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.

 

Political Suicide....Has The GOP Written Off The Women's Vote?

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Again - - having a child is Selfish. There is ZERO unselfish reason to have a child.


I cannot agree with this. It is often true. But in wealthy countries with negative population growth, having a child is generaly a service to society. Such child will have all the basics needed to contribute a lot to the progress of humanity, contribute to reversing a population reduction of this civilisation and lead a happy life.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Annee
 





Again - - having a child is Selfish. There is ZERO unselfish reason to have a child.


I cannot agree with this.


Give me ONE unselfish reason to bring a child into this world.

There are plenty of unselfish reasons not to. There are Zero reason to.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
You do not have to penetrate the vagina to have an abortion as some have been stating. During the first 7 weeks of pregnancy a medical abortion can be performed. However, (at least in the state of Illinois) an ultrasound must be done for this type of abortion. This is to make sure that the fetus is a certain age. If it is older, the procedure can be very harmful to the mother and the fetus and also not fully kill (for lack of a better word) the fetus.

As a young conservative, this would not throw my vote away, but my views on abortion are not strict. I am pro-life, but I think abortion is justified if a woman is raped or if there if the mother is in danger because of the fetus. I also had a friend who had an abortion because she was debateably an alcoholic. She was young and drank almost daily in college and recreationally used drugs. I also support this. What I do not support is people who do not use birth control, whatever type, get pregnant, and have an abortion as the easy way out. That is irresponsible and I do not think abortion should be as easily accessible as it is for those types of people. They need to understand the health risks and emotional trauma it can cause.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I am a 56 year old woman. I have given birth and I had an ectopic pregnancy and had emergency surgery, that saved my life. I have never, never had a transvaginal ultra sound.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
So is abortion.....which is why the woman is there, after all...

The point of this law is to potentially save the life of the unborn baby. An ultrasound will show the mother that this is a LIFE. At early stages of pregnancy, transvaginal is the only type of ultrasound that will work.

As a woman, I have no problem with a law that requires another woman to have to consider her unborn child as a life before she has it removed. I don't consider it any more invasive than the abortion she is there to get.

So, as you can see by my post, I don't think this is an issue that would make me, a conservative woman, feel written off by the GOP.


Do you really believe all women have abortions because no one clued them into the fact that what they are aborting is a baby?
You think they need this to let them know?
You think very little of your fellow women.

You call yourself conservative but you support a law that forces women to have a medically unneccesary procedure that deals with something very private and intimate. These are not doctors mandating this, these are lawmakers telling women what must be done to their bodies.
All about liberty and smaller government right?

This is disgusting. People that say they are conservatives but support this crap is are worse. Women who support this are the bottom of the barrel.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Ladies and Gentleman,

What a nimble-footed explorer you must think of me if you expect me to follow on the path you have set out.

At first you point out "Look there. There is a new bill requiring transvaginal ultrasounds." So, I climb to that hill and see that there isn't any such bill, just one that requires some form of ultrasound.

Then you steer me to the valley of violated Doctor-patient privelege. Alas, not there.

Then to a small clearing that points out that TVUs are routinely done anyway for abortions. The women are going to get one whether there is a law or not. And by going to the abortionist they're getting a consensual TVU.

Even though the women routinely get TVU's you point me to a small pond that says they're not medically necessary, therefore all the TVUs done by abortionists are really rapes. (I notice another sign there saying there are all sorts of procedures done daily that aren't medically necessary, but they are advisable for better diagnosis or whatever.)

Then you take me to an overlook to see that this sort of thing is unconstitutional, but on the other side of the hill is a sign saying a District Court has ruled that it is acceptable.

And finally, as we approach the lodge, you point out that it's not an abortion, it's a DNC. Well if it isn't an abortion, it's not covered by the law. And if it is an abortion, why pretend it's something else?

I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH AN AGENDA. I'm trying to follow where you are leading me. I'm beginning to think I'm not the only one lost.

Unselfish reason for a baby. I displayed by love for my wife, she displayed hers for me. There's the baby.


I know that this subject may seem to be a lot for you to wrap your head around and that's because of the fact that it is indeed, a very complex issue with very broad implications. Not just for women, but for the general population as a whole.

This is "ALL" about having someone other than yourself, mandating invasive medical procedures that are deemed to be unnecessary by your physician and without consent of the patient. IMO, not much different from having your employer mandate that certain medical procedures not be covered in your insurance plan or having a congressional panel devoid of women decide what's best for them.

Furthermore, (for those who don't understand the difference) the fact that we mandate vaccinations for children attending public schools, is not even comparable to this issue. There is a very real medical need to vaccinate children who congregate in mass at our public schools, which is to protect our children and the general public from the re-emergence and spread of contagious diseases like Polio.

Despite the fact that some people, not unlike yourself, have a hard time grasping the fact that this type of legislation has much bigger implications than just regulating abortions, don't despair! According to this article, even Virginia Governor, Bob McDonnell is now changing his position, somewhat.

www.nytimes.com...


Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia backed down on Wednesday on a bill requiring women to have a vaginal ultrasound before undergoing an abortion. It was a sudden change of position for a conservative governor who is viewed as having political ambitions on the national stage.



“Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state,” the governor said in the statement.


