Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

Trau

Collin wrote:

What about a rape victim?

Convenience.

gue_barium

You trolls, lol. You need to learn some more sophisticated tactics.

Trau

Jeanie wrote:

And you don't mind throwing in the personal attacks either I notice. If you're all for caring about people, perhaps try being a bit more pleasant to those of us that are already here attempting, foolishly to communicate with you.

What personal attacks are you referring to?

I'm finding your attempts at questioning everybody in this thread a bit sinister and condescending, like you have an ulterior motive. Not working for a lobby group are we?

No, I don't work for a lobby group. The reason I am asking my questions is to get you to examine why you hold the opinions you do about this issue.

I've said nothing about the fact that you think abstaining is the solution to all this.

And why would you? It's a guaranteed solution.

Or that you have managed to completely ignore the issue at hand which is the state sanctioning of a forced medical procedure on women, a decision made in majority by men.

I haven't ignored the issue. I have asked all along why a woman who participated in this "forced medical procedure" would feel guilty afterward, and reconsider her decision.

Do you even have children? Can you even have children? Would you ever have to make the choice to abort or carry a pregnancy to term?

How are any of these questions relevant? My life experiences have no effect on when a human being becomes a human being.

HOW can you know the answer to that as an absolute if you've never been in the situation?

I don't see what's complicated about this. Whenever a human becomes a human, it does so regardless of how financially or emotionally difficult it will be to raise a child. Pregnancy isn't all about you, it's about the child.

Have you ever been adopted? Do you know what it's like to suffer? Really suffer? Poverty, sexual abuse, physical abuse, injustice, malnutrition, lack of education, lack of love from a parent, and a plethora of others. Do not tell me that a life time of suffering is better because you are alive to live through it as opposed to being humanely stopped from that suffering.

Who are you to decide that for them? We're getting into dangerous territory, now. Would you find it acceptable to euthanize a newborn child given up for adoption who has some debilitating disease?

Oh and if you can do nothing else here could you at the very least stop making sweeping generalizations and putting words into people's mouths please? Where did I EVER say in this thread that abortion was convenient? If I did show me, I'll be happy to retract that.

You didn't have to use the word convenient to have meant it. Financial and emotional "well-being" are issues of convenience. If you decide to give your child up for adoption, it is possible to avoid all financial obligations entirely.

If you give birth to a child you don't want, and you give it up for adoption, well any normal human being is going to be emotionally affected by that decision. But I don't think your emotional problems are justification to deny another the right to simply exist. If you aborted, you'd probably be fucked up in much the same way, anyhow.

hippiemom

Trau wrote:

I haven't ignored the issue. I have asked all along why a woman who participated in this "forced medical procedure" would feel guilty afterward, and reconsider her decision.

I, for one, am less concerned that she would feel guilty. She would certainly feel inconvenienced, and there's no reason for it. The procedure would do nothing to enhance her well-being, and is therefore unnecessary. I'm against politicizing the medical profession. The well-being of the patient should be the only consideration when making medical decisions.

I thought conservatives were opposed to wasteful spending?

floyd1975

I love a good abortion thread.

gue_barium

zstillings wrote:

I love a good abortion thread.

As you love yourself, I'm sure.

soulsinging

Trau wrote:

And why would you? It's a guaranteed solution.

How are any of these questions relevant? My life experiences have no effect on when a human being becomes a human being.


You didn't have to use the word convenient to have meant it. Financial and emotional "well-being" are issues of convenience. If you decide to give your child up for adoption, it is possible to avoid all financial obligations entirely.

If you give birth to a child you don't want, and you give it up for adoption, well any normal human being is going to be emotionally affected by that decision. But I don't think your emotional problems are justification to deny another the right to simply exist. If you aborted, you'd probably be fucked up in much the same way, anyhow.

1) i assume you are a virgin then? or if not, you never had sex until you were married and wanted to have children?

2) i am a proponent of adoption, but the us adoption system is fucked. it is prohibitively expensive and slow. kids dont get adopted until years after birth... instead they bounce around the foster care system for years and are sexually abused and unstable. perhaps you should work on ensuring there are better viable alternatives to make abortion an irrelevant issue. go to the source of the problem, dont treat the symptom.

3) am i wrong in guessing you want abstinence-only sex ed taught and oppose including comprehensive information about contraception in high schools? most of you and your ilk do. which is again proof that you don't give a damn about fetuses, it's just sexual politics... you wanting to turn back the clock and ostracize the whores who dare to fuck out of wedlock. if not, eradicate abstinence sex ed, replace it uniformly with comprehensive sex ed, fix the adoption process, and provide better support and protection for single parents who are left hanging by their baby's other parent, and then im willing to talk about outlawing abortion. let's make it unnecessary rather than illegal. that would be the moral thing to do.

Trau

hippiemom wrote:

I, for one, am less concerned that she would feel guilty. She would certainly feel inconvenienced, and there's no reason for it. The procedure would do nothing to enhance her well-being, and is therefore unnecessary. I'm against politicizing the medical profession. The well-being of the patient should be the only consideration when making medical decisions.

The reason is that maybe she'll change her mind about her ideas of life and when it begins.

I thought conservatives were opposed to wasteful spending?

For them, this isn't wasteful. But for more answers you'd have to just ask them.

hippiemom

Trau wrote:

The reason is that maybe she'll change her mind about her ideas of life and when it begins.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be offered, but it's wrong to make it compulsory. Many women have already seen ultrasounds. Many are not interested in seeing them. It is not your place to mandate a medical procedure because it might change someone's mind. It might, it might not ... it most certainly would not change mine. But the ONLY reason anyone should prescribe a medical procedure is because it contributes to the well-being of the patient, and that is obviously not the case here. In cases where ultrasounds are necessary to safely perform the abortion, or to decide whether or not it can/should be done, women are already getting them.

Trau

soulsinging wrote:

1) i assume you are a virgin then? or if not, you never had sex until you were married and wanted to have children?

Again: why is it relevant?

2) i am a proponent of adoption, but the us adoption system is fucked. it is prohibitively expensive and slow. kids dont get adopted until years after birth... instead they bounce around the foster care system for years and are sexually abused and unstable. perhaps you should work on ensuring there are better viable alternatives to make abortion an irrelevant issue. go to the source of the problem, dont treat the symptom.

Women don't get abortions because of how messed up the adoption system is. A person doesn't even have to go through government adoption agencies.

3) am i wrong in guessing you want abstinence-only sex ed taught and oppose including comprehensive information about contraception in high schools?

Yes, you are wrong.

most of you and your ilk do. which is again proof that you don't give a damn about fetuses, it's just sexual politics...

It's not proof of anything. It is quite possible to care about both of those issues.

dangerboy

hippiemom wrote:

But the ONLY reason anyone should prescribe a medical procedure is because it contributes to the well-being of the patient, and that is obviously not the case here.

consider the possiblity that proponents of this may consider the procedure to be in the best interest of the well-being of the woman. there are health risks to having an abortion since it is a medical procedure. and, as stated vehemently by many in this thread, the psychological well-being of the woman seems to be a huge issue. some might think that she'd be better of mentally in the long run having made the choice to keep the baby or give it up for adoption instead of aborting it...

maybe, seriously now, maybe there are some altruistic motives and not simply puritannical control-freaks attempting to legislate sexual activity. those who are against abortion are not all religious fundamentalist zealots


and, i would argue that an ultrasound is barely a "medical procedure". it's less than an xray. it's just a picture...

hippiemom

dangerboy wrote:

consider the possiblity that proponents of this may consider the procedure to be in the best interest of the well-being of the woman.

Will it benefit her medically? Ultrasound is not a screening procedure utilized by mental health professionals.

dangerboy wrote:

there are health risks to having an abortion since it is a medical procedure.

