“If pregnant women should have to get an ultrasound before having an abortion, men should have to undergo additional medical procedures before getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction,” Sen. Jill Vogel (R) noted, and introduced an amendment to the ultrasound bill, requiring that men “undergo a digital rectal exam” for pills like Viagra:"
Same way as that bill proposing to make welfare recipients be drug-tested went down after Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) called for members of Congress to be drug tested too.
LOVE IT! Real fairness in sausage-making!
Women seeking an abortion quite often change their minds after they see their child in a sonogram.
Abortion is big business, and abortionists don't want moms to change their minds, so they resist presenting them with such evidence. Do you think we should keep women ignorant?
I totally agree with this premise. A woman's body is HERS. No one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. She has the freedom of reproductive choice. Narrowminded and atavistic conservatives always voice if a woman becomes pregnant, she should keep the baby whether she wants it or not. However, these same narrowminded, atavistic conservatives criticize and penalize the women if she is unable and unwilling to care for the child and child for being born in less than "ideal" circumstances.
According to what I found, it's not Republican Senator Vogel who proposed the viagra tests, it's Democrat Senator Janet Howell, in response to the very legitimate proposal of Vogel's which says women should have an ultrasound.
Your post made it seem otherwise.
And...comparing a baby to erectile dysfunction is just silly.
Unless, of course, one wants to blame only the man for impregnation and then leave him out of the choice of having the baby.
Yes, thank you....I was going to fix it, but actually, I was so happy to think a Republican woman could stand up for woman's rights...I left it.
It's about deciding your own health and well-being Brenda. Not letting the State force it on you.
Then why would people want to force the State to get rid of their unwanted babies? If a woman wants to kill "her" baby, then she has no right to force other people to help her with that, nor to sanction it.
Me, I'm very happy to know that Republican women stand up for an innocent child's life.
Once pregnant women actually see their baby in a sonogram, they are far less inclined to have it killed, and that is why abortion supporters are so adamantly opposed to it. They want those women to go through with it, and so they want to keep them in the dark!
Actually--I think the church wants to keep women in the dark....as in Ages.
Reminds me of the old canard during the immigration flux in the lower east side of Manhattan:
Wife and mother: "Doctor,please help me... how do I stop from getting pregnant all the time?"
Doctor: "Tell your husband to sleep on the roof."
The metaphor doesn't really work.
It should probably be something like "if a woman has to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, then the man that made the baby happen should also have to see it".
See, metaphors. They have to make sense.
Big business my butt! It's fraught with danger: stalking and death threats.
I think we should stay out of women's personal lives. Particularly their uterus!They know what a fetus is.
And people would FORCE this on them....all the while blathering on about freedom.
Men trying to get an erection often change their minds after Nurse Helga rams her latex fist up their rectums.
Erections are big business, and erectionists don't want impotent old men(who seemingly have nothing better to do with their time than to tell women what health procedures the state will allow them to acquire) to change their minds, so they resist presenting them bound and prostrated to Helga. Do you think the anti-choice crowd should remain ignorant?
What would be the purpose of a woman having to have an ultrasound before receiving an abortion? Is it to somehow be used to change the woman's mind? Sort of like "Scare Tactics 101"?
"They know what a fetus is."
Until they see that it is a real, living human baby, and their own child. Then they often change their minds.
Why do you object to that? Do you hate babies?
A fetus is a real, living baby?????
I object to that statement!
The real living ones are the ones we kill in "war"....or the ones who starve to death due to lack of food, or die due to lack of medical care...because "we can't afford it".
Do you hate them?
lmc - I'm really shocked by this response from you, because it's you. I would have thought you'd consider a fetus a real baby.
Do you honestly believe, that a pregnant women would not know what a foetus is?
I don't think it really sinks into some young teens. For example, I've had students who had had an abortion, and they said they really didn't realize what they had done until after they actually delivered and reared a baby. Several regretted their earlier decision as a result.
It's a difficult issue. I can understand that their are young girls who don't realise the enormity of having an abortion or child. I once worked with teenage mothers who had a criminal record (in the main the offences were of a "welfare nature" shop lifting food, that kind of thing.) And just as you say some young women do not realise what is involved in terminating a pregnancy, many were just as naiive when it came to caring for their babies. They're expectations of how motherhood would be were completely unrealistic. It's difficult all round.
What a foul comment to make to a woman, you are some shining star of a proponent for your cause, I don't think !
"A fetus is a real, living baby?????
I object to that statement!"
See? They deny the obvious, which is why women change their minds when they see that it really is a living human being, and their own child!
No offense, but you really don't know what you are talking about.
I, as a female, do!
Should I attempt to lecture you on the male reproductive organs?
When you have mammaries, get back to me!
That can often be why they opt for a termination, also. As a woman, if you know that you are not in a position to provide for your child completely. By completely, I mean food, a home and not to mention education, why would you allow a child to suffer in this world. Having visited these forums, I find it frightening that some would shout "life" and then are only to willing to take the bread from a babies mouth. Have a look at what some of you would do to a child that is born into the family of the unemployed, or an illegal. Shameful
How do you feel about adoption as a choice for women in that position?
If there were guarantees that a child could be adopted into a family that would care for a child, then absolutely. However, my previous experience ( I used to work for the government, young offenders and upwards) I know that this is rarely the case. So many children that are taken into care ( I mean a significant proportion) are doled from foster home to children's home, adoption doesn't happen. Never able to make any real attachments, with devastating consequences. Those that are born to young mothers unable to emotionally,( as well as all the other necessary factors involved in caring for a child, although admittedly not all) often meet a similar fate. Not pleasant, not fair. If a child could be given to vetted, prospective adoptive parents, then great. My experience is that this is rarely the case.
Just to butt in here - the record of world-wide social services regarding the care of children is absolutely abysmal, also adoptive parents have been shown to be unsafe with high levels of abuse.
Adoption does not mean a warm cuddly home for your unwanted child, it might and it might not.
The unwarranted interference in other peoples business by conccerned people does not translate into the outcomes these people think they espouse.
Thank you! And let's not forget about selling babies on the black market, or into sex slavery, etc etc.
You will never convince me that that's a part of the agenda.
That's exactly my point. Adoption into a secure loving, family environment is rare, not the norm. Most kids end up in foster care and children' homes.
I'm surprised. My best friend and her hubby were on a waiting list for ten years to adopt a baby in the US. They finally gave up and adopted from China and Cambodia. Another friend and his wife, a doctor, also stayed on a waiting list for a baby and finally gave up. Instead, they adopted two older kids. I think the kids were 4 and 6.
I don't think abortion should be illegal, by the way. I do think, however, it should occur less often than it does. I hate abortion, but I agree with Hillary on the subject: it should be safe, legal, and rare.
Those kids were the lucky ones. Unfortunately, not all have the same fate. All those babies given to social services, why so few adopted? Why?
I didn't think that you were opposed to abortion. But I completely understand why so many women feel that that is the best option. I find it sickening that in my country, probably yours, too, that so may kids who are given to social services, spend their lives in institutions or foster homes. Is it any surprise that they become so institutionalised that prison or a young offenders institution becomes a natural progression for them?
The red tape is scandoulous. Do you smoke, drink, are you overweight, what are your political leanings? While I can see that their is some sense behind these questions, it's taken to the extremes. I think it would be perhaps worth some further investigation as to which couples end up with the " babies" I can't help but wonder if there is something more sinister behind it.
Yes, and consider what just happened yesterday...when that contraceptive company said that there may be faults with the pills, and you may end up pregnant.
Now, suppose a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, suppose she can't afford a baby? If she were forced by law to carry that pregnancy to term, should SHE be responsible, when it was the company's fault? And shouldn't the company be forced to pay for the care of that child throughout his or her life?
Or should the woman be forced to go through the pregnancy and give birth and then give the baby up to the state? I can't think of anything more cruel. Having given birth 3 times, I can tell you--it was torture. Horrible unending unendurable pain.
And to force that on a woman, who is not ready, who can't afford it, who will have to bond with it and then let it go....JUST to serve your personal beliefs....it's as cruel as you can get if you ask me.
Extraordinary measures are being taken to keep alive a fetus that fit in the palm of a doctors hand. Is that a child or a fetus? Who decides if it should live or die? It is out of the womb, so who makes the choice?
Every individual should have the choice to do with their body as they choose, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
An informed choice is always the best choice.
When a woman has a mis-carriage, do we call that murder? It's an act of Nature...no more no less.
Sorry to tell you that an abortion is the same. Nature gave me the responsibilty of carrying life, not until nor unless. Ergo, it is my choice whether to do so.
If you don't like it---take it up with the creator.
No, I would not call it murder. Never said it wasn't your choice, merely stated that an informed choice was the best choice, do you not agree with being informed?
You are assuming that there is a creator, some people would choose not to believe that there is. They have that choice as well.
OK...then let's show a soldier exactly what is is to kill someone. Let them know the after-effects of it mentally that they will carry for the rest of their lives.
Let's have them see pictures of dead children that have been killed by soldiers--up close and personal. Make them watch the families cry in horror and pain.
How about we show a movie of disabled children, or vets with no arms and legs...is this necessary?
Women are informed, believe me...I am one! We don't need your state gvt people forcing their male leaders' so-called morality on us!
We can make up our own minds, with our own doctors and families, thank you.
A planned abortion is an act of Nature?? That's quite a stretch!
So is saying that a fertilized egg is a human being.
At what point do you think it becomes a "real baby"? Just curious. I consider it a real baby when it can feel pain and react to its surroundings. That's why I'm against late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is at risk.
Yeah, that argument didn't make any sense.
LCS: "Killing babies is murder!"
LMC: "No it's not, because some of them die naturally"
LCS: "... ... dude, what?"
"No offense, but you really don't know what you are talking about.
I, as a female, do!"
Then you are way behind the times. Abortion supporters long ago gave up the ludicrous position that a fetus is not a living human being, since it so obviously is. Now they claim it is not a person, which is perhaps even more absurd.
Abortion is the killing of a living human being. That is now beyond denial.
I deny it! There, you see?
And, get the lingo right....it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Sometimes it is the right thing to do.
With or without your approval...and btw, do I know you, for you to be butting in my life like that?
dint think so.
"Susan G. Komen for the Cure just cut all its funding to Planned Parenthood for breast health screenings, bowing to anti-choice pressure and making breast health care suddenly inaccessible to many women"
I think this is mentioned in another thread but I can't find it. It appears that one right wing christian woman has removed the funding from a US charity that supplies mammography free testing (to those who can't afford it) to a total of 20% of those screened - because the organisation that performs that essential work also believes in the freedom of a woan to choose an abortion.
Will this witch get challenged in court by those who have contributed charitable funds to that organisation expecting it to be used properly ?
When those who oppose the murder of innocent human babies in the womb are depicted as the monsters, and the supporters of that murder are considered saints, the world is truly upside down.
"Ummm, forgive my naivite, but aren't we all born in sin? Is there such thing as an innocent baby? And aren't they better off not coming here, as the real joy lies in Heaven?"
Ah, the twisted 'logic' of the left...finding a way to excuse their murderous ways by declaring the babies unworthy to live. God help us.
So why don't you want women to see a sonogram of their baby, lovemychris? Why do you insist on keeping them in the dark?
Because I think it's cruelty added on to cruelty.
I think if a woman is not ready to have a baby, and can't afford it, she should abort it and wait for another time. I think it is none of anyone elses business, and I think you want to torture her with guilt...as if she doesn't have enough already.
You seem to be saying that women are heartless monsters who need to be showm the error of their ways. I think they already know what's involved, and don't need more heartache making it anymore diffecult for them than it is.
Because then we should all be forced to watch what happens when babies are bombed to death and burned with white phosphorous, knowing that our tax dollars fund it.
And we should all be force to watch the execution of a prisoner.
You pick and choose your judgements and your humanity, And you discriminate against women IMHO.
I love women, and I love babies...neither one should suffer. It's a cold world, and your policies don't make it any warmer. Unless you are prepared to care for these babies...how is it your concern?
"Because I think it's cruelty added on to cruelty"
I want to keep them in the dark, because if mothers actually see their babies and decide to keep them, it defeats the whole idea of abortion and exposes it as the murder it is.
Should taxpayers be forced to fund abortions if they are morally opposed to the murders of innocent children?
And...should tax-payers be forced to pay for an apartheid regime if they are morally opposed to it?
No - but you're a liberal, so the answer is yes.
Many millionaires don't support the war, but you want them to be taxed further.
I don't support the welfare state, but you've said that to even think such a though is evil-incarnate (not an actual quote).
Your argument here is HIGHLY hypocritical of other comments you've made on the forums.
How so? Taxes don't pay for abortion...that was outlawed in 1973.Yet, we DO pay for an apartheid regime.
These people are trying to outlaw something they have absolutely NOTHING to do with...just because they don't like it.
And that includes Mr. Freedom, Ron Paul.
"Because I think it's cruelty added on to cruelty"
How is showing a mother the truth about what is in her womb 'cruel'? And on top of what other cruelty?
Women control sex because they are the receivers and the ones who will become pregnant. That is universally recognized and protected by law, and any man who forces sex on a woman can go to prison for a long, long time, just as it should be!
So if a woman gets pregnant by consenting to sex, why is it that feminists insist that she bear no responsibilty, and that her pregnancy is 'cruel'? Why is it that feminists now insist that a woman is consequence free and no longer responsible for the results of her own actions?
And yes, I do hold the man equally responsible.
"...I gave you the courtesy of answering you!"
But you didn't. My questions go unanswered
by Holle Abee5 years ago
What do you think? Do you think it's okay to wait until you're far enough along in a pregnancy to see if you're carrying a male or a female? And if it's not what you want, get an abortion for that reason alone? I could...
by Scott S Bateman2 years ago
The abortion debate is dominated by two extremes. On the one side, "pro life" extremists insist that abortion is murder. On the other side, "pro choice" extremists insist that abortion is a personal...
by kathleenkat5 years ago
Abortion rights have always interested me. There are many reasons why people have them. I have heard that, in other countries, people will have an abortion as soon as they find the sex of the baby to be female. Do we...
by Dave Mathews6 years ago
Abortion and euthanasia, and suicide all require a cessation of life. For abortion it is a requirement for the cessation of life of the fetus. For euthanasia and suicide, it is a requirement by an already living and...
by Stump Parrish7 years ago
Did anyone get the e-mail on this?According to the Faux News network America became an anti-choice country recently. //The abortion debate has returned with vigor to Congress after many years of dormancy, and the result...
by Tammy Barnette5 years ago
http://news.msn.com/world/update-irish- … er-a-death"Thousands protested in Ireland and parents cried out in India after a miscarrying woman died having been refused an abortion. The laws have to change,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.