E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
In Texas, women must get a sonogram at least 24 hours before they can get an abortion.
Fewer abortions? Better-informed patients? Insulted women? The impact of a controversial new Texas law that requires women to have a sonogram – and listen to a description of the fetus as well as its heartbeat – at least 24 hours before they can get an abortion is far from clear.
Texas state health officials began enforcing the sonogram provision – which critics say is the most extreme sonogram-related law in the nation – on Tuesday.
Reaction has been decidedly mixed.
Msnbc.com was unable to contact women who have undergone the sonogram this week, but Texas abortion providers say many of their patients felt insulted.
“The emotions range from confusion to anger to being quite emotionally upset by it. Having to hear the position described of fetal development is not something they are wanting to endure,” said Rochelle Tafolla, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which has three centers that provide abortions.
“We haven’t heard of any women who, after going through these steps, are saying, ‘No, I’m changing my mind.’”
The law requires doctors who perform abortions to conduct a sonogram 24 hours before the procedure, display the images of the fetus and make the heartbeat audible. The woman can decline to view the images and listen to the heartbeat. The doctor must also verbally describe the sonogram result – even if the woman doesn’t want to hear it.
Read details of Texas sonogram law
Although the sonogram law technically went into effect last fall, the state didn’t begin enforcing its requirements until Tuesday, when the Texas Department of State Health Services posted guidelines for abortion providers. Facilities that fail to comply face penalties of up to $1,000 per violation per day.
Department spokeswoman Carrie Williams said Wednesday that the state agency has received “a couple of technical questions” about the law’s requirements since its implementation but hasn’t gotten any significant feedback yet from abortion providers or pregnant women.
Effect uncertain at this point
It’s too soon to track the impact of the sonogram law on the number of abortions performed in Texas, which has 39 licensed abortion providers, Williams added.
About 75,000 abortions were performed in Texas in 2010, the latest year for which statistics are available, according to State Health Services.
Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life, says anecdotal reports she’s received “from our friends who counsel outside of abortion clinics tell us 70 to 80 percent of women will choose life after seeing a sonogram.”
As for the long-term impact, ”If the clinics are following the law according to its legislative intent, then we think the law could reduce the number of abortions in Texas by at least 30 percent,” she said.
Tafolla said Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast clinics have not seen a drop-off in the number of abortions performed since the sonogram law went into effect Oct. 1.
About 15 percent to 17 percent of pregnant women who undergo the ultrasound at Planned Parenthood don’t come back for the abortion, Tafolla says, but that could be for a number of reasons.
“What we knew by fact is statistically the majority of women who are having abortion are already mothers. They fully understand what a pregnancy is, so they’re making a very informed decision,” she says.
'Most extreme ultrasound-related law'
Julie Rikelman, an attorney with the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which sued unsuccessfully to block the Texas legislation, calls it “the most extreme ultrasound-related law that is being enforced in the United States.”
(Oklahoma and North Carolina have similar laws, but their enforcement has been held up because sonogram requirements were blocked by the courts, Rikelman says.)
“I think the experience of providers has been that women just find it offensive because the presumption of the law is somehow women don’t know what they’re doing and need to be forced to consider information even if it’s not relevant to them. It’s very demeaning to them,” she says.
But Lori DeVillez, executive director of the Austin Pregnancy Resource Center, which provides support services and abortion alternatives to pregnant women, says the sonogram law is “a healthy law.”
Like any other major medical procedure, she says, patients deserve to know beforehand what an abortion entails before they decide whether to undergo it.
Devillez doesn’t know whether the law will eventually lower the number of abortions performed in Texas. But she hopes it does. “I hope giving women the opportunity to get the information they need will help them understand decisions they are making for themselves and their babies,” she says.
Logistical headache for clinics
Perhaps one of the most significant practical impacts of the Texas law to date is logistics, says Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder of Whole Woman’s Health clinics in Texas. The law’s requirements have caused scheduling headaches because doctors who perform abortions now must also perform a sonogram – on a separate day. They can’t delegate that latter task to, say, an ultrasound technician.
And they can’t have another doctor do the abortion if they're busy.
As for patients, many are already mothers and must make separate doctor's visits, often taking an additional day or two off work, Hagstrom Miller said.
“We’ve had a lot of frustration, a lot of, ‘Why do I have to do this? I know what I want to do,’” she said.
The five Whole Woman’s Health clinics began complying with the sonogram law in mid-January. Out of the several hundred women who were offered a chance to listen to the fetal heartbeat, only two opted to do so, Hagstrom Miller says.
Likewise, most women are declining to see their sonogram image, she said.
“I am not aware of anyone saying, ‘Oh my goodness, I didn’t know what the ultrasound looked like and I’m going to change my pregnancy,'” Hagstrom Miller added.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Toilet paper taking out tiger, elephant habitat, WWF says
- Getting the affluent to pay for payroll tax cut
- Umm, are those gang signs in Chicago's new sticker?
- Frantic 911 calls released in Powell murder-suicide
- That'll be $2,000 extra for your aisle seat, Mr. Nader
Leave a Comment:
Who is paying for all these "procedures?" They cannot force a woman to actually look at anything. That can't force her to actually listen to anything. What a waste.
Efforts by progressives regarding sex-education, birth control, and improving families and women's health have done more to reduce the number of abortions that occur than all the efforts of all the religious wingnuts ever.
Progressives have reduced abortions by over 1 million in 2011.
Banning abortions does nothing but drive it into the back alleys.
Actually getting out there and doing hard work in your community is what reduces the need for abortions and that is what progressives do.
When are politicians going to stop using womens health as a political football?? Butt out!!!
Hey how about this? Developing human :''pretend I am a tree and SAVE ME!'' Hey if the issue is saving snails or trees well lets make laws to protect them,we will have fundraisers,stop construction projects to save the minnows? But an inconvenience of a developing human gets vacumed and tossed into a bucket.
You ever SEE a first trimester fetus? It looks like a cross between a deformed salamander and the baby monster in the movie Alien, just as it bursts out of John Hurt's chest.
Show a picture of that to a woman and see how many warm up to it.
Wow, so glad I don't live in Texas. What a backward extremist state to live in. Poor women there having to live with so much meddling.
Oh yes people in the governmental sector havedecided in Texas that they can force women to see an US and listen to the medical person description. Oh ya Your government can Force Women to do what ever they want to. They are doing anything and everything to stomp their feet and scream and yell at those inferior women to get them to do what They feel is best for their lives. How dare those women think they can make a decision on having a legal abortion or not. Just who do those women think they are? Now here is an issue people should be protesting in mass outside their capitol about. Emailing their state officials over. How insulting to women. How many women participated in writing this law?
We could have a much more civil, creative and productive society in the United States if only some among us would learn to mind their own business, and to respect the rights of their fellow citizens to live their own lives and make their own decisions about their own bodies, relationships, religious and secular beliefs and personal lifestyles.
It may be worth noting that those of you whom are now so loud, and insistent, and self-righteous in arguing that YOU know what is right for everyone else, and that YOU therefore have the right to make decisions for others regarding their personal lives, .... may someday change your tune.
Because if you ever successfully change our society into one which readily accepts such 'loud mob' intrusions trumping the rights of individuals, ... it will only be a matter of time until those intrusions will impose upon YOU, and YOUR OWN personal lives. And by then there may be no one left to defend YOU and to speak up for YOUR rights.
How's that small government thing working for ya?
/sarcasm
LiFe&LiBeRtY.defender--if you are so worried about all these unborn fetuses you should BUY an island start stockpiling food and adopt every one of them. You wing-nuts only care about these zygotes before they are born they slip out of your realm of conscious thought the moment they are born. Your decision to imprison women's uterus is wrong slavery was abolished in this country.
Exactly. But haters are gonna hate and we can't fix stupid. I like the other article today that showed education and contraception has lowed the teen pregnancy rate to the lowest since the 70s. And this occurs in the faces of those that were pushing abstinence only lectures.
I live in Texas...I do not approve...choice is the American way...not strict regulation
There is a separation of church and state...RIGHT?
I don't agree with late term abortion but life is hardly life when the sperm hits the egg
A response to the post above.
@LifeandLibertyDefender - I fail to see the correlation between abortion and protecting endangered species or the environment the way you seem to. Humans are already overpopulating, causing an overuse of resources, while animals that get legal protections are typically on the verge of extinction *because* of that overuse of resources. You used lots of very emotionally charged words to mask the fact that your argument just doesn't make sense. I can't even think of something to compare it to because it's so far out in left field. I could possible understand if humans were on the verge of extinction, or if we had laws protecting, say, fire ants, an invasive species that is far from extinction.
On another vein, I fail to see what this law is supposed to accomplish, other than to guilt-trip women into foregoing an abortion. It seems that the legislature was under the impression that these women thought they were being treated for really bad indigestion, and didn't *realize* that they were terminating a pregnancy. And that what an abortion is; terminating a pregnancy. A fetus, early in development, is essentially a parasite. I don't mean that to be offensive, but it is dependent on it's host for survival while providing no benefit. No one feels that killing a leech or tapeworm is offensive, but because this fetus could possibly develop into baby, we attach special significance. That is a special form of hubris; to feel that because it is human, it is inherently superior to any other living being.
And the best part is all of the "anti-abortion/pro-life" activists that are willing to *kill* to advance their agenda. Nothing is more hypocritical than the people who claim "it's wrong to take another's life" and then forget to verbalize their caveat: "unless they disagree with that belief." You can't be taken seriously if you rail and rail against the abortion providers as "killers" and then set off a bomb at a clinic. Those of you who believe in a "God" and still undertake this type of action, remember--there is a special level in hell for the hypocrites.
I live in Texas, and I approve this message disapproving of this law... :-)
This is the latest war on women, and I hate to say this, but these Texas women who are going through this sonogram-abortion process are probably the working poor, the uneducated, because you know a college educated woman wouldn't put up with this. But what will happen is these women are going to go across the state to LA or NM or somewhere and get the abortion.
This just reinforces my opinion that a bunch of dopes live in Texas. A bunch of yee-haw, tobacky chewin', uneducated good 'ol boys like their Governor Rick Perry. I may never set foot in that backward state again. Take your abortion law and shove it you evangelical neanderthals.
Tell you what LLD, why don't you volunteer to give up some of YOUR constitutional rights before you argue for taking away other peoples'?
It's crazy, but a judge ruled it's legal. The woman can still have the abortion after the sonogram just like before the sonogram was mandatory, otherwise the judge would not have approved it.
Saddle up Vagina Vigilantes! Them goldurn womenfolk is gittin' mighty uppity these days. Ain't no reason we shouldn't be probin' around in a uterus when we damned well feel like it.
I'd shore like to know who's the damned meddlin' varmint been giving our womenfolk shoes and such. Barefoot and pregnant - that's the way the good lord wants 'em to be.
Gotta look down the road don'tcha know. Keep abortin' them kids and we ain't gonna have no cannon fodder the next time us pro-life types git into a war.
wheels460 actually you sound as if you may have been an abused child? why so hostile? I guess it takes a certain amount of malice and violence to destroy a developing human right wheels460? just asking?
I think women should be forced to dance a jig, hold a handstand for 10 seconds and juggle three bowling pins for a minute before getting an abortion.
What does being abused as a child have to do with standing up for basic constitutional rights?
How is a sonogram anti-abortion? After viewing a sonogram, a woman may still make a choice. She simply has a better view of the workings of pregnancy. Some activists believe that more information is bad.
No vincent, some activist believe that forcing someone to go to the doctors office twice, losing time from work, and paying for it hinders that choice. Viewing the sonogram doesn't give a patient any more information then they already had. If a state is going to require 2 doctor visits, they should pay for the time lost for the patient and doctor for the second visit. If the state was forced to pay for this, I can assure you that this law would not have passed.
Think about this for a minute and be sure to look at every angle: What kind of mother would a woman be to a child she wanted to abort? Think carefully and consider the ones who just can't deal with having a baby at that particular point in their lives. I am not talking evil, I am talking overwhelmed, incapable (for whatever reason) or not able to provide food or a home. A child forced on a mother that doesn't want it (and I can speak from personal experience here) isn't going to be treated very well. Knowing I was a 'mistake' at an early age did nothing good for my self esteem.
@Vincent, you say: " How is a sonogram anti-abortion? After viewing a sonogram, a woman may still make a choice. She simply has a better view of the workings of pregnancy. Some activists believe that more information is bad."
My Answer: The next time you get pregnant and want to understand, " better view of the workings of pregnancy", ask a WOMAN. You don't need a Sonogram, just ask, we'll tell you.
I am a Woman, I have two grown children and I have never had to make the "CHOICE" whether or not to have an abortion, but if I had....it would have been my "CHOICE". Not the state I live in, nor the Right-Wing-nuts. Lucky for me I do not have to live in the backward state of Texas or any of the other idiot states. I lived most of my life in either New York of Maryland and both states have always been blessed with intelligent, worldly and open minded politicians, even Republicans.
States like Texas, Mississippi (although they did vote down the Personhood Law), Oklahoma, etc..have elected politicians with IQ of a rock. In electing these ignorant politicians, the people must, for the most part, be just as stupid (apologies to the one's who did not vote for the idiots).
If it were me, I would rather live on the street, then live in one of these states.
I am Pro-Women, I don't believe in abortion for me, but I would not presume to make decisions for another adult.
MY BODY.....MY CHOICE
and you claim to be a doctor. but the body you are killing is not yours. which amounts to murder. actually it is worse than murder because the life you are taking has no defense. if it is your body and you kill yourself, then it is suicide. a liberal like you will use any kind of spin to justify your stupid belief. i thought doctors take the oath to cure and save people? not kill them?
I'm sooo done with having conservatives invade my privacy...
Here's why you may be entitled to your BELIEF, however, it ends at your belief...
1. When does life begin? This question can't be answered using any of the following; Bible, Morals, Jesus, God, Belief, Christianity, Religion, I feel, or I think. You need a definitive, credible scientific answer or your violating the 1st Amendment.
2. What is the uber-compelling, state reason, for banning abortion that is more important than protecting a woman's implied civil right to privacy? You can't answer this with "The fetus's right to life" until you answer number one properly.
This applies to any way you try to challenge Roe. Any Constitutional amendment, state statute, executive order, court case et. al. will all fail until you can answer those. The SCOTUS cases which have been reversed, have been able to establish a credible flaw in the underlying issue (a.k.a. answering question 1) and pass strict scrutiny (a.k.a. answering question 2).
