• 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

Wrangor said:
I think mother's word is a sufficient substitute.
Click to expand...

But there's a point where a woman isn't allowed to get an abortion by law. Shouldn't the clinic be required to confirm the age of the fetus before aborting?

Look, I'm all for letting chicks get schmortions, but if you're going to ban late-term ones then the ban has to mean something. Otherwise, just make them all legal.
 
WPDeac said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am in the all or nothing crowd, but not without a lot of sympathy. I certainly understand the difficulties that would come with bearing a child out of rape/incest, but two wrongs don't make a right in my book. In the situation of rape/incest you are really dealing with a no win situation. There are no good choices, so I do not pretend it is an easy or desirable decision to make. The mother is obviously going to be burdening herself even more by having the baby, but I think that is the correct move to make. We have around 1.2-1.3 abortions a year in the US and according to statistic 1% of those are due to rape/incest. I personally don't think you create a policy to cater to the 1% (although we seem to do a good job of that with our economic policy).

If there were exceptions due to rape or incest and all other abortions were banned I would sign on in a heartbeat as i understand the moral conflict that comes with that decision, but if you are asking me if I were to craft a law I would make all abortions except for if the mother's life were at stake, illegal. If the mother's life is at stake then you are having to make a decision between two lives. At that point the moral law doesn't apply. At that point it would be an individual decision between the mother and the doctor. Thanks for the genuine question.
 
Billy Mitchell said:
But there's a point where a woman isn't allowed to get an abortion by law. Shouldn't the clinic be required to confirm the age of the fetus before aborting?

Look, I'm all for letting chicks get schmortions, but if you're going to ban late-term ones then the ban has to mean something. Otherwise, just make them all legal.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. I assumed you weren't serious.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll play along. It's just a matter of time before artificial wombs are allowed to bring a fetus to full term. What would you call the blob of cells that is removed after 9 months?
 
has anyone suggested we take unwanted babies and train them to be supersoldiers?
 
DeacDiggler said:
good point. Susan Smith was well within her rights as a parent.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that there are inherent inconsistencies and hypocrisies in what are deeply held political beliefs. When a woman is pregnant, the left supports the right of the woman (parent) to decide what is best for her (and ultimately the child). However, after a baby is born, the right seems to support a parent ultimately having the best judgement.

I have stated my position on this issue before. Ultimately, I think that abortion is pretty abhorrent, but someone is making the choice about it, and I believe that it comes down to a woman making that choice about her body over the government (aka mostly older men who are never in the same situation).

I just wish that the right seemed as deeply concerned about child development beyond their prenatal existence. There really is no reason why pro-lifers shouldn't be the loudest advocates for funding for childcare, adoption, child welfare, education, child nutrition, etc. Unfortunately, the political reality is one where they are often the most staunch opposition. If the resources available to children living in poverty would increase, abortions would probably decrease.

Take it for what it's worth, it's just my .02.
 
Shooshmoo said:
It's exactly what He always wanted! Ask Wrangor.
Click to expand...

It would be oh-so-fitting of current GOP thinking and morals if the girl was forced to have the baby, then her mother was told that their Medicaid had been cut off and they would have to sell all of their possessions to pay for the delivery.

ETA: And, given that this case involves immigrants, it would also fit if the mother was deported right after the delivery, while the little girl was left here on her own to raise the kid.
 
Last edited:
Highland Deac said:
It would be oh-so-fitting of current GOP thinking and morals if the girl was forced to have the baby, then her mother was told that their Medicaid had been cut off and they would have to sell all of their possessions to pay for the delivery.
Click to expand...

Isn’t that what Jesus told the poor young rape victim in Matthew?

Oh wait. No. It was the rich young ruler.

“Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19:16-24‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://www.bible.com/bible/111/mat.19.16-24.niv

Wrangor, this is from the actual Bible. I don’t know what Republican Bible you use that demonizes the poor and equates wealth with morals.
 
Wow....love your neighbor as yourself. That’s a trip, man. So if you have bought yourself health insurance and your neighbor can’t afford it, shouldn’t you.....ah nevermind...there is some roundabout answer where Wrangor will loop in tax cuts strengthen the economy teach a man to fish and work harder
 
WakeandBake said:
Wow....love your neighbor as yourself. That’s a trip, man. So if you have bought yourself health insurance and your neighbor can’t afford it, shouldn’t you.....ah nevermind...there is some roundabout answer where Wrangor will loop in tax cuts strengthen the economy teach a man to fish and work harder
Click to expand...

Like that time Jesus was preaching and noticed that the crowd was hungry and he commanded his disciples teach them fishing lessons.

Oh wait. He took some kid’s fish and bread and multiplied it to give some to everybody.
 
Right, he treated them like imbeciles who couldn’t take care of themselves to keep them needing him
 
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Click to expand...

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Click to expand...
 
ConnorEl, link? Is that from a Bernie Sanders rally?

Acts 2 and 4 of what? Some hippie Broadway play?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top