Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Dozens of Bills are advancing through state capitals across the United States that would put an array of new obstacles - legal, financial and psychological - in the paths of women seeking abortions.

The tactics vary: Mandatory sonograms and anti-abortion counselling, sweeping limits on insurance coverage and bans on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

To abortion-rights activists, they add up to the biggest political threat since the Supreme Court's landmark Roe vs Wade decision of 1973 that legalised abortion nationwide.

On Tuesday, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law a Bill that would impose a longest-in-the-nation waiting period of three days before women could have an abortion - and also require them to undergo counselling at pregnancy help centres that discourage abortions.

In a number of states, lawmakers are also considering Bills that would ban elective abortions after 20 or 21 weeks of pregnancy. These measures are modelled after a law was approved last year in Nebraska that was based on the disputed premise that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks.

In more than 20 states, Bills have been introduced to restrict insurance coverage of abortion. In Utah, one such measure - affecting both private and public plans - has cleared both legislative chambers and been sent to Governor Gary Herbert.

Of the various types of Bills, the insurance bans could have the broadest impact, according to some abortion-rights activists.

While routine first-trimester abortions generally cost US$400 (S$506) to US$700, later and more complicated abortions can run into the thousands of dollars, especially if hospitalisation is needed.
https://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/q8tcdngwmemwnhiefj4wpw.gif
So what happened to the whole pro-choice movement? How is it we're managing to go back in time on this issue? Also how can you be pro-life and a fiscal conservative? Abortion lowers crime and is much cheaper than a lifetime worth of social spending. Supporting government subsidized abortion would be a ''fiscally conservative'' thing to do...

Also
Fighting back tears as he talked up his home state's abortion laws, Haley Barbour vowed Friday that he will not adhere to any social-issues "truce" if he runs for president.

Speaking to a gathering of conservatives hosted by the Iowa Renewal Project here, Barbour grew emotional when he touted Mississippi's top rating from Americans United for Life and spotlighted a law enacted early in his first term as governor that required doctors to do everything possible to save a fetus that survives an unsuccessful abortion.
...
The comments represented Barbour clearest move away from his good friend, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has been pummeled by conservatives for saying social issues should take a back seat to a focus on fiscal concerns. Until now, Barbour has more often used language and a laser-like fiscal focus that led some to believe he was closer to Daniels' camp on the issue than other presidential hopefuls.
...
“We’re doing everything that we can to stop abortion in our state,” Barbour said. “And if I get elected president, I will come into office with that attitude. And that’s about 180 degrees different from the current president.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 … z1HjnqrcC3
Haley Barbour just lost any chance I'll vote for him (not that it matters anyway), Mitch Daniels on the other hand has my attention.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6685|US

Macbeth wrote:

Supporting government subsidized abortion would be a ''fiscally conservative'' thing to do...
Bolded to emphasize contradiction.

I'll also offer the opinion that fiscal conservatives who believes that killing fetuses is murder would probably be "pro-life" regardless of cost.  Sometimes certain values trump others.
Blue Herring
Member
+13|4775

Macbeth wrote:

How is it we're managing to go back in time on this issue? Also how can you be pro-life and a fiscal conservative? Abortion lowers crime and is much cheaper than a lifetime worth of social spending. Supporting government subsidized abortion would be a ''fiscally conservative'' thing to do...
It's not a fiscal issue, it's a moral one. The issue is with whether you define a fetus as a human life, an opinion which I suppose is gaining popularity.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America
The chart is rather strange. I wouldn't expect people to be flip-flopping on an issue such as abortion from year to year, so it's got to reflect who they're polling. I'd be interested to see the way that study was conducted (N value, format). It's odd how many abortion laws seem to abitrarily pick points at which they make cutoffs and where they define life (and also bestowing rights on fetuses prior to birth).
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

RAIMIUS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Supporting government subsidized abortion would be a ''fiscally conservative'' thing to do...
Bolded to emphasize contradiction.

I'll also offer the opinion that fiscal conservatives who believes that killing fetuses is murder would probably be "pro-life" regardless of cost.  Sometimes certain values trump others.
Abortion lowers crime and is much cheaper than a lifetime worth of social spending.
From a cost-benefit standpoint a government supported abortion would be a good investment. A single few hundred dollar procedure is cheaper than a lifetime worth of court cost, healthcare cost, education cost, and a bunch of other things that come from having a bunch of unwanted poor kids.

I'm working on the assumption that ''fiscal conservatism'' means spending money wisely. If I'm wrong please enlighten me.

"I'll also offer the opinion that fiscal conservatives who believes that killing fetuses is murder would probably be "pro-life" regardless of cost.  Sometimes certain values trump others."

In that case you're really neither and are just picking and choosing instead of operating on actual philosophical points.
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6684|Purplicious Wisconsin
And what if the aborted kid doesn't become a criminal?

Last edited by War Man (2011-03-26 16:45:00)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

You still have all of those other cost that come from unwanted children that make a one time abortion cheaper than the alt.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6124|what

I thought the Repubs wanted to limit the Governments control of you. You know, small Government and all that?

And how is this meant to "create" jobs?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|6751|Great Brown North

AussieReaper wrote:

I thought the Repubs wanted to limit the Governments control of you. You know, small Government and all that?

And how is this meant to "create" jobs?
limit control of what they approve of, ban what they dont
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France
Far be it, but it seems that if 1/2 of the nation is in favor/against...my feeling is you don't prevent people from deciding against getting an abortion by being pro-choice.  I do think they must litigate the amount of education for the decision, however...aka options besides abortion.

I'm pro-life myself...just because I believe in other options more strongly than making the parents comfortable.  Someone should speak for the unborn child.  Yet, I'm also of the mind that you shouldn't piss off half the nation because of it.  So, within lies the struggle I have within the decision itself...