THE HYDE AMENDMENT PROHIBITS ANY PUBLIC FUNDING OR TAX DOLLARS FROM BEING USED FOR ABORTIONS!!!!!
And, let me explain something really quick... When you go to a bank and deposit a $100 dollar bill, and then go back and withdraw it, it isn't the same $100 dollar bill you deposited, it is its equivalent in value, ergo the loss to the bank is the same. Do not, even try to give me the BS around the Hyde Amendment, it's illogical.
So let's recap...
Corporations are people deserving of rights, and the government shouldn't have any control over them.
On the otherhand, the government has complete control of the women's body. It can tell her she has to be pregnant. It can force her to have uncessary procedures.
Seriously. Ridiculous.
For everybody that wants to talk about the seperation of church and state...that's fine but how about some morals? consideration? responsibilty? LOVE? people are nuts and their hearts have blackened more and more throughout the years :(
Instead of focusing on banning abortion, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on promoting birth control? Less traumatic, less costly, slightly less controversial...
Invading your privacy? Are you joking? If you dont want kids, DONT HAVE SEX, GET YOUR TUBES TIED, OR USE BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!!! Abortion just gives you the ability to kill your child if you decide its too inconvenient. What a selfish, selfserving act abortion is. I applaud Texas in this decision. I think anyone who gets an abortion should also get sterrilized....wouldnt have to worry about kids after that, would you?
I have had 3 children, and I am 24 years old. Do I think women should be forced to view a sonogram of the fetus no. I think they could try to schedule the ultrasound a little sooner though. I got an ultrasound of my youngest son when he was nothing more than what looked like a small tumor. I think women being forced to keep a baby until they can hear the heartbeat is wrong. You can find out you are pregnant at about 1 month and there is very little baby there. You do not hear the heartbeat until 9-10 weeks and it can be seen at 6-7. Meaning they are making the woman keep the baby for 2 months before she can have an abortion.
If a woman is raped that 2 months will seem an eternity. I think that is wrong to make her wait that long. There are a varying number of reasons to have an abortion, and let me tell you giving a baby up for adoption is very very hard. There is much pain involved with both having an abortion and giving the baby up for adoption. Women who have had an abortion always wonder what the baby would have been like and women who have adopted out have the same questions, but they have the oportunity to find out on the child's 18th birthday.
All in all I am for a woman's right to privacy. I also feel as though the decision to have a baby should be up to the woman alone. A man should not be able to tell us that we have to carry their child, especially when not only can they not have children but they do not have to go through the physical and emotional stressors that pregnancy causes. Yes its a joyful time, but the hormones suck, and having lower back pain, and eating too much all suck. Worrying about how you are going to afford the child, and other things suck to.
I think if the National Government wants to tell us how to handle our bodies then they need to regulate family planning instead. They need to make birth control widely availible, and make it easy to get, or condoms or some other method of safety. This way there is less chance that a family will have to have an abortion due to low funds. Having children and adults practice safe sex cannot be mandated of course, because its not like the government is standing with binoculars watching every couple fornicate.
As you can see from my long rant there are many many issues with the government trying to control its people.
Not only does the Women have to make a heart breaking decision at a time of their life that is already difficult enough, now they are being forced to endure another heart breaking procedure, that will only affect their mental well being, and for no reason. Women know exactly what the decision is they are making and why they are making it. This is a blatant attack on all Women and their rights to choose without being demoralized!
Having to hear the position described of fetal development is not something they are wanting to endure,” said Rochelle Tafolla, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which has three centers that provide abortions.
Nope...they just want it out of sight, out of mind. Very sad situation for the unborn...
Amazing - How many of you here claim to be intellectually superior and you still don't understand that they aren't stopping anyone from having an abortion at all. Read the article people, all they are doing is talking to them about their decision - that's it. A sonogram is non-invasive, it doesn't hurt anybody and they can refuse to look and listen to it if they so choose. Amazing how educated you educated people really are. My faith in humanity is waning fast.
Lola,
You don't have a point until you answer those two questions...
1. When does life begin? This question can't be answered using any of the following; Bible, Morals, Jesus, God, Belief, Christianity, Religion, I feel, or I think. You need a definitive, credible scientific answer or your violating the 1st Amendment.
2. What is the uber-compelling, state reason, for banning abortion that is more important than protecting a woman's implied civil right to privacy? You can't answer this with "The fetus's right to life" until you answer number one properly.
Until than you have nothing except your personal belief which you have no right to impose on anyone. Save your holier than thou preaching, you have NO RIGHT.
If we're all for women's rights...
What about the aborted baby girls? Don't they get a choice? They would have been women someday, after all...
The child may be inside your body, but they have a body, too. Why not "their body, their choice"?
Just sayin'.
Sad,
It doesn't matter, they're forcing them to have an unnecessary medical procedure, before they can have their right to choice and privacy respected.
The government is doing that. How on earth do you reconcile that with being the party of "limited government"???
Ashley,
Find me some credible scientific evidence that a first trimester fetus = a "baby girl".
If a woman's right to privacy is the issue than it should be a matter between her doctor and her and no public funding of any kind should be involved, because the accounting of such funds would be an invasion of that precious "privacy". Can't have it both ways!
It strikes me that probably the majority of those who are so adament about abortion rights, have had one or more abortions themselves. Who are they really trying to convince?
So the women are forced to have ultrasound?What if they don't want it?
Succubus Demon- they have a morning after pill for rape vicitms...
Thank you LifeAndLibertyDefender for caring about the unborn children that these progressive liberal murders are so hell bent on killing. Why shouldn't a pregnant woman not have to see what she is about to do? If she can actually see the unborn child and then make the decision to kill it, then that is her choice. I personally don't think anyone has the right to kill the unborn, but if it is the law, and you want to be pro choice about killing the unborn, you should want the mother to make an informed choice. I think they should have to have at least 2 sonograms at least 2 weeks apart before they can make the choice to kill the unborn. If the law of the land is to give women the choice to kill the unborn, then that choice shouldn't be easy.
SHakingmyhead,
Can you cite a source that shows the majority of pro-choice women have had an abortion themselves???
So now, not only is the government allowed to force women to have unnecessary medical procedures, we also have to pay for those unnecessary procedures ourselves???
How about not allowing the government to force us into having unncecessary procedures?
I think all men should have to have a prostate exam before being allowed to vote. Fair is fair. Intrusive medically unnecessary procedure forced by the government, prior to being allowed a civil right.
Sarah- let me ask you a few questions back. IF life doesnt begin in the womb, then WHY, if a pregnant woman is murdered and the fetus dies, is it TWO counts of murder? IF life doesnt begin in the womb, WHY is there a heartbeat? Did you know that if you watch an abortion on sonogram, the "not alive" child displays fear, moving from the instruments coming to kill it and its heartbeat raises? Do things not alive display fear, that youve noticed? Do YOU have a definite answer that life DOES NOT begin in the womb?? No. Has any woman EVER died from NOT having sex? No? Oh well then...seems a much better idea to NOT have sex and NOT get pregnant, than HAVE sex and have an abortion, dont you think?
@Sarah -3043284 - So if I want to have a medical procedure and a doctor wants me to understand the ramifications of such a procedure he is disrespecting my right to privacy? Just because you deem something as an unnecessary procedure doesn't mean that it is; thankfully we do not live by your laws in this Country.
I didn't say anything about Government parties in any part of my post; you made that assertion.
Sarah- Q. When does life end? A. When the heart STOPS beating. So, my answer about when a life begins would be "When a heart STARTS beating" Why so angry?
Sad,
Yes. You can't be compelled by the government to have any medical procedure, which is what this is. If my doctor says, "I think you need this, because I need to know if something is wrong with your body" I make the decision, based on my personal thought.
The medical community has deemed it unncesesarry, and even if it was necessary, it would still be my choice.
This situation is such, that I don't make the decision about my own body.
Good thing you don't know jack about our actual laws, otherwise you wouldn't post such ignorance. This will be shot down.
Lola,
Civics 101, the burdern of proof is on the person who is limiting liberty and freedom. I don't have to prove anything. I wouldn only have to prove that it isn't a life if I was advocating for forced abortions, you know, like you're advocating for forced sonograms.
Contraception fails all the time, through no fault of the user, should women not be allowed to have sex? I guess our bodies are hostage to your religion???
SarahQ,
Your assertion of when YOU think life begins, proves nothing. Credible, scientific evidence, agreed upon by the scientific community, not your assertion, that would be proof.
And if you aren't angry about this, you don't fully understand the implications.
This is another case of the hypocrite republicans and conservatives saying that they are against big government and laws that control us and take away our freedoms, and yet here they are trying to control women's bodies and what should and always will be their choice. Republicans are so confusing and confused. They don't know what they want. I take that back, they do want to continue to be a patriarchal group who cannot control women anymore so they are looking for any excuse to tell women how to live their lives. Absolutely enraging and popostrous. I don't understand any woman who would allow these men to tell them what to do with their bodies. And, I know the excuse is always "well the baby doesn't have a choice and a right to decide on living." That is absolute garbage. What are you going to do next? Tell me I cannot use a condom or withdraw because my sperm do not have a choice. Stop trying to control other people and make them believe how you believe. We do not believe the way you believe. I'm not trying to make you vegan or like only rock and roll music. That is what makes this country great. Is that we are all different and we can learn from each other. That is what makes our country bad is when our laws are focused on religious and especially christian beliefs and values. We are not all Christian. Quit trying to make us so. I hope the Republican party goes away in the future. We will all have more freedoms.
Re"pig"lican "Con"servative equals HYPOCRITES and BRAINWASHERS
Pro Choice, pro women, anti-relgious values on women's bodies. Women can do whatever they want to their bodies. Men cannot tell a women what to do with their bodies.
You can make a person have a Sonogram - but you can't make them view the sonogram. I hope the State of Texas and the Texas Taxpayer is paying the bill from their State Taxes.
this is not less government that the holiest GOP talk about. if women can't have an abortion with out government involvement then maybe we shouldn't have the right to bare arms. can't say it enough EDUCATION IS THE ONLY ANSWER and the GOP keeps cutting this too. also rock on sarah3043284,
So, your body is only yours because your mother decided to let you have it? I see....so if your mom decides you should be put to death, I guess thats her choice also? Why should it be any different NOW, if that was the case a few years ago?
You are refusing to answer MY questions because you know I am right. Sometimes not answering is just as incriminating as the answer.
75,000 abortions in Texas in a year? Is that what I read, correctly? You can NOT tell me that birth control failed 75,000 times. If true, women would be in a conniption and every major drug company sued.
I love the Texas Right to Life mention of "anecdotal" evidence w/r/t the perceived reduction in abortions this will lead to. They have no hard evidence supporting the idea, so they present anecdotal tripe instead.
The evidence provided by Planned Parenthood proves the contrary, that this will probably NOT result in a significant change in number of abortions performed in Texas.
It saddens me that, as a conservative, my desire for fiscal and foreign policy conservative ideology is constantly coupled with these social conservative issues, which only serve to alienate voters and impose the views of people with one set of beliefs, on everyone else. It is contrary to the very constitutional principles that social conservatives otherwise claim to staunchly support.
Abortion, like it or, is a legal procedure. I do not understand how the government can force someone to have an unneeded medical procedure before they have something that is legal performed.
A woman in an abortion clinic is saying, "I do not have the resources- be they emotional or financial- to have a baby, so I am not going to have it." If you make her have the child anyway-or take these measures to encourage her to have the baby-you need to accept responsibility for making sure that this life whch you value so much has the resources which the mother has stated she can not provide:
Make sure that the woman has access to maternity care.
Make sure that the child has access to health insurance.
Make sure that child has access to proper nutrition.
Also, if you succeed in your goal of having a woman not have an abortion-you can not then complain about the number of children she has, or that she receives government assistance. She did not want to have child she could not afford-you made her do so.
I understand that many people do not agree with abortion-and for those people who truly value the life of te fetus-I respect your opinion. But, if you are not willing to accept responsiblity to ensure that this life which you value so much has these things, you have no right telling a woman what she can and can not do.
1) This doesn't happen often; 2) it is out of deference for the family's wishes to have the child.
False, before 24 weeks movement by the fetus is nothing more than randomized and autonomic. Even babies are incapable of fear for a few months. A newborn placed upon a glass ledge will not exhibit fright until much later. Likewise, videos of snarling dogs and other fear evoking images do not elicit a reaction. A newborn can be startled, but no fear. Given this, I highly doubt that a fetus can elicit fear. Further the neurons required for pain do not develop until between 24-26 weeks. And after that the fetus is awash in anaesthetising chemicals, so pain is really not an issue either.
Agreed, but this ignores reality where women not ready to become mothers do get pregnant. I think we would all like a world where abortion is not wanted by anyone, but until then it needs to be a protected right.
Yes laws like this effect the poor more then anyone. Hey Mitt, I thought the poor had a safety net? I guess it only works when a man says it can. The net just got more expensive.
A Women's body is her own and decisions on what happens to that body are also her decision. I don't see these Anti-Abortion Politicians or citizens adopting or paying for these kids whose birth was "forced upon" the mother.
"Zen LoveThis is another case of the hypocrite republicans and conservatives saying that they are against big government and laws that control us and take away our freedoms, and yet here they are trying to control women's bodies and what should and always will be their choice."
ZenLove, it is a mistake to equate the views of a subset of conservatives (the social conservatives), with all Republicans. There are MANY of us who espouse fiscal conservativism, but eschew this soc-con stuff. Your attempt to paint us all with the same brush is as inappropriate as if someone tried claiming that all Democrats want Marxist doctrine imposed on the USA.
lolaoo7 - why do you feel the need to control women? Who the hell do you think you are to tell a woman what she had to do with her body? The sad state of the far right is they want to control women at every stage. They would be happier if women could not vote; hold office; work; etc. Women are nothing more than property to them. And, Texas is a huge haven for the far right. Love the comment about "just don't have sex." Do you also say that to men? Oh, and where are men in all of this? Are you going to make them be by the side of the woman the entire 9 months she is pregnant; feeling the baby kick; listening to it's heartbeat? No, you won't force a man to do anything. He can just run along. Oh, and for the record, I'm a woman who has never had an abortion. But, I am not arrogant enough to believe I should decide for other women how to live their lives. To the rest of you on the far right - butt out! Get a life and you won't need to be so involved with everyone elses!
At 19 I had an abortion in Ohio, I was told I had to have a sonogram and I did. I
looked at the photo of this dot, and it did nothing to change my mind. I was 19 in college and on my own when it came to this pregnancy, there was no man, no family, no one to help me care for
a child, build a home for a child, raise a child. I had made my choice long
before I even made an appointment. What these Pro Life people do not understand
is that a woman will make her choices between her and her god alone, no outside
person has a right to judge, influence, or stop her right to do what she wants
with her body. These people say there are Christians, yet they judge and push
their values on people that they don’t even know. This law will affect women because it tells
us that you think we are uniformed and uneducated. I was informed I know what I need to do, that
is the bottom line. What I would like totell these people is a loss of a child because of any reason is still a loss and we as women that have lost should be treated with love and respect no matter
how that loss occurred.
The killing of an unborn baby will ALWAYS be a controversial subject.
(Just making this comment will probably get me collapsed. )
Zen- oh get of your high horse and stop blaming men. Or are you saying that there are no women in politics? You all complain about people trying to control you but YOU are the one who put yourself in the position to get pregnant in the first place. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES for the love of GOD and stop trying to blame others for this! You are mad because YOU got pregnant and dont want to be....well that is something that happens WHEN YOU HAVE SEX!! GASP, who knew!!!!!! The baby doesnt have a choice is garbage? Well...DOES it have a choice? Because YOU sure did..... "its my body" is where the BS is at....
Lola,
I'm going to take this real slow...
I already said we can't prove when life begins. Right??? Now, if we can't prove that we don't have a good enough reason to invade a woman's privacy.
Continuing...
I don't have to prove when life begins, because I'm not advocating for forcing anyone to do anything. The burden of proof lays with the person invading the rights or curtailing the freedom of another person.
Still with me...
That means, until I tell you you have to have an abortion, I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not infringing on your rights, I'm staying out of them.
And, here it is...
You can't say I'm infringing on a baby's rights until you answer that first question, of when life begins.
Wow, do you really not get it????
By your logic, your parents choice to f#ck is the only reason you exist, so why shouldn't they have the choice now to be put to death. This is the worst set of logic I have ever heard; circumstances change, a fetus is different than a person.
Birth control fails by not being used correctly, missing a pill, or through actual defect. That is why the numbers are so high. Further, even if a number of these pregnancies are through irresponsible sex why should those irresponsible people not be able to do the responsible thing and end the pregnancy if they are not prepared to be parents?
I believe that is EXACTLY what abortion is. People make mistakes, and being responsible is cleaning up those mistakes, not dogmatically living with the consequences.
"its my body" is where the BS is at....
No, it's not. Our own bodies are the only thing we truly own.
I love this term, its like saying 'non-hatched chicken' in reference to an egg. An egg is not a chicken, just as a fetus is not a baby.
Sarah-3043284,
What did you start out as?
I think that most the women on this form are all selfish. you want the same rights as men, but you want it in the wrong way. men never had the choice to kill a child in their womb. we mess with fire inyet when information is provided to show women what they do before they do it, we call it invation of privacy, when people are only trying to inform us of what we are doing, its like under going a surgery we want to know what they are doing what they are taking out and the risks of it. Its all informative. i think that all women should know what it is, and if they already do, then i guess they shouldn't mind seeing what they are doing. just because you don't want the guilt and the pain of seeing what you are doing, so now they don't have the excuse of i didn't know because each women who now goes to texas abortion clinic will know what they are doing. the truth hurts sometimes.. when women say i want rights the same as men, men don't have the right to kill. why should women?
Im not trying to control any woman; Im trying to knock some sense into you all! If the woman makes the decision to run a man over in her car, there are conquences that come with it. every woman KNOWS that she could get pregnant when she has sex and I dont understand why so many people are so....OK with just killing a child if its not wanted. Whatever you all say, every ONE of you knows deep down that you are ending the life of an innocent....every healthy pregnancy ends with a BABY, not a rock, and if you dont WANT that baby, dont get pregnant. Abortion should never have become such an issue because it should NEVER have become commonplace to kill a child. And the fact that it has supporters is sickening. Have any of you ever SEEN a baby? Would you smash the skull of an infant? So WHY do it before its born.....because THEN you dont have to face reality that you killed a child. end of story.
Yashmak -
Interesting that you have just admitted that you don't own the unborn child.
I am an Ultrasound tech and feel this is a violation of everything I have ever learned or done in my career. I can tell you that most patients take everything that you say as a tech to heart. So how is the tech supposed to feel when they are performing this type of scan and making someone listen to the heartbeat if they don't want to view the scan. If you are going to make a tech go through this kind of crap and feel like they are punishing the patient then I certainly don't know what I went to school for or have done the last 23 years that would make this even acceptable. If you are cold-hearted, then this is the job for you!!
If you can't even look at what you are doing - then what you are doing is WRONG.
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Many of these women would call the police if they knew someone killed blind, day old puppies.
And yet they want the RIGHT to kill an unborn child that is so much more.
People that support these killings will tell you:
"I'm against abortion, but I want it to be legal."
Is the same as
I'm against dogfighting, but I want it to be legal.
I'm against insider trading, but I want it to be legal.
I'm against rape, but I want it to be legal.
Don't want to have to see a unborn child that you are about to kill?
Here's a novel idea - keep your legs closed. Don't have sex unless you have protection, or are prepared to have a baby.
You are not a dog in heat. You are not an elephant in must.
You have a mind that rules your body.
There are consequences for your actions.
Go to the hospital and look at the premature babies. Do you understand that in the US, we abort hundreds of unborn children a day that are further developed than some of those preemies?
If you must have an abortion, please do it as early in the pregnancy as possible. They don't want to look at the sonogram for a reason. They can see the child. It's not just cells. It may already be responding to stimuli, such as music.
Doing the right thing isn't the easy thing. But it makes it alot easier to sleep at night.
Don't trade a few moments of pleasure in the bedroom for a life of regret.
Because you can turn away from the sonogram, but when it gets quiet at night, and you have nothing but your thoughts - you will wonder what kind of pain the unborn child went through as it was killed.
Ohhhh I see now....its only a baby if its WANTED. Which makes abortion ok......*roll eyes* if that isnt selfish and selfserving, I dont know what is
The same people who are for saving the fetus are the same ones who are against aid for dependent children and funding for prenatal care for women who are pregnant. They say that the unwanted result can be put up for adoption but, what if that child is not perfect. What if it has life threatening medical issues that must be addressed it's entire life. Then who is going to pay for that, they don't want to. Also what if the woman refuses to pay for the additional procedures, she doesn't need or want them, then who pays. If your religious views forbid abortion then by all means follow them but you don't have the right to try and force your religious views down everyone else's throat.
You know, if any of your parents had an abortion you wouldn't be here TRYING to jusify if it is right or wrong. Your parents loved you enough to bring you in to this world, so why not all the babies who had no say so in what their parents did. So I guess it's okay to pick up a child off the street and kill it. It's no different. A child is a child any way you look at it. Oh and by the way, if you don't want a child keep your clothes on. That would solve all the problems.
Ladies, it's back to coat hangers and blood poisoning, again. Interesting, those fetus lovers are mass murderer lovers. Have no problems sending conscious, loving and afraid 19 year old kids in masse to their deaths, meaning war lovers. Pro-life, mass murderers. Aww, the twisting of the Dark Ages minds and worldview.
It's child abuse to make a poor woman have another child when she can't feed the ones she has. Duh!
No one is forcing her to have sex.....
Ryan, I think I can answer your question.
I personally would not have an abortion. I do not know for sure when life begins, but would not feel comfortable with having an abortion.
I have no problem with contraception including the morning after pill. In fact, I use contraception to ensure that I do not become pregnant. I view everything that takes place before conception as being something I am ok with and everything after not something I am comfortable with. This is my choice.
I am very upset when people try to limit my and other's access to contraception and things I believe are ok. Who are they to tell me when life begins? They have no more assurance than I do! Who are they to tell me I can not use the morning after pill if my contraception fails? Who are they to try to pass laws making some forms of contraception illegal?
Well-who am I to tell other women the same? I have no more definite idea as to when life begins than those I criticize. I believe life may begin at conception, but I-like everyone else-really do not know. So where I draw the line is in a different place than others-sooner than some, later than others. What right do I have to insist that the government set the law at he precise place that I believe the line may be-or where anyone believes the line may be?
Society as a whole must draw that line for legal purposes-it will always be an average of what most people feel comfortable with-with those on the earlier and later ends continually pushing the boundaries. However, our constitution was created to create and ensure rights, not to limit them-and that is the mind set with we must approach this balance.
Here's what I don't understand. These hypocrites, if given their way would force a poor 18yr old single mother to keep a child she doesn't want or cannot care for, but once that child is born and the mother needs assistance raising the child she knew she couldn't afford or care for, such as welfare or food stamps, she becomes a drain on society, a "welfare queen," and should stop having kids if she can't afford them. Where is the logic in this? I also find it odd that the same people who scream and holler about abortion and the sanctity of life are also the first ones supporting capital punishment. Anyone else find it strange that this is happening in Texas, the state with more executions than any other. What makes an unborn life more precious than a viable, living, and breathing human life?
lola- your lack of intelligence is only overshadowed by your eagerness to show how unintelligent you are. Ron (why does it not surprise me you're from Texas) we are not talking about a baby - we are talking about a fetus. Your lies in your post that many children are "killed" who are more developed than some preemies shows how far you will go to get what you want and how many lies you'll tell. Again, the far right just wants to control women and to hell with the child once it is born. Again, I see there are no responsibilities for the man who helped with the pregnancy. The ignorance of the far right has no limits!
No, it's a baby when its viable independent of the mother. It's a fetus before then. If its a wanted fetus or not is irrelevant.
Selfish is forcing others to have kids they don't want, or cannot afford, because you feel that a fetus that has no cognition, voluntary movement, or ability to react to external stimuli is somehow a 'baby'.
No one is telling her that she has to keep it. There are so SO many people who would love to adopt a baby. And there is a HUGE difference between abortion and capital punishment. I dont support capital punishment but really, how can you hope to compaire the two? They are nothing alike. Would rather have an innocent baby in the world or a serial killer?
Selfish is continuing to MAKE more babies to be aborted.
If a woman gets in a car (engages in sex for pleasure) and hits someone (gets pregnant when it's not wanted) by mistake, she can sit there and let the person bleed out in the street and go to jail (continue unwanted pregancy) or take remedial measures to try and limit the damage such as calling the cops and medical help for the injured person (abortion). Get it?
Lol you are really compairing NOT letting the person die to KILLING a baby??? Really?...
And had my parents NOT loved or wanted me, I'd have been fine being aborted. Further, since I did not exist cognitively in any form as a fetus, regardless of my feelings now, I think it was the right of my mother to keep me or not regardless.
I don't recall seeing anywhere in the news article that it was written by religious "wingnuts", or any comments quoted by religious "wingnuts". I think the information was provided by just everday, normal, "wingnuts" of any beliefs.
Sex=Pregnancy
Birth control is FREE in many states.
Opening your legs is a women choice. I if it was not Rape would be legal.
Killing is wrong no mater if it is a man, women, child or animal.
So many women do not know that sex = pregnancy? The women choice starts at opening her legs.
Rape, incest, major birth defects and mothers health should be the only reasons for this procedure.
They don't want to hear the heart beat because only a living thing has a heart beat. Killing a living thing is murder. They don't want to hear the heart beat because then they know 100% that they are committing murder.
Adoption = A great life for a unwanted child and gives parents who unable to conceive the child that they always wanted to love to hold to care for.
I understand the choices women have. Yes I have been in some of these women shoes. I made a mistake and got pregnant at 15 years old. I made the choice for life and now that child who I could have killed is now a happy healthy 15 year old with his whole life ahead of him and he is a great kid. Just so you know I have walked a mile or 9 months in their shoes. I made my bed and I laid in it. The problem with America is we have all learned to take the easy way out of every thing and no longer have to deal with the consequences of our actions as we should.
Well, I see the usual liberals here spewing their anti-life message including the always present Sarah-3043284 who seems to have an ego the size of Texas. Now go protect a seal, whale, or tree as we all know they are much more important than a human life.
I'm comparing YOUR metaphor about consequences of actions to it's logical counterparts of the abortion argument. Remember, the metaphor is by your design, not mine.
Getting in the car is sex, the pregnancy is the accident, and how the accident is resolved (medical attention or not) is the decision on whether an abortion is preformed or not.
And FYI, the more ridiculous comparison is equating abortion to the act of running someone over in a truck.
@Sarah-3043284 - Of course you had to insult me, because it makes you feel intellectually superior. You never addressed the situation I posed and rather ran off discussing an entirely different argument. Dissension will never prove your level of intelligence to be greater than anyone elses; it merely highlights your superiority complex.
As you did for another poster earlier in your snide response I will take this real slow for you as well:
If you ask your doctor for him/her to perform a procedure on you and there are rules your doctor must follow before performing that procedure that you requested, and you don't like those rules he must follow than he is invading your privacy? Is that what you're trying to assert? The doctor has to follow procedure, whether you like it or not and our laws in this Country are passed with the intention that they will benefit society. What is the massive issue with a woman having to understand the procedure before doing it? You would have doctors perform botox without telling a woman that there could be side effects because you simply do not wish to understand the ramifications of the procedure - so you choose ignorance.
Selfish implies intent. Nobody intends to make a baby to abort. Maybe there is irresponsibility at play, but then abortion is a responsible answer to that irresponsibility.
Your issue would then be to reduce irresponsibility, but not reduce access to abortions.
Sad State
If the rules were put in place because of medical need-that would be one thing.
What right does the government have to put rules in place for the sole purpose of having a woman rethink having a legal procedure. All other rules for procedures are put into place based on medical need. This one has no medical value what so ever.
You used the example of botox. The ramifications are explained to the woman because they effect her medically. The sonogram does not do this.
Abortion is legal. Why can the government insist you have a procedure that is not needed before you can have a legal procedure?
Sharper.....men don't have the right to kill? Yet there is the death sentence and Texas loves that law! Kind of hypocritical isn't it? I am as free and equal as any man! And i do not support the death sentences....i do how ever support the right of a Women to make her own choices. The baby is not a baby it is a fetus and does not have a heart beat for 6 weeks, if you have an abortion before this time , i do not see this as a problem at all.
Lola - Please explain to me the huge difference between abortion and capital punishment. A life is a life is it not? If every baby that has been aborted was put into an orpahnge waiting for adoption how many children would that be? We would be talking about millions of children that need to be feed, clothed, and educated, and it would be the tax payer carrying that burden. Look it really is this simple. If you don't agree or believe in abortion DON"T have one, but where the hell do you get the right to tell another human beign what they can and can't do? Who made you the final arbitar of right and wrong? Just like you have no right to tell someone how to raise their kids, you have no right to tell someone they must keep an unwanted fetus. Oh and just another thing about my first point. There is a differnce between abortion and capital punishment. Capital punishment kills a viable independently living human while abortion destroys a fetus that would not live for one second independently of the mother. Get off your high horse cause your high and mighty ass ain't no better than anyone on this forum or any mother walking into a clinic for an abortion.
A woman is fully aware of what an abortion entails. The risks and results of it are fully understood factually. Preying upon emotional susceptibility because of hormones and/or guilt has nothing to do with informed consent.
EngEsq - no drunk driver intends to kill people. But when they do, would you still say it's OK, they had no intent to kill?
As for guilt -
Guilt only works when what you are doing is wrong.
This is why the women are afraid to see the sonogram.
They know what they are doing is wrong.
Oh and one more thing Lola......That serial killer was once an innocent baby. Maybe if their mother aborted them we would all have been better off!
if sonograms are the law then she should be the states expense. Also that a sonogram must be performed within 24hrs of making the appointment and that the women has the right to record the visit.
I can not stand all of this "opening your legs" talk!
Fact- women who are married have unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies do not just happen to people who you would call "sluts" who "open their legs" for anyone.
Fact- pregnancy requires more than a woman opening her legs-it requires a man putting something between those legs. Blaming the woman alone is an antiquated idea.
Fact-the same people politically who are against abortion are also against making contraception more available. You want to prevent unwanted pregancies? Make the moring after pill easier to get. Don't fight against obama's plan to reduce the cost of contraception. Make sure condoms are available in every dorm of every college campus.
If woman didnt have such an easy time being able to "fix" this paticular problem, maybe they would learn to be more careful. IF they are not INDENDING to make a baby, they probably shouldnt be having sex, seeing as how the purpose of sex is REPRODUCTION.
uchusky99 - Good question and I honestly appreciate your speaking to me without insults - that is rare here.
If a drug or medical procedure can have an effect on someone's mental health or mental well being should that not be discussed with the patient also?
Again, the patient in this situation can decline the sonogram sound and visual, they are still given the choice.
Which pharmacists have been refusing to provide to women because of their (the pharm.) RELIGIOUS beliefs.
So, you have a DNR order to stop the doctors from using CPR on you, do you? And a living will to prevent them from using machines to prolong your life? As you said, life ends when the heart stops beating.
Did I tell anyone that they CANT? I said its a horrible thing to do, that they SHOULD NOT, but nowhere did I say CANT. I also never said that capital punishment was OK, so Im not really sure where youre going with this line of thought. Also...mother? If you believe she is a MOTHER already, you must believe it is a baby in her womb....or she wouldnt be a mom, would she
Ryan, Everyone, Lola...
For the love of God!!!!!!!
Believe whatever you like, and do whatever you want with your body. Preach, pray, practice, I don't care. But the bottomline is and will remain, as much as you may want to tell me what to do with my body, YOU CAN'T. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT.
Until you can prove, definitively through science, when human life begins, prove it like we can prove how airplanes fly or cars drive, you have no legality or right to dictate to anyone.
All of this preaching is your freedom to expression, but you don't have the freedom to change facts. And you don't have the freedom to dictate what I must do with my body based on your expressions.
Fact: You can't prove when human life begins.
This law does not even make sense. If the woman can opt to not hear the heartbeat or see the sonogram, why do they even have the law? They could choose to hear and see if they want without a law.
Leave women alone. Let them make their own grown up choices.
Sarah is right about her 1st point in multiple arguments. When does "life" begin. It is not at conception. That is a religious, not scientific point of view. Once it is determined, then maybe that should be the cut-off. Children born at 22-24 weeks have a fighting chance at survival in the right hospitals, so maybe we should let real doctors tell us when a fetus could survive, hence, making it a "life".
also is it only okay for priest to perform abortions on wives suspected of being unfaithful?
Sad State
People on all sides are guilty of name caling on here. I enjoy a well though out educated debate. It is what makes this country great!
I do think that the effect on mental health should be considered. However-having a procedure such as a sonogram seems to go to far-at least for the government to insist upon. If a woman does not wish to have the sonogram, and feels she has enough information to make te choice on an emotional basis to have a legal procedure-how is it the government's role to insist that she have it anyway? There is no medical value to performing the sonogram.
Abortion, like it or not is legal in our government. As long as it is-how does the government have the right to force a woman to have a procedure with the sole purpose of disuading her from having a legal procedure?
This is like the government officially saying "it is legal but we are going to try to talk you out of doing it or make you feel bad if you do." How is that the right of the government to do on anything?
You can infer an intention to kill by getting intoxicated and acting egregiously, but it is a very high standard. In most drunk driving cases it is a vehicular manslaughter charge, where the intent element is not to kill, but rather acting negligent in a manner that results in death.
Murder charges (where an intent to kill is found due to willful activity) would be reserved for people with convicted DUI who are highly intoxicated and driving recklessly.
Anyways we digress.
Sarah,
"On the otherhand, the government has complete control of the women's body. It can tell her she has to be pregnant. It can force her to have uncessary procedures."
The Government didn't make this woman pregnant. SHE did. Her and her partner. While maybe this time she will go through with the abortion, maybe she will THINK before spreading her legs next time. THINK about the person she is with, and if she wants or doesn't want a child with him. THINK about maybe using some form of birth control.
As a woman, I'm all for it.
When you liberals can explain to me Why the Killing of over 40mil innocent babies since Roe Vs Wade is CHOICE, and the Killing of the 6million Jews and other innocents that the Nazi's killed was MURDER I'll consider changing my mind
If the women want to go into the back alley's and use wire hangers, we should allow her, that is her right.Then that serves her right, because she knows what the consequences will be. If she feels it's okay to take a life then let her take her own.
The problem here is that the government has passed this law under the pretense of giving a woman more information. What is, in fact, an attempt to manipulate a woman into doing what they think she should be doing, which is having the baby.
This same govenment doesn't want to teach teenagers about birth control, etc. Yes, I know that when you have sex, regardless of contraception, you risk pregnancy. But it's not realistic to expect people to simply abstain from sex. They ask Catholic priests to do that and we all know how that's turning out.
When you force a woman to undergo a procedure, then you should be paying for it, and her lost wages. So the sonograms and the lost wages incurred should be covered by the government because they are forcing it on the woman.
But if the government focused on education and contraception, there would be a huge reduction in the number of women seeking abortion. This is supported by a statistics from many areas and countries. When contracteption education goes up, unwanted pregnancies go down.
In addition, if you expect a woman to have a baby she is unable to raise, you should then be providing extra support and assistance. How about fully paid maternity leave, free childcare, etc. Because these women cannot afford to raise the baby and probably do not have people to turn to for support. They probably can't even afford the medical bills from the pregnancy, much less the actual child rearing costs.
In countries that provide full support to mothers, allowing them to have fully paid mat leave, or even fully paid paternity leave, free childcare, etc, the abortion rate is much lower.
So if you don't want women to have abortions, the way to stop it is to have good sex education (something that Texas is known to lack), and to also have major financial support for mothers giving them the opportunity to have the baby and have the resources to raise it.
so i f you get married but not ready for children should not consummate marriage? How many children are on the wait list to be adopted
You think an abortion is easy?! At a minimum it is an invasive medical procedure that tends to be quite costly. Then there are the residual emotional effects. I would never consider an abortion to be "easy".
Lol. I have two kids (and another on the way). My purpose of having sex has been approximately 0.15% for reproduction and 99.85% for the bonds this generates, physical pleasure, and recreation. And that only includes my wife. Add in my hormone infused college girlfriends and that percentage grows further.
I don't watch myself in the mirror when going to the bathroom. And I really don't want to. So, is it wrong for me to defecate?
That fine. Explain the procedure. The tools used. The actions performed. The procedure does not require the patient to look at anything other than the forms she will need to sign. The procedure does not require a doctor to continue describing the fetus even after the patient asks them not to. For Christ's sake, why not have the doctor be required to use at least a dozen nice adjectives while describing? "And this part here is your beautiful baby's head. Look at what such strong limbs he/she has!"
Friggin ridiculous.
I've had to fire people. I felt guilty about it, but it was for the best of the company, they were not performing at all, and they were honestly miserable in the position. The decision to find someone else was the right one, but I still felt guilty doing it. People experience guilt for many reasons, and they are not always tied to the morality of the situation.
Easy, no babies were killed. Just like no chickens are killed when I make an omelet.
-> Lola007: I feel your frustration and you've made some very compelling points but unfortunately, there are many that are so convinced of the lie that they won't hear it. Don't give up though!!
-> Sarah-3043284: To answer your question very simply without offending you with religion or "papal dogma", keeping it strictly scientific lets look at the seven requirements of life... 1) Organization (has DNA), 2) Homeostasis, 3) Metabolism, 4) Movement, 5) Growth, 6) Response to Stimuli, & 7) Reproduction. Can you honestly say that these requirements are not fulfilled from the moment that cell division begins?
Dan in NM, I hate that the term life is thrown into this conversation, because your definition is one of many accepted definitions, but if we use it in this context removing an appendix is equivalent to murder.
Possibly "human life" or "person" is the better term to argue over.
EngEsq - well said on all your posts.
Dan in NM -
You should go 10 years without sex because your wife doesn't want any more children. Lola007 says that if you don't want kids, don't have sex. Your wife should wait until menopause is complete before she has sex with you again. I wonder if that will make you change your tune.
In the end this is not a question of the morality of an abortion. If men were forced to have prostate and rectal exams just to secure a prescription for Viagra, every one of you supporting this sonogram law would change your tune. I believe plastic surgery is wrong so let's force people to have extra procedures and appointments showing them pictures of horrific plastic surgery gone wrong.
This a question of how the government is forcing women to pay more, incur more lost wages, and limit availability in an effort to manipulate them into reversing their decision to have what is a LEGAL PROCEDURE.
Janine,
I can't do that until you can prove to me I'm killing a baby if I have an abortion. Until the scientific community can prove that through valid science, where question is pointless.
Dan,
That equals life, not human life per se. So hunting is murder? Animals have civil rights than??? If those are your qualifications for a living thing which is granted civil rights, we have a serious murder epidemic on our hands. Way bigger than just abortion.
People are going to do what they're going to do. They're going to call it what they want. They're going to rationalize it they way they need to rationalize it - and it's different for everybody. The Texas law is oppressive. Just as requiring funding from everyone to support this law and abortion generally is oppressive. Do what you do, pay for it yourself along with the father, or get funds from private charities, family, friends or others who are willing to pay for it. No federal funding though, since it isn't something everyone believes in - nor should we expect everyone to support it, financially or otherwise.
I agree in the sense that we can sit here and argue potentiality, future-like-ours, or interest views til the cows come home but until we realize that the fetus either is or is not its own person, we will get nowhere. I've read some comments saying that "it will possibly become a person" and this is a load of hogwash. It either is or is not a person! Some fetuses do not occasionally just become an extra organ or develop into a Chrystler Sebring or an emu... they are not possibly or potentially people, they are people with their own individually combined chromosomal makeup from both parents.
Dan in NM - Concerning Sarah's idea that you can't call something alive until it is born :
Look at an acorn. Once it sprouts, it is a live oak tree. Sure, it doesn't even have leaves yet. Sure it has no bark. Sure, it looks different than a fully grown oak tree that towers over a yard. But it is still a living oak tree.
Consider the chicken egg. Way before the chick cracks it's way out of it's egg womb, it's alive. Would anyone who sees it moving around inside the egg say it isn't alive?
The earliest premature baby to survive outside the womb is currently 21 weeks (decreasing all the time with medical advances). So we can all agree that of the 36 months of standard pregnancy, anything past 21 weeks would be considered killing a child that could survive outside the womb.
But if you really want to drill down on the exact definition of life - look no further than those that support or provide abortions.
EVEN THEY SAY THEY ARE KILLING THE FETUS.
BY DEFINITION, TO KILL SOMETHING, IT HAS TO BE ALIVE.
My appendix has it's own chromosomal makeup from my parents. It's not human.
Twins have chromosomal makeup, but they are not unique or individual to just one person. They are human however.
Relying on pure DNA is a foolhardy way to determine if something is human. If we ever clone someone, the clone will be human, regardless that the DNA is merely a copy.
What makes us human is based in our cognition, sentience, and ability to perceive. I personally am not sure when one becomes a person, but even taking an extremely conservative stab at it places the minimum age to be at least 28 weeks or so.
Ryan,
BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HUMAN TO BE ALIVE.
Oh, and by the way, if we were to go by Dave's definition, when you eat that baby chick, you'd be a murderer.
3Thirty,
Are you incapable of having a substantive discussion, or do you just enjoy insulting people who aren't even addressing you and that you don't know?
At least try to add something to the debate, however misinformed it will probably be.
Otherwise, you really just look like a coward. You know, that kid who used to sit in the back of the classroom and shout insults at people because he had low self-esteem due to his inability to keep up...
Yeah, you sound like that.
Actually EngEsq, your appendix is human... or what else could it be? Alien? Mineral? or maybe it's dolphin... nevertheless, removing an organ is not the same as abortion because your organs do not develop into a separate being with their own sentience. On that subject, how do any of us know when sentience begins? If you can't answer that then you have no right to say that the unborn don't have it and therefore are acceptible for elimination. Because to say that sentience is only connected with awareness and memory is the same as promoting infanticide.
Bottom line it is fine to believe anything you want to, i respect your opinion. It ends there when your opinion is forced upon me! And that is what this is all about . Stay out of my business and i will stay out of yours!
Sarah - you're awesome.
These guys arguing about the fetus being a live person and the morality of the abortion itself are missing the point. The point is that because abortion is a legal medical procedure, this law violates roe vs wade and constitutional rights by forcing a woman to spend more, lose more wages, and limit availability to the legal procedure in an attempt to manipulate her personal decision.
These same guys don't talk about abstaining from sex within their own marriage because their wife might not want more kids. They don't think that needing Viagra is wrong or that you should have to have an invasive, attempted guilt-trip procedure to be eligible to receive it.
They don't talk about educating teenagers about contraception to prevent the pregnacy to begin with, or providing support for women having children such as fully paid mat leave and free childcare.
