Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

[Anna Perenna]

No. I'm not saying that at all...

I'm saying that hearing this kind of sh t breaks my heart into a million pieces... and I'd rather that child never had to know of such things. Being blessed with a child is the greatest gift anyone can receive, and if you aren't going to appreciate that fact, you don't fukking deserve a child.

So often I hear things like "If you play, you pay." or a child being referred to as a "consequence" of being irresponsible in these kinds of debates. A child is a GIFT! and it's a gift that comes with a huge responsibility. They were irresponsible enough to get themselves knocked up, but they'll suddenly step up and be responsible as a parent? Some do and some don't. Some can't/won't even step up for the length of a pregnancy. Those that aren't up to taking the responsibility, should not be blessed with that gift.

I also hear the adoption argument often. Not all adoptive homes are a wonderful place to be. Abuse happens there, too.

I don't think most abusive parents start out with the intention to harm their child. "Oh! I'll have this baby so I can beat it to death in a couple weeks or months or years!" I think they are unprepared for the demands of parenthood... especially when it's a young person having the child. There is no way to fully experience what being a parent is until you are one. You have ideas and theories and maybe even some experience with babies and children, but the reality of the day in and day out of it is a far cry from babysitting.

So often these abusers walk away with a slap on the wrist and have their children returned to them once they've jumped through the right hoops. The laws that we currently have don't respect the fact that a child... a child who has no voice in this world... a child that has been entrusted to your care... is being forced to endure more than anyone should ever have to endure.

If our society was half as concerned about the well being of the fully developed children we have already roaming the earth as they are about abortion rights, maybe I'd feel differently.

(case in point: several neighbors heard this child crying "Mommy make it stop!" throughout his torture. Several drug addicts entered the apartment and suggested he needed some medical attention... None of them reported a thing.)

Little Domnick's story just might change accountability.... bills are currently being drafted in order to strengthen child abuse laws in Michigan. I hope it spreads like wildfire across our nation and across the globe.

Your posts are great. I get so angry in abortion debates, because the issue will always reside in a very murky grey area, but many people seem to want absolute black/white resolutions and regulations for it.

There are too many scenarios to consider, and to encompass (with policy) for it to ever be a black/white issue - and 'morality' shouldn't be allowed into the decision making process, because it just clouds the issue (and personal judgment) further.

Legal, clean, safe, clinically-aided abortions (performed for fully informed parents) are always going to be the best solution to this grey area issue.

(Sorry for discussing abortion, Emkay)

 

[mercury]

Your posts are great. I get so angry in abortion debates, because the issue will always reside in a very murky grey area, but many people seem to want absolute black/white resolutions and regulations for it.

There are too many scenarios to consider, and to encompass (with policy) for it to ever be a black/white issue - and 'morality' shouldn't be allowed into the decision making process, because it just clouds the issue (and personal judgment) further.

Legal, clean, safe, clinically-aided abortions (performed for fully informed parents) are always going to be the best solution to this grey area issue.

(Sorry for discussing abortion, Emkay)

Thanks, Anna.

I'm not an abortion happy person... like you said, it's a grey area. If you are against abortion- don't have one. period.

 

[timesjoke]

I understand your frustration and pain in this story Merc, but these are not the kinds of people who would have gotten an abortion anyway so even thought it is heart wrenching to see this kind of story, it is not part of the abortion discussion.

Your other points about children being gifts and some people not respecting that gift is, in fact how is killing the baby showing more respect for the gift? I still do not see where anything you have said supports a good reson to have irresponsibility based abortions as easy. Life is a gift, babies are a gift, and it makes no sense at all to kill something that is precious. If the adults are not showing proper respect and care for their children then do as you mentioned and increase penalties for their actual actions, don't condone 1.4 million killings a year just because some of them "might" not properly care for their children.

As far as adoptions are concerned, I don't think your being fair, to the best of my knowledge it is extremely rare for an adoptive home to turn out bad, there screening process is so severe these days most of these placements turn out to be very good for the children, and considering the alternative is they get killed, I am sure they would want even a medicore life over death, that is how I would feel.

