Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2010, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,254 posts, read 64,351,440 times
Reputation: 73932

Advertisements

The only reason I'm against the ultrasounds is because it's a waste of money and medical resources that could go to another woman who really needs an ultrasound for a valid medical reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2010, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,545 posts, read 8,325,406 times
Reputation: 2889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post

Irrelevant. Is this law overruling the medical professionals judgment as regards the necessity of an ultrasound? Yes, it is. It's not really debatable.
Actually, an U/S is recommended by medical professionals prior to surgical abortion in the US anyhow. Not all abortion doctors/clinics perform them routinely, but the vast majority do and it is recommended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
Of what use is an ultra sound in a 4-6 week pregnancy? Or earlier? Mine was so early that the doctor had to run a pregnancy test to verify it before doing the D&C! An ultra sound would have shown nothing!
That is absolutely false. At 5.5 weeks GA, you can see the heart beating on US. Also, it isn't just to document pregnancy, but to evaluate the structure of the uterus and any other physical conditions that may precipitate surgical abortions (ie., large polyps, fibroids). The majority of abortion doctors perform routine US prior to surgical abortions anyhow, so you're getting all hot under the collar for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Heart of Oklahoma
1,173 posts, read 1,534,356 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
If it isn't reported how can the numbers be measured?
Probably through a paid statistical questionnaire which the answers remain anonymous. Also, if you did a little research, you'd find out that after the statute of limitations in their state women speak more freely about it. But my number one guess is the survey. Who wouldn't answer 20 questions for $50?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 10:43 AM
 
8,862 posts, read 17,483,637 times
Reputation: 2280
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
What appears to be going on in Louisiana is another completely insecure male dominated culture is worried that women might just not want their kids. They base their manliness on their ability to impregnate regardless of the woman's cooperation. The only reason rape is a crime in that dump is because raping a woman devalues another man's property.

The rest of this country should provide asylum for any female living in Louisiana.

Thanks. I really wondered why the new law allowing guns in church was thought to be appropriate.

Some time ago in another forum posters used to lol about LA law--based on an archaic French code of law or something.
Hope things improve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,478,139 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeAhike View Post
. I really wondered why the new law allowing guns in church was thought to be appropriate.

.
because NO LAW (from the government(local, state or federal)) can take away or impead the 2nd amendment

therefore ANY LAW stating that you could NOT carry a gun in church would be unconstitutional....therefore this law corrected a past error

now can the church, or any other businesss, or organization say 'we dont want guns in orur establishment".....YES
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 12:30 PM
 
8,862 posts, read 17,483,637 times
Reputation: 2280
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
because NO LAW (from the government(local, state or federal)) can take away or impead the 2nd amendment

therefore ANY LAW stating that you could NOT carry a gun in church would be unconstitutional....therefore this law corrected a past error

now can the church, or any other businesss, or organization say 'we dont want guns in orur establishment".....YES

Good to know. The little bit of the news that I caught on this story featured a minister saying exactly that.

All I caught was --'in dangerous parts of cities in LA those with concealed weapon permits can now take guns to church'.

Which does make one wonder about the type of crime going on in LA that requires this.

Living in Atlanta--often cited as a violent and dangerous city--we have not yet resorted to arming ourselves for church. Now to discover why GA would have different laws--I know the 2nd Amendment is cherished here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 12:41 PM
 
Location: California
37,135 posts, read 42,203,740 times
Reputation: 35012
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
What is the problem with an ultrasound prior to an abortion,what HARM can it do?

What is wrong with letting someone carry a firearm inside a place of worship?

As to the last,I have no idea what it is in reference to...
While I don't have any problem with people taking guns to church, mostly because I don't go to church, the HARM in legislating a medical test or procedure is the fact that we are LEGISLATING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE AT ALL. Never mind that it's completely unnecessary and just being used as a roadblock to abortion. It's a government intrusion where no intrusion is called for as it effect a very private and personal condition. That should concern everyone.

How does the whoe ultrasound thing work with the abortion pill RU 486?

My main concern is that some early term abortions will be postponed due to testing schedules and will then become more complicated later term abortions. I don't think anyone wants that.

If you can seriously only diagnose pregnancy in LA with an ultrasound (which is silly) then by all means, have at it. I don't think this legislation is as tough as what some would like, which would actually specify that the woman has to watch the ultrasound and have the baby pointed out to her while being told she is about to murder her child. Or something to that effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 12:46 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,866,888 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
While I don't have any problem with people taking guns to church, mostly because I don't go to church, the HARM in legislating a medical test or procedure is the fact that we are LEGISLATING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE AT ALL. Never mind that it's completely unnecessary and just being used as a roadblock to abortion. It's a government intrusion where no intrusion is called for as it effect a very private and personal condition. That should concern everyone.

How does the whoe ultrasound thing work with the abortion pill RU 486?

My main concern is that some early term abortions will be postponed due to testing schedules and will then become more complicated later term abortions. I don't think anyone wants that.
You mean like legislation making it illegal to have a third trimester abortion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 02:22 PM
 
46,946 posts, read 25,979,166 times
Reputation: 29440
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
uhm , not many at all...in fact the utrasound is one of the best ways to PROVE a pregnancy
In the first weeks? Not at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
So...are you outraged at the Democrats for sponsoring this bill and supporting it?
Of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
What percentage of abortions are a result of rape? Do you know?
Do I care? You're the one implying that unwanted pregnancies can be avoided by "keeping one's legs crossed", something you know to be untrue for a sizable number of women.



Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay View Post
Actually, an U/S is recommended by medical professionals prior to surgical abortion in the US anyhow. Not all abortion doctors/clinics perform them routinely, but the vast majority do and it is recommended.
If ultrasounds are already performed as a matter of medical routine, the law is utterly useless. If it forces unnecessary ultrasounds, it's invasive. And I couldn't help noticing you specified surgical abortions - is there an exemption for non-surgical ones in the LA legislation? If not, then what's your point?

The right-wing posts in this thread are sad. You should look up this pretty cool Jewish carpenter who made a mark by refusing to pick up stones when confronted with an adulterous woman.

In the minds of some, it appears he just missed out on a great opportunity to say "Should've kept your legs crossed", instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,545 posts, read 8,325,406 times
Reputation: 2889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post

If ultrasounds are already performed as a matter of medical routine, the law is utterly useless. If it forces unnecessary ultrasounds, it's invasive. And I couldn't help noticing you specified surgical abortions - is there an exemption for non-surgical ones in the LA legislation? If not, then what's your point?
Not sure about the exact LA legislation, but I'm assuming that they are referring to surgical abortions as opposed to the morning after pill. No need to kill the messenger here. I'm just saying that the majority of abortion doctors/clinics do indeed already perform an u/s as part of the surgical abortion procedure. Majority does not = all though, in which case the law would ensure that they all follow the same high standards.

And from what I can tell, abortions are invasive. Much more so than a simple u/s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:49 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top