It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

page: 12
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The financial stuff I don't understand, but any doctor doing a procedure that doesn't walk a patient through the procedure and go over the possible effects, should lose their license straight away. If this isn't already done, I'm speechless.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
The financial stuff I don't understand, but any doctor doing a procedure that doesn't walk a patient through the procedure and go over the possible effects, should lose their license straight away. If this isn't already done, I'm speechless.


I'm sorry ... you don't understand that the proposed law requires a health care provider to reveal their personal financial information to POTENTIAL customers?

What's hard about that?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
The financial stuff I don't understand, but any doctor doing a procedure that doesn't walk a patient through the procedure and go over the possible effects, should lose their license straight away. If this isn't already done, I'm speechless.


So your doctor tells you exactly how he performs open heart surgery before doing the operation?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sure we all care about medical costs . You me and Joe blow.
The point here in this thread is a doctor having to tell his patients how much he makes. But only doctors who preform abortions. No other doctor has to but those who preform abortions.
Suppose a woman wants to have a child. Same everything involved except the pregnancy ends after nine months instead of nine weeks. Does the OBGYN have to tell the mother what his income is? Or a woman who doesn't want children at all so goes to the doctor to get the pill. Does that doctor need to reveal his income.
Maybe we should legislate only doctors who remove things from the body. Oncologists, dentists, surgeons.
This isn't a moral discussion on abortion. I don't see how a law like this would do what these legislators think it will do. How does this deter a woman who is seeking an abortion?
I completely understand the idea behind giving a woman a chance to think twice and that's a good thing. Consultations that offer other choices or make a woman consider her own emotions after the fact are great. A close friend went through some serious depression for years after and if someone had spoken to her about the emotional results of terminating a pregnancy she may have reconsidered her decision.
Requiring a young teen to bring a parent or guardian is an absolute. These are laws addressing abortion.
Requiring a doctor to provide his W2 does nothing .
edit on 2242016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
On one side, we have people who think a fetus is a baby... Because it becomes one, eventually, or something. I dunno. I guess yeast is beer, and wheat is bread. Flour is cake.

In the middle, we have people who are a bit iffy with the morality of abortion, but believe in the right to choose.

On the other side, we have people who just want the others to shut up about it already. Anyone who is anti-abortion but preaches the second is a hypocrite. If you want easy access to firearms, but like the idea of strict abortion regulations, I will repeat, you are a hypocrite.

Look, I know this is a controversial issue, but I have this incredible suggestion I'm not sure anyone has thought of before. (Sarcasm.)
Instead of fighting against abortion, why don't you fight so that abortion is no longer necessary?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The question here is a simple one, despite all attempts to muddy the water:

Should the government require a service provider to reveal personal and private information to potential customers and be excluded from commerce if they refuse?

Simple really.


It would seem so....

....but then you have additional mud thrown in with employment. As an employee, i am simply a "service provider". In my case, i am employed but freelance a little in the consulting world. To me, there is no difference between servicing my employer and servicing a client. In each case I am remunerated for my skills. And in each case I am reporting to the IRS (one via 1099, one via w2...but its my income in exchange for a service). So with that out of the way, the promised mud:

Drug screening and pre-employment background screening (including, potentially, social media mining). Why would a doctor not have to disclose various things like background (criminal, educational, and otherwise), affiliations/associations, and funding/credit rating (a prerequisite for a job in most prisons)?

There really is no logic to the way our legal system works. There's been 200 years to work through the glaring gaps in logic, and they are still there, often unchallenged legally. I mentioned earlier that a womans right to choose should, if the logic is held and not cherry picked, include her choice to exchange sex for remuneration. I guess the difference is that no large group (like the church with abortion) is there to galvinize the troop and mobilize them towards having an opinion). For whatever reason, the logic doesn't get applied.

Unless it falls under "art". LOL...."it ain't perfect, but its the best there is".



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: dawnstar



WRONG!