I personally am pro-choice but I do abhor abortions. I think that with better education, etc we can prevent more unwanted pregnancies and reduce the need for them. I don't judge any woman who has one as I am sure it is a personally heart-wrenching decision to make. In fact, it's probably just luck/fate that has prevented me from needing to make that decision. I can remember a couple of scary times when I thought I was going to have to make that decision.
These same anti-abortion people also don't talk about holding the men who impregnate women accountable. And this law and laws like it are an attempt to control and manipulate women. It is statistically proven that countries that value its women and don't try to control their bodies have a happier society and more people in that society live good lives and there is less poverty.
Thank you MB!!
I just don't get how people feel they have the right to infiltrate my body with their religion. It is the ultimate "government control" and than they turn around and scream about wanting "limited government".
Until someone forces them to have an abortion or when science can prove when HUMAN life begins, they have no right. None.
I am sick unto death of having my body and my privacy turned into a political and religious wedge issue.
They should really learn to breathe through their noses. It will make life easier for them.
Keep it to yourself, Hoosier Daddy; smearing everyone in a region is grenade trolling just like blanketing everyone in a religion or ethnicity.
wheels460, LiFe&LiBeRtY.defender, you're each suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
1.1 deleted, LiFe&LiBeRtY.defender copypasting someone else's writing without sourcing. Don't.
There was a time when society lived under the assumption that men had complete autonomy over their households and that women had no rights, this was argued for its injustice and women were granted their autonomy. How now is the argument for women's autonomy over their bodies any different? They are arguing that their own autonomy supercedes that of the autonomy of the life inside them? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Sarah: I have not brought up any "religious" support in my points for the very reason that you asked for simply scientific reasoning, which I did... you ignored my points and held on to your argument. It has nothing to do with forcing "religion" upon anyone but simply looking at the inconsistancies in the arguments of those who scream for "my body, my choice". If you'd like to talk religion and its implications on morality, I'm totally down for that conversation but I was trying to respect your wishes for a secular answer.
mb: please do not presume to know where I stand and what my beliefs are. You don't know where my wife and I are in our marriage and the choices that we make. I don't judge you, so please keep that in mind. As far as comparing this law of a required sonogram and requiring an invasive procedure like a prostate exam for men to get Viagra... I don't necessarily disagree with that if it were medically necessary but the two aren't even in the same ballpark so let's try to stay rational here.
Dan,
If the religious part doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply, but you haven't answered the most important question...
When does human life begin???
You can't answer it, because science doesn't know, and your belief of when it may or may not begin doesn't equal actual scientific proof.
I also answered you, I just mistakenly addressed it to Dave, I think...
I guess I did have your name on it. The bold part was my response to you.
Life doesn't equal human life. And human life, is the only type of life afforded full civil rights. Animals might be afforded protection under the law, but they aren't afforded civil rights. They can't vote, they don't need to be served warrants before having their spaces searched, they aren't afforded equal protection, because they don't have legal capacity. As I said, if we go by your definition, we could all go to jail for running over racoons.
Human life, is the only life endowed with civil rights through the Constitution, and science can't prove when human life begins. You can have your belief of when it does, but simply stating that belief doesn't make it true.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can say that it classifies as life but not human life? Do humans occasionally give birth to non-humans? Are fetuses comprised of anything other than human material? So if I hear your argument... they are alive.. but not human, is that right? So what in your opinion is the definition of "human".
My appendix is not a human, merely cellular material with human DNA.
They could if stem cells in the tissue were properly treated and nurtured. It may not happen naturally, or be done yet, but we are getting there. Regardless, you are relying upon what something DEVELOPS into, not what it is to identify if it's human. There is your flaw.
Easy, measurable evidence. I'm communicating with you and it's clear you have cognition and sentience. Even if you were in a coma and couldn't communicate we could measure brain activity to determine if anyone is there.
With a fetus they have severely underdeveloped neural activity through 28 weeks or so. I say underdeveloped not only in relation to a average person, but even in comparison to basic vertebrates and even some invertebrates.
I answered it.
Not at all. At some point a baby can react to outside stimulus. Babies are able to recognize a mother's sound and scent pretty early on. Just to be safe I'd say a viable fetus of 28 weeks is a person. But before 26 weeks the biological machinery necessary for sentience is missing.
Yes, look up molar pregnancy for example. Further, what is given birth under normal conditions (human) is different than what is in the uterus prior (fetus).
So is my appendix. Your point?
Correct. Like any human cellular mass. Hell these same traits apply to a cellular culture of pluripotent stem cells, but those are not human either.
I state mine above, I do not presume to reply for Sarah.
Dan,
I don't know when human life begins, no one really does, that's why it's so obviously illegal and intrusive to tell someone what to do in regards to abortion. All I can do is follow my conscience, but I have zero legal right to tell anyone else what to do. You can follow your conscience too, but on top of that, you're also trying to tell people what to do. You can't. You don't have the right.
Can you not see the difference between life and human life??? If there is no differece than you advocate for civil rights for animals?
If you don't advocate for civil rights for animals, than there must be a difference between life and human life.
And, by the way, your opinion still doesn't constitute legal, scientific, proof.
Very well stated Sarah. Sometimes I get so bogged down in the weeds that I forget the big picture.
So there you have it folks - people that tell you a chick that is pecking at it's shell from the inside isn't alive or a chicken until it breaks out.
These are the same people that tell you they are against abortion, but want it to be legal (Like being against burning down abortion clinics, but wanting it to be legal).
Roe vs. Wade asserts a right for the woman to do what she wants to her body, but it doesn't allow a third party to kill a unborn child. (Many people have been prosecuted for the murder of unborn children, including the recent story of the guy who shot a pregnant mother in the belly during a robbery). You can't claim privacy when you go to a PUBLIC abortion clinic. And we can regulate what a Doctor can or cannot do.
The next stage is regulating the doctors who perform these killings. They have no constitutional protections (other than their own personal rights). They can be taxed, they can be limited in the number of proceedures in a day, week, or year.
We need to use the law as it is currently interpreted. I have a right to vote, and that is actually in the constitution. But that doesn't mean I can drive to the polls without a license. It doesn't mean I can vote without ID. It doesn't mean I get to choose the location or date of the election.
We simply need to regulate the killing of unborn children until it is truely safe for both the mom and the child.
Our current laws allow abortion only through viability or unless there are health issues for the mother. A chick pecking out of an egg is viable obviously, so your analogy is highly flawed.
Ummm, no doctor's office is public. Sorry that you obviously have a massive misunderstanding of what the right to privacy is about.
I think you just missed what the Supreme Court rulled in Roe v Wade... you cannot regulate abortions prior to viability, and if this statute is found to be an undue burden on this right, it will be struck down (as many others have been).
Sarah-3043284 - Human life has been decided by the precedent set in many murder cases. There is also scientific evidence that life begins at conception:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
excerpt:
...and I am sure there are scientists that say otherwise as well. So until the Scientific community comes to a concensus it appears to be up to inerpretation, so I choose to believe the Scientific proof that life begins at conception and you choose not to believe - and that is your choice. You can also choose to get pregnant or not.
Liberal Logic = a person is not a person until they can fend for themselves and a human being is not human until it can be seen and proven.
so, if seeing is believing then that means that there is no such thing as wind and light is a figment of our imaginations.
You're all (those on pro-abortion side) arguing for the ability to maintain rights but in your arguments you're fighting for the very ideas that eliminate them. I've never once mentioned the legality of abortion because that treads areas of government imposing their ideals on our lives but in regards to this article, giving all the information necessary to call it what it is and not continue to keep the uninformed in the dark so they can make their decisions based on someone else's agenda (Planned Parenthood for one), is at least acting responsibly and if it makes some people feel guilty because they can't handle dealing with the truth of what they are deciding to do, then maybe it's time they pull their head from out of the sand and wake up to reality. Keeping the uninformed in a state of ignorance is no different than when the slave owners prevented the slaves from learning how to read and write so they could keep them in a place of subjugation. It has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with finally putting accountability into action for those who would try to sweep the truth under the rug and continue their arguments with tangential responses.
Faye Wattleton (born Alyce Faye Wattleton; July 8, 1943) is the first African-American and youngest President ever elected to Planned Parenthood (1978–1992). Currently, she serves as the President of the Center for the Advancement of Women, and also serves on the board of trustees at Columbia University. She is best known for her contributions to the family planning and reproductive health, as well as the pro-choice movement.
Sad,
The precedent set in many murder cases???? What??? No it isn't, because murder doesn't equal abortion under the law, so what happens in murder cases is automatically off point when speaking about abortion.
Yep, I sure can. I can also choose to get pregnant and have an abortion. I can also not choose to get pregnant and have an abortion.
I can also choose, if I'm having an abortion, to not have a sonogram.
But, you know what you still can't do... PROVE WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS, OR TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY.
Good. Grief.
Ok new plan. We genetically engineer a retrovirus that eliminates the tight junctions in the sertoli cells. This will cause an autoimmune reaction against sperm, thereby dramatically reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
Of course we would need to be able to reverse the pathology on demand.
Just an idea.
Sarah-3043284 - I just showed you the proof of when life begins with references - you just choose to remain illiterate and not believe.
Did you even read my quote from the head of Planned Parenthood - or do your eyes immediately skip facts that support my arguments?
The logic of people these days amazes me:
One more thing: Roe vs. Wade did nothing to block any state from establishing rights for the unborn. A simple rule that doctors must not do anything to harm either patient in any proceedure (both the mother and the child) will solve this problem. All the states have to do is to clearify the rights that already exist for the unborn.
The state has a right to prevent a mother from drinking heavily during pregnancy, for example. They simply need to extend those protections.
There is no constitutional right to an abortion. I challenge any of you to provide a quote of the US constitution that mentions abortions being a right.
There is a right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Your reference states that the fertilized ovum is the "beginning, or primordium, of a human being". The words beginning is colloquial for the scientific terminology which is most accurately defined as "the simplest set of initial conditions capable of triggering growth."
This was never in question. The meristem of an embryonic plant is the beginning/primordium of the leafs and stalk. Also like ectodermal tissue is the primordium of glial cells in humans.
Note that the author of your reference did not state that the fertilized ovum is a "human being" but rather the "primordium human being".
The biology is that nothing needs be externally added for the fertilized ovum to become a person, but the same can be said for any number of pluripotent cells if placed in the proper conditions. Please don't take scientific language and portray it in a way contrary to its original meanings.
I guess we can score another useless victory for the American Taliban...
You can't say when it begins either and yet you wish to argue for the legitimacy of abortion because someone can't say when life begins... that is an argument standing on the fact that something is simply because it can't be proven otherwise. I'm saying that since it can't be proven either way, we have to trust that since it is the beginning of a human life, it should be treated as such. You wish to argue that it isn't a human life with the civil rights inherant to every human being simply because there is no proof of when senitience begins... WAKE UP!!! You are arguing against yourself and you don't even realize it! And no one is telling you what to do with your body, they are simply trying to get the point across that your autonomy as a woman over your body does not supercede the autonomy of the body that grows inside. If someone's going to choose to engage in actions that results in pregnancy (i.e. sexual intercourse, whether protected or not because the information has been made quite clear that the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy is through abstinance), then they need to be ready to accept the consequences for their actions which range from possible STD's to the responsibility of possibly having another life being the result of their union.
False. They tried and failed that already.
Also false, the constitution is designed to be interpreted by the courts, so even obtuse rationals of the constitution when interpreted by the court are binding in the same way as the document's enumerated langauge.
Dan,
This is freaking ridiculous...
Again, I'm arguing for the legality of choice. I don't have to show when human life begins, because I'm not telling anyone they HAVE to do something. The burden of proof is on the person who is limiting liberty, not expanding it. Because I can't prove when human life begins, I have no right to tell someone they have to have an abortion, or that they can't have an abortion, I can only make the decision for myself. Why is this so hard for you to understand. It's Civics 101.
No, no I don't. I don't have to trust anything that can't be proven to me. And again, prove to me it's the beginning of a human life. Do you see what you just did??? First you said, since we can't prove it either way (when human life begins) then you said, we have to trust that since it's the begnning of human life...
What? You started the sentence by saying the very thing you were relying on to prove your point couldn't be proven!!!!
If that is your argument, than you can not logically ever eat another steak without going to jail. Rats don't have sentience either, we don't offer them civil rights. Although, logic doesn't seem to be your forte.
YOUR BELIEF DOESN'T EQUAL PROOF!!!
Tyler--if you will take a moment to notice it, the majority of people who appear to be paid trolls have the word "texas" in their handle. It is quite possible that this is part of the requirements of their job. Just sayin'
janelle-3694233 had this to say:
Actually, Janelle, if a person doesn't have access to abortion, the a child is going to get born once it was conceived whether or not the child's parents "love" that child. This is the point. A child that is not "loved" is not going to be brought into the world if there is an option of abortion--this means that fewer unloved, unwanted children are born to people who will then neglect or abuse them. A lower number of abused, neglected children means a lower number of criminals. A lower number of criminals means a lower murder rate.
Note that the murder rate today is 50% of what it was before abortion was legalized. The violent crime rate is similarly, and dramatically, lower.
Not every child who would have been born would have turned into a criminal, but the point is that children who are unwanted by their mothers, so much so that the mother will have an abortion, are not among the population that is likely to turn out well or to have stellar lives. They might be born with FAS, they might be born with a drug addiction, the might be beaten into not identifying with other people any more . . . . it isn't likely that they will have good lives.
Remember that it is "liberals" who want to have the highest quality sex education in schools, who want to offer birth control to teens and reduced-cost (or free) birth control to others who want to avoid pregnancy, who want to allow women to put babies up for adoption regardless of what the father thinks (in certain circumstances--this gives options to women who have been impregnated by men who turn out to be abusers who are happy to prevent them from putting the child up for adoption so that the woman and child remain at that man's mercy for the next 18 years), who want to offer free medical care to women who are pregnant and also to protect their jobs--it is conservatives who simply want to eradicate legal abortion.
Yes, it would be nice if only those children whose parents love them were born--but you absolutely cannot assume that for anyone over the age of 40 (and I assure you that I am, in fact, over the age of 40). Have a great day.
EngEsq - The quote also said:
This is just one of many quotes that defines Human development. So unless we agree to discard Human Rights, this developing cell is the beginning of a Human, that deserves Human Rights the same as any other human.
As I quoted earlier - the head of Planned Parenthood stated very clearly that people who do not believe abortion is killing are denying the truth.
beanathome - I am not questioning the validity of your statements, but I would like to see your sources for those astounding statistics - those are amazing if true. Can you post references for those? Thank you.
