Republicans, Abortion, Women's Rights, and the challenges facing them.

[uptowngirl]

Actually your colon has nothing to do with hemorrhoids.

[wsansewjs]

So now we're getting into the cost.  Maybe it should be financially cheaper for couples (or singles in states that don't yet allow gay couples) to adopt than for a women to choose an abortion.  Perhaps to the extent that the state refuses to subsidize abortion, the state should strive to subsidize adoption.  Either through outright payment or through tax credits or other avenues.

To do otherwise seems to favor abortion as an outcome.  We do all sorts of things to incentivize behavior we as a society want to see.

You're missing the point... and for the record I'm all in favor allowing anyone single, married, gay or straight to adopt as long as they are approved through this extensive strenuous process.

What I'm trying to explain to wsanews is that the process is difficult for everyone. You can't put children out on the street like a sidewalk shoe sale in South Beach and have run on babies.

Of course the adoption process is long and tedious! My point I am trying to make is that the pro-lifers doesn't want any abortions, so more 'accidental' and 'life-threatening' pregnancies would occur and many children will born (unfortunately and few would die due to complications) as result of that.

When that happens, there may not be enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt to meet up the demand, therefore I was suggesting that eliminating any social taboos with the gay couples and allow them the full equal rights to adopt children such as their heterosexual counterparts to meet the high number of children needed for adoption.

Basically tell the those anti-gay to KNOCK off the beef they have with the gay couples stereotypical views. The idea was to solve both issues on both sides, and everyone can have a nice glass of lemonade at the end of the day.

-Josh

[Garden guy]

I'd be interested to know the numbers on conservatives to non conservatives on adoptions across the board...i think adoptions are off the topic of our governor signing a law forcing women to watch a sonogram before an abortion...it's a chip at the delicate womans rights in this state.

[Shwaz]

There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.

It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.

[wsansewjs]

There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.

It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.

Shwaz,

It is a wishful idea.

<3

-Josh

[Shwaz]

There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.

It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.

Shwaz,

It is a wishful idea.

<3

-Josh

I'm afraid it's a simple answer to a complex situation... it doesn't tread water in a serious discussion.

[uptowngirl]

Actually your colon has nothing to do with hemorrhoids.

I think thats Deadgirls' point.

I a disagree. What is the harm in viewing the life you are choosing to end? If you are making the right decision it should not matter.

I do not agree with his decision, but I also do not understand why it is such a big deal (outside of cost and the fact that Scott is a creepy creep).

I just feel like everyone is upset because it is not fair to the woman to actually see the fetus before she aborts, but if there is nothing wrong with abortion it should not matter.

Now if we want to talk costs and who is paying and who is being paid, or we want to talk risk of the actual procedure (which there are none I am aware of, but there are some benefits outside of choice alone) then we should. But what I have really heard so far is some far left extremism filled with fear that a woman may actually have to view that ittybitty little tiny heart beating a million times per second right before she snuffs  it out, and why that just is not fair.

[wsansewjs]

There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.

It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.

Shwaz,

It is a wishful idea.

<3

-Josh

I'm afraid it's a simple answer to a complex situation... it doesn't tread water in a serious discussion.

Complicated answers to a complex situation doesn't tread water in a serious discussion either.

-Josh

[Shwaz]

Now we're just talking circles

[Garden guy]

The problem with it is the state is making it manditory...republican right wingers scream about big brother being "obtrusive"...what the hell is this shit?....an abortion is a private matter and none of us should have any say so...

[wsansewjs]

Now we're just talking circles

Hahaha I agree! -high fives-

-Josh

[Cliffs_Daughter]

And why should you be for a mandatory expense without a mandatory insurance coverage?

BIG nail head you hit there, Stephen. 

[Garden guy]

The problem with it is the state is making it manditory...republican right wingers scream about big brother being "obtrusive"...what the hell is this shit?....an abortion is a private matter and none of us should have any say so...

garden guy.  Please elevate your postings.

