What a vile, scumbag organization!

[Wind Song]

I don't see how subjecting a woman to a high pressure sales job gives her an enhanced choice.

You're incorrectly stating what happens in pregnancy counseling. The high pressure sales pitch comes from the anti-choice crowd.

[tailfins]

You're incorrectly stating what happens in pregnancy counseling. The high pressure sales pitch comes from the anti-choice crowd.

And how many women have you seen go to an appointment at an abortion clinic and be talked out of it by the staff? I seem to remember an undercover video where an abortion clinic agreed to cover up for a statutory rape.

[logroller]

Logroller--

Get a clue. Either debate the topic with me or put me completely on ignore and leave me alone.

Your choice.

wind

You can't even read the thread topic or poster, let alone respond to an argument; how in the hell are you gonna debate me?

But what the hell--Let's give it a try. Here's my argument:

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.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't see how subjecting a woman to a high pressure sales job gives her an enhanced choice.

Pretty much what I was going to respond.

[Abbey Marie]

You can't even read the thread topic or poster, let alone respond to an argument; how in the hell are you gonna debate me?

But what the hell--Let's give it a try. Here's my argument:

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.

All good points with the minor change being sonograms are not invasive.

[Wind Song]

And how many women have you seen go to an appointment at an abortion clinic and be talked out of it by the staff? I seem to remember an undercover video where an abortion clinic agreed to cover up for a statutory rape.

I can only speak for my own experience in pregnancy counseling at the health department in Oregon back in the late seventies. We didn't try and influence the woman one way or another. Before we received counseling training we had to admit our own biases and work to try and keep them away from another woman's decision.

Its unfair to characterize the entire field of professionals in women health care as being heavy handed in swaying a woman one way or another.

[logroller]

All good points with the minor change being sonograms are not invasive.

Arguably no, but it depends on the circumstance. If I showed up at your door with an ultrasound machine and proceeded to gel up your belly; I could understand your feeling as though your privacy had been violated. If you show up for a pregnancy checkup, not a violation, as you've consented to treatment.

[Abbey Marie]

Arguably no, but it depends on the circumstance. If I showed up at your door with an ultrasound machine and proceeded to gel up your belly; I could understand your feeling as though your privacy had been violated. If you show up for a pregnancy checkup, not a violation, as you've consented to treatment.

I'm pretty sure Wind is talking about ultrasound as a prerequisite for abortion. Not something the police will show up at your door to force on you.

Even if they did, though, it is still not an invasive procedure, in a medical sense of the term.

[logroller]

I'm pretty sure Wind is talking about ultrasound as a prerequisite for abortion. Not something the police will show up at your door to force on you.

Even if they did, though, it is still not an invasive procedure, in a medical sense of the term.

I'm not talking so much from a medical perspective in terms of invasion, but rather the rights of those involved ( privacy/ life); as that's what the whole abortion debate hinges upon.

[Wind Song]

I'm pretty sure Wind is talking about ultrasound as a prerequisite for abortion. Not something the police will show up at your door to force on you.

Even if they did, though, it is still not an invasive procedure, in a medical sense of the term.

It's coercive. You want to force women to have sonograms if they elect to terminate their pregnancy.

YOUR position is punitive, IMO. 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.

You don't.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm not talking so much from a medical perspective in terms of invasion, but rather the rights of those involved ( privacy/ life); as that's what the whole abortion debate hinges upon.

That's not what Wind was arguing. She was arguing against ultrasounds based on instruments being inserted into private parts.

If you are switching to arguing about privacy, invasiveness of procedures is a misleading argument.

[Abbey Marie]

It's coercive. You want to force women to have sonograms if they elect to terminate their pregnancy.

YOUR position is punitive, IMO. 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.

You don't.

Abortion is coercive, punitive and restrictive to the baby. You want to own the babies' bodies.

I don't.

I want to see them live a free, non-punitive, non-restrictive life. Basically, I want them to breathe.

[tailfins]

I can only speak for my own experience in pregnancy counseling at the health department in Oregon back in the late seventies. We didn't try and influence the woman one way or another. Before we received counseling training we had to admit our own biases and work to try and keep them away from another woman's decision.

Its unfair to characterize the entire field of professionals in women health care as being heavy handed in swaying a woman one way or another.

In a private enterprise there is pressure from management to boost sales. This would include enterprises that do abortions such as Planned Parenthood.

[logroller]

It's coercive. You want to force women to have sonograms if they elect to terminate their pregnancy.

YOUR position is punitive, IMO. 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.

You don't.

It's not coercive; it's balancing the rights of the woman with those of an unborn child. You do believe the fetus, at some point in utero, has a right to life; don't you?

[Wind Song]

Abortion is coercive, punitive and restrictive to the baby. You want to own the babies' bodies.

I don't.

I want to see them live a free, non-punitive, non-restrictive life. Basically, I want them to breathe.

No, that's not true of my position. I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice. That means that I don't own the babies and I don't own the women's uterus.

I'm in favor of safe, non-punitive medical procedures.

I know you don't understand that moral position because you're Christian and I'm a Buddhist.

Yes, late term abortions should be restricted to only those that save the life of the mother. The morning after pill is not the termination of a baby. You are inserting feelings that aren't always present in early embryonic and fetal development.

At least, that's what I know of your position so far, correct any misconceptions please.