You're right......sex isn't fun. What was I thinking?
New Abortion Laws, ultrasound mandatory... Unethical?
- Thread starter TheDude
- Start date
You're right......sex isn't fun. What was I thinking?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I've never seen anything like that in my local newspaper. But this isn't what the law calls for. It's a requirement that the abortion clinics be completely honest with the women who come in asking counsel about abortion.
Sorry, your premise is flawed. Driving without a seatbelt is against the law, and so is abusing drugs. Note the difference between driving drunk laws and being drunk laws. There is no law against being drunk or possession of alcohol, but there is a law against possession of illegal narcotics.
Regardless, the entire premise about abortion rights being tied to the mother's right to do what she wants with her own body is completely false. Medical science has shown that there is a difference between the mother's body and the body of the infant inside the womb. There have been instances where the mother's immune system has failed and her body has attempted to reject the infant's body inside - not exactly part of her, is it? Furthermore, 50% of all infants in the womb are male. That would mean that the male infant in the womb is part of the mother's body according to your premise. Explain to me, Mr. Bill Nye the Science Guy, how the mother can be both female and male at the same time.
You just proved that you have zero idea what the procedure entails. If you did, you wouldn't make such irresponsible and ignorant statements. I suggest you read a description of the abhorrent 'procedure' in order to educate yourself, because in the knowledge-about-abortion-department, you are fighting with bayonets against nukes right now.
You say this in the face of absolute proof that information is being denied to mothers. You, sir, are in abject denial.
segxr7
Active LVC Member
Abortions would continue to be as legal as ever under this proposed law, which you referred to as "the opposite of unethical". Which is it? Do you think abortions should be legal, or not?
What information is being denied? Are you saying you have "absolute proof" that expectant mothers are not allowed to get ultrasounds?
the "fun" aspect is irrelevent. What r the organs there for? what purpose does the act serve? What u r saying is like saying the point of taking a breath is because it's relaxing, not because is is life sustaining. Much as u may want to, u cannot separate sex from procreation. Most animals in the wild don't engage in intercourse for pleasure, but every animal that engages in intercourse engages in an act ment to procreate, and u cannot separate the two. Have some intellectual honesty here!!
I am well aware of what the abortion process entails...I am not ignorant on the subject matter. I am also well aware that information is NOT being kept from mothers who are planning on having an abortion. The act of the proprosed legislation is to mandate women considering abortion to be forced to have an ultrasound...they are available at any time and for any woman. To say that information is being denied to woman is just plain false.
As for your ignorance on the pro-life lunatics causing mayhem at abortion clinics.....why don't you just google that and find all the information for yourself. There have been several instances where stories have made national news. Here is a brief idea of what I'm talking about:
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
You can also cite your scientific knowledge on why you think a fetus is not a part of the woman......however, it would be prudent of you to note that the fetus is directly linked to the woman. If the woman gets drunk, the fetus gets drunk.......if the woman dies, the fetus dies. So you're right.....a fetus is not exactly a part of her. Get a clue.
Wait a minute, so what you're saying is that having sex with a woman will result in the future of the species? Really??? I had no idea!
What the biologically intended purpose of intercourse is does not slip my mind. However, the two can be separated.....it's called a contraceptive. Why else would they make such a thing?
Last edited by a moderator:
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
What exactly is your point of debate here?
1) Contraception and abortions are entirely different and I stress "entirely"... Contraception prevents life from [possibly] starting; abortion ends, kills, destroys, etc. life.
See the difference?
2) Humans are animals, but we are "higher" animals, we have something called the "human brain", which is amazing and separates us from other mammals. Sex for humans is more than just for procreation, if it wasn't; we'd have mating cycles like animals and you'd only get the 'urge' when a female was in a hormonal cycle.
You honestly only have sex for the purposes of impregnation?
Really, can you tell me of a single time they have been enforced? I understand that you probably don't have the time or resources to look that up, but if you did, I'd also like to know specifically what law you were referring to.
Because that would mean that a definition of "abusing their powers" would have to be clearly defined? To merely influence someone, or with hold information that otherwise cause a woman to decide to not abort, is that an abuse of power?
There is no ulterior motive. The motivation is abundantly clear. To provide full information to a woman before she makes a life or death decision. Ideally, since it's universally agreed, that LESS abortions are better, women will be less inclined to destroy a life. Nothing secret about that. It's completely honest.
However, I would argue that there is an ulterior motive associated with trying to SUPPRESSING this information from a woman. Unless your in the business of selling this procedure or your using it to advance a social agenda. In this situation, perhaps then your Mafia analogy works. Sacrificing life in the pursuit of personal or financial gain.
You're analogies are horrible. They simply don't apply.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.
It's not a "ploy." A ploy would be convincing these women that the fetus was little more than an indistinguishable blob of cells.
Actually a lot of women who get abortions are not acutely aware of what is involved. They do not understand fetal development. Nor do they understand the long term physical and emotional consequences.
Your changing the issue. However, I should have a right to campaign to make the procedure illegal, but right now, due to an incompetent Supreme Court, and a poorly constructed decision penned by Blackmun, we've all been shut out of the democrat process.
No. The government regulates all kind of medical procedures, putting safe guards in place before invasive and dangerous surgeries that are also arguably unethical is completely consistent with everything else it does.
Can you get surgery from a person who is not a licensed doctor? NO. The government has made that the case. Can you go to court with a lawyer who has not passed the bar exam. No. The government has made that the case. I can go on and on. And all medical procedures and establishments abide by strict laws dictating how they are performed and operated.
Furthermore, abortion isn't "legal." It's strictly regulated. Late-term abortions are not universally legal. And there are other conditions and regulations associated with the procedure. So it is perfectly consistent, legal, and appropriate, for another regulation to be put in place.
Let's recap. We've established that this new rule would be legal and consistent with current law. So, on what basis would you NOT want a woman to see an ultrasound of the fetus? Are you afraid she might decide to NOT abort?
The consensus throughout the thread clearly is that a mother will be less likely to abort having seen the ultrasound of the fetus. Even if you think abortion should be legal, why would you want to see more women chose this decision? A woman deciding to not abort is not the same as making abortion illegal. Choosing not to abort is the definition of pro-choice.
I didn't say that this has never happened. I simply stated that it was wrong to threaten people with violence.
There are laws on the books designed to do both. Some drugs are illegal. It's illegal to commit suicide in most states. So you are incorrect.
Furthermore, the argument will be made that there is a second life involved in this debate and that it should be granted it's constitutional protections as well.
And why would you oppose a simple addition regulation that provides the mother with an image of the fetus she intends to destroy. And, ideally, a detailed explanation of the absolutely barbaric and cruel process that will be employed to rip the child from the body, in pieces.
This thread IS NOT about whether abortion should be legal or not. Simply whether a woman should see the ultrasound before making her decision. Those who oppose this must be doing so SOLELY on the grounds that this MAY discourage some woman from proceeding with the procedure. Why they want to see MORE abortions take place is SICK.
Enough with the abortion bombing talk. You're taking a couple of very isolated incidences and pretending that they are part of some broad, universally supported movement. That is not the case. Abortion bombers have been condemned by every single mainstream organization and church. Furthermore, incidences of them have been in the single digits over decades.
And when those responsible have been caught, they have been aggressively prosecuted, with the support of virtually everyone on the pro-life side of the debate.
But my point was, abortion is condoning the destruction of one life for the convenience of another.
Then you should have no problem showing the mother an ultrasound before she commits to having it ripped apart by a vacuum with a blade on the end of the extension, designed to rip limps apart. And the mother should also know that the fetus, clinging for life, may cause abrasions inside the womb.
Get this straight, it is a horrific procedure, especially once you reach the middle to end of the first trimester. It's not some neat and clean surgical move, equivalent to having a mole taken off. If a woman doesn't understand that, then she has NOT been given all the information necessary.
