MyFox
 

thebradleys's Blog

by thebradleys from Semi-demi rural WCFL

Last Post 24 days, 15 hours Ago


Webster's Proposed Abortion Bill
Mar 1, 2008 | 9:12 AM
Category: News
Report This Post

I am writing this particular blog in attempt to anticipate the long term effects the passing of this bill would have, so regardless of WHICH side of the debate you fall into, and I think we can agree no camps will ever be fully satisfied with any outcomes of this permanent issue, we could ALL be affected by the outcomes of this legislation. 

It is proposed that an ultrasound be performed on women who elect to have an abortion.  They may sign a waiver that says “No thank you I prefer not see the images.” 

I can clearly see what the goal on the surface is with this bill, but the underlying intent is what concerns me.  Exactly where will the additional cost of this ultrasound be laid? 

Surely not on the taxpayers… but on the pregnant women and/or the daddies, therefore putting abortion out of the grasps of the majority of folks seeking them.

Ultrasounds are rather expensive.

Arguments aside about birth control and responsibility; again, this is not the intent here.  Though I would be interested in finding out actual numbers of folks who protest abortions and how many of them actually are willing to open their homes to adoption or foster care.

With the advent and passage of this bill, there will be an increase in unwanted pregnancies, ergo, unwanted children.

This COULD and likely WILL affect an already beleaguered child welfare system in many ways. 

Reality is, you cannot force people to be GOOD parents when they resent the child and being “forced” by the government to have it.  (Low incomers, for example, will feel forced as they simply won’t have the funds available…)

What problems can you foresee with the passage of this proposed bill?

7 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 7
Page 1 of 1
PastorD read my blog view my photos
Mar 1, 2008 | 10:52 AM

As a pastor, who has counseled many woman who would be affected by this... I say it will cause more problems and it will be unhelpful to MOST. My reasons fo this view are: 1)From my experience, most woman WILL NOT change their mind based on a ultrasound. 2) Most of them WHO seek an abortion will OPT out ( thanks, but no thanks attitude).

Though I, personally don't agree with abortion... This is just another way to clog the system and put people under a microscope who are already in a compromised state of mental condition. Who is "We the People" or "We the Meddling Govenment" to suggest or force such things??????

I just feel the money would better spent with "Counseling". There are many programs that will assist woman and teens with assistance through "Home Families" which take teens in (through donations, not govt. support)! The teen lives with them, is able to continue with school, provided with well pregnancy care and they the help find adoptive families.
PastorD read my blog view my photos
Mar 1, 2008 | 11:03 AM

Also, if more support groups were available, some, by care groups who would opt in for child care time sharing, so the girls could finish their educations. It would be a tremendous help for a better future. This is something that some churches are putting together that has been very successful. The gals set up a calandar and work together to accomplish child care while gettting educated. It also provides a positive influence for the girls because they work together, build strong relationships and see that they are not alone..... They can succeed.

I'm for promoting a positive plan of action, not another goverment plan that COST $$$$$ AND HELPS NONE!
FloydFreak read my blog view my photos
Mar 1, 2008 | 1:20 PM

Great blog, as always, from my friends, thebradleys!

I am not what you would call "pro-abortion" but I am most decidedly NOT "anti-choice". I view abortion as, like many things in society, a necessary evil and it is my belief that the government has no business meddling in it.

That said, I do not believe in carte blanche for women and abortion. Everyone makes mistakes but I do not advocate abortion as a method of birth control nor do I advocate late-term abortions.

This proposal sounds like another boondoggle that is going to end up costing YOU and ME a ton of money. And for WHAT? Exactly what benefit is to be derived from it? If you look at it as value received for dollar spent, this sounds like a loser indeed.
Vittorio read my blog view my photos
Mar 1, 2008 | 4:59 PM

Seems silly to me; just no benefit for anyone but the Ultrasound folks. This is an area where I feel the government has no business spending our money. It WILL come from tax dollars.
thebradleys read my blog
Mar 2, 2008 | 5:44 AM

Good morning all!

My concerns EXACTLY.

PastorD - I admire your solution-oriented mindset. Perhaps if this thing passes we can put you on the task force the state will create to figure out a solution to the created problems!

My Hero Floyd: Thank you - you are so kind. :-)

EXACTLY. (My God, man, you always pinpoint it!) NECESSARY EVIL. (May I use that in the future if need be?)

In some way, in some fashion, we are ALL going to be involved (simply another word for affected) and it will be in the pocketbook. I can only pray this thing doesn't fully pass, and at least has to be rewritten. Though from what I read, it did pass one part of the House.

Vittorio: I agree. It IS an intensely personal matter. It is not in me either to judge those who have been in that situation. I just cannot decide if they will force tax payers to pay at the ultrasound end, or if we will end up paying for foster care even more than we are now...

If it is inevitable that the tax payers shall be affected, then I think I will have to cast my vote on tax payers paying for ultrasounds rather than up to 18 years of foster care for an as yet unnamed percentage of unwanted children.

Oh, but that reads so cold. Sometimes truth can make you feel so ashamed.

Thank you all.
yellowdog read my blog view my photos
Mar 2, 2008 | 10:55 AM

The rationale of mandating ultrasounds is to shame the women into birthing the baby...if the mother sees a living, moving image they will be less inclined to abort.

Abortion is one of the most difficult decisions one can be forced to make. If the opponents of abortion would all agree to adopt and give a loving home to each and every unwanted fetus....there would be no need to abort..except to save the life of the mother.

Roe v. Wade is likely to be overturned if the right wing court has it's way or receives another RWNJ justice..

The government needs to keep it's nose out of this decision as much as possible. I cannot imagine the need for a society to mandate a rape victim to carry the fetus of the criminal for 9 months for example..
thebradleys read my blog
Mar 2, 2008 | 2:46 PM

[applauds yellowdog]

Our foster care system is OVERBURDENED and there is a shortage of families willing to adopt thee kids.... I cannot help but wonder every time I see Right to Life protestors how many of them ACTUALLY have adoptd these unwanted children they are trying to save?

It's money where the mouth is time.

I recall a case that involved incest/rape of a minor (11 years old!) and pregnancy; she became a ward of the State. Talk about NO-choice.

Makes ya' think.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




thebradleys

We have watched Good Day Tampa Bay and Fox News 13 since it became Fox many, many years ago. I've lived on this coast since 1982 but hail from Horse Country, TN. In RL I not only run two websites, but am researching a compilation work for publication (I can disappear for days in my books!) I work with wildlife (naturally Cynthia Smoot is one of my fave journalists!) and I like to participate in the "wildlife" here on the Blogs - a little human interaction is a refreshing change on occasion. However, hiding behind a monitor does not give one license to be rude; personal attacks reveal their maker's own inadequacies and insecurities as a speaker. (Is that the best ya' got???) Thoughts and opinions may differ (thank God for choice as Americans!), but the more reasonable a differing opinion sounds, the more likely the listener is to consider it fairly. Be safe, be fair, be nice - and most importantly, don't run with scissors. They haven't invented downloadable bandaids yet.

Member Since: 2/14/2007


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?