Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate

[Allhallowsday]

If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.
This is probably my single biggest issue.  I guess it really hit home for me when my wife was pregnant with our twins.  Under current law, if she had wanted to, she could have gone to a clinic and had them both killed, and legally it would have been completely beyond my power to do a single thing about it.  Not that it was ever going to happen - she hates abortion as much as I do - but the idea that such a thing could legally be done just filled me with unutterable loathing which persists to this day.  It's not a Democrat/Republican thing for me, nor a Christian thing. And I have no issue whatsoever with people wanting to use contraception - we used it for years.   For me this issue goes to the very heart of what Jefferson called our "inalienable rights" - first and foremost of which is the Right to Life.  Roe vs. Wade trampled that right, and it has been hailed as "freedom of choice."

You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, and it does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you have a tiny, dead child who will never get to laugh, or love, or weep.

Okay, you are dramatic.  But I don't disagree with you.  I too loathe abortion.  I just don't think men have the right to legislate what women do with their bodies. 

[indianasmith]

That line of thinking is the great fallacy in the debate, IMHO. It's no longer just "their body."  There's a child in there!

[The Gravekeeper]

If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.
This is probably my single biggest issue.  I guess it really hit home for me when my wife was pregnant with our twins.  Under current law, if she had wanted to, she could have gone to a clinic and had them both killed, and legally it would have been completely beyond my power to do a single thing about it.  Not that it was ever going to happen - she hates abortion as much as I do - but the idea that such a thing could legally be done just filled me with unutterable loathing which persists to this day.  It's not a Democrat/Republican thing for me, nor a Christian thing. And I have no issue whatsoever with people wanting to use contraception - we used it for years.   For me this issue goes to the very heart of what Jefferson called our "inalienable rights" - first and foremost of which is the Right to Life.  Roe vs. Wade trampled that right, and it has been hailed as "freedom of choice."

You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, and it does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you have a tiny, dead child who will never get to laugh, or love, or weep.

I haven't seen any evidence that efforts to dissuade women already at the abortion clinic have much of an effect. Things like mandatory counseling, protests, parental consent for minors...it doesn't seem to work. With regards to the last one, it could just be convincing those girls to go out-of-state for their abortion or look for legal options to bypass having to get their parents' consent.

The only thing that seems to have an effect on the abortion rate is how much access to contraceptives and sex education women have; if you know your options, you're probably going to take preventative measures so you don't end up with an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Unfortunately, lower income women are less likely to have access to both, which puts them at a higher risk for an unwanted pregnancy

[Menard]

That line of thinking is the great fallacy in the debate, IMHO. It's no longer just "their body."  There's a child in there!

Wow!

You know I detest these discussions on politics and religion. I mean it's fine for you who enjoy it, and you all generally keep it among yourselves, so I'm the only one to blame for looking.

But I have to take you to task on that, Indy. So if it's no longer 'her body', and let's not mince words referring to women as their and an otherwise collective third party entity, then whose body is it?

The community's?

The government's?

The church's?

It's interesting that someone pointed out earlier, I think Grover...zip code...err...anyway..., about the hypocrisy of those who oppose mandates being all for them when it involves someone else, and more specially someone's, or a group of someones', agenda.

So, if it's not her body but it instead belongs to the collective body...isn't that socialism? And correct me if I'm wrong (bwhahahahaha), but isn't that a conservative jab at Obama and something conservatives swear they are opposed to...until it benefits them?

And here's another thing for the general discussion at hand: it takes two to tango...if you get my drift. All this discussion about women this and women that...seems a little one-sided (I'm generalizing...my apologies to anyone in the discussion who was not one-sided as I have not read every post in this discussion...as I have no interest in dozing off right now).

[dean]

Excuse my ignorance, as I didn't read the article since I'm hard up on time atm, but had to ask: what's the purpose of doing this procedure that a normal transabdominal ultrasound couldn't achieve?

[indianasmith]

That line of thinking is the great fallacy in the debate, IMHO. It's no longer just "their body."  There's a child in there!

Wow!

You know I detest these discussions on politics and religion. I mean it's fine for you who enjoy it, and you all generally keep it among yourselves, so I'm the only one to blame for looking.

But I have to take you to task on that, Indy. So if it's no longer 'her body', and let's not mince words referring to women as their and an otherwise collective third party entity, then whose body is it?

The community's?

The government's?

The church's?

It's interesting that someone pointed out earlier, I think Grover...zip code...err...anyway..., about the hypocrisy of those who oppose mandates being all for them when it involves someone else, and more specially someone's, or a group of someones', agenda.

So, if it's not her body but it instead belongs to the collective body...isn't that socialism? And correct me if I'm wrong (bwhahahahaha), but isn't that a conservative jab at Obama and something conservatives swear they are opposed to...until it benefits them?

And here's another thing for the general discussion at hand: it takes two to tango...if you get my drift. All this discussion about women this and women that...seems a little one-sided (I'm generalizing...my apologies to anyone in the discussion who was not one-sided as I have not read every post in this discussion...as I have no interest in dozing off right now).

It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.
As to your latter comment, about this as an exclusively women's issue, thank our courts for that.  Their rulings have stripped any and all rights fathers may have had over the fate of their unborn children.  A married woman can get an abortion and legally not even inform her husband.
  And as far as your posting in a political thread . . . welcome to the dark side!

[Menard]

...I'm not offended by it.

Darndies...I'll try to do better next time.  

As to your latter comment, about this as an exclusively women's issue, thank our courts for that.

I don't recall the courts being involved in this discussion. Don't think anybody here can blame the courts for their attitude toward women.

The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.
As to your latter comment, about this as an exclusively women's issue, thank our courts for that.  Their rulings have stripped any and all rights fathers may have had over the fate of their unborn children.  A married woman can get an abortion and legally not even inform her husband.

It is her body.

[Rev. Powell]

It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.

This is not an argument for or against abortion. It's just a historical/legal reference point.

Traditionally under common law abortion (before quickening) was a crime, but it was never classified as murder (or even as homicide).  At the time of the Declaration and Bill of Rights no one would have thought to consider fetuses citizens deserving of Constitutional protection. They considered regulation of abortion a matter for the individual states to decide as they saw fit. Considering abortion as murder is a relatively new concept; it was always traditionally considered a crime, but a far lesser crime.

[Flick James]

It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.

This is not an argument for or against abortion. It's just a historical/legal reference point.

Traditionally under common law abortion (before quickening) was a crime, but it was never classified as murder (or even as homicide).  At the time of the Declaration and Bill of Rights no one would have thought to consider fetuses citizens deserving of Constitutional protection. They considered regulation of abortion a matter for the individual states to decide as they saw fit. Considering abortion as murder is a relatively new concept; it was always traditionally considered a crime, but a far lesser crime.

That's really where the real debate lies. The right who want abortion to be illegal seem to believe that the left have somehow made it okay to murder unborn children. It's quite easy to understand why it was never considered murder. The law regarded life from what it could see clearly and easily. Over 200 years ago, science couldn't see as much as it did. Also, while we are to believe that the founders were piously Christian, they certainly didn't care much about the abortion debate. It just wasn't something they thought about, or at least not that we know about. And so, the law as always regarded life in terms of citizenry and rights at the point of delivery. This is why there is a birth certificate given at that point. That's just the way it is.

You simply can't give Constitutional rights to the unborn, or at least not the full set. Think of it. That would mean that my son who was conceived in Italy is an Italian citizen, or at least not an American citizen. Using Constitutional rights is a very tricky way of going about the argument. And don't get me wrong, I fully respect the life of the unborn. I just know that trying to apply Consitutional rights to the unborn is where the right misses the point. I certainly feel that the spirit of the Constituion values life, and life begins in the womb, but it's just not as simple as that. I mean, children do not enjoy the full set of Constitutional rights until they are adults.

Anyway, I am against abortion. I just think the right misses the point when they debate they topic. Unborn life deserves to be protected. Trying to classify abortion as murder, trying to apply Constitutional rights to the unborn, trying to say the the left somehow managed to make murder legal. These are very bad ways to go about it. They are guaranteed to fail.

[AndyC]

It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.

This is not an argument for or against abortion. It's just a historical/legal reference point.

Traditionally under common law abortion (before quickening) was a crime, but it was never classified as murder (or even as homicide).  At the time of the Declaration and Bill of Rights no one would have thought to consider fetuses citizens deserving of Constitutional protection. They considered regulation of abortion a matter for the individual states to decide as they saw fit. Considering abortion as murder is a relatively new concept; it was always traditionally considered a crime, but a far lesser crime.

