Roe Vs. Wade

[Amethyst]

 

I realize it isn't the same thing. Do you think doctors should be forced to write scripts for Plan B and oral contraception if they feel that it is a violation of their conscience?

 

You mean give prescriptions? It depends upon the state law, but if the state law says they have to, then yes. It's a type of medication and part of their job.

 

If I decided that I didn't like working for my company because among other things, they sold military products that could potentially harm people (they do, actually), I couldn't just refuse to do my job. They'd fire me and hire someone else to take my place. Why should medication be any different?

 

I understand your point... but in healthcare, patients have the freedom to move around to different pharmacies, doctors, etc... this is the key difference.

 

As for docs, states laws do not say they have to. Do you suggest changing the law so that they have to?

 

Possibly, but at this point I think it's better to focus on abortion rights. We are in danger of losing those.

 

What I am so tired of is the double standard between Christians and everyone else. They have the right to move around to other jobs too. And if everyone in every pharmacy in an entire state happens to be a fundy and wants to deny people access to birth control pills, then poor people in that state don't have equal access to medication that rich or even middle-income people have. Poor people also don't usually have access to good insurance, and so they have to go to wherever their insurance companies tell them to go. If all the pharmacies that are covered happen to be run by fundies, they're screwed.

[pandora]

 

I realize it isn't the same thing. Do you think doctors should be forced to write scripts for Plan B and oral contraception if they feel that it is a violation of their conscience?

 

You mean give prescriptions? It depends upon the state law, but if the state law says they have to, then yes. It's a type of medication and part of their job.

 

If I decided that I didn't like working for my company because among other things, they sold military products that could potentially harm people (they do, actually), I couldn't just refuse to do my job. They'd fire me and hire someone else to take my place. Why should medication be any different?

 

I understand your point... but in healthcare, patients have the freedom to move around to different pharmacies, doctors, etc... this is the key difference.

 

As for docs, states laws do not say they have to. Do you suggest changing the law so that they have to?

 

Possibly, but at this point I think it's better to focus on abortion rights. We are in danger of losing those.

 

What I am so tired of is the double standard between Christians and everyone else. They have the right to move around to other jobs too. And if everyone in every pharmacy in an entire state happens to be a fundy and wants to deny people access to birth control pills, then poor people in that state don't have equal access to medication that rich or even middle-income people have. Poor people also don't usually have access to good insurance, and so they have to go to wherever their insurance companies tell them to go. If all the pharmacies that are covered happen to be run by fundies, they're screwed.

 

I believe that there can be safeguards in place by law that can prevent that from happening... see my first post in this thread.

[jrmarlin]

 

I realize it isn't the same thing. Do you think doctors should be forced to write scripts for Plan B and oral contraception if they feel that it is a violation of their conscience?

 

You mean give prescriptions? It depends upon the state law, but if the state law says they have to, then yes. It's a type of medication and part of their job.

 

If I decided that I didn't like working for my company because among other things, they sold military products that could potentially harm people (they do, actually), I couldn't just refuse to do my job. They'd fire me and hire someone else to take my place. Why should medication be any different?

 

I understand your point... but in healthcare, patients have the freedom to move around to different pharmacies, doctors, etc... this is the key difference.

 

As for docs, states laws do not say they have to. Do you suggest changing the law so that they have to?

 

Possibly, but at this point I think it's better to focus on abortion rights. We are in danger of losing those.

 

What I am so tired of is the double standard between Christians and everyone else. They have the right to move around to other jobs too. And if everyone in every pharmacy in an entire state happens to be a fundy and wants to deny people access to birth control pills, then poor people in that state don't have equal access to medication that rich or even middle-income people have. Poor people also don't usually have access to good insurance, and so they have to go to wherever their insurance companies tell them to go. If all the pharmacies that are covered happen to be run by fundies, they're screwed.

 

I believe that there can be safeguards in place by law that can prevent that from happening... see my first post in this thread.

I have heard rumblings that the socialized medicine is going to be looked at again for the US. I hope it goes this time because drug companies, pharmacies and the medical profession have gotten out of hand. With socialized medicine, they will no longer have a choice of whether or not to prescribe, it will be mandatory and the pharmacist will not have a choice either, it will be mandatory for him/her, too.

