|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:11 pm
But see, there's a difference between saying, "Clinics are required to offer ultrasounds to women seeking abortions" and "Clinics are required to perform an ultrasound on women seeking abortions, and the women may opt out of viewing the ultrasound." From a legal standpoint, why should clinics be forced to take ultrasounds? If a woman asks for one, sure, or requiring the clinic to offer it and let it be known that ultrasounds are available, absolutely, but -requiring- that an ultrasound be taken is senseless within current laws.
Of course I would support a seminar on meat processing, etc, whatever, but should they have a picture of the particular cow you're going to be eating included with your purchase of beef? That seems a little ridiculous. Pictures of ultrasounds are freely available online, as are explanations of abortion in in both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice flavors.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:06 pm
I.Am But see, there's a difference between saying, "Clinics are required to offer ultrasounds to women seeking abortions" and "Clinics are required to perform an ultrasound on women seeking abortions, and the women may opt out of viewing the ultrasound." From a legal standpoint, why should clinics be forced to take ultrasounds? If a woman asks for one, sure, or requiring the clinic to offer it and let it be known that ultrasounds are available, absolutely, but -requiring- that an ultrasound be taken is senseless within current laws. Of course I would support a seminar on meat processing, etc, whatever, but should they have a picture of the particular cow you're going to be eating included with your purchase of beef? That seems a little ridiculous. Pictures of ultrasounds are freely available online, as are explanations of abortion in in both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice flavors. Yes, but food is consumed en-masse. It is not every day someone kills their unborn offspring. Then again, that doesn't justify meat. However, I see it like this- If you are going t eat meat and yu see the seminar, then you know what you're getting into. Now, if you go to an abortionist, you know what you're getting into but hopefully it's not as regular an occurance as having a steak. So you need more education on such an issue especially because it involves another human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:13 pm
McPhee divineseraph And also, as for meat, I wouldn't really be against a seminar on meat and the processing of it. I think it is valuable for people to be comfortable with their actions- the TRUTH of their actions, and not simply look away or pretend it's a happier thing. This is not to say that I am a vegetarian, but I want to know that if I eat meat, then I have no problem killing my own, skinning, gutting, and preparing it, or at least know the process.
I'm not the kind of person who would kill an animal for feeding purposes-- Grocery meat is weird looking enough without me thinking about it too hard.And I argue that it is wrong to not think critically about your actions. Just not thinking about it doesn't make it less true. People SHOULD think about things. In fact, I believe such critical thinking about the reality of events is what turned you pro-life, yes? This is not to say that meat is wrong, but I feel that people should come to terms with what it really is- it is the flesh and blood of an animal. Very delicious flesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:33 pm
divineseraph So you need more education on such an issue especially because it involves another human being. From our point of view, yes, but from the point of view of the law, abortion isn't even as serious as piercing your ear. Children can get abortions without the knowledge or consent of their parents, remember. So really, by a legal standpoint, there's no reason they should be forced to know. :shrug: But the point is, it's not an education, it's a picture. But lymelady brought something important up in conversation; They should have the ultrasound not just to convince the mother not to abort, but also because it could show important problems in the pregnancy, which would be, could be, or should be important to the mother whether or not the fetus is going to die. The mother may not need to see it, but the "doctor" should be able to see the fetus, for various reasons, including the possibility that the mother is lying about or simply doesn't realize how long she's been pregnant. The process and legality is different at different stages, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:49 pm
divineseraph And I argue that it is wrong to not think critically about your actions. Just not thinking about it doesn't make it less true. People SHOULD think about things. In fact, I believe such critical thinking about the reality of events is what turned you pro-life, yes? This is not to say that meat is wrong, but I feel that people should come to terms with what it really is- it is the flesh and blood of an animal. Very delicious flesh.
It was really my critical thinking that got me to be pro-life. But I don't see this as a critical thinking issue-- Miranda knows how I feel about this. I don't like hunting, or the deaths of animals, but meat's just something to eat, and I don't think of it in the sense like I'm hurting a creature because it's just sustenance to me.
If I thought critically in the same manner about abortion as I did about meat, I would be a vegetarian as well as pro-life. I would visualize a hamburger as being my dog, and I would never eat meat again. If I can rationally think my way out of being pro-choice, I can rationally think my way out of eating meat-- and I don't want to do that just yet.
But we're off topic, seraph-- maybe a new topic in our ED?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:32 am
What does meat have to do with abortion? We need to eat (and eat different things) in order to survive and like it or not, every thing we eat was once living (inclueding plants), but there is no way around that if you want to live.
We all know how ment is made but how many people really know how abortion is preformed? Most women don't need to have abortion in order to live, so most of the time it's taking a life for no reason.
No I won't hunt either way. Just because I know how meat is made, doesn't mean i'll kill an animal and make it myself (why should I? There is no problem buying food already prepared in order to eat and live). Just like some women know how abortions are preformed but they won't do it themselfs.
I try not think how some food came to be or I end up eatting nothing at all (if you think about it, alot of things are disgusting). For along time I wouldn't many eat fruits or vegetable, worrying about how clean and safe they are (food poisoning do to bacteria, pesticides,ect...)
And what's so wrong about ultrasounds? I never been pregnant but I had them done for other things and it's no big deal plus with ultrasounds people can get info and make an educated discussion without regrets or they can make sure if there is nothing wrong, no major complications.
If they already plan to have abortion and are set in their ways, I doubt they would change their mind either way and if people are going to throw such a fit about it then they don't have to look if they don't want to (I doubt they are forced to look at it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 8:31 pm
McPhee divineseraph And I argue that it is wrong to not think critically about your actions. Just not thinking about it doesn't make it less true. People SHOULD think about things. In fact, I believe such critical thinking about the reality of events is what turned you pro-life, yes? This is not to say that meat is wrong, but I feel that people should come to terms with what it really is- it is the flesh and blood of an animal. Very delicious flesh.
It was really my critical thinking that got me to be pro-life. But I don't see this as a critical thinking issue-- Miranda knows how I feel about this. I don't like hunting, or the deaths of animals, but meat's just something to eat, and I don't think of it in the sense like I'm hurting a creature because it's just sustenance to me.
If I thought critically in the same manner about abortion as I did about meat, I would be a vegetarian as well as pro-life. I would visualize a hamburger as being my dog, and I would never eat meat again. If I can rationally think my way out of being pro-choice, I can rationally think my way out of eating meat-- and I don't want to do that just yet.
But we're off topic, seraph-- maybe a new topic in our ED?But it WAS skinned. It DID die. It IS sustinence, which WAS once an animal. Much like how, to some choicers, an abortion is just a medical procedure. Not thinking about it doesn't make it less real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:23 pm
McPhee
To throw the choicers' words back in their faces, if she can't handle an ultrasound, how can she handle an abortion?
QFT
Basically everything I have to say on this issue is summed up nicely in that sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:41 pm
sachiko_sohma What does meat have to do with abortion? Some people think it's wrong, and some people don't. And my point was that forcing someone to consider the gory details of their actions is more likely to create resentment towards the person forcing the consideration than to inspire someone to reconsider their actions. Yelling "ABORTION IS MURDER!!!" at someone every time they want an abortion is the same as yelling "MEAT IS MURDER!!!" at them every time they eat meat. The majority of people would probably respond with "you can't stop me, it's legal," "don't force your morals on me," "whateva, whateva, I do what I want," etc. I got the impression that there was no opting out of this viewing party; if there is, well, that makes the bill an even bigger waste of time. Telling women "you have to view this ultrasound, but you can choose not to?" What's the point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:13 pm
La Veuve Zin sachiko_sohma What does meat have to do with abortion? Some people think it's wrong, and some people don't. And my point was that forcing someone to consider the gory details of their actions is more likely to create resentment towards the person forcing the consideration than to inspire someone to reconsider their actions. Yelling "ABORTION IS MURDER!!!" at someone every time they want an abortion is the same as yelling "MEAT IS MURDER!!!" at them every time they eat meat. The majority of people would probably respond with "you can't stop me, it's legal," "don't force your morals on me," "whateva, whateva, I do what I want," etc. Yeah, I definitely get the urge to eat more meat in front of obnoxious vegetarians. ^_^;; Quote: I got the impression that there was no opting out of this viewing party; if there is, well, that makes the bill an even bigger waste of time. Telling women "you have to view this ultrasound, but you can choose not to?" What's the point? The bill isn't to force the woman to look at the ultrasound, it's to force the doctor to take the ultrasound; To look at it from an unbiased legal point of view, this really should have already been in place. It's like when you have a brain tumor, doctors don't just go in there and start scraping at everything that doesn't look like it belongs, they get an X-Ray to see how big it is, what sort of precautions may be necessary, etc. There could be something about the position of the fetus, or the age of the fetus, that makes the planned procedure inadvisable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 9:32 am
I.Am The bill isn't to force the woman to look at the ultrasound, it's to force the doctor to take the ultrasound; Why are they making it sound like they want women to see it and decide not to have the abortion? I swear these people are actually pro-choice and trying to sabotage us. How can you be this politically unsavvy and still be a politician? ....n/m, I forgot who was president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:04 pm
La Veuve Zin sachiko_sohma What does meat have to do with abortion? Some people think it's wrong, and some people don't. And my point was that forcing someone to consider the gory details of their actions is more likely to create resentment towards the person forcing the consideration than to inspire someone to reconsider their actions. Yelling "ABORTION IS MURDER!!!" at someone every time they want an abortion is the same as yelling "MEAT IS MURDER!!!" at them every time they eat meat. The majority of people would probably respond with "you can't stop me, it's legal," "don't force your morals on me," "whateva, whateva, I do what I want," etc. I got the impression that there was no opting out of this viewing party; if there is, well, that makes the bill an even bigger waste of time. Telling women "you have to view this ultrasound, but you can choose not to?" What's the point? But making them get an ultrasound isn't the same as yelling "abortion is murder" it's not even forcing them out of it (it's still their choice to kill the fetus/embryo), and getting it done isn't the same as making them look (it's just to check and see if there is anything wrong or if there is possible complications). If something is wrong and the doctor didn't check to make sure before hand to make sure if there was everything is fine (or see how far along she is), they can get into serious trouble. As McPhee said-If they can't handle ultrasounds (or knowing the truth about everything), then how can they handle abortion in the long run? They should know everything before they get it done. Abortion is still a medical procedure with risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:33 pm
