Mississippi all but outlaws Abortion

They're like, 'Well, the poor pitiful women that can't afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger.' That's what we've heard over and over and over.

"But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we've decided to do.

Thanks government for legislating your morals on me. Freedom of choice, to either go out of state, or go old school with the hangers, punching, and massive drugging to miscarry.
Well done...

When asked about this,

"That was what a lot of our critics on the House floor said during the debate," he told me. "That was just some language that some of the African-Americans used." A few white Democrats also spoke out about the old "home remedies,"

Well, not to worry then, its just them thar blacks that will do it.

Moral values...mhmm.

My morals suggest that politicians should be strung up...should we enforce my moral values also?

Use the Source

reply to post by SaturnFX


Typical red state mentality "lets limit rights and set our goals to only work on social issues."

Who cares about the economy? Who cares about jobs? This states government doesn't that's for sure...Seriously they should be working on legislation to fix there messed up roads!!!! and that would just be the start.

Personally I think they should outlaw it completely except for medical reasons concerning the mother.
If you don't want to have children you shouldn't have sex.
It's that simple.

If one doesn't like the laws in Mississippi, one can move to one of the other 49 states. That's how it should be and how it was intended. Reversing Roe V Wade would not outlaw or ban abortion. No such thing is even involved. It would allow THIS to be official and total in the states that choose that for their values and standards. As it was meant to be. (10th Amendment..right there... it's for a reason ) We all know which states would outlaw and which wouldn't. Ill be the ratio tips a bit to the legal side of things, if the states had that option restored to them.

In this case, it's not entirely outlawed anyway, and if it where? Well... Louisiana sits to one site, Alabama to the other and Mississippi isn't but a couple hundred miles across, total. Is a couple hour drive so much to ask in terminating a baby outside of the strict guidelines? Apparently, the ability to have an abortion on demand is never enough. It must be close, convinient and preferably free. Well..isn't that just dandy.

Added thought: Of course, those girls who can't afford a couple hour drive....can just abstain for that behavior that CAUSES pregnancy in the first place. (GASP!) This is always talked about like an illness or other malady that just falls on someone rather than the result of deliberate choices and actions that cause it. I never have understood that...

Good list ahead (posted on fark)

What costs more?

Abortion or Live delivery at hospital?
Abortion or C-section at hospital?
Abortion or 2 months neonatal intensive care?
Abortion or Emergency room visit due to complications from a septic abortion?
Abortion or Coroners investigation into the death of a woman who had a septic abortion?
Abortion or Adding extra children to a heath insurance policy?
Abortion or Whole cost of medical care for the life of a person?
Abortion or SSI for a severely disabled child that had a genetic abnormality caught early in the pregnancy?
Abortion or Fertility treatments to deal with the complications of a septic abortion?
Abortion or girls dropping out of school and going on welfare?
Abortion or money to educate extraneous masses of children?
Selective termination or neonatal intensive care for 5, 6, 7, or 8 babies?
Selective termination or pediatric visits for 5, 6, 7 or 8 babies?

And those costs go directly to raising your premiums or taxes. Have a nice day

Fiscal Conservatism at its finest, well done right wing. I do assume everyone clapping is on board with having their taxes raised dramatically to help out the mother for about 18 years?

reply to post by SaturnFX


All but outlawed?


Actually this is the REAL law.....thats enacted........and i see nothing wrong with it........

It still permits them.........your title and "blog" source are very very misleading.....

The law, signed by Gov. Phil Bryant, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and to be board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology or be eligible to be certified, meaning the physician has completed training in the specialty. It is set to go into effect July 1.

So theres something wrong with requiring them to have admitting privileges and be board certified?

"I believe that all human life is precious, and as governor, I will work to ensure that the lives of the born and unborn are protected in Mississippi," Gov. Bryant said after signing the bill. He said the requirement calling for doctors to have admitting privileges is meant to "further protect patient safety in the event of a complication during the procedure."

My my .......thats horrible, we sure wouldnt want them to make sure the procedure is safer!

Source

Lets shoot for some intellectual honesty instead of jumping to conclusions or making outrageous claims

Sorry, had to lol at the ops second half of his thread title. Wow

reply to post by SaturnFX

Thanks government for legislating your morals on me.

Isnt that what all laws do?

Anyway, this is unfortunate. Maybe the law could be challenged as putting an undue burden on abortion?

undue burden

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

All but outlawed?


Actually this is the REAL law.....thats enacted........and i see nothing wrong with it........

It still permits them.........your title and "blog" source are very very misleading.....

and my video where I made the dude say those exact words no doubt?

Watch the video, there is no blog, nor title in that..its his words.

We have literally stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi. Three blocks from the Capitol sits the only abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi. A bill was drafted. It said, if you would perform an abortion in the state of Mississippi, you must be a certified OB/GYN and you must have admitting privileges to a hospital. Anybody here in the medical field knows how hard it is to get admitting privileges to a hospital...

This has nothing to do with making it safer..get real.

You want intellectual honesty, ditto. How would admitting privileges make it safer?

You think some chick with a coat hanger and blood everywhere in some hotel bathtub is safer?

get over it..be honest...at least some here have the principles enough to say ya, it is a stab at womans freedom and choice, and thats what I like...hiding behind "it makes it safer" is a total pile of manure and you know it.

reply to post by SaturnFX


except that they didnt STOP it.........they made the abortion clinic have to comply with other rules that make it safer........and the actual LAW proves that........not conjecture.......not some guy on a youtube vid........

The LAW..........

Are you against it being safer for the patient to get abortions?

They can still perform them.......

You want intellectual honesty, ditto. How would admitting privileges make it safer?

Ahmmm because then they can admit the patient after the procedure and monitor her to make sure she doesnt go into shock, infection or have any adverse effects

So yeah it does

You think some chick with a coat hanger and blood everywhere in some hotel bathtub is safer? get over it..

be honest...at least some here have the principles enough to say ya, it is a stab at womans freedom and choice, and thats what I like...hiding behind "it makes it safer" is a total pile of manure and you know it.

Im dont need to "get over it" I think you do, youre the one making sensational claims , and outlandish jumps to conclusions

Just like your "coathanger" comment........

I deal in facts......the fact is they made it safer........yes, intellectual integrity is needed, and its clear you are more concerned with your knee jerk reactions then what is the TRUTH .......

I linked information on the law.......its all there......

They didnt take their CHOICE out of the equation.........they still have their choice.....even in that state.....

The company just has to comply with the new safety regulations of it, and if they are concerned about the health of their patients they will do so

Edit to add.....im pro choice.......so maybe you need to check your misplaced aggravation........

I find nothing wrong with improving the standards they must take

reply to post by SaturnFX

Comparing 18 years of taxes to the value of a life?
Pathetic.

If you're merely looking at it in financial terms it would be cheaper to abort babies. It would also be cheaper to lethal inject anyone in prison for life sentences. And anyone who has a fatal disease or other health related issue. Talking like that just makes you look uneducated.

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Comparing 18 years of taxes to the value of a life?
Pathetic.

Agreed
So, start sending forth money then.
You want the replicating cells to turn into a person...money or shaddup.
After all, those replicating cells will one day be a person, you insist on the process to not be interrupted, therefore, you should pay.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Fiscal Conservatism at its finest, well done right wing. I do assume everyone clapping is on board with having their taxes raised dramatically to help out the mother for about 18 years?

edit on 15-5-2012 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

Actually, this brings to light my position on abortion. I don't like abortion any more than the next guy but I think the most effective way of decreasing it isn't by outlawing it but create better support structures for single mothers and streamline adoption processes.

Doing that will prevent more abortions than outlawing them. All outlawing it does is make abortions dangerous.

And, yes, it is completely hypocritical of social conservatives to deny abortion and then spit on single mothers who are on food stamps all in the same breath.

Originally posted by GmoS719
Personally I think they should outlaw it completely except for medical reasons concerning the mother.
If you don't want to have children you shouldn't have sex.
It's that simple.

let's put an internal medical gonad clamp on every male born...at the time of marriage, they can have it removed, if you don't want something to grow, don't plant a seed.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
If you're merely looking at it in financial terms it would be cheaper to abort babies. It would also be cheaper to lethal inject anyone in prison for life sentences. And anyone who has a fatal disease or other health related issue. Talking like that just makes you look uneducated.

Financial terms: Cheaper
Scientific terms: no central nervous system, no brain activity, no life, period.
Moral terms: Subjective to the individual

3 ways to look at it. two of them suggest abortion within the first 3 months (arguably 5, I like 3 though, there is no question) is preferred
only one term allows for dissention over the logic, and that is individual perspective morality.
saying a first term fetus is a life is your opinion, backed by no scientific evidence. Same as me saying every sperm is life potential and therefore masturbation should be criminal.

Education is required to understand the issues present. Your prison comparison is silly (and it costs more to execute someone than to just let em rot in prison). So even that is flawed and shows fiscally it is cheaper to keep em alive
Source

Education means actually being able to show facts and information...not guess on what probably sounds likely.

Thanks government for legislating your morals on me

Thats all governments do, impose morals, most laws derive from "morals"

just sayin...

The laws of the land tend to represent the morals of it, when the morals change so do the laws, IE Gay marriage is becoming broadly excepted so the laws change.

Mississippi is a conservative bible belt state so it make sense the laws reflect the morals or ideals of the area, kinda the whole purpose of the States in the first place, so you don't have the entire country telling one state what to do.

The whole Ron Paul argument for states rights cuts both ways, you may end up having states do things like this, SO you have Montana saying they wont do fed gun laws, you have Mississippi saying they wont have Fed abortion laws.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Comparing 18 years of taxes to the value of a life?
Pathetic.

Agreed
So, start sending forth money then.
You want the replicating cells to turn into a person...money or shaddup.
After all, those replicating cells will one day be a person, you insist on the process to not be interrupted, therefore, you should pay.

Sure I'm not greedy, the goverment can take a few bucks out of my check.
It's pocket change get over it.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Yes killing something is cheaper than treating it. We should just shoot the elderly and sick. This isnt about cost. Stupid point.

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Comparing 18 years of taxes to the value of a life?
Pathetic.

Implying a mindless (brainless) human life has a value... Nope.