STORM2K

I’m generally opposed to funding State sponsored programs, but if it comes down to a baby living, vs a baby being murdered, I’ll fork over my contribution (if it comes down to that) to reduce the carnage. I see this as a small step in the right direction.

If enacted, I would be proud to say I live in South Carolina.


COLUMBIA, S.C. – Women seeking abortions in South Carolina would be required to view an ultrasound image of their fetus before the procedure under a proposal gaining support from lawmakers. If enacted, it would be the first law of its kind in the nation.
The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Greg Delleney, considers the bill a natural addition to the state’s informed-consent law, which requires that women be told about fetal development and offered alternatives to abortion. The law requires a woman to have at least an hour to think about the information before ending her pregnancy.
Delleney’s proposal would require patients to certify in writing that they viewed the ultrasound.
Democratic state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter plans to lead the fight against the legislation when it comes up for debate later this month in the GOP-dominated House. But she said she expects the legislation to pass because even lawmakers who don’t like the bill will be afraid to vote against it.

Wow. Interesting Idea. I'll bet it will change a few people's mind if it comes to pass.

At first when I started reading your post I thought it would be someting like the safe haven act here in NJ. Up until the baby is 30 days old it can be brought to a police station or ER and placed for adoption, no questions asked. No names necessary.

Unfortunately we live in a society that sometimes considers a pregnancy an inconvenience rather than the start of a life.

I am not sure where I stand on this. I had a sonogram at 9 weeks, about the time they start abortions, and it didn't look like much of nothing. You could barley see it, they just knew they saw 2 and I could have twins. When I had one done at 12 weeks though it was a whole different ballgame. I could count their toes and fingers and see a true human beings being formed. So I think this law may stop some late term abortions, but not the early term ones as much. A heart beat usually can't be heard till about 12 weeks either, but is being formed earlier. Just as long as a woman can still make her own choice I have no issue with the law. I just would hate to think women who don't want children would end up having them because they felt bad for one brief moment looking at that sonogram picture and not think about the long term furture of that child. There are already way too many unwanted children in this counrty.

O Town wrote:I just would hate to think women who don't want children would end up having them because they felt bad for one brief moment looking at that sonogram picture and not think about the long term furture of that child.

Agreed -- that is why adoption is such a fantastic idea for these woman to consider. Despite what the choice crowd thinks, this law is only designed to make the woman think again about what she is about to do.

Now...unless the woman was raped, she and her partner made a choice when they had sex. That is when they need to "choose".

I have always believed that abortion is a personal decision that a woman has the right to choose. It's your body, and if you don't want it or feel that it's not the right time to have a child, have an abortion.

I think politicians have taken this too personal, and in someway are trying to limit the right a woman has to decide whether or not she is prepare to bring a child to this world.

So who's going to pay for the ultrasound? Those aren't cheap.

gtalum wrote:So who's going to pay for the ultrasound? Those aren't cheap.

Good question. Maybe it's in the price for the abortion.

HURAKAN wrote:Good question. Maybe it's in the price for the abortion.

If that's the case, I'm guessing the US Supreme Court (if not a lower court) will strike the law down as it will limit access to abortions.

I find the law interesting, but I doubt it will pass constitutional muster and I wouldn't want to pay for these ultrasounds with my taxes if such a law were considered in Florida.

I don't see why an already difficult choice should be made more difficult and emotionally tough. It is as if a woman's initial choice isn't good enough and that it should be 'modified' a bit.

I find it interesting that an early term abortion is called "murder". 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage within the first 12 weeks. These are not considered a death, just a failed pregnancy, or unviable pregnancy. After 20 weeks, it considered a death and requires a death certificate. However, anti-abortionist scream murder on abortions but don't recognize all the miscarriages? It's either one way or the other. I do not agree with late term abortions (when the baby could possibly survive on their own if born) but I think early abortions eliminate unwanted children who go abandoned, neglected, or lost in the system with a high chance of growing up into a life of crime. This ultrasound idea is not going to work, and if they do push it, then maybe we should also offer castration to the father of the babies.

j wrote:

O Town wrote:I just would hate to think women who don't want children would end up having them because they felt bad for one brief moment looking at that sonogram picture and not think about the long term furture of that child.

Agreed -- that is why adoption is such a fantastic idea for these woman to consider. Despite what the choice crowd thinks, this law is only designed to make the woman think again about what she is about to do.

Now...unless the woman was raped, she and her partner made a choice when they had sex. That is when they need to "choose".

Exactly, j. If looking at a sonogram for one brief moment can save that baby's life, not to mention the turmoil must women who have abortions go through later, then go for it! I'm all for saving childrens' lives.

HollynLA wrote:I find it interesting that an early term abortion is called "murder". 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage within the first 12 weeks. These are not considered a death, just a failed pregnancy, or unviable pregnancy. After 20 weeks, it considered a death and requires a death certificate. However, anti-abortionist scream murder on abortions but don't recognize all the miscarriages? It's either one way or the other. I do not agree with late term abortions (when the baby could possibly survive on their own if born) but I think early abortions eliminate unwanted children who go abandoned, neglected, or lost in the system with a high chance of growing up into a life of crime. This ultrasound idea is not going to work, and if they do push it, then maybe we should also offer castration to the father of the babies.

I don't see what's so interesting about it. If you purposely kill the baby, it's called murder. If something else causes the tiny baby to die, that's not murder. While both are horribly sad, one is certainly avoidable.

I give this thread 24 hours.

southerngale wrote:I don't see what's so interesting about it. If you purposely kill the baby, it's called murder. If something else causes the tiny baby to die, that's not murder. While both are horribly sad, one is certainly avoidable.

I think what Holly meant is: if you believe early term abortion should be illegal, you should also think it proper to seek death certificates for miscarriages, bury the remains, even maybe hold funeral services, etc., just as you would for a baby. Her main point was that a miscarried fetus is not treated like a human being, so how can abortion of a similarly aged fetus be considered murder?


Edit: changed "legal" to "illegal"

HurricaneBill wrote:I give this thread 24 hours.

Me too, if that.

When I first saw the thread I gave it less than 24 hours. It has stayed pretty civil so far.....


As for early miscarriages not being considered deaths, speak to anyone who has lost a child before 20 weeks.

weathermom, I did lose a baby at 19 weeks, and believe me, to the mother, it's a terrible loss that takes alot of time to recover from. I'm not saying that miscarriages don't mean anything, they do to the parents mainly. That was not the point I was making so I hope it didn't come off that way. Like I said, I'm one of the mothers who dealt with it before. Regit worded it so much better than I.

HollynLA, that was my point. Anyone who has lost a child before 20 weeks will tell you that it was still a child and they still grieved the loss. ( The people I know who miscarried all still grieve to this day, recognizing the anniversary, attending special masses etc. ) Just because the government may not consider it a death doesn't mean it wasn't one.

The House passed this overwhelmingly yesterday. Now it goes to the Senate.

j, in the House bill, where did they propose to get the funding for this?

gtalum wrote:j, in the House bill, where did they propose to get the funding for this?

I've tried to find that answer to no avail.

Let me ask you this? Who do you think is paying for the abortions??