South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait

[Carcinus]

Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables

The guilty person; yes.

It's quite simple.

What's the pro-abortion stance?

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.

I don't know about the American stance, but in Britain, there is no "unfettered access". Every woman stepping up to the plate, so to speak, has to go through three doctors and a councillor before she makes a decision, and even then it may be denyed to her. Don't think that decision is Ever taken lightly. The younger a woman is, the more questions are asked, and the more provisions are made for her aftercare, both physical and mental. There are only two possible abortion procedures, either surgical, where the operation is performed ,or medical, where the woman is given a pill for the procedure to happen at home, followed by a check up, if under 12 weeks. This is legal and accountable, both to the woman herself, and to the medical staff. Where's the "shroud of non-accountability."?

[Busyman]

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.

I don't know about the American stance, but in Britain, there is no "unfettered access". Every woman stepping up to the plate, so to speak, has to go through three doctors and a councillor before she makes a decision, and even then it may be denyed to her. Don't think that decision is Ever taken lightly. The younger a woman is, the more questions are asked, and the more provisions are made for her aftercare, both physical and mental. There are only two possible abortion procedures, either surgical, where the operation is performed ,or medical, where the woman is given a pill for the procedure to happen at home, followed by a check up, if under 12 weeks. This is legal and accountable, both to the woman herself, and to the medical staff. Where's the "shroud of non-accountability."?

I don't know what he refers to either, Blight.

[Carcinus]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid. What public enquiry is he talking about? Unless I've either missed a point, or it's something which pertains to America and not here.

[Busyman]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid.

I've known this for some time.

He'd fit right in as an American politician. Problem is this ain't Congress.

[Carcinus]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid.

I've known this for sometimes.

He'd fit right in as an American politician. Problem is this ain't Congress.

It's really annoying when you read a non-argument disguised as a highly articulate point, that when deconstructed means very little. Either say what you mean, or get off the pot. Hiding weak arguments behind verbosity is the sign of an over-inflated, slighty insecure ego.

[Busyman]

I've known this for sometimes.

He'd fit right in as an American politician. Problem is this ain't Congress.

It's really annoying when you read a non-argument disguised as a highly articulate point, that when deconstructed means very little. Either say what you mean, or get off the pot. Hiding weak arguments behind verbosity is the sign of an over-inflated, slighty insecure ego.

Post 22?

[j2k4]

The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.

A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.

Where's the contradiction? I don't think there is one pro choice or pro life stance.

While I don't agree with the stance you laid out, it make more sense than your stance. The basic point of your stance is inconsistent. You aim is to protect the unborn 'cause it's a person yet would kill it either due to YOUR perceived inconvenience or ignorance of there being a killing when it has been proven that certain medicine does kill.

I assumed you would tumble to my reference to the "guilty" as the perpetrator of the rape or incest.

Back to my personal beliefs, then-

All life is precious, and all pregnant women should bear their children, even unto death.

However, reality intrudes, as well you know.

I trust that is satisfactory.

How about you?

[Carcinus]

Fair point.

Too many words. Hurt my poor girl eyes...Only one in 16 made sense, all I think about is sex and makeup, not the consequences of my actions.

However, there always should be provision for accidents occuring. Very few women use abortion as a contraceptive, or having got that far and gone through it once, will be very careful in terms of contraception from there on in. Accidents happen, and shouldn't be paid for in the ruination of lives, the womans, her childs, and if he is interested, the father's.

[j2k4]

Blight?

All I'm saying is that he's using big words and stupidlt constructed sentences to try and detract from the point he's trying to make, which isn't even valid. What public enquiry is he talking about? Unless I've either missed a point, or it's something which pertains to America and not here.

It is something that applies here, but apparently not there.

Apparently the possiblility you'd missed something did not preclude your impertinence, eh?

[Carcinus]

Where's the contradiction? I don't think there is one pro choice or pro life stance.

While I don't agree with the stance you laid out, it make more sense than your stance. The basic point of your stance is inconsistent. You aim is to protect the unborn 'cause it's a person yet would kill it either due to YOUR perceived inconvenience or ignorance of there being a killing when it has been proven that certain medicine does kill.

I assumed you would tumble to my reference to the "guilty" as the perpetrator of the rape or incest.

Back to my personal beliefs, then-

All life is precious, and all pregnant women should bear their children, even unto death.

However, reality intrudes, as well you know.

I trust that is satisfactory.

How about you?

Easy to say from the point of view of someone that will never happen to. There is no point in a pregnant woman who is not interested, or able, to have the welfare of her child at heart, in having that child. Women who undertake abortions know exactly what they are doing, and live with their decisions, but weigh them up with what the alternatives would be. It's easy to theorise and judge, but not so easy to empathise and listen.