Lawmakers Push Ultrasound Bills as More Americans Say They're Pro-Life

Lawmakers Push Ultrasound Bills as More Americans Say They're Pro-Life

www.foxnews.com

The number of Americans who consider themselves pro-life has climbed significantly -- a shift that some doctors and abortion opponents say may be due to advances in the use of ultrasound, which allows pregnant women to see images of their babies before they're born.

"Ultrasound used to be less available, very grainy. Now the baby is very clear, very distinct," said Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Massachusetts Dr. Eric J. Keroack told FOX News that during a two-year study 75 percent of his patients who were unsure about terminating a pregnancy decided not to have an abortion after they opted to view the ultrasound images.

n Nebraska, lawmakers advanced a measure last week requiring abortion providers to display ultrasound images of fetuses in a way that patients can easily view them. Lawmakers voted 37-5 Thursday to push the measure to the second round of debate.

"It gives young women who are struggling with that decision the option to view it and hopefully see a beating heart and the development of the child," Nebraska state Sen. John Harms told FOXNews.com.

I find this very interesting. Don't think abortion providers should be required to display clear ultrasound images, but if a woman wants to choose this viewing option before she decides to abort it should be up to her.

This part of the article disturbs me:

Abortion opponents in legislatures across the nation are now lobbying for laws to require that women seeking an abortion view an ultrasound

I don't think any woman should be required to do this. I don't think many women who have abortions would dispute that a life is inside them, but many still make the decision to abort, why make that any harder on them? Yeah, yeah, I'm sure some pro-lifers are going to tell me we should make it harder on them, well I respectfully disagree.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Horseradish. There can exist no law which forces someone to view a picture. It will never pass, and considering that MOST abortions are done within the first 10-15 days of pregnancy, the idea is unrealistic to the point of being laughable.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Horseradish. There can exist no law which forces someone to view a picture. It will never pass, and considering that MOST abortions are done within the first 10-15 days of pregnancy, the idea is unrealistic to the point of being laughable.

That’s what I was thinking. Even if you viewed an “image” of the baby at that point you wouldn’t be seeing much.

I do understand why they are doing this, but its because they're cowards. They sold out to the luciferean leaders/judges who allowed abortion at any stage. It should only be allowed in the first trimester, this translates to under 12 weeks, with the target being not too far past 6 weeks. Because no one would abort a baby, and thats what later fetus's are, babies.

reply to post by mystiq


I agree, I think abortion at any stage is ridiculous and a lot of pro-choice people feel this way.

Well I wonder who is going to pay for this so call "imaging" as they are not free and they are not cheap either.

Anybody has any idea who will be footing the bill?

Beside this "imaging" doesn't have the same effect "visually" when compare a fetus of a few weeks to one already after the first trimester or more.

Still I wonder who is footing the bill, I love when "politricks" are played in regulating personal decisions.


[edit on 18-5-2009 by marg6043]

Originally posted by mystiq
I do understand why they are doing this, but its because they're cowards. They sold out to the luciferean leaders/judges who allowed abortion at any stage. It should only be allowed in the first trimester, this translates to under 12 weeks, with the target being not too far past 6 weeks. Because no one would abort a baby, and thats what later fetus's are, babies.

While fetus' are not babies, I agree with most of your sentiment here. There is no excuse for late term abortion(course, 98% of abortion in america takes place under 12 weeks, so I'm not sure what the point is in restating it).

This will never fly
1. When the abortion is normally carried out the "life" is nothing more than a small congregation of cells. It is not nor does it look like a mini baby what some (not all) pro-lifers think.
2. If the state is going to make you do some medical procedure the state should have to pay for it.
3. Abortions are sometimes carried out to save the life of the mother, why make it harder on her?

reply to post by The Mack

When the abortion is normally carried out the "life" is nothing more than a small congregation of cells.

Exactly why I'm thinking the increase of pro-lifers is not at all due to clearer ultrasounds.

Abortions are sometimes carried out to save the life of the mother, why make it harder on her?

A really good point.

reply to post by The Mack


Well that means that the tax payer once again will be forced to pay for government decisions without any consent of those footing the bill.

Incredible.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


www.prolifeamerica.com...

4D ULTRASOUND PICTURES OF UNBORN BABIES

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

 

www.prolifeamerica.com...

4D ULTRASOUND PICTURES OF UNBORN BABIES

I thought you had to pay for those though, don't know of any clinics that have 4D ultrasounds. So, do you suggest that tax payers pay for 4D ultrasounds to try to prevent abortions?

[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

I wish they had ultrasounds of slaughter houses inside of McDonald's.

Maybe I would become a vegetarian!

Great thread and good point. I think the more people are detached from seeing something the less they will have emotion about it.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


I believe that is the intended purpose of the bill, making very hard to understand how this is going to save money to the tax payer and strapped states in the US in this economic crisis.

Interesting that also this law is going to help put a lot of money on somebody's pocket., I wonder what lobbying group of pimps are the ones pushing this behind the so call "prolifters" agenda.

People are so blind they don't even care that they are been used and taken for a ride and the unwilling tax payer along with them.

I love this post in the comment section of the link provided by the OP.

How many of you are currently wailing and gnashing your teeth about government intrusion in other parts of your lives? Yet you come here ask cry for another law. If women want to see an ultrasound of their infant they are allowed to. Making a law that requires it makes you all hypocrites. Its not about education, its about manipulation.

Well said sphenoid

[edit on 18-5-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


Oh the women are forced to look at the Ultra Sound? That is kind of rough. Why not just force them to watch a video of the Abortion?

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Better yet, how about taking pictures and videos of suffering women when they go into back ally butchers looking for abortions, let show the perforated uterus with coat hangers, hemorrhaging and infections taking the life of women before abortion was legal in the US.

I saw that when I was just but a child back in the 60s and I will never forget.

That will be one to win for any group agendas out there, be religious or politricks.

reply to post by marg6043

.Its not about education, its about manipulation.

Yes, that was very well said, I find this is the case with most political issues, politician don't want to educate you about them, they just want to manipulate your decisions.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by mystiq
I do understand why they are doing this, but its because they're cowards. They sold out to the luciferean leaders/judges who allowed abortion at any stage. It should only be allowed in the first trimester, this translates to under 12 weeks, with the target being not too far past 6 weeks. Because no one would abort a baby, and thats what later fetus's are, babies.

While fetus' are not babies, I agree with most of your sentiment here. There is no excuse for late term abortion(course, 98% of abortion in america takes place under 12 weeks, so I'm not sure what the point is in restating it).

There is sometimes a medical need to terminate a late-term pregnancy.
It's rare, it's horrible and it's tragic, but it has been known to happen.

As an example, I knew of one woman whose baby had no skull, so it could not possibly survive, and she went into a coma through ... I can't remember the name of it, it's a condition that can affect malnourished women in late pregnancy. Induced labour would probably have killed her, so the baby was aborted.

I saw the grief she went through afterwards, agonising over the baby she never even got to see.

Laws should never be made that threaten the life of a woman in that position or criminalise the doctor who saves her.

Abortions before the fetus is viable should be easily enough available for women to have them in the week after they discover they are pregnant.
Abortions after the baby is viable should only be done when a doctor considers it essential for the woman's well-being.

Originally posted by The Mack
This will never fly
1. When the abortion is normally carried out the "life" is nothing more than a small congregation of cells. It is not nor does it look like a mini baby what some (not all) pro-lifers think.

You are a large congregation of mindless cells.

Caylee Anthony, for lack of a better example, is really late term abortion.

I can think of many late term abortions that really need immediate attention.

It's not me and I won't name any names.