Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Postby johnfajardohenry » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:01 am

Henry Vilas wrote:Having an abortion after being raped or being a victim of incest isn't usually for reasons of physical health (unless the victim is very young). The reason for the abortion would be for the pyschological health of the pregnant woman. Don't you agree?



OK, I see what you meant now.

John Henry

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Postby johnfajardohenry » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:06 am

snoqueen wrote:At first I thought that was another Onion story, especially with the attractive shot of Jan Brewer's wrinkled cleavage.

But no. By law, in Arizona all menstruating women are now pregnant at any and every point in time.


The law was written by a woman, Kimberly Yee, so there is that.

I agree that it sounds a bit weird. On thinking about it, I do agree with its purpose. If abortions are going to be illegal 20 weeks after conception occurs, you have to have some objective, even if slightly artificial, way to determine when that is.

Perhaps it would be better to make abortion illegal 18 weeks after conception and then define conception as 2 weeks after the start of the last period? Same effect, different verbiage.

Or do you have some better way of determining when conception took place and/or the age of the fetus?

John Henry

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:00 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:Or do you have some better way of determining when conception took place and/or the age of the fetus?


Yes. Ask the doctor not a legislator.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Postby Detritus » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:56 am

Henry Vilas wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Do you object to women having a legal abortion for rape, incest or other pyschological reasons? Please clarify.


Is that sentence missing a couple commas or do you think that rape and incest are psychological reasons?

Having an abortion after being raped or being a victim of incest isn't usually for reasons of physical health (unless the victim is very young). The reason for the abortion would be for the pyschological health of the pregnant woman. Don't you agree?

The reason for the abortion is nobody's fucking business but the woman herself.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21668
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:11 pm

Detritus wrote:The reason for the abortion is nobody's fucking business but the woman herself.

Exactly. I just wanted to point out that psychological reasons as well as the physical health of the pregnant woman enter into the decision making process. Those who would allow abortions in cases of rape and incest, but not for other psychological reasons, are inconsistent in the views.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12972
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Postby snoqueen » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:49 pm

And those who think the government shouldn't have any part in the availability and distribution of health care, but should be able to force a woman to have a baby whether she wants to or not, are pretty inconsistent too.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Uh oh. Romney's pro-life extremism revealed

Postby Meade » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:45 pm

snoqueen wrote:And those who think the government shouldn't have any part in the availability and distribution of health care, but should be able to force a woman to have a baby whether she wants to or not, are pretty inconsistent too.

Yeah, they are. Whoever they are.

What about people who think the government already has enough of a part in the availability and distribution of health care and that women's rights to abort their pregnancies are already liberal enough. Are they pretty inconsistent too?


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests