RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


farglebargle -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 5:32:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4068902/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4075136


Didn't see this before I posted. Thank you for carrying the ball for me.




tazzygirl -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 5:48:17 PM)

You will note that towards the end of the story, she discovers she was exempt from all that, and still had to go through it because they didnt know how to apply the law.

I have witnessed many blessed events in L&D... and many tragic ones.

What pisses me off is that Doctors are being told what they must discuss with their patients based upon someone else's moral views. Medicine no longer has a place in the exam room.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 5:52:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

My my my.....This isnt ending anytime soon......


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/22/arizona-republican-wants-to-force-women-to-witness-an-abortion-before-having-one/


"Arizona Rep. Terri Proud is an extremist anti-abortion conservative. She supports HB 2036 , which would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. She also supports HB 2635, which would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control, and all they need is to declare a religious reason for the refusal. Arizona Republicans also want to force women to tell their employer what they use birth control for before an employer will cover it, and are considering legislation (HB 2800) that would slash funding to Planned Parenthood. It’s safe to say that Arizona, perhaps more than any other state, has declared war on women. But Republicans aren’t through yet, and if Terri Proud has her way, women in Arizona will have to watch an abortion procedure before they can go through with an abortion themselves.

In an email response to a constituent who opposes HB 2036, Proud said she thinks women should be forced to watch a doctor perform an abortion before being allowed to get the procedure as well."



As one who is ENTIRELY against abortions, I can only say, the laws need to be respectful, but they also need to include men's rights.

I can't count how many times a man wanted to keep the child, only to be barricaded by law because....."it's the woman's body".

FUCK THAT!!!!! You know who actually cares about that issue?

Lawyers, newspapers and arrogant mentally diseased people.

Is that child not the mans equally? As well?

Hell yeah it is.

Yeah, she has to carry it....well.....I'm guessing (it's a gut feel) she knew that once he stuck his dick in her....she had a fairly cognizant grasp of the realities of the potential outcome. I'm presuming the woman has an adequate brain....capable of seeing beyond Friday night, a hot guy, her pussy's needs and.....whatever else comes up.

You want to blame men because they only think with their dick?

How about we consider both parties (I'm fairly confident I recall something about women being equal in all aspects to men, ergo....their ability to think beyond tomorrow).

In the end....the child belongs to two people. Not just the woman.

It's about time we considered men's rights.

Yeah, she has to carry it....for 9 months, and he has to carry it for 25+ years.

Who's got the better deal here?

I'd say, the girl because she gets a nice ride.....and he gets to live in his Mom's basement.

Either way, whichever side you're on....it's life.

The SECOND that sperm hits the egg.

It's life.

Period.







dcnovice -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 5:56:42 PM)

I can't decide whether poor Lookie is trying to be funny or serious.

I also can't decide which option is less disturbing.




Lucylastic -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 5:57:43 PM)

im treating it with the contempt it deserves in either case




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:00:31 PM)

quote:

And he has to carry it for 25+ years
.

He does, Lookie?  Please explain.  I think it is also fair to say that in most cases, the mother's responsibility doesn't end when the kid is born.  I am not sure why you think she only has to "carry it . . . for nine months."  A related question I have is, what if she does give birth and wants to put the baby up for adoption?  Does he have the right to prevent that, since it "belongs to both of them"?

In any case, I think principled people can certainly be against abortion, so I wouldn't dream of arguing with you about what you believe.  I do think, though, that if you are going to give a man veto power over a woman's right to make reproductive choices, he should have to put his money where his mouth is.  It seems only fair that he should have to post a financial responsibility bond, $200,000 maybe.  I think the woman has the right to the assurance that she is not going to be spending the next 20 years trying to chase down some deadbeat, don't you?  And I think the taxpayers have the right to know that they are not going to be stuck with the financial responsibility for a kid that some guy insisted could not be aborted, because it was his kid, but then refused to be responsible for.

My years in family court have shown me that motherhood is a commitment, but fatherhood is kind of fluid.  I worked for a while for support enforcement chasing down deadbeat dads, perhaps that has made me kind of cynical.





tazzygirl -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:00:57 PM)

quote:

Yeah, she has to carry it....well.....I'm guessing (it's a gut feel) she knew that once he stuck his dick in her....she had a fairly cognizant grasp of the realities of the potential outcome.


And he had a fairly cognizant grasp of the realities of what would happen once he put his dick into her and she became pregnant.

quote:

I'm presuming the woman has an adequate brain....capable of seeing beyond Friday night, a hot guy, her pussy's needs and.....whatever else comes up.


I am presuming the man has an adequate brain... capable of seeing beyond Friday night, a hot chick, his cock's needs and... whatever else comes up.

quote:

You want to blame men because they only think with their dick?


Ah, is that it. So we are to excuse them because they have a hard on?

quote:

In the end....the child belongs to two people. Not just the woman.


