Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

catefrances

surferdude wrote:

A) Would open the abortion issue for men to decide.
C) Would open the abortion issue for men to decide.
D) Would open the abortion issue for men to decide.
This only leaves you option , is this really the best you have!!

my answer was not in response to abortion. it was in response to trau's statement that he/she was unaware that having children can drive you insane. see post #234.

dangerboy

soulsinging wrote:

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.

i never said anything like either of those points you are trying to force into my words.

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.

the rest of your post is irrelevant, as it began on a false pretense. i simply stated that if a woman considering abortion decided to opt for giving it up for adoption instead because she saw an ultrasound, she might not have some of the same psychological side effects later in life as if she had aborted. (not all women, i understand. hippiemom for example has no regrets at all). i was merely presenting another viewpoint, one which considers the mental health of the woman, not speaking of the morality of abortion.

dangerboy

Jeanie wrote:

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 agree with this wholeheartedly! common ground!

where we differ is that i believe there's an innocent bystander, whose choices and decisions about their own existences are not being considered.

i suppose it comes down to our definitions of the beginning of life

catefrances

Trau wrote:

What do you mean that's not my call? I'm not making one. It is for convenience in every case except for when the physical health of the mother is threatened.

not surprisingly i disagree with you. a woman's mental state MUST be taken into account. it is not for convenience that an abortion be performed because the woman suffers some type of psychiatric ailment that puts her life or the life of her baby at risk if the pregnancy is continued to term.
if it is acceptable by law as a defense when accused of murder or some other such crime, then it is acceptable when considering the reason for terminating a pregnancy.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Hypothetical. A girl is drugged beaten and gang raped... she get pregnant. The sick thing is some people would treat her like a POS for thinking about or getting an abortion.

They think she should have the baby as a constant reminder.

That goes to show you the kind of delusional mental cases some anti-abortionists are.

soulsinging

dangerboy wrote:

i never said anything like either of those points you are trying to force into my words.

whatever. you understand the point. you were arguing that this is a good law that will somehow help mothers avoid regretting an abortion down the lin and saying that your basis for this conclusion is that you know women who had abortions and occasionally think about what might have been if they'd had the child. my point was that's ridiculous becos it can just as easily cut any other way.

dangerboy wrote:

the rest of your post is irrelevant, as it began on a false pretense. i simply stated that if a woman considering abortion decided to opt for giving it up for adoption instead because she saw an ultrasound, she might not have some of the same psychological side effects later in life as if she had aborted. (not all women, i understand. hippiemom for example has no regrets at all). i was merely presenting another viewpoint, one which considers the mental health of the woman, not speaking of the morality of abortion.

or she might still go through with the abortion and have even worse mental health consequences down the road becos of it. or she might not have the abortion and regret it and kill herself or the baby due to postpartum depression. or it might have no effect whatsoever. or it could deter women and they will be grateful for it. the point is, we dont know and this is a stupid and pointless little law that accomplishes nothing. it will do nothing with respect to abortion and is a waste of money. it is only good for people like you, who can now pat themselves on the back for another strike against abortion. yahoo. well done sir.

VictoryGin

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".

most clinics i know use transvaginal probes because they offer superior imaging and better looks at issues like ectopic pregancies and other uterine abnormalities that you don't get with the transabdominal. transvaginal are a bit more invasive than the transabdominal ultrasounds (which you cannot be clothed for), and the difference is in the force. this person in your scenario is choosing to have the abortion procedure, but not choosing to have a probe inserted into her vagina and then forced to see the pictures.

Jeanie

VictoryGin wrote:

most clinics i know use transvaginal probes because they offer superior imaging and better looks at issues like ectopic pregancies and other uterine abnormalities that you don't get with the transabdominal. transvaginal are a bit more invasive than the transabdominal ultrasounds (which you cannot be clothed for), and the difference is in the force. this person in your scenario is choosing to have the abortion procedure, but not choosing to have a probe inserted into her vagina and then forced to see the pictures.

Euch!! Well if we are talking transvaginal ultrasound then I'm completely, totally and utterly against this law then. Transvaginal ultrasounds blow!! :eek:

VictoryGin

Jeanie wrote:

Euch!! Well if we are talking transvaginal ultrasound then I'm completely, totally and utterly against this law then. Transvaginal ultrasounds blow!! :eek:

i don't know if the law mandates one or the other, but it's common for doctors to use transvaginal because of the other issues they need to see. regardless of the type of US, i think the law is ridiculous. but i just wanted to point out that the ultrasound isn't just about exposing one's belly. ultimately it's absurd to force any type of procedure upon a woman and shove the pictures in her face.

Jeanie

dangerboy wrote:

i agree with this wholeheartedly! common ground!

where we differ is that i believe there's an innocent bystander, whose choices and decisions about their own existences are not being considered.

i suppose it comes down to our definitions of the beginning of life

Woohoo!! Common ground!! What a great place to be with you db!

I don't disagree that there is potentially an innocent bystander, but I do believe that they are most definitely being considered. I trust most women to make informed choice and to consider the rights and choices of the existence of said potential human.

And I do agree that it does appear to be coming down to our definition of the beginning of life.

Jeanie

VictoryGin wrote:

i don't know if the law mandates one or the other, but it's common for doctors to use transvaginal because of the other issues they need to see. regardless of the type of US, i think the law is ridiculous. but i just wanted to point out that the ultrasound isn't just about exposing one's belly. ultimately it's absurd to force any type of procedure upon a woman and shove the pictures in her face.

Yes, I understand the importance from a diagnostic point of view for the use of transvaginal. I just don't like being on the receiving end of them. In my experience they are extremely painful, and degrading, even with an excellent technician. :eek: And you bringing it up has made me realise that it is more likely that they would need to use a transvaginal because I doubt they'd see much with the standard anyway. Would defeat the purpose of them doing it. You mentioning it just kinda freaked me out because I hadn't even considered the use of the transvaginal.

And I could never support this law regardless of what type of ultrasound is used. BUT if they did plan or need to use transvaginal, then I would consider that to be utterly barbaric.

VictoryGin

Jeanie wrote:

Yes, I understand the importance from a diagnostic point of view for the use of transvaginal. I just don't like being on the receiving end of them. In my experience they are extremely painful, and degrading, even with an excellent technician. :eek: And you bringing it up has made me realise that it is more likely that they would need to use a transvaginal because I doubt they'd see much with the standard anyway. Would defeat the purpose of them doing it. You mentioning it just kinda freaked me out because I hadn't even considered the use of the transvaginal.

And I could never support this law regardless of what type of ultrasound is used. BUT if they did plan or need to use transvaginal, then I would consider that to be utterly barbaric.

yeah i find them to be degrading too, and can you imagine how much more degrading and painful it would be if you knew after submitting to the probe, you'd have to see the pictures--after you just made a very difficult decision in your life? geez. this law is so insulting to the woman involved. it comes across as either, 'oh we can't trust you to make your own decisions, so even though you've 'put a lot of thought' into this, we're just going to put those pictures in your face to make sure you're absolutely sure' OR 'well you made your decision and now we're going to rub your face in it'.

although that probably doesn't mean much to those who use quotes around "medical procedure" when referring to abortion.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I still don't understand why people get like this over abortion:

http://vidmax.com/index.php/videos/view/869

Jeanie

VictoryGin wrote:

yeah i find them to be degrading too, and can you imagine how much more degrading and painful it would be if you knew after submitting to the probe, you'd have to see the pictures--after you just made a very difficult decision in your life? geez. this law is so insulting to the woman involved. it comes across as either, 'oh we can't trust you to make your own decisions, so even though you've 'put a lot of thought' into this, we're just going to put those pictures in your face to make sure you're absolutely sure' OR 'well you made your decision and now we're going to rub your face in it'.

although that probably doesn't mean much to those who use quotes around "medical procedure" when referring to abortion.

It's just a disgrace. Anyway you look at it. And anybody that is advocating it can't truly be as humane as they would like us to believe.

Perhaps those who do refer to TOP or abortion as "medical procedure" with quotes are too young to remember the bad old days in the western world of backyard abortions or have never heard of horrific things like Abortion Trees and similar in the underdeveloped world? Or maybe they are old enough to remember and they just care more about cell clusters than actual humans.

I find the whole anti abortion debate, to be so cruel sometimes.
And this whole ultrasound business has far greater ramifications for the privacy and rights of all people than I think some folk are realizing.

ForestBrain

Abortion is just plain wrong. I'm not going to argue the point everybody has already argued. I'm just going to say that it was not the baby's choice to be conceived, and if a person doesn't want the kid that much they should adopt it.
I guess when we all die, we'll find out how okay it really is to get abortions. That's all I'm going to say.

catefrances

ForestBrain wrote:

Abortion is just plain wrong. I'm not going to argue the point everybody has already argued. I'm just going to say that it was not the baby's choice to be conceived, and if a person doesn't want the kid that much they should adopt it.
I guess when we all die, we'll find out how okay it really is to get abortions. That's all I'm going to say.

and by 'we', you mean women right? those whores who find themselves pregnant in the first place.

dangerboy

soulsinging wrote:

whatever. you understand the point. you were arguing that this is a good law that will somehow help mothers avoid regretting an abortion down the lin and saying that your basis for this conclusion is that you know women who had abortions and occasionally think about what might have been if they'd had the child. my point was that's ridiculous becos it can just as easily cut any other way.



