 |
"Most" is incorrect. Those were illegal abortions and were not always done in sterile conditions, were done by sleazier doctors and in their offices/treatment rooms, often with no assistance. As for the "most," we have no clue how many were done by girls and women alone in their bedrooms/bathrooms.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Back then, women and girls figured they would die during or after an abortion or a botched abortion. Infection was a huge problem.
Let's review. I said that back-alley abortion thing is mostly a myth, meaning there were not tons and tons of women suffering and/or dying from using coat hangers and such. The facts we have say that roughly 9 out of 10 of those abortions were performed by licensed physicians and that legalizing abortion had no major impact on the number of women that died from an abortion.
So when you argue we're going "back" to those days there you go, 9 out of 10 doctors were obviously quacks with no regard for sterile conditions after hours according to your 'logic.'
I have a different take on what benefits women. I do not think Obama's agenda items are really that good for women. I also do not think it's the federal government's role to provide them in any event.
I believe, rather, that we all should be responsible for our own reproduction. Sex is optional, pregnancy is 100% preventable. There seems to be a belief that if birth control is free, it will solve all our reproductive problems. Not so. Birth control is already quite cheap - if a person can afford a bottle of pop, they can buy a condom. If they can afford a case of pop, they can afford a months' supply of the pill. This idea that affordability is the driving factor behind women getting pregnant when they can't support a child is a myth. Women will find a way to pay for birth control if they are of a mindset to use it. So will men.
Birth control is also not inocuous, nor is abortion. Both dramatically impact the woman's body and they are not medically necessary in most cases. When they are, they should be prescribed and covered as medical treatments and covered as such. For example, tubal surgery for an ectopic pregnancy is medically necessary to save the life of the mother - it should be treated as a medical procedure, not an abortion. The intention is not to terminate the pregnancy but to save the mother. On the other hand, an abortion because someone got drunk and slept with their boyfriend - not medically necessary, poses risk to the mother, poses almost certain emotional devastation. Not necessarily the right thing to do, regardless of your moral values about abortion. Taking responsibility for it seems to me to be the right thing for that woman and her partner to do, including the bill. It is not, however, my responsibility to pay for their behavior.
Whatever money the government gives free to someone has to be earned by and then taken from someone else. We need to have some high standards when we decide that our neighbor should buy things for us.
It's a philosophical difference about the role of government and the role of individuals. I personally think, for example, it's more caring to hold people accountable - particularly adults - than to bail them out of their self-made messes. The bail-out can be a trap, and prevention of learning.
The best social programs are education and jobs - they benefit all of us. I'd like our government to focus on creating an environment where these things can thrive, which includes cutting some of these school unions down to size when they become overly burdensome to the tax payers.
There is no such thing as free contraceptions since you are paying a monthly or bi monthly PREMIUM for a contracted benefit from a private company.
Some of us pay no premium... yet. Still you're OK with not giving religious employers a choice.
Spewechless is saying,And I agree 100%. And now we have to define what old Speechless Dude meant by "child" If I saw a child playing in the street I'd stop traffic and pick him up. If I saw a child in trouble in a swimming pool I'd jump in and pull him out. Old Dude couldn't be referring to abortion because at no time are children involved. Good thought speechless! Perhaps you should try saving disadvantaged children instead of attempting to control a woman's medical decision. Might even make the world a better place, TomQuote:
There is nothing "wrongheaded" about trying to save a child's life.
Most employee based health insurance requires a deduction for health insurance, tellme more about yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The distinction of fact is the EMPLOYER aspect you acknowledge as employees have taxes, and rights that their EMPLOYER cannot take away.
Do you expect employees to give up heir rights and obligations to work for a church?
No one EVER had a right to contraceptive coverage from their employer in this country. You can't take away something you never had.Quote:
Most employee based health insurance requires a deduction for health insurance, tellme more about yours.
The distinction of fact is the EMPLOYER aspect you acknowledge as employees have taxes, and rights that their EMPLOYER cannot take away.
Do you expect employees to give up heir rights and obligations to work for a church?
We've had this discussion, I think it's great idea to help children inside and outside the womb. It's a baby, it's always been a baby - no one but some pro-choicer would run around telling her friends she's having a fetus.Quote:
And I agree 100%. And now we have to define what old Speechless Dude meant by "child" If I saw a child playing in the street I'd stop traffic and pick him up. If I saw a child in trouble in a swimming pool I'd jump in and pull him out. Old Dude couldn't be referring to abortion because at no time are children involved. Good thought speechless! Perhaps you should try saving disadvantaged children instead of attempting to control a woman's medical decision. Might even make the world a better place, Tom
And the church has no right to tell private business how they do their business. Or government how to govern.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Now therein lies the problem because someone has to tell them, their record indicates very poor performance
The real problem is the Dems grasping at straw. Women in this country are concerned about jobs for themselves and their families . They worry about paying the weekly grocery bill . They are not worried about a full time student activist's ability to get contraception ,or this fanciful notion that if Romney is elected that abortions will be illegal.
Those women will REALLY have to worry about the grocery bill if abortions become illegal!
But that's exactly what's inside the womb until it comes out. That's what I keep calling you on. It's not a BAY-BEE, It's not a CHILD, In fact and in truth it is a fetus both medically and legally. You lifers try like hell to make it something it's not. And then get angry because it doesn't work for you. We don't shoot up and bomb people you all do, TomQuote:
some pro-choicer would run around telling her friends she's having a fetus.
First of all Tommy Boy I don't shoot up and bomb anyone, nor does any pro-life group so you can toss that straw man aside. I bet more women have died from legal abortion mills than abortionists killed by wackos. Secondly, you avoided the point. No one I know of brags about having a fetus, they get excited because they're having a baby. But I know how it with you leftists, you always want it both ways. Just like Tal telling the "it's my way or the highway" while arguing that view is wrong.
During both of my pregnancies, the medical people always referred to my "babies" as fetuses.
"I going to have a baby."
Maybe you spoke too soon?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
Laws and policies
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."[8] In the U.S. 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender" (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008). Laci Peterson, murdered in 2002, is one of the more high-profile homicides.
Currently in the North Carolina Senate, a bill called the SB 353 Unborn Victims of Violence Act is being considered for legislation that would create a separate criminal offense for the death of a fetus when the mother is murdered. The North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence does not support this law for numerous reasons including failure to see violence against the mother as the cause of the fetal death.[9] The Coalition does, however, support the position of the National Network to End Domestic Violence regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women
Hello again,
The women I know have the ability to consider TWO thoughts at once... Certainly, they're worried about jobs. That DOESN'T mean, of course, that they're not also worried about their vaginas, and how Mitt is going to deal with them.
excon
Ex, please, we don't need those images being put in our head
Hello again, clete:
Don't they say vagina over there?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 PM. |