<p>"AP-NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Legislation introduced in Tennessee would require death certificates for aborted fetuses, which likely would create public records identifying women who have abortions.</p>
<p>The words that I would like to say in response to this idea are really fit for the forum. So I’ll just leave it at this: If you are pro-life, fine. Work on getting rid of legalized abortion. But don’t attempt to ostracize people who are currently engaged in legal activities (women getting abortions). I can’t imagine what GOOD this would accomplish–I guess the idea is to shame women into not getting abortions (although, my response to that theory would be “it’s called driving over the state border”). </p>
<p>There are other, anonymous ways to track abortions. I was under the impression that medical records were usually kept as private as possible–this seems to fly in the face of that idea.</p>
Even “We-love-our-conservatives” Kansas recently voted out Phill Kline, the AG who wanted to sift through women’s private (abortion) records in an attempt to “see if any crimes against women/girls” had been committed. Apparently even many typically ultra-right-leaning conservatives could see the danger (and impropriety) of opening THAT Pandora’s box. What’s next? A record of which would-be embryos are stopped mid-implantation by birth control? Hopefully this legislation goes NOWHERE fast.</p>
<p>How dare these people make someone feel bad for doing something so horrific.</p>
<p>How dare these people somehow try to show people that there are consequences to their actions.</p>
<p>I say excommunicate every last one of them for expressing their opinions to the general public in the exact way that the general public is paying them to.</p>
<p>Because of course all women who have abortions are immoral trollops…</p>
<p>Being Tennessee, let me tell you, abortion is a constant topic in the Senate and House. However, this is ridiculous, even for uber-right politicos. ~Sheesh~</p>
<p>“Apparently even many typically ultra-right-leaning conservatives could see the danger (and impropriety) of opening THAT Pandora’s box.”</p>
<p>Yep. Because many conservatives are rightly concerned about giving the government additional power to track and publicize the activities of citizens. The proposed change isn’t a move toward smaller government, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>“my response to that theory would be “it’s called driving over the state border””</p>
<p>Oh, I don’t have any doubt that this would slightly reduce the number of abortions if it passed, because there will always be some women who are too poor, too controlled by an abusive spouse, etc. to make the longer trip. The question is whether (1) it’s good policy to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable women who want abortions are the ones who end up carrying to term and (2) whether the state should go down the path of controlling its citizens through shame by publicizing their participation in a legal activity the state disapproves of. Should the state publicize which citizens are (legally) looking at online porn, smoking, having premarital sex, or getting cosmetic surgery? This is particularly worrisome where there’s reason to be concerned about the safety of any woman so publicized.</p>
<p>Sorry Hanna et al, but when a beating heart comes into the picture it is no longer in the same class as online porn. It comes down to what is “life” and medical science does not have the exact answers.</p>
<p>The pro-lifers rarely want to support children with healthcare or education once they are born. Who plans to provide “entitlement programs” for all these unwanted children?</p>
<p>“It comes down to what is “life” and medical science does not have the exact answers.”</p>
<p>Medical science has some pretty good answers. Foeti are “life”, as are bacteria, cockroaches, trees…I don’t know why “life” on its own should be given rights over a sentient human being who is able to survive autonomously without living off of a particular host body.</p>
<p>Frogs have “beating hearts”, so do all mammals- why aren’t those who spout off about life not concerned about other species? Why not be vegetarian? Some people have zero consideration for women, or children as stated above. For believers, why not consider those lives got a quick ticket to heaven instead of having to suffer as they would otherwise have? I saw a prolife letter to the editor a while back that referred to being human as having the number of chromosomes, not some other attribute (in much more simple terms than I used here), totally ignoring extra chromosome syndromes such as Down’s… Legislation llike this is another reason to not live in the Bible belt.</p>
<p>^^^Can one be a for example a dog lover and not a vegetarian? Yes, most meat animals are farmed for that specific reason, to eat. No one eats dogs, because they are a different type of animal than a cow. Why do we put horses such as Barbaro “out of their misery” when we will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in cancer treatments for someone in their 80s, when even with the treatments they will die in a year or two anyways? Because they are human and should probably have the best chance to live according to modern science. (right to die and access to best health care at a reasonable cost is a whole 'nother argument) Why do we kill some babies and let others live? Because some people have no respect for life. I let you call it “woman’s choice” when you let me call child support “man’s choice.” Until then , it will be murdering babies. I got a guy down here who talks about when he was 18 he had a girlfriend who was pregnant, and she got an abortion, and his twin girls would have been five years old. He somewhat blows it off, but I can tell by his eyes that he regrets having that decision made for him. Before you go flying off the handle, I am not showing aborted fetuses to kids, or bombing abortion clinics, abortion is legal and for now that is the law and I respect that. Doesn’t mean I can’t still be pro-life and try to get the law changed. I am not against birth control by any means, any responsible person should be educated about it, and have reasonable access to it. (why is BC not covered by most insurance plans?) this is where I differ from most far right people on the issue, is that I am all for responsible sex education and premarital sex.</p>
<p>Some people eat dogs. Americans do not, as far as I’m aware anyway. This is a cultural distinction. </p>
<p>It seems kind of like they might get some argument about having to have a death certificate for any fetus that for whatever reason ceases to live (i.e. micarriage). But I don’t know.</p>
I couldn’t agree more. Of course those who are pro-“choice” don’t want the American public to express its democratic choice by allowing them to vote on it. Wouldn’t it be nice to let democracy work for a change?</p>
<p>
Is this what it boils down to? Economics? Heck, if it is economics, how can we justify allowing those born with severe birth defects to live. Just imagine the cost to society for keeping these children alive.</p>
<p>Bit off-topic, but I thought it funny someone posted this:
Case in point: The new school my {TN} district is building [about 5 years too late] is using the same plans as schools built in the 80s, because, apparently, “they are still functional”. Sounds okay, right? But the plans do not incorporate any ‘green’ building material, technology-friendly floor plans, etc. They don’t even have a second floor, just a wide expanse of hallway.</p>
<p>Sorry, it’s just I find it all more than a bit bureaucratic, much like this new legislation. Welcome to the nanny-state, where women’s private decisions are not even kept private.</p>
Hopefully this legislation goes NOWHERE fast.</p>