Abortion Debate Forum

Tazzy D replied on January 6th, 2007

Advanced Support Team

Its hard to give my opinion because I believe both sides. But I will give it a try

1. I think that it is a good idea for women to be shown the truth about abortion. Not just by pamphlets. I think that the video about the truth will be good becauseyou get to see the truth not a fictional picture.

2. About the marriage.. In some cases this should be in effect and the reason why. Lets just say that these people have a perfect marriage. Then this fast track easy girl comes by and well we all know the word peer pressure. Well what man wouldnt take it if she is going to give it.. Even a married man is tempted or can be persuaded.

So my opinion is yes in some cases it should. Why should the wife that wants to stay in her marriage and loose her happy familly all because of some fast girl that wanted an occasional fling.. Then the kids get hurt, the wife gets hurt, and everything is gone..

So my answer is yes and no

|

Jules replied on January 6th, 2007

Moderator

I can't get the link to work Confused

I've decapitalised and copy/pasted the whole link cos it's not all in blue but still not work...

|

Birch replied on January 7th, 2007

Supporter

tazzy d wrote:

its hard to give my opinion because I believe both sides. But I will give it a try

1. I think that it is a good idea for women to be shown the truth about abortion. Not just by pamphlets. I think that the video about the truth will be good becauseyou get to see the truth not a fictional picture.

2. About the marriage.. In some cases this should be in effect and the reason why. Lets just say that these people have a perfect marriage. Then this fast track easy girl comes by and well we all know the word peer pressure. Well what man wouldnt take it if she is going to give it.. Even a married man is tempted or can be persuaded.

So my opinion is yes in some cases it should. Why should the wife that wants to stay in her marriage and loose her happy familly all because of some fast girl that wanted an occasional fling.. Then the kids get hurt, the wife gets hurt, and everything is gone..

So my answer is yes and no

i couldn't access the article either, and I even searched the journal with keywords.

So i'm going to make a general comment about what tazzy wrote here...
And that is that I could be highly, highly offended about the comments regarding: 'what man wouldn't take it' as well as 'why should the wife..." if I cared enough to be offended. I will explain why, and please forgive me if I am way out of bounds b/c I didn't not get to read the article.

First of all, not all men would 'take it', and those that do are inexcusable, and this assumption that 'what man wouldn't' sounds borderline like an excuse for inexcusable behavior to me.

Secondly, the comment "why should the wife...Because of some fast girl..." also eliminates the husband's responsibility. It's not just the fast girl...She has no committment to the wife. He does!

I apologize if I am way out of line, but I just want to put that in.

|

sandyallen replied on January 7th, 2007

Extremely EHEALTHy

Diamondsz

I could not get this either.
As far as being pro-choice I have always supportive that I have always let people know of their choices if I felt their was doubt, it came along with the job field I was in and being a person of understanding. Abortion should be about choice and girls should be educated on it not only the before but during and after effects, not just handed a brochure and shown pictures!
This might be a little off the topic but why stay with someone that you hate? I do not know how it is there but in the .U.S. They pretty much go for the one that has the kids which in most cases is the .Mother, isn't it hurting you and your kids more by staying with him. I am not saying to divorce him, that is your choice but I know that when I lost the respect for my kids .Dad, I knew that their had to be some changes made. If you need to talk I am here for you!!!!

|

diamondsz replied on January 8th, 2007

Extremely EHEALTHy

the Article

Group pushes divorce laws

by lillian kafka
lkafk a@potomacnews.Com
saturday, january 6, 2007

click to learn more...

A pro-family organization in richmond is pushing legislation that would make it more difficult for parents with children to divorce, according to the group's president.

"during the rearing of children, we know the best outcomes for kids are when mom and dad stay together," said victoria cobb, president of the family foundation. "it is too easy to break apart a contract as significant as marriage when children are involved."

this week the family foundation released its legislative priorities, which include a measure that would require abortion clinics to show women the fetus inside them before performing an abortion.

Another of the family foundation's legislative efforts would require parents to sign off for every one of their child's extracurricular activities.

"what happens after school is equally important to what happens in school and we want parents to be informed at all levels," cobb said.