This is not jacksonville.com.  It is metrojacksonville, and if you are going to be taken seriously, you are going to have to make your points without having to result to hysterical statements vulgarly expressed at every single juncture.  You have a brain, its clear.  Please start employing it to make your points.  

Its a shame to see someone who has great ideas to express make them seem completely inedible as a result of inept delivery.

Sorry steve...i'm just pissed off over this...i see this man ruining our state and i'm just pissed...and having 4 sister..i'm very sensitive to womens rights...

[Bativac]

This is the issue with our political system, far left and far right. for us moderates in between there are little options and not a lot of representation.

For instance, I have no issue with gay adoption or gay marriage, I am a proponent of both. I also do not have an issue with a woman's choice to give life or take it away (it is a personal choice with personal repercussions no matter the decision) until that life because a woman cannot or will not make a decision, goes on for too long. I also believe that although a man is not actually carrying the child, and in many cases is not taking care of it, they also have some say in the decision. I also believe there should be a safety net for healthcare, but I do not believe the government should manage healthcare as is done in Europe. My moderate beliefs do not fit within either party, and are attacked by both. I know there are many out there that feel the same and are just sick and tired of having to "choose" the lesser evil on topics that are important too us.  Common sense would seem to dictate that unless your life and/or the child's life is at risk the incision and sucking out of a baby's brain is inappropriate. Yet you have extremist screaming it is none of your business. I believe most states have a good Samaritan law that states I have to provide minimal safe assistance if I see a person being attacked?  Underage children that want plastic surge have to get parental permission, and normally in most state have a waiting period prior to having surgery but can get an abortion at will, with no recovery support. After all we are speaking about elective procedures here. On the right you have extremist that think gays are third class citizens, and cannot marry or adopt and yet most of us are related to, friends with, and depend on gays to protect their rights and safety or preach to them from the pulpit every Sunday, hell these people even vote for gays.  

WTH is wrong with people? Where has common sense gone? what are moderates to do when the only choices today are extremist?

I think you and I are of the same minds on this topic. Sometimes it really sinks, being in the middle!

[uptowngirl]

Actually your colon has nothing to do with hemorrhoids.

I think thats Deadgirls' point.

I a disagree. What is the harm in viewing the life you are choosing to end? If you are making the right decision it should not matter.

I do not agree with his decision, but I also do not understand why it is such a big deal (outside of cost and the fact that Scott is a creepy creep).

I just feel like everyone is upset because it is not fair to the woman to actually see the fetus before she aborts, but if there is nothing wrong with abortion it should not matter.

Now if we want to talk costs and who is paying and who is being paid, or we want to talk risk of the actual procedure (which there are none I am aware of, but there are some benefits outside of choice alone) then we should. But what I have really heard so far is some far left extremism filled with fear that a woman may actually have to view that ittybitty little tiny heart beating a million times per second right before she snuffs  it out, and why that just is not fair.

Well isnt it possible that no one is more aware of what is inside the uterus than the woman whose uterus is being discussed?

And why should you be for a mandatory expense without a mandatory insurance coverage?

Good questions Stephen- I think at a certain level women and girls are very aware, but there is a difference between knowing and seeing. This of course verges on the moral discussion that turns to extremism fairly quickly.
I see no issue with having a woman actually see the little beating heart before making that final decision, I mean it is irreversible afterall and it does make the decision more real, and even more personal.

For payment, a general sonogram does not cost much, and while an argument can be made that most women can have an abortion with no physical side effects, there are cases where a sonogram can certainly point out circumstances previously unknown, a lot of women and girls going to get a subsidized abortion do not see a doctor regularly. I also think for the weaker of heart and mind seeing a fetus makes it real and may in fact influence their decision saving some from psychological issue later down the road-which of course could end up costing the tax payer alot more than the cost of a sonogram. Perhaps I am just looking at both sides of the coin to intently, but I do know some women that have had abortions and regret it dearly. I also know some women who have had abortion and seem to have no issues at all.

My personal beliefs tell me at a certain point it should no longer be an option unless it is a life or death situation.