Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

[snafu]

I know IWS and hugo are against bigger government (as am I,) but one of the duties that I see government being responsible for is the protection of it's citizens. The military, securing our borders, keeping folks from murdering each other, and other things fall into this category.

 

I just happen to want to afford that same protection to those citizens that are not yet born.

 

 

 

So to answer emkay's question:

 

Yes, I would be fine with my tax dollars paying for this. In fact, that would make me much happier than my tax dollars now paying for things like Planned Parenthood to advise women to have abortions...

 

while people are patting eachother on the back I'll do the same to eddo on this.

 

Perfect!

[emkay64]

while people are patting eachother on the back I'll do the same to eddo on this.

 

Perfect!

 

 

Awww there you go! See...I knew you all would buy into socialized health care at some point You'd be against putting money in for cancer treatment but you'll buy an irresponsible twit an ultrasound....you guys make no sense whatsoever.

[snafu]

Why should this be considered a scare tactic anyway? It's information to make a decision of life and death. If it should scare someone them maybe there's a good reson to be scared? Hmmm? What would be the difference to any medical procedure?

[snafu]

Awww there you go! See...I knew you all would buy into socialized health care at some point . You'd be against putting money in for cancer treatment but you'll buy an irresponsible twit an ultrasound....you guys make no sense whatsoever.

 

 

Yeah you booger. .

 

But like eddo said I would much rather pay for this then pay for planned parenthood. And the goverment is to protect the freedom and rights of all indviduals. I just happen to believe that goes for the unborn too.

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[emkay64]

The issue is that it is forced Snaf! I get the choice when I am pregnant to have an ultrasound or not...why is this not the same for someone having an abortion. The article even states that they may opt for a more invasive procedure (vaginal ultrasound) at their discretion. What is the purpose? It's punishment plain and simple. I can choose to not look at the ultrasound and listen to music I don't have to watch..but the second someone rams something up my hooha when I say "NO FUKKING WAY"...well..then I have an issue.

 

What if the overweight were subject to forcible rectal exam at every visit? No difference..someone with a grudge against fat people is making it a punishment and veiling it as an attempt to illustrate the damages to colon as a result of their eating habits. Perhaps the soda tax...penalizing people for eating poorly. Opening this door is allowing persecution on so many levels. It's wrong..whatever your moral standpoint.

 

My point with the topic was not abortion at all. It was about basic human rights...and whether you felt it was a violation. The difference is that some people can't separate the two or be willing to acknowledge that this is wrong. I'm not an avid supporter of abortion, but geeze I don't like where this could lead..for everyone. Okaying one forcible procedure makes it okay for other controversial procedures too. The debate for or against abortion is never ending and we'll never change each others minds but I thought this was one area we'd be unified. I was wrong lol.

[emkay64]

Anywho..looks like the debate has run it's course..prolly time for something new. What shall we discuss hmmmmm?

[ToriAllen]

Anywho..looks like the debate has run it's course..prolly time for something new. What shall we discuss hmmmmm?

Oooo, Oooo, Stem cell research!!!

[hugo]

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed� before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,� I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.� — Barry Goldwater

 

There was a time when conservatives respected the Constitution.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I know IWS and hugo are against bigger government (as am I,) but one of the duties that I see government being responsible for is the protection of it's citizens. The military, securing our borders, keeping folks from murdering each other, and other things fall into this category.

 

I just happen to want to afford that same protection to those citizens that are not yet born.

 

 

 

So to answer emkay's question:

 

Yes, I would be fine with my tax dollars paying for this. In fact, that would make me much happier than my tax dollars now paying for things like Planned Parenthood to advise women to have abortions...

 

I disagree with the bolded statement. But I agree with the statements in red...

 

 

Awww there you go! See...I knew you all would buy into socialized health care at some point You'd be against putting money in for cancer treatment but you'll buy an irresponsible twit an ultrasound....you guys make no sense whatsoever.

 

Not so fast little lady. I don't want to buy any little twit anything... I believe I posted something to the effect here...

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.

