Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

[Skylar]

I haven't said a thing about being 'fully informed'. I'm asking you questions about an ultrasound being *medically necessary' or having any relation to medical safety.

And you can demonstrate no way in which forcing a woman to look at an ultrasound would be either. You simply assert that it is....because.

I have. I"ve answered your question, you don't like my answer because it doesn't fit your criteria. Too bad. I believe women should have all the information available prior to making the decision to abort. You apparently don't or you'd answer me.

You made an assertion that its 'necessary'. That's not an argument. That's an assertion.

You can't demonstrate how its medically necessary, how it affects the medical safety of the procedure, or has medical relevance whatsoever.

Because it has none. You've already described the purpose: to get women not to have abortions.
Which has nothing to do with medical necessity or medical safety.

These are non-necassary medical procedures that nothing to do with medical safety. Nor can you demonstrate any way in which they are. You merely assert that it must be so.

Which, again, isn't an argument. Its the Begging the Question fallacy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

In addition to not being medically necessary, ultrasounds do not have the effect of changing the minds of women seeking abortion:

'It is an article of faith among abortion opponents that when women seeking abortions see evidence of a living thing in their bodies, some change their minds. This is fed by anecdotes from so-called crisis-pregnancy centers run by religious groups promoting abortion alternatives.

But studies in clinics indicate that viewing an ultrasound does not change minds, says Ms. Weitz, the sociologist.

“The women who come in for an abortion know what they are doing,” she told me. Six in 10 women seeking abortions, she added, have already had a baby.

“Women are having abortions because of the conditions of their lives, their economic situation, their partner situation, their age,” she said, “and the ultrasound doesn’t change that.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/sunday-review/ultrasound-a-pawn-in-the-abortion-wars.html

“For a long time it was about shaming women,” Ms. Nash says of the evolving ultrasound proposals. “And now it’s about humiliating women.” ibid

Indeed.

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing women of what an abortion is going to end.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I haven't said a thing about being 'fully informed'. I'm asking you questions about an ultrasound being *medically necessary' or having any relation to medical safety.

And you can demonstrate no way in which forcing a woman to look at an ultrasound would be either. You simply assert that it is....because.

I have. I"ve answered your question, you don't like my answer because it doesn't fit your criteria. Too bad. I believe women should have all the information available prior to making the decision to abort. You apparently don't or you'd answer me.

You made an assertion that its 'necessary'. That's not an argument. That's an assertion.

You can't demonstrate how its medically necessary, how it affects the medical safety of the procedure, or has medical relevance whatsoever.

Because it has none. You've already described the purpose: to get women not to have abortions.
Which has nothing to do with medical necessity or medical safety.

These are non-necassary medical procedures that nothing to do with medical safety. Nor can you demonstrate any way in which they are. You merely assert that it must be so.

Which, again, isn't an argument. Its the Begging the Question fallacy.

I made no assertation that it was medically necessary .. .you did then projected. Try reading what I actually post.

It IS necessary to fully inform them of what the abortion they are considering will actually end ... the life of another.

So, please tell the class why you don't think women should be fully informed. tia

You keep deleting my question. Gee, I wonder why.

So when they perform abortions, they go in blind? No ultra sound to guide them?

 

[Skylar]

Skin cells cannot reproduce

Sure they do. They divide, making copies of themselves all the time. That's reproduction.

Reproduction requires specific cells with specific functions in combination with cells of a separate individual to create a new individual. Something beyond skill cells capability. Do try harder next time.

Says you. Not your definition on life. You're abandoning your own source, your own definition. And adding 'caveats' and 'exceptions' based on what's convenient to your argument that your definition simply doesn't include.

I'll stick with the original definition, thank you. Not your 'revised for convenience' version when it doesn't fit your argument. And by it, skin cells can absolutely reproduce. They're undeniably human DNA, they change, they die, the metabolize.

They're 'human life'. By your estimation anyway.

As to the child endangerment bit you seem stuck on...I pointed out that based off current laws...it's not. It would not be child endangerment in any case as the womb is the natural place for their development. Since six live births have been recorded on many occasions...definitely no.

So SHOULD invitro fertilization be considered child endangerment and mass child murder? As you're almost always killing a 'human being' when you try it. Most often, half a dozen at a time.

If you tossed your kids into a room where all of them would most likely die, and it was almost certain most of them would...you'd be a monster.

Why then aren't mothers trying to get pregnant via IV treatments monsters? Remember, each of these zygotes is the same thing as a teen ager in your argument. A=A, remember.

A heavy flow is not indicative of any of the sort.

Nonsense. In fact, a heavy flow is one of the most common signs of a miscarriage. Especially for women who are late.

The most common signs and symptoms of miscarriage are vaginal bleeding and strong period-type cramps. The bleeding can vary from light to heavy, perhaps with blood clots, and may come and go for a few days.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a1039515/understanding-early-miscarriage#ixzz3yCw2zmkx

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you? Remember, up to 20% of implanted embryos are spontaneously aborted. About 70% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted.

And your standard of human life is fertilization. Which means for every baby born at least TWO 'human beings' die. Which dwarfs abortion numbers by orders of magnitude.

And since there's no difference between a fertilized egg and a teenager, shouldn't the police be investigating these as at least *suspected* deaths? Shouldn't any heavy flow at least spark a homicide investigation? As if the mother did anything that might have increased the odds of miscarriage, that's at least manslaughter.

If not, why not?

If you're going to be really stupid, there's not much point in denoting such can occur with virgins, who have neither conceived nor had any opportunity to do so. Please try to be less stupid.

I'm merely applying your standards consistently. A=A, remmeber. And treating any fertilized egg as I would a teenager, toddler or fully grown adult. Exactly as you've argued I should.

Its not my fault that its beyond stupid to refuse to acknowledge ANY distinction. As I said, a rational person can recognize such a distinction. You're not allowed to. You're stuck with A=A.

And I'm going to hold you to it.

 

[Dovahkiin]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

Pro-choice advocates want it to be the woman's choice, not the state's.

You mean the woman's choice to kill the baby.

It's a fetus. Not a baby. You don't get a say in the matter anyway.

 

[Skylar]

I made no assertation that it was medically necessary .. .you did then projected. Try reading what I actually post.

Except when you did say it was medically necessary, of course:

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

Post 230
Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

And its not medically necessary to do so. It doesn't effect the medical safety in the slightest nor have any medical relevance whatsoever. If it happens, if it doesn't happen, the medical procedure is identical.

6 in 10 women who have abortions have already had kids. Making women look at an ultrasound almost never changes their decision....because they know what's up.

All it does is unncessarily and intentionally traumatize them in an already difficult situation.

The nonsense that women are just too dumb to know what's happening until you explain it to them is the epitome of 'mansplaining'. They know better than you ever will. And shouldn't be subject to medically unnecessary procedures that are intentionally traumatic just to satisfy your sensibilities about *their* bodies.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I made no assertation that it was medically necessary .. .you did then projected. Try reading what I actually post.

Except when you did say it was medically necessary, of course:

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

Post 230
Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

And its not medically necessary to do so. It doesn't effect the medical safety in the slightest nor have any medical relevance whatsoever. If it happens, if it doesn't happen, the medical procedure is identical.

6 in 10 women who have abortions have already had kids. Making women look at an ultrasound almost never changes their decision....because they know what's up.

All it does is unncessarily and intentionally traumatize them in an already difficult situation.

The nonsense that women are just too dumb to know what's happening until you explain it to them is the epitome of 'mansplaining'. They know better than you ever will. And shouldn't be subject to medically unnecessary procedures that are intentionally traumatic just to satisfy your sensibilities about *their* bodies.

So I'm clear ... you're NOT in favor of providing women all the information when they are considering an abortion?

So a 14 year old is fully aware that what is inside of her is, in fact, a pre-born human being in the earliest stages of development?

Having an ultra sound causes no harm and can only help in the decision process, which is a very difficult situation. How would it traumatize someone?

I notice you have continually ignored my question of the use of ultra sound during an abortion. Again, one just has to wonder on that . . . .

If only one woman were to change her mind on getting an abortion upon seeing an ultra sound of her unborn, then it should be done in order to save that life. You don't agree? Why?

 

[Skylar]

I made no assertation that it was medically necessary .. .you did then projected. Try reading what I actually post.

Except when you did say it was medically necessary, of course:

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

Post 230
Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

And its not medically necessary to do so. It doesn't effect the medical safety in the slightest nor have any medical relevance whatsoever. If it happens, if it doesn't happen, the medical procedure is identical.

6 in 10 women who have abortions have already had kids. Making women look at an ultrasound almost never changes their decision....because they know what's up.

All it does is unncessarily and intentionally traumatize them in an already difficult situation.

The nonsense that women are just too dumb to know what's happening until you explain it to them is the epitome of 'mansplaining'. They know better than you ever will. And shouldn't be subject to medically unnecessary procedures that are intentionally traumatic just to satisfy your sensibilities about *their* bodies.

So I'm clear ... you're NOT in favor of providing women all the information when they are considering an abortion?

So l'm clear......you think a woman who's already had a baby DOESN'T know what a pregnancy is?

Because 6 in 10 of the women you're forcing to look at these ultrasounds has already had a kid? With the ultrasound making virtually no difference in the decision with the remaining women either. Your premise that its 'necessary' to show them ultrasounds despite it being utterly unnecessary medically, and providing them with information that they already have......is utter horeshit.

The purpose of the ultrasounds is to harass, humiliate, shame, and traumatize women who are exercising their rights.

Um, no.

 

[rightwinger]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

 

[Zoom-boing]

I made no assertation that it was medically necessary .. .you did then projected. Try reading what I actually post.

Except when you did say it was medically necessary, of course:

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

Post 230
Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

And its not medically necessary to do so. It doesn't effect the medical safety in the slightest nor have any medical relevance whatsoever. If it happens, if it doesn't happen, the medical procedure is identical.

6 in 10 women who have abortions have already had kids. Making women look at an ultrasound almost never changes their decision....because they know what's up.

All it does is unncessarily and intentionally traumatize them in an already difficult situation.

The nonsense that women are just too dumb to know what's happening until you explain it to them is the epitome of 'mansplaining'. They know better than you ever will. And shouldn't be subject to medically unnecessary procedures that are intentionally traumatic just to satisfy your sensibilities about *their* bodies.

So I'm clear ... you're NOT in favor of providing women all the information when they are considering an abortion?

So l'm clear......you think a woman who's already had a baby DOESN'T know what a pregnancy is?

Because 6 in 10 of the women you're forcing to look at these ultrasounds has already had a kid? With the ultrasound making virtually no difference in the decision with the remaining women either. Your premise that its 'necessary' to show them ultrasounds despite it being utterly unnecessary medically, and providing them with information that they already have......is utter horeshit.

The purpose of the ultrasounds is to harass, humiliate, shame, and traumatize women who are exercising their rights.

Um, no.

You sure do like to dodge questions.

ALL women getting abortions haven't had children prior (6 out of 10), but according to you informing them of what's inside of them is harassment. According to you, 14 year old know exactly what's going on inside of their body when they're pregnant, so the hell with informing them. Do I have that about right? So much for that progressives are all for education, eh?

The purpose of the ultra sound, dipshit, is to INFORM. And if, IF, that information causes a woman to change her mind and not have an abortion (and live with the consequences of that decision for the rest of her life) you somehow see that as a negative. You would.

If only one woman were to change her mind on getting an abortion upon seeing an ultra sound of her unborn, then it should be done in order to save that life. You don't agree? Why?

 

[Zoom-boing]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing a woman of what the abortion she is about to have will end ... the life of another.

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

 

[rightwinger]

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing a woman of what the abortion she is about to have will end ... the life of another.

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

Another moron who assumes women are so stupid they don't know what a fetus looks like

More conservative shaming and terrorizing women

 

[Zoom-boing]

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing a woman of what the abortion she is about to have will end ... the life of another.

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

Another moron who assumes women are so stupid they don't know what a fetus looks like

More conservative shaming and terrorizing women

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

 

[Care4all]

it appears to be a ''made up'' story, or very lacking in giving us the full story...no doctor is going to give a pregnant woman requesting an abortion an ultrasound without need for an ultrasound,

and if for some odd reason she needed an ultrasound perhaps for him to determine how far along she was because she was very far along in her pregnancy, then the PATIENT would be charged EXTRA for this ultrasound, it would be in addition to her costs for the abortion....

the way the article presents this, it is if as though the ultra sound is just something the doctor did on every woman planned to have an abortion and she just accidentally noticed it.... that is simply nonsensical.... when she was having the ultrasound, the viewing screen is right there, in front of you, showing every thing the sonogram is showing....she would have seen the baby as she describes it right when she was having the ultra sound done.

I have had at least 10-15 ultrasounds due to a medical condition I have....I do know as much as any layman could possibly know, about ultrasound procedure, and what they cost.

So, unless this woman was pretty far along in pregnancy and the doctor was concerned about her being too far along in pregnancy to get an abortion, or too far along for the simpler procedure she describes as viewing a film of stick figures about, the doctor would not just by happenstance, do an ultrasound before an early term, abortion....and would never ever give her an ultra sound without charging her extra for it.

Also, if she was really far along in pregnancy, that would explain the ultrasound, and also explain why the baby showed arms head etc which would NOT be evident and clear in an early term pregnancy sonogram image....but it still would not explain why she did not see these images in her file WHILE she was having the procedure done on the monitor right in front of her.

 

[9aces]

Skin cells cannot reproduce

Sure they do. They divide, making copies of themselves all the time. That's reproduction.

Reproduction requires specific cells with specific functions in combination with cells of a separate individual to create a new individual. Something beyond skill cells capability. Do try harder next time.

Says you. Not your definition on life. You're abandoning your own source, your own definition. And adding 'caveats' and 'exceptions' based on what's convenient to your argument that your definition simply doesn't include.

I'll stick with the original definition, thank you. Not your 'revised for convenience' version when it doesn't fit your argument. And by it, skin cells can absolutely reproduce. They're undeniably human DNA, they change, they die, the metabolize.

They're 'human life'. By your estimation anyway.

As to the child endangerment bit you seem stuck on...I pointed out that based off current laws...it's not. It would not be child endangerment in any case as the womb is the natural place for their development. Since six live births have been recorded on many occasions...definitely no.

So SHOULD invitro fertilization be considered child endangerment and mass child murder? As you're almost always killing a 'human being' when you try it. Most often, half a dozen at a time.

If you tossed your kids into a room where all of them would most likely die, and it was almost certain most of them would...you'd be a monster.

Why then aren't mothers trying to get pregnant via IV treatments monsters? Remember, each of these zygotes is the same thing as a teen ager in your argument. A=A, remember.

A heavy flow is not indicative of any of the sort.

Nonsense. In fact, a heavy flow is one of the most common signs of a miscarriage. Especially for women who are late.

The most common signs and symptoms of miscarriage are vaginal bleeding and strong period-type cramps. The bleeding can vary from light to heavy, perhaps with blood clots, and may come and go for a few days.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a1039515/understanding-early-miscarriage#ixzz3yCw2zmkx

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you? Remember, up to 20% of implanted embryos are spontaneously aborted. About 70% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted.

And your standard of human life is fertilization. Which means for every baby born at least TWO 'human beings' die. Which dwarfs abortion numbers by orders of magnitude.

And since there's no difference between a fertilized egg and a teenager, shouldn't the police be investigating these as at least *suspected* deaths? Shouldn't any heavy flow at least spark a homicide investigation? As if the mother did anything that might have increased the odds of miscarriage, that's at least manslaughter.

If not, why not?

If you're going to be really stupid, there's not much point in denoting such can occur with virgins, who have neither conceived nor had any opportunity to do so. Please try to be less stupid.

I'm merely applying your standards consistently. A=A, remmeber. And treating any fertilized egg as I would a teenager, toddler or fully grown adult. Exactly as you've argued I should.

Its not my fault that its beyond stupid to refuse to acknowledge ANY distinction. As I said, a rational person can recognize such a distinction. You're not allowed to. You're stuck with A=A.

And I'm going to hold you to it.

Hehe, you don't seem to know what reproduction is.

Skin cells cannot produce a new individual. As the cells die they're replaced by new ones. Learn some biology...geez.

Your inability to understand basic biology is going to be a bit of an issue, but if you stick with it, I'm sure we can get you past the worst of your ignorance.

No, implantation is the purpose of invitro fertilization. To give the embryo an opportunity to continue it's life cycle and progress in it's development. Since the female womb is the only place it's development can progress that is. Now one day if that ever changes, you might have an argument, until then....you don't.

Oh please, you're going to stick with your ignorance on heavy flow periods? You've never actually been around a woman have you? The reason you stupidly went to the wrong place to figure this out, was you assumed the diagnosis....instead of actually investigating it. Tell that story to any OBGYN, and they'll laugh you out of the building.

You still lack understanding of what A is A....means.

A thing is itself, and cannot be anything else. A human being cannot be anything but a human being. Now your idiocy takes not into consideration that man's laws do differentiate between what is an acceptable killing of a human being, and what is not, and when that individual has the right of a trial to determine if their death is just. None of this changes that scientifically, biologically, they are one and the same.

In this country slavery was once considered legal. By your argument, slavery should be reinstated as once legal...always legal. Whether it's morally acceptable or not.

The law of identity does not permit you to parse a distinction. One human being = one human being. It does not differentiate between them. It takes man to determine when one life has value and another does not. The Nazi's decided Jew life, while human beings were non-persons, and thus not deserving of the right to live. In time past men were the slaves of men because one decided they had the right to force them.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, every slavemaster throughout history. These are the champions of the principles you espouse.

You should be proud to embrace them.

 

[9aces]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

Pro-choice advocates want it to be the woman's choice, not the state's.

You mean the woman's choice to kill the baby.

It's a fetus. Not a baby. You don't get a say in the matter anyway.

It's a human being, her child. Be honest about it.

 

[9aces]

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing a woman of what the abortion she is about to have will end ... the life of another.

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

Another moron who assumes women are so stupid they don't know what a fetus looks like

More conservative shaming and terrorizing women

Is their convenience or their child's death of greater value?

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing a woman of what the abortion she is about to have will end ... the life of another.

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

Another moron who assumes women are so stupid they don't know what a fetus looks like

More conservative shaming and terrorizing women

Is their convenience or their child's death of greater value?

Raising a family is not a convenience

It is a major endeavor. Unfortunately, women have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

Leaving it to the woman and her doctor to decide is preferable to leaving it to conservatives who don't give a shit once the baby is born

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing a woman of what the abortion she is about to have will end ... the life of another.

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

Another moron who assumes women are so stupid they don't know what a fetus looks like

More conservative shaming and terrorizing women

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

You're missing the point – perhaps intentionally.

The issue has nothing to do with providing a woman considering abortion with comprehensive information concerning abortion per her request; no one 'opposes' affording a woman such information – again, per her request.

The issue concerns compelling a woman, against her will, through force of law, in bad faith by government, to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure for no other reason then to attempt to dissuade her from having an abortion.

And yes, as a fact of medical science an ultrasound is not medically necessary:

“Routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of a first-trimester abortion.”
State Ultrasound Requirements in Abortion Procedure

Given the fact ultrasounds are not medically necessary, there is no rationale or justification for the state to compel a woman seeking a lawful abortion to be subject to such a procedure as a condition of her exercising her right to privacy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

It should be up to the woman. How can you force what she sees in a very stressful situation? I want to make you cry first

The idea that women need to be shamed or terrorized before making an abortion decision is what makes conservatives repulsive

Let me shove this up your vagina before I approve your abortion

Another one who doesn't believe in fully informing a woman of what the abortion she is about to have will end ... the life of another.

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

Another moron who assumes women are so stupid they don't know what a fetus looks like

More conservative shaming and terrorizing women

How will an ultra sound shame or terrorize her? Why shouldn't she be given all information prior to making such a difficult, and permanent, decision?

Don't they use an ultra sound when they perform the abortion? Is that shoved into her? Does that make her cry? Does that terrorize her?

You're missing the point – perhaps intentionally.

The issue has nothing to do with providing a woman considering abortion with comprehensive information concerning abortion per her request; no one 'opposes' affording a woman such information – again, per her request.

The issue concerns compelling a woman, against her will, through force of law, in bad faith by government, to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure for no other reason then to attempt to dissuade her from having an abortion.

And yes, as a fact of medical science an ultrasound is not medically necessary:

“Routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of a first-trimester abortion.”
State Ultrasound Requirements in Abortion Procedure

Given the fact ultrasounds are not medically necessary, there is no rationale or justification for the state to compel a woman seeking a lawful abortion to be subject to such a procedure as a condition of her exercising her right to privacy.

By not providing her the information per an ultra sound, you're dissuading her to have the abortion ... because she doesn't have all the facts. Like the fact that the decision to abort her unborn offspring permanently ends a life.

It causes no harm, it provides her more information, it allows her to make a fully informed decision, it allows her to process what she is about to do, which is to end the life of another human being. And your ilk is against that. Figures.