For all his barely-coherent hysteria, shadowrelm has somehow, miraculously, managed a glancing blow at the edge of the truth here.
Let's be real. This has nothing to do with informed consent. The idea that women who know they are pregnant don't understand what is actually inside them is absurd. While I am sure there are some women who refuse to let their minds go there, most are already fully aware of what they are carrying and what it might potentially become. They have weighed the options already.
So what is this mandated ultrasound supposed to accomplish?
Simply put--it's emotional blackmail. It's intended, at best, to browbeat women into changing their minds, and at worst, to punish them psychologically for NOT changing their minds, by shattering whatever detachment they've managed to acheive.
I can tell you from personal experience, seeing the ultrasound changes things. Before I had my 18-week ultrasound, I knew that this baby was something I WOULD love. But the baby, and the love, was an abstract, future concept that hadn't yet materialized. Once I saw him on the screen though, saw him waving his little hands around his face, it was no longer abstract. In that instant, I fell in love.
What is the purpose of making a woman who KNOWS that she cannot continue her pregnancy, for whatever her reason may be, experience that? It's not going to change her situation. It's not going to make her more capable of supporting a child. It's not going to change the minds of the parents who are making her get an abortion or get kicked out of the house. It's not abate the censure of her community. It's not going to change the fact that, if she completes the pregnancy, it will adversely impact her school and/or employment. It's not going to change the mind of her partner, who may have declared he wants nothing to do with having a child. It's not going to change the fact that she's got a condition which makes carrying a pregnancy to term hazardous to her health. It's not going to change the fact that she and her spouse are both carriers of a genetic disease which will likely be passed on to their child, which lead them to the decision not to have children in the first place. It's not going to change the fact that the child has a defect incompatible with life.
The only thing it's going to change is how she feels about the potential child she is carrying inside her. And it's not the pervue of our government or medical system to dictate how a woman should FEEL when she makes a choice.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- florida and abortion....
florida and abortion....Follow
Ambrya wrote:
LurkinAround wrote:
You've got a to draw a line on abortion somewhere.
Well, no, you don't have to, but Roe v. Wade did specifically limit the scope of the ruling to abortions up to the point of viability (generally considered 24 weeks with present technology, was 27 weeks for quite some time, could go down to 21-22 weeks considering a 22-week old preemie made the news by going home from the hospital a couple months ago.) Most states choose to do this in their own laws, with at least one exception (Kansas, of all places!)
Quote:
Personally, I feel aborting during the first trimester to mid-second trimester is acceptable. This way all of the extreme cases mentioned in this thread (like rape, the 14 year old, etc.) will have more then enough time to rectify their situation. After this point though I feel that you have reached a point where a women knows damn well that she is pregnant and really has no excuse for not aborting earlier. Late-term abortion is tantamount to leaving the child at the top of a mountain.
And what about women who are told, "if you carry this pregnancy to term, it will kill you?" Or parents who are informed that their child has a defect which is either not compatible with life (baby will be stillborn or die shortly after birth) or which will result in the child so debilitated he or she will never have the possibility of a pain-free life? Often these sorts of situations aren't detected until or after the deadline established by the state for legal abortion.
You can't paint this in terms of black and white--the shades of gray are innumerable. Spend an hour reading the stories at Aheartbreakingchoice.com if you want a new perspective on how taking a one-size-fits-all approach to "okay, we're going to restrict abortions at this point in gestation" ends up denying the procedure to the people who actually end up needing it the most, and making what is already a tumultuous time even more traumatic.
Quote:
P.S. I don't want to be a grammar **** or anything but, shadowrelm, can you at least capitalize the first word of your sentences. It's tough taking your posts with a sense of legitimacy when you articulate yourself like that.
Give it up. People have been trying for years. Shadowrelm doesn't care how he presents himself--he doesn't even care if people respond. He has no interest in a dialogue. He basically just posts to gratify himself with his own hysterical rantings.
Interesting post. I visited the site you recommended and read the stories on the front page and learned several things. It was a very interesting perspective on abortion.
A couple of things struck me. First, was the fact that all of the cases I read (everything in the featured articles section, about 13 stories, and the 5 Kansas stories) the women were perfectly aware of their situations and, in reference to the original post, the patients were perfectly aware of their decisions and had scene the child before they induced the birth. No law requires.
Second, it struck me how all the women in the article never referred to the child as "it" or any other non-organic term. In fact, many of the women their named their child as labor was induced. That really strikes me that the mothers are referring to the children as more feeling then they would an arm or leg.
Third, was the women who said she sent her child back to God. I dunno seems like a lot of contradictions with that. I'm just trying to see how she justifies rejecting what God gave her, that is if she accepts that God works in mysterious ways. Just a thought.
Fourth, each of the cases I read were all before the 24 week deadline (except for 2 of the Kansas stories). I understand that the issue is not black and white and their is no one size fits all solution. That is why, as is mentioned by one of the articles, women can go to a review board (I believe the woman from Maryland attempted this) and, I assume from the article, can get themselves an exemption from the law. If doctors can determine that the baby will be highly dysfunctional at birth then termination is the right thing to do (but this is where we reach the point where dysfunctional must be defined). Although in this case the Maryland law was 21 weeks and judging from the content of the stories the line should be drawn a couple of weeks longer.
Again I understand that there are gray areas in abortion. But, in an effort to stop late term abortions from becoming some type of national contraceptive the line still needs to be drawn (I would say somewhere between 24 and 27 weeks judging from the articles and the diagnosis's involved). Medical review boards can handle specific case by case basis and the issues you brought up can be resolved.
Finally, thanks for the protip on Shadow :D
LurkinAround wrote:
Interesting post. I visited the site you recommended and read the stories on the front page and learned several things. It was a very interesting perspective on abortion.
A couple of things struck me. First, was the fact that all of the cases I read (everything in the featured articles section, about 13 stories, and the 5 Kansas stories) the women were perfectly aware of their situations and, in reference to the original post, the patients were perfectly aware of their decisions and had scene the child before they induced the birth. No law requires.
Second, it struck me how all the women in the article never referred to the child as "it" or any other non-organic term. In fact, many of the women their named their child as labor was induced. That really strikes me that the mothers are referring to the children as more feeling then they would an arm or leg.
Of course. These are stories about DESIRED pregnancies (whether intended or not.) The site is specifically about incidences where couples made the decision to terminate a pregnancy they would have otherwise carried to term, due to severe fetal defect. If the couples have been going along intending to carry the pregnancy to term, then of course it would make sense that they would have seen an ultrasound, come up with a name, and begun to form an emotional attachment to the baby prior to getting hit with the news that the baby is either non-viable, or has a defect which would condemn it to a life of agony.
Quote:
Third, was the women who said she sent her child back to God. I dunno seems like a lot of contradictions with that. I'm just trying to see how she justifies rejecting what God gave her, that is if she accepts that God works in mysterious ways. Just a thought.
Again, this is one-size-fits-all thinking. If a woman believes in God, she can't believe in mercifully ending a pregnancy that is going to result in a dead or severely disabled baby, is that what you are trying to say? You have no idea what these women's personal faith entails, what they believe their God is or is not okay with. Only they themselves know that. Belief in God is not necessarily mutually exclusive with acceptance of abortion nor with the idea of euthanasia. In fact, one of the best arguments I've seen to counter the anti-euthanasia argument that if God determines someone should suffer a prolonged death, then we shouldn't interfere, is that it usually took 3 days or so for a crucifixion victim to die, and yet Jesus died in a single afternoon, so obviously God is not opposed to allowing a premature end to a long, painful, protracted death.
Quote:
Fourth, each of the cases I read were all before the 24 week deadline (except for 2 of the Kansas stories).
Deadline varies from state to state. Some it's as low as 20 weeks.
Quote:
I understand that the issue is not black and white and their is no one size fits all solution. That is why, as is mentioned by one of the articles, women can go to a review board (I believe the woman from Maryland attempted this) and, I assume from the article, can get themselves an exemption from the law.
Actually, not so much. From the Maryland story:
Quote:
Maryland does not allow any late-term terminations for poor prenatal diagnosis. My high-risk doctor tried to have it brought before the ethics committee at John Hopkins but because this was not genetic, just a fluke of nature, they would not even consider it.