SadstateAmerica - You are talking to people who think killing unborn children is OK.
Don't waste to much time on them.
You have a good evening.
Ryan,
Good advice. Come back when you have more then just beliefs.
Sarah Queen - I read what you posted, and I feel compelled to respond. You stated that the definition of the end of life is that the heart stops beating, and therefore the beginning of life is when the heart starts beating. If that were true, then anyone who has ever experienced cardiac arrest (a heart attack) would be dead, and yet many of them are still walking around among us. The definition of the end of life is when all brain activity ceases.
You are free to oppose abortion, but please do not quote medical misinformation to support your position.
The people who support these stupid and ignorant laws and who are anti-abortion should have to be forced by another stupid and ignorant law to have to support and raise all these babies that should have been aborted and ones that women did not want to begin with.
Abortion is a great and wonderful solution and has so many more benefits than any negatives. Please please please support abortion and all the pros and benefits that it has. Women should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies.
Pro Choice. Pro Women's Rights.
This issue is about the privacy of a woman. Bottom line. Keep your laws off their bodies.
Abort Abort Abort. Abortion should be 100% legal and available by serveral doctors in 1,000s of cities in each state. Women should be praised and complimented on choosing to have an abortion. We should thank them and tell them what an awesome and great decision that was to have an abortion. You did a fantastic thing in making that choice for yourself and for your child. It is your body and your life, and you should be able to do whatever you want to your body and your life.
Help the world, especially population control. If I was a baby born under adverse and unwanted circumstances, I would not want to be born. That is my choice. Support my choice by aborting me before I am born.
Abortion is fantastic and a wonderful decision for any woman to make. Be proud to abort. No shame.
As usual the hypocritical right is always talking about smaller less intrusive government unless it is one of their sacred cows. I could have sworn that during the health care debate Texas was one of the biggest complainers that the government was mandating they buy something they didn't want. Now they are making women buy health care they don't want. Of course this is different... how I don't know but that is what they will say.
I just wish that the right would make up their minds. is government too big or does it have the right to interfere with my life
SadState: You are simply making the argument for choice. You may adhere to your religious definition of when life begins or that abortion is "sin" and others have their guiding principles. Many religions have no prohibition on abortion, leaving that up to the individual..and our laws are not determined by religious interpretation in any case. You're wrong. There is a right to abortion. The US constitution specifically covers women's rights of privacy, which the US Supreme Court in Roe v.Wade has said prohibits government interference in a woman's decision before the fetus is viable on it's own, or to save the life or health of the mother. Give it up. You've long ago lost the ability to mandate controls over women's bodies thorugh the constitution. All you have left is making it nearly impossible for women who can't afford either birth control, abortion or children to have any say in the matter...and that's why Texas and backward states like it, have the scorn of educated and thinking citizens everywhere.
Good for Texas. It's about time that women were made to realize exactly what they're doing.
The sonogram has always been performed as a routine part of the process.
Now, women will be truly informed before they give consent.
Killing babies is a horrible industry.
Women already know what they're doing thank you very much. We're not a bunch of ignoramuses like you.
Women know exactly what they are doing. They think long and hard before making such a decision.
Whenever the issue of 'abortion' is addressed there always seems to be a preponderance of testosterone-fueled, overly aggressive MEN whom are more than willing to stick their noses into the business of women! Well, I probably could have phrased that better, but I think we all know what I mean.
For MEN to have the temerity to loudly and sanctimoniously preach to women about decisions women must make about their own bodies is not only the height of male arrogance, ... it's just plain pathetic!
Did the men who talked these women into having sex in the first place think about what they were doing? I'm really sick of how everyone just assumes it's the woman's fault. Especially a teenage girl. When a teenage girl has a boyfriend, all she is thinking about is holding hands, going out, and getting that good night kiss. While in high school, my friends who had boyfriends weren't thinking about sex and having abortions - the boys were the ones putting constant pressure to go out and have sex. For the few girls I knew that did get pregnant, the boy simply walked away. As soon as men and boys stop pressuring women and girls to have sex, the abortion rate will really drop. A woman doesn't just simply walk down the street one day and BAM! she's pregnant. Someone made her pregnant.
How's that whole commitment to "limited government" working out for you, Steve? I suppose next you'd like small government police officers in every hospital room forcing women at gunpoint to come to term with their pregnancies?
Abortion in America is FAR from a woman's choice!!! There are exceptions, of course, but in the greater majority of cases the abortion decision is made by the father of the baby, NOT THE MOTHER. The father either bullies the mother into it or simply walks away leaving her at the time in her life when she is most vulnerable and most needs his financial and emotional support. She feels she HAS NO OTHER CHOICE.
So we should try to guilt trip women into having kids that they don't want or can't care for, just so we have something to whine about when they need support from the govt?
Strange, isn't it ??? Those who worship at the feet of "Choice" will leave no stone unturned to deny to women the right to information which would lead to an informed decision. Abortion in America, today, means choice ONLY when the choice is death. If she makes any other choice everything hits the fan. Remember how hysterical so-called prochoicers became when Sara Palin chose to give life to her special needs son and when, about a year later, her daughter Bristol Palin chose to give life to her out-of-wedlock son !!!
Steven B - Who are YOU to tell a woman what SHE should do with her OWN body? Must be easy to preach considering you don't have the ability to become pregnant and can never practice what you preach. Not your problem right? Since it's not your problem because it doesn't concern you, then it's also none of your business. Let others decide what they want to do with THEIR body. It's their right. I hope none of your female relatives are ever the victims of rape and forced to give up their life to raise a child they had no intention of creating.
Oh, please. I for one would never make abortion illegal, but the "pro" arguments here run from absurd comments about imprisoning uteruses (or was it vaginas?) and a "war" against women, to Hot-in-Miami's vapid platitude, "who are you to tell a woman what she can do with her own body." Woman can neither shoot up heroin in THEIR bodies nor use THEIR bodies for sex-for-money--and countless other forbidden acts, most of which about the Left complains little. (Oh, and thanks for the rape comment. Just what precentage of abortions are from rape, H-I-M?) The modern Left is leaving me behind with their insistence that somebody, somewhere interfere and regulate every aspect of our lives, except when it comes to that one action they seem to love so much: abortion. Put lung cancer operations on cigarette packs, arrest small chidren for sexual harrassment, ban Happy Meal toys, but do not interfere with abortion!
Matilda, do you have to stand on your head to twist the truth that much? Despite the indoctrination YOU seem to have bought into, women DO have brains and they DO use them when they make difficult decisions! I'm sick to death of you "lifers" acting like you are the only ones who know anything and are capable of informed decisions. A woman facing the prospects of an abortion has many avenues for information without the government shoving its nose into her business. Furthermore, no one slammed on Palin because she had her son ... people rightfully condemned her hypocrisy for taking an "abstinence only" stance about birth control and sex education, all the while knowing that her own daughter was having unprotected sex. Seems the Palins take the "do as I say, not as I do" approach to telling others how to live their lives.
It's not a killing and it's not a baby you Neanderthal.
Oh, I had no idea women were so gullible.
It's both, whether or not you like it.
Look at an ultrasound yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ZCtHT1fNU
StevenB - and YOUR beliefs shouldn't be thrust down MY throat in making such a decision.
I was raped in college and became pregnanat as a result. I had 2 choices. Drop out and re-live the horrible event every day for 9 months. Or have an abortion, allowing me to stay in school and pursue a career, and be able to put that event behind me, find peace, and move on. I chose the abortion and do not regret my decision. To ask a woman to have to listen to the heartbeat and have a description is deplorable -- there are many women that simply have no other option -- as MANY women find themselves in the same situation as I was in, or having to chose an abortion because of medical reasons and have to choose to end the pregnancy to SAVE THEIR OWN LIFE. I am now happily married, with a career and children and I know in my heart that the right choice was made. And while it is the law of the land, and left in the hands of the woman to choose, she shouldn't be made to be belittled and insulted at a time of difficulty. Life in not simply black and white as in your ignorant head. For someone like me who was raped, you need the horror done with. Walk a mile in the shoes of someone who is raped before you cast judment.
Why should I commit myself to keeping a parasite alive and nurture it within my body for 9 months just because someone else thinks that I should value it? I don't value it. And I won't nurture it. Looking at a sonogram and listening to a heartbeat wouldn't change that. So nice try, Texas, but you're just showing (again) what a backwards state you are.
Casey Anthony still killed her child and she saw more than just a sonogram, so I'm not sure how much this will actually help. I think it's a good idea though. More information is always better.
XServer,
PARASITE? I guess your glad your mom did not consider you a parasite??? STOP HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX if you do not want children!!!!!!!!!!!! OF course you do not value life thats obvious.
Being raped is something that only you will understand under your particular circumstance. However, it is sad that you feel that carrying life in your womb is horror. And that the child in your womb was definitely a raping and pillaging man in the making as well. You have no idea what kind of life you ended before it even began; so don't use your rape story to try and justify ending life without having the guts to see/hear it first. It is not belittling to have to look at what is inside you. However, it is pure cold hearted to want to turn your head and just say "I don't care, just get it out!"
Unfortunately Steven it's people who have no morals and regard for life that are the cause of the fall of a nation or any group of people. Hmm...a woman & man just had sex. If the timing is right we have a conception which means a life has begun. thats how it was designed. But some people are in denial about that. They would have to take responsibility for their actions and actually admit to "killing" were they to follow through with abortion. They think its a political agenda. The only thing political is people trying to stop murder and the ripping of souls from the womb. People who have no idea where they are going after this life on earth ends so they are just matter and what they rip from the womb is just matter. Very sad
Ask yourself some basic elemetary questions.......This requires basic CRITICAL thinking.
#1- If you take someones life "intentionally", what happens to you?
Answer- You go to JAIL!
#2-What is the definition of life?
"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms , manifested in functions such as metabolism, GROWTH, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. "
b. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
When these females take their babies' life "Intentionally" it is the same thing.
But these women who want to justify killing their baby know they can get politicians involved to allow this intentional murder to happen.
I don't think many of the females who get abortions "think long and hard" before they "take the life".
If you don't want your baby, give it up for adoption!! How would you like to be cut up into small pieces and thrown into the trash can?
@SWfromCO really? Are you serious? Why would you ever want to stare that horror in the face again! Every time that mother looks at that child see will see that rapist and resent the child horribly! It's not your business so stay out of it!!! YOU have no idea what it is like to be assaulted and the HORROR that the memory of it brings back. To be reminded of that attack everyday by having to raise that child is just plain ABUSE of the woman and the child that she will inevitably resent having to raise.
I suggest you work on those critical thinking skills. First off, taking a human life may be considered murder or not dependent upon a number of conditions. A doctor who inadvertently kills a intentionally as part of assited suicide is protected in a number of jurisdictions. You can intentionally kill someone if you are threatened by bodily harm (self defense). We can kill convicted people, or people in a war zone. Hell, in some states you can kill someone for entering your home if they are trying to rob you (castle laws). So it's not so cut and dry.
Secondly, you go on to define life broadly, but not "human life" as is required to be murdering someone. Human life has a different definition than the one you presented, and a fetus isn't a human.
The doctors are worried about having to schedule a sonogram? The pregnant women are worried about leaving work for a sonogram?
A baby in the womb is a little human being, a person. If an abortion is preformed, A SCHEDULED appointment, that's pre-meditated murder. Which by the way is a class 1 felony, people committing such a crime can spend 4-20 years in prison. Very sorry to "inconvenience" the doctors and pregant women. .... Nevermind the fact that both are conspring to murder an innocent baby.
Since when is a baby an inconvenience?
angielou: I have never had an abortion as I do practice protected sex. But that's more luck than skill - all birth control options have a failure rate and since I do not want children I would have an abortion if the worst happened. And that is none of your business and it's certainly not the government's business. Thankfully I don't live anywhere near Texas...
'Avoid pregnancy and avoid the drama. Avoid the death scene. Avoid the endless hollow defense of why the host matters ever so much more than the dead kid who was force fed its DNA.'
"If you don't want your baby, give it up for adoption!!"
....Sure... Because the 7 BILLION PLUS people on Earth just isn't enough yet. There's just not enough babies to go around. -.-
Really Virginia7? I must have missed the overturn of roe vs wade. Where exactly in the USA are women who receive abortions charged with a class 1 felony?
MTgirl26 - You wrote about the raped woman being forced to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and seeing the rapist in the child's face every time the mother sees her child. How about the woman I knew who got to see her rapist's face every weekend when he came to pick up the child for visitation?
Alim: well if you want to make the case for celibacy, I'm sure there's a board for that....The rest of us are living here in the real world.
I think women should start suing the state of TX for harassment and emotional abuse. This is all about denigrating women and assuring them that in TX, women are only good as breeding material, and conservatives only like Big Government when its managing women like livestock.
Yep.. Texas needs more idiots. How can Texans talk about government control out one side of their mouth and do this out the other? Shameful.
That's exactly what this law says - right between the lines it says that men will rule the coop in Texas and women will live under thumb as second class citizens. It's religious patriarchy incarnate, this law.
If fetuses are not really babies, than seeing a sonogram and hearing about the position should not be considered emotional abuse. It should have no affect whatsoever on the woman.
katy - the women that WANT that, goody, let them have at it. Maybe the State of Texas should have a fund for paying for that sonogram - not free, and not cheap. This is about FORCED to do whatever, in this case the sonogram, etc. The FORCED part is the over-the-top bullsh!t. American Taliban, oh yay.
How does the governement get to force someone to have a medical test they do not need before they can have a procedure which is 100% legal?
What if we forced men who wanted viagra to have a rectal exam? It isn't needed-but it may discourage them from wanting the drug-which would keep health care costs down!
The purpose of the sonogram is to make women feel bad about the choice they are making. That is not he role of our government. Abortion is legal-and the government has no right to try to sway women one way or the other in their choice to have a legal procedure.
I would love to have someone explain to me on a legal level-not emotional, not moral-but a legal level, how it is the role of the government to discourage people from having a legal procedure.
Katy, if you want to see a sonogram - go ahead! It is none of you damned business what another woman does. Period.
Katy, you have made the most intelligent response as of yet. Not seeing the sonogram removes the guilt of killing a child for a woman. For them ignorance is bliss because most people feel they are eliminated from the ramifications of an immoral decision as long as they continue to believe naively that as long as the baby they are carrying is not real life just because it is not breathing outside air yet.
zvas - again, if you believe it is immoral - don't have an abortion. That is what pro-choice means - you get to choose! Just like men get to choose what they do with their bodies - women also get to choose. And, if you are so against abortion I'm sure you have many adopted children at your home, right?
zvas - you are exactly right. They don't want to think about what they are doing. But it goes beyond your point. In Illinios, Obama was a strong supporter of partial birth abortions - where the baby does breath air before it is killed. They frequently sedate the women so they don't have to see what they are doing.
