What a vile, scumbag organization!

[jimnyc]

Men have no responsibilities for conception? If so, STFU about abortion.

Men DO have responsibility, if you read what I wrote. BOTH are responsible.

A woman should ALWAYS make sure precautions are taken if she doesn't want to get pregnant.
Men should ALWAYS take precautions if they don't want a baby.

BOTH are responsible. BOTH.

[tailfins]

But not comments about urinals?

I've been a BAD BOY.

[logroller]

I posted a link...that nobody was interested in checking...from Texas. Now, the doctor is required to do a sonogram instead of a lesser staff member. As well, the woman must now go home, and come back the next day.

That's clearly not 'small govt.', nor is it necessary. It does advance the goal of having clinics shut down, and attempt to have less women seek the procedure.

I agree with your assessment re. standard sonogram. However, there are a couple of points. In very early stage abortions, a standard sonogram wouldn't show much. As well, the reason for the forced sonogram is to force the woman to see the fetus, not for any 'need' in order to perform the procedure.

The act of undergoing an abortion is NOT taken lightly by the overwhelming majority of women. It's a humiliating, extremely uncomfortable procedure. I'm sure most women suffer emotional stress before, and certainly after.


What I find is that anti abortion people always think of a late term procedure. Personally, I believe that once a functioning brain/nerve network is established, where the fetus can feel 'pain', an abortion should be illegal unless there are mitigating factors.


I see no reason for outlawing morning after pills, for a woman who thinks she may have become pregnant from unprotected sex the night before.

I know for fact my doctor makes his patients wait a week after counseling before performing a vasectomy; and a vasectomy is more reversible than an abortion. I see nothing wrong with making sure a patient is positively in favor of a procedure so permanent. If doctors are more concerned with keeping their doors open than taking reasonable steps to ensure the patient doesn't experience buyers remorse...they shouldn't be practicing medicine IMO.

[fj1200]

They want to make an elective procedure involuntary and tied to the termination decision.

Kind of like forcing private insurance companies to cover birth control?

Well that was off-topic... or was it?

[fj1200]

The pro-choice crowd fights anything designed to take a woman's choice away. It's about choice. Women have the legal rights to their own bodies. You want the fetus to have more rights than the woman. So your side will throw up anything it can to lessen a woman's ability to choose whether to carry or terminate her pregancy.

Heavy handed, as usual.

It's true abortion stops a beating heart, (if the fetus is that developed to have one.) but so does heart surgery. Both are elective medical procedures.

Do you have that post on your clipboard for quick copy/paste?

[logroller]

That's true. You'd have to ask a doctor how they determine how many months pregnant a woman is if she's that out of it that she really doesn't know.

No, I don't think late term abortions are appropriate unless there is a medical risk of carrying the pregnancy to term.

I don't need to ask, I know; its an ultrasound.
From wikipedia: I could get a more scholarly source, but I don't think it'll say much different.

Accuracy

Calculations of gestational age from LMP are sometimes incorrect due to normal variation from the average ovulation date. The gestational age of an individual infant can be more accurately estimated from:

1. The woman's knowledge of the date of sexual intercourse.
2. The woman's knowledge of fertility signs related to ovulation. The needed observations are normally made by woman who use fertility awareness methods to get pregnant.
3. Examination of the newborn infant. In the twentieth century, doctors (especially pediatricians) were trained to recognize the physical changes occurring to the fetus in the latter half of pregnancy so that a maturational age could be estimated.
4. An obstetric ultrasound ("dating scan", in the UK routinely offered around 12 weeks) during the pregnancy, whereby sizes of certain fetal body parts are measured.

[fj1200]

That's what comes of being a moral absolutist. You seek to restrict other people who don't share your religious values. You want to own ALL women's bodies.

Deft use of the talking points but, not speaking for Abbey and the others of course, I don't consider myself overly religious but feel that the logic based position is pro-life. If you accept the priority of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property I feel you would naturally come to the life position. You are free to take any liberty with yourself and your property but once they infringe on the rights of another you then become subject to society's laws. The question then becomes at what point does life start? There are certainly stages of development, viability, etc. but there is arguably no point in time that the life began other than conception.

I have a friend on another board and he put it this way, "I'm not religious at all, but I recognize a human being for a human being. "The bottom line" is when a woman gets pregnant, she is sharing her body with someone else. Like a conjoined twin that will separate after nine months."

[Missileman]

Deft use of the talking points but, not speaking for Abbey and the others of course, I don't consider myself overly religious but feel that the logic based position is pro-life. If you accept the priority of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property I feel you would naturally come to the life position. You are free to take any liberty with yourself and your property but once they infringe on the rights of another you then become subject to society's laws. The question then becomes at what point does life start? There are certainly stages of development, viability, etc. but there is arguably no point in time that the life began other than conception.

I have a friend on another board and he put it this way, "I'm not religious at all, but I recognize a human being for a human being. "The bottom line" is when a woman gets pregnant, she is sharing her body with someone else. Like a conjoined twin that will separate after nine months."

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.

[logroller]

Im still waiting for someone to refute my argument. As much as I enjoy being a master debater, I was hoping to have a tea party with an adversary.

Requiring a sonogram as a contingency for an elective abortion is entirely reasonable.

Abortion is legal in the United States.
Society is obligated to respect the woman's rights, as well the rights of the fetus (should they exist).
Legally, the rights of the fetus began at a certain stage of development.
Establishing the stage of development is best done by use of sonograms.
Though sonograms are invasive, they are less invasive than the abortion procedure.
A woman who voluntarily elects to have an abortion does so with the understanding it involves an invasive procedure above and beyond the level of invasion performed by a sonogram.
Thus, a woman cannot claim her right to privacy while coextensively electing a procedure which involves that exact same level of invasion. Therefore, requiring a sonogram serves to protect the rights of an unborn child without violating the rights of the woman, and it would be reasonable to impose such a precondition to abortion.

[Kathianne]

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.

But they are not 'clumps of cells.' Much earlier than previously thought, the ability to fell and shun sources of pain; the obvious development of sensory organs, much earlier than thought years ago.

This is a topic where 'science' really is killing the progressives.

[logroller]

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.

Well then one shouldn't mind seeing a sonogram said clump.

[fj1200]

That's an okay way to put it, but it totally ignores the issue of personhood. Rights belong to persons, not clumps of cells that might become a person.

Well, if that clump doesn't become a person then no harm as it miscarries, if it does become a person then why isn't it entitled to personhood? But that does get to the underlying question of that clump being property or life. I think life is the more logical position especially over convenience.

[fj1200]

That's clearly not 'small govt.', nor is it necessary. It does advance the goal of having clinics shut down, and attempt to have less women seek the procedure.

Why shouldn't there be an attempt to have less women seek the procedure? That would seem like good public policy. And it's not a 'small govt.' issue to NOT advance legislation that protects innocent life; It's a function of government to do so unless you think it's big government intrusion to investigate murder.

[Missileman]

Well, if that clump doesn't become a person then no harm as it miscarries, if it does become a person then why isn't it entitled to personhood? But that does get to the underlying question of that clump being property or life. I think life is the more logical position especially over convenience.

The question is rather, at what point during the pregnancy does the fetus attain personhood and the right to life? You've just tacitly acknowledged the line is some time after conception.

[fj1200]

The question is rather, at what point during the pregnancy does the fetus attain personhood and the right to life? You've just tacitly acknowledged the line is some time after conception.

Not really.

... but there is arguably no point in time that the life began other than conception.

I used "person" based on your reference. The question is at what point is the fetus granted personhood and the right to life?