In the end, the child belongs solely to the woman until the father is named, or determined by DNA testing. Go look it up.

quote:

Yeah, she has to carry it....for 9 months, and he has to carry it for 25+ years.


So I didnt support my child for 25 years of his life... plus the 9 months he grew inside me? Do tell me how that works.

quote:

I'd say, the girl because she gets a nice ride.....and he gets to live in his Mom's basement.


I'd say the guy, because he gets a nice ride... and gets to live in his mom's basement.

quote:

The SECOND that sperm hits the egg.


Life cannot survive without implantation. So much for the theory that life begins at fertilization.




farglebargle -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:08:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

As one who is ENTIRELY against abortions, I can only say, the laws need to be respectful, but they also need to include men's rights.



I think that since so many men are irresponsible with their sperm, that unless there's an explicit contract granting him ANY rights, he's just going to have to regret his negligence in not securing the privileges he wants BEFORE letting his sperm negligently loose.

quote:


I can't count how many times a man wanted to keep the child, only to be barricaded by law because....."it's the woman's body".


Blastocysts aren't children. People don't have legal right's until they're BORN. That's the whole point of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, right?

quote:


Is that child not the mans equally? As well?


Blastocysts aren't children. People don't have legal right's until they're BORN. That's the whole point of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, right?

quote:



Yeah, she has to carry it....well.....I'm guessing (it's a gut feel) she knew that once he stuck his dick in her....she had a fairly cognizant grasp of the realities of the potential outcome. I'm presuming the woman has an adequate brain....capable of seeing beyond Friday night, a hot guy, her pussy's needs and.....whatever else comes up.


What women do with their bodies is none of your business, and you're extremely offensive and rude to speculate on what other people choose to do or not do.

quote:


Either way, whichever side you're on....it's life.


So is cancer. Do you advocate fettering cancer treatment services?

quote:



The SECOND that sperm hits the egg.

It's life.

Period.



Actually, since the SPERM is alive, and the EGG is alive, live doesn't BEGIN. It's a continuum.

I believe what you would rather say, instead of this scientifically laughable "Life begins at conception" nitwittery, is that "Once G-d implants a SOUL in the blastocyst, then it's a PERSON, and therefore special."

Of course, that's crazy talk too, but you know... Anti-Family-Planners have never been known for their Action Science chops...




tazzygirl -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:14:31 PM)

Ya know, if we want to take that route, masturbation is killing sperm.... intentional homicide.

And swallowing is cannibalism.




dcnovice -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:22:38 PM)

Good point, Tazzy. Both the sperm and the egg are alive.

Imho, opinion the serious question about abortion is not when "life" begins but when legal personhood starts. I do not have an easy answer to that.




farglebargle -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:30:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Good point, Tazzy. Both the sperm and the egg are alive.

Imho, opinion the serious question about abortion is not when "life" begins but when legal personhood starts. I do not have an easy answer to that.


I got an easy answer. Legal personhood begins when you're born. It's even more official when the birth certificate is filed, recording the exact date and time of your birth.




Slavehandsome -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:32:12 PM)

Does that mean I must witness a DUI before getting one? How about witnessing an IRS audit before getting one? How about witnessing a liver transplant before getting one?




xssve -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:34:48 PM)

Uh, it has nothing to do with when the fetus becomes human, per se, which by lengthy tradition, has always been held to be at "quickening", or basically, when the baby begins to move in the womb.

No, this is about creationism v traducianism, as I mentioned in one of the other threads: in creationism the soul is created by god at the moment of conception.

They aren't debating cellular growth, they're debating about when the soul enters those cells, hence the confusion.

Of course as soon as they have souls, those souls are damned by original sin, so they either repent or go to hell.

I think it would be more fair to wait to call them human when they understand what repentance is, but that's just me. [:D]

Carry on.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:40:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

quote:

And he has to carry it for 25+ years
.

He does, Lookie?  Please explain.  I think it is also fair to say that in most cases, the mother's responsibility doesn't end when the kid is born.  I am not sure why you think she only has to "carry it . . . for nine months."  A related question I have is, what if she does give birth and wants to put the baby up for adoption?  Does he have the right to prevent that, since it "belongs to both of them"?

In any case, I think principled people can certainly be against abortion, so I wouldn't dream of arguing with you about what you believe.  I do think, though, that if you are going to give a man veto power over a woman's right to make reproductive choices, he should have to put his money where his mouth is.  It seems only fair that he should have to post a financial responsibility bond, $200,000 maybe.  I think the woman has the right to the assurance that she is not going to be spending the next 20 years trying to chase down some deadbeat, don't you?  And I think the taxpayers have the right to know that they are not going to be stuck with the financial responsibility for a kid that some guy insisted could not be aborted, because it was his kid, but then refused to be responsible for.

My years in family court have shown me that motherhood is a commitment, but fatherhood is kind of fluid.  I worked for a while for support enforcement chasing down deadbeat dads, perhaps that has made me kind of cynical.




I know....there is all that...don't know the %'s but...it's still his kid too.

People do strange and awful things but....it's still his kid too.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:42:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

As one who is ENTIRELY against abortions, I can only say, the laws need to be respectful, but they also need to include men's rights.



I think that since so many men are irresponsible with their sperm, that unless there's an explicit contract granting him ANY rights, he's just going to have to regret his negligence in not securing the privileges he wants BEFORE letting his sperm negligently loose.

quote:


I can't count how many times a man wanted to keep the child, only to be barricaded by law because....."it's the woman's body".


Blastocysts aren't children. People don't have legal right's until they're BORN. That's the whole point of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, right?

quote:


Is that child not the mans equally? As well?


Blastocysts aren't children. People don't have legal right's until they're BORN. That's the whole point of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, right?

quote:



Yeah, she has to carry it....well.....I'm guessing (it's a gut feel) she knew that once he stuck his dick in her....she had a fairly cognizant grasp of the realities of the potential outcome. I'm presuming the woman has an adequate brain....capable of seeing beyond Friday night, a hot guy, her pussy's needs and.....whatever else comes up.


What women do with their bodies is none of your business, and you're extremely offensive and rude to speculate on what other people choose to do or not do.

quote:


Either way, whichever side you're on....it's life.


So is cancer. Do you advocate fettering cancer treatment services?

quote:



The SECOND that sperm hits the egg.

It's life.

Period.



Actually, since the SPERM is alive, and the EGG is alive, live doesn't BEGIN. It's a continuum.

I believe what you would rather say, instead of this scientifically laughable "Life begins at conception" nitwittery, is that "Once G-d implants a SOUL in the blastocyst, then it's a PERSON, and therefore special."

Of course, that's crazy talk too, but you know... Anti-Family-Planners have never been known for their Action Science chops...


Birth certificates are mans doing.

Life begins outside of mans grasp.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:44:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I can't decide whether poor Lookie is trying to be funny or serious.

I also can't decide which option is less disturbing.


Lookie is being serious.




farglebargle -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:47:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Uh, it has nothing to do with when the fetus becomes human, per se, which by lengthy tradition, has always been held to be at "quickening", or basically, when the baby begins to move in the womb.

No, this is about creationism v traducianism, as I mentioned in one of the other threads: in creationism the soul is created by god at the moment of conception.

They aren't debating cellular growth, they're debating about when the soul enters those cells, hence the confusion.

Of course as soon as they have souls, those souls are damned by original sin, so they either repent or go to hell.

I think it would be more fair to wait to call them human when they understand what repentance is, but that's just me. [:D]

Carry on.


I think you're over-analyzing this.

The Anti-Family-Planners aren't versed enough in science generally to even entertain those ideas.

It's all about control. The Anti-Family-Planners think that women are JUST TOO FUCKING DUMB to advocate for themselves. Witness this particular nitwittery. EVERY medical procedure requires Informed Consent, and there's no issues with Informed Consent in any other procedure. But when it's time to join the 21st Century, and acknowledge that women aren't property used for breeding, they freak out and need to impose this control on family planning. Because, you know, woman can't be trusted to take care of themselves...





dcnovice -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:54:57 PM)

quote:

Uh, it has nothing to do with when the fetus becomes human, per se, which by lengthy tradition, has always been held to be at "quickening", or basically, when the baby begins to move in the womb.


Emphasis mine.

I thought that for a long time, perhaps because I read it in the Roe opinion. But I've come across a variety of Catholic sources saying that they've always opposed abortion from conception. Haven't found a good source for teaching from other cultures.




farglebargle -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 6:59:24 PM)

Yeah, it's pretty much just the Crazy Christian Anti-Family-Planners who made up that whole "life begins at conception" WRONG meme ( Life is a continuum ) . Jews and Muslims both generally go the Quickening standard.





tazzygirl -> RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abortion Before Having One (3/27/2012 7:01:59 PM)

quote:

Uh, it has nothing to do with when the fetus becomes human, per se, which by lengthy tradition, has always been held to be at "quickening", or basically, when the baby begins to move in the womb.


Which for each woman, with each pregnancy, can be different times. Also the number of pregnancies makes that movement different as well.

In pregnancy terms, the moment of quickening refers to the initial motion of the fetus in the uterus as it is perceived or felt by the pregnant woman. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to "quicken" means "to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life."[1] In the twentieth century, ultrasound technology made it possible to see that a fetus is in motion even if the pregnant woman does not yet feel it. This technological development made the concept of "quickening" more complex.

Personally, I would prefer to make it the age of viability without risk of complications due to premature birth... but that definition, again, is hard to pin down to an exact date. And, remember, a woman can simply walk out of the hospital and leave the child to the state.. Safe Haven Laws.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875