Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

[ImWithStupid]

Personally, I think it was a shot at me. I told you guys a while ago that I planned to have the procedure done....That's what I get for questioning your analogies...

 

Will there be a video of that to go along with the bellybutton piercing video?

[snafu]

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?

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[timesjoke]

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.

 

 

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.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

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.

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

Again, the difference is that it is provided information, not information required under force of government.

[snafu]

Again, the difference is that it is provided information, not information required under force of government.

 

 

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.

[emkay64]

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.

 

 

I knew you'd get there Snafu!

[snafu]

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?

[timesjoke]

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.

 

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.

[eddo]

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.

 

[emkay64]

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?

 

No Snaf.. not .unless a "breech" ball of cells the size of a thumbnail is cause for concern.

[emkay64]

"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

[hugo]

The world would be better off if 95% of the people in it had never been born.

[ImWithStupid]

The world would be better off if 95% of the people in it had never been born.

 

 

I'll stand silent. It's too easy.

[hugo]

I'll stand silent. It's too easy.

Thanks.

[timesjoke]

"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

 

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...........

[hugo]

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.

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

 

I believe that is the intent of the push for "personhood" laws.

[hugo]

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.

 

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.

[ImWithStupid]

[attach=full]2773[/attach]

 

 

[attach=full]2774[/attach]

[timesjoke]

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.

 

It would be a gross over reaching of power for the Federal Government to slap down the rights of the States to govern their own people. In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court ruled that the right to abortion was not absolute:

 

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

 

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

 

 

Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

 

 

This law does not directly stop the ability to get an abortion, it simply reattaches the humanity segment of the abortion decision. I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.

[wez]

I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.

 

I predict you are a dumbass..

[timesjoke]

I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.

 

I predict you are a dumbass..

lol, well coming from you that is a compliment Wez, being as your almost always wrong about everything you try to pass off as a fact.

 

 

Your main fault Wez is you take everything to the emotional peaks, you "feel" abortions are good and proper so everyone in the world must agree with your emotional possition or they need to be attacked for daring not to agree with you. Emotions are certainly a big part of human decisions, and that is exactly the best part of this new law. Up to now there has been a direct blocking of the emotional/feeling side of the decision to kill a child and why is that Wez?

 

Because a lot of people work for abortion clinics Wez, if women stopped getting abortions they would not have a job so they are more motivated to push women to kill their child than to help her make the 'right' decision with all the facts. On fact is this is her child, not a disease, not a cancer, but her child growing insider her and that basic fact is never spoken by the abortion workers because they know if the woman feels an emotional attachment, she will most likely not get an abortion and that will cost them millions of dollars every year.

 

 

 

Consider that in the opinion offered by the Court, they went to great lengths to consider all aspects of the abortion decision making process to include things like finiancial issues and menal health issues, their opinion clearly said that all of those issues should be considered and discussed between the patient and her "responsible physician". And yet now, these abortion advocates don't want all things to be considered, they want to control and manipulate women into killing their children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people don't even know the biggest thing the Supreme Court was pointing out, their main possition was based on the older laws, they were primarily based on safety and using the old methods of abortion was very dangerious. With modern science, the abortion process had been made very safe in comparison and based on attitudes of old, the Justices did not see any real trend to protect the unborn children.........where they made a mistake in my opinion was not understanding that the relatively low concern was because of the very low attempts to abort their children. Women very rarely desired the death of their own children so on the rare time it did happen, most figured that the women who would want to kill their children were most likely doing a kindness to the child not forcing them to be raised in that situation with that woman.

 

 

 

Today the situation is completely different. Today, the average woman getting an abortion is using the procedure because she refused to use any form of birth control prior to sexual relations. Abortions are now a primary birth control measure, not a last ditch move because their birth control measures failed. This proposes a question never considered by the Courts where their endorsement of abortion actually "caused" women to turn to abortion more and exercise self-control less because now they had a safety net.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.

 

I predict you are a dumbass..

 

 

can we see some idiotbox action for the pointless/needless attack?

 

TJ got it... maybe wez deserves some.

[wez]

I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.

 

I predict you are a dumbass..

 

 

can we see some idiotbox action for the pointless/needless attack?

 

TJ got it... maybe wez deserves some.

 

How bout we see you shut the hell up?