Texas forces mothers seeking abortions to view image of unborn child

Nom Chompsky

Nom Chompsky

High Tory
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
54,616
Reaction score
39,465
Location
Cape Town
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-abortions-to-view-image-of-unborn-child.html

The law, enacted in 2011, requires abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on pregnant women, show and describe the image to them, and play sounds of the foetal heartbeat.
Though women can decline to view images or hear the heartbeat, they must listen to a description of the exam.

A coalition of medical providers sued state officials in June, arguing that the law made doctors a "mouthpiece" for the state's ideological message.
US federal judge Sam Sparks had temporarily blocked the law, ruling that it violated physcians' free-speech rights.

But a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals overturned his ban in January.

Judge Sparks said he was forced to follow the higher court's ruling, but criticised the appeals court for "making puppets out of doctors".
"There can be little doubt that (the law) is an attempt by the Texas Legislature to discourage women from exercising their constitutional rights by making it more difficult for caring and competent physicians to perform abortions," he wrote in the opinion this week.
Rights groups are appealing the ruling.

So far, six of the 50 US states have passed laws requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion and provide the woman an opportunity to view the image, according to the Guttmacher Institute in Washington, which studies reproductive health issues.

Most of those states allow women to decline to view the image. Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina require women to hear the provider's verbal description of the ultrasound.

The laws in Oklahoma and North Carolina are temporarily not being enforced, pending court challenges.
Click to expand...

Should this be allowed?
 
The ex pro-abortion (or pro-choice) activist and medical doctor, Bernard Nathanson, reconsidered his views on abortion when ultra-sound was developed and he had the chance to view a real-time abortion.

I am pretty sure the people trying to pass this law used him as an example as an argument for this law.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a great requirement, maybe if these murdering mothers were confronted with the fact that they are about to end the life of a living being they would not be so hasty.

But Abortion advocates want to make their practice of murder as convenient and as clean as possible.

It's not so clean though for the doctor who has to hack the baby to pieces in the womb or suction out the saline burned pieces of flesh.
 
Yay... more reasons for women to seek illegal and therefore possibly unsafe abortions!

This is monumentally stupid.
 
Yet again those who are opposed to abortion demonstrate that there is no level to which they will not stoop. This is a very difficult decision for many women and laws like this, besides their obvious interference with doctors, are nothing more than acts of cruelty.
 
noxibox said:
Yet again those who are opposed to abortion demonstrate that there is no level to which they will not stoop. This is a very difficult decision for many women and laws like this, besides their obvious interference with doctors, are nothing more than acts of cruelty.
Click to expand...

If these laws are acts of cruelty, then what is an abortion?
 
The abortion debate is an incredibly complex issue. The main question was, is and always will be when it is morally permissible to freely and wilfully terminate a human life?

ANY person that is pro-life or pro-choice needs to at least attempt to answer the following questions.
1) When is the beginning of a human life?
2) When does human personhood begin?
3) When does a human start to have rights?
4) If it is true that the beginnings of human life, personhood and human rights are simultaneous then is it morally permissible to terminate a human person with rights?
5) If it is true that the beginnings of human life, personhood and human rights are not simultaneous then further question arise.
For example, do all persons have human rights?
6) Is it morally permissible to terminate a human life when it has no personhood and no rights?
7) Is it morally permissible to terminate a human life with personhood and no rights?
 
Chris said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-abortions-to-view-image-of-unborn-child.html
Should this be allowed?
Click to expand...
The real question is: should killing of unborn children be allowed? If so, why stop at the pre-born? Why not allow killing of the newborn? Any anyone already born? What's different one minute before birth and one minute after birth?

You do know about partial-birth abortion don't you? And that in reality abortions are legally performed anytime until 'normal birth'?

This is a horror of unbelievable savagery. So any measure which gives pause to the holocaust is to be welcomed.
 
What absolute stupidity, the mother should not have to be psychologically guilt-tripped into keeping the baby to the detrement of both herself and the child.
 
Regardless of your position on the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, you have to acknowledge that an abortion is a very major life decision with a permanent impact on both the child (or however you want to refer to it) and the mother.

This law is not impacting on the legal rights of the woman at all. It is simply acknowledging the seriousness of the decision and ensuring that the woman are properly informed of what they are about to do before they do it.

It is probably true that it is being pushed in an attempt to get woman to not have abortions, but you can't really argue that making sure they know what they are about to do is wrong.
 
Arthur said:
The real question is: should killing of unborn children be allowed? If so, why stop at the pre-born? Why not allow killing of the newborn? Any anyone already born? What's different one minute before birth and one minute after birth?

You do know about partial-birth abortion don't you? And that in reality abortions are legally performed anytime until 'normal birth'?

This is a horror of unbelievable savagery. So any measure which gives pause to the holocaust is to be welcomed.
Click to expand...

With the global economy in the state it's in, and the pressures caused by an exploding population, the "killing of unborn children" (to use your words) is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of modern society. Abortion has become part of what we are as a species. This will likely not change. From a pragmatic point of view the question can thus only be how does one then minimise suffering? Ironically many of these cases would never happen if a certain bunch of folk would change their tune on condoms. ;)

Attempting to send already-traumatised women on a guilt-trip is, I'd argue, both cruel and dangerous. Techne and I have been around this mulberry bush once or twice before, but I would reply in much the same fashion to his preceding post...
 
HapticSimian said:
With the global economy in the state it's in, and the pressures caused by an exploding population, the "killing of unborn children" (to use your words) is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of modern society. Abortion has become part of what we are as a species. This will likely not change. From a pragmatic point of view the question can thus only be how does one then minimise suffering? Ironically many of these cases would never happen if a certain bunch of folk would change their tune on condoms. ;)

Attempting to send already-traumatised women on a guilt-trip is, I'd argue, both cruel and dangerous. Techne and I have been around this mulberry bush once or twice before, but I would reply in much the same fashion to his preceding post...
Click to expand...
That's consequentialist ethics for you. The ends (minimize suffering, whatever that is supposed to mean) justifies the means. I of course disagree with such a view of ethics as it appears to collapse to meta-ethical moral relativism (no act is intrinsically and objectively wrong). A view that ultimately collapses to meta-ethical moral relativism is of course useless in a rational debate about the ethics of abortion.
 
Last edited:
HapticSimian said:
Yay... more reasons for women to seek illegal and therefore possibly unsafe abortions!

This is monumentally stupid.
Click to expand...
So what is inherently wrong with it ? They are just asked to watch a unwanted lump of matter according pro-abortion folk ?

noxibox said:
Yet again those who are opposed to abortion demonstrate that there is no level to which they will not stoop. This is a very difficult decision for many women and laws like this, besides their obvious interference with doctors, are nothing more than acts of cruelty.
Click to expand...
Yeah it truly is appalling what humans will stoop to, to save a life eh ?
 
HapticSimian said:
Attempting to send already-traumatised women on a guilt-trip is, I'd argue, both cruel and dangerous. Techne and I have been around this mulberry bush once or twice before, but I would reply in much the same fashion to his preceding post...
Click to expand...

You think all the trauma goes away once the woman has the abortion? For some of them it is only the beginning of the trauma....
 
Rubbish it is not difficult for many women, they get knocked up and then murder their baby.

It's fking stupid, i think if a female has an abortion they should also cut away the bits that allow her to fall preggies again, obviously she cannot be trusted and is not responsible enough to be allowed the right to bare a child.

I have this one friend who is a CAT(drug) addict and has aborted twice already. I told her to stop being stupid and go get herself fixed. Bloody sickening how retarded these people are and how little life means to them.

Obviously there are circumstances where it may be better but avoiding the pregnancy all together is a much better option. My cousin was 15 when she fell preggies and the little guy is too cute. It is far too easy to just end a babies life these days. Inconvenience? No worries, go kill it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X