It looks like even conservative judges recognize what is and what is not just and constitutional. Texas sonogram law is struck down. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62388.html
Right because women are stupid broads and have no clue when they make a decision, but they have to exercise "responsibility." for that they are smart enough, but then again, hypocrisy is part and parcel of the morality coercion rhetoric.
RRrrrrrright. It is you who think abortion should remain legal even though it increases the frequency of abortions and because women do not act sexually responsible and need an "escape hatch" to escape responsibility for her own actions.
I did. The law was unconstitutional. Therefore the constitution wins again. Not my problem if you don't like it.
The sonogram shows the women an inconvenient truth, that they are considering killing their children. The abortion industry wins again.
Now you pretend to know what I am thinking. Why not just stick with your own, you have enough difficulty with that alone. Rational thinking and freedom as guarantied by the Constitution wins.
Actually, you're the one technically making this argument. If women know full well what they are doing when they decide to have an abortion, then looking at a sonogram should not affect them at all. Because they are competent and capable decision makers. But you fear that looking at a sonogram first will weaken them and influence their decision which is why you are against it. So you don't exactly have a lot of faith in their ability to make a decision, do you? Nice try, though.
It has everything to do with the procedure. It's showing you what you are terminating. If you were getting a tumor removed, I doubt you'd be so adamant about not wanting to see what was being taken out of your body. So from a purely medical standpoint, there is actually more reason for them to see it than there is for them not to see it. If it's simply "not relevant enough," then why such strong feelings in opposition to it? Shouldn't it merely be cumbersome instead of blatantly offensive? What rational reason could anyone have to be that upset about just looking at what they are aborting before aborting it unless they are intentionally trying to avoid acknowledging what they are doing? It's not like it changes. It's still the same "clump of cells" you were going to abort 5 minutes ago. You are already 100% certain that you are not killing another human being. So why is it so hard to look at it?
Increased the frequency of abortions is not a rational for criminalization of abortion. Abortion is a method of taking "responsibility for her own actions". If a pregnancy is unwanted, abortion is a responsible course of action. There are many examples where continuing a pregnancy is an irresponsible course of action. Having a baby at a young age can be limiting both the mother and father's carreer options and choices. Bringing an unwanted baby into a disfuctional environment is irresponsible. This decision is often made on the basis of religious myth rather than what is best for the either of the parties involved.
The problem is that many women do not understand full well what they are doing when having an abortion. Their minds are often filled with propaganda rather than science. As such they do not really know what they are looking at and so their minds will make up all kinds of stories and attribute those stories to the image. This "stories" which have no base in reality could potentially influence womans decision. Encouraging women to make life changing decisions based on fiction and lies is not a course of action the state should involve itself in. Imagine the nurse showing the sonogram to a pregnant women and saying "look at your baby" If there no areement among experts as to the qestion of personhood in the early stages of pregnancy then the nurse has no business making such a claim.
It seems that you do not know what you are talking about. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with what the struck down law mandated and why it was struck down and then attempt to make a relevant comment. An ill informed try though.
Sonograms are routinely preformed before abortions. Please inform yourself before making silly comments. Also make up your mind. Are women or are they not smart enough to make their decisions without the state getting involved?
They don't change women's minds. http://thecurvature.com/2010/06/01/...-abortion-rates-but-continue-getting-tougher/ Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision. That generally has also been the case in Alabama, which enacted its law, the first of its kind in the United States, in 2002. About half of women opt to view them, said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. And Ive never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like. It has been shown that sonograms do not change women's minds about aborting, so why do anti-choicers want them SOOOOO badly?
These are rational reasons for opposing MANDATORY sonogram laws: http://thecurvature.com/2010/06/01/...-abortion-rates-but-continue-getting-tougher/ Where I have a problem is not with setting a standard that patients should usually be presented with the opportunity to access information about their own bodies, but with the requirement by law regardless of circumstances. What I have a problem with is the lack of empathy that forces the hands of medical personnel in very difficult situations and has the potential to emotionally devastate someone seeking an abortion. What I have a problem with is the state interference with professional opinion about when medical procedures are actually necessary, and professional opinion about the most caring way to respond to a person who is very sure about the decision to have an abortion but nonetheless quite distressed by it. What I have a problem with is purposely failing to give patients any choice in the matter about whether to view images and where to draw the line in their own emotional involvement in medical procedures Now, why is it that anti-choicers really want those laws when they have proved to not reduce abortion? Could it be... And so it seems that their real goal instead is to punish those have abortions as much as they can for as long as abortion is still available. For opening their legs. For being whores. For killing their babies. For being such failed women. For being poor and still having sex. For being raped. For thinking that their bodies are their own. For exercising rights that anti-choicers dont believe women deserve. For thinking that their own lives and health have value. For all of that, anti-choicers believe that those who have abortions need to be punished as much as they can possibly get the state to punish them. After all, while most patients dont regret viewing the images theyre offered, some do some is good, as some have then apparently been appropriately punished. But when such high numbers feel ambivalent or even relieved upon viewing the images, giving them an option and simply showing pictures isnt good enough, anymore. After all presenting choices is the problem to begin with. Further punishment is needed and that means forcibly heard, lengthy, biased descriptions about what exactly it is that these sluts who may have been raped, but probably deserved it, after all are supposedly killing. (FYI, "biased" means dishonest.)
Absolutely not as evidenced by the hoardes of supposed "pro chioce" people who repeatedly say "I would never have one, and I think they are deplorable". False! So killing the most defenseless human being in the situation is "responsible"? But intentionally killing an unwanted human being is "responsible"?
