Good point which I overlooked. If ultrasounds are required, what stops the government from adding extra regulation to limit the number of ultrasound machines in the state? Maybe adding a burdonsome licensing requirement to operate an ultrasound machine, or mandate dozens of new “safety” regulations in their use, or exclude it from state tax law so its purchase can no longer be treated as a business expense… I’m sure a sufficiently imaginative person could come up with dozens of seemingly-plausible ways to impede ultrasound access, while demanding ultrasound use.
True, I thought I had read something a long time ago that zygotes were impenetrable. Interesting stuff.
OK well for me human brains, not genetics, not potential nor anything else, deserve rights. Guess we have to disagree.
If you were to learn that every abortion facility has an ultrasound facility nearby, would that affect your analysis?
Your statement seemed to indicate that every woman was, in fact, given a free ultrasound. The legislation does not seem to provide for that. I certainly concede that there are places which offer free ultrasounds but I have seen no evidence that they will be guaranteed to be available for all applicants as your statement seemed to suggest. Can you show me evidence to back that up or, if that was not the sentiment your statement was intending to convey provide clarification to your meaning?
I would be less outraged, though still opposed, because it’s still a cynical end-run meant to make it harder to get an abortion, and I don’t believe the government should ever mandate medical procedures that both the patient and the doctor do not want. It strikes me as a gross violation of the right to privacy.
Does the fact that there are not, and that this requirement obviously would be a great challenge to some women (and, therefore, a “cynical end-run”, as you put it), affect yours?
Specifically, why?
Your recap of the post you quoted bears little to no resemblance to the post you quoted. The analogy you are attempting to draw between this post and some of the objections people have with the law you are (shakily) advocating for is so tenuous as to be ethereal.
Because I don’t agree that a functioning brain is the sine qua non of humanity.
I don’t agree this is “obviously” a “great challenge” to any significant number of women.
Which is one of the reasons many pro-choice women hold you (in this thread, at least) in such obvious disdain, I think. It seems awfully arrogant of you to presume what medically unnecessary requirements constitute difficulties, challenges, or inconveniences to women. Why not trust women to make the best decision within the law? Why does the law need to be changed in a way that presumes women can’t make the right decision on their own?
You just made the argument. And who, pray, might offer a better crafted argument than yourself, who’s rhetorical brilliance is the stuff of legend?
Who is paying for these ultrasound facilities, out of curiosity?
And how many people will suffer adverse medical effects due to the fact that increased demand for ultrasound services will mean longer wait times for those who actually have a medical need for an ultrasound?
Because women are making that decision while deliberately shielding themselves from the facts.
I’m pretty sure they are aware of the fact that they are pregnant and, quite honestly, if they don’t realize what that entails I’m not sure society is best served by having them procreate.
This is more of exactly what I just described. How do you know the decision making process of these women? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
Well, here’s my reasoning:
If some women see the ultrasound images and hear a detailed description of the development of the fetus, and decide as a result not to abort, it proves my theory.
Do you disagree with that?
They just need to know that these babby cant frigth back?
They’re aware that they’re pregnant. They’re not permitting themselves to think of what that means: not a blob of tissue, but a tiny human being.