Originally Posted by gansao

If nothing can be derived from the US constitution in regard to abortion it follows that abortion cannot be a constitutional right then doesnt it?
Didnt think that one through did you Simone?

That makes two points Gansao.

Originally Posted by snakespit

What I am asking is how do you justify it if there is no legitimate reason for it. Thus far I have yet to get an answer on that. Using your justification, we could argue a law requiring people to get a rectal exam before they have an appendectomy.

I'm not really seeing the similarity in the two. An appendectomy is performed when the appendix needs to be removed before it ruptures and goes septic inside the body and it can be done with the laproscopic procedure. There'd be no point in performing a rectal exam since you're not going through the rectum to get the appendix out.

With abortion though it's different since there's really only one way to go when it comes to removing the fetus unless you opt for late term abortion.

Rape is a very serious thing, and I don't make lightly of it. If you note, I never claimed that requiring a TVU was rape.

Sorry Snakesy honest mistake.

Originally Posted by snakespit

What I am asking is how do you justify it if there is no legitimate reason for it. Thus far I have yet to get an answer on that. Using your justification, we could argue a law requiring people to get a rectal exam before they have an appendectomy.

Are you saying this on a legal level or just overall policy level? By this I mean do you think legally (aka constitutionally) you can't make a law that isn't legitimately related to the actively regulated or are you saying as a matter of good policy why should we make a law that is not necessary to the thing being regulated?

If the former than I'd say a state has every right to make such a law. A state could make a law requiring you to wear a red cap if you are riding a bike if they wanted to. As for the later, I normally would agree. In the abortion case, the obvious reason is to try and persuade people to not get abortions (I'm saying this is THEIR reasoning...not what I feel). The thought is that the more information you have the better decision you can make. Part of me feels that if we have to allow abortion, which is killing someone, you should have the person have all information available. If one believes abortion is wrong perhaps it would be akin to the judge having all available information prior to ordering a death sentence.

I'm not strongly arguing the above, I'm just saying part of me thinks that way. Like I said earlier, I'm on the fence about the issue.

Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by simone

Republicans Are Like Crabs
If you are a woman you don't want them between your legs with their invasive laws.

From what I've heard crabs are what guys get when they date a liberal woman.

Originally Posted by Tabbi

I'm not really seeing the similarity in the two. An appendectomy is performed when the appendix needs to be removed before it ruptures and goes septic inside the body and it can be done with the laproscopic procedure. There'd be no point in performing a rectal exam since you're not going through the rectum to get the appendix out.

With abortion though it's different since there's really only one way to go when it comes to removing the fetus unless you opt for late term abortion.

The similarity is that neither a TVU or a rectal exam provide an medical benefit and simply represent an additional, unnecessary step that has been added simply to push a political and ideological agenda.

Sorry Snakesy honest mistake.

That's why I always make every effort to read the entire thread before I start accusing people of things. Appology accepted.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Are you saying this on a legal level or just overall policy level? By this I mean do you think legally (aka constitutionally) you can't make a law that isn't legitimately related to the actively regulated or are you saying as a matter of good policy why should we make a law that is not necessary to the thing being regulated?

If the former than I'd say a state has every right to make such a law. A state could make a law requiring you to wear a red cap if you are riding a bike if they wanted to. As for the later, I normally would agree. In the abortion case, the obvious reason is to try and persuade people to not get abortions (I'm saying this is THEIR reasoning...not what I feel). The thought is that the more information you have the better decision you can make. Part of me feels that if we have to allow abortion, which is killing someone, you should have the person have all information available. If one believes abortion is wrong perhaps it would be akin to the judge having all available information prior to ordering a death sentence.

I'm not strongly arguing the above, I'm just saying part of me thinks that way. Like I said earlier, I'm on the fence about the issue.

Hope this helps.

I agree that the state has every right to make such a law. I however find a particular danger in the state mandating unnecessary medical procedures to push an ideological agenda. I also find it interesting that the same people who continuously froth at the mouth about the waste of Obamacare and the socialization of medicine are actually advocating for an unnecessary medical procedure, but that's an amusing aside.

As for having all the information available, I must wonder really what additional information this is going to provide a woman? She already know's she's pregnant, she knows that if she does nothing she is likely to have a baby, she knows that having an abortion is going to end her pregnancy and prevent the fetus from growing to a full term baby. I don't see where the womans knowledge or amount of information is enhanced by this invasive and unecessary medical procedure. Again...nobody has been able to provide me with one benefit.

In the abortion case, the obvious reason is to try and persuade people to not get abortions

This is the crux of the issue. My read on it is that no, we should not allow the government to dictate medical procedures to push an ideological agenda. I think we should leave the necessity of medical procedures to physicians. That being said, I would have no problem if any physician decided to make a TVU mandatory before an abortion. However, I don't believe you would find any that would do so, because there is absolutely no medical reason to require one.

Originally Posted by snakespit

As for having all the information available, I must wonder really what additional information this is going to provide a woman? She already know's she's pregnant, she knows that if she does nothing she is likely to have a baby, she knows that having an abortion is going to end her pregnancy and prevent the fetus from growing to a full term baby. I don't see where the womans knowledge or amount of information is enhanced by this invasive and unecessary medical procedure. Again...nobody has been able to provide me with one benefit.

It's an attempt to trigger maternal instincts in hopes that the woman will alter her filicidic actions.

Of course it's ideological, everything in politics is, why do people expect things to turn out all right when the scoff at considering how things should turn out (an ideal).