[pandora]

 

I realize it isn't the same thing. Do you think doctors should be forced to write scripts for Plan B and oral contraception if they feel that it is a violation of their conscience?

 

You mean give prescriptions? It depends upon the state law, but if the state law says they have to, then yes. It's a type of medication and part of their job.

 

If I decided that I didn't like working for my company because among other things, they sold military products that could potentially harm people (they do, actually), I couldn't just refuse to do my job. They'd fire me and hire someone else to take my place. Why should medication be any different?

 

I understand your point... but in healthcare, patients have the freedom to move around to different pharmacies, doctors, etc... this is the key difference.

 

As for docs, states laws do not say they have to. Do you suggest changing the law so that they have to?

 

Possibly, but at this point I think it's better to focus on abortion rights. We are in danger of losing those.

 

What I am so tired of is the double standard between Christians and everyone else. They have the right to move around to other jobs too. And if everyone in every pharmacy in an entire state happens to be a fundy and wants to deny people access to birth control pills, then poor people in that state don't have equal access to medication that rich or even middle-income people have. Poor people also don't usually have access to good insurance, and so they have to go to wherever their insurance companies tell them to go. If all the pharmacies that are covered happen to be run by fundies, they're screwed.

 

I believe that there can be safeguards in place by law that can prevent that from happening... see my first post in this thread.

I have heard rumblings that the socialized medicine is going to be looked at again for the US. I hope it goes this time because drug companies, pharmacies and the medical profession have gotten out of hand. With socialized medicine, they will no longer have a choice of whether or not to prescribe, it will be mandatory and the pharmacist will not have a choice either, it will be mandatory for him/her, too.

 

I've heard those rumblings, too... but I don't think it will get passed for several years, if at all. Regardles, SOMETHING has to give in our healthcare system or it will fall apart quickly. IMO, the shit is about to hit the fan in the next decade or so. I would be thrilled if we had socialized medicine. If that happens, I would have no problems forcing docs to prescribe and abort and Rphs to dispense. My main problem is that we can't be unfair to our healthcare professionals... As it is, docs are protected by law but pharmacists are in limbo in this particular issue.

[jrmarlin]

I've heard those rumblings, too... but I don't think it will get passed for several years, if at all. Regardles, SOMETHING has to give in our healthcare system or it will fall apart quickly. IMO, the shit is about to hit the fan in the next decade or so. I would be thrilled if we had socialized medicine. If that happens, I would have no problems forcing docs to prescribe and abort and Rphs to dispense. My main problem is that we can't be unfair to our healthcare professionals... As it is, docs are protected by law but pharmacists are in limbo in this particular issue.

I don't know. If Hilary becomes the next president there is a very good chance that it will be passed. People are getting to the point where they are getting fed up. There was a man who had fallen off a ladder and the hospital where he went charged him in excess of $250,000.00 and another person fell with the same injury - same treatment - same hospital but had insurance and they only charged that person $50,000.00. The media (as corrupt as it is) is making this whole thing very well-publicized. Hence the reason for the rumblings beginning.

 

Doctors, drug companies and pharamcutical chains have been taking advantage of the American public long enough. With people going over the borders to get drugs from other countries --- even having them sent through the mail -- the country is losing money hand over fist.

 

If the country is losing revenue, you know the "dogs" will come in and put a stop to whatever it is that gets in their way. While doctors are protected by law for now.... so were women up until about three days ago...

[Luck Mermaid]

. But since her body induced the miscarriage on its own, perhaps that is why... or perhaps they saw evidence that she would miscarry soon and decided to let it be. I suspect that is the case. Perhaps they also did blood tests for ITP and it came back negative and they just didn't tell her about this risk because of that. (Perhaps the doc noted that she was already dilated..

 

 

I have a tendency to argue pointlessly, but I was just upset with the way you saw what happened in the article. It seems clear to me that the lady wanted an abortion because it was the option that least put her health in jeopardy, and that she was denied this because of politics and the illegal activities of individuals trying to keep her from having an important health procedure done. I just felt like you were minimizing or trying to rationalize what the 'professionals' in the story had done.

