Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A law passed in the South Carolina house and headed for the state senate would require women getting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure, except in the cases of rape or incest.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/

Is this spam because I don't see a point?

Originally posted by Alliance
Is this spam because I don't see a point? Religious and/or overly emotional people don't like abortions, therefore they use their collective influence to pass stupid laws, which probably violate Roe v. Wade anyway and are therefore invalid, South Carolina being an example?

Pro life bullsh!t, everyone should be able to choose what they do, this is just another example of a controlling nation. No thumbs up from me I'm afraid

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Pro life bullsh!t, everyone should be able to choose what they do, this is just another example of a controlling nation. No thumbs up from me I'm afraid

lol, so?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Pro life bullsh!t, everyone should be able to choose what they do, this is just another example of a controlling nation. No thumbs up from me I'm afraid

I should be able to censor this

ANGST.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
A law passed in the South Carolina house and headed for the state senate would require women getting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure, except in the cases of rape or incest.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/





Emotional blackmail is not healthy. Many women who have to get an abortion due to health issues, or lack of financial ability to care for a child, already feel depressed having to abort a child (hormons are raging like mad on top) let alone being pressured and blackmailed into keeping the baby.

Creepy.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Creepy. Creepier still, the legislation passing the first vote in the House has no exemption for rape and incest cases; and this exemption will likely be put in as a concession to pass the Senate vote. So they're trying to emotionally blackmail women who not only have already made an agonizing decision to abort, but who are pregnant due to traumatic experiences of (familial) sexual abuse/rape with fetuses that have an increased likelihood of rare congenital recessive defects as a result of incestuous conception.

This procedure is not medically ethical. Patients are not required in any circumstance to view a procedure.

Also, who's paying for the ultrasound...if its the patient, and they don't want the procedure, that is also unethical.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
A law passed in the South Carolina house and headed for the state senate would require women getting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure, except in the cases of rape or incest.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/







Prepare to have a rise in illegal abortions now

I don't think they should view it if they can give a good reason for the abortion.

Originally posted by Help
I don't think they should view it if they can give a good reason for the abortion.



"I don't want to have a baby" is a good reason enough

That's rather disgusting and disturbing.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
A law passed in the South Carolina house and headed for the state senate would require women getting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure, except in the cases of rape or incest.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/





If the government is paying for the ultrasound; I don't see much of a problem.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Emotional blackmail is not healthy. Well said. That is exactly what it is. How could this be legal?

"You love them in the womb, but once they get here, it's a different story," said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat and a social worker.

WTF? This woman hates babies/children?

How the hell is that legal,trying to make people to feel guilty and stop the abortion ,right wing bastards

How is it "forcing" when abortion is still legal? Forcing would be making abortion illegal outright.

Also, "Emotional Blackmail" which is beign thrown around is a little bit melodramatic don't you think? Blackmail is "extortion or coercion by threats"; I don't see anyone being threatened.

Originally posted by Robtard
How is it "forcing" when abortion is still legal? Forcing would be making abortion illegal outright. wrong word

Originally posted by Robtard
"You love them in the womb, but once they get here, it's a different story," said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat and a social worker.

WTF? This woman hates babies/children?

I believe that's more a comment on the fact that a lot of times, people who are pro-life also tend to be against welfare...which is really stupid, if you think about it. Let's make people have babies they can't afford to raise and then refuse to help them at all and tell them it's their problem.

Originally posted by Lana
I believe that's more a comment on the fact that a lot of times, people who are pro-life also tend to be against welfare...which is really stupid, if you think about it. Let's make people have babies they can't afford to raise and then refuse to help them at all and tell them it's their problem.

I see your point, but that woman is speaking about "love" (her own words), I think she's just a nut.

Originally posted by Robtard
How is it "forcing" when abortion is still legal? Forcing would be making abortion illegal outright.

Also, "Emotional Blackmail" which is beign thrown around is a little bit melodramatic don't you think? Blackmail is "extortion or coercion by threats"; I don't see anyone being threatened.

Are you claiming that women are too stupid to know that they're killing thier child?

If thats not the case, why does this need to be law?
Originally posted by Robtard
I see your point, but that woman is speaking about "love", I think she's just a nut.

If its a gay baby, shouldn't we just abort it now?

Originally posted by Alliance
Are you claiming that women are too stupid to know that they're killing thier child?

If thats not the case, why does this need to be law?


If its a gay baby, shouldn't we just abort it now?

No, I am not claiming anything of the sort. I see this as merely a chance to make a better informed decision. They can still abort after looking through a few pictures.

Huh? What in the world are you talking about? That sounded really ignorant.

Originally posted by Alliance
This procedure is not medically ethical. Patients are not required in any circumstance to view a procedure.

Also, who's paying for the ultrasound...if its the patient, and they don't want the procedure, that is also unethical. Checkmate

This is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Makes me glad I'm not a) a women and 2) don't live in the US.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
A law passed in the South Carolina house and headed for the state senate would require women getting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure, except in the cases of rape or incest.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/





Yeah? So? The people you're really all up in arms about are the ones who like to kill babies. What difference is seeing it going to make? They have no soul anyway. If they couldn't get abortions, the dumpsters of this nation would be literally filled with dead babies. I think the next step should be to make it legal to throw away children and adoption should be made illegal all together. If the mother doesn't want the child, it should be aborted or at the very least born and then poked with a stick until it dies.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I am not claiming anything of the sort. I see this as merely a chance to make a better informed decision. They can still abort after looking through a few pictures.

