Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

hippiemom

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".

So what? It IS a medical procedure. It's time I would have to take out of my day, a trip I would have to make, more time I'd have to take off from work, that serves no earthly purpose except to make a bunch of busybodies happy.

hippiemom

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.

Forcing a woman to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound in order to exercise her constitutional rights would amount to state-sanctioned rape, if you ask me.

cincybearcat

I am 100% against abortion...

But this law is pretty stupid. Who really thinks that seeing an ultra-sound is going change someone's mind?

Jeanie

dangerboy wrote:

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

I understand what you are saying db. And again, I agree.
This is such an emotional and personal issue and seems to polarize people so very much. I would greatly prefer that we could advance the issue by being able to accept and attempt to understand that people have differences of opinion on this issue. And by being able to communicate more effectively then perhaps we could come up with better solutions that everybody could embrace for the good of all.



There's a really good book that I bought called:

Lost: Illegal Abortion Stories by Jo Wainer

She was the wife of one of the main abortion providers in this country. It is an amazing collection of personal stories about women who sought abortions in a time before they were legal. It is such a sad and moving portrayal of just how difficult and life changing this situation was before the advent of legal abortion.

And there was also a television program called:

Abortion, Corruption and Cops - The Bertram Wainer Story

http://www.abc.net.au/abccontentsales/s1580205.htm

Anyway, they may not interest you at all and that's fair enough, but I did find them very insightful.


And db, thank you for your respectfullness.

hippiemom

cincybearcat wrote:

I am 100% against abortion...

But this law is pretty stupid. Who really thinks that seeing an ultra-sound is going change someone's mind?

Hooray for common sense!

bookmuse

While on the treadmill at the gym today, I saw that there is a proposal in Texas to offer woman $500.00 not to abort. Insane!

hippiemom

bookmuse wrote:

While on the treadmill at the gym today, I saw that there is a proposal in Texas to offer woman $500.00 not to abort. Insane!

Hahaha .... every pregnant woman in Texas is going to be heading off the the abortion clinic so that she can get "talked out" of having an abortion and collect her check

soulsinging

bookmuse wrote:

While on the treadmill at the gym today, I saw that there is a proposal in Texas to offer woman $500.00 not to abort. Insane!

hmmm... i just did the math and i think they've got something there. by my calculations that should be MORE than enough to raise a child.

bookmuse

soulsinging wrote:

hmmm... i just did the math and i think they've got something there. by my calculations that should be MORE than enough to raise a child.

Yes, won't even cover the diapers or two weeks of daycare for an infant.
Now I'm curious and need to look up what elected official propsed this.

hippiemom wrote:

Hahaha .... every pregnant woman in Texas is going to be heading off the the abortion clinic so that she can get "talked out" of having an abortion and collect her check

The scary thing is, there may be (will be) young girls who think this is a lot of money. I'm sure it won't come to fruition.

->Edit - Here is an article
NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas (Reuters) -- A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.

Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said Friday the money might persuade the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption.

He said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.

"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those women, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said.

Patrick has filed legislation to make the payment state law, but the legislature has not voted on it.

His proposal calls for giving any woman going to an abortion clinic the $500 option, to be paid no more than 30 days after the baby is born and given up for adoption.

Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism."

Heather Paffe, political director of Planned Parenthood of Texas, said Patrick's proposal "is very cynical and insulting to women and their families."

"It's insulting to think women would make that kind of decision so easily," she said.

Copyright 2007 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

catefrances

bookmuse wrote:

While on the treadmill at the gym today, I saw that there is a proposal in Texas to offer woman $500.00 not to abort. Insane!

the australian government gives all new mums $4000 when their child is born.

bookmuse

catefrances wrote:

the australian government gives all new mums $4000 when their child is born.

Why is that?

Would have come in handy when I had my little guy

catefrances

bookmuse wrote:

Why is that?

Would have come in handy when I had my little guy

because the start up costs of having a child can get expensive. especially if a parent has had to take time off work to raise the child.
plus i think they're trying to encourage us to populate a very sparse country.

bookmuse

catefrances wrote:

because the start up costs of having a child can get expensive. especially if a parent has had to take time off work to raise the child.
plus i think they're trying to encourage us to populate a very sparse country.

Nice. I am anxiously waiting for this fall when my little one starts kindergarten - I will save greatly in preschool/daycare expenses.

Trau

How is abortion constitutionally protected?

audome25

in 21 pages did anyone mention the choice to not have sex or make somone sign a waiver saying they would raise said child if a pregnacy resulted? Or has it all been discussion of what happens after that choice is made?

and to whoever was talking about 3 sides to abortion, pro life is always portrayed at as anti killing fetus' and pro-choice as pro killing fetus'. so if one thinks killing a fetus is wrong but the government shouldn't be telling anyone what to do ever then not sure where one falls.

Daughter of Jeremy

catefrances wrote:

the australian government gives all new mums $4000 when their child is born.

Glad I scrolled down, I almost posted that info without knowing you already had!! When that first came in I worked at the Department of Child Safety in Queensland (children's services basically), and we had a lot of parents who had kids already in foster care boas about how they were going to have more kids to get the money. 9 months later we had REALLY pissed off parents when the kid got removed, along with the money. All the Howard government has achieved there is greater strain on our already stressed budgetary resources, an influx of kids in foster care (which no state system can handle), and a dramatic rise in the number of teenagers having babies. In one central western nsw town, the birth rate for teenagers having kids has gone up soemthing ridiculous since the money was introduced. The popoluation of the town is only a few hundred people, so that's a lot of teenagers (I think it was about 47% of the teenagers were pregnant)!!!! A little off topic from the original thread I realise.

farfromglorified

Trau wrote:

I think you are making a moral mistake by considering all of those viewpoints to be valid. How can it even be argued that a human is not a human from the moment it is conceived?

Easily -- the same way you would likely argue that a human is not a human from the moment its parents develop the individual sperm and egg.

A conceived child is dependent entirely on its mother's body, health and discretion. It is more a parasite than a human, and I mean parasite in a sense stripped of all negative connotations.

Who has the right to make such arbitrary declarations about when a human becomes a human?

Hehe...apparently you do, since you do that above.

Anyway, all of us has that right.

But that's arbitrary. I could just as well decide that a human is not really a human until he or she has control of over its own behavior.

You certainly could say that.

Jeanie

audome25 wrote:

in 21 pages did anyone mention the choice to not have sex or make somone sign a waiver saying they would raise said child if a pregnacy resulted? Or has it all been discussion of what happens after that choice is made?

and to whoever was talking about 3 sides to abortion, pro life is always portrayed at as anti killing fetus' and pro-choice as pro killing fetus'. so if one thinks killing a fetus is wrong but the government shouldn't be telling anyone what to do ever then not sure where one falls.

Yes audome, Trau and I think a couple of other people did mention abstainence.
And it is certainly an option for some people, but obviously not working as a real solution to ending the necesity for abortion.
I don't know how you would go about making someone sign a waiver before they had sex. Each and everytime they had unprotected sex? And frankly do we really want to go down that path?

As to this being an abortion debate as far as I can see, taking it from the original post, this thread should be about unecessary medical testing mandated by government. A breach of peoples civil liberties as far as I can see. Although, it seems we are all becoming less and less concerned about that in this current world climate.

I wish that we had all been able to leave the abortion part of the debate out of it and just debate what is really quite a serious concern on it's own.
The unrequested, and unwarranted abuse of testing of human beings as decreed by a government.

I can't help but wonder if people would be more concerned about this if it was happening for other tests for other medical situations?

Some examples that have occured to me include:

The state decreeing:
How a doctor would treat a cancer patient? Regardless of what the patient wanted or the doctor thought was the best option for the individual?
Sending people with neurological conditions for MRI's regardless of whether they could do anything to improve the patient's condition.
Mandating that all people be immunized regardless of whether they wished to be or not.

I'm sure there are other examples, those are just a few that occured to me.

audome25

Jeanie wrote:

Yes audome, Trau and I think a couple of other people did mention abstainence.
And it is certainly an option for some people, but obviously not working as a real solution to ending the necesity for abortion.
I don't know how you would go about making someone sign a waiver before they had sex. Each and everytime they had unprotected sex? And frankly do we really want to go down that path?

As to this being an abortion debate as far as I can see, taking it from the original post, this thread should be about unecessary medical testing mandated by government. A breach of peoples civil liberties as far as I can see. Although, it seems we are all becoming less and less concerned about that in this current world climate.

I wish that we had all been able to leave the abortion part of the debate out of it and just debate what is really quite a serious concern on it's own.
The unrequested, and unwarranted abuse of testing of human beings as decreed by a government.

I can't help but wonder if people would be more concerned about this if it was happening for other tests for other medical situations?

Some examples that have occured to me include:

The state decreeing:
How a doctor would treat a cancer patient? Regardless of what the patient wanted or the doctor thought was the best option for the individual?
Sending people with neurological conditions for MRI's regardless of whether they could do anything to improve the patient's condition.
Mandating that all people be immunized regardless of whether they wished to be or not.

I'm sure there are other examples, those are just a few that occured to me.

the waiver was a joke, someone commented early on about the man not supporting, leaving abortion as the only alternative.

and as far as abstinece goes its not somehting i readly practice, but i do find it interesting as a socitey the idea of not having sex if you aren't prepared for the possible outcome is completely out the window for the simple fact that people want to get laid and abortion is a presumed "easy" out.

people really that dumb that their still having lots of unprotected sex?

this is obvioulsy a guilt trip rule aimed at the few that would fall for it, and if someone was in the mental state where this would change their mind they were no where near sure or informed enough to be in the chair anyway.

Collin

audome25 wrote:

people really that dumb that their still having lots of unprotected sex?

Yes.