Quantcast
Utah

Proposed Michigan law would require viewing fetal photo before an abortion

Comments

Return To Article
  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    May 4, 2011 10:51 a.m.

    Re: I M LDS 2 | 2:50 p.m. April 29, 2011
    "When does the zygote become "human"?"

    As a member of the LDS Church you must surely understand that the US Supreme Court isn't the final authority on whether an unborn baby is a "human".

    That question will be answered at the judgement bar of the Supreme Judge.

  • David in New Mexico Rio Rancho, NM
    May 1, 2011 12:03 a.m.

    If only Rowe vs Wade had been done now instead of the 70's... things may have been different. In today's courts identity is ultimately defined by DNA. By definition, a new person identifiable by unique DNA is created at inception not birth. The new DNA is a unique configuration made possible by the input of two individuals and is, by definition, not part of the mother. The mother is not deciding what to do with her own body, she's deciding to end the life of a separate defineable human being.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    April 30, 2011 10:52 p.m.

    I M LDS 2; A woman needs permission from church leaders to get an abortions for rape and incest. no baby should be killed just because something could be wrong.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    April 29, 2011 8:00 p.m.

    I'm LDS 2.

    A bacteria is metabolizing but it is not human so killing a bacteria is not killing another human being.

    Since when does the supreme court have the insight to determine when a person becomes a person? The supreme court also said that segregation is constitutional. Then reversed itself. Who knows, perhaps someday it will reverse itself on abortion and recognize that abortion is still killing a human being whatever its age is. Ask a woman who has a spontaneous abortion if her 23 weeks along baby is or isn't a human being in spite of what the supreme court might say.

    A friend of mine who is pro abortion still recognizes that it is taking a human life. He just thought it was OK. At least he was being honest with himself and not in a state of denial.

  • That Makes Sense Orem, UT
    April 29, 2011 5:55 p.m.

    I M LDS 2: I have a lot of questions...

    Roe vs. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973-over 37 years ago. Their decision is widely considered a very "liberal" interpretation of the scientific information available in 1973, and would most certainly be considered flat out wrong with all the new information and medical case history since then. If the decision of these judges in 1973 is your justification for terminating a baby's life at 22 weeks then God help you.

    Roe vs. Wade needs to be revisited. 8 weeks? Not viable. 16 weeks? Probably not. 23 weeks? Sorry LDS2, it's a baby.

    By the way, 47 years ago blacks couldn't drink out of the same drinking fountains as whites and some courts upheld those laws. Any other questions?

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 29, 2011 2:50 p.m.

    JSB,

    When does the zygote become "human"?

    The Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade: 23 weeks.

    Any other questions?

    At the other end of the spectrum of "human life", at what point can they harvest your organs in order to save the life of another human being? When you stop breathing on your own? When your heart stops beating on its own? When meaningful brain activity ceases?

    "Organ donors" (determined by sophisticated medical and ethical criteria) can still "metabolize". Bacteria "metabolize". Cancers "metabolize". Single cell organisms "metabolize". Therefore, if "metabolization" is your criteria for "life", you must oppose not only abortion, but antibiotics, cancer treatments, and countless other "murderous" things.

    Would you like to try to explain the logic of that?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 29, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    Seldom do we have the chance to 'play god' where we determine who lives and who dies.

    In our court systems we have appeal after appeal and stay after stay as we try to find a reason to preserve the life of a convicted killer. The process takes years. The financial cost runs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    We respect the life of a convicted killer.

    We extend to him every possible avenue towards life.

    Yet, so many posters tell us that providing an ultra-sound to a mother to show that her unborn baby can move is too much a burden to place on society. They tell us that the cost is unreasonable. They tell us that the possibility of mental anguish to the mother who just might realize that there is a life growing inside her is too severe.

    They play god.

    The mothers play god.

    Who speaks for the unborn? Who is his voice? Who tells the world to please wait, to think, to ponder before sucking his life from him?

    The action is irreversible. Life cannot be restored. But we're busy. We have more important things to do.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    April 28, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    When does the fertilized egg (zygote) become a human being and killing it not be considered murder? The zygote is metabolizing so it is alive. So is the embryo, fetus, neonate, baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult, and elderly person. At what stage in human development is killing the person not murder? If a child is born 6 weeks early and then killed by its mother, it is murder. But if a child is aborted and killed 6 weeks early, it is legal and everyone should feel fine about it. Could some pro abortion person explain to me the logic behind this?

  • troubs Enterprise, UT
    April 28, 2011 2:35 p.m.

    Abortion= Legalized murder

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 28, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    snowman,

    Your view on abortion is not entirely consistent with the position of the Church. That is something you will have to work out.

