Law Requiring Ultrasounds for Abortions Struck Down

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Marcia, Aug 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803323.html
     
    #1 Marcia, Aug 19, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2009
  2. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Personify the fetus."

    What idiocy! Truly the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. The "fetus" (or as I like to call him/her: the baby) is a person. One should not need to "personify" the baby, one should already understand that it is a baby. Unfortunately we are dealing with godless fools who cannot understand even the most basic knowledge, the knowledge that even our ancestors (who are wrongly considered inferior with respect to intelligence) understood. That baby is alive, that baby is a person, and that baby is so from the time of conception. To then kill that baby is murder. To purposefully dehumanize the baby, spread such ignorance to the masses under the veil of science (falsely so called), and then deny evidence that proves they are wrong and could help confused women make an informed choice is just criminal and shows the level of human depravity. It's good for their sakes that I am not God. Surely He is far greater, far more merciful, and far more longsuffering than I, and I praise Him for that.
     
  3. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, that line got to me, too!
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't get me wrong here, because I'm 100% agaisnt elective abortion. However, if there's no medical reason to do an ultrasound, it seems ridiculous for the state to mandate it.
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see your point from one perspective. However, if the state is allowing a woman to kill her unborn child, it seems ridiculous to call mandating an ultrasound wrong. Sort of ironic, isn't it?
     
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    If ultrasound is not necessary and the abortion is going to be performed anyway, why add the medical cost?

    It has been discovered that ultrasound may actually harm the fetus. I am not adding this as part of this thread, but as a note for those who are pregnant to consider whether the risk is worth the potential harm. Do a search on fetus ultrasound danager and read some of the articles. Then question your doctor.
     
  7. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really wonder how some of you leftists can sleep at night. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, an ultrasound would inform the mother that she had been fed a huge pile of garbage when she was told her child was just a collection of cells and not a real person. Perhaps, just perhaps, it would dissuade her from murdering her child. Even if the results aren't gained, it's the right thing to do.

    "Why incur the medical cost?" Why preach the gospel to the Jews, Jesus Christ? After all they will just reject it anyway. It isn't worth it.
     
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    Do you support federal funds paying for the ultrasound? I seriously doubt that any woman considers the fetus just "a huge pile of garbage." That is certainly an over generalization.
     
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well, we wouldn't want to risk any "harm" to the baby that's going to be torn limb from limb and thrown into a garbage can. I guess it's worse to risk harming a baby by an ultrasound than it is to kill him.
     
  10. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    They have to consider the "fetus" as garbage because it soothes their conscience. If they were to consider it to be an actual human being, they would be committing murder, now wouldn't they?
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, that's exactly my point. If the state is allowing a woman to have an elective abortion, what medical (not emotional, spiritual, etc) purpose is the ultrasound supposed to serve? Don't get me wrong, like I said, I oppose all elective abortion. But I'm weary of the legislature practicing medicine.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's something else at issue there, though. The definition of a fetus is simply an unborn baby in the womb. Yet there is an increasing number of Christians who are berating other Christians for calling an unborn baby a fetus. The onyl thing that results is the alienating of Christians from Christians.
     
  13. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct that a fetus is an unborn baby, however I never referred to my son while in my womb as a "fetus". He was a person.

    The word fetus is used mainly by those who approve of abortion because it doesn't sound quite as human as "child".


    You missed the point of my post evidently.
     
  14. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Wash Post article reports that many women who see the baby in the ultrasound picture decide not to get an abortion.

    For women not planning an abortion and not having a medical reason, I can see why there is no reason for an ultrasound. But requiring the ultrasound was merely an effort to maybe have the woman see the unborn baby as a baby, not a mass of tissue.
     
  15. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    The purpose was to hopefully prevent the abortion, which, in some cases, it did. (See my post above)
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777

    There is no reason to make the child less than human by calling the child a fetus. And that is the only reason for doing so. And Christians who use that terminology need to be called on it. Every single time. shame on you all.
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Therein lies your error in judging. You falsely presume that a person who uses the word "fetus" is intending to say that the fetus is not a person. This is the very type of judgeing that should be avoided. If a Christian calls an unborn baby a fetus, that Christian shoudl not be berated by other Christians. Yet that's exactly what happens more and more. It does nothing but cause division and strife amongst the brethren.

    When my children were in ther fetal stage, I didn't call them fetuses, but I didn't pronounce judgement on those who used the word "fetus" to refer to an unborn baby.
    No, it is not. The word fetus is mainly used by medical professionals to refer to an unborn baby in the fetal stage. It is also used by those who approve of abortion, but that use does not change the fact that an unborn baby is a fetus.
    I don't disagree there. But it's clear that there's no medical reason to have an ultrasound. It's a matter of legislators practicing medicine. Regardless of one's position on abortion, that's something all people shoudl be concerned about.
    Shame on those such as you for passing unrighteous, unchristian, and unscriptural judgement upon any christian who uses the word "fetus". How sad that there are Christians with such a sinful and unrepentant attitude towards the brethren such as yours.
     
    #17 Johnv, Aug 19, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2009
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Yes it is.........
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it's not.........
     
  20. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, when I was pregnant, my doctor never called my unborn child a "fetus."

    I think "fetus" is used in medical textbooks and probably in medical school, but you are not in medical school, are you? In ordinary conversation, there is no reason to use the term "fetus."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...