You do realize that you're currently teasing (?) Joel about tangents, and then you thought you needed a really long paragraph about astrology to get your point across?


I do believe that. It should be her responsibility, and not necessarily ours to try to enforce a longer waiting period on her. I respect your right to your opinion that abortion is a Bad thing and that she should show you she has at least gone through your approved steps, but I still believe that if it is her choice, we have to be very careful about exactly what advice and timeline we try to push on her. I don't think we need to discuss this further - I've conceded what I will (see more mention of this below), and I assume you have as well.


I do not care if you "nod your heads," but I do believe that when something is a law, you have to be careful about what you push on people. I don't go for "it's a slippery slope!" but I still get a little nervous when people push too far. I'd think you were being dishonest if you said you didn't know anyone who was in favor of more hoops, in hopes that it might be too much for some women. I am not saying that is a majority argument; I have no idea of the stat. However, it doesn't mean it won't possibly get the hackles up if it looks like someone is trying to force his/her morality upon me.



You can't think of any? I'm wondering if this is a case in which our opinions could differ because you aren't a woman. I can think of several right off the bat, and they aren't all related to abuse (and, yes, not all good). For one thing, I think it depends entirely upon the assumption that you and your SO would in a loving and supportive situation. I've come across quite a few unhealthy relationships in my time (sounds like you surely must have too), and I can imagine situations in which a woman might not want to share the drama.


Ok, breaking this down. When we started, it sounded like you said there was close to a consensus on the Roe v. Wade precedent and that many are in favor of states taking over the issue - I didn't know that you were ever speaking of a federal situation, no matter how clever your gun-waiting-period comment might be. So I guess I got confused somewhere in there - if many states already think they should have a waiting period, and it is often 24 hours (as I pointed out two posts ago, and conceded that I don't have a problem with a reasonable wait period), it sounded as though you were backing an extension by bumping it up to 48 hours (or whatever the gun law is). And that felt arbitrary to me, as in, how does one decide how much more time constitutes an appropriate wait?


So, you didn't answer my question. I don't disagree AT ALL that they most likely did this for the reason you suggest (I do also have some real-world experiences, btw, and had come to that same conclusion many months ago), but yet you've made waves about abortion coming first. As if the fact that the links to the other information right there aren't worth anything, because it throws up flags that they might be worried that you'll accuse them of an agenda! I ask again, should the order truly matter?



So, what is your point? If you're suggesting they were wrong to arrange it (alphabetically or otherwise) because it shows a fear of being attacked for an agenda, what exactly did you want them to do with the information? I just don't really get the point of this whole middle conversation, because the other information IS THERE and easy to find. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand this, so I'm assuming I've TOTALLY missed your point.


Is that what I said the instinct was?

And, even though I'm bored of trying to explain this, I have to point out that you're wrong. Some people's first instinct would most definitely be to go to some place like PP to get an official test and information.


Ok, well, we're obviously going to keep disagreeing on how much time for thinking there is between suspecting one is pregnant and actually showing up for the procedure. I have no inclination to discuss this or the instinct comment further. Done.


I do agree with it, and I edited out the fluff (sorry) so that I could point to something on which we agree. I have no problem with a physician/counselor speaking to a potential patient (I would suggest it for any friend or family), and I believe that this is generally offered to women seeking abortions. I would have to see a law before voting for it, if it included anything like forcing counseling on a woman, but I do fully support having educated staff ready and available to answer any questions and to explain the process.


And what if it's the side of the govt you don't like making up the bulk of the language in the spiel? Do you feel confident that there would be no slant to the content?


Isn't it the USDA that's been telling us for years that it's appropriate to eat quite a few servings of refined bread and pastas? You have more faith in these people than I do, but I refuse to go into my conspiracy-theory-sounding tirade on what has been suggested go into our regular diets, who profits from it and what that does to us.


And either should be my own fault. *shrugs*