    Based on D&C 134:9, I do not believe it is right to mingle religious influence with civil government in such a way as to force my beliefs (of the beliefs of my religious society) onto others.

    Others do not believe as I do, and I am free to believe as I with. So I allow all (wo)men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    This is why I have no problem with Roe versus Wade.

  • Rock Calgary, Alberta
    April 28, 2011 12:17 a.m.

    I find it amazing that so many of you missed one very important line in the article.

    "The mother will be offered the opportunity to hear the babies heartbeat."

    People.....if there is a heartbeat then there is a living child that is about to be killed !!

    Mother Theresa said it best when she said that there is no hope for a society where a mother is allowed to kill her young.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    April 27, 2011 10:59 p.m.

    I M LDS 2: I am LDS and I believe that all babies have the right to life. They shouldn't be aborted just because there could be something wrong with them. They are human beings. The saw a sign once that was talking about abortion but it said take my hand not my life.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    April 27, 2011 5:31 p.m.

    On the other hand, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate tends to overlook the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions do not, in fact, do so entirely by choice. Circumstances put them in a position where abortion is the least self-destructive option available to them. So who do you want to destroy? Hard choices!

  • mine Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2011 3:17 p.m.

    Protect the embryo, starve the infant. Typical.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    April 27, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    I agree with Coug420 that the debate of abortion is so polarized and each side will always push their own agenda. I understand the pro-life issues and why they think abortions should never occur, but I rarely see them understanding ALL the issues surrounding the WHOLE issue or truly being able to argue their side against choice. I wonder sometimes if it may be difficult for many anti-choicers to understanding the diversity -- and validity -- of others' moral codes, or the profundity -- and diversity -- of women's life experiences with regard to pregnancy and reproduction. Anti-choicers argue, why can't we bring our religious values into the public debate? But values are not the question. Pro-choicers value life every last bit as much as anyone else does. The real question is, when does personhood begin? And that is a matter of religious doctrine and belief, not a question of values. Yes, bring your values into the public debate -- but leave your religious doctrine out. And be wise enough to know the difference. People of a broad range of faiths recognize a moral prerogative of each woman to choose abortion.

  • OKC UTE Moore, OK
    April 27, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    Did some of you not read the article? This what it says, "the bill, which would require that a physician perform an ultrasound and allow the woman, if she chooses, a chance to hear the fetal heartbeat, receive a physical copy of the black and white image and have the image explained to her." It cleary states, "IF SHE CHOOSES" I didn't see anything where anyone was been forced to do anything.
    But then if we go by PAGANs and My2cents' logic we can abort a baby right up until tht child is born. Because their "life" hasn't started yet. That is really disgusting. I remember talking to my children with my mouth by my wife's belly and having them respond to my voice. Yeah they aren't alive. Come on! Please tell me another story people.
    And there are people who use abortion as birth control. I've met them.

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    April 27, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    This whole discussion makes me sad. Very sad.

  • Coug420 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2011 10:33 a.m.

    The difference between a fetus and "eggs in the fridge" is that one is fertilized allowing it to grow and become a living being and one isnt. Eggs we eat can never become chicks. The female human body naturally gets rid of the unfertilized eggs and if you need an explanation on that, please refer to a 7th grade health class. Comparing a tumor and a fetus is equally illogical. Can a tumor ever become a fully functional human? The best pro-choice arguments arent fetus comparisons but the evidence of what would happen if abortions werent allowed.

    Guilt trips are manipulative and shouldnt be used a form of persuasion. It is, however, important for potential mothers to have unbiased facts about abortions. Getting unbiased facts will never happen though because the debate of abortion is so polarized and each side will always push their own agenda.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    April 27, 2011 10:16 a.m.

    @LDSUTE and Rifleman

    I have no problem with a woman viewing a sonogram voluntarily or by request, but I do have a problem with women being FORCED to view it. Still....all and all....it is a scare tactic. I'm all for reducing abortion, but there is no need to invade the privacy with force of law. Afterall....that is what Roe vs Wade is based on!

    Let's turn the abortion issue around for some of you! Of course, it would be hard for a man to trulu relate unless he perhaps considers being forced to give up a body part! Would it be okay with you if the government invaded your privacy, your body, and your right to choose and FORCED you to have an abortion using the same reasons many women use? You can say...well, it isn't the same thing....but when you get down to basics....yes, it is the same! If abortion was ever made illegal....should the government really force a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy by law or make women risk imprisonment for illegal abortions?

  • That Makes Sense Orem, UT
    April 27, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    My healthy, vibrant, happy, mother-to-be, sister-in-law was born at 24 weeks with little of the medical support available to newborns of today--she fit in palm of her father's hand and turned out just fine. So why don't we reconsider "viability" of unborn babies based on the medical case history and then spot them another 6 to 8 weeks because we are considering taking a HUMAN LIFE? Can we reasonably begin a discussion with the abortion-rights crowd there? Probably not.