 

 

 

The issue is that it is forced Snaf! I get the choice when I am pregnant to have an ultrasound or not...why is this not the same for someone having an abortion. The article even states that they may opt for a more invasive procedure (vaginal ultrasound) at their discretion. What is the purpose? It's punishment plain and simple. I can choose to not look at the ultrasound and listen to music I don't have to watch..but the second someone rams something up my hooha when I say "NO FUKKING WAY"...well..then I have an issue.

 

What if the overweight were subject to forcible rectal exam at every visit? No difference..someone with a grudge against fat people is making it a punishment and veiling it as an attempt to illustrate the damages to colon as a result of their eating habits. Perhaps the soda tax...penalizing people for eating poorly. Opening this door is allowing persecution on so many levels. It's wrong..whatever your moral standpoint.

 

My point with the topic was not abortion at all. It was about basic human rights...and whether you felt it was a violation. The difference is that some people can't separate the two or be willing to acknowledge that this is wrong. I'm not an avid supporter of abortion, but geeze I don't like where this could lead..for everyone. Okaying one forcible procedure makes it okay for other controversial procedures too. The debate for or against abortion is never ending and we'll never change each others minds but I thought this was one area we'd be unified. I was wrong lol.

 

You're still comparing apples and oranges em... An abortion is an elective procedure... Like having a tummy tuck, or a nose job for purely cosmetic reasons. There should be certain guidelines that one should have to meet before the procedure is allowed, like most other procedures, aside from just being pregnant. One requirement should be an ultrasound.

 

This is opinion: Why should it be a fun or easy process to get an abortion? I believe that having an abortion should be as miserable as possible. [/opinion]

[RegisteredAndEducated]

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed� before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,� I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.� — Barry Goldwater

 

There was a time when conservatives respected the Constitution.

 

What do you think of eddo's post? Namely the parts highlighted?

 

I know IWS and hugo are against bigger government (as am I,) but one of the duties that I see government being responsible for is the protection of it's citizens. The military, securing our borders, keeping folks from murdering each other, and other things fall into this category.

 

I just happen to want to afford that same protection to those citizens that are not yet born.

 

[hugo]

The unborn are not citizens and have no rights under the US Constitution.

 

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Forcing someone to have an unneccesary examination of their body in order to undergo a legal medical procedure is, once again, a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment. Making them pay for it adds insult to injury and is a gross violation of the natural law principles our nation was founded upon. Forcing a would be fetus exterminator to listen to some medical practitioner point out the babies fingers and toes as they look at the ultrasound they were forced to undergo is a gross violation of the First Amendment. For the second time in three years an Oklahoma abortion law will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

 

 

Let me requote Barry:

 

I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed� before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible

[ImWithStupid]

The only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is no sex.

 

 

I nominate TJ to never have sex or reproduce.

[ImWithStupid]

The story is in the text. True colors have brightly shined...

 

RaE, eddo, snafu, TJ = faux conservatives who want Big Government to intrude as long as it fits their agenda. Might as well cheer for Obamacare.

[eddo]

RaE, eddo, snafu, TJ = faux conservatives who want Big Government to intrude as long as it fits their agenda. Might as well cheer for Obamacare.

Thanks for lumping us into a "category" and trying to get a rise out of us, WezJoke...

 

 

 

What if the overweight were subject to forcible rectal exam at every visit? No difference..someone with a grudge against fat people is making it a punishment and veiling it as an attempt to illustrate the damages to colon as a result of their eating habits. Perhaps the soda tax...penalizing people for eating poorly. Opening this door is allowing persecution on so many levels. It's wrong..whatever your moral standpoint.

 

Slight difference as the fat person is only harming themselves, not an innocent, albeit, unborn baby.

[Anna Perenna]

Anna, the real shame is you wasted all the words in the first two sentences just to give you an excuse to take a shot at me.

