here we go again...

[flowerseverywhere]

Oh, I don't disagree on that point. But let's be consistent in our beliefs. I must purchase an insurance policy that covers pregnancy, abortion services and STD's even though I had a vasectomy over 25 years ago, my wife is past child bearing age and we are faithful to each other. The government mandates it and I must do it simply because they say so. Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?

a very complicated question but there are two issues. One mandating health care and one mandating paying for health care.

If a smoker gets lung cancer I have no recourse but to chip in for their care, as well as drinkers and drug users, people who expose themselves to disease due to their sexual habits for example despite the fact I do none of these things. What about a crack addicted baby? Or someone who attempts suicide? Or who has a psychiatric illness and won't take meds (not uncommon in my experience) and cannot work.

I think what you are talking about has so many layers, many of which are tied to religious and moral beliefs about who has the right to live and have every treatment and test done for them regardless of their ability to pay.

As long as our system remains as it is I cannot disagree with the requirement that we all pay health insurance- we do now anyway indirectly.

In order not to require paying to insurance I think we have to switch to a "let them die" model.

If you have cancer that requires expensive treatment and did not make paying for insurance a priority or could not afford it then too bad so sad.
If you show up at the ER you better show your current insurance card to the guard or die on the sidewalk.
If a baby is born prematurely unless you have insurance no expensive treatment.

Get my meaning? I don't see how we can have it both ways.

for the question of the government requiring certain treatment right now if you are diagnosed with cancer if you are an adult of legal age you can walk out of the MD office, get your affairs in order and wait to die. You do not have to be treated for cancer. Physicians can say "at your age a colonoscopy/mammogram/ekg is appropriate" but you are not required to have it done if you don't want to, even if it is really the best thing for you and you have symptoms. No one makes you take your statin or blood pressure medication. You make a decision and you accept the consequences.

the government at any level requiring a sonogram crosses over that line in my opinion because the purpose is to shame and "educate" a stupid woman who doesn't know any better.

A physician may have a reason to require a test based on their medical expertise before they perform a procedure. If you are having surgery tomorrow and won't get bloodwork and a chest x-ray done, the surgeon may say sorry, it is not the standard of care and I won't operate. You are making a choice and the surgeon is making a choice.

I would love to be able to have a checklist for my health insurance and taxes about what I want to be paid for. But this is the real world and part of price I pay for living in the US.

[redfox]

I'm also concerned with the long term effects of our failure to address the issue of abortion in a reasonable manner. A group of medical ethicists are now promoting the idea that there is no moral distinction between killing a newborn baby and performing a legal abortion. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1309985.html
In an atmosphere where the only part of the equation you're allowed to talk about is the woman, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it certainly gives me pause to wonder.

I cannot say where you've been in this convo over the last 50 years, but abortion has been researched and talked about in great detail during this time. The last 39 years, since Roe v. Wade, the abortion debate has been robust. It is reasonable when resting upon science and medicine; not religion, not private moral convictions, not the desire to whip voters into a frenzy. There is an amazing amount of research and literature addressing abortion from scientific and medical ethics.

Abortion has been practised for thousands & thousands of years across human history. When I was pregnant and considering abortion, I researched this, looking for herbal abortifacients. Abortion will continue to be practised. It is a medically known procedure, and the law has declared it to be a privacy matter between a woman and her PCP.

Until those born male can get pregnant, those born female (regardless of one's current gender identity), in other words those of us with a uterus, are the authorities. One of the most unfortunate aspects of a sexist, misogynistic society is the control of women's reproduction by men in authority, such as seen by the reprehensible actions of the state of Virginia. Those men who are so concerned about abortion need to take a stand against state control of women's bodies.

Because of course, in the end, we all want for women to bear wanted, chosen children, in safety and in love. Bae's apparently sociopathic sister aside, women do not choose abortion lightly. In fact, abortion can be seen as necessary due to a failure of these:
Good, affordable prevention based heath care
Access to affordable, safe & effective contraception
Respectful, accurate & thorough sex education in schools
Respectful, non-assaultive and non-coercive sexual relationships
Safe and affordable "morning after" options, like Plan B
Universal respect for women, and for our rights to be sexual with whomever, whenever, and however we choose

The current flame wars around abortion will be rendered meaningless when sexism is dead, and women are equal in every respect. Work towards that end, and you'll meet your objective.

Happy International Women's Day!

[ApatheticNoMore]

The current flame wars around abortion will be rendered meaningless when sexism is dead, and women are equal in every respect. Work towards that end, and you'll meet your objective.

or when there is a technological solution, a birth control option so easy to take and with so little side effects that it's just such a no-brainer that even the no-brainers take it (really as it is I have minimal sympathy for people who don't even take precautions).

[LDAHL]

Yea, we pretty much see where you are coming from. Not a whole lot of nuance there.

We?

[LDAHL]

As for abortion as such: I don't believe it's ok and all fine and dandy or anything, I have some moral problems with it. I just think there is no *legistlative* solution.

You are making an important point here. Conflating legal/illegal with moral/immoral leads to any number of fatuities. Short of divine intervention, I don't see how the moral issue will ever be definitively settled. Honestly, I find many in the "pro-choice" camp to be as rigidly orthodox and mindlessly intolerant as many of their opposition, but I think we ultimately need to err on the side of individual conscience. I would prefer others to apply that same rule in demanding I help pay for their choice, but that's politics.

Of course, I will vote my own conscience. I don't see that as "imposing my values". I see that as living consistently with my convictions.

[LDAHL]

Until those born male can get pregnant, those born female (regardless of one's current gender identity), in other words those of us with a uterus, are the authorities.

Does that restriction apply as well to sterile or post-menopausal women?

[Alan]

I cannot say where you've been in this convo over the last 50 years, but abortion has been researched and talked about in great detail during this time.

But it has been a one sided conversation. Many people believe that there are two individuals involved in the abortion debate, the mother and the child. We are not allowed to talk about the child for fear of making the mother feel guilty for her choices, which is exactly why the sonogram issue is of paramont importance to the pro-abortion crowd.

Until those born male can get pregnant, those born female (regardless of one's current gender identity), in other words those of us with a uterus, are the authorities.

Yes, we've heard that in just about every conceivable conversation on these forums. I'm fully aware that many believe that as a white male, I am not allowed opinions on subjects involving women or people of different ethnic backgrounds. I don't accept the premise, but I am keenly aware of the opinion.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of a sexist, misogynistic society is the control of women's reproduction by men in authority, such as seen by the reprehensible actions of the state of Virginia.

I'm always surprised to see people cast themselves as victims to those evil "men in authority", when it would be just as easy to consider that someone, regardless of gender, was interested in protecting the unborn and actually had no interest in controlling women.

Universal respect for women, and for our rights to be sexual with whomever, whenever, and however we choose

I certainly have respect for women and their rights, but I understand that each right comes with a corresponding responsibility. You can't enjoy one without accepting the other, otherwise it's not a "right" but rather an extravagence.

[Spartana]

[QUOTE=redfox;71449] The current flame wars around abortion will be rendered meaningless when sexism is dead, and women are equal in every respect. Work towards that end, and you'll meet your objective.

QUOTE]

For many women, myself included, the right to have an abortion has nothing to do with sexism or equality. Many anti-abortion women are ardent feminists and supporters of equal rights and opportunities for all as well as the choice to use contraceptives as they choose - including absinence. Ones personal sense of morality and ethics has nothing to do with equality, sexism or gender.

[Zoebird]

So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.

That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?

Here are the issues about the mandate that trouble me:

1. that the initial information I could find asserted that it MUST BE a vaginal ultrasound, which is particularly invasive.

2. that the purpose of the ultrasound is not simply to date the pregnancy to come into compliance with law and assist in the procedure being safe and effective for the person seeking it, but rather to "show them the baby" in an attempt to convince them to keep the pregnancy.

most women who are seeking abortions, as red fox has asserted, are very much aware that they are terminating a pregnancy. They know that it is a baby inside of them. They are not coming to this decision easily -- and very few of them are like Bae's family member.

For some women, doing this might be tantamount to a form of emotional abuse. It is already difficult, it is already a decision that they have struggled to make. It is already hard enough to have to go through the procedure (which is also invasive and so emotionally extreme for most people). And if the woman is terminating a pregnancy of an abuser, she will not likely want to see that baby at all. . .as she is already in an emotionally vulnerable space.

I'm not calling her weak. If a man is raped and goes to the hospital to go through the procedures related to collecting evidence, it is extremely emotionally difficult for him to have that evidence taken -- photographs, semen samples removed -- not to mention the repair work that may need to be done to his body. It is the same for a man as it is a woman.

But with a woman, it may well happen that she ends up pregnant, and wants to then terminate that pregnancy. A vaginal ultrasound and being forced to look at the image and have it explained to her?

Is that not just putting salt int he wound?

And even for myself. I'm thoughtful -- you know this. If I chose to have an abortion of a baby -- yes, I know very well, I have a son! -- it would have been a torturous process to get to that decision. If, having made it, I'm then forced into counseling where someone shames and chastises me for this choice, and then I'm forced to a vaginal ultrasound as an element of demonstrating power over me (that's how I perceive it), and then forced to look at the images so that i MIGHT change my mind?

It would be torment. Pure and simple.

It's hard enough as it is. Why do we have to make it so much harder on people?

[Zoebird]

But it has been a one sided conversation. Many people believe that there are two individuals involved in the abortion debate, the mother and the child. We are not allowed to talk about the child for fear of making the mother feel guilty for her choices, which is exactly why the sonogram issue is of paramont importance to the pro-abortion crowd.

We can talk about the child. I will openly.

First, we can talk about when the child exists as a human being. Some say conception. Some say quickening. Some say at the first breath. Some say it's somewhere in between. Some cultures say it's after 2 years (until then, the child is seen as an angel or god, deciding whether or not to continue in the body -- this is an old tradition, likely developed because so many children died before age 2 due to disease; that being said "infanticide" is also considered appropriate in this culture).

So, this is a philosophical question. It's a question of what you believe.

My personal belief has two components: 1. philosophical and 2. scientific based on viability.

I define the second one based on certain technologies that I accept -- which is to say that while a baby at 22 or 24 weeks gestation can be saved via modern medicine, the expense and value of that process for the infant may not be appropriate (this is philosophical again).

Thus, I may say that I feel comfortable with a woman having an abortion no questions asked up until quickening (that's when I think "life" begins so to speak), and that it's likely appropriate for her to have an abortion much later in the pregnancy up until the child could survive -- effectively with minimal intervention medically -- outside of her womb (say, 33 weeks?).

But LEGALLY, because there are differences of opinion about when a person is a person (And therefore a citizen to whom rights and responsibilities attach -- and protections), and the states are defining this based on their perception of viability.

Because the beliefs are diverse, i think fewer controls and more allowance for individual choice should take precedent *legally* speaking, over other people's beliefs.

Alan, essentially, you are saying that YOUR beliefs about when life begins and when the baby is a baby should legally trump everyone else's beliefs about it.

But it doesn't work that way. As a community, we decide where that line will be drawn, and some people won't like it one way (catholics -- it should begin at conception!) and some people won't like it the other way (jewish idea -- it should begin at the first breath!). meaning, the catholics want a more strict standard, and if it's not strict enough they get pissy about it, and the jewish people might want a more liberal standard, and therefore might get pissy about that. And most of us are quibbling over viability somewhere in the middle.

So, because of this diversity, I think that legalization is important AND there shouldn't be aspects of trying to stop women per se. I agree with things like counseling and support and information for women making this choice. They need clear information, and support and counseling. It isn't an easy process for them.

But I don't think it should have coercive, guilt-based elements and shame-based elements that this law seeks to have -- and so also do many other proposed laws that catholics (among others) would advocate.

Yes, we've heard that in just about every conceivable conversation on these forums. I'm fully aware that many believe that as a white male, I am not allowed opinions on subjects involving women or people of different ethnic backgrounds. I don't accept the premise, but I am keenly aware of the opinion.

I think you are allowed an opinion. I do not think that your opinion should necessarily dictate the law.

I'm always surprised to see people cast themselves as victims to those evil "men in authority", when it would be just as easy to consider that someone, regardless of gender, was interested in protecting the unborn and actually had no interest in controlling women.

But as you said before, there are TWO people involved, and ONE that we for-certain know is a person in every way. This person -- for certain -- is a citizen with legal rights, responsibilities and protections.

While you want to talk about an unborn child, you may not be speaking about a legal person, with rights, responsibilities, and protections.

And if you want to extend rights to that unborn child, those rights may take away or inhibit the rights of the person whom we know is a person with legal rights.

I certainly have respect for women and their rights, but I understand that each right comes with a corresponding responsibility. You can't enjoy one without accepting the other, otherwise it's not a "right" but rather an extravagence.

This argument asserts that the woman has the responsibility to either A. prevent pregnancy or B. continue a pregnancy. But there is an option C. The option to terminate a pregnancy. This is also part of her responsibility.

It doesn't make sex an extravagance. Birth control methods fail. Pregnancies can be harmful and dangerous to women. A woman can know whether or not she can continue a pregnancy -- for any number of reasons.

legally, she has rights, responsibilities, and protections that the unborn child does not (because we cannot define that child legally without it impacting the legal rights of the person who is a legal person) -- and that includes her rights to make choices regarding A, B, and C.

Laws that seek to inhibit C under the guise of her "taking responsibility" are really, and actually, simply trying to control women's decisions and sexual practices.