• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There's no such thing as the "war on women"

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Wisconsin "PUSHES" Mandatory Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill through the Republican controlled Senate. It's expected to pass the Republican controlled House and expected to be signed by the Republican controlled Governor (Scott Walker).

Take a look at what happened on the floor.....(sad)
[youtube]2iRmaT9KIl4[/youtube]
WI State Senate vote on SB206 (Abortion bill) 6.12.13 - YouTube


Daily Kos: VIDEO: Wisconsin Senate President Loses It While Ramming Through Vaginal Ultrasound Bill
“Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald, Senate President Ellis, and the Republican Senate majority conspired not only to limit debate, but also to violate Senate rules of procedure by suspending the rules without obtaining the super-majority consent required. The bill was referred to the Assembly in violation of Senate rules...."

____________________________________


Witnesses in the gallery reported that Senate President Mike Ellis, the man you see in the video, actually broke his gavel while pounding away and screaming at duly elected officials, ordering them to sit down and shut up.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Wisconsin "PUSHES" Mandatory Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill through the Republican controlled Senate. It's expected to pass the Republican controlled House and expected to be signed by the Republican controlled Governor (Scott Walker).

Take a look at what happened on the floor.....(sad)
[youtube]2iRmaT9KIl4[/youtube]
WI State Senate vote on SB206 (Abortion bill) 6.12.13 - YouTube


Daily Kos: VIDEO: Wisconsin Senate President Loses It While Ramming Through Vaginal Ultrasound Bill

Dang. It's a loud and obnoxious kangaroo court for reproductive rights.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Dang. It's a loud and obnoxious kangaroo court for reproductive rights.

They violated all their own Senate rules, limited the debate on the bill and didn't allow a super majority vote (filibuster).......wow....!!!!

That's what I call "big government", "invasive government" and "government overreach"...

I wonder if there is anyone here that is fine with these shenanigans..??
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
They violated all their own Senate rules, limited the debate on the bill and didn't allow a super majority vote (filibuster).......wow....!!!!

That's what I call "big government", "invasive government" and "government overreach"...

I wonder if there is anyone here that is fine with these shenanigans..??

Beware the voices that suggest that the politcians aren't really doing that. That the tape is edited. Or something. And it's to suggest that politicians aren't infringing on reproductive rights, and that this video is not good enough proof of the war on women by our own government officials.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I was watching Parliament yesterday and they were loud too....but not over the top pushing bills and violating rules....Watching Parliment was kind of funny to hear them debate....

I don't mind passionate debate. :D

But to limit the debate and the dissenting opinion, and to disregard proper procedure, is all ludicrous.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Dawny, If you would equate a 24month fetus with a new born infant to the extent of murder charges (which I'm pretty sure these laws would advocate),

First and foremost, abortion bans make it illegal for physicians to provide such service. If a physician performed an illegal service, they are primarily at risk, as they have an obligation to lawfully practice.

So, I'm not buying that women would be arrested, tried for murder and jailed for seeking abortion services. Bans will make it challenging for those seeking later 2nd trimester abortions, to access them.

Remember, the second trimester spans from 13-27 weeks. The point of viability has been noted (by premies who were born and survived) to be as early as 23 weeks.

9 out of 10 abortions are taken care of BEFORE 20 weeks, as is - before the fetus reaches the point of viability.

why do you make an exception for defect or abnormality in the case of a fetus and not a newborn?

I do equate a viable fetus to have the same right to life as a newborn.

The majority of defects and abnormalities are determined prior to 20 weeks gestations as triple screening and ultra sound is taken care of between weeks 15-18 weeks. As I mentioned, my sister terminated her pregnancy before 20 weeks gestatation. She had gone to several specialists, had an amniocentesis done and numerous ultrasounds to confirm that her fetus had less than a 40% chance of survival outside of womb, was paralyzed, had a lemon-shaped head - indicating hydrocephalus.

