shadowrelm wrote:
sooo, you think they came to this decision lightly without knowing what it means?
what part of "legislated psycological abuse" do you not understand?
It's "abuse" to require that someone know what they're doing before they do it? Excuse me? Abortion is pretty much the *only* medical proceedure in which the doctors don't show the patient what they're going to be doing.
Think about it.
Quote:
they have already made a life altering decision. one i am sure they did not take lightly. one i am sure they agonized over. one i am sure they ALREADY KNOW exactly what they are doing.
If they do, then looking at a sonigram isn't going to change their minds, is it?
My problem is that you're arguing from a position that assumes that the person in question is making a fully informed decision that they agonized over and considered every single angle of, but then you insist that they should not be required to view a particular piece of information.
If you believe what you said, then you should have no problem with this law. Because if they really do know "exactly what they're doing", then this should not impact their decision. If it does, then clearly they did *not* know everything about what they were deciding to do. Your argument is paradoxial.
Quote:
hey, lets pass all kinds of laws that psycoloigaly abuse anyone who make decisions that the fanatical right doesnt agree with.
I'm sorry. But I think that anyone who would feel pain/abuse from viewing a sonigram of the fetus they're about to abort hasn't fully examined every aspect of the decision they are about to make.
Do you know the statistics for depression and suicide among women who've had abortions? The pain of their decision doesn't disappear simply because they didn't look at a sonigram. It's there. It will always be there. Maybe if we didn't coddle them through the decision making process, they might be able to make a truely informed decision. That decision should *also* include the emotional damage they're going to suffer as a result of the decision. Again. If they can't handle the sonigram, they're not going to just walk away from the abortion without any feelings of remorse or pain.
I don't see anything wrong with requiring women to face that part of the decision *before* making it.
Quote:
freedom of religion.
we can force anyone considering going into a mosque or converting to islam to sit and watch the twin towers falling over and over, then show them pictures of people being burned to death to mae tkem think they will go to hell if they do.
informed decision.....as the right sees it?
Huh? Last I heard, joining a religion is not a medical proceedure regulated by the state. Abortions are. Apples and oranges.
Quote:
how about this whole election thing.
before the next election, we can force anyone considering voting democrat to watch video of terrorist attacks and hippies smoking hash on teh whitehouse lawn.
Hah. This is different then the current political advertising how exactly?
We could count the deaths in Iraq. We could repeat "no weapons of mass destruction" over and over. Oh wait! We do those things, don't we?...
Quote:
informed decision by WHOS standards? who gets to decide weather someone is informed enough or not? and who gives anyone else the right to dictate restrictions on FREEDOMS already given to us.
The legistlature I'm guessing. Not sure what your problem is. I don't see you complaining about the warning labels on packs of cigarettes. Who got to decide that one?
Quote:
the fanatical right does aparently.
Only in your own mind. Seriously. Drop the crack pipe.
Quote:
untill the day when you idiots can conclusivly determine at what point a life actually begines, its not ending a life, it is a medical proceedure. the end. get over it.
Yes. It's a medical proceedure. Just like any other. And in most medical proceedures, the doctor is required to explain the proceedure to the patient, including the risks/benefits prior to getting approval from the patient to perform it. What part of that is confusing to you?
You may not realize this, but you're actually arguing that abortions should be the exeption to the rule. That somehow the womans "right" to an abortion means that all the normal rules should be chucked out the window, and that no one should ever be allowed to try to talk her out of it, or even simply present the risks/costs involved. She has a right to be informed too. What's happening right now is that women are being told that the proceedure is no big deal, that tons of people have them, and not to worry. That's lying to them.
But I guess it's ok in this case. Kinda one-sided, don't you think?
Quote:
making end runs at restricting freedoms becuase you cant win the big battle is pathetic. its why this country is in such a mess. its why we are in iraq.
Freedom does not mean ignorance. Freedom does mean choice. If you restrict the information someone has before making a choice, you are reducing their freedom, not increasing it. Freedom also comes with responsibility. Lying to people so that they'll make the choice you want and suffer the consequences of that choice is *not* helping their freedom. Nor is it helping them.
You just have a strange view of what constitutes freedom. Very strange.
Quote:
and what the legislature is trying to dictate to these already tramatized distressed women is paramount to psycological torture. a poor mans mind controll.
They are traumatized and distressed as a result of having an abortion and regretting it later. In many cases, women report that if they'd known more they would have made a totally different choice. See. Not giving them information influences their decision just as much as giving it to them does. Which is "right"? Which is "wrong"? Given the rates of regret, I don't see anything wrong with this law.