florida and abortion....Follow

And... why is that the government's responsibility again?

If that's the case, then I say that every single person who shows the slightest bit of interest in any branch of the armed forces be shown a very very detailed video of what it's like to have limbs blown off by bombs, to be shot in the gut and die a slow, painful death while your buddy watches. They should have to witness, first hand, every bit of death and destruction that could possibly happen to them if they go off to war. Hit them hard. Show them the caskets of the returning troops who died in Iraq (OOPS!! No, not that!!). Show them the veterans who fought in Vietnam and can't function because they have so many mental issues.

You are doing women on the whole a disservice by assuming they don't realize what is in their body when they want/need an abortion. This is a matter between a doctor and his/her patient. All this would do is make it harder for her.

Honestly, since when was the government ever about education?

Because the citizens of the state of Florida decided that they'd like to see that bit of regulation applied to abortions?

Was that supposed to be a trick question? Why does the government set driving speed limits? Why set age limits on drinking and smoking? Why have laws at all?

Whether you like it or not, abortion is something that *most* citizens of this country feel strongly about one way or another (I think that's obvious). Are you seriously suggesting that it's ok for the government to take positions with regard to abortion (ie: Roe v. Wade) when it matches what you'd like, but it's wrong when it meddles in ways you don't?

Cause let's be honest here. If there wasn't a government telling people that they had to allow abortion, you can bet that there would be a lot more restrictions placed on it then merely requiring women to take and view an ultrasound. When abortion issues are placed before a legistlative body and/or voted on by "the people", the restrictions desired by them are typically *far* more restrictive then those currently in place.

But you *don't* want government meddling in this? You really might want to rethink that.



Ok. First off. I did a bit of research (gasp!). Turns out there was a bit of hyperbole by the OP (shocker I know). While the law would mandate that an ultrasound be taken in 1st trimester cases (it's already law for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions), the viewing of the ultrasound is optional. The woman is not "forced" to see it. Golly! Looks like most of the whole abuse angle kinda disappears right there (although I don't think it would be abuse in anycase).

Secondly, that's got to be the worst analogy you could possibly bring up. Not because it's a bad analogy in general, but because it doesn't support your position. I'm willing to bet that the average person serving in the military or intending to serve in the military is far more familiar with the dangers and risks of combat then most women in a clinic are familiar with the dangers of abortion.

Do you mean detailed video like the hundreds of war films out there, many of them incredibly graphic? Many (most) of them dealing starkly with the pain and sacrifice of soldiers in war? Wanna take a wild guess as to whether military folks watch those sorts of films more or less then the rest of the population?

They already have seen videos with just such things in them. Likely hundreds of times. They're well aware of the risks. Heh. Try a different analogy next time...



I'm not assuming it. You are (or those on your side anyway). If she does realize what's in her body, then how does viewing an ultrasound affect her? The very fact that you believe it would change her mind is the exact reason why they should view it. Clearly, if viewing an ultrasound would change her mind, then she really could not have fully understood everything, could she?

That's just an absurd position to make. It's like saying that my mechanic should not be allowed to show me a broken part on my car because if I see it I might realize it needs to be fixed, but if I don't I wouldn't. It only makes sense if you've somehow decided that a woman having an abortion is "good" and a woman not having an abortion is "bad", and will argue against anything that might just result in a woman not having an abortion, no matter how silly it is.

Age limits on drinking and smoking and speed limits are SO FAR removed from forcing women to view an ultrasound before they get an abortion that it's not even funny.



By making abortion legal, the government is not "taking sides" on abortion. They are leaving it in the hands of the women who get pregnant to CHOOSE what they want.

By making abortion illegal, they are "taking sides." By making abortion mandatory, they are "taking sides."

By forcing a woman to view an ultrasound in the hopes that she will reconsider and keep the child that she cannot afford, or that she was impregnated with when she was raped or abused, they are certainly showing us where they stand. They may not be outlawing it, but they are still "taking sides."



I don't want anyone meddling in it aside from the doctors and the women involved. It's not right for "the people" to tell me what I have to do and am not allowed do with my body, and it's not right for the government telling me what I have to do and am not allowed do with my body.



Well, thanks for doing that research. I feel better about the fact that the woman isn't mandated by law to LOOK at the ultrasound. However... what's the point then? Seems like a bit of fluff legislature to tempt a woman to look at a "picture" of the fetus and guilt her into not getting the abortion. And... couldn't you consider a guilt trip of this stature a form of abuse? Hmmm, look. That "angle" isn't gone.

But hey, that's just me.



I couldn't disagree more. The average person is familiar with the fact that driving 100 mph down the interstate is more likely to cause them to die in a firey car crash, but that doesn't stop people from doing it. Why not? Because of the "it couldn't happen to me" syndrome.