And also, to address some of the questions in the OP...I think the tie to crime, etc, due to poor upbringing has to do with lack of social programs in that area.  Aka, address the social programs and perhaps there is a different story.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6416|The Land of Scott Walker
Dozens of Bills are advancing through state capitals across the United States that would put an array of new obstacles - legal, financial and psychological - in the paths of women seeking abortions ...

These are not obstacles, they are the factors that should be weighed in a such a critical decision.  The psychological effects on the mother and even the father are minimized by the abortion profiteers, but they are very real.
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5455|Bolingbrook, Illinois
lets celebrate
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5230|foggy bottom
the vagina belongs to men anyways.
Tu Stultus Es
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Stingray24 wrote:

These are not obstacles, they are the factors that should be weighed in a such a critical decision.  The psychological effects on the mother and even the father are minimized by the abortion profiteers, but they are very real.
A bill authored by Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, requires a woman to be given the opportunity to see the sonogram and hear the heartbeat of the fetus before an abortion can be performed, while a doctor explains the features of the fetus.
How is that not emotional manipulation? That's possibly psychological harm tbh.
http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/poli … -1.2020748

In a number of states, lawmakers are considering bills that would ban elective abortions after 20 or 21 weeks of pregnancy. These measures are modeled after a law approved last year in Nebraska that was based on the disputed premise that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks.
...
Jill June of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which operates in Nebraska and Iowa, said she expected the 20-week ban to be challenged at some point -- either in Nebraska or some other state that passes such a law.

She cited the case of Danielle Deaver, a Nebraska woman who -- under the new law -- was denied the option of terminating a pregnancy at 22 weeks after she learned the baby was nonviable.

Deaver ended up going into natural pre-term labor and gave birth to a girl who died after 15 minutes.
She later told her story to local media, expressing hope that other legislators would consider the ramifications as they contemplated such bans.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia … 5KMEO4.htm
Thank god they couldn't abort it. Praise Jesus.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-03-26 20:47:39)

HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5455|Bolingbrook, Illinois

Macbeth wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

These are not obstacles, they are the factors that should be weighed in a such a critical decision.  The psychological effects on the mother and even the father are minimized by the abortion profiteers, but they are very real.
A bill authored by Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, requires a woman to be given the opportunity to see the sonogram and hear the heartbeat of the fetus before an abortion can be performed, while a doctor explains the features of the fetus.
How is that not emotional manipulation? That's possibly psychological harm tbh.
http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/poli … -1.2020748
because whether you like it or not, a fetus is a life.

makes the stupid bitch who got preggo think about what the hell she's doing before she does it
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

What about women who get raped or are victims of incest? What about young girls who get taken advantage of at young ages? What if the baby isn't viable? Too bad?
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5455|Bolingbrook, Illinois

Macbeth wrote:

What about women who get raped or are victims of incest? What about young girls who get taken advantage of at young ages? What if the baby isn't viable? Too bad?
what about the baby?
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5444|Ventura, California
Since when was murdering babies accepted?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

It's not a baby it's a fetus. It doesn't have consciousness.

So a 10 year old girl would be forced to have her fathers deformed rape baby because you draw a solid line against all abortions for whatever the reason?
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5455|Bolingbrook, Illinois

Macbeth wrote:

It's not a baby it's a fetus. It doesn't have consciousness.

So a 10 year old girl would be forced to have her fathers deformed rape baby because you draw a solid line against all abortions for whatever the reason?
you can't justify this for any reason.

how do you know the baby doesn't have consciousness?

and would the murder of a year old baby be acceptable as long as it was unconscious?
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Would you deny a 10 year old girl who was raped and impregnated by her own father an abortion? Would you tell her she couldn't have a second chance at life? Simple yes or no.

Because it isn't developed enough.

and would the murder of a year old baby be acceptable as long as it was unconscious?
LoL. Good one chief. No of course not, it's a living baby at that point. It's fully developed, and conscious.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

Macbeth wrote:

It's not a baby it's a fetus. It doesn't have consciousness.

So a 10 year old girl would be forced to have her fathers deformed rape baby because you draw a solid line against all abortions for whatever the reason?
Most rape babies aren't "the father's deformed rape baby", btw, but if that's the case...no she shouldn't.  BUT, in some cases it makes sense to see if she's willing to accept support from everyone until the birth comes and then adoption.

I know a couple who adopts crack babies.  They've raised three thru college so far, and have three others well on their way.  The kids who went to college: one graduated and became a priest, one is in medical school, and the other is a dentist.

Yeah, tough to think that some people beat the odds, but it happens a lot more than you think.
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5455|Bolingbrook, Illinois

Macbeth wrote:

Would you deny a 10 year old girl who was raped and impregnated by her own father an abortion? Would you tell her she couldn't have a second chance at life? Simple yes or no.
yes, yes i would.  fyi, there's this little thing called adoption that would allow the 10 year old girl to keep her life.

Macbeth wrote:

Because it isn't developed enough.

and would the murder of a year old baby be acceptable as long as it was unconscious?
LoL. Good one chief. No of course not, it's a living baby at that point. It's fully developed, and conscious.
its still just a baby, it doesn't know any better!  it wont even feel anything!  besides, the year old baby never said we can't do it, so we might as well just do it because the parents dont want to have to waste all their money on their baby.

and it's not fully developed, it still has to grow into an adult.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Incestuous birth = deformities is a popular myth.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France
Macbeth...if it was possible to make the mother completely comfortable in every way - mentally, physically, monetarily, etc, during the pregnancy, and then the adoption was mentally, physically, and monetarily, etc, acceptable to the child...

....would that change you mind?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard