Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Smiling babies in the womb have pro-abortion activists screeching
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="burrow_owl" data-source="post: 1068007" data-attributes="member: 11173"><p>water ripple: I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough, or something. Here's a redo: </p><p> </p><p>Sonograms are very important, as you forcefully argue. However, their importance occurs at a certain juncture in a pregnancy: it's important when the woman decides she wants to keep the baby, and it is intended to make sure that a little 'un is doing well. </p><p> </p><p>The proposal at issue here, though, isn't intended for those purposes. Rather, they want to buy lots and lots of sonograms for pregnancy crisis centers, not for legitimate and valuable medical purposes like in your case, but solely to achieve political objectives. Since these things aren't cheap, and aren't necessary at that juncture in the pregnancy (since the woman either a) doesn't plan on keeping it, or b) isn't sure whether to keep it) it amounts to wasting lots and lots of money that could better be spent on other things (like, say, prenatal care for people that have been in your shoes).</p><p> </p><p>I'm pretty skeptical of the 'show a woman a picture of a fetus' method - i think we should encourage people to be more rational and less emotional with decisions, rather than the other way around - but if it's decided that that's an acceptable method of achieving certain policy goals, there are way, way cheaper methods of doing it, like just putting up posters of other sonograms or something.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="burrow_owl, post: 1068007, member: 11173"] water ripple: I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough, or something. Here's a redo: Sonograms are very important, as you forcefully argue. However, their importance occurs at a certain juncture in a pregnancy: it's important when the woman decides she wants to keep the baby, and it is intended to make sure that a little 'un is doing well. The proposal at issue here, though, isn't intended for those purposes. Rather, they want to buy lots and lots of sonograms for pregnancy crisis centers, not for legitimate and valuable medical purposes like in your case, but solely to achieve political objectives. Since these things aren't cheap, and aren't necessary at that juncture in the pregnancy (since the woman either a) doesn't plan on keeping it, or b) isn't sure whether to keep it) it amounts to wasting lots and lots of money that could better be spent on other things (like, say, prenatal care for people that have been in your shoes). I'm pretty skeptical of the 'show a woman a picture of a fetus' method - i think we should encourage people to be more rational and less emotional with decisions, rather than the other way around - but if it's decided that that's an acceptable method of achieving certain policy goals, there are way, way cheaper methods of doing it, like just putting up posters of other sonograms or something. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Smiling babies in the womb have pro-abortion activists screeching
Top
Bottom