Pregnancy Decision Health Centers (1 Viewer)

[tryreading]

Heartbeat International has opened up counseling centers near abortion clinics to persuade women not to have an abortion. Some question their tactics. Is it okay to misinform to sidetrack an abortion?



New Location Beside Abortion Clinic Offers True Choice

“Location, location, location!” Many Heartbeat affiliates are acting on this astute business advice by opening up pregnancy centers next to or across from abortion clinics. The hope is to give abortion-bound mothers a true choice by offering compassionate life-affirming services.

Earlier this year an opportunity to buy the building next to an abortionist arose and the leadership at Heartbeat’s Columbus, Ohio affiliate responded quickly by raising the funds needed to make the purchase.

This fall, Pregnancy Decision Health Centers (PDHC) will open its seventh pregnancy center right next door to a major abortionist who provides abortions up to 20 weeks. (At this age the unborn child feels excruciating pain.)

“The single most important variable determining whether a woman gets an abortion is whether or not she feels she has any options,” said PDHC Executive Director Jeff Silleck. “Placing a pregnancy center next door to an abortion clinic provides options at the exact place and moment when it is most needed in order to save lives and secure the health of the woman.”



This is what a pro-choice organization says about the centers

Most anti-abortion centers will not give out information by phone, they insist you come into their office. Women have reported waiting up to an hour for the results of a pregnancy test and being forced to watch anti-abortion videos while they wait surrounded by anti-abortion propaganda. Some women have then been denied the results of their pregnancy test when they say they want an abortion or that they need the test result to apply for medical assistance.

Women describe being harassed, intimidated, and given blatantly false information, or being forced to pray with the crisis pregnancy center's staff. They complain that their confidential information was used against them. In some cases, they were followed home, and mail and phone calls intruded into their homes.



New legislation:

The aim of Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005 (to be referred to as ‘the bill’ from here on after) is to regulate pregnancy counselling services to prevent misleading or deceptive advertising or notification of pregnancy counselling services.


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/pregnancy_counselling/report/d02.pdf

 

[1069]

The aim of Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005 (to be referred to as ‘the bill’ from here on after) is to regulate pregnancy counselling services to prevent misleading or deceptive advertising or notification of pregnancy counselling services.

My. How reassuring that the government's looking out for the best interests of women with crisis pregnancies. :roll:

Look:

'Stealth' Bush Appointee Worries About Wayward Wives

He's a favorite guest speaker at meetings of the National Right to Life Committee. He's on the medical advisory council for the notorious Leslee Unruh's National Abstinence Clearinghouse, whence he expounds on such topics as the physical and emotional consequences of premarital sex.

He teaches that there is a physiological cause [pdf link] for relationship failure and sexual promiscuity -- a hormonal cause-and-effect that can only be short-circuited by sexual abstinence until marriage. (Editor's note: The following images, except when otherwise noted, are from the PowerPoint presentation described and linked to above.)

He's the full-time medical director for A Woman's Concern, a chain of Boston area crisis pregnancy centers, where he spreads all the usual lies about abortion and uses ultrasound scans as a tool to influence the decisions of women who might be considering abortion.

He was one of the "experts" who determined that federally funded abstinence education programs must mention contraceptives only in relation to their failure rates and promote abstinence until marriage.

Now, in what has been characterized as a "stealth" appointment by the Bush administration, we hear that Dr. Eric Keroack is set to assume a new post as the deputy assistant secretary for population affairs. The DASPA oversees a number of Health and Human Services programs, including the Office of Family Planning.

Keroack works his heart out for the Christian right. And it appears that, as of Monday morning, he'll be working for us, too.

Last June, Keroack was a featured speaker at the 10th Annual International Abstinence Leadership Conference in Kansas City, where he provided his somewhat unorthodox insights into the role of hormones in relationship failure.

Oxytocin is a hormone whose actions are associated with pregnancy, breastfeeding, and maternal-infant bonding -- and, according to Keroack, it's the tie that binds in marriage, as well. People don't fall in love, but into hormonal bondage. Therefore, the most important rationale for sexual abstinence isn't faith-based at all, but purely physiological. Unfaithful men and promiscuous women are created by misuse of the "emotional glue" of attraction, an abuse leading to a "perpetual cycle of misery."

>snip<

There is hope for the weary brokenhearted, Dr. Keroack said, but it requires abstinence and plenty of time for healing.