If you can't even look at what you are doing - then what you are doing is WRONG.
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Many of these women would call the police if they knew someone killed blind, day old puppies.
And yet they want the RIGHT to kill an unborn child that is so much more.
People that support these killings will tell you:
"I'm against abortion, but I want it to be legal."
Is the same as
I'm against dogfighting, but I want it to be legal.
I'm against insider trading, but I want it to be legal.
I'm against rape, but I want it to be legal.
Don't want to have to see a unborn child that you are about to kill?
Here's a novel idea - keep your legs closed. Don't have sex unless you have protection, or are prepared to have a baby.
You are not a dog in heat. You are not an elephant in must.
You have a mind that rules your body.
There are consequences for your actions.
Go to the hospital and look at the premature babies. Do you understand that in the US, we abort hundreds of unborn children a day that are further developed than some of those preemies?
If you must have an abortion, please do it as early in the pregnancy as possible. They don't want to look at the sonogram for a reason. They can see the child. It's not just cells. It may already be responding to stimuli, such as music.
Doing the right thing isn't the easy thing. But it makes it alot easier to sleep at night.
Don't trade a few moments of pleasure in the bedroom for a life of regret.
Because you can turn away from the sonogram, but when it gets quiet at night, and you have nothing but your thoughts - you will wonder what kind of pain the unborn child went through as it was killed.
Pain sensors are not operative in fetus' until the 13th week-sice the vast majority of legal abortions take place before 12 weeks, they do not feel pain. They do not "go through" anything.
uchusky99 - So by your logic, a guy could give a lady a knock out pill, rape her while she sleeps - and it's OK because she didn't feel any pain?
Please, you even admit that a large number of abortions happen when they can feel pain (there are mixed numbers on the exact moment the child can feel pain in scientific literature).
Abortion is completely preventable. (with the exception of rape, and serious birth defects, or actual danger to the mother - which combined make up less than 1% of all abortions.) I think this entire issue would go away if instead of 1.4 million a year in the US, it were to be just that 1% or 14,000 a year.
No-I was responding you your post
I agree that abortion is preventable. Through better access to contraceptives, maternity care, child health care and social services. As well as a greater increase in responsibility.
The fact is-abortion is not going to be illegal nationwide anytime soon. Even so, with the internet and medicine that can terminate a pregnancy available-making abortion illegal will not likely greatly reduce the number. People who want to see fewer abortions-like myself and most pro-choice people as well as pro-life people- would do better to focus on the pregnancy prevention and maternity/child care things listed above and less on making it illegal.
Whether or not you agree with the morality of abortion is irrelevant. The government in Texas is forcing women to undergo a medical procedure/test as a pre-requisite for having a legal medical procedure.
This same government is forcing women to pay extra for the procedure, and also incurring extra lost wages. Also, by demanding that the doctor performing the abortion also provide the sonogram, they make it more difficult for a woman to even get an appointment in the first place.
The article actually states that the majority of these women already have children - there is a good likelihood that they are married and they cannot afford more children.
I know, let's tell them "Don't have sex". All you guys out there supporting this law and spewing anti-abortion should have your wives deny you sex because they don't want any more children - how about you go 10 or 15 years without sex because your wife isn't allowed to have an abortion. I think you'd change your tune then.
Also, let's force men into having prostate and rectal exams before prescribing Viagra. Viagra isn't a medical necessity so why not have men undergo the same invasion of privacy and unnecesarry forced procedures as women. Fair is fair, right?
Well they can require the sonogram and require the doctor to explain it, but that doesn't stop the woman from turning her ipod on and putting the ear buds in while he's talking. I live in Texas and I have to say this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Capital punishment on one hand and ultrasounds before abortions on the other. WOW. Completely defies logic. I do believe in capital punishment and I also believe abortion is a woman's decision. This is complete discrimination directed at women.
The purpose of the "required sonogram" is to shame, humiliate, and degrade...
Katy: If sonograms are useless, pointless intrusions that "see" nothing in the weeks during the vast majority of all abortions, why would you want your tax dollars to pay for them if not to "punish" women? You know, katy, men who make those arguments (that women are too stupid to know what an abortion is and need the government to stop them) are simply called mysogenists. When a woman makes that argument, it's called masochism. Get help, hon.
Post: Polling Shows Women Give 15-Point Advantage To Democrats....What goes around comes around....Women are bolting from the Republican Party....
i agree with the idea that if women have to have a sonogram for an abortion, men should have to have a colonoscopy to receive e.d. medication. i believe in equal gender rights and treatment
That's Texas for ya!! They want less governement but MANDATE medical procedures on women! What really gets me is that those bozos dont even realize the Republicans arent interested in banning abortions--- never were!! I've NEVER seen a Republican introduce a measure OR a constitutional ammendment banning abortion. NEVER! They cynically use the issue just to get people all emotional and get votes!
This is just one of MANY reasons to get rid of these hypocrites before they completely destroy this country!! The decision on abortion is between the woman and her doctor! It's no one else's business---- ESPECIALLY GOVERNMENT!
ps-- Republicans arent interested in improving the economy, lower the deficit, address the debt, stimulate job growth and all the other things they've been obstructing for the last 3 years! OH wait... they DID introduce a proposal to cut the top tax rate to 28% for the wealthy!
Uh, Tom, in case you hadn't heard, the SC has declared abortion to be legal. You can not pass a law or get an amendment passed that would violate that which has been declared legal. The SC would simply state that such a law or amnedment is illegal.
So why, if what you say is true, are liberals constantly whining about the GOP trying to ban abortion?
And what do you mean "that's Texas for ya?"
Because Mike they're throwing everything they can in a woman's way to try and guilt her into keeping a fetus. The sonograms (who pays by the way) and if there's forced counseling with it who pays for that as well? The list of hoops women have to jump through to have an abortion will get longer if this invasion of their privacy isn't reversed!
Nobody is being FORCED to keep their baby. The government is just making women get a sonogram. If they still decide to have an abortion after that, it's on them.
The article said they don't know anyone who goes through the procedure and regrets it. HA! I know a dozen of women who years after getting an abortion who sadly can't forgive themselves and regret their decision.
Just a little 'history lesson' Jane Roe in the Roe vs. wade case is now pro-life.
I'm not condemning anyone but there are lasting effects on women who get an abortion but I completely support the law that Texas has passed.
Guilt only works when what you are doing is wrong.
This is why the women are afraid to see the sonogram.
They know what they are doing is wrong.
Ryan in Texas
As somebody else stated, guilt is not an indicator of morality. Firing somebody who is doing a poor job is not wrong but the person doing the firing feels guilty none-the-less.
I am afraid to see poopy diapers and people vomiting but that doesn't make it wrong. As another person stated as well, they don't watch themselves evacuate on the toilet, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Hey Jess ... that's the whole point. The argument isn't abortion...that is settled law, it's legal. The point is that the same people that decry big intrusive government have passed a law intruding into women's lives. And please don't get into the sanctity of life crap...Texas executes more human beings than any state in the union.
But Lori DeVillez says "patients deserve to know beforehand what an abortion entails before they decide whether to undergo it."
Geez, how dumb does she think women are? Does she really think that forcing a woman to endure this is going to change her mind after she has already wrestled through the decision? Women don't make this decision spur of the moment. To insinuate that they do is to imply that our decision making is on the level of a prepubescent girl.
...or a pubescent hormonal boy...why insult prepubescent girls?
Complete waste of medical time and resources! Stop trying to pull petty BS like this and deal with the fact that abortion is legal in this country and quit trying to put your morals onto somebody for having one. You don't want to great. That is your moral choice. Get your #$@! nose out of other peoples.
Who pays for this?
They force the woman to.
this never ending battle against abortion is pissing me off... Does any one not remember casey anthony! really some people are just so stupid not all women are meant to have children ... duh...
You know they tried to make abortion illegal in my former country.And you know when was that? During Stalin times.
The Romanian gov't at one point required women to have 5 kids - that's about the time when their orphanages were overflowing, dreadful, and getting in the West's news. The women could not all afford that many kids, and would abandon them. We need less kids, less gov't in our bedrooms, and more birth control/education assistance for the poor. (The well-to-do have always had abortion access and birth control information.)
This is really terrible. According to the article, the legislative intent was to reduce the number of abortions. But the Roe case made it very clear that government had no role in the abortion decision until after the second trimester leaving it completely between a woman and her health care provider until then. This should be challenged on the constitutional grounds that the government is exceeding its authority.
This will result in less abortions!
And more infringement upon basic constitutional liberties.
And a correlating increase in new welfare applicants, perhaps? Can't wait to see how wonderfully this all works out down the line! Remember, fight for the babies before they are born, but after they are born, screw those lazy mothers, if they couldn't afford a baby they should have kept their legs closed, right? Can I get an AMEN?
Just what is needed more unwanted children forced on women who are then called 'Welfare Queens'. Anyone who has ever used birth control knows that NONE of them are 100% effective so there are going to be unwanted pregnancies no matter what.
Maybe they should outlaw Viagra, I am so disgusted! Conservative Men at there best while they run around and hump everything they can!
Definitely a stupid law grown on some church ass pimple.
SaveTheHumans "This will result in less abortions!" I'm going to guess it may reduce abortions in Texas, but many women will just drive across the state line to stop being harassed.
And by the way Texas isn't pro-life, they are ANTI-WOMEN!
Shark...the woman has to have a sonogram and then she can have the abortion. Why would she drive all the way to another state just to avoid a simple, and I agree stupid, procedure?
Depending on how close I live to state lines, I'd drive to save the extra money they would be forcing me to spend on a sonogram. Those things ain't cheap.
Neither is gas to drive across state lines..lol I'm Texan, born and bred, and I don't feel Texas is anti-women. I DO think women need to be more informed about their decisions.
I have had it with this patronizing "we know more than you" attitude the right has about women. WE KNOW. Please tell me how this is "less government"? How is this "freedom and liberty"? How is this not taking away from women? This whole religion/morality issue is a defacto war on women and their privacy/health/freedom. This is putting government INTO OUR VAGINAS! How is this right on any level? Who is affected when women can't get birth control? This is about control for sure - control over women. Time for men to take probes up the ass when they want viagra.
That's it right there Southern gal. Who are you to judge all these women? How do you know they need to be more informed? Many of these women probably know far more than you. What it comes down to is that you do not agree with their decision, and you hope the sonogram somehow changes their mind.
What is wrong in having a SONOGRAM? Every woman that gets pregnant has one at one time or another. You women that don't want to have one before killing your baby, do you not want to see the reality of your situation, the fact that the so called Fetus, is a living HUMAN BEING, A BABY DEVELOPING ITS BODILY FUNCTIONS SO THAT HIS OR HER BODY CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT THE NEED OF THE MOTHER'S BODY, YOUR BODY. You made the choice to put that baby's body into yours when you wanted to gratify yourself and have a few minutes of pleasure and let some dude gratify himself with you. Well, with every act performed there are consequences. The consequences of of HAVING SEX ARE KIDS. WHAT IN HEAVENS NAME DO YOU THINK THE REASON THAT WOMEN HAVE SUCH A INTRICATE SYSTEM EXISTING IN A THEIR BODIES, JUST FOR FUN? iF THAT WERE TRUE THEN THEIR WOULD JUST BE A HOLE BETWEEN YOUR LEGS AND A CLITORIS FOR STIMULATION AND THAT WOULD BE IT. But for some reason there is a lot more to it, isn't there. You know that the deal is to PROCREATE people with God so that they could get access to the earth. That's just the way it is. You Women say that you have a right to kill a human being because it is your body or that you have a right to do what you want with your own body. Not true, you have a duty to propagate the RACE, TO PROPAGATE THE HUMAN SPECIES. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE A WOMAN. MEN, DURING TIMES OF WAR WHEN THE DRAFT IS NEEDED, DO MEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO, I WON'T GO? Well you know what happens the man doesn't report for his duty they come after you. So a man doesn't have a right to his body. He can be sent to Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil War. These are wars when men are drafted and they have to go and in many cases when it is all said and done many men don't have a body anymore, or they have half a body, or they have mental problems. Bu that is or was their body but the government took it and the drill Sargent says your soul belongs to God, but your ass is mine. So much for saying that you have a right to do what you want with your body. By the way, IT AIN'T YOUR BODY, IT'S GOD THAT OWNS YOUR BODY, UNLESS YOU CREATED YOURSELF.
cmanap40-1497433
if you are forcing that woman to have a sonogram and spend more money and lose more wages, then that is wrong. if the goverment wants to put this in place (which is wrong regaredless) they should be paying for it and for the lost wages
your argument of "don't have sex if you don't want a baby" is totally ridiculous. are you saying a married couple who is too poor to have kids at the moment should not consummate their marriage? Or a couple that already has 2 or 3 kids and can't handle more should wait 10 to 15 years until her menopause is complete to have sex again? Although it would reduce the need for Viagra.
If you are saying that God owns your body then God has decreed that you can't get it up anymore so Viagra should be outlawed. Also, life saving procedures and cancer treatement should be outlawed because God owns your body and he gave you cancer.
Ridiculous.
I've had three children, never did I have a sonogram. Yeah, WHOSE GOING TO PAY FOR IT ?????????????
Quit doggin the state!!!!!!!
cmanap40-1497433 - What if we don't believe in YOUR god? We put up with your Taliban crap to make you happy? I think not!
All women who are not responsible enough to practice birth control and need an abortion should be sterilized. One free abortion then your sterile, multiple abortions is wasting the public's tax money.
If women can't be responsible then the state must act on their behalf. The they can have all the sex without the consequence!
And the men that get them pregnant? They get the "free ride" as usual? typical hypocrite; do as I say but let me have my fun with "those girls."
No the men get their baby killed. And if "those girls" want to give them free rides who am I to tell them not to take it.
erik please. You make real men wonder where males like you come from.
Derrrf please you need to recognize the most dangerous place in the world, is the womb.
More deaths happen their per year then anywhere else on this earth.
And I never aborted any of my children, and I love them dearly.
children that you were told about how many don't you know about
Derrrf you obviously endorse abortion, well let me pose another argument.