sachiko_sohma La Veuve Zin sachiko_sohma What does meat have to do with abortion? Some people think it's wrong, and some people don't. And my point was that forcing someone to consider the gory details of their actions is more likely to create resentment towards the person forcing the consideration than to inspire someone to reconsider their actions. Yelling "ABORTION IS MURDER!!!" at someone every time they want an abortion is the same as yelling "MEAT IS MURDER!!!" at them every time they eat meat. The majority of people would probably respond with "you can't stop me, it's legal," "don't force your morals on me," "whateva, whateva, I do what I want," etc. I got the impression that there was no opting out of this viewing party; if there is, well, that makes the bill an even bigger waste of time. Telling women "you have to view this ultrasound, but you can choose not to?" What's the point? But making them get an ultrasound isn't the same as yelling "abortion is murder" it's not even forcing them out of it (it's still their choice to kill the fetus/embryo), and getting it done isn't the same as making them look (it's just to check and see if there is anything wrong or if there is possible complications). If something is wrong and the doctor didn't check to make sure before hand to make sure if there was everything is fine (or see how far along she is), they can get into serious trouble. As McPhee said-If they can't handle ultrasounds (or knowing the truth about everything), then how can they handle abortion in the long run? They should know everything before they get it done. Abortion is still a medical procedure with risks. Devils advocate, and here's where meat comes in- Can you handle watching a slaughterhouse in action? If not, then how can you handle eating meat? One should know everything about what they injest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:24 pm
divineseraph sachiko_sohma La Veuve Zin sachiko_sohma What does meat have to do with abortion? Some people think it's wrong, and some people don't. And my point was that forcing someone to consider the gory details of their actions is more likely to create resentment towards the person forcing the consideration than to inspire someone to reconsider their actions. Yelling "ABORTION IS MURDER!!!" at someone every time they want an abortion is the same as yelling "MEAT IS MURDER!!!" at them every time they eat meat. The majority of people would probably respond with "you can't stop me, it's legal," "don't force your morals on me," "whateva, whateva, I do what I want," etc. I got the impression that there was no opting out of this viewing party; if there is, well, that makes the bill an even bigger waste of time. Telling women "you have to view this ultrasound, but you can choose not to?" What's the point? But making them get an ultrasound isn't the same as yelling "abortion is murder" it's not even forcing them out of it (it's still their choice to kill the fetus/embryo), and getting it done isn't the same as making them look (it's just to check and see if there is anything wrong or if there is possible complications). If something is wrong and the doctor didn't check to make sure before hand to make sure if there was everything is fine (or see how far along she is), they can get into serious trouble. As McPhee said-If they can't handle ultrasounds (or knowing the truth about everything), then how can they handle abortion in the long run? They should know everything before they get it done. Abortion is still a medical procedure with risks. Devils advocate, and here's where meat comes in- Can you handle watching a slaughterhouse in action? If not, then how can you handle eating meat? One should know everything about what they injest. Well really, it's more like, if you can't handle looking at a picture of a cow, how can you handle eating a hamburger? Because an ultrasound is not a picture of the abortion happening, rather, a picture of what is being aborted. I can say in all honesty that looking at a picture of a cow makes me hungry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:32 pm
lymelady divineseraph sachiko_sohma La Veuve Zin sachiko_sohma What does meat have to do with abortion? Some people think it's wrong, and some people don't. And my point was that forcing someone to consider the gory details of their actions is more likely to create resentment towards the person forcing the consideration than to inspire someone to reconsider their actions. Yelling "ABORTION IS MURDER!!!" at someone every time they want an abortion is the same as yelling "MEAT IS MURDER!!!" at them every time they eat meat. The majority of people would probably respond with "you can't stop me, it's legal," "don't force your morals on me," "whateva, whateva, I do what I want," etc. I got the impression that there was no opting out of this viewing party; if there is, well, that makes the bill an even bigger waste of time. Telling women "you have to view this ultrasound, but you can choose not to?" What's the point? But making them get an ultrasound isn't the same as yelling "abortion is murder" it's not even forcing them out of it (it's still their choice to kill the fetus/embryo), and getting it done isn't the same as making them look (it's just to check and see if there is anything wrong or if there is possible complications). If something is wrong and the doctor didn't check to make sure before hand to make sure if there was everything is fine (or see how far along she is), they can get into serious trouble. As McPhee said-If they can't handle ultrasounds (or knowing the truth about everything), then how can they handle abortion in the long run? They should know everything before they get it done. Abortion is still a medical procedure with risks. Devils advocate, and here's where meat comes in- Can you handle watching a slaughterhouse in action? If not, then how can you handle eating meat? One should know everything about what they injest. Well really, it's more like, if you can't handle looking at a picture of a cow, how can you handle eating a hamburger? Because an ultrasound is not a picture of the abortion happening, rather, a picture of what is being aborted. I can say in all honesty that looking at a picture of a cow makes me hungry. Ah, yes, a picture of a cow would be a better analogy here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