So, you are saying women are uniformed...

...which is exactly what spurred me to make my original comment AND my previous one.Originally posted by Strangelove
Checkmate

Ahh, medical ethics training.

AM I actually going into medicine to deal with this?

Originally posted by Alliance
So, you are saying women are uniformed...

...which is exactly what spurred me to make my original comment AND my previous one.


If you want to stretch it that way sure...

I am saying more knowledge and more information cannot hurt.

I'm all for educating the women but the way that law would go into affect is ass.

This is all based on the assumption that women who want abortions do so as a result of being ill-informed.

Most of the time they genuinely want it. Abortion is obviously not the only choice.

-AC

Originally posted by sithsaber408
A law passed in the South Carolina house and headed for the state senate would require women getting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure, except in the cases of rape or incest.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/





So they can see a couple of cells moving about ? Hows that supposed to help.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you want to stretch it that way sure...

I am saying more knowledge and more information cannot hurt.

What tremendous knowledge is gained from seeing an image of a fetus?
Originally posted by Donkey Punch
So they can see a couple of cells moving about ? Hows that supposed to help.

Unless you were using some rapid abortifact, the fetus yould have significant development by the time you realized you were pregenant.

Also, individual cells cannot be see via ultrasound.

Originally posted by Alliance
What tremendous knowledge is gained from seeing an image of a fetus?


Tremendous? I never said that... I said "more" knowledge, and considering abortion is permanent, more knowledge beforehand can't hurt.

If you can't win by logic and reason, guilt trip the person.

Weeeeeeeeeee!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
A law passed in the South Carolina house and headed for the state senate would require women getting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure, except in the cases of rape or incest.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/





I am comepletly pro life. However, I think this is disgusting. Even though i am pro life, i can naturally understand some of the circumstances that causes one to get an abortion. I dont want to see peoples right of having an abortion taken away just because i disagree with it. I wouldnt mind seeing more strict regulations on the process. This however, just seems as cruel and un warranted anguish that is put upon a person that will most likely live and struggle with an already hard decesion

Originally posted by Robtard
Tremendous? I never said that... I said "more" knowledge, and considering abortion is permanent, more knowledge beforehand can't hurt. What knowledge is gained from seeing an image of the developing fetus at all? All it is, is attempting to coerce a desired outcome by appealing to the guilt of a woman who is basically already making an anguishing decision. It is emotional blackmail, and an unwarranted intrusion by the State.

Informed consent legislation requires doctors to fully disclose all relevant information that the patient desires, and to extend alternatives to patients. Ultrasounds are already available.

It's an obscene law.

I say, if it's legal its legal. If not its not. It sounds like a contradiction of the states views on the subject. I'm all about voting for laws to be passed and broken. thats a free republic. If it is legal, what can possibly be gained. I understand both sides of the abortion debate. Morals are crucial for a democracy. By trying to convice someone not to partake in a legal activity only shows contradiction.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What knowledge is gained from seeing an image of the developing fetus at all? All it is, is attempting to coerce a desired outcome by appealing to the guilt of a woman who is basically already making an anguishing decision. It is emotional blackmail, and an unwarranted intrusion by the State.

Informed consent legislation requires doctors to fully disclose all relevant information that the patient desires, and to extend alternatives to patients. Ultrasounds are already available.

It's an obscene law.

"Emotional blackmail" is B.S., 'blackmail' is coercion by threats; no one is being threatened.

If the woman already has all the information and fully knows what she is doing, then looking at a few pictures won't do anything. In the case that she is uniformed this will serve as extra knowledge and if she still wants the abortion after looking at a few pictures she certainly can still do so under the law.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"I don't want to have a baby" is a good reason enough

Not exactly. Surely "I don't want to have a baby" should have been reason enough for them to have thought "I should use some sort of contraception"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as disturbed by this proposed (already passed?) legislation, I just don't think that abortion should be as simple as "I don't want it".

Given the raging hormones, can a woman truly say she is making a decision concerning abortion with her full faculties? Just asking the question since it never occurred to me until reading this portion of Lil B's post:Originally posted by lil bitchiness
already feel depressed having to abort a child (hormons are raging like mad on top)

I am anti abortion unless there are health issues, but this concept has never occurred to me.

Originally posted by Regret
Given the raging hormones, can a woman truly say she is making a decision concerning abortion with her full faculties? Just asking the question since it never occurred to me until reading this portion of Lil B's post:

Given the fact that women always have hoormone fluctuations, can we ever be considering them to be making rational decisions?...ore are they simply ruled by their uterus?

Can teenages actually make decisions even though they're going under hormonal changes?

Come on.

Wait a minute, is someone actually suggesting that women are so concerned with getting laid that they loose their descision making abilities?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/abortion.jpg

I don't see what the problem is with this

Its not violating anyone's "rights"

Its simply saying, look at what you are going to do, you are going to have a living thing killed, think about what you are doing

But that's the point, they already know.

Originally posted by Grimm22
I don't see what the problem is with this

Its not violating anyone's "rights"

Its simply saying, look at what you are going to do, you are going to have a living thing killed, think about what you are doing Originally posted by BackFire
If you can't win by logic and reason, guilt trip the person.

Weeeeeeeeeee!

