Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=stan4;42055178]If you have a negative pregnancy test, why would anyone have to approve anything?[/QUOTE
For just the PROCEDURE since it can be used for different medical conditions. Would a virgin pre-teen need a pregnancy test before a D & C? My 30 something year old daughter has uterine cysts. Mandate pregnancy tests first? Well, maybe she can show her marriage license to a WOMAN to prove she isn't looking for an abortion? That satisfy you? Welcome to the 21st Century.
Females have medical conditions, whatever their age or sexual orientation. It isn't all about abortions, and one size does not fit all.
If you have a negative pregnancy test, why would anyone have to approve anything?[/QUOTE
For just the PROCEDURE since it can be used for different medical conditions. Would a virgin pre-teen need a pregnancy test before a D & C?
From a practical standpoint, every woman who is a reproductive age already always gets a pregnancy test. This isn't like some big terrible new weight we have to place on medical establishment suddenly. It's already done routinely. If you are of reproductive age, you will get a pregnancy test.
Threads like this serve no real purpose. Debating a controversial issue is already taking it to the max. No let's make up things and see what people say. Why? No one wins in these arguments. What's next? Debating why hockey pucks are black instead of neon yellow?
Accessibility of condoms is probably easy in most places, though rural places may lack options, but they have a high fail rate as far as birth control is concerned, 18% verses 2-5% for the pill and 1% for an IUD.
Providing birth control for people isn't paying for people to get laid, because they will have sex either way. Birth control gives them the ability to prevent pregnancy.
The government will pay either way, and paying for birth control is much, much cheaper than paying for a child. So for the sake of fiscal responsibility, it makes sense to pay for birth control. It's also proven that free birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies dramatically which in turn reduces abortions. Win-win .
Because, in the long run, it is much cheaper than paying for welfare.
The people who can't afford to use anything but condoms usually can't afford to raise a kid either.....that's where you step in with your tax dollars. $$$$
And condoms? For my money, I would rather people use the most effective forms of birth control instead of one of the least effective.
Threads like this serve no real purpose. Debating a controversial issue is already taking it to the max. No let's make up things and see what people say. Why? No one wins in these arguments. What's next? Debating why hockey pucks are black instead of neon yellow?
I disagree, which is why I started the thread.
Anti-abortion activists would very much like for abortion to be outlawed and pretty much the only thing standing between their intent and reality is Roe v. Wade. I think it's important to know what making abortion illegal would like and what the ramifications would be for the parties involved.
My guess (perhaps hope is a better word) is that at least some of the people who talk about outlawing abortion don't really want there to be stiff criminal penalties for the parties. Instead, what they really want is for there to be no need for any woman to ever have an abortion. If that's the real desire, it opens up the discussion to how to best prevent unwanted pregnancies.
On the other hand, it's clear that some people do want it to be outlawed, with penalties similar those meted out for murder. I think that's important for people to realize as well.
Because, in the long run, it is much cheaper than paying for welfare.
The people who can't afford to use anything but condoms usually can't afford to raise a kid either.....that's where you step in with your tax dollars. $$$$
And condoms? For my money, I would rather people use the most effective forms of birth control instead of one of the least effective.
The most effective forms of birth control require doctor visits and prescriptions, which cost a lot more than condoms.
And finances aside, if a person really cares about the unborn it does not seem like cost would figure into the equation. Clearly the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
If you have a negative pregnancy test, why would anyone have to approve anything?[/QUOTE
For just the PROCEDURE since it can be used for different medical conditions? Would a virgin preteen need a pregnancy test before a D & C? My 30 something year old daughter has uterine cysts. Mandate pregnancy tests first? Well, maybe she can show her marriage license to a WOMAN to prove she isn't looking for an abortion? That satisfy you? Welcome to the 21st Century.
Females have medical conditions, whatever their age or sexual orientation. It isn't all about abortions, and one size does not fit all.
Anti-abortion activists would very much like for abortion to be outlawed and pretty much the only thing standing between their intent and reality is Roe v. Wade. I think it's important to know what making abortion illegal would like and what the ramifications would be for the parties involved.
My guess (perhaps hope is a better word) is that at least some of the people who talk about outlawing abortion don't really want there to be stiff criminal penalties for the parties. Instead, what they really want is for there to be no need for any woman to ever have an abortion. If that's the real desire, it opens up the discussion to how to best prevent unwanted pregnancies.
On the other hand, it's clear that some people do want it to be outlawed, with penalties similar those meted out for murder. I think that's important for people to realize as well.
Another unintended consequence........as I recently pointed out in another thread........how can you ban abortion without also banning IVF?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
