Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

[LaL 418]

Don't forget, the second body in there is also half the mans. The whole "men shouldn't have a say" thing is ridiculous. It's their child too. And yeah, the women have to carry it to term, but it's not like they didn't know that when they spread their legs.

And men know that putting their pen!s in a woman can result in a pregnancy and what that woman might want if such happens is their choice. They know that before they make a grand entrance. Goes both ways.

Edited May 10, 2011 by LaL

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Don't forget, the second body in there is also half the mans. The whole "men shouldn't have a say" thing is ridiculous. It's their child too. And yeah, the women have to carry it to term, but it's not like they didn't know that when they spread their legs.

In the womb the man shouldn't have a say.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And men know that putting their pen!s in a woman can result in a pregnancy and what that woman might want if such happens is their choice. They know that before they make a grand entrance. Goes both ways.

as I said, as long as it's solely the woman's choice of what happens to the child, then it's 99% her responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.

Until men have a say at conception. Until men have equal rights under the law over the mother, then it's the woman's responsibility almost completely.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Agree!

Unfortunately, the country doesn't. It's being made abundantly clear by those that push these measures that they have no appetite whatsoever to do what it takes to prevent the tens of thousands of preventable deaths we experience each and every year.

So, when does life begin?

That question is about as irrelevant as it gets as long as we're not protecting life that all agree has begun - i.e. the life of post birth individuals. We let them die by the thousands each year if they happen not to have the means to access adequate health care. If the pro-life crowd wasn't so by name only, they'd be outraged about it. They're not. In fact, they're now supporting measures (abolish medicare and slash medicaid) that will push the number of preventable deaths into the six figure range.

Given that why would I - or any person of sound mind - take their pro-life rhetoric seriously?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

as I said, as long as it's solely the woman's choice of what happens to the child, then it's 99% her responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.

Until men have a say at conception. Until men have equal rights under the law over the mother, then it's the woman's responsibility almost completely.

Hopefully, you asked first, she said yes, the result is a mutual contract that whatever the result, you get to pay for it. That is life, dude! If you want to be safe, go gay.

[AlinaH 38]

And men know that putting their pen!s in a woman can result in a pregnancy and what that woman might want if such happens is their choice. They know that before they make a grand entrance. Goes both ways.

Obviously. So the decision should go both ways too. The woman carries the child. That's how life works. But it's not just her child. The father has to take responsibility after the child is born, so it should also get a say when the child is in the womb.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's not logical

[LaL 418]

Obviously. So the decision should go both ways too. The woman carries the child. That's how life works. But it's not just her child. The father has to take responsibility after the child is born, so it should also get a say when the child is in the womb.

Sounds like TX is right up your alley But in the end, it's not how the law works.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Unfortunately, the country doesn't. It's being made abundantly clear by those that push these measures that they have no appetite whatsoever to do what it takes to prevent the tens of thousands of preventable deaths we experience each and every year.

That question is about as irrelevant as it gets as long as we're not protecting life that all agree has begun - i.e. the life of post birth individuals. We let them die by the thousands each year if they happen not to have the means to access adequate health care. If the pro-life crowd wasn't so by name only, they'd be outraged about it. They're not. In fact, they're now supporting measures (abolish medicare and slash medicaid) that will push the number of preventable deaths into the six figure range.

Given that why would I - or any person of sound mind - take their pro-life rhetoric seriously?

OK, but, that wasn't my question.

I will look elsewhere for ideas.

but,Thanks anyway.

[Zero Sum 305]

I hope the state will be footing the bill for those sonograms!

I haven't read through this thread yet but I would bring the same point up. These Republicans want to legislate their morality unto all... they should pay for it too.

[Zero Sum 305]

Sounds like the only winners in this are the doctors and insurance companies. I don't believe that a marked decrease of abortions will occur because of this, it's an empty, stupid law. Focus on education.

Yep. Stereotypes aside... this is Texas...

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

In the womb the man shouldn't have a say.

we don't have too much of a say outside the womb either.

[Zero Sum 305]

And men know that putting their pen!s in a woman can result in a pregnancy and what that woman might want if such happens is their choice. They know that before they make a grand entrance. Goes both ways.

Heck at least we gotta practice that thing where we remember to finish up outside. Not that hard to do if we insist on not using a rubber. Maybe that 1% that is our 'responsibility' shouldn't be that hard, but for many of my gender it gets difficult to even remember that small amount.

we don't have too much of a say outside the womb either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

OK, but, that wasn't my question.

Your question was when life begins. That question was answered by the SCOTUS - life begins at viability. My question is though, how is that relevant as long as life isn't considered precious and priceless in this country?

[Zero Sum 305]

Your question was when life begins. That question was answered by the SCOTUS - life begins at viability. My question is though, how is that relevant as long as life isn't considered precious and priceless in this country?

Life has an unfortunate sliding scale according to political and [hypocritical] moral convenience. For both 'sides' of the argument. If we stick to the legal definition, then there shouldn't be any legal blocking of personal decisions between a woman, her womb, at at times, the man that impregnated the woman.