 

Also, it bothered me the way the mother's story was told, like, 'would it fall out while I was scrambling eggs for my boys in the morning?' I think that abortion , like education, is not something that should be granted to women for 'the sake of the children'- and male children at that. I think it's a basic right that anyone who wants an abortion and anyone who wants education and is able and willing to work for it should not be barred for access. And let me tell you, one of the arguments for education for women is to 'better care for the children' just as one of the argument s for abortion rights is 'to better allow childre nto be loved and cared for'. I agree that all children deserve love and care, but I feel that if I want to have 30 abortions, that's my right and I don't want anybody else telling me I have to carry something in my body because I did something wrong by fucking, not using a condom, dressing too provocatively, using abortion as a method of birth control, etc. Ultimately, I feel that it's my body and it is my choice.

[SkepticOfBible]

...let's all bow down and worship at the throne of the allmighty fucking fetus.

 

 

 

i hate pro-lifers.

Does South Dakota have Death Penalty for some of the crimes?

 

If a woman can not decide whether not she wants a child -- then perhaps men should also lose their right to impregnate them.

 

Amen to that --- and what a excellent arguement. i will remember this

[pandora]

. But since her body induced the miscarriage on its own, perhaps that is why... or perhaps they saw evidence that she would miscarry soon and decided to let it be. I suspect that is the case. Perhaps they also did blood tests for ITP and it came back negative and they just didn't tell her about this risk because of that. (Perhaps the doc noted that she was already dilated..

 

 

I have a tendency to argue pointlessly, but I was just upset with the way you saw what happened in the article. It seems clear to me that the lady wanted an abortion because it was the option that least put her health in jeopardy, and that she was denied this because of politics and the illegal activities of individuals trying to keep her from having an important health procedure done. I just felt like you were minimizing or trying to rationalize what the 'professionals' in the story had done.

 

Also, it bothered me the way the mother's story was told, like, 'would it fall out while I was scrambling eggs for my boys in the morning?' I think that abortion , like education, is not something that should be granted to women for 'the sake of the children'- and male children at that. I think it's a basic right that anyone who wants an abortion and anyone who wants education and is able and willing to work for it should not be barred for access. And let me tell you, one of the arguments for education for women is to 'better care for the children' just as one of the argument s for abortion rights is 'to better allow childre nto be loved and cared for'. I agree that all children deserve love and care, but I feel that if I want to have 30 abortions, that's my right and I don't want anybody else telling me I have to carry something in my body because I did something wrong by fucking, not using a condom, dressing too provocatively, using abortion as a method of birth control, etc. Ultimately, I feel that it's my body and it is my choice.

 

I'm sorry... I guess I didn't say all that I was feeling/thinking. The people she came into contact with defnitely deserve a reprimand... if what I proposed is what indeed happened). I was merely offering a perspective of things that might have happened behind the scenes. Docs thinks they are Gods and that the patients are ignorant doofuses... so they have a rtendcency to not tell the whole story, and it SHOULD change. Plus, he was an absolute jerk too.... I wasn't trying to defend the docs, just offer what might have happened from a healthcare practitioners point of view.

 

I am not the kind of person to rant on my feelings like that and I apologize for intellectualizing it.

[Luck Mermaid]

well thank you for responding. I guess you don't really owe me an apology because this is a message board and you can intellectuallize or emotionalize or use tiny pictures with big blank spaces surrounding them just as you please!

 

But thanks for responding and also thanks for clarifying what you meant because it's something different than I thought.

[pandora]

well thank you for responding. I guess you don't really owe me an apology because this is a message board and you can intellectuallize or emotionalize or use tiny pictures with big blank spaces surrounding them just as you please!

 

But thanks for responding and also thanks for clarifying what you meant because it's something different than I thought.

 

 

Thanks. Misunderstandings are common on a message board.... and I am glad you took into consideration what I really was trying to say. I am not the best communicator of what I mean to say given that I know things can be taken the wrong way.

