Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

gluten919 wrote:

yet another reason why pearl jam doesn't play in the south

Yet another reason why Pearl Jam MUST play the south (Although I've given up hope they will now.)

Does this also mean that proponents of this plan will be stepping up Adoptions, make adopting local children easier all over and find ways to keep biological parents away from children they give up for adoption?

It's personally odd to me that it's easier to adopt a vietnamese baby or eastern european baby than it is to adopt an American, especially with such a focus on illegalising abortion.

It would probably also help to step up sexual education in public schools and teach people the proper ways to use birth control devices. I'm going to go out on a limb and say...that's not part of the plan right? If it's not it's fucking stupid. Creating another impoverished, malnourished mouth for Social Services to feed, clothe and watch out for is not my idea of helping humanity.

Im completely disgusted and appalled....Im proud to be a Canadian woman...

farfromglorified wrote:

You're proud that you can force other people to pay for your abortions?

Of course, because so many of these pregnancies are immaculate conceptions!! :eek:

Quiet Rhythm wrote:

Im completely disgusted and appalled....Im proud to be a Canadian woman...

Well I'm bloody glad to be an Aussie girl and not from South Carolina that's for sure!!!

Edit: oops!! sorry!! Freudian slip!!

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't understand this.

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.

Jeanie wrote:

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"???

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

I knew that was a reason for the easy mistake.

Jeanie wrote:

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.