Comments about ‘Proposed Michigan law would require viewing fetal photo before an abortion’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 26 2011 10:52 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

Reasonable Person
Layton, UT

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

The taxpayers?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'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.

Gunner
South Jordan, UT

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

Justin.D.
provo, ut

Look the victim in the eye, so to speak.

Furry1993
Somewhere in Utah, UT

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.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

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.

Gunner
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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

Furry1993
Somewhere in Utah, UT

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.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'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

IDC
Boise, ID

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.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

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.

TOO
Sanpete, UT

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.

Gunner
South Jordan, UT

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.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'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?

Kyle loves BYU/Jazz
Provo, UT

"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.

Furry1993
Somewhere in Utah, UT

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.

Belching Cow
Sandy, UT

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?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments