So now you want to punish teenagers who have sex? Because that's all that is. It's either don't have sex until you reach this arbitrary age or risk being forced to have a much riskier medical operation because your parents are against abortion. What else do you call that other than punishing teenagers who have sex?
it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
Yes, and teenagers are rational individuals, who we always hold to the same standards of behavior as adults.
GASP maybe that's why we should have consent laws
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
As is an abortion. Because you still haven't shown what, exactly, is so dangerous about it that it should require parental consent and instead require them to deal with a much more dangerous operation.
Nor have you shown this source showing all these people prefer abortion as their means of birth control.
no one had shown jack shit. this is all rampant speculation without anything to back it up. i state i like consent laws because of the right of a parent to have a say in a medical procedure. the board offers nihtmare scenarios as a rebut. i offer another nightmare scenario. board says mine is ridiculous, wheras theirs is perfectly valid. and round and round we go.
I think the main objection I have is that your nightmare scenarios aren't particularly nightmarish.
So now you want to punish teenagers who have sex? Because that's all that is. It's either don't have sex until you reach this arbitrary age or risk being forced to have a much riskier medical operation because your parents are against abortion. What else do you call that other than punishing teenagers who have sex?
it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
Yes, and teenagers are rational individuals, who we always hold to the same standards of behavior as adults.
GASP maybe that's why we should have consent laws
An abortion is less dangerous than a pregnancy, doesn't shoulder the child with 18 years of responsibility against her will, and, if not reported to the parents, carries nowhere near as much risk of getting the girl kicked out onto the streets because her parents love Jesus too much to forgive their own daughter.
it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
As is an abortion. Because you still haven't shown what, exactly, is so dangerous about it that it should require parental consent and instead require them to deal with a much more dangerous operation.
Nor have you shown this source showing all these people prefer abortion as their means of birth control.
no one had shown jack shit. this is all rampant speculation without anything to back it up. i state i like consent laws because of the right of a parent to have a say in a medical procedure. the board offers nihtmare scenarios as a rebut. i offer another nightmare scenario. board says mine is ridiculous, wheras theirs is perfectly valid. and round and round we go.
In the rape nightmare scenario, there could be severe physical and mental consequences on the part of the teenager. In the other scenario, the only consequence that you've stated is that a parent is then not notified of a medical procedure that their teenager is undergoing. The former consequence is so vastly worse then the latter.
it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
As is an abortion. Because you still haven't shown what, exactly, is so dangerous about it that it should require parental consent and instead require them to deal with a much more dangerous operation.
Nor have you shown this source showing all these people prefer abortion as their means of birth control.
no one had shown jack shit. this is all rampant speculation without anything to back it up. i state i like consent laws because of the right of a parent to have a say in a medical procedure. the board offers nihtmare scenarios as a rebut. i offer another nightmare scenario. board says mine is ridiculous, wheras theirs is perfectly valid. and round and round we go.
I'd like to point out that contraceptives aren't always freely accessible, and the usual group of people trying to reduce their accessibility to teenagers are the same people trying to get abortion banned/limited.
It's essentially an attempt to close every possible outcome of sex to "have a child" in order to try and enforce celibacy.
I'd like to point out that contraceptives aren't always freely accessible, and the usual group of people trying to reduce their accessibility to teenagers are the same people trying to get abortion banned/limited.
It's essentially an attempt to close every possible outcome of sex to "have a child" in order to try and enforce celibacy.
no one had shown jack shit. this is all rampant speculation without anything to back it up. i state i like consent laws because of the right of a parent to have a say in a medical procedure. the board offers nihtmare scenarios as a rebut. i offer another nightmare scenario. board says mine is ridiculous, wheras theirs is perfectly valid. and round and round we go.
I've never said any of that. I am not those other posters. What I have pointed out is that child birth is much more dangerous, have more dangerous risks, and be considerably more traumatizing than an abortion and that there's no reason someone should have to go through it because their parents happen to be Catholic. You haven't given a single good reason why.
it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
As is an abortion. Because you still haven't shown what, exactly, is so dangerous about it that it should require parental consent and instead require them to deal with a much more dangerous operation.