Keroack's fitting title for that novel presentation [PowerPoint link] was "If I Only Had a Brain." In an unpublished article that has become an established text of the abstinence movement, he wrote, "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual." Keroack's teaching on the role of "God's 'super-glue'" is accepted as irrefutable in an article titled "Fornication and Oxytocin".

>snip<

Not surprisingly, this same unpublished "study" by Keroack has been used to advance proposed legislation to purchase ultrasound machines for crisis pregnancy centers with federal funds -- bills such as the Pregnant Women Support Act inspired by the Trojan donkeys of Democrats for Life of America, whose legislative initiative boasts the full support of the Christian right. And why not, when its abortion-reducing initiatives consist of funding CPCs and imposing restrictive federal regulation upon doctors who provide abortion care, while excluding all support for access to contraception?

Dr. Eric Keroack has compiled quite a record as the Christian right's man in Boston. He now seems set to become their man in Washington, D.C. -- and ours as well, whether we want him or not.

link


Why do antichoicers persist in using duplicity, stealth, and dishonesty to get their way?
Contrary to popular belief, I'm not blind to the fact that their "way" is that they wish to protect what they perceive to be "children" from being brutally "murdered".
I'm a parent. I support the protection of children from murder.
But the fact is, a zygote, embryo, or fetus isn't a child.
And really, simply removing an unwanted organism or person from your body isn't "murder". If it were, then women who defend themselves against rape and manage to terminate the assault and escape their assailants (by whatever means necessary) would be 'murderers'.
If the invading organism or person in question is in fact going to expire because you remove it from your body, that isn't really your fault. Nor is it your moral or ethical duty or obligation to permit said organism or person access to and/or use of your body, if you don't want to.

There, you see?
I've made allowance for the anti-choice belief that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is in fact a person.
And I still don't agree that pregnant women ought to lose their right to bodily sovereignty.
Neither does the Supreme Court, and neither does the majority of the population.

It makes me (and other thinking people) lose respect for the anti-choice movement when they are reduced to dishonesty to promote their cause.
Why do that? And why so blatant?
I know not all of you are unintelligent.
Why discredit your own movement?
Is it worth discrediting your entire movement just to trick a few desperate, poverty-stricken, uneducated pregnant girls into giving birth to unwanted children, by using dishonest scare tactics about breast cancer, etc?

 

[tryreading]

My. How reassuring that the government's looking out for the best interests of women with crisis pregnancies. :roll:

Look:

'Stealth' Bush Appointee Worries About Wayward Wives

He's a favorite guest speaker at meetings of the National Right to Life Committee. He's on the medical advisory council for the notorious Leslee Unruh's National Abstinence Clearinghouse, whence he expounds on such topics as the physical and emotional consequences of premarital sex.

He teaches that there is a physiological cause [pdf link] for relationship failure and sexual promiscuity -- a hormonal cause-and-effect that can only be short-circuited by sexual abstinence until marriage. (Editor's note: The following images, except when otherwise noted, are from the PowerPoint presentation described and linked to above.)

He's the full-time medical director for A Woman's Concern, a chain of Boston area crisis pregnancy centers, where he spreads all the usual lies about abortion and uses ultrasound scans as a tool to influence the decisions of women who might be considering abortion.

He was one of the "experts" who determined that federally funded abstinence education programs must mention contraceptives only in relation to their failure rates and promote abstinence until marriage.

Now, in what has been characterized as a "stealth" appointment by the Bush administration, we hear that Dr. Eric Keroack is set to assume a new post as the deputy assistant secretary for population affairs. The DASPA oversees a number of Health and Human Services programs, including the Office of Family Planning.

Keroack works his heart out for the Christian right. And it appears that, as of Monday morning, he'll be working for us, too.

Last June, Keroack was a featured speaker at the 10th Annual International Abstinence Leadership Conference in Kansas City, where he provided his somewhat unorthodox insights into the role of hormones in relationship failure.

Oxytocin is a hormone whose actions are associated with pregnancy, breastfeeding, and maternal-infant bonding -- and, according to Keroack, it's the tie that binds in marriage, as well. People don't fall in love, but into hormonal bondage. Therefore, the most important rationale for sexual abstinence isn't faith-based at all, but purely physiological. Unfaithful men and promiscuous women are created by misuse of the "emotional glue" of attraction, an abuse leading to a "perpetual cycle of misery."

>snip<

There is hope for the weary brokenhearted, Dr. Keroack said, but it requires abstinence and plenty of time for healing.

Keroack's fitting title for that novel presentation [PowerPoint link] was "If I Only Had a Brain." In an unpublished article that has become an established text of the abstinence movement, he wrote, "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual." Keroack's teaching on the role of "God's 'super-glue'" is accepted as irrefutable in an article titled "Fornication and Oxytocin".

>snip<

Not surprisingly, this same unpublished "study" by Keroack has been used to advance proposed legislation to purchase ultrasound machines for crisis pregnancy centers with federal funds -- bills such as the Pregnant Women Support Act inspired by the Trojan donkeys of Democrats for Life of America, whose legislative initiative boasts the full support of the Christian right. And why not, when its abortion-reducing initiatives consist of funding CPCs and imposing restrictive federal regulation upon doctors who provide abortion care, while excluding all support for access to contraception?

Dr. Eric Keroack has compiled quite a record as the Christian right's man in Boston. He now seems set to become their man in Washington, D.C. -- and ours as well, whether we want him or not.

link

I don't like any faith-based iniative, or an appointee chosen because of his religion. The iniatives are dangerous, and no tax money should ever be given to a church even for a charitable purpose.

I know quoting can be tiresome, but:


James Madison, fighting a bill while President

"Because the Bill vests in this said incorporated Church, an authority to provide for the support of the poor children of the same; an authority, which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious Societies as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civic duty."


Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

"[L]egislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;"


Thomas Jefferson, letter to Reverend Samuel Miller

"[E]veryone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."

 

[1069]

Folks, I'd advise you look into this yourselves; it's frankly appalling:

This man, Eric Keroack, who opposes contraception because he claims it is "demeaning to women", has just been appointed by George W Bush as the new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

"ERIC KEROACK is the medical director of an antiabortion "pregnancy counseling" center that refuses to distribute contraceptives or encourage their use -- even by married couples. The organization, called "A Woman's Concern," says it is "persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and adverse to human health and happiness." It believes -- despite abundant evidence to the contrary -- that making birth control available, "especially among adolescents, actually increases (rather than decreases) out-of-wedlock pregnancy and abortion."

These views would be merely bizarre were it not for this additional disturbing fact: Dr. Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is about to start work at the Department of Health and Human Services, overseeing federally funded family planning programs. To put it simply, the Bush administration's choice to direct the federal effort to make contraceptives available to low-income women works for a group that doesn't support using contraception. What comes next -- a science adviser who doesn't believe in evolution?"

link

link

For the first time, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about Bush's sanity.
How can he possibly believe he'll be allowed to get away with this?

 

[Jerry]

Heartbeat International has opened up counseling centers near abortion clinics to persuade women not to have an abortion. Some question their tactics. Is it okay to misinform to sidetrack an abortion?

Lets explore this shall we?

Please quote and link to, say, 3 statements present in Heartbeat International's literature which are suspected of being "misleading". Next link to an unbiased source which holds the "correct" information for each of the 3 statements.

Also, re; "This is what a pro-choice organization says about the centers", please identify exactly who "a pro-choice organization" is.

 

[1069]

Also, re; "This is what a pro-choice organization says about the centers", please identify exactly who "a pro-choice organization" is.

If I had to guess, I'd bet it was Planned Parenthood, NARAL, or NOW.
I bet with a little effort (like, very little) you could just google the quote and find out exactly who said it. I never bother waiting around for people to clarify things. I just do my own research. All the better to discredit them with, if it turns out they've misquoted, or are quoting some fringy, wingnut organization.
For the record, though, that statement (the allegation against CPCs attributed to an anonymous "prochoice organization") has also been made by the Washington Post and the New York Times, both reputable papers... so I'd imagine it's on level.

So tell me, Jerry:
What do you think about President Bush appointing a self-proclaimed opponent of contraception (even for married couples) to the office of deputy assistant secretary for population affairs (the DASPA oversees a number of Health and Human Services programs, including the Office of Family Planning) in a country where 89% of fertile, sexually active females report that they are using contraception*, and greater than 97% of the US population agrees with contraceptive use?
Think he's going to get away with it?
Want to bet on it? :twocents: :twocents: :mrgreen:

* Guttmacher Institute

 

[Jerry]

Why do antichoicers persist in using duplicity, stealth, and dishonesty to get their way?
Contrary to popular belief, I'm not blind to the fact that their "way" is that they wish to protect what they perceive to be "children" from being brutally "murdered".
I'm a parent. I support the protection of children from murder.

:alert

"Anti-choicer" is a buzzword as it is not an actual name of an abortion related group. Please use Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion or Pro-Life.

"Anti-Choicer" = "Anti-Lifer"......also a buzzword.

But the fact is, a zygote, embryo, or fetus isn't a child.

Science H. Logic........again with your proven false claims......

"Child" has pre-birth uses. A fetus is a "child". Legally a "child" is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries, thus a pregnant woman carries her "child"; her "unborn child", which makes her a "parent", spicificly, a “mother”.

And really, simply removing an unwanted organism or person from your body isn't "murder".

You're correct, so long as it doesn't die or there is Just Cause for ending it's life.

If it were, then women who defend themselves against rape and manage to terminate the assault and escape their assailants (by whatever means necessary) would be 'murderers'.

Women who escape rape have no chance of becoming pregnant from rape.

Also, the rape exception is widely given by all but the most extreme abortion opposition. Do you see Heartbeat America as one such extremist group? If so, please quote and link their direct opposition to the rape exception.

BTW, lethal Force is justified to prevent an immediate rape or stop a rape in progress in many states.

Like S.D., (in the news recently over HB1215) for example:

§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

If the invading organism or person in question is in fact going to expire because you remove it from your body, that isn't really your fault. Nor is it your moral or ethical duty or obligation to permit said organism or person access to and/or use of your body, if you don't want to.

A fetus does not "invade" the mother's body.

***
If you remove a Tapeworm from your body and it dies as a result, it's death is, in fact, your "fault".

Clearly a Tapeworm is not a fetus, but this proves that the initiator of the cause owns responsibility for the effect.

***
If a fetus's "personhood" is legally established, it's right to life would supersede and override the mother's rights to be secure in her person and property, her legal duty and responsibility would be in force. See Roe-V-Wade Section 9a.

There, you see?
I've made allowance for the anti-choice belief that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is in fact a person.

:alert

"Anti-choice" is a bizzword.....like "Information Superhighway".

And I still don't agree that pregnant women ought to lose their right to bodily sovereignty.
Neither does the Supreme Court, and neither does the majority of the population.

Lets ask the SCOTUS......

Hay SCOTy, whass uuup!?! You see those freeks pawing over eachother to get their Nintendo Wii this morning? What a circus!

Anyway, my dear friend 1069 says that you don't agree that if a Z.E.F. is deemed to be a "person" that it's Rght to Life would superseed the mother's rights.

Is this the case?

Lets ask the SCOTUS......

Hay SCOTy, whass uuup!?! You see those freeks pawing over eachother to get their Nintendo Wii this morning? What a circus!

Anyway, my dear friend 1069 says that you don't agree that if a Z.E.F. is deemed to be a "person" that it's Rght to Life would superseed the mother's rights.

Is this the case?

ROE v. WADE, Section 9a.
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<snip>

Link

Thanks for clearing that up, SCOTUS.

It makes me (and other thinking people) lose respect for the anti-choice movement when they are reduced to dishonesty to promote their cause.

:alert

"Anti-choice" is propaganda step #1: "Change the name".

fyi, #2 is "Intimidate opposition into compliance" and #3 is "label and vilify everyone left who won't conform".

Why do that? And why so blatant?
I know not all of you are unintelligent.
Why discredit your own movement?
Is it worth discrediting your entire movement just to trick a few desperate, poverty-stricken, uneducated pregnant girls into giving birth to unwanted children, by using dishonest scare tactics about breast cancer, etc?

What a punchline!

 

[Jerry]

If I had to guess, I'd bet it was Planned Parenthood, NARAL, or NOW.
I bet with a little effort (like, very little) you could just google the quote and find out exactly who said it. I never bother waiting around for people to clarify things. I just do my own research. All the better to discredit them with, if it turns out they've misquoted, or are quoting some fringy, wingnut organization.
For the record, though, that statement (the allegation against CPCs attributed to an anonymous "prochoice organization") has also been made by the Washington Post and the New York Times, both reputable papers... so I'd imagine it's on level.

