Pregnant women find abortion alternatives

Jul 7, 2011 Full story: Monroe News Star 248

"Creating a culture of life is more than just words." Comments Purchase Image Gov.

Full Story
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#1 Jul 8, 2011
Awesome!
Ocean56

AOL

#2 Jul 8, 2011
It isn't going to change the mind of ANY woman who DOESN'T want to be pregnant and has no intention of staying pregnant. And she doesn't HAVE to stay pregnant either.

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#3 Jul 9, 2011
Ocean56 wrote:
It isn't going to change the mind of ANY woman who DOESN'T want to be pregnant and has no intention of staying pregnant. And she doesn't HAVE to stay pregnant either.
What about the choice to become pregnant? Did she not have that choice? Maybe that is where you pro-aborts have gone off, Maybe you need to picket God and Nature!
Responsibility

South San Francisco, CA

#4 Jul 9, 2011
Ahhh those gophers with their silly nonsense.

I would bet the world's economy that the women who are considering their pro-choice right to continue with a pregnancy or not, have weighed up the options and made their difficult decisions.

BTW, mary dear, in the perfect world, women (and men) would not have sex before they wanted to get pregnant, but that is not how it works.

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#5 Jul 9, 2011
Responsibility wrote:
Ahhh those gophers with their silly nonsense.
I would bet the world's economy that the women who are considering their pro-choice right to continue with a pregnancy or not, have weighed up the options and made their difficult decisions.
BTW, mary dear, in the perfect world, women (and men) would not have sex before they wanted to get pregnant, but that is not how it works.
I'd take that bet!

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#6 Jul 9, 2011
"The law requires that signs be posted around abortion facilities and include pertinent information about a woman's rights, including the fact that it is illegal to coerce a woman into getting an abortion, that the child's father must provide child support, that certain agencies can assist them during and after the pregnancy and that adoptive parents can pay some of the medical costs.
Physicians also must inform patients about their options and provide them with a link to the Department of Health and Hospitals website featuring information about abortion alternatives and informed consent"


This is a vary common sense approach and it should be adopted country-wide.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#7 Jul 9, 2011
Ocean56 wrote:
It isn't going to change the mind of ANY woman who DOESN'T want to be pregnant and has no intention of staying pregnant. And she doesn't HAVE to stay pregnant either.
Then you should have no objection to it.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#8 Jul 9, 2011
Responsibility wrote:
Ahhh those gophers with their silly nonsense.
I would bet the world's economy that the women who are considering their pro-choice right to continue with a pregnancy or not, have weighed up the options and made their difficult decisions.
BTW, mary dear, in the perfect world, women (and men) would not have sex before they wanted to get pregnant, but that is not how it works.
"I would bet the world's economy that the women who are considering their pro-choice right to continue with a pregnancy or not, have weighed up the options and made their difficult decisions."

This is just another way to insure that.
Ocean56

AOL

#9 Jul 11, 2011
marysaidyes2life wrote:
What about the choice to become pregnant? Did she not have that choice? Maybe that is where you pro-aborts have gone off, Maybe you need to picket God and Nature!
Oh PLEASE, this is just more nonsense. Since all BC methods can and do fail occasionally, it still remains the WOMAN's decision whether to stay pregnant or not.

Of course the best alternative to abortion is NOT getting pregnant to begin with. However, since all contraceptives are subject to failures, unwanted pregnancies will continue to happen. So if a woman doesn't WANT to stay pregnant, she doesn't have to.
serfs up

Clermont, FL

#10 Jul 11, 2011
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh PLEASE, this is just more nonsense. Since all BC methods can and do fail occasionally, it still remains the WOMAN's decision whether to stay pregnant or not.
Of course the best alternative to abortion is NOT getting pregnant to begin with. However, since all contraceptives are subject to failures, unwanted pregnancies will continue to happen. So if a woman doesn't WANT to stay pregnant, she doesn't have to.
Its probably being more or less sluts that cause most of the issues. One and a half million abortions a year is proof enough. Cut the abortions massively with behavior and the problem goes away.
Relativity

Saint Augustine, FL

#11 Jul 11, 2011
Are pro-life organizations also going to be required to inform women of all the available options they have--including abortion?

