Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Thu, Jun 7, 12 at 13:49

In Michigan:

Specifically, the omnibus bill would criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape victims, the health of the woman or in cases where there is a severe fetal anomaly. It would require health centers that provide abortions to have surgery rooms, even when they don't provide surgical abortions. It would require doctors to be present for medication abortions and to screen women for "coercion" before providing an abortion, and it would create new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.

The bill would also ban "telemedicine" abortions, or the use of technology to prescribe medication for abortion services, including the morning-after pill.

"It could shut down most reproductive health centers in the state of Michigan," said Groen. "It's the most extreme legislation we're seeing anywhere in the country."

State Rep. Mike Shirkey (R-Clark Lake) told a local television station on Wednesday that he supports the bill and hopes it will end abortion in Michigan. "This [abortion] is nothing short of infanticide. Until we completely eliminate abortions in Michigan and completely defund Planned Parenthood, we have work to do," he said.

The bill is being fast-tracked through the state legislature:

The bill was introduced just last week, but lawmakers held a hearing for it on Thursday morning and are sending it to a full House vote on Thursday afternoon. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan said about 90 people showed up at the Health Policy Committee hearing to testify against the bill, but Committee Chair Gail Haines (R-Waterford) abruptly ended the hearing and cut off all testimony after a Michigan Right to Life spokesperson and only a few others were able to speak.

The crusade continues despite the legality of abortion at the Federal level. Yes, I know they are not strictly making it illegal but they hope that you would not be able to get an abortion any where in the state of Michigan when they are through.

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

None of these anti-women laws will end abortion. It will only make them illegal and end the lives of women and the fetuses they carry.

Get the government out of my and all women's uterui. Not everyone believes that abortion is infanticide. In fact, a majority of people do not believe that.

I am so sick of the religious right's interference in women's lives. If you believe abortion is infanticide, fine. Don't have one. Just don't shove your beliefs down my throat (see? That phrase works just as well for those on "the left").


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Agree, dockside. The Right wants limited government, don't want the food police tell you how big your big gulp should be, resent any government interference in their lives and YET, they're coming in the bedroom, telling us how many kids we can have . Don't shove your beliefs in my face. You don't want an abortion, don't get one. But it's still the law the last time I looked.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

War on women? What war on women?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

These people are dangerous cultists.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

There is no war on women. There is a war on Butterflies. What is wrong with everybody. Why can't they see that?

I am still wondering what is happening. I cannot believe this is all about abortion. It just does not make any sense.

This is the Party that is all about personal responsibility, cut food stamps for poor children, meals on wheels, medical for poor children. It has to do with something other than stopping women from getting abortion.

Could they be sadistic enough to want to see starving sick children, in the street to make them feel good?

I am just perplexed at this thinking process.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

It seems to me that women she be protected from coercion to NOT have an abortion, not the other way around. A woman shouldn't have to jump through so many hoops.

This is the same as voting rights...oh sure, it was legal to vote and be black in the South...but there were so many rules and murky regulations on the state level that it was almost impossible. Same thing.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I did not realize this:

Today is the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling, Griswold v Connecticut, which granted married people the right to use contraception -- it's worth doing the math: it wasn't until 1965 that the U.S. government permitted married couples to use contraception. (The court would not grant single people that right until seven years later, in 1972, just one year before Roe v Wade.)

Can you imagine? The Supreme Court had to decide THIS?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on Thu, Jun 7, 12 at 13:49

"Specifically, the omnibus bill would criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape victims, the health of the woman or in cases where there is a severe fetal anomaly."

That does seem strange. I've been reading thru the bill, and don't find that. Would you please quote the portion of the bill that has been interpreted thus? I'd like to see that so that I can look into it further.

I'm not interested in what someone says it says. Your source isn't any kind of credible, although it may be true. I guess I'm asking where in the bill this is written?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Extremely dangerous cultists, indeed, Denn. May reason prevail over this dangerous nonsense in the heads of MI legislators.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

humorous video:
Republicans, get in my vagina!

"The right to choose? What about my right to choose to not have a choice?"


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Religious, authoritarian demographics and societies have the highest abortion rates. Secular, progressive demographics and societies have the lowest abortion rates.

Marquest is onto something. It's not about abortion, it's about control. In fact, they couldn't care less about abortion--if they truly wanted to even lower the rates much less eradicate abortion altogether, they need to do everything possible to make sure women won't need abortions. Yet what they do is the exact opposite.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan said about 90 people showed up at the Health Policy Committee hearing to testify against the bill, but Committee Chair Gail Haines (R-Waterford) abruptly ended the hearing and cut off all testimony after a Michigan Right to Life spokesperson and only a few others were able to speak.

Now that is no surprise.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Elvis, perhaps this source is better: http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Michigan_House_Committee_to_Take_Up_Abortion_Bills_157681665.html

I don't see the bill's sponsor denying what is being claimed as the outcome the bill. I agree that bills are hard to read, but you'd think he'd deny it if the intent had been misconstrued.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jun 8, 12 at 10:32

Today is the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling, Griswold v Connecticut, which granted married people the right to use contraception -- it's worth doing the math: it wasn't until 1965 that the U.S. government permitted married couples to use contraception. (The court would not grant single people that right until seven years later, in 1972, just one year before Roe v Wade.)

