Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

SuzannePjam

Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.
Senate, governor expected to OK measure with rape, incest exemptions

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 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.

Ahnimus

I don't see anything wrong with that. It might be good for women to learn about prenatal development before aborting.

prism

that is flat out emotional blackmail. it's obvious that most of these women already have their mind made up or else they wouldn't be seeking the procedure to begin with, so to force them to look at ultrasound pictures would just be adding more insult and pain to the experiance.


does a man that goes into a clinic for a vasectomy have to look at ultrasound pictures of his junk before he gets snipped? of course not. there's no reason to do it and there's not any reason to do it before a abortion either

keeponrockin

prism wrote:

that is flat out emotional blackmail. it's obvious that most of these women already have their mind made up or else they wouldn't be seeking the procedure to begin with, so to force them to look at ultrasound pictures would just be adding more insult and pain to the experiance.


does a man that goes into a clinic for a vasectomy have to look at ultrasound pictures of his junk before he gets snipped? of course not. there's no reason to do it and there's not any reason to do it before a abortion either

+1. It's a total guilt trip.

Trau

Why do they feel guilty?

hippiemom

They should also be required to inform women that a fetus before the age of 20 weeks or so cannot possibly have any awareness of it's own existence, and cannot feel pain. After all, we're all in favor of women being fully informed, right?

69charger

prism wrote:

does a man that goes into a clinic for a vasectomy have to look at ultrasound pictures of his junk before he gets snipped? of course not. there's no reason to do it and there's not any reason to do it before a abortion either

Because a man getting a vasectomy and terminating a viable pregancy are EXACTLY the same, right?

Your analogy doesn't make sense on any level.

soulsinging

i think we should just neuter everyone below about 85 iq.

prism

69charger wrote:

Because a man getting a vasectomy and terminating a viable pregancy are EXACTLY the same, right?

Your analogy doesn't make sense on any level.

the point being that they're both PRIVATE medical procedures between the patient and thier Doctor. not something the States need to go sticking their noses into.



OMG think of all those poor sperm that will never get to make their escape to meet up with an egg and make a baby....think of all the potential lives he's preventing from going on to become children by having a vasectomy. maybe he should have to view all of those sperm under a microscope and name them all before he can go denying them their chance at hittin up an egg?

69charger

prism wrote:

OMG think of all those poor sperm that will never get to make their escape to meet up with an egg and make a baby....think of all the potential lives he's preventing from going on to become children by having a vasectomy. maybe he should have to view all of those sperm under a microscope and name them all before he can go denying them their chance at hittin up an egg?

Again...

Because a man getting a vasectomy, and a woman terminating a viable pregancy (aka living human fetus), are EXACTLY the same, right?

Your analogy doesn't make sense on any level.

prism

69charger wrote:

Again...

Because a man getting a vasectomy, and a woman terminating a viable pregancy (aka living human fetus), are EXACTLY the same, right?

Your analogy doesn't make sense on any level.

I never claimed that they were exactly the same procedure. apparently i have to repeat myself before you can understand it?

prism wrote:

the point being that they're both PRIVATE medical procedures between the patient and thier Doctor. not something the States need to go sticking their noses into.

are you not capable of reading the entire post?

Rushlimbo

soulsinging wrote:

i think we should just neuter everyone below about 85 iq.

That could be considered genocide since it would eliminate ~85% of the Republican party.

Thorns2010

Ok, I'll say it. WTF man? Are we talking like the old school black & white grainy ultra-sound that you can't really even make anything in the picture???

Maybe its because I'm a guy, or that I haven't had any kids yet, but I mean, seriously if seeing a black & white grainy picture is going to change your mind, well.....I dunno.

Scubascott

soulsinging wrote:

i think we should just neuter everyone below about 85 iq.

Good idea. But lets make it 105. A bit of selective breeding might do humankind some good.

Heil Hitler!

69charger

prism wrote:

I never claimed that they were exactly the same procedure. apparently i have to repeat myself before you can understand it?

Then why are you comparing the two to try to make your point?

catefrances

SuzannePjam wrote:

Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.
Senate, governor expected to OK measure with rape, incest exemptions

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 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.

oh for crying out loud. enough already. this is a blatant guilt trip imposed yet again on women.

Jeanie

And are we expecting the run away Dads to view these images too?

Perhaps it might encourage a few of them to participate in more than just blowing their loads and buggering off?

This kind of vile, emotional blackmail will do nothing more than bring a few more truly unwanted pregnancies to term and increase the suffering of both mother and child. Great going!! NOT!!!

edgarcamp

Trau wrote:

Why do they feel guilty?

Because that is what they are told to feel by the same people who rail against gay marriage while chugging cock in their pastoral robe.
This is an individuals own personal decision and the federal, state and local government should stay out of it.

stuckinline

yet another reason why pearl jam doesn't play in the south

spiral out

This is just plain wrong, it is a womans right to choose how she proceeds with her own life.

blackredyellow

prism wrote:

that is flat out emotional blackmail. it's obvious that most of these women already have their mind made up or else they wouldn't be seeking the procedure to begin with, so to force them to look at ultrasound pictures would just be adding more insult and pain to the experiance.

Plus, who is going to pay for it. If the state is forcing someone to undergo an unnessecary medical procedure, will they pay the extra few hundred dollars?