ROFL.

What a bunch of tools. "ZOMG EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL." Give me a ****ing break. When people started describing abortion as being a right instead of a privilege, it became emotional blackmail.

Originally posted by Syren
Not exactly. Surely "I don't want to have a baby" should have been reason enough for them to have thought "I should use some sort of contraception"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as disturbed by this proposed (already passed?) legislation, I just don't think that abortion should be as simple as "I don't want it".

Because contraception never fails, right? C'mon Sy, you know better than that...

Originally posted by Lana
Because contraception never fails, right? C'mon Sy, you know better than that...
Not ****ing works wonders.

Originally posted by FeceMan
ROFL.

What a bunch of tools. "ZOMG EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL." Give me a ****ing break. When people started describing abortion as being a right instead of a privilege, it became emotional blackmail. Are you saying that forcing women who are already making a really difficult decision to have an ultrasound isn't emotional blackmail? Give me a ****ing break.

And like Alliance said, does the state pay for the ultrasound? Because they certainly can't make the patient pay for something that isn't necessary for the procedure.

Originally posted by Lana
Because contraception never fails, right? C'mon Sy, you know better than that...

Hey, hey, you know what I meant by that comment. It was in response to the comment I quoted. Not wanting the baby is not reason enough to have an abortion, in my opinion. Fair enough if there's a reason not to want the baby other than that it might mess up one's social life. I do know better than that, madam, my comment was in context

As Capt said, most women have already made the choice. People assuming they need more education are nothing more than guilt-trippers looking for a way in.

Originally posted by Syren
Hey, hey, you know what I meant by that comment. It was in response to the comment I quoted. Not wanting the baby is not reason enough to have an abortion, in my opinion. Fair enough if there's a reason not to want the baby other than that it might mess up one's social life. I do know better than that, madam, my comment was in context

So don't have one for that reason. Not wanting a baby is enough of a reason for the person doing it. I don't think it's nice that abortion is being used as birth control, but it will happen. That's a people problem, not an abortion problem.

As long as freedoms exist, people will use them frivolously. The point to freedom is that the option is there, and people shouldn't be restricted because idiots will misuse things.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a very naughty boy with power drills, you don't see Black & Decker going out of business.

-AC

Originally posted by Grimm22
I don't see what the problem is with this

Its not violating anyone's "rights"

Its simply saying, look at what you are going to do, you are going to have a living thing killed, think about what you are doing

Again you are claiming women are ignorant.

ALL this legislation is, is derrogatory, unethical governmental OVERREGULATION.

"Look at what you're going to end, see, it's little arms, little legs, look I think it just smiled."

"mmmm, looks tasty, maybe I will let it stew in there a bit more after all, thanks doc!"

If a woman reacts this way they will have my respect.

you know what would be really cool?

what if you wanted to frick with someone right? by using CGI effects you create a devil baby ultra sound. but wait...the devil baby has twins. the twin is the good baby and they commence battleing each other and stranggeling one another with their own mommy cord. I bet that mom want a special edition dvd of that shit.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
you know what would be really cool?

what if you wanted to frick with someone right? by using CGI effects you create a devil baby ultra sound. but wait...the devil baby has twins. the twin is the good baby and they commence battleing each other and stranggeling one another with their own mommy cord. I bet that mom want a special edition dvd of that shit.

And then a coathanger enters the fray and foes must then join together to fight a greater evil. An evil that cannot be defeated alone.

no dude thats just taking it to far now.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Emotional blackmail" is B.S., 'blackmail' is coercion by threats; no one is being threatened. Okay let's play the silly semantics game, it's a fascistic law that attempts coercion towards a desired outcome by manipulation of emotions. Happy?

Heh, heh...what's the difference between "guilt tripping" and "awakening their consciences"?

None.

What do I win?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
None.

What do I win?

-AC
This.

If they are indeed the same thing, then there's no point to arguing this law--no more so than arguing the merits of using pictures of the dead in Iraq to demonstrate the horrors of war.

Originally posted by FeceMan
This.

If they are indeed the same thing, then there's no point to arguing this law--no more so than arguing the merits of using pictures of the dead in Iraq to demonstrate the horrors of war. The Bush Administration asking the media not to broadcast pictures of coffins comuing back from Iraq isn't really right. But the media of course rolled over and took it like a *****

Originally posted by Strangelove
The Bush Administration asking the media not to broadcast pictures of coffins comuing back from Iraq isn't really right. But the media of course rolled over and took it like a *****
That lacks relevance.

Carry on.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Not ****ing works wonders.

It's not the most fun choice though...

Originally posted by FeceMan
This.

If they are indeed the same thing, then there's no point to arguing this law--no more so than arguing the merits of using pictures of the dead in Iraq to demonstrate the horrors of war.

They're not the same, I was being sarcastic.

-AC

Originally posted by FeceMan
That lacks relevance.

Carry on. You mentioned it first, and I had a thought. srug

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Okay let's play the silly semantics game, it's a fascistic law that attempts coercion towards a desired outcome by manipulation of emotions. Happy?

Fascist... being a little over melodramatic don't you think? Emotional manipulation... are you saying women are emotional wrecks?

Out of curiousity, why do you ask people if they're saying things they clearly aren't?

He's saying it's manipulation of emotions.

-AC

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"I don't want to have a baby" is a good reason enough

But... but it's murder isn't it?



-FO!!

Originally posted by Flame On!!
But... but it's murder isn't it?



-FO!!

No.

Please not again.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No.

Please not again.

-AC

Surlely you're taking a life... Aren't you.



-FO!!

Originally posted by FeceMan
ROFL.

What a bunch of tools. "ZOMG EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL." Give me a ****ing break. When people started describing abortion as being a right instead of a privilege, it became emotional blackmail. Originally posted by FeceMan
Not ****ing works wonders.


In the land of the liberal * KMC * , I was glad to see one right thinking person.



The law is all about better information.

For a woman pressured by a boyfriend not to have a baby, for a woman who is thinking that she has no other option or no place to turn because she is poor and alone.....


Seeing her unborn child can make all of the difference in the world.


Often times women are "emotionally blackmailed" into having an abortion... hell the doctors tried to get my mother to abort my younger brother because it would be "better" for everybody involved.

I think that if we are going to "emotionally blackmail" people, then we ought to choose to promote the side of it that DOESN'T end with dead babies.



All the women in the situations described above can give their babies up for adoption anyway, so unless they've been raped or will die from childbirth the point is moot.


Abortion "because she doesn't want a baby" is flat-out wrong, and at least now in South Carolina the baby boys and girls who will have their lives thrown away on a whim will be seen by somebody... though it appears from comments on this board that very few hear their cries.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Out of curiousity, why do you ask people if they're saying things they clearly aren't?

He's saying it's manipulation of emotions.

-AC


Hey, I am not the one foolishly knee-jerking and throwing out phrases like "emotional blackmail".

I'm asking if he thinks these women who have already made of their minds that they want the abortion and they are throughly educated on the matter are nothing more than a bunch of weak-minded emotional wretches?

The way I see it; for the women who have unquestionably made of their minds and are fully educated on the matter, a few pictures will do nothing; they'll look at the pictures and they'll proceed with the abortion as scheduled. For the ones that are not; this will serve as further insight and information before they make an irreversable choice... they can still proceed with the abortion under the law, that hasn't changed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hey, I am not the one foolishly knee-jerking and throwing out phrases like "emotional blackmail".

I'm asking if he thinks these women who have already made of their minds that they want the abortion and they are throughly educated on the matter are nothing more than a bunch of weak-minded emotional wretches?

The way I see it; for the women who have unquestionably made of their minds and are fully educated on the matter, a few pictures will do nothing; they'll look at the pictures and they'll proceed with the abortion as scheduled. For the ones that are not; this will serve as further insight and information before they make an irreversable choice... they can still proceed with the abortion under the law, that hasn't changed.

AC asked a question you have failed to answer, good dodge though.

-FO!!

Originally posted by Flame On!!
AC asked a question you have failed to answer, good dodge though.

-FO!!

Really... my second paragraph was a direct answer to his question and the last solidified it... glad to see you're playing his sidekick; so cute.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm asking if he thinks these women who have already made of their minds that they want the abortion and they are throughly educated on the matter are nothing more than a bunch of weak-minded emotional wretches?

Yes, why though? I never saw any indication that he believed this.

Stop saying supposedly, too. They normally are, but even if they aren't, they clearly don't want education, because if they did they'd go look for it. It's not your right to interject.

By "emotional blackmail", people mean misleading comments. Like in South Park when Cartmen convinces Butters to vote for the turd sandwich over the giant douche. "What's cooler, Butters: A crappy giant douche...OR A SUPER AWESOME FUN TURD SANDWICH!?!".

More often than not, these "educators" do not wish to educate, they wish to guilt trip. "Look, you can have an abortion...OR YOU CAN KEEP THIS INNOCENT BABY LIFE ALIVE AND NOT MURDER IT *Wave of foetus pictures*.".

If educating is your concern, it should be: "Have you thought about options?", and if their answer is "Yes, I still want an abortion." or "No, but I still want an abortion.", and you continue "suggesting", then you are no longer trying to raise awareness, you're trying to manipulate.

Originally posted by Robtard
The way I see it; for the women who have unquestionably made of their minds and are fully educated on the matter, a few pictures will do nothing; they'll look at the pictures and they'll proceed with the abortion as scheduled. For the ones that are not; this will serve as further insight and information before they make an irreversable choice... they can still proceed with the abortion under the law, that hasn't changed.

Yes, but have you considered how some will use those pictures?

Considering the most powerful people in the world right now, or certainly in America, are Christians, why on Earth would you assume they will pass laws and enforce them in accordance with fairness, rather than their own beliefs?

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Really... my second paragraph was a direct answer to his question and the last solidified it... glad to see you're playing his sidekick; so cute.

It really wasn't

I agree with him on the point he made

-FO!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, why though? I never saw any indication that he believed this.

Stop saying supposedly, too. They normally are, but even if they aren't, they clearly don't want education, because if they did they'd go look for it. It's not your right to interject.

By "emotional blackmail", people mean misleading comments. Like in South Park when Cartmen convinces Butters to vote for the turd sandwich over the giant douche. "What's cooler, Butters: A crappy giant douche...OR A SUPER AWESOME FUN TURD SANDWICH!?!".

More often than not, these "educators" do not wish to educate, they wish to guilt trip. "Look, you can have an abortion...OR YOU CAN KEEP THIS INNOCENT BABY LIFE ALIVE AND NOT MURDER IT *Wave of foetus pictures*."

