Reply With Quote
So in your worst case scenario, she was raped? Took 21 weeks and then decided she didn't want the child?
That's your opinion. IMO I think having unprotected sex or assuming contraceptive will work is a bad choice. But you are missing the point of that comment. So let's take it out. In that case how come you are not willing to protect the child of the woman? How come you don't want to help him/her out with all your social programs?This is the kind of discourse that's completely disconnected from reality, IMO. What bad choices? Kids have sex at 17 these days, trying to state otherwise is living in a bubble.
For the most part, they're responsible and use contraceptives. Sometimes those don't work. Like they sometimes don't work for people of all ages. Singling these people out and pointing a finger at them like they did something wrong is disgusting, IMO.
So in your worst case scenario, she was raped? Took 21 weeks and then decided she didn't want the child?
I haven't been arguing the 20 week rule, even though it's debatable what 'viable' is at that point.
Agreed, and that's another aspect of this law that's much more concerning than the number of weeks.
This isn't about what you or I think it's a good/bad decision. This is facing reality. In this day and age, kids do that. You can't just tell them "don't do it, it's bad, mkay?" and expect them to follow suit. It's not realistic and it's simply being in denial.
So let's face the reality of the situation in this day and age, and go from there.
As far as the second part of your post, the women and the child have exactly the same rights. You can't put one over the other, especially when the mother has to carry through with the entire pregnancy, putting her own life at risk through the process. The day science figures out a way to extract a 20 week fetus without killing it, safely, without risking the mother's life, and manages to have it grow into a full blown child, then I'll be happy to tell you I have no issue with the 20 weeks cutoff. But until then, we're going to have to make some tradeoff between the mother's life and the children's life. As I've stated, I'm OK with the current tradeoff set in Roe.
Don't conflate the period with what you said. You said "She made bad choices". These alleged bad choices happen whether it's 10, 20 or 24 weeks. What "bad choices" victims of rape or incest made? That's the nonsense I was pointing out.
What do compulsory mean?
Any reasonable person that glances at a map of Texas districts can see how ing obvious it is that the in slimeballs have drawn it up to dilute the vote of the more populated areas with backwoods bible beating bubbas.
Also Perry would look a lot more credible if he was willing to fund planned parenthood and sex ed. But he's not. His whole view of the world is warped if he really believes that teens aren't gonna have sex if you don't tell them about it. The ing idiot doesn't wanna fund planned parenthood, educate them, or give them access to birth control. Then he turns around and says you can't have an abortion either.
He's a in loon any way you slice it and what's scary is that a significant number of people actually think he's not a huge failure.
I addressed only the 20 week ban as ineffective.
the "admitting privileges" bull is much more effective as an obstacle to abortion, along with all the other bull regs on abortion clinics, like dimensions of hallways, lockers, etc, etc.
Extremely premature births are simply not viable without $100Ks, $1Ms?, months of intensive care. If they make it, they are at very high "elevated risk" for all kinds of health problems and diseases for their entire lives. The nervous, digestive, immune systems, organs aren't finished and even if the baby survives, it ain't ever completely cooked like a full term baby.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-30-2013 at 05:54 PM.
Every state does it.those lines were done by the dem party
I'm all for changing it to make a more centered district. That would take allot of power away from cities though
Agree with your post and also lets not forget that Planned Parenthood also provides many other services like breast exams, pap smears, and tests for sexual transmitted diseases. If I am not mistaken abortion services are a tiny % of what they do and yet its what many use so they can close them down... and don’t even get me started on Perry.
Pretty much. Planned parenthood provides very cheap, easily accessible service for a number of women's health issues, but it must be completely abolished because funding that benefits women.
I mean, abortion is bad! In fact let's not be reasonable about it and just call it baby killing in order to get stupid people to agree with us.
Any body heard the pro-lifers' strategy, in their fantasy world of zero abortions, how USA handles 1M unwanted babies/year?
we know they don't want contraception, consider day-after pill to be abortion, are against sex education, lie that abstinence works, etc, etc.
1M babies, what's their solution (we know they don't give after the baby is born, want to cut kids' health insurance, school lunches, food stamps, etc, etc)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-30-2013 at 03:02 PM.
I've raised this issue a number of times, but everyone seems to agree that as long as both parties do it while they have power...that's Texas.Any reasonable person that glances at a map of Texas districts can see how ing obvious...
Its pretty much every state
So you agree that at 20 weeks, it is a child? You just think that a woman should still have the right to murder it?
I stated she made a bad choice. It is a bad choice. But I'm not using the bad choice logic as any building block towards the rest of my comments. I've though it was stated like that. Why do you keep going back to it, except as some kind of troll job? The bad choice comment has nothing to do with the rest of our posts. You're reading more into a comment than what is there. Just go by my comments and stop trying to win at an argument no one is making. I'm not assuming wagging a finger is a solution to anything.Don't conflate the period with what you said. You said "She made bad choices". These alleged bad choices happen whether it's 10, 20 or 24 weeks. What "bad choices" victims of rape or incest made? That's the nonsense I was pointing out.
Rising above the fray.white trash
Last edited by sjacquemotte; 07-01-2013 at 04:20 PM.
GOP-Backed Federal 20-Week Abortion Ban Could Add $400 Million to Deficit
According to a report released Friday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), HR 1797—the bill passed by the House last month that would ban virtually all abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization—could add as much as $400 million to the deficit.
The CBO report assesses the potential for added costs to Medicaid, the medical program for low-income people that is jointly funded by the federal government and the states, for the additional pregnancies that would be brought to term because of the ban. Because the 20-week ban would represent a new limit (in contradiction of the viability limit prescribed in Roe v. Wade), CBO has little hard data on which to base its projections, so it offers a wide-ranging estimate for the addition to the deficit anticipated if the bill were to pass the Senate, which is unlikely in this current session of Congress. While CBO researchers are uncertain of the number of millions the bill would add to the deficit, they conclude that it would add at least $75 million.
The report does not appear to have taken into account the medical costs of caring for the additional babies born with severe, life-threatening conditions, since it is not uncommon for a pregnant woman to be presented with evidence of such conditions until the 19th or 20th week of pregnancy. (CBO did immediately respond to RH Reality Check‘s questions on this matter.)
From the CBO report:
CBO expects that most women who would be affected by H.R. 1797 would seek earlier abortions. But how many women would do so is an important determinant of additional federal costs. For example, if 90 percent of women who would have sought an abortion 20 weeks or more after fertilization instead were to seek earlier abortions, federal spending would rise by about $75 million over 10 years. If only half of those women were to obtain earlier abortions, then federal spending could rise by more than $400 million over 10 years.
Despite the unlikelihood of the 20-week abortion ban becoming law at the national level in the current session of Congress, similar measures are up for votes in state legislatures. Unwilling to accept defeat of a similar ban, SB 5, in Texas in a raucous session of the state Senate last week, Republican Gov. Rick Perry called a special session of the state legislature to reintroduce the bill this week.
And in Ohio, where a mandatory special assessment for women seeking abortions at 20 weeks or later is already in effect, Republican Gov. John Kasich just signed a budget bill, HB 59, that cuts off federal funding for Ohio family planning clinics—$1.4 million for Planned Parenthood alone—while funding religious crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that exist to dissuade women from having abortions. The Ohio bill also requires women to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds, bars treatment in public hospitals for women suffering complications related to abortion, and forbids rape crisis centers that receive public funding from providing information about abortion to the women they assist.
Because Medicaid is jointly funded by the states and the federal government, it might be expected that state-level abortion restrictions will result in higher costs to the states as well. In Texas, the state has struggled to adequately fund Medicaid, according to the New York Times, and Gov. Perry turned down an additional $100 billion over the next decade when he declined to enroll Texas in the Medicaid expansion that is part of the Affordable Care Act.
In 2011, Ohio’s Kasich slashed state services and aid to local governments in order to address an $8 billion budget deficit.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...ality+Check%29
No you don't.
I get paid more than you.
I have more money than you.
I have more investments than you
I've helped more people than you
I've lived around more cultures than you
I've been more places than you
I own a house
I have below 12% debt to credit ratio
I paid for my own college
My kid's college is already covered
I'll get guaranteed loans for sm business and home buying
...All from my own money and work...
...And you went to college...
"Families are always rising and falling in America" and I doubt you'll be rising from the status your family started you out as.
The 20 weeks vs. 24 weeks part of this argument is such an obvious red herring, I can't believe so many of you are getting tricked into talking about it.
why? This the "Repug Rebranding/Marketing/Reachout to Women"
No I don't what?
many trolls do you have?
This. The 20 week part of this law is the least important part IMO, the rest of the law that restricts abortion completely by slashing the number of clinics is the worst part.
6 Truly Unbelievable Ways Ohio Has Just Eviscerated Women's Rights
1. Places Limits on Rape Clinics
Rape clinics are no longer allowed to counsel victims on abortion options under the new budget. If clinics do undertake that counseling, public funding would be cut off.
2. Forced Ultrasounds
The bill requires any woman seeking an abortion to undergo an trans-abdominal ultrasound.
The legislation mandates “an obstetric ultrasound examination that portrays the entire body of the embryo or fetus.” The bill also requires an explanation of the what the ultrasound shows, and for the doctor to search for a heartbeat.
The main author of the bill, State Representative Ron Hood, told the website MediaTrackers.org that “if you talk to the pregnancy-center people across the state, they’ll all tell you that when a mother sees that ultrasound, she really realizes that, in most cases, the vast majority of cases, she doesn’t want to abort this baby.”
3. Cuts Funding to Planned Parenthood
The budget signed by the governor cuts off the reproductive rights group Planned Parenthood from $1.4 million in family-planning money.
Planned Parenthood provides abortion services to women, but also a number of other crucial reproductive rights services. These include STD testing and treatment, contraception services, cancer screening and treatment and more.
4. Restricts Clinics From Working With Public Hospitals
The anti-abortion legislation would end the practice of abortion clinics transferring patients to public hospitals. So if a woman has the ability to get an abortion--a big if considering all the restrictions--she would have to find a private hospital to get post-abortion care done.
5. More Money For ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centers’
While abortion clinics will see their operations severely curtailed--potentially leading to their closures--more money will be given to “crisis pregnancy centers.” These centers, run by religious organizations, usually give inaccurate information to women who enter them. They also seek to dissuade women from getting abortions.
6. Gives Women Information on Fetus to Dissuade Them From Getting Abortions
The budget also requires doctors to inform women of the “of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics” of a fetus. This is done in order to dissuade women from getting an abortion if they’re able to get one. Doctors also have to give women information on adoption--another way of pressuring women not to get an abortion.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...ns-ohio-budget
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
