Abortion Ultrasound Rule

[stonerchris]

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

This struck me as being pretty awful. A law is on its way to being passed in S. Carolina that will force women to view an ultrasound of their fetus before having an abortion. I believe this is indeed emotional blackmail.

Obviously, I'm pro-choice. As if this decision isn't horrible enough? I feel it is irresponsible for a person to bring a child into the world if they know they will not be able to provide and care for the child adequately, or if there are other situations which would result in a miserable life for parent and child. I don't believe anyone feels good about making the decision to abort a pregnancy, and having a picture of the thing you are deciding to kill just seems cruel to me. Why allow abortion at all? What this is saying is "If you go through with this, you are a horrible person." Many firmly believe that is true. I'm not one of them.
and no i've never knocked up some chick who subsequently had an abortion in case anyones wondering

I hoping this will meet enough outrage and opposition that it will not spread, and I doubt it will last long in SC either, but should it catch on I believe it would be a gross violation of human rights. Discuss.

 

[Great Sage]

I an in total opposition to this unconstitutional measure. I think that women should be able to make their decision and have it carried out without having to suffer this delay, which will doubtlessly result in very complicated emotional circumstances and potential regret over their previously most likely well informed choice.

 

[Surgo]

As the OP said, this is nothing but "emotional blackmail". Putting aside all the arguments on abortion for a moment, it doesn't matter whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, or whether you support this. It's impossible to deny the fact that emotional blackmail is exactly what this effect is.

 

[Mike B]

Unnecssary to the fullest extent... I'm sure what they're doing without that 'Rule' is enough to make them think twice about carelessly having a child again. -_-

 

[Surgo]

Unnecssary to the fullest extent... I'm sure what they're doing without that 'Rule' is enough to make them think twice about carelessly having a child again. -_-

The purpose isn't to make them less likely to get pregnant again, it's to stop them from having the abortion.

 

[imperfectluck]

Please show me the statute in the Constitution which this would violate. What makes abortion not a "gross violation of human rights" either?

 

[gorm]

it's a very touchy subject right now, especially with the 20 week old fetus that survived recently which people are citing as proof that you shouldn abort anything.

I'm pro-choice like most canadians i guess but hearing about that baby really shook me. I feel abortions within the first 3 months of pregnancy are ok by me, after that things start to get hazy. "Killing a potential human life" is a pretty awful concept but it is the mothers body and the mothers life more than any government official. Theres loads of anecdotal evidence of the same women picketing abortin clinics getting an abortion in secret but i don't reall yhave anything to cite for that. (Double standardas like that bug me though, see Cheny and his daughter)

I'm also pro-choice because someone very close to me was raped and had to get an abortion when she was pretty young. keeping the baby would have absolutely fucked up her life and I'm very glad she didn't. i think in cases like these people could say "you can give it up for adoption" which is a viable option and not one i don't support, but asking a woman to go through pregnancy for an ideology is wrong.

This rule is of course totally bogus. They should make legislation requiring all hunters to view pictures of baby animals that they kill before shotting things. Total bullshit, I don't see how anyone can support this.

Please show me the statute in the Constitution which this would violate

i think the thing isn't that it's specifically unconstitutional but that it's just so stupid. it wouldn't be unconstitutional to make hunters look at pictures of baby animals before killing their parents, but it wuld still be dumb.

What makes abortion not a "gross violation of human rights" either?

Thats pretty much impossible to argue since I'm positive no one hear knows whether or not a fetus feels pain or is conscious. That is the reason most people cite for abortions being ok, that often the fetueses are little more than a bunch of cells. to me abortions at this point in pregnancy are ok.

Human rights comes in terms of the mother and her right to have control over her body, which most people agree comes before that of a very very early fetus.

 

[teekay]

but it is the mothers body and the mothers life more than any government official.

This is the argument I'm most confused by on the "pro-choice" side of things. The whole point of the opposition's side is that there's somebody else's body inside the woman, and that's why they're attempting to restrict her from a "right" that would indeed be hers if nothing of anyone else's was at stake.

So really the only thing to debate is whether or not the fetus actually counts as a person. Myself, I don't think it's really valid for anyone to decide that. Certainly there are a lot of nonsensical arguments about it from blithering fundies, but all the same, I really don't see how anyone is equipped to decide when the "magic moment" is that a fetus is suddenly a person. It seems to me that if you're ever going to regard it as human, you must do so from conception because there is no valid way to decide when to start.

