Let's look at this from a financial perspective. Who's paying the $200-$300 per ultrasound? Or is a pre-abortion ultrasound a standard part of the procedure? Based on previous statistics we're looking at between $1.9 million and $2.9 million.

Is it perhaps some Jim Black-ish legislation thought up by the ultrasound doctors?

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 4:41 PM. Reason : an /= a]

3/22/2007 4:40:35 PM

Quote :

"Some states make ultrasound images available to women before an abortion, but South Carolina would be alone in requiring that they see the pictures. "

^I'm guessing currently its a state-to-state issue since some apparently already pay for the ultrasounds although the article doesnt break down which ones

also for the record i agree with this guy

Quote :

"Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, railed against Republicans for opposing his amendment to exempt victims of rape and incest from the required ultrasound viewing. Forcing a victim of a crime to see the results is tantamount to forcing her to relive the ordeal, Rutherford said. "You all are doing it to her once again.""

i have no problem whatsoever with exemptions for rape or incest victims (i didnt even consider incest)...my problem is more with people using abortion as birth control

3/22/2007 4:52:00 PM

The nanny state follows you everywhere.

3/22/2007 4:53:18 PM

So are they gonna physically hold her eyes open or what?

3/22/2007 4:56:51 PM

^^^Then they can claim they were raped or it was a child of incest.

and on the vein of it being a medical procdure, I did not look at the ultrasound of my tumor before I had it removed from my testicle.

nothing will prevent the service provider from just having the individual sign the piece of paper saying they've seen the ultrasound even when they haven't. It is a pointless that law is entirely unenforceable.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 4:57:35 PM

^^thats another thing that has raised plenty of questions...i dont see how they could do anything more than say "ok here is the ultrasound of your stomach"

^i guess i see your point...and that also touches on how dumb i think it is that the father has no say in the matter...if the father did have a say, it should at least cut down on fake claims of rape or incest i would think since the father would be at the doctors office for the abortion

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 4:58:43 PM

when the father has to carry the fetus for nine months is when the father gets a say.

3/22/2007 5:01:28 PM

Quote :

"it just seems like a total bullshit argument when you're fine with killing a baby, but deeply offended and upset by having to see the baby beforehand"

That is where you're missing the issue. People aren't upset at having the see the baby, people are upset at forcing someone to see the baby.

The abortion falls under a different standard because the mother is CHOOSING the abortion. I personally don't like abortion and think people should avoid them if at all possible, but I don't think it's right to force someone to be disallowed to have them either.

It's an issue of choice, consistent with the pro-choice world view.

3/22/2007 5:03:34 PM

Quote :

"when the father has to carry the fetus for nine months is when the father gets a say."

when the woman can magically create a baby with no sperm, or when the father is exempt from paying for half the baby if it is born...

^I mentioned earlier I dont have strong feelings about abortions one way or another...though I'd probably lean pro-life although if my young daughter gets pregnant i'd probably become pro choice

apparently its an issue of choice moreso than an issue of killing or trauma...just seems 100% counterintuitive that someone is willing to kill/have their fetus killed but isnt willing to "forcefully" see the ultrasound

am i the only one who thinks it doesnt make complete sense to be fine enough with having an abortion to have an abortion, yet so adamant about not wanting to simply see a non-doctored medical image?

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 5:04:26 PM

Quote :

"show smokers pictures of black lungs...show war supporters pictures of casualties...show ultrasounds to people getting abortions i've already seen black lung pictures and casualties and i'm not whining about it"

You weren't forced to look at them though. I can promise you would have felt different if someone forced you to look at those types of pictures, based on some choice you made relating to those issues.

3/22/2007 5:05:23 PM

well first off you could say "should you be required to see a picture of a black lung every time you smoke a cigarette" and i would reply "how man women get 20 abortions per day"

also if you choose to watch the news you are somewhat forced to see war casualties

but point being, not only have i seen pictures of black lungs (and i personally know people who have died of lung cancer) and i've seen casualties of war on tv (and i personally know people killed and injured in war)...yet i still smoke and support the war...i'm not bitching about seeing the imagery...still dont get it

3/22/2007 5:09:02 PM

your not seeing that imagery at a very emotionally draining time in your life.

3/22/2007 5:14:47 PM

i'll agree with that for the most part although everybody has different feelins/emotions etc

however its not like the ultrasound imagery is fake or doctored

i just think the initial "emotionally draining" trauma is from the abortion, not from seeing the ultrasound

i mean if a woman sees the ultrasound and decides NOT to have an abortion, is that somehow a bad thing? (again everybody's circumstances are different)

btw this passed 4 to 1...overwhelming numbers...and granted south cackalacky isnt exactly a bastian of intelligence (after all sober46an3 is from there) i'd imagine plenty other states would pass this (numberwise) if it were to come up as a bill, though i'm sure the 4:1 number would vary

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 5:21:26 PM

Quote :

"but point being, not only have i seen pictures of black lungs (and i personally know people who have died of lung cancer) and i've seen casualties of war on tv (and i personally know people killed and injured in war)...yet i still smoke and support the war...i'm not bitching about seeing the imagery...still dont get it"

I would also bet that women who get abortions have seen ultrasounds of fetus, and maybe even those fetus pictures that they put on those moving billboards.

That doesn't make it right to force someone to see those things before making a choice.

3/22/2007 5:25:15 PM

If memory serves correct taht is about the margin the reps. have over the dems. in the south carolina legislature. Sen. Brock introduced a similar bill, but it will never get out of committee.

3/22/2007 5:25:20 PM

id be interested to just see how other states would vote...while pro life is traditionally conservative and pro choice is traditionally liberal, i dont think the hundreds of state reps would all vote "the party line"

3/22/2007 5:26:38 PM

Quote :

"yet i still smoke and support the war."

who cares what you think. you admit you dont vote. apparently, you don't think your own opinion is worth anything. why should we?

3/22/2007 5:27:58 PM

Quote :

"who cares what you think"

nutsmackr and moron care at least a little bit, thats why we're discussing the issue, not trolling like a faggot

3/22/2007 5:28:58 PM

Quote :

"I personally don't like abortion and think people should avoid them if at all possible, but I don't think it's right to force someone to be disallowed to have them either."

I agree with this, I'm pro-choice, anti-abortion if that makes any sense whatsoever

Quote :

"I can promise you would have felt different if someone forced you to look at those types of pictures, based on some choice you made relating to those issues."

have you seen an international pack of Camel smokes??

3/22/2007 5:36:00 PM

Quote :

"have you seen an international pack of Camel smokes??"

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/camel.jpg

Do you mean those?

AFAIK, people don't have to sign a paper in the presence of a doctor saying they read the box, or even look at the box, to smoke those cigarettes.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2007 5:42:41 PM

nah the ones I purchased had black lungs on them (Montreal, Jan 07)


but I see what you're saying, I'm not arguing with anyone, just making commentary

3/22/2007 5:44:20 PM

I'm just really wary of all this nonsense.

My friend had unprotected sex with a guy the last night of her spring break in Florida. It was very much out of character for her. She went to a public clinic in Virginia (that's where she goes to school), and it took almost SEVEN HOURS for her to get the morning after pill. She was shuffled through four different rooms and asked the same questions about her sex life by four different people. She called me sobbing about how poorly she was being treated and how she just wanted to forget about it and go home. I'm sure a lot of girls did just give up and leave.

I don't know if any of her experience was the result of legislation. But I will say we don't need to legislate women's health issues. It really isn't the public/government's business.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM. Reason : sss]

3/22/2007 6:02:15 PM

I'm in agreement with Bridget for once.

I'm tired of propaganda being passed off as information that the public feels the need to shove down our throats.

Forcing a woman to look at an ultrasound is anti-abortion propaganda in the same way that forced teaching of "intelligent design" is Creationist propaganda.

Quote :

"But I will say we don't need to legislate women's health issues"

Very true

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 6:09 PM. Reason : 2]

3/22/2007 6:08:44 PM

Quote :

""But I will say we don't need to legislate women's health issues""

you do in the sense that you need to verify the quality of care being given. That is not to say that legislating morality falls within those parameters

3/22/2007 6:20:29 PM

They will repeal it in a couple years, when they have to raise taxes to provide the social services that those children will need.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 6:27 PM. Reason : k]

3/22/2007 6:26:14 PM

Realistically though... Let's have a look at a couple ultrasound images:


1st trimester


2nd trimester


3rd trimester

I'm gonna stand by the "this is stupid feel good legislation" and that the amount of turmoil on the woman would be not as bad as everyone is making it out to be and that it won't significantly affect the number of abortions.

But that's just me.

3/22/2007 7:33:12 PM

^I agree with the last two parts.

I don't know if I'd describe this as "feel good" though.

3/22/2007 7:54:13 PM

I think a woman has a right to chose. However if she cant make up her mind by her third trimester, she should have the baby. Late term abortions are brutal and cruel... in my opinion.

I think the morning after pill would solve alot of this debate and is a GREAT idea.

3/22/2007 8:00:27 PM

Quote :

"I think the morning after pill would solve alot of this debate and is a GREAT idea"

signed.

3/22/2007 8:30:16 PM

It is truly sad that so many here are basically cool with women sanctioning the murder of their unborn child just because its not convenient for her future life goals etc...

This is a great law, it'll be even better as the ultrasound technology improves. For more $$$ you can see the kid in 3D. No longer will clinic nurses/doctors be able to lie to the women that its just a "lump of flesh". Its a child, we have the pictures to prove it. Ha.