I am personally far more comfortable with a termination being handled for any reason, prior to the point of viability. But, for those rare instances (and statistics support that these abortions are not majority) where a decision may need to be made for the well being of the mother or for what she deems to be the well being of her unborn, I will favor law that is less restrictive, even if it extends the allowable time frame for abortion, beyond the point of viability.

Wouldn't you consider it murder to kill a new born/infant due to defects or abnormality? Or should we also be able to kill newborns, or anyone for that matter, over abnormalities and defects? All things are equal, or they're not.

Would I consider it murder for myself - yes.

Would I consider it murder for another - fully contingent upon the circumstances, that I am not privy to.

What you're really saying in this, is they're not (equal).

Actually, these are the words that you're placing in my mouth. This isn't what I've said at all.
 
Last edited:

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
The major issue here is the phrasing "War on Women" when it is the "War of Women".
tumblr_mocl0bYPEg1svrse8o1_500.jpg
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
That's interesting information, but it is not what was suggested. (Mystic dug it up for us, bless her).

How cares what he suggested? I'm more interested in what the most current laws are in my state (which most directly impact me) and how such a ban would change them.

He would require that the "medical necessity" of having an abortion after week twelve be established in advance by a doctor with no involvement in the abortion procedure. Otherwise, no legal, safe abortion. It didn't have anything to do with treating a fetus if it turned out to be viable during the procedure. It was simply a barrier - an obstacle - to make it very difficult for many women to obtain abortions after week 12, and impossible for most.

These are just his opinions and propositions. This doesn't necessarily reflect real life and what would be instilled, if such a ban became law.

He did in fact say "life in prison for both the woman and the doctor" for any procedure after 20 weeks where it was not absolutely certain that the mother would otherwise die. I haven't got Mystic's patience to dig it up for you, but would obviously involve a criminal investigation and have to be processed through a court. That implies that the 12-20 week restriction would also be a matter for criminal prosecution if his arbitrary "medical necessity" obstacle was violated, but he I acknowledge he didn't say that explicitly.

A criminal investigation primarily involving the attending physician, if you translate this to real life. We can hold opinions and express them. Our opinions may not mesh with what actually is occurring and what might occur.

Edit: I see Mystic found it, the trooper. :) I missed the word "non-medical" though, and I don't have any idea what that means.

Not mandatory for the physical or mental health of the mother, or at least this is the definition in many US states.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
How cares what he suggested? I'm more interested in what the most current laws are in my state (which most directly impact me) and how such a ban would change them.



These are just his opinions and propositions. This doesn't necessarily reflect real life and what would be instilled, if such a ban became law.



A criminal investigation primarily involving the attending physician, if you translate this to real life. We can hold opinions and express them. Our opinions may not mesh with what actually is occurring and what might occur.



Not mandatory for the physical or mental health of the mother, or at least this is the definition in many US states.

Well if you don't care what he suggested I have nothing to debate with you. You came into this thread defending him and calling his posts lucid and reasonable, my only objective was to make sure you had a good, clear-eyed look at what you were defending.

It seems now we're moving on to you explaining how abortion laws currently work in your state, is that right? I'll take your word for it. I think the issue we're most concerned about is that those laws are changing for the worse, and the cause of those changes are male legislators who come up with arbitrary thoughtless proposals like freethinkers, which are more about punishing women for getting pregnant than they are about preventing the loss of life. The flip side of that threat is women not considering the implications of these proposals very carefully before jumping in and saying they sound like a good idea.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Well if you don't care what he suggested I have nothing to debate with you. You came into this thread defending him and calling his posts lucid and reasonable, my only objective was to make sure you had a good, clear-eyed look at what you were defending.

His posts were lucid and reasonable, in my opinion. I didn't struggle to understand what he was saying. There are specific points that I agree with him on and specific points that I do not.

I admitted to you that I had not seen his posts referencing his thoughts on second physician opinions and criminalization of women. I could not comment on that which I had not seen.
I have, however, explained to you more than once, that it's unlikely that a woman would be investigated and tried for murder in the manner that he may be suggesting and that you've suggested.