Personally, if I was a fetus and I happened to be able to think while I was getting aborted, I'm <i>guessing</i> I'd be pretty pissed off about being denied the chance to live, even if a bunch of people think it would be "irresponsible" for me to be given that chance. Maybe it would be, but I'd rather take my shot at life anyway, disadvantaged or no.

I should append to this, though, that I'm not in favor of the silly ultrasound thing. Not much sense in that. But when it comes to direct action restricting abortions, I really can't object to it, despite how much I dislike seeing the government stick its dirty little fingers into things. I'm afraid I see it as no different from protecting a born child from being put to death.

 

[Judgement]

I'm afraid I see it as no different from protecting a born child from being put to death.

The main reason for contraceptives though, is to protect the life of the mother. Many mothers die while giving childbirth each year and some of the born children also have the risk of contracting a disorder or disease that puts them in constant pain. The fact is that is why we have abortions and other contraceptives, and that is why the government ruled in favor of allowing women to use them.

 

[teekay]

The main reason for contraceptives though, is to protect the life of the mother. Many mothers die while giving childbirth each year and some of the born children also have the risk of contracting a disorder or disease that puts them in constant pain. The fact is that is why we have abortions and other contraceptives, and that is why the government ruled in favor of allowing women to use them.

Abortion isn't contraception. Contraception quite literally means "contrary to inception." It's prevention, not a means of dealing with it after it's occurred.

In cases where it is necessary to abort a fetus to protect the life of the mother I can see an argument being made. But that is not what abortion is usually used for. Such cases are not that common. Women's bodies have been crafted over a great deal of evolution for the sole purpose of having babies; things do go wrong, but more often than not, they go right. And in any case, this has no bearing on the argument about whether an abortion is actually killing a child or not.

 

[Surgo]

Could we stay on topic and not get into an abortion debate? It's close, but the topic is not abortion.

Abortion debates are always the same merri-go-round anyway because it almost always depends on something that right now seems to be entirely subjective, that is whether or not you think an embryo and/or a fetus is a life or not. So please, let's avoid that.

 

[Judgement]

I disagree with the ultrasound stuff since it's really pointless and a waste of money and time.

(teekay, the preventive measures youre thinking of are called prophylactics)

 

[PM]

I live in south carolina so this could directly affect me! =O But, yeah, SC has some pretty dumb laws already, so I'm not surprised.

Personally, if I was a fetus and I happened to be able to think while I was getting aborted, I'm <i>guessing</i> I'd be pretty pissed off about being denied the chance to live, even if a bunch of people think it would be "irresponsible" for me to be given that chance.

Newborn babies are dumb, so think about how much dumber fetuses would be. I seriously doubt a fetus would be able to think outside of basic instincts, so to me it'd be like killing a bug, or a rabbit or something. However, if you're not saying you're killing anybody, but that you're denying a life, then this is a pretty stupid arguement, as that would basically mean anyone wearing a condom is potentially denying a life. Anyone getting their tubes tied is denying a life. If you take birth control, you're denying a life, etc.

 

[teekay]

(teekay, the preventive measures youre thinking of are called prophylactics)

Umm... yes, that's true. They are also called contraceptives. Look it up on Wikipedia. Or in a dictionary, for that matter.

Anyway I guess I'll save the other responses since I was asked to stick to the ultrasound law.

 

[Scythemantis]

As a scientifically-minded (some would say amoral) person, I just don't see how the instant death of an ignorant fetus can be a hotter issue than the torturous and gruesome deaths of several million highly-conscious food animals each and every year. A fetus never knows what hits it and never finds out what it's "missing" while the bacon on our toasted subs experienced several years of life and acheived the intellectual level of a toddler before being chained to a conveyer and sliced apart by robots.

I should mention I'm an animal lover...but not a vegetarian. I guess you could say I am indifferent to death in general, but there's an important perspective that people should consider. Everything has to die somehow, and there are far, far worse ways than just never being born. People rally against abortion more than they do against drive-by shootings and pipe bombs.

...And when they do rally against those things, they blame cartoons and video games.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Yeah, this law is just absurd whichever side you are on. That is pretty clear.

I dont see a lot of discussion of the law likely, so I am gonna close it to prevent abortion debates.

Have a nice day.