Florida political idiocy. Again.

[normiss 803]

Abortion law games

Really.

[Chrysopelea 0]

Quote

require a similar waiting period for a man to get a vasectomy

A vasectomy doesn't kill something that is already alive.

If they're going to make the argument that it does, then they should ban male masturbation.

Then we'll all be criminals.

[rehmwa 2]

Chrysopelea

Quote

require a similar waiting period for a man to get a vasectomy

A vasectomy .......If they're going to make the argument that it does, then they should ban male masturbation.

yes, it was a stupid analogy, but so is requiring a wait period for any medical procedure including abortion. Clearly the pros are motivation by religious actions, and the anti's (based on this adder which purely retributive) there are biased by assumptions of patriarchal attitudes of their opponents - no reasoned debate will happen in Florida with those two sides squaring off.

IMO - if one is of a mental orientation to be swayed by a waiting period, then they already likely have agonized over the decision prior to seeing the doctor - it's not the right of the state to tell the citizenry the ORDER or length of time in which they are required to make PERSONAL decisions.

if one is not so introspective, a waiting period or not is pointless

stupid proposed law......



when I got my vas, I had a 2 week waiting period and my wife had to sign off on doing it at all - I don't know if it was the practice's policy, or state law, but it seemed pretty stupid and I told them so. I imagine the uproar in our state if the same requirement was to be placed upon woman looking at sterilization procedures for themselves



the ONLY reason for any waiting period for any medical procedure is for collection of pertinent MEDICAL information in support of the procedure - anything else is none of the government's or the doctor's business

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JerryBaumchen 1,368]

Hi rehmwa,

Quote

when I got my vas, I had a 2 week waiting period and my wife had to sign off on doing it at all - I don't know if it was the practice's policy, or state law

It's been 35 yrs since I got cut but my medical provider req'd that I go thru something similar; no state law or any other law involved. No big deal in my mind.

Jerry Baumchen

[Chrysopelea 0]

rehmwa

yes, it was a stupid analogy, but so is requiring a wait period for any medical procedure including abortion...

Good post, and I agree.

But allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment for the sake of the debate to clarify things.

Some states have a required waiting period for the purchase of a gun. The idea being that if the purchaser intends to use it to attack someone, or to commit suicide, that the waiting period provides time for the person to cool off and reconsider their thoughts.

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to abortion? Before allowing the killing of a future human being, shouldn't we make sure that the expectant mother has had sufficient time to consider all the various aspects of what she is about to do?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Chrysopelea

Good post, and I agree.

But allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment for the sake of the debate to clarify things.

Some states have a required waiting period for the purchase of a gun. The idea being that if the purchaser intends to use it to attack someone, or to commit suicide, that the waiting period provides time for the person to cool off and reconsider their thoughts.

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to abortion? Before allowing the killing of a future human being, shouldn't we make sure that the expectant mother has had sufficient time to consider all the various aspects of what she is about to do?

No.

First off, there's not a lot of evidence that waiting periods have much, if any effect.
People who are seriously pissed either wait it out, find a different way to get a gun quicker or use something else.

Second off, the decision to have an abortion is private. That was the whole point of Roe v Wade.

It should be a decision between a woman and the doctor.

NOBODY ELSE.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[turtlespeed 221]

wolfriverjoe

***
Good post, and I agree.

But allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment for the sake of the debate to clarify things.

Some states have a required waiting period for the purchase of a gun. The idea being that if the purchaser intends to use it to attack someone, or to commit suicide, that the waiting period provides time for the person to cool off and reconsider their thoughts.

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to abortion? Before allowing the killing of a future human being, shouldn't we make sure that the expectant mother has had sufficient time to consider all the various aspects of what she is about to do?

No.

First off, there's not a lot of evidence that waiting periods have much, if any effect.
People who are seriously pissed either wait it out, find a different way to get a gun quicker or use something else.

Second off, the decision to have an abortion is private. That was the whole point of Roe v Wade.

It should be a decision between a woman and the doctor.


NOBODY ELSE.

Purchasing a gun should be soley between the gun dealer and the buyer as well.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Chrysopelea 0]

turtlespeed

Purchasing a gun should be soley between the gun dealer and the buyer as well.

The purchase of a gun most likely will never result in anyone being harmed. There are 300 million guns in circulation in America, and last year there were about 9,000 firearm homicides. So one out of every 33,000 guns is used in a homicide. And that is seen as sufficient threat to require a background check on every purchase.

An abortion by definition is 100% positively going to kill a living being. There are 1.2 million abortions per year in America - 133 times higher than the number of fatalities from firearms. Yet this is a private matter that is no one else's business.

Hmmm...

