I know you do, and that is fine. You are exactly like anti-gun advocates who approve of r****ded gun laws that make no actual difference except make life hard on gun owners. The problem is, abortion is a constitutional right, so making it harder to exercise this right, for the simple purpose of infringing on it, is complete BS
You can replace exactly like with "an", though that is best left to another topic. However, I do believe these policies ensure that in each case, only qualified individuals (mentally sane people for guns, wholly committed women ready to undergo the emotional trauma and the medical/financial cost for abortions) get through the screening process. Of course there are loopholes, but all in all, we are better having them around. You are right though, abortion is a constitutional right, and as such this action will likely be given to "strict scrutiny" by the Supreme Court. That doesn't make it "BS". Just because it's a constitutional right doesn't mean there can NEVER be changes to it ever. be chill though, brother, the Supreme Court usually rules against the government cept, ya know, when they were interning Japanese-Americans.
I think here is the point that gets me about laws like these. You call this education but I would call it shaming more. I posted a picture of a first trimester sonogram earlier in this thread and I doubt that most people would be able to tell what they are looking it without explanation. So while yes an abortion involves shoving a tube up someone's p***y and vacuuming out the fetus that is an already a traumatic experience while this law would say before we should shove another tube to do a sonogram. Your argument seems to be what does one more tube matter, but that just means prolonging the experience. I mean for a male equivalent if you are having a prostate exam, the fingers up the butt kind, then should it also be mandated that you get a colonoscopy too at the same time, since the doctor is already in your butt? As I said before to me laws like this just rely on shame and humiliation rather than addressing the causes of why people feel they need to resort to abortion and too much of the debate about abortion deals with things like this rather than address the cause.
We aren't dumb. We know what it means to be pregnant...you don't have to show us a sonogram to drive that point home. Oh, thank the lawd we have big strong men to make medical decisions for our uninformed little selves. Statistics have showed time and time again that SONOGRAMS DO NOT REDUCE ABORTIONS. So this is an ineffective procedure that will only drain tax dollars. This bill is purely about control and shaming women for their choices.
^^^ would assume it's about principles. I suggest that to find reason in such political chaos, it is best to follow the trail of the dollars.
There's an unstated rational. That women are on a lower level than men and are incapable of making their own decisions about their body without "help" from the overwhemingly male Texas legislature. It's about an attempt by men to humiliate women into doing what the men want, which is driven far less by "concern" about a fetus, and far more about getting votes from the radical/fundamentalist Right, who, while definitely a minority, get out and vote. Those complaining about this charade? VOTE! Get involved on the precinct level. Go to your party's county conventions and elect people to the state convention that are moderates, not extremists. GET INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. Talk is cheap.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but wouldn't teaching contraception in a straightforward manner reduce abortion more than watching a sonogram after conception? I wonder why that idea doesn't gain more steam. Anyone? Bueller?
Considering the vast majority of abortions occur in women who should know how to refrain from getting pregnant - no.
using that same logic, those women know that there is something inside them that will turn into a baby if not aborted, so these sonograms won't reduce abortions either.
That being the case, why do so many unwanted pregnancies still occur in American women 20+ years old? Regardless of whether or not they received official sex education classes, the vast majority of them know what may happen when they engage in unprotected sex.
Actually, if sex education consisted of every teen learning the content in the book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility," it is my opinion that rates of unwanted pregnancies would drop to close to nothing...
you can still get pregnant through "protected" sex if the protection is not utilized correctly. i find it very odd that someone so against abortion would be against something that is proven to reduce abortions. killing babies is bad, but not as bad as giving people ammunition to fight unwanted pregnancies that lead to killing babies in the first place?
Just look up abotion statistics. The vast majority of abortions occur in women 20+ years old. I am then making the assumption that the vast majority of them know what happens when they have unprotected sex. Don't you think that a 25 year old American woman (regardless of sex ed) should know what happens?
so, i take it you're against any programs that promote awareness against things like drunk driving, pregnant women smoking/drinking, etc. i mean, everyone knows that drunk driving is bad, amirite?
