New Abortion Laws, ultrasound mandatory... Unethical?

[TheDude]

This has both sides panties in a knot...

COLUMBIA, S.C. - With calls of emotional blackmail from opponents, a measure requiring women seeking abortions to first review ultrasound images of their fetuses advanced Wednesday in the South Carolina Legislature.

The legislation, supported by Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, passed 91-23 after lawmakers defeated amendments exempting rape or incest. The House must approve the bill again in a routine vote before it goes to the Senate, where its sponsor expects it to pass with those exemptions.

Some states make ultrasound images available to women before an abortion, but South Carolina would be alone in requiring women to view the pictures.

Critics consider the proposal a tool to intimidate women who already have made an agonizing decision.

"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?"

Proponents hope women will change their minds after seeing an ultrasound.

Rep. Alan Clemmons, choking back tears as he talked about his two adopted children, recalled a prayer given by his 11-year-old daughter.

"She thanked her God, her father in heaven for her birth mother for loving her enough to give her life," said Clemmons, a Republican. "I thank my God for those young mothers who chose to give them life."

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Delleney, a Republican, said the measure would save lives and a lifetime of regret for some women.

“She can determine for herself whether she is carrying an unborn child deserving of protection or whether it’s just an inconvenient, unnecessary part of her body and an abortion fits her circumstances at that time,” Delleney told NBC affiliate WIS-TV of Columbia.

The state's three abortion clinics already perform ultrasounds, paid for by the woman seeking the procedure, to determine the fetus' age. The state's informed-consent law, passed in 1994, requires abortion doctors to tell women at least an hour before the operation the likely age of their fetus and give them information about fetal development and alternatives to abortion.

-Michigan to require chance to see fetus

An opponent, Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat, said there was no need to change the law, because women already have access to ultrasound images if they want them.

“It suggests that women don’t know what they’re doing, that they’ve arrived at this decision quite lightly, and nothing could be further from the truth,” Cobb-Hunter told WIS.

For Chappell Fennell, the mother of a newborn, it’s a close call, but in the final analysis, she said, it’s a bad idea.

“I can see both sides,” Fennell told WIS. “I think it’s a woman’s decision in the end, and that’s how it should be. I don’t think it should be left up to senators or House members whether or not she should look at an ultrasound.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/

Personally, I don't see a problem with it; another [rare] instance I lean Right.

 

[rmac694203]

I don't see a problem with it except for the rape and incest part. It is a POWERFUL thing for a woman to look at an ultrasound, trust me it brings my fiancee to tears when she sees them, and for a woman who has been raped to have to look at it seems kind of cruel to me. I am not against abortions but I think they are doing the right thing to try to persuade women not to get them.

 

[Iszi]

*Double-post*

 

[Iszi]

I don't see a problem with it except for the rape and incest part. It is a POWERFUL thing for a woman to look at an ultrasound, trust me it brings my fiancee to tears when she sees them, and for a woman who has been raped to have to look at it seems kind of cruel to me.

In my humble (but male) opinion, an ultrasound image should be the last thing to actually hold weight in the decision of whether or not to go through with an abortion.

Personally, I don't believe abortions should be done except in cases where the pregnancy or delivery would jeopardize the life of the mother. Even putting that aside, the only factors I think should be weighing on the mind of the mother should be those affecting her ability to provide for the physical and emotional needs of the baby.

Regardless of my position on the ethical aspects, if an ultrasound image is enough to make a person change their mind from such a decision as this, then I think that's enough to show they made the wrong choice in the first place.

 

[fossten]

This law is the opposite of unethical. It simply shows the mother the truth. It will reverse the unethical behavior of abortion clinics who lie to pregnant women, telling them that it's just a mass of tissue in their womb, like a clot, that it isn't a baby yet, and that the "procedure" is safe and won't hurt. Don't tell me that abortion clinics don't play on a woman's emotions, especially fear, telling them that they are going to bring the baby into a horrible world, that the baby will suffer, starve, or otherwise be miserable, and that it's so much easier to "terminate." They also avoid allowing the mother to see her baby on the ultrasound, because they know that the mother will be more likely to want to keep the baby. If these people are truly pro-choice, why are they trying so hard to get the mother to have an abortion? Wouldn't pro-choice involve giving the mother a balanced set of facts and allow her to make her own decision? But they don't do that. They WANT the mother to have an abortion.

Here's the proof, right out of the article: "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?" In other words, WE DON'T WANT THESE WOMEN TO KEEP THEIR BABIES. Or, WE HATE KIDS.

I'd like to know who gave Cobb-Hunter the right to prevent these women from seeing their babies. Or to commit murder, for that matter.

The truth is that less than 1% of all abortions performed are due to rape or incest. Do we punish children for the crimes of their parents? What's the difference between killing a baby in the womb because its father committed rape, and killing a four-year-old child because his/her father committed murder?

 

[TheDude]

This law is the opposite of unethical. It simply shows the mother the truth. It will reverse the unethical behavior of abortion clinics who lie to pregnant women, telling them that it's just a mass of tissue in their womb, like a clot, that it isn't a baby yet, and that the "procedure" is safe and won't hurt. Don't tell me that abortion clinics don't play on a woman's emotions, especially fear, telling them that they are going to bring the baby into a horrible world, that the baby will suffer, starve, or otherwise be miserable, and that it's so much easier to "terminate." They also avoid allowing the mother to see her baby on the ultrasound, because they know that the mother will be more likely to want to keep the baby. If these people are truly pro-choice, why are they trying so hard to get the mother to have an abortion? Wouldn't pro-choice involve giving the mother a balanced set of facts and allow her to make her own decision? But they don't do that. They WANT the mother to have an abortion.

Here's the proof, right out of the article: "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?" In other words, WE DON'T WANT THESE WOMEN TO KEEP THEIR BABIES. Or, WE HATE KIDS.

I'd like to know who gave Cobb-Hunter the right to prevent these women from seeing their babies. Or to commit murder, for that matter.

The truth is that less than 1% of all abortions performed are due to rape or incest. Do we punish children for the crimes of their parents? What's the difference between killing a baby in the womb because its father committed rape, and killing a four-year-old child because his/her father committed murder?

Not that I disagree with you, but most pro-choice people will argue on the grounds that a "fetus" isn't a person; though technically correct, it's still human.

I also found the "You love them in the womb, but once they get here, it's a different story..." passage simply laughable; seems like this woman has some serious luggage and is using her own bias to state fact. Like childbirth is a horrible thing.

 

[segxr7]

Sounds like a great idea! While we're at it, how about:

-Anyone who wants to buy a steak or a leather belt should be forced to view photos of slaughtered cow carcasses.

-Anyone wishing to join a Roman Catholic Church much first take a class to learn the "truth" about the religion so they can make a well-informed decision. Primary topics will be the Spanish Inquisition, the Mafia, and child-molesting priests.

-Want to buy a gun? That's fine, but first you'll have to view illustrations of what your family members would look like if they were shot in the face with a 12-gauge. Because you should understand the implications of having a deadly firearm sitting around your house, y'know.


To me, the abortion aspect is completely irrelevant. What infuriates me is the idea that it's acceptable for the government to influence people with these kinds of ploys. If a mentally competent adult woman decides to engage in a perfectly legal activity (having an abortion, for instance), that's none of the government's f---ing business.

To those of you who support this proposal: Think about the kind of precedent that it would set, and remember that a lot of politicians would love to manipulate the populace in ways that you might not agree with as much.

 

[Calabrio]

Sounds like a great idea! While we're at it, how about:

Let's examine your logic. Do you think abortion is something that while legal should be discouraged? And do you really think the examples you provide are really moral equivalents?

-Anyone who wants to buy a steak or a leather belt should be forced to view photos of slaughtered cow carcasses.

..steak IS a slaughtered cow carcass. Are you saying that society should discourage the consumption of beef? Are you equating bovine life to that of human life? You're trivializing a very serious issue.

-Anyone wishing to join a Roman Catholic Church much first take a class to learn the "truth" about the religion so they can make a well-informed decision. Primary topics will be the Spanish Inquisition, the Mafia, and child-molesting priests.

No. That is an idiotic statement on your part. First of all, in your pathetic attempt to hatefully lash out, you've demonstrated your gross ignorance. If you want to discuss the "Spanish Inquisition," that's fine, explain why you think that is relevant. But the mafia and child molestation have nothing to do with the religion, nor are they done in the name of the religion.

Further more, do you think practicing a religion is the same thing as destroying an unborn child?

-Want to buy a gun? That's fine, but first you'll have to view illustrations of what your family members would look like if they were shot in the face with a 12-gauge. Because you should understand the implications of having a deadly firearm sitting around your house, y'know.

Again, while I think it's apparent that you're too ignorant to actually discuss this issue like a mature adult, I'll correct you. You're comparassion doesn't work. Gun's aren't purchased with the INTENTION of shooting your family in the face.

If a person did INTEND to kill their family, the yes, maybe it would be a good idea to quickly show them how horrific it will be. And then quickly put them in jail.

To me, the abortion aspect is completely irrelevant.

Seems to me that the "abortion aspect" is the most important part here.

What infuriates me is the idea that it's acceptable for the government to influence people with these kinds of ploys. If a mentally competent adult woman decides to engage in a perfectly legal activity (having an abortion, for instance), that's none of the government's f---ing business.

Your logic is grossly flawed and based on ignorance. First of all, a woman who is inquiring to have an abortion isn't necessarily functioning as a "mentally competent adult." It goes without saying, that it is often a very emotionally intense and traumatic experience. Furthermore, we also do know that these women often encounter "help" from Planned Parenthood that pressures them into make the decision to abort.

We KNOW that abortion is unhealthy for women, both physically and emotionally. We also have the profound ethical and moral issues associated with the termination of an unborn child.

Now why is it considered a negative to make certain that a woman has a full understanding of the biological situation, and consequences, she's facing before making that life altering decision.

Reasonable and decent people, on either sides of the pro-life/choice debate agree, abortion should be discouraged. Ideally we want these numbers to decline. To oppose this measure means you fall into the category of radical freak who thinks innocent life should be slaughtered to advance a warped, twisted, social agenda.

To those of you who support this proposal: Think about the kind of precedent that it would set, and remember that a lot of politicians would love to manipulate the populace in ways that you might not agree with as much.

There is no negative consequence to this. Your examples are stupid and are a bad attempt at making a hateful point. Behavior that is DESTRUCTIVE to our society certainly should be discouraged. And in this case, it's simply making more of the information available to the perspective mother.

But, to reverse your logic- the precedent has already been set. We have warning labels on our cigarettes. We have warning labels on foods with transfats. We have warning labels in our cars telling us to buckle our seat belts, not put children infront of the airbags, and that the objects in our mirrors may be closer than they appear. When I use a hammer, I'm told to wear protective eye wear. So, why shouldn't a woman who's going to have a very invasive procedure be told that it may increase her chances of cancer, she's risking infertility, that she's likely to suffer long term emotion harm due to the decision, and see what it exactly is that she will be destroying? Unless you think high abortion rates are a good thing....

 

[shagdrum]

If a mentally competent adult woman decides to engage in a perfectly legal activity (having an abortion, for instance), that's none of the government's f---ing business.

To those of you who support this proposal: Think about the kind of precedent that it would set, and remember that a lot of politicians would love to manipulate the populace in ways that you might not agree with as much.

Since Calabrio has show your "logic" to be anything but, I won't waste my time rehashing that point. What does stand out to me is how strongly u oppose this measure, almost like u cherish the "right" to abort. Any rational person on either side of the debate would agree that at best abortion is a neccessary evil, never anything to be proud of.
my own personal beef with the abortion issue is a procedural one. Roe v. Wade didn't establish a "right" to abortion, the courts don't have that power. In fact the ruling in Roe v. Wade was blatant judicial activism. IMHO, this issue should be put to a vote, in the form of an ammendment. We still have much political strife around this issue, and a vote on a law would go a long way to quieting that strife.

 

[segxr7]

Let's examine your logic. Do you think abortion is something that while legal should be discouraged?

Yes I do. But do I think that's the government's business? Nope.

And do you really think the examples you provide are really moral equivalents?

You obviously aren't getting my point. I am not equating infants with cows or guns or religions.

I'm arguing against the notion that it's acceptable for the government to ignore *its own laws* and manipulate its citizens into following certain moral agendas.

Gun's aren't purchased with the INTENTION of shooting your family in the face.

Of course not. But I'm talking about politics; not common sense. Remember the "assault weapon" ban? The government outlawed certain types of guns by declaring that people who bought them intended to murder people.

Your logic is grossly flawed and based on ignorance. First of all, a woman who is inquiring to have an abortion isn't necessarily functioning as a "mentally competent adult." It goes without saying, that it is often a very emotionally intense and traumatic experience.

So you're saying we should assume anyone facing an "emotionally intense and traumatic experience" cannot make decisions for themselves? Hmmm..

Furthermore, we also do know that these women often encounter "help" from Planned Parenthood that pressures them into make the decision to abort.

Furthermore, we also do know that these women often encounter "help" from religious groups and other pro-life organizations which pressures them into make the decision *not* to abort.

I see nothing wrong with either situation. If you don't see a distinction between groups of private citizens sharing their views with someone, and the government FORCING a certain point of view on someone, well.. I really don't know what to tell you.

We KNOW that abortion is unhealthy for women, both physically and emotionally.

Yep. Just like alcohol, tobacco, trans-fats, videogames, and incandescent lightbulbs.

Now why is it considered a negative to make certain that a woman has a full understanding of the biological situation, and consequences, she's facing before making that life altering decision.

What is so ambiguous and confusing about the situation? We're not talking about a David Lynch movie here.

Reasonable and decent people, on either sides of the pro-life/choice debate agree, abortion should be discouraged. Ideally we want these numbers to decline. To oppose this measure means you fall into the category of radical freak who thinks innocent life should be slaughtered to advance a warped, twisted, social agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[fossten]

-Want to buy a gun? That's fine, but first you'll have to view illustrations of what your family members would look like if they were shot in the face with a 12-gauge. Because you should understand the implications of having a deadly firearm sitting around your house, y'know.

I'd gladly trade the current background checks, waiting period, bogus restrictions on carrying concealed, and all the other unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership for a law that requires the owner to view drawings of what kind of disaster could result from careless ownership of guns. We already get the riot act read to us when we take a conceal/carry class.

To me, the abortion aspect is completely irrelevant. What infuriates me is the idea that it's acceptable for the government to influence people with these kinds of ploys. If a mentally competent adult woman decides to engage in a perfectly legal activity (having an abortion, for instance), that's none of the government's f---ing business.

As I stated above, an "adult" woman (even that premise is false, most are young, even teenagers) seeking an abortion is typically lied to and influenced to have an abortion instead of keeping the baby. What is your liberal obsession with ensuring more abortions occur? What is the problem with the government putting a leash on these bloodthirsty clinic workers who have been trained to have a success rate of 100% abortions?

To those of you who support this proposal: Think about the kind of precedent that it would set, and remember that a lot of politicians would love to manipulate the populace in ways that you might not agree with as much.

How about five unelected lawyers in black robes going against the will of the people and deciding the fate of 50 million babies over the last 30+ years? Seems a bit unbalanced, doesn't it? Do you like the idea of your freedoms decided by a handful of unelected people?

 

[segxr7]

Roe v. Wade didn't establish a "right" to abortion, the courts don't have that power. In fact the ruling in Roe v. Wade was blatant judicial activism. IMHO, this issue should be put to a vote, in the form of an ammendment. We still have much political strife around this issue, and a vote on a law would go a long way to quieting that strife.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. At this point in time, however, abortion is legal. And the government exists to uphold and enforce *laws*. Not to take sides on controversial issues.

 

[Calabrio]

Yes I do. But do I think that's the government's business? Nope.

Then let us quickly establish what do you think the job of the government is.

You obviously aren't getting my point. I am not equating infants with cows or guns or religions.

I do get your point, but you constructed an argument that does exactly what I said.

I'm arguing against the notion that it's acceptable for the government to ignore *its own laws* and manipulate its citizens into following certain moral agendas.

What law would this be in violation of? What law is being ignored by putting in place a procedure designed to make sure people have all the information available to them before making destructive and dangerous positions. And also noting that these decision are often now being made in an environment that is starving these people of information.

As for following a certain "moral" agenda... Almost all laws are based on a "moral agenda." I can't go and murder someone out of frustration, both because of the morality, in addition to the legality of the issue.

The argument that government or laws shouldn't reflect morality is dishonest and false. What you're really saying is that YOU want to decide which morals are enforced by the power of government, and not others.

Which is o.k. but the issue of abortion has skirted this. Dismissing the argument that an unborn child is protected by the rights of the constitution, and that he does have the right to life, this abortion debate has been moved out of the political realm by an activist Supreme Court in what is often considered one of the most poorly constructed decisions in the courts modern history. And in doing, rendered the issue as an all or nothing proposition, outside of the political process, eliminating the possibility of compromise or debate.

Of course not. But I'm talking about politics; not common sense. Remember the "assault weapon" ban? The government outlawed certain types of guns by declaring that people who bought them intended to murder people.

And I opposed the notion of outlawing guns because they look nasty. But it's an unrelated point.

So you're saying we should assume anyone facing an "emotionally intense and traumatic experience" cannot make decisions for themselves? Hmmm..

I'm not presuming anything. I'm stating, very clearly, that in this situation, we are dealing with women who are experiencing emotionally intense and traumatic experiences. This isn't a subjective statement.

Furthermore, we also do know that these women often encounter "help" from religious groups and other pro-life organizations which pressures them into make the decision *not* to abort.

No, to the contrary. These women DO NOT often encounter the kind of help you refer to. That kind of help isn't allowed access to "Planned Parenthood." Unfortunately, right now, they are only offered the counsel of the proponents of the procedure, and any attempt to provide them additional information is opposed by people like yourself, and the zealots who seem to endorse the sick procedure in order to advance their social agenda.

But you're point is strange. You're critical of people who might try to "pressure" a woman into not aborting? Wouldn't that be the best choice? Wouldn't it be preferential that a life wasn't destroyed? Wouldn't it be better if the woman didn't have that physical and emotional scars that accompany the procedure? Is it better to be ripped apart into pieces by a vacuum cleaner with a blade on it than to grow up in a foster home, or adopted by a loving family?

I see nothing wrong with either situation. If you don't see a distinction between groups of private citizens sharing their views with someone, and the government FORCING a certain point of view on someone, well.. I really don't know what to tell you.

What is the point of view? If you actively don't want the mother to see EXACTLY what is going to happen, then you are acting as a proponent, hoping to change her decision.

We have two options here- we can starve the woman of information and allow her to be pressured by those in the business of abortion. Or, we can make sure a woman knows as much information as possible before making a decision that is ultimately destructive and erodes the value and sanctity of life within our society.

Yep. Just like alcohol, tobacco, trans-fats, videogames, and incandescent lightbulbs.

You don't seem to think the warning labels on those are unconstitutional or against the law here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You're argument was weak and poorly constructed enough, there's no need to build a strawman when you're posting arguments like these.

 

[DLS8K]

Firstly, I don't think any of us that have posted have dealt with an issue such as abortion in the first or second person sense. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to assume what that person is going through or who/what will influence their decision to have or not have an abortion.

At the end of the day, the decision will ultimately come from the mother of the child. She may or may not know the implications that her decision will cause....no one can be certain. But for now, there is a law protecting woman who do choose to go through with an abortion.....just as there are laws protecting the people whom provide the services.

Is it acceptable for a person to go into an abortion clinic and kill the women and doctors there so that no more babies will be killed? Is it acceptable for people to intimidate and threaten the women who visit these clinics? Is it acceptable for society or government to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body? I believe the answer is no for all. One human life cannot be traded for another.......one is not more valuable than the next.

If you feel abortion is wrong, that is your choice. However, at what point do you draw the line? Do you say human life starts at conception? If so, than the only reason to engage in intercourse is to create life...which is a religious view that is not shared by the masses. In the Catholic church, birth control is viewed as blasphemy. Have any of you ever used a condom??? I'm assuming yes......which in that case, you prevented a life from forming. If that is not the fundamental cause for argument, what is???

I'll be waiting for Fossten and maybe even Calabrio to pick me apart on this......and that's fine. I'll be looking forward to the, "You're going to Hell" comments as well as the, "That's an idiotic statement." At the end of the day, however, neither one of them is a female and their grounds to accurately argue what goes through a woman's head are speculative at best.

 

[rmac694203]

Firstly, I don't think any of us that have posted have dealt with an issue such as abortion in the first or second person sense.

I have. My G/F got an abortion when we were like 16. It was very hard for her and she cried more than I've ever seen anyone cry, especially when she looked at pictures of the ultrasound. She doesn't dwell on it now because I have a son that is about to be a year old, and another one on the way later this year. We give my son all the love and attention a baby deserves, and I think that could not have been done when we were so young, in high school, and still had no idea what was going on in our lives.

 

[Calabrio]

Therefore, I do not think it is fair to assume what that person is going through or who/what will influence their decision to have or not have an abortion.

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

But for now, there is a law protecting woman who do choose to go through with an abortion.....just as there are laws protecting the people whom provide the services.

The issue at hand here isn't whether the law is currently legal or not. The legality of the procedure is an entirely separate debate.

Is it acceptable for a person to go into an abortion clinic and kill the women and doctors there so that no more babies will be killed?

No, that is completely unacceptable and you'll find almost universal agreement on that point. But that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here.

Is it acceptable for people to intimidate and threaten the women who visit these clinics?

Threaten and intimidate? That implies that the threat of violence is being used. That too is wrong, and almost universally condemned.

Is it acceptable for society or government to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body? I believe the answer is no for all. One human life cannot be traded for another.......one is not more valuable than the next.

You've just done a bait and switch here.

Is it acceptable for a society to govern what a woman can do with her own body? Yes it is. Because even abortion is limited by law on the basis of trimester and there are countless laws on the book that limit the harm we can do to ourself. We aren't allowed, by law, to take illegal drugs, and we aren't allowed to visit unlicensed doctors either.

But the abortion debate isn't about the LIFE of the mother. Situations where the LIFE of the mother are at great risk aren't typically debated. You'll find agreement that in cases where the PHYSICAL LIFE of the mother is at issue, the procedure is justified.

So what you're talking about is comparing the convenience of the woman contrasted against the life of the unborn. This is not trading lives. Thus, your argument is voided.

If you feel abortion is wrong, that is your choice.

And if I feel that private property is wrong, I should be able to steal your car?

However, at what point do you draw the line? Do you say human life starts at conception? If so, than the only reason to engage in intercourse is to create life...which is a religious view that is not shared by the masses. In the Catholic church, birth control is viewed as blasphemy. Have any of you ever used a condom??? I'm assuming yes......which in that case, you prevented a life from forming. If that is not the fundamental cause for argument, what is???

At what point do you draw the line. This statement demonstrates that even you recognize a line has to be drawn at some point. Where that line is drawn would naturally be determined through a process of debate and consensus. Unfortunately, Blackmun wrote a terribly constructed, unconstitutional opinion, ENDING all debate and discussion on the issue of abortion. So no consensus can be reached, the democratic process has been subverted, and this issue has become one of the most divisive and polarizing issues in modern history.

I'll be waiting for Fossten and maybe even Calabrio to pick me apart on this......and that's fine. I'll be looking forward to the, "You're going to Hell" comments as well as the, "That's an idiotic statement." At the end of the day, however, neither one of them is a female and their grounds to accurately argue what goes through a woman's head are speculative at best.

Being female doesn't make you any better suited to discuss the legality or ethics associated with any of these issues. To imply so simply demonstrates that you are looking for an easy way to avoid actual discussing the issue. This isn't an issue of gender. It's an issue of law, ethics, and increasingly one of medical knowledge.

As our technology advances, and these "inhuman fetus" are able to survive outside the womb at an increasingly early age, the issue of abortion will become increasingly offensive. As the antiquated and poorly conceived law stands now, abortion law is based on viability and then broken down into the arbitrary basis of "trimesters" Just recently a baby was born prematurely after just 26 weeks in the womb, and it survived. Medicine might change all these laws before the courts get to it.

BUT BACK TO THE POINT, can any explain why a woman should NOT be provided as much information as possible before having this barbaric procedure performed? No one is saying that she should be told "God looks down at this," but that they should know what stage the fetus is, what the health consequences are, and what the process for adoption are.

Legal or not, we should all agree to attempt to reduce the numbers of these procedures performed. To deny information is essentially trying to influence people to have this procedure. It's a form of deception.

 

[Calabrio]

I find it amazing that people are actually saying that showing a woman what she will be aborting is unethical but abortion for convenience is perfectly ethical. What a warped, convenience driven, selfish society we are turning into.

 

[shagdrum]

I have no problem with that whatsoever. At this point in time, however, abortion is legal. And the government exists to uphold and enforce *laws*. Not to take sides on controversial issues.

That is the problem. There is no law. Just a precedent set by the supreme court that has the effect of law, without any legal (constitutional) justification. The government has taken a side in this issue.

 

[fossten]

If you feel abortion is wrong, that is your choice. However, at what point do you draw the line? Do you say human life starts at conception? If so, than the only reason to engage in intercourse is to create life...which is a religious view that is not shared by the masses. In the Catholic church, birth control is viewed as blasphemy. Have any of you ever used a condom??? I'm assuming yes......which in that case, you prevented a life from forming. If that is not the fundamental cause for argument, what is???

Don't you believe human life starts at conception? Because medical science does. The fact that five unelected lawyers decided it doesn't begin at conception does not automatically change the facts.

Your default argument that there is only one reason to engage in intercourse is a false argument. In fact, you contradict yourself by quickly stating that it is a view that is not shared by the masses. Well, pick one. You can't have both. Either it's a religious view shared by many religious people, or it isn't.

Show me where Catholic law states that using birth control is BLASPHEMY. The church might discourage the practice, but BLASPHEMY is not a correct term. In fact, that word's usage just shows that you know nothing about the Catholic church. By the way, I disagree with the Catholic church's position in this area.

I'll be waiting for Fossten and maybe even Calabrio to pick me apart on this......and that's fine. I'll be looking forward to the, "You're going to Hell" comments as well as the, "That's an idiotic statement." At the end of the day, however, neither one of them is a female and their grounds to accurately argue what goes through a woman's head are speculative at best.

You should expect to be picked apart on any subject in which you make weak, false, or otherwise inane arguments. Furthermore, I'd like to see any quote in the past where any one of us has used the "You're going to hell" comment. You won't find it. Another ridiculous straw man.

I guess you believe that the five justices who ruled in favor of making abortion legal in the 70s should not have been able to comment on the issue because they weren't women, right? Based on your flawed logic, we should have special elections to appoint women legislators any time there is a law that is up for passage that involves women. Being able to argue what goes through a woman's head is completely irrelevant to whether or not a law is just, moral, or right. The law is impartial and not emotionally based.

 

[shagdrum]

the only reason to engage in intercourse is to create life...which is a religious view that is not shared by the masses.

That is the sole purpose of intercourse; to create life. It sounds like u r trying to say it isn't, which is absurd. Intercourse is serving a biological function, and u can't separate it from that.

 

[Calabrio]

That is the sole purpose of intercourse; to create life. It sounds like u r trying to say it isn't, which is absurd. Intercourse is serving a biological function, and u can't separate it from that.

You certainly can't deny that intercourse leads to the creation of life. Whether it's the "sole" purpose or not is irrelevant, it's the in ultimate outcome. It's not a mystery, we know how people get pregnant and we do know how to avoid it.

