has, get pregnant so in fact WE do. Second, why should insurance, think risk management, cover a planned event? Third, government should not mandate private behavior.


YOU don't get pregnant. Your wife gets pregnant. Insurance is private at this point, NOT a government program. Paying for contraception does not mandate that someone fucks or doesn't fuck.

[fj1200]

YOU don't get pregnant. Your wife gets pregnant. Insurance is private at this point, NOT a government program. Paying for contraception does not mandate that someone fucks or doesn't fuck.

WE have kids so???

Private insurance with massive government regulation??? Don't kid yourself, the government mandates what it doesn't have the guts to do. Hence Obamacare.

That last sentence doesn't even make sense but my point goes to the fundamental nature of insurance. What if people had to pay for the planned occurrence of a birth? Would they take a little more care on the front end?

[Wind Song]

WE have kids so???

Private insurance with massive government regulation??? Don't kid yourself, the government mandates what it doesn't have the guts to do. Hence Obamacare.

That last sentence doesn't even make sense but my point goes to the fundamental nature of insurance. What if people had to pay for the planned occurrence of a birth? Would they take a little more care on the front end?


You don't get pregnant. YOUR wife gets pregnant. Private insurance damn well needs some regulation, it's corrupt as hell.

[fj1200]

You don't get pregnant. YOUR wife gets pregnant. Private insurance damn well needs some regulation, it's corrupt as hell.

My wife called me and said, "guess what? We're pregnant," so???

"Private" insurance needs massive DEregulation.

[Wind Song]

My wife called me and said, "guess what? We're pregnant," so???

"Private" insurance needs massive DEregulation.

You aren't pregnant, you've never been pregnant.

[fj1200]

You aren't pregnant, you've never been pregnant.

Neither has my insurance company but now BO wants to make it pay for contraception. So???

[Wind Song]

Neither has my insurance company but now BO wants to make it pay for contraception. So???


Good. It's the right move. Contraception is much cheaper procedure than abortion.

[fj1200]

Good. It's the right move. Contraception is much cheaper procedure than abortion.

Yeah, because that's the inevitable outcome. :rolleyes:

[Wind Song]

Yeah, because that's the inevitable outcome. :rolleyes:


Nope. Contraception and abortion are completely different. Contraception prevents pregnancy. Abortion terminates it.

[logroller]

If you read carefully, you'll see that your link shows at what stage of development a sonogram is usually performed.

That alone refutes your argument, when it comes to the early stage abortions.

Which one refuted my argument? Please quote that source for the specifics. From personal experience sonograms were performed beginning at twelve weeks; that isn't 'late term' by any standard for viability that I'm aware. That's the end of the first trimester. The purpose of sonograms within the context of my argument was establishing a level of development. If the sonogram is performed sooner than that, it would reveal a 'clump of cells', right?

But fine, here's more:


Types of sonograms:
Transvaginal Scans: Specially designed probe transducers are used inside the vagina to generate sonogram images. Most often used during the early stages of pregnancy.

....

What does the ultrasound look for?Ultrasounds are diagnostic procedures that detect or aid in the detection of abnormalities and conditions related to pregnancy. Ultrasounds are usually combined with other tests, such as triple tests (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/tripletest.html), amniocentesis (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/amniocentesis.html), orchorionic villus sampling (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/cvs.html), to validate a diagnosis. An ultrasound exam is medically indicated throughout pregnancy for the following reasons:


First Trimester:

Confirm viable pregnancy
Confirm heartbeat
Measure the crown-rump length or gestational age
Confirm molar or ectopic pregnancies (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/ectopicpregnancy.html)
Assess abnormal gestation


Second Trimester:

Diagnose fetal malformation

Weeks 13-14 for characteristics of potential Down syndrome
Weeks 18-20 for congenital malformations


Structural abnormalities
Confirm multiples pregnancy
Verify dates and growth
Confirm intrauterine death
Identify hydramnios or oligohydramnios – excessive or reduced levels of amniotic fluid
Evaluation of fetal well-being


Third Trimester:

Identify placental location
Confirm intrauterine death
Observe fetal presentation
Observe fetal movements
Identify uterine and pelvic abnormalities of the mother




http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/ultrasound.html

[logroller]

My wife called me and said, "guess what? We're pregnant," so???

"Private" insurance needs massive DEregulation.


You aren't pregnant, you've never been pregnant.

WS, you clearly missed the implication of the expression: "WE are pregnant."

You see, what she meant was, "we are going to have a baby"; as opposed to "I'll do whatever I want to do, even have an abortion if I wish". The former is representative of a loving couple excited to share in the experience. For some reason, you prefer to see it as the latter. What's the latter demonstrate...independence...a woman's right to choose? To me it demonstrates a lack of a loving and caring bond between the would-be parents. Tis a pity, not an empowerment.

[Wind Song]

WS, you clearly missed the implication of the expression: "WE are pregnant."

You see, what she meant was, "we are going to have a baby"; as opposed to "I'll do whatever I want to do, even have an abortion if I wish". The former is representative of a loving couple excited to share in the experience. For some reason, you prefer to see it as the latter. What's the latter demonstrate...independence...a woman's right to choose? To me it demonstrates a lack of a loving and caring bond between the would-be parents. Tis a pity, not an empowerment.


I understand the "we" are pregnant term perfectly well. I point out the man doesn't carry the pregnancy or go through labor directly. The woman has the choice.

I know that makes you boys very unhappy, but that's too bad.

[Howard Roark]

WS, you clearly missed the implication of the expression: "WE are pregnant."

You see, what she meant was, "we are going to have a baby"; as opposed to "I'll do whatever I want to do, even have an abortion if I wish". The former is representative of a loving couple excited to share in the experience. For some reason, you prefer to see it as the latter. What's the latter demonstrate...independence...a woman's right to choose? To me it demonstrates a lack of a loving and caring bond between the would-be parents. Tis a pity, not an empowerment.

And That's the issue. What 'your' opinion is, shouldn't affect someone else. And vice versa.

Don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.

[logroller]

I understand the "we" are pregnant term perfectly well. I point out the man doesn't carry the pregnancy or go through labor directly. The woman has the choice.

I know that makes you boys very unhappy, but that's too bad.
Though a self taught expert on sex, i didnt create the dynamic of sexual reproduction. For what it's worth, boys probably could give a shit what the woman chooses to do; men respect the burden a woman has in pregnancy and does whatever is in their power to support them. Thats not too bad; most women want that. Indeed if you look at why women have abortions, lack of support from their partner is the number two reason, behind not wanting a baby. But let's get something straight, not wanting a baby and not wanting to grow one inside you are two different reasons. Certain sacrifices must be made either way, and not wanting to make that sacrifice I respect; but I also know the joy that comes from that sacrifice. That joy is aborted too. It's sad WS; and it's not just us men that feel that way.

[tailfins]

Good. It's the right move. Contraception is much cheaper procedure than abortion.

It boils down to looking for a fight versus avoiding one. A religious exemption could have been offered with a no-contraception rider and deducting a few pennies off the price of a policy. It would be rarely used and would have avoided a middle finger to Catholics. Obama was picking a fight. It should be clear that Obama decided he isn't President of the whole nation.

[logroller]

And That's the issue. What 'your' opinion is, shouldn't affect someone else. And vice versa.

Don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.
So you've never changed your opinion on something after talking with someone else? Clearly our opinions are affected by others.

[Wind Song]

Though a self taught expert on sex, i didnt create the dynamic of sexual reproduction. For what it's worth, boys probably could give a shit what the woman chooses to do; men respect the burden a woman has in pregnancy and does whatever is in their power to support them. Thats not too bad; most women want that. Indeed if you look at why women have abortions, lack of support from their partner is the number two reason, behind not wanting a baby. But let's get something straight, not wanting a baby and not wanting to grow one inside you are two different reasons. Certain sacrifices must be made either way, and not wanting to make that sacrifice I respect; but I also know the joy that comes from that sacrifice. That joy is aborted too. It's sad WS; and it's not just us men that feel that way.


I agree. That's why if any pregnant woman asked me my opinion on abortion I would recommend she have the baby. It's life giving. It's actually life prolonging. Buddhists have fish and animal releases to offer the positive karma of giving life to all sentient beings.

Aborton is karmically very heavy. It is the taking of human life. Nonetheless, it's not my decision to make, it's the pregnant woman's along with her partner, her doctor and her priest.

[logroller]

. Nonetheless, it's not my decision to make, it's the pregnant woman's along with her partner, her doctor and her priest.

This hasn't been the position you've argued previously.

[Wind Song]

This hasn't been the position you've argued previously.

Yes, it has. What may be confusing you, is that I've stated that if a woman decides without her partner, it's ultimately still her decision. Ideally, she would decide WITH the support of her partner, doctor and priest.