You never saw it and I explained why above.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri If educating is your concern, it should be: "Have you thought about options?", and if their answer is "Yes, I still want an abortion." or "No, but I still want an abortion.", and you continue "suggesting", then you are no longer trying to raise awareness, you're trying to manipulate.

Yes, but have you considered how some will use those pictures?

Considering the most powerful people in the world right now, or certainly in America, are Christians, why on Earth would you assume they will pass laws and enforce them in accordance with fairness, rather than their own beliefs?

-AC

That goes both ways, as much as your concerns about manipulation "killing babies... murder" and whatnot, that pendulum can swing the other way... "you're doing the best thing...the baby would have a horrible life". Either is wrong in my opinion though.

I believe in democracy and I am not knee-jerkingly fearful of "Christians"... If "they" try and abuse or pass a law restricting abortions outright; no matter the situation, I certainly will not follow suit and will not vote for it.

Originally posted by Flame On!!
It really wasn't

I agree with him on the point he made

-FO!!

You're entitled to your opinion.

Good for you?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're entitled to your opinion.

Good for you?

I am, yes.

It is, isn't it? If you believe in a free society anyway. That's what "pro choice" means kind of.



-FO!!

Originally posted by Robtard
You never saw it and I explained why above.

Still not too good an explanation.

Originally posted by Robtard
That goes both ways, as much as your concerns about manipulation "killing babies... murder" and whatnot, that pendulum can swing the other way... "you're doing the best thing...the baby would have a horrible life". Either is wrong in my opinion though.

Hence why those who have no business should stay completely out of the way. It's because people feel they have a right to be involved that it gets complicated.

Originally posted by Robtard


Good.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Still not too good an explanation.

Hence why those who have no business should stay completely out of the way. It's because people feel they have a right to be involved that it gets complicated.

Good.

-AC

Well, it will have to do.

I see the pictures as educational for reasons previously stated. If it goes beyond the ultrasound; e.g. "You're killing a baby!" or "It's for the best; the abortion" than that kind of involvement certainly isn't needed nor should be tolerated.

Very good.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
In the land of the liberal * KMC * , I was glad to see one right thinking person.



The law is all about better information.

For a woman pressured by a boyfriend not to have a baby, for a woman who is thinking that she has no other option or no place to turn because she is poor and alone.....


Seeing her unborn child can make all of the difference in the world.


Often times women are "emotionally blackmailed" into having an abortion... hell the doctors tried to get my mother to abort my younger brother because it would be "better" for everybody involved.

I think that if we are going to "emotionally blackmail" people, then we ought to choose to promote the side of it that DOESN'T end with dead babies.



All the women in the situations described above can give their babies up for adoption anyway, so unless they've been raped or will die from childbirth the point is moot.


Abortion "because she doesn't want a baby" is flat-out wrong, and at least now in South Carolina the baby boys and girls who will have their lives thrown away on a whim will be seen by somebody... though it appears from comments on this board that very few hear their cries. yawn

The crucial point here, I think, is that they require the ultrasound before the procedure. At that point, most women have made up their minds. If their doctors or boyfriends were 'emotionally blackmailing' them and they were still opposed to having an abortion, they wouldn't have it. They would leave their boyfriends, get a different OB/GYN. Smart women would, anyway. Or give it up for adoption, whatever.

Women who are coming in for the actual abortion (as opposed to counseling or advice) have their minds made up. They are getting an abortion. This new law is a blatant last-ditch effort to try and make a mother keep a baby that she's already decided she's not going to have.

Therefore, medically unethical.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Therefore, medically unethical.

? ? ? ?

Unethical as in do no harm?

Originally posted by Soleran
? ? ? ?

Unethical as in do no harm?

He means puposeless as the mother wants to abort the baby.

It's only reason is not medical but emotional Sol. I think he's right.



-FO!!

Originally posted by Flame On!!
He means puposeless as the mother wants to abort the baby.

It's only reason is not medical but emotional Sol. I think he's right.



-FO!!

I'm not questioning the why, i'm questioning the medical aspect of it.

You don't agree, ok, fact is LOTS of ethics in medicine are questionable well even abortions So if it's unethical on this side of the table what about the other side?

Originally posted by Soleran
I'm not questioning the why, i'm questioning the medical aspect of it.

You don't agree, ok, fact is LOTS of ethics in medicine are questionable well even abortions So if it's unethical on this side of the table what about the other side?

Everything is questionable, one way or another.



-FO!!

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, it will have to do.

I see the pictures as educational for reasons previously stated. If it goes beyond the ultrasound; e.g. "You're killing a baby!" or "It's for the best; the abortion" than that kind of involvement certainly isn't needed nor should be tolerated.

Very good.

Why not just say it? Pictures are manipulative, nothing more.

-AC

Originally posted by Soleran
? ? ? ?

Unethical as in do no harm? It does no harm, but as it has been mentioned my Alliance and myself, who pays for the ultrasound? If it's the state, then there's no ethical breach, just stupid and irrelevant. If it's the patient, then it's a huge breach of ethics.

Originally posted by Strangelove
It does no harm, but as it has been mentioned my Alliance and myself, who pays for the ultrasound? If it's the state, then there's no ethical breach, just stupid and irrelevant. If it's the patient, then it's a huge breach of ethics.

I'm still not seeing how it's a breach of ethics if the patient has to pay for it.

