Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

[timesjoke]

Okay.. here's the point.. it validates the obvious fact that the purpose of the laws are to steer a person into making a decision that a group of self righteous pompous assholes want them to make.. or else.

Okay guys, stop with the silly possitions, you all know damn well that all laws are founded in the moral desires of the communities to establish a set of guidelines we want to stand for. Murder is only illegal because the communities "feel" murder is wrong. The Government enforces that moral possition to the point of even killing the offender. Granted, the establishment of the lawyer elite have twisted the system up into knots to make practicing law more like theater these days but still the basic concept of National laws is to support and enforce morals the majority of people in society agree are important.


The vast majority of people in America agree that killing a child just because you were not responsible enough to use protection is wrong on a moral level.



By the way Wez, at the time the woman walks into the doctor's office there are "TWO" people your supposed to be caring for, not just one. The baby in the womb deserves the same consideration for responsible medical care as the mother. If the woman wanted to keep the child you would fight tooth and nail to save the child, consider how many premature children are born in America every year and how much money and work this takes.....but why is it nurses and doctors are only willing to go that extra mile to care for a baby if the mother says she cares for the baby? If that same mother said she wanted too kill the child these same hard working nurses and doctors would turn off a little switch in their brains and no longer give a crap.




I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

Primum Non Nocere—Above All, Do No Harm!

Not only is the Doctor playing God selecting who lives and who dies without serious medical facts to support the need to make such a choice, it is also clear based on almost all long term studies that a doctor performing an abortion on a woman is forcing her into massive depression that she will never recover from her entire life. Studies done on post abortion women even 20 years later show a much higher than average number of substance abuse, depression medication usage, problems with relationships, promiscuity, STD's, the list goes on forever......


Abortions are elected surgery/procdures. There is no threat to life other than the threat to the unborn baby. Murder in society is considered wrong........unless a mother wants to murder her own child, imagine that.




If a man slips an abortion drug into the drink of a woman and the child is killed, that man faces murder charges in almost every State in America. But a woman killes the same child and it is not murder. Same dead baby.

 

[wez]

Okay guys, stop with the silly possitions, you all know damn well that all laws are founded in the moral desires of the communities to establish a set of guidelines we want to stand for.

yeah.. which is what prompted a group of pioneers to flee religious persecution in Europe several hundred years ago to escape the majority trying to impose "moral desires" on them and established a new country based on freedom and drafted a Constitution to make damn sure a "majority" could never again impose moral desires on every man/woman/child living there.

...but why is it nurses and doctors are only willing to go that extra mile to care for a baby if the mother says she cares for the baby? If that same mother said she wanted too kill the child these same hard working nurses and doctors would turn off a little switch in their brains and no longer give a crap.

You just answered your own question..

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

Above all.. you respect the wishes and privacy of the patient and never under any circumstances impose your own beliefs/morals/demands on them.. that's what constitutes not playing God.

It's unethical and illegal to do anything but..

 

[timesjoke]

yeah.. which is what prompted a group of pioneers to flee religious persecution in Europe several hundred years ago to escape the majority trying to impose "moral desires" on them and established a new country based on freedom and drafted a Constitution to make damn sure a "majority" could never again impose moral desires on every man/woman/child living there.

Another complete failure of the public education system to teach the truth. The European Government took over religion and used the curch as an extension of their rule. The freedom of religion in America was to allow people to openly and freely practice their religious beliefs in their every day life without the Government comming along and telling people they had to do it this way or that way.

Consider the prayers before and after every meeting to draft the Proclamation of Independence as a clear sign that our founding fathers wanted America to follow religious based moral values.

So still this does not take away from my point that all laws are based on "the desired" morality of the community. Every poll to ever ask people how they feel about abortions has shown clearly that the moral standard they want is not being reflected in reality. People do not want women killing their children just because they were acting in irresponsible ways.



I go back to my example, if a man gives a woman a pill to force an abortion, that man is charged with murder, if a woman kills her child it is no crime at all, in fact most women's groups will call her killing her child a great success for all women everywhere. Same dead baby.

You just answered your own question..

Above all.. you respect the wishes and privacy of the patient and never under any circumstances impose your own beliefs/morals/demands on them.. that's what constitutes not playing God.

It's unethical and illegal to do anything but..

The bad part is what I posted is part of the Hippocratic Oath. Playing God is clearly defined as the choice of life and death, not blindly following the wishes of a patient (or not). As I already pointed out, at the time the doctor is seeing them, there are two completely seperate patients, one who can talk, one who cannot talk. The doctor must choose to kill a life without any medical reason to back this life/death decision. This is elective surgery based soly in the desire to escape responsibility and for this to happen, a doctor must set aside the concept of not doing harm. A doctor must play God and kill a life.




Above all "for me" is to do right. I will never do wrong just because someone else asks me to.











Wez where you are right is this law is based in desired moral behaviors. But where your missing the boat is "ALL" laws suffer from the same burdon. We cannot have a law until someone says "this is wrong and we need to take steps to protect against this thing". At that point someone has made a moral decision about something. The process starts to spread to like minded people who agree with the moral possition. Then when there is enough support the people move to trying to make a law to defend or protect the moral aspect they care about. If enough people agree on the moral point, it will become a law and enforcement is then put into play.

All laws have moral connections Wez, at least at their beginning.

 

[mercury]

What new information will be brought to the surface by an ultrasound that's not already known? None that I can tell. The woman already knows she's pregnant or she wouldn't be seeking an abortion in the first place.

It's a guilt tactic.

Full disclosure of the procedure is a good idea, but forcing an ultrasound has absolutely nothing to do with risk management.

 

[wez]

Above all "for me" is to do right. I will never do wrong just because someone else asks me to.

No one is asking or trying to force you to have an abortion.. Grant others the same respect and don't worry about their choices.

Ever read a Handmaidens tale? I highly recommend it..

 

[timesjoke]

What new information will be brought to the surface by an ultrasound that's not already known? None that I can tell. The woman already knows she's pregnant or she wouldn't be seeking an abortion in the first place.

It's a guilt tactic.

Full disclosure of the procedure is a good idea, but forcing an ultrasound has absolutely nothing to do with risk management.

But this brings us back to the point Tori made, if the woman was already fully informed and sees nothing wrong with her decision, showing her the ultrasound would change nothing. Guilt can only come from someone who believes they are doing something wrong. If just this image is enough to change their minds they were not solid in their decision in the first place.

No one is asking or trying to force you to have an abortion.. Grant others the same respect and don't worry about their choices.

Again Wez, your missing the point, if you kill your neighbor it is wrong no matter what my feelings on the subject are at the time. It is wrong because society has said murder is wrong, not any one person. I respect the idea of morals and values that are greater than the one Wez. Everything selfish should not be the rule of the land.

A fetus does not have the right to stay in a woman's uterus against her wishes no matter how irresponsible you think she was.. Nor does it have a right to a minimum of 18 years of love and nurturing from another individual after being born.. and yeah.. the majority spoke in 1973 and upheld a woman's right to choose through the highest "moral" court in the land.. which fortunately upheld the greatest moral desire of the community.. Individual freedom.

Ever read a Handmaidens tale? I highly recommend it..

Against her wishes?

How do you think the little baby got there Wez? Did the fetus appear from nowhere and crawl up her leg and implant itself there against her will or did the woman engage in dangerious and risky sexual exposures and put that baby there herself? As far as the 18 years comment, that is easily handled with adoption, waiting lists for healthy babies are measured in years so plenty of good loving homes for the baby if the woman does not want it.


Either way the Doctor is still playing God. There is no medical emergency requiring a decision to kill, the doctor is killing on command, like an attack dog who is blindly doing the bidding of his master to attack whoever the master points out.


All the higher court did was send this back to the States, they never said limiting abortions was wrong Wez. That is exactly what has been done in this State and if it survives challenge, several other States will be following suit. The court is not the will of the people but instead a ruling based on their opinion of what the Constitution says concerning a topic.

Individual freedom from responsibility is not the ultimate American experience Wez, although many young people do seem to think it is.

 

[mercury]

But this brings us back to the point Tori made, if the woman was already fully informed and sees nothing wrong with her decision, showing her the ultrasound would change nothing. Guilt can only come from someone who believes they are doing something wrong. If just this image is enough to change their minds they were not solid in their decision in the first place.

With those words, you admit that the purpose of forcing a viewing of the ultrasound is to induce guilt...

case closed.

add on:

When a patient is properly informed, an ultrasound is not necessary to communicate "Hey! You got a baby in there!"
Anyone that does not understand what the process entails after proper counseling is probably at least a little bit lacking in brain power.