Fair is fair, after all....

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#12 Jul 11, 2011
Susanm wrote:
"The law requires that signs be posted around abortion facilities and include pertinent information about a woman's rights, including the fact that it is illegal to coerce a woman into getting an abortion, that the child's father must provide child support, that certain agencies can assist them during and after the pregnancy and that adoptive parents can pay some of the medical costs.
Physicians also must inform patients about their options and provide them with a link to the Department of Health and Hospitals website featuring information about abortion alternatives and informed consent"
This is a vary common sense approach and it should be adopted country-wide.
If full disclosure is what you really want, then you should have no objection to CPCs having to give out information on where women can obtain an abortion. Right?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#13 Jul 11, 2011
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
If full disclosure is what you really want, then you should have no objection to CPCs having to give out information on where women can obtain an abortion. Right?
Susanm wrote:

"The law requires that signs be posted around abortion facilities and include pertinent information about a woman's rights, including the fact that it is illegal to coerce a woman into getting an abortion, that the child's father must provide child support, that certain agencies can assist them during and after the pregnancy and that adoptive parents can pay some of the medical costs.
Physicians also must inform patients about their options and provide them with a link to the Department of Health and Hospitals website featuring information about abortion alternatives and informed consent"
This is a vary common sense approach and it should be adopted country-wide.

""The law requires that signs be posted around abortion facilities and include pertinent information about a woman's rights, including the fact that it is illegal to coerce a woman into getting an abortion, that the child's father must provide child support, that certain agencies can assist them during and after the pregnancy and that adoptive parents can pay some of the medical costs."

I have no problem with the law being posted.

"Physicians also must inform patients about their options and provide them with a link to the Department of Health and Hospitals website featuring information about abortion alternatives and informed consent"

I have no problem with providing a link to the Dept of Health and Hospitals.

The reason why I specifically liked and addressed this approach is that abortion "clinics" are not being required to refer women to CPC's and CPC's should not be required to refer to abortion "clinics". They are only required to provide a link where the woman can obtain that information.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#14 Jul 11, 2011
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Susanm wrote:
"The law requires that signs be posted around abortion facilities and include pertinent information about a woman's rights, including the fact that it is illegal to coerce a woman into getting an abortion, that the child's father must provide child support, that certain agencies can assist them during and after the pregnancy and that adoptive parents can pay some of the medical costs.
Physicians also must inform patients about their options and provide them with a link to the Department of Health and Hospitals website featuring information about abortion alternatives and informed consent"
This is a vary common sense approach and it should be adopted country-wide.
""The law requires that signs be posted around abortion facilities and include pertinent information about a woman's rights, including the fact that it is illegal to coerce a woman into getting an abortion, that the child's father must provide child support, that certain agencies can assist them during and after the pregnancy and that adoptive parents can pay some of the medical costs."
I have no problem with the law being posted.
"Physicians also must inform patients about their options and provide them with a link to the Department of Health and Hospitals website featuring information about abortion alternatives and informed consent"
I have no problem with providing a link to the Dept of Health and Hospitals.
The reason why I specifically liked and addressed this approach is that abortion "clinics" are not being required to refer women to CPC's and CPC's should not be required to refer to abortion "clinics". They are only required to provide a link where the woman can obtain that information.
More spin from the Spin Queen. They ARE required to tell them that 'certain' agencies can 'assist them' during and after the pregnancy. Are they required to tell them WHICH agencies? And if so, would that NOT include any CPCs in the area? If so, CPCs should also be required to tell women that 'certain' clinics can 'assist them' to obtain an abortion. Right? After all, you say you're all for giving them full information, right?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#15 Jul 11, 2011
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
More spin from the Spin Queen. They ARE required to tell them that 'certain' agencies can 'assist them' during and after the pregnancy. Are they required to tell them WHICH agencies? And if so, would that NOT include any CPCs in the area? If so, CPCs should also be required to tell women that 'certain' clinics can 'assist them' to obtain an abortion. Right? After all, you say you're all for giving them full information, right?
"More spin from the Spin Queen."