.....some of us are old enough to appreciate the "freedom of choice" in our lives and others are racing to give it away. Who really wants a "nanny state" ?

Tis a bewilderment


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

The Michigan Senate has a Republican majority.

Elvis, from the Detroit News: State House panel passes bills banning abortion after 20 weeks

Lansing -- A socially conservative majority dominating the Michigan House hopes to impose new regulations on abortion providers and mostly prohibit the practice after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

A House committee on Thursday advanced a three-bill package to the floor requiring abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers, imposing new requirements for disposing of the remains of aborted fetuses and making it a crime to coerce a woman into terminating a pregnancy.

One of the bills includes a ban on late-term abortions for unborn children 20 or more weeks developed, with a narrow exception when the mother's life is at risk, said the bill sponsor, Rep. Deb Shaughnessy, R-Charlotte.

The legislation does not allow late-term abortions in cases of rape, incest or fetal defect, such as a missing brain or spine.

In the past two years, eight states with Republican legislative majorities have adopted similar bans on late-term abortions despite U.S. Supreme Court rulings upholding the practice, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute, a New York City-based abortion rights organization that tracks state-level abortion laws.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

The problem I see is that the far right, consisting of those extreme Republican men and the women that stand behind them, want to make ALL the choices for ALL the people. They are not satisfied in having only their own choices. They want to make our choices, too! It goes beyond the idea of logic!

They don't want the average citizen to have a choice in anything. They are after complete control of our personal lives, control of which freedoms and liberties they allow, and want us all to follow them, lockstep, in their twisted moral and religious beliefs.

I would certainly hope that rationale will prevail in Michigan, but I'm not betting on it. The truth is... whomever has the gold makes the rules... and they have all the gold. They've made sure of that through their meddling in banking and financial legislation and regulation.

They would like nothing better than to see the common people starve in the streets, begging for alms. That must be it, because otherwise they would realize that you can't remove family planning options without doubling the population, and once that happens, they've made it clear they don't want to help care for all the extra persons to come of their decisions!

It's all so ludicrous, it blows my mind!

If you don't want to have an abortion, are opposed to them, and don't want anything to do with them, then simply do not have one! Stay away from clinics and doctors that perform such procedures! It's not a difficult thing to do!

But you cannot take the options away from all citizens without a consequence. And that consequence is more unwanted, uncared for children that they refuse to help care for! How stupid can one party be??!!


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

The whole thing is so ridiculous, but this just totally blows my mind:

The legislation does not allow late-term abortions in cases of rape, incest or fetal defect, such as a missing brain or spine.

They would rather it be born without a brain? For what? Just to die after it's born? Adding more misery for everyone involved.

Even if you are not in favor of abortion, it takes a really sick person to prefer a fetus without a brain be carried to term. Actually, not just prefer. Force a woman who doesn't agree with that to carry that fetus to term. Just so she could watch it die. That is just so sick and twisted. Cruel and unusual punishment.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Thanks, esh. I'll try again to read it later--I saved the bill in Favorites.

Nancy, thanks anyway, but I was looking for the real thing. News stories are often just that--as least part fiction, regrettably.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

"Could they be sadistic enough to want to see starving sick children, in the street to make them feel good

Is there a direct relationship between abortion and starving, sick children?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

There are a good deal more ghastly things that can go wrong with a fetus other than just not having a head. It makes me heart sick to think of women being forced to give birth to these biological mistakes-to have to go on month after month knowing.

and yes houseful there is a relationship between abortion and starving, sick children. When 11 year olds are forced to carry babies to term who looks after that child-or either child for that matter. Conservatives cut funding for child care, welfare, food assistance, medical assistance-they want to eliminate Planned parenthood- a major resource for poor women. You do all those things and the streets teem with unwanted uncared for urchins who dont get proper care and will grow up in ignorance and repeat the cycle.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Jodik wrote: "They don't want the average citizen to have a choice in anything. They are after complete control of our personal lives, control of which freedoms and liberties they allow, and want us all to follow them, lockstep, in their twisted moral and religious beliefs."

But, ma'am, don't you know, they're the party of freedom?

Well, maybe Soviet style freedom, you're free to do anything you want as long as it is the same as what the State wants you to do. Otherwise, you're in big trouble, Sir or Madame.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

it would create new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.

Esh, this is at the heart of the lunacy of that bill. It makes it a crime to possess fetal remains without applying to the state for the only 3 types of disposal it deems proper (burial, cremation, interment). Part of that application includes physician documentation on how far along the pregnancy was. It's crazy authoritarian and completely misguided.

I can't flush my own miscarriage down the toilet, where it likely happened? Because miscarriage isn't traumatic enough: now I have to hang on to the blood and tissue that I hoped would become a baby, just so that the Republican Senate can inspect and approve my disposal of it.

The bit in the bill on making unreported miscarriages a felony is a real laugh riot; I cannot imagine any sane health professional outside of National Socialist Germany approving this as legislation. It's got legal loopholes a mile wide that leave incrimination up to the mind of the accuser:

(9) IF A MISCARRIAGE OCCURS OUTSIDE AN INSTITUTION AND A
18 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL IS PRESENT OR IS IMMEDIATELY AWARE OF THE
19 MISCARRIAGE, THEN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHALL INFORM THE
20 PARENTS, OR PARENT IN THE CASE OF AN UNMARRIED MOTHER, THAT STATE
21 LAW REQUIRES THAT AUTHORIZATION BE OBTAINED BEFORE THE FINAL
22 DISPOSITION OF ANY FETAL REMAINS RESULTING FROM A MISCARRIAGE AND
23 THAT THE PARENTS OR PARENT HAS A RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE FINAL
24 DISPOSITION OF THE FETAL REMAINS.
[...]
(3) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A FELONY
16 PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 3 YEARS OR A FINE OF
17 NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00, OR BOTH."



It's so interesting how the misogyny takes on different local flavors, too.

Texas decided women are too stupid to know what they're doing (... those cold stirrups are apparently not a good enough clue!) and require a state-written pseudo-medical information "script" forcibly read to them.

Oklahoma decided that the shame over facing a prospective invasive ultrasound procedure would deter women from the procedure entirely.

And apparently now Michiganders think women are perfectly capable of educating themselves about what an abortion is -- but they're obsessed with women being "coerced" to have them. Oh yeah, and they're worried that scary doctors are out there performing Frankenstinian medical experiments on aborted feti. There are a disproportionate number of paragraphs in the bill devoted to this bizarre phantasy.

Can't make it up.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Elvis, is your google finger broken as usual? It's right there in MI HB 5713.

(4) A PERSON SHALL NOT PERFORM OR ATTEMPT TO PERFORM AN
ABORTION UPON A PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE
UNBORN CHILD HAS A PROBABLE POSTFERTILIZATION AGE OF 20 OR MORE
WEEKS, UNLESS IN THE REASONABLE CLINICAL JUDGMENT OF A PHYSICIAN
THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO AVERT THE PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL'S DEATH.
(5) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A FELONY
PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 15 YEARS OR A FINE OF
NOT MORE THAN $7,500.00, OR BOTH.

Here is a link that might be useful: HOUSE BILL No. 5713 as passed by the House legislature


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

The whole idea of even WANTING to control the family planning of other people is sick and twisted! It's invasive, takes away a person's very dignity...

I have never seen a political party and its members so focused on what other people are doing in their bedrooms, their bathrooms, and wanting to know private information between a patient and doctor. It's sick and demented.

Would they also like to line up, flashlights in hand, so they can a get good look at my cervix while I'm having a pap smear and checkup?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by circuspeanut 5 (My Page) on Fri, Jun 8, 12 at 15:48

"Elvis, is your google finger broken as usual? It's right there in MI HB 5713."

CP, are you having uncontrollable urges to act like a jerk, as usual?

_______________

That being said...

Another extreme abortion bill clip this post email this post what is this?
see most clipped and recent clippings
Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on Thu, Jun 7, 12 at 13:49

"In Michigan:
Specifically, the omnibus bill would criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape victims, the health of the woman..."

Posted by circuspeanut 5 (My Page) on Fri, Jun 8, 12 at 15:48

"Elvis, is your google finger broken as usual? It's right there in MI HB 5713.
(4) A PERSON SHALL NOT PERFORM OR ATTEMPT TO PERFORM AN
ABORTION UPON A PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE UNBORN CHILD HAS A PROBABLE POSTFERTILIZATION AGE OF 20 OR MORE WEEKS, UNLESS IN THE REASONABLE CLINICAL JUDGMENT OF A PHYSICIAN THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO AVERT THE PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL'S DEATH."

Okay, so much for "without exceptions".

Thank you for making that easier.



 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

"the health of the woman" is not the same as "death". The procedure can be delayed until the woman suffers permanent health issues (like not being able to get pregnant again due to internal damage).

So the doctor can determine the abortion is not necessary to avert the individual's death but letting it continue may still harm the woman's health.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Hey, I'm just pointing out the exaggeration here. Dead is certainly a health issue.

This was made to sound like there were no exceptions. There are.

I'm not advocating this bill, so don't get all revved up. It's just inaccurate, that's all.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Inaccurate is hardly a word I'd use to describe it. I'd describe it as overstepping private and personal boundaries. I'd call it another blow to women. I'd call it a lot of things... but inaccurate does not do it justice. It's plain and simply obnoxious.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Elvis, do you have something of substance to say about the topic? Waiting eagerly.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Perhaps the far right could combine all of its twisted goals in one grand omnibus bill that would require women to have gynecological exams and everyone to undergo TSA style screening, immigration checks, drug testing, etc. when attempting to vote.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jun 8, 12 at 20:57

....well lets see the republicans created a large bureaucratic entity "homeland security" I am sure they can create some more big brother bureaucracy, the "theocracy branch" that oversees "vaginas". They can issue chastity belts to all the females that are of menstruating age, dictate which couples can breed etc. Why we might even see the same treatment that women in Egypt are being subjected to.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by circuspeanut 5 (My Page) on Fri, Jun 8, 12 at 20:08

"Elvis, do you have something of substance to say about the topic? Waiting eagerly."

You mean more substantive than the last 3 posts, not counting yours?

Nope. Like I said above, I'm pointing out the inaccuracy of the quote posted in the OP that there are NO exceptions in this bill. Whoever said that was misleading.

I also said, above, that I am NOT advocating for this bill. So if by "substance", you mean do I agree or disagree, I'm not stating my position. I made my point, that's all.

Now that I have, you can scroll on by; nothing to see here.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Another summary:

The 60-page bill was introduced just last week by Republican Representative Bruce Rendon and contains all matter of horrors. For starters, all abortions after 20 weeks would be criminalized - no exceptions for victims of rape or if the fetus has a severe anomaly, like it is missing a brain or a spine. Wait? Oh, nevermind it's pointless to even try to understand how that is a good idea because it's not. There is a very narrow exception made if the mother's life is at risk, but simply her health and/or future fertility is not reason enough to allow an abortion. Well, how very pro-life indeed. Oh, it'd also make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion. Geeze, make that definition vague enough and you might be able to start prosecuting doctors for being overly enthusiastic in telling patients that it's totally safe to get an abortion.

This lovely bill would also require that health centers that perform more than six abortions in a month be equipped with surgery rooms, even if they don't do surgical abortions. Just in case someone needs an emergency appendectomy while they're waiting, I guess? Makes TOTAL sense to spend a x-ton of money you don't have to create a room filled with expensive equipment that you'll never use and have to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay to have the facility licensed.

There are also a number of provisions that can sadly now be described as typical: Women need to be screened to be sure there's no "coercion" going on. A doctor needs to be present for medication abortions, and no telemedicine is allowed, so doctors won't be able to use technology to prescribe medication abortions from afar or even prescribe the morning-after pill. And, just for good measure, the bill also puts in place elaborate new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.

As you might have guessed, all of these restrictions would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to operate a clinic that offers abortions. You'd have to spend a huge amount of money to install a surgical room that sits empty. You'd need to pay a doctor to be there at all times, even if they weren't doing anything. And all of your patients would need to come into the clinic to get services, where you'd then have to grill them to make sure they hadn't been forced into showing up. Of course, that's assuming they even live close by enough and have enough money to transport themselves to you in the first place.

Yep, let's make it so difficult that all the clinics shut down.

Michigan is now gunning to become one of the cool kids by passing an insanely restrictive abortion law. Yeah, why let Arizona have all the fun? As we speak, they are busily ramming a huge bill up into our collective uterus that, if passed, would basically guarantee that most of the abortion clinics in the state would have to shut down. Hey, go big or go home, right?

Here is a link that might be useful: link to it


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by houseful (My Page) on
Fri, Jun 8, 12 at 14:58
Is there a direct relationship between abortion and starving, sick children?

Statements like this is what amazes me. It seems there is a disconnect when people think that because they prevent abortion that magically the baby comes out of a woman's vagina with a bag of money in hand, formula in the other hand, and housing, medical insurance etc.

Is there some fantasy fairy that tell these people that there is no cost to raise a child?

Houseful, family planning have a lot to do with ability to care for a child.

I cannot think of any more direct relationship than forcing a woman to have a child she is unable to financial or physically care for. Couple that with the Conservative policy of "you are on your own" cutting of social program of assistance and you have hungry homeless children.

"A national study finds that one in 50 children in America is homeless. They're sharing housing because of economic hardship, living in motels, cars, abandoned buildings, parks, camping grounds or shelters, or waiting for foster care placement."


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I understand that, Marquest. I just want to know if it's because we don't have enough abortions?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

That doesn't even make any sense.

What we're talking about is the systematic removal of women's choices in family planning and female health care. There are even Republicans that want to take away birth control entirely! And they've made it plain that should they gain office, they will dismantle the most important safety nets we have available to help those who do carry their offspring to term and give birth. What would you call that?

Yes, abortion and birth control ARE connected to the public services and programs we currently have. As Marquest said, babies aren't born with bank accounts and supplies hidden in the afterbirth, and in case you've forgotten, we're in the middle of a pretty bad recession!

It's a matter of comprehending the consequences of removing women's choices. One would use common sense and problem solving skills to think it all through from beginning to conclusion.

If we have no choice to abort, or (reason forbid) to use any type of birth control to plan our families... and the public safety nets are all taken away... common sense tells us that the population will rise due to all the forced births, and there will be no way to help care for all those babies born. What do you think will happen to quite a few of them?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I understand that, Marquest. I just want to know if it's because we don't have enough abortions?

We do not have enough education, and social programs to prevent the need for abortions.

Abortion rate is low among the educated, financial secure population.

I do not understand the concept of cutting programs that help and prevent vs harm for belief only. There has to be action and consequences of any policy or belief if people insist on forcing their belief in another person's life.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I've said that, too, only about a hundred times, Marquest... we have a great need for better education and PREVENTIVE measures so as to lower the abortion rate, and RAISE everyone's awareness of the possible consequences of unprotected sex!

I don't know what it is, or why it should be... but some people have this notion that abortion is always used as a form of birth control, and usually done late term when the zygote or fetus is now an actual baby... and this couldn't be further from the truth! I don't think you'd find anyone who is PRO abortion... we're PRO choice, in case the need does arise.

