Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

hippiemom wrote:

We are not telling you what to do with your body. We are telling you what you can and can't do with alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. With a pregnancy, there are no external objects involved, nothing to regulate outside of the woman herself.

Then why is it illegal to be under the influence rather than only in possession of certain things?

Society has also decided that it is not acceptable for you to harm yourself without substances. What of that?

The precedent is there.

Trau wrote:

Then why is it illegal to be under the influence rather than only in possession of certain things?

Society has also decided that it is not acceptable for you to harm yourself without substances. What of that?

The precedent is there.

Drug laws are ridiculous, you'll get no argument from me on that one. Laws regarding alcohol and tobacco are in a different category. We regulate smoking in public places because it affects others. We say that you can't drive under the influence because it affects others. You're perfectly free to smoke and drink yourself to death as long as you don't bother anyone else.

And I know what you're going to say, which brings this argument around to where it always winds up, and which is the seemingly irreconcilable problem.

Trau wrote:

Then why is it illegal to be under the influence rather than only in possession of certain things?

Society has also decided that it is not acceptable for you to harm yourself without substances. What of that?

The precedent is there.

I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at in the second part of your post, but if you're comparing "harming" yourself to having an abortion, it doesn't stand up. Idelogical/moral objections aside, an abortion is a medical procedure.

soulsinging wrote:

if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant and not be held over a barrel for 18 years she has the option not to have sex too. men and women are equal in responsibility before sex, and equal afterwards. it seems kinda weird that there is a window in the middle where men have no rights and women hold all the cards.

at the same time, i support legal abortion and dont think there is really a better way to handle things. im just saying it's not so ideologically clear as people want it to seem.

oh my god what is going on here? i am in agreement with you conor. yes women do have that option. however we also have other options. some apparently so abhorrant that there are people who'd rather women be handmaidens to the human race. what is more irresponsible, a woman who aborts an unwanted foetus or a woman who gives birth and neglects her child?
and yeah i guess it is anomalous that women have this control over something men can't ever really control. it sucks for you guys i know. but you know what, until men can procreate without a woman you gonna have to live with it.





*spelling edit.*:)

Trau wrote:

But the decision to keep or kill their child remains hers and hers alone. A father has no choice whatsoever. He will be forced to pay for a child even if he does not want it, and forced to deal with the loss of his child even if he does.

Oh poor, poor fellow!! Why on earth would he want to be having sex with such mercenary, murderous women then anyway? And the traumas of financial obligation must be sooo psychologically damaging for the poor fellow!! My heart bleeds for him!

OH THAT'S RIGHT!!!! It's ALL about MEN getting off and getting away with it completely obligation free!!! AND controlling women's bodies.

Ah the EVILS of women! They're a disgrace really!!

So anyway, anybody else, any other government got any other medical procedure that they decree I should subject my body to based on their inane and completely offensive judgements and the fact that I'm a woman?

This is starting to sound like the Taliban at work!

So much misogany so little time!!

It's REALLY fucking simple!! If you are a man and you object to abortion then DO NOT have unprotected sex with viable sperm in your body!!
There's your choice right there!

Perhaps we should decree that all men of sexual maturity have an unecessary scan and make them observe the sanctity of their swimmers before they can have unprotected sex.

OH AND FOR THE BACK ROW THAT SEEM TO FIND IT SOOOO HARD TO UNDERSTAND abortion is not a woman KILLING her CHILD.

catefrances wrote:

yes i did see your explanation.

Some theists will suggest that God him/herself implanted the Y chromosome, which would constitute a true miracle, defying the laws of nature. I suggest then that theist archaeologists should not try to naturally explain other so-called miracles from the bible. Ultimately they cannot naturally explain the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, unless it was in-fact Judith Christ.

i wasn't attacking you ryan. i was merely asking a question.

I know

Trau wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't understand that we great and oppressive men were possessed of the foresight to know which women will have an abortion should they become pregnant.

Are you going to attempt to tell me that we are not living in a patriachial society? And that the majority of oppressed in the world in this day and age are not women and children? It may not sound very pleasant but I think you'll find that it is the case.
Men can't know which women will have an abortion should they become pregnant, just as they can't know which women will carry a pregnancy to term. A woman can't know that at the point of intercourse either with complete clarity. It goes back to men having to make the choice at the time of conception. To ask the questions then or protect themselves from contributing DNA. Really Trau that is the man's time to choose.

Trau wrote:

When psycholgical damage come into it? If he does not want it, why should he have to pay, when on the other side of the issue, the woman can decide to kill it against his wishes? All rights belong to her. That's not equality.

Also: Nine months versus eighteen years of something one doesn't want.

I agree that if he doesn't want it he shouldn't have to pay for it for the rest of the childs life if the woman continues with the pregnancy against his wishes. And I do believe that the man's wishes absolutely need to be considered when the decision to continue the pregnancy or abort is being decided. But firstly, I believe the laws about fathers paying for their children were enacted to provide for the child. And the mother will also have to do this over the child's life. The only way a man gets to really choose in this situation is to make the choice for himself at the point of intercourse. To protect himself against the possibility that the next few minutes of pleasure could be very costly in the long run and perhaps the best choice is to abstain, have the conversation about pregnancy/termination at that point or put on a heavy duty condom. And the rights after conception belong to her because men don't get pregnant. She has the right to decide what happens to her body. It's basic science and the facts of life as they stand and as it won't be changing any time soon then that is up to the man to recognize where his choice comes into it and exercise it, just as is the case for women.

Trau wrote:

I'm sorry you cannot see beyond this simplification, but it really isn't about that at all. I do not believe that a man should be able opt out of child support, but I also do not believe that a woman should be allowed to abort her child.

The way would have it, however, is entirely unequal. You mentioned psychological trauma--what about the trauma sustained by a man who wishes to keep their child, but she decides to get rid of it?

Well if it's not about controlling women's bodies, controlling women, then why do men care about it so much? Why so many laws inacted? Why keep going over it? Why do men (and some women) still want the right to legislate that women grow cells inside them that they do not want inside them? Because as we've said, the solution is simple. We all have choices about our bodies. And we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies. The choices just come into the equation at different times.

And I have EVERY sympathy for men who suffer this trauma. It is a very sad situation.

Trau wrote:

I agree! And if women don't want to get pregnant, they should not be having sex, either. I love how you leave all responsibility at the feet of the man.

I think you are a very good example of how feminism no longer has anything to do with equality. I offer the term "equalism" for those of us who want true equality rather than preferences for men or women.

I'm not leaving ALL responsibility at the feet of man, please refer to the above statements about patriachal society.
And please do not assume that I'm a feminist. Not that that is a bad thing to be. I wish we had true equality. All people. Men, women and children.
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned we should all be making more love and less hate, we just need to make responsible choices to attempt to ensure that these situations do not occur. BUT SHOULD THEY OCCUR ANYWAY? Ultimately it's the woman's body and her right to decide what happens to it.
Just as it is the man's body and he ultimately has the right to decide where he leaves his sperm. This is not new information. We all need to remember it.
And back to the subject at hand, being as that IS my belief, then ultrasounding woman unecessarily is a violation of a women's right to decide what happens to her body and should not be state sanctioned. If the government was sanctioning unecissary and manditory procedures for men I would be equally outraged and against it.

Trau wrote:

Then what is it?

Refer to ahnimus about the developmental stages of a pregnancy from conception to birth. Women killing their children requires a child not a cell cluster.

Jeanie wrote:

Women killing their children requires a child not a cell cluster.

cell clusters don't have brains, eyelids, and fingers

not a link to a gross photo

dangerboy wrote:

cell clusters don't have brains, eyelids, and fingers

not a link to a gross photo

It's not a child either.

Thanks for link though and for thoughtfully indicating it's content. Much appreciated.