There's really not a lot of recourse in these situations for people facing this sort of decision. A lot of time, the Level II ultrasound isn't done until 20-22 weeks (mine was done at 18, but that's a bit early.) If the ultrasound picks up an anomaly, the next step is probably going to be an amnio. That sort of a genetic analysis takes time. By the time the results from that come back, a couple might be past their deadline, or have mere days to decide what to do, while they're in the middle of their own shock and grief.
Quote:
If doctors can determine that the baby will be highly dysfunctional at birth then termination is the right thing to do (but this is where we reach the point where dysfunctional must be defined).
Yes, but by whom? A lot of pro-life folks will shrug these cases off as, "where there's life, there's hope" without consideration to the quality of that life. Who has the right to tell a couple they MUST raise a severely disabled child who lives in constant agony? In the case of the Maryland story, again:
Quote:
When they told us what kind of life our baby girl had in store for her it was like a bad dream. She would most likely not survive natural labor and would have to be delivered via C-section at John Hopkins. She would be blue from lack of oxygen and would have had to be immediately hooked to life support. She would have required a minimum of three surgeries to even enable her to take her first breath. After the surgeries her lungs would have still only been at a quarter of normal capacity and she would have been brain damaged from the lack of oxygen.
They were not sure how long she would live after the surgeries. One week, one year or five years. The only thing that was certain is that she would have had a very short life that would have been spent in and out of hospitals.
They were not sure how long she would live after the surgeries. One week, one year or five years. The only thing that was certain is that she would have had a very short life that would have been spent in and out of hospitals.
Not only is the child in this situation facing, at most, a few short years full of agony, and not only are her parents and older sister facing months or years of emotional trauma and upheaval, but there is also the fact that carrying even a healthy, normal pregnancy--much less a defective one--to term poses risks to the mother's health and well-being (and c-section, which was stated would be required in this particular incidence, increases those risks as well as poses problems for future fertility and pregnancies.) They are also probably facing considerable time missed from work to care for the child, hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses, costly supportive care assistance, the sort of social estrangement and isolation parents of disabled children often encounter as other people distance themselves because it's just too uncomfortable to be around them and see the child in her condition...
The list of ramifications doesn't end--who has the right to tell them they MUST go through that? That the mother must risk her physical health to carry to term a child who will be born unable to survive without extreme medical assistance? That the family must bankrupt themselves caring for this child? Who has the right to arbitrarily decide whose fetus is defective enough that the family can't be expected to complete the pregnancy, while someone else's fetus is just barely viable enough that the parents MUST go through all of that? Why should that decision be allowed to be placed in the hands of anyone except the parents of the fetus in question, who know best what sort of challenge they are and aren't capable of facing.
Quote:
Although in this case the Maryland law was 21 weeks and judging from the content of the stories the line should be drawn a couple of weeks longer.
At the very least. Even 24 weeks is really too little time.
Quote:
Again I understand that there are gray areas in abortion. But, in an effort to stop late term abortions from becoming some type of national contraceptive the line still needs to be drawn (I would say somewhere between 24 and 27 weeks judging from the articles and the diagnosis's involved).
And this is the fallacy of the late-term abortion argument. It assumes that late-term abortions are done for contraceptive purposes. This is VERY RARELY true. The vast majority of abortions happen prior to 16 weeks. I don't remember the exact figure, I believe it's close to 2% that happen after 20 weeks. And most of those happen due to difficulties with the mother's health and fetal defect. By restricting late-term abortions, access is denied to those who are in the most legitimate need of it.
Quote:
Medical review boards can handle specific case by case basis and the issues you brought up can be resolved.
You want to put cases of this delicate and personal nature in the hands of bureaucrats and expect that everything will work out for the best?
My...that's certainly...optimistic of you.
Ambrya wrote:
Lurkinaround wrote:
Medical review boards can handle specific case by case basis and the issues you brought up can be resolved.
You want to put cases of this delicate and personal nature in the hands of bureaucrats and expect that everything will work out for the best?
My...that's certainly...optimistic of you.
Not to mention that we're assuming that the medical review boards would be able to investigate, deliberate, and come up with a decision in the timely manner that such a revision would require.
