rickyp wrote:Are you arguing that women should be forced to give birth always?

Hmm, what did I write (specifically) that gave you that idea?

Or that some, by their behavior have given up their right to choose because of their personal circumstance?

Well, yes. If you wait past the first trimester, I believe you have no "right to choose" on the basis of your personal circumstance. I would argue that it is always wrong, but more than that--it ought to be illegal once you are past a certain length of pregnancy.

Should they be locked up for 9 months to ensure they give birth?

Let me respond equally fairly: should they be given a ticker-tape parade so they can feel better about aborting their child?

The people might not conduct their lives with dignity, but they should still be treated with dignity. And that includes respecting their right to make this personal difficult choice.

No, no it doesn't. Some circumstances can be avoided. For example, the drug-addicted woman I referenced with 5 children in the foster program knows how she gets pregnant, knows she can't handle children, and knows how NOT to get pregnant. I don't have to "respect" her decision to end someone else's life because she can't make decent decisions.

The definition of rape in most states is "the insertion of an object into an orifice against a persons will." That's what is happening here.

With all due respect, that is absurd. Then again, well, what can I say? It takes a special person to view an ultrasound as rape.

The thing is, making abortions illegal doesn't stop them happening. 100 years of history in the US proved that. Attempts at publicly shaming women won't be any more effective. It just forces women to underground clinics etc.

Because giving them information is "shaming." Sure.

fate

Are you sure you want to use that link?

Since the point I was trying to support was that abortion has all kinds of psychological problems, yes. Since the article makes this point with much evidence.
And apparently, coming from the Christian source, won't be dismissed by an ad hominem by you as you did the well research Rolling Stone piece.

How do you know the RS piece is "well-researched?" Really--how do you know?

Fate

Well, yes. If you wait past the first trimester, I believe you have no "right to choose" on the basis of your personal circumstance. I would argue that it is always wrong, but more than that--it ought to be illegal once you are past a certain length of pregnancy

we agree.

Fate

Let me respond equally fairly: should they be given a ticker-tape parade so they can feel better about aborting their child?

I think they deserve to make their decision privately in consultation with their doctor and whome ever else they privately decide to consult. Of their own accord.

Fate

No, no it doesn't

So what would you do with this woman?And her pregnancy?

Fate

With all due respect, that is absurd. Then again, well, what can I say? It takes a special person to view an ultrasound as rape.

Do you have a clue what invasive transvaginal ultrasounds are?
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/ ... and-texas/

fate

Because giving them information is "shaming." Sure

Is that what the Scarlet letter law does?
The governor of Florida wrote this..

"One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame."

rickyp wrote:I think they deserve to make their decision privately in consultation with their doctor and whome ever else they privately decide to consult. Of their own accord.

This just in: if it's done "privately," I won't know about it and therefore won't either "respect" or "not respect" her decision (which was your original point).

Fate

No, no it doesn't

So what would you do with this woman?And her pregnancy?

I have no obligation to "respect" her decision under certain circumstances. That was the question.

Now, if you ask me what I would LIKE to do, tell me how much power I have. Here's what I would like to do. Give the baby to a couple who will care for it, sterilize the woman (if it's the one for whom this would be her sixth), and send her to counseling. Now, that's not legal, but that would be my preference.

Fate

With all due respect, that is absurd. Then again, well, what can I say? It takes a special person to view an ultrasound as rape.

Do you have a clue what invasive transvaginal ultrasounds are?
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/ ... and-texas/

Yes and they are not rape. Sorry, you can jump up and down and hold your breath--it's not rape.

fate

Because giving them information is "shaming." Sure

Is that what the Scarlet letter law does?
The governor of Florida wrote this..

"One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame."

What part of what the governor wrote is untrue?

Or...
You can say that there needs to be an ultrasound to get an abortion. The woman (!) has the choice to get the ultrasound. She has the choice to receive the procedure prior to killing the fetus. If it is such a great thing then there should be no problem.

How's that for pro-choice.

bbauska wrote:Or...
You can say that there needs to be an ultrasound to get an abortion. The woman (!) has the choice to get the ultrasound. She has the choice to receive the procedure prior to killing the fetus. If it is such a great thing then there should be no problem.

