It takes two to tango. And if unplanned and unwanted children are born they are a damn site more expensive than the relatively small expense, by comparison, of a termination. I guess ffg, that I think that if the state and therefore taxpayers in Canada are paying for women's terminations then perhaps level some of the upset at the expense at the other half of the equation. That's all.
It takes two to tango. And if unplanned and unwanted children are born they are a damn site more expensive than the relatively small expense, by comparison, of a termination. I guess ffg, that I think that if the state and therefore taxpayers in Canada are paying for women's terminations then perhaps level some of the upset at the expense at the other half of the equation. That's all.
So let me get this straight: you think it's good to force people to pay for abortions because, without that abortion, you'd have to force them to pay for other things? And you refer to this as "taking two to tango"???
while the SC laws wouldn't impact SD, they're having issues of their own. all of this just shows that just paying attention to roe v. wade doesn't matter. if you have any interest in these reproductive choice issues, look into what your local government is doing about it--many of them are trying to pass, and have passed, legislation that chips away at the freedoms granted by roe. and if you're voting, don't let your candidate hide behind 'oh, i wouldn't support an overturn of roe'. that doesn't really mean anything anymore.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
while the SC laws wouldn't impact SD, they're having issues of their own. all of this just shows that just paying attention to roe v. wade doesn't matter. if you have any interest in these reproductive choice issues, look into what your local government is doing about it--many of them are trying to pass, and have passed, legislation that chips away at the freedoms granted by roe. and if you're voting, don't let your candidate hide behind 'oh, i wouldn't support an overturn of roe'. that doesn't really mean anything anymore.
So let me get this straight: you think it's good to force people to pay for abortions because, without that abortion, you'd have to force them to pay for other things? And you refer to this as "taking two to tango"???
My objection is at the constant levelling of accusation at the woman in these situations. When clearly she does not get pregnant on her own. AND if the man that participated in the conception is not going to face up to his responsibilities both morally or financially then I see no reason to ONLY level financial or moral concerns at the woman. If people where genuine about wanting to "solve" the issue of forcing other people to pay for women's abortions then they'd start dna testing and taxing the men who are contributing to the problem also. As far as I can see this is a completely reasonable action to take. It stops "other people" from being "forced" to pay for women's abortions and it levels the responsibility directly where it lies.
My objection is at the constant levelling of accusation at the woman in these situations. When clearly she does not get pregnant on her own.
I'm perfectly fine with "accusing" the father as well, if that's what you're getting at. Regardless, however, the woman must still own her choices and bear the responsibilities of them. Aside from a rape, you can't absolve a pregnant woman of her pregnancy just because a man was also involved.
AND if the man that participated in the conception is not going to face up to his responsibilities both morally or financially then I see no reason to ONLY level financial or moral concerns at the woman.
Well, I agree with this in principle, but here's the thing. You either own it, or you both own it. There's no in between. So if you want the man to "face up to his responsibilities", then you better define them. You're probably not going to do that, however, because that would imply that he would have some right to be involved in your abortion choices, since you'd have the right to be involved in his choices.
If people where genuine about wanting to "solve" the issue of forcing other people to pay for women's abortions then they'd start dna testing and taxing the men who are contributing to the problem also. As far as I can see this is a completely reasonable action to take. It stops "other people" from being "forced" to pay for women's abortions and it levels the responsibility directly where it lies.
Huh? This is scary.
If you want to "solve" the issue of forcing other people to pay for women's abortion, just stop forcing them to do so. Remove abortion from Medicaid in Canada. It's not complicated.
At that point, those who want abortions will have to take on the burden of paying for them. And that's exactly where it should be. And by the logic of "my body, my choice", that falls on the woman.
I'm perfectly fine with "accusing" the father as well, if that's what you're getting at. Regardless, however, the woman must still own her choices and bear the responsibilities of them. Aside from a rape, you can't absolve a pregnant woman of her pregnancy just because a man was also involved.
Well, I agree with this in principle, but here's the thing. You either own it, or you both own it. There's no in between. So if you want the man to "face up to his responsibilities", then you better define them. You're probably not going to do that, however, because that would imply that he would have some right to be involved in your abortion choices, since you'd have the right to be involved in his choices.
Huh? This is scary.
If you want to "solve" the issue of forcing other people to pay for women's abortion, just stop forcing them to do so. Remove abortion from Medicaid in Canada. It's not complicated.
At that point, those who want abortions will have to take on the burden of paying for them. And that's exactly where it should be. And by the logic of "my body, my choice", that falls on the woman.
Well I don't agree. And quite frankly I can't be bothered arguing about it either. So you hold your views ffg and I'll hold mine.
Well I don't agree. And quite frankly I can't be bothered arguing about it either.
Sorry to bother you.
So you hold your views ffg and I'll hold mine.
With all due respect, this makes no sense. In a context wherein you support forcing people to pay for abortions, you don't really seem interested in allowing me to hold my views.
With all due respect, this makes no sense. In a context wherein you support forcing people to pay for abortions, you don't really seem interested in allowing me to hold my views.
You haven't bothered me. Ok? And I hope I haven't bothered you.
And I'm sorry if you can't make any sense out of what I'm saying.
Simply put you believe what you believe and I have no problem with that.
I believe what I believe. End of story. I have NO desire to argue this same tired argument over and over again in my leisure time.
It never advances. No one ever sees the other's point of view. And it will go on ad infinitum tell the ends of time. I don't need to continually participate in the debate. Sorry if you find that offensive or rude in some way. It is certainly not my intention. I just don't want to argue.
i see no problem with having women considering abortion view an ultrasound of the developing fetus. Honestly what are opponets afraid of? That they may actually reconsider? That viewing an actual ultrasound would dispel some of the "nothing but a glob of goo" bullshit the hardcore abortion rights crowd likes to puke out? All this will do is help a woman (or man) make a truly informed decision. i don't think the bill is designed to revoke a woman's right to abortion or lay a guilt trip as some have accused. i think it is designed to help them make an informed "choice", and potentially reduce the number of abortions while keeping it SAFE and legal. (Exactly where efforts should be directed IMO).
This whole thread is so Citizen Ruth.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i see no problem with having women considering abortion view an ultrasound of the developing fetus. Honestly what are opponets afraid of? That they may actually reconsider? That viewing an actual ultrasound would dispel some of the "nothing but a glob of goo" bullshit the hardcore abortion rights crowd likes to puke out? All this will do is help a woman (or man) make a truly informed decision. i don't think the bill is designed to revoke a woman's right to abortion or lay a guilt trip as some have accused. i think it is designed to help them make an informed "choice", and potentially reduce the number of abortions while keeping it SAFE and legal. (Exactly where efforts should be directed IMO).
This whole thread is so Citizen Ruth.
I don't mind just as long as they do what hippiemom said also. Let the flow on information be equal from both sides. And let it flow truthfully.
I don't mind just as long as they do what hippiemom said also. Let the flow on information be equal from both sides. And let it flow truthfully.
Saying that there are both sides here makes it sound like pro-choice is the middle ground between pro-life and pro-abortion. This thread shows, in spots, why I hesitate to label myself pro-choice. I know I'm not pro-life but I don't want to be lumped in with the opposite side of that either.
that is flat out emotional blackmail. it's obvious that most of these women already have their mind made up or else they wouldn't be seeking the procedure to begin with, so to force them to look at ultrasound pictures would just be adding more insult and pain to the experiance.
does a man that goes into a clinic for a vasectomy have to look at ultrasound pictures of his junk before he gets snipped? of course not. there's no reason to do it and there's not any reason to do it before a abortion either
I agree. Huge surprise this measure came from a southern state.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
i see no problem with having women considering abortion view an ultrasound of the developing fetus. Honestly what are opponets afraid of? That they may actually reconsider? That viewing an actual ultrasound would dispel some of the "nothing but a glob of goo" bullshit the hardcore abortion rights crowd likes to puke out? All this will do is help a woman (or man) make a truly informed decision. i don't think the bill is designed to revoke a woman's right to abortion or lay a guilt trip as some have accused. i think it is designed to help them make an informed "choice", and potentially reduce the number of abortions while keeping it SAFE and legal. (Exactly where efforts should be directed IMO).