Del. Matthew j. Lohr, r-harrisonburg, is sponsoring that bill.

Cobb said her group's main focus would require libraries to install internet content filtering software on all library computers if the library receives state money.

The family foundation is working to find a legislator to patron the bill that would strengthen virginia's divorce law.

"if there's one parent that thinks that marriage is salvageable, let's see if we can work to keep that marriage together," cobb said.

The measure wouldn't apply to a marriage with no children or one with children over 18 years old. It also wouldn't prevent abused spouses from seeking permission to divorce their abusive partners, she said.

"in virginia law today one parent can essentially up and abandon their family," she said.

Del. Kathy byron, r- lynchburg, is carrying the bill that cobb said would help women make a decision over whether or not to get an abortion.

Today women undergoing abortions are shown a pamphlet with pictures of a fetus. Cobb said that method of information is out of date.

"it's so outdated because today we can show the woman the child growing inside her."

|

Tylanas replied on January 8th, 2007

Especially EHEALTHy

Re: the Article

diamondsz wrote:

group pushes divorce laws

by lillian kafka
lkafk a@potomacnews.Com
saturday, january 6, 2007

click to learn more...

A pro-family organization in richmond is pushing legislation that would make it more difficult for parents with children to divorce, according to the group's president.

"during the rearing of children, we know the best outcomes for kids are when mom and dad stay together," said victoria cobb, president of the family foundation. "it is too easy to break apart a contract as significant as marriage when children are involved."

this week the family foundation released its legislative priorities, which include a measure that would require abortion clinics to show women the fetus inside them before performing an abortion.

Another of the family foundation's legislative efforts would require parents to sign off for every one of their child's extracurricular activities.

"what happens after school is equally important to what happens in school and we want parents to be informed at all levels," cobb said.

Del. Matthew j. Lohr, r-harrisonburg, is sponsoring that bill.

Cobb said her group's main focus would require libraries to install internet content filtering software on all library computers if the library receives state money.

The family foundation is working to find a legislator to patron the bill that would strengthen virginia's divorce law.

"if there's one parent that thinks that marriage is salvageable, let's see if we can work to keep that marriage together," cobb said.

The measure wouldn't apply to a marriage with no children or one with children over 18 years old. It also wouldn't prevent abused spouses from seeking permission to divorce their abusive partners, she said.

"in virginia law today one parent can essentially up and abandon their family," she said.

breaking this off from the secion on abortion... I must say that I don't have a major problem with this. I'm pro-family too, if that's even an actual title. I've said it before in other ways. I just hope this law has sections in it pertaining to abusive relationships, and that women (or occasionally men) who say that they or the children are being abused can still get divorces without a ton of red tape.

Quote:

del. Kathy byron, r- lynchburg, is carrying the bill that cobb said would help women make a decision over whether or not to get an abortion.

Today women undergoing abortions are shown a pamphlet with pictures of a fetus. Cobb said that method of information is out of date.

"it's so outdated because today we can show the woman the child growing inside her."

the doctor is so obviously pro-life... But beyond that, i'd like to know what exactly the guy proposes? I do think that more inormation than just one pamphlet needs to be used, because many women do come out of an abortion saying they didn't know what hey were getting into, and I fel this needs to be explained better. I don't want time wasted, as abortion is a very time-sensitive issue, but I do think the education needs to be better.

|

Tazzy D replied on January 8th, 2007

Advanced Support Team

birch wrote:

tazzy d wrote:

its hard to give my opinion because I believe both sides. But I will give it a try

1. I think that it is a good idea for women to be shown the truth about abortion. Not just by pamphlets. I think that the video about the truth will be good becauseyou get to see the truth not a fictional picture.

2. About the marriage.. In some cases this should be in effect and the reason why. Lets just say that these people have a perfect marriage. Then this fast track easy girl comes by and well we all know the word peer pressure. Well what man wouldnt take it if she is going to give it.. Even a married man is tempted or can be persuaded.

So my opinion is yes in some cases it should. Why should the wife that wants to stay in her marriage and loose her happy familly all because of some fast girl that wanted an occasional fling.. Then the kids get hurt, the wife gets hurt, and everything is gone..