or she might still go through with the abortion and have even worse mental health consequences down the road becos of it. or she might not have the abortion and regret it and kill herself or the baby due to postpartum depression. or it might have no effect whatsoever. or it could deter women and they will be grateful for it. the point is, we dont know and this is a stupid and pointless little law that accomplishes nothing. it will do nothing with respect to abortion and is a waste of money. it is only good for people like you, who can now pat themselves on the back for another strike against abortion. yahoo. well done sir.

the venom towards me in your posts is unfounded. i did not, repeat, and you can go back and read that i practially disclaimed every paragraph, DID NOT argue that this is a good law. i merely presented some rational thoughts from a differing oint of view. i have not commented on whether or not i personally think it's a good law. (honestly, it's probably a waste of time and money imho. we should be, as someone else wisely posted earlier in the thread, making abortion unnecessary instead of waiting until the bell has been rung and adding yet another torment to someone's already upset life)

you have totally misrepresented what i've said and used that as a basis for condemning me personally. you can pat yourself on the back as you have certainly struck another great blow against the big, facist oppressor: man. yahoo. well done sir. or madam. sorry, i don't know you well enough to be sure...

from now on, i will reply only to those who actually seem to want to converse, instead of condemn. it's not so much a matter of trying to convince others to change their minds so much as it is an effort to get people to realize that there are rational people on both sides, and that the stereotypes the majority here (everyone admits this place leans left, don't they?) have about those who are against abortion are not always true. some people actually do care about others, not just themselves, and yet they still arrive at an anti-abortion stance

dangerboy

Jeanie wrote:

Woohoo!! Common ground!! What a great place to be with you db!

I don't disagree that there is potentially an innocent bystander, but I do believe that they are most definitely being considered. I trust most women to make informed choice and to consider the rights and choices of the existence of said potential human.

And I do agree that it does appear to be coming down to our definition of the beginning of life.

i hope so, too. for the sakes of all involved.

i would like to say again that i am not trying to convert you, but rather to help you better understand those with differing opinions as i try to understand those opinions that differ from mine.

thank you for your respectfullness

soulsinging

dangerboy wrote:

the venom towards me in your posts is unfounded. i did not, repeat, and you can go back and read that i practially disclaimed every paragraph, DID NOT argue that this is a good law. i merely presented some rational thoughts from a differing oint of view. i have not commented on whether or not i personally think it's a good law. (honestly, it's probably a waste of time and money imho. we should be, as someone else wisely posted earlier in the thread, making abortion unnecessary instead of waiting until the bell has been rung and adding yet another torment to someone's already upset life)

you have totally misrepresented what i've said and used that as a basis for condemning me personally. you can pat yourself on the back as you have certainly struck another great blow against the big, facist oppressor: man. yahoo. well done sir. or madam. sorry, i don't know you well enough to be sure...

from now on, i will reply only to those who actually seem to want to converse, instead of condemn. it's not so much a matter of trying to convince others to change their minds so much as it is an effort to get people to realize that there are rational people on both sides, and that the stereotypes the majority here (everyone admits this place leans left, don't they?) have about those who are against abortion are not always true. some people actually do care about others, not just themselves, and yet they still arrive at an anti-abortion stance

then i misread your posts. if you read back, ive been doing precisely what you claim to be doing (saying this isn't a black and white issue and both sides have some reasonable justifications for their stances). in fact, the quote about making abortion unnecessary that you refer to was written by... me. im not spitting venom at you, i was trying to point out that the analogy you used to support these ultrasounds is flawed. maybe i came on too strong. for that i apologize. im just saying, regardless of which side of the divide you stand on, this particular law is stupid and serves no real purpose except to make health care providers richer. it doesn't advance the agenda or beliefs of either side.

and im a guy.

hippiemom

dangerboy wrote:

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...

True. However, you've let yourself in for a whole host of other, more severe complications that could occur in carrying a pregnancy to term, so this is a wash at best.

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..

Sure, it's possible. Lots of things are possible. It's also possible that she has no interest in viewing an ultrasound, and since it's not medically necessary, that should be her option.

dangerboy wrote:

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

I don't believe that everyone in government is evil either, and I doubt those in favor of this type of legislation see themselves as evil. I certainly don't see them as evil. I DO see them as busybody control freaks.

dangerboy wrote:

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?

I've had two ultrasounds. I was told to undress except for my underwear, and put on a gown. I didn't particularly want to have either of them, but I had complications in both of my pregnancies that necessitated it. I'm a "leave me alone unless absolutely necessary" type of person, and the less I see of doctors, the better. I would be pissed off beyond belief if anyone attempted to force me to have ANY unnecessary procedure, no matter how benign.

dangerboy wrote:

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

I understand. There's very little on these boards, or even in a face-to-face debate, that I take personally