[logroller]

Yes, it has. What may be confusing you, is that I've stated that if a woman decides without her partner, it's ultimately still her decision. Ideally, she would decide WITH the support of her partner, doctor and priest.
Ok. If a woman keeps the baby, the father is financially responsible; but if she chooses not to keep the baby, he has no say. What she does with her body, her choice, has repercussions which resonate beyond her scope of privacy. How do you respond?

[Wind Song]

Ok. If a woman keeps the baby, the father is financially responsible; but if she chooses not to keep the baby, he has no say. What she does with her body, her choice, has repercussions which resonate beyond her scope of privacy. How do you respond?


How do I respond? I don't. What do you expect me to say? I'm not responsible for all of these causes and conditions.

This is a complex issue. I didn't make it that way.

It's not fair. That's the way life is.

[Abbey Marie]

...
The fetus does not have legal status until 22 weeks if I understand Roe. Theres a huge amount of time and fetal development going on between the day after and 22 weeks.
...
Bottom line. You have a thinking, feeling, adult human being who has the right to decide whether that fertilized egg becomes a human baby or not.
...


At one time, slaves didn't have legal status, either. Adult human beings made the decision that slaves didn't deserve to be treated as humans. Adult human beings decided they should be treated as property.

[Wind Song]

At one time, slaves didn't have legal status, either. Adult human beings made the decision that slaves didn't deserve to be treated as humans. Adult human beings decided they should be treated as property.

A fertilized egg is not a slave. An embryo is not a slave. No one disputes that abortion takes away human life. You support the re-criminalizing of all abortion and I don't.

IMO, it is in the woman's best interests, whenever possible, to carry the pregnancy to term, for her own happiness and well being, as well as the well being of the fetus, who could mature to become a baby.

Giving life is life giving. Killing is heavy karma.

What's unfortunate IMO, is so many conservatives make noise about their support of a woman having the unplanned baby, but they want to cut funding for programs like WIC, that help women who have chosen to carry the unplanned pregnancy.

Put the woman down for getting pregnant in the first place. MAKE HER go through the pregnancy. Then refuse to help her when she and her child are vulnerable and needy.

Call her welfare scum or trailer trash. Telling her she should have kept her legs closed, now you and your baby can just go hungry.

[Howard Roark]

So you've never changed your opinion on something after talking with someone else? Clearly our opinions are affected by others.

Of course all intelligent people are subject to a change of opinion. Your question assumes that women arbitrarily opt to just go and remove an embryo from the lining of their uterus, as if it were as easy as getting their teeth cleaned.

I'm quite sure that the majority suffer great emotional pain, before they opt for the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Again... staunch anti abortion advocates should focus attention on rounding up families for adoption.

Their time would be better served in that endeavor, as opposed to picketing womens' health clinics.

[Wind Song]

Of course all intelligent people are subject to a change of opinion. Your question assumes that women arbitrarily opt to just go and remove an embryo from the lining of their uterus, as if it were as easy as getting their teeth cleaned.

I'm quite sure that the majority suffer great emotional pain, before they opt for the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Again... staunch anti abortion advocates should focus attention on rounding up families for adoption.

Their time would be better served in that endeavor, as opposed to picketing womens' health clinics.

I agree Howard. I also think they would be better served supporting contraceptive services for women and not fighting Planned Parenthood. Additionally, funding services for women and children would support their anti-abortion agenda.

[logroller]

It's not fair. That's the way life is.
I'm going to quote you on that.

[Wind Song]

I'm going to quote you on that.


You do that. Lot's of things in life aren't fair. We do the best we can to make things as win-win for all parties as possible. For every woman who has an unplanned pregnancy, my wish is she has a loving partner, excellent and affordable medical care, wise spiritual counsel and supportive family and community.

I want to see contraceptive services supported and not fought.

[fj1200]

Nope. Contraception and abortion are completely different. Contraception prevents pregnancy. Abortion terminates it.

You intimated that contraception would prevent abortion.


Good. It's the right move. Contraception is much cheaper procedure than abortion.

We clearly have contraception and we clearly have abortion so try again.


Don't believe in murder?

Don't kill anyone.
ifify

I will not be broken!

[Wind Song]

You intimated that contraception would prevent abortion.



We clearly have contraception and we clearly have abortion so try again.


ifify

I will not be broken!

Yes, contraception that is 100% or even 99% effective will prevent unplanned pregnancies, the cause of medical terminations.

Your side fights Planned Parenthood, the premier family planning clinics in our country, tooth and nail. Some of the extremists on your side think only abstinence is the appropriate contraception.

Don't you dare call me a killer or a murderer.