S.C. women now required by law to view ultrasound images before having an abortion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17741934/from/RS.5/

I'm speechless.

But I'd be okay with it if they also passed a law requiring all jurors in a capital punishment case to witness a live execution before entering their verdict.

Good maybe people will think twice. What once was a mere inconveince to there life now becomes what it is a person.

It's not passed yet, it just made it past the lower house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Good maybe people will think twice. What once was a mere inconveince to there life now becomes what it is a person.

---

SFTS, I honestly think you're a pretty good guy, and that your heart is in the right place whenever you post. But (and I realize that this will sound condescending/patronizing no matter how much I mean it otherwise, so let me apologize in advance) when you have a little more life experience I believe you will see the problem with your statement. That is not to say you will become pro-choice (I don't even know if I am pro-choice anymore), but that you might have a bit more sympathy for the women at issue.

No matter how hard the pro-life side tries to paint the "average" abortion recipient as an irresponsible slut who just wants the easy way out and will probably be out clubbing again the very evening after her abortion, that is simply not the case.

I know many women who have had abortions, and not one of them falls into that category. Every single one of them agonized over the decision, and they all still carry the emotional scars with them to one degree or another.

Yes, there are some irresponsible women who do use abortion as an alternative to birth control, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

All this law does is pile on more pain for women who are already in their own private hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

All this law does is pile on more pain for women who are already in their own private hell.

---

That's the whole point of it, intimidation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

It's not passed yet, it just made it past the lower house.

---

Thanks for picking that up, I misread it.

However, it doesn't appear that it will meet with any serious opposition in the upper house, and the governor is certainly not going to veto it.

Despite Goofball's passionate argument, I think this is a good thing.

These women should have to see exactly what it is they are destroying. If they can't live with the knowledge that they are responsible for the death of an innocent child, maybe abortion isnt the right choice for them.

http://www.4d-ultrasounds.com/3d-ult...ultrasound1.pg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

SFTS, I honestly think you're a pretty good guy, and that your heart is in the right place whenever you post. But (and I realize that this will sound condescending/patronizing no matter how much I mean it otherwise, so let me apologize in advance) when you have a little more life experience I believe you will see the problem with your statement. That is not to say you will become pro-choice (I don't even know if I am pro-choice anymore), but that you might have a bit more sympathy for the women at issue.

No matter how hard the pro-life side tries to paint the "average" abortion recipient as an irresponsible slut who just wants the easy way out and will probably be out clubbing again the very evening after her abortion, that is simply not the case.

I know many women who have had abortions, and not one of them falls into that category. Every single one of them agonized over the decision, and they all still carry the emotional scars with them to one degree or another.

Yes, there are some irresponsible women who do use abortion as an alternative to birth control, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

All this law does is pile on more pain for women who are already in their own private hell.

---

Then why dont they just put the child up for adoption? Who knows how many great thinkers weve lost becuase of this. There are alternitives why kill a living thing? That being said it still should be legal becuase it needs to be done right,.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Then why dont they just put the child up for adoption?

---

Because they don't want their own family to disown them when they find out they are pregnant?

Because they don't want to risk their own lives giving birth?

Because they don't want to bring a child into a rotten world?

Who cares?

It's really their decision, not yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Who knows how many great thinkers weve lost becuase of this.

---

Or serial killers, or child molestors.

Hard to say, really, and because of that, really a moot point with respect to the discussion at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Despite Goofball's passionate argument, I think this is a good thing.

These women should have to see exactly what it is they are destroying. If they can't live with the knowledge that they are responsible for the death of an innocent child, maybe abortion isnt the right choice for them.

http://www.4d-ultrasounds.com/3d-ult...ultrasound1.pg

---

So then, how do you feel about my original (if somewhat snarky) comment about death penalty jurors?

And if they refuse to look or watch, what then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

And if they refuse to look or watch, what then?

---

Good question. And probably the making of a Supreme Court ruling if a woman was ever refused an abortion because she refused to stare at the ultrasound image for long enough to satisfy her doctor.

What if you want to have the abortion done early enough that you really wouldn't see very much of anything on the ultrasound? Do they make you wait?

First off, let me say I sympathise with the pro-choice argument and its adherents. With that said, this is a living human, innocent of any crime. Unlike a criminal that may face execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Because they don't want their own family to disown them when they find out they are pregnant?

---

Personnally I don't think families like that aren't worth having. No matter how murderously angry I was with my daughter I wouldn't disownher for being stupid and getting pregnant. I might feel the need to direct violence at the man involved though.

Quote:

---

Because they don't want to risk their own lives giving birth?

---

All life is risk and today giving birth is a relatively low one. You're probably more likely to get shot in Nottingham or run over in Rome.

Quote:

---

Because they don't want to bring a child into a rotten world?

---

If the world is that rotten then they should bring up a sympathetic child in it to make it a better place. That arguement is morally bankrupt. If the world is broke fix it.

Quote:

---

Who cares?

---

Lots of people. and you know that.

Quote:

---

It's really their decision, not yours.

---

Their decision to kill? This is the only instance when we allow one human being to end the life of another with malice of forethought.

Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions. If you choose to have sex then pregnancy is a risk you have to accept, with its possible consequences. The consequence is a child, which you should not be able to abdicate responsibility for by killing it.

Rape victims, well that's a harder decision to make. In the end I have to say that the life of the unborn child, as an innocent, should be paramount.

I think it's a good idea. I actually agree with Panzer and Strike here.

Quote:

---

All life is risk and today giving birth is a relatively low one. You're probably more likely to get shot in Nottingham or run over in Rome.

---

In the US, according to the WHO, 17 women die per 100000 births, or 1 per 5900 (rounded up to the nearest hundred). That's substantially more likely than being shot in Nottingham or run over in Rome, I should imagine.

There's all sorts of activities people engage in that we don't force them to be 100% aware of it. If the Pro-Life crowd in South Carolina get away with this, PETA will be trying to enforce it nationally before you can eat a burger next week. God help you if you get a hankerking for veal or lamb.

The state laws in SC already require the woman to undergo counseling. She's aware of the decision she's making. This is intended to be harrassment. If you don't think so, let me ask you this.... a tubal pregnancy has no chance of surviving. Would you force the doctor to show pictures of toddler age children to the mother from whom he is about to abort the fetus to save her life?

For the record Goof, I agree with you that if you want to vote the death penalty, you should have to witness an execution. And to beat PETA to the punch, this is one of the primary reasons I hunt every fall (that, and I'm pretty darned cheap).

I agree with Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, very well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

For the record Goof, I agree with you that if you want to vote the death penalty, you should have to witness an execution. And to beat PETA to the punch, this is one of the primary reasons I hunt every fall (that, and I'm pretty darned cheap).

---

Absolutely right, Don.

As a man, I believe myself unable to actually take astance against the majority of women on this. Giving birth is something we will never be able to understand. And honestly reading what teenage boys think on the matter seems absurd.

It's just too bad there is such a disconnect between the ~1 million US abortions per year, and the ~1 million adoption-seekers and IVF couples. Both groups consist of relatively anguished women, seeking a different life than the one fate has currently handed them.

If passed in SC, I think it'll be on the 2008 SCOTUS agenda, near the top.

I think something that many people are completely failing to take into account is the amount of emotional baggage forced on a woman by making her have the child. Not only is it extremely taxing to a woman mentally and physically to go through a pregnancy and all the pain and misery of the birth, BUT there's a well known, instinctual mother-child bond that forms during said process. So not only has she now had to go through the entire process, she now is going to give up the child that she has this bond with to adoption, that she didn't want to have in the first place for whatever reason. The alternative of course is that she now keeps the child, but there will always be those memories in the back of her mind that she did not want this child. There may even be some resentment, and the child may be mistreated as such. I have a friend who falls into this category, thankfully he turned out ok, but his mother actually tried to poison him when he was in his early teens, and eventually turned him over to an adoption agency then when his paternal grandmother stepped into to raise him. He once described to me how it felt to stand there in court with his mother saying in a stony cold manner that she did not want her child anymore. I can't possibly imagine going through something like that.

My stance for the record. I am fully pro-choice, WITH the caveat that it should be done within the 1st or 2nd trimester unless some extreme extenuating circumstances arise. I think that all abortions should be done as humanely as possible, some of the methods used do make me sick to think about. Sorry but I don't subscribe to the "but it's a life, think of all the people we've killed" outlook, this world has way too many people right now as is. I can guarantee you that these are all well thought out and very hard made choices when women choose to do this. Anyone who presumes otherwise is fooling themselves. The whole "it's a disgusting contraceptive version" argument is for the most part preposterous and used by hardcore religious types to try and push their pro-life agenda. I have had two women very close to me go through this process and I can tell you it's traumatic enough without hypocrits and disgusting religious zealots yelling at you and calling you a whore and a sinner.

