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.
Explain how not all ambulatory surgery facilities wouldn't have to meet the same standards as surgical abortion facilities.
Explain how other places that do surgical procedures were not included in this law.
Explain how doctors could still do D&C for miscarriages in non surgical center offices.
Explain how biopsies could still be done in non surgical center facilities.
Explain how dental surgery could still be done in non surgical facilities.
Explain how numerous other surgical procedures could still be done in non surgical facilities.
Explain how other places that do surgical procedures were not included in this law.
Explain how doctors could still do D&C for miscarriages in non surgical center offices.
Explain how biopsies could still be done in non surgical center facilities.
Explain how dental surgery could still be done in non surgical facilities.
Explain how numerous other surgical procedures could still be done in non surgical facilities.
Don't put too much effort into explaining it to IC. It was all just a smoke screen for his true concern anyway. Besides, he'll just regurgitate what he's been saying for 120+ pages with absolutely nothing new to add.
Explain how not all ambulatory surgery facilities wouldn't have to meet the same standards as surgical abortion facilities.
Dude WHY are you still posting?
Can you just admit to what everyone else here knows already, that you don't want women to have rights?
Plenty of surgeries are not done in surgical centers. I have had biopsies in places that were not surgical centers. Only abortions were under his law, not other invasive procedures, meaning it was discriminatory and ruled unconstitutional based on Roe v Wade. It was a way to try to limit women the access to their rights.
Whether you believe there is a God or not is irrelevant.
Does anyone else find it ironic that there are people out there that are screaming for
"marriage equality" and "animal rights" yet are vehemently opposed to "existance equality"?
When it comes to human biology, pro-choice people are the most ignorant of it. There is only one
substance when combined with one area of the female body that causes pregnancy. Anytime you put
one near the other you are asking for pregnancy. No different than the risk of fire when
you put a can of gasoline near an open flame. Yet people are still surprised and unprepared when they become pregnant after having sexual intercourse. Huh??
If the unborn "fetus" inside of a woman's womb is considered totally part of her body then why did
she need the sperm of a man in order for an unborn "fetus" to appear in the first place? Why
didn't her own body furnish everything required to create it? Could the answer be that the "fetus"
is actually a life seperate from the Mother? I say absolutely!
One more thing: Pro-choice equals right to judge human life that is less developed. A pro-choice position is a judgmental position. Therefore those who are pro-choice are actually the very first of those who
will judge a person from the very beginning of his/her existance.
Whether you believe there is a God or not is irrelevant.
Does anyone else find it ironic that there are people out there that are screaming for
"marriage equality" and "animal rights" yet are vehemently opposed to "existance equality"?
When it comes to human biology, pro-choice people are the most ignorant of it. There is only one
substance when combined with one area of the female body that causes pregnancy. Anytime you put
one near the other you are asking for pregnancy. No different than the risk of fire when
you put a can of gasoline near an open flame. Yet people are still surprised and unprepared when they become pregnant after having sexual intercourse. Huh??
If the unborn "fetus" inside of a woman's womb is considered totally part of her body then why did
she need the sperm of a man in order for an unborn "fetus" to appear in the first place? Why
didn't her own body furnish everything required to create it? Could the answer be that the "fetus"
is actually a life seperate from the Mother? I say absolutely!
One more thing: Pro-choice equals right to judge human life that is less developed. A pro-choice position is a judgmental position. Therefore those who are pro-choice are actually the very first of those who
will judge a person from the very beginning of his/her existance.
Such nonsense there. A woman's unwanted pregnancy is none of your personal business, unless you're half the reason why there is one. If you chose life, I couldn't help to think that is was a very beautiful decision. If not, I wouldn't make it my business to worry about it.
There's nothing unConstitutional about requiring surgical abortion facilities to meet the same standards as every other ambulatory surgery center in the state.
Wow! You're still on this! If you want equal rights for woman, there are many other areas you can fight for. You might preach this equal rights in those Christian churches that preach woman should submit, etc....
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.
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.
