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.
This is total BS. "Still in the research phase" aka does't exist now as a viable option, meaning women can die because of their ectopic pregnancies under these laws. Wonderful. Whether it is possible in the future is irrelevant because it's impossible now, and of course these crap states pulling this don't care about that. They don't care about women dying. If they did, they wouldn't have outright bans on abortion in the first place.
I'm brainwashing others? lol Look at the anti-abortion people on these threads. There's a ton of abortions threads here now. A lot of the posters admit that they think women should be forced to carry a pregnancy because they chose to have sex and that's a consequence of sex. They say, use BC (as if a lot of women don't) or stay abstinent. Don't act like that's not a huge part of it for a lot of people. It's about control and punishing women for having sex. Or they say it's about not "murdering babies" even though abortion was never considered murder in the US. Ever.
Also, allowing abortion is a war on poor people? Seriously, now you're pretending it's about poor people to justify your views? It's about allowing women to choose whether they want kids and when, to choose to not carry a rapist's or family member's baby, to choose not to die for their unborn child if something happens. It's about women deciding they don't want kids ever and deciding they can't afford another, whether they're poor or simply have four kids and are financially stable but another would add a strain, or they feel they're too old to raise another baby. It's about not forcing pregnancy, an often harsh process with potential lasting impacts, on the body if she doesn't want it. It's about bodily autonomy and reproductive autonomy and rights. Nothing more.
This is a red herring argument. While all of this may be true sometimes depending on the circumstances, it doesn't justify abortion bans or extreme restrictions, because of the reasons I listed above. It is not just about poor women or struggling women. It is about ALL women (of all ages, so all females) and the rights to privacy and autonomy.
Women's reasons don't matter. They shouldn't have to justify their decisions to anymore. It is no one else's business. I don't care if a women has an abortion or doesn't. I just want that choice to be entirely and freely up to her. It isn't my problem.
Quote:
"Still in the research phase"
Passing the bill would still allow insurance companies to cover certain exempted procedures ... I know I need to spell this out. As of this date, an ectopic pregnancy is only going to go one way and we know this, the procedure will not be exempt from insurance companies and in the future if a different option becomes available, insurance companies will pay for that option, as well.
"Understanding of the aetiology of tubal ectopic pregnancy (tEP) remains incomplete. We aim to summarize the latest advances in laboratory models of tEP that we believe will, ultimately, contribute to improving the diagnosis and management of the condition."
Quote:
Seriously, now you're pretending it's about poor people to justify your views? ... This is a red herring argument.
Per the information from the survey, if a women in poverty had the financial means it is clear they would not chose abortion, but see it as their only option. "In the in-depth interviews, the language women used suggests that abortion was not something they desired"
Governments implement population controls so as to retain the country's resources. War is one control and abortion is another. When we read under any of the threads in this forum concerning the safety net programs --- there are those that will voice it out right --- poor people should not procreate, because it creates an economic hardship for the taxpayer. (that is why I included from the Biblical era, 'do not touch the wine'; wine is interpreted as wealthy) It's a war on poor people. When Roe v Wade passed the Supreme Court in 1973, people believed we would over populate. Roe (Mccovey) was not a woman of means, with an unintended pregnancy, she was a poor woman with a history of drug problems; their poster child.
Quote:
I just want that choice to be entirely and freely up to her.
Not a one of those bills, being passed by the states have made it out of the court systems, yet. They're being struck down as unconstitutional. Wouldn't it be more constructive with the abortion issue, seeing that women would elect to keep their baby, is if they worked on the social economic disparity issues? I would think so, but seeing as how they are not and knowing wealthy people do want to share the resources, this whole banning abortion thing is a political stunt spurred on by the goofball CIC.
You think a man will consent to help a young woman like that, if he isn't getting sex? I mean, why would he?
And that's why anything other than letting women have choices, bothers me. You just can't write in enough exceptions to laws, even if you're willing to consider them, to allow for every situation, every unique story there is. I chose to keep my kids and I don't regret that, but I really would not condemn a version of myself in that situation who chose otherwise.
I know there are men like that. They are just difficult to find but yes a lot of men don't want to help unless they are getting something out of it.
Last edited by Nickchick; 05-19-2019 at 07:40 AM..
(snip) Per the information from the survey, if a women in poverty had the financial means it is clear they would not chose abortion, but see it as their only option. "In the in-depth interviews, the language women used suggests that abortion was not something they desired"
Governments implement population controls so as to retain the country's resources. War is one control and abortion is another. When we read under any of the threads in this forum concerning the safety net programs --- there are those that will voice it out right --- poor people should not procreate, because it creates an economic hardship for the taxpayer. (that is why I included from the Biblical era, 'do not touch the wine'; wine is interpreted as wealthy) It's a war on poor people. When Roe v Wade passed the Supreme Court in 1973, people believed we would over populate. Roe (Mccovey) was not a woman of means, with an unintended pregnancy, she was a poor woman with a history of drug problems; their poster child.