I encourage you to research the Kermit Gosnold case (PA) and form your own opinion from there. He is a physician found guilty of murdering and endangering his patients. He performed illegal abortions and severed the spines of viable fetuses. The attending physician and his colleagues were investigated and tried for murder...not the women who elected for the abortions.

If this ban becomes law, it will force physicians and women to make decisions earlier in the pregnancy. 20+ week abortions could not be offered. If a physician provides an illegal service, the physician is under fire as they are bound to advocate for their patient.

Facts regarding abortion in the United States:

  • Seven US states already ban abortion after 20 weeks, making exceptions for cases of life endangerment
  • 37 states (unless I've miscounted) already ban abortion between 20 weeks - 24 weeks or at the determined point of viability
For many states, you're looking at an adjustment of maybe 3 weeks to the bans that are already in place.


It seems now we're moving on to you explaining how abortion laws currently work in your state, is that right? I'll take your word for it.

You don't have to take my word for it. I posted links verifying what abortion services are legal in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And I've stated more than once, that I am content with the laws as they are in Virginia. Virginia allows abortion through the second trimester, unlike most states.

I think the issue we're most concerned about is that those laws are changing for the worse, and the cause of those changes are male legislators who come up with arbitrary thoughtless proposals like freethinkers, which are more about punishing women for getting pregnant than they are about preventing the loss of life. The flip side of that threat is women not considering the implications of these proposals very carefully before jumping in and saying they sound like a good idea.

Yes. It is concerning that the laws may change for the worse.

But, where you and I often disagree, Alceste, is that I do think that women and their physicians are capable of making decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy by week 20. Regardless as to our thoughts on this topic, statistics support that the majority of women who abort, are already obtaining their abortions successfully by week 20.

That does not mean that I want the laws in my home state changed, which, as I've stated, allow for abortion through the second trimester (13-27 weeks).

You've falsely accused me of not thinking through what's been posted.

Freethinker's opinions are his own. If I haven't been clear in anyway as to my defense of his posts (as I know what I do and do not support), please ask. If I have been unclear in anyway as to my stance on this issue, I'd be happy to clarify.

The majority of our nation's lawmakers are men. Considering my views on "large" government, it should go without saying, that I tire of restrictive legislation. I don't know how to comment on this "war on women".
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
His posts were lucid and reasonable, in my opinion. I didn't struggle to understand what he was saying. There are specific points that I agree with him on and specific points that I do not.

I admitted to you that I had not seen his posts referencing his thoughts on second physician opinions and criminalization of women. I could not comment on that which I had not seen.
I have, however, explained to you more than once, that it's unlikely that a woman would be investigated and tried for murder in the manner that he may be suggesting and that you've suggested.

I encourage you to research the Kermit Gosnold case (PA) and form your own opinion from there. He is a physician found guilty of murdering and endangering his patients. He performed illegal abortions and severed the spines of viable fetuses. The attending physician and his colleagues were investigated and tried for murder...not the women who elected for the abortions.

If this ban becomes law, it will force physicians and women to make decisions earlier in the pregnancy. 20+ week abortions could not be offered. If a physician provides an illegal service, the physician is under fire as they are bound to advocate for their patient.

Facts regarding abortion in the United States:

  • Seven US states already ban abortion after 20 weeks, making exceptions for cases of life endangerment
  • 37 states (unless I've miscounted) already ban abortion between 20 weeks or viability, whichever comes first.
For many states, you're looking at an adjustment of maybe 3 weeks to the bans that are already in place.



You don't have to take my word for it. I posted links verifying what abortion services are legal in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And I've stated more than once, that I am content with the laws as they are in Virginia. Virginia allows abortion through the second trimester, unlike most states.



Yes. It is concerning that the laws may change for the worse.

But, where you and I often disagree, Alceste, is that I do think that women and their physicians are capable of making decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy by week 20. Regardless as to our thoughts on this topic, statistics support that the majority of women who abort, are already obtaining their abortions successfully by week 20.

