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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Personally, I wish English Assassin and Pindar would put their considerable minds together, and file a class-action consumer lawsuit against the original designer of Human v1.0.

I mean, come on, all females generate with all reproductive eggs they'll possibly need throughout life? Males become sperm-generators at around age 10? The reproductive urge-to-merge as instinctual as breathing? Surely a train-wreck waiting to happen.

Adam & Eve saw the possibilities, and asserted Human v1.1, with free will. We've been dithering (and killing our own kind) ever since, waiting for Human v2.0, or at least the v1.2 patch, opening our vision to more fully understanding the longer-term consequences of our actions and decisions.

---

NOOOOO! Not the 1.2 patch! Not the siege bug!!! ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Now you're talking about abortion a birth-control. If you want children you shouldn't be aborting them. Life throws some pretty dirty punches, you role with them. If you want children in the future and then your plans get brought foward, well that's life. You can't have convenience as a reason for abortion.

I can't see any possible moral position you can defend there.

---

Well, inconvenience in this case were of the more severe class, you know were the woman suffers a mental breakdown (or is very close to one) and gets pregnant around that period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I read the articles, and I remember the cases. In both instances the life of the living twin was in danger. In that instance, with no other recourse open you are trading a life to save a life. It's horrible but allowing two lives to end is worse.

---

Reread.

Quote:

---

If left unchecked it could one day have threatened Mourat's own life.

---

No attemts were made to save the other twin despite that you had time to atleast try something. Do you disagree with it? Or do you agree with it on the basis that the twin wasn't viable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

In that case doesn't it follow that it is up to the mother to decide

---

If you crash someone else's car is it your choice whether you should pay for the damage or not? If you kill someone is it your choice whether you are tried for murder.

My point is simply this:

The woman's actions have resulted in pregnancy, which has created a new life. In that instance she surrenders her own right to do what she will with her body because she is carrying a child.

That is, however, only a secondary arguement. Far more important is the fact that the child is not responsible for it's own existance and being totally blameless and helpless its rights should come before anyone else's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Well, inconvenience in this case were of the more severe class, you know were the woman suffers a mental breakdown (or is very close to one) and gets pregnant around that period.

---

It might be a fair point, except it is in no way the child's fault.

As to the case of the seven year old boy the doctors clearly said it had developed into a tumor and was no longer alive. So unless they're lieing you aren't even talking about a living human being, in the same way as someone who is brain-dead is no longer alive.

I stand by my original judgement.

I think that we should have a jury of 12 peers decide.

It's fair, balanced, and unbiased.
Its the American way of shifting responsibility from the girl to a panel of 12 people who could care less.

In before thread lock-down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If you crash someone else's car is it your choice whether you should pay for the damage or not? If you kill someone is it your choice whether you are tried for murder.

---

You don't have to care and tend for the car and spend tens of thousands of dollars raising it for the next twenty years and deal with any "handicaps" it may have.

As for the second example, I guess you can say that raising a child or multiple children with critically limited resources is like a life sentence.

Quote:

---

The woman's actions have resulted in pregnancy, which has created a new life. In that instance she surrenders her own right to do what she will with her body because she is carrying a child.

---

bollox . I want that woman out there where she belongs , pulling calfs and digging spuds when she is about to drop the sprog . And cooking , cleaning , and minding the kids and not complaining about it either , she is only pregnant after all , she doesn't have any rights .

Though seriously , if she surrenders her rights then can we have some legislation to make it illegal for her to drink , smoke , eat crap , take any substance that may possibly be harmful or partake of any activity that may not be good for whats inside her ?

Then again since there are people that will say her rights disappear at the moment of conception which is when they define a new life as starting , can we take it that just to be on the safe side she has no rights once she has sex . Because even if she uses contraception it isn't guarnteed so she might well be pregnant after sex and it is better to err on the side of caution .

We could propose this as a slogan for the old chastity brigade , "don't have sex or you lose your rights" , kinda catchy yet concise innit :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

In before thread lock-down.