Again, this is one-size-fits-all thinking. If a woman believes in God, she can't believe in mercifully ending a pregnancy that is going to result in a dead or severely disabled baby, is that what you are trying to say? You have no idea what these women's personal faith entails, what they believe their God is or is not okay with. Only they themselves know that. Belief in God is not necessarily mutually exclusive with acceptance of abortion nor with the idea of euthanasia. In fact, one of the best arguments I've seen to counter the anti-euthanasia argument that if God determines someone should suffer a prolonged death, then we shouldn't interfere, is that it usually took 3 days or so for a crucifixion victim to die, and yet Jesus died in a single afternoon, so obviously God is not opposed to allowing a premature end to a long, painful, protracted death.
If this women believes in God, then she must believe in the concept of the soul in some form or another. It seems to me that she had already accepted that her child had a soul. If she accepts this fact, then she must accept that in killing her child she is taking a life. That was the issue that was crossing my mind when reading into her story. It seems to me that if she accepts that her child has a soul then she must also acknowledge the fact that thou hath killed.
Deadline varies from state to state. Some it's as low as 20 weeks.
I understand this. "The Maryland law is 21 weeks." It needs to be changed.
By the time the results from that come back, a couple might be past their deadline
Again, understood. The reason for a review board would be to analyze a case that had passed the deadline. Although, to say that they could not review a case because it was not genetic is wrong and is concerning.
Yes, but by whom? A lot of pro-life folks will shrug these cases off as, "where there's life, there's hope" without consideration to the quality of that life. Who has the right to tell a couple they MUST raise a severely disabled child who lives in constant agony?
I intended my statement to reflect more along the lines of what would be considered dysfunctional. If a child will be born autistic does that qualify it for abortion?
Also, if you are going to ask "Who has the right to tell a couple they MUST raise a severely disabled child who lives in constant agony?" I would have to respond: Who has the right to take the life of a child because there's a percentage chance of a defect of some nature?
You want to put cases of this delicate and personal nature in the hands of bureaucrats and expect that everything will work out for the best?
My...that's certainly...optimistic of you.
I mean, I can always hope can't I??? Bureaucrats or not, I'd hope they would act in the best interest of the patient (within the law and ethics).
If this women believes in God, then she must believe in the concept of the soul in some form or another. It seems to me that she had already accepted that her child had a soul. If she accepts this fact, then she must accept that in killing her child she is taking a life. That was the issue that was crossing my mind when reading into her story. It seems to me that if she accepts that her child has a soul then she must also acknowledge the fact that thou hath killed.
Deadline varies from state to state. Some it's as low as 20 weeks.
I understand this. "The Maryland law is 21 weeks." It needs to be changed.
By the time the results from that come back, a couple might be past their deadline
Again, understood. The reason for a review board would be to analyze a case that had passed the deadline. Although, to say that they could not review a case because it was not genetic is wrong and is concerning.
Quote:
If doctors can determine that the baby will be highly dysfunctional at birth then termination is the right thing to do (but this is where we reach the point where dysfunctional must be defined).
Yes, but by whom? A lot of pro-life folks will shrug these cases off as, "where there's life, there's hope" without consideration to the quality of that life. Who has the right to tell a couple they MUST raise a severely disabled child who lives in constant agony?
I intended my statement to reflect more along the lines of what would be considered dysfunctional. If a child will be born autistic does that qualify it for abortion?
Also, if you are going to ask "Who has the right to tell a couple they MUST raise a severely disabled child who lives in constant agony?" I would have to respond: Who has the right to take the life of a child because there's a percentage chance of a defect of some nature?
You want to put cases of this delicate and personal nature in the hands of bureaucrats and expect that everything will work out for the best?
My...that's certainly...optimistic of you.
I mean, I can always hope can't I??? Bureaucrats or not, I'd hope they would act in the best interest of the patient (within the law and ethics).
Lurkinaround wrote:
If this women believes in God, then she must believe in the concept of the soul in some form or another. It seems to me that she had already accepted that her child had a soul. If she accepts this fact, then she must accept that in killing her child she is taking a life. That was the issue that was crossing my mind when reading into her story. It seems to me that if she accepts that her child has a soul then she must also acknowledge the fact that thou hath killed.
