• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas law requires women to hear description of fetus before abortion

Of course not. They were all very grateful to their adoptive parents. My main issue is that I would prefer it if society made it easier for low-income or single mothers to be able to keep their own children. It's something I don't mind my taxes paying for.
some people are just not fit for being parents no matter how much money you throw at them, but not suggesting that we should all just start prying babies form peoples hands or whatever... just that adoption has a place... a very good one.
 
some people are just not fit for being parents no matter how much money you throw at them, but not suggesting that we should all just start prying babies form peoples hands or whatever... just that adoption has a place... a very good one.

Heavens - I read that, though I was in a different thread and went 'oh my god what's wrong with you' - LOL
 
some people are just not fit for being parents no matter how much money you throw at them, but not suggesting that we should all just start prying babies form peoples hands or whatever... just that adoption has a place... a very good one.

It does have its place. I never said otherwise. So does foster parenting. I have nothing against it. I would just like to make it easier for women to be able to keep their children and not have to give them up just because of their financial situation. I can't help how my personal and admittedly completely anecdotal experience with adoption has shaped my perception of it. It's not a one size fits all solution.
 
Last edited:
Heavens - I read that, though I was in a different thread and went 'oh my god what's wrong with you' - LOL
I don't understand your opposition?

There are a lot of times where people are not yet mature enough to raise a child and adoption may be the better option, even if they were okay financially. Or if the parents have mental illness or disability. Money isn't the only reason people give babies up for adoption, and in a lot of cases where it is the reason it would still (from the parents consent) be the better choice. Believe it or not, not all people who are poor are there b/c they are irresponsible, but there are a good few that are, and if they want a better life for their child why isn't adoption the better choice?
 
It does have its place. I never said otherwise. So does foster parenting. I have nothing against it. I would just like to make it easier for women to be able to keep their children and not have to give them up just because of their financial situation. I can't help how my personal and admittedly completely anecdotal experience with adoption has shaped my perception of it. It's not a one size fits all solution.



What about true education of the ramifications of having a child when you are not prepared to have one? See, we seem to be searching for ways to shrug responsibility for actions, when we know full well what the consequences of that action results in.


j-mac
 
I'll answer that one.
Yep. I knew. And they could have forced me to look at pics and hear the heartbeat and I still would have done it.

There ya go. Straightforward answer if there ever was one. No *****footin' around.

Thank you for your answer. Do you mind saying why you did it?
 
Governments have no ****ing right to force unnecessary and unwanted medical procedures on anybody. End of story.

Do you understand that's exactly how pro-life people feel about those who force a "medical procedure" on a child? This ultrasound merely makes the woman uncomfortable for awhile. An abortion ends the life of a child.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I'm not for the government forcing anyone to have a medical procedure either. I'm also not for the government allowing doctors to suck a human life out of a woman without any consequences. The government should be about protecting the freedom of ALL humans - even the very tiniest.
 
Last edited:
Another step in the right direction.
 
Do you understand that's exactly how pro-life people feel about those who force a "medical procedure" on a child? This ultrasound merely makes the woman uncomfortable for awhile. An abortion ends the life of a child.

But Josie, why should they have to endure a medically unnecessary procedure to undergo a legal medical procedure?
 
What about true education of the ramifications of having a child when you are not prepared to have one? See, we seem to be searching for ways to shrug responsibility for actions, when we know full well what the consequences of that action results in.


j-mac

I'm all for education on all aspects of the issue. Better education on birth control, better access to birth control, better information on what having a child means for your heart, body, mind AND wallet, more emphasis on the responsibility that men have in not getting a girl pregnant, better information on the consequences of choosing abortion, not just the availability of that choice. My main concern is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions. I wish for just one generation that will do all it can to avoid the need for an abortion. I just don't think we're doing it right. We're not giving our kids the tools they need to be that generation.
 
But Josie, why should they have to endure a medically unnecessary procedure to undergo a legal medical procedure?

An abortion isn't just a medical procedure. It's not just removal of tissue or a tumor. No one would ever say that everyone with a brain tumor should have to SEE it before it's removed. That's stupid. The reason this procedure is important is because it's LIFE inside. It's a game changer. It's completely different than any other surgery.

If the state of Texas wants to try to save lives of unborn children by requiring women to have an ultrasound to see their baby, I'm all for it.
 