I would hazard a guess and say that no one WANTS to have an abortion... but there are many instances in which aborting is the better, or only, choice to make. I would also guess that a huge majority of women go into it only after thinking long and hard about their other options and how this will affect them physically and emotionally. And I do believe most clinics and doctors offer counseling before anything is actually done.

What I think everyone would like is to PREVENT the need for abortions... and we can do this. But it will take keeping family planning an option, offering better and more accessible health care to females, and adding a more widespread, in depth, comprehensive public sex education program, and a birth control availability program.

You cannot simply legislate everyone's morals to match your private beliefs... and then not offer any programs that will fill in the gaps, but rather rip those away, too.

Perhaps we should find out why abortion is the choice for some women before we start pounding everyone in the head over it.

Pregnancy happens through sex... this we all know. But how many women in America are educated as to protecting themselves, have accessible female health care and birth control options... and how many women make mistakes in their lives? How many parents are speaking openly, honestly and factually to their daughters or other younger females... and males... within their charge? How many teens are afraid to tell their parents they've become sexually active?

There are a lot of variables involved... this is not a cut and dried issue.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jun 9, 12 at 10:41

Yes by all means let us return to the time before Griswold v Connecticut, which granted married people the right to use contraception -- talk about FORCING a belief system onto a population, if this is not a theocratic government tell me what it is?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I'd keep the word "theocratic", but I'd also add "police state" and "plutocracy" in there. This is becoming more and more a theocratic, police state plutocracy.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Yes jodik, I do not get the thinking process. The entire Right to Life crew have blinders and narrow view of the consequences of their position.

"I am against Abortion" The End. But...

-Food
-Health Care
-Housing
-Education

All these things are Life. What have they saved? Were are they in saving this life? You have saved nothing you have only forced your idiology thinking on someone.

I will not say religion plays a part in their belief because if they were religious the next words out of their mouths would be do not cut Food Stamps, Give a Kid a free lunch, do not cut medicaid for children. But NO it is where is the parents. If you do not give a rats butt where the parents were when you made the decision of your interpretation of Right to Life don't start looking for the parents after your opinion is law.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I let rain sit too long in a bucket. Now frogs have laid eggs in it - then I put off dealing with it again. Now they are tiny tadpoles.

If I dump them out to die on the ground, is that any different than aborting a human fetus?

If it isn't, why not? Aren't all creatures equal? Why do we get to decide to kill non-humans whenever we want and think so little of it. When we bulldoze streams and tear down woods, we kill the fauna that dwelt within. Yet we see that as our superior right to decide who lives and dies when it is not human.

By the way, I dumped the water into the wheelbarrow so that the tadpoles might have a chance to make it to maturity while I use my bucket for something else.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

When I first saw this thread I assumed it was about sharia law. Why would I assume that? because Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US. But what does that have to do with sharia? From the link:
Sharia has been operating in the UK in parallel to the British Legal System since 1982

Here is a link that might be useful: BBC Article


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

What I don't understand, Marquest, is... if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then why is it not logical to improve on prevention... instead of completely bypassing the consequences, and then looking at a much larger problem later on? It makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

Why go all the way around to the back door when the front door is wide open and welcoming, so to speak? Prevention is so much cheaper in the long run, too!

The concern... and I use that term loosely... seems to be only "in utero"... but does not extend one moment beyond. It boggles the mind.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

The concern... and I use that term loosely... seems to be only "in utero"... but does not extend one moment beyond. It boggles the mind.

It is only "concern" because it does not affect them so they think. Ask them for a dime of THEIR MONEY and then that is hole nuther ball of wax. lol

As long as it is about what I say you can/should be able to support it is Okay. But if they have to pay one extra bit of tax for welfare then it is "do not give them my money." Then it is allllllll about Personal Responsibility. They have to make a decision. They either want to keep their money or stay out of the woman's womb.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

What I don't understand, Marquest, is... if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then why is it not logical to improve on prevention... instead of completely bypassing the consequences, and then looking at a much larger problem later on? It makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

It makes sense in the context of punishment for being a sexual being, though. There are folks on this forum who baldly state that women must pay for having sex. "You did the crime, you do the time" was stated by one female poster on this forum about those who find themselves pregnant with unwanted children. Children thus become a sin tax. It's pretty incredible, but it's the basis for a lot of these anti-abortion legislation arguments. 'Young and poor Slutty McSlut must pay for her actions, while I revel smugly in my middle-class healthcare plan that provides me access to proper contraception.'


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Yep, money, other people's sex-life, and how much the baby Jesus loves them.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I'm of the opinion that Jesus can see right through the hypocrisy and into the blackened heart.

Circuspeanut... as far as I'm aware, Slutty McSlut did not have an Immaculate Conception... therefore, a second party is always involved. Is it fair for that second party to walk away scot free, without copping to any "personal responsibility"? Or don't we count the men involved, because they are manly men who stand above women? So, what about Player "I get to walk away" Gigolo McPlayer?