You do that very well.

"They ARE required to tell them that 'certain' agencies can 'assist them' during and after the pregnancy."

That is NOT a referral.

"Are they required to tell them WHICH agencies?"

Does the article say that?

"And if so, would that NOT include any CPCs in the area?"

According to the article, they are required to provide them with a link to Department of Health and Hospitals website.

"you say you're all for giving them full information, right?"

So do you, why wouldn't you want them to know where they can find info on alternatives to abortion?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#16 Jul 11, 2011
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"More spin from the Spin Queen."
You do that very well.
"They ARE required to tell them that 'certain' agencies can 'assist them' during and after the pregnancy."
That is NOT a referral.
"Are they required to tell them WHICH agencies?"
Does the article say that?
"And if so, would that NOT include any CPCs in the area?"
According to the article, they are required to provide them with a link to Department of Health and Hospitals website.
"you say you're all for giving them full information, right?"
So do you, why wouldn't you want them to know where they can find info on alternatives to abortion?
I never said that I would, did I?

Also, the question was IF SO. I'll ask again. IF the clinics were required to tell the woman about any CPCs in the area, you think that the CPCs in the area should be required to tell the woman about any abortion clinics in the area, in the interest of giving her ALL the information, right?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#17 Jul 11, 2011
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that I would, did I?
Also, the question was IF SO. I'll ask again. IF the clinics were required to tell the woman about any CPCs in the area, you think that the CPCs in the area should be required to tell the woman about any abortion clinics in the area, in the interest of giving her ALL the information, right?
Again, that is not what is being said in the article, the article clearly said that they would be required to provide a link to the Dept of Health and Hospitals website. Nowhere does it say that they need to provide a referral to a CPC.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#18 Jul 11, 2011
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, that is not what is being said in the article, the article clearly said that they would be required to provide a link to the Dept of Health and Hospitals website. Nowhere does it say that they need to provide a referral to a CPC.
I didn't say that's what the article said. I asked a question. Why is it you cannot answer a simple question with a straight answer?

I'll ask again. IF abortion clinics were required to tell women about CPCs in the area, then you'll agree that CPCs should have to tell women about abortion clinics in the area, in the interest of giving her all the information, right?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#19 Jul 12, 2011
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say that's what the article said. I asked a question. Why is it you cannot answer a simple question with a straight answer?
I'll ask again. IF abortion clinics were required to tell women about CPCs in the area, then you'll agree that CPCs should have to tell women about abortion clinics in the area, in the interest of giving her all the information, right?
The reason that I like this proposal, like I said yesterday, is that neither side is required to give a "referral". All that is required is to give the link to the Dept of Health and Hospitals. Abortion "clinics" should not be required to provide referrals to CPC's and CPC's should not be required to give referrals to abortion "clinics".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#20 Jul 12, 2011
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason that I like this proposal, like I said yesterday, is that neither side is required to give a "referral". All that is required is to give the link to the Dept of Health and Hospitals. Abortion "clinics" should not be required to provide referrals to CPC's and CPC's should not be required to give referrals to abortion "clinics".
And still no answer to the question I actually asked. I'm not surprised.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Black guest stuns CNN anchor: Racism is - not a... 7 min swedenforever 495
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min positronium 263,478
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 10 min cpeter1313 281
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min replaytime 116,806
What If Republicans Capture the Senate? 14 min swedenforever 377
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 21 min Gunther 56,052
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 26 min Tony Rome 1,111,061
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr American Lady 154,272
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 2 hr Toby 4,534
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••