This is like stopping the slave trade even if you can't abolish slavery, that's how I see it; that's how I'm sure the people who are pressing for it see it (no matter how bi-partisan they try to seem).

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's an attempt to trigger maternal instincts in hopes that the woman will alter her filicidic actions.

And of course you have evidence that "triggering maternal instincts" is accomplished by TVU?

This is like stopping the slave trade even if you can't abolish slavery, that's how I see it; that's how I'm sure the people who are pressing for it see it (no matter how bi-partisan they try to seem).

That is a bad analogy.

Originally Posted by snakespit

As for having all the information available, I must wonder really what additional information this is going to provide a woman? She already know's she's pregnant, she knows that if she does nothing she is likely to have a baby, she knows that having an abortion is going to end her pregnancy and prevent the fetus from growing to a full term baby. I don't see where the womans knowledge or amount of information is enhanced by this invasive and unecessary medical procedure. Again...nobody has been able to provide me with one benefit.

From what I understand, and this is just coming from a family member who does ultrasounds so take it for what it's worth, many people have no idea about the development of a fetus. Many people think at 7-8 weeks there is only a few cells floating around. In reality the baby looks like a really tiny baby but has a heart beat, hands, feet, something of a brain wave, etc. The development to looking like a human is remarkably quick and just basically expands that from 5-6 weeks onward. The ultrasound shows the heartbeat but if someone didn't tell you that it would look like a dot bouncing around on a screen.

That doesn't present an interesting question though. People are trained to look at ultrasounds so you know what you are looking at. If people are ignorant about what is actually happening in their body will they really be smart enough to understand what they are seeing on an ultrasound (in other words would they actually be competent to use the information provided)?

If it actually does provide useful information to people to make an informed decision than I feel a little better about that than if it really doesn't help with that and only serves the purpose of frustrating poor people to not get an abortion.

This is the crux of the issue. My read on it is that no, we should not allow the government to dictate medical procedures to push an ideological agenda. I think we should leave the necessity of medical procedures to physicians. That being said, I would have no problem if any physician decided to make a TVU mandatory before an abortion. However, I don't believe you would find any that would do so, because there is absolutely no medical reason to require one.

And this is not a bad argument and I'm almost inclined to agree. Then again, abortion is 95% of the time not a medically necessary procedure (and if it was medically necessary an ultrasound would be done anyway). If you come from the perspective that abortion is truly killing someone than I think the idea of providing information is not necessarily a bad argument either.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

From what I understand, and this is just coming from a family member who does ultrasounds so take it for what it's worth, many people have no idea about the development of a fetus. Many people think at 7-8 weeks there is only a few cells floating around. In reality the baby looks like a really tiny baby but has a heart beat, hands, feet, something of a brain wave, etc. The development to looking like a human is remarkably quick and just basically expands that from 5-6 weeks onward. The ultrasound shows the heartbeat but if someone didn't tell you that it would look like a dot bouncing around on a screen.

That doesn't present an interesting question though. People are trained to look at ultrasounds so you know what you are looking at. If people are ignorant about what is actually happening in their body will they really be smart enough to understand what they are seeing on an ultrasound (in other words would they actually be competent to use the information provided)?

If it actually does provide useful information to people to make an informed decision than I feel a little better about that than if it really doesn't help with that and only serves the purpose of frustrating poor people to not get an abortion.

And this is not a bad argument and I'm almost inclined to agree. Then again, abortion is 95% of the time not a medically necessary procedure (and if it was medically necessary an ultrasound would be done anyway). If you come from the perspective that abortion is truly killing someone than I think the idea of providing information is not necessarily a bad argument either.

What useful information could it provide that cannot be provided with a wall poster and a doctor who spends 5 minutes telling the mother what happens week to week in a pregnancy? No fancy equipment required, and no need to stick a probe in the womans vagina.

Originally Posted by snakespit

And of course you have evidence that "triggering maternal instincts" is accomplished by TVU?

No, it's just a reasonable expectation if the fetus looks enough like a baby.

Originally Posted by snakespit

That is a bad analogy.

Why?
(and as usual "If you are too stupid to realize why..." is not a sufficient response)

Originally Posted by Freedom

No, it's just a reasonable expectation if the fetus looks enough like a baby.

So you have no evidence that "triggering maternal instincts" is accomplished by TVU.

Why?

Because these rediculous laws do not stop anything, they merely add one more step to the process. It would be more analogous to requiring an eye exam before you could buy a slave.

Originally Posted by snakespit

What useful information could it provide that cannot be provided with a wall poster and a doctor who spends 5 minutes telling the mother what happens week to week in a pregnancy? No fancy equipment required, and no need to stick a probe in the womans vagina.

You'd probably get more information that way but it may not be as personnel. Then again, you could say the law is that you most explain exactly what the unborn baby is doing at that moment such as "your baby has hands, feet, a heart beat, and brain waves...please sign here that you understand this". This might be better than the ultrasound.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You'd probably get more information that way but it may not be as personnel. Then again, you could say the law is that you most explain exactly what the unborn baby is doing at that moment such as "your baby has hands, feet, a heart beat, and brain waves...please sign here that you understand this". This might be better than the ultrasound.

I have no problem with that, people should be making informed choices. Telling a woman: "you are at X weeks in your pregnancy, and the fetus is now x, y, and z" makes sense to me. In my opinion, it is something any good physician should already be doing. As well, I think they should ask if the woman had considered placing the child up for adoption, and be willing and able to provide information and assistance towards that as needed.

Again, my problem is with politicians mandating an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure when it is of no diagnostic or therapeutic value.