That's really where the real debate lies. The right who want abortion to be illegal seem to believe that the left have somehow made it okay to murder unborn children. It's quite easy to understand why it was never considered murder. The law regarded life from what it could see clearly and easily. Over 200 years ago, science couldn't see as much as it did. Also, while we are to believe that the founders were piously Christian, they certainly didn't care much about the abortion debate. It just wasn't something they thought about, or at least not that we know about. And so, the law as always regarded life in terms of citizenry and rights at the point of delivery. This is why there is a birth certificate given at that point. That's just the way it is.

You simply can't give Constitutional rights to the unborn, or at least not the full set. Think of it. That would mean that my son who was conceived in Italy is an Italian citizen, or at least not an American citizen. Using Constitutional rights is a very tricky way of going about the argument. And don't get me wrong, I fully respect the life of the unborn. I just know that trying to apply Consitutional rights to the unborn is where the right misses the point. I certainly feel that the spirit of the Constituion values life, and life begins in the womb, but it's just not as simple as that. I mean, children do not enjoy the full set of Constitutional rights until they are adults.

Anyway, I am against abortion. I just think the right misses the point when they debate they topic. Unborn life deserves to be protected. Trying to classify abortion as murder, trying to apply Constitutional rights to the unborn, trying to say the the left somehow managed to make murder legal. These are very bad ways to go about it. They are guaranteed to fail.

In most cases, presenting your argument in the strongest possible terms will not do anything to keep the debate calm and rational. One side says the other wants to murder babies, and they are accused in turn of wanting to enslave women. Very difficult to get an intelligent dialogue going when both sides have tossed out a really insulting straw man argument. But it does become very easy to justify your own tactics once you've painted the other side as monsters. And you don't even have to listen to them at all if you can stick the right label on them. Once you define somebody as a conservative, feminist, fundamentalist, socialist or whatever, you can just assume you know what they think and argue with a generic viewpoint. Much easier than listening to what they say and really trying to understand their position.

Toss out a word like abortion and knees start jerking all over the place.

(I know Menard will make something of that last sentence, but I think I'll leave it as it is)

[Menard]

Unborn life deserves to be protected.

Toss out a word like abortion and knees start jerking all over the place.

(I know Menard will make something of that last sentence, but I think I'll leave it as it is)

I'm not directing my reply, I'm just replying generically to the statement that unborn life deserves to be protected. I'm leaving Andy's reply solely for the purpose that I love attention and seeing my name invoked...so why not just repeat it.

The issue of protecting unborn life does become primarily and nothing more than classifying a woman as subjective.

The only difference between men and women is that women can give the miracle of life. That...and they have BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS!!!

Ahem...back on the issue.

Through the ages we have been male dominated in society. For someone to say things are equal is simply blind, but we have definitely improved. The thing is, we are socially configured to the idea that men are somehow superior to women, and not the least of which this has been infused into cultures under the excuse of divine providence.

Being that men and women are only different by the measure of birth, it is the only thing that male dominated society can hold over a woman to keep her subordinate...and him superior.

There is nothing which prevents someone from voicing there opinion about abortion and them or others from offering options, but to mandate a woman's body as the province of government and social mores is a step backward.

We quote the constitution and declaration as affording protection to all life, but do we forget that all are created equal applies to one and all born life first, and that is regardless of gender. Yes, the words vary as when it was written it was not inclusive in doctrine of race or gender, but the spirit was there and should move forward as we do and be all inclusive. To apply that to say that all are unborn equal negates equality of gender.

Does it strike anybody that we are being at least a little positioning, if not chauvinist, being a bunch of guys, mostly, presuming it is our place to discuss women as objective and third party, and especially as if our opinions matter? Isn't it a little past time that we left the clubs in the caves that we carried them out of.


Just sayin'

[Frank81]

I'm in favor of  Abortion, even retroactive, starting with Journalists.

[Flick James]

I'm in favor of  Abortion, even retroactive, starting with Journalists.

Frank. I never knew you were a eugenist.

[Frank81]

I'm in favor of  Abortion, even retroactive, starting with Journalists.

Frank. I never knew you were a eugenist.

I'm not  Spartan, but, I'll make  an exception in the case  of journalists, maybe, we'll get  a  better breed.

[alandhopewell]

     What's wrong with requiring a woman to have an ultrasound if she wants an abortion? It's nothing more than providing her with information so as to make an informed choice.

Requiring?  I don't think the government should legislate requirements regarding lots of things, including medical procedures.  Did you read the article? 

       Admittedly,   I skimmed it; here in Texas, we're trying to get a bill passed that would require such.