Kentucky Bill Would Mandate Ultrasounds Before Abortions

[flicka]

Don't know where you got your ultrasound, but that's nonsense. None of it is true. No such instructions were given to my ex-wife for either of our kids, and the ultrasound came out just fine.

It's standard procedure. I've have 5 so I should know.

The reason is not emotion, but to show the mother that the child is alive. Most of them have managed to detach themselves from that fact. Therefore, the "medical reason" is reconnect the mother with reality. And no insurance pays for an abortion, either, not even one of those "medical concerns for the mother" travesties.

The "reconnect" explanation isn't going to fly, medically speaking. I don't see that on the insurance forms either. Women who seek abortions KNOW they are pregnant and what it means. A nice little discussion and a brochure will do the trick just in case you think someone doesn't know.

They already are required to give them alternatives to abortions. You'd probably object to a brochure with a picture of an aborted baby, anyway.

Why would there need to be a picture of an aborted baby? An ultrasound isn't going to show that so why should a brochure? Again...emotion. Geeze.

So the child's death is preferable to adoption by a couple who can't otherwise have children? That's sound reasoning, isn't it? "He's probably going to have a miserable life anyway, so let's just kill him."

The prevention of the child's life. See how easy it is to spin?

 

[IisJustMe]

Women who seek abortions KNOW they are pregnant and what it means.

If they knew what it means to have an abortion, they wouldn't have one. That's my point. They don't know, and a "nice little discussion and a brochure" will not "do the trick."

An ultrasound isn't going to show that so why should a brochure?

No, and again, that's the point. Shock doesn't convince them. The ultrasound is a positive effort to show them there is life within them. Your arguments here ignore the point in my last post, that they have detached themselves from the knowledge that what they carry is life.

Again...emotion. Geeze.The prevention of the child's life. See how easy it is to spin?

Nice effort to take the focus off the truth. An abortion isn't "preventing" a life, it is ending a life. That's not "spin," that's fact, and nothing you do to rationalize the procedure changes that.

 

[CCGirl]

How invasive can a government become? Unbelievable. Forcing women to look at a minute clump of cells.

 

[IisJustMe]

How invasive can a government become? Unbelievable. Forcing women to look at a minute clump of cells.

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

I'm sorry, I don't get the 'guilt tripping' arguement. How is it guilt tripping to show someone what they apparently 'Already know' - "they already know they're pregnant"? Maybe they should examine why seeing the fetus would cause them to feel bad...

Not to mention it would help a lot with the procedure to know exactly how far along the person is, where abouts the placenta is attatched etc.

Some specialised ultrasounds you do have to drink water. But generally these days, you don't have to do anything. Some VERY early ultrasounds need to be done vaginally, but again, you can generally see a heartbeat, actually pulsating from 6-7 weeks pregnant (2-3 weeks after a missed period). I saw my daugthers heartbeating at 6 weeks, I saw her limb stubs flailing around at 10.5 weeks, I saw my son bouncing around with limbs at 13 weeks - ALL FIRST TRIMESTER.

 

[flicka]

I'm sorry, I don't get the 'guilt tripping' arguement. How is it guilt tripping to show someone what they apparently 'Already know' - "they already know they're pregnant"? Maybe they should examine why seeing the fetus would cause them to feel bad...

Not to mention it would help a lot with the procedure to know exactly how far along the person is, where abouts the placenta is attatched etc.

Some specialised ultrasounds you do have to drink water. But generally these days, you don't have to do anything. Some VERY early ultrasounds need to be done vaginally, but again, you can generally see a heartbeat, actually pulsating from 6-7 weeks pregnant (2-3 weeks after a missed period). I saw my daugthers heartbeating at 6 weeks, I saw her limb stubs flailing around at 10.5 weeks, I saw my son bouncing around with limbs at 13 weeks - ALL FIRST TRIMESTER.

I saw nothing until the 4th month, although they did pick up a heartbeat at 12 weeks.
And no, they don't need to examine why seeing t he fetus makes them feel bad. Believe me, very few women get an abortion on a whim, just for the heck of it. Most will struggle with the decision and they don't need anyone else putting pressure on them.

Anyone who takes it lightly is a fool. And you can't change a fools behavior with legislation.

 

[flicka]

If they knew what it means to have an abortion, they wouldn't have one. That's my point.

Well your point is wrong. They know. Many women who have children get abortions. I think they know better than you what's what.

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

I saw nothing until the 4th month, although they did pick up a heartbeat at 12 weeks.
And no, they don't need to examine why seeing t he fetus makes them feel bad. Believe me, very few women get an abortion on a whim, just for the heck of it. Most will struggle with the decision and they don't need anyone else putting pressure on them.

Anyone who takes it lightly is a fool. And you can't change a fools behavior with legislation.

my children are 2years old and 5 months old, I have ultrasound photo's from all of these sessions. And most of them were free ultrasounds too. I don't know what to tell ya, I saw them, I remember distinctly the 10.5 week one, because I had miscarried before and had never got to that stage, and she looked like a baby, just with stumps instead of full limbs, it was so beautiful.

And your right, they don't need anyone ELSE putting pressure on them, abortion is pushed as the only answer, that's plenty of pressure to do the 'smart', 'easier' thing.

I do know that most women don't get an abortion on a whim, but they do get it out of fear and confusion a lot of the time. I think that instead of pressure that loving counselling would be better. At least to avoid post-abortion syndrome. I do agree with you though that this is an issue that doesn't do well handled on a legistative level, it is too personal.

 

[flicka]

I want to make sure women understand fully what is happening if they get an opportunity to see the little fingers and toes of the baby that they're thinking about aborting," state Sen. Jack Westwood, (R-Crescent Springs), an anti-abortion lawmaker who sponsored the bill, told WLKY.

Does anyone actually think this ISN'T a play on emotion?

Most abortions are performed before "little fingers and toes" are going to be visable. But maybe by the time the get the sonogram they will be far enought along to see them...and then have a 2nd trimester abortion. Good thinking people.

 

[IisJustMe]

Does anyone actually think this ISN'T a play on emotion?

NO! It's an attempt to get the mother to realize she is ending a human life!

Most abortions are performed before "little fingers and toes" are going to be visable.

You either don't realize how many mid- to late-term abortions are done daily in the US, or you have no idea how soon those "little fingers and toes" appear. Did you know the heart starts beating after 30-35 days? But the child has implanted on the uteran wall weeks before that, and the heart is in place long before it actually beats for the first time. The fingers and toes show up toward the end of the first trimester to early in the second. That's only 90 days or so, a long way from being fully developed. Most abortions in the US are done in the first trimester, but some states allow it up to the end of the second, and a few states still allow third-trimester abortions. The problem is, the definition of "viable" has gotten closer and closer to conception. Children as pre-mature as 21 weeks have been born, and survived. They are people. Stupid opinions to the contrary.

 

[Dannager]

NO! It's an attempt to get the mother to realize she is ending a human life!

Except that the argument for it being a human life is based on an arbitrary definition supported by the appeal to emotion generated by showing the potential mother images that she will identify with. It is an attempt to influence the mother's mind by preying on the mind's ability to form connections without needing to reason out whether that connection is appropriate - we see what looks like a tiny human without having anything but an arbitrary declaration that it's human.

There is absolutely no way that you can say this isn't an appeal to emotion. If you do, you simply do not understand how the human mind functions.

 

[IisJustMe]

Except that the argument for it being a human life is based on an arbitrary definition supported by the appeal to emotion generated by showing the potential mother images that she will identify with.

I don't care about "arbitrary definitions." Life begins at conception. Man can't create life so what makes him think he has the right to define when it begins? Fact: A fertilized human egg, left alone, becomes a human being. End of story.

 

[SteveAtheist]

I don't care about "arbitrary definitions." Life begins at conception. Man can't create life so what makes him think he has the right to define when it begins? Fact: A fertilized human egg, left alone, becomes a human being. End of story.

When life begins is indeed difficult to ascertain. You defined when life begins and then said that man doens't have the right to define when it begins in the same post. Whichever you choose, human definitions for when life begins is the only one we can have. Nobody else is going to define it for us.

A fertized human egg, left alone, dies. The egg needs the mother in order to grow, that is why the law recognizes human life at 'viability' or when the fetus can live outside of the mother's womb.

And if you believe that 'life begins at conception', what would you say about the large majority of fertilized eggs that terminate in the womb on their own? Many of times this happens withought the mother realizing that the egg was fertalized. Should we hold funerals for misscarriages?

What about identical twins? Is there one life created at conception and then another created when the egg splits? What if the egg splits again? If you are going to define life as beggining at conception, then identical twins would count as having the rights of one and only one person.

We intelligent human beings need to determine how our laws are to work, and a group of intelligent humans decided that our constitution could grant rights to a person as soon as that person was 'viable' and could live on its own. Asserting that life begins at conception has many technical problems and does not have any scientific or legal basis. The only basis for saying that life begins at conception is that 'a soul' is inserted into a life at that point, which can only stand on religious grands and is thusly unconsitutional.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Actually, so long as a woman has the option to abort, I have no problem with lowering abortion numbers. In fact, it is a good sign that women are being smarter about sex and things like contraceptives.

Of course, I don't work for Planned Parenthood, so I don't have money at stake like they do. And while it is obviously a motivator, I don't doubt these people also believe somewhat they are doing the community a good service.

I am so sick of people falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood is only in it for the money, or that doctors make tons of money from abortions. Believe me, this is not in the least bit true. Abortion is only one of MANY wonderful services provided by the folks at Planned Parenthood (in fact, many PP clinics don't even offer abortion - never seems to stop the ignorant protesters from harassing the women who go there, though). In addition, if you're a doctor and you want to make some money off pregnant women, abortion isn't the way to go - a full-term pregnancy and delivery usually costs thousands of dollars - an abortion isn't even comparable. Not to mention there are very few "abortion doctors" - most doctors who provide abortions are OB-GYNS who provide countless medical services to women.

While I'm addressing the lies and misinformation being spread in this thread, there is NO SUCH THING as the "pro-abort" position. Nor do I know a single pro-choice advocate who would be unhappy with less abortions taking place - unless the reason for less abortions was because women were having their choice taken away from them. I'm personally not in favor of abortion in nearly all cases, but for reasons of personal autonomy, privacy, and medical issues, I am staunchly pro-choice and will fight against anyone's attempts to legally force pregnancy on women. I would absolutely LOVE it if someday there were no more abortions - but I want this to come about because there's no longer any need for abortions, because women are never put into a position of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. And in my opinion, reaching such a goal has a lot more to do with providing safe and effective contraceptive options, eliminating poverty and domestic abuse, and above all, making sure that each and every member of society is fully informed. THAT, to me, is the REAL pro-life position.

 

[fanatiquefou]

For the vast majority (about 99%) the abortion is to relieve them of an inconvenience, not to resolve the "medical issues" that have become the loophole in US laws to allow the continued termination of life in the womb. If the women were truly emotionally distraught about the procedure, they'd realize their circumstances were far outweighed by the fact that the "burden" they carry in their womb is a human being. How many of the same people can be outraged by extreme measures to obtain information critical to maintaining national security, yet think nothing of condoning the termination a human life is beyond me. It isn't even rational. Abortion is the unreasoned exercise of birth control in the vast majority of cases. Rarely is it for legitimate "health concerns for the mother," and the research is beginning to show that abortion actually causes far more serious health concerns for the mother later in her life. It's a ludicrous practice.

You, sir, know nothing of which you speak: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/07/index.html

 

[fanatiquefou]

If they knew what it means to have an abortion, they wouldn't have one. That's my point.

It's also completely false.

 

[fanatiquefou]

And your right, they don't need anyone ELSE putting pressure on them, abortion is pushed as the only answer, that's plenty of pressure to do the 'smart', 'easier' thing.

I do know that most women don't get an abortion on a whim, but they do get it out of fear and confusion a lot of the time. I think that instead of pressure that loving counselling would be better. At least to avoid post-abortion syndrome. I do agree with you though that this is an issue that doesn't do well handled on a legistative level, it is too personal.

More falsehoods. I know several women who have had abortions, all of whom very seriously considered their options, none of whom chose an abortion out of "fear" or "confusion". Abortion is NOT pushed on people as the only option - if any pro-lifers ever bothered to VISIT a Planned Parenthood clinic or other provider, they would see how seriously the people there take their jobs, and how concerned they are for what is best for the woman - they certainly are not forcing women to have abortions, or presenting it as if it's the only valid choice. Counseling is actually almost always a big part of a woman's clinic visit.

 

[fanatiquefou]

NO! It's an attempt to get the mother to realize she is ending a human life!You either don't realize how many mid- to late-term abortions are done daily in the US, or you have no idea how soon those "little fingers and toes" appear. Did you know the heart starts beating after 30-35 days? But the child has implanted on the uteran wall weeks before that, and the heart is in place long before it actually beats for the first time. The fingers and toes show up toward the end of the first trimester to early in the second. That's only 90 days or so, a long way from being fully developed. Most abortions in the US are done in the first trimester, but some states allow it up to the end of the second, and a few states still allow third-trimester abortions. The problem is, the definition of "viable" has gotten closer and closer to conception. Children as pre-mature as 21 weeks have been born, and survived. They are people. Stupid opinions to the contrary.

Oh do tell, how many mid- and late-term abortions take place in this country? And how many of them are for medical reasons, I might ask? The VAST majority of abortions in this country take place in the first trimester. Usually later abortions are undergone for very serious and valid health concerns.

I'd also be curious to see you address the fact that nearly half of all fertilized embryos will fail to ever implant in the uterine wall. And sure, the heart forms early to an extent, but it's still not fully-formed, and the fetus is still nothing like a fully-developed human at that point - it doesn't have a brain, for example.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Fact: A fertilized human egg, left alone, becomes a human being. End of story.

Fact: About half of ALL fertilized eggs, left alone, will fail to ever implant in the uterus.

 

[CCGirl]

Fact: About half of ALL fertilized eggs, left alone, will fail to ever implant in the uterus.

And some implant in the fallopian tube or on the ovary.(ectopic or extrauterine)