You don't have to care and tend for the car and spend tens of thousands of dollars raising it for the next twenty years and deal with any "handicaps" it may have.

As for the second example, I guess you can say that raising a child or multiple children with critically limited resources is like a life sentence.

---

If it really is that much trouble and you can't look after it that would be where adoption comes in, which isn't an easy decision.

What you're saying though is, "My child costs too much/is inconvenient. I think I'll kill it." That would be infanticide if it's a baby, but not if it's still inside the womb.

The position is inconsistant.

The only consistant postions either recognise the rights of the mother or the rights of the child as paramount. So either you allow abortions up until birth or you don't allow them at all.

Tribesman, you are taking it beyond the nth degree. Yes, I suppose that is the extreme. What I am saying however I that she has taken a decision which has created anew life. The rights of that new life should be preferenced over the rights of the mother as long as the child is biologically dependant on the mother's body. I.e. until birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You don't fiddle with natural rights. They are self-evident and inalienable, and they apply whether 'we' acknowledge them or not.

---

Did you put "natural, unalienable rights" there just to annoy American conservatives, or do you sincerely believe that they exist and support your argument?

I support rights for first trimester abortions because I think women should have the opportunity to abort an accidental pregnancy, but late-term abortions are vile. I don't think people (that is, women) are 100% sovereign over anything that goes on in their own bodies because at some point we have to conclude that there's another person to consider. The decision must be taken in a reasonable time. I think 3 months is reasonable.

EDIT: stupid typo

Quote:

---

Tribesman, you are taking it beyond the nth degree.

---

Of course , but there is still logic in the seriousish part of the post .

Quote:

---

Yes, I suppose that is the extreme.

---

Thats the thing about the abortion issue , it tends to get to the extremes very easily .
So with the title issue , how on earth can you force someone to view the ultrasound scan ? how can you determine if they have viewed it sufficiently ?
What do you do if the ultrasound is just a blurry mess , do you have to bring them back again and again ?
Its a crap law that is proposed .
Much like the attempts overhere to ban people going abroad for abortions , how on earth was that supposed to work unless you give every woman a pregnancy test before they are allowed to travel and then stop them if its positive just in case they are going for an abortion and not another reason .:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If it really is that much trouble and you can't look after it that would be where adoption comes in, which isn't an easy decision.

---

Right, so you force the woman to have a child, and then force her to give it up. Fantastic idea! Also, let's completely ignore the fact that the adoption process is horribly flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What you're saying though is, "My child costs too much/is inconvenient. I think I'll kill it." That would be infanticide if it's a baby, but not if it's still inside the womb.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The position is inconsistant.

The only consistant postions either recognise the rights of the mother or the rights of the child as paramount. So either you allow abortions up until birth or you don't allow them at all.

---

You are equating a non-functioning lump of cells to a fully-functional infant. This is called "gray area". It appears when you understand that there is no one singular, solid answer to all variables to a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As to the case of the seven year old boy the doctors clearly said it had developed into a tumor and was no longer alive. So unless they're lieing you aren't even talking about a living human being, in the same way as someone who is brain-dead is no longer alive.

I stand by my original judgement.

---

So what makes an embryo (that's incapable to survive outside it's host and lacks a brain) alive?

Or to be more correct, replace alive with a human being, as they're alive, but currently not in a condition were even a somewhat normal life can be sustained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If you crash someone else's car is it your choice whether you should pay for the damage or not? If you kill someone is it your choice whether you are tried for murder.

My point is simply this:

The woman's actions have resulted in pregnancy, which has created a new life. In that instance she surrenders her own right to do what she will with her body because she is carrying a child.

---

That really is pathetic and a rather disgusting view.
She loses her right to control her body? Uhuh...
Perhaps the man should also lose control of his penis, to prevent him from procreating with more than one female.
Keep it in a nice jar above the fireplace maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

That really is pathetic and a rather disgusting view.
She loses her right to control her body? Uhuh...
Perhaps the man should also lose control of his penis, to prevent him from procreating with more than one female.
Keep it in a nice jar above the fireplace maybe.