Nor have you shown this source showing all these people prefer abortion as their means of birth control.
no one had shown jack shit. this is all rampant speculation without anything to back it up. i state i like consent laws because of the right of a parent to have a say in a medical procedure. the board offers nihtmare scenarios as a rebut. i offer another nightmare scenario. board says mine is ridiculous, wheras theirs is perfectly valid. and round and round we go.
I think the main objection I have is that your nightmare scenarios aren't particularly nightmarish.
the main objection i have is that nightmare scenarios can only be worked out of legislation so much. the sum total of the problems of open abortions for all are probably worse than the sum total of the problems of consent laws, but i'm still willing to ignore the nightmare scenarios because they serve no practical purpose.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
they're both scenarios that don't have any real bearing on the topic at hand because they both require special circumstances, and no one is going to tell a kid who wants an abortion but got raped by her dad "AW TOO BAD BUT YOU GOTTA TELL EM"
the ONLY thing that the law requires in that case is for the daughter to come forward to someone that she was raped.
So then we are ignoring "and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control."?
only if we're ignoring the scenario of a dad raping the daughter, which probably happens much less than kids thinking they can just get an abortion if they get pregnant
Sure, why not require the girl to suffer through a rape-trial in order to get her abortion? Yes, let's kick 'em while they're down, captain, it's the best time to kick 'em! At best girls who are justifiably afraid of what their parents will do if they find out they're pregnant will be driven to resort to back-alley abortions or the ever popular teen-suicide. And, of course, the parents can force their daughters to carry to term with the only exception being a clearly life-threatening medical situation. Other health risks are less important than the parents' wishes, and the woman's wishes don't ever actually enter into it.
I'd like to point out that contraceptives aren't always freely accessible, and the usual group of people trying to reduce their accessibility to teenagers are the same people trying to get abortion banned/limited.
It's essentially an attempt to close every possible outcome of sex to "have a child" in order to try and enforce celibacy.
Hows that been workin' out, anyway?
Brilliantly!
... we were all good kids, right? We never did anything we weren't supposed to.
doesn't shoulder the child with 18 years of responsibility against her will,
I think this part is unnecessary or inaccurate in this case, as far as I'm aware.
Do people giving kids up for adoption ever have a problem successfully giving it up?
Are they white? No. Are they any other race? Yes. And the foster care/adoption system in this country is horribly overburdened, and the same people trying to ban abortion are the ones continually trying to cut funding to social services.
doesn't shoulder the child with 18 years of responsibility against her will,
I think this part is unnecessary or inaccurate in this case, as far as I'm aware.
Do people giving kids up for adoption ever have a problem successfully giving it up?
Are they white? No. Are they any other race? Yes. And the foster care/adoption system in this country is horribly overburdened, and the same people trying to ban abortion are the ones continually trying to cut funding to social services.
This is probably varying a lot state to state. In Texas, you can leave any baby at a fire or police station without facing consequences.
doesn't shoulder the child with 18 years of responsibility against her will,
I think this part is unnecessary or inaccurate in this case, as far as I'm aware.
Do people giving kids up for adoption ever have a problem successfully giving it up?
Are they white? No. Are they any other race? Yes. And the foster care/adoption system in this country is horribly overburdened, and the same people trying to ban abortion are the ones continually trying to cut funding to social services.
This is probably varying a lot state to state. In Texas, you can leave any baby at a fire or police station without facing consequences.
This is true. However, if you're concerned with more than just ditching the rugrat, and actually care about its future, whether or not it's going to have anything approaching happiness is certainly a concern.
So now you want to punish teenagers who have sex? Because that's all that is. It's either don't have sex until you reach this arbitrary age or risk being forced to have a much riskier medical operation because your parents are against abortion. What else do you call that other than punishing teenagers who have sex?
it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
Yes, and teenagers are rational individuals, who we always hold to the same standards of behavior as adults.
