Funerals for abortions?!?!

[Katzndogz]

There is nothing about forced funerals.

You're right. They don't have to have a preacher speaking - they just have to bury, or cremate the remains...

It is a distinction without substance.

What exactly is your objection to the woman paying to dispose of the remains resulting from her choice?

What about the men involved in the decision to have sex but not raise a child?
Are you putting all the responsibility on the woman as if she got pregnant by herself?
Compost

Yes.

 

[Czernobog]

It should not be a news flash that there are charges for disposing of the fetal material that results from an abortion. Why the objection that such an expense would appear in an itemized bill? In between tossing insults at those who believe abortion is murder, it sure sounds like some pro abortion folk are feeling squeamish about this. That's good. It means they realize that there is little person who was killed by abortion who deserves a decent burial.

I was going to say you're missing the point, but I guess your not. This is exactly what this is about. Shaming a woman into "admitting" that this medical waste was a "person", whether the woman agrees with that characterization, or not.

If there is not shame in having an abortion, then the woman can't be shamed. There are consequences to the decision to abort one's baby, pretending an abortion is something else doesn't change that.

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

 

[Katzndogz]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

All this would mean is that fetuses would be incinerated like our removed appendixes and gallbladders already are. Most large hospitals already have an incinerator for that purpose. It will not lead to funerals for aborted fetuses, I assure you.

Most clinics, on the other hand, so not, and rely on medical waste dumps for disposal of medical waste. So, instead, they now have to incur extra cost. Why?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Czernobog maybe it's because the MEN who made the decision to have sex
were never held accountable. When it's put on the women, nothing has changed.
Rape also has never been prevented by blaming the women.

What would happen if MEN were held equally responsible, legally or financially
for the decision to have sex that results in unwanted pregnancy, children or abortion?

Would something change if MEN were affected by legislation?

Has child support legislation changed anything?

 

[Compost]

It should not be a news flash that there are charges for disposing of the fetal material that results from an abortion. Why the objection that such an expense would appear in an itemized bill? In between tossing insults at those who believe abortion is murder, it sure sounds like some pro abortion folk are feeling squeamish about this. That's good. It means they realize that there is little person who was killed by abortion who deserves a decent burial.

I was going to say you're missing the point, but I guess your not. This is exactly what this is about. Shaming a woman into "admitting" that this medical waste was a "person", whether the woman agrees with that characterization, or not.

If there is not shame in having an abortion, then the woman can't be shamed. There are consequences to the decision to abort one's baby, pretending an abortion is something else doesn't change that.

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

It was your suggestion. I'm pointing out the obvious. After an abortion, something must be done with baby's body. You are complaining that the baby's body is being mentioned at all and say it's to shame the mother. If you believe abortion is just a medical procedure, and a right, why are you whining about shame? You appear to be conflicted.

 

[Czernobog]

It should not be a news flash that there are charges for disposing of the fetal material that results from an abortion. Why the objection that such an expense would appear in an itemized bill? In between tossing insults at those who believe abortion is murder, it sure sounds like some pro abortion folk are feeling squeamish about this. That's good. It means they realize that there is little person who was killed by abortion who deserves a decent burial.

I was going to say you're missing the point, but I guess your not. This is exactly what this is about. Shaming a woman into "admitting" that this medical waste was a "person", whether the woman agrees with that characterization, or not.

If there is not shame in having an abortion, then the woman can't be shamed. There are consequences to the decision to abort one's baby, pretending an abortion is something else doesn't change that.

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

It was your suggestion. I'm pointing out the obvious. After an abortion, something must be done with baby's body. You are complaining that the baby's body is being mentioned at all and say it's to shame the mother. If you believe abortion is just a medical procedure, and a right, why are you whining about shame? You appear to be conflicted.

I'm complaining that you are trying to create shame where there should be none.

 

[Compost]

It should not be a news flash that there are charges for disposing of the fetal material that results from an abortion. Why the objection that such an expense would appear in an itemized bill? In between tossing insults at those who believe abortion is murder, it sure sounds like some pro abortion folk are feeling squeamish about this. That's good. It means they realize that there is little person who was killed by abortion who deserves a decent burial.