So my answer is yes and no

i couldn't access the article either, and I even searched the journal with keywords.

So i'm going to make a general comment about what tazzy wrote here...

And that is that I could be highly, highly offended about the comments regarding: 'what man wouldn't take it' as well as 'why should the wife..." if I cared enough to be offended. I will explain why, and please forgive me if I am way out of bounds b/c I didn't not get to read the article.

First of all, not all men would 'take it', and those that do are inexcusable, and this assumption that 'what man wouldn't' sounds borderline like an excuse for inexcusable behavior to me.

Secondly, the comment "why should the wife...Because of some fast girl..." also eliminates the husband's responsibility. It's not just the fast girl...She has no committment to the wife. He does!

I apologize if I am way out of line, but I just want to put that in.

not all men.. I said what man wouldnt take it. And that could go for a women as well.

|

Birch replied on January 8th, 2007

Supporter

tazzy d wrote:

birch wrote:

tazzy d wrote:

its hard to give my opinion because I believe both sides. But I will give it a try

1. I think that it is a good idea for women to be shown the truth about abortion. Not just by pamphlets. I think that the video about the truth will be good becauseyou get to see the truth not a fictional picture.

2. About the marriage.. In some cases this should be in effect and the reason why. Lets just say that these people have a perfect marriage. Then this fast track easy girl comes by and well we all know the word peer pressure. Well what man wouldnt take it if she is going to give it.. Even a married man is tempted or can be persuaded.

So my opinion is yes in some cases it should. Why should the wife that wants to stay in her marriage and loose her happy familly all because of some fast girl that wanted an occasional fling.. Then the kids get hurt, the wife gets hurt, and everything is gone..

So my answer is yes and no

i couldn't access the article either, and I even searched the journal with keywords.

So i'm going to make a general comment about what tazzy wrote here...

And that is that I could be highly, highly offended about the comments regarding: 'what man wouldn't take it' as well as 'why should the wife..." if I cared enough to be offended. I will explain why, and please forgive me if I am way out of bounds b/c I didn't not get to read the article.

First of all, not all men would 'take it', and those that do are inexcusable, and this assumption that 'what man wouldn't' sounds borderline like an excuse for inexcusable behavior to me.

Secondly, the comment "why should the wife...Because of some fast girl..." also eliminates the husband's responsibility. It's not just the fast girl...She has no committment to the wife. He does!

I apologize if I am way out of line, but I just want to put that in.

not all men.. I said what man wouldnt take it. And that could go for a women as well.

"well, what man wouldn't take it" has a clear implication..And that is, no man would not take it. (i apologize for the double negative.)

and that is an attempted excuse for inexcusable behavior.

|

Birch replied on January 8th, 2007

Supporter

Re: the Article

diamondsz wrote:

this week the family foundation released its legislative priorities, which include a measure that would require abortion clinics to show women the fetus inside them before performing an abortion.

...
The measure wouldn't apply to a marriage with no children or one with children over 18 years old. It also wouldn't prevent abused spouses from seeking permission to divorce their abusive partners, she said.

isn't this discriminatory against couples with children???

And who gets to decide what "abuse" is? If there is a law that specifically states that abused persons are excluded, then there has to be law written that decides what constitutes abuse. Hope they get that worked out.

diamondsz wrote:

del. Kathy byron, r- lynchburg, is carrying the bill that cobb said would help women make a decision over whether or not to get an abortion.

Today women undergoing abortions are shown a pamphlet with pictures of a fetus. Cobb said that method of information is out of date.

"it's so outdated because today we can show the woman the child growing inside her."

it says, "help a woman make a decision". As if a woman in an abortion clinic needs help making her decision.

What are they going to do? Tape somebody's eyes open and force them to view a sonogram? Put them in a giant room with tv's for walls and cut off their eyelids until they jump up from the gurney, shake their fist at the ceiling, and proclaim, "my god, my god, I cannot have an abortion now that I have seen the fetus! Suddenly, it is all clear to me!"

obviously, these people don't work in abortion clinics, nor do they live in a place commonly referred to as "reality". Perhaps some of you have heard of it.

|

nightangel73 replied on January 8th, 2007

Extremely EHEALTHy

Re: the Article

birch wrote:

put them in a giant room with tv's for walls and cut off their eyelids until they jump up from the gurney, shake their fist at the ceiling, and proclaim, "my god, my god, I cannot have an abortion now that I have seen the fetus! Suddenly, it is all clear to me!"

lol

|

jenn_smithson replied on January 9th, 2007

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Re: the Article

diamondsz wrote:

group pushes divorce laws

by lillian kafka
lkafk a@potomacnews.Com
saturday, january 6, 2007

click to learn more...