 

Of course you don't offer any substance to the discussion yourself or try to point out what is wrong in your opinion about anything I said and even emkay very reluctantly admitted I made some good points, hell even eddo agreed with one of my points so obviously I was not that bad. I don't hate women, I don't even hate women who kill their children, in all honesty I feel sorry for them because in my opinion most women get abortions because society and more importantly abortion clinic workers make women feel like that is their only choice and that choice is no big deal. Just because I speak what I feel and I am not afraid to face difficult topics like this without being politically correct, that does not mean I an against all women. In reality you would find it very hard to find a man would would respect and want to protect women more than me. Rolling over and blindly accepting any belief just because the PC crowd demands it is not showing women respect in the slightest. It is actually hurting all women to do so.

 

 

If you have to turn to personal attacks, your the one with the problem.

 

 

Fell free to do something more than point your finger and call names Anna.

 

It's not an attack when I'm pointing out the obvious: you're a misogynist. If you don't like that title, stop blaming women for every part of the abortion process.

 

 

The fact remains that women would not experience unwanted pregnancies if men were able to keep their penises in their pants.

 

The fact remains that men are often the ones who want and push for the abortions.

 

The fact remains that women all over the world are (statistically) better parental figures than men.

 

 

You can see these women as heartless baby-killers all you want, but it doesn't change reality, and if you share your feelings, people like me will continue to point out your misogyny.

[timesjoke]

It's not an attack when I'm pointing out the obvious: you're a misogynist. If you don't like that title, stop blaming women for every part of the abortion process.

 

Women are the only ones killing their babies, they have the choice of life and death. With great power comes great responsibility. I am not against all women for pointing out a very basic fact that only women have this power and responsibility. Once the woman decides to not kill her child, I am every bit as hard on the men for their responsibility to help care for the child they created, but these men cannot do their part until the child can be allowed to live.

 

The fact remains that women would not experience unwanted pregnancies if men were able to keep their penises in their pants.

 

Just like women can keep their legs closed and even be a tad more selective about who they make babies with.

 

 

The fact remains that men are often the ones who want and push for the abortions.

 

Fact, please offer some supportive links for that claim because in my experience most men are very emotionaly damaged when they hear their children have been killed.

 

I do believe that "some" men are real azzholes and push women to get abortions, but these same men were also considered desirable at some point to the woman who was having unprotected sex with them so still the woman made her choices, and the abortion is the method to get away from the results of her choice to intentionally have unprotected sex.

 

 

The fact remains that women all over the world are (statistically) better parental figures than men.

 

Right, the fastest growing segment of society in both America and Europe is the single, never wed mother of two. Not a lot of moral character to show your kids in that situation.

 

 

And while you love to claim I hate women, how about that little shot your trying to make against all men Anna? What does parenting have to do with abortion? Why do you need to try and put down men in this conversation? Men don't even get a chance to be good parents until their child gets past the mother and her abuility to kill their child. Consider that 1.4 million children are killed by their mothers every year so if we add that "fact" into your little claim the men come out looking much, much better indeed, lol.

 

 

You can see these women as heartless baby-killers all you want, but it doesn't change reality, and if you share your feelings, people like me will continue to point out your misogyny.

Heartless baby-killers?

 

Why is it you radical liberal types always have to insert words into the mouths of those you dissagree with?

 

I have never said anything close to that, in fact just a post or two back I clearly said I believed women were manipulated by society and the abortion clinic workers to kill their children and I felt sorry for these women. I also pointed out several times how women even 20 years later suffer from their choices to kill their children so where do you get that I think women are heartless?

 

 

I do believe that the process, specifically the abortion clinic workers try to get the women to set aside her feelings and look at her decision to kill her child as nothing more than cutting off a wart. They use words life fetus to give the process a sterile and clinical appearance away from the emotional side of the decision. A "temporary" distence is created between a woman's normal emotional connection to her child and her decision to kill her child.

 

 

BUT

 

 

That distence only lasts so long and long after the abortion clinic workers have forgotten all about the woman even existing, that woman is reconnected to her emotional side and now the suffering begins. Now she has no support, no workers whispering into her ear about how innocent her actions are and she is tearing herself apart for the decision she has made. Now her family and other loved ones are all she has and if she at the same time has distanced herself from them as many do during these times, well the outlook is not real great.