"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control."

a reply to: Tempter


so you admit, that sometimes the best advice the doctor can give a women is to terminate the pregnancy???
so where am I wrong????

www.theguardian.com...

there's five cases just in that story where the best option was to bring a quick end to their pregnancy...which since it wasn't done (because catholic hospitals can treat pregnant women as crappy as they like), we can see some of the results of ignoring the need to terminate.




Yes, in .03% od cases it should be allowed to save the mother. Now, can we get rid of the other 98%


I am in favor of allowing an unpleasant medical procedure; you are in favor of mediated murder.


If I could stop 98.3 % of all abortions you can call it mediated murder ALL DAY.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter

why are you looking for more kids to adopt??
just save here life? what about if it poses permanent physical harm, maybe even handicap, should we allow it then?
what if there's a very good chance that it will prevent her from giving adequate care to her very much alive and functioning two year old?
what if carrying a healthy baby to term requires her to remove herself from the workplace that has been the source of a good portion of the money that has depended on to feed that two year old, or buy the needed medicine to keep the child healthy?

over 90% of the abortions are done in the first trimester, long before the fetus can be even remotely considered to be a baby. of the less than 10% that are done in later stages a good portion of those are the problem pregnancies that involved genetic defects, deformities, or risks to the mother. so, let's see, just how many would I see as being qualified as being unjustified murder of a "child".... oh maybe 5% or there about.

meanwhile, in some states, the laws are so cockeyed that I could think of some instances where they probably actually encourage abortion! take for instance if a problem becomes apparent that might cause a premature miscarriage, well, in some states, they have locked up completely innocent women for falling down the stair and miscarrying, or getting in a car crash. do you really think that these laws wouldn't cause at least some of these women to at least have second thoughts as to weather or not to try to carry a child full term if there was more than just the slightest chance that it might result in a miscarriage?

the laws are being passed with no forethought of just how they could have negative consequences or even result in the very thing that you wish to prevent. there is no sanity when women are left laying in a bed dialated with a portion of the embrionic sac hanging out because "life is sacred". obviously life isn't that sacred, or you'd be worrying more about the mother's life and less about the life of a fetus that won't be able to survive outside the womb for more than a few hours!

but I guess this is what you get when you have gone centuries believing that sex is so sinful for women, but a rite of passage for me and pregnancy as a curse from God.





This was a pathetic attempt at characterizing me, someone on the Internet you know nothing about.

And read my previous post. Women use it as a contraceptive 98% of the time. Those are garbage women without souls, as they have the knowledge of the life sex creates. But they don't care, again, because they're garbage.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

You say that, but then you immediately follow it with a pathetic attempt at characterizing an enormous number of women you have never met, will never meet, and whose circumstances you will never understand. I mentioned hypocrisy earlier, and I'm starting to feel vindicated.

"98% of the time."
Huh.
Got a source on that?
No?
Didn't think so.
I'd also suggest looking up what a contraceptive is, by the way.

You're calling them garbage, but I believe like we all know who the real garbage is, here.

edit on 24/2/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Tempter

You say that, but then you immediately follow it with a pathetic attempt at characterizing an enormous number of women you have never met, will never meet, and whose circumstances you will never understand. I mentioned hypocrisy earlier, and I'm starting to feel vindicated.

"98% of the time."
Huh.
Got a source on that?
No?
Didn't think so.
I'd also suggest looking up what a contraceptive is, by the way.

You're calling them garbage, but I believe like we all know who the real garbage is, here.


I considered that a possible hypocritical though, but then realized that if a woman can carelessly have sex knowing she could have a baby and kill it as a form of contraceptive, then yes, they ARE garbage.


