Texas Senate panel OKs abortion sonogram bill

My opinion is that unless it is medically impossible, ANYTIME two people engage in sexual intercourse, they should do so with the understanding that whatever precautions they take may not be 100% effective and they should be prepared to take on the responsibility of having and raising a child. If they are not up to taking on that responsibility, they should not engage in the act that may produce one.

 

so even confronted with evidence proving that a little education reduces the number of abortions, you're against it?

man, no offense, but that is some twisted logic. abortions > sex education.

 

I am NOT against education. My response on the previous page is that it won't do much good since the vast majority of American women know better anyway.

 

Hmm, interesting argument. It seems that many of the people that are in favor of sex education after the fact are also opposed to sex education before...

 

I go by statistics.

Contraceptive education DOES reduce abortions (fewer unwanted pregnancies).

Forced sonograms DO NOT reduce abortions.

Making contraceptives more available to those who cannot afford is better than enacting asinine laws that are nothing more than an invasion of privacy and a waste of taxpayer money.

(just FYI, I was never taught in public schools about contraceptives. Maybe they forgot to touch on it in 9th grade health).

Bottom line, people ****, have always ****ed, and will always ****. Once we understand that this is inevitable, we can move forward armed with reason and logic.

 

I won't dispute the statistics, but why are there so many unwanted pregnancies in the United States with seemingly educated women and men (i.e. those over 25 who should know what happens when a man and a woman have intercourse)? Do the vast majority of these folks not know how to put on a condom (relatively cheap measure of BC)? Do they not know how to get the pill prescribed (again, a relatively cheap method - if insured)? Or do they simply take their chances knowing there are after the fact alternatives?

 

Okay, one the one hand the majority of you are arguing that this is invasive, too much of an extra loop that makes it "hard to get abortions".

On the other hand, a lot of you are saying this isn't cost-effective since it doesn't dissuade abortions.

But there is not a lot of science behind anyone's claims.

This might actually be a positive experience for a majority of women (who might have chosen to watch the sonogram anyways). Of course, this is the self-selected group, which comprises 72 percent of all women in this particular study (extend it out to a margin of error of about +-3, right 19 times out of 20, and you've got your population knocked down). It can be assumed that perhaps those who chose not to watch the sonogram (and those that would be most negatively impacted by Texas and its' laws) would have a more negative experience; however, it is also highly possible that among this group, the chances of an abortion decreasing would be more.

Now, frame it this way---

The majority of women would have considered having a sonogram anyways, and the vast majority of these women find the experience positive and enlightening.

A minority of women uncomfortable with an abortion and iffy about why they are doing so (or whatever assorted reasons), would have a sonogram and (hopefully) will be dissuaded from having an unnecessary abortion.

If this was done objectively and without shaming-and more as an educational tool, with scientific research and guidelines, then I think it could be a very good thing.

Of course, it is unlikely to be this way, due to the agenda linked to this item. While in theory I am behind this idea, in practice I do think it is rather the first hitch in a slippery slope of liberty invasion into personal lives, and something that could be used to promote shame or cement other items, which I disparage.

That said, impact studies based on mandatory sonograms could be used to evaluate this program. That way we could at least see the effect on the 20-25% of the population that would not normally request sonograms. If it is too negative, with little chance of changing the abortion, then yes, I would say Texas should scrap it. But the thing is, we really don't know at this point. Unless one of you can drag me a scientific study based on state sonogram policies in say Oklahoma, all we are arguing on is based on figments of our own imagination.

 

The research suggests that this is only true of voluntary sonograms. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no comprehensive reviews of mandatory state programs. This is important, since you cannot simply take the findings of a self-selected group (those willing and comfortable enough to get sonograms in the first place) and apply them to everyone in the population.

 

I should also add that I think the government should fund these sonograms---I'm not sure if they do or not, but according to the vast majority of the posters here, it is assumed that they will, since they're fretting about taxpayers' money going to "waste".

Never thought I'd argue with a bunch of neo-Keynesians and economic liberals about expenditure on a social welfare item, but there you go.

 

If at least 61.92% of all women in a comprehensive, peer-reviewed study found it a positive experience, would that change your mind?

I think they're entitled to know exactly what they are ending. For a majority of women, this actually might seem to provide closure and relief---admittedly when it's done right.

(who knows how Texas will implement it)

That said, people claiming science and stats, and logic and reason should note that there is (again, based on my own search, and if there is you may enlighten me) exactly zero science behind their claims, only assumptions and imagination, since to my knowledge, there has never been a peer-reviewed study done about mandatory state sonogram policies.

 

The largest provider of abortions though was founded by Margret Sanger, an avowed eugenicist. The largest contributor to reproduction was founded by Adolphus Busch, who as far as I know has no such ties.

 

This post makes me want to impregnate a woman, have her choose an abortion and then mail you the aborted fetus.

Who gives a **** about what you think two consenting adults should do?

 

With all due respect, your placing humanity on an amazingly high level, one they can never achieve. While I respect your opinion about the possibility of pregnancy occuring when a couple has protected sex, a very real, if slight, possibility, I think your view is unrealistic. Men and women are going to have sex. We're wired that way. And we aren't saints.

 

two consenting, a third that needs our protection

 

hard to reconcile with the fact that he, ya know, also wants to send an aborted fetus through the mail.

seriously though, this is left-wing central (I'm part of the disease too, usually), but that's gotta be one of the most f****d up statements anyone has made on this board. I think people are taking it in stride, which is a good thing, but man...

 

It's one of those that is so out of line you know you don't wanna get into it. Just not worth the effort.