New Abortion Laws, ultrasound mandatory... Unethical?

[daves2000ls]

Unfortunately, this method results in the DEATH of a HUMAN LIFE, something you apparently seem to be ok with.

Are you sure you didnt mean to say AMERICAN LIFE? Since you think the war is a good thing and war results in the DEATHS of HUMAN LIVES.

 

[Calabrio]

There's no need to assume when there is abundant first hand information to refer to.

So, where are your references? I have seen none.

Are they necessary?

Are you challenging the statement? Do you maintain that my statement is false, or just looking to make busy work?

A simple Google search will provide me scores of examples.

 

[fossten]

Are you sure you didnt mean to say AMERICAN LIFE? Since you think the war is a good thing and war results in the DEATHS of HUMAN LIVES.

Let me clarify. I'm referring to innocent life. An unborn baby is the penultimate innocent life. This life cannot protect itself, has done no harm to anyone, and deserves to be born into the world and have a shot at continuing the life path. No person should be permitted by law to take an innocent life due to convenience or as a form of birth control.

 

[Marcus]

By the way, you should read the article that leads this thread, and note the quote from the pro-abortion activist woman before you speak out of such ignorance. She clearly makes the case that pregnancies are a bad thing.

I did read it, and I can only conclude that you completely missed the point of her statement. She wasn't expressing her own opinion, she expressing the perceived attitude of abortion opponents themselves. It's a common argument, but a valid one, that pro-lifers are only concerned with an unborn child, but once it is born, it's the mother's problem. Just another drain on tax dollars, unworthy of consideration.

 

[Calabrio]

This I agree on, except, how is forcing an image informing them? Wouldn't it be just as efficient at informing the woman if the doctor just talked to her about it? Provided her with imageless pamphlets. Just information.

What is your hang-up? The expression "a picture is worth a thousand words" isn't without value here. So, NO, an inhuman, imageless pamphlet is NOT just as informative as seeing something.

Recently, I had the opportunity to view the BODIES exhibition in Tampa. In case you don't know what the BODIES exhibition is, here's a link:
http://www.bodiestheexhibition.com/intro.html

On display were fetus, at all levels of development, shown by week. I do consider myself well read and educated, and I thought I had a good understanding of fetal development, having taken a child development class in college and having done a good deal of reading. But after seeing these preserved examples, I was absolutely speechless. I hadn't been able to really comprehend the issue until I saw it in person. I was really moved and shaken by the experience.

That is an image of a fetus that can be aborted in every state in the country, without any legal complications. It's still in the first trimester.

A picture is infinitely more powerful than text. And a moving image of something alive is even more powerful than cold technical information.


It's a regulated procedure, so legally it's o.k. to add restrictions. Do any of you have the ability to argue why this regulation is bad? Is there a downside to it? Does it do harm? Is there a negative consequence? So what's the argument against this one.

 

[Iszi]

Any responsible gun owner - and probably even most anti-gun non-owners - will tell you that one of the top rules of gun usage is knowing and validating your target before pulling the trigger. Who knows, if you shoot an un-identified target in the middle of the night you may be killing a member of your own family.

What's the big deal with applying the same to one choosing to proceed with (pull the trigger on) an abortion? An abortion is just as much - and in fact, more certainly so - a life-terminating procedure as a gun can be a life-terminating instrument. So, why not apply the same common sense? Who knows, if you go through with it you may just be killing someone that you could otherwise grow to love and cherish the rest of your life, or that some other family would feel eternally blessed to welcome with open arms!

 

[fossten]

I did read it, and I can only conclude that you completely missed the point of her statement. She wasn't expressing her own opinion, she expressing the perceived attitude of abortion opponents themselves. It's a common argument, but a valid one, that pro-lifers are only concerned with an unborn child, but once it is born, it's the mother's problem. Just another drain on tax dollars, unworthy of consideration.

It's a bullcrap argument, and you cannot substantiate it with any empirical evidence. It's nothing but ad hominem talking points. Nice try.

 

[daves2000ls]

Is is as if not MORE INFORMATIVE. That is it imparts more knowledge than an image. An image would be more emotional. Which is just wrong, to strike a deep emotional chord in an already emotional being. Just give her information such as the likelihood that she will be injured during the procedure. As well as referrals to psychiatrists to help in dealing with the emotional side of it. Hell, give her the option of seeing an ultrasound, but to FORCE it onto someone is the defintion of unAmerican.

 

[Frogman]

I don't understand why we Americans put ourselves through all this sensitivity crap. One quick trip to Mehico, and no more pregnancy. And lets be honest here... Medicine is much cheaper in Mexico, as are skilled Doctors. I'm not talking about Jose that went to pre-med and is now doing abortions kinda' doctor. I'm talking about specialists.

Most people don't realize how easy it is to go to another country and get medical care you could never get in the states. When's the last time you guys heard of a RICH person waiting for an organ transplant? They don't. They go to countries where they can purchase the organ they need for next to nothing, and have it "installed" in a state of the art facility that was built specifically to deal with organ transplants. Once that's done, they come back home and enjoy their newly replaced organ.

I have a friend of mine who was involved in a crash that took out 9 or 10 of his teeth. Here in the states, it would have cost him something like 35K to have them all replaced with implants. He went to Europe, Specfically Romania, and for 7 grand he got all of his missing teeth replaced with top notch implants. This was 2 years ago, and he's still chomping (no pun intended) away. 7 Grand for the chompers, about 2 grand fro airfare and living expnses, and he came out ahead... big time.


I guess my point is, America isn't the only place to get "medical" care, or in this case, abortions. America isn't the only country with "specialists", though I wonder about some of the American doctor "specialists" at times.

 

[Marcus]

It's a bullcrap argument, and you cannot substantiate it with any empirical evidence. It's nothing but ad hominem talking points. Nice try.

Whether it is or it isn't, the point is that you misinterpreted her statement, thinking she was expressing her own feelings about children, which she wasn't.

 

[fossten]

Whether it is or it isn't, the point is that you misinterpreted her statement, thinking she was expressing her own feelings about children, which she wasn't.

"You love them in the womb, but once they get here, it's a different story," said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat and a social worker. "You're sitting here passing judgment? Who gave you the right?"

There is no indication whatsoever that she was expressing anything other than her true feelings. Your attempt to say otherwise indicates a desperate attempt to draw any elixir you can from the statement, but you still come up empty.

Got any more bullcrap desperate arguments you want to try? (Not that anybody takes you seriously on this subject anyway)