Wisc. Gov vetoes abortion bill

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Trying to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies that can EASILY be prevented without spending money at all? That's the heart of the argument. Pre-marital sex is a choice and I don't see why we should support it with our tax dollars.

There's your fundamental problem. It is NOT easy at all. You are trying to prohibit a normal, natural, and extraordinarily strong urge of adolescent children. "Just say no" to teen sex is a pipe dream. Sure, some kids will abstain, and with good sex education you may be able to improve the percentage who do. Most will not, however, and the more you try to repress their natural urges, the more likely they are to defy your authority and engage in risky behaviors. It is far more sensible -- and responsible -- to accept reality and reduce the risk and the societal costs of young people who do chose to be sexually active.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Social programs should vanish the same time family planning centers do.

And then what happens to the unwanted children? What happens to those who contract STDs? What happens when the rate of HIV/AIDS infection increases?

If they engage in irresponsible sexuality they have earned thier fate.

Yeah, every woman that's ever been the victim of violent rape or date rape deserved it. How dare they have a vagina.

Every person who's been unknowingly infected with HIV even while using a condom deserves to die.

Every person unknowingly infected with an STD deserves to suffer from it as well as anyone else with whom they'll have sex.


That's what you want. You were born a few hundred years too late. The Salem Witch trials were a few centuries back.

Ever think Zendari would make a great Muslim fanatic? They also treat women like livestock and love to kill those who stray from their sexually repressive hellhole.

 

[conjur]

Wonder if he's related to Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City

 

[BlancoNino]

The Children. The Children. Why don't we think about the children? What about the children? It's not the childs fault. It's not the childs fault. The CHILDREN THE CHILDREN!

Do away with family planning.

Do away with social programs.

"Hey, now I better NOT have sex because I could become pregnant, and if I did, I wouldn't able to support the child because he/she won't be able to suck on the governments nipple"

I'm going to give myself kudos for actually trying to get to the heart of the problem instead of trying to patch it up by throwing a bunch of money at it. I'm the one who's thinking about the children here 🙂.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The Children. The Children. Why don't we think about the children? What about the children? It's not the childs fault. It's not the childs fault. The CHILDREN THE CHILDREN!

Do away with family planning.

Do away with social programs.

"Hey, now I better NOT have sex because I could become pregnant, and if I did, I wouldn't able to support the child because he/she won't be able to suck on the governments nipple"

I'm going to give myself kudos for actually trying to get to the heart of the problem instead of trying to patch it up by throwing a bunch of money at it. I'm the one who's thinking about the children here 🙂.

Yeah, because there were no unwanted pregnancies before family planning clinics opened.

You're getting to the problem alright, from the backend where you can just make it worse.

Perhaps you should just outlaw premarital sex altogether, I mean if you want to impose artificial morality on people, you might as well go whole-hog.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The Children. The Children. Why don't we think about the children? What about the children? It's not the childs fault. It's not the childs fault. The CHILDREN THE CHILDREN!

Do away with family planning.

Do away with social programs.

"Hey, now I better NOT have sex because I could become pregnant, and if I did, I wouldn't able to support the child because he/she won't be able to suck on the governments nipple"

I'm going to give myself kudos for actually trying to get to the heart of the problem instead of trying to patch it up by throwing a bunch of money at it. I'm the one who's thinking about the children here 🙂.

The only thing you're thinking about is controlling other peoples' lives via your Jerry Falwell sense of morality. Are you a fundamental Christian? Are you parents? Would explain a lot about your false sense of morality.

Besides, you're trying to generalize all out-of-wedlock births as drains on society and that the kids are all growing up to be juvenile delinquents.

Give yourself all the kudos you want, kiddo, but you're flat-out wrong. You should join zendari in a quest to build a time machine and go back to the time of the Salem witch trials. You two would have fit right in.

 

[Sketcher]

No actual interest in discussing the OP?

Haven't seen any discussion yet regarding the content of the OP; noted below. And, no response to my previous post actually discussing it.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
IF it is proven beyond a doubt that a fetus can feel pain, then this might have some place in the Dr/Patient exchange. Until that time comes, I have to agree with the Govenor on this.

Source

Wisconsin governor vetoes abortion bill

Saturday, January 7, 2006; Posted: 10:42 a.m. EST (15:42 GMT)

MADISON, Wisconsin (AP) -- -- Gov. Jim Doyle on Friday vetoed a bill that would have forced doctors to tell women seeking abortions after their fifth month of pregnancy that their fetuses could suffer pain.

