Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

[themadone06]

I think it should be left up to the doctor. Government shouldn't be legislating things like this. If a doctor wants to require that their patients listen to a heartbeat, then that is perfectly fine with me. In all honesty, before a women choses an abortion, she should probably be shown these things. It isn't invasive and just gives a little education. I'm not advocating the things that were being talked about in Virginia. Just a simple scan and listening to the heartbeat is all that is necessary. If I was a doctor, I would be giving women all the information possible. It is a big choice that could affect the rest of their lives. If they still chose that they would want to abort their pregnancy, then that is their right.

But, the government shouldn't require it.

[Lilly]

An evil plot comes to mind. Let me come to the meeting. I could place a small pillow beneath my shirt to indicate early pregnancy, or better yet, a small stuffed cow, since it's the ag committee. I could pull it out and say, "Politicians and the ag committee should stay out of my uterus....unless, of course, invited."

[Frederick J. Parker]

Quite frankly, I don't really care if women want to get abortions, but I do not think that abortion should be utilized as a method of birth control. This is especially true in cases where the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill, and especially true in cases where this behaviour is repititive.

Now, I can understand that no one's perfect and everyone is capable of making a mistake, and sure, maybe this might necessitate an abortion. In a case like that, along with the abortion, there should be counselling about birth control. If there is a second occurrance, then maybe the counselling could be graphic, with pictures or even making the irresponsible party view the results. The third time should call for mandatory sterilization, since it is obvious that some people are just plain stupid, and likely would never make a good parent anyway.

Oh, and yes, by all means involve her partner in this situation as well.

[Neesy]

Well this is kind of a sideline comment but did you hear about the poor woman who was in a coma and got pregnant? It turned out to be a nurse's aid or male orderly who impregnated her. He was responsible for looking after her personal hygiene, giving her sponge baths, etc. Hmmm - guess he got carried away. Anyway, the parents of the woman in the coma allowed the pregnancy to continue and rather than abort it, just adopted the baby once it was at term. I can only assume she had a Caesarean? This is from around 1999 I think. I did not google it but I do remember how appalled I was at the time. So if you equate what is going on in Texas with what happened there, I would say that they view women as nothing more than incubators for new life. Or in other words, the potential life of the unborn is more important than the mother's life.

[Tery]

This is especially true in cases where the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill

Despite what the Pro-birth crowd says, the Hyde Amendment made it illegal for tax dollars to pay for abortions. So this is an invalid argument.

[Frederick J. Parker]

That's fine, but if you actually read the article you referenced, you will note that this refers only to Federal funds, and even notes that State funds have been used to finance abortions. One pays both Federal and State taxes, do they not?

[~Ally~]

I suppose we could always go back to the good ole days where women risk their lives attempting 'do it yourself' abortions?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diy-abortion-vinegar-death-mum-843819

[guido tkp]

anyone who is stupid enough to think that any women is not aware of what is going on in her body when she goes to see a doctor on this issue...who thinks they need some 'education'.???

probably needs more than a little education...especially constitutional practise and theory themselves, first

no matter how you want to frame it...it is still a religious group forcing thier religious viewpoint on others...and in mighty dangerous ways, too

'congress shall make no law..' means you cannot take your interpretation of life, the universe and everything and be constitutional able allowed to force everyone to do it your way...

when good people of strong ethical, moral and religious standing disagree...the govt must recognize that neither is right, neither is wrong and build the laws to reflect the diversity of views...not bludgeon one side, as is now happening, simply because you can muster enough votes for it at that time

but i certainly don't have the right to tell you how to live your lives...or what medical procedures you can or cannot have...or, even, if your own insurance co. can pay for it, based on my religious beliefs...

[Neesy]

I replied to this thread once before but it was a while back and I guess you don't get approval from Miss Mod right away. I just want to comment on the picture showing a tiny fetus. It is as if they took a much older fetus i.e. maybe 19 or 20 weeks old and shrunk it down to the size of a perhaps 5 or 6 week old fetus. I don't know all that much about fetal development but to me this picture is very misleading. I am pretty sure that when a fetus is this small it does not have the development shown here and kinda looks a bit like any other animal embryo. Just my opinion as it seems like propaganda

[Todash]

You know ... I cannot conceive of any circumstance where I would get an abortion. And truly, if I knew someone who was planning to get one, depending on our relationship, I'd probably try to gently and kindly talk her out of it (just once, no haranguing). But I'd never assume it had been an easy decision in the first place, and I would never try to force anyone either way. I believe that God wants the hearts of mankind—actions are secondary—and laws cannot impact that.