And provide same at taxpayer expense, of course.
In any of these asinine laws, has any legislator proposed an amendment that the woman can get a pass on the ultrasound if she already has one or more children, and therefore can be reasonably expected to know what’s going on in there? (Not that anyone with a room temperature IQ would not.). There seems to be a weird assumption by right wing sorts that women who have abortions don’t have and never will have children, which doesn’t seem to be borne out by reality.
Good luck with that.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 60% of American women who have abortions already have children.
I don’t think current case law would require that, but if you think so, go ahead and make your argument.
The ultrasound part is merely the insult added to the injury. The addition of needless and destructive regulation is the actual injury here. Texas women will suffer for this if it is allowed to go forward and for no other reason than the theological opinions of a minority of their fellow citizens. And that stinks.
I agree 100%.
When Texas goes purple and as the rest of the country becomes more urban, and the last ditch political gerrymandering of the GOP at more local levels fails to overcome the inexorable political shift, I wonder how supportive of “the process” you will remain.
And yes, the law will be reversed.
Actually, what they seem to believe is that if you have an abortion, you will be unable to have children ever again, plus you’ll get breast cancer and DIEDIEDIE!!!
So really, they’re just looking out for our best interests. :rolleyes:
With all the careless people out there having unprotected sex… this would add a big burden since these women won’t be paying for their mistakes - Joe and Jane Taxpayer will.
To hell with the ultrasound and just let them get it over with… don’t really care for parents forced to be parents when they don’t want/can’t be a proper parent. End result is many of the unwanted neglected children becoming adult scum due to no/insufficent upbringing.
Why is it once some medical/technological advance is revealed… it all of a sudden becomes a “human right” to have it? from cell phones to abortions.
On a tangent. When I was in the Air Force, at age 26 with no children, I asked for a vasectomy. They referred me to mental health because something must have been wrong for me not to want kids. Here I am at 42 still with no kids. I had decided I didn’t want kids years before 26 and years after… guess it must be some long term mental illness I have for not wanting my offspring growing up in this disintegrating society.
If only I did have kids… they would have the greatest inheritance ever… our National Debt!
(Or, in Bricker’s case, even necessary?)
By the courts or the voters?
“By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.”
– Adam Smith
My wife and I had three kids. She never would have had an abortion under any but dire life threatening circumstances, and I agreed with her. In spite of that, we both support other women’s right to choose.
We also support free birth control and science based sex education. We urged our children to abstain, but gave them all the facts about birth control and offered to fund it.
This all seems routine and humane to me. I don’t see a rational reason why it should be such a huge political issue.
No one does, really.
So it would be moral and right if it passed? Interesting.
This is the part in the Simpsons when the kid yells out “Won’t somebody please think of the women!”.
Lobohan, remember that thread I made a while back where I said something like “Bricker fooled me for too long.”
Threads like these make me shake my head and look back at such youthful ignorance with shame. It is interesting though how politeness and knowledge of law can cover up utter evil so well.
This thread is Bricker at his absolute worst and it makes me ashamed that I ever looked up to him as a reasonable conservative.
Bricker, no matter how many times you chant it and want to believe it, life DOES NOT begin at conception. The moment a sperm and egg collide they are still a sperm and an egg colliding, NOT a human being. Get that through your fucking thick skull already. Individual sperm have no legal rights, individual eggs have no legal rights, and a mass of cells taking the shape of a human being have no legal rights for a good long while.
While I’m pro-choice, this is unhelpful in the extreme. You’re trying to quash what is a valid philosophical position be screaming that your valid philosophical position on the issue is the right one. Truth is, you can prove you are “right” no more than he can.
More important, this has almost nothing to do with the actual debate. Moving away from the moment of conception, when do you think life begins? Do you think that ending that life the day after conception is the same as ending it the day before birth?
God help me, I’m agreeing with magellan here. We will never agree on when life begins. I can’t say anyone is wrong for saying it begins at conception although I don’t agree with it. Personally, I think viability is the point at which life begins. Medical science may push this back slightly but if a fetus has a fighting chance at life on its own, then in my opinion it’s too late to abort. It doesn’t help to argue about when life begins because none of us on either side will ever change his mind.
Given that abortion is legal, these anti-abortion measures being passed under the fig leaf of looking out for the mother’s health are asinine. We allow people to have live babies in birthing centers by midwives without hospital admitting privileges, we allow births in private homes. By comparison, early term abortions are far less likely to go wrong and can in most cases be done in a clinic. It should be the doctor’s call as to whether a facility is adequate for the procedure he’s about to do. As for requiring women to view ultrasounds so that they, the ignorant and inferior gender, can for the first time understand what’s in her uterus- that’s arrogant condescending bullshit. The woman is quite aware of what is inside her. If the doctor doesn’t think it’s needed and the patient doesn’t want it, then the legislature has no business meddling.