GASP maybe that's why we should have consent laws
An abortion is less dangerous than a pregnancy, doesn't shoulder the child with 18 years of responsibility against her will, and, if not reported to the parents, carries nowhere near as much risk of getting the girl kicked out onto the streets because her parents love Jesus too much to forgive their own daughter.
the kid made that choice
this is my last post in this thread because i'm really not a fan of trying to debate five or six people at once, but i have no problem with making kids accountable for their actions. aside from an agressive birth control and sexual education program in our schools (which i'm also a fan of), there isn't a whole lot we can do about kids having sex with each other. teenagers shouldn't do it, but they will.
with that said, there has to be accountability for that behavior. "punish the sluts!" loololol fine whatever. teenagers are not smart enough to make a decision like carrying a child to term or having an abortion by themselves, and that's why we need parental consent laws. the idea that parents will automatically tell the teenager to keep the baby is ridiculous, because first, it's likely going to be the parents doing most of the financing and rearing, and second, if they don't have the means to raise the baby, they probably aren't likely to advise their kid to have the baby. in any case, as far as it is legistlatable, the parents are far far better equipped in most cases than the teenager to make a better decision about abortion. we can throw around nightmare scenarios all we want, until you guys offer any sort of hard facts about the potential problems, my opinion (because that's all this is until there's fact associated with it), is just as valid as yours.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
doesn't shoulder the child with 18 years of responsibility against her will,
I think this part is unnecessary or inaccurate in this case, as far as I'm aware.
Do people giving kids up for adoption ever have a problem successfully giving it up?
Are they white? No. Are they any other race? Yes. And the foster care/adoption system in this country is horribly overburdened, and the same people trying to ban abortion are the ones continually trying to cut funding to social services.
This is probably varying a lot state to state. In Texas, you can leave any baby at a fire or police station without facing consequences.
This is true. However, if you're concerned with more than just ditching the rugrat, and actually care about its future, whether or not it's going to have anything approaching happiness is certainly a concern.
Yeah, I thought about that, but then we can argue that the person is better off alive, and later in life is glad that the parent went the adoption route, but we're going into the territory of the worth of a fetus and then of a child etc, which Pants Man doesn't seem to want to get into.
See, I don't think the reason you're not going to post anymore is because you don't like arguing with six people because any sane person would just ignore some of them. I think the reason is that you make completely unsupported claims like the above.
with that said, there has to be accountability for that behavior. "punish the sluts!" loololol fine whatever. teenagers are not smart enough to make a decision like carrying a child to term or having an abortion by themselves, and that's why we need parental consent laws. the idea that parents will automatically tell the teenager to keep the baby is ridiculous, because first, it's likely going to be the parents doing most of the financing and rearing, and second, if they don't have the means to raise the baby, they probably aren't likely to force their kid to have the baby. in any case, as far as it is legistlatable, the parents are far far better equipped in most cases than the teenager to make a better decision about abortion. we can throw around nightmare scenarios all we want, until you guys offer any sort of hard facts about the potential problems, my opinion (because that's all this is until there's fact associated with it), is just as valid as yours.
This is bullshit. Don't use the word advise, that's not what you're arguing for. And do you seriously think there are no parents who are both massively opposed to abortion and very poor? Really?
See, I don't think the reason you're not going to post anymore is because you don't like arguing with six people because any sane person would just ignore some of them. I think the reason is that you make completely unsupported claims like the above.
Er, does he actually need to support the nigh inevitability of teenagers having sex?
See, I don't think the reason you're not going to post anymore is because you don't like arguing with six people because any sane person would just ignore some of them. I think the reason is that you make completely unsupported claims like the above.
Er, does he actually need to support the nigh inevitability of teenagers having sex?
but we're going into the territory of the worth of a fetus and then of a child etc, which Pants Man doesn't seem to want to get into.
okay, i guess this is the last post, but yeah, i definitely don't want to get into that argument. that's a whole other can of worms
Except that, to some extent, you have to...because you position on the value of a fetus is almost certainly going to strongly influence your position regarding this issue.
Which is why I re-quoted you up in post #206. That, along with some of your other responses, suggests that your position isn't so much (and certainly is not entirely) a matter of encouraging responsibility, or that parents will make better choices than their kids, or consent for medical procedures, or any of the rest.
You have a problem with abortion. Plain and simple.
You're not alone. You're certainly in the minority here, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be willing to admit it.
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
Cracks me the hell up.
Actually, statisically speaking women are more likely to oppose abortion than men. At least according to my U.S. government study guide.
Regardless, Pantsman has decided that he can't justify why sex should have consequences.
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
Cracks me the hell up.
Actually, statisically speaking women are more likely to oppose abortion than men. At least according to my U.S. government study guide.
Regardless, Pantsman has decided that he can't justify why sex should have consequences.
Tangentical to my point, but yeah- I've heard that too. OLOL Stepford Wives, eh wot?
Tach on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited April 2008
It has been said already, but I am pretty damn sure that this will be struck down sooner rather than later, due to the medical necessity billing clause of HIPAA if for no other reason.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
Cracks me the hell up.
Well, none of us are ever going to have to worry about the slaughter and/or subjugation of Tibetan monks either, but it's worrisome.
When you admit the inherent value you place on the fetus, I think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to be worried about abortion takes place.
It has been said already, but I am pretty damn sure that this will be struck down sooner rather than later, due to the medical necessity billing clause of HIPAA if for no other reason.
I thought someone earlier said that the only consequence was that you had to pay $10,000?
Septus on
PSN: Kurahoshi1
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
It has been said already, but I am pretty damn sure that this will be struck down sooner rather than later, due to the medical necessity billing clause of HIPAA if for no other reason.
I thought someone earlier said that the only consequence was that you had to pay $10,000?
If abortions start costing medical practices an additional 10,000 dollars to perform due to violation of federal law due to a state law, you bet your ass the courts are going to fix this... and they ain't changing HIPAA for this.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You've yet to really show that this is an objectively bad thing, or something that should be illegal. Aside from some sort of argument regarding the rights of the fetus I fail to see why this need be legislated.
yeah repeated abortions on demand kick ass
if you can't see why that's an objectively "bad thing," i think it's obvious that we're not going to come to an agreement here
Okay, is your issue the destruction of the fetuses or the potential trauma to the woman/girl having the abortions? Why don't you narrow that down, and we can go on (destroying whatever arguments you come up with) from there.
Should we have abortions on non-demand?
I don't see why having abortions when the person wants one is shocking or negative.
It has been said already, but I am pretty damn sure that this will be struck down sooner rather than later, due to the medical necessity billing clause of HIPAA if for no other reason.
I thought someone earlier said that the only consequence was that you had to pay $10,000?
If abortions start costing medical practices an additional 10,000 dollars to perform due to violation of federal law due to a state law, you bet your ass the courts are going to fix this... and they ain't changing HIPAA for this.
Oh, I thought it was levied on the person getting the abortion. I know nothing about HIPAA.
Septus on
PSN: Kurahoshi1
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
It has been said already, but I am pretty damn sure that this will be struck down sooner rather than later, due to the medical necessity billing clause of HIPAA if for no other reason.
I thought someone earlier said that the only consequence was that you had to pay $10,000?
If abortions start costing medical practices an additional 10,000 dollars to perform due to violation of federal law due to a state law, you bet your ass the courts are going to fix this... and they ain't changing HIPAA for this.
Oh, I thought it was levied on the person getting the abortion. I know nothing about HIPAA.
HIPAA, as a general rule, protects the patient and fucks the practitioner.
Just my personal experience as a medical software developer ;-)
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
Cracks me the hell up.
Well, none of us are ever going to have to worry about the slaughter and/or subjugation of Tibetan monks either, but it's worrisome.