[RHEMtron]

This has nothing to do with anything but the fucking christians. They think they run this country even though they are in the minority. I am really just sick of these small special interest groups getting the strong hold in the majority world.

 

agreed. it's just another example of how the are trying to force their beliefs unto other people. which isnt right on so many levels... but it seriously is wrong cause like you said... they are the minorities.

 

and again youre right, they havent taken into consideration all the horror stories of the past.... of babies being dumped in garbages, teens driving to "god" knows where to get an abortion, etc. etc. etc. it's just nature... if they feel the need to do something, they will always find away to do it. legal or not. but again it is nature. many animals are known to kill or eat their babies as soon as they give birth to them just because they dont want them.

 

wonder how they would feel if their daughters were raped and were forced to carry the child for 9 months. better yet... even though i dont believe in him... wonder how they would feel if the devil raped their daughter =X

[Luck Mermaid]

I've got to say, as horrible as it would be for their daughter, you can't help laughing at the thought of that. Can you just imagine them trying to abort that child and the girl being like, 'nope, pastor don't preach, I've made up my mind ooooh I'm keeping my baby'.

 

And they have to sit around and watch as people die in freak accidents every time someone tries to harm her or her stomach area. Know that Lucifer's coming....

[Dianka]

Strange days. Pandora just curious, why do you think it would be ok to force doctors and pharmacists to provide care that is unethical by their standards in the case of socialized healthcare, but not in our system as it is now?

 

***Addressin the general public now***

 

It seems that doctors have the precarious responsibility to do what they see is fit for the patient, and not simply what the patient wants. The constant butting of patient rights vs. practitioner rights is probably where we should be. Constant checking keeps both fronts from abusing the system: patients can't get the good stuff for their mysterious pain and doctors can't tie a woman's tubes without her consent (well, they can't do that anymore anyway).

 

This situation with birth-control / morning after pills is a tough one. It's probably the case that most of the pharmacists who refuse to fill the rx are God-fearing chiefs, but there is the possibility that a few are sincerely concerned for the health of women given the side-effects (however rare). That veeeeery slight chance is enough to insist that doctors keep their rights. Sure, they should refer Plan-B girls to lcinics in the area that are dispensing at least within the next 24 hours, but that's it. Given their job requirements, they should be able to make their own decisions. The same thing can be said for women's rights. The whole issue of whether a doctor has the right to deny or approve treatment is not being looked at objectively if we are thinking of doing away with it because of one issue. Don't throw the baby away with the bath water (bad pun, but kinda fitting).

[jrmarlin]

wonder how they would feel if their daughters were raped and were forced to carry the child for 9 months. better yet... even though i dont believe in him... wonder how they would feel if the devil raped their daughter =X

I have often found when these so called xians are put in a corner i.e. it is their own that has been raped or molested and a child is a result, that they begin to really think about the issue at hand as well as the grave error they have made.

 

I have an on-going debate with a fundamentalist. And of course, when we discussed the abortion issue he was all for it - siting Genesis 3 as the reasoning. He said it was women's penance - their job to birth children... So I posed to him. Okay then what if the woman is in an abusive marriage and she gets pregnant. You don't think she has the duty to decide not to bring a child - who is utter defenseless against such cruelty -- into a world of violence. He had never entertained that thought before.

 

I then went on to add, and what about if this was your daughter, your wife or better yet your mother who was forced to carry a child to term. Would you take care of this child after it was born? Would you continue to do so even if one of them could not handle it and killed themselves? Once again, silence.

 

In addition, do you feel its okay for an 11 year old girl to be forced to have a child, and that it is not a health problem that affects her health, if she constantly has thoughts and attempts of suicide? Does that not constitute endangering her health when she never contemplated suicide before said pregnancy?

 

Even his arguments of "We'll take care of them... (the babies) after they're born. People will adopt them." And I countered giving him the facts and figures associated with Welfare, Social Services and the fact that most people who cannot have children either 1) go to fertility clinics or 2) do the 'en vogue' thing now - other countries to adopt children. After a child reaches a certain age - which can happen in the foster care system very easily - the child becomes unattractive for adoption for most of these folks.