The whole double standard - keep a dime between your knees - sex is not for pleasure - my rose-colored glasses tell me that teens and pre-teens are not having sex and don't need to know - mentality completely eludes me.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on Sun, Jun 10, 12 at 11:50

"The whole double standard - keep a dime between your knees - sex is not for pleasure - my rose-colored glasses tell me that teens and pre-teens are not having sex and don't need to know - mentality completely eludes me."

C'mon, Jodi. You are being facetious. A dime? I was told a quarter did the trick.

I think if we did a poll, most people would say that sex is primarily for pleasure, but by the time a person is old enough for sex, they must learn responsibility for it--not just pregnancy, but STD's, self esteem, the whole ball of wax.

Overeating, getting loaded, and all sorts of other things can be pleasurable too. And then you have to deal with the consequences.

Youngsters having sex is nothing new, it's just more convenient to deal with, with abortion as an option. That's my opinion.

Many say that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, but when other people believe that pregnancy = new human being, that's not true anymore to the extent that some of us, me included, believe that no woman has the right to decide to have that life ended. She does not own that life.

For some of us, that most likely won't change no matter what argument is presented; although I personally believe that in cases of rape or abnormally high risk to the life of the mother, termination of pregnancy should be allowed. But that's just me.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

it's just more convenient to deal with, with abortion as an option.

More likely it is more convenient with birth control as an option. Face it, it is WAY easier to prevent a pregnancy than it is to terminate it.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I agree with you.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Jun 11, 12 at 6:28

Esh that is why I said I am "pro contraception", preventing lower income women from getting contraception (planned parenthood) will create the very situation "some" people are forever whining about ... denying women access to, not only birth control, but health screenings is wrong and how anyone could not see that (especially a female) astounds me.

And if you think the "patriarchal religious institution's" message of abstinence is the answer ... you (collective you) are the problem.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

to the extent that some of us, me included, believe that no woman has the right to decide to have that life ended. She does not own that life.

Why don't people feel that way about all the animals we kill every day for food and in development of land and many other ways? And in the wars that we perpetuate that kill men, women and children every day?

Tell me, why is it just a human fetus that gets all this legislation? Huh?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Youngsters having sex is nothing new, it's just more convenient to deal with, with abortion as an option.

If you'd ever had an abortion, "convenient" would be the last adjective you'd use.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

elvis: although I personally believe that in cases of rape or abnormally high risk to the life of the mother, termination of pregnancy should be allowed.

If you are against abortion because you believe it is ending a human life, why is it ok in the case of rape? It's not a human life if it's the result of rape?

I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I really don't understand.

I understand the exception for the life of the mother from the pro life crowd. In their view as I understand it, it's one life or the other, so the woman gets to decide to spare her own life.

But, in the case of rape, why is there an exception? Why does the woman that was raped get to decide to "end that human life"?

Is it that if you got pregnant from consentual sex then you have to pay the consequences? Or is it really about the human life?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Preciesly, Jill. Why is a human life worthless just because one parent happens to be a criminal?


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Is it that the "Pro Life crowd" has to bend a bit till they can get the "ultimate prize and win" all abortions are illegal.

So that they consent to abortion, for now that is, is acceptable in the case of rape, to keep the other side happy for now. In time that will end as will the protect the life of the mother.

BECAUSE, the true ultimate goal is to ban all abortions, regardless of the consequences, because they truly can't justify abortion under any circumstances.

That "unborn" is the most important life to them.

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that was the "unborn" is "born" the services end, they don't give a hoot what happens to the unborn, once it is born.

Just boggles the mind when attempts to understand the mindset of these people.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I can accept that , to some, life begins at conception and to terminate that life via abortion is wrong however as soon as they say "except in the case of...." I write them off as a hypocrite. Actually worse than a hypocrite...you either believe that a fetus is a person entitled to protection our you don't.

Some unborn aren't less special than other unborns based on how they were conceived.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I can accept that , to some, life begins at conception and to terminate that life via abortion is wrong however as soon as they say "except in the case of...." I write them off as a hypocrite. Actually worse than a hypocrite...you either believe that a fetus is a person entitled to protection our you don't.

Some unborn aren't less special than other unborns based on how they were conceived.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on Mon, Jun 11, 12 at 14:28

"If you are against abortion because you believe it is ending a human life, why is it ok in the case of rape? It's not a human life if it's the result of rape?"

I don't know; that's the way I feel.

_____________________

"I understand the exception for the life of the mother from the pro life crowd. In their view as I understand it, it's one life or the other, so the woman gets to decide to spare her own life."

Or if the child can survive without the mother, the mother may choose to spare the child instead of saving her own life.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Elvis, Thanks for being honest in how you feel, and honestly stating that you "don't know; that's just the way I feel."

So you can see why, there are those of us that ask the questions we do, questions such as

1. why is abortion OK for rape
2. why is it OK to save the life of the mother
3. why isn't it OK for anyone else.
4. why is this not hypocritical

These are some of many questions that people have, including myself.

I know I can't understand the difference, a life is a life, so how is it different under certain circumstances and not others.

You can see how it just doesn't add up and you can't explain it yourself. I gather that there are many, many, many people that feel the same way as you do and also can't explain it.

The issue is this, and it will always be the same issue for me and all the women I know.