....as if it were my job were to verify the claims of others......

Reputation is anecdotal. That's like believing whatever the bible says because you believe to be "reputable".

So tell me, Jerry:
What do you think about President Bush appointing a self-proclaimed opponent of contraception (even for married couples) to the office of deputy assistant secretary for population affairs (the DASPA oversees a number of Health and Human Services programs, including the Office of Family Planning) in a country where 89% of fertile, sexually active females report that they are using contraception*, and greater than 97% of the US population agrees with contraceptive use?
Think he's going to get away with it?
Want to bet on it? :twocents: :twocents: :mrgreen:

* Guttmacher Institute

Please establish the relevancy of your request to the topic of this thread. Is the Deputy Assistant Secretary a member of Heartbeat America? Has he given or received money from H.A.?

 

[1069]

"Anti-choicer" is a buzzword as it is not an actual name of an abortion related group. Please use Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion or Pro-Life.

No, "Pro-Abortion" is a "buzzword".
There's no such thing, except maybe in China. Tit for tat, anti-choicer.

Women who escape rape have no chance of becoming pregnant from rape.

Yeah, I think you missed the point of that little analogy.
I'll admit, it's a bit obscure. More a vague feeling than anything.
My feeling is that if women are not allowed the right to bodily sovereignty in the realm of controlling their own uteruses (what goes in, what stays in, what comes out, and when) then there is no reason for rape to be illegal, either. What difference does it make? If a woman's uterus doesn't belong to her, why should her vagina, or any other part of her body? If she doesn't get to decide what she's going to do-or not do- with her own uterus, why should she get to decide what to do or not do with her vagina, either?
Ergo, my rape analogy. Which is supported by the fact that before Roe and before civil rights, rape was common, yet rape arrests and convictions were... practically unheard of (the exception was when the victim was white and the defendant black). Nobody, but nobody, was willing to believe that a rape victim didn't "ask for it"; didn't deserve it.
So, yeah... I'll admit this rape-abortion-connection theory of mine is still pretty sketchy; it's still in the works. I'll retract it for now.

Lets ask the SCOTUS......

Hay SCOTy, whass uuup!?! You see those freeks pawing over eachother to get their Nintendo Wii this morning? What a circus!
Anyway, my dear friend 1069 says that you don't agree that if a Z.E.F. is deemed to be a "person" that it's Rght to Life would superseed the mother's rights.

Oh, now... surely not.
I only said that I don't care whether it's "a person" or not.
I also don't much care what SCOTUS thinks, at any given point in history.
Women have the right to bodily sovereignty because they are human, and bodily sovereignty is a fundamental human right.
The government neither bestows human rights, nor revokes them. It doesn't have the authority to do so.

What a punchline!

Thank you. I try.

/ bows.

 

[Felicity]

Lets ask the SCOTUS......

Hay SCOTy, whass uuup!?! You see those freeks pawing over eachother to get their Nintendo Wii this morning? What a circus!

Anyway, my dear friend 1069 says that you don't agree that if a Z.E.F. is deemed to be a "person" that it's Rght to Life would superseed the mother's rights.

Is this the case?

ROE v. WADE, Section 9a.
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<snip>

Link

Thanks for clearing that up, SCOTUS.

Aw man...you crack me up, Jerry! That was great!:rofl

 

[Jerry]

No, "Pro-Abortion" is a "buzzword".
There's no such thing, except maybe in China. Tit for tat, anti-choicer.

I used to be Pro-Abortion, so I know.
A Pro-Abortionist endorses the mandatory abortion of every unauthorized pregnancy. So yes, like China.

My position can only be accurately referred to as "Anti-Abortion", because my focus is on curbing the rampant misuse of Roe-V-Wade, not necessarily eliminate abortion all together.

"Anti-Choice" implies that I would not even make an exception for a 14 y/o, raped by her father, to have an abortion. Since I would allow, for my part, the choice to abort in a number of situations, I can not accurately be seen as against choice.

Yeah, I think you missed the point of that little analogy.
I'll admit, it's a bit obscure. More a vague feeling than anything.
My feeling is that....

I don't care about your feelings. I care about the facts supporting your argument.

Ergo, my rape analogy. Which is supported by the fact that before Roe and before civil rights, rape was common, yet rape arrests and convictions were... practically unheard of (the exception was when the victim was white and the defendant black).
Nobody, but nobody, was willing to believe that a rape victim didn't "ask for it"; didn't deserve it.
So, yeah... I'll admit this rape-abortion-connection theory of mine is still pretty sketchy; it's still in the works. I'll retract it for now.

Were you raped?

Oh, now... surely not.
I only said that I don't care whether it's "a person" or not.
I also don't much care what SCOTUS thinks, at any given point in history.
Women have the right to bodily sovereignty because they are human, and bodily sovereignty is a fundamental human right.
The government neither bestows human rights, nor revokes them. It doesn't have the authority to do so.

Well now....do you know how long it usually takes for a typical DP abortion thread to get to the core issues like you just did? OMG that level of transparent honesty is a rarity here.

"I only said that I don't care whether it's "a person" or not."

There is a deeper reason for this, which is why I asked if you were raped.

"I also don't much care what SCOTUS thinks, at any given point in history."

This is a consistent view with regard to what you have said so far. You reject authorities which seek to control you. Very consistent.

"Women have the right to bodily sovereignty because they are human, and bodily sovereignty is a fundamental human right.The government neither bestows human rights, nor revokes them. It doesn't have the authority to do so"

The above is a Natural Law argument.

What authority establishes a woman's 'fundamental right' to her bodily sovereignty?

 

[1069]

There is a deeper reason for this, which is why I asked if you were raped.

Huh?? When did you ask that?
No. I've never been raped.
Oh, wait... I just backed up and saw where.
No.
But I experience unwanted pregnancy as "rape"; and I experience even wanted pregnancy as... intimately invasive, to an extent I really can't tolerate.
Good thing I've got all the kids I want, and never have to deal with it again.

I don't care about your feelings.

Hmm. Well, in that case, you're welcome to go sh!t in your hat. :argue (j/k)

Before you sidetracked this discussion, didn't I ask you some questions?
Like, pertinent to the topic at hand (you're welcome to start a new thread about all this other stuff if you want, and I'll probably participate)?
Eric Keroack, Bush's new stealth appointee?
Wise decision, or not?

 

[Felicity]

.

But I experience unwanted pregnancy as "rape"; and I experience even wanted pregnancy as... intimately invasive, to an extent I really can't tolerate.
Good thing I've got all the kids I want, and never have to deal with it again.

I don't think this is what you would call a "normal" response to an intended pregnancy. Maybe that is why Jerry might think there is something "deeper" going on here. For me...It made me think of that phenomenon that amputees get--that phantom limb thing. I don't know what I mean by that exactly--that's just what popped into my head when I read your feelings about your intended pregnancies--sort of a dissociation from the experience. Hmmmmm....maybe it is related to your abortion after all....

Sorry....just puttin you on the analysis couch in my mind....Veeery in-ter-es-tink!..:smoking:

 

[1069]

I don't think this is what you would call a "normal" response to an intended pregnancy. Maybe that is why Jerry might think there is something "deeper" going on here. For me...It made me think of that phenomenon that amputees get--that phantom limb thing. I don't know what I mean by that exactly--that's just what popped into my head when I read your feelings about your intended pregnancies--sort of a dissociation from the experience. Hmmmmm....maybe it is related to your abortion after all....

Sorry....just puttin you on the analysis couch in my mind....Veeery in-ter-es-tink!..:smoking:

No, no... nothing terrible in my past. Boring life, really.
It's just my own personal quirkiness, my fastidiousness.
What I consider my bodily integrity.
I do realize my feelings about pregnancy aren't exactly status quo; I know many women enjoy pregnancy (at least, intended pregnancies).
But also, my feelings aren't entirely unique, either. I've met other women who felt the same, and still others who felt that way about breast-feeding, of all things (which I loved).
Different people experience things in different ways. There are many possible emotional responses to stimuli that still fall within the realm of "normal" (that is, not pathological).
If I wanted any more children, I'd surely have to seek some help in overcoming my aversion to being pregnant.
But I don't, so it's unlikely my distaste for being pregnant will effect my life in any way in the future.
I don't mind others being pregnant. I'm looking forward to being a grandmother someday. I don't have any aversion to other people's pregnancies. If they're happy, I'm happy.
But my own experience with it, I'm sure, contributes to how emphatic I am about keeping reproductive choice safe and legal for others.
Even if you hate being pregnant, it's remotely tolerable as long as you know you've got a choice, that you're making a choice.

