America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Then it would be no problem for the doctor to say, "and while it may have a physical resemblance to a tadpole, it has one thing a tadpole will never have: a high degree of probability of becoming a fully-functioning human with a long lifespan, with the potential to have dreams, ambitions, and a desire to live a long, healthy life."

Because equating it to a tadpole is not "educating" people on what that "mass of tissue" is and what is will become if left to develop normally.

A tadpole or a random mass of tissue in the same environment will never become a human baby, but that mass of tissue will.

So if we're going to be specific, I thought I'd chime in with a little clarification.

Your apology is accepted.
Ill forgive your use of "high degree of probability" since math has never been your strong suit.

we should go all clockwork orange on them

sick bassard...

Basically a +1 Vic, but a few notes;

“Brewha may be saying it more clumsily,”
How about ‘Brewha may have written it in a clumsy manor,”

Now I’m not so sure the middle two paragraphs will get through. You’re using logic and . . . . anyway, good luck with that.

And regarding “he called it out as an attempt to "shame" (I think it's guilt but whatever)”
Remember, the venue is biblical style guilt – So it better to say ‘shame’ than ‘guilt’ or ‘smite’ rather than ‘hit’. Not that you’re wrong, I just think the ‘ol testament style phrases are more germane.

That's a great analogy.
Smoking a cigar is EXACTLY like getting an abortion.

I mean, they're both medical/surgical procedures, right?
And they both involve a tiny life in the developmental stage, correct?
And cigar smoking is much more common among kids in their late teens, rather than in older more mature people, am I right?



Vic, the irony isn't your poor comparison.
It's the fact that you and Brew are scared that a little education is a bad thing, simply because it might reveal some guilt.
But revealing something isn't the same as creating it.

Funny how some of you feel that an ultrasound would be invasive, yet an abortion is a simple choice to be made without even needing to know what is actually in there.

It is invasive.

The abortion is invasive too. But it's her choice to get that performed. Just like liposuction is invasive, but I support a woman's right for that too. (encourage it in some parts of the country in fact)

Sure, there is middle ground.

You’re right people can be swayed as you suggest – but it is coercion. And it is wrong. I would suppose that you feel the ends justify the means though . . . .

But in the end – we should but out of peoples business. Don’t you agree?

I think everyone in Boston should be forced to have ultrasounds just in case they are hiding chechnians.

but I think we're having Carne Asada tonite...

prolly fell off your neck and face and stuff.... try again....

Vic,
The pro-choice crowd are pushing abortion every time they call it a "choice" rather than something more akin to a last resort.
People like to make choices. Threaten to take my choice away and I want it even more.

I've belabored the planned parenthood atrocities in the past.
I'm not reading from some script here.

Massachusetts offers vanity license plates with special interests (Patriots, Bruins, Cape Cod and the Islands, etc).
When they offered one that said "Choose Life" the pro-choice crowd went BONKERS.
This was well documented and it proves that they do push abortion with their actions, even if it's not their intent.

Abortion is legal. It should remain legal.
But it shouldn't be treated like shampooing your hair (lather rinse repeat).

You're not afraid of the "education" because it's a waste of time. You're afraid that it might actually be effective.
As I've pointed out earlier, I've already got you and Brewha worked up into a lather by the mere mention of video and audio tools to keep the would be mother informed.

If it were truly a "waste of time" you'd respond with shrug and a meh.
Thou doth protest too much.
Or something like that.

sounds like they were playing defense to me...

Tail. You haven't actually said how this is "education" Until you do, it's an invasive waste of time. I want women to choose whichever option is best for them (unless it's mine, then I want them to choose to destroy it, even if it's 18 years old), so to claim this is some sort of fear they are going to choose to not abort the fetus is ridiculous.

Again. What will they learn from an invasive procedure that isn't learned from a simple development chart?

With or with out a ball gag in place?

Everyone knows you don't mind "things" shoved up your ass.....enjoy San Francisco

For your learning experience:

Your doctor has requested a transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound is a safe and painless procedure that uses sound waves to "see" inside your body and create detailed images which the physician can study. At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's S. Mark Taper Foundation Imaging Center, we have an expert team of physicians, nurses and technologists who are highly trained in ultrasound imaging.

Oh and based on your assessment of invasive vs non invasive thingy.....didn't the vag get "invaded in the first place to become pregnant? or am I missing something?

it's murder you dumb chit

No it isn't. Learn the law, "dumb chit".

How is it NOT education?
The young woman (or girl) is provided with information that shows the developmental stage of her unborn child.
Now, maybe it's only 4 weeks and the fetus looks like a scary tadpole.
But maybe (and much more likely) the fetus looks like a child. Sounds like a living person. It might be sucking its thumb, or giving you the finger.
It might be twins.

It might be a lot of things, but most of all it just might look exactly as it should: like an unborn human.

I think "most" will still get the abortion because their "choice" was predetermined.
But many will have second thoughts.
And it would be difficult to believe that any of the them would ever use abortion as their primary or even backup birth control plan in the future.

As for comparing it to a chart?

I've seen the chart. It's nice.
But the kid wasn't mine.

I don't expect you to understand.
I didn't. Until I did.

Reaction or not, they'd learn something.

Vic, consider the target audience here.
Clinics are not over run by valedictorians.
They're not stupid. But they are most certainly under educated when it comes to human reproduction.

You know the real life conversation would be this:

Girl: I need an abortion.
Doc: OK. We can take care of this today. How far along are you?
Girl: I don't know
D: Then let's use the ultrasound to see the fetus.
G: OK.
D: There it is. Looks about 8 weeks. See the arms?
G: it has arms already?
D: Oh yes. And see that pulsing? That's the heart beat.
G: It has a heart?
D: Sure, would you like to hear it?

Vic, you've never been there and you hate kids. You're on one end of the spectrum.
I've been there when we were trying to get pregnant. I'm on the other end.
But somewhere in the middle, the fictional girl in the above scenario is now able to make a real Choice. With knowledge. Eyes wide open.

But you resist.

Sure, they could ask. But these under educated kids don't know what they don't know. It needs to be at the very least a Suggested procedure.

You're still not talking about education. You're talking about forcing someone to look at something.
Hell, the ultrasound usually occurs regardless, especially early on. They need to see that it's there, and make sure it's gone after the procedure. But you want to require that the woman look at it, whether she wants to or not. That's not education. She's already been educated. Your fictional girl above is ASKING to see it. Not being "required by law".

Your fictional girl is ASKING to hear a heartbeat (an unnecessary procedure which she WOULD be charged for), not being "required by law".

That's not education.

Stay with me now. If the purpose is solely education, why require a transvaginal ultrasound when a pamphlet can provide the required information?

I'm not referring to whether we should use an ultrasound to convince them that there is a life in the balance (especially since this is so debatable).

Why all the talk about transvaginal ultrasounds?
This isn't the norm.

And now we're talking pamphlets??
Are you serious?
How effective is ANY pamphlet?
Unless it's a menu, nobody here has probably ever read a pamphlet seriously.

And I'm not talking about theoreticals here.
The point is to see the growing life inside.

You call it "guilt" or "shame".
I call it reality.

If a standard ultrasound doesn't work then I'd agree that there is no need to become invasive.
But the stubborn attitude by those who claim to not be pushing abortion is very transparent.

Face it folks. This is an emotional subject matter with extreme rhetoric coming from both sides.
If we adopted the educational ultrasound it is a zero risk decision.
Nothing invasive.
No threat to their "Choice".
Nobody can claim the old "give them an inch" argument because there's nothing to extrapolate. No further restrictions.

A lot of these girls get the abortion because they are coerced into it by planned parenthood and those of similar ilk. They're told that "hey, if it's inconvenient then express your right to choose".
They are never, at any point, made to truly consider what is being done and to make an informed and mature decision.

Don't be afraid. Think outside the box for once. this isn't black and white.

Depending on the point of development, a transvaginal may be required to show a prospective mother what she is deciding on. It seemed to be the opinion of a few (not necessarily you) that a mother should see a baby shape and hear a heartbeat before making a decision, which is not always possible early on with a standard ultrasound.

Pamphlets are very good at conveying information, which is why so many of them are made for so many different things. If you go to a doctor's office, you will find pamphlets on various issues provided in the lobby. Companies are not in the habit of wasting money by printing something that is not effective. Also note that I'm using a pamphlet as an example, but you could substitute it for whatever noninvasive method of education you feel is effective.

I will add that I am not necessarily against a requiring an ultrasound before making a decision, nor am I necessarily for allowing them to even make a decision- I was simply stating that if providing information is the goal, an ultrasound seems like a waste of resources.

One last thing- I do personally disagree that most abortions are due to planned parenthood convincing women to exercise their right to choose simply because is it inconvenient. My feelings on this may be skewed by living in a very conservative state, but many women here feel the full weight of their decision and are ostracized if it becomes public knowledge.