This whole thread is so Citizen Ruth.
what if she cant afford the ultrasound or the delay it would take to get one done?
i find it interesting that the only people on here saying this is a totally reasonable measure are men. and as hippiemom pointed out, this has nothing to do with an informed decision becos this law does nothing to ensure a full, educated decision. what about the fact that it cant feel pain until x point? has no nervous system? etc, etc. this is nothing more than, as someone pointed out, emotional manipulation and blackmail. dont try to hide behind some "informed decision" bullshit. you know that's not what this is about.
Saying that there are both sides here makes it sound like pro-choice is the middle ground between pro-life and pro-abortion. This thread shows, in spots, why I hesitate to label myself pro-choice. I know I'm not pro-life but I don't want to be lumped in with the opposite side of that either.
There are two sides aren't there? You're for it, or against it. It seems that abortion is one of those issues where there is no middle ground. (Expection: Rape)
And you don't have to label yourself anything, really. And even if you decide to label yourself pro-whatever, it doesnt mean you have to show up at their protests.
There are two sides aren't there? You're for it, or against it. It seems that abortion is one of those issues where there is no middle ground. (Expection: Rape)
And you don't have to label yourself anything, really. And even if you decide to label yourself pro-whatever, it doesnt mean you have to show up at their protests.
what if she cant afford the ultrasound or the delay it would take to get one done?
i find it interesting that the only people on here saying this is a totally reasonable measure are men. and as hippiemom pointed out, this has nothing to do with an informed decision becos this law does nothing to ensure a full, educated decision. what about the fact that it cant feel pain until x point? has no nervous system? etc, etc. this is nothing more than, as someone pointed out, emotional manipulation and blackmail. dont try to hide behind some "informed decision" bullshit. you know that's not what this is about.
I think the state should pay for the ultrasound. Plain and simple. They enacted the law that has absolutely no relationship to the medical procedure itself, but it it will still be mandated, therefore, the state foots the bill.
I don't mind just as long as they do what hippiemom said also. Let the flow on information be equal from both sides. And let it flow truthfully.
i don't disagree. i think we need to stress "TRUTHFULLY". The inability to feel pain or absence of any self realization is at least somewhat speculative, however. Besides, i think the ability to see with ones own eyes the developing fetus could potentially have much more impact on someone's decision than would any speculative reassurance that "it isn't going to feel it anyway". THAT is what opponets to the Bill are afraid of, i think. i'm not quite sure i understand the tendency of some here to scream about "choice" while insisting on limiting a womens ability to make an truly, and fully INFORMED "choice". Once again i reference "Citizen Ruth".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
For shits and giggles the first woman who they do this to should tell them to have the ultrasound on for the operation too. Just to make sure the job is done properly.
I like how some are putting the Cdn people paying for abortions. If the woman who is not guilted into having the child is going to sit on welfare. Do tell me exactly what your tax dollar is now doing.
that's just lovely, especially the sections spelling out the hoops that the woman would have to jump through in order to prove she was the victim of rape and/or incest. shit, they pretty much require video footage of the attack. also, what's the deal with law enforcement agencies retaining a dna sample and medical records? i assume it probably has to do with evidence gathering for the rape/incest investigation, but it sounds a bit troublesome to me.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
I'd prefer supporting neither abortions or welfare. But, personally, I'll take expensive welfare over cheap abortions.
I would prefer to support neither as well. But I truly don't believe your second statement.
What if the state said: All people who are pro-life and for this bill should sign up on a website. We'll divey up the bill of all the sonograms for the unwanted pregnancies we take and then bill you all for them. That'll be $400 please. I would love to watch as everyone says, "WTF, I'm not paying that for all those sonograms. Everyone should pay for them. Or the person having them should pay for it."
It reminds me of this guy I worked with. He was so pro-life until this girl he was lightly dating thought she was pregnant. He completely freaked out when he thought he might have to pay support for the child until it was 18. He would have carried her on his back to get her the abortion.
I personally think it's a stupid idea to give a sonogram for unwanted pregnancies. If a person feels like seeing what a fetus looks like at that stage let them use the free internet. I'm sure they can find all the pics they want. It's not like at four weeks they can say, "O but look, the fetus has your nose." It's just so ridiculous.
"Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
I would prefer to support neither as well. But I truly don't believe your second statement.
