SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

j-mac said:

Of planned Parenthood own coercive tactics.....





So when a counter to PP was formed in NYC across the street, do you know what happened to them?

j-mac

Click to expand...

This is bad, but it's not so much coercion as it is just flat out lying. I agree that Planned Parenthood uses certain questionable tactics and they should be held accountable.

j-mac said:

Of planned Parenthood own coercive tactics.....





So when a counter to PP was formed in NYC across the street, do you know what happened to them?

j-mac

Click to expand...

That's the fault of making the choice based on things such as 'heartbeat'

For all the many reasons why I support abortion - whether the developing has a beating heart, fingers and toes isn't really it. There's more to 'having a baby' than the multiplication of cells and passing the child tween your loins.

StillBallin75 said:

This is bad, but it's not so much coercion as it is just flat out lying. I agree that Planned Parenthood uses certain questionable tactics and they should be held accountable.

Click to expand...

So then I ask again, what's the problem with a counter balance to PP? NYC government officals had at least one private concern like that, run by a Nun, closed, and investigated...Or should I say intimidated.

j-mac

Aunt Spiker said:

That's the fault of making the choice based on things such as 'heartbeat'

For all the many reasons why I support abortion - whether the developing has a beating heart, fingers and toes isn't really it. There's more to 'having a baby' than the multiplication of cells and passing the child tween your loins.

Click to expand...

And how far along should the "mass of cells" your own words here, be allowed to be snuffed out?

j-mac

theplaydrive said:

Because everyone knows that this "counseling" is coercive in nature. By this logic, we should also mandate counseling for all those who chose to have the child in order to explain the benefits of abortion.

Click to expand...

This is the thing for me. It's not giving people the information to make a good choice, you're just trying to get them to change their mind. Someone brought up counseling for overcoming drug addiction, but the big difference is that addiction counselors aren't sitting there explaining to the addict the benefits of drugs.

Mainly, I hate these piddling little restrictions on abortion. If you think abortion should be illegal, then propose a law that makes it illegal. They're just trying to score points with their base without actually changing anything about abortion. They can go back to the religious conservatives and tout their "pro-life" credentials -- but abortion is still perfectly legal.

j-mac said:

So then I ask again, what's the problem with a counter balance to PP? NYC government officals had at least one private concern like that, run by a Nun, closed, and investigated...Or should I say intimidated.

j-mac

Click to expand...

IIRC, many "crisis pregnancy centers" exist in the United states, and even get millions of dollars in funding much as Planned Parenthood does. Over 4,000 currently exist in the US. In many cases they set themselves up right across the street from abortion clinics, so people considering having an abortion certainly have access to counselors on both sides of the issue right now, and are not being coerced into doing having to consult with one or the other or both.

j-mac said:

And how far along should the "mass of cells" your own words here, be allowed to be snuffed out?

j-mac

Click to expand...

I'm with the majority and support it being done within the first two months (6 to 8 weeks) - I prefer as soon as possible once the woman becomes aware that she is pregnant. But a few days between confirmation and having the procedure done isn't going to do anyone any harm.

There is no *defined line* at where it's cut off, though - just like there's no defined line where a premature infant can be born and survive. It's different for everyone - which is why I'm against mid-term and late-term abortions (2nd and 3rd trimester) - I think that gives too much leniency.

You can try to toss all the little snide phrases around like 'snuffed out' and 'mass of cells' all you'd like - but it's actually a serious subject which can and should be discussed maturely.

j-mac said:

So then I ask again, what's the problem with a counter balance to PP? NYC government officals had at least one private concern like that, run by a Nun, closed, and investigated...Or should I say intimidated.

j-mac

Click to expand...

There already are counter balances to PP - churches and other "pro-life" religious organizations. If you want an abortion, you know where to go. If you want to have a kid, you know where to go. The government doesn't need to "mandate" counseling - you go to the person who's going to do what you want them to do - hence choice.

j-mac said:

Of planned Parenthood own coercive tactics.....





So when a counter to PP was formed in NYC across the street, do you know what happened to them?

j-mac

Click to expand...

Everything except for the heartbeat part was true...Also, everyone knows what you're going to get when you go to PP just like everyone knows what your going to get when you go to your Catholic priest. They're both private organizations.

Aunt Spiker said:

I'm with the majority and support it being done within the first two months (6 to 8 weeks) - I prefer as soon as possible once the woman becomes aware that she is pregnant. But a few days between confirmation and having the procedure done isn't going to do anyone any harm.

Click to expand...

Heartbeat is a 3 weeks and 1 day. Would you agree that first, many women don't even know they are pregnant in that time frame? and second, that a heartbeat is a medically accepted determining factor of life?

So, at the very least your supposition of doing harm is questionable in my opinion.

There is no *defined line* at where it's cut off, though - just like there's no defined line where a premature infant can be born and survive. It's different for everyone - which is why I'm against mid-term and late-term abortions (2nd and 3rd trimester) - I think that gives too much leniency.

Click to expand...

agreed

You can try to toss all the little snide phrases around like 'snuffed out' and 'mass of cells' all you'd like - but it's actually a serious subject which can and should be discussed maturely.

Click to expand...

I wasn't being snide, or sarcastic at all, merely using TPD's own words....Is that wrong now?

j-mac

theplaydrive said:

Everything except for the heartbeat part was true...Also, everyone knows what you're going to get when you go to PP just like everyone knows what your going to get when you go to your Catholic priest. They're both private organizations.

Click to expand...

You know what you're going to get when you go to PP . . . I went to Planned Parenthood to get affordable birth control without being harassed about my life-choices.

You know what I found to be VERY weird: When I was on welfare (it was called ASA back then I think) and pregnant with my first two kids the local doctors would take me as a patient only if I was confirmed tobe pregnant before my first appointment - the confirmation clinics gave a $10.00 pregnancy test and wrote a confirmation slip which you'd take to the dr for your first appointment.
All the confirmation clinics were religious.

I bought a fake ring and put it on my finger and told them I was married and attended church routinely so I wouldn't hear the religious boo-hoo bs.

theplaydrive said:

Everything except for the heartbeat part was true...Also, everyone knows what you're going to get when you go to PP just like everyone knows what your going to get when you go to your Catholic priest. They're both private organizations.

Click to expand...

Except one receives hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, and one doesn't.....If the country were to adopt a single payer health care system, would you want abortion included as a paid for procedure?


j-mac

j-mac said:

Except one receives hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, and one doesn't.....If the country were to adopt a single payer health care system, would you want abortion included as a paid for procedure?


j-mac

Click to expand...

Elective abortion - no.
But if it's due to the 3-situations, yes (health of infant/mother, rape, incest)

j-mac said:

Except one receives hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, and one doesn't.....If the country were to adopt a single payer health care system, would you want abortion included as a paid for procedure?


j-mac

Click to expand...

Except the Catholic Church is tax exempt and gets government funding for its schools and some of its religious programs...they both have their hands in the government pot.

j-mac said:

I wasn't being snide, or sarcastic at all, merely using TPD's own words....Is that wrong now?

j-mac

Click to expand...

I never used the phrases "mass of cells" and "snuffed out"...wtf are you talking about?

This law is ****ing retarded. Nobody spontaneously decides to get an abortion; there is always forethought involved. And if there isn’t forethought involved, we as a society have a moral responsibility to ensure the stupid bitch gets an abortion ASAP.

Just another law to be shot down by SCOTUS when the time comes. :shrug:

Dr_Patrick said:

What exactly is that 3 day wait going to accomplish? The fact of the matter is that some people just aren't going to be a suitable parent. Why make the child suffer in the long run?

Click to expand...

What kind of suffering would the child go through that would make that child wish he or she was dead or to justify killing a child?

I think abortion is far more humane than raising a child in a potentially abusive and neglectful environment.

Click to expand...

Is there any actual evidence to support that claim that unwanted children are abused and neglected? Because that sounds like a bunch of garbage pushed by the pro-abortion crowd. Because if a woman really does not want a child then she can give it up for adoption and many states have Safe Haven/"Baby Moses laws" laws where they can just drop a baby at a hospital no questions asked. Are there any actual statistics from a unbiased source? Are there any testimonials from people who grew up in adopted homes and orphanages that they were abused and neglected? Do any of these people that were raised in orphanages or adopted homes wished that their birth mother killed them instead of giving them a chance at life?

You have to be pretty ****ed up in the head to think that having your life snuffed out is somehow better than being alive.

Pro-life people are very gung ho about keeping fetuses alive, but when they become children they start to lose interest.

Click to expand...

Perhaps its due to the fact its not legal to kill a child outside the womb. The whole premise of being pro-life/anti-anti-abortion is that you are against legalized abortion as a means of birth control.

jamesrage said:

What kind of suffering would the child go through that would make that child wish he or she was dead or to justify killing a child?

Is there any actual evidence to support that claim that unwanted children are abused and neglected? Because that sounds like a bunch of garbage pushed by the pro-abortion crowd. Because if a woman really does not want a child then she can give it up for adoption and many states have Safe Haven/"Baby Moses laws" laws where they can just drop a baby at a hospital no questions asked. Are there any actual statistics from a unbiased source? Are there any testimonials from people who grew up in adopted homes and orphanages that they were abused and neglected? Do any of these people that were raised in orphanages or adopted homes wished that their birth mother killed them instead of giving them a chance at life?

You have to be pretty ****ed up in the head to think that having your life snuffed out is somehow better than being alive.

Perhaps its due to the fact its not legal to kill a child outside the womb. The whole premise of being pro-life/anti-anti-abortion is that you are against legalized abortion as a means of birth control.

Click to expand...

As per usual, all of your credibility flies out the window when you start to refer to the pro-choice crowd as "pro-abortion". If you honestly want to be taken seriously in this debate and have thoughtful answers to your questions you should probably keep that in mind. The simple fact that you feel justified in making such an absurd leap speaks volumes about you. Feel free to say that I'm dodging your questions, but I take serious offense to your simplistic view of pro-choice people. The only thing I will offer up, and you can reply to it if you want, is that my wife and I are both pro-choice. Yet, she is pregnant and we are having a child together. It kind of blows your idiotic theory of pro-choice being pro-abortion out of the water, doesn't it? You simply can't stand the fact that the abortion debate isn't one extreme versus the opposite extreme, so you make things up as you go along. Anyway, this will be my last reply to you on the subject...so feel free to sling any and all insults that you want. The ignore button is only a click away.

Dr_Patrick said:

What exactly is that 3 day wait going to accomplish? The fact of the matter is that some people just aren't going to be a suitable parent. Why make the child suffer in the long run? I think abortion is far more humane than raising a child in a potentially abusive and neglectful environment. Pro-life people are very gung ho about keeping fetuses alive, but when they become children they start to lose interest.

Click to expand...

What child are you talking about exactly?

j-mac said:

Except one receives hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, and one doesn't.....If the country were to adopt a single payer health care system, would you want abortion included as a paid for procedure?


j-mac

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. I wonder how much abortion had to do with the new Obamacare law. :ssst:

I'm fine with the 3 day waiting period. The decision over whether or not to have an abortion should be a considered one, and enforcing a waiting period gives the woman time to think it over. 3 days isn't too long either. I do not, however, support the women having to get counseling at a crisis pregnancy center. The people that work there have an agenda, and are not medical professionals. Women should have all the facts before they get an abortion, but thats not what crisis pregnancy centers are providing.

I read a few comments about more information being good. Generally that's true, but when you are mandated by law to receive information that may be biased, that's not so good.

Here is a link to a congressional investigation into federally funded pregnancy resource centers and the conclusion.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant teenagers and women turn to federally funded pregnancy resource centers for advice and counseling at a difficult time in their lives. These centers, however, frequently fail to provide medically accurate information. The vast majority of pregnancy centers contacted in this investigation misrepresented the medical consequences of abortion, often grossly exaggerating the risks. This tactic may be effective in frightening pregnant teenagers and women and discouraging abortion. But it denies the teenagers and women vital health information, prevents them from making an informed decision, and is not an accepted public health practice.

http://www.chsourcebook.com/articles/waxman2.pdf

Click to expand...

Here's more on crisis pregnancy centers.

Crisis pregnancy center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I guess if it delivers the message you like, it's all OK.

BWG said:

I read a few comments about more information being good. Generally that's true, but when you are mandated by law to receive information that may be biased, that's not so good.

Here is a link to a congressional investigation into federally funded pregnancy resource centers and the conclusion.





Here's more on crisis pregnancy centers.

Crisis pregnancy center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I guess if it delivers the message you like, it's all OK.

Click to expand...

Well that makes no sense - they grossly *exaggerate* - that means that they overinflate the issues. But that's not the alleged case time after time - is it? It's usually the other way around - where they treat it too casually to *not* dissuade women from having the procedure.

So which one is it really - overplay or underplay?

roughdraft274 said:

Of course, conservatives hate the idea of government getting in the middle of people's affairs...

Conservatives hates the idea of the government forcing a middle man between patients and their doctors... etc.

Unless of course they don't like what completely legal decisions people are making.

Any "conservative" that supports this crap should switch their lean to "somewhat conservative".

Click to expand...

Yes, because clearly you are the only arbiter of what is or isn't conservative and are essentially God when it comes to conservatism, able to dictate what is or isn't it? Roughdraft see's absolutely no other way this can be viewed and thus anyone that doesn't view it exactly like him isn't conservative.

If one views that the fetus is a human being then this action is not inherently unconservative. All but the most extreme of conservatives acknowledge that the government should not be an anarchy, that there should be some purposes to the government, and one such purpose is providing protection (such as police officers, military, etc) for individuals especially those that are unable to protect themselves. This is a necessary function of government that by and large all but the most extreme of conservatives view as reasonable.

This is no less "conservative" based on those peoples view of the situation, which is frankly no less valid than yours, than a conservative saying that Police should be able to intervene if there is reason to believe a parent is beating thier child. I somehow doubt you'd suggest someone in favor of such a measure should change their lean to "somewhat conservative".

I don't exactly agree with this, as I see it as a rather pointless tacked on law that will have little real effect. At the same time, I don't have a huge issue with it either. But to say that someone can not come to the conclussion of favoring this from a conservative stand point is utterly egotistical and absolutely assanine, requiring the person to be so pompous as to believe that it is impossible or inconcievable for anyone to DARE view the part of this situation that is by no means a clear cut matter in a way OTHER than how they view it.

Yes, I would agree. If someone believed the fetus was not a child and shouldn't be protected under the law AND claimed that this law should go into affect AND claimed to be a conservative I'd share your questioning of it. However, if someone believes the fetus to be a child, the state protecting individuals...especially those unable to protect themselves...is something by and large conservatives view as a legitimate government duty.