 

[timesjoke]

With those words, you admit that the purpose of forcing a viewing of the ultrasound is to induce guilt...

case closed.

Hard to induce what is not already there.

It would be more accurate to say that this is designed to elicit a attachment emotion that "may" be inside the mother but up to this point she has not considered that aspect of her decision.


This is why so many pro-abortion advocates have created entire new ways of speaking to avoid emotion connections. They speak of a zygote or a fetus instead of using the term baby because they want to keep the woman away from the emotional side of her decision. By shielding the woman from this emotional side they are trying to lead her to the decision to kill the child. These abortion clinics have survived for a very long time by refusing to offer women a complete picture before they pressure her to kill her child. The decision making has been 100% one sided and kept completely away from the emotional and moral side of the coin. This law reinstalls the complete picture.


You know, as I was typing this I was thinking that if the woman would forever keep her thoughts to the more clinical and steril elements she would most likely save herself a lot of grief after the abortion but in my experience women cannot be forced to leave out the emotional side for very long and after all is "done" the reinsertion of the emotional elemts after the fact might be why so many women have a lifetime of mental issues following an abortion.


I just can't imagine a lifetime of blaming myself for killing my own child, it has to be as close to hell on Earth as is possible to find.

When a patient is properly informed, an ultrasound is not necessary to communicate "Hey! You got a baby in there!"
Anyone that does not understand what the process entails after proper counseling is probably at least a little bit lacking in brain power.

So nothing is changed in reality by showing the ultrasound to the mother, if she already knows everything then the image cannot change her mind if there is no feeling of doubt inside her. So why not do it? It seems to me some people just want to shroud the action in a protective bubble, keep the mother away from as much of the reality as possible, control her and guide her to make a cold unemotional decision to kill her child. What do you consider "proper couseling"?

Killing her child is a very specific act, and should include a very specific example of what she is killing and this ultrasound will do exactly that. No longer is she killing a drawing in a pamplet, no longer is the action limited to whatever the clinic wants to show woman just so they can get paid to conduct the abortion. Imagine how many people would be out of work if women no longer wanted abortions.........

 

[emkay64]

Would you be wiling to pay for these "necessary" ultrasounds as a taxpayer or perhaps like the procedure being forced, should they be forced to pay for it too?

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

So then you must agree with the situations that wez describes then. You should be forced to watch videos of cows and sheep being killed and slaughtered, prior to buying any chicken or beef for food because there are people who believe that it is wrong.

I too, don't agree with abortion, and if it is in fact wrong it should be made illegal. Until that point the patients rights to a medical procedure shouldn't be treated any differently than any other medical procedure.

Animals are not people... who's with PETA now?

I love PETA...

People Eating Tasty Animals...

 

[hugo]

Would you be wiling to pay for these "necessary" ultrasounds as a taxpayer or perhaps like the procedure being forced, should they be forced to pay for it too?

Good question. I am waiting for the answer.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Freedom of speech includes the right not to listen. Government forcing someone to undergo an ultrasound is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment..the right to be secure in your persons. No court will hold this law constitutional. It is a gross violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments. Thank God for the Constitution.

From Orwell's 1984:

Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig iron and the overfulfillment of the Ninth Three Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct-in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer; though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometer away the Ministry of Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape. This, he thought with a sort of vague distaste, this was London, chief city of Airstrip One, itself the third most populous of the provinces of Oceania. He tried to squeeze out some childhood memory that should tell him whether London had always been quite like this. Were there always these vistas of rotting nineteenth-century houses, their sides shored up with balks of timber, their windows patched with cardboard and their roofs with corrugated iron, their crazy garden walls sagging in all directions? And the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the air and the willow herb straggled over the heaps of rubble; and the places where the bombs had cleared a larger path and there had sprung up sordid colonies of wooden dwellings like chicken houses? But it was no use, he could not remember: nothing remained of his childhood except a series of bright-lit tableaux, occurring against no background and mostly unintelligible.

 

[wez]

But where your missing the boat..

I didn't miss the boat.. I choose not to board.. rather take my chances in a rubber raft.. Cap'n Bligh

 

[mercury]

I'm also interested in the answer to emkay's question.

