Printable View
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/123393979
This is why I hate our government! They want to control things they themselves don't fully understand.
Now they want to lable birth control as abortion! The gov. has no right to try and control what women can do to their bodies. Birth control is to help prevent pregnancies!
Someone please tell me you agree.
I'm not going to make an arguement about abortion in this thread, but I will tell you that this bill is just a last ditch effort being put forward by the Bush Administration to ban abortion before he's out of office. It's been sort of pushed under the wagon by most news sources, but it's been out there for a few weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenga
It will never pass.
Don't go vilifying the whole government because of the actions of a select few individuals.
I agree, his stupid law will never pass, and if it does the women of America will through a hissy. I'm all for the hissy. =D It gets shiz done.
I don't fully agree with that but I do understand their point of view. The government has always been fishy. According to webster dictionary abortoin is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenga
"1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation "
So birth control can not sensibly be the same as abortion. But who knows, maybe the definition of abortion will be altered.
Uhh who cares. Everyone knows that it is not going to pass.
That'll make life difficult for the guys too... if it were to pass I mean.
If it's over 5 pages it doesn't pass,I assume.
Um, no. No one, least of all the government, cares about petition sites.
Hm. It's just a petition site, the government's not going to waste their time on that.
The joys of not having sex.
Based on the web site that you gave, the government is not trying to outright change the definition of abortion. The web site (and a link on the website) explains the situation better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/wa...lysSPlg3Eae1zA
What the government is trying to do is require that hospitals not refuse to hire doctors and nurses that object to abortion. They say that if hospitals refuse to hire these individuals, it is discrimination and they will cut funding to any hospital that does. The problem here is the definition of the word "abortion" under this policy":
"Any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
This fits the definition of abortion but it is so broad that it also includes many (but not all) birth control methods. Things such as condoms, spermicides, patches, and pills that prevent ovulation do not count as they prevent fertilization, and thus pregnancy, in the first place. However, "morning after" pills, IUD's and SERM's will count as these prevent implantation of a zygote.
I understand the government not wanting hospitals to discriminate against certain viewpoints and opinions but I really hate the reason that they state for doing so. It really seems that the only reason they want this policy passed is so that the hospitals would be filled with hardcore Christians and prevent women all over the country from getting abortions without making abortion illegal.
Preposterous! you speak non-sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasphemous Feind
we've actually already had this thread made before. i think it was a sgi news thread.
i would love to be helpful and retrieve the link, but since i am mobile, no dice.
seems like everyone else is oblivious to it anyway. lol.
Yea i dunno what this is all about but I dont think the normal birth control pill is meant by that or a condom!! lol
It'll never work, even if the bill's passed. They're going for only 20 000 sigs...
1 - I think they understand it well enough, though they do want to impose their own moral views on everyone. Inappropriate it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenga
2 - If the government can't control your body, then why is PhysEd mandatory in some states? I think a more eloquent argument is needed (I'll type it below).
3 - I am very squeamish here. While there is a legal argument in favor of allowing abortion (see below), I am as yet undecided as to what would be best.
The basis for abortion being legal is that in the US constitution one becomes a citizen at birth (assuming it happens in the country). As the fetus has not yet been born, it is not a citizen. Those who are not citizen are not granted rights (excepting a separate set of rights given to foreigners). The fetus has no rights based on this, and it doesn't even legally exist as a person, and so killing it is not murder.
That's the entire argument. There are no grand philosophical claims of control over oneself or one's possible children. It isn't a citizen and it has no documents, so nothing is missed.
That or mandatory PE is a violation of the US constitution. That'd be news I'd like.
On the other hand, your rights as a minor are not those of a legal adult. So your reasoning does not quite follow. To the extent of my knowledge: If you are a minor and want to have an abortion, it's your guardians and not your decision to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAsterisk!
Yes, yes, minors have limited rights. I point this out all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eris
That's only true in certain states. Some places, a minor can legally get an abortion without the parents being notified.
However, even if the guardian's control overrides, PE cannot, at present, be escaped even with the guardian's consent. Whether or not these same states dictate mandatory PhysEd is irrelevant, as all fifty of the joyous cesspools must abide by the federal constitution. I think consistency is needed. Ban abortions for minors without parental consent, or ban PhysEd. I'd bet the first is more likely to happen. I am trying to just point out that the "Control over my body" argument is crap. The idea of owning or controlling one's own body ceased being practical long ago.
EDIT: I used "guardian" and "parent" interchangeably. Assume they both refer to the legal guardian(s).