A pro-family organization in richmond is pushing legislation that would make it more difficult for parents with children to divorce, according to the group's president.

"during the rearing of children, we know the best outcomes for kids are when mom and dad stay together," said victoria cobb, president of the family foundation. "it is too easy to break apart a contract as significant as marriage when children are involved."

this week the family foundation released its legislative priorities, which include a measure that would require abortion clinics to show women the fetus inside them before performing an abortion.

Another of the family foundation's legislative efforts would require parents to sign off for every one of their child's extracurricular activities.

"what happens after school is equally important to what happens in school and we want parents to be informed at all levels," cobb said.

Del. Matthew j. Lohr, r-harrisonburg, is sponsoring that bill.

Cobb said her group's main focus would require libraries to install internet content filtering software on all library computers if the library receives state money.

The family foundation is working to find a legislator to patron the bill that would strengthen virginia's divorce law.

"if there's one parent that thinks that marriage is salvageable, let's see if we can work to keep that marriage together," cobb said.

The measure wouldn't apply to a marriage with no children or one with children over 18 years old. It also wouldn't prevent abused spouses from seeking permission to divorce their abusive partners, she said.

"in virginia law today one parent can essentially up and abandon their family," she said.

the hard part about using 'abuse' as your justification to obtain a divorce is that sometimes, it can be hard or impossible to prove and thus, you would be stuck with someone you consider your 'abuser' for a longer period of time. With my own mother and father, the abuse was more psychological than it was physical and it would have taken my mother a substantially longer amount of time to obtain the divorce than it did if she would have had to 'prove' it in order to get the divorce and custody. As it was, my mother sought and obtained a no-fault divorce because she wanted it to be over as quickly as possible. Even these divorces took over a year and the custody battle took about three years to finally be decided.

As with any restrictive law, you cannot anticipate who will need a faster divorce and who will not. Therefore, you automatically set the system up to cause harm to certain people. Also, this would be treating people unequally in the eyes of the law (parents vs nonparents) and as such, is unconstitutional.

And I just have to say that that comment about "if one parent believes the marriage is salvageable..." is complete .B.S. My father thought the marriage was "salvageable" largely because he couldn't bear the thought of his housekeeper/sex toy not being with him any longer. For a marriage to work and for it to be truly "salvageable," both partners have to think it is 'salvageable' and have to be committed to working toward it. Allowing one spouse to defer a divorce that the other one wants, is not going to salvage anything and in fact, may lead the spouse wanting the divorce to resent the other party (even more).

If, just as an example, my father had been allowed to deny the divorce for longer than he did, he would have been able to continue the psychological abuse even though my mother had decided that enough was enough. Further, the psychological abuse, brainwashing, and neglect that we received would have also been lengthened.

Laws that seek to restrict access to divorce, just as in the past, wind up hurting women more than men regardless of who initiates the divorce.

Quote:

del. Kathy byron, r- lynchburg, is carrying the bill that cobb said would help women make a decision over whether or not to get an abortion.

Today women undergoing abortions are shown a pamphlet with pictures of a fetus. Cobb said that method of information is out of date.

"it's so outdated because today we can show the woman the child growing inside her."

most, if not all, women have the opportunity to see a sonogram before the abortion if they choose to look at it. Most women do look at their sonograms and still obtain an abortion. It seems to me that this is just another useless law legislating what already occurs. And, it doesn't stop women from obtaining abortions. The vast majority of women who seek an abortion already know what they're going to do (what they feel they must do) before they even arrive at their appointments. We counsel them, they have the opportunity to see "the child growing inside her", and yet they still go through with the abortion. If anything, this law just further demonstrates that these people think .Women are stupid.

|

Birch replied on January 10th, 2007

Supporter

Re: the Article

I agree jenn, and think it is just poorly hidden manipulation. Requiring abortion clinics, where women go when they have already made their decision, to show sonograms is insulting.