Not a one of those bills, being passed by the states have made it out of the court systems, yet. They're being struck down as unconstitutional. Wouldn't it be more constructive with the abortion issue, seeing that women would elect to keep their baby, is if they worked on the social economic disparity issues? I would think so, but seeing as how they are not and knowing wealthy people do want to share the resources, this whole banning abortion thing is a political stunt spurred on by the goofball CIC.
But if someone is too poor to provide for a child, they should NOT procreate. The are a lot of things people would like to do, if only they could afford it. I'm not saying there nothing to be done regarding the economic disparity you mention. I'm not saying tax policies, financial assistance for higher education or trade schools, etc, could not be improved. But the primary responsibility for rising out of poverty lies with the individual. Maybe I'm jaded; I grew up very poor and am now very comfortably upper class. But if I had not improved my own economic status, I would not consider it anyone else's responsibility to pay for the costs of me having and raising children.
But if someone is too poor to provide for a child, they should NOT procreate. The are a lot of things people would like to do, if only they could afford it. I'm not saying there nothing to be done regarding the economic disparity you mention. I'm not saying tax policies, financial assistance for higher education or trade schools, etc, could not be improved. But the primary responsibility for rising out of poverty lies with the individual. Maybe I'm jaded; I grew up very poor and am now very comfortably upper class. But if I had not improved my own economic status, I would not consider it anyone else's responsibility to pay for the costs of me having and raising children.
I agree but know that many cases of unplanned pregnancy were actually done with safe sex practices. Maybe a condom slipped. Maybe the pill was defective. Maybe the calendar method (the only form of family planning the Catholic church believes in) was off that month.
But if someone is too poor to provide for a child, they should NOT procreate. The are a lot of things people would like to do, if only they could afford it. I'm not saying there nothing to be done regarding the economic disparity you mention. I'm not saying tax policies, financial assistance for higher education or trade schools, etc, could not be improved. But the primary responsibility for rising out of poverty lies with the individual. Maybe I'm jaded; I grew up very poor and am now very comfortably upper class. But if I had not improved my own economic status, I would not consider it anyone else's responsibility to pay for the costs of me having and raising children.
How poor is too poor? The value of human life is looked at through a materialistic lens in developed countries and has a monetary value placed upon it. We do this as our government encourages us to do this. And we fall in hook, line and step, believing it is our civic duty?
Quote:
if I had not improved my own economic status
Bad things happen to good people all the time. And when it happens what 'real' choice do they have? What choice does society encourage them to take?
Quote:
anyone else's responsibility to pay for the costs of me having and raising children
When I think of abortion I think of Sophie's Choice, the life of one child; the death of another. Our government hasn't the ability to fix real problems; so what they do is, they give us a choice. Societies real needs go unaddressed, with the government hoping no one will notice. And those that do notice it, there's not enough of 'em to make a difference. ~ sigh ~ It is what it is ...
Interview with Oklahoma State Senator who tried to advance an abortion ban bill that is so extreme it wasn't allowed a committee hearing. Starting at 6:49 he is so vague about instances where abortion may be needed to save the life of the mother that I wouldn't blame a Oklahoma doctor for not wanting to deal with a woman having a difficult pregnancy. This is what being anti-woman is about. I hope voters in his district will have the good sense to vote him out.
Interview with Oklahoma State Senator who tried to advance an abortion ban bill that is so extreme it wasn't allowed a committee hearing. Starting at 6:49 he is so vague about instances where abortion may be needed to save the life of the mother that I wouldn't blame a Oklahoma doctor for not wanting to deal with a woman having a difficult pregnancy. This is what being anti-woman is about. I hope voters in his district will have the good sense to vote him out.
You believe that? You believe everything trump tells you as if he were your god? Are you incapable of critical thinking?
This has nothing to do with Trump, though I understand that’s the default response from liberals these days. Of course that is what will happen. Different states will have different laws, just like all other state laws today. It’s illegal to use drugs in NJ but you can go to Colorado and get high if you want.
Another "pro-lifer" who only wanted votes but had mistress get an abortion.
Quote:
Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy has resigned after a report surfaced earlier this week that he had asked an extramarital lover to end her pregnancy.
Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
How poor is too poor? The value of human life is looked at through a materialistic lens in developed countries and has a monetary value placed upon it. We do this as our government encourages us to do this. And we fall in hook, line and step, believing it is our civic duty?
Bad things happen to good people all the time. And when it happens what 'real' choice do they have? What choice does society encourage them to take?
When I think of abortion I think of Sophie's Choice, the life of one child; the death of another. Our government hasn't the ability to fix real problems; so what they do is, they give us a choice. Societies real needs go unaddressed, with the government hoping no one will notice. And those that do notice it, there's not enough of 'em to make a difference. ~ sigh ~ It is what it is ...
How poor is too poor? That's not for me to decide.
My post was simply in response to the criticism that most abortions are for low-income women. I don't see that as a bad thing. I was merely pointing out what I thought was obvious: if a pregnant woman feels she is not financially secure enough to have a baby, she is more likely to choose abortion than a pregnant woman who is financially secure. In a few years, perhaps that poor woman will have had the opportunity to finish school and/or get a good job, and be ready to start a family. Kind of a no-brainer to me.
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.
