Reply #36: Thanks for the answers, but I still have a few questions [View All]

the non-penised second-class citizen subjegation act is problematic because it presumes that the waiting period only begins when a woman elects to go to a provider to terminate a pregnancy. I'd say the waiting period began when she learned she was preggers.

as for equating it with the gun waiting-period logic, well, I don't care all that much, myself, if you (as a law-abiding citizen with all your shots) march down to the local redneck mall and buy yourself a pair of M2s to mount on your front porch, 'k? If you want to go argue that up or down, fine. But it's got nothing to do with this bill.

I think the waiting period begins once she meets with the doctor. Mind you, I don't want anything like a three week waiting period, but a few days won't change anything legally, but it will allow women to become more informed of their options and then make an informed choice, rather than one based on fear.

And the gun reference is relevant. If someone finds out his wife is cheating on him, and he can go to the corner store and buy a gun within five minutes, then he can return and kill her and possibly her lover. But if he has to wait a few days, he will have a chance to calm down, talk to her, and think over it.

Thus, a life is saved. This was one of the flows of logic behind the gun control acts of the 1990's. By giving people a chance to think and calm down, one can save lives.

The same is true of abortion. The majority of women who have abortions are young, poor, single, and overworked as it is. So do you think that they have the time to research all of the options available to them, or do they just think of abortion as the only feasible option?

Just because they have thought about it doesn't mean they've made an informed choice.

I can sympathize with the parental notification part regarding incest. But if the minor were to call the police, or tell another adult and have him call the police, then they could obtain an abortion. That would be an intelligent solution to me. You would prevent any more molestation AND help the child get help.

And the third one kind of does seem extreme if they use it to go after car accidents. I would say that the bill would have to say that it could only be treated as a crime if it could be established that 'the injurer was deliberatley, whether through the passion of the moment, or through planning, to harm or damage either the woman or the fetus.' You can't use it on a car accident then. No one has an accident purposefully.