[kallend 2,027]

Chrysopelea

***Purchasing a gun should be soley between the gun dealer and the buyer as well.

The purchase of a gun most likely will never result in anyone being harmed. There are 300 million guns in circulation in America, and last year there were about 9,000 firearm homicides. So one out of every 33,000 guns is used in a homicide. And that is seen as sufficient threat to require a background check on every purchase.

An abortion by definition is 100% positively going to kill a living being. There are 1.2 million abortions per year in America - 133 times higher than the number of fatalities from firearms. Yet this is a private matter that is no one else's business.

Hmmm...

Indeed it is.

No Social Security number, no tax deduction, no passport. Clearly the government doesn't consider the fetus to be an American or even a person.

So clearly it's just none of the government's business. Conservatives need to keep their noses out of women's reproductive parts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,452]

There is a deep-seated feeling that deliberately ending a pregnancy ends a life. However, the level of attention paid to miscarriages seems to indicate that it's partly the deliberateness of the act that is wrong, and not the fetal death itself.

Yes, in some cases, parents-to-be mourn miscarriages. But there is absolutely no opprobrium associated with not mourning it.

I've had an abortion. It was a carefully taken and considered decision, made with my then-husband. I wonder what might have been, but no more than I wonder what might have been had I not gotten pregnant with my 31-year-old son when I did (we were using birth control in both cases), or many other major life changes.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to abortion?

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to open heart surgery?

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to organ donations?

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to tattoos?

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to buying a car?

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to having children?

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to [insert anything here]

If it is not justified for 99.9% of the things we do every day that are 'risky and should be further considered', then it is not a valid argument for abortion either.

This is a bullshit foot-in-the-door attempt to control the issue when the SUPREME COURT has already ruled on it....and that is fine I guess if you do not actually believe int he Constitution or the Supreme Court....go ahead then, we will do it 'your way' instead.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

There are 1.2 million abortions per year in America -...

Sounds like it is a much needed service, high in demand by women, right?

there are more than a million hernia surgeries every year - also a much needed medical service. And no one made me wait. Nor did the state legislature even consider it worth debating.....

If the government has the right to restrict a service upheld by the Supreme Court, then the govt has the right to suppress gun ownership as well (also upheld by the Supreme Court) - careful what you wish for and pick your battles.

[ryoder 1,590]

wmw999

But there is absolutely no opprobrium associated with not mourning it.

I just learned a new word!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

tkhayes

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to tattoos?

Now there is a good idea!
And add the requirement the person must be sober!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rehmwa 2]

Chrysopelea

***yes, it was a stupid analogy, but so is requiring a wait period for any medical procedure including abortion...

Good post, and I agree.

But allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment for the sake of the debate to clarify things.

Some states have a required waiting period for the purchase of a gun. The idea being that if the purchaser intends to use it to attack someone, or to commit suicide, that the waiting period provides time for the person to cool off and reconsider their thoughts.

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to abortion? Before allowing the killing of a future human being, shouldn't we make sure that the expectant mother has had sufficient time to consider all the various aspects of what she is about to do?

I don't agree with a waiting period for any personal property purchase. Not if the reasoning is about the personal choice of the consumer.

If it's needed to confirm a licensing process that has a cycle time, etc? yes. If it's just a "are you sure?" concept - absolutely not. None of the government's business.

Maybe we should have a 2 hour waiting period to purchase an ice cream cone - considering we are all now paying for health care.....


"BUT I'M ANGRY NOW!!" Homer Simpson

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

wolfriverjoe

It should be a decision between a woman and the doctor.

NOBODY ELSE.

I think the rote quote is absolutely counter to the pro-choice movement's intent.

It should be the adult woman's decision ONLY.
It's not partly the doctor's decision at all. He just executes the procedure. Period - final decision rests with the woman if we want to be philosophically pure.

Who are you to tell the potential mother/or not who she is allowed to get advise from? Why do you hate choice?

(She can include anybody she chooses to get advise from - I think if it's an adult woman - then the father and the doctor are typically good choices. but neither is remotely the final decision).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

tkhayes

that is fine I guess if you do not actually believe int he Constitution or the Supreme Court....go ahead then, we will do it 'your way' instead.

Why so personal? He said he was just playing Devil's Advocate.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

rehmwa

***It should be a decision between a woman and the doctor.

NOBODY ELSE.

I think the rote quote is absolutely counter to the pro-choice movement's intent.

It should be the adult woman's decision ONLY.
It's not partly the doctor's decision at all. He just executes the procedure. Period - final decision rests with the woman if we want to be philosophically pure.

Who are you to tell the potential mother/or not who she is allowed to get advise from? Why do you hate choice?