I think this legislation is foolish, I'm just not seeing this as a breach of ethics from the medical community.

This procedure is neither medically essential or constructive.

Patients do not have to pay for procedures they don't want. If you force a patient to pay for something they don't want, thats a breach of ethics...unless there is implied consent, which there would not be in this case.

Originally posted by Alliance
This procedure is neither medically essential or constructive.

Patients do not have to pay for procedures they don't want. If you force a patient to pay for something they don't want, thats a breach of ethics...unless there is implied consent, which there would not be in this case.

Depending on how they word the contract signed when getting the abortion, it's so easy to overcome it will never be an issue.

Besides that most abortions aren't medically nec. either nor constructive so food for thought.

But the patient ELECTS to have the procedure.

Originally posted by Soleran
Depending on how they word the contract signed when getting the abortion, it's so easy to overcome it will never be an issue.

Besides that most abortions aren't medically nec. either nor constructive so food for thought. That's not the point. Abortions are a medical choice, it doesn't have to be essential or constructive. Plastic surgery isn't essential or constructive either, but it still happens.

That's not food for thought, it's a brain fart.

Originally posted by Alliance
But the patient ELECTS to have the procedure. Originally posted by Strangelove
That's not the point. Abortions are a medical choice, it doesn't have to be essential or constructive. Plastic surgery isn't essential or constructive either, but it still happens.

That's not food for thought, it's a brain fart.

Listen up boys, read my first sentance again, they (the govt) can make it so that the procedure is placed in the abortion work and make it "nec."

This is how it works, now argue semantics because this is how medicine works everyday.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're not the same, I was being sarcastic.

-AC
Apologies, then.

I still enjoy fatchicksinpartyhats.com.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fascist... being a little over melodramatic don't you think? Emotional manipulation... are you saying women are emotional wrecks? Authoritarian. Better?

See AC's post. I have no idea where one reads that by stating this law is simply external parties imposing through legislation an attempted manipulation of emotions for their desired outcome, it somehow equates to women all being "emotional wrecks."

No one has really elaborated on how seeing an ultrasound is supposed to provide additional necessary educational information; other than "This is what the fetus looks like via obstetric ultrasonography; now do you still want to maintain your decision to abort." Women can already elect to have ultrasounds if they desire. This is not an attempt to inform; it's an attempt to manipulate - to deny that is folly.

Those of us who are pro-life would assert that it is an attempt to save lives.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Those of us who are pro-life would assert that it is an attempt to save lives.

We that are pro-choice would claim it is an attempt to worsen lives.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We that are pro-choice would claim it is an attempt to worsen lives.
Only if you discount the will and form a wonderful little straw man.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Only if you discount the will and form a wonderful little straw man.

The hell? That basically totally makes no sense. You are evil authoritarian ****ers. That's basically all there is to say about pro-life people. So, why don't you think about making the lives of actual living people better for a change, instead of fighting for not self conscious, parasitical lump of cells?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hell? That basically totally makes no sense. You are evil authoritarian ****ers. That's basically all there is to say about pro-life people. So, why don't you think about making the lives of actual living people better for a change, instead of fighting for not self conscious, parasitical lump of cells?

LOL... first it was "blackmailers", then it was "fascist" now it's "authoritarians"...

Originally posted by Robtard
LOL... first it was "blackmailers", then it was "fascist" now it's "authoritarians"...
Well, fascist is a good word to insult people while meaning authoritarian...

But I thought I'd keep it simple.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, fascist is a good word to insult people while meaning authoritarian...


Yes, yes it is.



-FO!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, fascist is a good word to insult people while meaning authoritarian...

But I thought I'd keep it simple.

Neither fit here... and there are better ways to debate against the topic at hand then throwing out reactionary words and phrases.

Originally posted by Robtard
Neither fit here... and there are better ways to argue against the topic at hand then throwing out reactionary words and phrases.

Actually, using laws to force people to do something fits the word authoritarian incredibly well.

Not when a law "forces" someone to see and consider a life that they (erroneously) have been given a "choice" to end.

HUMANITARIAN, well now that's a word that might fit a little better.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Not when a law "forces" someone to see and consider a life that they (erroneously) have been given a "choice" to end.

HUMANITARIAN, well now that's a word that might fit a little better.

No, no. Humans are the ones you dislike. The parasite cells, that are your friends.

^^^^

The irony here is criminal.

You would paint me as somebody who dislikes humans because I want to save the lives of babies.


Perhaps it is you who dislikes humans, because you would trade them to save the sex lives of others.

Perhaps you simply have no concept of morality?

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps you simply have no concept of morality?

dead babies= good

Sex for all equals=good

Protection of life=bad

Waiting for marriage=bad

Got it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^^

The irony here is criminal.

You would paint me as somebody who dislikes humans because I want to save the lives of babies.


Perhaps it is you who dislikes humans, because you would trade them to save the sex lives of others.

Actually, it was just your high moral arguments turned around.


Well, my morality favours individual humans over...whatever fetuses are, certainly not individual humans. A fetus should not have the same rights as a human being. It is a parasite and it is not conscious of itself or its actions...a cow has to be seen as superior and we slaughter those by the millions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, it was just your high moral arguments turned around.


Well, my morality favours individual humans over...whatever fetuses are, certainly not individual humans. A fetus should not have the same rights as a human being. It is a parasite and it is not conscious of itself or its actions...a cow has to be seen as superior and we slaughter those by the millions.