That does not mean that I want the laws in my home state changed, which, as I've stated, allow for abortion through the second trimester (13-27 weeks).

You've falsely accused me of not thinking through what's been posted.

Freethinker's opinions are his own. If I haven't been clear in anyway as to my defense of his posts (as I know what I do and do not support), please ask. If I have been unclear in anyway as to my stance on this issue, I'd be happy to clarify.

The majority of our nation's lawmakers are men. Considering my views on "large" government, it should go without saying, that I tire of restrictive legislation. I don't know how to comment on this "war on women".

Why do you think we disagree? Have I ever said it's impossible to decide before 20 weeks? Obviously it is possible for 99% of women who choose to terminate the pregnancy to decide earlier than that. I have no reason to doubt that the statistical distribution of actual abortions is an accurate representation of how long it takes to decide and terminate the pregnancy. Since we have little idea what factors have caused a tiny minority of women seeking an abortion to fail to meet that threshold (apart from one survey Dustin posted indicating 70% of that 1% don't know they were pregnant), I'm not prepared to arbitrarily pass new laws inhibiting their reproductive rights. I agree with Heather that this is a decision between a woman and her doctor, and it should fall under the category of medical ethics, not criminal law.

Which is not to say Kermit what's his nuts shouldn't be going to jail. It should not be acceptable to put women's lives at risk or to kill a living, viable infant. Infants are not viable at 20 weeks though, so that is a separate issue.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Facts regarding abortion in the United States:

  • Seven US states already ban abortion after 20 weeks, making exceptions for cases of life endangerment
  • 37 states (unless I've miscounted) already ban abortion between 20 weeks or viability, whichever comes first.

37 states are so blatantly ignorant. 20 weeks always come first... even suggesting that viability could come first just highlights misunderstandings between reality and rhetoric. The wording is obviously there to make it seem more reasonable or considerate of opposing views, but is ultimately meaningless as far as the law is concerned.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
How cares what he suggested? I'm more interested in what the most current laws are in my state (which most directly impact me) and how such a ban would change them.

It would be there until someone took it to court, and it went back up to the Supreme Court, where the law would be ruled as unconstitutional yet again. It probably wouldn't even make it to the Supreme court before it was shot down.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
There's definitely a larger war on men.

Sorry Gene, but when you try to bring these issues up via one line, and then never follow up on them, it's hard to take it seriously. If there is a war on men, it has almost always been propagated by men. At least men have the blatant chance at an opportunity to represent other men and thus change the "war on men."

Women are just getting this chance for the first time in history.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
37 states are so blatantly ignorant. 20 weeks always come first... even suggesting that viability could come first just highlights misunderstandings between reality and rhetoric. The wording is obviously there to make it seem more reasonable or considerate of opposing views, but is ultimately meaningless as far as the law is concerned.

I've since edited my post, as the verbiage I chose was very poor.

Out of those 37 states, the laws vary. Seven ban abortion after 20 weeks and with the others, it varies. Some indicate a ban after 24 weeks and others ban after "viability", which, realistically could be anywhere between 23-28 weeks.

You can check it out here:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Why do you think we disagree? Have I ever said it's impossible to decide before 20 weeks? Obviously it is possible for 99% of women who choose to terminate the pregnancy to decide earlier than that. I have no reason to doubt that the statistical distribution of actual abortions is an accurate representation of how long it takes to decide and terminate the pregnancy. Since we have little idea what factors have caused a tiny minority of women seeking an abortion to fail to meet that threshold (apart from one survey Dustin posted indicating 70% of that 1% don't know they were pregnant), I'm not prepared to arbitrarily pass new laws inhibiting their reproductive rights.

We are onthe same page, then.

I agree with Heather that this is a decision between a woman and her doctor, and it should fall under the category of medical ethics, not criminal law.

I agree.

Which is not to say Kermit what's his nuts shouldn't be going to jail. It should not be acceptable to put women's lives at risk or to kill a living, viable infant. Infants are not viable at 20 weeks though, so that is a separate issue.

Agreed.
 
Top