Posted on 05/06/2011 10:02:44 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
Yes. Women should know exactly what they are getting into. 32%
No way. This is infringing upon a woman's right to choose. 65%
I don't know. 3%
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
"It is infringing about the woman's ability to rationalize killing a human being" would be a far more reasonable way of stating the second choice.
A woman wouldn’t even choose a hair brush without looking at it first!
ping
WOW!
You are right. But the abortion industry will fight to the death any restriction on the abortion right. Right now they are pouringmillions into the effort to make the Hyde Amendment apply to the insurance mandates of Obamacare.
Abortion is murder . . . period . . . a human being has his life ended abruptly and violently by an outside force. I don't really give a rat's ass what the courts have said . . . they're the ones who said that the right to own slaves, "abortion," "penumbra," and "privacy" are in our Constitution.
It doesn't take anyone, even a fool, more than a couple minutes to see that this is a disgusting lie.
And may God have little mercy on the bastards that created and continue this awful lie.
Yes. Women should know exactly what they are getting into.
No way. This is infringing upon a woman's right to choose.
Both of those questions are about the motivations for and against the reason for a forced sonogram. Neither of them is about whether it is right to force someone to have a sonogram or not. They purposely avoid any thought of whether the gov has the authority to force someone to have the procedure and whether that would be a violation of their civil rights. That is a separate issue from the right or wrong of abortion.
I was born incapable of getting pregnant so that could never be a situation I would personally face. But I'm a smoker, for an example, and I'd spit in the face of the totalitarian MFer who told me I had to get a chest X-ray or watch a movie about lung cancer, by law, to get permission to buy tobacco.
For a broader example; does the gov have the authority to require you to submit to a body fat measurement before you can legally buy high-fat or high-sugar foods? In fact that is something they have given themselves authority to do with 0bamaCare. The question is is that Constitutional?
You have to care. They have the power, and the bloody-minded bunch in the White House is using the courts to file civil suits against individuals. Bullying is the name of their game.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The difference between being forced to get a lung X ray for smokers and a sonogram before getting an abortion is that smoking doesn't kill someone else. Any time people get surgery or even take pharmaceutical drugs they are informed of possible side effects and so on. Many women now who had abortions in the past might not have done so, if they had seen the reality of who they were about to kill.
I don’t you understand what the traditional Police power of the state means. The abortion “right” is one thing, but even Roe. V. Wade allows the state some level of intervention. After all, it does regulate the practice of medicine, and it is telling a doctor, this is what is reguired of you. If she doesn’t want to undergo the procedure, then she is free not to come or just to leave.
How ridiculous - infringes with her right to choose!
What? By seeing the image, she will have her “right” taken away? By seeing reality, she will be unable to CHOOSE?
This is called “INFORMED consent” which is protocol for ALL surgeries and procedures. Can you imagine withholding the lastest diagnostic technology from anyone for any other procedure, and then calling it “informed consent”? Nope.
In Ohio women who wish to obtain an abortion must first have an ultrasound. Unfortunately, the abortionist is not required to show her the picture unless she asks to see it.
Should the US government be required to check on a contractor's ability to perform before granting them a federal contract?
NO! That violates their right to choose.
Imagine being the ultrasound tech who sees that little life, doesn’t show it to the mother, and promotes abortion to her.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesian 6:12
It is more than that. They are making a requirement for how the service must be provided. It is like requiring a doctor to listen to your heart whether he thinks that's necessary or not. Or any procedure for any service provided medical or not. It is the state running the business.
No it's not. The difference is what I described.
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
actually, most abortions are done early, sometimes before six weeks, so it won’t stop them. And for early abortion, to see the fetus is difficult unless you do it through the Vagina, which is a bit intrusive.
but from a medical point of view, having a sonogram would ensure there isn’t problems like a bifed uterus or an ectopic pregnancy so it is a good idea.
TigersEye, I read your comment for a third time and I don’t understand you. My point is that smoking or eating what may be considered unhealthy foods, or even be unhealthy foods, are a personal choice that do not harm another person.
But an abortion kills someone. So there is no moral equivalnce. That was my point. If I am misunderstanding or not getting your point, go ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.