Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

[ToriAllen]

Also the same kind of people who are against eating meat who would love to force everyone eating at KFC to watch vids of chickens being pumped with steroids and slaughtered before you can eat it.

 

Vids of cows being shot in the head and butchered in isle 2.. bring your official verification of viewing to the meat counter if you still want that steak you immoral bastard!

 

You belong to PETA Tori? Even if ya don't.. you must agree they have the right to forcibly inform you of your decision.. no wrong no guilt then no problem eh?

Come on guys, please. The chicken slaughtering argument isn't going to work here. I wouldn't care if I had to watch the thing get slaughtered or not. If you want to slaughter it in front of me before I eat it, all the better; At least I know it's fresh. When I eat chicken or beef, I know exactly where it comes from and have no problem with it. I don't understand why people are so f'in touchy. What, they didn't realize it was a baby before they saw the ultrasound? Please. Those that really didn't have any problems with what they were doing before the ultrasound, won't have any problems after. So yes, no wrong, no guilt, no problem. Heck, give me the darn knife and I'll slaughter the chicken myself. Talk about crap argument. Stop trying to appeal to my 'human side'. I don't have one.

[ToriAllen]

The laws, which were immediately challenged Tuesday by "pro-choice" groups, also allow doctors to withhold test results showing fetal defects.

 

Yep.. all about fully informing them for sound decision making..

Yeah, and I don't agree with that part of the law, which I'm pretty sure I already stated, so if you want to make some kind of point with regard to that part of the law, don't 'half-quote' me to do it. I already said, I don't agree with the lecturing and guilting. I believe every human should act rationally based on ALL the facts, and that goes for ANY procedure.

[ToriAllen]

Do they have to have their eyelids stapled open to insure they watch?

I think they have special medical tape...

[ImWithStupid]

Come on guys, please. The chicken slaughtering argument isn't going to work here. I wouldn't care if I had to watch the thing get slaughtered or not. If you want to slaughter it in front of me before I eat it, all the better; At least I know it's fresh. When I eat chicken or beef, I know exactly where it comes from and have no problem with it. I don't understand why people are so f'in touchy. What, they didn't realize it was a baby before they saw the ultrasound. Please. Those that really didn't have any problems with what they were doing before the ultrasound, won't have any problems after. So yes, no wrong, no guilt, no problem. Heck, give me the darn knife and I'll slaughter the chicken myself. Talk about crap argument. Stop trying to appeal to my 'human side'. I don't have one.

 

 

Same with the chicken or cow. Didn't people realize that the food they were eating was an animal? A chicken or cow. If they were planning on eating it before watching it be slaughtered, I'm sure they would have no problem being forced to watch the process right before eating them.

 

The issue isn't pro-life/pro-choice, vegan/vegitarian/omnivore. It's government intrusion.

 

Government should never force someone to be informed of anything before making a decision. If the government wants to mandate that the ultrasound be made available should the patient CHOOSE to see it. Fine. But to mandate the patient be forced to view the ultrasound prior to the procedure is going too far.

 

My state tried to pass this and I was happy it failed.

[wez]

Come on guys, please. The chicken slaughtering argument isn't going to work here. I wouldn't care if I had to watch the thing get slaughtered or not. If you want to slaughter it in front of me before I eat it, all the better; At least I know it's fresh. When I eat chicken or beef, I know exactly where it comes from and have no problem with it. I don't understand why people are so f'in touchy. What, they didn't realize it was a baby before they saw the ultrasound. Please. Those that really didn't have any problems with what they were doing before the ultrasound, won't have any problems after. So yes, no wrong, no guilt, no problem. Heck, give me the darn knife and I'll slaughter the chicken myself. Talk about crap argument. Stop trying to appeal to my 'human side'. I don't have one.

 

hahaha.. whatever.. don't play f cking stupid.. it's not about chickens.. it's about imposing moral beliefs on people.. trying to appeal to your human side? Trying to appeal to your lawyer side.. what.. didn't have an ethics course?

 

What's the ultrasound mandatory for? Informing them of what? They need a lesson to inform them that allowing a pregnancy to go to term will result in the birth of a human being and not a chicken?

 

How long ya gonna pretend it's not about lecturing and guilting which you just stated again you don't believe in?

 

If you're gonna continue.. at least show me what ya learned in school.. counselor. What do they need to be forcibly lectured and informed of?

[wez]

Yeah, and I don't agree with that part of the law, which I'm pretty sure I already stated, so if you want to make some kind of point with regard to that part of the law, don't 'half-quote' me to do it. I already said, I don't agree with the lecturing and guilting. I believe every human should act rationally based on ALL the facts, and that goes for ANY procedure.

 

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.

 

Take away the fact that it allows them to withhold information and make them provide all information on birth defects changes nothing.. Lecturing and guilting is the intention of the "laws".. which of course you don't believe in.. right?

 

And where did I half quote you? Where did you say you don't agree with that part of the "laws"? cut and paste it.. cuz it doesn't exist..

[wez]

I believe every human should act rationally based on ALL the facts, and that goes for ANY procedure. ~ Tori

 

How about we force all women who choose to give birth to watch a video reenactment of Andrea Yates drowning her 5 children while suffering from untreated postpartum depression and insane religious beliefs? .. This could happen to you and you need ALL the facts for ANY procedure.. You sure you wanna give birth?

 

Sounds a tad ridiculous eh?

[ImWithStupid]

I believe every human should act rationally based on ALL the facts, and that goes for ANY procedure. ~ Tori

 

How about we force all women who choose to give birth to watch a video reenactment of Andrea Yates drowning her 5 children while suffering from untreated postpartum depression and insane religious beliefs? .. This could happen to you and you need ALL the facts for ANY procedure.. You sure you wanna give birth?

 

 

It's times like this and posts like this that show why wez is a valued member, unlike some others.

 

It doesn't matter if it's an unborn child or a terrorist, his values are mostly the same.

[hugo]

hahaha.. whatever.. don't play f cking stupid.. it's not about chickens.. it's about imposing moral beliefs on people..

 

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? Barry Goldwater

 

There was a time when conservatives were for less government.

[hugo]

http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/

 

Chopping off their beaks! What total assholes! I ain't eating at KFC no more. Thanks, Pam. You are a great human being.

[hugo]

Be very careful when encouraging government power. It will come back and bite ya in the ass.

[ToriAllen]

First of all, a person does not have to take an all or nothing view of every issue. I rarely do. Because of that, it is perfectly reasonable for me to say I do not believe in the lecture and guilt part, but I do agree with the more information part. You are looking at it from an abortion argument/big government view point, because those are your concerns. They are valid concerns, however I'm a knowledge and information based person. The more the better. Although I'm not a fan of 'big government', I am a fan of knowledge. I do not understand people who don't want to know everything about a situation before they make a decision. That's ridiculous. I do think before any procedure, and I mean any procedure, the patient should be fully informed of all sides, pro's and con's. A desire not to be fully informed points to possible psychological and emotional issues that need to be addressed.

 

The woman that drowned her kids? Really? That seems like a logical connection to you? An ultrasound is the same as drowning kids tape? That makes sense in you head?

I didn't realize she had made a tape.....

[hugo]

Although I'm not a fan of 'big government', I am a fan of knowledge. I do not understand people who don't want to know everything about a situation before they make a decision.

 

Somehow I managed to get a degree in Economics without watching a single video on the subject.

 

A desire not to be fully informed points to possible psychological and emotional issues that need to be addressed.

 

I like hotdogs. Don't really wanta see the manufacturing process (I bet chicken beaks are utilized). Guess I got mental issues.

[wez]

First of all, a person does not have to take an all or nothing view of every issue. I rarely do. Because of that, it is perfectly reasonable for me to say I do not believe in the lecture and guilt part, but I do agree with the more information part. You are looking at it from an abortion argument/big government view point, because those are your concerns. They are valid concerns, however I'm a knowledge and information based person. The more the better. Although I'm not a fan of 'big government', I am a fan of knowledge. I do not understand people who don't want to know everything about a situation before they make a decision. That's ridiculous. I do think before any procedure, and I mean any procedure, the patient should be fully informed of all sides, pro's and con's. A desire not to be fully informed points to possible psychological and emotional issues that need to be addressed.

Second of all.. keep on dancing around the fact the "knowledge and information" is mandated by a law to be force fed to someone by means of a picture on a video screen in an attempt to cause emotional pain to coerce them into making a desired decision..

 

Third of all.. define the knowledge and information that is so pertinent as to warrant such a law in this case..

 

Stupidest of all, A desire not to be FORCED to be fully informed of possible outcomes from postpartum depression ala Andrea Yates for women who choose to give birth points to possible psychological and emotional issues that need to be addressed.

 

The woman that drowned her kids? Really? That seems like a logical connection to you? An ultrasound is the same as drowning kids tape? That makes sense in you head?

Forcing "information" on someone to attempt to cause pain = forcing "information" on someone to attempt to cause pain.. Logic is perfectly sound.. This doesn't make sense in your head?

 

I didn't realize she had made a tape.....

How about we force all women who choose to give birth to watch a video reenactment...

reenact - enact: act out; represent or perform as if in a play; "She reenacted what had happened earlier that day"

 

All clear on that?

 

Wanna talk about people trying to impose moral judgments on other people by making laws forcing them to be "informed" of something in an attempt to cause emotional pain or ya wanna keep playing stupid?

[ImWithStupid]

First of all, a person does not have to take an all or nothing view of every issue. I rarely do. Because of that, it is perfectly reasonable for me to say I do not believe in the lecture and guilt part, but I do agree with the more information part. You are looking at it from an abortion argument/big government view point, because those are your concerns. They are valid concerns, however I'm a knowledge and information based person. The more the better. Although I'm not a fan of 'big government', I am a fan of knowledge. I do not understand people who don't want to know everything about a situation before they make a decision. That's ridiculous. I do think before any procedure, and I mean any procedure, the patient should be fully informed of all sides, pro's and con's. A desire not to be fully informed points to possible psychological and emotional issues that need to be addressed.

 

The woman that drowned her kids? Really? That seems like a logical connection to you? An ultrasound is the same as drowning kids tape? That makes sense in you head?

I didn't realize she had made a tape.....

 

 

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.

[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...