Also, you should try reading the entire thread before you start looking like a fool asking people for sources they've already given.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

seems to me that the 98% is more like those that weren't cases of rape or incest, the health of the mother wasn't at risk, or there wasn't really any problem detected with the developing fetus....
doesn't mean that they were all using abortion as birth control....how many were there that were using birth control and became pregnant anyways? how many were on medications that they knew would cause deformities? how many of them worked in jobs that exposed them to toxic chemicals that were known to cause birth defects? how many of them aborted because it was the father who wished it??

na...they are all just sluts who just couldn't keep their pants up!!! I mentioned a women who ended up in jail because she had a miscarriage after falling down the flight of stairs. Why?? oh, they thought that after having a heated argument on the phone with the babies father she flung herself down the stairs just to get rid of the baby.... there's easier ways to get rid of an unwanted baby than breaking your neck flying down a flight of stairs! she claims that she lost her balance. and guess what, if the heated argument stressed her out enough, it just might have been the heated argument that caused her to lose her balance, but na... can't pin any of the blame on the fathers now can we? don't ever hear of them being shameless sluts who just can't keep their zippers zipped!!

90% o abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the little fetus isn't even aware that it is yet and yet you want to equate it to the life of a women, who may be responsible for kids, who has families that love them, friends that care for them, and responsibilities to now only their kids, their families, their friends, but their bosses and others. oh, ya, life is so sacred that we will let the women continue on having a miscarriage till she becomes septic, well, we'll force her to go through a second operation to get that tubal litigation, even when it's the doctors saying it's necessary and risky for her to undergo that second operation because she has brain cancer, we'll endanger her life, her health, the happiness of her friends and families, we'll endanger the future of her kids, to protect the life of the nonviable soon to be deceased fetuses and even those future fetuses that may be conceived in the future. life is so precious!! till it is born then we will work tirelessly day and night trying to cut the programs that will put food on their tables, trying to force their parents wages down even more, heck if we are real lucky, we'll even manage to get rid of their parents social security, iras and retirement savings and drop their ages arses onto their kids while they are struggling to feed their own..... just so we have the money to drop more bombs in far away lands and destroy families we never even knew, taking parents away from babies, babies away from parents....
ah, yes, life is so sacred!!!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

This thread is not about the morality of abortion or the women who have gone through something like that. It's about stupid laws. Do you happen to have an opinion on that? If so please contribute that. This slander of women you don't know and this judgemental rant have no place here.
So the question is:

Should doctors have to provide personal financial information to customers and be punished if they don't?
Nothing more nothing less.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter

wall of text



*Please break them into smaller paragraphs next time, it's easier on the eyes.


Yes, you make some good points. Just think of all of those nuclear waste babies that would've been born with three heads had the mother not killed them out of mercy!

And don't put words in my mouth. I called them careless, not sluts. That's YOUR word.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

Yes, those women, how dare they have sex ever unless they're ready and willing to bear a child.


Also, you should try reading the entire thread before you start looking like a fool asking people for sources they've already given.


You may have given a source at some point, but it is not on this page. It is not on the previous page. And you have not given it to me. Being the kind soul that I am, however, I went and found it on the seventh page.

Now, let's see, I imagine this is where you're getting your "98%" from?

elective 98.3% (87-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility --? (32 %)
--economic --30% (25-40 %)
--to avoid adjusting life --? (16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship --? (12-13 %)
--enough children already --? (4-8 %)
--sex selection --0.1% (0.1-? %)
--selective reduction --0.1% (0.1-0.4 %)

I only see a single category here that might allow you to call someone "garbage", and that's less than 0.1% of cases. (Sex selection and selective reduction are "less than 0.1%" on the left, but ATS formatting doesn't seem to like that sign.
edit on 24/2/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Tempter

Yes, those women, how dare they have sex ever unless they're ready and willing to bear a child.


Also, you should try reading the entire thread before you start looking like a fool asking people for sources they've already given.


You may have given a source at some point, but it is not on this page. It is not on the previous page. And you have not given it to me. Being the kind soul that I am, however, I went and found it on the seventh page.

Now, let's see, I imagine this is where you're getting your "98%" from?

elective 98.3% (87-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility --? (32 %)
--economic --30% (25-40 %)
--to avoid adjusting life --? (16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship --? (12-13 %)
--enough children already --? (4-8 %)
--sex selection --0.1% (0.1-? %)
--selective reduction --0.1% (0.1-0.4 %)

I only see a single category here that might allow you to call someone "garbage", and that's less than 0.1% of cases. (Sex selection and selective reduction are "less than 0.1%" on the left, but ATS formatting doesn't seem to like that sign.


