Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

Options
1…1820222324

Comments

  • tooferz
    tooferz Posts: 135
    Trau wrote:
    Actually, no. Sperm and eggs will not combine on their own; it takes sexual intercourse for that to happen. The process from conception to birth is automatic.
    actually sexual intercourse is not the only way. there's in-vitro. conception to birth is far from automatic there.
    Jeanie wrote:
    DOES ANYBODY WANT TO DISCUSS UNECESSARY STATE MANDATED MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT?
    it's kind of hard to discuss it without waffling about abortion because it's main purpose is to discourage women from having abortions...by tugging at women's heart strings or making it too expensive to have one. and we all know where abortion debates go...there is no debating..only arguing and name calling.

    outside the abortion debate, this could set a bad precedent. it could allow doctors to order many expensive procedures in an attempt to force a patient to follow his treatment course. if a patient is forced to have expensive procedures which may not be covered by insurance, they may have no choice but to opt for the 'suggested' treatment.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Trau wrote:
    Then don't complete it until you're ready to raise a child.

    Ride some tongue instead, or use a toy if you just can't control yourself.


    so much to say here and too decorous to say it. :) but suffice to say i am certain i dont require a sex lesson from you.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Trau
    Trau Posts: 188
    tooferz wrote:
    actually sexual intercourse is not the only way. there's in-vitro. conception to birth is far from automatic there.

    Oh yes, how could I have forgotten about that naturally occurring process?
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Trau wrote:
    So as long as it serves a purpose you agree with, a Supreme Court decision doesn't have to have any actual constitutional justification?
    As I said, I'd have based it on different reasoning. I think the 9th Amendment is sufficient and requires fewer mental gymnastics than the 14th, but then again, I didn't attend Harvard Law as Justice Blackmun did. But in the end, I DO think there is constitutional justification.
    Trau wrote:
    It's not the Constitution that is protecting abortion "rights", it's politics. The Constitution means the same thing today that it did before Roe v. Wade.
    The Constitution means what the last SCOTUS decision says it means. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
    Trau wrote:
    And there's nothing there that says a woman is allowed to have an abortion. That is why it ought to be left to the states.
    That's because the function of the Constitution is not to enumerate the rights of the people (that would make for a ridiculously lengthy document), it's to set limits on the authority of the government. There's no explicit right to life in the Constitution either, but you assume that you have it, don't you?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • hsewif
    hsewif Posts: 444
    catefrances wrote:
    perhaps. but it can still feel incomplete without penetration. the vagina is there for a reason.

    for BIRTH!

    Pleasure is the incentive, the afterthought.
  • Trau
    Trau Posts: 188
    hippiemom wrote:
    As I said, I'd have based it on different reasoning. I think the 9th Amendment is sufficient

    How so?
    The Constitution means what the last SCOTUS decision says it means. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.

    No it doesn't. Using that logic, anything could be justified.

    That's because the function of the Constitution is not to enumerate the rights of the people (that would make for a ridiculously lengthy document), it's to set limits on the authority of the government. There's no explicit right to life in the Constitution either, but you assume that you have it, don't you?

    Every person has the right to live under the Constitution. BUt even if that were not the case, there is no right to abortions in the Constitution, which means this whole issue should be left to the states.
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try
  • hsewif
    hsewif Posts: 444
    soulsinging wrote:
    so nobody has the upper hand here.

    neither side ever will.

    So what now?
  • chopitdown
    chopitdown Posts: 2,222
    hippiemom wrote:
    As I said, I'd have based it on different reasoning. I think the 9th Amendment is sufficient and requires fewer mental gymnastics than the 14th, but then again, I didn't attend Harvard Law as Justice Blackmun did. But in the end, I DO think there is constitutional justification.

    ahh yes the legal penumbra of the 9th and 14th amendments.

    i really have nothing to add, i just like how law papers use the word penumbra ad nauseum :)
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Trau wrote:
    How so?
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Trau wrote:
    No it doesn't. Using that logic, anything could be justified.
    As many things have been. And they were law until the Supremes reversed themselves. As I said, you don't have to agree with the decision. I doubt you agree with Dred Scott either ... I certainly don't, it was an abhorrent decision ... but for many years it was law. That's what the Constitution meant, until the Supreme Court said it didn't mean that any more.
    Trau wrote:
    Every person has the right to live under the Constitution.
    Where does it say that?
    Trau wrote:
    BUt even if that were not the case, there is no right to abortions in the Constitution, which means this whole issue should be left to the states.
    Or to the people themselves. I see no reason for states to get involved in private medical decisions.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Trau wrote:
    It all depends on the make-up of the Court. Just because the justices have been unwilling to be politically incorrect does not mean that Roe was a sound decision.

    Is it necessary to call me a self-righteous son of a bitch? What have I done to earn that from you?

    scotus has made a lot of unsound decisions. this is no different from any of them. like i said, hopefully it will stop soon. what you have done is annoyed the bejesus out of me with your elementary school grade-level argument style. your rebuttals to other people's points have about as much meat as a 3rd grader saying "nu-uh!" it's annoying, esp when delivered with that smug self satisfied smirk you evince. but it's cool... i think i remember you quite well, so there's plenty you've said that could be said to have earned that from me.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Trau wrote:
    How so?

    No it doesn't. Using that logic, anything could be justified.

    Every person has the right to live under the Constitution. BUt even if that were not the case, there is no right to abortions in the Constitution, which means this whole issue should be left to the states.

    where is the right to life in the constitution?
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    catefrances wrote:
    i feel it is an invasion of my privacy and a violation of my right to sovereignty over my own body. yet again it is a medical procedure aimed squarely at woman only. of course, seeings how they are the only ones who can become pregnant.


    And the ramifications for future state mandates?

    I worry because I see other examples of the state breaching the confidentiality of a person's medical records and decreeing mandates that directly breach a person's sovereignty over their own bodies.

    One case that springs to mind is the woman here who had her medical records seized by a member of parliament, who was also involved in legal action to prevent the woman from a late term TOP of a severely disabled pregnancy.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Trau
    Trau Posts: 188
    soulsinging wrote:
    where is the right to life in the constitution?

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."--14th Amendment
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Trau wrote:
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."--14th Amendment

    funny how just a minute ago you were telling hippiemom the 14th amendment didnt apply to this argument. anyway, this says the state cannot deny you life without due process. 1) there's no consensus that a fetus is a life. 2) assuming that, this still has to do with governmental proceedings and is a prohibition on the government executing citizens arbitrarily, without due process. it has nothing to do with citizen on citizen encroachments. it's a check on government, not an enumeration of people's rights. we have civil and criminal codes for regulating individual citizens' actions against each other. so this "right to life" you're pulling for has no more weight than hippiemom's arguing privileges or immunities applies to private medical decisions the state is not allowed to regulate. sadly for you, scotus saw it her way. suck it up.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    hsewif wrote:
    more available, yes. known about, no. Most doc's will advise the morning after pill if a woman calls her doc the morning after. It should be available to anyone at a low cost... I don't think it is right now.

    you can't take the morning after pill 8 weeks down the line... I don't think doc's prescribe it 2 months after-the-fact. Most women don't know they're preggo until they're 4-5 weeks in. Putting more $ into the MAP would be a waste.

    This ultrasound thing might not be a waste if it scares women AND MEN into NOT getting pregnant to begin with.


    I agree that some women are well informed about the morning after pill and they are able to procure it and take it under their doctor's supervision. But it has come to my attention on many occassions now that many women, younger women in particular, do not know that the morning after pill is available to them immediately following unprotected intercourse. Given the abortion rate it would appear that many don't know about that it is an option available to them. I would like to see the morning after pill be given more prominance. I would like to see more women aware, that should they find themselves in a situation after intercourse where they suspect that it is possible they may become pregnant that instead of worrying about it for weeks afterwards they should immediately procur it from a medical practitioner. I really think we need to support that option fully.

    I don't agree that most women don't know they are pregnant. If this is statistically indicated then I think more education is required to help women become better in tune with their bodies. What I'm saying is that in order to lower the abortion rate, education would help women to go immediately to their doctor if they have unprotected sex and have the morning after pill and at that time they can also discuss their birth control options for the future.

    If the thought of actual surgery, the removal of a potential life and the emotional upheaval of making the decision to abort is not enough to "scare" people into having safe sex, then why would you think that an ultrasound would? And I wouldn't advocate "scaring" people in their reproductive options anyway. This imo is part of the problem. Don't be trying to scare people, educate, educate, educate. And provided the services that they require, not those that they don't, should they find themselves contemplating TOP.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • bookmuse
    bookmuse Posts: 277
    :(

    A choice to terminate the pregnancy within first months or this....

    3/26/07 - Minnesota
    Infant's body found in Treasure Island Casino Marina


    The body of an infant was pulled from the waters of a marina at Treasure Island Casino on Monday.

    According to the Goodhue County Sheriff, an employee of the casino called the Sheriff's office just before 1 p.m. on Monday saying they'd found the body of an infant floating in the water.

    The body has been taken to Regina Medical Center in Hastings for an autopsy.

    Investigator Scott McNurlin said this is the third infant found in the waters of Goodhue County in eight years.

    Authorities will have more information on this sad discovery on Tuesday.
    "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes" ~ M Kuhn
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    hippiemom wrote:
    I see no reason for states to get involved in private medical decisions.

    I completely agree with this, and said as much in the mandatory vaccination thread.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • unemployable22
    unemployable22 Posts: 133
    soulsinging wrote:
    how about joining some organizations that help the women who carry that child to term take care of it? you know, health care for the baby, job security for young single mothers... oh yeah, you dont give a shit about what happens AFTER it's born do you? that would be communism!

    Hmm...seems to me that that conversation was simple debate between myself and ms. frances.....I don't believe I asked you. You already jumped my shit on one occasion, simply for speaking my thoughts. How about this...I'll do what I do, you do what you do...believe what you like, but get off my shit for speaking my mind and my beliefs. Who are you to question what organizations I belong to and what causes I support? Ms. Frances and I came to terms that we'd just agree to disagree.....why are you so quick to be completely belligerent and try to cause argument? Why not save that for a debate with someone who really matters and try to make a difference based on your beliefs? I said what I wanted to say. I'll leave it at that. I'm not here to argue with you like a teenage kid, and I won't.
    I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A GOD THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
    I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A WORLD THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Trau wrote:
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."--14th Amendment
    So the state can take your life as long as due process is followed. Rather flimsy, I'd say. Your right to due process is more protected.

    And now, to backtrack a bit, a couple of questions you've skipped over:

    Should the legislature have the power to demand that you surrender one of your constitutionally protected rights in order to exercise another?

    From where did you derive the idea that any organism containing human DNA is sacred and must be protected at all costs?

    And a couple of new ones:

    What do you think is the role of the Supreme Court, if not to interpret the Constitution?

    Do you think that the Constitution was meant to provide an exhaustive list of the rights of the people, to clearly define the role of government, or some other purpose?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • Trau
    Trau Posts: 188
    soulsinging wrote:
    funny how just a minute ago you were telling hippiemom the 14th amendment didnt apply to this argument.

    I did? Show me.
    anyway, this says the state cannot deny you life without due process.

    Whoops, ya got me. But none of you have addressed the issue that it should go to the states, not the Supreme Court.
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try

Categories