 

 

No, I do not hate women Anna, I am one of the few qho actually looks past the short term event that looks to some as a solutuin and see the real and heavy long term cost to both the women and society.

[emkay64]

Hmmm...forcible rectal exam. No human rights violation there...they were just doing what absolutely NEEDED to be done. Hope none of you boys have a sore back in the near future. I wonder if he will have to pay for his "procedure"? :lol:

 

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/forced-rectal-exam-stirs-ethics-questions/

[eddo]

Hmmm...forcible rectal exam. No human rights violation there...they were just doing what absolutely NEEDED to be done. Hope none of you boys have a sore back in the near future. I wonder if he will have to pay for his "procedure"?

 

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/forced-rectal-exam-stirs-ethics-questions/

 

what a dumbass...

 

That is sooooooo like an episode of Family Guy!

 

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

[timesjoke]

 

RaE, eddo, snafu, TJ = faux conservatives who want Big Government to intrude as long as it fits their agenda. Might as well cheer for Obamacare.

 

You and hugo make a nice pair of radicals there Joe. What exactly do you want Government to do if not enforce the laws of the land?

 

 

Will this law create more government workers? No.

 

This law is nothing different, nothing new, nothing changed in the size or power of Government in our lives. The new healthcare law that was passed "does" increase the size and power of Government but you didn't even vote in the last election and try to stop things like that from being created so how can you even cry about anything when your sitting on the sidelines refusing to help?

 

 

 

Tell me this Joe, why were the procedures set forth by our founding Fathers for States to govern and create new laws if new laws were not supposed to be created and enforced? If all we ever needed and was intended to have was created in those early days of the creation of our many tiered Government then why set forth methods to create new laws? Your a contradiction Joe. You want to follow the intent of our founders but at the same time you spit in the face of their intent to allow new laws to be created.

 

 

 

 

Law enforcement is part of the responsibilities of Government.

 

Creating and enforcing the laws society needs/wants is also part of the responsibilities of Government.

 

I want the Government to enforce laws.

 

I want laws that reflect the morals and beliefs of our society.

 

And all of this was set forth and allowed for by our founding fathers so why do you have a problem with it? Hard to get more intrusive than the death penalty and I don't remember you having a problem with that so it seems your not really taking issue with government enforcing laws and intruding on people's lives to do so but instead your just wanting to protect Abortion as something Government should not be involved in and I do not agree.

 

Abortion is the killing of a child, killing is covered in many forms under many laws and the only kind of killing that almost all Americans agree is wrong but up to now the Government refuses to take action against is irresponsibility based Abortions.

[mercury]

My head went through a windshield once... no one poked at my ass to fix it.

 

In fact, I don't recall anyone even suggesting it. I also had hip injuries, so according to "protocol", I was probably a prime candidate.

[timesjoke]

The issue is that it is forced Snaf! I get the choice when I am pregnant to have an ultrasound or not...why is this not the same for someone having an abortion.

 

It has been made part of the responsibility of getting an abortion emkay, it is the will of the people to reinsert humanity into the killing of children instead of the current system that is all about hiding the reality of what is being done just long enough to get women to kill, after the deed is done, nobody cares about the woman, or the mess they just made out of her life by enabling her to do something she really would never have done if not for the way people seperated the emotions from the killing.

 

 

The article even states that they may opt for a more invasive procedure (vaginal ultrasound) at their discretion. What is the purpose? It's punishment plain and simple. I can choose to not look at the ultrasound and listen to music I don't have to watch..but the second someone rams something up my hooha when I say "NO FUKKING WAY"...well..then I have an issue.

 

Do you think forcing that hoover into the womb might be a tad "more" invasive? If shoving a hoover up there is no big deal why have an issue with a imaging device that is smaller and does not kill?

 

Again, it is an elective procedure, nobody is forcing the woman to get the ultrasound, she "wants" the abortion and the ultrasound is part of that procedure, her choice.