If I am not able to take care of my elderly parents (who cannot care for themselves) or I don't want to deal with the responsibility, then should they be terminated? Should all old people who cannot care for themselves be terminated if their friends and families don't want to? Elderly cost are in the billions only a tiny fraction to fostering or orphanage homes.
I believe if we can do that to babies we should do the same to the elderly.
It would depopulate and save tax money for people who are not contributing to society. Just like a fetus!
wheels460 that's a weak comment, why not address what I wrote in the beginning of the post.
Abortions are not paid for by taxpayer money.
yes they do, what do you think plan parent hood is. Not too Smarty_pants
LOL
Logic isn't one of your strong suits, is it, 1234erik?
:D
Why would you say that stonedog34? What would give you that impression?
Planned parenthood does not do abortions for free. The government is not paying for them, the women that get them are paying for them. You are just plain ignorant, erik. Shut up and go to bed.
Erik you do know that using federal money for abortion is against the law don't you or are you just such an anti-abortion nut that you think everyone but you is breaking the law? Also IF you've ever had to get birth control you would also know that absolutely NONE of it is 100% effective and even taking it exactly the way your supposed to can in some cases STILL result in an unwanted pregnancy.
Also the women I know who have had an abortion had to pay for it themselves even the ones who went to PP. This sonogram restriction is nothing more than a way of making it more difficult to get an abortion by making it more costly to the woman.
Last time I checked they didn't hand out abortion vouchers like they do food stamps.
erik, please take some time and learn the facts before you comment. First you assume that I endorse abortion and I can say that I DO NOT ENDORSE ABORTION anymore than I endorse killing off the elderly. But it is not my decision nor is it yours. Your statement that the elderly cost billions and foster care system and orphanages are a fraction of the cost is a sign that you know nothing about public care cost for children. And I feel that we do not spend nearly enough on our elderly or young.
I shudder to think that any elderly relative of yours would ever hear or read the crap that spewed out of your obviously compromised cranium about how you will handle them if you had your way. But than again maybe they brought you up this way and they will get what they will.
By the way, this country seems to be one of a few that would even think this. Most others respect the elderly and use the wisdom they possess instead of pretending that you are smarter than them. My grandson loves to sit and talk to his Great Grandpa talk about his life and how things have changed, try it some time it may turn into an epiphany for you.
Nothing but more of the ideologues thinking they can control the decisions of everyone else's life.
Yea, the right-wing believe in personal freedom alright; as long as it fits their definitions.
To be equal and fair not only should men with erectile dysfunction go through a colonoscopy, they should have to watch it and hear the dialogue of the procedure. I never thought I would hear of anything as ridiculous as this law in this day and age. I am totally disgusted. Yes every thing in Texas is bigger, including their destruction of women's legal rights.
Well, no, everything is bigger in Texas but brains...
If women feel the need to be the only ones allowed to terminate a human life, then they should be strong enough to see and hear this life before doing so! If you have the guts to murder your unborn child, you should have the guts to see and hear it first. This has nothing to do with gender rights, you liberal idiots.... It has to do with the rights of the living. There are a REDICULOUS amount of ways to prevent pregnancy these days and many of them are near free of cost. If you fail to follow these prevention methods, you still have the right to terminate your pregnancy. You just need to be knowledgeable of what your actually doing; and now Texas is making that part of the law. Way to go Texas!
CO - Use all the rhetoric you want but in the end it is about personal freedom and choice.
You do not hear anyone advocating that the self proclaimed righteous be required to sit through education on hunger and global warning prior to and each time they are in the process to procreate 6, 8, or 10, offspring within a single lifetime. That is the tricky part of freedom that ideologues always ignore but an issue that in the end will ultimately perceiver.
So, SWfromCO, you are in favor of MORE government intrusion? You want government to force medical procedures on women AGAINST THEIR WILL? You want women's rights and freedoms restricted? And who is supposed to pay for these sonograms? Just want to be clear that the right really doesn't want less government involved in our lives, it wants government in the most intimate part of our lives/bodies.
Is anyone really surprised? This is from Texas where people believe the story of Pinocchio was written in the bible.
And their Govenor wanted to be President! Just imagine that for a minute! How backward can you be?
And the majority of Texans knew he never stood a chance in hell.
Yet we elected one for two terms...hm....
Thinking Texas women who really do NOT want someone to tell you what to do with your body, remember this come the next election and VOTE! Somebody above commented about left wingnuts. We lefties are all about a woman's right to CHOSE, that's all. I know several who chose to continue with a pregnancy, my son is a result, and I know several who chose not to. I personally have no problems with either decisions. It a woman's RIGHT to chose, it's NOT the right of the right wing to force their ideal on a woman. You righties like forcing women to do what you want? Take a good long look at Afghanistan or Iraq or any other 6th century living country.
Sounds like they are simply making the woman responsible to a certain level. They aren't stopping anyone, they are merely making them fully understand that they are terminating a life - that they created in the first place! This should be mandatory everywhere so these careless women can't simply abort their stupid or drunken mistake so easily. It is a womans choice to use some brains BEFORE she gets pregnant, cause the last time I checked pretty much all women know how that happens. If there was a rape involved and she does not want the baby then I can understand that concern, but aborting just because she changed her mind is irresponsible and repulsive.
Jwt, pro-lifers like you make me nauseous. You make it so hard for the rest of us. It takes two to get pregnant. I believe in prevention. Unlike you, I don't need to make myself feel important by condemning all these "evil whores" who "are drunk and irresponsible." You have that same neo-Pharisee mentality that makes pro-lifers look like psychos.
I found out that the number #1 reason for abortions is economics. I went to a group and suggested pamplets with information about how to receive state aid for these pregnancies, since it isn't breaking tax payers backs like you choose to believe. Do something sensible instead of wasting money on gory photos of aborted fetuses that you love to post all over your walls. Have a one-stop shop for info on how to get help to care for the child, how to get into college to better their lives, starting a daycare for new mothers that are trying to work, join up with organizations that provide interview training so that they can get better jobs.
Guess what? I was shot down and these so-called pro-lifers made these same trite "dem hoes shouldn't be getting drunk and pregnant" bull that you just spewed.
You don't care about the unborn, you don't care about those that have been born. You just want a vehicle to hate to make you feel like a good person, because finding a bad guy is so much easier than becoming a good guy through good works.
Work on yourself.
jmt-395061: Where was the man when the woman didn't "use some brains before she gets pregnant"? I'm pretty sure his sperm didn't get to her egg by magic.
While the woman doesn't solely cause the pregnancy, they are solely responsible. Men just get to walk away. No shame, no consequences. Most single mothers live below the poverty line, while the men who help make those women single mothers get to move on with live their lives, as if nothing happened. And child support doesn't cover it.
jwt-395061: What woman wronged you to make you hate women so much? Your personal hate shouldn't result in a woman’s life being forever changed.
Someone else already said it but it should be repeated: The purpose of this law is to guilt women into keep a child they don't want or can't support. It's NOT about education.
womenforwomen.you make a point.instead of going to work one day my wife got an abortion instead.i wanted to have a child and had no say .so when you talk about men "just walk away"there is another side to the issue.you ought to pay for 18 years of a life w/o any say so in the real world.i'm extremely tired of hearing about woman's rights.when you have sex you have babies.open your legs,have the result,i guess i could say that women can be considered irresponssible.
Absolutely Spanky! Your wife should have told you instead of wronged you.
spanky: so what would you have the law do...tie your wife down and force her through a pregnancy she didn't want because you think you own her? What do you think THAT would have done to your marriage...I'm extremelly tired of hearing about men's rights to force women into things they claim they have had no part in. Unzip your pants, have unprotected sex with a woman who does not want to be pregnant, and then claim you had no role in this and SHE'S the irresponsible one ? How is the government supposed to force you two into adulthood...by forcing a child into this mess?
As for all the women that have been raped or forced through incest, this in nothing more than mental/ physcological TORTURE! Way to go Texas.
EYou all know, of course, that those anti-abortion "friends who counsel women outside of abortion clinics" are actually hurling harassment and insults.
Cassandra, a friend of mine went to a Sav-a-Life center and left in tears. She wanted to have an abortion after she talked to them, not before. She was actually looking for support because so many people were against her having her baby because of her health issues. She told me that the first thing the "couselor" asked was "Do you even know who the father is? How promiscuous are you?"
Elizabeth Graham, Lori DeVillez, LiFe, Steven B and Save the Humans, could you all please take more time with the adopted children you now have. Those adopted children from unwanted pregnancies that were forced on those you would deny, but also those you would have come into this world possibly unwanted. All the time you spend stopping abortions could better allow you to time to raise hundreds of children, because you wouldn't have to wait through a 10 month pregnancy. There are hundreds if not thousands waiting for you to raise them now and get them out of those horrible systems that you would have them born into. Just think no hospital bills so you could take on several at a time and give them the shot at a productive life they may never have gotten except with your devotion to running other peoples lives.
derrrf *** There are a very large number of prolifers who have adopted babies. Also many prolifers who have helped the mothers through the pregnancy-----and beyond.
Not nearly enough Matilda as there are over 100,000 unwanted children in child services around the country now with more coming in every day.
First of all, it's equally as sad and I'm not saying that it's not, but most of those unwanted children were given up at a much older age than newborn. There is a fairly long waiting list for adopting newborns. I completely agree that more people should adopt older children also.
Matilda: if that were actually true,that would be a good thing. Sadly, the vast majority of children in this country who are in foster care will never be adopted. Whether you are in favor of legal abortion or opposed to it is irrelevant. Those who want to help children have any number of ways to do it and the sad truth is the vast majority of people weighing in on this issue have absolutely no interest in raising a child they did not give birth to.
This Texas law is offensive. If they want to reduce the number of abortions, they should do their best to provide sex education and contraception to all teenagers. They should warn young people about the health risks of pregnancy and childbirth, and the tremendous expense, responsibility and emotional trauma of either raising a child alone, in poverty or under other difficult circumstances or of giving a newborn child to strangers to raise. They should advise young people to think about how it feels to have and give up a child, and how that child may feel when he realizes he was unwanted. Contraception and education have done far more to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the associated abortions than the offensive and hurtful acts desperate women are forced to endure.
Everything is bigger in Texas. Stupidity is no exception.
I think Texas must want to have every woman in its state go bobbitt on thier male partners. I imagine that will cut down on the need for abortions in a much more reasonable manner for the women being tortured atm.
All it takes for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing. Allowing the republicans to do this is allowing evil against women.
Allowing abortions is allowing evil against children. If you're going to tell me a fetus is not a child, please tell me how it harms the woman to see the sonogram or hear the heartbeat. It should have no effect on her whatsover. If the fetus is a child, tell me how it's not murder. You can't have it both ways.
You speak of evil, what is killing children?
Good men are doing something. They are allowing mothers to see they baby that they want to abort and see that that baby is indeed a living human being whose life should not be snuffed out so cruely by abortion.
Kevin: You have a very different definition of "good men" and a different definition of "baby". Good men don't insist women are too stupid to know what an abortion is and need to be "educated" out of knowing their own wishes. They also in my book, would already know that a zygote is not a "baby". but it is your right to be as insufferably moralistic, illogical and wrong as you like. It is not your right to foist your extremist Taliban views about women, treating them as 'incubators' to be overruled by their governments on issues of their own bodies. Particularly, women unfortunate enough to live in the state of Texas.
Just out of curiosity how do they plan to enforce this. Doctor patient confidentially is still in effect so far as i can tell so the doctor can't say what they did in an exam room. And if the patient refuses to say anything there is no way to prove what if anything went on in the room.
Yeh, let's keep ALL of those eggs alive, so the 15 year old mothers and the poor on welfare can give those babies the best in care. NOT! Good grief , even my niece was popping out babies by the bundle when she was 17. The twins went to adoption.
Not as bad as Islam, where they keep have babies until they get a boy. Oh wait, the baby girls are left alone, hoping they die.
I'm definitely pro-choice, but it's pretty offensive to describe delivery as "popping out babies". For many women, the process can involve several hours of pain, if they choose the natural method.
That said, I think this law is an insult to women everywhere. The government should not have the right to dictate what we do with our reproductive health. This law sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of women in America.
On the subject of Islam, I assume you're talking about Muslims in the Middle East. Leaving baby girls to die is not practiced in the US - it's illegal. If you knew a normal, peaceful Muslim family in the US, you'd know that the boys are favored (spoiled and listened to), but the girls aren't killed. The girls still have to do the cooking and cleaning, though - I'm talking about recent immigrants who still practice arranged marriage.
There are relatively progressive Muslims in the Middle East, but they are few and far between since many are leaving (or already left many years ago, case in point: the author of Persepolis from Iran) due to the instability in the region and government oppression. I have friends from Bahrain who support women's rights, despite the government. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is much worse in terms of women's rights. I met a guy from Saudi Arabia (while I was in the UK) who told me a story about how it's common practice for a grandmother to leave a young girl (say, 3 years old) out naked in a hail storm to shock her body so that her body hair doesn't become thick when she grows up. He told me that women there were "treated well by the men" because they have their own shopping malls, gyms and so forth. He couldn't really understand the concept of Saudi women mingling with men unless they were inside their homes. The Saudis are so hypocritical though, because they drive over to Bahrain to enjoy a good time and mingle with girls more easily. Men in Saudi Arabia have all the power, and women are considered more like property than people.
In 1998 I had an abortion due to the baby having anencephaly. Basically it is when the baby's brain forms outside of the skull and will not viable be after birth. There is no way after having been told a very much wanted baby had a terminal birth defect, that emotionally I would have been able to go through an ultrasound, heartbeat and a doctor's description (which I had had all 3 done already with my own doctor when the diagnosis was made). I was distraught and grieving and this law would only have made the situation much worse than what it was. It was basically the same reason as to why I decided to have the abortion - not put myself or my family through any more grief and pain than was already necessary. RIP 11/19/98 Snow Enterline
People need to quit being pawns in a political game between the republicans and democrats and realize this law does not require someone such as Kat to listen to review in further detail and have more pain of the loss. This is targeted at people who are aborting healthy babies merely because they don't want to have the kid.
Steve: it doesn't matter who the "target" of this Taliban law is...ALL women in texas seeking abortions, regardless of what their doctor says or their own wishes, will have to deal with the fight about whether they have to undergo this invasive, unnecessary proceedure to appease the religious extremists in Texas. All because they are women, in Texas' view, some kind of special sub-species of adult, who must be watched over by her all-knowing government. And I'll just BET you call yourself an advocated of "small" government.