Alabama court's wrongful death ruling

[son_of_montfort]

Damn... I fell into an alternative universe where the Conservative people I know apparently defend the power of the state.  ;D

Take abortion out of that law completely. Would any of you be comfortable with the state mandating all pregnant women to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound, simply to make sure the baby was healthy? I mean, it is within the best interest of the state to protect life, right?

Think very carefully about how you felt about mandates forcing the HPV vaccine on young ladies. If you disagreed with that, I would have a hard time believing support of this law.

[Smuckatelli]

I merely asked if people were comfortably with allowing the government to mandate a medical procedure that is personally invasive?

I'm not comfortable with the government mandating a procedure that crosses the church/state separation line. I'm not comfortable with this law either.

Something to keep in mind, this is a common women's health procedure.....that isn't meant as a cheap shot.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm

I do understand why they want to make it a law, it is a matter of life or death for the baby.

Update, it appears that the Governor is recommending that it be changed to a transabdominal ultrasound instead.

I am interested in your thoughts on this. It appears that you are okay with the Catholic Church being forced to provide services that go against some of its core beliefs because of women's health concerns. It appears that they were trying to look out for the baby with this law. Do you see these two issues as totally different because it involves a woman disregarding a baby's rights and the other involves a baby disregarding the woman's rights?

[LongBlade]

Take abortion out of that law completely.

If you take abortion - what some would argue is the death of another human being - out of the equation, then of course the situation would change.

Put it back in, however, and the question returns - is abortion the killing of a human being?

[Smuckatelli]

Take abortion out of that law completely. Would any of you be comfortable with the state mandating all pregnant women to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound, simply to make sure the baby was healthy? I mean, it is within the best interest of the state to protect life, right?

This is a method that is currently in use to check on the baby's health as it turns out it is also used for abortions:

But perhaps most damning to the pro-abortion campaign against the bill is the revelation that the vast majority of abortion facilities already perform the "invasive" transvaginal ultrasound as a matter of course, especially prior to early-term medical and surgical abortions.

In one 2003 study, published in the journal Contraception, 83 percent of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities performing early surgical abortions said they "always" performed a vaginal ultrasound prior to performing the abortions. Sixteen percent said they did a vaginal ultrasound "sometimes," and only 1 percent said they "never" did them.

"Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it," the study continued. "Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site."

The reason for performing the more accurate vaginal ultrasounds prior to early abortions is obvious, Hamrick told LifeSiteNews: they ensure that abortionists can pinpoint precisely the gestational age of the unborn child, to avoid the extreme risks involved in using the wrong methods to abort what may turn out to be a later-term child.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-aborts-completely-made-up-vaginal-ultrasound-requirement-in-virginia-bi?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=36157a6914-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_02_22_2012&utm_medium=email

This doesn't justify the government requiring it for all abortions but then again, abortions shouldn't be legal anyways.

[son_of_montfort]

I am interested in your thoughts on this. It appears that you are okay with the Catholic Church being forced to provide services that go against some of its core beliefs because of women's health concerns. It appears that they were trying to look out for the baby with this law. Do you see these two issues as totally different because it involves a woman disregarding a baby's rights and the other involves a baby disregarding the woman's rights?

Not particularly comparable. The Catholic Church is not looking after the rights of a baby - the baby does not exist in birth control legislation. Also, the reform is not forcing the Catholic Church to provide the services, only insure them. That may sound like parsing hairs, but it is one of omission versus commission.

With the Catholic-Insurance reform issue, you have the government regulating he acts between two entities - the Church as employer and an employee (who may or may not be Catholic). I see the stricture that the Church needs to cover these medical practices as a factor of protecting the patient's right to choose - it is the patient/employee who decides if it is right or wrong to use birth control, not the doctrine of the employer.

f you take abortion - what some would argue is the death of another human being - out of the equation, then of course the situation would change.

Put it back in, however, and the question returns - is abortion the killing of a human being?

Why does it change? Does a woman wanting an abortion lose her right to control over her body?

In the same manner, the Virginia law forces an invasive procedure (basically an 8-inch prod) into the genitals of a woman who did not chose to have the procedure. They chose another procedure. Doctors have stated that the transvaginal ultrasound is not needed. Again, I'm looking at patient's choice (and who pays for this new ultrasound?). That this ultrasound is a common procedure is irrelevant - it is only common when the patient CHOOSES to do it. It is fairly uncommon as a forced procedure. This is the government pushing a medical procedure upon a person - not a regulation of the interests of two entities - employer and employee.

Note, they were also planning on mandating women who got pregnant as a result of a rape get these procedures. That sounds fairly traumatic to me.

There seems to be a HUGE difference in the two issues. Catholics aren't being forced to have another person insert a large implement into their genitals.

If they change this to transabdominal, then that is better. But still, this is a forced medical procedure. That is something fairly rare, and even forcing vaccines is something controversial.

This doesn't justify the government requiring it for all abortions but then again, abortions shouldn't be legal anyways.

Thank you Smuck, this is what I was saying. Argue against the legality or morality of abortion. But adding a mandated procedure (that is invasive despite what some might claim) targeted to women is not the proper way to combat abortion.

[LongBlade]

Why does it change? Does a woman wanting an abortion lose her right to control over her body?

This seems to be the heart of the issue, doesn't it? Is it a child or a choice?

[son_of_montfort]

Why does it change? Does a woman wanting an abortion lose her right to control over her body?

This seems to be the heart of the issue, doesn't it? Is it a child or a choice?

I think you are missing the forest for the abortion tree. My point was - should the government mandate procedures to anyone's genitals for any reason?

[LongBlade]

I think you are missing the forest for the abortion tree. My point was - should the government mandate procedures to anyone's genitals for any reason?

I think you're missing the point: the government has an interest in protecting an individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Look at it this way:

If we assume that a fetus is a child then it is certain that the life and welfare of that child should be protected. The mother engaged in an activity that she knew could possibly result in pregnancy. Having undertaken that risk, she has a duty to bring her child into the world.

Now, we can choose to assume that a fetus is not a child, and then your argument begins to hold water.

But we have only two ways to look at the abortion debate: a fetus is either a human or it is not.

[Smuckatelli]

This doesn't justify the government requiring it for all abortions but then again, abortions shouldn't be legal anyways.

Thank you Smuck, this is what I was saying. Argue against the legality or morality of abortion. But adding a mandated procedure (that is invasive despite what some might claim) targeted to women is not the proper way to combat abortion.

Are you saying that abortions shouldn't be legal?

[son_of_montfort]

You know, with three threads going south, I think it's time for me to check out.  :-X

I think you have the crux of the issue LB, but I think we are argue different levels or paths of the issue. It will be hard to bring those two together because they are fundamentally two separate and probably equally serious questions.