I was going to say you're missing the point, but I guess your not. This is exactly what this is about. Shaming a woman into "admitting" that this medical waste was a "person", whether the woman agrees with that characterization, or not.

If there is not shame in having an abortion, then the woman can't be shamed. There are consequences to the decision to abort one's baby, pretending an abortion is something else doesn't change that.

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

It was your suggestion. I'm pointing out the obvious. After an abortion, something must be done with baby's body. You are complaining that the baby's body is being mentioned at all and say it's to shame the mother. If you believe abortion is just a medical procedure, and a right, why are you whining about shame? You appear to be conflicted.

I'm complaining that you are trying to create shame where there should be none.

If you have nothing to be ashamed of, I cannot create shame in you. You are responsible for your own feelings.

 

[Czernobog]

I was going to say you're missing the point, but I guess your not. This is exactly what this is about. Shaming a woman into "admitting" that this medical waste was a "person", whether the woman agrees with that characterization, or not.

If there is not shame in having an abortion, then the woman can't be shamed. There are consequences to the decision to abort one's baby, pretending an abortion is something else doesn't change that.

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

It was your suggestion. I'm pointing out the obvious. After an abortion, something must be done with baby's body. You are complaining that the baby's body is being mentioned at all and say it's to shame the mother. If you believe abortion is just a medical procedure, and a right, why are you whining about shame? You appear to be conflicted.

I'm complaining that you are trying to create shame where there should be none.

If you have nothing to be ashamed of, I cannot create shame in you. You are responsible for your own feelings.

That's a lie, and you know it. People let other people manipulate them into feeling shame for things they shouldn't, all the time. Hell you're trying to do it, now. I just refuse to accept your twisted reality. Not everyone is lucky enough to be as strongly independent as me.

 

[Conservative65]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

Your opinion is duly noted, and duly ignored. Moving on...

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

 

[Compost]

If there is not shame in having an abortion, then the woman can't be shamed. There are consequences to the decision to abort one's baby, pretending an abortion is something else doesn't change that.

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

It was your suggestion. I'm pointing out the obvious. After an abortion, something must be done with baby's body. You are complaining that the baby's body is being mentioned at all and say it's to shame the mother. If you believe abortion is just a medical procedure, and a right, why are you whining about shame? You appear to be conflicted.

I'm complaining that you are trying to create shame where there should be none.

If you have nothing to be ashamed of, I cannot create shame in you. You are responsible for your own feelings.

That's a lie, and you know it. People let other people manipulate them into feeling shame for things they shouldn't, all the time. Hell you're trying to do it, now. I just refuse to accept your twisted reality. Not everyone is lucky enough to be as strongly independent as me.

Me thinks you protest too much. A strong independent thinker could not possibly be manipulated if he was certain of his position. Could he?

 

[Czernobog]

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

It was your suggestion. I'm pointing out the obvious. After an abortion, something must be done with baby's body. You are complaining that the baby's body is being mentioned at all and say it's to shame the mother. If you believe abortion is just a medical procedure, and a right, why are you whining about shame? You appear to be conflicted.

I'm complaining that you are trying to create shame where there should be none.

If you have nothing to be ashamed of, I cannot create shame in you. You are responsible for your own feelings.

That's a lie, and you know it. People let other people manipulate them into feeling shame for things they shouldn't, all the time. Hell you're trying to do it, now. I just refuse to accept your twisted reality. Not everyone is lucky enough to be as strongly independent as me.

Me thinks you protest too much. A strong independent thinker could not possibly be manipulated if he was certain of his position. Could he?

And everyone is that strong, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

Your opinion is duly noted, and duly ignored. Moving on...

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

 

[Conservative65]

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

Your opinion is duly noted, and duly ignored. Moving on...

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

If they aren't ready and in agreement to have children together, why are they doing together what it take to produce children? A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen. They may not intend it to happen but it's different than not wanting. If I don't WANT something to happen, I don't do what it takes for it to happen.

I thought the argument was what a woman does with her body is her choice. If she offers it up to a man, hasn't she made that choice?

 

[Conservative65]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

not always

Provide an example.

