Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an abortion

[choiceone]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

No one is stopping a woman from viewing an ultrasound. If there is a demand for such a service, then doctors would provide it and therefore such legislation is not needed...unless you don't believe in the free markets. The best choice would be to let the patients decide whether businesses should provide ultrasounds and then have doctors decide whether they want to purchase such equipment to appeal to more patients? We don't need activists or lawyers interfering in the doctor/patient relationship.

Only a "liberal" would demand businesses and customers to cater to their political dogma.

I'm a liberal and I would never make that demand. A whole lot of people who call themselves liberal are social libertarians, even though they approve of social programs to help the poor and disabled and progressive income taxes, because they think it's disgusting to push people around.

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

I just wanted to say that first of all no responsible doctor would perform an abortion without doing an ultrasound immediately before performing the procedure.
And most women having an ultrasound view it as it is being performed. I really doubt that in most instances viewing the ultrasound would change the womans decision whether or not to undergo the procedure.

I really think the Democrats are making much ado about nothing. And I also think such legislation is not necessary for the reasons I stated above. It is already being done.

The exact same argument could be used to say that the republicans supporting the law are making much ado about nothing. If it already happens in most cases, there's no reason to write a law about it.

 

[clownboy]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

I don't think it is much ado about nothing. Doctors perform ultrasounds immediately before the procedures because that is medically necessary. The legislation that has been proposed, and in some cases, passed, is not for these ultrasounds, but for extra ultrasounds performed considerably before the procedures and not medically necessary. The purpose of the extra ultrasounds is to make abortion more expensive and inconvenient, so as to put practical obstacles in the way of the woman's decision, and, as far as the transvaginal ultrasounds are concerned, to punish the women. There were doctors who protested some of this legislation - can you imagine being the doctor of a young woman who was brutally raped, a doctor who wanted to minimize the trauma of the patient, and believed that it would be medically inappropriate to do such an extra ultrasound? The government was trying to push the doctor around, not just the woman, and to interfere with his/her professional medical judgment. This is disgusting.

No, that's not the reasoning behind this. It's to be the final approval for what is a serious and invasive medical procedure that ends a life. To make them look at what is being aborted/killed (NOT murdered, legally killed).

 

[Babylon_Drifter]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

No, that's not the reasoning behind this. It's to be the final approval for what is a serious and invasive medical procedure that ends a life. To make them look at what is being aborted/killed (NOT murdered, legally killed).

At least you admit what you are demanding is invasive and irrelevant.

 

[clownboy]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

At least you admit what you are demanding is invasive and irrelevant.

Well, you've mistaken me for someone else, not to mention you're not reading too well right now. I've not been arguing for this bill, my comment was to rebut the so-called reasoning behind this made up by another poster to suit their own bias. And where did I say the ultrasound is invasive? Abortion is a serious and invasive medical procedure. I believe you're misunderstanding of the medical usage of the word "invasive".

However, I will throw you a bone. I do agree that the patient should be fully informed when contemplating a medically invasive procedure. In this case, knowing they are taking a life, killing something, they should have to see what they are intending to kill. Especially since this is an OPTIONAL procedure.

Heck we make sure the patient gets to see an x-ray of a tumor before excising it, why wouldn't we do the same here.

 

[Babylon_Drifter]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Well, you've mistaken me for someone else, not to mention you're not reading too well right now. I've not been arguing for this bill, my comment was to rebut the so-called reasoning behind this made up by another poster to suit their own bias. And where did I say the ultrasound is invasive? Abortion is a serious and invasive medical procedure. I believe you're misunderstanding of the medical usage of the word "invasive".

My bad, I jumped the gun. I apologize.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

At least you admit what you are demanding is invasive and irrelevant.

On a procedure that is already elective and unnecessary (and also represents a human rights abuse and should therefore be banned), who cares?

 

[Babylon_Drifter]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

On a procedure that is already elective and unnecessary (and also represents a human rights abuse and should therefore be banned), who cares?

How about we just let the patient and doctor decide what is "unnecessary" instead of the activists and lawyers? Politics don't belong at the clinic.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

How about we just let the patient and doctor decide what is "unnecessary" instead of the activists and lawyers? Politics don't belong at the clinic.

Why don't we just let the plantation owner and the salesman decide what is necessary instead of activists and lawyers? Do politics belong at the slave market?



Same reason.

 

[Babylon_Drifter]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Why don't we just let the plantation owner and the salesman decide what is necessary instead of activists and lawyers? Do politics belong at the slave market?

Same reason.

