Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

That was a blatant shot IWS.

I'm sure women are told of the risks of having a breast augmentation. They might even have videos or photos of botched surguries or leakage. Not having sagging boobs to get the procedure probably isn't one of them but maybe it should Tori. .
The fact is that women are not informed of the life long trauma an abortion can have on them. If seeing a living thing inside them doesn't deter them then that's fine. If they are apprehensive to see it wouldn't it be feasible to assume they would have problems later in life?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IWS said:
First of all that was not a shot, it was an example, a description, like blue as a clear shy, warm as the sun, old as dirt, running away like a scared little girl was not calling anyone a scard (sic) girl, just offering an example of running away, viewing an ultrasound before an abortion is LIKE being counseled of the whoreishness of fake boobs before a breast augmentation, isn't a shot, just offering an example of a moral requirement, under the force of government, before a legal medical procedure.
Click to expand...


lol, at best it was a very, very bad example Joe, even tori pointed out the weakness of that as an example before my post so we know that the merit of your example was flawed.

There is no moral agreement in society that implants mean a woman is a whore, your just going out of your way to call my girlfriend a whore, and yes, it is a shot at me even if you can't admit it. But I really don't care if your taking shots at me Joe, it just shows the reality that your not willing to discuss any of the points I offer and have to change the subject away from the things you can't address.


No Joe, I am not going to get shot in the face, I am not going to get cancer and die, and I am not going to stop being me and pointing out distraction tactics for those who seem willing to ask questions but never answer them. If you really feel banning should be part of your debating style as you just threatened me with yesterday, then you may as well do it because I don't do fear, I don't stop debating someone just because they have a ban button.



You joind the discussion, you asked questions, and it is fair to ask you questions in return and to tell the truth when you refuse to answer those questions, I have done nothing wrong.
 
I think the fake boob analogy was simply misguided. I do believe that most women are required to see pictures of before and after, and botched tit jobs. It only makes sense when they are requesting the procedure.
 
RaE said:
I think the fake boob analogy was simply misguided. I do believe that most women are required to see pictures of before and after, and botched tit jobs. It only makes sense when they are requesting the procedure.
Click to expand...

Again, the difference is that it is provided information, not information required under force of government.
 
IWS said:
Again, the difference is that it is provided information, not information required under force of government.
Click to expand...


Ok well even though I think it's a good idea to have the ultrasound I will conced that it would be intrusive on the govements part to pass it into law.
 
Funny how they were able to put caution labels on medications and have to disclose side affects of drugs in commercial though. The abortion could endanger the life of the women and it terminates another. Wouldn't a ultrasound be a precational practice say if the baby were breach or some other anomaly?
 
snafu said:
Ok well even though I think it's a good idea to have the ultrasound I will conced that it would be intrusive on the govements part to pass it into law.
Click to expand...

I also never argued it was not intrusive, of course it is intrusive, the question is, does the level of intrusion seem reasonable? This is why I pointed out things like placing people in jail for speeding or requiring Americans to purchase car insurance, or requiring Americans to have a background check and trigger lock if they want to own a gun (gun ownership "IS" a right under the Constitution while abortion "is not"). The Government already intrudes in the freedoms of Americans all the time for much lesser reasons than to reattach the humanity puzzle piece to the abortion equasion.


Think of it this way, while a lot of people play games with the whole "tax money does not go to abortion" claim when all know it does, tax payer funds go to planned parenthood groups under "education" claims but we all know some of that money funds abortions. These planned parenthood groups already use taxpayer money to push the clinical side of abortion so in a certain sense, the government is already involved and at this time is only offering one side of the arguement, this ultrasound requirement brings the Government back to the middle, back to offering both sides of the discussion and offers balance to the information process prior to a woman deciding to kill her child.


Please remember, it is the lack of the human side that is the most likely reason women even 20 years later suffer from their rash decision. They have made a decision with only one side of the coin being considered because the abortion clinics intentionally block the woman from considering that other side. If we let women consider both sides, it is my belief that their decision will be made from the benefit from having considered all sides and would most likely not have the issues so many women have later in life.
 
since it terminates a life, I am all for the intrusiveness of an ultrasound before an abortion- and am ok with the gov't putting this restriction on it. I don't really care if it is inconvenient to have to see the baby before it is murdered.



again: an abortion is elective, and preventable.

Don't like the restrictions? don't have one.


Call me names, label me, whatever. But the fact that there is another, innocent, life at stake here make government involvement completely reasonable in my opinion.

:)
 
snafu said:
Funny how they were able to put caution labels on medications and have to disclose side affects of drugs in commercial though. The abortion could endanger the life of the women and it terminates another. Wouldn't a ultrasound be a precational practice say if the baby were breach or some other anomaly?
Click to expand...

No Snaf.. not .unless a "breech" ball of cells the size of a thumbnail is cause for concern.
 
"since it terminates a life, I am all for the intrusiveness of an ultrasound before an abortion- and am ok with the gov't putting this restriction on it. I don't really care if it is inconvenient to have to see the baby before it is murdered."

