Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2013, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,217,392 times
Reputation: 11416

Advertisements

Oh great, the weekly anti-choice, anti-woman thread.
I used to have to wait until Wednesday and the lifenews lying updates for this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2013, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,274,318 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Using terms like "post-birth abortion" and " a " 'baby' struggling to survive" are the new gobbly-**** mantra of idiots. The fact is if a woman is seeking a late term abortion, there is a major problem with the preganancy. If a "baby" were born durring a late term abortion with most of it's skull and brain misssing, with extreamly little chance of surviving only hours...what should be done?

The situation unspooling there is certainly dramatic: while states enacted 43 new restrictions on abortion last year, North Dakota’s effort to ban abortion even for conditions incompatible with life — such as anencephaly in which parts of the brain and skull don’t form, or Tay-Sachs disease, a degenerative condition that paralyzes babies and typically prevents them from reaching their third birthday — reaches farther than any state has in limiting a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.

Read more: Pro-Choice or No Choice? North Dakota Wants to Ban Abortion for Fetal Abnormalities | TIME.com

Nice going, Talibangelists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,274,318 times
Reputation: 9789
Arizona advanced a bill this week that would make it legal for doctors to withhold information from pregnant women about birth defects and other health conditions that might cause them to choose an abortion. The bill barring "wrongful birth, life, or conception" claims passed in the state senate earlier this week and now advances to the house.
The legislation indemnifies medical professionals from being sued for failing to disclose information about fetal abnormalities that might lead a woman to terminate her pregnancy. Thus, a woman living in the state would no longer be able file suit against her doctor if she gives birth to a child with serious impairments.
Arizona and Kansas Pursue Laws Letting Docs Hide Information from Women | Mother Jones
Reprehensible and disgusting. With the rise of evangelism in the US, you seem to be slipping into the Stone Age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Geneva, IL
12,980 posts, read 14,523,531 times
Reputation: 14862
Planned Parenthood Online: www.floridaplannedparenthood.com/News

Quote:
As a trusted health care provider, Planned Parenthood strongly condemns any physician who does not follow the law or endangers a woman's or child's health. And while HB 1129 addresses a situation that is extremely unlikely and highly unusual, if the scenario presented by the legislation should happen, of course a Planned Parenthood doctor would provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.

Both general medical guidelines and ethics and Planned Parenthood's own policies already compel physicians facing life-threatening circumstances to respond, and Planned Parenthood physicians provide high-quality medical care and adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 10:28 AM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,889,093 times
Reputation: 6763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
So I guess you even think Dr. Gosnell is just one doctor out there doing this.........

PP should just be honest and up front......most people who comment on abortions have never been there and done that, they've only used PP for birth control.......seek inside the clinics and you wil find the truth.

PP started out supplying BC, but has found abortion makes more money.

When people use abortion for birth control, I'm talking women who have had more than 2 abortions, then we have a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 10:33 AM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,889,093 times
Reputation: 6763
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
The situation unspooling there is certainly dramatic: while states enacted 43 new restrictions on abortion last year, North Dakota’s effort to ban abortion even for conditions incompatible with life — such as anencephaly in which parts of the brain and skull don’t form, or Tay-Sachs disease, a degenerative condition that paralyzes babies and typically prevents them from reaching their third birthday — reaches farther than any state has in limiting a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.

Read more: Pro-Choice or No Choice? North Dakota Wants to Ban Abortion for Fetal Abnormalities | TIME.com

Nice going, Talibangelists.
The biggest problem I think is the people deciding the laws must have a hard time deciding when and why an abortion should be done. I do believe Dr Gosnell put such a dark horrible vision on abortion that people are reconsidering the implications.


People tend to think women are using BC and getting pregnant, the morning after pill is showing us differently......no protection is being used!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Ohio
15,701 posts, read 16,982,620 times
Reputation: 22090
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Not in the US but it has problems in India/China where it's been practiced for a long time.
And many are working on this "problem" because it has become a problem after many years of practice.
But that's OK. We're not a proactive type of people. We wait until the crisis hits us in the face and it's too late to fix.


A Problem-and-Solution Mismatch: Son Preference and Sex-Selective Abortion Bans
At the macro level, the results of entrenched son preference are highly skewed national sex ratios, which in turn can have decidedly negative social consequences—again, largely for women and girls. Societies with heavily lopsided sex ratios may face a dearth of women for marriage, which could increase the likelihood of coerced marriages or bride abduction, trafficking of women and girls, and rape and other violence against women and girls. A large cohort of young, single men may lead to more crime-ridden, violent communities and general societal insecurity, especially in cultures where social standing is closely connected with marital status and fatherhood.
..
Women’s rights advocates, researchers, multilateral agencies and affected governments have been working on the problem of son preference and the outcome of imbalanced sex ratios for many years; however, with the limited exception of South Korea, relatively little headway has been made
Those countries have that problem because in their cultures females are seen as less than equal and not as valuable as males.

A problem we don't have in this country........despite those that would like women defined first and foremost as breeding stock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,274,318 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds View Post
The biggest problem I think is the people deciding the laws must have a hard time deciding when and why an abortion should be done. I do believe Dr Gosnell put such a dark horrible vision on abortion that people are reconsidering the implications.


People tend to think women are using BC and getting pregnant, the morning after pill is showing us differently......no protection is being used!
They tried to do this before Gosnell was revealed. Both denying abortions for any reason, and trying to pass a law whereby doctors shouldn't have to tell women the foetus they're carrying is severely damaged.

"You will give birth to that child NO MATTER WHAT! And no, you can't know ahead of time if there's anything wrong with it!
What's that? You want to give it to me to struggle with if it's deformed or damaged? Oh, hell no! I don't want your broken baby!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 12:01 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,965,537 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
To understand the root of the current smear campaign against Planned Parenthood, it’s important to understand the context of the committee hearing that Priebus is referencing. That hearing was a debate over HB 1129, a politically-motivated piece of legislation seeking to ensure that any infant born alive “during or immediately after an attempted abortion” is entitled to all of the same rights “as any other child born alive in course of natural birth.” The “Infant Born Alive” measure rests upon the fundamentally flawed assumption that this type of situation is a real risk for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy. In fact, Florida does not perform abortions after the fetus has reached viability, so the situation that HB 1129 intends to address is incredibly unlikely.

LOL, nobody is arguing that it is a risk for the woman. (though this late in a pregnancy there are certainly risks) I will also note that Florida doesn't perform any abortions. If this isn't going to happen I also do not understand why anyone would be against it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 12:33 PM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,889,093 times
Reputation: 6763
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
They tried to do this before Gosnell was revealed. Both denying abortions for any reason, and trying to pass a law whereby doctors shouldn't have to tell women the foetus they're carrying is severely damaged.

"You will give birth to that child NO MATTER WHAT! And no, you can't know ahead of time if there's anything wrong with it!
What's that? You want to give it to me to struggle with if it's deformed or damaged? Oh, hell no! I don't want your broken baby!"
It would be your broken baby that you and your partner created......

I think regulation has to be a part of this also......seems now abortions are going on in places we didn't know and planned parnethood calling the rules.

I have a special needs sister who was born in the late 40's, my family knows exactly what it's like to have a broken baby and some people in the family were very ashamed of her. She's now 65 and has more friends and people who care for her than most normal people.

This is a personal choice, but many girls/women don't realize the implications and what some carry as a memory for the rest of their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:17 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top