SD wants to require women to visit CPC's before aborting

[mac]

Your statement was that you believe government should preserve life. There is a great deal that government could do to preserve life, such as making sure every citizen has access to affordable medical care, education on nutrition and exercise, early education on tobacco and alcohol usage, etc. If you want to preserve life, you need to make a proactive effort.

So? Abortion is bad, m'kay? And guess what? There are other bad things, too. You'd have to be a little daft, though, to equate abortion to tobacco use.

 

[OKgrannie]

So? Abortion is bad, m'kay? And guess what? There are other bad things, too. You'd have to be a little daft, though, to equate abortion to tobacco use.

Abortion can be a good thing, it saves women's lives. Education regarding tobacco use and abortion is a good thing. How many people die because of tobacco?

 

[mac]

Abortion can be a good thing, it saves women's lives. Education regarding tobacco use and abortion is a good thing. How many people die because of tobacco?

Deaths from Smoking - WrongDiagnosis.com

Vs

http://http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Now what, grannie?

 

[OKgrannie]

Deaths from Smoking - WrongDiagnosis.com

Vs

http://http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Now what, grannie?

Are we supposed to compare 400,000 deaths from tobacco, likely lingering painful deaths, to 1,000,000 deaths of unfeeling unthinking zefs? 400,000 members of society, members of families, with the unknown qualities of embryoes? Which would you choose within your own family? Now add in the deaths from alcohol, and remember that most traffic accidents involve alcohol, and tell me education concerning tobacco and alcohol is futile.

 

[mac]

Are we supposed to compare 400,000 deaths from tobacco, likely lingering painful deaths, to 1,000,000 deaths of unfeeling unthinking zefs? 400,000 members of society, members of families, with the unknown qualities of embryoes? Which would you choose within your own family? Now add in the deaths from alcohol, and remember that most traffic accidents involve alcohol, and tell me education concerning tobacco and alcohol is futile.

You brought it up, not me. Personally, I see absolutely no relevant connection between the two. It is funny that you rounded down abortions by about the same amount of annual tobacco related deaths. Also, people decide to smoke, this is a conscious decision. No one decides to be aborted, do they?

Besides, I thought we already resolved the "unthinking, unfeeling fetus" fallacy?

 

[Jerry]

Do you agree with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other unfit persons? How do you propose to accomplish that?

I was pointing out the error in his logic with that post.

Of course I believe there should be reasonable restrictions on access to firearms.

 

[Jerry]

What does this have to do with women's health? Some unqualified incompetent self righteous idiot trying to talk a woman out of an abortion, is that your definition of women's health care? It is far closer to hypocrisy.

So what you're saying is that if the woman was bullied into having an abortion instead of coming to the decision on her own, that's acceptable.

 

[Jerry]

The same type of women that become emotionally distraught when they experience a miscariage.

When my wife had a miscarriage she became distraught. She could feel the child kick and move, we were adjusting our lives to having another, and suddenly it was taken away. We named the child, too, on the death certificate. We lost a child that day.

 

[Walter]

This is shocking!! :shock: Legislators in SD want to require women to go to a Crisis Pregnancy Center and get written confirmation they have been counseled before obtaining an abortion. Now these are the SAME CPC's that are well-known for distributing false information and being staffed with know-nothing volunteers. They are also operated by religious groups. Legislators want to require women to consult a religious group before a legal medical procedure!!!!!

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/02/i...d-in-sd-house/

Here are just a few highlights of the legislation: HB 1217 will require that before an abortion can be performed, a woman must first be seen by the acting abortion doctor and undergo a survey of potential health and emotional risks along with identifying potential coercion. Currently a woman speaks only to a receptionist when scheduling an abortion, then sees the doctor just before the procedure.

The bill then requires the woman get counseling from a pregnancy help center for further information on health related, and pregnancy issues. Again, a primary concern is that coercion may be a part of her decision to have the abortion, and trained counselors are best able to identify whether this is happening. A 72-hour waiting period allows for the survey and consultation to take place, before the abortion can move ahead.

Finally, if the woman determines to proceed with the abortion but later believes she was not properly evaluated by the abortion doctor and informed about the procedure, the bill allows for a cause of action allowing her to hold the abortion doctor accountable for his/her actions

And? What is it to YOU what the free people of any State vote or do not vote to accept as the law of "their" citizenship? You can't stand republican democracy in action? You must force your twisted sense of morality upon everyone? They have a name for such an ideology, its called TOTALITARIANISM.

 

[Jerry]

And? What is it to YOU what the free people of any State vote or do not vote to accept as the law of "their" citizenship? You can't stand republican democracy in action? You must force your twisted sense of morality upon everyone? They have a name for such an ideology, its called TOTALITARIANISM.

So...abortion is a right, and women should allegedly have free and easy access to that right. It follows, then, that one should have free and easy access to every right: religion, speech, and firearms.

 

[Jerry]

Could you not have done something since then?

If I had don something since then my clearance would have been revoked.

The same is true of my CCW. If I do something which would disqualify me from having a CCW, I loose it then-and-there. I don't wait for someone to run another check, it's gon that day.

That is because the government is slow and had you done something it takes time for your CCW to be revoked and your security clearance can not be confirmed by a gun dealer.

Well maybe in some states that's the case but in SD they keep up on it to the point of obsession.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

And? What is it to YOU what the free people of any State vote or do not vote to accept as the law of "their" citizenship? You can't stand republican democracy in action? You must force your twisted sense of morality upon everyone? They have a name for such an ideology, its called TOTALITARIANISM.

Regardless of what your personal view is (or mine or whoevers) - when it comes to legislation: One view is favored - the opposing view is not.

Those who are in opposition are having something forced upon them regardless of what it is (taxation or whatever)
Those who are in favor are having their views (in this case: an interpretation of a 'morality and abortion' issue) forced onto those others.

So: key difference between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in this sense is that Pro-life want *their* view to be *forced* onto others. But the "pro-choice" don't want to *force* anyone to *have* an abortion if they don't want to. Instead - they just want women to *have* the option if they decide it's in their best interest - ultimately leaving it up to the individual or couple to make the choice.

In contrast: an example of a forced-abortion rule is the 1-child related laws in China.

But it's not actually a voting-issue in our country. I don't recall any state in which it was VOTED on come election day. In our system when it's not a voted-on issue it is privy to legislation (which currently favors the choice) and our judiciary (which also favors our choice).

if you want to have a 'majority rules' stance on this issue then I suggest you push it to be placed up for vote and push things that way OR accept the resolve of our judiciary and legislative systems and accept what they have decided on within their assigned power.

 

[Jerry]

Regardless of what your personal view is (or mine or whoevers) - when it comes to legislation: One view is favored - the opposing view is not.

Those who are in opposition are having something forced upon them regardless of what it is (taxation or whatever)
Those who are in favor are having their views (in this case: an interpretation of a 'morality and abortion' issue) forced onto those others.

So: key difference between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in this sense is that Pro-life want *their* view to be *forced* onto others. But the "pro-choice" don't want to *force* anyone to *have* an abortion if they don't want to. Instead - they just want women to *have* the option if they decide it's in their best interest - ultimately leaving it up to the individual or couple to make the choice.

In contrast: an example of a forced-abortion rule is the 1-child related laws in China.

But it's not actually a voting-issue in our country. I don't recall any state in which it was VOTED on come election day. In our system when it's not a voted-on issue it is privy to legislation (which currently favors the choice) and our judiciary (which also favors our choice).

if you want to have a 'majority rules' stance on this issue then I suggest you push it to be placed up for vote and push things that way OR accept the resolve of our judiciary and legislative systems and accept what they have decided on within their assigned power.

I'd like to prove your premise correct:

If I'm the father who wants the child, you are forcing your views on me.

 

[mac]

Regardless of what your personal view is (or mine or whoevers) - when it comes to legislation: One view is favored - the opposing view is not.

Those who are in opposition are having something forced upon them regardless of what it is (taxation or whatever)
Those who are in favor are having their views (in this case: an interpretation of a 'morality and abortion' issue) forced onto those others.

So: key difference between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in this sense is that Pro-life want *their* view to be *forced* onto others. But the "pro-choice" don't want to *force* anyone to *have* an abortion if they don't want to. Instead - they just want women to *have* the option if they decide it's in their best interest - ultimately leaving it up to the individual or couple to make the choice.

In contrast: an example of a forced-abortion rule is the 1-child related laws in China.

But it's not actually a voting-issue in our country. I don't recall any state in which it was VOTED on come election day. In our system when it's not a voted-on issue it is privy to legislation (which currently favors the choice) and our judiciary (which also favors our choice).

if you want to have a 'majority rules' stance on this issue then I suggest you push it to be placed up for vote and push things that way OR accept the resolve of our judiciary and legislative systems and accept what they have decided on within their assigned power.

Would we in this day and age admit a state to our Union that allowed slavery under the premise that it would still be allowed slavery but be part of our country? Was allowing slavery in some states but prohibiting it in others a fair solution from our past?

 

[Jerry]

Would we in this day and age admit a state to our Union that allowed slavery under the premise that it would still be allowed slavery but be part of our country? Was allowing slavery in some states but prohibiting it in others a fair solution from our past?

Show us the constitutional amendment allowing or banning abortion.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'd like to prove your premise correct:

If I'm the father who wants the child, you are forcing your views on me.

Yeah, it can be viewed that way: which can be addressed in court if a man presses the issue. I'm not sure how common it is - but it is pursued. I've also heard situations where the mother's actions (and this is more common) endangers the life of her unborn and thus she faces jail-time, court - and measures to prevent her from continuing said behavior (like those who drink while pregnant - and so on).

There was also a case a few years ago where the girlfriend carried the child- though the boyfriend wanted her to pursue an abortion - and he actually won a case in court that she took ti 100% upon herself to have the child and thus he shouldn't be required to support the child. (my memory might be failing - but I think the premise of that case is that they were both in agreement on the abortion - and she changed her mind and didn't want it)

but all this points to why it's so much more important for people who choose to engage in sexual activity to be mature enough to handle the consequences and to actually keep reality in check.

Would we in this day and age admit a state to our Union that allowed slavery under the premise that it would still be allowed slavery but be part of our country? Was allowing slavery in some states but prohibiting it in others a fair solution from our past?

Well, no - because the courts and our legislature both made decisions in which such a thing is against our basic beliefs and values.

However - I feel it's misleading. I consider the active and knowledgable employment of illegal immigrants to be a form of supported and accepted slavery - sure, it's not 100% the same thing, but it's pretty close: it denies basic rights merely for the benefit of financial gain to the employer.

 

[mac]

Show us the constitutional amendment allowing or banning abortion.

I was going more the the route of "Why should we care what's legal or illegal in another state?"

I think you mistook my intention.

 

[mac]

Well, no - because the courts and our legislature both made decisions in which such a thing is against our basic beliefs and values.

Would you say that is because you (and the great majority of civilization) finds slavery immoral despite its benifits?

 

[OKgrannie]

And? What is it to YOU what the free people of any State vote or do not vote to accept as the law of "their" citizenship? You can't stand republican democracy in action? You must force your twisted sense of morality upon everyone? They have a name for such an ideology, its called TOTALITARIANISM.

Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority

Read more: totalitarianism: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

Requiring a citizen to visit a certain establishment and obtain written proof that was done before having a medical procedure would be a step toward totalitarianism. Opposition to that requirement would be supporting less government regulation and therefore could not be totalitarianism.

 

[Jerry]

Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority

Read more: totalitarianism: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

Requiring a citizen to visit a certain establishment and obtain written proof that was done before having a medical procedure would be a step toward totalitarianism. Opposition to that requirement would be supporting less government regulation and therefore could not be totalitarianism.

And not requiring it is a step towards anarchy.

When I walk out my door, I'm taking a step towards a storage facility, but that doesn't mean I'm going to the storage facility. You need to do a lot better than show one lil step. You need a well documented trend over a long period of time.

 

[prometeus]

I was pointing out the error in his logic with that post.

Of course I believe there should be reasonable restrictions on access to firearms.

I realize that, I just wanted your view on the issue even at the expense of digressing.

 

[prometeus]

So what you're saying is that if the woman was bullied into having an abortion instead of coming to the decision on her own, that's acceptable.

I am saying that the decision is her to make and anyone SHE wishes to make part of it.

 

[prometeus]

So...abortion is a right, and women should allegedly have free and easy access to that right. It follows, then, that one should have free and easy access to every right: religion, speech, and firearms.

And we do so far and are grateful for it.

 

[prometeus]

If I had don something since then my clearance would have been revoked.

Not really. Fact of the mater is that it does take time, sometimes a lot of time.

The same is true of my CCW. If I do something which would disqualify me from having a CCW, I loose it then-and-there. I don't wait for someone to run another check, it's gon that day.

Not really. Again, in the lest it takes time and the accusation may or may not result in conviction.

Well maybe in some states that's the case but in SD they keep up on it to the point of obsession.

Even obsessions can be slow at times.

 

[Jerry]

I am saying that the decision is her to make and anyone SHE wishes to make part of it.

So you're saying that a woman who is bullied into getting an abortion wants an abusive and manipulative boyfriend? Do you base your theory on the principal of learned behavior, that she seeks out abusive men because she grew up with an abusive father and seeks familiarity.