 

[Czernobog]

If a woman has an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having made the CHOICE to spread her legs, she's humiliated herself far more than anything like this ever could. She chose to take a life that a previous choice produced because she doesn't like the results of that previous choice.

Your opinion is duly noted, and duly ignored. Moving on...

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

This is a very old attitude, Emily. I have recently been watching the Drama "Downton Abbey". The series takes place at the turn of the 20th century, and there have been several episodes that dealt with sexual relations. Invariably, even when the man initiated, the woman, and the woman alone suffered the consequences. In one case, the lord of the manor took a maid, and began to make out with her, entirely consensual. However, it was the maid who was forced to leave, and lose her job, because, even then, "boys will be boys", but, apparently, it is entirely the woman's responsibility to refuse. The thinking is that, apparently, women do not feel sexual attraction, and are always in complete control of their emotions; or if they are not, they are wanton hussies. So, sexual intercourse is never the man's responsibility; only the woman's. Sadly, it seems that a hundred years later, we still haven't learned any better.

 

[Czernobog]

Your opinion is duly noted, and duly ignored. Moving on...

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

If they aren't ready and in agreement to have children together, why are they doing together what it take to produce children? A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen. They may not intend it to happen but it's different than not wanting. If I don't WANT something to happen, I don't do what it takes for it to happen.

I thought the argument was what a woman does with her body is her choice. If she offers it up to a man, hasn't she made that choice?

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

 

[Conservative65]

Your opinion is duly noted, and duly ignored. Moving on...

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

This is a very old attitude, Emily. I have recently been watching the Drama "Downton Abbey". The series takes place at the turn of the 20th century, and there have been several episodes that dealt with sexual relations. Invariably, even when the man initiated, the woman, and the woman alone suffered the consequences. In one case, the lord of the manor took a maid, and began to make out with her, entirely consensual. However, it was the maid who was forced to leave, and lose her job, because, even then, "boys will be boys", but, apparently, it is entirely the woman's responsibility to refuse. The thinking is that, apparently, women do not feel sexual attraction, and are always in complete control of their emotions; or if they are not, they are wanton hussies. So, sexual intercourse is never the man's responsibility; only the woman's. Sadly, it seems that a hundred years later, we still haven't learned any better.

It's the responsibility of both involved. It's ultimately the woman's choice whether or not the man can take part except in cases of rape.

I wish the man taking part would be responsible so those of you thinking those of us that didn't get a piece are more financially responsible for what he did that he is.

 

[Conservative65]

You mean refusing to ignore the truth and running like a little bitch.

My statement was fact unless you're going to claim that a woman willingly spreading her legs knowing what the result could be isn't considered a choice.

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

If they aren't ready and in agreement to have children together, why are they doing together what it take to produce children? A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen. They may not intend it to happen but it's different than not wanting. If I don't WANT something to happen, I don't do what it takes for it to happen.

I thought the argument was what a woman does with her body is her choice. If she offers it up to a man, hasn't she made that choice?

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

Apparently you are stupid enough to think that's what I meant. You're dismissed for continuing to be a fucking worthless moron.

 

[emilynghiem]

It should not be a news flash that there are charges for disposing of the fetal material that results from an abortion. Why the objection that such an expense would appear in an itemized bill? In between tossing insults at those who believe abortion is murder, it sure sounds like some pro abortion folk are feeling squeamish about this. That's good. It means they realize that there is little person who was killed by abortion who deserves a decent burial.

I was going to say you're missing the point, but I guess your not. This is exactly what this is about. Shaming a woman into "admitting" that this medical waste was a "person", whether the woman agrees with that characterization, or not.

If there is not shame in having an abortion, then the woman can't be shamed. There are consequences to the decision to abort one's baby, pretending an abortion is something else doesn't change that.

You can't really mean that? You really don't think it is possible to shame, and humiliate someone who has done nothing wrong? REALLY!?!?!?

Dear Compost and Czernobog
while I stand with Czerno that yes victims of acts that are not their fault can be shamed
and this happens all the time (ie blaming rape and incest victims as somehow allowing inviting asking or deserving abuse)

it is a separate issue if there is something automatically
wrong and deserving of shame and blame with abortion.

