Sign in to follow this  
bytor2112

Call me old fashioned....

Recommended Posts

Sad that women are raised to believe that this is a cause worthy to fight for....there should be a special place in Sheol for democrats that have so brainwashed these people.

Story here.

The bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers. Also, doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles - a tall order in rural communities.

An image of fanaticism:

Posted Image

Edited by bytor2112

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind if you do not want to get pregnant do not have sexual relations. If a woman is raped or is a victim of incest she can still terminate the pregnancy for 140 days.

It is sad how many do not view life as a wonderful miracle. Some people believe if they make bad choices they are then going to be "punished with a baby."

Adoption is also an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the opposition is of two types:

1) Opposition to the restriction at 20 weeks.

2) Opposition to the increased standards, which can be seen as reducing availability by increasing the bar to operate an abortion clinic.

Number 2 seems a particularly valid concern for those doing the protesting considering:

Only five out of 42 clinics qualify as ambulatory surgical centers and they are located only in major metropolitan areas. Dewhurst has acknowledged that the ultimate goal is to shutter abortion clinics.

While I tend to think along the lines of Still_Small_Voice, I think any attempt to paint the opposition as stemming from a singular desire to have later abortions would be a mischaracterization of the situation at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the opposition is of two types:

1) Opposition to the restriction at 20 weeks.

2) Opposition to the increased standards, which can be seen as reducing availability by increasing the bar to operate an abortion clinic.

Number 2 seems a particularly valid concern for those doing the protesting considering:

Of course, they want abortion legal regardless of how many weeks...and seriously, 20 weeks is at the half way point or beyond, unless health of the mother is at issue, then why the protest? Increased standards could be viewed as a positive by some....

What i am most startled by is the use of kids....brain washing future generations that aren't nearly old enough to understand the negative implications of "choice".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the opposition is of two types:

1) Opposition to the restriction at 20 weeks.

2) Opposition to the increased standards, which can be seen as reducing availability by increasing the bar to operate an abortion clinic.

I'd suggest a third:

Opposition to the regulation by government of female reproductive organs and behaviors in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there must be a special place in h ell for me then. Many, if not most, of the big problems come up after 20 weeks. To set an arbitrary date is wrong and dangerous for pregnant women.

Another reason for the protest is the simple fact that these men are not LISTENING. They are ramming their bill through without listening to the women in their state. Apparently the only way to be heard is to yell.

Even then they tried to cheat and illegally claim a victory on the ballot by changing the time of vote. Are these really people you would support and vote for?

I would not go claiming the high ground on letting kids carry signs. Kids have opinions too and I have seen them carry guns to support their parents beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, they went abortion legal regardless of how many weeks...and seriously, 20 weeks is at the half way point or beyond, unless health of the mother is at issue, then why the protest?

Not all of them. I know it's a common canard, and there are those who do argue for abortion up to the first breath but there is more involved in the legislation than the time restriction. That's why protest, every single person there could be in favor of a 20 week restriction feeling it sufficient (I doubt such is the case though) and still protest based on the idea of restricting access under the guise of increased standards.

Increased standards could be viewed as a positive by some....

Of course they could, particularly by those using them as a flanking maneuver to de facto outlaw abortion. I have a question, are increased standards even needed to significantly improve health outcomes at abortion clinics?

What i am most startled by is the use of kids....brain washing future generations that aren't nearly old enough to understand the negative implications of "choice".

The use of children in protest or political activation is nothing new:

Posted Image

Maybe I'm just jaded, it doesn't shock me in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest a third:

Opposition to the regulation by government of female reproductive organs and behaviors in general.

I was kinda wrapping that up as inclusive in the other two. With the particular legislation involved the government is involved via availability and term limits. At least the article didn't mention anything like requiring sonograms, classes, or various other influences. If it does deserve it's own slot though then fair enough. Ultimately my point was there is more involved here than the 20 week restriction.

Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another reason for the protests as well. Many women, including me, are just getting sick and tired of men trying to tell women how to run their lives. From the horrifying idea of raping women with ultrasound probes to telling them that rapists have the right to deny the victim an abortion it has just gotten beyond crazy. Calling a woman a slut because she wants access to birth control. What lapse of common sense happened there?

I fall back on what the church says about abortion. Anything beyond that is wrong and often just sick minded. I often think the issue is more about control than abortion itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or simply saving a child's life that is about to be aborted for selfish reasons.

If that was the simple truth then why all the crazy stuff? I do not believe women, in general, like abortion even when they support choice. It has gotten so crazy that these women are just pushing back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was the simple truth then why all the crazy stuff?