Except you forget to mention the slave, who is able to voice his or her concern and be directly affected by the plantation owner and salesman.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Human unjustly denied personhood to human unjustly denied personhood.

Apple, apple.

 

[Babylon_Drifter]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Human unjustly denied personhood to human unjustly denied personhood.

Apple, apple.

A slave can feel the impact of their servitude while an embryo couldn't.
Sorry, that old slavery/abortion comparison is getting old. Try something a little fresher.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

A slave can feel the impact of their servitude while an embryo couldn't.

Who cares? They weren't people. [/pre1865s perspective]

Sorry, that old slavery/abortion comparison is getting old. Try something a little fresher.

Accurate analogies help others understand things better. That doesn't get old.


And what you need to understand is that restrictive personhood is wrong... as it is aggression against the individual human rights of someone that others want to be expendable for the sake of personal benefit.

 

[Babylon_Drifter]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Who cares? They weren't people. [/pre1865s perspective]

I don't see how being a person makes you any less capable of sentience. Don't change the subject to "personhood" because that is not what is being discussed.

Accurate analogies help others understand things better. That doesn't get old.

I don't see anything accurate about it and instead seeing "lifers" use slavery as a mean to make abortion look bad...because abortion can't be considered bad enough on it's own merits.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Abortion is bad all on its own.

Slavery isn't brought up to make abortion look bad; it's brought up because it's an example of how denying personhood to a human being and regarding that individual as property is bad. It's brought up too because it's an example of how the law can change.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

I don't see anything accurate about it

Clean your glasses, then?

and instead seeing "lifers" use slavery as a mean to make abortion look bad...because abortion can't be considered bad enough on it's own merits.

Aggressive homicide is bad enough on its own merits. The analogy just helps promote understanding, especially when others hide behind claims related to personhood.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

As usual; it comes all down to emotions for the more avid-pro lifers. As if emotions make everything in life happen. It's emotional *to them* so naturally they assume it must be equally emotional to everyone else.

Trust me - I've experienced plenty; emotions can just get in the way, make absolutely nothing happen, or ruin your efforts completely by clouding your judgement and hampering your efforts.

Emotions and wants, by the way, are what create every unwanted pregnancy.

Humanity would be better off if we were quite unemotional.

What's next - truly? Clockwork orange treatment with eye drops and headgear?

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

As usual; it comes all down to emotions for the more avid-pro lifers.

There is no emotionality in what I have said.

 

[rocket88]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Does anyone else think it's ironic that "fedupwithgov," who apparently is fed up with government, wants the government to require things of doctors and women as far as abortion goes?

 

[nota bene]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

As usual; it comes all down to emotions for the more avid-pro lifers. As if emotions make everything in life happen. It's emotional *to them* so naturally they assume it must be equally emotional to everyone else.

Trust me - I've experienced plenty; emotions can just get in the way, make absolutely nothing happen, or ruin your efforts completely by clouding your judgement and hampering your efforts.

Emotions and wants, by the way, are what create every unwanted pregnancy.

Humanity would be better off if we were quite unemotional.

What's next - truly? Clockwork orange treatment with eye drops and headgear?

I haven't played the pathos card.

But I can't agree that humanity would be better off if we were emotionless.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

There is no emotionality in what I have said.

I read through this thread and you seemed quite emotional. The words you've chosen to deliver your view have set a sharp tone.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

I haven't played the pathos card.

But I can't agree that humanity would be better off if we were emotionless.

Every child that is abused suffers because of someone's emotions. . . people have sex without fear of risk because of emotions - and so on.

While some are helpful - most of the time they're quite negative . . . clash of reasons.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

I read through this thread and you seemed quite emotional.

Don't know what to tell you. I haven't made a single emotional appeal and I've been quite flat in my responses.

I certainly correct people when they are wrong...

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Don't know what to tell you. I haven't made a single emotional appeal and I've been quite flat in my responses.

I certainly correct people when they are wrong...

It was a general statement not necessarily directed at you - a lot of pro-life individuals have a lot of sharp emotion in their words.

This emotional twang, if you will, puts people off sometimes from having a balanced discussion. Pro-life individuals sometimes don't realize, can't quite help it - they come across as being judgmental and thirsty for the suffering of said parents.

Of course -the same could be said about avid pro-choice individuals who sound spiteful.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Republican on legislation requiring women view ultrasound before having an aborti

Well I didn't say I wasn't judgmental. I am; this action is wrong and the perpetrators deserve to be punished. Justice is not being done as long as those who kill the innocent in aggression are not locked up.

Just not emotional.