Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 25, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
-
Why would a woman wait until she is more than 21 weeks to have an abortion?
States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
By Judson Berger
Published March 25, 2011
FoxNews.com
Anti-abortion bills advancing in several state legislatures appear to have a far better chance of passing than in past sessions -- a development that could further complicate the country's patchwork of local laws and create a scenario where more women search across state lines for certain abortion services.
Though most states have restrictions against late-term abortions, two states moved bills this week that would make those restrictions tighter. The Kansas Senate passed a bill Wednesday prohibiting most abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy. At the same time, the Idaho Senate backed a similar proposal with a 20-week threshold.
The bills were modeled after legislation passed last year in Nebraska premised on research suggesting a fetus is able to feel pain after 20 weeks. Similar proposals are percolating in at least nine other states, according to one organization's estimate.
In Kansas, the Senate-passed bill stands a much better chance of becoming law than in prior years, when Democrats Mark Parkinson and before that Kathleen Sebelius -- now President Obama's health secretary -- were in the governor's office. Newly seated Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is expected to sign it.
David Gittrich, state development director at Kansans for Life, said the changing make-up of the state capitals is a harbinger for changes in abortion law across the country.
"Politics reflects, eventually, the will of the people, so as the pro-life movement is growing, so will the political victories and so will, therefore, the legislation," he told FoxNews.com.
But abortion rights supporters say the proposals would be a startling infringement on reproductive rights.
Should they pass, the bills would considerably limit the window -- by a month or more -- in which some women are able to seek an abortion. The proposals would, unlike most existing restrictions, prohibit abortions well within the second trimester.
"They're aimed at restricting rights in ways we haven't seen before, so it's altogether a brand new world," Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, said of this year's wave of abortion proposals.
Nash said women already cross state lines to obtain abortion services due to existing restrictions, but predicted women would travel even more if these bills pass -- though most women who seek an abortion do so in their first trimester.
In Kansas, a woman in her 22nd week of pregnancy might be compelled to look in neighboring Colorado, which doesn't have a late-term abortion policy, or in Missouri or Oklahoma, which have less stringent restrictions.
"We are already seeing this happen. It will happen more if these laws are adopted and go into effect," Nash said of women who travel across state lines.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a total of 39 states have limits on late-term abortions. Most of them designate the cut-off point to be "fetal viability," which can be as early as 24 weeks. Five outlaw abortions in the third trimester. Eight specifically ban abortions after 24 weeks. And two, Nebraska and North Carolina, set the limit at 20 weeks.
Most states provide exceptions to consider the life and health of the mother.
But the states aren't just considering legislation to redefine restrictions on late-term abortions. Other proposals deal with insurance and waiting periods and parental consent, among other things.
The Arizona House on Wednesday approved a bill that would prohibit abortions based on race or gender of the fetus.
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard just signed a bill ordering women to seek counseling and wait three days before obtaining an abortion - legislation that already has sparked threats of a legal challenge.
"I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives," Daugaard said in a written statement. "I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices."
In Kansas, advocates of the new restrictions point to research suggesting 20 weeks is the threshold for when a fetus feels pain.
"It's kind of amazing to me that there can be an uproar if any pain was inflicted on a cat but to inflict almost unbearable pain on a child, well that's okay," Gittrich said.
But abortion rights advocates question the credibility of that research.
"Two very respected medical associations, the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, both disagree with the findings of this bill as far as fetal pain," Virginia Phillips, of Trust Women, told Fox 4 in Kansas City.
Phillips called the bill an "unconstitutional ban on abortion care."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/25/states-looking-change-definition-late-term-abortion/
-
a better question would be why would anyone have sex without a condom if you werent ok with getting pregnant?
-
a better question would be why would anyone have sex without a condom if you werent ok with getting pregnant?
Having sex with or without birth control means you are prepared to make a baby, because no method is 100 percent effective.
-
Having sex with or without birth control means you are prepared to make a baby, because no method is 100 percent effective.
agreed, but with birth control it shows intent...having sex without contraceptives and then acting suprised when you get pregnant should be some sort of IQ test.
-
agreed, but with birth control it shows intent...having sex without contraceptives and then acting suprised when you get pregnant should be some sort of IQ test.
True, and not really disagreeing with you. I just think that regardless of whether a person wants to be a parent, once a person makes the decision to have sex he or she needs to be prepared to accept the results of that decision, which could include a baby, whether they use birth control or not.
-
Having sex with or without birth control means you are prepared to make a baby, because no method is 100 percent effective.
BB, do you think a person or a couple that does not want kids should then absolutely practice abstinence?
Tony, since you agree with bb, I'll also ask you the same question.
(question not intendented to advocate abortion.)
-
BB, do you think a person or a couple that does not want kids should then absolutely practice abstinence?
Tony, since you agree with bb, I'll also ask you the same question.
(question not intendented to advocate abortion.)
I dont think thats what beach is advocating and you did read the part where I said i thought it was different when ppl use contraceptives didnt you?
If you dont want kids use contraception, but know that even with contraception pregnancy is still possible.
If you have sex without contraception and then want an abortion you should be sterilized b/c its obvious youre not smart enough to raise children.
-
BB, do you think a person or a couple that does not want kids should then absolutely practice abstinence?
Tony, since you agree with bb, I'll also ask you the same question.
(question not intendented to advocate abortion.)
No. Of course not.
-
I dont think thats what beach is advocating and you did read the part where I said i thought it was different when ppl use contraceptives didnt you?
If you dont want kids use contraception, but know that even with contraception pregnancy is still possible.
If you have sex without contraception and then want an abortion you should be sterilized b/c its obvious youre not smart enough to raise children.
I read your reply.
Look, this is real simple... This is what BB said: "Having sex with or without birth control means you are prepared to make a baby, because no method is 100 percent effective."
You agreed. You flat out said and I quote, "agreed" You added comment about intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that you agreed with what he said so I would like a direct answer from you. Do you advocate abstinence for a person or couple not wanting a kid?
-
No. Of course not.
Ok, just so I get this right, correct me if I'm wrong in understanding what you're saying:
A. If they're having sex, they should be prepared for a baby. (ie. no contraceptive is 100%)
B. If they don't want a baby it's still ok to have sex.
Did I get that right?
-
Ok, just so I get this right, correct me if I'm wrong in understanding what you're saying:
A. If they're having sex, they should be prepared for a baby. (ie. no contraceptive is 100%)
B. If they don't want a baby it's still ok to have sex.
Did I get that right?
It's always "ok" for consenting adults to have sex whenever they want. But yes, because no contraceptive is 100 percent effective, having sex means you're possibly going to make a baby and need to deal with the consequences.
Just to clarify, that wasn't really the point I was making in the thread. Just responding one of tony's comments.
-
It's always "ok" for consenting adults to have sex whenever they want. But yes, because no contraceptive is 100 percent effective, having sex means you're possibly going to make a baby and need to deal with the consequences.
Just to clarify, that wasn't really the point I was making in the thread. Just responding one of tony's comments.
I was replying to your comment, not anything else. It's actually ok to comment on someone's comment on something lol... You made a direct statement and I replied to that statement...
I still see a contradiction in your statements. On one hand it's ok to engage in sex if you do not want a baby and on the other it ok but you should deal with a pregnancy if it occurs?
So that leaves the original question yet to be answered, with this contradiction, do you then advocate abstinence for a person or couple not wanting a baby?
-
I was replying to your comment, not anything else. It's actually ok to comment on someones comment on something lol... You made a direct statement and I replied to that statement...
I still see a contradiction in your statements. On one hand it's ok to engage in sex if you do not want a baby and on the other it ok but you should deal with a pregnancy if it occurs?
So that leaves the original question yet to be answered, with this contradiction, do you then advocate abstinence for a person or couple not wanting a baby?
I don't see a contradiction at all. I'm not advocating anything. Just stating the obvious: people who have sex can produce a baby, whether they use birth control or not.
My comment was made in response to this:
a better question would be why would anyone have sex without a condom if you werent ok with getting pregnant?
A person should "ok with getting pregnant" anytime he or she has consensual sex, because birth control isn't 100 percent effective. Not sure what contradiction you see, but I'm not confused about my comments at all. :)
-
I don't see a contradiction at all. I'm not advocating anything. Just stating the obvious: people who have sex can produce a baby, whether they use birth control or not.
My comment was made in response to this:
A person should "ok with getting pregnant" anytime he or she has consensual sex, because birth control isn't 100 percent effective. Not sure what contradiction you see, but I'm not confused about my comments at all. :)
You're ignoring the obvious contradiction. on one hand they should be prepared for a baby if they have sex, yet on the other it's ok to have sex if they are not prepared for a baby... How do you equate that?
It's a blatant contradiction.
-
You're ignoring the obvious contradiction. on one hand they should be prepared for a baby if they have sex, yet on the other it's ok to have sex if they are not prepared for a baby... How do you equate that?
It's a blatant contradiction.
It's a contradiction to you. Not to me. Anytime a couple has sex, they can produce a baby.
It's "ok" for consenting adults to have sex, because they have the right to do.
Couples (particularly married couples) should have all the sex they want. Whether they try and engage in family planning is another story. But people just need to know that sex produces a baby, even with family planning.
-
Mods, please change this thread title to
"Republican Candidates Looking To Suck Up To Their Base"
or possibly,
"Let's Ignore The Wars And Economy To Focus Upon Issues That Won't Affect 99% Of Us"
-
Having sex with or without birth control means you are prepared to make a baby, because no method is 100 percent effective.
this is a ridiculous statement
someone using birth control and having sex means that they don't want to get pregnant (and if the birth contorl is a condom then they also want protection against and STD)
saying that someone who uses birth control should be prepared to "make a baby" is absurd, though you, like everyone, is entitled to absurd opinions
-
there is no contradiction hugo
if you have sex you should be aware and ready to deal with the consequences. That doesnt mean that ppl who dont want to have children shouldnt have sex.
You dont want to get into a car accident do you?
but youre aware that by getting in a car its possible, right?
youre prepared for the accident if it occurs, right?
-
there is no contradiction hugo
if you have sex you should be aware and ready to deal with the consequences. That doesnt mean that ppl who dont want to have children shouldnt have sex.
You dont want to get into a car accident do you?
but youre aware that by getting in a car its possible, right?
youre prepared for the accident if it occurs, right?
that's your personal standard but other adults can freely choose to have sex while having absolutely no intention to having a baby and
if a pregnancy still occurs they can always get an abortion
-
Your logic sucks fucking major dick... The absolute here was that no birth control is 100% and therefor you must be prepared to have a baby if you're having sex. On the other hand BB stated that it's ok for adults to have sex if they don't want or are not prepared to have a baby. If you call that no contradiction, I gotta say, you're an idiot beyond repair ;D
or be prepared to get an abortion if your method of birth control fails
choosing to get an abortion is one of the possible consequences of having sex
-
No, that is not a valid reply or addition to my post. If you want to make that statement on your own, fine, but it has nothing to do with my present line of questioning.
there is no valid "response" because your present line of questioning would require Bum to admit a contradiction in his reasoning which he won't
a consequence of sex could be a pregnancy, an std, or the need to choose to have an abortion
no one who chooses to use birth control needs to also be prepared to have a baby unless they are also personally opposed to getting an abortion
-
tic toc tic toc...
there is no contradiction provided you add the unspoken personal belief that abortion is wrong (a sin, murder, etc..)
if you add that then one must be prepared to have a baby anytime they engage in sex
only problem with that is that not everyone is opposed to abortion but Bum leaves that out when making his declaration that "having sex with or without birth control means you are prepared to make a baby"
-
there is no contradiction hugo
if you have sex you should be aware and ready to deal with the consequences. That doesnt mean that ppl who dont want to have children shouldnt have sex.
You dont want to get into a car accident do you?
but youre aware that by getting in a car its possible, right?
youre prepared for the accident if it occurs, right?
Your logic sucks fucking major dick... The absolute here was that no birth control is 100% and therefor you must be prepared to have a baby if you're having sex. On the other hand BB stated that it's ok for adults to have sex if they don't want or are not prepared to have a baby. If you call that no contradiction, I gotta say, you're an idiot beyond repair ;D
-
It's a contradiction to you. Not to me. Anytime a couple has sex, they can produce a baby.
It's "ok" for consenting adults to have sex, because they have the right to do.
Couples (particularly married couples) should have all the sex they want. Whether they try and engage in family planning is another story. But people just need to know that sex produces a baby, even with family planning.
You just put an exclamation point on the contradiction. You say people need to know sex produces a baby and you also say that nothing is 100% in preventing that. You also say that having sex with or without control means you are prepared to make a baby. And yet you also say it's ok for people to have sex if they do not want or are not planning for a baby... C'mon man....
-
so are these anti-abortion types only okay with doing it in the butt when it's another dude, or what?
-
so are these anti-abortion types only okay with doing it in the butt when it's another dude, or what?
-
-
that's your personal standard but other adults can freely choose to have sex while having absolutely no intention to having a baby and
if a pregnancy still occurs they can always get an abortion
youre right straw that whole personal responsibility thing is for the birds ::)
-
You just put an exclamation point on the contradiction. You say people need to know sex produces a baby and you also say that nothing is 100% in preventing that. You also say that having sex with or without control means you are prepared to make a baby. And yet you also say it's ok for people to have sex if they do not want or are not planning for a baby... C'mon man....
Kind of going in circles, but I haven't said anything contradictory, and I'm not sure why that's so important. Everything in your posts, which summarizes my comments, is true:
1. No birth control is 100 percent effective.
2. Having sex with or without birth control means people are making a conscious decision to possibly make a baby, given that birth control cannot absolutely prevent pregnancy. It doesn't matter whether a person uses bc and doesn't want to get pregnant. One of the side-effects, benefits, etc. of sex is pregnancy, whether planned or not.
3. Whether it's "ok" for consenting adults to have sex has nothing to do with 1 and 2. As I previously said, it's "ok" for consenting adults to have sex, because they have the right to do so.
4. Consenting adults don't need to refrain from having sex just because pregnancy is possible. They simply need to understand that sex can = baby and decide whether or not they want to accept whatever the consequences may be.
Now, I've stated the same thing about three or four different times. If you disagree, no biggie. If there is some underlying point you're trying to make, then say it.
-
youre right straw that whole personal responsibility thing is for the birds ::)
When did I say that?
Nothing I've said is contrary to personal responsibility
-
Kind of going in circles, but I haven't said anything contradictory, and I'm not sure why that's so important. Everything in your posts, which summarizes my comments, is true:
1. No birth control is 100 percent effective.
2. Having sex with or without birth control means people are making a conscious decision to possibly make a baby, given that birth control cannot absolutely prevent pregnancy. It doesn't matter whether a person uses bc and doesn't want to get pregnant. One of the side-effects, benefits, etc. of sex is pregnancy, whether planned or not.
3. Whether it's "ok" for consenting adults to have sex has nothing to do with 1 and 2. As I previously said, it's "ok" for consenting adults to have sex, because they have the right to do so.
4. Consenting adults don't need to refrain from having sex just because pregnancy is possible. They simply need to understand that sex can = baby and decide whether or not they want to accept whatever the consequences may be.
Now, I've stated the same thing about three or four different times. If you disagree, no biggie. If there is some underlying point you're trying to make, then say it.
1. You simply need to understand that sex ≠ baby. If a couple uses birth control they have the expectation of avoiding pregnancy and if, in the rare case, their method of birth control fails, they always have the option of terminating the pregnancy or even better, using the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy in the first place
-
that's your personal standard but other adults can freely choose to have sex while having absolutely no intention to having a baby and
if a pregnancy still occurs they can always get an abortion
NOOOO...she can...he gets no say what so EVER!!!!
-
NOOOO...she can...he gets no say what so EVER!!!!
why the caps and exclamation points?
are you angry?
you're saying no male ever gets a "say" in what's going on inside the body of a woman that he fucked and came inside of?
-
why the caps and exclamation points?
are you angry?
you're saying no male ever gets a "say" in what's going on inside the body of a woman that he fucked and came inside of?
just pointing out that youre totally and completely wrong with the "they" comment straw.
he gets a say if and only if she lets him have a say...even though she had sex with him and let him nut inside of her...
-
just pointing out that youre totally and completely wrong with the "they" comment straw.
he gets a say if and only if she lets him have a say...even though she had sex with him and let him nut inside of her...
you're right
she can always get an abortion
he can't get an abortion because he can't get pregnant
feel better now?
-
Yay for abortion!
-
Planned Parenthood Challenges New South Dakota Abortion Law
Published May 29, 2011
FoxNews.com
A law scheduled to go into effect July 1 to require women to wait 72 hours and consult a crisis pregnancy center adviser before getting an abortion violates First Amendment rights, according to a lawsuit filed Friday by Planned Parenthood in U.S. District Court in Sioux Falls, S.D.
Calling South Dakota's abortion laws the most burdensome in the nation, Planned Parenthood said that HB 1217 aims to misinform pregnant women with the intent of dissuading them from getting an abortion.
"Under the pretext of ensuring the patient's decision to have an abortion is 'voluntary, uncoerced, and informed,' the law has both the purpose and the effect of severely restricting access to abortion services, and violates patients' and physicians' First Amendment rights against compelled speech and patients’ right to informational privacy," Planned Parenthood said in a written statement.
HB 1217 was passed in March and aims to toughen the state's current 24-hour mandatory waiting period. The law requires physicians to provide women with a list of "pregnancy help centers" where they must go to get "written proof" that they sought counseling before getting an abortion.
A woman must also be given the opportunity to view a sonogram and receive literature describing the risks associated with abortion.
Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation, accused the state and pregnancy help centers of deliberately providing information "no matter how questionable, out of date, or refuted by the medical community they may be."
"Under the law, these crisis pregnancy centers must have as their central mission a desire to dissuade a woman from having an abortion, no matter what her particular risks or circumstances. Numerous studies have shown that crisis pregnancy centers give women false, ideologically driven information," Planned Parenthood argued.
In anticipation of the lawsuit, South Dakota Attorney General Marty J. Jackley said Friday that he will issue an "appropriate response setting forth pertinent defenses" once his office is served.
However, pro-life groups have been anticipating the suit for months, and will activate its Life Protection Fund, established in 2006 in defense of other abortion laws, to accept donations to cover legal expenses.
Though the fund has just more than $32,300 according to the Argus Leader newspaper, quoting a spokesman to Gov. Dennis Daugaard, groups like the Family Heritage Alliance pledged in March to "fulfill our commitment to fund the bill." FHA is supported by groups like the Alpha Center, which is among the pregnancy crisis centers to receive patients considering abortions.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/29/planned-parenthood-challenges-new-south-dakota-abortion-law/
-
Bad law, get rid of it, leave women alone.