My point is a reactionary one, just trying to keep some intellectual honesty. The purpose of intercourse is procreation. People do it for more the that and try to safeguard against it, but that doesn't change the fact that whole reason the act exists is procreation, and it cannot be separated from that, though it seems that DLS8K wants to. Just because someone ingages in sex without the intent of procreation, doesn't mean that the purpose of the act isn't procreation. I personally, don't really have a big stake in the abortion debate, outside of procedural (unconstitutional judicial activism). Just trying to keep things intellectually honest, though to some that seems to be a foreign concept.
Yes.....but nobody is denying her information! I don't have a problem if a woman sees an ultrasound before she gets an abortion....why would I? However, I don't think it should be required that she do so.
Your assumption that people want to see more abortions if they do not agree with the proprosed legislation is false. The issue isn't even about abortion...it's about mandating that a woman sees an ultrasound of the fetus before she gets an abortion. If she wants and ultrasound, she can get an ultrasound....nobody is telling her she can't.
Why would you oppose that simple step? Again, this isn't an issue of pro-life or pro-choice. Pro-choice isn't supposed to mean "promoting more abortions." There is no move to deny anyone their access to this procedure, but there is, undeniably, an attempt to make known exactly what it is she will be destroying.
Can you explain how this is negative? Are you unable to recognize the harm done to a society when the value of human life is reduced to convenience?
No, my observation is spot on accurate. There is only one reason to permit women to NOT see the ultrasound. We live in a society that is full of rules and regulations for things far more trivial than the destruction of a life.
There are only two outcomes that can come from this possible new rule. Women will decide to not abort the fetus, or they will decide that it's of no consequence and continue. They have full choice. They are just now better informed. Abortion is a heavily regulated procedure, this is simply one addition step.
As a society, it is in our interest to reduce the numbers of the procedures. Even if you think that a woman has a "right" to do this, rational and decent people can agree that we should try to reduce the numbers. This additional information interferes with "choice" in no way. And frankly, without all the information, you're denying a woman that ability to make an informed choice. You're actually denying her choice by doing so.
So what is unethical about doing this? Are any of you able to articulate the negative associated with this? Why should it be opposed? How does it infringe on any rights?
It's not. And the only people who hope to see more abortions would oppose something like this.
It almost sounds as though you are saying women aren't smart enough to make an informed choice on their own. Also, I never said the proposed legislation was unethical. Do I have a problem with a woman seeing an ultrasound before she decides to have or not have an abortion? No! Do I have a problem with forcing her to do so? Yes!
I understand the concept behind the proposed legislation which is the reduction of abortions but there are better ways to accomplish the same goal and it starts well before intercourse. Birth control, sex education, good parenting are just a few areas that need to be improved upon.
I am well aware of what the act of procreating is intended for. However, if a person engages in intercourse for sheer pleasure, than the act takes on a different meaning completely. How is that not being honest in the intellectual sense?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's not an issue of women being smart enough. That statement is a straw man. It's an issue of women being informed enough to make a rational decision. You have absolutely no perspective on this. A teenage girl who's just found out she's pregnant because she fooled around with a football player is not even going to want to tell her parents what happened because of her shame. Her emotions are running high, she's panicking, doesn't know what to do. The last thing she's going to consider is to google pictures of unborn babies in the womb. There are thousands of parents out there who would gladly adopt her baby if she would just carry it to term, but the abortion clinic convinces her that the fetus is just a piece of tissue, that it's a clot, and that the procedure won't hurt a bit. All of which are lies. Requiring the clinic to furnish this small bit of information isn't going to hurt her as much as what they do to her already. In fact, it may save her decades of psychological pain by steering her to make a choice not to abort, but to put up the baby for adoption.
Sorry you can't understand that.
As for your last paragraph, it's empty and meaningless. Sex education has resulted in more high school pregnancies than before it was implemented. People already use abortion as a form of birth control. Abortion is a method by which irresponsible people attempt to avoid the consequences of their decision to have sexual relations. Unfortunately, this method results in the DEATH of a HUMAN LIFE, something you apparently seem to be ok with.