However, I'm willing to bet that when you get any patient in a room with a doctor who is going over the risks of a medical procedure, they understand far more that this is real, this could actually happen to them. I mean, for most of the women going to get an abortion, they had the "this can't happen to me" syndrome in regards to even getting pregnant. Well, that blows that theory out of the water.



If you can't discern the wide gulf between fake Hollywood blood and real-life battlefield carnage, then it seems to me, at least, that you've lost touch with reality, and have no place in this argument.



I am not assuming that she doesn't know what is in her body. She wouldn't be in an abortion clinic if she didn't know what was in her body. It is the woman's responsibility to decide if she wants to have an ultrasound done and if she wants to look at it. Forcing women to have the ultrasound is the role of the nanny-state, not a free country.

Only if you assume that the only "sides" exist on the two extremes of the issue. Unfortunately, abortion (like most things in fact) is an issue of degrees. In the same way that most people believe that drinking is ok and should be legal, but its legality should be restricted (ie: to people of a certain age, in specific locations, and not while driving or working heavy machinery), abortion is something that most people believe should be legal, but have restrictions placed on it (hence why we have different rules and requirements for abortions depending on the trimester one is in).

Most things are regulated in the middle, not at the ends. That includes abortion. Or are you arguing that Roe v. Wade overstepped the governments authority when it set specific criteria for abortions based on the length of the term at the time?

The problem is that overtime the concept of a "womans choice" on this issue has grown to near legendary proportions that it's outstripped the bonds of common sense. Yes. It is perfectly reasonable for the government to place restrictions on people's choices. Even abortion.



If the choice she's making is such a good one, why would viewing an ultrasound change her mind? See. I'm still stuck on the paradox of this argument. Your argument rests on the assumption that the woman has made her choice as a result of fully understanding the consequenses and benefits of the choice. But then you argue that it would be wrong to show her something else cause it might change her mind. Um... If the first assumption is true, then the second can never happen. If the second does happen then the first assumption must be false.

Again. Clearly, any woman who changes her mind as a result of viewing an ultrasound must not have actually been fully aware of every aspect of the decision she was making. Otherwise she would not have changed her mind. The next obvious question then is: If she would change her mind as a result of seeing an ultrasound, is it right to allow her to see it, or wrong?

IMHO, it's the right thing to do. It will always be the right thing to do. Not because I'm some pro-life wingnut, but because if she's going to react strongly enough to the ultrasound to change her mind, then at some point she's going to regret that decision just as strongly. It's vastly better for her if she faces that *before* making the decision while she can still change her mind, then face it later when all she can do is realize that she's done something she may very well regret for the rest of her life.

Again. That's clearly my viewpoint. I think it's a valid one. And apparently, so do many people in Florida (although it looks like the bill may not pass anyway, so this whole thing may be moot).



So the laws requiring that companies list their ingredients on packages of food. You disagree with that?

You have elevated the position of "choice" to a high pedastal, but don't seem to want anything that might actually affect that choice to be allowed. Again. At a very basic level, how good is your choice if you don't have all the facts? It's well and good to say you have a right to that choice, but what about the right to know all the facts involved?

Remember. This law is requiring the *doctor* to take an ultrasound and offer it to the patient prior to the proceedure. It does not actually require the person making the choice to do anything. It only require the person offering the choice to provide that person with all the facts.

I would think that if choice was so important to you, that you'd support anything that would allow for a more informed choice. The woman is still free to make any choice she wishes in this regard. I don't think it's unreasonable to make sure she has all the information first...



I would guess that the point is that there are many abortion doctors who will talk women into having the proceedure, and many organizations (planned parenthood for one) that do everything they can to convince women who go there that an abortion is a completely safe and easy way to fix their "problem"). Has it occured to you that perhaps the purpose of this law is not to impose some cruelty on women, but to protect them from doctors and organizations who are willing to do harm to them for their own political agenda?

Remember also that for poor women, abortion proceedures are subsidized by the state (in most states anyway). There are doctors who make a living doing nothing but abortions. It's "free money" since the patient in that case does not have to pay (the state does). Thus, there is very much an incentive for the doctor to talk the woman into having an abortion. If she does, he makes more money. If she changes her mind, he doesn't.


I just think that many of you are approaching this as some sort of attack on women by the state. I really do see it differently. I think that the state is acting as an advocate for the women in this case. It's not requiring anything of them. It isn't forcing them to do or not do anything. But it *is* making it harder for unscrupulous doctors to take advantage of women by convincing them to have a proceedure that they will almost certainly regret down the line.

Again. The statistics for depression and suicide by women as a direct result of having had an abortion are staggering. I just don't think it's wrong to give them a better chance to come to grips with their decision before making it. And I believe that many of them are not being given the opportunity to do this.



Ok. How does that equate to forcing people planning on joining the military to see graphic representations of the pain and horror they're likely to see if they end up on a battlefield? Again. I'm reasonably sure that no government created film could *ever* portray that as well as hollywood has over the last half century or so. And I'm also reasonable sure that most people joining the military have seen a whole bunch of those very films.

So maybe it just plain was a bad analogy...



This is a pretty strong argument in support of my position though. Are you saying that the doctor should *not* go over the risks of a medical proceedure so as not to worry the patient? You are aware that they do this very thing, right? Except apparently for abortions where the doctor just kinda smiles at the woman and tells her it'll be no big deal...

You agree that informing the person of those risks would make it more "real" to her, but then don't want a woman to be so informed with the proceedure is an abortion? Why the exception in this case? Smacks of politics IMO. You would never oppose a law requiring a doctor to provide those details for any other sort of medical proceedure would you? Why do it in this case?



You're the one who brought up the whole "show them a video" bit. I just went with it. Again. I can't imagine any possibililty that the government could come up with any sort of video that could portray the graphic nature of war more effectively the Hollywood.

You may be too young to remember the old public education reels that kids used to see in school on a whole range of topics. That's what you'd get. Trust me, Hollywood's version is vastly more likely to generate an emotional response then a government film would.




Providing abortions to women with taxpayer money is a "nanny-state" action already. I think regulating those proceedures is responsible government in this case. If you want to eliminate the nanny-state, then by all means argue against state funding for those abortions. But don't accept the funding but then argue that the government (and the people who pay those taxes) should have no say in how that money is spent.

Responsiblity goes farther then just the woman making the decision. It also goes to every single person who is providing that abortion for her. Including the taxpayers who are paying for it. I'll also point out that the law in question only says "some abortions". How much you want to bet it only applies to state funded ones?

child = polyp? Good point of view you have there. It's not a life, it's just a cancer!

Apart from forcing them to look at their foetus.

And then to wait another 24 hours

But yeah, apart from that nothing.

Anyway, I'm sure most women are happy the state is "acting as an advocate" for them by subjecting them to emotional blackmail. God knows what those poor defenseless creatures would do without it...

Well, a polyp isn't cancer. But in purely biological terms, a fetus is a clump of undifferentiated cells, so it's a reasonable definition if you want to stretch a point, which I surmise you do.

From my point of view, abortion is a medical procedure. I don't get all the hysteria. /shrug

Knowing pubbies, probably the patient.

So, which one are you--Fifteen, or stupid? How do you propose we nullify the opinion of anyone who never had an abortion, take away their vote? I'm pro-choice myself, but inane arguments like this one don't do anything but polarize an already touchy subject. Grow up.

Or a hydatiform mole! That has human parts, after all. It's practically a person!

And a cancer.

Because that hard decision does not become less hard after it's made. Again. The statistics on this are staggeringly clear. Women who have abortions suffer from depression and suicide about 5 times more often then women who do not (about 2 and a half time as often even then women who had unplanned pregnancies but did not have abortions).

The consequences of their decision occur whether they view an ultrasound or not. You argue that it's unecessary pain lumped onto an already difficult decision. I disagree. I think it's *very* necessary. Because she's going to experience that pain anyway. May as well face it before making the decision rather then afterwards.

And certainly part of the hope is that some women will make a different choice. But what I don't understand is how this in any way violates the "right" to that choice. If knowing something would change your mind about a choice you have to make, wouldn't you want to know it? Or would you rather not know, make the choice and then regret it later?

Every woman who has an abortion at some point faces that choice. In the grand total amount of "pain" that choice will cause I really don't see an ultrasound as adding to it. More like allowing her to experience some of it now instead of later. The realization and emotions she may experience after viewing the ultrasound *will* come to her eventually. That pain isn't going to change one way or another. Why deliberately take a course of action to ensure that this all happens after she's made the decision?


I guess I just don't see how that has anything to do with choice. Sounds more like keeping people ignorant so they'll make the choice you want them to make (not you personally of course!). I just don't see anything particularly wrong with this. Yeah. I'd prefer it not involve some additional expense, but the problem is that it seems like funding for abortions is calculated as a medical expense and paid for. Funding for *not* having an abortion is non-existent. Doesn't that seem a bit backwards?

Can you cite that, please? I keep hearing people saying that the statistics linking abortion and suicide are "staggering," but when I try to find them, all I find are biased, mostly religious sites that say that, with nothing to back them up, really. So I am honestly curious where this is coming from. Is there a respected, non-biased study somewhere that I'm missing?