---

It's all too tempting. Men should have sperm frozen at 18, then have penis cut off. Problems all solved in one.

Hang on, the male legislators don't like that?

Its don't matter if they do not like it.

IMAGINE ALL THE GREAT MINDS WE HAVE LOST!


im sorry, but that will never get old. Thanks SFTS.

The "girl is at fault" attitude displayed here rather sickens me. Shouldn't we really be all past that by now, that loosely dressed women are responsible for the rape scenario?

I'm not entirely sure how self-proclaimed libertarians would support such a measure as this, clearly a cheap political stunt designed to reach the headlines and...excuse my direct rudeness...show the idiocy of those actually fall for it and support the measure. (The measure in question is the thread's opener; not, say, an abortion ban, which is a related but not entirely the same issue). This is plain intimidation period, and if somehow implemented would become the same laughing stock of the world that the whole sorry Kansas Creationism affair had been.

As for the whole Abortion issue...in such a medically and morally unclear and, indeed, very personal issue such as this, is it really a good idea for the State to legislate upon morality?

I see here examples that are assuming a lot. She has other choices. She shouldn't have done it. She is responsible; no, she is irresponsible. She brought it upon herself. All these are illustrated in various scenarios offered in support of the ban. Is "she" really all this, always, in all case?

Creating a ban is legislating, inherently implying the State's -- spoken in society's name -- position. Allowing is not the same as approving; it gives freedom to abort but is also to not abort. For me, I'd say let it be; let "her" decide, with "him" perhaps, should "he" be there.

Think of it as the Prohibition. I despise alcohol and will always be...do you think I find the Amendment and the moral crusade behind it "righteous?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Did you put "natural, unalienable rights" there just to annoy American conservatives, or do you sincerely believe that they exist and support your argument?

---

Life, freedom and the pursuit of selfinterest are basic requirements for the human to exist as such. To deny them would be absurd. That is what makes them self-evident. I respect and acknowledge all other rights in so far as they are logically derived from these three. The right to dispose of one's own body derives directly from the right to freedom. For what is freedom, if it does not encompass the right to act (and thus use one's body) according to one's own preference?

Opponents of this freedom justify their anti-abortionist stance with all sorts of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and self-invented legal or religious principles. Christians in particular justify their stance with sentimental arguments that have no basis whatsoever in biblical injunctions. In the old testament God even orders abortions, and the killing of pregnant women is explicitly or implicitly justified. The Talmud acknowledges the right to abortion and the ancient Jews did not look upon children under the age of one month as persons, not even for census purposes.

In the Christian era there has never been a unified religious stance on abortion until the nineteenth century. Prior to that abortion was not considered murder but at most a minor felony, and the fetus was not considered a legal person by Christians. Only when birth control and falling birth rates among (white) Christians became a problem for the Churches did abortion become the politicised and sentimentalised issue that it is today.

P.S. Bopa, imagine al the Hitlers we have pre-empted! ~;)

Exactly! It's disgusting that we didn't allow them to mature and give them full due procees within the legal system, as is their right as individuals.

Our stance on the rights of individuals to a fair trial in no way infringes upon our view that women lose control over their bodies once impregnated. It's a completley different thing!

Personally I feel for those who were never conceived because their stressed out single mothers couldn't fit in more family-making.

Perhaps we could refrain from going too far down the route of mocking other people's opinions.

The abortion debate is always fraught with emotion and we are discussing people's very dearly held views.

Sensitivity to one's opponent is, I think, a good aspiration here.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Personally I feel for those who were never conceived because their stressed out single mothers couldn't fit in more family-making.

---

:laugh4:

Anyway, you are right BG:shame:

Actually, BG, I would recommend closure.

The proposed law has been discussed: its morality, its validity, its likelihood to survive review.

Eloquent summaries of the basic issues from the pro-choice "side" have been made. AdrianII in particular has concisely put those views in play: Not life in an independent and rights-deserving sense until born; government legislating morality always a touchy proposition; choice to abort a derivation of the basic right of individual freedom.

