The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: philw on April 28, 2010, 08:17:00 AM
-
http://www.news.com.au/world/oklahoma-women-could-be-forced-to-have-ultrasounds-before-an-abortion/story-e6frfkyi-1225859305740
Tough new abortion laws adopted in US
Abortion laws include invasive ultrasounds
Right To Life Australia wants same laws here
A PRO life group has welcomed tough new abortion laws in the US and says they should be adopted in Australia.
Politicians in the US state of Oklahoma overnight voted to pass two abortion Bills that will force women to undergo invasive ultrasounds and allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects.
Under the new laws, even women who are victims of rape or incest will be required to listen to a detailed description of the foetus and view the ultrasound image prior to terminating a pregnancy.
They could also be forced to undergo vaginal rather than abdominal ultrasounds as doctors are required to use the method that "would display the embryo or foetus more clearly".
The second Bill will shields doctors from "wrongful birth" malpractice lawsuits brought by parents who would have aborted a foetus had they been informed about its genetic or other defects.
Vice President of Right to Life Australia Margaret Tighe said the new laws were "terrific news" and should be adopted locally.
"I can only compliment (Oklahoma’s politicians) in what they have done and can only wish that we could have such success here," she said.
Ms Tighe said Australia needed politicians with the same courage.
But Pro Choice NSW spokesperson Jane Caro said the new laws would strip women of basic human rights and advised women in Oklahoma to “keep their legs together”.
"The new laws are outrageous on every level and destroy the human rights of the women in that state. They no longer have equal human rights", she said.
Ms Caro said the new laws would also force abortions underground.
"(The new laws) will just make it harder and more traumatic for everybody concerned," she said.
The US Centre for Reproductive Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ultrasound law, which it said "profoundly intrudes upon a patient's privacy".
A similar Oklahoma law was struck down last year.
"Politicians have no business making medical decisions," Stephanie Toti, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights said.
"Another round in the courts won't change our strong constitutional claims against the law, it will only waste more of Oklahoma taxpayers' time and money."
Democratic Governor Brad Henry tried to block the Bills last week, but the Republican-dominated Oklahoma legislature overwhelmingly overrode his veto with the help of Democrats.
Governor Henry said that while he supports "reasonable" restrictions on abortions, the laws had serious constitutional flaws and represented an excessive intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens.
Local abortion foes hailed the veto overrides as a victory for the unborn.
"Ultrasound gives a mother a window to her womb," Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life, said.
"It helps to prevent her from making a decision she may regret for the rest of her life and it empowers her with the most accurate information about her pregnancy so that she can make a truly informed 'choice.'"
Absolutely disgusting. Seeing the baby doesn't help a mother make an 'informed' choice. It simply adds the factor of guilt to the equation. Not all mothers choose to terminate because of unwanted pregnancy.
Even women who have fallen pregnant due to rape or incest? Unbelievable I really do not understand this part of the law ( as reported) . There's a big difference between having an abortion for an unwanted child that's the result of consensual unprotected sex and a child that's the result of rape or incest.
Some unfortunately have to choose to do it because of serious medical conditions which are diagnosed via invasive tests and/or ultrasounds.
others do it due to there situation, ( IMO better than growing up un-wanted or treated real bad)
It would be truly a heartbreaking decision to have to make.
There is also something very wrong with this world when every other group gets to force politicians to enact laws that do not represent the rest of the country. freedom of choice, it means be responsible for your own thoughts and your own choices.
-
Phil, the abortion issue is one of the hottest of the hot-button issues here in the States. You may have opened a real can o' worms.
On one side, people with deeply held moral and/or religious beliefs tend to stand against what is termed "the right to choose" or what is also termed "murdering the unborn."
On the other side, womens rights groups and politically liberal folks say it is an absolute necessity for a woman to have total control of her own body, and this includes her individual right to do away with a "collection of cells" residing in her womb.