You know what bothers me about these discussions? No insult to you but it seems to me most of these discussions seem to concentrate on the lest common issues with the average abortion. Defenders of abortions talk about rape and such but these things account for between 1 and 2 percent of the total number of abortions performed in America (depending on what study you prefer). Even your comment that abortions will save some children from later abuse is really not a reasonable point because you can't say for sure they will be abused and killing just for a preventive measure is also trying to play ***. How many of those aborted children would not be abused and is it fair to that dead baby to be forced to die just because some other children might be abused?

I am involved in the Florida Guardian ad Litem, I used to do case work but now I am mostly involved in fundraising and petitioning our lawmakers. I was very involved in pushing Jessica's law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

And I helped several other groups push for similar laws in many States but unfortunetely there are still States who do not think this kind of law is good for them. The way to fight child abuse is not to kill the children who some may believe are at risk to be abused but instead to provide a strict method for dealing with the rare cases of real abuse such as the situation you describe.

I believe a severe child abuse case like what your talking about should have both parents facing the death penalty and everyone else who knew directly, saw the child and never called police should face a minimum 10 year sentence for their enabling and helping in the death of a child.

Anna, please take a second and read what I have to say, more often than not you seem to assume things and beliefs for me that I do not have and I would like a chance to really get along better with you.

Yes, I support laws and laws are supposed to represent the morals and beliefs of society. I also believe killing just to escape taking responsibility for a choice already made is wrong. But after those two main reasons I am also very concerned with the long term damage done to all women who get abortions. It is proven that most women still suffer over their choice to kill their children even 20 years later so when we see how much harm is caused by what appears to be a short term solution, why can't you agree that maybe "some" tiny steps to reconnect humanity to the process is needed?

Abortions are a symptom of a larger problem of irresponsibility. We cannot improve things unless we can deal with the reason why women turn to abortions. Most abortions are to women who already have children and either did not use any protections, or used protections irregulary during the month they conceived. Not consistently using protections is why almost all unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion happen, so how do we get women and men to use protections? This is the real issue, not abortions, we have to stop making irresponsibility so easy for people to get away with in society.

Abortions will not see any real decline until we can get people to start taking responsibility for their reproductive activities.

I refuse to just give up on humanity and believe that we must kill babies because people will never take responsibility for themselves. I believe people will take responsibility for their actions but only to the point you make people take responsibility. How many people would pay their electric bill if they would never turn it off for non-payment? The less you require out of people the less they do.

I have no doubt in my mind that if we take steps to hold parents more responsible for their reproduction, that they will learn and be more careful, sure there will be a short term learning curve but never forget that Americans have been working around problems for a long time based on taking responsibility for their own lives, most of the problems we have today are caused by Government telling people and companies that they are not responsible for their actions. In the early days of America most people struck out on their own, took up a piece of land and provided for their own existence without asking for handouts.

I don't think asking people to take responsibility for their own reproductive systems is too much to ask.

 

[mercury]

I also understand your passion (and compassion) surrounding this issue, TJ. It's a tough subject all the way around and there are no easy cut and dry answers at either end of the spectrum. (i.e. preventing unwanted/unplanned pregnancy vs what to do when it does occur.)

While I am opposed to abortion on a personal level, I refuse to place judgment on someone who I have no idea of the facts surrounding their situation or deny them the ability to govern how their body is used. I'm not perfect... but I'm working on it and when I get there, maybe I'll be that all knowing person who comes up with the solution to everyone's problems. (LOL)

 

[timesjoke]

Wow, that almost sounded like a little slam there Merc.

So only perfect people can make a moral judgement about how they want their society to be formed?

Why is it you still refuse to admit that the women did have 100% control over their bodies when they made the "choice" to have unprotected ***? An abortion is not about having control over their body, it is about escaping taking responsibility for the results of the control they already conducted with their body.

I used the example of murder on purpose, it shows both the most extreme example of bad behavior by a person as well as the most intrusive action by Government to try and deal with that immoral action that society as a whole has said is wrong.

I am not placing any judgements against any one person, I am saying killing children in the womb for irresponsibility reasons is wrong, and most Americans agree on this one topic. Many different reactions of what to do about it exist but the one thing almost everyone agrees on is abortions of this kind should have some restrictions placed on them. At the same time we also tend to agree that abortions for reasons that are not about irresponsibility should be seen as completely different.

In all reality there are not as many 'gray' areas as some people try to insert into the issue. Everythiing starts with one simple truth, in almost all of the abortion examples two people had unprotected *** and created a baby. It really is that simple. Everything else, all the complications that some try to pull into the discussion are irrelivent to the fact that the first thing that had to happen is for two adults to behave in completely irresponsible ways. We need to address this irresponsible behavior somehow. I am very open to any advise or ideas to improve this very serious problem but I sticking our heads in the sand and pretending there is not a problem is not an option for me.

I am not perfect, I am very messed up, but I will not stand around watching bad things happen with my hands in my pockets waiting for a perfection that is impossible to find. My children deserve more than my indifference to current wrongs in society.

Consider this one point, if your exceeding the posted speed limit by at least 15 MPH in almost all States in America the police have the right to take you to jail and charge you with wreckless driving that can put you in jail for awile. The reason for this severe intrusion into our lives is not the speed, but the "potential" for harm to other lives. There is no sliding scale for people trained in handling vehicles at higher speeds, there is no understanding that maybe you just had a bad day and needed to blow off some steam, sure a cop might let you off the hook but the law is the law.

So just the potential for harm is enough to place you in jail, but if you do actual harm, your a mother and you kill your own child, that is considered reasonable? Speeding is immoral enough to put you in jail but killing your own child is not?

When our children are not even safe in the womb of their mother, when even their own mother wants them dead, I say we have declined as a Nation and even more, we have declined as human beings.

 

[mercury]

Not a slam at all... if it was, it was one aimed at myself, ya big doofus!

Simply put... I don't have the answers. I wish I did.

 

[timesjoke]

I can tell you for sure that nobody has all the answers Merc.

I guess the point I am at is "something" has to be attempted, everyone putting their heads in the sand has us still killing 1.4 million babies every year. No, this is not a perfect step, but it is a step in the direction of including the emotional side of the decision into the mix where up to this point, the abortion clinic workers have been controlling the discussion and keeping women away from the emotional component. Then "after" the deed is done, these same workers who talked the woman into killing her child are nowhere to be found while the woman suffers a lifetime from her choice.

There has to be a better way, we are the most powerful Nation in the world, the richest Nation in the world where even the poorest people in America still usually have cellphones and cable television, this cannot be the best we can come up with. It is a disgrace that we turn our backs on the lives that need our protection the most.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Simply put:

Under your basic human rights should you have to pay for an ANY unwanted procedure and should you be forced to endure one you don't want if it is unessesary ? Again...abortion off the table.

The system of law in the United States isn't based on "human rights". It's based on civil and individual rights.

There is a difference.

 

[hugo]

Not everyone believes that life begins at the moment of conception

It was considered a fact when I was taught biology. I am pretty old but I don't think human biology has changed since then.

The fact is the Constitution protects the individual and if there is such a universally accepted moral belief on the need to change a law in order to deprive individuals of liberty we have an amendment process to do so.

 

[timesjoke]

It was considered a fact when I was taught biology. I am pretty old but I don't think human biology has changed since then.

The fact is the Constitution protects the individual and if there is such a universally accepted moral belief on the need to change a law in order to deprive individuals of liberty we have an amendment process to do so.

hugo, your not paying attention, we deprive even a speeder of their liberty, place them in handcuffs and put them in jail for exceeding the posted speed limits, there is no amendment to the Constitution for this power, it is considered immoral and wrong to put other lives in danger by speeding and local communities have said they want this immoral act punnished. So everything from speeding to murder includes the Government stepping in and depriving people of their freedoms "for cause". How many of these crimes that have the police and the courts imposing punnishments also come with a constitutional amendment for each of them individually?

Not one.

I asked you both before why the law making process that was created by our forefathers is now not supposed to be part of the system? If every law we were supposed to have had already been created, why did they create such a complex system to define the proper ways of making new laws?