    I believe the discussion of an abortion should be between and woman and her physician, not the government, but to argue a baby is not a human until it actually exits the birthing canal is vile and degrades humanity. Any mother, or person, who watches a hand or foot of a baby pressing out against her stomach and does not recognize life is lying to themselves or heartless. Abortion is sometimes, for some women, a sad but appropriate alternative, and should remain her business. But the callousness of the pro-choice leaders is beyond reproach.

    (I don't agree with making a woman watch an ultrasound before an abortion.)

  • LDSUTE Sandy, UT
    April 27, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    MoJules @ 9:26-

    Good point! One of the greatest oxymorons of which I am aware is how some extreme liberals would not even blink at the thought of shredding and destroying a perfectly healthy fetus, and yet are so gravely offended at the site of the living conditions of a chicken destined for KFC. You'll hear "Go ahead and extract this fetus, I don't know if it's living of if its not, but it's the mother's right to decide so it doesn't matter," and then almost in the same breath "These cows do not have enough land on which to graze and roam....this is a gross injustice and is morally reprehensible!"

    atl134 @ 9:04 a.m.-
    You say this is meant to "guilttrip," but guilt is the mind's response to an action one believes is wrong. If there is truely nothing wrong with an elective abortion, as you seem to advocate, why on earth would anyone feel guilty about having one?

    Bottom line is science doesn't tell us the precise moment actual life begins, so I choose to error on the side of life, not death.

  • Sutton Cedar City, UT
    April 27, 2011 9:43 a.m.

    we should do all we can to decrease the incidence of unplanned pregnancies through education, decreasing poverty, increasing the availability of contraception and also changing societal norms which place the blame/burden of promiscuity primarily on females while accepting it as "normal/acceptable" male behavior.

    This conservative law unfortunately (like all other conservative laws) does nothing. This law is more about taking a woman on a guilt trip then saving babies. Their small way of punishing a woman for doing something they dont like...

    Im sorry I know a lot of people arent going to agree with me, but the mother Has *MORE* rights then the fetus, as well it should be.

    If we have a society where the fetus has more rights (AKA: More important) then we create a society were woman are nothing more than brood mares, or incubators, unimportant. I dont want to live in that society.

    A fetus isn't any more a baby then the eggs you have in your fridge are chickens...

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 27, 2011 9:43 a.m.

    TOO,

    "Name one thing in nature that grows, yet is not alive."

    Well, by your definition, CANCER is "alive", yet we spend a fortune to "kill" it.

    Viruses and bacteria are "alive", but you take antibiotics for a strep infection, don't you?

    The most prolific "baby killer" is mother nature herself. More fetuses are "aborted" by mother nature than all the medical personnel in history combined and multiplied by thousands!

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 27, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    Even the most dyed-in-the-wool LDS anti-choice activists must admit (or contradict their Church's position) that there are circumstances when aborting a fetus is right: rape or incest, when the mother's "life or health is in jeopardy", or when "the fetus" (the Church's words; not "child") has "severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth".

    The difference between most people's stance on abortion, then, boils down to what they allow as an "exceptional circumstances". Is a fetus created by rape NOT a life?

    Roe-vs-Wade established that a fetus may be aborted only in the exceptional circumstance of "before 23 weeks."

    Even beyond the 23rd week, the neurological "quality of life" of an embryo is directly comparable to that of a person who is "brain dead" and in a vegetative state - an "organ donor". Close relatives, beginning with one's mother and father, decide to "pull the plug" and allow organ harvesting.

    Within reasonable parameters, then, we must respect a mother's legal and moral right to terminate the "life support" she is providing for an essentially brain dead human ("fetus") in a vegetative state.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 27, 2011 9:29 a.m.

    Does this count for Rape, Incest, Life of the Mother?
    What about miscarriages? A D&C procedure is considered a medical abortion.

    I guess it's true - Conservatives have ZERO compassion.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    April 27, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    If the person is going to "pay" for their own abortion, then it would be much more affordable to "pay" for their ultrasound. If people that are pro abortion do not believe that the fetus is living, then they should have no fear of a woman seeing the fetus. I do have to say, it is really ironic, they want to declare the earth human, but they can't declare a fetus human, go figure. So if the earth is human, then that will give permission to destroy and kill all that it produces, since anything that comes from the earth is it's offspring.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    April 27, 2011 9:22 a.m.

    Why? Why stop abortions?

