• 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

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.

Come on 2&2. That's not even close to a legal parallel. I'm talking about why this law is going to be struck down within five minutes of reaching an appellate bench, not about the morality of abortion. The law does not define an unborn fetus as a person, and therefore it has no rights. That, of course, is not true, at all, of a person on life support in a hospital. You know your analogy doesn't work in any legal sense, so why bother?

An ultrasound has no medical benefit to a woman who has elected to have an abortion. Therefore, under our constitutional precedent, it is illegal to make her undergo such a procedure as a prerequisite. It'd be like requiring an enema to get a nose job.
 
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.

Are you implying that a prenatal ultrasound helps determine viability? If so, how does it?
 
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.

Good post. Along with Bama's comment about being presumptuous to think a woman doesn't understand the significance of her decision. Anyone who thinks an abortion clinic waiting room is filled with giddy laughter and high fives is asinine. 99% of these woman have a very clear understanding of what is going on and the decision is not cavalier - even moreso in cases of genetic defects or unwanted pregnancy through force. Nice that the law exempts incest and rape (although only if reported to the cops) but I imagine this is still at odds with the pro-life perspective (I can only assume that a 10-week old fetus borne from rape looks similar to one through natural pregnancy, so I am also assuming that some posters would argue this is a life and should be carried to term). Would be interesting how the moral high ground for rape somehow exceeds murder (speaking only in the eyes of a hypothetical pro-life advocate).

In the end, DeacinBama has pretty much owned this thread - thoughtful and insightful responses recognizing the difference between the law and the mandate.
 
Are you implying that a prenatal ultrasound helps determine viability? If so, how does it?

Exactly. The idea that you need to determine the viability of something you are legally about to terminate makes no rational sense. That's why it's medically unnecessary.
 
Come on 2&2. That's not even close to a legal parallel. I'm talking about why this law is going to be struck down within five minutes of reaching an appellate bench, not about the morality of abortion. The law does not define an unborn fetus as a person, and therefore it has no rights. That, of course, is not true, at all, of a person on life support in a hospital. You know your analogy doesn't work in any legal sense, so why bother?

An ultrasound has no medical benefit to a woman who has elected to have an abortion. Therefore, under our constitutional precedent, it is illegal to make her undergo such a procedure as a prerequisite. It'd be like requiring an enema to get a nose job.

The law does define an unborn fetus as a person at a certain point. So if this test helps determine whether the fetus has hit that point, then yes it is parallel and the test could be required.

Note: I have no idea whether this ultrasound determines liability. I really don't care about this bill in particular, but I think the legal argument can clearly be made that a mother could be required to undergo a medical procedure to ascertain liability before having an abortion (again, whether this test is that test, I have no idea).
 
Exactly. The idea that you need to determine the viability of something you are legally about to terminate makes no rational sense. That's why it's medically unnecessary.

Huh? That makes zero sense. If the legality of the killing depends on the viability, then clearly determining that viability is of the utmost importance.
 
The law does define an unborn fetus as a person at a certain point. So if this test helps determine whether the fetus has hit that point, then yes it is parallel and the test could be required.

Note: I have no idea whether this ultrasound determines liability. I really don't care about this bill in particular, but I think the legal argument can clearly be made that a mother could be required to undergo a medical procedure to ascertain liability before having an abortion (again, whether this test is that test, I have no idea).

The law has already drawn those lines. An ultrasound provides no additional clarity. This bill has no chance.
 
Huh? That makes zero sense. If the legality of the killing depends on the viability, then clearly determining that viability is of the utmost importance.

Yeah I stuck with the term being used incorrectly against my better judgment. We're talking about a first-term fetus, which is already not legally viable by definition. So the ultrasound is totally irrelevant.
 
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.

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.

Alas, RJ comes along to prove the point. RJ is more interested in not "insulting women" than he is in protecting lives.
 
Yeah I stuck with the term being used incorrectly against my better judgment. We're talking about a first-term fetus, which is already not legally viable by definition. So the ultrasound is totally irrelevant.


I think 2&2 makes the point that although we know the legal boundary established (first trimester), the test purports to determine whether the fetus falls within that legal boundary and therefore whether the abortion is legal.

Which, in turn, makes DiB's point all the more potent: this test is more invasive and less informative than other tests, and its mandate therefore serves only as a medically unnecessary additional step to a legal medical decision.
 
An ultrasound gives no clarity to the legal definition of trimesters (which requires no further clarity as written). If you don't like the underlying constitutional law, then attack that law. But as it stands this is open-and-shut unconstitutional, because it's medically unnecessary for the mother and does not provide any additional clarity that is necessary to fully comply with the law. It serves no purpose to a legal medical procedure, so it medically unnecessary. Once you cross that hurdle, it's illegal, moral issues aside.

Again, the best legal parallel is requiring an enema for a nose job. An enema would serve no purpose and provide no clarity to the legal, elective, medical procedure of plastic surgery, so, obviously, it can't be required by law.
 
Last edited:
unless, of course, you had a baby up your nose. or up your ass. :p
 
Isn't there also some inherent hypocrisy is pro-lifers being adamant about the parent's ability to make decisions in the best interest of their children regarding diet, education, etc.?
 
The spirit of the law appears to be to "educate" or "inform" the woman, not to determine anything regarding gestation or legality.
 
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.

That simply isn't true. They were 3/5 of a person.
 
Isn't there also some inherent hypocrisy is pro-lifers being adamant about the parent's ability to make decisions in the best interest of their children regarding diet, education, etc.?

good point. Susan Smith was well within her rights as a parent.
 
That simply isn't true. They were 3/5 of a person.

Dang, I didn't realize that blacks had it so good back then :tard: Point taken :). My point stands. I am for anything that exposes the fraud that abortion is. If it means sidestepping current laws I am for it. If it means simply bringing awareness to what a 10 week old fetus looks like in the womb, I am for it. I am for any practice that exposes the atrocity of abortion. This is not because I am a 'religious wacko' as so many of you have eloquently stated in my neg reps, but because I believe we are killing innocent children. You don't need a Bible to look at that ultrasound and see a growing child.

The hypocrisy angle is stupid. If I really have to explain the difference in destroying the life of a child and having the right to choose a childs diet or education than you truly are lost. I doubt you would find a pro-life parent that would advocate having the right to kill their 5 year daughter. So spare me the hypocrisy angle. We are all hypocrites in one way or another. Using that as any sort of argument is just avoiding the discussion.
 
I do all my abortions clothes-hanger style, so I have no idea how this works. Is the clinic obligated to confirm how old the fetus is before aborting it? If so, do they just take the mother's word for it, or do they do an ultrasound?
 
I think mother's word is a sufficient substitute.
 
The hypocrisy angle is stupid. If I really have to explain the difference in destroying the life of a child and having the right to choose a childs diet or education than you truly are lost. I doubt you would find a pro-life parent that would advocate having the right to kill their 5 year daughter. So spare me the hypocrisy angle. We are all hypocrites in one way or another. Using that as any sort of argument is just avoiding the discussion.

I'd argue that Christian Science might fall under this doctrine (my MIL is a Christian Scientist), although I am sure the parents would not believe they were killing their child, rather it is in God's hands.

But honest question Wrangor - the bill as laid out does exempt rape/incest from Ultrasound requirement, which appears to be a de facto recognition of the legitimacy of abortion in these instances - I'd be interested in your thoughts on this and whether you believe that a pregnancy borne of rape/incest warrants equal consideration from a moral standpoint as what one might consider a typical unwanted pregnancy (an "oops"). Not to derail the thread, but I have always assumed it should be an all or nothing proposition from a pro-life standpoint, but appears to me some in the pro-life camp waffle/struggle with this concept. Anyway, not to put you on the spot, but am genuinely interested.
 
Back
Top