Not every person who believes in god is a Christian. I believe in god. I also believe that if a situation happened where I felt an abortion was the correct path, then the child would be with god, and I do not think he would judge me harshly for my decision.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Lurkinaround wrote:
If this women believes in God, then she must believe in the concept of the soul in some form or another. It seems to me that she had already accepted that her child had a soul. If she accepts this fact, then she must accept that in killing her child she is taking a life. That was the issue that was crossing my mind when reading into her story. It seems to me that if she accepts that her child has a soul then she must also acknowledge the fact that thou hath killed.
Not every person who believes in god is a Christian. I believe in god. I also believe that if a situation happened where I felt an abortion was the correct path, then the child would be with god, and I do not think he would judge me harshly for my decision.
I understand this, and I tried to write my post in as non-secular way as possible. Everything I said in the post pertains to no particular religion minus the ending. I have trouble coming up with a serious religion that does not believe in the soul and I have trouble coming up with a religion that condones killing the most innocent form of man. So, with that in mind, following whatever religion a mother may choose, are they not violating a religious tenant?
No time for a long response tonight...
I mean, I can always hope can't I??? Bureaucrats or not, I'd hope they would act in the best interest of the patient (within the law and ethics).
Thanks for the laugh!
LurkinAround wrote:
I mean, I can always hope can't I??? Bureaucrats or not, I'd hope they would act in the best interest of the patient (within the law and ethics).
Thanks for the laugh!
LurkinAround wrote:
I understand this, and I tried to write my post in as non-secular way as possible. Everything I said in the post pertains to no particular religion minus the ending. I have trouble coming up with a serious religion that does not believe in the soul and I have trouble coming up with a religion that condones killing the most innocent form of man. So, with that in mind, following whatever religion a mother may choose, are they not violating a religious tenant?
I dunno, maybe a religion where they don't find their "god" as harsh and unforgiving as most Christians?
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
LurkinAround wrote:
I understand this, and I tried to write my post in as non-secular way as possible. Everything I said in the post pertains to no particular religion minus the ending. I have trouble coming up with a serious religion that does not believe in the soul and I have trouble coming up with a religion that condones killing the most innocent form of man. So, with that in mind, following whatever religion a mother may choose, are they not violating a religious tenant?
I dunno, maybe a religion where they don't find their "god" as harsh and unforgiving as most Christians?
I'm sorry you kinda lost me on that one. Please clarify.
Dictating whether a God is "harsh" or "unforgiven" has nothing to do with the matter. I just thought it was contradictory for a women to justify her abortion by citing her religion.
Back to the matter at hand. As Ambrya so aptly put it "Let's be real. This has nothing to do with informed consent.".
As for third trimester abortions, well that is tricky ground on an already tricky subject. However legislation that puts questionable morality over the safety and well being of the mother is bunk. Putting it in the hands of a committee is also bunk.
As for third trimester abortions, well that is tricky ground on an already tricky subject. However legislation that puts questionable morality over the safety and well being of the mother is bunk. Putting it in the hands of a committee is also bunk.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Hmm, I was gonna participate in the discussion but then the posts started getting too long, and I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.
LurkinAround wrote:
I'm sorry you kinda lost me on that one. Please clarify.
Dictating whether a God is "harsh" or "unforgiven" has nothing to do with the matter. I just thought it was contradictory for a women to justify her abortion by citing her religion.
Dictating whether a God is "harsh" or "unforgiven" has nothing to do with the matter. I just thought it was contradictory for a women to justify her abortion by citing her religion.
You find it contradictory because you are used to dealing with a god that is unforgiving.
I do not find it contradictory, because I believe in a god who is able to look at why people do the things they do, what they were preventing, and decide on a case by case basis.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
LurkinAround wrote:
I'm sorry you kinda lost me on that one. Please clarify.
Dictating whether a God is "harsh" or "unforgiven" has nothing to do with the matter. I just thought it was contradictory for a women to justify her abortion by citing her religion.
Dictating whether a God is "harsh" or "unforgiven" has nothing to do with the matter. I just thought it was contradictory for a women to justify her abortion by citing her religion.
You find it contradictory because you are used to dealing with a god that is unforgiving.