First, I'm against this law. In case that wasn't clear.
Second, my statement is entirely truthful. I see both welfare and abortion and morally reprehensible. However, I think of welfare as less morally reprehensible, so I'd rather be forced to pay for it than be forced to pay for abortions. The actual costs aren't relevant.
It's like saying executing criminals in a courtroom would be better than putting them in jail because it's theoretically cheaper. I find both executions and prisons morally reprehensible, but I'd take the prisons, even if they're more expensive.
Because that is what they are told to feel by the same people who rail against gay marriage while chugging cock in their pastoral robe.
This is an individuals own personal decision and the federal, state and local government should stay out of it.
Really? The only reason they feel guilty is because other people tell them to?
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
Hehe...that's a question you likely won't get an answer to. The hypocrisy of the actual answer, however, wouldn't justify the insanity of these types of laws.
I disagree. What are people afraid of, here? Compassion?
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
See, I know better than to have an opinion on anything to do with women.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Well I'm bloody glad to be an Aussie girl and not from South Carolina that's for sure!!!
Edit: oops!! sorry!! Freudian slip!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
If you were from South Dakota, this law would have absolutely no bearing on your life.
It takes two to tango. And if unplanned and unwanted children are born they are a damn site more expensive than the relatively small expense, by comparison, of a termination. I guess ffg, that I think that if the state and therefore taxpayers in Canada are paying for women's terminations then perhaps level some of the upset at the expense at the other half of the equation. That's all.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Thanks. Sorry.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
So let me get this straight: you think it's good to force people to pay for abortions because, without that abortion, you'd have to force them to pay for other things? And you refer to this as "taking two to tango"???
actually they're trying to ban and criminalize abortion in SD:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/bills/HB1293H.pdf
while the SC laws wouldn't impact SD, they're having issues of their own. all of this just shows that just paying attention to roe v. wade doesn't matter. if you have any interest in these reproductive choice issues, look into what your local government is doing about it--many of them are trying to pass, and have passed, legislation that chips away at the freedoms granted by roe. and if you're voting, don't let your candidate hide behind 'oh, i wouldn't support an overturn of roe'. that doesn't really mean anything anymore.
cross the river to the eastside
I knew that was a reason for the easy mistake.
My objection is at the constant levelling of accusation at the woman in these situations. When clearly she does not get pregnant on her own. AND if the man that participated in the conception is not going to face up to his responsibilities both morally or financially then I see no reason to ONLY level financial or moral concerns at the woman. If people where genuine about wanting to "solve" the issue of forcing other people to pay for women's abortions then they'd start dna testing and taxing the men who are contributing to the problem also. As far as I can see this is a completely reasonable action to take. It stops "other people" from being "forced" to pay for women's abortions and it levels the responsibility directly where it lies.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm perfectly fine with "accusing" the father as well, if that's what you're getting at. Regardless, however, the woman must still own her choices and bear the responsibilities of them. Aside from a rape, you can't absolve a pregnant woman of her pregnancy just because a man was also involved.
Well, I agree with this in principle, but here's the thing. You either own it, or you both own it. There's no in between. So if you want the man to "face up to his responsibilities", then you better define them. You're probably not going to do that, however, because that would imply that he would have some right to be involved in your abortion choices, since you'd have the right to be involved in his choices.
Huh? This is scary.
If you want to "solve" the issue of forcing other people to pay for women's abortion, just stop forcing them to do so. Remove abortion from Medicaid in Canada. It's not complicated.
At that point, those who want abortions will have to take on the burden of paying for them. And that's exactly where it should be. And by the logic of "my body, my choice", that falls on the woman.
Well I don't agree. And quite frankly I can't be bothered arguing about it either. So you hold your views ffg and I'll hold mine.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Sorry to bother you.
With all due respect, this makes no sense. In a context wherein you support forcing people to pay for abortions, you don't really seem interested in allowing me to hold my views.
You haven't bothered me. Ok? And I hope I haven't bothered you.
And I'm sorry if you can't make any sense out of what I'm saying.
Simply put you believe what you believe and I have no problem with that.
I believe what I believe. End of story. I have NO desire to argue this same tired argument over and over again in my leisure time.