 

[ToriAllen]

The difference is, that a law that makes it so that an abortion clinic must make information available = good.

A law that makes an abortion clinic force someone to view/be exposed to information mandatory = bad.

An explanation so simple even a lawyer could understand it.

I never said I didn't understand your view. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. That is, after all, my right as an individual.



mercury: I don't think the ultrasound is to inform the woman she is pregnant. It is to show her what stage of developement the baby is at so that she can make a fully informed decision. Not so much to induce guilt as to avoid regret.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I never said I didn't understand your view. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. That is, after all, my right as an individual.

I was just teasin'. Play on the Geico/caveman commercial.

 

[timesjoke]

Would you be wiling to pay for these "necessary" ultrasounds as a taxpayer or perhaps like the procedure being forced, should they be forced to pay for it too?

Good question, as with all laws the Government always ends up paying for it on one end or the other. Ted Bundy cost Florida taxpayers around $7 million dollars to prosecute counting initial and appeal precesses. There was not a single doubt in any person's mind of his guilt but still we had to go through the motions.




But hey, we can thank Obama for fixing this question for you emkay, ultrasounds will definately be covered under the free insurance everyone will be getting under his new law.




But I will not do as some and dodge your question as you intended it, if not for the free insurance would I still want to pay for the ultrasound as a taxpayer?

No, not directly. People need to learn there are responsibilities for their actions in this world, if they do something stupid like drive drunk, the costs associated with their mistake are part of the learning process. If two people intentionally have unprotetected sex, then there is the possibility of a child being created and all the things that follow are part of that mistake. Would you want to pay for someone else's speeding ticket?



The entire unwanted pregnancy issue is one rooted in the lack of taking responsibility. The abortion is only a symptom of the original act to not take reproduction seriously. We would not need abortions at all if man and women took responsibility for their sexuality. Why is it people want the Government to pave the way to make it easy to avoid taking responsibility for their actions?



The abortion is the act taken to escape taking responsibility for the "choice" made to have unprotected sex. The abortion discussion should be about how we get people to take more responsibility for their sexuality so they don't have unwanted babies in the first place. I love old sayings, "an ounce of prevention, beats a pound of cure".

 

[emkay64]

Good question, as with all laws the Government always ends up paying for it on one end or the other. Ted Bundy cost Florida taxpayers around $7 million dollars to prosecute counting initial and appeal precesses. There was not a single doubt in any person's mind of his guilt but still we had to go through the motions.




But hey, we can thank Obama for fixing this question for you emkay, ultrasounds will definately be covered under the free insurance everyone will be getting under his new law.




But I will not do as some and dodge your question as you intended it, if not for the free insurance would I still want to pay for the ultrasound as a taxpayer?

No, not directly. People need to learn there are responsibilities for their actions in this world, if they do something stupid like drive drunk, the costs associated with their mistake are part of the learning process. If two people intentionally have unprotetected sex, then there is the possibility of a child being created and all the things that follow are part of that mistake. Would you want to pay for someone else's speeding ticket?



The entire unwanted pregnancy issue is one rooted in the lack of taking responsibility. The abortion is only a symptom of the original act to not take reproduction seriously. We would not need abortions at all if man and women took responsibility for their sexuality. Why is it people want the Government to pave the way to make it easy to avoid taking responsibility for their actions?



The abortion is the act taken to escape taking responsibility for the "choice" made to have unprotected sex. The abortion discussion should be about how we get people to take more responsibility for their sexuality so they don't have unwanted babies in the first place. I love old sayings, "an ounce of prevention, beats a pound of cure".

So you don't want to pay and they should be forced to pay for an unwanted procedure as part of their punishment?

See...in the scheme of things a plain old ultrasound doesn't bother me. However...this is a forced procedure. When I was pregnant I got the choice as to whether I wanted an ultrasound at all, why no choice here? This won't be a caring, informative procedure..it's cold, guilt inducing punishment..nothing more. Now on top of this it is your position that not only should they submit to the procedure but they should pay for it too? This is an extremely dangerous line to dance on...especially when you know where it can spill over to. Though not as extreme, it is akin to Nazis performing procedures on Jews against their will as punishment for being who they are. Yes it's an extreme example...but we live in an extreme society and if the wrong person has the power, we have already seen where it can lead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

Anyways...interesting the viewpoints here for sure. I must also say I'm impressed by a certain number here, who I know are staunchly against abortion, yet are capable of seeing the bigger picture.