The same can be said for the pro-life "side." Life viewed as beginning at conception makes abortion immoral -- exceptions being few from this perspective.

Further discussion would be circular. It's been fairly politely done this round, I'd call it finished and label it a success.

Adrian: nevertheless, I think you'll agree that a persons right to live overrides another person's property right of say, a car. If someone's dying and can't wait for an ambulance to take him to a hospital, a responsible person will commandeer your car and no-one will blame him.
And if you were in a position to save someone from drowning but you didn't want to ruin your expensive armani suit by plunging into foul water, an appeal to "pursuit of self-interest" won't save you from jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Right, so you force the woman to have a child, and then force her to give it up. Fantastic idea! Also, let's completely ignore the fact that the adoption process is horribly flawed.

---

No, I'm not forcing her to do anything. I'm simply saying that there are other options.

Quote:

---

Yep.

---

That is a morally inconsistant position.

Quote:

---

You are equating a non-functioning lump of cells to a fully-functional infant. This is called "gray area". It appears when you understand that there is no one singular, solid answer to all variables to a problem.

---

I don't do grey moral areas, either its a child from the moment of conception or it's not a child until it's born. Those are the only two morally consistant opinions I can see. Grey areas are just shadows, they're a way of not making up your mind. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as "a little bit wrong" in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So what makes an embryo (that's incapable to survive outside it's host and lacks a brain) alive?

Or to be more correct, replace alive with a human being, as they're alive, but currently not in a condition were even a somewhat normal life can be sustained.

---

I could say a soul but that has no place in this arguement and I don't know if you have a soul until you draw breath. That would depend on who you ask. Quite simply nothing MAKES it a person at that stage. The important point is that I can't say when it does become a person. With that inside I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I.e. I'd rather save a group of cells than kill a child. Therefore I have to treat the group of cells in the same way as a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

That really is pathetic and a rather disgusting view.
She loses her right to control her body? Uhuh...
Perhaps the man should also lose control of his penis, to prevent him from procreating with more than one female.
Keep it in a nice jar above the fireplace maybe.

---

She sacrifices her right to control her body in order to protect the rights of her unborn child. As a Adrian pointed out life is right number one. As I said before ultimately all these arguements are smoke and mirrors. A woman is responsible for what she does, we hold men responsible for getting women pregnant. However, this and every other arguement is secondary.

Also, if you wish to insult me please come up with something more fitting. Cruel, heartless, hard-hearted, insensetive would all be good insults.

(Note: This is not inflamatory, I simply think the insults leveled at me are rather baffling)

[quote=The "girl is at fault" attitude displayed here rather sickens me. Shouldn't we really be all past that by now, that loosely dressed women are responsible for the rape scenario?[/quote]

Ultimately I think that the man is equally responsible for the pregnancny, he is fortunate enough not to have to carry the consequences for nine months, however. If I ever said that rape victims were "asking for it" please point me to the remark and I will happily kill myself. I have had a friend who was raped, and she most certainly was not asking for it.

Nor do I "blame" women and that implies recrimination.

AdrianII, since I seem to be the only anti-abortionist left am I to assume you consider me an opponent of the freems you mentioned?

My response, if so, is this. I agree with your position entirely, except that where you preference the rights of the mother I preference those of the child. This is my only concern and the only real point in my arguement. Were I to preference the rights of the mother I would agree with you completely.

I would like to register my great respect for you and the moral integrity of your position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

AdrianII, since I seem to be the only anti-abortionist left am I to assume you consider me an opponent of the freems you mentioned?

---

To be honest, I haven't counted. ~;)

But the respect is mutual, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla. And after my rather militant remarks about Christianity I am happy to let others have the last word, particularly in view of Seamus' wise remarks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, I'm not forcing her to do anything. I'm simply saying that there are other options.

---

Still, you should probably have nothing to do with that decision unless you are the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That is a morally inconsistant position.

---

Which stage are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't do grey moral areas, either its a child from the moment of conception or it's not a child until it's born. Those are the only two morally consistant opinions I can see. Grey areas are just shadows, they're a way of not making up your mind. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as "a little bit wrong" in this case.