 

I also asked him how he would feel if his mother told him, "I had you because I had to have you. You were never wanted. I didn't want you from the beginning but it was illegal to get an abortion. Had it been legal, I would have aborted you. You were a result of a rape, and for that I will never forgive you. For that you will always be a constant reminder of nothing but pain in my life." And he said, "Oh no mother would say that..." and I countered with, "Charles Manson's mother said that to him and look what happened there...."

 

And to make matters even more obscure, he is staunchly for the death penalty but completely against abortion.

 

And I said, "That's good. Let them be born, do atrocious things to society and then -- and only then -- can we have the right to lawfully kill them? If you're going to follow the commandment "thou shall not kill," then you had better go the full nine."

 

His silence was good. He was thinking. I heard the wheels. I saw the eyes moving. He was thinking. Baby steps. That's what you have to take with most Xians. Baby steps. But don't be daunted when they don't "wake up" because like it has been quoted from the Matrix, "I can only take you to the door, Neo. It is you that has to walk through it...."

[Taphophilia]

jr,

 

That guy sounds like a nutcase. Is he a farmer? Isn't his job to till the ground according to Genesis?

 

All,

 

I am hoping against hope that this action in SD will bite the pro-life RR in the ass and strengthen Roe v. Wade instead of destroying it. It could go either way.

 

If the RR gets their way what is next is to outlaw birth control that keeps a fertalized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. The RR believes that life begins at conception and that to killing a blastocyte is the same as killing any human.

 

Taph

[jrmarlin]

jr,

 

That guy sounds like a nutcase. Is he a farmer? Isn't his job to till the ground according to Genesis?

 

<snip>

 

Taph

You are correct in a way, he works for a forest. Which as anyone knows the forestry department in the US is very pro-RR.

 

To make a comment on the other part of your post, yes, I, too... hope the masses come to realizations that this is just absolutely ridiculous. I believe that contraception will be the next to go but not before making the Christian God the only worship allowed in states. Missouri has already begun the process as you already know. Another direct hit to the "settled laws" of this country.

 

Why don't the people who don't like the laws here, stay here?

 

I do hope that Hilary Clinton will run (and win) the next presidential race. Because she is not prolife. She is prochoice - and really there is a difference between being proCHOICE and proABORTION. The Xians just love putting that spin that all women who get abortions fit in a certain "type" of person. Someone who is loose, frivilous, etc. Which is definitely not the case. There are a plethora of already well-covered territory in this thread as to why people elect for abortion.

 

But the long short of it is, if they take away a woman's right to chose what happens to her body, that is not only a strike for women, it's a strike for men. And the people who will really pay for this is not us but our children. They will be the ones that will inherit that debt.

 

Now, with that said. You know all this talk about abortion and did you all see the news yesterday.... Lightening. Storms gallore. Where? Mississippi, Alabama -- all states that are contemplating this stupid abortion thing.

 

Call it a coincidence but I think it's pretty funny that storms coming out of basically nowhere are now pummeling the very states that were going on and on about this abortion thing a couple of days ago. Mother Nature isn't called a Mother for no reason. Perhaps she's pissed off. One can only hope.

[pandora]

Strange days. Pandora just curious, why do you think it would be ok to force doctors and pharmacists to provide care that is unethical by their standards in the case of socialized healthcare, but not in our system as it is now?

 

***Addressin the general public now***

 

 

 

Good point... I'll have to think on it. I an advocate for socialized medicine. But, given the Hippocratic Oath, it seems they should be allowed to opt out.

 

As I have said before, I think there is a compromise on this issue (see my earlier posts) and perhaps we could incorporate the same safeguards in socialized medicine. I also think that nurses and pharmacists (any any other healthcare professional) should be allowed the same option... to make decisions based on their conscience in this very complex and grey issue... of course, we can only let it go so far, and we could make laws that ensure that this "conscience" doesn't spill over into ridiculous things, like psychiatric medicine and the like. Abortion/morning after/birth control is such a touchy subject and one that many hold dear.

 

In Indiana, we don't have any safeguards or a conscience clause. I worked with a pharmacist who just lied and said the needed drugs were not in stock (and they were). He didn't tell her where else to go to get the medication. That shouldn't happen. Most pharmacists care very much about the law as it relates to their license, and if they are told they must provide other options, I am fairly confident that they will.

[Dianka]

I don't see how RvW helps the women in South Dakota anyway. According to the federal government they have the right to have an abortion in that state. With ONE abortion clinic in the entire state, it seems that right is mostly ceremonial. Think it's sad they only have one abortion clinic? It gets better: no doctor in SD is willing to perform an abortion, so they have to fly doctors in from other states. The cost of flying doctors in are passed along to the patient, which makes the service less accessible to women who do not have the extra cash to spare. Also, because of the lack of doctors, the one and only clinic is open 8 days a month and only for a few hours each day. It's obvious in this case that some women do not have the money for the service, can't drive out of state (for a number of reasons), and simply have the kids they don't want. RvW is not helping these women.

 

Get rid of it. Doing so could make room for a more inclusive federal law that protects the women who are being sqeezed out of care by RvW. The more states that take on abortion, the more pissed off women there are going to be, and it seems like a good opportunity for reform of abortion laws.

[greasemonkey]

I do hope that Hilary Clinton will run (and win) the next presidential race. Because she is not prolife. She is prochoice - and really there is a difference between being proCHOICE and proABORTION. The Xians just love putting that spin that all women who get abortions fit in a certain "type" of person. Someone who is loose, frivilous, etc. Which is definitely not the case. There are a plethora of already well-covered territory in this thread as to why people elect for abortion.

 

Ohhh my older brother would kill me if he heard me utter this, but I really hope that Hillary isn't the best the dems can come up with. McCain against Hillary would be a massacre; even I might have a hard time at the ballot box on that one (although my contempt of the current majority party would ultimately win out) ...although I have always leaned a little further to the left, I was never exceptionally partisan until the last election. Bush scares the shit out of me.

 

As far as the proCHOICE vs the proABORTION goes, please don't delude yourselves; I don't think ANYONE at ANY place in the spectrum really LIKES abortion, so using the term "pro-abortion" sort of unnecesarily villifies the other end of the equation. I think (or at least hope) we pro-choicers might be a little closer to the "necesary evil" way of thinking; a woman should have the right to choose but there are consequences either way. I've not heard a really convincing arguement for NOT showing women who decide on abortion a sonogram of the fetus first. There are emotional implications that don't need to be downplayed, and if a woman feels the need to abort a (potential) pregnancy then she maybe needs to SEE the implication. Nobody get mad at me (please), but I feel that our society (both sides) at times advocates avoidance of taking resposibilities for ones actions. I don't advocate using guilt as a "tool" to get a woman to change her mind, but if a woman can look at a picture of the devoloping fetus, tell it (and herself) she's sorry, but she can't give it the kind of life it deserves, wouldn't the potential for emotional trauma be a little bit less than depersonalizing it? I'm open to other views on this one, I just haven't been convinced it isn't such a bad thing. (barring the religious fundy working there trying to "guilt trip" somebody into changing thier minds)

 

Unfortunately, the other side of the fence doesn't see things quite the same way. Anti-Abortion is VERY real, and differring viewpoints are meant to be squashed, not heard with those types. And these same people usually have the nerve to complain about radical Moslems...

 

Hey ...can anybody find me a link that will support my next statement? My oldest bro used to volunteer at an abortion clinic in Waco; he told me that a pretty substantial number of the people who came in for abortions were actually opposed to it before it actually happenned to them. In fact, he mentioned that many were young girls actually being pressured into it by parents (it's Texas; not hard to figure majority political or religious opinion in Waco). I find it hard to believe that this could be an isolated incident. Are there any (at least semi-) reliable stats on womens opinions of abortion before they actually got pregnant and chose to abort?

