Perry proposes mandatory sonograms

Not quite. In most cases the sonogram would be done AFTER the woman has made the decision to terminate but before the procedure has taken place. It borders on torturing woman over what should be their own decision. It's really sick in my opinion. Originally Posted by Booth

I can see how it could be viewed by some that way. Let me ask this...why would it border on "torture" to view a partially developed fetus?
I guess that's where I'm a little confused.
My point being, if you make a decision to end a living thing, shouldn't you have the moral courage to face it?
And if it's not a living thing, then why would it bother someone to look at it before termination?

I am not judging here, and I sincerely hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm trying to understand the reasoning of why, if one is determined to end a life, being asked to look at a medical imaging of that life beforehand would be offensive?
Do I think it would make the decision more difficult? Yes. Is that a bad thing to make someone clearly aware of what they're about to do?

I suppose only someone that's in that position can clearly say yes or no to that. I'm sure opinions vary greatly on this.

I can see how it could be viewed by some that way. Let me ask this...why would it border on "torture" to view a partially developed fetus?
I guess that's where I'm a little confused.
My point being, if you make a decision to end a living thing, shouldn't you have the moral courage to face it?
And if it's not a living thing, then why would it bother someone to look at it before termination?

I am not judging here, and I sincerely hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm trying to understand the reasoning of why, if one is determined to end a life, being asked to look at a medical imaging of that life beforehand would be offensive?
Do I think it would make the decision more difficult? Yes. Is that a bad thing to make someone clearly aware of what they're about to do?

I suppose only someone that's in that position can clearly say yes or no to that. I'm sure opinions vary greatly on this. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Honestly I think these are questions better answered by women but without exception every woman I know who has ever discussed the issue is dead set against the policy.

I am not judging here, and I sincerely hope I'm not coming across that way. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

RIGHT!

this law FAILS because it only requires the mother to lay witness to the sonogram. In most cases these women arent san relationship or even unmarried. The father needs to be suppeaoied to come watch and listen also in my opinion or this is just bullshit.

yes, women might appear to be the only decison makers that brought them to the decision but that's not always the case. make at least an EFFORT to make the father be there to then fine... otherwise you are taking a decision of 2 (mother/father) and turning it into something else.

fuck you Perry

O.k., I think we can all agree that the point of the sonogram, in Perry and other proponent's views, was to have the woman look at the images of the baby before choosing termination of the pregnancy. I can certainly see where this could have the possibility of adding distress to an already stressful situation. Again, I'm not a woman so I certainly don't feel qualified to put myself in their shoes.
I'm wondering though, is it possible that some who get the procedure aren't fully aware of, or potentially ignore what exactly is going on inside with the unborn fetus? If so, is asking them to take a look before they make such an important decision wrong? I'm not stating this as fact, I'm simply asking.
I think you guys have made some good points but in the end I think that maybe it takes a woman to truly answer this. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

It's completely wrong, and completely irrelevant. Abortion was deemed a fundamental right under the Constitution and should not be interferred with in any way. Forcing a woman to take a look is only making the situation more stressful, and I think I'm with Booth in that this borders on cruelty and/or torture.

The right to vote is also a fundamental right under the Constitution. Maybe we should we start performing intelligence tests as a prerequisite to voting.

The right to marriage is another. Should we start doing compatibility tests or perhaps force people to acquire some educational certification before getting married?

As much as we might want these things, the entire reason fundamental rights exist is to exclude presumption or entitlement. The sonogram requirement is completely unconstitutional in this regard.

You would think that someone running for President might perhaps be familiar enough with the Constitution to know this. It certainly doesn't appear to be the case so yes, fuck you Perry you ignorant jackass.

There's apparenly alot of other things Perry is not very familiar with:

"One reason that might explain his hostility toward the system: He didn't do very well in it. A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University. The future politician did not distinguish himself much in the classroom. While he later became a student leader, he had to get out of academic probation to do so. He rarely earned anything above a C in his courses -- earning a C in U.S. History, a D in Shakespeare, and a D in the principles of economics. Perry got a C in gym."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_919357.html

MEGADITTOS, F-Sharp!

I think most of you will understand that!

Perry has no concern for the feelings, safety or Constitutional rights of anybody but his supporters and those he's courting (like the snake handlers, fundamentalist handjobbers, etc.); evidenced by his support of this bill and the bill to mandate HPV vaccines for 5th grade girls.

He doesn't really take a stand until the spotlight is on him, and then, the insincerity is enough to make a maggot gag!

Unfortunately, there's just such a LARGE number of Americans who think he's lookin' out for them. Hopefully the hypocrisy will be properly exposed between now and Nov. 2012.

I know it will be here!

RICK PERRY IS... the Kung Fu Pander!

It's enough to make you call pulled pork BBQ!

I guess that's where I'm a little confused.
My point being, if you make a decision to end a living thing, shouldn't you have the moral courage to face it? Originally Posted by DTorrchia

I guess that's where I'm a little confused. My point being, I have never heard of Sarah Palin (or for that matter) any other Republican) offering to do a face off with a "Mama" Grizzly prior to pulling the trigger! What if Mama Grizz has a cub inside of her? Or do "Mama" Grizzly's and their cubs not pass the basic criteria of being "a living thing?"

I say that because I have been an avid hunter my entire life and............

Well, you get the picture!

It's completely wrong, and completely irrelevant. Abortion was deemed a fundamental right under the Constitution and should not be interferred with in any way. Forcing a woman to take a look is only making the situation more stressful, and I think I'm with Booth in that this borders on cruelty and/or torture.

The right to vote is also a fundamental right under the Constitution. Maybe we should we start performing intelligence tests as a prerequisite to voting.

You're comparing a medical procedure which ends a life with.... voting? Really?

The right to marriage is another. Should we start doing compatibility tests or perhaps force people to acquire some educational certification before getting married?

See the above

As much as we might want these things, the entire reason fundamental rights exist is to exclude presumption or entitlement. The sonogram requirement is completely unconstitutional in this regard.

But according to you (yet not the 11th Court of Appeals) mandating someone to get health insurance is perfectly constitutional? I see, makes perfect sense.
I think we both know that what is constitutional today could be unconstitutional tomorrow. All it takes is a different court interpretation.

You would think that someone running for President might perhaps be familiar enough with the Constitution to know this. It certainly doesn't appear to be the case so yes, fuck you Perry you ignorant jackass.

There's apparenly alot of other things Perry is not very familiar with:

"One reason that might explain his hostility toward the system: He didn't do very well in it. A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University. The future politician did not distinguish himself much in the classroom. While he later became a student leader, he had to get out of academic probation to do so. He rarely earned anything above a C in his courses -- earning a C in U.S. History, a D in Shakespeare, and a D in the principles of economics. Perry got a C in gym."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_919357.html

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

You're a little late with jumping on the "Perry got bad grades" bandwagon. What were Obama's grades? Ohhh, that's right, he won't even authorize the release of his grades. Must have been stellar!

Your arguments are increasingly circular, DT.
Rights are rights. You can't say one is more absolute than another. Some might even say that that's what the "founding fathers" intended when they authored the Constitution. The RIGHT to a fair trial is guaranteed every bit as the RIGHT to vote. Or, in this case, a woman's right to choose. To have a sliding scale based on prevailing religious beliefs (as you suggest) is hypocritical. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. The sonogram bill is designed to restrict that right. Hence it will never be enacted under current law.

The Supreme Court striking down ANYTHING as unconstitutional makes it so, until an amendment is passed and ratified.

Arguing for something by arguing against an unrelated item is not only hypocritical ... it's just plain silly. I thought you were a student of government, debate and Google...


THE GRADE THING: Obama graduated Harvard Law School. I guess he must have had good enough grades to get in. Must have had good enough grades to get out, too.

Don't recall Harvard Law having any yell leaders. WHOOP!

You're picking at nits, DTorrchia. I suggest a cold shower and a warm beer.

Your arguments are increasingly circular, DT.
Rights are rights. You can't say one is more absolute than another. Some might even say that that's what the "founding fathers" intended when they authored the Constitution. The RIGHT to a fair trial is guaranteed every bit as the RIGHT to vote. Or, in this case, a woman's right to choose. To have a sliding scale based on prevailing religious beliefs (as you suggest) is hypocritical. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. The sonogram bill is designed to restrict that right. Hence it will never be enacted under current law.

Yssup, WHO said one right is more absolute than another? Show me ANYWHERE on these posts where I disagreed with a woman's right to choose? The topic was and is in regards to sonograms. Whether or not before an abortion takes place it should be legal for women to be shown a sonogram.
If you are ASKING me about my views on whether or not I agree with abortion then do so, but don't accuse me of supporting a "sliding scale based on prevailing religious beliefs". I did not suggest that so I'm not sure what the heck you are reading or taking away from my posts??!!
I was simply asking WHY it would be so terrible for someone to look at a sonogram prior to making such a life altering decision. It IS life altering, no matter how you look at it. It certainly changes the life dynamics of the person undergoing the abortion because it changes their future in one way or another. It certainly is life altering for the fetus.
So, we were not debating whether abortion should be legal or not. We were talking about the sonograms. The courts have decided and as I said, I'm actually still learning a lot about this process and the various sides. I'm not 100% for or against either side of this issue, I was simply making some points on how some may view sonograms as a good thing. In the end, it IS the woman who has to go through this.

The Supreme Court striking down ANYTHING as unconstitutional makes it so, until an amendment is passed and ratified.

Arguing for something by arguing against an unrelated item is not only hypocritical ... it's just plain silly. I thought you were a student of government, debate and Google...


THE GRADE THING: Obama graduated Harvard Law School. I guess he must have had good enough grades to get in. Must have had good enough grades to get out, too.

I'll let Obama's own words do the talking here Yssup:
"I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review."

Now Yssup, ever check out Obama's grades at Columbia? Let's just say there weren't any Harvard faculty beating on his door begging him to come to Harvard.
Come on now Yssup, open wide....that's it. Insert foot! There you go! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

.

Tell me what beliefs guide today's viewpoint on abortion? It's a mighty wind a'blowin, DT. Depending on who's tooting the bugle, that viewpoint will vary from right to righter to somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun.

And you're picking nits again. Your post absolutely inferred that you believed that you could not compare the right to an abortion with the right to vote. From your post we can only infer that some rights are more important than others. That would make them more, er, guidelines than rights, eh?

Don't deny it. You wanna be literal? Then stand by your bullshit! You ARE advocating a sliding scale based on prevailing "social" mores. BTW -- today, that's religion, in case you haven't been paying attention to your TV heroes! What else could you be saying?

Even if you're not advocating this, then why are you defending it so vehemently?

And you know, if you want to give the FETUS rights, then maybe you ought to explain why it's OK that you strip the mother of them.

This "I'm just learning about the process" stuff is a crock of bullshit, bro. You know it and I know it. This is all about you trying to align yourself with a fundamentalist right you aren't REALLY comfortable standing wtih. Don't blame you. They're fucking evil.

Frankly, I have no problem with someone being shown a sonogram prior to an abortion -- IF THAT'S WHAT SHE WANTS. Forcing someone to do so is straight out FACISM. The government that says you CAN'T have an abortion is the one that can say you MUST. I thought you believed in freedom? Guess not.

Let's see --- somebody pointed out that Perry was an accredited dumbass, with a transcript to prove it. FROM TEXAS A&M IN THE DAY OF DUMBASSERY! How do you respond? BY PULLING A QUOTE OUT OF YOUR ASS and trying to convince us that Obama only got through Columbia and Harvard because of Affirmative Action! Sorry to say this, because I know you do put in some effort on these posts, but YOU'RE BEGINNING TO SOUND LIKE WYLDEMAN! You're going to defend Perry by calling the President a liar and a cheat for getting his degrees from Columbia and Harvard? Apparently you are. Yeah, man. I guess he just BLACKED his way in there! DEMAND THE DIPLOMAS!

YOW! This is why nobody can have a civil and logical discussion with you...

My suggestion to you sir is that you go out and get some pussy! It might loosen up that JAW of yours!

Okay, I know I'm hoping for the impossible but let's see if we can keep this one civil. I'm posing the following questions to all but am hoping that some of the ladies will chime in since this proposed bill affects women the most.

So Governor Perry is proposing legislation that would require a woman to have a sonogram before receiving an abortion.

My questions are:

1. Is this a bad idea and if so why?

2. Is this different than a doctor requesting a MRI, X-ray, camera scope or ultrasound before doing any other invasive procedure? In my experience doctors usually order these and then discuss the results with their patients before moving ahead with the procedure/operation. Should an abortion be different and if so, why?

Let's try to keep it civil. I understand it's a sensitive subject but I'm curious about how people view this proposed legislation. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

I think these two questions have been adequately answered and you just didn't like the answers. Sorry that no ladies chimed in but you probably wouldn't have liked their answers either.

You're a little late with jumping on the "Perry got bad grades" bandwagon. What were Obama's grades? Ohhh, that's right, he won't even authorize the release of his grades. Must have been stellar! Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Seriously? You want to compare notes on Obama, a Harvard graduate and Constititional lawyer against the likes of Rick Perry, a D average student out of A&M? You make me laugh.

Obama was a member of the Harvard Law Review. It's my understanding that membership on the Law Review basically meant that you were one of Harvard's smartest students, affirmative action or not. It's also a known fact he graduated Harvard magna cum laude. You don't get that being a D student at Harvard...or anywhere else for that matter, and affirmative action isn't going to help you there.

In my humble opinion, you'd have to be a complete and total moron to vote for a D average student for President. I don't care if it was 40 years ago either. He hasn't learned much since then.

I thought this post was a joke. You do realize Perry isn't proposing any such thing. he already did, and he signed it into law back in May. Part's of the law have been struck down while it wades through court. Discuss that maybe? Otherwise it sounds like your a little behind the times... Unless that was your point because the OP was made the day after the Bill was to go into effect.

I thought this post was a joke. You do realize Perry isn't proposing any such thing. he already did, and he signed it into law back in May. Part's of the law have been struck down while it wades through court. Discuss that maybe? Otherwise it sounds like your a little behind the times... Unless that was your point because the OP was made the day after the Bill was to go into effect. Originally Posted by budman33

It is a joke. The OP would have us believe that he has an open mind on this issue yet he clearly supports one side.