"equires clinics to post signs explaining a women's rights and outlining
options other than abortion."Nothing like some good
hypocritical big-government Republican conservatism. If a Democrat were to pass
laws REQUIRING that a private business do something this specific in its
operation, Republicans would be ranting and screaming about government
regulation and big-government interfering with free business principles.
If the fathers must pay child support, why doesn't the father also have the
right to object to an abortion? Are these laws all about money and who is going
to pay to raise the kids? How about the basic rights the father should have
with respect to his unborn children?
Benjamin Clapper claims the research show that 65% of women who get abortions
are being coerced into having one. really? I would like to see that research.
Where is the evidance to support such a claim?
Why all the complaints about additional information? What's wrong with being
informed before making such a large decision?
To Kami | 11:30 a.m. July 7, 2011 When a man risks his life, health
and well-being every second of every minute of every hour for nine straight
months to gestate a pregnancy, he can have a say. Unless and until he puts his
life and health on the line while gesetating a pregnancy he should not be able
to force the woman to risk hers.
To George | 11:33 a.m. July 7, 2011 It seems to me that the coercing
goes the other way.
If a woman has an abortion she commits murder therefore what rights does she
deserve? To murder an innocent child. Ok lets legalise abortion but also
legalise bombing abortion clinics so that people will stop and think. These
innocent babies deserve to live and have a right to live. How dare any person
can be evil enough to murder an innocent child.
It sounds like Louisiana has their act together about when it should be legal to
terminate a human life.Way to go, LA! Let's hope more states follow
suit and enact laws to protect children from those who want to profit by killing
@kami Maybe because its not the father that has to carry the pregnancy to
term (including the risk that may go with doing so). The other sad reality is
that the father can (and sadly to often do) choose to just walk away even after
claiming they will not. There are good fathers out there that no doubt do care
for their children but it does not negate the fact they do not take the risk and
can more easily choose to walk away from the situation which is more then just
paying child support (money).
Posting women's 'rights' in the room isn't going to be damaging women compared
to forcing women to undergo counseling or to see an ultrasound of the unborn
fetus that other states were tinkering with last year. I could only imagine the
torture these laws have on a rape victim who is barely able to survive
emotionally as it is.Since the poster brings up money in the form of
child support from the father in an attempt to stave off an abortion, why not
further bribe the mother by making a legal avenue to 'sell the child into
adoption?' There is ALWAYS some reason the would-be mother is seeking an
abortion. If she keeps the child as a single mom it is usually not done so in
the best interest of society or the child even if that is preferable to an
abortion. That child deserves a family. Make legal avenues where the mother
can be fairly compensated for incubation, giving birth and then giving that
child up for adoption and the rate of abortions will decrease drastically.
"Not many years ago Democratic leaning New York City required warnings for
pregnant women be posted in all bars in the City in order to highlight the
effects of drinking on the unborn; But when Republican leaning Utah did similar,
they were slammed as being invasive."Your comparison is not
apt. Government warning persons of potential health problems by consuming or
using a product is not the same as government requiring an entity to inform them
of other options. A more apt comparison would be requiring McDonalds that they
inform their customers that they also have the option of going to Wendy's,
Carl's Junior, Taco Bell, or Pizza Hut.Now, do I think comparing
abortion services to fast food is fair? No, but I am merely making the point
that from a REPUBLICAN perspective, this kind of thing is BIG-GOVERNMENT,
something they continually harp about being against...
To Furry and George, You have both made good points. But I think the actual
reason the biological father is not given a say is because the law makers do not
want to call the aborted fetus a child. Once they label it as a human being
they will have a more difficult time supporting abortion. Reason I also think
this is true is because once the child is born, the father does have the right
to stop an adoption. See its a baby then ... its not a baby before. That's how
they do this self-talk into saying abortion is OK.
This actually sounds reasonable, unlike all those scripts that aren't even
medically accurate that states are making abortion providers read 24 hours
@Led"also legalise bombing abortion clinics so that people will
stop and think. "terrorism - the systematic use of terror
especially as a means of coercion
I wonder what Casey Anthony's opinion on abortion is?
CI: "I know of no Republicans who find respect for human life to be an
illegitimate government task."Please. Remind
yourself of the GOP's response to desperately needed health insurance reform.
If ensuring that all Americans have access to critical health care
is not "respecting human life" I don't know what is.And
yet - Republicans opposed it.
@furryI agree. The claim that there is research showing women are
coerced always bothers me because I have heard this claim before yet no one has
ever produced the research they claim exist. @kami I am
afraid we are going to have to just agree to disagree on whether it is an unborn
life or a fetus, but thanks you for the thoughtful and respectful response.
Re: Blue - It seems to me that Republicans are/were not against
healthcare reform but rather against a plan that mandates purchasing health
insurance (NOT the same thing as health care) and they were against the creep
towards government oversight of medical services(single payer system/government
sponsored health insurance/health care.) I think all parties agree that health
care availability needs to be improved.As far as the article
goes...I agree with "Lost in DC". Information can't hurt.
Please stop with the "what about the rape, incest, life of the mother"
complaints/questions....All 3 of those combined don't even make up
1% of all abortions performed.Let's worry about the rule instead of
the exception.@Blue: no one, I repeat, no one is denied critical
health care because of lack of funds. Laws are already in place for that, so can
we move on from your hyperbole?
'Please stop with the "what about the rape, incest, life of the
mother" complaints/questions....' - @Charles | 3:44 p.m.
Right. Because then people would have the face the reality that
Republican canidates... STILL want you to have the baby, even if you
are raped by your father. *'Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape Victims
Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade' - Sam Stein - Huffington Post -
07/08/10'One thing she has not backed away from has been her
insistence that abortion should be outlawed universally, even in cases of rape
and incest. (sic)...when she insisted that 'a young girl raped by her
father should know that "two wrongs don't make a right." Much good can
come from a horrific situation like that, Angle added. Lemons can be made into
lemonade.' If that 'less than 1%' was you? I'd want you
to have an abortion. Regardless how small that number might be does not negate
"Information" which only presents one point of view in a matter open
to debate, even when true, has another name - "propaganda". It's just
one more hoop that women are made to jump through before getting a legal medical
procedure, set up, this time, in the name of "education".
Great idea! A waiting period would also be great. Say 24-48 hours. And the
government should not pay for abortions. Anything we can do to stop
someone from making the decision to do such a horrible thing that can come back
to haunt them for the rest of their lives once they realize what they have done.
'Posting womens options is consistent with providing health care options.' -
Counter Intelligence | 4:01 p.m. And if those options are made by
volunteers instead of medical staff? *'Abortion foes' tactics
highlight high NYC rate' - By Cristian Salazar - AP - Published by DSNews -
04/06/11 'The center, where young women and couples are directed to
a room decorated with pictures of mothers to watch videos on prenatal
development and abortion, is among a small number of pregnancy service
organizations accused by abortion rights groups and city officials of misleading
women about their reproductive health options and disguising themselves as
medical clinics.' *Sen Kyl mocked for making up numbers in abortion
debate By Sara Israelsen-Hartley DSNews 04/12/11 ' Sen. Jon Kyl
(R-Ariz) was speaking on the floor of the Senate about his opposition to funding
Planned Parenthood because abortions are "well over 90 percent" of
what they do. (sic)According to data from Planned Parenthood, abortion
procedures account for 3 percent of their total services, with STD testing and
treatment and contraception tying for the top spot with 35 percent each.
Article Not one, but TWO examples of those who are 'Pro-life'... lying.
@Charles:"Let's worry about the rule instead of the
exception."The problem is that the exceptions are used as a
hammer to make the rule. If not for the exceptions, the case would be much
easier to outlaw non-exceptional abortions. But the exceptions play on people's
heartstrings, and they're afraid that the exceptions will not be honored if
non-exceptional abortions are made illegal. As a result, we keep allowing young
people to treat the creative act as a form of recreation, and then allow them to
kill the babies that result from those acts, thus turning them into
murderers."No one is denied critical health care because of
lack of funds."Please tell me how to get this free access to
health care. I understand that some people have figured out how to push the
right buttons to get health care, even when they can't pay for it, but I know
people who live in constant pain, unable to pursue the life they would pursue,
because they can't afford the corrective procedures. I'm not advocating that
society owes them medical care, but I don't understand how you can make the
statement that you made.
@KamiI would argue, as others have, that the fathers do not have a
say in a mother's choice to have an abortion because it is the woman who has to
carry the pregnancy. If he were to have a say, and could legally force a woman
to continue a pregnancy, could he also force her to eat properly, go to the
doctor, stop drinking or doing drugs, and not try to enduce an abortion in other
harmful ways (herbs, poisons, accidents, etc?) A father can not make a woman
take care of the fetus inside her own body and neither can society. Protecting
children is not as easy as just demanding by law that a woman remain pregnant.
Would you go so far as to say that fathers should be able to demand
that children be given up for adoption, and if not, he shouldn't have to pay
child support? Fathers have ONE chance to have their say regarding having a
child or not, and that is at conception. After conception, they are responsible
for their share of the cost of a child. I really hope men come to understand the
gravity of this before having sex!
Lying?Using two accounts with only one letter spelled different,
then posting the limit of 4 comments, then logging into the other account and
posting 4 more identically formatted comments making the exact same points as
the first account... on nearly every article involving conservative/liberal
issues on the Deseret News...No one can really justify casting the
To those making the argument that men should have no say if an abortion (the
intentional killing of an innocent child) I say that you don't understand the
whole concept of "equality". Especially the women on here who cry for
that at every turn.What you are finally admitting through your
argument is that there actually IS a difference between the genders and God
actually knew what He was doing when He created man and woman.Your
arguments are so shallow but full of the me, me, me sentiment. Thank you 60's
and your sexual revolution!It's crystal clear through your comments
that men are just for the sperm and then for the money afterwards. How sweet of
you.If the courts, at the behest of the women's rights movement and
Libs, wouldn't have caved to their pressure then the fathers would still have to
be named on the birth cert and responsible for their offspring. Instead we have
a welfare program established to give women more money for more children and
raise children in generational welfare. Again, thanks to the women lib'ers!Quit having sex before marriage and only with your spouse afterwards.
Abortion goes bye-bye!
I am a responsible liberal. I think abortion should be limitedly legal, but I am
a huge fan of reducing the numbers of abortions through family planning, sex
education, adoption, and abstinence.That said, this seems like
perfectly legitimate legislation. I don't know that 65% of women who obtain
abortions are "coerced," but it certainly seems plausible that many do
not understand the options available to them. This is also considerably more
humane and respectful than forcing women to look at ultrasounds or other similar
abortion reduction strategies.
"If the father has a morally legitimate interest in having a child, and the
mother misleads the father into believing that she will give him a child if he
does certain things, and the father does those things for the specific purpose
of having a family, then it is wrong for the mother deliberately to prevent the
father from having that child....Most legal systems don't allow a
father to escape responsibility for his child and for paying to support that
child; this applies even if the father had wanted the mother to have an
abortion."-from the BBC Ethics website, a great resource on the
concept of Father's rights.Women choose whether the baby lives...
women choose whether the Father pays for it. You can't have it both ways.Now in all honesty, I'm not trying to prove points about abortion. I
posted this because the claim on here made that those who want Father's rights
don't understand equality.There are many moral theories... no one
can objectively prove their own to be true. This is why we listen to other
views, rather than state that they can't be valid because their different.
A couple of posters have mentioned that it is inhumane to have a mother look at
her child through the modern miracle of ultrasound before she makes the decision
to kill that child.Can somebody explain to me why it is inhumane to
require a mother to look at her child?
To Steve Jarvis - if it is so wrong for a single person to raise a child then
from now on when a couple divorces or one of the parents dies then society
should be knocking their door down and telling them to give the child(ren) up
for adoption. after the death of a spouse the surviving spouse may make a
concious decision to never marry again for the benefit of the children. Not
everyone who has a child outside of marriage ends up never married and
eventually the child does end up with a two parent household. I have seen people
who five years after having a child outside of marriage end up marrying the
child's father. One such couple even got married in the temple. They are still
married today and have added 3 more children to the family.Also some
women who have given up a child for adoption suffer from secondary infertility.
The reason because they are afraid of losing another child to adoption. Check
out delphi forums/origins - it's for people who have had adoption touch their
life in not a wonderful way. You will be surprised how many adoptees are on the
They call this a right? Its an oppression of a woman's rights. But what about a
man? Can a man request an abortion and why not? It is his right to have equal
say. No one has the right to dictate religious and personal values on another
person, its persecution and illegal.These people and this law
forgets that a fetus is not a legal person or resident or human being until it
is born from full term development.
If you believe that war is a valid option in this world, you are not
"pro-life". Someone who believed in the sanctity of life would be
100% opposed to war.Republicans believe that they just HAVE TO save
the fetus so that it can grow up to be a soldier. Nothing more.
To Charles from the greater outdoors...Also, when I argued that men
have no say in what happens to a fetus, I was not proclaiming that as a glorious
right that I feel victorious in having thanks to the women's movement that
allowed me to only think of myself, I was referring to what is NATURAL LAW. The
fetus is contained inside the body of woman, and she has control of it until it
is born and what she does effects the fetus. Accurate, no?What
would practicing a man's right to the fetus look like? Would he not only have a
right to see the fetus not be aborted but to be given up for adoption?
Court-ordered pregnancy in which the woman is jailed and tied down, force-fed
nutrition until the baby is born then adopted out? Men can not be given a legal
right as to whether to abort (forced abortion?), adopt, or otherwise because it
couldn't be enforced.So, should he still be financially responsible?
Although it is not perfectly fair (nature rarely is)...yes. Father is more
legally responsible for the creation of a child than the state if mother needs
Blue,many people blame the Smoot-Hawley tarrifs for worsening, if
not causing, the great depression.Just because a bill claims to be a
reform, does not mean it is a good thing. Obamacare is a disaster and the
repubs WERE looking out for our health when they opposed it.
Just to clarify something.'Voice of reason' and 'A voice of
reason'... You will find on any board where we have both commented, not many but
there are a few... that we completely disagree on a good deal of things if I
remember right. I'm pretty sure that gay marriage (as often debated on here) was
one of them. Just pointing it out :)
"If you support the death penalty, you are not pro-life."Uh... although I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, at least as the
current system allows... it doesn't justify making any claim about pro-life,
etc. If anyone disagrees with me on that... fine. Take any college philosophy
class or ethics class that will cover the issue and try to make that argument.
You won't get into it for 60 seconds before 10 counter-arguments would refute
any chance that argument had. There are ways to argue successfully and ways to
argue 'slogan-politically' and without real substance to the argument. Few
people understand the first way."Roe vs. Wade made abortion
legal"No it didn't. You find me a place in the constitution
where the people gave the power and responsibility of 'Judicial Review' to the
U.S. supreme court and I'll reconsider the legality of the court dictating it's
own legislative power... but until then I, and many who agree with me will stand
by the claim that the U.S. Supreme court has gone down the unlawful path not
designed in our agreed upon constitution. I peacefully ask someone to prove me