(She can include anybody she chooses to get advise from - I think if it's an adult woman - then the father and the doctor are typically good choices. but neither is remotely the final decision).

You make some very valid points, and in a very reasonable and rational manner.

I've noticed you've been doing that a lot lately. Are you feeling ok?

Seriously, I think that a doctor's opinion is important to have for any planned medical procedure.
Any procedure that I would have done would be in consultation with a doctor that I trust.
I would seek his (or her, my last doctor was a woman) opinion and advice on the appropriateness, risk level, expectations of results (and probably a few other things that I can't think of right now) before making a decision whether or not to proceed with the procedure.

I would expect my doctor to give professional and impartial advice. If I felt I wasn't getting that, I'd seek a different doctor (not talking about "doctor shopping" to find the opinion that I want to hear, just making sure I felt I was getting sound advice).

I would think a woman seeking an abortion should do the same. There may be sound physical/medical reasons that she shouldn't have the abortion. Reasons that the doctor would know, that she might not (I don't know of any, but I'm not a doctor).

But I see your point, and do largely agree with it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 803]

Never when intoxicated.
Never a name.

[tkhayes 348]

I wasn't being personal.

your
yôr,yo͝or/Submit
determiner
1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"what is your name?"
2. belonging to or associated with any person in general.
"the sight is enough to break your heart"

Choose number 2

[rehmwa 2]

wolfriverjoe

But I see your point, and do largely agree with it.

My point is simply - The position is the woman's. She can and should consult with anybody she considers pertinent to "her" decision. Anybody. or nobody. (we have opinions on what is the responsible way to do it, do you want to legislate that?)

The statement "between and woman and her doctor" is restricting in intent, and I believe, was coined that way on purpose.

It's a nice sounding bumper sticker. It's phrased that way to intentionally do 2 things:

1 - to remove ANY reference of the male involved, or the family of the woman. A restriction of her options - subtle.

2 - to place the term doctor in there specifically to add an impression of logic or responsibility to the choice. Frankly, IMO, if it's her choice, she can make it for ANY reason at all and it's still none of our business. that reason can be illogical and irresponsible (I'd HOPE not, but I shouldn't REQUIRE it on someone that can independently make decisions for themselves - as long as they take full responsibility for their decision - morally, personally, financially, and the consequences. simple enough).


Here's the backfire from that - That single phrase is a foundation for so many of the counter movements to force doctors to add to the checklist before supporting the decision..... Such as this one the thread is started on. Hey - the decision is between the woman "and her doctor" - OK gang - let's go after the doctor with legislation then......still not right, but the fanatics on the one side trying to obtusely push that anti-father agenda, opened a door for the fanatics on the other side with their anti-choice agenda

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

wolfriverjoe

You make some very valid points, and in a very reasonable and rational manner.

I've noticed you've been doing that a lot lately. Are you feeling ok?

I think this happens when people actually read the posts without a pre-existing bias and an intent to strawman me before even starting.

(I slip up a lot, though, when I see people attacking others and I just jump in to mock them. then it's a pretty bad slip)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hey - the decision is between the woman "and her doctor"

Like any medical procedure, the doctor does have an obligation to explain the procedure and possible side-effects etc.

I agree that the decision in the end should be solely made by the woman. I don't agree that a woman should just be able to walk into a clinic and demand an abortion without any questions asked. That would simply be bad health care.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

SkyDekker

Quote

Hey - the decision is between the woman "and her doctor"

Like any medical procedure, the doctor does have an obligation to explain the procedure and possible side-effects etc.

I agree that the decision in the end should be solely made by the woman. I don't agree that a woman should just be able to walk into a clinic and demand an abortion without any questions asked. That would simply be bad health care.

I think this sums up what I was trying to say, better than I did.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

Hey - the decision is between the woman "and her doctor"

Like any medical procedure, the doctor does have an obligation to explain the procedure and possible side-effects etc.

I agree that the decision in the end should be solely made by the woman. I don't agree that a woman should just be able to walk into a clinic and demand an abortion without any questions asked. That would simply be bad health care.

I strongly disagree, in this instance. The proponents of laws like this do so not principally (or for many, not at all) out of concern for the health of young women as medical patients. It's a complete strawman.
Their agenda is, quite, simply, to make "Roe-legal" abortion so user-unfriendly (or even user-hostile) that the scared, family- and church-oppressed pregnant girl will be so intimidated by the process that she will fail to obtain the abortion she desires. This is especially so for girls living with their families, and needing 100% confidentiality, who often have just the "one chance" to sneak away and have their abortion; requiring more than one visit to the doctor will effectively preclude many of them from doing so. And the proponents of such laws know this very well.