I think the potential for life and a conscious are what is meant to be important. A cow being more of a "person" (in a philosophical sense) is irrelevant here since it's not about what ranks as more of a person or what has more rights, at least in this conversation.

Originally posted by chithappens
I think the potential for life and a conscious are what is meant to be important. A cow being more of a "person" (in a philosophical sense) is irrelevant here since it's not about what ranks as more of a person or what has more rights, at least in this conversation.

I would say all aspects are important, if you want to limit it to the few aspects that speak against abortion that doesn't seem like a conversation anymore at all. More like one sided propaganda.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Those of us who are pro-life would assert that it is an attempt to save lives.

Whilst clearly discarding the idea that saving a life that's already in progress would be more pro-life than allowing another one to exist and possibly ruin both.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whilst clearly discarding the idea that saving a life that's already in progress would be more pro-life than allowing another one to exist and possibly ruin both.

-AC

Why do you automatically assume that a child being born will ruin lives?

Though not impossible, why is it at the forefront?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you automatically assume that a child being born will ruin lives?

Though not impossible, why is it at the forefront?

An unwanted child might very well do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
An unwanted child might very well do.

Yes, mathematically it is possible, I was asking why people assume this is the more likely scenario.

Also, if the child factually would ruin the life of the mother, adoption is another "no questions" asked option. Not sure about Germany, but a mother can drop off her newborn baby at hospitals, police stations, firehouses and simply say "I can't support him/her" and an adoption agency will take the child.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, mathematically it is possible, I was asking why people assume this is the more likely scenario.

Also, if the child factually would ruin the life of the mother, adoption is another "no questions" asked option. Not sure about Germany, but a mother can drop off her newborn baby at hospitals, police stations, firehouses and simply say "I can't support him/her" and an adoption agency will take the child.

Yes. But why should she have to go through 9 months of discomfort feeding a parasite?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. But why should she have to go through 9 months of discomfort feeding a parasite?

I am not debating "she" has to have the child as this topic is not about abortions being legal/illegal.

I just don't see why people assume childbirth and being a parent is such a horrible thing and it will ruin lives... as you put it "feeding a parasite". That was my point/question a few post above

Originally posted by Robtard
I am not debating "she" has to have the child as this topic is not about abortions being legal/illegal.

I just don't see why people assume childbirth and being a parent is such a horrible thing and it will ruin lives... as you put it "feeding a parasite". That was my point/question a few post above

Are you a parent yourself?

Originally posted by Alliance
Are you a parent yourself?

Yes.

Then surely you must understand the fear of not being able to provide for a child.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. But why should she have to go through 9 months of discomfort feeding a parasite?

Because unless she was raped, she knew exactly what she was doing.

Yes, because sex=preganancy and other things don't affect people's judgement.

You don't fear that if every single woman gave birth every single time she got pregnant, that the overpopulation would increase ?

What stupid rationale.

Originally posted by Alliance
What stupid rationale.


Uh Oh....is this about the Islam thing ?



How is that rationale stupid ?


Do you know how often women use birth control? How often women have sex ? If Sithsaber's proposal to end abortion and stop usage of birth control were to be passed, we would have serious problems...

We have "serious" population problems anyway, abortion in the US isn't significant.

Originally posted by Alliance
We have "serious" population problems anyway, abortion in the US isn't significant.


Abortion is not....but if Abortion were banned that would contribute to the problems. We already have over population issues in the U.S.A. and all over the world....If Sithsaber had his way, we would be overpopulated beyond measure.

If abortion is not significantly detreacting from the population, its suspension would not significantly increase it.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and no creadible reason why we should believe your sensationalism.

Why would you need an Ultra Sound for an abortion?

Originally posted by Alliance
If abortion is not significantly detreacting from the population, its suspension would not significantly increase it.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and no creadible reason why we should believe your sensationalism.


Again this is about the Islam thing, isn't it ?


You have never spoken to me this way until my recent speakings against the Quran...wow bro, get over it already.


Secondly, you misunderstand my point...if Abortion and Birth Control had definate restrictions placed over them, then YES we would have major problems...not immediate, but in the long run.


Fact:


1) We are ALREADY over populated.....so is much of the world, in terms of space and resources.

2) Guess what..most women have something called SEX....very OFTEN


And you know what ? There are a LOT of pregnancies, both in teenage girls and young women....

You know what helps these things ? Birth control baby


Likewise, Abortion helps as well. At least the option of it being there DOES....If Abortion and Birth Control were banned, we would have serious problems...not immediately, but in the long run. It would make the biggest difference.


Your argument that it wouldn't make a difference is as ABSURD as when Conservatives argue that the Environment can "take one more for the team" in terms of pollution and industrialization ****ing up our planet and rapidly increasing our Global Warming....


And seriously...quit being such an *******.....get over our past arugment already. You seem to be taking this more personal than myself. Stop being a fk baby.....either prove me wrong with facts, or don't address me at all...but do not continue to insult me left and right like you have been doing for the past 2 days

Actually Alliance, don't bother...you are on my Ignore .....


I refuse to address someone who simply wants to pull a fight in every thread.....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because unless she was raped, she knew exactly what she was doing.

Women are NOT the only ones responsible for getting pregnant. The guy knew what he was getting into as well, if you want to go by that reasoning. Do not make it out like it's entirely the woman's fault when they are facing an unwanted pregnancy because it is not.