I do not find it contradictory, because I believe in a god who is able to look at why people do the things they do, what they were preventing, and decide on a case by case basis.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Nobby wrote:
I'm minded to email you some atheism. It really simplifies these things.
I've toyed with Atheism.
I find it easier to cope with some things by believing in a god, though.
It's my crutch.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Nobby wrote:
I'm minded to email you some atheism. It really simplifies these things.
I've toyed with Atheism.
I find it easier to cope with some things by believing in a god, though.
It's my crutch.
Ditto.
Also, I'm basing my point more off of religious tenants and less off of interpretation of the supreme being's will. Who are we to say that God is forgiving or not given a situation. There's is no interpretation of such an esoteric character such as God.
The only thing you can interpret clearly, well, maybe not clearly, but more so then the mind God, is religion (whatever religion that may be). If this women chooses to justify her decision with religion then she is contradicting herself and justifying her decision with false pretenses.
LurkinAround wrote:
If this women chooses to justify her decision with religion then she is contradicting herself and justifying her decision with false pretenses.
She's not justifying her decision with religion. She's comforting herself during a time of loss which required her to make a difficult decision with her faith.
Faith != religion.
Just because she believes in God or believes her ill-fated baby to be with God doesn't mean she subscribes to any particular doctrine or dogma. You're trying to pigeon-hole her into some cookie-cutter idea you have of what belief in "God" must entail.
Really, this is an absurd sticking point for anyone to be fixated on. She believes what she believes, and you have no place (and insufficient evidence, at that) to be judging the validity of those beliefs.
Move on, already.
Edited, Apr 29th 2007 7:27pm by Ambrya
Quote:
She believes what she believes, and you have no place (and insufficient evidence, at that) to be judging the validity of those beliefs.
I believe that every time you post, god sends down a unicorn to kill a fetus.
Ambrya wrote:
She's not justifying her decision with religion. She's comforting herself during a time of loss which required her to make a difficult decision with her faith.
Faith != religion.
Just because she believes in God or believes her ill-fated baby to be with God doesn't mean she subscribes to any particular doctrine or dogma. You're trying to pigeon-hole her into some cookie-cutter idea you have of what belief in "God" must entail.
Really, this is an absurd sticking point for anyone to be fixated on. She believes what she believes, and you have no place (and insufficient evidence, at that) to be judging the validity of those beliefs.
Move on, already.
Faith != religion.
Just because she believes in God or believes her ill-fated baby to be with God doesn't mean she subscribes to any particular doctrine or dogma. You're trying to pigeon-hole her into some cookie-cutter idea you have of what belief in "God" must entail.
Really, this is an absurd sticking point for anyone to be fixated on. She believes what she believes, and you have no place (and insufficient evidence, at that) to be judging the validity of those beliefs.
Move on, already.
Ambrya said this all much, much better than I was trying to.
Thank you, Ambrya.
Funny but I thought about something while reading this thread. I am willing to bet that all advocates of abortion and so called "women's rights" were never the product of a teenage girl that got pregnant, or a crackbaby whose mom decided to have the child and put up for adoption, rather than abortion. I had a friend in highschool who did not meet her birth mother until the age of 18. Her mom had her when she was 15 years old. She had all the chance in the world (and probably pressure from older more "wise" people to abort) to just terminate the pregnancy, but decided to have it and put up for adoption. During the first conversation they had together, my friend informed the mother that she was thankful that she made the decision that she did, and that she was happy to be alive.
To tards like Shadowrelm and others like him, when you talk about abortion and how it spares a person of a potentially harsher life, you only seem to include the isolated cases that are the minority. Why does it always have to be "the widowed mother on food stamps with 3 kids" (who by the way, if she is ******** some other guy with that setup, should just have her kids just taken away) or "the crack addict" or the "14 year old freshman in highschool"... etc. How about you encompass the population of abortion users in its entirety, giving each proportion its due.
If you want to use the most extreme cases and exceptions to the rule, well two can play at that game. How about the rich wife who's sole occupation in life is to spend the hubby's credit card while he's away at work 12 hours a day, and cheats on him with the pool boy out of shear boredom. In my opinion, the stupidest arguments in support of abortion are the ones that are based on the minority cases. There are exceptions to every rule, and there are extreme cases to every rule.