It never advances. No one ever sees the other's point of view. And it will go on ad infinitum tell the ends of time. I don't need to continually participate in the debate. Sorry if you find that offensive or rude in some way. It is certainly not my intention. I just don't want to argue.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
This whole thread is so Citizen Ruth.
I don't mind just as long as they do what hippiemom said also. Let the flow on information be equal from both sides. And let it flow truthfully.
Saying that there are both sides here makes it sound like pro-choice is the middle ground between pro-life and pro-abortion. This thread shows, in spots, why I hesitate to label myself pro-choice. I know I'm not pro-life but I don't want to be lumped in with the opposite side of that either.
I agree. Huge surprise this measure came from a southern state.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
what if she cant afford the ultrasound or the delay it would take to get one done?
i find it interesting that the only people on here saying this is a totally reasonable measure are men. and as hippiemom pointed out, this has nothing to do with an informed decision becos this law does nothing to ensure a full, educated decision. what about the fact that it cant feel pain until x point? has no nervous system? etc, etc. this is nothing more than, as someone pointed out, emotional manipulation and blackmail. dont try to hide behind some "informed decision" bullshit. you know that's not what this is about.
There are two sides aren't there? You're for it, or against it. It seems that abortion is one of those issues where there is no middle ground. (Expection: Rape)
And you don't have to label yourself anything, really. And even if you decide to label yourself pro-whatever, it doesnt mean you have to show up at their protests.
It seems that there really are three sides.
I think the state should pay for the ultrasound. Plain and simple. They enacted the law that has absolutely no relationship to the medical procedure itself, but it it will still be mandated, therefore, the state foots the bill.
i don't disagree. i think we need to stress "TRUTHFULLY". The inability to feel pain or absence of any self realization is at least somewhat speculative, however. Besides, i think the ability to see with ones own eyes the developing fetus could potentially have much more impact on someone's decision than would any speculative reassurance that "it isn't going to feel it anyway". THAT is what opponets to the Bill are afraid of, i think. i'm not quite sure i understand the tendency of some here to scream about "choice" while insisting on limiting a womens ability to make an truly, and fully INFORMED "choice". Once again i reference "Citizen Ruth".
I like how some are putting the Cdn people paying for abortions. If the woman who is not guilted into having the child is going to sit on welfare. Do tell me exactly what your tax dollar is now doing.
What a ridiculous generalization this is.
I'd prefer supporting neither abortions or welfare. But, personally, I'll take expensive welfare over cheap abortions.
that's just lovely, especially the sections spelling out the hoops that the woman would have to jump through in order to prove she was the victim of rape and/or incest. shit, they pretty much require video footage of the attack. also, what's the deal with law enforcement agencies retaining a dna sample and medical records? i assume it probably has to do with evidence gathering for the rape/incest investigation, but it sounds a bit troublesome to me.
What if the state said: All people who are pro-life and for this bill should sign up on a website. We'll divey up the bill of all the sonograms for the unwanted pregnancies we take and then bill you all for them. That'll be $400 please. I would love to watch as everyone says, "WTF, I'm not paying that for all those sonograms. Everyone should pay for them. Or the person having them should pay for it."
It reminds me of this guy I worked with. He was so pro-life until this girl he was lightly dating thought she was pregnant. He completely freaked out when he thought he might have to pay support for the child until it was 18. He would have carried her on his back to get her the abortion.
I personally think it's a stupid idea to give a sonogram for unwanted pregnancies. If a person feels like seeing what a fetus looks like at that stage let them use the free internet. I'm sure they can find all the pics they want. It's not like at four weeks they can say, "O but look, the fetus has your nose." It's just so ridiculous.
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
First, I'm against this law. In case that wasn't clear.
Second, my statement is entirely truthful. I see both welfare and abortion and morally reprehensible. However, I think of welfare as less morally reprehensible, so I'd rather be forced to pay for it than be forced to pay for abortions. The actual costs aren't relevant.
It's like saying executing criminals in a courtroom would be better than putting them in jail because it's theoretically cheaper. I find both executions and prisons morally reprehensible, but I'd take the prisons, even if they're more expensive.
Really? The only reason they feel guilty is because other people tell them to?
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
I disagree. What are people afraid of, here? Compassion?
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try