Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

[C_Felix]

Any news on this bill?

I'm kind of surprised it didn't get more play in the national media.

 

[A'isha]

Any news on this bill?

Nothing since it was introduced.

I'm kind of surprised it didn't get more play in the national media.

It got some last year, when it was first introduced, but not a lot. It's mostly news now because of the recent spate of anti-abortion shenanigans being pulled by Republicans, such as the Texas special session, the Ohio budget-amendment ********, and the idiotic anti-Sharia law in North Carolina that included anti-abortion measures.

 

[RandFan]

Republicans only care about the sacred right to life of a fetus before it's born. After it's born, it becomes just an excuse for those lazy 47%-ers to take undeserved money from the Job Creators, which is why SNAP and WIC need to be eliminated and the ACA/Medicaid have to be done away with.

These children live in America and thus are the recipients of "The American Dream". The children ought to be grateful for that. If they go to bed hungry it's the fault of the parents and not society. It's an appeal to emotion to consider the suffering of others when it comes to public policy. When society gives money to poor children it must come from somewhere. I'll tell you where it comes from. Other people. When you forcibly take money from one person to give it to another that is theft. Unless the recipient is a legislator, soldier or defense contractor, then it's not theft. That's taxation. A different thing altogether.

 

[TragicMonkey]

These children live in America and thus are the recipients of "The American Dream". The children ought to be grateful for that. If they go to bed hungry it's the fault of the parents and not society. It's an appeal to emotion to consider the suffering of others when it comes to public policy. When society gives money to poor children it must come from somewhere. I'll tell you where it comes from. Other people. When you forcibly take money from one person to give it to another that is theft. Unless the recipient is a legislator, soldier or defense contractor, then it's not theft. That's taxation. A different thing altogether.

I believe a fair and just solution is possible through compromise: the children of the poor will be placed inside the wombs of the wealthy. There they can enjoy the legal protections of being a fetus all the way through at least junior high school. Then they can be born again and take up jobs in the many factories of their job creator reparents.

 

[Minoosh]

The one way it makes sense to me is that you come from a position where you believe that these women can't be trusted to do the right thing

I haven't found evidence that the practice of giving a pregnancy test before providing contraception has anything to do with current GOP efforts to harass women seeking abortions. It's just been assumed, because Republicans are evil. My position is, it makes sense to do a pregnancy test before prescribing contraception.

How does that indicate I don't trust "these women" to do to the right thing? I knew a woman who had always assumed she couldn't get pregnant because she'd had lots of sex and it never happened. She actually had no idea she was pregnant until she went into labor. Not even then - she thought it was food poisoning. IMO she was uninformed. Many teenagers are uninformed. Many might be shy about telling clinic workers their dad is molesting them. Maybe they think they're safe because they're misinformed about effective birth control (I can't be pregnant because ...)

If you're going to project evil motives on me, show me that the practice I defend is part of some right-wing agenda. I'm pro-choice, I don't agree with current efforts and IMO some people have gotten their facts mixed up when it comes to what is being dictated by the right wing and what isn't. It seems like projection to me, people snapping at me because they assume the worst.

I do stick by the position that a fetus is not the same thing as a tumor. I'm not in favor of granting it rights equivalent to protections for existing human beings. If it is not wanted, I don't think nipping it in the bud is equivalent to murder. The rights of existing human beings take precedence over the rights of non-viable fetuses.

I take it you are OK with widespread abortions of female fetuses because a woman wants only sons. So am I. The rights of the living take precedence and in their world a son is necessary for economic security. By the same logic I can even defend infanticide in some cases. My position is that I'd like to see serious, nuanced, respectful discussion about social attitudes. A wanted 4-month fetus is a baby, an unwanted 4-month fetus is not. I'm not saying that's wrong. Babies have a right to be wanted, IMO, and if they aren't wanted abortion may be best for everyone involved.

 

[Minoosh]

I tend to post full-blown essays and hope that doesn't put people off. Occupational hazard. I'm a former editorial writer.

I like the exchanges above about what does and doesn't begin at conception. They seem respectful. I see both points of view. I oppose current GOP efforts to regulate safe medical abortion out of existence.

Thank you.

 

[pgwenthold]

I haven't found evidence that the practice of giving a pregnancy test before providing contraception has anything to do with current GOP efforts to harass women seeking abortions. It's just been assumed, because Republicans are evil. My position is, it makes sense to do a pregnancy test before prescribing contraception.

If it "makes sense" to do it, the doctors will already do it.

If the doctor doesn't think it makes sense to do it, then this law will require them to do it anyway.

As I keep pointing out, the only ones affected by this law are those cases where the doctor does not think a pregnancy test is necessary. Where does the legislature come off telling doctors how to practice medicine?

It is a law without a purpose, except to meddle pointlessly by requiring unnecessary (as deemed by a doctor) tests. You claim it's not about harassment, but why else is the GOP so keen on promoting wasteful medical practices?

 

[eeyore1954]

"Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it."

Can you point me to these scientific studies?

 

[A'isha]

Can you point me to these scientific studies?

You mean other than the ones cited in the paper I linked you to?

 

[Minoosh]

If the doctor doesn't think it makes sense to do it, then this law will require them to do it anyway.

For pity's sake, which law? I just want to know which law specifies mandatory pregnancy test for women seeking contraception.

As I keep pointing out, the only ones affected by this law are those cases where the doctor does not think a pregnancy test is necessary.

And I keep begging for a citation that shows this requirement is part of current GOP efforts.

Anyone?

It is a law without a purpose, except to meddle pointlessly by requiring unnecessary (as deemed by a doctor) tests.

Which law?