Doyle, a Democrat, said there is no evidence conclusively proving when a fetus can feel pain. The Republican-controlled Legislature should not be allowed to decide scientific fact, he said.

"It would be reckless to inject a requirement that doctors communicate unproven science to their patients during an already difficult and sometimes traumatic time," Doyle wrote in his veto message. "This bill intrudes on the doctor-patient relationship ... and contravenes the requirement that doctors provide objective and accurate information to their patients."

When a fetus can feel pain is a matter of debate in the medical community. The bill's supporters say some research supports the theory that a fetus can feel pain at the 20th week of pregnancy. Opponents say none of those claims have been proven.

Bob Delaporte, a spokesman for Republican Assembly Speaker John Gard, accused Doyle of "ignoring the science on this one."

Three other states -- Arkansas, Georgia and Minnesota -- have similar notification requirements, and federal legislation is pending.

Women seeking abortions in Wisconsin already must be given information on alternatives to ending their pregnancies. They also must wait 24 hours after a counseling session to have the procedure performed.

Edit: linkage

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The Children. The Children. Why don't we think about the children? What about the children? It's not the childs fault. It's not the childs fault. The CHILDREN THE CHILDREN!

Do away with family planning.

Do away with social programs.

"Hey, now I better NOT have sex because I could become pregnant, and if I did, I wouldn't able to support the child because he/she won't be able to suck on the governments nipple"

I'm going to give myself kudos for actually trying to get to the heart of the problem instead of trying to patch it up by throwing a bunch of money at it. I'm the one who's thinking about the children here 🙂.

You can give yourself kudos all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. You really can't fight with human nature on this one. Teens/young adults are sexually active, have always been and always will be. Sure you can stop some of them, but you can't stop all of them. You might as well keep them safe and give them to chance to avoid becoming pregnant.
When you grow up, you will understand this.

 

[BlancoNino]

You can give yourself kudos all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. You really can't fight with human nature on this one. Teens/young adults are sexually active, have always been and always will be. Sure you can stop some of them, but you can't stop all of them. You might as well keep them safe and give them to chance to avoid becoming pregnant.
When you grow up, you will understand this.

So we try to stop all of them and what do we get as a result? A society that says it's okay to have sex with whoever you want because the government is there to take care of you. Find the numbers of the STD % rate is in the last 30 years and then ask yourself if STD's are going downhill.

 

[conjur]

Wow. Gotta love that ignorance of youth again. Logical fallacy? Whuzzat?


:roll:


BTW, some *facts*

Virgin teens 'have same STD rate'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3546007.stm

Young Americans who pledge to remain virgins until they marry have the same rates of sexually transmitted diseases as those who do not, a new study says.

Teenagers who take a public vow to abstain from sex have fewer partners and get married earlier.

But they are much less likely to use condoms, the research found.

"It's difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you're not going to have sex," the study's author Peter Bearman told the AP news agency.

Teen Pledges Barely Cut STD Rates, Study Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48509-2005Mar18.html

Teenagers who take virginity pledges -- public declarations to abstain from sex -- are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found.

Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities.

"The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," said lead author Peter S. Bearman, a professor at Columbia's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs."

Pretry much destroys your entire train of thought.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, every woman that's ever been the victim of violent rape or date rape deserved it. How dare they have a vagina.

Every person who's been unknowingly infected with HIV even while using a condom deserves to die.

Every person unknowingly infected with an STD deserves to suffer from it as well as anyone else with whom they'll have sex.

That's what you want. You were born a few hundred years too late. The Salem Witch trials were a few centuries back.

Perhaps people should know whom they are associating with when engaging in sexual relations. When did I say anything about rape?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, every woman that's ever been the victim of violent rape or date rape deserved it. How dare they have a vagina.

Every person who's been unknowingly infected with HIV even while using a condom deserves to die.

Every person unknowingly infected with an STD deserves to suffer from it as well as anyone else with whom they'll have sex.

That's what you want. You were born a few hundred years too late. The Salem Witch trials were a few centuries back.

Perhaps people should know whom they are associating with when engaging in sexual relations. When did I say anything about rape?

Thanks for missing the point.

What happens when neither party is aware they have an STD? BTW, that will happen more and more if people with your mindset were to completely have their way.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, every woman that's ever been the victim of violent rape or date rape deserved it. How dare they have a vagina.

Every person who's been unknowingly infected with HIV even while using a condom deserves to die.