Those that support a woman's right to control her own body and her reproductive rights, that support a woman's right to determine whether she will or will not carry a pregnancy to term, just can't understand how the opposite side wants to and has been successfully restrict a woman's legal rights.

There is no one that is forcing anyone to terminate a pregnancy, and federal money is not used to terminate a pregnancy.

So what is the issue?

The other side of the coin, they believe the opposite way and are bound and determined to force their beliefs on everyone else and will not stop until they succeed in doing so.

For some reason, they can not accept that women have these legal rights. just because they disagree, doesn't give them the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, force teens, preteens to carry a pregnancy to term, do everything humanly possible to make it all but impossible for a woman to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses to do so.

All because they believe that life begins and conception and want to make sure that every woman is forced to live under that belief.

Who gives one side the right to, literally, physically control the life and body of another human being like that?

Simply put,

Side A believes one way

Side B believes another way.

SO

Neither side likes what the other believes, but the one huge difference is that

Side A wants their belief to be available to all women; for all women to be able to make the choice that is right for them, if the need ever arises to do so.

On the other hand

Side B, well they are not satisfied with Side A's beliefs and options. They can't accept the facts that Side A wants the choice available but is doing nothing to force that choice on to anyone.

Side B wants this choice gone forever and destroyed as a legal option for any woman.
What they want is to force their personal and religious beliefs down the throats of everyone, every woman in the country.

The truth be told, both sides want it their way and do not and will not cave into the other's side.

So what it ends up with is a fight for women's legal rights on one side, vs the attempts to take away those legal rights on the other side.

What doesn't make sense, though, is the side that can't accept that nothing is being shoved down their throats, no one is forcing them to do anything they don't want to do, yet, all they want to do is shove their personal beliefs down everyone's throat, and that's fine with them.

And to top it all off, there is the crew that wants to ram this belief down everyone's throat, this life begins at conception thing, life is sacred, save the "unborn",

But then those pesky exceptions start rolling in. except in the case of rape, incest, to save the life of the mother.

Then they say it's ok to terminate the pregnancy. All of a sudden those lives are not important any longer.

And like Elvis stated, she can't explain why she feels that way, she just does.

Maybe the problem is that one side just can't accept or deal with reality, that they actually do have a choice in this, they don't have to have an abortion, no one is making them have one, but as long as it is available, they are afraid that they might be tempted to terminate a pregnancy and don't want that temptation around, so take it away and they will be safe.

If anyone thinks that returning to pre Roe V Wade will end abortions, they are living in a dream world, They will just return to the back alley and woman will die as they did prior to Roe V Wade.
It didn't work when abortion was illegal before, it isn't going to work again.

It's hard to imagine how desperate a woman could be to risk her life to terminate a pregnancy. I can't imagine it myself, but I have personally seen the results of those long ago attempts, the coat hangers, the throwing oneself down a flight of stairs, the crazy concoctions that where mixed to drink or use as enemas to induce labor.

Not a pretty sight and many, if not most, of these woman died.

This absurdity with extreme on various bills to restrict abortions is so far out in attacks on women, it's pathetic.

And the right wing tries to question and trump up that there is no "war on women"

They need to take their heads out of the sand and voters and women need to do the same and do it real quick. We have an election coming up in November.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Jun 11, 12 at 20:06

....sounds to me like "some" would choose who lives and who dies (child of rape), much like they decide who lives and dies in prison (death penalty) and then those pesky little "collateral damages" from war.

Pro-life is apparently misnamed, should be "lives we decide are worthy of existing".


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

The mindset reminds me of people protesting the use of lab rats to test medical possibilities that could save human lives, marching back and forth in their leather shoes, with leather belts holding up their pants... and when the protest is over, they jump into their BMW's with those soft leather seats and go home to their filet mignon or seafood dinners.

It's ok for soldiers to die in unnecessary combat, for drones to kill innocent bystanders and call it collateral damage... "but, gosh darn it, don't you touch that fetus or zygote, even though it doesn't affect my life one iota, and I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for it once it's born!"

In other words, the mindset is difficult to understand, at best.

Prevention and education are the solutions to lessen the occurrence of abortion, but I think it should still remain a legal, viable option for those who need it.

Yeah... I don't really understand the rationale involved, and I never will. Dictating to others what they can and can't do within their own personal lives is not something I'm hip to doing. I only know what legal choices I would like to keep intact for myself and others who want the choice, that just so happens to be legal now.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I don't get it either. Why does the pro life crowd want to control women? Why do they care? If they or the members of their family don't believe in abortions, then don't get one. But don't ram down our throats your beliefs. When the baby is born, you disappear feeling all smug and satisfied that a life wasn't aborted when maybe it should have been. Maybe the 5 week old baby who was taken to the hospital yesterday with rib and leg fractures which were a week old should have been aborted. The parents did this..actually tossed the kid at each other in a fight.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of viewing forensic photographs of young children and infants abused, beaten, tortured, raped, and/or deceased... sometimes battered, bruised, bones broken and re-healed, burned with irons or cigarettes, starved to a gauntness one couldn't imagine, rope burns and marks on their ankles and wrists from being restrained, scars from whippings given using all imaginable objects... at the hands of their own parents or guardians, the people who gave them life to begin with, and are supposed to love, protect and care for them... might concede that being aborted in the first place would have been preferable to the lives they lived, and/or lost.

