[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg] 26th Parallel: More Information For Tough Decision

Thursday, April 03, 2008

More Information For Tough Decision

I'm in favor of the Florida House's passing of legislation to require ultrasounds in the first trimester of a pregnancy for women who are considering an abortion.

I see it as another piece of data, additional information that can help someone make a very tough decision. If it's already required in the second and third trimesters, it's only natural to extend it to any stage of the pregnancy.

Some will say that it's government intruding on rights. As conservatives, we're supposed to be against that. And we are. But we're talking about a procedure to end a life here (yes, fetuses are living). This isn't the same as having to get government permission to eat a cheeseburger or buy a car. This isn't some trivial matter.

The argument I'm seeing from pro-choicers is that the state is trying to put another obstacle in the way of women who want to have the abortion, along with the thought that it's "the next step to banning abortions altogether". I have no problem with the obstacle argument, because that's one of things the bill would obviously represent. The obstacle, in this case, is largely about making extra sure that someone wants to end a life. The choice to have the abortion is still there, and the bill doesn't even require that the patient see the ultrasound image. This could perhaps evolve into an educational tool for women thinking about an abortion.

Another argument, that many women already know what they're dealing with and don't need to be educated further, may be true. But many do not realize the impact, as hard to believe as that may seem. Do we keep them blind when a life is at stake?

It's not about taking away the right to choose to have an abortion because that's NOT what the bill would do. As I stated at the top, it's about having an additional and powerful piece of information available for the woman in order for her to make an important decision. It's not a perfect bill by any stretch, but it's a step in the right direction for those of us who believe that a fetus is a living creature who deserves every chance to survive and flourish.

BTW, Alex has a different view of this issue at his new blog, Miami & Beyond.

Labels:

24 Comments:

Blogger C.L.J. said...

We'll say its an intrusion because that is exactly, precisely, what it is. It is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, it adds an unnecessary expense and drives up medical costs all so that a bunch of superstitious bigots can impose their religion on others.

This is bad law, and only a fascist thug could support it. But that should not be an unexpected observation from anyone that's paying attention. You can't claim to support freedom and support this kind of unwarranted government intrusion into people's personal medical decisions.

8:25 PM, April 03, 2008  
Blogger Robert said...

C.L.,

Interesting how you throw religion into the mix here. I didn't mention it, neither did the bill. Don't you think an unborn fetus deserves a chance to live, to be born? You don't have to be a Christian to believe that all human life is sacred and worth saving. Why is an extra ultrasound such a threat to those who are inclined to believe that individual choice trumps life every single time? At the end, you still have a choice.

As far as fascists thugs and abortion are concerned, all you have to do is look 90 miles south of the Keys to see how a fascist government encourages abortion.

8:54 PM, April 03, 2008  
Blogger Glycerine said...

Why are you playing stupid? This isn't about information, it's about guilt.

10:43 PM, April 03, 2008  
Blogger nonee moose said...

Interesting post, Robert. Now I'm curious, as to what information a first trimester ultrasound will provide to help along a difficult decision?

8:20 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger Robert said...

nonee,

Let's see: they can determine the size and function of different parts of the developing fetus. You can see the heart palpitations, the streamflow of blood, fingers, toes, etc. I imagine that any potential problems could be identified by the doctors via the imaging (which is why they already require it for the second and third trimester, I suppose) before the procedure is done.

And yes, it's also very much meant to be a deterrent so that a life may not have to be wasted and thrown in the garbage.

8:54 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger nonee moose said...

I will stipulate the function of different parts, heart palpitaions, fingers toes and the cutesy turn of the head that makes you think the fetus is actually smiling at you.

But you forget the whole procedure was initiated by a legally protected choice to terminate a pregnancy which obviates the need for all of the above.

[I]t's also very much meant to be a deterrent...

This is the only intellectually honest thing you've said.

Own it. Respect it. Don't try to dress it up with that other bullshit you're peddling. Don't insult your moral position that way.

9:16 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger Rick said...

Nonee:


Word.



.

9:20 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger Robert said...

Perhaps if you would have been a little more observant and a little less judging, you would have picked up on the message I was trying to convey in the first paragraph of my last comment (I must say, though...it's refreshing to see you express a strong well-defined opinion in clear, concise language as opposed to your usual fence-sitting postures dressed in colorful prose).

Of course it's supposed to be a deterrent! Duh! Seeing that "smiling face" may actually make the woman realize it's a human being they're ready to dispose of. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the post and comments, but yes, that's what it's about.

Please allow me to ask the following question once again, since it seems no one wants to address it: No one is taking choice away from the woman, so why the fear of an extra ultrasound?

9:50 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger C.L.J. said...

Robert, I throw religion into the mix because it's there. Doesn't matter that no one wants to admit it, it is the driving motivator.

As for the "threat," the threat isn't the ultrasound; that's merely an unnecessary medical procedure that the state has no business mandating. The threat is that the state is bludgeoning our rights by enacting this law.

This law is tyranny. It is intended solely to impose the will of a bigoted few on women who are already facing a difficult decision. Unless there is a medical need for the medical decision, the state as absolutely no business forcing ANY citizen to pay for an unnecessary medical procedure.

The fact that you wholeheartedly and unquestioningly support an act of blatant tyranny tells us everything we need to know about you.

You, who claim to abhor dictators like Castro, always seem to be the first to use their methods. It shows the rest of us that your real complaint isn't with tyranny, but that you aren't the tyrant.

10:15 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger nonee moose said...

Which message was that, Robert? More opportunistic guilt-tripping? Because we have to help these ladies who may not know what they really want? How unselfishly paternalistic, to share that wisdom with the unenlightened masses. Tell me, did you gather all the available facts before you came out with this? Or are you just friends with the opinion?

None of what you set out in the first paragraph has anything to do with anything but the deterrant purpose you later admit to. Or were you trying to be cute?

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. And some people don't wash theirs enough. It takes real skill not to have one on everything or, in my case, not feel compelled to share it with just anyone. Fence-sitting is a hobby. It forces me to see both sides of things, and it entertains me. You sometimes entertain me.

What does chafe me is when people try to soft peddle the opinions they do have. It seemed to me you were doing so, and I was merely helping you along to perhaps be sure that the opinion you gave was really what you wanted to say, and to help you distill it to its essence, free of any impurities. It was my way of helping you be honest and clear about your commitment to your opinion. If I was wrong, and it was just some poor attempt at humor (or even worse, my blind judgment, crippled by all that fence-sitting), then please accept my most profound apologies.

10:21 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger C.L.J. said...

"No one is taking choice away from the woman, so why the fear of an extra ultrasound?"

Because it can take the choice away; by increasing the costs for no reason, you force the choice for many women. You might not have noticed, but thanks to our utter lack of a national health care system, a lot of people can't afford medical insurance and have to pay costs out of pocket. If they can't afford the additional and unnecessary procedure, they have no choice.

There is nothing to differentiate this law from any of the Jim Crow laws; its sole purpose is to prevent people from freely exercising their rights. Any true patriot of the US should find this law completely repugnant.

10:24 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger Robert said...

Nonee,

I accept your apology. Yes I was being "cute", but at the same time making a point which obviously didn't sit well and/or made clear enough. That's on me.

I have no problem with other strong opinions on this very controversial and divisive issue, as long as there's some modicum of respect shown. I am pro-life (as if one couldn't already tell ;)...) and my opinion is colored by this. I find it interesting that terms such as "stupid", "bullshit", "fascist thug", "tyrant" and "superstitious bigots" have to be used to counter an opinion I expressed without any animosity whatsoever towards the other side.

C.L.,

If the choice is taken away, er...I mean...CHANGED, because of the ultrasound, then all the better. Is it a "forced change", as you put it, or is it really an extra consideration of the life of the fetus? I think it's the latter. Is the bill meant to instill a guilt trip of sorts? You bet. Still a choice in the end? Absolutely. Let's just agree to disagree without the extra labeling, please.

11:09 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger nonee moose said...

Robert, I only called bullshit on trying to shade your truth. I have no problem that you are pro-life. It is what I believe. I just don't need you to believe it. And I have no problem with the democratic process working as intended. I am prepared to live with the results.

I disagree with this proposed law. It is a cheap attempt to move a line obliquely that has not been able to be moved directly, despite more honorable attempts. To claim illusory benefits in a disingenuous manner is just more intellectual dishonesty.

Maybe we can amend the bill to have the doctor whisper, "Don't fight it, just lay back and enjoy it..."

11:48 AM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger Srcohiba said...

moral relativism by these folks which is predicated on the fallacy that this is not a human life which it is.

perhaps if folks saw the ultrasound they would think twice about abortion on demand which is what the pro abortion folks want.

they have no qualms with the partial birth abortion which requires the crushing of a skull of a human fetus. In fact the absurdity of the pro abortion folks can be summed up with a statement made by Barbara Boxer, the dem senator from Cali when Dshe was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether this included the car trip.

It is sick that these folks wish to give more rights to terrorists in Gitmo than the unborn who have no voice. I commend the legislature with the new law and can't wait to see the ACLU challenge it. If they're smart, they leave it alone.

12:00 PM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger nonee moose said...

SrCoh, why provide an exemption to view the ultrasound for women who are the victims of rape, incest,
domestic violence, or human trafficking? Are those fetuses somehow less unborn?

Maybe they just talk at a younger age.

1:02 PM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger Srcohiba said...

they put the exemption in there for legal challenge purposes. Harder to strike down the law with the exemption.

for me, I oppose all abortion on demand as I oppose the death penalty.

What changed me was seeing the ultrasound of my children. Beating hearts. Hands, legs, fingers.

It's a human being.

2:21 PM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger nonee moose said...

I see. The tactics of principle.

3:16 PM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger C.L.J. said...

Robert, this is nothing but a bully tactic, a transparent attempt to keep women in their place, and to usurp their right to make decisions about their own body. It's governmental intrusion at its worst, something Republicans claim to stand against.

You want to prevent abortions? Prevent unwanted pregnancies. And you do THAT by supporting a rigorous and thorough and explicit course of sexual education.

9:44 PM, April 04, 2008  
Blogger Robert said...

You want to prevent abortions? Prevent unwanted pregnancies. And you do THAT by supporting a rigorous and thorough and explicit course of sexual education.

I agree with you that sexual education is key. I would go as far as involving parents as well since they're the ones that are typically clueless when it comes to raising kids properly.

9:54 AM, April 05, 2008  
Blogger Henry Gomez said...

Yes, God forbid that a mother have a full picture of exactly what's living inside her before she has it KILLED. In fact anything that slows down the decision to kill an unborn baby like parental notification should be steamrolled out of the way.

10:22 PM, April 06, 2008  
Blogger nonee moose said...

Henry, you'll make a fine president-for-life one day.

Say, isn't it about time we storm Jerusalem again? 700 years does fly by fast.

11:54 AM, April 07, 2008  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Robert, this is nothing but a bully tactic...

! Coming from the guy who said only a fascist thug could disagree with him about this law...

It's governmental intrusion at its worst...

That depends on whether you define a woman and her fetus as one person or two. If it's two people then it's appropriate for the govt to protect the rights of the weaker person. Why don't you tell us where you draw the line on personhood -- at 6 months of pregnancy? at eight months? at birth? at voting age? Why? And don't say it's a matter of personal choice, since the question is who has the right to choose. If a mother has no right to kill her newborn child, what gives her the right to kill her child before it is born? If you don't address these questions you are not morally serious, and your justification for abortion comes down to personal convenience.

You want to prevent abortions? Prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Yes, and while we're at it, let's improve driver's ed so that we can eliminate ambulances and hospitals. Same fallacious reasoning.

And you do THAT by supporting a rigorous and thorough and explicit course of sexual education.

That's worked really well so far.

4:51 PM, April 07, 2008  
Blogger C.L.J. said...

That's worked really well so far.

Actually, it has. Places that have rigorous and throrough and explicit sex ed classes have a drastically lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Every study ever done on the subject confirms this again and again and again.

And yes, I define a pregnant woman as one person, not two. Even if abortion was not permitted by law, pregnancy does not automatically lead to birth. Until the baby is actually born, it is only potentially a seperate life.

9:29 AM, April 08, 2008  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Every study ever done on the subject confirms this again and again and again.

Which studies, and why should we accept their conclusions? "Sex education" in schools has become widespread over the past few decades, at the same time as illegitimacy rates have increased greatly. Don't you ever wonder if there might be some connection?

Until the baby is actually born, it is only potentially a seperate life.

Why? How does an infant who is not, in your view, a person five minutes before birth become a person upon birth? I can see attempting to draw a line somewhere in the first few weeks or months of pregnancy, but why draw it well after the point at which a fetus becomes a recognizable human being (with human behavior and the ability to survive outside of the womb)? Your position seems arbitrary to me, but then I'm a mere fascist.

4:34 PM, April 09, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home