I have always been able to see both sides rather clearly. On the one hand, I believe either parent should have the lawful option of terminating the pregnancy until the fetus is 18-years of age, OR until age 21 if the fetus is still living at home and doesn't have at least a part-time job and helps out around the house. Of course, I would want to do the procedure as painlessly as possible--a .45 to the head should work in all but the most stubborn cases.
On the other hand, if the fetus is still in utero, there is no chance it will be able to find a job OR help out around the house. Hence, the conflict.
-
I have always been able to see both sides rather clearly. On the one hand, I believe either parent should have the lawful option of terminating the pregnancy until the fetus is 18-years of age, OR until age 21 if the fetus is still living at home and doesn't have at least a part-time job and helps out around the house. Of course, I would want to do the procedure as painlessly as possible--a .45 to the head should work in all but the most stubborn cases.
CR, let me be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that if you think your 16 year old is, for instance, a disrespectful, non-productive sociopath who will end up in a bell tower with a Model 700 before they ever come close to contributing to society, that the best option for all is a quick shot to the head with a .45?
Not that I disagree...just that I want to be sure I understand.
-
But Pro Choice NSW spokesperson Jane Caro said the new laws would strip women of basic human rights and advised women in Oklahoma to “keep their legs together”.
Umm, well, if they would have done that in the FIRST place...
-
CR, how about a shot over their head first before fully making your point with one to the noggin? If so, would a Magnum cartridge be better than the .45 given the louder boom? If a .44 doesn't wake them up then proceeding as originally prescribed could help out the old gene pool.
-
Hot button indeed, what lengths would anybody who reads this go to stop a person who picked up a 1 hr old Baby, and was about to throw it against a wall, even the most callous here I think would do what ever they could. Same baby, now referred as Fetus, a few weeks earlier, can be removed and even if it is breathing, just thrown out with garbage, sorry, Einstein, Plato, Michael Angelo, or just plain Jane or Pedro, your path ends here, not because your not needed, just unwanted or inconvenient, and PS no funeral or remembrance of any kind, your mother wants to forget you as soon as possible. 2 lives, one in control, and the other depending on the one in control. Law says the one in control gets to choose, both are people, but 1 has the say. Treating the unborn like you would the flu, just not right.
CR, your counter point is very valid, if weeks determine when it is ok to terminate, why not years, when you might really see what that fetus has become. As we say in texas, it might just have needed killing.
-
Umm, well, if they would have done that in the FIRST place...
I kind of take offense to this, Some times things just happen. You can be practicing good birth control, and still get pregant.
The harder you make it for people to legally get abortions, the more likly they are to get a illegal one. I don't need to tell you the safety risks envoled with that.
Just like the gun control debate, its all emotion, little to no facts used.
PS the fact that the abortion is legally a type of birth control bothers me, nothing esle about it does.
-
People use the word "fetus" or the word "cell mass" to dehumanize a baby. It makes it easy...and insofaras guilt goes for the mother who wants to destroy her baby...well damn ain't that tough...there is a solution for that, don't kill your baby. It's OK to destroy an innocent baby but it's horrors and mean-spirited to be against illegal immigration, for personal responsibility, against socialized medicine, against tax increases and the like.
There's an easy solution for people who don't like Oklahoma's abortion law. Don't come here to live, don't visit and don't spend money here and let us live how we want. If you like wallowing in abortion stay and patronize where it's legal. I'm OK with this arrangement.
-
Fetus and cell mass are correct terms.
do you know how many "babys" are passed by a womens nateral cycle?
-
Here's some more "emotion" TAB..
and some reality. It's not just the U.S. but it is a tragedy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7646540/Baby-boy-survives-for-nearly-two-days-after-abortion.html
-
no thats malpractice.
-
As CR said - This is a major hot button in the United States. I have major feelings on the issue, that the blood if flowing down my chin from biting my lip ... not typing my feelings is one thing, but this Super 8 isn't built of concrete, and I don't want to wake the many truckers sleeping in the neighboring room.
Nuff said ... >:(
-
Agreed M58, but from the other side. I do hope we can agree that allowing a Doc. to withhold pertinent medical info, is at the very least unconscionable? Regardless, we all know where we stand here. Libertarian, social conservatives and those who are either on the fence or don't care about this issue. While I personally would like to visit OKC with some tar and feathers, its not germaine to the board. Lets let it go. There's more that unites us than divides us. Lets focus on that. Seriously, are Rastus and I ever convince one another of anything on this issue? Best we stick with guns.
FQ13
-
I kind of take offense to this, Some times things just happen. You can be practicing good birth control, and still get pregant.
The harder you make it for people to legally get abortions, the more likly they are to get a illegal one. I don't need to tell you the safety risks envoled with that.
Just like the gun control debate, its all emotion, little to no facts used.
PS the fact that the abortion is legally a type of birth control bothers me, nothing esle about it does.
TAB nailed this one, and considering his own recent travails I think he is probably the only one here with a valid opinion.
-
CR, let me be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that if you think your 16 year old is, for instance, a disrespectful, non-productive sociopath who will end up in a bell tower with a Model 700 before they ever come close to contributing to society, that the best option for all is a quick shot to the head with a .45?
Not that I disagree...just that I want to be sure I understand.
That may be an over-generalization of my opinion, but, yeah. That's about how I feel.
Crusader
-
TAB nailed this one, and considering his own recent travails I think he is probably the only one here with a valid opinion.
Is it that it has to be recent or that it has to be experienced? It's not an uncommon experience losing a baby; quite a few people have experienced that and worse during pregnancy, my wife and I among them. More than a couple on the board exchanged on that terrible thread that TAB posted that they had experienced like tragedy.
Yes TAB...I do know about the "natural cycle"...it's natural, not unnatural and I would venture to say everyone who went through something like you and your wife went through know this too.
-
That may be an over-generalization of my opinion, but, yeah. That's about how I feel.
Crusader
I understand. I have often read or heard of examples of truly miserable offspring and wanted to post that it should be the parents responsibility, not only their right, to put down such deviant offspring.
Not that I'd ever want to see a law enforcing or condoning that responsibility.
-
I understand. I have often read or heard of examples of truly miserable offspring and wanted to post that it should be the parents responsibility, not only their right, to put down such deviant offspring.
Not that I'd ever want to see a law enforcing or condoning that responsibility.
Yaknow, I wasn't always the best dad who ever fathered a child. But, my kid grew up knowing right from wrong, believing in personal responsibility, and recognizing the value of education and hard work. She and her husband now own a start-up company that employs a growing number of people and they have found time to present me with an outstanding young grandson and another as yet undertermined boy or girl arriving next September. Yet, even with this outstanding record of achievement, there were many times I threatened to send my kid to a Tibetan Nunnery high in the Himalayas where the Mother Superior has the reputation for being able to shoot the balls off a yak at 1000 yards. Soooo, the point is, my commentary was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek and should not be taken as a literal reflection of my innermost feelings. Just thought I clarify things for those who may not share Crusader's sense of humor.
-
Didn't mean to offend you, TAB.
I was thinking of the hypocrisy of her statement being applied only after she is pregnant.
What gets me is it is one more attempt to remove consequences. But you can't. Thinking you can is an emotional timebomb.
To me life begins at conception and only in cases like TAB's is abortion justified. But it is easy to say until it is my wife and I that are faced with the decision.
-
.............
To me life begins at conception and only in cases like TAB's is abortion justified. But it is easy to say until it is my wife and I that are faced with the decision.
There has never been a problem with making the tough decision when the life of the mother is at stake. We've been educated by abortion forces that it was a terrible and constantly recurring issue...but it is an issue that never was. Not to say there was no incidence of it, just that it was never a widespread issue. What saving the life of the mother really was...it was a typical liberal fearmongering for a problem that just did not exist for the population as a whole.
Sort of like the justification so that someone can "provide a good and decent life" for their child and they can't now so it's OK....life itself is justification alone.
-
Many of you seem to be working under the liberal misconception that "All life is precious".