And I look at that breakdown and see a bunch of reasons for them not owning up to their actions. Oh, woe is me. Poor widdle baby doesn't think she can make it work. Well guess what? MOST DO make it work. Legalized murder is the easy way out.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

I look at that breakdown and see a bunch of young (or older) women forced to make a very cruel decision because they believe the world they could bring a baby into would be an extremely unhappy one.
Abusive potential father?
Living in destitution?

Legalized murder is an oxymoron by the way, since murder by definition must be illegal. A fetus is also not a human.

Still, these are mostly justifications I am trying to make from your viewpoint. From my own, I simply do not care all that much about abortion. It's sad, yes, but I feel sad for the woman who has to make that decision. I do not really view a fetus as a baby. I do not see them as a person, no more than you would see a sperm cell as a person.

I would also much rather focus on making abortion unnecessary to begin with. There are many people out there living in terrible conditions, or being forced to rely on the government or charity just to eat.
"Your life only matters while you're still in the womb."



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Tempter

I look at that breakdown and see a bunch of young (or older) women forced to make a very cruel decision because they believe the world they could bring a baby into would be an extremely unhappy one.
Abusive potential father?
Living in destitution?

Legalized murder is an oxymoron by the way, since murder by definition must be illegal. A fetus is also not a human.

Still, these are mostly justifications I am trying to make from your viewpoint. From my own, I simply do not care all that much about abortion. It's sad, yes, but I feel sad for the woman who has to make that decision. I do not really view a fetus as a baby. I do not see them as a person, no more than you would see a sperm cell as a person.

I would also much rather focus on making abortion unnecessary to begin with. There are many people out there living in terrible conditions, or being forced to rely on the government or charity just to eat.
"Your life only matters while you're still in the womb."


Often I get to this point in a thread and continue to post reasons why I believe a certain way. Not this time.

I'll just say I wish I could live amongst people who felt the same.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

oh, so the mother of three, who is working 40 hours a week at a job just to come home and clean, take care of her kids, cook their meals the rest of her waking day, just to go to bed five hours before she has to get up again. who is doing this maybe just so one of the kids can have the medication that he needs, or the other to have the clothes to wear to school... they are garbage because they refuse to quit their toxic job because of the damage those chemicals will cause and aborts instead. got it.....

so, what do you call a bunch of crazy arse politicians that are constantly clamoring for us to go send to troops into another far away country to kill those evil arabs?
because well, I don't know if you've ever read my comparison between those who support those wars, and the women who choose to terminate pregnancies, I am going to post it again...

more than half this country supported bombing Iraq after 9/11. the republican administration made up lies to justify this war, drummed up the fear, and well, bombs away!!
the evil terrorists were out to kill us we were told.... well some women are told that if they continue a pregnancy it will kill them..
the evil terrorist are out to destroy our lifestyle.... well, babies sure do put a hamper on lifestyles!!
they hurt our economy!!..... yep, and becomming a mother tends to significantly reduce the earning potential of mothers, even when the are teenagers and the mother is far more reliable, works more overtime hours, and learns how to do all the production jobs on the floor...

there is a few differences between the women who are choosing to abort their babies and the warmongers who are beating their wardrums though... whereas 90% of these women are terminating their pregnancies so early that the fetus hasn't even become self aware, the warmongers are killing living, breathing children, men, women, mothers, fathers, and elderly. and whereas the women is only terminating one potential life, or in rarer cased two or maybe three, well, the warmonger is committing mass murder! the fear that is the driving force behind it is very much the same, except for the women it is probably much more real, since the threat isn't halfway around the world but rather inside her. why is it so ra ra, patriotic flag waving time, your either with us or against us, when it means dropping bombs on villages full of people who have done nothing to harm you, but the most evil think in the world when it's a frightened women who could possibly living day by day?

