Author Topic: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion  (Read 1898 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« 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/

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2011, 05:07:19 PM »
a better question would be why would anyone have sex without a condom if you werent ok with getting pregnant?


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2011, 07:00:08 PM »
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. 

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2011, 07:15:59 PM »
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.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2011, 07:26:22 PM »
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. 

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2011, 10:02:01 AM »
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.)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2011, 10:18:03 AM »
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2011, 10:21:54 AM »
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.

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2011, 10:31:24 AM »
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?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2011, 10:40:34 AM »
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?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2011, 10:46:17 AM »
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.   

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2011, 11:03:10 AM »
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?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2011, 11:16:28 AM »
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:

Quote
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.   :)

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2011, 12:03:32 PM »
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2011, 12:13:45 PM »
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.   

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2011, 12:17:53 PM »
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"

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2011, 12:20:17 PM »
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

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2011, 12:20:59 PM »
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?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2011, 12:27:49 PM »
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


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2011, 12:47:09 PM »
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

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2011, 12:57:08 PM »
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

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2011, 01:32:09 PM »
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"

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2011, 01:55:33 PM »
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

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2011, 01:56:27 PM »
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....


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2011, 02:02:26 PM »
so are these anti-abortion types only okay with doing it in the butt when it's another dude, or what?