...If the state of Texas wants to try to save lives of unborn children by requiring women to have an ultrasound to see their baby, I'm all for it.

so you support the government requiring people, under penalty of prison, to undergo a totally elective procedure which includes a tool being shoves up their vagina?

and the fact that this is for PURELY ideological reasons, doesn't phase you?
 
sure it is, especially the early ones.

Then it can be treated just like any other medical procedure. The government mandates certain therapies and "violations of privacy" before having procedures done. If it's just a medical procedure then the government can regulate it equally like all the others.
 
Then it can be treated just like any other medical procedure. The government mandates certain therapies and "violations of privacy" before having procedures done. If it's just a medical procedure then the government can regulate it equally like all the others.

the govt. has NO RIGHT, mandating any medical procedures, under penalty of prison, if the procedure is purely for ideological reasons.

this is the kind of thing the USSR or Nazi Germany would do. yes, I just went there.
 
the govt. has NO RIGHT, mandating any medical procedures, under penalty of prison, especially if the procedure is purely for ideological reasons.

this is the kind of thing the USSR or Nazi Germany would do. yes, I just went there.

Oh but it does, and it exercises that right.

Way to Godwin the thread. You're being illogical and not refuting any of my points. Is abortion truly just a valid medical procedure? If so, why do you oppose the government being able to mandate therapies like they do with other things? You can say the government has "no right" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the government issues the licenses to healthcare professionals and state boards of medicine and pharmacy regulate both practices heavily.
 
Oh but it does, and it exercises that right.....

please name another totally elective procedure, that is mandated by the government under penalty of prison, for purely ideological purposes.

and don't move the goalposts, thanks.
 
please name another totally elective procedure, that is mandated by the government, for purely ideological purposes.

and don't move the goalposts, thanks.

I've shared the iPLEDGE program in another thread. They mandate birth control for acne meds solely over the fact that the medication causes birth defects in the child. the government does more things as well by literally tracking people who buy Sudafed and register people who are legally prescribed narcotics.

Fact: the government has the right to regulate healthcare and mandate things. You don't like it, and you may not like it because it moves in a positive step towards correcting the atrocity of abortion. But no matter how many times you simply say "the government has no right" that doesn't change the fact that the government does have that right and is exercising those rights at this very moment with other patients regarding other therapies/procedures/
 
Last edited:
An abortion isn't just a medical procedure. It's not just removal of tissue or a tumor. No one would ever say that everyone with a brain tumor should have to SEE it before it's removed. That's stupid. The reason this procedure is important is because it's LIFE inside. It's a game changer. It's completely different than any other surgery.

If the state of Texas wants to try to save lives of unborn children by requiring women to have an ultrasound to see their baby, I'm all for it.

But it's medically unnecessary. To force a woman to undergo it because of another person's belief, is wrong and it's an invasion of her privacy. Every woman who undergoes an abortion, knows what they doing and is under enough emotional duress as it is.
 
...
Fact: the government has the right to regulate healthcare and mandate things. You don't like it, and you may not like it because it moves in a positive step towards correcting the atrocity of abortion. But no matter how many times you simply say "the government has no right" that doesn't change the fact that the government does have that right and is exercising those rights at this very moment with other patients regarding other therapies/procedures/

no, the govt. has NO right to mandate a totally elective medical procedure, that is not meant to protect the health of the person and is totally motivated by ideology, under penalty of prison for the victim and loss of license for the doctor.

SCOTUS will agree with me, as will the Appellate Courts in TX and Va.
 
the govt. has NO RIGHT, mandating any medical procedures, under penalty of prison, if the procedure is purely for ideological reasons.


*tink, *tink, *tink......Obamacare anyone?


j-mac
 
*tink, *tink, *tink......Obamacare anyone?


j-mac

hey j-mac, got any evidence of any procedures mandated by Obamacare, that are totally elective, are not motivated to care for the health of the mother, and are ideologically based?

I thought not. Moving on.
 
no, the govt. has NO right to mandate a totally elective medical procedure, that is not meant to protect the health of the person and is totally motivated by ideology, under penalty of prison for the victim and loss of license for the doctor.

SCOTUS will agree with me, as will the Appellate Courts in TX and Va.

You argue with no substance and keep parroting "the government has no right...."

The do have the right, they do it with other procedures all the time. They track patients all the time based on certain therapies and many states will register you with a tracking website for buying certain OTC meds. The iPLEDGE program is another example of mandated therapy by the FDA.
 
Back
Top Bottom