Based on personal observation I would say that only applies to you, your family and friends, otherwise life is about as precious as rocks here in the "Granite State". What most lack the guts to admit is that most of the worlds problems stem from the fact there are just to darn many people.
-
We have 2 billion more people than we have adequete resources for. Why bring even more people into the world. I won't.
-
There was a thread here a bit ago that talked about the minimum birth rate required for a society to remain viable.
It pointed out that the birth rate in the US was just barely above that level and without the Hispanic contribution, it would be below the minimum level.
I don't know how accurate it is, but my take is that this Country and the Earth shall be inherited by those with the highest birth rate...
It might not be much to brag about by then, but it will be all theirs.
-
Also was Muslim Demographics, worldwide.. They are both well above the birth-rate of almost all countries.
-
Right on Solus, not just illegal aliens, but the Muslim people are actually, mathematically going to take over countries such as Holland and France, not through attrition, but having large enough families, that in 1 or 2 generations will take over by sheer numbers. Here this is very possible with amnesty babies, ( born here ) that are considered citizens, and have Legal babies, by the 3's and 4's, it's when they have enough to vote, that we get in trouble, and that is not very far away.
-
European French birth rates have been below the sustainable limit for years now.
-
Japans birth rate also sucks. its been said that if they don't change, by 2050, the population will be 30 mil, thats down from the 120 mil they currently have. it also mentioned that they only have sex 1/4 of the time that the rest of the world does... that explains alot...
-
Is this a bad thing? We are overpopulated now. If we (globally) shrink by say 10 percent, we wind up where we were a decade or two ago. We were doing fine then and a lot less crowded. What is the problem here?
FQ13 Who is not a salmon and feels no need to procreate just for the hell of it
-
Is this a bad thing? We are overpopulated now. If we (globally) shrink by say 10 percent, we wind up where we were a decade or two ago. We were doing fine then and a lot less crowded. What is the problem here?
FQ13 Who is not a salmon and feels no need to procreate just for the hell of it
What is bad is that that folks intelligent enough to be concerned about overpopulation are the ones who do not reproduce.
Those who aren't that bright or simply don't care are the ones who produce nice large families.
Not quite the same as Darwin's evolution, but the result will be the same...and it will happen in a few generations.
-
What is bad is that that folks intelligent enough to be concerned about overpopulation are the ones who do not reproduce.
Those who aren't that bright or simply don't care are the ones who produce nice large families.
Not quite the same as Darwin's evolution, but the result will be the same...and it will happen in a few generations.
If anything, it disproves evolution, at least for humans.
Idiocracy was more realistic than An Inconvient Truth.
-
If anything, it disproves evolution, at least for humans.
Idiocracy was more realistic than An Inconvient Truth.
As humans became sufficiently advanced to dominate their environment, "Survival of the Fittest" became less and less a factor in human development.
In our current society, the productive are bled to provide for the non-productive: Survival of the Fittest turned on it's ear. The most reproductive demographic are those who receive more benefits for each child produced. In evolutionary terms, those who reproduce the most are the most sucessful.
-
As humans became sufficiently advanced to dominate their environment, "Survival of the Fittest" became less and less a factor in human development.
In our current society, the productive are bled to provide for the non-productive: Survival of the Fittest turned on it's ear. The most reproductive demographic are those who receive more benefits for each child produced. In evolutionary terms, those who reproduce the most are the most sucessful.
Any body want to take a wild guess at what happens to other types of Parasites when they kill off their host ?
-
Any body want to take a wild guess at what happens to other types of Parasites when they kill off their host ?
Well, there is that....but it's small consolation to the host :-[
-
I have read the article and I have read all the posts and while I can understand both sides of the argument however I can only come to one resolute thought.
That is being the father of two girls one aged 23 and the other 19 that in the event that they were faced with such a situation whether it be from a horrific crime such as rape or some other action I would pity the doctor who would put either of them through such an ordeal, I would then pity the legislator that proposed such legislation right down to the ones that ultimately passed it.