And if a couple has sex, and uses contraception, and it fails, then why should they have to have an unwanted child? Why should the woman have to go through with the pregnancy? They took precautions but it didn't work.

Tell me this, Sithsaber -- are you for or against welfare?

Originally posted by Alliance
Then surely you must understand the fear of not being able to provide for a child.

Yes, I clearly understand that... I do not think a majority of abortions are for that reason and even then, adoption would provide for the child if that is the leading concern.

But then again, this has more to do with abortions being legal/illegal...

Originally posted by Lana
Women are NOT the only ones responsible for getting pregnant. The guy knew what he was getting into as well, if you want to go by that reasoning. Do not make it out like it's entirely the woman's fault when they are facing an unwanted pregnancy because it is not.

And if a couple has sex, and uses contraception, and it fails, then why should they have to have an unwanted child? Why should the woman have to go through with the pregnancy? They took precautions but it didn't work.

Tell me this, Sithsaber -- are you for or against welfare?

Men are the gas women are the brakes?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hell? That basically totally makes no sense. You are evil authoritarian ****ers. That's basically all there is to say about pro-life people. So, why don't you think about making the lives of actual living people better for a change, instead of fighting for not self conscious, parasitical lump of cells?
Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Now, if we're dispensing with ad hominems:

You're an immoral, indulgent, douchewad **** who is a slave to his most base of desires and espouses principles that indicate his moral degradation. Maybe you should think about doing the right thing instead of what feels good.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Now, if we're dispensing with ad hominems:

You're an immoral, indulgent, douchewad **** who is a slave to his most base of desires and espouses principles that indicate his moral degradation. Maybe you should think about doing the right thing instead of what feels good.


You over use the word "immoral"....you sit there and preach....how much moral good are you responsible for ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You over use the word "immoral"....you sit there and preach....how much moral good are you responsible for ?
The prevention of evil ought to be defined as good, and your argument has little bearing on this conversation. Yet more ad hominem STFU Urizenus.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The prevention of evil ought to be defined as good, and your argument has little bearing on this conversation. Yet more ad hominem STFU Urizenus.







Prevention of Evil ? Get over yourself Feceman.....go feed the poor or something that ..like... matters

Go do the world a favor by dying in a fire.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Go do the world a favor by dying in a fire.



You mean like the women in the Salem Witch Trials ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You mean like the women in the Salem Witch Trials ?
I would convict that trial.

And, yes, it's so very Christian of me to do so.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I would convict that trial.

And, yes, it's so very Christian of me to do so.



Now you're getting it

Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you automatically assume that a child being born will ruin lives?

Though not impossible, why is it at the forefront?

Why do you automatically skip the "possibly"?

Why do you constantly find things in people's posts that aren't there?

It possibly would "ruin" it, it possibly wouldn't. What's better? Forcing her to have the baby and going "Oops, our bad. We just f*cked up two lives.", or going with the other possibility and saving the QUALITY of life of someone who's already here? This all being irrelevant, as it's nobody's business but the woman's, technically. It's not even an issue to me, abortion I mean. I accept it's none of my business.

A woman could have the most convincing case ever, or she could be a **** using it as birth control. The latter is unfortunate, but so is the existence of the people on Earth who would force any woman to give birth if they had their way. So, I suggest they handle women who want abortions as we have to handle them; Deal with it.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
I am not debating "she" has to have the child as this topic is not about abortions being legal/illegal.

I just don't see why people assume childbirth and being a parent is such a horrible thing and it will ruin lives... as you put it "feeding a parasite". That was my point/question a few post above

No, I did not say childbirth will be, I said pregnancy is.

And if we are only on topic, showing someone by law something that will most likely emotionally upset them is cruel. And should certainly not be condoned by the state.


Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because unless she was raped, she knew exactly what she was doing.

That reasoning is kinda stupid. I mean, how can you reasonably say that abortion should only be legal in some cases. Either it is a human being and then whether the mother got raped or not should mean ****, cause you don't kill humans because something bad happened to someone else. Or it is not a human being (which it isn't) and abortion is fair play (which it should be).

Originally posted by King Nothing
Why would you need an Ultra Sound for an abortion? For ejumacation obviously.

There's clearly no agenda at play.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you automatically skip the "possibly"?

Why do you constantly find things in people's posts that aren't there?

It possibly would "ruin" it, it possibly wouldn't. What's better? Forcing her to have the baby and going "Oops, our bad. We just f*cked up two lives.", or going with the other possibility and saving the QUALITY of life of someone who's already here? This all being irrelevant, as it's nobody's business but the woman's, technically. It's not even an issue to me, abortion I mean. I accept it's none of my business.

A woman could have the most convincing case ever, or she could be a **** using it as birth control. The latter is unfortunate, but so is the existence of the people on Earth who would force any woman to give birth if they had their way. So, I suggest they handle women who want abortions as we have to handle them; Deal with it.

-AC

I didn't skip as I said it is a "possibility"... skipping would have been me saying "That couldn't happen."

I doubt the majority of my threads are what you claim, let alone it being a "constant".

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't skip as I said it is a "possibility"... skipping would have been me saying "That couldn't happen."

I doubt the majority of my threads are what you claim, let alone it being a "constant".

You asked my why I'm assuming the child being born will ruin a life, I never said such a thing.

-AC