Also Mr. Goof, I gotta disagree with you on the execution thing. Some people deserve to die for what they've done to others, especially those who violate children in depraved ways in my view. By forcing people on a jury to watch an execution would be the exact same thing in my view as what this despicable law is proposing, it is completely unnecessary, overkill, and intimidation. Before anyone goes here, I do understand and believe that our justice system is flawed in a number of ways... But it's not going to stop, and I still think that certain people don't deserve to live for the crimes they've done. I guess one of the things I'm in favor of is severe penalties for overzealous prosection that leads innocents to jail time, or worse the chair. Texas seems to be a very bad offender of this... But then again look what Texas has produced over the past few years (Bush Sr. and Jr.).

/shrug

Just a point of order: Bush Sr is from New England, not Texas.

I still blame Texas though. :yes:

Edit - \/ \/ \/ \/ The only thought I have right now is the famous line from Full Metal Jacket. You know the one I'm talking about. :grin: :laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I still blame Texas though. :yes:

---

Do you have a death wish?

Anyway. I still stand by this when sperm meets egg that is when a human starts and in my veiw if you harm it you should be held accountable. Thats the idealist side of me however the realist side of me realizes this is just one of things I must sawllow. I will not bomb clincs nor hold any women who have had one as second class. As to Goof I know some kids who had mothers in some suitations in which people may have had an abortion and are very thankful they been given the gift of life, so women do not have a monoply on this.

"Abortion" should not be allowed period. They should be required to be convicted of murder also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

"Abortion" should not be allowed period. They should be required to be convicted of murder also.

---

you don't think very much do you??!!!

what if the women has a miscarriage, is that manslaughter? and no, when a sperm meets an egg, they mostly die... its the one that get inside, and then manage to bind to the wall of the uterus and then divides enough to form a baby. before that it is no more any other bunch of cells.




i really wish people wouldn't just spout religious garbage, on matters like this.
Just like the churches view on condoms, it matters not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

you don't think very much do you??!!!

what if the women has a miscarriage, is that manslaughter? and no, when a sperm meets an egg, they mostly die... its the one that get inside, and then manage to bind to the wall of the uterus and then divides enough to form a baby. before that it is no more any other bunch of cells.

i really wish people wouldn't just spout religious garbage, on matters like this.
Just like the churches view on condoms, it matters not.

---

I'm sorry, where did he mention religion?

And somehow I don't those who are religious, that is, those who believe in a divine and supreme creator and guidelines set down by God, view their opinions as garbage. Rejecting people's opinions outright because you disagree with their religion is, frankly, pathetic.

I don't find this - as yet merely a bill and not law - to be that bad.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I still stand by this when sperm meets egg that is when a human starts and in my veiw if you harm it you should be held accountable.

---

If that's your belief, then you should be even more upset about rhythm method contraception than abortion. Current science shows that the rhythm method does not prevent conception, but rather allows the blastocyst to form under unfavorable conditions. Should be noted that this is the only method of birth control permitted by the Catholic Church.

In other words, sperm meets egg, they make a dividing cellular structure, but due to the conditions of the womb at that time of the month, the implantation usually fails. We're talking about massive numbers of spontaneous abortions, allowed and encouraged by one of the most conservative bodies on the planet.

I think what this reveals is that the issue is a tad more complicated than "sperm meets egg."

Interesting. I wonder if this will lower abortion rates, or if it'll keep the abortion rates constant but make those people who watch these images to get less concerned over killing something that they have seen moving, and result in increased brutality.

Also it's a bit too late to try and moralize when the couples have already come to the abortion clinic - perhaps this thing should be shown to highschool kids instead? Preventive measures usually work better when done beforehand.

Finally, this suggestion seems to be a traditional attempt at humiliating and pointing accusing fingers towards people and calling them spawns of Satan. It will be rather contraproductive to show this to women who often out of difficult social situations are forced to make this decision - which is already quite difficult for them - to face such accusations and discrimination because of their ideology and situation.

Show these videos at high school instead, not at the abortion clinic... :coffeenews:

This suggestion is more about wanting someone to call evil, than about seriously trying to decrease the amounts of abortions. That is at least what consequences it will have.