    Stopping abortions leads to 1 thing... *more unwanted children.*

    Children who are likely to be abused, children who are likely to be poorly educated, children who are likely to be abandoned, children who are likely to become criminals or other burdens to society.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 27, 2011 9:20 a.m.

    First, I agree with the LDS Church stance on abortion and believe we ought to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

    However,
    A report, commissioned by the British government and published this week by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, consists of a review of studies conducted since 1997 on the neuroanatomical and physiological development of the fetus. It concludes that fetuses at the 24-week stage of development do not possess the wiring to transmit pain signals from the body to the brain's cortex. Even after 24 weeks, the fetus likely exists in a state of "continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation," due to the presence of chemicals such as adenosine in the surrounding amniotic fluid. (Newsweek)

    Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, "the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn't reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain." (Discovermagazine)

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    April 27, 2011 9:17 a.m.

    I've known women who have had life-long regrets over having had an abortion. The procedure is anything but innocuous and is frankly disguised in euphemisms like "reproductive choice" and "terminating pregnancy." It isn't a victimless procedure like pulling a tooth(or having a tumor removed). An individual won't be around a year later that otherwise likely would have. An ultrasound will provide more consent for this serious decision. Better to have the seriousness of the decision driven home beforehand rather than after the fact.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    As if people don't know what a fetus looks like or what it would become if it goes to term... this isn't meant to inform, it's meant to guilttrip.

  • Crotty Kid Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2011 9:03 a.m.

    A more reasonable option would be to require the mother to be asked if she would like to have analgesic applied to the fetus to to eliminate any pain felt by the fetus during the abortion. Whether or not you believe a fetus to be "alive" or "human", there is no doubt that an unborn fetus can feel pain.

  • mistletoe Sandy, Utah
    April 27, 2011 8:47 a.m.

    correction... I should of said unless you have walked this path not until you have walked this path. Sorry bout that.

  • mistletoe Sandy, Utah
    April 27, 2011 8:45 a.m.

    Many times when a woman goes through something like this she is not in the right frame of mind. The judgements on this board...until you have faced this... don't judge another. There are those women who go through this procedure with full understanding...but there are many who go through this by having first made a poor choice. And when you are young and immature and you wind up having to deal with this, many times by being forced into it. I know, we have a choice, but so many stories are that the woman is afraid to even go through this without any support from anyone. ALso fear that someone will find out. There is a lot more to many of these women's stories. So be careful what you say. Until you have walked this path, you don't have any idea what it is like.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    April 27, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    This argument is sick in everyway.

    People just claim that the fetus is not alive. Someone please explain to me how a fetus is not alive, yet keeps growing until it is born. Name one thing in nature that grows, yet is not alive.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    April 27, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    Bottom line (and this is my last allowed post here).

    With all other surgeries and medical treatments, information is made available to the prospective receipient of the surgery or treatment, but said recipient is not required to take or read it. Pregnancy termination should be handled the same way. The ultrasound, and all other information concerning the development of the fetus, should be made available to the pregnant woman but she should not be required to see or receive it. (Keep in mind that the pregnant woman is not yet a mother, and the fetus is not a baby or an infant or a person. That is something we recognized in the 1970s when I had my children. Women said "I am GOING TO HAVE a baby" or "I am GOING TO BE a mother" or "I am pregnant" when they were pregnant. I didn't become a mother, and the fetus didn't become a baby, until the birth had occurred and a breath had been taken to show that the newborn was now a living person. It's too bad that people don't recognize that now, and stop the life-begins-at-conception rhetoric.)

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 27, 2011 8:01 a.m.

    Rifleman, you miss the mark: You try to make it sound like someone is imparting a little bit of information to a woman. I am quite certain, for the most part, the woman knows what is going to happen and is making a very difficult decision, again one most likely without the father. If this bill said the woman "could see the fetus if she asked," that would be imparting knowledge and a direct request. When the bill "forces" the mother to see the fetus, it is not imparting knowledge, but, rather, trying to change the mind of the mother who has already made this difficult decision. And I've read many posts on here, from seemingly men and women, who still, in this day and age, believe it's only the woman's fault that she gets pregnant, and therefore the woman's responsibility for the ensuing fetus/baby. Amazing!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 27, 2011 7:32 a.m.

    I'm all for education, so mandate a comprehensive program on sexuality, birth control, contraception, etc. to give the tools people need to make decisions with full knowledge of what they are doing and how to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The state of knowledge of the human body is abysmal, including with adults. Add to this easily accessible birth control tools like condoms and other means of contraception. You can't be selective in providing education about the facts of life. It's the only way that a person can fully execute his or her free agency at all states of the process. To deny that means the government or some other authority makes the decision, actual or de facto. Which brings us back around to whether the abortion decision and the control over ones body is a governmental one or an individual choice. It is ironic, in fact, that conservatives want freedom of choice and lack of government intervention in their lives on some issues but not on others. The reality is that they only want solutions to the terrible thing of abortion only on their terms.

  • ? Fort Knox, KY
    April 27, 2011 7:28 a.m.

    If operations are able to be successfully performed on babies either in utero or taken out of the womb and then placed back in the womb to continue growing until birth, what might this show concerning when life begins? If a baby can be born as early as 22 weeks gestation and with help be able to survive, again when does life being?

    By 6 weeks gestation there is a heart beat and brain activity. If loss of life constitutes a cessation of a heart beat and brain activity, then shouldn't a baby at 6 weeks having a heart beat and brain activity be considered to be a living person?

  • jenrmc Fort Worth, TX
    April 27, 2011 7:25 a.m.

    Laws are, in theory, supposed to keep order and protect the citizens bound by that law. The federal government has ruled abortions as legal and as such we as citizens can choose for ourselves whether this is a good choice. The question now becomes who is capable of making an informed decision about their body and what grows inside of it. This is easy, if you are able to conceive, you are able to decide what happens next. Medical staff should be required to inform the patient of any potential complications and be available for questions, not serve as a moral compass. Counseling should be available after the procedure to deal with any ill-affects from the choice. The ultrasound requirement is, in my opinion, attempting to legislate values. The pro-life movement should channel their efforts into prevent pregnancy by family planning education and access to birth control instead of legislating what happens as a result of an unintended pregnancy.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    April 27, 2011 5:11 a.m.

    I am not in any way pro-abortion, but what about those mothers and fathers who make the difficult decision to abort for the life of the mother or viability of the fetus (extreme cases)?? Imagine the unnecessary agony of a loving couple who must see an image before they go through with an already difficult (the most difficult) decision.

    This is a very poor, politically-motivated, narrow-minded idea...

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    April 27, 2011 4:40 a.m.

    Life is not life until it is born and until then a fetus is not a person and parents do have the right of choice. Telling people they don't have a personal right of choice is like forced labor camps to make women get pregnant for population growth and control. Just as you have a choice to get pregnant, you have the same choice to get unpregnant.

    A baby becomes a person when it is born as an independent life of its own. These laws are ludicrous and irresponsible and illegal. Then what does it matter about government paying for abortion? They pay for everything else and it would be discriminatory to eliminate any one medical procedure. There are many medical procedures causing more deaths of living people than abortion so why aren't these activist harassing them?

  • thelogicalone salt lake city, UT
    April 27, 2011 1:16 a.m.

    My understanding is that abortion is the only medical procedure which does not require informed consent. If that is the case, we are doing a big disservice to any woman who does not fully understand the situation and possible complications. Having an ultrasound, or anything which truly gives an honest clarity to the situation should be required. Medical only, no lectures from a religious or society prejudice.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    April 27, 2011 1:12 a.m.

    When a woman chooses to play Russian Roulette with her own body and have unprotected sex and gets pregnant from this choice her rights are no longer hers alone. (Rape and incest are the exception not the rule. How many pregnancies are truly ended on this factor...very few of the total percentage.) Our court system; however, sees this differently saying a woman's right means everything including the life of a fetus.
    What harm will viewing a living fetus cause other than a few moments of seeing what will end with a terminated pregnancy? Some are arguing money issues, such as who will pay for the ultrasound? However, if a woman wants to pay for this heinous precedure...let her foot the bill. After all, governement doesn't pay for this right?

  • mistletoe Sandy, Utah
    April 26, 2011 10:52 p.m.

    I personally think an ultrasound would be a great idea. I bet there are many women today that wish they would of had this option. I think many women would walk right out of those offices if she were to see and hear the life which is inside of her. It is true, there are many who take this path alone. And then live with the regret for the rest of their lives. The ultrasound should be a service that comes with this type of visit where a woman feels she needs to go through this procedure.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    April 26, 2011 10:45 p.m.

    Mark,
    Yes I have taken those classes. Yes I do believe they breathe. A basic knowledge of physiology states that. It's not hard to be proven. Open a physiology book and look.

  • LDSUTE Sandy, UT
    April 26, 2011 9:30 p.m.

    mark @ 7:48 pm-
    "I'll tell you guys why I am opposed to this type of legislation: because I don't want the government, I don't want any legislator sitting in my doctors office with me. Ever."

    Oh really? So you're fine doing away with HIPAA? How bout getting rid of all of those pesky sanitation and cleanliness standards for doctors' offices set by the Dept. of Health?

    It seems to me that you oppose doctors being required to take an additional step in an effort to make sure patients understand what is happening in their bodies? If there is really nothing wrong with an elective abortion, why would these types of images offend someone or make one uncomfortable? As a patient, I want to be informed of anything and everything going on. The more info the better when it comes to medicine. It didn't seem that this legislation in MI would restrict anything, just make patients more informed.

  • Sarah B SLC, UT
    April 26, 2011 8:57 p.m.

    I had an ultrasound at 10 weeks and I couldn't believe how active and responsive to outside stimulus the baby was. If the doctor wanted her to change positions, she would just tap my tummy and the baby would move. I thought then that anyone considering an abortion should be required to see this isn't just a piece of tissue or a parasite, but a living responsive, tiny human.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2011 7:48 p.m.

    Too, you have taken all of those courses and yet you think that fetuses breath. Good heavens.

    I'll tell you guys why I am opposed to this type of legislation: because I don't want the government, I don't want any legislator sitting in my doctors office with me. Ever.

    If a woman wants to see an ultrasound of a fetus she can request that. If not, it's none of my business, and it sure isn't any of yours.

    As far as tax money going towards abortion, no tax money goes towards abortion. It is illegal. Does tax money go towards womens clinics. Absolutely. And it should continue to.

    Even if the same facility also performs abortions.

    Good grief, next thing you conservatives are going to say is that a woman can not drive on a public street enroute to an abortion clinic.

    Let's leave this debate up to the only people that can ever have an abortion, let's leave if up to the women. I've said it before, if it were men that got pregnant, there would be no issue, whatsoever; abortions would be as controversial as a vasectomy.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 26, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    Re: Joggle | 3:06 p.m. April 26, 2011
    "Scare tactics"?

    You would prefer to leave women blind and without knowledge when it comes to deciding the life or death of their unborn child?

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if just one human life was saved as a result of giving a woman a little more information to help her make her decision??

  • IDC Boise, ID
    April 26, 2011 4:01 p.m.

    Pagan 2:24,

    I think this is the weakest argument I have ever seen you come up with.

    None of us started as a heart or a cancerous mass. We all started the same way. I know I am glad that I wasn't aborted - even though no one thought to ask me.

  • the_beav SLC, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:57 p.m.

    Furry1993 | 2:49 p.m. April 26, 2011

    "Not true. The money coming from the federal government could not be used for abortion services unless it was to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. All funds for abortion services would have to come from other (private) sources."

    Just because tax payer dollars aren't used to fund the actual procedure, doesn't mean they don't make abortions possible. Lights, staff, rent, office supplies, etc... all require $$$ and without it abortion clinics could not operate. Tax payer dollars go to these facilities and therefore support abortions!

  • the_beav SLC, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:52 p.m.

    @Pagan
    "until we have a way to effectively communicate with a baby in gestation"... So using your logic, communication determines life.
    My cell phone can communicate does that make it alive? My computer can communicate, does that make it alive?
    "I don't mean to be offensive, simply showing how this same line of thinking can apply to other situations and seem implausable."

    Pagan, your logic never holds up.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:26 p.m.

    A fetus is breathing? Really, Too?

  • LDSUTE Sandy, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:23 p.m.

    Joggle 3:06 p.m.-
    "most women have already researched, maybe prayed, and thought deeply about the abortion already."

    Interesting point, but how are you in a position to call that a fact? Have you spoken to every woman who has had an abortion and found that most have acted this way? The bottom line is that this legislation does nothing more than show the patient what is going on inside of their body. Why would you or anyone oppose such a thing?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    'Having an abortion for convenience is an extremely selfish act.' - Belching Cow | 2:53 p.m.

    I can agree. But we're not JUST talking about abortion for convience, are we? Let me post this again.

    *'Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape Victims Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade' - Sam Stein - Huffington Post - 07/08/10

    Those against abortion do not stop with abortion for convience, but rather ALL abortion. Even those where the mother's life is in jepordy, rape, or incest.

    If we follow the logic of 'nothing is wrong' with making a woman look at her fetal photo, then why not have a woman look at a picture of her uterus after rape?

    Why not force her to have a conversation with her rapist? I mean, 'nothing is wrong', right?

    This opinion is purposfully ignoring the psychological damage to the woman. Yes, no physical harm is done, but just LOOK at the 'cute, innocent, harmless little baby you want to kill.'

    Isn't that like 'How often do you beat your wife?' question? It's a loaded question. There IS no 'right' answer.

    So too, does it remove choice, when you force an issue.

    Good day.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:06 p.m.

    Scare tactics are still alive and well in the world and are used for all sorts of controlling and manipulative purposes. The manipulation tactics that people utilize in their belief that the means is worth the end is contradictory to any kind of just or helpful ends at all and it is certainly in no way supportive of women. Men should be held accountable for their behaviors, attitudes and actions and women should support one another and continue to attempt to work toward a world where people of all sexes can live without the need for domination, manipulation and scare tactics. This kind of legislation if enacted will have no impact on the rate of abortion. These politicians (mostly men) think that women don't know anything about abortions when they come into the doctor's office, and that's false. They're just continually making hoops that women have to jump through. If legislators could ban safe and legal abortion tomorrow, they'd do it, but they can't, so they try all these scare tactics instead. They're undermining the fact that most women have already researched, maybe prayed, and thought deeply about the abortion already.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    April 26, 2011 3:02 p.m.

    Pagan 2:24,

    I think this is the weakest argument I have ever seen you come up with.

    None of us started as a heart or a cancerous mass. We all started the same way. I know I am glad that I wasn't aborted - even though no one thought to ask me.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:01 p.m.

    "A cancerous tumor has a mass. It cannot survive outside of the body. It grows. Therefore, it should also be alive if we applied the same logic."--Pagan

    A tumor is actually alive. I have taken anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and about 5 other biology classes. Cells are the basic unit of life. A tumor is nothing but a mass of cells. Cells are alive. Therefore, a tumor is alive. In an attempt to bring down my logic, you actually supported it.

    And for the record, a tumor can survive outside the body. Think about the Hela cells, taken from Henrietta Lacks. She died of cervical cancer, but those cells from her cancer have been kept and studied and continue to grow since the 1950's.

  • Gunner South Jordan, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    Furry. I pulled that directly from the bill. It bypasses the Hyde act. So you're wrong. Wither it "should" or not doesn't matter. It goes to fund those clinics and it comes directly from tax payers.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:53 p.m.

    The atrocity of abortion comes from taking something very sacred in nature and exploiting it like its some kind of casual past time for self gratification. Having an abortion for convenience is an extremely selfish act. The consequences are real and they are damaging. Why not let the woman see the unborn baby she is about to terminate? If nothing is wrong then what are you afraid of?

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:49 p.m.

    To Gunner | 2:23 p.m. April 26, 2011

    Not true. The money coming from the federal government could not be used for abortion services unless it was to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. All funds for abortion services would have to come from other (private) sources. You're trying to do the equivalent of equating apples and oranges, and that one doesn't fly.

  • Kyle loves BYU/Jazz Provo, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:48 p.m.

    "Bottom line, until we have a way to effectively communicate with a baby in gestation, majority of people believe life starts...at birth." - Pagan

    Did you do an informal pole in you office? Thanks for enlightening us all on what the "majority" believes. 75% of all statistics are totally ridiculous.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:24 p.m.

    'It is. It is breathing. It has a heartbeat.' - TOO | 2:05 p.m.

    Following this logic, a heart, is a person.

    Not the person the heart is in, the heartbeat the person makes.

    A pair of lungs, is a person, they have the capacity to breath, right?

    A cancerous tumor has a mass. It cannot survive outside of the body. It grows. Therefore, it should also be alive if we applied the same logic.

    I don't mean to be offensive, simply showing how this same line of thinking can apply to other situations and seem implausable.

    Bottom line, until we have a way to effectively communicate with a baby in gestation, majority of people believe life starts...

    at birth.

    Once the baby is OUTSIDE of the body of it's mother, it is a seperate, human being. Even Donald Trump cannot reconcile the 'right to privacy', and the 'right to life', while a baby is INSIDE of it's mother.

    How can anything be more invasive that the 'rights' inside a womans uterus?

    There is a simple way to recognize this. Do you celebrate the day of your conception...

    or your birthday?

  • Gunner South Jordan, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:23 p.m.

    Furry: Again, I stated that many on the left would like to see, or would want tax funded abortions. But to satisfy you, here you go.
    According to Section 10503 of H.R. 3590, $7 billion dollars in taxpayer money is appropriated over five years for the maintenance of Community Health Centers (also called Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs) where abortions are performed. There are presently over 1,200 such facilities. Because the bill directly apportions this money, these funds will bypass the annual approval process through which appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services typically must pass. Therefore, these funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:05 p.m.

    Pagan

    May I ask why you keep writing life in quotation marks? Is it because you don't think it is alive?
    It is. It is breathing. It has a heartbeat. It has a developing brain. It is a living being.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 26, 2011 2:03 p.m.

    And here, all along, I've been told over and over and over by Conservatives that they support Liberty & Freedom.

    Well, I'm not surprised in all honesty. Not in the least.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    April 26, 2011 1:19 p.m.

    Pagan, "Should that 'life' then, have a vote before it's born? Tax protections? What about represnetation?"

    I think the voting age will apply to unborn children as well.

    The life will be taxed according to income. I guess the "life" would probably get a stimulus check from Obama if it filed a tax return. Then if the "life" wasn't born yet, you could kill it and cash the check.

    I don't have an answer for legal representation.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2011 1:15 p.m.

    'The are many many families who would love to adopt these unborn babies...' - Rifleman | 12:40 p.m.

    And yet, we still have children up for adoption...
    don't we?

    The claim that adoption will 'solve' abortion is false on it's face. As, the second even ONE child has to wait for an adoption, it is proven to not be a solution.

    I think America has more than one child for adoption today, don't we?

    Also, 40% of children in America are being raised OUTSIDE the 'ideal' of a mother and father. Instead, being raised by single parents.

    Want an example? Bristol Palin.

    That's also, from the CDC.

    Knowledge IS a punishment...

    when it is forced.

    Kind of like trying to claim a woman has a 'choice' in abortion, and then campainging to force a woman to have a child.

    *'Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape Victims Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade' - Sam Stein - Huffington Post - 07/08/10

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    April 26, 2011 1:11 p.m.

    To Gunner | 12:33 p.m. April 26, 2011
    South Jordan, UT
    Furry1993: Read my post again and see if I stated the left "Wants" or has put it in bills? Reading comprehension can be tough sometimes I know.

    ------------------------

    Okay -- I'll play your silly game. Please detail specifically the bills/legislation "the left" has filed to overturn or negate the Hyde Amendment. If, as you claijm, the left "wants" to fund abortions, the only way it can get its "wish" is to eliminate the Hyde Amendment. Tell me the specific legislation they have proposed to do so.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 26, 2011 12:40 p.m.

    RE: xscribe | 12:08 p.m. April 26, 2011

    Letting a mother get the opportunity to see her baby is a punishment? Knowledge is a punishment?

    The are many many families who would love to adopt these unborn babies and they are willing to pay the medical costs associated with the pregnancy. Win win win for mother, baby and adopting family.

  • Gunner South Jordan, UT
    April 26, 2011 12:33 p.m.

    Furry1993: Read my post again and see if I stated the left "Wants" or has put it in bills? Reading comprehension can be tough sometimes I know.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 26, 2011 12:08 p.m.

    Yet another way to punish the mother, who is most likely having to make the difficult decision on her own, as the father is likely to not be found and has no repercussions. You look at who is introducing these bills, and I'm sure you'll find that they are males. Until the men - it takes two to conceive - are made to have some responsibility, these bills will just be a band-aid. Make men responsible for their action also, and you'll see the abortion rate drop.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    April 26, 2011 12:07 p.m.

    To Gunner | 11:47 a.m. April 26, 2011
    South Jordan, UT
    Reasonable Person: Why not, the left want's us to pay for the abortion!

    ---------------------

    Not true. There is nothing, in ANY bill either proposed or enacted, that allows public money to fund abortions unless they are necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Check out the Hyde Amendment, and learn something.

  • Justin.D. provo, ut
    April 26, 2011 11:48 a.m.

    Look the victim in the eye, so to speak.

  • Gunner South Jordan, UT
    April 26, 2011 11:47 a.m.

    Reasonable Person: Why not, the left want's us to pay for the abortion!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2011 11:46 a.m.

    'It might even save a life or two.' - Rifleman | 11:17 a.m.

    This would mean that the 'life' is a life, before birth.

    Should that 'life' then, have a vote before it's born? Tax protections? What about represnetation?

    The things that go along with life in this country, is what many are choosing to ignore.

    Person brings up a good point (11:23 a.m.) who will PAY for this?

    We will.

    Great way to 'reduce the debt' there.

    Since those against abortion have lost the fight (Roe vs. Wade, 1973) the argument isn't IF a woman should have the ability to have an abortion, but what they have to DO to HAVE their legally allowed abortion.

    Why stop at the viewing? Why not have anti-abortion volunteers stationed right next to an abortion clinic?

    *'Abortion foes' tactics highlight high NYC rate' - By Cristian Salazar - AP - Published by DSnews - 04/06/11

    'Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a law last month that mandates all pregnancy centers disclose what services they offer, including whether they have licensed medical staff and what they do to protect the privacy of clients.

    You dont' even need to have a license.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 26, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    Re: Reasonable Person | 11:23 a.m. April 26, 2011

    The taxpayers pay for everything else so why not the ultrasounds? What value do we place on a human life?

    Are we afraid that a little knowledge will hurt the mother?

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    April 26, 2011 11:23 a.m.

    Who's going to pay for all of those ultrasounds?

    The taxpayers?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 26, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    It sounds reasonable for mothers to see how far their babies have developed before taking their lives. How can a little knowledge hurt? It might even save a life or two.