Texas lawmakers approve bills requiring ultrasound before abortion

(CNN) -- Abortion rights advocates plan to rally in Texas Tuesday after state lawmakers approved controversial legislaton that requires mothers seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of what it shows.

Click to expand...

1) OK, so many Democrats are up in arms over the requirement that women seeking an abortion must get a sonogram, and see what is inside them before getting that abortion. Many Democrats are also chiding the Republican party as hypocritical, in that they talk about limiting government interference in our lives, but practice just the opposite.

2) On the other side of the issue are the Republicans themselves, many of whom see abortion as murder, and want to limit or even end the procedure.

3) Me? I am rather torn on this issue, but here is the way I see it:

I am pretty much pro choice, and always have been pro choice, but I also realize that many decisions we make in life are based on ignorance, and not knowing all the facts. This was the case with Norma McCorvey, who was "Jane Roe" in the famous Roe v. Wade case that made abortion legal, and polarized an entire nation around this issue. McCorvey came to deeply regret having her abortion to such an extent that she eventually joined Operation Rescue, and in 2003, asked for her case to be opened once again for judicial review.

Obtaining an abortion is a huge step, and one that is not reversible. After all, if you purchase a car, and then have buyer's remorse, you can always take it back. Not so with an abortion. Once done, the "sale" is final and permanent. That is why I strongly feel that education prior to undergoing a procedure this drastic is absolutely imperative, and I am inclined to take the side of the Texas Republicans, and Rick Perry, who are passing this law.

But that presents me with a dilemma. If this law is passed, then the government will once more have decided to intervene in people's lives, and tell them how to live, under penalty of law. If Conservatism means less government, then how can I possibly advocate for more government? If I agree that the government is right in ordering people to undergo certain medical procedures, then do I even have a leg to stand on when I say that the government has no business to order that everyone must obtain health insurance, under penalty of law? You see, it cuts both ways here, and THAT is my dilemma. In order to stay true to what I believe in, I am going to have to pick a side here, and stick with it, whether or not I dislike some aspects of that side, while liking other aspects of it. I can't have it both ways. I strongly believe that this also applies to everyone else. YOU can't have it both ways either, without being a hypocrite.

So here is the deal - I am on the fence over reconciling my position here, and must make a choice of either supporting Rick Perry and the Republicans on mandatory sonograms for women seeking an abortion, and supporting Obama, on the issue of mandatory health insurance coverage, or not supporting Obama and not supporting Rick Perry and the Republicans, on the same issue. For me, on one hand, to support a government mandated medical procedure, while on the other hand, coming out against another medically related government mandate, is not only hypocritical, but dishonest as well. To be honest, it's going to be a tough choice. The choice for me is the following:

a) Support Rick Perry and the Republicans when it comes to forcing women to obtain a sonogram before getting an abortion, and also support the Obamacare requirement that everyone obtain health insurance.

b) Come out against the new Texas law, even though I like it, but also come out against Obama's law that everybody obtain health insurance.

Once again, if I am to remain true to my beliefs, I must be consistent. I cannot have it both ways. This is where YOU, the members of Debate Politics, come in. I am tasking you ALL, Liberal and Conservative alike, to state your case, and move me off the fence. After all, a function of a political forum is not just to rant and rave, but to present an argument that is strong enough to move others towards your position. That is what debate is all about, and we ARE called Debate Politics, arent we?

OK, folks, have at it. Move me off the fence.

Article is here.

NOTE: Since this is a very serious subject matter, I ask that no flaming, baiting, or other such nonsense take place here. If it does, I will request thread bans from the mods.

The way I see it, your ideology would more clearly support option b, coming out against both laws.

Requiring a sonogram is not education. It is an appeal to emotionalism and betting that once the woman see's the fetus that she will decide to not abort. If you just wanted to educate the woman then you could show her a picture in a reproductive book.

Less government! Small government!

Except for people that we disagree with!

With this, Perry can take his opposition to Obamacare and shove it up his ass.

Because i have a question... Who's going to pay for all these woman to get ultra sounds hmmmmmmmmmm?

It's a good step forward to require an ultrasound. However abortion should be illegal.

If we can't stop funding Planned Parenthood, then we might as well put tons of mandate on their clients. Maybe even to the point they don't go there anymore. PP is the biggest proponent of abortions on the planet.

You've saddled yourself with a dilemma of your own making. "If I disagree that a woman shouldn't have to have a sonogram, then I have to be against Obamacare." Why?????

Women shouldn't have to hae a sonogram. That's just stupid. If someone is ready to abort their child, for the love of GOD!!!! Let them.

American said:

If we can't stop funding Planned Parenthood, then we might as well put tons of mandate on their clients. Maybe even to the point they don't go there anymore. PP is the biggest proponent of abortions on the planet.

Click to expand...

Geeze :roll: where in Dan's post..or any other post after that besides yours is Planned Parenthood mentioned?

American said:

If we can't stop funding Planned Parenthood, then we might as well put tons of mandate on their clients. Maybe even to the point they don't go there anymore. PP is the biggest proponent of abortions on the planet.

Click to expand...

In that case, we are then calling for more government. How can you take the position of more government intervention, except for programs you dislike? You see, that is my problem too, and why I am honestly reassessing my position here. What can you post that would get me off the fence, one way or the other? It's a tough call, isn't it? Not everything is black and white, which means that just about everything in life is nuanced, to one extent or another. However, an ideology needs to be nuanced as little as possible. Otherwise, it becomes a failed ideology. So here I am. What would you say to convince me to move in one direction or the other?

Agreed.....it is a child....not a fetus....and if they want to kill it they should be able to.

MaggieD said:

You've saddled yourself with a dilemma of your own making. "If I disagree that a woman shouldn't have to have a sonogram, then I have to be against Obamacare." Why?????

Women shouldn't have to hae a sonogram. That's just stupid. If someone is ready to abort their child, for the love of GOD!!!! Let them.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

You've saddled yourself with a dilemma of your own making. "If I disagree that a woman shouldn't have to have a sonogram, then I have to be against Obamacare." Why?????

Women shouldn't have to hae a sonogram. That's just stupid. If someone is ready to abort their child, for the love of GOD!!!! Let them.

Click to expand...

Because agreeing with one part of an issue, and disagreeing with another aspect of the same issue (in this case, government intervention) is wrong.

If abortion is legal in this country(and it is), then laws like this are just harassment of people going about their legal rights. The law serves zero purpose except to harass those who are going to have an abortion and potentially increase their cost(you know some one is going to pay for that sonogram, right?).

Hell, I can go buy a pack of smokes, which are harmful to me and potentially those around me with no requirement of anything except I be 18. This is a stupid law that serves no good purpose.

I'm not really sure that this law will serve the purpose it's supposed to serve. Most women who abort do it before 9 weeks gestation. At that point, the embryo just looks like a vaguely humanoid blob. Here are a couple of sonograms at 9 weeks.





Images such as those are unlikely to serve the purpose that the people who sponsored this legislation intend them to serve (i.e. to make the woman considering abortion feel an emotional connection with the life growing inside her and decide not to abort).

I think it's awful in this day and age women will allow unwanted pregnancies, with all the available contraception there is in forms as simple as a condom, that also will prevent STDs.

I think it's on the verge of criminal that a woman will have one abortion and within two years she's back again for another one.

I think it would be in everyone's best interest to make it harder to get the first Abortion and make it mandatory that after that first one the woman go on Birth control pills or be fitted with an IUD.

Councilman said:

I think it's awful in this day and age women will allow unwanted pregnancies, with all the available contraception there is in forms as simple as a condom, that also will prevent STDs.

I think it's on the verge of criminal that a woman will have one abortion and within two years she's back again for another one.

I think it would be in everyone's best interest to make it harder to get the first Abortion and make it mandatory that after that first one the woman go on Birth control pills or be fitted with an IUD.

Click to expand...

What about the case where a father rapes his own daughter, and she becomes pregnant? What about rape in general? Should it be criminal, in those cases, for a woman to seek an abortion? Do you support those requirements in cases like that?

danarhea said:

Because agreeing with one part of an issue, and disagreeing with another aspect of the same issue (in this case, government intervention) is wrong.

Click to expand...

There will always be Government intervention and Government poking thier noses in where some, half, most, or even all the people think that it doesn't belong. That is quite literally its job. What you have to do is decide whether a particular intervention is warranted or not. On case by case basis.

If you don't want government intervention then all you want is chaos. If all you want is government intervention then you pretty much advocate for slavery. But inbetween those two ideologies is a very HUGE middle ground/grey area that you just can't lump into one big pot. Otherwise you will get chaos or slavery.