I suspect most of the 'crazy stuff' is an outgrowth of Roe v. Wade, or at least heavily influenced by it. As a state can't simply outlaw abortion you get things like requiring a sonogram in an attempt to reduce abortions, or trying to make an abortion after a rape evidence tampering. Or the more pedestrian trying to shutter clinics through increasing operating standards.

Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another reason for the protests as well. Many women, including me, are just getting sick and tired of men trying to tell women how to run their lives. From the horrifying idea of raping women with ultrasound probes to telling them that rapists have the right to deny the victim an abortion it has just gotten beyond crazy. Calling a woman a slut because she wants access to birth control. What lapse of common sense happened there?

I fall back on what the church says about abortion. Anything beyond that is wrong and often just sick minded. I often think the issue is more about control than abortion itself.

Anne your posts are filled with false assumptions on this issue. This is supported by 2/3rds of the Senate (which includes Democrats) and it's not being pushed by men. There are women who are supporting this bill as well. Why are you painting this as men vs women?

20 week 4d Ultrasound - YouTube

D&E — dilation and evacuation — is another kind of in-clinic abortion. D&E is usually performed later than 16 weeks after a woman’s last period.

During a D&E

■Your health care provider will examine you and check your uterus.

■You will get medication for pain. You may be offered sedation or IV medication to make you more comfortable.

■A speculum will be inserted into your vagina.

■Your cervix will be prepared for the procedure. You may be given medication or have absorbent dilators inserted a day or a few hours before the procedure. They will absorb fluid and grow bigger. This slowly stretches open your cervix.

■You will be given antibiotics to prevent infection.

■In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.

■Your health care provider will inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix.

■Medical instruments and a suction machine gently empty your uterus.

A D&E usually takes between 10 and 20 minutes. But more time is needed to prepare your cervix. Time is also needed for talking with your provider about the procedure, a physical exam, reading and signing forms, and a recovery period of about one hour.

..and that is the steralized version of what happens

Tell me how society allowing this doesn't grieve our Heavenly Father?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anne your posts are filled with false assumptions on this issue. This is supported by 2/3rds of the Senate (which includes Democrats) and it's not being pushed by men. There are women who are supporting this bill as well. Why are you painting this as men vs women?

20 week 4d Ultrasound - YouTube

..and that is the steralized version of what happens

Tell me how society allowing this doesn't grieve our Heavenly Father?

You know what? I had one of those. I had to have it. The baby was dead. Now if it had been a few weeks later according to the Texas law I would not have been able to. then there was my baby that died at 29 weeks. Would they have been able to take that baby? At the time I wondered why they waited for labor to start on its own. Was it because it would have been considered abortion? After all you dont KNOW till the baby is out if it really is dead.

I am not the one painting it as man against women. It IS man against woman. Of course there are women who will agree with men on it but that doesnt change the fact that many women are feeling like they are being marginalized about something that concerns their own bodies. Yes it also concerns a baby. Please note I am not an abortion fan. Still it is between the woman, the doctor and God not a bunch of male politicians.

As a side issue thanks so much for that graphic description. For some reason the reminder that my baby was undergoing a procedure like that is very upsetting even though he/she was dead. Do you enjoy trying to hurt people that way?

Edited by annewandering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what? I had one of those. I had to have it. The baby was dead. Now if it had been a few weeks later according to the Texas law I would not have been able to. then there was my baby that died at 29 weeks. Would they have been able to take that baby? At the time I wondered why they waited for labor to start on its own. Was it because it would have been considered abortion? After all you dont KNOW till the baby is out if it really is dead.

I am not the one painting it as man against women. It IS man against woman. Of course there are women who will agree with men on it but that doesnt change the fact that many women are feeling like they are being marginalized about something that concerns their own bodies. Yes it also concerns a baby. Please note I am not an abortion fan. Still it is between the woman, the doctor and God not a bunch of male politicians.

You really think you would be forced to carry a dead baby to term under this law? What planet do you live on?

And no this isn't man against woman, as I stated many of the bills sponsers are women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that SB 5 does have a health exemption:

(B) this Act does not apply to abortions that are necessary to avert the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

Also the definition of abortion:

(1) "Abortion" means the act of using, administering, prescribing, or otherwise providing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman and with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the woman's unborn child. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion;

© remove an ectopic pregnancy; or

(D) treat a maternal disease or illness for which a prescribed drug, medicine, or other substance is indicated.

Link: Texas Legislature Online - 83(1) Text for SB 5

Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This war, labeled “abortion,” is of epidemic proportion and is waged globally. Over fifty-five million abortions were reported worldwide in the year 1974 alone. Sixty-four percent of the world’s population now live in countries that legally sanction this practice. In the United States of America, over 1.5 million abortions are performed annually. About 25–30 percent of all pregnancies now end in abortion. In some metropolitan areas, there are more abortions performed than live births. Comparable data also come from other nations.

Yet society professes reverence for human life. We weep for those who die, pray and work for those whose lives are in jeopardy. For years I have labored with other doctors here and abroad, struggling to prolong life. It is impossible to describe the grief a physician feels when the life of a patient is lost. Can anyone imagine how we feel when life is destroyed at its roots, as though it were a thing of naught?

What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth.

The Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.” Recently he added, “Nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6.) Even before the fulness of the gospel was restored, the enlightened understood the sanctity of life. John Calvin, the sixteenth-century reformer, wrote: “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”

~ Russell M. Nelson April 1985

Oceana - The Abortion Plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what? I had one of those. I had to have it. The baby was dead. Now if it had been a few weeks later according to the Texas law I would not have been able to. then there was my baby that died at 29 weeks. Would they have been able to take that baby? At the time I wondered why they waited for labor to start on its own. Was it because it would have been considered abortion? After all you dont KNOW till the baby is out if it really is dead.

I am not the one painting it as man against women. It IS man against woman. Of course there are women who will agree with men on it but that doesnt change the fact that many women are feeling like they are being marginalized about something that concerns their own bodies. Yes it also concerns a baby. Please note I am not an abortion fan. Still it is between the woman, the doctor and God not a bunch of male politicians.

Are you serious? You really believe that the reason they wait for labor to start on its own in the event of a stillbirth has to do with some sort of male power conspiracy and abortion and nothing whatsoever to do with what is best for the health of the mother? Were you that disinterested in your own health care that you just assumed it was some sort of abortion tactic? You insult a lot of health care providers and mothers with that misguided assumption.

But if you are looking for zebras, that is what you will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the one painting it as man against women. It IS man against woman. Of course there are women who will agree with men on it but that doesnt change the fact that many women are feeling like they are being marginalized about something that concerns their own bodies. Yes it also concerns a baby. Please note I am not an abortion fan. Still it is between the woman, the doctor and God not a bunch of male politicians.

I really really liked this post, to point and accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Globs of cells aren't human, and don't have rights. You have the right to do what you like with your own globs of cells (within reason).

2. Humans are human, and deserve equal protection under the law, regardless of their ability to stand up for themselves.

Since God is silent on the matter, it's up to us humans to decide when something goes from being a glob of cells, to being human. We have to draw the line somewhere, so we'll know when a woman falls into category 1, or when a baby falls into category 2. Because once a glob of cells becomes human, you don't get to kill it just because you want to. Because it's a human, and humans have rights, and deserve equal protection under the law.

We fight over where to draw the line, but few would disagree with the self-obvious truths above. To put it another way, people who don't like what I just said, will most likely not disagree with what I've said, they'll get bent out of shape for me being a man, or some such nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still it is between the woman, the doctor and God not a bunch of male politicians.

I used to think something similar, until I experienced this:

I was in my mid-20's, hanging out with some friends. One friend, a lady a few years younger than me, was opining about abortion. She voiced the opinion that it should be legal for a woman to abort her baby within the first year of the baby's life.

Let me say that again: I was standing less than 2 feet away from a woman, who, being fully serious, and fully aware of what she was saying, voiced the opinion that a mother should be able to abort her baby within a year of it being born.

Let me say it a third time: This lady, who was not drunk, didn't do drugs, wasn't mentally incompetent, had a job, a boyfriend, and active social life, and was competent to vote and enter into contracts, thought a woman should be able to abort her newborn child as long as it was under a year old.

Anne, would you like to speak to your statement above? Do you believe that such a choice should be between the woman, doctor, and God? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the one painting it as man against women. It IS man against woman.

I am honestly unsure why people want to paint this decision as "man against woman." I am not against any woman. I am against the unnecessary ending life of the unborn by selfish people (men and women who support abortion for selfish reasons (i.e. This will ruin my opportunity to pursue the career I want to pursue)).

As President Hinckley once shared, "Well, we're not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way." In the same tone, "I am not against any woman, I am pro-life"; unfortunately, uninspired men and women have created an atmosphere by which protecting life is seen as a problem and have made it appear something it isn't -- my thoughts.

I agree, however, an unborn which has died already within the womb -- a woman shouldn't have to wait until the body removes it on its own. For some women, this wouldn't happen, and actually can be very dangerous for women. I would have been furious if my wife had been expected to deliver our unborn which passed within her womb at 3 months. However, I am not so sure now a days that we can't tell if an unborn is dead until it leaves the womb. At four months it was pretty obvious our unborn had passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this