Just hang in there charles1952 and I'm sure that you too, will come to realize the insanity of this type of legislation.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

Sometimes the most difficult searches are the most rewarding. (Of course, sometimes you just tire yourself out for nothing.) But I think you and the other posters have some important ideas, and I'd like to explore a bit longer before I give up.

Do I understand correctly that the bill requiring a non-consensual TVU applies only to women who want a 1st tri-mester abortion whose pregnancy can not be seen with an external ultrasound, who also have what abortionists see as a "non-routine" pregnancy?

You see, Annee, I think there is a difference between the concept of the law and it's actual effect. I'm probably missing something, so I'm hoping you'll set me straight, but this doesn't seem like it would apply to many women at all, and those with "non-routine" pregnancies should probably expect a little extra testing.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





You see, Annee, I think there is a difference between the concept of the law and it's actual effect. I'm probably missing something, so I'm hoping you'll set me straight, but this doesn't seem like it would apply to many women at all, and those with "non-routine" pregnancies should probably expect a little extra testing.


I'd like to know what a "non-routine" pregnancy is. If there is a problem, then yes testing would be done. It would also be recommended by the doctor. But, like I said, I had an ectopic pregnancy and had emergency surgery. I went straight from the doctor's office to the hospital. I never had that TVU. Under this law, I would have had to wait 24 hours. I could have died.

To address you assertion that not many women will be affected, you're right. Only women, who are pregnant, in their 1st trimester, who are seeking an abortion, and who live in Virginia. No big deal, right?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

I used the word "non-routine" because earlier in the thread a poster referred me to an article opposed to the law. In the article it was stated that abortionists gave women TUVs during the first semester as a matter of routine. This led me to believe that law or no law, women seeking abortions were going to get a TUV.

So if the abortionist is going to give the TUV on a regular basis anyway. It appears that this will not change the normal use of TUVs in early abortions.

I know nothing about pregnancies. I wonder, although it doesn't matter much, if you had an external ultrasound?

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. I note, as was posted above, that the law was intended to require only external ultrasounds. If the law is changed to clarify that point would you then be able to accept the law?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I know nothing about pregnancies. I wonder, although it doesn't matter much, if you had an external ultrasound?


Hey Chuck.
How about you get a good firm grasp on your testicles and repeat the above line at the beginning and end of each one of your posts telling women what they need to do with their bodies.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


You misunderstand. In this part of the thread we are discussing the validity and effects of a law passed in a state I do not happen to reside in. I am not telling women that they must, or should, do anything. I am far too experienced to undertake such a hazardous avocation.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by LErickson
 


You misunderstand. In this part of the thread we are discussing the validity and effects of a law passed in a state I do not happen to reside in. I am not telling women that they must, or should, do anything. I am far too experienced to undertake such a hazardous avocation.


No, you misunderstand. My post is not limited to references on this page.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 

If you'd like to discuss one of the issues from a previous page, feel free to bring it up again. I'm always happy to have a reasonable discussion.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I was in a great deal of pain. I didn't know that I was pregnant. I made an appointment to see a doctor. The doctor did a pelvic exam and a blood test, and determined that I was pregnant. He did an external ultrasound to locate the source of the pain. My ovary was the size of a grapefruit, so , yeah. Not your routine pregnancy.

The doctor was very much afraid that the ovary would burst, and that would have killed me, so I was rushed to surgery, immediately!

Taking a picture of that tiny bunch of cells, lodged in my fallopian tube, would not have changed a thing.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
You see, Annee, I think there is a difference between the concept of the law and it's actual effect. I'm probably missing something, so I'm hoping you'll set me straight, but this doesn't seem like it would apply to many women at all, and those with "non-routine" pregnancies should probably expect a little extra testing.

With respect,
Charles1952


If this is FORCED on only One woman - - it is wrong.

(I am very sick (major chest congestion). I could not focus on details right now if I tried. Sorry
).



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

I'm sorry for the pain and fear you must have experienced. I hope you had a lot of support. I'm glad you're still with us. Granted I'm being selfish, but I would have missed our conversations.

And I do understand there are times when there is no decision to be made, you just have to go in and take care of the situation. You think about the rest of it later, if at all. You're absolutely right. Showing you the sonogram would only have delayed the procedure by a few seconds and accomplished no good.

Should we then be trying to put enough exceptions into the law to relieve concerns? I understand that Virginia is looking to change it to external ultrasound only, and of course there have to be emergency exceptions, but is there some way to advance the interests of both sides in this discussion? Or, are we at the point where the shout "No compromise!" is heard ringing through the air. If that is the case, then the law will probably go to the courts for their decision, and right now they seem to be supporting it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Get well Annee!

Ginger tea is great for chest colds.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Well, technically, it would have delayed the surgery by 24 hours, as this law requires a 24 hour waiting period after having seen the picture. You see, this law's only purpose is to delay an abortion, a legal medical procedure.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Annee
 


Get well Annee!

Ginger tea is great for chest colds.


Thank you. Love it!

Drinking it now!



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

You're quite right, that's why I was wondering if an emergency exception would cure the bill's faults.

Poor Annee, get better soon. You're not supposed to be hurting. Get back to normal quickly. (My grandmother always said honey, lemon, and tea. Oh, and spaghetti. Spaghetti cures everything.)

With respect,
Charles1952




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join