Of course you're fine..it doesn't affect you..you're a man. Don't like abortion..don't have one :p
 
emkay64 said:
"since it terminates a life, I am all for the intrusiveness of an ultrasound before an abortion- and am ok with the gov't putting this restriction on it. I don't really care if it is inconvenient to have to see the baby before it is murdered."

Of course you're fine..it doesn't affect you..you're a man. Don't like abortion..don't have one :p
Click to expand...

So a man can't be affected?

If a woman killed my child growing in her womb it most certainly would affect me.

My children, one being a female, grows up in a world where abortion is considered a reasonable method of birth control and using other precautions is considered 'too hard', she can likely have this procedure herself. Long after the cold and calculating abortion workers have "done their job" and talked her into getting an abortion because it is "no big deal", tell me something em, who is going to be there trying to help my daughter pick up the pieces of her now broken emotional state?

I will love my daughter no matter what she does, that is part of unconditional love and family but will she love herself? Will she be one of millions of women who fall into a lifetime of depression caused by her abortion? Will she try to kill herself from her internal termoil? But your right em, I am a man and there is no possible way I could be affected...........
 
What really should be done by the pro-lifers is to pass a bill that directly violates Roe v. Wade while there is still a possibility of 5 votes on the USSC to overturn it.
 
hugo said:
What really should be done by the pro-lifers is to pass a bill that directly violates Roe v. Wade while there is still a possibility of 5 votes on the USSC to overturn it.
Click to expand...


I believe that is the intent of the push for "personhood" laws.
 
Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court ProducerMay 17, 2010 12:10 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely after they have served their sentences if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future.

"The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.

At issue was the constitutionality of federal "civil commitment" for sex offenders who are nearing the end of their confinement or who are considered too mentally incompetent to stand trial.

The main plaintiff in the case, Graydon Comstock, was certified as dangerous six days before his 37-month federal prison term for processing child pornography was to end. Comstock and the others filing suit remain confined at Butner Federal Correctional Complex near Raleigh, North Carolina.

Three other inmates who filed suit served prison terms of three to eight years for offenses ranging from child pornography to sexual abuse of a minor. Another was charged with child sex abuse but was declared mentally incompetent to face trial.

All were set to be released nearly three years ago, but government appeals have blocked their freedom. The government says about 83 people are being held under the civil commitment program.

Corrections officials and prosecutors determined the men remained a risk for further sexually deviant behavior if freed. The inmates' attorneys maintain the continued imprisonment violates their constitutional right of due process and argue Congress overstepped its power by allowing inmates to be held for certain crimes that normally would fall under the jurisdiction of state courts.

The law in question is the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which includes a provision allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled lawmakers had overstepped their authority by passing it, prompting the current high court appeal.

"The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," Breyer wrote.

Breyer equated the federal civil commitment law to Congress' long-standing authority to provide mental health care to prisoners in its custody, if they might prove dangerous, "whether sexually or otherwise."

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the federal government overstepped its bounds.

"Congress' power, however, is fixed by the Constitution," Thomas wrote. "It does not expand merely to suit the states' policy preferences, or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds." He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.The case represented a victory for the federal government and the woman who argued the case on its behalf, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. President Obama nominated Kagan last week to serve on the Supreme Court.

A key lawmaker behind the Adam Walsh act applauded the ruling.

"The court's holding today is a victory on behalf of the American people," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"The process to enact this law to protect our children from those who would do them harm was difficult. I am heartened to see an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court uphold this important child protection law."

The justices in April 2009 had blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who had served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain "sexually dangerous." Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the men be kept in custody while the case worked its way to the high court.

Most violent sex offenses are handled at the state level, and at least 20 states run programs in which sexual predators are held indefinitely or until they are no longer considered dangerous. The federal government's civil commitment program is relatively new.

The Adam Walsh act was named after the son of John Walsh, host of TV's "America's Most Wanted."Adam Walsh was kidnapped and murdered by a suspected child molester in 1981.

The act also increased punishments for certain federal crimes against children and created a national registry for sex offenders. Those aspects of the bill were not being challenged in this case.
Click to expand...

Notice it was Scalia and Thomas who dissented. They dissented not because of any love for sex offenders but because of an attachment to our constitution and the concept of limited government power. Scalia and Thomas will rule similarly on Oklahomas' new law. They will be joined by the liberals for sure. It may well be a shutout 9-0.
 

Attachments

  • c04d62c1939abe5993b32fa5ed5723fe.jpg
    c04d62c1939abe5993b32fa5ed5723fe.jpg
    40.1 KB · Views: 8
  • 41af61c208592baa3d66dcfd95c2f1ce.jpg
    41af61c208592baa3d66dcfd95c2f1ce.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 6

Similar threads

M
GODPOD AUDIO: An American Soldier Wars for God and Country - Look,torture is criminal in Christ's Am
Replies
0
Views
29
my_brothers_brother@hotmail.com
M
R
Re: Is God for real?
Replies
0
Views
25
reefer mon
R
G
Re: * * * * * BUSH'S devaSTATE OF THE UNION EEECH KICKS ASS!! * * * * *
Replies
1
Views
43
BiSphincter'd Bush
B
Back
Top