When Does Life Begin?

Abortion clinics routinely lie about the medical status of the unborn, (i.e. it is part of the womans body, etc) in order to keep the money mills of the abortion clinics moving.

Interesting headline.

Bill Would Mandate Ultrasound Before Abortion from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2958249&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Should doctors be required to disclose pertinent medical info , (i.e. an ultrasound image showing an infant body with arms and legs moving , a face, a heartbeat, etc), to a woman as part of the process of informed consent?

Abortion clinics routinely lie about the medical status of the unborn, (i.e. it is part of the womans body, etc) in order to keep the money mills of the abortion clinics moving.

Shouldn't the woman have the full knowledge of the state of the unborn made available to her?

Should the ultrasound be from a third party, (i.e. not the abortionist who is trying to bring a paying customer in the door) , to insure that the information is objective?

I've yet to see a compelling arguement that the unborn is not a part of the mother's body.

RL, why do you insist that abortion is a money driven practice? You'd have to establish a great deal to make that claim including how it is presented differenly than other medical procedures. You'd have to find money driven practices and compare and find a large congruency.

Ads of now, you're just blowing air out, you have no support for that calim greater than the fact that abortion is not free.

How do you prevent a pregnant woman who views the foetus in ultrasound from indulging in anthropomorphism?

Rather than all the usual reasons to defend this (we've been here before of course), I thought I'd mention something else.

How do you prevent a pregnant woman who views the foetus in ultrasound from indulging in anthropomorphism? It looks like a tiny little human being, is it waving at me?...does it fear what I'm planning to do? Of course, the religious position pushes exactly this brand of anthropomorphism to sell it's package of guilt.

You know that little screen they put up when performing caesarian sections, rl?

Why do they do that? Why are they with-holding that sensory data from the woman?

Nonsense. We are talking about informed prior consent.

Why don't you address the question why you are afraid the woman might come to her own conclusion after seeing the sonogram and without you putting your 'spin' on the information?

Democratic Presidential Candidates Discuss Abortion Rights, Supreme Court Ruling On Partial Birth Abortion In Debate
Main Category: Abortion News
Article Date: 01 May 2007 - 3:00 PDT

Eight candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday in a debate at South Carolina State University "uniformly criticized" the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week to uphold a federal law (S 3) banning so-called "partial-birth" abortion, the Washington Post reports (Balz, Washington Post, 4/27).

Several of the candidates said that if they were elected president they would not impose a litmus test on any potential nominees to the Supreme Court, but added that their appointees to the bench would reflect their support for abortion rights, the AP/Manchester Union Leader reports (AP/Manchester Union Leader, 4/27).

FL House OKs Ultrasound Before Abortions
Gainesville Sun
A woman seeking an abortion in Florida would have to wait 24 hours before going through with it under a bill passed Friday by the state House. The measure could also make it more likely that she would see an ultrasound image of the fetus before undergoing the procedure. The House may be as far as that idea goes this year, however, with the waiting period and the effort to require more pre-abortion ultrasounds unlikely to be accepted by the Senate. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trey Traviesa, R-Orlando, would require abortion providers perform ultrasounds before almost all abortions, instead of just those in the second or third trimesters as required by current law. Viewing the images would be optional, but women would have to sign waivers stating they declined the doctors' offers to do so. The bill (HB 1497) passed 71-42, mostly along party lines with Republicans in favor. The 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound sections of the bill were tacked onto what had started out as a less controversial measure that was meant to help judges make decisions in cases in which a minor is seeking to have an abortion without notifying her parents.

Another state looking at the informed consent issue. http://www.newmediajournal.us/usa.htm#0501

Quote:

FL House OKs Ultrasound Before Abortions
Gainesville Sun
A woman seeking an abortion in Florida would have to wait 24 hours before going through with it under a bill passed Friday by the state House. The measure could also make it more likely that she would see an ultrasound image of the fetus before undergoing the procedure. The House may be as far as that idea goes this year, however, with the waiting period and the effort to require more pre-abortion ultrasounds unlikely to be accepted by the Senate. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trey Traviesa, R-Orlando, would require abortion providers perform ultrasounds before almost all abortions, instead of just those in the second or third trimesters as required by current law. Viewing the images would be optional, but women would have to sign waivers stating they declined the doctors' offers to do so. The bill (HB 1497) passed 71-42, mostly along party lines with Republicans in favor. The 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound sections of the bill were tacked onto what had started out as a less controversial measure that was meant to help judges make decisions in cases in which a minor is seeking to have an abortion without notifying her parents.

Why are pro-aborts so afraid that a woman will actually be able to see the baby moving around before deciding whether to kill him/her?

"I support the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973). .........Until the most recent case of Gonzales v. Carhart decided last week, Roe v. Wade was basically upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in abortion cases......The 5 to 4 decision for the first time limited in a major way the right of a woman to have a particular type of abortion, known by opponents of abortion as partial-birth abortion and by supporters of the right to an abortion as intact dilation and extraction. The procedure entails delivery of the fetus by bringing it to near birth through the birth canal, allowing its body to descend to a point where the fetus is expelled from its mother's body up to the head. At that point, the head is lacerated, the brain removed and the skull cracked so as to permit the head to be expelled from the mother's body.

The procedure is so gruesome that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described it as "close to infanticide." There is no humane being, I believe, who isn't appalled by the procedure..........Like Senator Moynihan, I too concluded that partial-birth abortion was unacceptable and a form of infanticide because were the infant to be delivered alive, head and all, and then killed, it would, in fact, be considered murder. Killing it a head's breadth away from full delivery makes the procedure, for me, unconscionable.........." Ed Koch

Never mind those "pro-aborts". Even a lot of pro-choice folk like me think it was probably a good thing to ban this procedure. Only those with absolutist views would have difficulty understanding that, real life.

The legal precedent is a whole other story, that worries me a bit, but I think this decision, in isolation, was a good one.