Yes life is hard, but we should help the women take a moral route not just the convenient route. To start we could try to cut some of the red-tape with adoptions. Also, there are charities that help single moms through that difficult time with cash, goods and advice. We already provide healthcare here in NC for prenatal visits and the 1st year for everybody who cannot afford it. In the end the women who keep their babies will not bear permanent psychological scars from murdering their unborn.

3/22/2007 8:37:09 PM

^ ok...

so whats your stance on teh so-called "morning after pill"

is it okay for a woman to take a pill that prevents pregnancy the morning after unprotected sex?

serious question, serious answer please.





[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 8:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2007 8:41:03 PM

How the fuck can the government legislate that someone take and look at a fucking picture?

3/22/2007 8:54:37 PM

math, I dont think abortions should be a form of birthcontrol, but mistakes happen. I would have no problem for a surgeron to slip on some of these multiple offenders and cut some tubes. But people do make mistakes, everyone of us. Ive been lucky I didnt get caught doing some of mine. The morning after pill will solve alot of this, people take it and dont know whether or not they are preggers or not.

3/22/2007 8:56:16 PM

Seems like from reading this thread, TrollTwista has an illegitimate child.

3/22/2007 9:03:39 PM

this is a terrible idea.

no one likes abortion. no one sits around and waits to get pregnant just so she can abort it. it's not an easy decision to make or live with. how can someone possibly justify making it more difficult emotionally?



[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 9:07 PM. Reason : x]

3/22/2007 9:03:52 PM

I see the potential of a lot of doctors to refuse this law. "Do no harm"...if a woman is making this choice to have an abortion, its not like she's doing it for fun, its probably a really tough choice and something that might take awhile to get over...why further the woman's pain by trying to force another person's views (that abortion is a sin) on her.

This is not a debate on whether or not abortion is legal or moral. That is a different topic. This is a topic on whether or not forcing a medical procedure on some one who is already in a traumatic position is ethical...I say its not.

3/22/2007 9:06:11 PM

Quote :

"joe_schmoe^ ok... so whats your stance on teh so-called "morning after pill" is it okay for a woman to take a pill that prevents pregnancy the morning after unprotected sex? serious question, serious answer please."

I have no problem with the morning after pill in particular, so long as it is not found to kill the embryo. If it just keeps the conception from happening its really about the same functionally as plain birth control pills.

Quote :

"bbeheThis is not a debate on whether or not abortion is legal or moral. That is a different topic. This is a topic on whether or not forcing a medical procedure on some one who is already in a traumatic position is ethical...I say its not."

from what I read early in this thread they already have the ultrasound, this is not an extra procedure, it's simply asking them to look at the life they are about to destroy.

3/22/2007 9:15:27 PM

Quote :

"it's simply asking them to look at the life they are about to destroy."

if a woman is already in the clinic getting ready for the procedure, she is probably not going to change her mind. why make it more traumatic?

3/22/2007 9:18:56 PM

^on the outside chance that she will reconsider if nothing else. She is going to live with the guilt anyway.

3/22/2007 9:24:51 PM

^but why add more guilt?

3/22/2007 9:29:48 PM

guilt is a good thing when you are wrong. Its healthy, especially if it helps anyone avoid taking that horrible action.

3/22/2007 9:31:58 PM

until we have conclusive results of ultrasounds on kids i'm against this - from what i've seen there aren't

ultrasound waves, granted in high intensities, actually move cells around and in a lot of cases you will also see babies move AWAY from the ultrasound transmitter

3/22/2007 9:32:31 PM

it isn't your place to decide what is wrong for other people.

3/22/2007 9:32:31 PM

^,^^That is trippy. You two posted at the exact same moment.

So it said that the last post was OmarBadu. And I was like WTF?

3/22/2007 10:18:45 PM

^i didn't even notice that

3/22/2007 10:23:12 PM

i'm anti-fetus-murdering, and even i think this bill is stupid.

3/22/2007 10:55:09 PM

Quote :

"My friend had unprotected sex with a guy the last night of her spring break in Florida"

who's choice was that?

3/23/2007 8:40:57 AM

^ The fetus's.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : punctuation]

3/23/2007 9:33:45 AM

Honestly, the way this bill is written, it will apply to ectopic pregnancies and potentially miscarriages

An ectopic preganacy can be treated by a chemical abortion, where a miscarriage after a certain point needs the physical abortion performed. It is cruel to force someone in either of those positions to view the ultrasound.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : l]

3/23/2007 3:03:53 PM

Quote :

"It just doesn't make sense to me...I would imagine pro-choice people wouldn't be offended by simply having to look at a medical image..."

I would imagine pro-choice people would support her having the choice whether or not to look at the image.

3/24/2007 1:30:22 PM