new legislation (contraceptives, beliefs, choice, abortion)

[trishtrish10]

i urge everyone to write or email their congressmen (governmentguide.com has email addresses) to enact legislation for screening pregnant women seeking an abortion for physical and psychological risks. because this is not done and is illegal according to the supreme court. right now they just offer an abortion without screening the women. it would cost more but would be safer. it would also generate much more cash, which would please politicians as the dollar is their main approach to enacting most laws, from the mouth of a former u.s. congress woman. also urge them to increase the malpractice limit from 2 years to 15 as most health effects don't appear until much later.

[civilcynic]

Can you be more specific on exactly what this screening would entail? What physical testing or psychological testing would you like to see done?

Perhaps instead of screening pregnant women and determining whether an abortion would put them at physical and/or psychological at risk , we should screen men and women to determine whether they are psychologically and or physically fit to reproduce and raise children? Just think, by determining whose 'fit' to have children and perhaps sterilizing all others, we could stop abortions and unwanted pregnancy altogether, have a grip on population control and reduce the number of children who have been abused, neglected, abandoned, addicted, physically and/or mentally disabled.

[trishtrish10]

it's not that cut and dry. some terrible people have kids who turn out great. and who would decide who's to live and who's to die or be sterilized. too many innocent deaths. u must be an abortionist u sound like it.

[civilcynic]

I am prochoice not pro-abortion. I do not promote abortion but I do believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe that women have the right to choose the type of contraceptive they use based on their personal needs or religious beliefs. I believe that a woman also has the capacity and inherent right to make a decision with medical consultation whether or not to have a clinical abortion (above and beyond contraceptives) again based on an individual needs/beliefs.

Pro-choice is not a mandate to have an abortion...it is simply the right to choose to do so. Anti-choice individuals want to take away that choice and mandate women's reproduction without any regard to the health and well-being of the woman.

"It's not so cut and dry"....My point exactly! "Who would decide who's to live and who's to die or be sterilized." Well, according to the anti-choice contingent they have that right! You basically proved my stance....Anti-choice individuals want to ban the use of some of the most effective methods of contraception and they want to make all abortions illegal regardless of the individual womans' situation.

You don't think any one has the right to sterilize someone (and I agree...my post was tongue in cheek) but yet you believe that you or the state has the inherent right dictate other pregnancy prevention methods and ban certain types of contraception? Who is deciding who is to live or die if abortions are illegal.....What gives you or the state the right to tell a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term despite the fact it might kill her? What gives you or the state the right to force a woman to give birth to an anenocephalic infant that will only live for a few short hours in suffering? What gives you or the state the right to require a woman to continue a pregnancy when her health, not necessarily her life is at stake? The anti- choice movement puts a higher value on a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus over a woman's life. That's what you may call being pro-life...I call it playing God.

If I may repeat my question: What type of screening would you suggest a woman undergo to see if she is 'fit' to have an abortion? And who would be responsible to perform these screenings? Certainly not the medical profession....They are exactly the same group you want to legislate and restrict ...obviously you do not trust their knowledge in the first place. If we cannot determine who should be sterilized, who should live, who should die then who is to determine whether a person is fit to have an abortion?

[Rex]

Originally Posted by trishtrish10

also urge them to increase the malpractice limit from 2 years to 15 as most health effects don't appear until much later.

Doctor's can't afford insurance as it is.. Why would you do that. I say decrease.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by trishtrish10

i urge everyone to write or email their congressmen (governmentguide.com has email addresses) to enact legislation for screening pregnant women seeking an abortion for physical and psychological risks. because this is not done and is illegal according to the supreme court. right now they just offer an abortion without screening the women. it would cost more but would be safer. it would also generate much more cash, which would please politicians as the dollar is their main approach to enacting most laws, from the mouth of a former u.s. congress woman. also urge them to increase the malpractice limit from 2 years to 15 as most health effects don't appear until much later.

Seems like this is designed to make an end run around the doctor patient relationship. I would love to have more detail, as civilcynic has asked, to see what exactly is invovled and what would be done with the results. As far as I know, the informed consent of the patient, from the doctor of the patient's choice, is sufficient to have the procedure.

I would hazard a guess that this would be an undue burden the state places on a woman seeking an abortion as defined by Justice O'Connor.

-pah-

[trishtrish10]

the choice was made when the couple decided to have sex. the innocent child has a more fundamental right to live than the woman and doctor have to terminate it.

[trishtrish10]

along with pleasure comes responsibility

[civilcynic]

How have you determined that a fertilized egg, an embryo or a fetus has a more fundamental right to live than a woman? On what basis do you come to your conclusion?

Thank you, Trishtrish, for your forthright response...it clearly demonstrates why the term 'anti-choice' is more fitting than the 'pro-life' term by those who would like to illegalize abortion.

"along with pleasure comes responsibility".......soooo those women who become pregnant from a rape enjoyed their assault and should be forced to carry that fertilized egg to term?

A fertilized egg, embryo or fetus is 'innocent' and requires protection and the woman whose womb it is growing in is guilty of.......what?

You want pregnant women to undergo physical and psychological testing to see if they can undergo an abortion but you have yet to delineate what type of testing you believe is necessary. On the other hand, you don't think we can & should have the right to determine who is 'fit' to be a parent...who has that right to determine who will live and who will die, you asked yet you say that a pre-born (anywhere from a fertilized egg to a fetus) has a fundamental right to live even if it causes the death of the woman. What gives you or the state the right to make this decision for other women?

[trishtrish10]

don't be ridiculous. in the rare case of rape or incest, the child conceived was created to be born and has that right. just this week my cousin had to terminate a pregnancy because it was tubular. if she hadn't had her tubes tied it would more likely implanted in the uterus and would be alive today. along with pleasure comes responsibility. to those who have much, more is expected. a child's life is nothing to take lightly no matter what stage of development. i prefer to celebrate life.