carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Small government apparently means government that is small enough to fit into bedrooms and vaginas. http://articles.bost...und-legislation Requiring everyone to pay into a health insurance pool? Tramples our freedom! Forcing women to submit to vaginal probes? Well . . . there's no problem with that. 1 Link to comment
holvy83 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 did I read that right? There would be civil lawsuits for wrongful death of a fetus under this bill? Hmmmmm..... Link to comment
huzkerbob Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Wtf, are we living in 2012 or 1812? This is absolutely ridiculous! And what ever happened to the first rule of medicine "First do no harm"? Because if this procedure is really mandated then there will definitley be serious emotional harm done to hundreds, if not thousands of Virgina women. If I was a physician in that state I would fight this with ever core of my being! Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 People like me have nothing to fear from Christian rule... Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Wtf, are we living in 2012 or 1812? This is absolutely ridiculous! And what ever happened to the first rule of medicine "First do no harm"? Because if this procedure is really mandated then there will definitley be serious emotional harm done to hundreds, if not thousands of Virgina women. If I was a physician in that state I would fight this with ever core of my being! Same could be said of abortion.... Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Wtf, are we living in 2012 or 1812? This is absolutely ridiculous! And what ever happened to the first rule of medicine "First do no harm"? Because if this procedure is really mandated then there will definitley be serious emotional harm done to hundreds, if not thousands of Virgina women. If I was a physician in that state I would fight this with ever core of my being! Same could be said of abortion.... Or any type of cosmetic surgery for that matter, where risk is introduced during the procedure or harm is done to the body. Could you make a legal arguement for the banning of abortions? Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Wtf, are we living in 2012 or 1812? This is absolutely ridiculous! And what ever happened to the first rule of medicine "First do no harm"? Because if this procedure is really mandated then there will definitley be serious emotional harm done to hundreds, if not thousands of Virgina women. If I was a physician in that state I would fight this with ever core of my being! Same could be said of abortion.... Or any type of cosmetic surgery for that matter, where risk is introduced during the procedure or harm is done to the body. Could you make a legal arguement for the banning of abortions? Near as I can figure the argument starts when you decide at what point life starts. If you say at birth, then abortion is a non issue, if you say at conception, then it's a different story, or in the interest of an internet debate, some say life starts when a child becomes self-aware (18 months IIRC), so if you dont like your new babies looks or eye color, just toss it in the dumpster. Of course we have the deeper issues of rape, incest, life threatening issues to the mother if the child is carried to term, etc... So in the end, no, I cannot give you a flat out argument for a 100% ban on abortion, nor could I give you one that 100% supports it. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Near as I can figure the argument starts when you decide at what point life starts. If you say at birth, then abortion is a non issue, if you say at conception, then it's a different story, or in the interest of an internet debate, some say life starts when a child becomes self-aware (18 months IIRC), so if you dont like your new babies looks or eye color, just toss it in the dumpster. Of course we have the deeper issues of rape, incest, life threatening issues to the mother if the child is carried to term, etc... So in the end, no, I cannot give you a flat out argument for a 100% ban on abortion, nor could I give you one that 100% supports it. Good points, and I hope to add something of value to them. Although I do not oppose abortion in the first trimester, I believe that there should be an educational process to what the fetus is and how it developes, and a mandatory waiting perioid of a few days that includes an interview with a counsilor. Abortion beyond that should primarily only be allowed if the woman's life is in danger, if the parents could not care for a child with genetic issues, of if new evidence comes out that the child was the product of rape or incest. A fetus is a life form, and the age-old arguement opens up as to when it had or will become a human being. I define being human as having human DNA, a spirit and a soul. The DNA is measurable, but the spirit and soul parts are not. Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Near as I can figure the argument starts when you decide at what point life starts. If you say at birth, then abortion is a non issue, if you say at conception, then it's a different story, or in the interest of an internet debate, some say life starts when a child becomes self-aware (18 months IIRC), so if you dont like your new babies looks or eye color, just toss it in the dumpster. Of course we have the deeper issues of rape, incest, life threatening issues to the mother if the child is carried to term, etc... So in the end, no, I cannot give you a flat out argument for a 100% ban on abortion, nor could I give you one that 100% supports it. Good points, and I hope to add something of value to them. Although I do not oppose abortion in the first trimester, I believe that there should be an educational process to what the fetus is and how it developes, and a mandatory waiting perioid of a few days that includes an interview with a counsilor. Abortion beyond that should primarily only be allowed if the woman's life is in danger, if the parents could not care for a child with genetic issues, of if new evidence comes out that the child was the product of rape or incest. A fetus is a life form, and the age-old arguement opens up as to when it had or will become a human being. I define being human as having human DNA, a spirit and a soul. The DNA is measurable, but the spirit and soul parts are not. I think this is what the GOP is getting at. The problem is they brought a nuclear warhead to a knitting circle. I would guess the thought is seeing the baby before the abortion would stop you from having one. I like the idea of a waiting period and talking to a counselor, the issue would be making sure they are impartial, and give honest answers. As for abortion itself, I truly wish it would only be for extreme situations, as listed above. I, unfortunately, have intimate knowledge of some one who used it for birth control, and the scares still affect her to this day (over ten years later). I fell to many women turn to it, and are not given proper mental or emotional support for what they are doing. In a candid moment my friend told me it what easier to get an abortion that a drivers license. She just walked in, filled out basic forms, paid the money, and with in the hour was done. Link to comment
strigori Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 How can the GOP support teaching people about how a fetus develops. They continually rail against the health/sex ed classes for schools. Making things illegal does not make it go away. Women had abortions before Roe vs Wade, at a huge risk. Only a fool thinks that anyone is going to have an abortion does not go through an agonizing descision. The Santorums of the world make it sound like McDonalds has an abortion drive through lane, and that is just not the case. Link to comment
Recommended Posts