You claim it's not about harassment, but why else is the GOP so keen on promoting wasteful medical practices?

For probably the tenth time, which GOP bill requires mandatory pregnancy testing for issuance of contraception? When I type in "bill requires mandatory pregnancy test" and related searches, with and without quotes turn up stories like this:

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/national/11inhibit.html?_r=0

I'm not saying you're all wrong. I am questioning assumptions. But if you're more comfortable not questioning your assumptions that's cool.

 

[eeyore1954]

You mean other than the ones cited in the paper I linked you to?

Which ones were cited in the article?

 

[A'isha]

Which ones were cited in the article?

There are 23 separate entries in the "Literature Cited" section at the end of the paper. I suggest you start there.

 

[Morrigan]

A miscarriage is an unplanned tragedy, not the deliberate and willful act of the mother and so-called "doctor".

"So-called"? Excuse me?

Actually maybe women coming in for the Pill shouldn't be given pregnancy tests.

Indeed. I'd be aghast if I had to take such a test every time I decided to get a prescription.

Of course, they could be already pregnant, and the pills could make them miss periods

That's now how the pill works (and I've tried no less than 4 different types in my lifetime). You're thinking of the shots. We still have periods when on the pill, in fact, the pill helps the periods become more regular. You might want to get your facts straight before coming up with ridiculous scenario to justify forcing unnecessary tests on patients.

See my comment above. If doing a pregnancy test is important to do before prescribing birth control, then the doctor will do it. If it isn't then a law requiring it is a waste.

As a result, the law serves no purpose medically. It's purpose is solely to create obstacles.

^ A thousand times this. Anyone in favour of such a law is, quite frankly, either wilfully ignorant, or a douchebag.

 

[RandFan]

Can you point me to these scientific studies?

Could you define "life"? Do you think sperm and ovum to not be living things?

 

[eeyore1954]

There are 23 separate entries in the "Literature Cited" section at the end of the paper. I suggest you start there.

I assume you do not really know of any that show what I am asking

 

[A'isha]

I assume you do not really know of any that show what I am asking

No, I'm saying that the whole paper I linked you to is a discussion of the various scientific positions on where human life can be considered to have begun, with citations to papers and other literature which go into those various positions in more detail (and which, in turn, contain further citations, being mostly to journal articles).

If you're really looking for an answer to your question (insofar as it can be answered), rather than playing cheap rhetorical games, then the link I gave you is the best resource to start with.

 

[eeyore1954]

Could you define "life"? Do you think sperm and ovum to not be living things?

I guess you could say I am looking for when a new human begins. Such as when did Eeyore1954 begin.

 

[Minoosh]

Indeed. I'd be aghast if I had to take such a test every time I decided to get a prescription.

Aghast or not, if you're coming in for contraception, it makes sense to find out if you're pregnant. Because if you are, you have a more immediate concern than contraception - a decision whether or not to abort. Contraceptives aside, there are drugs that are very bad to take if you are pregnant or may become pregnant. Thalidomide was one. Accutane may be another. See above link.

We still have periods when on the pill, in fact, the pill helps the periods become more regular.

Many women have very light periods on the pill, to the point of "spotting," which can also be a sign of pregnancy. If the pill is taken continuously it can suppress periods all together. You get a period because you stop taking it. That's the point of 21-day packs: Take it for three weeks, stop taking it, period starts. However it can also be prescribed for use every day, if suppression of periods is the desired result. The 21-day cycle seemed more "natural" when the pill was introduced. Placebos were included to promote daily pill-taking habits.

You might want to get your facts straight before coming up with ridiculous scenario to justify forcing unnecessary tests on patients.

If my scenario is so ridiculous why is it common protocol? What is your evidence that I want to force unnecessary tests on patients?

A thousand times this. Anyone in favour of such a law is, quite frankly, either wilfully ignorant, or a douchebag.

Anyone who won't provide evidence that such a law is proposed at all is at best willfully dodging repeated requests for evidence of such a law. Maybe because there isn't any.

Funny how women's sexuality is such a rich source of insults.

As far as my facts: I've used pills, sponges, shots, condoms, cervical caps, spermicide, Plan B, alternative sexual practices, consorting with sterilized men, abstinence and even at times the rhythm method to keep from getting pregnant, precisely because I never wanted to have to make a decision re: abortion. I may even have douched (Coca-Cola recommended by some). I researched birth control from the time I was 13, during my first pregnancy scare. At 14 I took a bus 20 miles and lied about my age to get the pill. I wanted the most effective means.

And at this I'll accept that none of you has evidence that the GOP has proposed mandatory pregnancy tests to obtain contraception. I too am critical of GOP efforts but would rather get my facts right.

 

[pgwenthold]

For pity's sake, which law? I just want to know which law specifies mandatory pregnancy test for women seeking contraception.

The law that you think is ok because getting a pregnancy test before getting contraception "makes sense"

 

[eeyore1954]

No, I'm saying that the whole paper I linked you to is a discussion of the various scientific positions on where human life can be considered to have begun, with citations to papers and other literature which go into those various positions in more detail (and which, in turn, contain further citations, being mostly to journal articles).

If you're really looking for an answer to your question (insofar as it can be answered), rather than playing cheap rhetorical games, then the link I gave you is the best resource to start with.

I am not interested in playing cheap rhetorical games but you made the following reply to Muldor's statement (Because conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity).

Not according to actual medical science.
I thought it was because you actually had evidence that medical science thought otherwise. Although really I was looking for some sort of scientific consensus that what he said was incorrect. You linked to an article which is a lot like an opinion piece to me. If you do not actually know of any particular scientific articles backing up your statement that is fine with me. If you do why would you not lead me to them.