And I'm adamantly in favor of women being informed of those risks, as well as the risks involved in bringing a pregnancy to term.

dangerboy wrote:

and, as stated vehemently by many in this thread, the psychological well-being of the woman seems to be a huge issue. some might think that she'd be better of mentally in the long run having made the choice to keep the baby or give it up for adoption instead of aborting it...

Do you honestly think that seeing or not seeing an ultrasound is going to make a big difference here? I know quite a few women who have had abortions, I have had one myself, and none of us suffer any trauma. Of course there are those who do, but they are a minority.

dangerboy wrote:

maybe, seriously now, maybe there are some altruistic motives and not simply puritannical control-freaks attempting to legislate sexual activity. those who are against abortion are not all religious fundamentalist zealots

Quite true, as farfromglorified has made quite apparent in this thread. However, those proposing legislation typically ARE the control-freaks ... hence their compulsion to control people.

dangerboy wrote:

and, i would argue that an ultrasound is barely a "medical procedure". it's less than an xray. it's just a picture...

If I have to go to a doctor, get undressed, lay down and let them hook machines up to me, that's a medical procedure in my book, and one I'd just as soon pass on. It's a gross violation of privacy.

dangerboy

hippiemom wrote:

Will it benefit her medically? Ultrasound is not a screening procedure utilized by mental health professionals.

possibly. for example, if you choose not to have the abortion, you have eliminated any physical complications that could occur.

i'm not arguing in favor of the legislation, only suggesting alternate persepctive...

Do you honestly think that seeing or not seeing an ultrasound is going to make a big difference here? I know quite a few women who have had abortions, I have had one myself, and none of us suffer any trauma. Of course there are those who do, but they are a minority.

honestly? it might. while you may feel no remorse, the couple of women i know who have had them have expressed it. not that it rules their daily lives necessarily, but that it occurs to them at times....what would the child have turned out like? would they have been able to be adopted and live a good life with adoptive parents? (as most who are adopted do. yes, there are exceptions, but they are a minority) ....if seeing the living being/cell clump inside them causes them to make another choice, it's possible that they might feel that they at least contributed to the child having a decent life in some small way. again, just trying to offer another way of looking at the situation..

Quite true, as farfromglorified has made quite apparent in this thread. However, those proposing legislation typically ARE the control-freaks ... hence their compulsion to control people.

i don't know, i just can't believe that everyone in government is evil and looking to control others. i know there are people like that. i guess i naively prefer to believe in the innate goodness and compassion in humans

If I have to go to a doctor, get undressed, lay down and let them hook machines up to me, that's a medical procedure in my book, and one I'd just as soon pass on. It's a gross violation of privacy.

there's no hooking up machines. there's no undressing, either...just pull up your shirt a little and show your tummy. it's a little scanner they rub across your belly. it just takes a picture based on sound echoes.

which makes me think that even though you have had an abortion, you never had an ultrasound. if you never saw it before you aborted, how can you say you wouldn't have been affected by seeing it? isn't that the same argument some are using against trau here? he's a virgin. he doesn't have kids. which makes him unqualified to comment in some people's opinions....well, you didn't have an ultrasound, so does that make you equally as unqualified to comment?

please don't take this confrontationally. this is a serious attempt at an exchange of ideas....not judging, not trying to convert....trying to show that there are different ideas

cornnifer

hippiemom wrote:

ARE the control-freaks ... hence their compulsion to control people.


If I have to go to a doctor, get undressed, lay down and let them hook machines up to me, that's a medical procedure in my book, and one I'd just as soon pass on. It's a gross violation of privacy.

C'mon, HM. Really. i'm not trying to start a fight. In all due respect, aren't you being overly dramatic with this? yiu hardly have "Machines hooked up to you". A little jelly and a camera! You don't even have to be fully "undressed". its just your belly. Gross violation of privacy? You have to admit that assessment is a smidge exaggerated. Besides, a person considering an abortion for God's sake is already in line for a much more intensive "medical procedure".

soulsinging

dangerboy wrote:

honestly? it might. while you may feel no remorse, the couple of women i know who have had them have expressed it. not that it rules their daily lives necessarily, but that it occurs to them at times....what would the child have turned out like? would they have been able to be adopted and live a good life with adoptive parents? (as most who are adopted do. yes, there are exceptions, but they are a minority) ....if seeing the living being/cell clump inside them causes them to make another choice, it's possible that they might feel that they at least contributed to the child having a decent life in some small way. again, just trying to offer another way of looking at the situation..

and how many parents occasionally wonder what might have been if they had waited or chosen not to have children? does this mean they should have aborted becos at random moments they think about their past decisions?

soulsinging

cornnifer wrote:

C'mon, HM. Really. i'm not trying to start a fight. In all due respect, aren't you being overly dramatic with this? yiu hardly have "Machines hooked up to you". A little jelly and a camera! You don't even have to be fully "undressed". its just your belly. Gross violation of privacy? You have to admit that assessment is a smidge exaggerated. Besides, a person considering an abortion for God's sake is already in line for a much more intensive "medical procedure".

then how about my alternative example? let's do screenings before people sign up for the military... show soldiers with legs blown off by roadside bombs, children slaughtered in the streets, and men's brains all over the road after being shot by iraqi snipers.... they SHOULD know what they're getting into right?

let's show shark attacks before people can surfboard, so they know what they're risking losing by choosing to surf.

is this our government's responsbility?

dangerboy

soulsinging wrote:

and how many parents occasionally wonder what might have been if they had waited or chosen not to have children? does this mean they should have aborted becos at random moments they think about their past decisions?

sorry, i'm not sure i follow your line of thought here....

in hindsight, should they have chosen to abort if they had kids too young and feel that they missed out on some part of their own lives because of it?

if that's your question, then imho: no. to me, that falls under the selfishness/convenience argument.

soulsinging

dangerboy wrote:

sorry, i'm not sure i follow your line of thought here....

in hindsight, should they have chosen to abort if they had kids too young and feel that they missed out on some part of their own lives because of it?

if that's your question, then imho: no. to me, that falls under the selfishness/convenience argument.

my point is, you're saying women who have had abortions occasionally look back and wonder what the kid might have been like and if they made a mistake. you say this is a reason for outlawing abortion and doing this ultrasound thing: that becos women occasionally feel some doubt or second guessing, they clearly feel guilty and know deep down they committed murder. im pointing out that that argument is bullshit. just becos women look back and wonder if they made the wrong decision means nothing in terms of the morality of abortion. women can have the child and look back and wonder if they made the wrong call. ever hear of post-partum depression? shit, men AND women in married relationships very happy with their lives and children will occasionally look back and think "i wonder if id waited another year or two so we coulda gone to europe just the two of us." it means nothing. just that humans occasionally reminisce and doubt themselves. your argument is flawed.

Jeanie

I will always support the right of people to have the control to make choices and decisions over their own bodies. And that this above all else is a basic human right.

I've heard nothing here to make me change my mind about that.

I have, however, been heartened to hear the compassion and humanity of many of you on this thread.

So I do not support the decision to forcibly have women take ultrasounds, for the purposes of showing them a potential life they may be planning to terminate. I would not support any medical procedure sanctioned by the state.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

bookmuse wrote:

There are just too many of these cases. A few years back during July 4th a mom threw her two year old sons off a bridge into a river in St Paul. One was saved the other died a tramatic death. How about all the poor little babies born with addictions? The abused and tortured children around this world.

Someone mentioned Playing God -where is God? Why are these little one's not protected by God? What about all the sick people who now live long lives because of medical advances who may have died much earlier or more inhumanely without medical help. Is that playing God?

I think Trau's motivation here is to make pro-choice folks feel guilty and admit that abortion is murder. Problem is there is a line in the sand for pro-choice folks and the only thing to do is agree to disagree.

Yeah, A lot of anti abortionists women live in perfect little jesus cotton candy worlds with fluffy clouds and white picket fences....

Reminds me of angry, sexually frustrated stepford wives