Every person unknowingly infected with an STD deserves to suffer from it as well as anyone else with whom they'll have sex.

That's what you want. You were born a few hundred years too late. The Salem Witch trials were a few centuries back.

Perhaps people should know whom they are associating with when engaging in sexual relations. When did I say anything about rape?

Thanks for missing the point.

What happens when neither party is aware they have an STD? BTW, that will happen more and more if people with your mindset were to completely have their way.

Then the member of the party possessing the STD is an utter moron. Maybe both partners should take priority in discovering this information.

 

[conjur]

But, in your opinion, they should somehow also be punished for not knowing, right?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur
But, in your opinion, they should somehow also be punished for not knowing, right?

Engaging in dangerous behavior has its consequences.

 

[conjur]

How is it dangerous? Sex is dangerous now?


Hmm...I'd have figured base jumping, juggling knives, coal mining, diving with sharks, etc. as dangerous activities.

Guess we should punish them, too.


But, btw, why should a "dangerous" activity have punishment in addition to consequences?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur
How is it dangerous? Sex is dangerous now?


Hmm...I'd have figured base jumping, juggling knives, coal mining, diving with sharks, etc. as dangerous activities.

Guess we should punish them, too.


But, btw, why should a "dangerous" activity have punishment in addition to consequences?

The consequence is the punishment. We aren't doing the punishing. They are bringing it upon themselves.

Sexual activity with another clearly is dangerous and has its risks. Nobody juggles knives them complains when a blade guts them in the hand. That would be childish! :laugh:

 

[conjur]

No, you want to add punishment to it. You want to take away possibly the only method some of these people would have to seek medical treatment. But, as long as the gov't has enough deficit spending to pay for healthcare and subsidize the price of gas in countries it invades and occupies then that's ok with you.

Gotcha.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

You can give yourself kudos all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. You really can't fight with human nature on this one. Teens/young adults are sexually active, have always been and always will be. Sure you can stop some of them, but you can't stop all of them. You might as well keep them safe and give them to chance to avoid becoming pregnant.
When you grow up, you will understand this.

So we try to stop all of them and what do we get as a result? A society that says it's okay to have sex with whoever you want because the government is there to take care of you. Find the numbers of the STD % rate is in the last 30 years and then ask yourself if STD's are going downhill.

Uhh..no. You tell them what the consequences are, what STD's are, how to prevent them and if they get an STD, how to treat and possibly cure it. Where do you see that as acceptence of what they do? You can't keep pressing "invisible man in clouds doesn't like it" as the only sex education available.

This is a no-brainer. I can't believe people actually support it, but that's just another example of the quality of life deterioration we've experienced in the last 50 years.

What quality of life deterioaration? You are what, 20? How could you say the the QoL has deteriorated over 50 years if you haven't been around to experience it?

 

[BlancoNino]

What quality of life deterioaration? You are what, 20? How could you say the the QoL has deteriorated over 50 years if you haven't been around to experience it?

I've always been interested about life growing up in the 50's and 60's and have asked a lot of people who grew up during that era.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

What quality of life deterioaration? You are what, 20? How could you say the the QoL has deteriorated over 50 years if you haven't been around to experience it?

I've always been interested about life growing up in the 50's and 60's and have asked a lot of people who grew up during that era.

And I've been fascinated with the Spanish inquisition. And frankly, I think instead of the whole trial by jury, I think we should go back to pouring hot lead down people's throats.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

What quality of life deterioaration? You are what, 20? How could you say the the QoL has deteriorated over 50 years if you haven't been around to experience it?

I've always been interested about life growing up in the 50's and 60's and have asked a lot of people who grew up during that era.

And I've been fascinated with the Spanish inquisition. And frankly, I think instead of the whole trial by jury, I think we should go back to pouring hot lead down people's throats.

BlancoNino is more along the lines of zendari's thinking....burning witches at the stake.


Anyway....from the original topic:


Fetal Pain
A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

Susan J. Lee, JD; Henry J. Peter Ralston, MD; Eleanor A. Drey, MD, EdM; John Colin Partridge, MD, MPH; Mark A. Rosen, MD

JAMA. 2005;294:947-954.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

Context Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia in the context of therapeutic procedures or abortion.

Evidence Acquisition Systematic search of PubMed for English-language articles focusing on human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia. Included articles studied fetuses of less than 30 weeks? gestational age or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. Articles were reviewed for additional references. The search was performed without date limitations and was current as of June 6, 2005.

Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks? gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony.

Conclusions Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.