• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ultrasound Requirement Passed into law

WakeandBake said:
This law isn't about the legality of abortion. I understand that you want to pinch the cute cheeks of the image in that ultrasound, but this law is about forcing a woman to look at a computerized rendering of what is in her body before having a legal medical procedure even if she doesn't wish to see it. Unprecedented
Click to expand...

Well, not unprecedented in that other states have enacted similar laws before. But otherwise I agree.

Wrangor said:
A computer rendering of a living human being who is about to be terminated. Unprecedented. Two can play at that game.
Click to expand...

Wait, what in your statement is unprecedented? Also, you're still arguing using your own personal beliefs and not the law. It's not a living human being under the law as it stands now.
 
Wrangor said:
Look at that unformed blob of cells...so sad. This is my point exactly. All the talk of blob of cells, and then you see what an actual 10 week fetus looks like. It is so sad.
Click to expand...

You have no point. It is a blob of cells. Just because it looks like a baby, doesn't mean it is a baby or that it can function as a baby.

Have at it abortionists!
 
Maurice said:
I understand the average abortion is performed at 10.2 weeks. Take a look at a 10 week fetus and tell me it's a blob of cells. Then consider 10 weeks is just the average.
Click to expand...

Blob of cells.
 
Wrangor said:
Look at that unformed blob of cells...so sad. This is my point exactly. All the talk of blob of cells, and then you see what an actual 10 week fetus looks like. It is so sad.
Click to expand...

No, what is sad is the life that these children have once they're born into poverty, where their parents can't afford to feed them, have to work multiple jobs and can't see their children at all, and are ignored by the conservative republicans who forced them to be born in the first place.

Really, this isn't about a war on abortion. It's about a war on sex. Conservatives don't want ANYBODY to have sex. That's why they don't even want contraception to be available. religious wackos have put so many restrictions on their own sex lives that they dont' want anybody else to have a happy, healthy sex life either.

Listen, people are GOING to have sex. Especially people in poverty with no economic opportunities, because it's one of the only times they can feel good and feel good about themselves. Society needs to accept that and educate people on how to use contraception and make sure that when babies are born, they are born into a hgousehold that can take care of them.
 
These laws are typical RW BS. They want people they don't like to pay for something that isn't necessary but oppose paying for something that is necessary (birth control).
 
avalon said:
Well, not unprecedented in that other states have enacted similar laws before. But otherwise I agree.



Wait, what in your statement is unprecedented? Also, you're still arguing using your own personal beliefs and not the law. It's not a living human being under the law as it stands now.
Click to expand...

And blacks were only 1/2 a person at one point under the law. My guess is that you think people standing up against that was a good idea. Just because something is law doesn't make it right. Surely you can see that.
 
RJKarl said:
These laws are typical RW BS. They want people they don't like to pay for something that isn't necessary but oppose paying for something that is necessary (birth control).
Click to expand...

Why don't you pay for whatever you want and I pay for whatever I want and we leave each other the hell alone? That way we don't have to fight about it.
 
Your reponse is typical LW BS. You want people you don't like to set aside their moral beliefs in deference to yours.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Why don't you pay for whatever you want and I pay for whatever I want and we leave each other the hell alone? That way we don't have to fight about it.
Click to expand...

Because if you don't for your own health insurance, I have to pay more. That's the way our system works.
 
DeacDiggler said:
I believe that these "interventionary" laws are appropriate because it goes an extra step towards protecting that life in an otherwise gray area. If someone wants to have an abortion and it's legal, then I don't think we should stop them. But given the moral significance of that decision, and given that most of us believe that protecting those who can't protect themselves reflects on us as a society and a culture, I think that this type of law better defines our culture. This isn't me forcing religion onto anyone; I don't need God to support this interest in what our society and country believe in.
Click to expand...

Solid post. And I agree with you about the gray area. I'm uncomfortable with the moral relativism that comes with the viability standard. Nor do I find other, absolute standards (fertilization, implantation, birth, etc.) compelling. Heretofore, I'm left with the argument of competing scales of rights, which serves as the philosophical basis of Roe v. Wade. I'm not content with that, but it's all I've got for now.

As to the quoted paragraph, I think we can all agree that it's a good thing to protect those who can't protect themselves, but I still don't see how an ultrasound does that. Firstly, I find it presumptuous, since any mandate implies that the woman has not already weighed all of the options. Secondly, I assert that the ultrasound provides no new information. Lastly, even if we accept that it's okay to do something to give the woman time to rethink her decision, why does it have to be an ultrasound? Why not have the woman go through a mandatory 3 day waiting period? Or have her undergo a counseling session about the specifics of the procedure and its alternatives? Those would be exponentially cheaper and serve the same purpose. Again, I'm left with the idea that the ultrasound is visual, and anti-abortion advocates recognize that images can prejudice us in ways that other senses don't.
 
I suspect that many here would have the same objection to a waiting period. And while I agree that the visual image may be prejudicial, I personally think that's an acceptable restriction to place on the right to have an abortion, but I understand that reasonable people can disagree.

If the law isn't constitutional, it will eventually be tossed; if it is, then the people of the state may choose to change the law.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
FIFY, Obamacarestyle.

And, to address your original point, vaccinations for schools. If you want to go to school, get vaccinated. If you want to get an abortion, get an ultrasound.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. A vaccination is established as medically necessary for public health. There is no parallel here.

And Congress can pass laws requiring an expenditure to give force to a legally permissible legislative scheme. So that parallel doesn't exist either.

This isn't a guess: there is clear, established law that says the government can't require a patent to undergo a medical procedure that they don't want and has no medical necessity. This is a clear case. Five minutes, tops.
 
Wrangor said:
And blacks were only 1/2 a person at one point under the law. My guess is that you think people standing up against that was a good idea. Just because something is law doesn't make it right. Surely you can see that.
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm not arguing with your belief that abortion is wrong. Just with your use of that belief to defend this law. If you believe abortion is wrong, go after the legality of abortion. Based on the laws that are in place now, this law is wrong. And likely ineffective.
 
DeacDiggler said:
Just because it's legal doesn't mean we shouldn't advise against it and provide education. What is so offensive about asking someone who is going to kill a fetus to have all the facts first? What harm comes of this? If you want to have the right to kill a fetus, what's the harm in asking her to think about it first? As a society that is divided on how to protect life in this regard, why isn't this a reasonable compromise?
Click to expand...

Because it's illegal. Abortion is 100% legal-- therefore you don't have to justify it to the doctor or hospital or endure medically unnecessary, compulsory medical procedures before electing to have one. That may seem cold to some, but it's black-letter fact. This tries to treat abortion as if it's "kind of legal," but you should have to reconsider your decision a few times and face emotional pressure. That's not permissible by law if that reconsideration involves submitting to an unnecessary medical procedure. More forms? Another doctor consultation? Minor consent? Sure, those can likely stick. But not an actual medical procedure, invasive or not.
 
DeacinBama said:
There is a difference between advising and mandating. The government has campaigns that advise against smoking. That is a far cry from requiring someone to obtain a chest CT scan before buying a pack of cigarettes.

You ask what's wrong with asking someone who is going to kill a fetus to have all the facts first? Well, I know of no facts that a pre-abortion ultrasound can provide to an pregnant woman that aren't already available to her, and I interpret obstetric ultrasounds for a living (among other things). As best as I can tell, the concept is nothing more than an emotional ploy, designed to exploit the fact that humans are - by our nature - visual creatures. Anti-abortion advocates appear to believe that if a woman can see her baby, then she'll change her mind. That's an interesting tactic, but it has no legal or philosophical basis, in my opinion. That says nothing of the "big brother" aspect of the mandate, which I find bothersome.

What harm comes of this? Plenty. If the legal or philosophical grounds don't bother you, then let's consider the financial. A quick search of the CDC statistics esimates that around 800,000 (known) abortions are performed per year in the U.S. Let's further estimate that the cost of an ultrasound for each of these is (conservatively) $500. That's $400 million dollars a year added to an already bloated healthcare system.

Perhaps worst of all is that there is no data to confirm that such ultrasounds will actually prevent abortions. Again, anti-abortion advocates believe that it will save fetuses, but at what rate? How much are we - as a society - willing to spend to prevent one abortion? What if a study were to find that the ultrasounds have no impact on the abortion rate? Then we'd just be throwing money away.

In conclusion, I can't help but see this as an emotional ploy. Anti-abortion folks have heretofore been unable to outlaw the procedure outright, so they appear to be trying to end-run the system. And this is coming from someone who isn't exactly in favor of abortion, as I have yet to hear a convincing justification for it (but that's a different discussion).

In any case, I realize that reasonable people can disagree, especially about this issue, so I welcome civil commentary and discussion vis-a-vis my thoughts.
Click to expand...

/end thread
 
DeacDiggler said:
I suspect that many here would have the same objection to a waiting period. And while I agree that the visual image may be prejudicial, I personally think that's an acceptable restriction to place on the right to have an abortion, but I understand that reasonable people can disagree.

If the law isn't constitutional, it will eventually be tossed; if it is, then the people of the state may choose to change the law.
Click to expand...

Some wouldn't like it, just like some people are incredulous that you have to wait to buy a gun in many places or have acceptable ID to vote, since it's paternalistic. I think you'd win a lot of converts by dropping the US. As others have pointed out, it's an unprecedented imposition of an unnecessary medical procedure that is both costly and - I believe -prejudicial. A counseling session or waiting period avoid most of those objections.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Uh, no. A vaccination is established as medically necessary for public health. There is no parallel here.

And Congress can pass laws requiring an expenditure to give force to a legally permissible legislative scheme. So that parallel doesn't exist either.

This isn't a guess: there is clear, established law that says the government can't require a patent to undergo a medical procedure that they don't want and has no medical necessity. This is a clear case. Five minutes, tops.
Click to expand...

So it is not medically necessary to determine a person's viability before removing him from his life supporting facilities? So I can walk through the vegetable aisle at CMC and just start cutting off the breakers on every person who looks to me like they are already dead? Sweet, now I've got plans for the weekend.
 
DeacDiggler said:
I suspect that many here would have the same objection to a waiting period. And while I agree that the visual image may be prejudicial, I personally think that's an acceptable restriction to place on the right to have an abortion, but I understand that reasonable people can disagree.

If the law isn't constitutional, it will eventually be tossed; if it is, then the people of the state may choose to change the law.
Click to expand...

Women don't just figure out they are pregnant and rush to a clinic. They do think about it a lot before going. The waiting period is redundant.

This is no different than saying they should get "all the facts".

Either position is saying women aren't smart enough or haven't had a gut wrenching decision process already. Either position is insulting to women.
 
For those arguing against the idea that it isn't just a bunch of cells at 10 weeks and don't worry as Science improves it will become even more obvious. What about the fact that Science already can show that technically it is just a bunch of cells. You can take a sperm and an egg outside of the body, combine it, place it in an artificial womb outside the body and grow it to 10 weeks (if their weren't regulations on this). Then if you would like to go the Delaware an argue that sperm and egg are people you can take embryonic stem cells, or if you prefer with more work pretty much any cell on the body though some are better than others, reverse engineer said cell into a stem cell, take that stem cell and develop it into a sperm and egg. Take that sperm and egg, combine it together, place in the artifical womb and develop it to 10 weeks. The technology is there and it all has to do with the fact to a certain extent it is just science and cells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top