Yeah yeah it's wikipedia bite me!

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I too see both sides of the argument here, but I don't agree with the whole "abortion is ok" argument in the first place. Murder is murder is murder. Whether it's a fetus, a child, an adult, or an old person, they should not be killed against their will unless they have committed a crime that deserves the death penalty.

It does seem to be against that oath that a doctor takes (to never do harm) to take a life. Forget immoral, it's unethical to terminate a viable pregnancy in any fashion. But that's my take on it.


But, ignoring my views on the subject and getting back on topic... Why should/shouldn't an ultrasound be added to the process of abortion? Who should pay for the abortion?

I think that an ultrasound should be added. She can look away if she doesn't want to see the baby moving or breathing or it's heart beating... But it is something that should happen.

Who is it that wants the abortion? If they are going to be getting one they should be paying for it. And the price of the ultra sound should be included in the price of the abortion. Why should insurance or the government be paying for an elective procedure? Bottom line, it shouldn't. The prohibitive cost alone could be a deterrent.

 

[emkay64]

Abortions are paid for out of pocket here. An abortion costs approximately 300-500$ here. Health care doesn't cover those, and they still happen. It isn't a deterrent. I don't believe that the forced ultrasound should happen in the first place, therefore I don't think they should have to pay for an unnecessary procedure, nor do I think tax payers should be on the hook. I disagree with the whole spiel.


I stand corrected...Abortions are paid for In Alberta and recently Saskatchewan, but all other provinces must pay. I don't think health care should cover any elective procedure. If you want an abortion you pay, any cosmetic anything you pay. If the procedure isn't necessary...it should come out the patients pocket if they CHOOSE. Still though...paying for an abortion doesn't make it a deterrent sadly.

 

[timesjoke]

So you don't want to pay and they should be forced to pay for an unwanted procedure as part of their punishment?

Punishment?

Is paying for your own car insurance a punishment or part of the responsibility of car ownership?

My point is I was not part of the irresponsible behaviors so why should I or any other person pay the resulting costs from that behavior? One would assume the partisipants to the irresponsible behaviors were doing so because they were having a good time. Well, most good times have a cost, lol.

See...in the scheme of things a plain old ultrasound doesn't bother me. However...this is a forced procedure. When I was pregnant I got the choice as to whether I wanted an ultrasound at all, why no choice here? This won't be a caring, informative procedure..it's cold, guilt inducing punishment..nothing more.

I don't see this as reality, I would assume that the same people performing the medical procedure to kill the child would be the same people to perform the ultrasound, they ceertainly would not have a bad attitude tword the mother and would not be trying to make the mother feel like she is being punished.

Now on top of this it is your position that not only should they submit to the procedure but they should pay for it too? This is an extremely dangerous line to dance on...especially when you know where it can spill over to. Though not as extreme, it is akin to Nazis performing procedures on Jews against their will as punishment for being who they are. Yes it's an extreme example...but we live in an extreme society and if the wrong person has the power, we have already seen where it can lead.

You know, every time anyone tries to hold people accountable for their own actions people like you try to say it is like Nazi Germany, well guess what, it is getting tired and old. None of this is even being discussed if people were just responsible for their own actions. Why do we tteach sex education in our public schools emkay? Because teenage pregnancy was getting out of control and "someone" had to act if the parents refused to act themselves. I hate that the Government has to sometimes take action on certain things but we can only blame ourselves and our own irresponsibility that gives Government the reasons (and excuses) to step in.

Anyways...interesting the viewpoints here for sure. I must also say I'm impressed by a certain number here, who I know are staunchly against abortion, yet are capable of seeing the bigger picture.

My view of the bigger picture is 1.4 million killed babies every year and no sign of anyone caring enough to try for change.


Sure, this may sound harsh, but the problem is also harsh. You can't expect to find a solution to a problem that is less costly than the energy that goes into making the problem. And unfortunately, a lot of energy goes into irresponsible sex, and the problems resulting from that irresponsible behavior are not limited to unwanted babies or even STD's.





Forget this idea and everything else for a second emkay, let's pretend your the Queen of the world and you have the power to create laws yourself, just the way you want them written.



How would you try to fix this problem?