But to return to the issue- how is it "unethical" to simply provide the woman an ultrasound during the decision making process? That has not been answered by anyone. Unless you are actively hoping to increase the number of abortions, why would this offend anyone? If anything, some of the arguments to ban the procedure would be eliminated. If you're arguing simply for the "right" to this procedure, this shouldn't be offensive and it should be supported.

 

[MonsterMark]

At what stage is a baby simply 'fetal tissue'?

 

[MonsterMark]

Huh. Anybody?

 

[segxr7]

What is the problem with the government putting a leash on these bloodthirsty clinic workers who have been trained to have a success rate of 100% abortions?

If a doctor takes bribes to prescribe narcotics to a drug addict, he ends up behind bars. Same goes for a psychiatrist who takes advantage of a vulnerable patient. Laws already exist to "put a leash on bloodthirsty clinic workers", just like any other medical professionals who abuse their power.

BUT BACK TO THE POINT, can any explain why a woman should NOT be provided as much information as possible before having this barbaric procedure performed?

Oh, no ulterior motives there. Nosiree, the law would just "provide information". And the Mafia was an insurance company whose friendly salesmen "provided information" to business owners, just to help them understand what could happen to their stores and families if they didn't have a good policy. Give me a break.

It's a psychological ploy to manipulate the emotions of a woman who is considering a difficult decision. If you support that, fine. But don't be so disingenuous about it. You remind me of potheads who want to legalize marijuana--but only because hemp makes such great rope and paper, of course.

What, exactly, is so ambiguous about the subject? Are you saying women are getting abortions without having any idea what an abortion is?

I can't go and murder someone out of frustration, both because of the morality, in addition to the legality of the issue.

Right. It is illegal to murder someone. However, It's legal to get an abortion. If you are opposed to abortion, then you should support outlawing it altogether. Why would you want it to continue being legal?

If you think abortion is the same as murder, then do you think murder should be legal too, as long as you sit the prospective murderer down first and make sure they know what they're doing? That's pretty much what you're saying by taking this stance.

Like it or not, abortion is controversial but legal. The government is not a parent or a therapist or a priest or whatever. It's not there to "advise" citizens on controversial issues. If abortion is outlawed, that's a different story. Until then, it's none of their business.

 

[DLS8K]

Threaten and intimidate? That implies that the threat of violence is being used. That too is wrong, and almost universally condemned.[/QUOTE]

Actually, there are people out there who threaten, taunt, and intimidate those women seeking an abortion.....just check your local newspaper and you will hear stories of this happening. Have you never drove by an abortion clinic and seen the people standing with a big sign showing a dismembered fetus? I wish it only went that far, but it does not. I worked directly across from an abortion clinic in Iowa City and saw first hand what went on in terms of taunting and threatening and even some physical attacks.

You've just done a bait and switch here.

Is it acceptable for a society to govern what a woman can do with her own body? Yes it is. Because even abortion is limited by law on the basis of trimester and there are countless laws on the book that limit the harm we can do to ourself. We aren't allowed, by law, to take illegal drugs, and we aren't allowed to visit unlicensed doctors either.

The laws are not intended to limit the harm that we do to ourselves.......but others I believe. If that were the case, cigarettes would be against the law....and in fact, the reason it is illegal to smoke indoors in certain cities is because of the health concerns for others.

But the abortion debate isn't about the LIFE of the mother. Situations where the LIFE of the mother are at great risk aren't typically debated. You'll find agreement that in cases where the PHYSICAL LIFE of the mother is at issue, the procedure is justified.

There is nothing unjust about the procedure as it stands now.......some consider morally wrong and inhuman while others like me feel there should be limitations on it (such as the statute that currently is upheld).

So what you're talking about is comparing the convenience of the woman contrasted against the life of the unborn. This is not trading lives. Thus, your argument is voided.

The argument I was making was about those who bomb abortion clinics and take lives in the process.

Legal or not, we should all agree to attempt to reduce the numbers of these procedures performed. To deny information is essentially trying to influence people to have this procedure. It's a form of deception.

I agree....although I don't think information is being denied to anyone.