Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

originally posted by: mOjOm
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.

Tell that to the dead baby.

a reply to: Tempter

I don't think the baby really cares that it's dead, considering that it was never alive to begin with, or existed at all. Fetus =/= baby. It does not care, because it cannot care.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Exactly, so why is it necessary to tell patients how much the doctor giving them an abortion makes? You know if the GOP would just EMBRACE contraceptives and adequate sexual education they wouldn't have to worry about people getting pregnant and getting abortions. But nah, it's much easier to make these people jump through hoops to do things THEY disapprove of.

I'm not against abortions though I do see them as a hit on social morality, but your statement above suggests that "sexual education" and "contraceptives" failed at this point. I do not think the GOP has any issues with either, but if you roll basically free abortions into the mix then they do. I do not necessary agree with them since I have my own opinion that abortions have cut down crime every year since we hit 20 or so years after 1972.

On a side note, Cialis for daily use would cost 2 or 3 times the cost of the pill. That is with a medical prescription and good insurance.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Tempter

I don't think the baby really cares that it's dead, considering that it was never alive to begin with, or existed at all. Fetus =/= baby. It does not care, because it cannot care.

If you shoot someone in the head I'm sure they don't care either...hehe just saying..

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?

Ever since the 80s (in California) when I have known a few women who were pregnant and looked at all the options the one pushed right up front was abortion. It was free to them due to their income, but the establishment made 800 per from the state. Now if I was in business to make money that would be the best way to do it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Right, but shooting someone in the head is illegal. Abortion isn't. Some people just want it to be that way. Some people want guns to be illegal, too. Neither is going to happen, at least any time soon.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

Right, but shooting someone in the head is illegal. Abortion isn't. Some people just want it to be that way. Some people want guns to be illegal, too. Neither is going to happen, at least any time soon.

I was just stating a point that no one cares if they die...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I was just stating a point that no one cares if they die...

Why don't you care about respecting a woman's right to make decisions on her own about something that is growing in side her body and that you have nothing at all to do with???

You want to make her mind up for her even though you're not at all involved in any way while also having no involvement or responsibility for the result of that choice either. When it's born to a world that doesn't want it and to a mother that was forced to have it you'll also have nothing to do with it either. You won't know it, talk to it, help care for it or anything. You won't even know it exists or what life it has. So don't act like you care so damn much because you don't.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?

Ever since the 80s (in California) when I have known a few women who were pregnant and looked at all the options the one pushed right up front was abortion. It was free to them due to their income, but the establishment made 800 per from the state. Now if I was in business to make money that would be the best way to do it.

Interesting.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment that the proposed law a) invades if not obliterates the personal privacy of health care providers and b) unfairly restricts their ability to engage in legal commerce.

Medical ethics require providers to insure that the patients who are recipients of their care understand the process they are about to undergo and have informed consent for the process. The law is redundant (as well as invasive) in that area, but, I can see no Constitutional issue with that aspect of the bill.

There is a right to privacy implicit in the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth and Fourteenth call for Due Process in the restriction of the ability to engage in Commerce. Those are my issues.

a reply to: ketsuko

People go to abortion providers to get abortions. There are only a few ways to terminate a pregnancy when that is what a woman chooses to do. Adoption is not a method to terminate pregnancy. The comparison you're trying to make is invalid.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So ... by first hand testimony here from resident right-wingers ... authoritarian invasions of privacy are fine ... as long as someone else's morals don't match your own.

This is really too easy ... LOL.

That can't be true! The "right wing" is all about personal freedom, government non-interference in personal choice. This must all be a hoax! No Republican would back big government authoritarian infringement upon personal choice... Unless he or she was a complete and total hypocrite, and possibly a filthy, dirty liberal spy infiltrating the Party of Freedom and Small Government.

No actual Conservative would stand for this authoritarianism and theocratism....or would they?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't really care if a fetus dies any more than I do if an ant dies. I feel a vague sense of sadness either way, but it is not something I will go out of my way - or infringe on other's personal freedoms - to prevent. I do not see a fetus as human. I see it in the same way I see a sperm or egg cell, a potential human. Yes, it is closer to human than other of those things.
Still, not human.

Don't take me to be representative of the pro-choice group, however. I have an odd view of the world. And while my comparative nonchalance in regards to the termination of a fetus may make you think I am sicko, the reason I am pro-choice, is because it is pro-choice. Because it is something that does not and cannot affect me. I leave it in the hands of those whom it personally involves, rather than restrict for some vague feeling of moral superiority.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well that's the thing. In many of the states like this one that try these crazy measures against abortion ALSO teach abstinence only education. I showed Alabama's laws on sexual education earlier in this thread.

It's like a double whammy of hypocrisy. The go to argument pro-life people have against abortion is that these women shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Then these very same people turn around and deny these women a proper sexual education. It's absurd.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I am woman. I have known one friend who Did not want to keep til term. You are a liar or you have bad friends.

a reply to: Tempter

There's very few people that I've run into throughout my life that I found myself respecting as much as I did a lady who was a member of a church I went to in TX. Believe it or not, she was very much against abortion. She wan't politically active though, and she didn't have a big in your face attitude about it. She was really rather quiet about it. Her way of preventing abortions was to "adopt" single pregnant women and she would spend her days helping them, providing transportaton for them, finding them a place to live if needed, heck think she even had one living with her awhile. This was back in the 80's and she is probably still helping these women if they need it. She put in long hours, often used her own funds, begged at the church for funds, probably begged elsewhere. But she stayed with these women, throughout their pregnancy and beyond, providing support and assistance as long as it was needed.
That is how you change the world, one person at a time, not by writing stupid laws that have more of a chance to backfire on you than they do to limit that which you want limited. And if these clinics that you are mentioning are spending time and resources talking women out of abortions, but dropping them once the child is born, well, I dare say they aren't changing the world for the better either.

I think some of these laws that are coming out are kind of like trial runs for something larger. They target a small group of people, in this case abortion providers, and us the negative public opinion to justify stripping some right away from that particular group. But, if it's okay to demand that abortion providers to reveals their financial details to their patients, then well, it's also okay for any business owner in the country to have to do the same. If you strip the right from one group, you strip it from everyone. why people don't get this I don't know.
if you accept that they can strip a mother of her children and throw her into jail for eating a bagal with poppy seeds on it, then you have to accept that they have the right to come into our homes and scrutinize the behaviors of the entire family that is expecting a child in the near future, and to be honest, you might not have to be expecting a child. since what you do before a child is even conceived can have harmful effects on a future child, heck let's just start scrutinizing them when they become of the age where they can reproduce and continue through till they are beyond childbearing age. Can anyone actually deny that what I am describing would fit nicely into the view of the perfect world of some of these egomaniacs in our gov't?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't really care if a fetus dies any more than I do if an ant dies. I feel a vague sense of sadness either way, but it is not something I will go out of my way - or infringe on other's personal freedoms - to prevent. I do not see a fetus as human. I see it in the same way I see a sperm or egg cell, a potential human.

LOL, that struck me as funny. Because, I always say sorry if I kill an ant, or fly, or even a flea --- just kind of a vague sadness. I've often wondered how many anti-abortionist say sorry when they take the life of an ant, or fly.

Would I feel sorry for destroying their eggs? NO.

A potential ant is not an ant. A potential human is not a living, viable human.

It's no ones business, but the one who's making the choice. Just as you make the choice to swat a fly, or use ant spray. It is you who lives with the choices you make.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The spontaneous abortion rate (miscarriage) is around 50% of fertilized eggs/zygotes or as the anti-choice people say "a human being" ... that is in every real sense of all the meanings of all the words involved, every human mother's body will spontaneously abort at least 50% of all "Conceived Humans" in the course of her lifetime.

It's absolutely absurd to maintain that Humanity starts at conception. For a myriad of reasons, not least of all, this one.

Now, on the other end of the argument, our technology pushes the threshold of viability back earlier and earlier into pregnancy.

I actually AM morally against aborting a viable fetus except in those situations where a heartbreaking survival decision must be made ... the baby or the mother ... and those situations are thankfully rare. Yet, this Choice can only be left up to the woman involved. I can't make it, the law shouldn't make it.

However, the starting point in all "abortion prevention" needs to be better education and easily accessible birth control measures.

This abstinence/ignorance BS is only perpetuating the problem. The commingling of religious beliefs and biological realities needs to be left in the dust.

Time to grow up as a culture, IMO.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if this has been brought up already. But by this logic plastic surgeons should definitely provide that information to their patients. Homeopathists too, even more so.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Why don't you care about respecting a woman's right to make decisions on her own about something that is growing in side her body and that you have nothing at all to do with???

You want to make her mind up for her even though you're not at all involved in any way while also having no involvement or responsibility for the result of that choice either. When it's born to a world that doesn't want it and to a mother that was forced to have it you'll also have nothing to do with it either. You won't know it, talk to it, help care for it or anything. You won't even know it exists or what life it has. So don't act like you care so damn much because you don't.

Well first, I'm not sure how you get this presumption from my statement...lol I really don't care, so you are right.

When it's born to a world that doesn't want it and to a mother that was forced to have it you'll also have nothing to do with it either.

Better yet we can let it live to like five then ask it if it wants to live and if it says no then we just kill it. All bases covered, a society that doesn't want it, a mother that doesn't love it, and an it that doesn't want to be alive.