When you admit the inherent value you place on the fetus, I think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to be worried about abortion takes place.
It is, which is why if Pants Man would just come out with it I could safely ignore him since we'd be trying to argue from two sets of fundamentally different assumptions. Though at that point, as I've said repeatedly, things like parental consent or rape clauses or waiting periods or ultrasounds are still irrelevant, because if the fetus has inherent value (as in, it's a person) then the abortion should be illegal anyway. Regardless.
Basically, there is no justification, whatsoever, regardless of your belief system, for the law discussed in the OP.
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
Cracks me the hell up.
It does make it a lot easier to approve of fucking people over pretty hard when you know it's biologically impossible for you to ever be one of those people getting fucked over.
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
Cracks me the hell up.
Well, none of us are ever going to have to worry about the slaughter and/or subjugation of Tibetan monks either, but it's worrisome.
When you admit the inherent value you place on the fetus, I think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to be worried about abortion takes place.
It is, which is why if Pants Man would just come out with it I could safely ignore him since we'd be trying to argue from two sets of fundamentally different assumptions. Though at that point, as I've said repeatedly, things like parental consent or rape clauses or waiting periods or ultrasounds are still irrelevant, because if the fetus has inherent value (as in, it's a person) then the abortion should be illegal anyway. Regardless.
Basically, there is no justification, whatsoever, regardless of your belief system, for the law discussed in the OP.
Well, actually yes there is. If you think abortions should be banned but can't put down a blanket ban you instead ban them under as many specific circumstances as you can, make prohibitive regulations for where and how clinics can operate, and set a minimum price that is prohibitively high. The idea is to build a de facto ban.
I think that what tickles me is that Pants Man is a guy- and will never have to go through any of what he's talking about. Just like (I'm sure) the majority of those in the OK Legislature who authored this peice of crap legislation.
Cracks me the hell up.
Actually, statisically speaking women are more likely to oppose abortion than men. At least according to my U.S. government study guide.
Regardless, Pantsman has decided that he can't justify why sex should have consequences.
Last I checked, you're in the minority (as a man or a woman) if you want to further restrict abortions in the general sense. Things get tricky when the question is phrased like 'do you oppose abortion.'
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
This is entirely unsupported, but I think some surveys of the nation have shown that some very high percentage of people, like over 90%, would be fine with just settling with banning all abortions(presumably with the exception of medically necessary?) in the second and third trimesters and leaving the first completely open.
Posts
GASP maybe that's why we should have consent laws
I think the main objection I have is that your nightmare scenarios aren't particularly nightmarish.
In the rape nightmare scenario, there could be severe physical and mental consequences on the part of the teenager. In the other scenario, the only consequence that you've stated is that a parent is then not notified of a medical procedure that their teenager is undergoing. The former consequence is so vastly worse then the latter.
Actually, this
suggests that your issue has little or nothing to do with consent for a "medical procedure" and more to do with abortion specifically.
Try again.
It's essentially an attempt to close every possible outcome of sex to "have a child" in order to try and enforce celibacy.
Hows that been workin' out, anyway?
Do people giving kids up for adoption ever have a problem successfully giving it up?
Yeah, I think Pantsman's argument would be much more sound if he came out and said it was to protect the unborn child.
It's a far tougher issue to determine the worth of a fetus, and at what point that worth is established.
the main objection i have is that nightmare scenarios can only be worked out of legislation so much. the sum total of the problems of open abortions for all are probably worse than the sum total of the problems of consent laws, but i'm still willing to ignore the nightmare scenarios because they serve no practical purpose.
Brilliantly!
... we were all good kids, right? We never did anything we weren't supposed to.
This is probably varying a lot state to state. In Texas, you can leave any baby at a fire or police station without facing consequences.
the kid made that choice
this is my last post in this thread because i'm really not a fan of trying to debate five or six people at once, but i have no problem with making kids accountable for their actions. aside from an agressive birth control and sexual education program in our schools (which i'm also a fan of), there isn't a whole lot we can do about kids having sex with each other. teenagers shouldn't do it, but they will.
with that said, there has to be accountability for that behavior. "punish the sluts!" loololol fine whatever. teenagers are not smart enough to make a decision like carrying a child to term or having an abortion by themselves, and that's why we need parental consent laws. the idea that parents will automatically tell the teenager to keep the baby is ridiculous, because first, it's likely going to be the parents doing most of the financing and rearing, and second, if they don't have the means to raise the baby, they probably aren't likely to advise their kid to have the baby. in any case, as far as it is legistlatable, the parents are far far better equipped in most cases than the teenager to make a better decision about abortion. we can throw around nightmare scenarios all we want, until you guys offer any sort of hard facts about the potential problems, my opinion (because that's all this is until there's fact associated with it), is just as valid as yours.
Yeah, I thought about that, but then we can argue that the person is better off alive, and later in life is glad that the parent went the adoption route, but we're going into the territory of the worth of a fetus and then of a child etc, which Pants Man doesn't seem to want to get into.
okay, i guess this is the last post, but yeah, i definitely don't want to get into that argument. that's a whole other can of worms
See, I don't think the reason you're not going to post anymore is because you don't like arguing with six people because any sane person would just ignore some of them. I think the reason is that you make completely unsupported claims like the above.
This is bullshit. Don't use the word advise, that's not what you're arguing for. And do you seriously think there are no parents who are both massively opposed to abortion and very poor? Really?
Er, does he actually need to support the nigh inevitability of teenagers having sex?
Or is it the moral justification?
Except that, to some extent, you have to...because you position on the value of a fetus is almost certainly going to strongly influence your position regarding this issue.
Which is why I re-quoted you up in post #206. That, along with some of your other responses, suggests that your position isn't so much (and certainly is not entirely) a matter of encouraging responsibility, or that parents will make better choices than their kids, or consent for medical procedures, or any of the rest.
You have a problem with abortion. Plain and simple.
You're not alone. You're certainly in the minority here, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be willing to admit it.
And it's also the best(and least able to be argued) reason.
You go, girl. Punish those whores.
Cracks me the hell up.
Regardless, Pantsman has decided that he can't justify why sex should have consequences.
Tangentical to my point, but yeah- I've heard that too. OLOL Stepford Wives, eh wot?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Well, none of us are ever going to have to worry about the slaughter and/or subjugation of Tibetan monks either, but it's worrisome.
When you admit the inherent value you place on the fetus, I think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to be worried about abortion takes place.
I thought someone earlier said that the only consequence was that you had to pay $10,000?
If abortions start costing medical practices an additional 10,000 dollars to perform due to violation of federal law due to a state law, you bet your ass the courts are going to fix this... and they ain't changing HIPAA for this.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Should we have abortions on non-demand?
I don't see why having abortions when the person wants one is shocking or negative.
Oh, I thought it was levied on the person getting the abortion. I know nothing about HIPAA.
Just my personal experience as a medical software developer ;-)
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It is, which is why if Pants Man would just come out with it I could safely ignore him since we'd be trying to argue from two sets of fundamentally different assumptions. Though at that point, as I've said repeatedly, things like parental consent or rape clauses or waiting periods or ultrasounds are still irrelevant, because if the fetus has inherent value (as in, it's a person) then the abortion should be illegal anyway. Regardless.
Basically, there is no justification, whatsoever, regardless of your belief system, for the law discussed in the OP.
It does make it a lot easier to approve of fucking people over pretty hard when you know it's biologically impossible for you to ever be one of those people getting fucked over.
Well, actually yes there is. If you think abortions should be banned but can't put down a blanket ban you instead ban them under as many specific circumstances as you can, make prohibitive regulations for where and how clinics can operate, and set a minimum price that is prohibitively high. The idea is to build a de facto ban.
Last I checked, you're in the minority (as a man or a woman) if you want to further restrict abortions in the general sense. Things get tricky when the question is phrased like 'do you oppose abortion.'
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522