How's that for pro-choice.

We have already mentioned that for early pregnancy this means an internal. To say to a rape victim that before we can remove the child of a rapist she has to accept that is absolutely vile.

fate

This just in: if it's done "privately," I won't know about it and therefore won't either "respect" or "not respect" her decision (which was your original point

And how can this be done privately in states that pass laws like the Scarlet letter Law? The whole point of which is to eliminate privacy?
Or in states that force women to undergo internal ultrasounds. (Forcing objects into her against her will, which you refuse to equate with rape).
Or in States where demonstrators are allowed to harass women as they enter clinics?
Or in States where doctors are forced to follow a protocol that has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with haranguing the woman with the States choice of propaganda.
You have a funny notion of respect for privacy.

fate

What part of what the governor wrote is untrue?

The part that says that women need to feel shame.
His attitude is worthy of the original misogynist religious puritans who colonized new England and who tried to control women through shaming them.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

Here is the FBI definition of rape. It says without the consent of the victim. I said it was the patient's choice.

If the rape victim declares the rape to authorities, then she would qualify as a "rape victim". Then the victim can, at her choice, wait until an internal exam is no longer needed. If she consents to the exam, she could have one immediately.

This is all very minimal in the large scope of abortion. I have already stipulated that a declared rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion. As much as that saddens me for the life of that child, I will stipulate.

Move on to the actual majority of abortion reasons. Convenience.

bbauska

I said it was the patient's choice

The woman wants to abort his pregnancy.
In some states she can't unless she gets a mandated invasive trans vaginal ultrasound.
She doesn't choose to get the ultrasound. It is forced upon her.
She would not consent to the procedure if there were any way to get the legal abortion without the trans vaginal ultrasound.

“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or
anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without
the consent of the victim

.
Consent gained by force....is not true consent.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I said it was the patient's choice

The woman wants to abort his pregnancy.
In some states she can't unless she gets a mandated invasive trans vaginal ultrasound.
She doesn't choose to get the ultrasound. It is forced upon her.
She would not consent to the procedure if there were any way to get the legal abortion without the trans vaginal ultrasound.

“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or
anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without
the consent of the victim

.
Consent gained by force....is not true consent.

She can wait until the trans vaginal is not needed. Heck, I would even stipulate that the ultrasound not be needed if it is a claimed rape.

What about the abortion for convenience?
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Guttmacher (Page 4) reports that rape/incest is less than 2% of abortions. Can we move on to the real problem?

Looking at that, most women cite not being able to afford a baby (which is more than just about "convenience" and about half cite being a single woman or in a bad relationship.

Many cite not wanting it to be known they are sexually active (so a result of "shame").

Here's a radical idea?

Don't shame or punish single and poor mothers, but ensure they are financially supported.

bbauska

What about the abortion for convenience?

. Of the 1,160 women who gave
at least one reason, 89% gave at least two and 72% gave at
least three; the median number of reasons given was four,
and some women gave as many as eight reasons out of a
possible 13 (not shown). Among women who gave at least
two reasons, the most common pairs of reasons were inability
to afford a baby and interference with school or work;
inability to afford a baby and fear of single motherhood or
relationship problems; and inability to afford a baby and
having completed childbearing or having other people dependent
on them

Convenience? You trivialize the life choices that these women have to make. Raising a child in poverty without a partner is not a triviality.
These women made have made a mistake that has resulted in a pregnancy. But they indicate in their responses that they are considering many of the consequences of bringing a child into the world in the circumstances in which they find themselves. They aren't trivializing the decision by saying it would be inconvenient.
Moreover, they are living in a society that offers them little in the way of support should they make the decision to carry through with the pregnancy. If they are working, its unlikely they have access to paid maternity leave. And if they are working poor, the costs of raising a baby ensure that raising from poverty will be impossible.
You complain about people being responsible Bbauska. They are making what they consider to be a responsible choice because the options offered in a society with little in the way of social support are so poor.
You may complain about their initial irresponsibility. And rightly so. But why should the woman, and society, pay the cost of that initial mistake for a lifetime?
You want to cut down on these kinds of mistakes? A modern sex education course in every school that doesn't squirm away from teaching everything about sex. that a young person needs to make informed decisions.
Availability of birth control and contraception to all young people. Free.
A small investment in that will help end millions of unwanted pregnancies, and allow young women to avoid having to make difficult choices because of indiscretions.
And probably help a lot of people work their way out of the cycle of poverty caused by young women having babies when they shouldn't.