I've said no such thing. By providing them the ultrasound, you are not interfering with their ability to make an informed choice in anyway. You are simply providing them addition information that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. If this new information changes their decision making, that is there choice. If they don't see any significance, that too is fine.
But are you about to tell me that most people, men or women, are intimately aware of the fetal development and the rate at which it takes places?
At what week does the heart start beating?
At what week do fingers and toes start to form?
At which week does the fetus begin to suck it's thumb?
At which week does it become self-aware?
At what age does the fetus become viable outside the womb?
Do you know? Trimesters are about 12 week intervals. Do any of those things happen during the first trimester? second?
I'm a smart guy and I can't answer those questions off the top of my head. I doubt you can. I know most people can't.
The topic of the thread is "New Abortion Laws, ultrasound mandatory.....Unethical."
We can go around in circles, all you do is avoid responding directly to points made, and then construct the most ridiculous strawmen as a response.
You have failed, again, to articulate why a woman shouldn't be shown an ultrasound first. Before engaging in any procedure, a doctor is required to inform you of the risk. Abortion is a highly regulated procedure. So there is nothing inconsistent with the law about adding one additional requirement, especially given the severity of the decision and the possible negative consequences.
Terrible argument. So, in your opinion, we shouldn't improve birth control, because there are problems with Sex Ed. And we shouldn't improve sex ed because there are still problems with birth control. And we shouldn't do anything until we somehow fix the social problems associated with bad parenting? Here's an idea, why not do all of them.
The SOLE reason for opposing this mandatory ultrasound would be because you don't want to see a reduction in the abortion rate. For some reason, one you may not even be able to articulate, you don't want to see the rate drop. We've established, this requirement interferes with choice in absolutely no way. It's also fact that the government has the authority and the precedent establish to highly regulate this procedure. So the government has the power, it doesn't interfere with anyone's rights, and it results in a net positive.
Now why do you oppose it.
segxr7
Active LVC Member
So you're saying pregnant women are not allowed to get ultrasounds? That's news to me.
There is no law stating that you are required to go to the theater when a new movie comes out. So you would conclude that people are not allowed to visit movie theaters, correct? That's precisely the same "logic" that you're using with the ultrasound issue.
Your inability or unwillingness to actually address the substantive points made honestly is getting tiresome. No one every said women were not allowed to get ultrasounds.
In order for a strawman argument to work, some things need to be in place. The person employing the strategy must understand the nature of the debate. And the strawman argument has to make sense and be related to the argument.
You have failed, again, on both counts. You just look desperate now.
Reread the thread and try to post something worth the effort of reading. You're clearly not "getting" the point. I'm confident I've made my argument quite clearly. Repeatedly.
Firstly, we would not be providing information that they could not have. Instead, we would be requiring it. Hopefully this comes out right because I don't want to go back in forth with you on this subject. There should be abortion reform laws.....changes need to be made. However, there are other viable alternatives such as requiring counseling, parental consent, and I still feel sex education needs to be improved by discussing abortion. I would support a bill that does those things because I feel they would be more effective than an ultrasound. If all we are doing is requiring a woman to get an ultrasound, we are not really educating her. In fact, it is my belief that we are guilting her into not getting an abortion......she needs facts, not pictures.
Secondly, like you, I can't answer your questions off the top of my head either.
Thirdly, I finally said why I am opposed to requiring ultrasounds.....do my suggestions sound reasonable?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
If I understand you correctly, you have no problem mandating counseling or parental consent. Abortion clinics already offer counseling, they just counsel the women to have an abortion 100% of the time. So I assume you must mean counseling to avoid having an abortion. If that's true, and you advocate parental counseling, both of which the pro-abortion crowd vehemently oppose, why would you advocate those requirements but not the ultrasound? You use the word 'guilt' as though deciding to have the baby to term is a bad thing, like she's going to feel bad about having an abortion. I've got news for you - the psychological damage and guilt a woman has after an abortion is a thousand times worse than the feelings she'll have when viewing an ultrasound.
