English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070316/ap_on_re_us/abortion_ultrasound

2007-03-16 08:27:21 · 21 answers · asked by Wolfgang92 4 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

21 answers

Great.
Only way you can make a good choice is if you are given all the good information and ultrasounds are good.

Why are you guys so afraid of providing women that are going to make a life or death choice for a person who has no voice in the matter.

Shouldn't they see what they are about to killed.

2007-03-16 08:36:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Women should have to view the innocent silhouette of the baby that they are about to hack up. It should not be a women's right to kill a baby - if you don't want your child try adoption. Stop being so darn selfish. If it is true that it is a women's body and they should be able to do with it what they want - then why is prostitution illegal? Is society so lost that they can actually justify the death of a child? It's just sick, if women would do some research on abortion and educate themselves on what it really entails, I guarantee that there would be less abortion. The law needs to be a lot tougher on women seeking to murder their child, before an abortion, all women should be mandated to learn, in full, about other options - and should have to watch a live video of an abortion being performed. Scientists have proof that a fetus can feel pain as early as 12 weeks, how many of you knew that? - we put dogs to death more humanely than we do our own future(children).

2007-03-23 18:36:13 · answer #2 · answered by pipesean 2 · 0 0

I know I'll get alot of thumbs down for this....

I think abortion is overused to the point of abuse. As a society we've become numb to the concept of death. I say if you're going to kill something then you should know exactly what it is you are killing before you decided to proceed.

It bothers me how people talk about abortion like it's no different than evicting a tenant form an appartment. The difference is an evicted tenant can get a new place to live. A baby can't just go to a different uterus.

How much music and art has been lost to the world because mother didn't want thier babies and were to impatient to set up an adoption? Perhaps the person who would bring world peace or end poverty has been killed all because a woman couldn't keep her leg shut. There's your choice you don't want to be pregnant then don't have sex.

I personally have been preganat twice and it's not that bad.

2007-03-16 08:53:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I don't see it as being much different than showing a person an x-ray before doing a procedure...before they put a stint in my fathers heart they brought an x-ray to show me the blockages.. the one area that was 90% blocked..than asked which procedure he wanted to go with, a bypass or a stint...when my son crashed his motorcycle the other day....again they brought the x-ray to show us his ankle wasn't broke....

abortion is a medical procedure and anytime anyone goes in for any kind of medical procedures...tests are done or x-rays are taken..this is to give a person the most information before hand to let them make a better informed decision ...

an ultrasound shouldn't make any difference in a person's decision.. nothing changes except they are shown what they are having removed.... if they change their mind about having one done..than it could be viewed as they were saved from making what they felt was a mistake for them ....

anytime someone is thinking about doing something different that they haven't done before..they usually try to get the most information they can before hand on the subject....I just don't understand how having more information on a subject could be viewed as bad thing.......most people do not like to go into to something blind if they don't have to....

2007-03-16 09:09:43 · answer #4 · answered by LeftField360 5 · 1 1

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 08:32:16 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3 1

I like the concept, but this seems like a question the courts can best answer. That seems to be the case with many issues that have been made political, yet are really court issues. I guess anything to buy a vote whether its an issue a rep can effect or not.

2007-03-24 07:32:53 · answer #6 · answered by dsaunder4 2 · 0 0

Wow. I think that's ridiculous. Although I would never have an abortion, I do believe that it is a women's choice. That is a difficult enough decision to have to make but when it's literally shoved in a woman's face like that...I think it's inhumane. If a woman chooses to carry the baby and then put it up for adoption nobody is going to force her to hold the baby before she gives it up!

I agree with Joycee, a pregnancy should not be terminated after 12 weeks...period. Also, so many teens are having abortions (sometimes several!) just to get themselves out of trouble. I do not agree with that.

I

2007-03-16 08:37:25 · answer #7 · answered by Summer 5 · 1 3

Some sick puppies in SC.
Using their logic before I can sign a surgical consent form for open heart surgery I should be required to watch the operation in question so I have a better understanding of what's involved.
On the positive side I am really glad that the State of South Carolina is prepared to provide for all the needs of the children that it so magnanimously saves from certain mortal extinction, how utterly noble.

2007-03-16 08:44:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

That is a humiliating scenario probably proposed by right wing extremist wackos. No one should be forced to do anything which concerns the use of their body. Young people who are below the age of consent need guidance not intimidation. Read the book "Cider House Rules" and you will see how desperate and unhappy women used to be with laws which were too restrictive. They never stopped wanting abortions and often killed themselves in the process. Laws and rules stop no one. We need to be more compassionate as a society and stop being so judgmental. The only way some people feel good is to have someone to look down on. What a sad comment on society.

2007-03-16 08:37:09 · answer #9 · answered by ZenWoman 4 · 2 4

Why is it that everyone seems to think women pop into an abortion clinical and go "hi-de-ho doc - abort me and then let's do lunch?"

Just like everything else out there I am sure there are exceptions but most women who get an abortion don't do it without having considered the alternatives.

The SC legislature wants less abortions - then all those obnxious bible thumpers can stand in line to adopt all the unwanted, fetal alcohol syndrome, or crack addicted babies that are popped out by women who are being railroaded into keeping their babies.....but not ONE DIME of the support for those children had EVER come from the Government..........you want Mamma to have the baby so bad then you pay for it.

2007-03-16 09:00:21 · answer #10 · answered by Susie D 6 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers