New law allows doctors to withhold information that may lead to abortions

I am, quite simply, floored by this. The pro-life movement has now resorted to wanting to withhold information from women regarding their pregnancy. This is just plain despicable and rotten, and a whole bunch of other negative adjectives. What's next? Should doctors even bother telling women they're pregnant at all? Should we get rid of over-the-counter pregnancy tests altogether, and just tell women they are just gaining water weight until labor begins? SURPRISE! WE GOT YOU GOOD! But at least you didn't think about getting an abortion!

I think someone has been putting stupid pills in the Arizona water...

 

Proud to live in Arizona.

 

Roe vs. Wade had a defendant at the heart of its inspiration. What specifically inspired this bill?

 

She lied and they passed Roe…based on her lie…and other lies told such as Bernard Nathanson.

 

Uh:

Wrongful Life:

The only question Turley brings up is why it is needed since it is not a great problem. I would agree with him on that but legislators need something to keep them busy so they come up with unneeded legislation all the time.

Of course the OP title is flamebait and wrong, but what is new.

 

any test doctors refuse to divulge the results of need to be paid for by the doctor not the patient

 

It is never okay for a doctor to lie to a patient. I am horrified that you think this is acceptable.

 

She was a victim too. Her attorneys had a political agenda and she was simply a body part needed to promote it.

She had her child and she saw the err of the choice argument she had been suckered into.

I wonder if her (now adult) child is for imposing the fate that he or she escaped those many years ago upon other developing children?

 

Yeah, this is just dangerous.

 

It is not, and it is not.

This bill is simply part of a larger movement in Arizona that is declaring war on women's reproductive health choices. Not a war on women in general as the media likes to hype, but a specific war on reproductive services. This bill will be used to defend doctors who make a choice not to advise the parents of a birth defect or other pregnancy complication that could potentially result in the mother choosing an abortion. Arizona is playing a game of chicken with Roe v Wade and this is just the most recent result of that.

It's no surprise this bill was passed in Arizona, where some kind of conservative transformation seems to be occurring. When you add this to the recent bill that determines conception occurs two weeks before conception occurs(Yep, you read that right), you see what's really going on. A systematic destruction of a woman's protected right to an abortion.

Not relevant to this issue, but Arizona is also the home of Joe Arpaio, possibly the most gullible sheriff in the public eye that I can think of, and another great Arizonian, their secretary of state, who is demanding Hawaii release documents they've already released or he won't put the President of the United States on the ballot.

I think global warming(man made or not) is really doing a number on the sanity of that state.

 

Norma McCorvey was seeking an abortion when it was illegal in Texas. She was introduced to her lawyers and a lawsuit was filed. When she realized the case would not be settled before the birth of her baby, McCorvey told her lawyers, "Let's do this for other women." She gave up her baby for adoption, because she was unmarried and unable to care for it. She was indeed a victim of Texas anti-abortion laws.

Not at all.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Roe_v_Wade.aspx

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9509/update.html

Speaking of being used (suckered into)...

 

Norma McCorvey was seeking an abortion when it was illegal in Texas. She was introduced to her lawyers and a lawsuit was filed. When she realized the case would not be settled before the birth of her baby, McCorvey told her lawyers, "Let's do this for other women." She gave up her baby for adoption, because she was unmarried and unable to care for it. She was indeed a victim of Texas anti-abortion laws.

Not at all.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Roe_v_Wade.aspx

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9509/update.html

Speaking of being used (suckered into)...

 

that is like saying a child of rape would support rape being legal when they grow up, because they would not exist if the rape never happened

 

No FA. Sorry my question was the inspiration for your thought, but that was not my question at all.

Would you wish a near death event you escaped on another?

 

Is that the way Norma sees it?

What is she up to now? Has she flipped on her abortion issue position? Are you disappointed in how she is living her life?

 

The way Norma sees it now is a direct result of this man, Flip Benham, of Operation Rescue. He moved into a building next door to the clinic where NM was working, befriended her, baptised her, and began, (in his words) to "intensively disciple" her.

Under the Texas anti-abortion laws, NM was denied autonomy of her own body on three occasions. She was forced to give birth, first as a victim of domestic abuse at 16, then twice more while penniless and working for the circus. All three babies were given up for adoption.

Who knows how her life might have been different if she had been allowed to choose her own timing for having children. She might have had the resources to raise and love them herself.

 

Thanks Cady,

Does domestic abuse = rape and Texas law didn't allow for rape victims to abort the child?

Well hopefully she (NM) is happy and whole now (ref. your picture). Many times life isn't or at least doesn't seem fair. Here is a woman who could take a goodly portion of credit for now fifty plus million dead and instead she rejects that which could bring her worldly rewards all because she saw someone with an opposing moral stance as a human being instead of her enemy.

Some of us may argue our positions thinking that if we state it just so we can change another's heart. That territory, (imo) is Another's domain. Who one welcomes into their heart is usually the ruler of that heart. Though Flip most likely saw her position on abortion as one embracing a spiritual death. I don't think he, Flip changed her heart. The words he shared are more likely than not attributed to another Author.

The children given up for adoption, do you know, has NM met with them, are they happy people?

 

No, it doesn't always. I don't know if she was a victim of spousal rape (which wasn't even acknowledged until the 1970's), but she was a victim of domestic abuse at age 16 when she became pregnant.

Fifty million...what? Fifty million babies not born doesn't equal fifty million dead babies.

And you think she wasn't rewarded for going to work for Operation Rescue? She most recently made news when arrested as a protester at the Sotomayor confirmation. When interviewed, she didn't know Sotomayor's name or even her record on abortion, so it certainly seems she is being exploited for her name.

Because this particular one didn't shoot at her house and car...

Isn't that the purpose of "intensive discipling"?

The Author said nothing about abortion.

 

But you associate her pregnancy with the abuse?

Cady, fifty million plus and counting lives have been snuffed out.

.

I don't know about any earthly compensation package she may have and can only guess at the other reward.

That's a plus! But if she had Texans shooting at her she'd be pushin' daisies. Musta been some NYC Yankees.

Would need to know exactly what that entailed?

If He didn't do you think He would have left us in the dark about His will regarding it? Can you see Jesus Christ encouraging women to abort (though I could see His opponent preaching that)? And if the Author of Life did address abortion as a hurtful experience would that change your heart? Would you would then become an advocate for the unborn?

 

I associate her unwanted pregnancy with abuse.

Wouldn't that depend on when life begins? What about Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"?

I think it would have been explicitly condemned and it wasn't.

And if He had addressed childbirth as a hurtful experience would you then become an advocate for abortion rights?

 

Asked because I do not know, was she impregnated against her will?

True, but didn't Man then become a living soul in a living body?


I'm unsure if this was only meant for one man or if this could be applicable to all of us regarding the beginning of life; "Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations"

You were given a keen, discerning mind (evidenced by your arguments), so a question. If you have no faith the question is withdrawn but if you have a faith I ask sincerely, if you can envision Jesus Christ (as the Son of God) in an abortion mill, He would counsel pregnant women to...? As this is your question (if you want it) know that I am not looking for my answer but yours.

No, sincerely I cannot, I don't think God caused that transient reminder/experience to promote abortion. Christ raised the dead, healed the sick, cast out spirits, fed the hungry in body and spirit, forgave the repentant sinner. I don't see God as an abortion promoter

 

So? When are people going to realize that there is a numerically large amount of people in this country who down to the core of their very beings, see abortion as murder and want to protect the fetus over the wants of the mother?

You may not agree with it, you may not like it. But people who don't support abortion are not stupid backwards inhuman slime!

and it isn't a "war".

 

So?

I think you do know this was addressed to one man who was destined to be a prophet.

Probably each woman's counsel would be different, depending upon her particular needs.

Refusal to condemn abortion is not promoting abortion.

 

The comment would be germane to the discussion Cady and I were sharing in. Of course you are welcome to join in too. I was simply referencing body and soul.

Sister is it your belief that God was capable of this but once or just did this one time?

For instance? Which specific life example and teaching would you cite to support the counsel Christ would share?

To the contrary to know a child hungers but do nothing about it surely promotes and sustains that hunger. To know of injustice and turn a blind eye does nothing save promote injustice. To see inhumanity and not be moved to stop it does nothing but encourage inhumanity.

If we stand for nothing we will fall for anything. I believe Christ said "He who is not with Me is against Me" If this is truth then there is no middle ground, no spectators box. Active participant or not we all serve some Master whether it by conscious choice or by an undenied default. To say nothing, to have no position is to choose a camp.

Grannie have you ever told your grandchildren that if they are not part of the solution then they are part of the problem?

 

Is it your belief that God's capability is limited? Is it your belief that God's words to Jeremiah apply to everyone? Why would one believe random words directed to a specific named ONE apply to all?

Does Christ's counsel require support? Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume you know WHAT Christ would counsel? Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that what you believe Christ is advising is something everyone must believe?

In spite of your platitudes, it is still true that refusal to condemn abortion is not promoting it.