The problem with things like abortion is nobody in those far gone times could even conceive of the idea that 1.4 million babies would be killed every year in America, I have no doubt in my mind at all that if they had known of this furture issue they would have included protection against such things way back then.

 

[hugo]

Actually, tens of million of babies may well be being aborted. Just most of them are being aborted just shortly after conception by birth control methods. You are not opposed to abortion..just abortion after a specific period.. You do not even believe the life of the fetus is sacred at any point since you favor the killing of the children of rapists and grandfathers. I suspect the pro-life movement is financed by manufacturers of birth control methods. I suspect opposing abortion allows those who succuth on the false tittith of *** outside of marriage to still feel moral.

A point conservatives might understand. You go to buy a gun, The gun shop owner says "There is a new law. You must go to the morgue and look at suicide by gunshot victims and pay $100 for the privelege". Ya don't think that would infringe on the Constitution? The law will be ruled unconstitutional it is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. Government cannot force a search of an innocent individuals body which is exactly what this law does.

Many states never gave up Jim Crow until judicial decisions forced them to. The Constitution limits tyranny, by government, of the individual. It was the love of limited government that made us a great nation It is the love of government control that is bankrupting us both financially and morally.

The complexity in the Constitution consists of attempts to limit the tyranny of the majority. The powers granted to government are pretty straight forward. They are in Article I Section 8 of our great constitution and the amendments.

 

[timesjoke]

The best part of all that rant you try to pin on me is that you obviously know you are wrong, otherwise that attack would not have been needed by you, lol.

I have said over and over again I do not mix my own personal faith driven beliefs with what I want for society, you must know this as many times as I have said this so your reason to misrepresent my possition is clear, you are just ****** off.

For everyone else who may have believed that set of intentional untrue words let me say again, my possition for society is not based in religion, almost every possition I take on a society level is based on responsibility. I personally find any killing of any child at any point to be horrible, but I do not mix my personal views with my wider public opinions. This is why I allow for abortions under cases of incest and rape, the woman/girl had no choice, no option to say no to the creation of a baby inside her and that means she has no responsibility to carry the baby to term.....I would love to see her give life a chance, the life was not evil but in many cases the baby inside them is like being raped again, over and over without stop.

Now, back to the question hugo dodged twice now.

Hugo, why is it you refuse to answer a direct question about how laws are created? Why do you refuse to admit that we are supposed to have new laws based on the morals of communities? As I said before, if we had every law we could ever need on the books, why would our founding fathers create a system for creating new laws? You seem to only want to see a very narrow segment of American history and you completely ignore the rest. Our founding fathers knew that times would change, they knew that their view on the world would not fit an eternity, that was why they set forth ways to adjust things as we go, to allow for new possibilities and needs they could not plan for.

They knew time would bring change.

Now, I offered you some great examples showing how everything from speeding to murder can put you in handcuffs and even have the Government take your life. None of these specific punnishments are included in the Constitution, in reality the Federal Government was never supposed to make laws that directly control citizens, that was supposed to be the job of each State and even Row v Wade said that this was a States issue. If you don't like the laws of that State, don't live there.

All laws are based in morals, this law is the same. If we can kill a person for moral reasons, I don't believe an ultrasound performed by people who think killing babies is a good thing is something to be even considered an intrusion. If the hoover shoved up there is not an intrusion on the person, then the ultrasound is nothing in comparison.

Remember, the woman made a "choice" to have unprotected *** and create an unwanted child. The same woman has a "choice" to kill her child, all that is being asked is that part of the "RESPONSIBILITY" of killing your child is to see it first.

I have no problem with that.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

A point conservatives might understand. You go to buy a gun, The gun shop owner says "There is a new law. You must go to the morgue and look at suicide by gunshot victims and pay $100 for the privelege". Ya don't think that would infringe on the Constitution? The law will be ruled unconstitutional it is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. Government cannot force a search of an innocent individuals body which is exactly what this law does.

That's not a good analogy... You are forced when you buy a gun to pay for a background check. The only way to get around that is to have a carry permit, which you also have to pay for... Both prerequisite to purchasing/carrying a gun, even though it's a constitutional right.

 

[timesjoke]

That's not a good analogy... You are forced when you buy a gun to pay for a background check. The only way to get around that is to have a carry permit, which you also have to pay for... Both prerequisite to purchasing/carrying a gun, even though it's a constitutional right.

SLAM!!!

Another point where his anology is way, way off base is guns are not "exclusively" for committing suicide, in fact most legal guns never get used against a human target. An abortion on the other hand is "ALWAYS" killing a human target, there is no other use or reason and the purpose of the ultrasound is to let the mother see the child their killing. A person who uses a gun on another person "WILL" see the person in their sights just before pulling the trigger, lol. All gun use has us with the ability to see our target, all this ultrasound will do is give mother's the same ability, in fact, being as these ultrasounds will be performed by abortion clinics, I bet they can even place a set of cross hairs on the screen..............

 

[hugo]

That's not a good analogy... You are forced when you buy a gun to pay for a background check. The only way to get around that is to have a carry permit, which you also have to pay for... Both prerequisite to purchasing/carrying a gun, even though it's a constitutional right.

But a liberal state might think it a good idea to insure the gun buyer is fully informed. Don't f with the Constitution.

There is only one way to form a law when your agenda is unconstitutional and that is to amend the Constitution which was wisely made quite difficult to prevent tyrannical majorities depriving individuals of individual liberty.

There is a Roman Catholic couple I know who I respect their moral stance which is actually based on scripture. Their only birth control method was the rhythm method. Y'all simply wish to enforce every woman to use the pill. That ain't worth violating the Constitution for.I can understand why single males who wish to spread their ***** around would find forced birth control a good idea. Depriving women of rights so ya can freely fornicate ain't constitutional though

In a democracy laws are formed when 50+% of the populace decide to deprive the rest of the populace of their liberty on one or more issues. The Constitution guarantees individuals liberty from the wouldbe tyrannical majority.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I've never before seen so many faux conservatives, try to justify their hypocritical support for government tyranny in my entire life.

 

[hugo]

I've never before seen so many faux conservatives, try to justify their hypocritical support for government tyranny in my entire life.

In the 60's there were basically two brands of conservatism. One was represented by Barry Goldwater, the other George Wallace. We got Wallace types here.

 

[Anna Perenna]

Anna, please take a second and read what I have to say, more often than not you seem to assume things and beliefs for me that I do not have and I would like a chance to really get along better with you.

I would like to not get angry every time I read your posts, but as it stands, this post is the only post of yours that hasn't angered me.

Me: completely independent, free-thinking, modern Australian woman. (I am not a 'radical liberal' as you would like to label me. I am simply a normal human being, living in the present)

You: parochial, conservative, religious American man who makes biased assumptions and is highly emotional.

I find your beliefs archaic, offensive, and often baseless. It's going to be very difficult for us to ever get along.

The only reason I get along with Hugo, despite his (irrational, IMHO) affection for the Constitution and ye olden days, is because he doesn't make assumptions or attack me, his opinions aren't based on hatred or emotion, and when I ask him a question, he tries his best to answer it.

 

[hugo]

The only reason I get along with Hugo, despite his (irrational, IMHO) affection for the Constitution and ye olden days, is because he doesn't make assumptions or attack me, his opinions aren't based on hatred or emotion, and when I ask him a question, he tries his best to answer it.

Thanks...I think. The Constitution defends my classical liberal principles. I guess if I was a modern liberal or archaic conservative I would not be quite as enamored with it. I just don't trust majority rule and see a constitutional republic as the best method to defend the individual against excesses from the left and right.

If we could bring back the olden days, minus the racism and sexism, I would be a happy man.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Thanks...I think. The Constitution defends my classical liberal principles. I guess if I was a modern liberal or archaic conservative I would not be quite as enamored with it. I just don't trust majority rule and see a constitutional republic as the best method to defend the individual against excesses from the left and right.

If we could bring back the olden days, minus the racism and sexism, I would be a happy man.

Hear, hear!