It's amazing what a thin line you'll tread in order to defend your position. You are in favor of adding abortion laws, just not this one. You claim that ultrasounds are available to women, but the truth is that if a woman doesn't have health insurance, ultrasounds might as well be on the moon as far as most young women are concerned, and they won't opt for it unless they think of it, and the abortion clinic will make SURE they don't think of it. So if the abortion clinic is going to counsel the woman to have an abortion 100% of the time, what's wrong with requiring them to show the woman an actual, living picture of her baby? We're talking about FACTS here, pictures that are FACTS. It's laughable that you would attempt to conflate an ultrasound with a nonfactual piece of information.
Finally, you have contradicted yourself by first implying that an ultrasound would not be as effective as other forms of counseling, etc. Then in the next sentence you say that all we would be doing is guilting her into not having an abortion. Sounds pretty effective to me. Make up your mind.
So the final, best reason that you have for opposing the law is that an ultrasound might cause the woman to feel guilty. That's your best shot? Never mind the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation and pain she'll feel if she goes through with the abortion - no, that's okay, we just don't want to hurt her feelings ahead of time. Better to get our murder fee and kick her out the back door, right? See, the problem with your logic is that abortion clinics get money - that's right, American dollars - for performing the 'service' of murdering the woman's baby. If the woman changes her mind, NO FEE! We can't have that, it would be like a pshrink telling a patient that she's cured. There goes the gravy train.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
You keep using the word "convenience" as if that's the sole motivation of every woman seeking an abortion. I can think of plenty of reasons why a woman would not want to bring a child into the world, and "convenience" is not one of them. I'm sure that is a factor in some, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority are for reasons that go beyond something as trivial as convenience.
Let me ask you this: If a woman would use such a shallow and callous reason to have one performed, what does that say about the kind of mother she would be, and why on earth would you want to force her to become one?
What's asinine about this law is that it is "requiring women seeking abortions to first review ultrasound images of their fetuses". What if the woman doesn't WANT to see the ultrasound? How do you enforce it? Do you tape her eyes open and shove the monitor in her face?
There is nothing at all wrong with requiring all clinics to offer the ultrasound. It's quite another thing to force a woman to look at it if she doesn't want to.
Fossten, regarding one of your earlier posts, where in the world do you get the notion that pro-choice people outright encourage a woman to have an abortion? That's absolutely ludicrous. Can you imagine this conversation?
MARY: Hey Susie, I'm pregnant!
SUSIE: Oh that's terrible news! You should head down to the clinic and abort it right now!
I've never heard of anyone on the pro-choice side who says that the number of abortions should increase. I believe that everyone is in total agreement that abortion is an awful thing. Awful not just in the procedure itself, but awful that so many women feel it is their only option. That is what the pro-life side doesn't want to address. Until we deal with the reasons women are having them, no amount of legislation (including outright banning it) will fix it.
Look at countries like Chile and Brazil, where abortion is illegal in all cases. Did abortions stop? No. It simply went underground, where it cannot be regulated or monitored in any way. While the total number of abortions may go down, more women are being maimed and killed in so-called "back-alley" abortions instead. This is not a myth and it is not a red herring, it is a fact.
Is that what we want in this country? Do any of you honestly believe that banning abortion in the US will put an end to it? The real "choice" here is whether you want women to be having abortions in a seedy hotel room or to have them performed by a licensed doctor in a regulated environment. THAT is the argument of the pro-choice side: Keep abortion legal so that women who are intent on not having a baby are not put in a life-threatening situation.
In the meantime address unwanted pregnancies at the root. First and foremost of course is to prevent a woman from getting pregnant in the first place. Abstinence is certainly the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy, but it is naive in the extreme to expect no one who is not ready to have a baby to abstain from sex. Shagdrum can argue all he wants about how sex is only for procreation, and if that's all it is to him, then best of luck to him. But to the vast majority of human beings, it is an act that gives them pleasure. It's just common sense that many people are going to have sex regardless of how much abstinence-only education is forced on them. Teenagers have been having sex long before the "golden days" that you all pine for but never existed. How many of you had sex in high school or before you were married? Quite a few I'd expect. So why would you expect your own children to be any different?