 

 

What if the overweight were subject to forcible rectal exam at every visit? No difference..someone with a grudge against fat people is making it a punishment and veiling it as an attempt to illustrate the damages to colon as a result of their eating habits. Perhaps the soda tax...penalizing people for eating poorly. Opening this door is allowing persecution on so many levels. It's wrong..whatever your moral standpoint.

 

First of all the fat guy is not killing his child, the death factor changes the morals involved.

 

Second, you keep trying to make it "sound" like the procedure will be done like an "attack" or something. Why won't you admit that with the same people killing the baby doing the unltrasound there is no way they will try to hurt the woman with the procedure or abuse her in the slightest? This will be a requirement for an abortion, not a requirement for being pregnant so only those wanting to kill their babies will have to have this done and I see nothing wrong with making sure the mother at least sees her child before she commands it's death.

 

My point with the topic was not abortion at all. It was about basic human rights...and whether you felt it was a violation. The difference is that some people can't separate the two or be willing to acknowledge that this is wrong. I'm not an avid supporter of abortion, but geeze I don't like where this could lead..for everyone. Okaying one forcible procedure makes it okay for other controversial procedures too. The debate for or against abortion is never ending and we'll never change each others minds but I thought this was one area we'd be unified. I was wrong lol.

You may say your not an avid supporter of abortion but anything done to try and change things you attack........

 

You refuse to even give a slight responsibility to the people that are acting in an irresponsible way.

 

Let me say again none of this is needed if the men and women involved would simply take responsibility for their own actions in life. Most laws in existence are there because people don't take responsibility for what they do. For every law you see, you can point to people forcing Government to create these laws to try and deal with the mess the irresponsible people are creating. I don't want laws like this, but I do want people to be more responsible and unfortunately most humans refuse to be responsible.

 

 

 

 

If you hate this idea so much give us better ideas to put into play and I am sure people will gladly try to do that too. Just tossing up your hands and giving up on these women is in my mind not an option.

[wez]

Slight difference as the fat person is only harming themselves, not an innocent, albeit, unborn baby.

Sorry eddo.. not true..

 

http://medicalethics...-being-punished

 

These patients, in the end, cost more to treat than non-obese patients.

 

Hurting the entire "community".. Forced Liposuction?

 

 

[timesjoke]

Sorry eddo.. not true..

 

 

These patients, in the end, cost more to treat than non-obese patients.

 

Hurting the entire "community".. Forced Liposuction?

Costing more money and killing a life are not comparable Wez. Life is priceless.

 

And don't forget the cost of life long mental problems by the women who get abortions, the monetary cost for that is huge.

[emkay64]

"Second, you keep trying to make it "sound" like the procedure will be done like an "attack" or something. Why won't you admit that with the same people killing the baby doing the unltrasound there is no way they will try to hurt the woman with the procedure or abuse her in the slightest? This will be a requirement for an abortion, not a requirement for being pregnant so only those wanting to kill their babies will have to have this done and I see nothing wrong with making sure the mother at least sees her child before she commands it's death."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is an ABUSE! What you are missing is that I am not debating abortion at all. Remove abortion completely from the equation. Should you be forced to have a medical procedure that YOU don't want and be forced to pay for it. Take the abortion debate out completely! I am not debating abortion in the least.

 

Simply put:

 

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

 

Let me re-iterate...I am not debating Abortion. In no way am I interested in debating abortion. Abortion is not my intended focus, abortion just happened to be a part of the article. Leave abortion at the door. No abortion or abortion related contexts...just the bolded, brightly colored question...do not put abortion in the response...just the question posed above. I hope I have clarified...if not...please re-read at your leisure.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Hmmm...forcible rectal exam. No human rights violation there...they were just doing what absolutely NEEDED to be done. Hope none of you boys have a sore back in the near future. I wonder if he will have to pay for his "procedure"? :lol:

 

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/forced-rectal-exam-stirs-ethics-questions/

 

Is being forced to have a rectal exam a normal part of getting stitches in your head? If so, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on. If not, this is completely not relevant to the conversation. Interesting diversion choice though.