 

[tryreading]

Lets explore this shall we?

Please quote and link to, say, 3 statements present in Heartbeat International's literature which are suspected of being "misleading". Next link to an unbiased source which holds the "correct" information for each of the 3 statements.

Also, re; "This is what a pro-choice organization says about the centers", please identify exactly who "a pro-choice organization" is.

The funny thing (no, Felicity, not funny ha-ha, but funny sad) is how polarizing the abortion subject is. The legislation I posted to begin the thread is from Australia, and nobody noticed. Anyway, see below for the US legislation.

I won't be posting information the way you suggest, thank you. The pro-choice quote below is from any site you choose, since they will all have said it, like 1069 said. The question is whether false information and questionable tactics are okay in the course of preventing abortions. And I am using the US Congress, or part of it, to show that there is something questionable enough that some think a law is required to correct it. That should be a fairly reasonable source.


The investigation below from Waxman indicates some deception seems to be occuring:

Federally funded pregnancy centers mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, according to a report released this week by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Female investigators posing as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice telephoned "crisis pregnancy centers" that receive funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. Twenty of 23 centers reached "provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion," said the report.

The report says there were three major topics of misinformation: first, the purported relationship between abortion and breast cancer; second, the purported relationship between abortion and infertility; and third, the purported relationship between abortion and mental illness.

The Blotter


HI's site:
http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/enews_8-06-full.htm#2


Leglislation in our country regarding the advertising of the Centers:
http://maloney.house.gov/documents/reproductivechoice/033006CPCbill.pdf

 

[Felicity]

No, no... nothing terrible in my past. Boring life, really.
It's just my own personal quirkiness, my fastidiousness.
What I consider my bodily integrity.
I do realize my feelings about pregnancy aren't exactly status quo; I know many women enjoy pregnancy (at least, intended pregnancies).
But also, my feelings aren't entirely unique, either. I've met other women who felt the same, and still others who felt that way about breast-feeding, of all things (which I loved).
Different people experience things in different ways. There are many possible emotional responses to stimuli that still fall within the realm of "normal" (that is, not pathological).
If I wanted any more children, I'd surely have to seek some help in overcoming my aversion to being pregnant.
But I don't, so it's unlikely my distaste for being pregnant will effect my life in any way in the future.
I don't mind others being pregnant. I'm looking forward to being a grandmother someday. I don't have any aversion to other people's pregnancies. If they're happy, I'm happy.
But my own experience with it, I'm sure, contributes to how emphatic I am about keeping reproductive choice safe and legal for others.

Well...how utterly Booooring....you're no fun.:blah:

I was a "love being preggers, love nursing" weirdo.

 

[Felicity]

The funny thing (no, Felicity, not funny ha-ha, but funny sad) is

I don't get it.






:2razz:

 

[1069]

Well...how utterly Booooring....you're no fun.

I was a "love being preggers, love nursing" weirdo.

And I love happy pregnant women. I'm 100% pro-mama, pro-child. Truly. :mrgreen:
But... let's return now to our regularly scheduled topic.
All this psychoanalytical scrutiny is making me itch.

The question is whether false information and questionable tactics are okay in the course of preventing abortions. And I am using the US Congress, or part of it, to show that there is something questionable enough that some think a law is required to correct it. That should be a fairly reasonable source.

Yeah, it's been in the media a lot lately.
Now, I have no problem with CPCs offering- offering! Not forcing!- pregnant women ultrasounds.
In my experience, there's simply not much to see on an ultrasound, certainly not in the first trimester, unless technology has come a long way in the past decade-plus.
I'm not sure why prochoicers are so "up in arms" about ultrasounds... it makes us look bad to protest this tactic. I want women to be as informed as they possibly can when making a decision of this magnitude. If more information is going to hurt... then maybe we're not on the right track after all.
But the rest: the lies about health risks, etc. It needs to stop. No information is better than false information.
If the government needs to intervene to stop CPCs from propagating this disinformation, then so be it. I hope they will.
But with Keroack in Health and Human Services, controlling the Family Planning division... I have my doubts. :?

 

[tryreading]

I don't get it.






:2razz:

I said something about something being funny on one of the abortion threads before, and although I wasn't referring to abortion itself when I said it, you proceeded to post about 300 horrible abortion 'jokes' to show me my mistake. I didn't want to risk that abuse again.

 

[tryreading]

Yeah, it's been in the media a lot lately.
Now, I have no problem with CPCs offering- offering! Not forcing!- pregnant women ultrasounds.
In my experience, there's simply not much to see on an ultrasound, certainly not in the first trimester, unless technology has come a long way in the past decade-plus.
I'm not sure why prochoicers are so "up in arms" about ultrasounds... it makes us look bad to protest this tactic. I want women to be as informed as they possibly can when making a decision of this magnitude. If more information is going to hurt... then maybe we're not on the right track after all.
But the rest: the lies about health risks, etc. It needs to stop. No information is better than false information.
If the government needs to intervene to stop CPCs from propagating this disinformation, then so be it. I hope they will.
But with Keroack in Health and Human Services, controlling the Family Planning division... I have my doubts. :?

Offering ultrasounds is fine. But first, the center should make it clear what the purpose of their establishment is, and not attempt to get any of the woman's personal information before that.

 

[ngdawg]

ROE v. WADE, Section 9a.
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [ 410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This has been the #1 argument of anti-choicers, in total opposition to the above.
I agree, 1069-Bush's 'sanity' is scary. His intents on throwing this country back to the ignorance-is-bliss of the 50's and 60's is going overboard. But.....
in relation to the bait-and-switch of these centers, this has been going on since at least RvW came to be, if not before. With billboards, newspaper ads, etc., come-ons would state such things as "Pregnant? Alone? Scared? We can help', and Thinking about an abortion? Call us'. Women would then contact these places, be told they MUST come in and then be forced to witness anti-abortion films, literature, etc., and, as stated before with these 'newer' places, not be given the results of any testing offered unless they agreed to 'work' with them and not abort, etc.
That so-called bill should have been in place about 35 years ago, but the 'crisis centers' that were so prevalent back then were quickly revealed and many died out.
Bush has lost much of what little credibility he's held with the falling out of grace with people he stood along side with or sought advice from. Appointing another lunatic seems to be more normal now....so scary. /waits for martial law.....

 

[Felicity]

I said something about something being funny on one of the abortion threads before, and although I wasn't referring to abortion itself when I said it, you proceeded to post about 300 horrible abortion 'jokes' to show me my mistake. I didn't want to risk that abuse again.

Ahhh...now I get it... (thanks).

Hey--sorry--I didn't mean to traumatize you. That was quite a while ago! Was it like 300, really? *snicker*:mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

Offering ultrasounds is fine. But first, the center should make it clear what the purpose of their establishment is, and not attempt to get any of the woman's personal information before that.

Why don't abortion clinics do ultra sounds for their patients? I would think it would be useful in the "procedure" itself! If they are all about "informed consent" rather than getting another notch on their suction machine--wouldn't an ultrasound picture--especially one of those nifty 4D ones--be something valuable to their practice? It could help them be sure they're getting the whole embryo/fetus out. That would aid them in lessening the occurrence of infection. They would have a better idea about the topography of the woman/girl's uterus and better avoid perforation. Maybe they do have them, I don't know...If they do, why don't they give the pictures to the patient to show them what they are removing? Oncologists show you the X-rays that picture the cancer before they romove it. Why don't abortionists show the embryo/fetus to the patient before they remove him?
Unless.......
Unless, of course, they fear it would "discourage" their patients from going through with the "procedure"--and then they wouldn't get paid, and the woman/girl might tell people why she didn't abort and others might not come to their door for the supposed "help" and then they might go bankrupt and have to close up the "chop shop"....hmmmm....

....maybe it isn't about "informed consent" after all and is, in fact, about keeping the numbers up.

 

[1069]

Why don't abortion clinics do ultra sounds for their patients? I would think it would be useful in the "procedure" itself!

They do (or mine did). To determine how far along you are.
They won't do a D&C unless you're between 6 and 12 weeks, and they aren't interested in just taking the patient's word for it.

 

[Felicity]

They do (or mine did). To determine how far along you are.
They won't do a D&C unless you're between 6 and 12 weeks, and they aren't interested in just taking the patient's word for it.

Did they show you the pic or screen? Did they offer? Is it policy?