same fears, same reaction of self preservation, but one is an honored tradition, and the other is looked down in scorn.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter

oh, so the mother of three, who is working 40 hours a week at a job just to come home and clean, take care of her kids, cook their meals the rest of her waking day, just to go to bed five hours before she has to get up again. who is doing this maybe just so one of the kids can have the medication that he needs, or the other to have the clothes to wear to school... they are garbage because they refuse to quit their toxic job because of the damage those chemicals will cause and aborts instead. got it.....

so, what do you call a bunch of crazy arse politicians that are constantly clamoring for us to go send to troops into another far away country to kill those evil arabs?
because well, I don't know if you've ever read my comparison between those who support those wars, and the women who choose to terminate pregnancies, I am going to post it again...

more than half this country supported bombing Iraq after 9/11. the republican administration made up lies to justify this war, drummed up the fear, and well, bombs away!!
the evil terrorists were out to kill us we were told.... well some women are told that if they continue a pregnancy it will kill them..
the evil terrorist are out to destroy our lifestyle.... well, babies sure do put a hamper on lifestyles!!
they hurt our economy!!..... yep, and becomming a mother tends to significantly reduce the earning potential of mothers, even when the are teenagers and the mother is far more reliable, works more overtime hours, and learns how to do all the production jobs on the floor...

there is a few differences between the women who are choosing to abort their babies and the warmongers who are beating their wardrums though... whereas 90% of these women are terminating their pregnancies so early that the fetus hasn't even become self aware, the warmongers are killing living, breathing children, men, women, mothers, fathers, and elderly. and whereas the women is only terminating one potential life, or in rarer cased two or maybe three, well, the warmonger is committing mass murder! the fear that is the driving force behind it is very much the same, except for the women it is probably much more real, since the threat isn't halfway around the world but rather inside her. why is it so ra ra, patriotic flag waving time, your either with us or against us, when it means dropping bombs on villages full of people who have done nothing to harm you, but the most evil think in the world when it's a frightened women who could possibly living day by day?

same fears, same reaction of self preservation, but one is an honored tradition, and the other is looked down in scorn.




Just drop the three-legged toxic chemicals bit, because there aren't probably enough people in the world experiencing that to even crack .01%.

Now, I did support the war at the time. I was a young person who had just taken an honorable discharge from the military and was extremely naive. I don't at this point in my life even feel the Federal government is a worthy entity, PERIOD.

But back on topic, I'll never convince you to think otherwise, and that's okay. But every day there are mothers who chose NOT to have an abortion who attend clinics and try to convince would-be mothers that is is worth the struggle.

The best way I can explain it is to have you watch a video of a deaf person gaining hearing for the first time. Try to imagine something so amazing as gaining another sense after a life with only 4 or less. It's life-changing and in my opinion nothing brings you closer to nature.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
But every day there are mothers who chose NOT to have an abortion who attend clinics and try to convince would-be mothers that is is worth the struggle.

The best way I can explain it is to have you watch a video of a deaf person gaining hearing for the first time. Try to imagine something so amazing as gaining another sense after a life with only 4 or less. It's life-changing and in my opinion nothing brings you closer to nature.


Sure but they don't all work out that way. How many thousands of screwed up lives are out there being lived because they were born into a life where they weren't wanted or neglected and simply ended up being raised in an environment that was toxic???

Sure they don't all end up bad. Sometimes they're able to pull it off ok sometimes not. You're only looking at one side of it and ignoring the other side which can be very brutal and sad existence.

You don't even need to explain it or compare it to getting one of your senses back which I don't think qualifies as a good example anyway. We are all aware of both sides happening in this world. We get it.

The fact that we get it is why it's important to not force one way or another on someone. That's the whole reason to have options available. More options the better. Maybe you'll make a choice and regret it later, maybe not. But it's better to be able to make that choice for yourself than not be allowed to because someone else who's not even involved in your situation has made it for you.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join