rickyp wrote:fate

This just in: if it's done "privately," I won't know about it and therefore won't either "respect" or "not respect" her decision (which was your original point

And how can this be done privately in states that pass laws like the Scarlet letter Law? The whole point of which is to eliminate privacy?

1. Florida's law was repealed 12 years ago. Do you know of another state doing this?
2. It had no direct link to abortion.
3. Why don't you do some research before posting some nonsense like this?

Or in states that force women to undergo internal ultrasounds. (Forcing objects into her against her will, which you refuse to equate with rape).

I'll make it easy for you. Please tell me the Circuit Court or Supreme Court decision that has decided States requiring ultrasounds are "raping" women. No problem, right?

Or in States where demonstrators are allowed to harass women as they enter clinics?

Oh, you mean talk to them? So, you would like abortion clinics to be "free of speech" zones?

Or in States where doctors are forced to follow a protocol that has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with haranguing the woman with the States choice of propaganda.

What State is this and what are you babbling about?

You have a funny notion of respect for privacy.

No, but I do know one thing: you have not established ONE of your so-called objections as being true and/or legally relevant.

fate

What part of what the governor wrote is untrue?

The part that says that women need to feel shame.

You don't even know what the law was about. You don't have a clue. Read about it and you'll see it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION.

His attitude is worthy of the original misogynist religious puritans who colonized new England and who tried to control women through shaming them.

Said the man who doesn't know what he's talking about.

rickyp wrote:Moreover, they are living in a society that offers them little in the way of support should they make the decision to carry through with the pregnancy. If they are working, its unlikely they have access to paid maternity leave. And if they are working poor, the costs of raising a baby ensure that raising from poverty will be impossible.

So, kill the baby to save the baby from poverty?

How many more black children would have been put to death if that was the standard? Carson? Obama?

And, it's not true. There are housing, food, education, and income assistance programs.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, it's not true. There are housing, food, education, and income assistance programs.

Yes, but are they actually good enough? Assertion is all well and good, but when Freeman provided evidence you sneered at it and all I have seen from you before or since is assertion.

Also, aren't they under pressure in these times of deficits and demands to cut welfare?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, it's not true. There are housing, food, education, and income assistance programs.

Yes, but are they actually good enough? Assertion is all well and good, but when Freeman provided evidence you sneered at it and all I have seen from you before or since is assertion.

Also, aren't they under pressure in these times of deficits and demands to cut welfare?

I actually did look at a page listing the programs. I don't know if they're "good enough." I do know many people who have been on it and they seem to have survived. I'd be willing to study the issue, should the need arise--like if I was elected to Congress.

What qualifies as "good enough?" it's kind of in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

I'm not for cutting welfare. I'm for stopping paying it to able-bodied men who will not work. That is counter-productive. I'm also for finding ways to ease people off of it who can do so. In our current system, it is often the case that trying to escape welfare results in most/all of your benefits being cut. That's just dumb. The goal should be to incentivize those who are able to help themselves.

It's interesting. I have a friend who was recently released after 18 years in prison (if you want to listen, it's here. Episode 1 has some sound issues from the 3 min to the 6 min mark). He gets welfare. He doesn't want to get it, but he has to survive. In the meantime, he's working hard to get a job--even doing day labor with illegal aliens after waiting out front at the Home Depot.

He went in after one month to check in. The lady asked him if he had been looking for a job. He replied affirmatively. After she talked to him a bit, because she could tell he really WANTED to work, she "gave" him $100 gas money. She said, in essence, that she gets so tired of people mooching that she likes to help people who actually want off the dole. That is yet another example of why I think the system needs reformed. Welfare should not be a way of life. If that was done, we could actually help the ones who are in more dire circumstances instead of treating them like everyone else.