---

So... you are equating a formless lump of cells to a human being? Alright, so the lump of cells has more rights than the mother?

In any case, life usually continues after birth. So if you are going to be for banning or strictly limiting abortions, you should probably also consider providing some sort of aid to the mother.

As abortion threads go, this one has been quite polite and succesful. But I disagree with Seamus: this thread isn't over yet.

For me, this isn't about being pro or anti abortion. Even if I would be against, I could still see myself maintaining this is an unjust law. For me, and to several others in this thread as well, this is about the state not infringing upon human dignity.

AdrianII, with some rethorical finesse, invoked inalieable human rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of selfinterest to protect the right of abortion. On top of that, or instead of that and disregarding abortion itself, I would invoke the human rights as theorised by Avishai Margalit's concept of a decent society. He theorises that one of the crucial elements of a 'decent society' is that no institution humiliates people. And precisly that is what this law does. It is moral blackmail, spite, a gross intrusion of the emotional privacy of women in an unenviable situation. A foot planted firmly in the face of somebody who's already down.

Quote:

---

Down to the last detail, an overly theoretical and abstract elaboration of exactly what would and would not comprise a decent society. In his seminal work A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulated an ideal Kantian society designed along strict equalitarian lines. As a philosophical construct, it has been enormously influential. But in practical terms it has stood just a bit too far above the wicked ways of man. So, as a kind of compromise, Margalit (Philosophy/Hebrew Univ., Israel) offers a slightly more realizable societal framework, one in which ``institutions do not humiliate people.'' Roughly modeled on George Orwell's passionate brand of humanitarian socialism, this is the decent society, the next best thing to Rawls's ideal society.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Still, you should probably have nothing to do with that decision unless you are the mother.

---

About adoption? I'm not going to force a woman to give up her child, unless she is really harming it. In which case I have to protect the child.

Quote:

---

Which stage are you talking about?

---

More responding to your grey area than anything. The grey area is real, and medical, not moral.

Quote:

---

So... you are equating a formless lump of cells to a human being? Alright, so the lump of cells has more rights than the mother?

In any case, life usually continues after birth. So if you are going to be for banning or strictly limiting abortions, you should probably also consider providing some sort of aid to the mother.

---

No, the mother has the same rights. However, the child's rights need to be protected because it is innocent, helpless and because if they aren't protected it dies. It's life is blotted out, the end. Pregnancy will not, normally, end the life of the mother.

As to equating a group of cells with a child, show me the moment it becomes a person and I will reconsider my view. Until that time I have to consider from conception the only truely safe point.

Oh, and in Britain we have child support.

Adrian::2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

AdrianII, with some rethorical finesse, invoked inalieable human rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of selfinterest to protect the right of abortion. On top of that, or instead of that and disregarding abortion itself, I would invoke the human rights as theorised by Avishai Margalit's concept of a decent society. He theorises that one of the crucial elements of a 'decent society' is that no institution humiliates people. And precisly that is what this law does. It is moral blackmail, spite, a gross intrusion of the emotional privacy of women in an unenviable situation. A foot planted firmly in the face of somebody who's already down.

---

Well said. This is exactly what this law is, simply another push by the conservative religious right (sorry, that's simply what it is, for those of you won't don't live in this area of the US, which I do) trying to find another "hole in the armor" to slip in more legislated moral nonsense.

As for this thread, I think this horse carcass has been kicked as much as it can. Probably should be put to bed in the very near future.

:balloon2:

And with that, we shall retire this particular iteration of the "abortion - right or wrong" topic. The wisdom of South Carolina's proposed law has gotten kind of short shrift - I think I can safely say that backroomers agree, for various reasons, and from both pro and con camps, that it's an inopportune attempt to skirt the larger 'right or wrong' issue(s) - that we backroomers are not afraid to confront, in the least.

Thanks for all contributions. We look forward to the next opportunity to examine this topic. :bow:

Closed.