Some of you have tried to make the case that this legislation's only purpose is to help the mother make an informed decision. So why do pro-lifers want to deny information to help them make an informed decision BEFORE a pregnancy even occurs, rather than AFTER the fact, where the choice is much more difficult? I keep hearing the argument that educating young people about contraception "sends the wrong message". But we've already established beyond a shadow of a doubt that some are going to engage in it regardless. If they're going to, why shouldn't they be armed with the facts about contraceptives? Using scare tactics such as distorted information about condom failure rates "sends the message" that there's no point in using them at all! So downplaying condom effectiveness DIRECTLY contributes to more unwanted pregnancies.
Is there no conceivable way of combining a message of waiting to have sex, with solid facts about contraception? I find that hard to believe. If some of you are so opposed to sex-ed teaching about contraceptives, then make it a voluntary course. Then let the parents who choose to opt out deal with the consequences.
I'm sorry if I appear to have strayed off the topic at hand, but it is clear to me that this legislation only tries to address the symptoms and not the cause. And to reiterate an earlier point, it is unreasonable to force a woman to view an ultrasound image.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Where do you come up with this stuff? Who is encouraging women to have abortions?
So YOU speak for all women now? That's rich.
You haven't got news for anybody because you don't have a clue what goes on in the mind of a woman. And neither do I. Although I'm sure you'll be right back to copy-paste something from the NRTL web site. Which I will reject just as you will reject any evidence I post to the contrary (and there is plenty).fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Tommy, your ignorance and naivete are astounding. Go educate yourself before you spew such tripe.
There is documented testimony from ex-abortion clinic workers that fully substantiates my assertions that abortion workers lie to women and encourage women to have abortions. This is irrefutable. Just because it's never been on the 5 o'clock news is no excuse for your ignorance.
You have zero clue about an abortion situation. Often it's an embarrassed teenage girl whose boyfriend or whose friend tells them, "Hey, I know somebody who can get you in a clinic." Even a recent episode of House sterilized the terminology by using the word "terminate." As though a human life is nothing more than a computer program.
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.
As far as your "underground" bullcrap straw man, I guess we should legalize all forms of crime so they don't go underground, eh? Like murder and rape? I guess if we just used clinics to murder and rape and steal and rob and gamble illegally, everything would be okay, right? What an asinine argument. You want to play with facts? How about the FACT that abortions have averaged over a million per year since the seventies, FAR MORE than they averaged when it was illegal.
Abortion is neither safe (for the baby or the mother) nor rare. Many women die or are permanently damaged as a result of LEGAL CLINIC ABORTIONS.
I'm only hitting the high points here, because it's a waste of time to address your entire, mostly ignorant, rant.
There is documented testimony from ex-abortion clinic workers that fully substantiates my assertions that abortion workers lie to women and encourage women to have abortions. This is irrefutable. Just because it's never been on the 5 o'clock news is no excuse for your ignorance.
You have zero clue about an abortion situation. Often it's an embarrassed teenage girl whose boyfriend or whose friend tells them, "Hey, I know somebody who can get you in a clinic." Even a recent episode of House sterilized the terminology by using the word "terminate." As though a human life is nothing more than a computer program.
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.
As far as your "underground" bullcrap straw man, I guess we should legalize all forms of crime so they don't go underground, eh? Like murder and rape? I guess if we just used clinics to murder and rape and steal and rob and gamble illegally, everything would be okay, right? What an asinine argument. You want to play with facts? How about the FACT that abortions have averaged over a million per year since the seventies, FAR MORE than they averaged when it was illegal.
Abortion is neither safe (for the baby or the mother) nor rare. Many women die or are permanently damaged as a result of LEGAL CLINIC ABORTIONS.
I'm only hitting the high points here, because it's a waste of time to address your entire, mostly ignorant, rant.
daves2000ls
Dedicated LVC Member
daves2000ls
Dedicated LVC Member
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.