However, I would like to know how they are going to force women to view their sonograms.

Wait a minute...Just a thought...Do you think that 'crisis pregnancy centers' would show inaccurate sonograms to sway a decision?

Oh, hell, they probably already do, what am I talking about.

|

Tazzy D replied on January 10th, 2007

Advanced Support Team

And just like they said alot of the information is out dated. I think they should be able to show the video . Maybe showing some people the changes that will happen to your body and etc. Just might persuade people in either direction.

|

jenn_smithson replied on January 10th, 2007

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Re: the Article

birch wrote:

wait a minute...Just a thought...Do you think that 'crisis pregnancy centers' would show inaccurate sonograms to sway a decision?

Oh, hell, they probably already do, what am I talking about.

there is still a big push in my state with the cpc's wanting the state to pay for them to have sonogram machines so that women who go there for the free tests can be shown their uterus (at that stage, good luck finding it even with a trained technician!). In another state, I read a report about a woman going to one of these places because they advertised "free abortion counseling" and she had some questions and uncertainties about going through with an abortion but that was still her primal decision. When she went to the place, they gave her a pregnancy test and it came back positive. After that, they gave her a sonogram and from where she was initially laying she couldn't see the screen. Well, when the technician found the fetus she turned the screen around so that the woman could see it and someone had written on the screen, "hi mommy! I'm your baby!" the woman got up from the table and didn't even stop to put her coat back on she just flat out ran from the building. This was anonymously reported either in the new york times or in marie claire magazine within the past four months.

I think that any manipulation that the cpc can legally get away with, then they will. Currently, for example, it is not against the law to give inaccurate .Medical information at a cpc. There have been some reports of .Women receiving grossly inaccurate information and later had to be taken to the hospital because the information necessarily endangered their lives (the one that springs immediately to mind is the woman who was told not to go to her regular doctor and ended up almost dying from complications of an ectopic pregnancy). Still, the cpc was not considered to be doing anything wrong. Now, if their "information" happens to kill a woman, then you might see that change but I doubt it.

|

jenn_smithson replied on January 10th, 2007

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

tazzy d wrote:

and just like they said alot of the information is out dated.

their information is not "out dated," it's almost without fail medically inaccurate to the point of being negligent. .Lying to women, in order to manipulate them into making the decision you think is best, is unacceptable. But, for some reason, cpc's are still allowed to lie to women at every turn.

The information given at the clinics is almost without fail accurate, so thank you but we don't need someone who disagrees with the choices of our patients telling us what information to give them especially if the information you want them to receive is grossly inaccurate and dangerous to our patients health.

Quote:

i think they should be able to show the video .

which video? Produced by whom and containing what information, exactly? I have no problem with giving women information about fetal development because most of the women who come to us have already made their decision. However, I think it is disgustingly inappropriate to treat those few .Women who may be unsure (i've never met one but apparently they exist somewhere) as though they are incompetent and thus, need emotionally manipulative information to make them make a specific choice. If you want the choice to be free from persuasion, it should be free from all persuasion, the kind you agree with and the kind you disagree with as well.

Quote:

maybe showing some people the changes that will happen to your body and etc. Just might persuade people in either direction.

that's not what those videos do and I think you already know that. Further, why do you think people need to be "persuaded" in either direction? Why can't we just leave people alone to make the decision for themselves? Have medically accurate information available to them, by all means, but .Women are not so dumb that they need to be shown videos to "persuade" them to do anything but what they want and need to do for their own lives.

|

Birch replied on January 10th, 2007

Supporter

tazzy d wrote:

and just like they said alot of the information is out dated. I think they should be able to show the video . Maybe showing some people the changes that will happen to your body and etc. Just might persuade people in either direction.

do you mean a technically accurate video about the abortion procedure? Or did you mean a sonogram. Thanks for the clarification.

And persuasion is a touchy subject...I would never want to be responsible for persuading someone into a decision they did not come to of their own accord.

|