abortion law wording

[Forever_frost]

In principal, I don't disagree with your notion about abstinence. It's a valid point. The problem I have is that we're programmed to #1: survive long enough to procreate, #2: procreate, #3: rinse, repeat. It's not that I don't agree with being responsible, but that I recognize that humans do what animals do, too. That's the reality of it.




Bolded part might as well have been said by an abortion advocate.

Adults have the right to do as they please, insomuch as they don't violate others' rights in the process. I agree that the imposition of consequences upon others for actions beyond their control (in this case: have sex, birth child, dump child on society to raise) is unfair, but consider that when society imposes restrictions on human behavior, they also impose all consequences of those restrictons on society as well. If we deem that convicted violent criminals and thieves maintain a right to life then, by imposing their removal from society for a time, we must also support them in their limited capacity to sustain themselves. We don't choose to have criminals; they are an unfortunate, inherent product of our condition.

Likewise, many people do not choose to have children, yet they are an inherent, albeit avoidable-through-abstinence product of our condition as well. If we as a society impose that human life is to be sanctified (banning abortions), then we must also accept that preservation of life is not enough, and that sustaining that life must also be sanctified. By imposing a child's inclusion in life - by imposing the consequences of someone's irresponsibility - we are accepting responsibility for what that child becomes, whether we like it or not.


Fundamentally, however, these particular arguments about the validity of abortions only go to support our modern notions about economy; at the root it is competition for resources. Our sense of natural rights really sort of boils down to a species-centric armistice wherein we collaborate for resources; ultimately, with our empathy, chances of survival increase (see #1 on human to-do list above).

The crux of this whole issue really stems from how we evaluate life, which we're not all in agreement on. After all, it is somewhat counterintuitive that, with regard to #2 on our list, we should willfully destroy our progeny.

The rest is just arguing solutions to economic problems.

Probably the most well thought out answer I've gotten. Thank you

[Forever_frost]

Hit send too quickly...

When you go beyond the point of viability, you walk a slippery slope. It can easily turn into, "Life begins with a heartbeat," so you ban all abortions as soon as the heart starts beating. Then you can easily say, "life begins at conception," which brings into question the IUD, the birth control pill, emergency contraception, and other forms of birth control.
One's morality doesn't need regulating. Those with morals won't abuse the situations. Those with lesser morals will ALWAYS find a way--be it Oil of Pennyroyal or coat hangers.

No one is arguing birth control, emergency contraception or the pill. What we're discussing is the willful taking of life. If there is a heartbeat, there's life. I don't think that can be disputed. If a heart is beating it's alive. While I'm anti-abortion, I'm not even arguing that it should never be done. The federal government has no say in it, states do. But that's another point all together. What I'm saying is if you're taking a life, if you're getting an abortion, a sonogram shouldn't be an issue. "Hey, this is what is growing inside you. You sure you want to remove it?"

Hell, I was shown a picture of the bullet in my head and the option to keep the bullet after it was removed. That was a bullet. What we're discussing is a child. How much more important is making sure the woman understands what she is doing in ending the life of a child than showing some idiot the neat bullet dug out of his skull?

[Treasure Chest]

No one is arguing birth control, emergency contraception or the pill. What we're discussing is the willful taking of life. If there is a heartbeat, there's life. I don't think that can be disputed. If a heart is beating it's alive. While I'm anti-abortion, I'm not even arguing that it should never be done. The federal government has no say in it, states do. But that's another point all together. What I'm saying is if you're taking a life, if you're getting an abortion, a sonogram shouldn't be an issue. "Hey, this is what is growing inside you. You sure you want to remove it?"

Hell, I was shown a picture of the bullet in my head and the option to keep the bullet after it was removed. That was a bullet. What we're discussing is a child. How much more important is making sure the woman understands what she is doing in ending the life of a child than showing some idiot the neat bullet dug out of his skull?

I completely get your side of it, I do. I also want to say that I DO NOT AGREE with abortion being used as birth control. I don't really have much sympathy for people who experience secondary infertility after electing to abort due to their own stupidity and irresponsibility. I have a older sister (not the hot sister) who has used pregnancy to manipulate men, then "rid herself of the inconvenience" when she wasn't successful. About half of the abortions in the US are sought out by women who were pregnant using birth control. About half of that figure were inconsistent with their method of birth control. The other half, experienced a failure when using the method properly. To give it a nice round number, 25% of women seeking abortions weren't being irresponsible, they were actively trying to prevent a pregnancy. I've been in that situation and it sucks. I was able to provide for my child, so abortion wasn't an option for me. Are there better alternatives, such as adoption? Yes, but I don't want to be the one responsible for policing someone else's morality. Then you have the cases of rape, molestation, fetal health, and maternal health. Those are instances that aren't taken lightly. I've personally known people who have been in that situation. I, myself, have been in one of those situations. I made a VERY personal decision, with the blessings of my obstetrician, to continue with my pregnancy. It's not a situation I'd wish on anyone, and even my decision to continue with the pregnancy came with it's own set of emotional ramifications and regrets.

Going back to what I said earlier, no one is talking about birth control in this debate, but it's not outside of the scope of reality. There are populations (i.e., the Catholic church) that believe life strictly begins at conception. They strictly oppose any for of birth control, be it the pill, DepoProvera, the IUD, and even condoms. When you start picking and choosing what to regulate, outside of viability, you open the door to go JUST ONE STEP FURTHER. When this occurs, you take away a women's right to make choices concerning her body. That's why it has to be black and white, with very few exceptions. It's no less taking a life, on a moral level. At that point, you leave a person to deal with whatever guilt they've acquired because of their decision.

I am opposed to making a woman certify that she has a just reason to have an abortion, in order to be exempted from a law that is intended to guilt her out of the decision. They already perform a sonogram prior to the decision to have an abortion. They do a sonogram to confirm the pregnancy, at the time of the procedure, and in most cases, they will tell the woman that she is, in fact so many weeks pregnant. If she's already made her decision, is there really a point to having a law that beats a dead horse? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure most providers are going to go into detail of the procedure beforehand. There's absolutely no reason to put this into law, other than satisfying the morbid fascination and sense of piousness in people who are never going to be in the situation, and who have nothing to do with her decision.

[mikec]

Jenn is the bomb.

[Vertnut]

The courts decided today that Texas can proceed with the new procedure.

[Forever_frost]

The courts decided today that Texas can proceed with the new procedure.

I saw that. TC I see your point, but there is no hardship caused by showing a sonogram and perhaps, just maybe it'll make someone realize they're destroying a life.

By the way, must have missed the talk of the hot sister

[ceyko]

heh, I'm a pro-choice, Catholic who would never permit an abortion at this stage.

[Vertnut]

I don't understand all the hell-raising. Any medical procedure where they're removing something from your body (even a tooth), will be accompanied by an MRI, X-ray, sonigram, etc.

[Treasure Chest]

I saw that. TC I see your point, but there is no hardship caused by showing a sonogram and perhaps, just maybe it'll make someone realize they're destroying a life.

No woman goes in for an abortion thinking that she's just there to get a uterine massage. It's redundant, and there's absolutely no reason to make it a law. Good providers will already do it. Shitty providers still won't. There's no way to police whether or not ANY provider is actually going to do it, without compromising patient privacy. Why have a law when it can't be enforced?

By the way, must have missed the talk of the hot sister

I have a free-spirited, drool worthy sister who's a bartender on 6th Street in Austin.

[racrguy]

I have a free-spirited, drool worthy sister who's a bartender on 6th Street in Austin.

I find myself in Austin quite frequently. Time to put on my creepin' outfit!

[Treasure Chest]

I don't understand all the hell-raising. Any medical procedure where they're removing something from your body (even a tooth), will be accompanied by an MRI, X-ray, sonigram, etc.

But they don't say, "See this tooth? This tooth right here. This tooth is still connected to a root. It's still a living tooth. Are you ABSOLUTELY sure you want to kill this tooth? Really? You want to kill your tooth? I'm required, by law to show you the X-ray again. Yup, that's the tooth. You're serious, you want to kill your tooth? Are you sure you wouldn't rather have a root canal and SAVE your tooth? No? You still want to kill the tooth? The law says that I need to do ANOTHER X-ray so you can see your tooth again. So, again, here's the tooth on ANOTHER X-ray. This is what I'm going to do, in graphic terms, to your tooth....Blah, blah,blah. Do you still want to kill your tooth? Okay, your choice. Nurse, we're ready."

[Treasure Chest]

I find myself in Austin quite frequently. Time to put on my creepin' outfit!

It doesn't so much work. She's impervious to pervs and creepers.

[racrguy]

It doesn't so much work. She's impervious to pervs and creepers.

[Treasure Chest]

Look at who she has for a brother-in-law.

[Vertnut]

But they don't say, "See this tooth? This tooth right here. This tooth is still connected to a root. It's still a living tooth. Are you ABSOLUTELY sure you want to kill this tooth? Really? You want to kill your tooth? I'm required, by law to show you the X-ray again. Yup, that's the tooth. You're serious, you want to kill your tooth? Are you sure you wouldn't rather have a root canal and SAVE your tooth? No? You still want to kill the tooth? The law says that I need to do ANOTHER X-ray so you can see your tooth again. So, again, here's the tooth on ANOTHER X-ray. This is what I'm going to do, in graphic terms, to your tooth....Blah, blah,blah. Do you still want to kill your tooth? Okay, your choice. Nurse, we're ready."

They don't require all that being said. A lttle over done, I think. It sounds pretty straight forward. If a fetus is such a damn nuisance, it shouldn't bother anyone at all.