Or being forced to live with a horribly disfiguring genetic physical anomaly that cannot be fixed, along with mental disabilities that render that infant a vegetable for all intents and purposes, for the entire length of life lived, however short, suffered... or prolonged... or institutionalized.

These are preferable to not being born? These are what some of you would force upon those born and those forced to give birth? A life of forced horror and suffering?

This is what some people actually want... legally? It's beyond cruel. And it's horribly selfish of those that aren't even involved.

It's the very reason we, as breeders, never allowed a horrendous genetic anomaly to leave our yard... because it's cruel. And it's would be horribly selfish of us to allow such suffering.

But the world is filled with all kinds of people, and nowhere else have I learned this better than right here.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on Tue, Jun 12, 12 at 10:11

"Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of viewing forensic photographs of young children and infants abused, beaten, tortured, raped, and/or deceased... sometimes battered, bruised, bones broken and re-healed, burned with irons or cigarettes, starved to a gauntness one couldn't imagine, rope burns and marks on their ankles and wrists from being restrained, scars from whippings given using all imaginable objects... at the hands of their own parents or guardians, the people who gave them life to begin with, and are supposed to love, protect and care for them... might concede that being aborted in the first place would have been preferable to the lives they lived, and/or lost."

"These are preferable to not being born? These are what some of you would force upon those born and those forced to give birth? A life of forced horror and suffering?"

Abortions would certainly have prevented this. Absolutely. Now, if there was a way to predict the parents would do this...

________________

"Or being forced to live with a horribly disfiguring genetic physical anomaly that cannot be fixed, along with mental disabilities that render that infant a vegetable for all intents and purposes, for the entire length of life lived, however short, suffered... or prolonged... or institutionalized."

"These are preferable to not being born? These are what some of you would force upon those born and those forced to give birth? A life of forced horror and suffering?"

Although sadly, this does happen, it's sure not the norm. How bad does the abnormality have to be? Maybe there is (or soon to be) a way to tell how the baby will look, or how smart it will be. Maybe that fetus isn't going to look the way the parents would like it to, or be as smart as they wish it was.

I know a couple with a Downs daughter; she is wonderful. I have a co-worker whose daughter was told her baby should be aborted because of serious defects. She didn't abort her son, and short of a cleft palate, which was repaired surgically, he's an adorable child.

There's a lot of talk of how wonderful nature is, and how mankind is destroying pretty much everything. So, okay, why not let nature take its course--as it did when the child was conceived in the first place. If this child is not meant to be, won't nature take care of that?

Sometimes not, obviously, because these tragedies happen.

"It's the very reason we, as breeders, never allowed a horrendous genetic anomaly to leave our yard... because it's cruel. And it's would be horribly selfish of us to allow such suffering."

So, on the off chance that the very unusual should occur, and the child might be an "horrendous genetic anomaly", an abortion should occur?

Because unlike puppies, you can't just execute a human baby once it's born? True. You gotta do it early on, before there's a personal connection. "Nothing personal", right? I know, I know, abortion is for some people, terribly personal. What a hassle.

There's no easy answer; I sure don't have it.

But this argument, Jodi, just doesn't work--for me, anyway.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

An Arizona Supreme Court justice was confirmed as a U.S. appellate judge Tuesday, despite complaints from conservatives that he influenced the Roe v. Wade ruling while a law clerk four decades ago.

Grassley said that while a federal judge signed the 1972 abortion decisions � not his law clerk � Hurwitz wrote a 2002 article "embracing and celebrating the rationale and framework for Roe v. Wade."

Another Republican opponent, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, said Hurwitz "continues to write about Roe with fondness, nostalgia and even pride."

This should make a few people happy.

Here is a link that might be useful: New AZ SCJ


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

Whatever.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I'm 100% in favor of allowing women to choose abortion.

I'm also not a "progressive".

Hay


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

I would be proud, too, if I had been in the position of helping, or had played even some small part, in sealing a federal law that gives women the choices they deserve to have, and pulls them up and out of the dark ages... where patriarchal control and inequality ruled the day. Absolutely.

You all have control over your own uteri... why do you need or want to control mine, too? I just don't understand the theory behind that one.

How does the personal, private choice of some woman or young girl you don't even know affect you in any way, shape, or form? Much like same-sex marriage, it doesn't.

Laws with clauses like the one Michigan wants to implement goes beyond foolish, and right into bat wing nutty. Here's the bottom line... the GOP is intent upon slashing budgets and getting rid of public safety net programs, letting our public education system keep falling, and they don't want to help with health care, either. So, once all these zygotes and fetuses women could be forced into having are actually born, what's the plan to take care of all these babies?

Let's hear some solid answers. Tell us what the solutions are.

I might feel a little bit differently if someone could tell me why it's so important to peek into and probe everyone's uterus, and double the population without caring for them once they are here.


 o
RE: Another extreme abortion bill

elvis: So, on the off chance that the very unusual should occur, and the child might be an "horrendous genetic anomaly", an abortion should occur?

That is up to the woman carrying the fetus. Her choice. Not yours and not mine.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here