States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion

[Hugo Chavez]

so are these anti-abortion types only okay with doing it in the butt when it's another dude, or what?

[Hugo Chavez]

[tonymctones]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw 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.  

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

[tonymctones]

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!!!!

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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...

[Straw Man]

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?

[tu_holmes]

Yay for abortion!

[Dos Equis]

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/

[Skip8282]

Bad law, get rid of it, leave women alone.