Bill Proposes Consultation Session Before Abortion

[Cpetr13]

Separate and distinct and therefore it has no legal right whatsoever to inhabit the woman's body against her will.

chantlaura wrote:

But the baby's body IS a separate body! Connected to mine, yes, but separate and distinct from the moment of conception - separate organs, separate personality...
I am afraid you are so closed-minded to this reality because you are terrified of the consequence of being wrong.
On the other hand, if we were wrong, we'd only look very silly and sentimental.
Where do you stand on "animal rights," by the way?

[chantlaura]

Cpetr13 wrote:

Separate and distinct and therefore it has no legal right whatsoever to inhabit the woman's body against her will.
<quoted text>

Yet when she had sex, she tacitly invited said baby to be conceived. Were the conception wholly against the woman's will...

we're back where you don't like us to go - not having sex.

[chantlaura]

When a woman has a gynecological procedure, or some form of surgery, it is standard procedure to have a follow-up visit at some time in the near future after said procedure, in order to make sure healing is going according to plan.

Clinic physicians are not available - by their own policy - to do followup after abortion. Women are instructed to go to an emergency room if they have problems.

Crappy medical care for the woman, don't you think?

[Cpetr13]

There is no such thing as tacit consent. You either plan to get pregnant or you don't. Saying you give tacit consent to a pregnancy is like saying you give tacit consent to a heart attack or any other bodily condition.

If you don't plan it, then you don't have to accept it. Even if you plan it and change your mind within the time constraints of RvW, you can terminate it.

chantlaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet when she had sex, she tacitly invited said baby to be conceived. Were the conception wholly against the woman's will...
we're back where you don't like us to go - not having sex.

[Cpetr13]

It is not necessarily standard procedure for all treatments. Moreover, if something was wrong with the procedure, you are going to know it long before your follow-up weeks later.

If you have your procedure done at PP, you would see a doctor in their health-care section, not their abortion section. You are free to make an appointment or not as you see fit. It's by no mean mandatory.

chantlaura wrote:

When a woman has a gynecological procedure, or some form of surgery, it is standard procedure to have a follow-up visit at some time in the near future after said procedure, in order to make sure healing is going according to plan.
Clinic physicians are not available - by their own policy - to do followup after abortion. Women are instructed to go to an emergency room if they have problems.
Crappy medical care for the woman, don't you think?

[chantlaura]

Sorry, Cpetr13, but I strongly disagree. The very natural consequence of sex is reproduction. In the lower animal kingdom, the only time a female accepts mating is during estrus. We humans have an advantage in that we're capable of enjoying sex any time, but that doesn't negate the primary role of sex - reproduction.

If I have sex, no matter what "protections" I give myself, I'm engaging in an act which naturally results in conception. I know better, being a rational creature.

Therefore, if I do become pregnant, I ought NOT to feel as if I've been irrationally and unjustly invaded by some alien species who has no business invading my body - And the whole hue and cry of "It's my body! I'll not be host to some damned little parasite!" is damnable.

That, my friend, is one selfish, irrational, narcissistic attitude.

[marysaidyes2life]

chantlaura wrote:

Sorry, Cpetr13, but I strongly disagree. The very natural consequence of sex is reproduction. In the lower animal kingdom, the only time a female accepts mating is during estrus. We humans have an advantage in that we're capable of enjoying sex any time, but that doesn't negate the primary role of sex - reproduction.
If I have sex, no matter what "protections" I give myself, I'm engaging in an act which naturally results in conception. I know better, being a rational creature.
Therefore, if I do become pregnant, I ought NOT to feel as if I've been irrationally and unjustly invaded by some alien species who has no business invading my body - And the whole hue and cry of "It's my body! I'll not be host to some damned little parasite!" is damnable.
That, my friend, is one selfish, irrational, narcissistic attitude.

I hope you stick around. I do like your posting style.

[chantlaura]

marysaidyes2life wrote:

<quoted text>I hope you stick around. I do like your posting style.

Thanks. I've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating to have a fairly rational discussion with folks, only to have it disrupted by people who claim to be anti-abortion but act like the lowest forms of trolls.

[pbfa]

chantlaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet when she had sex, she tacitly invited said baby to be conceived. Were the conception wholly against the woman's will...
we're back where you don't like us to go - not having sex.

laura, consent to sexual intercourse is not an invitation to pregnancy anymore than driving a car is an invitation to be broadsided by a city bus.

[C Hamilton]

chantlaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. I've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating to have a fairly rational discussion with folks, only to have it disrupted by people who claim to be anti-abortion but act like the lowest forms of trolls.

It didn't take you long to figure out Mary.

[marysaidyes2life]

chantlaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. I've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating to have a fairly rational discussion with folks, only to have it disrupted by people who claim to be anti-abortion but act like the lowest forms of trolls.

What do you mean claim to be? Are there some here that you suspect are not really pro-lifers, and how is it that you are making that determination. I understand not getting as nasty as the pro-aborts when they attack, but why are you saying that some pro-lifers are only claiming to be pro-life(anti-abortion)?

[C Hamilton]

marysaidyes2life wrote:

<quoted text>What do you mean claim to be? Are there some here that you suspect are not really pro-lifers, and how is it that you are making that determination. I understand not getting as nasty as the pro-aborts when they attack, but why are you saying that some pro-lifers are only claiming to be pro-life(anti-abortion)?

Calm down, RacistMary. She's not doubting that you're PL. She simply thinks you (and likely some of your friends) "act like the lowest forms of trolls." What's the matter.....truth hurt?

[Ocean56]

mfirebrand1 wrote:

It's not your right to kill another human being.and your body is seperate from the baby's body.

It IS a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant. Deal with it. If it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision.

[Ocean56]

chantlaura wrote:

But the baby's body IS a separate body! Connected to mine, yes, but separate and distinct from the moment of conception - separate organs, separate personality...
I am afraid you are so closed-minded to this reality because you are terrified of the consequence of being wrong.
On the other hand, if we were wrong, we'd only look very silly and sentimental.
Where do you stand on "animal rights," by the way?

Your BELIEFS about conception are just that...belief, not "reality."

[Cpetr13]

BEING higher creatures, WE decide for ourselves why we have sex. Most people have sex for pleasure, not directly for reproduction.

A woman who has sex may accept that she might get pregnant. That is not the same as consenting to it. There is nothing "damnable" about controlling your own body and your own life; no one has to be the catspaw of fate.

It is hardly irrational to not want to be pregnant; in many cases, it is the only rational response. Not everyone has to think fo the fetus the same way you do; that's what makes this a free country.

chantlaura wrote:

Sorry, Cpetr13, but I strongly disagree. The very natural consequence of sex is reproduction. In the lower animal kingdom, the only time a female accepts mating is during estrus. We humans have an advantage in that we're capable of enjoying sex any time, but that doesn't negate the primary role of sex - reproduction.
If I have sex, no matter what "protections" I give myself, I'm engaging in an act which naturally results in conception. I know better, being a rational creature.
Therefore, if I do become pregnant, I ought NOT to feel as if I've been irrationally and unjustly invaded by some alien species who has no business invading my body - And the whole hue and cry of "It's my body! I'll not be host to some damned little parasite!" is damnable.
That, my friend, is one selfish, irrational, narcissistic attitude.

[chantlaura]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your BELIEFS about conception are just that...belief, not "reality."

YOUR "beliefs" about conception are just that... belief, not reality.

[Ocean56]

chantlaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet when she had sex, she tacitly invited said baby to be conceived. Were the conception wholly against the woman's will...

Ah, the old, UGLY "you play, now you PAY!" mindset reveals itself again. How typical. But guess what, consenting to sex is NOT consenting to pregnancy and birth, no matter how many times you say it is.

I guess you're also saying by your last statement that if a woman is RAPED, and the sex was not consensual, it is "okay" by you for her to abort the unwanted pregnancy. Thanks for showing me what a disgusting hypocrite you are, as well as being anti-choice.

[Ocean56]

chantlaura wrote:

<quoted text>
YOUR "beliefs" about conception are just that... belief, not reality.

Oh, you can can go back and forth with that silly line all you want. I said it once, it's not necessary for me to repeat it.

The FACT remains that no matter what YOU believe about conception, it is meaningless to a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth.

[Ocean56]

chantlaura wrote:

Sorry, Cpetr13, but I strongly disagree. The very natural consequence of sex is reproduction. In the lower animal kingdom, the only time a female accepts mating is during estrus. We humans have an advantage in that we're capable of enjoying sex any time, but that doesn't negate the primary role of sex - reproduction.
If I have sex, no matter what "protections" I give myself, I'm engaging in an act which naturally results in conception. I know better, being a rational creature.
Therefore, if I do become pregnant, I ought NOT to feel as if I've been irrationally and unjustly invaded by some alien species who has no business invading my body - And the whole hue and cry of "It's my body! I'll not be host to some damned little parasite!" is damnable.
That, my friend, is one selfish, irrational, narcissistic attitude.

And some of us, myself included, couldn't care LESS what you disagree with or not.

Bottom line; I can enjoy sex as much as I want WITHOUT the burden of getting pregnant. I don't want more kids, so I make sure that when I have sex, I DON'T get pregnant. The ways to avoid the unwanted burden of pregnancy are varied. I can use BC, and I can also indulge in what I call the contraceptive sex acts, which avoid pregnancy entirely if none of them lead to intercourse.

The only reason the monument to cruelty and oppression, aka the catholic church, calls the desire to enjoy sex without procreating "selfish," "irrational" and/or "narcisstic" is because they're ticked off that we are keeping our power to make sexual and reproductive choices to OURSELVES. We're not giving it to the church, which only wants power and control over those decisions.

Too bad for the church. I figured out their CON JOB many years ago, which is why I dumped it for the pleasures of FREEDOM instead. I know quite a few other people who have done the same thing, and they are glad to be free of the church's poisonous influence as well.