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.
If I were still the office manager of the Planned Parenthood office I headed in the Eighties, I would be advising all my incest and rape victims to close their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and chant, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" until the mandated ultrasound was over -- and then I'd get back to counseling them on their OPTIONS for choice in what is done to their bodies.
The government should NEVER have a say in what a woman chooses to do with her body unless those who would have it otherwise agree to adopt every single unwanted child of incest and rape along with just plain unwanted babies.
Every child a wanted child. It's really simple.
If a woman didn't want a child, why the hell is she having sex? I have no problem with abortion for rape/incest or when medically necessary, but abortion as a form of birth control shows an extreme lack of self responsibility and control from a woman. Why have sex and bring life into the world if you don't want it? Is there not access to birth control? A woman would rather have an expensive, extremely intrusive medical procedure than take a pill and use a condom?
What's wrong with having an expectant woman view an ultrasound when considering an abortion? If doing so will reduce her chances of going through with the abortion, then what is the problem? We should be doing everything we can to reduce abortion rates and keep them at low levels.
It is not the government's job to influence a woman's decision regarding her pregnancy. What this law would do is have government use its law making powers to attempt psychologically coerce a woman with regards to a decision only she can make without a clear public interest reason for doing so. Therein lies the problem.
I know legislation has been proposed, and in some cases, enacted to make a woman view an ultrasound of the fetus before she can consent to an abortion. I remember when it was proposed in Florida but Crist shot it down, from what I understand. To make this thread more current, I did find this article from yesterday:
It seems ignorance is a major problem amongst those who choose to abort:
Now, pro-abortion activists like to say that this ultrasound is medically unnecessary but that is simply not true. A pee test does not confirm a viable pregnancy. Even a blood test does not confirm a viable pregnancy. hCG levels can rise even when there is an ectopic pregnancy (which can become life-threatening), a molar pregnancy (which can pose a cancer danger) or a blighted ovum (hormones are produced but no fetal pole develops and thus, no baby). An ultrasound is the ONLY way to accurately diagnose a pregnancy, and thus, doctors must perform these before they can even say "Yes, there is a pregnancy. Would you like to abort?"
This whole issue came to mind yesterday, we just found out I am pregnant and I had my first ultrasound at 6 weeks. The heart is already beating at 118 bpm and it is CLEARLY visible on the ultrasound screen. It was one of the most awesome things I have ever seen.
I also want to point out that 6 weeks along is only two weeks after the missed period, and I practically had to force my way into the OB's office to be seen this early. Most girls who are pregnant would probably be AT LEAST at this stage of the game before they even figured out that they are pregnant, and thus, yes, the heart would be beating and would be clearly visible on the monitor.
After I saw our child's heart beating yesterday, I started to wonder how anybody could terminate a pregnancy after having seen that. Well, 80% of women considering an abortion don't terminate a pregnancy after seeing that. Therefore, I as a pro-lifer, I believe that this legislation would help in reducing the number of abortions.
What does everyone think? How would this legislation help or harm the women, the children and the medical community? If you saw your child's heart beating, would you still be able to have an abortion?
I think people should face the consequence of their choices fully before the finality of such an act as abortion.
I have several problems surrounding abortion.
#1 The majority of Planned Parenthood clinics (started by a lady who despised black people who she called the N word) are in minority neighborhoods for genocide IMO.
#2 These clinics are very good at hiding the truth of what is going on from the woman/mother/child which can destroy their lives down the road with a guilt the size of the world.
#3 Yeah, why not an ultrasound, or a picture of how you have a body with arms and legs by the end of the first month?
Why not deal with realities instead of ignoring them?
Women who give birth aren't required to have an ultrasound, nobody is. Why would this be the exception? Plus I suspect there would be a time lag that would push some simple, very eary term abortions into a higher risk catagory for later term abortions and end up annoying prolifers even more.
It's moot the law won't survive a court challenge.
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.
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.
Most girls who are pregnant would probably be AT LEAST at this stage of the game before they even figured out that they are pregnant, and thus, yes, the heart would be beating and would be clearly visible on the monitor. 