1. on the issue of shaming someone who is in no way at fault
(and also the idea of someone solid in their beliefs being unable to be manipulated),
on this point I agree with Czernobog that people are prone to coercion
and can be manipulated even to contradict their own beliefs and/or
made to feel ashamed of something that is totally the fault of the other person.
Women are especially prone to this due to natural empathy for others and caring in relations with others.

2. but on the issue on if there is something inherently wrong
with abortion so there is shame and bad feelings as a consequence,
I would say yes in most cases there is a natural negative impact.

Where we should focus however is not in targeting just the woman after the fact
since that is easier and the only level the govt can intervene.

To be fair, it makes more sense to focus on the decision to have sex in the first
place between the man and woman and prevent abuse on that level.

There should not be shame involved if this causes people to cover up and hide their problems.
So this is counterproductive to keep pushing the culture of blame and shame.

if we address this in terms of rewarding and respecting people, both partners,
for taking responsibility, we might get somewhere. currently we get nowhere
but tied up in deadlocks and going in circles blaming the women.

what if we focused on making the men equally responsibility for that decision to have sex in the first place.
What if we defined statutory rape or some degree of rape or sexual abuse or relationship abuse fraud or coercion
as any act of sex that results in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or unwanted abortion.

where both partners would be required to go through counseling until a complaint of abuse is resolved mutually to the satisfaction of both parties. regardless who is at fault or if they are both abusive, as long as one party or both is accused of abuse and the other accused of enabling, this requires counseling to recover from and change that pattern.
even if they are both victims or both enabling or engaging in abuse. either way why not subject complaints to counseling.
would that help prevent abuse before it leads to unwanted sex unwanted kids or abortion.

 

[Czernobog]

Dear Conservative65 Did any of these women get pregnant without a man?
What about him knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex, and what about him running from his responsibility?

What about cases of coercion, or fraud, where the men misrepresent their intentions and pressure women to go along.

In cases of sex, what are the chances of women pressuring men to have sex against their will
vs men pressuring women. What do you think half the problem is here?

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

If they aren't ready and in agreement to have children together, why are they doing together what it take to produce children? A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen. They may not intend it to happen but it's different than not wanting. If I don't WANT something to happen, I don't do what it takes for it to happen.

I thought the argument was what a woman does with her body is her choice. If she offers it up to a man, hasn't she made that choice?

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

Apparently you are stupid enough to think that's what I meant. You're dismissed for continuing to be a fucking worthless moron.

If that's not what you mean, then why make such a moronic statement as "A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen,"? The implication of that statement is that the only time a man and woman have sex, is if they want to have a child, implying that the only reason to have sex is to procreate. That was your statement I was quoting, upon which I based my incredulous question.

 

[Conservative65]

I wish that the men involved in the process would take responsibility so the rest of us that didn't create it were held on a higher level of responsibility than those who did. However, unless it's rape, the only way the man can do what he does if if the woman allows it.

Thanks Conservative65
but even with consensual sex, it can't happen if the man says no either!
So if the man and woman aren't both ready and in agreement to have children together if pregnancy occurs,
shouldn't the man also say NO. to avoid any risk of pregnancy or abortion if they aren't in agreement.
isn't it equally on the man to think ahead and say no thanks we can't afford the risk.

If they aren't ready and in agreement to have children together, why are they doing together what it take to produce children? A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen. They may not intend it to happen but it's different than not wanting. If I don't WANT something to happen, I don't do what it takes for it to happen.

I thought the argument was what a woman does with her body is her choice. If she offers it up to a man, hasn't she made that choice?

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

Apparently you are stupid enough to think that's what I meant. You're dismissed for continuing to be a fucking worthless moron.

If that's not what you mean, then why make such a moronic statement as "A man and woman can't do the very thing it takes to produce children then say they didn't want it to happen,"? The implication of that statement is that the only time a man and woman have sex, is if they want to have a child, implying that the only reason to have sex is to procreate. That was your statement I was quoting, upon which I based my incredulous question.

You inferred that. You're still dismissed puss.