[Dianka]

 

*****************

 

I've not heard a really convincing arguement for NOT showing women who decide on abortion a sonogram of the fetus first. There are emotional implications that don't need to be downplayed, and if a woman feels the need to abort a (potential) pregnancy then she maybe needs to SEE the implication. Nobody get mad at me (please), but I feel that our society (both sides) at times advocates avoidance of taking resposibilities for ones actions. I don't advocate using guilt as a "tool" to get a woman to change her mind, but if a woman can look at a picture of the devoloping fetus, tell it (and herself) she's sorry, but she can't give it the kind of life it deserves, wouldn't the potential for emotional trauma be a little bit less than depersonalizing it? I'm open to other views on this one, I just haven't been convinced it isn't such a bad thing. (barring the religious fundy working there trying to "guilt trip" somebody into changing thier minds)

 

Unfortunately, the other side of the fence doesn't see things quite the same way. Anti-Abortion is VERY real, and differring viewpoints are meant to be squashed, not heard with those types. And these same people usually have the nerve to complain about radical Moslems...

 

*******************

 

Hey ...can anybody find me a link that will support my next statement? My oldest bro used to volunteer at an abortion clinic in Waco; he told me that a pretty substantial number of the people who came in for abortions were actually opposed to it before it actually happened to them. In fact, he mentioned that many were young girls actually being pressured into it by parents (it's Texas; not hard to figure majority political or religious opinion in Waco). I find it hard to believe that this could be an isolated incident. Are there any (at least semi-) reliable stats on women's opinions of abortion before they actually got pregnant and chose to abort?

 

 

Ultrasounds are done to measure the size and determine the position of the baby. It seems this surgical procedure can take place safely and ethically without showing the patient their ultrasounds. If they want to see them, hell, it's up to them. To force practitioners to show the ultrasounds is a violation of the doctor's rights. A patient who has to look at the scan is also being violated. She has a right to a procedure - any procedure without having her mind fucked with. And for what? This won't cause the abortion rate to drastically plummet. How is this not legislative scolding? If the intent is to reduce the number of abortions, it's logical that better access to birth-control is needed. Instead of advocating this, the anti-abortion group is using manipulation that may or may not turn out in their favor. Sure, it works in the minority of cases. It also gives a lot of women who go through post-abortion depression a hearty push down the stairs. I've given more than my share of rides to the abortion clinic and had to sit there in the boyfriend room (6 times). Only one of my friends opted to see the ultrasound, and coincidentally, she's the one that has had the absolute worst time getting over it. Also, she's that one who's had more than one abortion. In fact, she's now a self destructive drunk. I can't be certain that these abortions had everything to do with her current life, but it's hard not to notice that she drowns her sorrows after every procedure. The other three girls, they dealt with it and moved on. None of them have had another abortion.

 

My 16 year old sister -in-law was talked out of an abortion after seeing her ultrasound and late in the pregnancy decided she didn't want to be a mom. She also didn't want to give it up to adoption, so, my brother and his wife (her sister) are now raising the kid, and she's back to whoring around. The father of the baby is in jail of statutory rape. As soon as he turned 18 their social worker turned him in (aaah, our system at work).

 

As far as your link, I tried looking, but it's probably going to be hard finding literature on it. Your brother's onto something though. it's the same as it always was. Before abortion was legal girls went to "visit their grandmothers in Connecticut" for the summer and came back same as ever. As with most other things, you never know exactly what you'll do until it's time to make a decision. Experience certainly changes people's minds.

[pandora]

I don't see how RvW helps the women in South Dakota anyway. According to the federal government they have the right to have an abortion in that state. With ONE abortion clinic in the entire state, it seems that right is mostly ceremonial. Think it's sad they only have one abortion clinic? It gets better: no doctor in SD is willing to perform an abortion, so they have to fly doctors in from other states. The cost of flying doctors in are passed along to the patient, which makes the service less accessible to women who do not have the extra cash to spare. Also, because of the lack of doctors, the one and only clinic is open 8 days a month and only for a few hours each day. It's obvious in this case that some women do not have the money for the service, can't drive out of state (for a number of reasons), and simply have the kids they don't want. RvW is not helping these women.

 

Get rid of it. Doing so could make room for a more inclusive federal law that protects the women who are being sqeezed out of care by RvW. The more states that take on abortion, the more pissed off women there are going to be, and it seems like a good opportunity for reform of abortion laws.

 

 

I think Indiana only has three abortion clinics, to my knowledge... maybe that's only Indianapolis. I am pretty sure Indianapolis only has one Planned Parented clinic... so I am guessing that there are truly only three. I also know that it is difficult to find a doctor that will prescribe Plan B or misopristol/methotrexate.

 

Are you suggesting that we make laws that require abortion to be more available amd cheaper? I don't quite understand your point.... could you clarify?

[Asimov]

OMG, RVW IS BEING OVERTURNED....WE MUST KILL MORE BABIES!!!

[The Sage Nabooru]

Another thing is that most people seeking to have children but can't, usually go to fertility clinics in order to conceive their own or another country because that's en vogue right now. Seldom do they adopt children from foster care...

 

If anything should be outlawed, it's fertility clinics. Why? Because I honestly believe, wholeheartedly, that before we make any more children, we should take care of the ones already here. That's also why I believe that at the present time dog and cat breeding should be outlawed.

 

In China there are literally millions of girls abandoned and even killed by their families every year. Those that survive get sent to filthy, ill-equipped and overcrowded orphanages. If they are not adopted by about four years of age (the vast majority are not), their chances of ever getting a family to raise them are nil. They end up living in these orphanages until they reach legal adulthood - or, until they're deemed fit enough for work. In both cases they're shipped off to the glorious factories of China, where you live in the factory building, eat as little and as cheap food as possible, work the longest possible hours doing the most tiring work, and know absolutely nothing of the concept of "human rights" - the government could kick your boss's ass if he even mentions their existence to you.

 

The AIDS orphans and child prostitutes in Africa and the children born into brothels in India and Southeast Asia - these are the truly suffering children, not some fetus. Why pile onto the burden of millions of children living in pitiful poverty and pain by insisting more be put up for adoption? Even in the US I know that even in the best orphanages, a child who hits about three years of age has to live the rest of their lives knowing that they were never "chosen" or "good enough" for a family, and again at eighteen get put out onto the streets without the foggiest conception of what to do next.

 

Real compassion? Try adopting a child rather than creating a new one. Angelina Jolie can't save all of them.

[greasemonkey]

Ultrasounds are done to measure the size and determine the position of the baby. It seems this surgical procedure can take place safely and ethically without showing the patient their ultrasounds. If they want to see them, hell, it's up to them. To force practitioners to show the ultrasounds is a violation of the doctor's rights. A patient who has to look at the scan is also being violated.

 

I've actually already taken an about-face on the matter of ultrasounds. This is the whole problem with being a guy and discussing abortion, especially a guy who has never been involved in the situation; we can't truly know the emotions involved.

 

After writing my blurb, I called my brother & even talked with my wife about it. My brother summed it up the best with the simple truth that the largest majority of women having abortions are already going through enough guilt pains without having to be subjected to more - mandatory viewing is a horrendous thing that only adds to the emotional pain. In all of his time working the clinics, he said he only met two people who came in more than the first time, so the occurence of women using abortion as a birth control method was almost non-existent in his experience (of course he only worked at two clinics in Waco & Austin, but did it for three years). His statement was all I needed to take an about face on how I percieved the (ultrasound) practice. That's the beauty of being a free-thinker; I'm open to hearing anyone willing to place a pro and con arguement without having my mind made up before I start listening.

 

My wife looked at things from a totally different standpoint. As an ex-nurse, she is pretty familiar with ultrasound, and a great deal of what you actually see on the things are like looking at a rorschach blot; even medical professionals sometimes have a hard time interpreting ultrasound. Making a woman view something while already having a weight of guilt is going to view it the same as an inkblot. They will only see a reflection of thier own guilt, not the fetus iself. Thus, it qualifies as a psychological violation to make it mandatory.

 

As with most other things, you never know exactly what you'll do until it's time to make a decision. Experience certainly changes people's minds.

 

well said!

[SilentLoner]

If anything should be outlawed, it's fertility clinics. Why? Because I honestly believe, wholeheartedly, that before we make any more children, we should take care of the ones already here.

 

Agree 100%

and I was thinking I was the only one who disliked the idea of fertility clinics.