http://www.yahoo.com/s/532605
I do not personally support abortion because of religious beliefs, so I do not have a problem with it. However, I think it will probably have little affect, as if someone wants an abortion, the untrasound will probably not make much of a difference.
2007-03-16 08:18:11 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it's silly.. you can't force someone to look at a picture.. just another measure of control.. and one that is flat out ridiculous
2007-03-16 08:22:44 · answer #1 · answered by pip 7 · 8⤊ 5⤋
I think it might make a difference in some women's heads, however, I also think that the father of the baby should see the ultrasound, as well as the perspective mother. Women often times don't make the decision to have an abortion alone. There are times when their boyfriends, husbands pressure women to abort their babies. Men are just as responsible for a pregnancy as women. If more men stepped up to the plate, and acted like men, not leaving a woman alone to raise a child, there would be a LOT less aborted children. A life is a life, no matter how small, and inconsequential it may seem, or look like. I, as a single mother am so glad my mother didn't abort me. She was a single mother too, with no support from her husband, as I am. I am glad I didn't abort my precious son. He saved me in a way. If not for him I would still be with my abusing husband, never realizing that there was something better in life, than abuse. My son. He taught me that. I can't imagine ever being without him.
2007-03-16 15:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think it's a wonderful idea. If informed consent is a requirement for most other medical procedures, why should abortion be an exception? This provision shows the mother that her baby is NOT "just a clump of cells", as the lying b*stards of Planned Parenthood et al would have her believe. If she views the ultrasound and still feels she wants to go ahead with the abortion, nobody is stopping her.
2007-03-16 15:27:10 · answer #3 · answered by Rick N 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Under the undue burden standard, which is the current Supreme Court law (set forth in 1992), the test is whether the restriction imposed places an unconscionable or near-absolute bar, either in effect or by intent.
Presenting the woman with factual medical information prior to her making the decision is not unconscionable. And because the doctor is not being required to spout some legislator-mandated viewpoint (just give medical facts), it's not a compulsory speech issue.
While I don't think such a law should be enacted, it would be constitutionally valid under the current standards.
2007-03-16 15:52:12 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are incorrect. Ultrasound has been proven to deter about 90% of would-be abortions.
Of course the abortion industry is going to be against this because it is proven to lower abortion rates and they lose money.
There is nothing wrong with making an informed decision. And if it saves one life, then it's a good thing. Why are people so afraid of this?
2007-03-16 16:00:45 · answer #5 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In order to make a choice you need all the information.
So for Pro-choice they should favor this measure to let the woman know what she is about to do.
You would be surpise how people change their mind if they are given all the information.
The better inform the mother is with all her options avaible is the only true way to make a sound choice.
2007-03-16 15:28:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not pro-life, but what an appalling law!!! I'm sure glad I don't live in South Carolina. These are probably the same folk who have no trouble killing men, women, and children in wars (e.g., Iraq, where the civilian death toll has been hideous), or electrocuting convicted felons (regardless of whether they might be innocent or not).
By the way, have you ever seen the ultrasound of a fetus at ten weeks (and the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester)? It doesn't look anything remotely like a baby, so all this law does is add to the expense -- the women are not going to be shown photos of cute little babies. This is not like the ultrasounds taken at 4 or 5 months.
2007-03-16 15:22:33 · answer #7 · answered by Corinnique 3 · 4⤊ 5⤋
An ultrasound at just a few weeks along does not show much. If a woman genuinely wants an abortion she isn't going to change her mind once she sees an ambiguous shape on the screen.
2007-03-16 15:25:04 · answer #8 · answered by dream_girl 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I think the solution would be to put people in jail when they murder not show them pictures of who they are planning to murder. Many say this sounds harsh I am sure but that is what this issue comes down to if you look at it. Either abortion is or it is not taking of life (murder) and that is the whole sticking point. Anything that cuts down on abortions is a step in the right direction and even pro choice people have put forth some credible ideas to slow down the numbers.
2007-03-16 15:30:26 · answer #9 · answered by joevette 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
my feeling about abortion is that it should be given as in option for 10 weeks into the preganancy, when the baby is not yet formed. i also think that it should be allowed when there is a rape or when the fetus has really bad deformities
i dont think that a stupid picture is going to change someones view on something, they cant force someone to look at a picture that goes against fundamental and basic rights given in the constitution, that is intimidation, what are they gonna do strap the women to a chair and hold her down and put a levies on her eyes and shove the picture in her face
2007-03-16 15:22:43 · answer #10 · answered by Jose G 3 · 5⤊ 4⤋
I think for some people who have been told that it is just a random lump of parasitic cells, it might make a difference to see it formed.
Who knows.
2007-03-16 15:42:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