To tards like Shadowrelm and others like him, when you talk about abortion and how it spares a person of a potentially harsher life, you only seem to include the isolated cases that are the minority. Why does it always have to be "the widowed mother on food stamps with 3 kids" (who by the way, if she is ******** some other guy with that setup, should just have her kids just taken away) or "the crack addict" or the "14 year old freshman in highschool"... etc. How about you encompass the population of abortion users in its entirety, giving each proportion its due.
If you want to use the most extreme cases and exceptions to the rule, well two can play at that game. How about the rich wife who's sole occupation in life is to spend the hubby's credit card while he's away at work 12 hours a day, and cheats on him with the pool boy out of shear boredom. In my opinion, the stupidest arguments in support of abortion are the ones that are based on the minority cases. There are exceptions to every rule, and there are extreme cases to every rule.
Without reading the walls of text posted above me, I will now try to summarize this thread (and to a lesser extent, all other abortion threads):
"FL is starting to play around with abortion rights."
"OMG STFU!"
"NO U!"
"Abortion is wrong because God said so."
"Nuh-uh!"
"Uh-huh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"Uh-huh!"
"I hope you choke on an unborn fetus."
"I hope the Almighty Bob strikes you down with smallpox."
Am I close?
"FL is starting to play around with abortion rights."
"OMG STFU!"
"NO U!"
"Abortion is wrong because God said so."
"Nuh-uh!"
"Uh-huh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"Uh-huh!"
"I hope you choke on an unborn fetus."
"I hope the Almighty Bob strikes you down with smallpox."
Am I close?
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
One minute you're ******** about a lack of on-topic responses and the next you're on about people taking about the topic at hand. Someone get your drunk *** out of bed too early this morning?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
One minute you're ******** about a lack of on-topic responses and the next you're on about people taking about the topic at hand. Someone get your drunk *** out of bed too early this morning?
Yes, dammit!
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Ambrya wrote:
The only thing it's going to change is how she feels about the potential child she is carrying inside her.
Yes. Because she'll realize that it's a "potential child" instead of whatever she thought it was before. The point is that if she can't handle that realization and go through with the abortion anyway, then she'll not be able to handle that realization later on when it finally sinks in. The difference is that the government is ensuring she makes this realization *before* making the decision. Not after.
Quote:
And it's not the pervue of our government or medical system to dictate how a woman should FEEL when she makes a choice.
Except that they're not dictating how she should feel. They are requiring that she face the facts of what she is doing. It's not like the government made you feel the way you did after seeing your ultrasound Ambrya. You did that all on your own.
I guess I just don't understand the opposition to this. If simply viewing an ultrasound would have the impact that you say, then that's the strongest argument for doing it. Not because I have some mindless need to prevent women from having abortions. I'm pro-choice. However, I believe that we should not conceal from women the choice they are making. If viewing that ultrasound will have that much of an impact on her decision, then maybe she wasn't really that sure about what she was doing?
There is a ton of evidence that women today often seek abortions because they have been told that it's an easy solution to a problem. But they are not told the consequences. Not entirely. Eventually, they do realize what those consequences are. They are exactly what you talked about. At some point, ultrasound or not, the woman will realize what she did. She will feel that same feeling you felt. But she'll experience that not in the context of joy as you felt it, but in horror at what she did because she'll "get it" after the abortion is already done.
If she can't look at an ultrasound and continue with the abortion, then she likely wont be able to handle those feelings later. The only people who's minds are likely to change as a result of this are *exactly* the same ones who'll end up depressed and/or suicidal later on as a result of their decision to abort. I see nothing wrong with having her face that *before* making a decision that may haunt her for the rest of her life.
Edited, Apr 30th 2007 3:12pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yes. Because she'll realize that it's a "potential child" instead of whatever she thought it was before. The point is that if she can't handle that realization and go through with the abortion anyway, then she'll not be able to handle that realization later on when it finally sinks in. The difference is that the government is ensuring she makes this realization *before* making the decision. Not after.
You contend that doing so is the government's job?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 367
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (367)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- florida and abortion....
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC