Abortion and ultrasound

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

Should the government pay for an ultrasound before a woman makes a decision on abortion?

Poll ended at Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:36 am

Yes, I believe the the government should pay and the woman should be required to see it before having an abortion.
1
20%
Yes, I believe the government should pay, but only if the woman asks.
0
No votes
No, I believe the government should not pay for an ultrasound.
4
80%
No, I believe abortion should be illegal, the government should not pay for abortion or ultrasound.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 5

Abortion and ultrasound

Postby michael-45 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:28 am

Should the government pay for an ultrasound before a woman makes a decision on abortion?
michael-45
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:08 am
Location: memphis
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby JustJim » Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:44 am

The government? Why on earth should the government (me, that is, along with other taxpayers) pay for any elective medical procedures? Insurance companies might elect to pay for them, and people can pay for them out of their pockets, or people can panhandle for money on the streets to get enough to pay for them... but the government? NO WAY! Why should I pay for your ultrasound (or abortion, or nose job, or tooth whitening, or gastric bypass surgery, etc.)?

Jim
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, refuses to go away...."
User avatar
JustJim
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:30 am
Location: Ohio - USA
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheist

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby NH Baritone » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:03 am

This is truly asinine: Intrusive Christians who cannot accept that a woman has sufficiently considered the consequences of her actions until they have almost literally rubbed her nose in THEIR own interpretation of biology.

What's more, forcing someone to undergo any medical procedure that is not designed to diagnose or treat disease is government interference in health care and treads dangerously close to totalitarianism. It is the kind of putrid, theocratic sleaze that I rebel against with every fiber of my being.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby whoosanightowl » Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:10 pm

I'm with Jim here, I don't think government should pay for any elective procedures. If women want an abortion, then it's up to them to pay for it (or get their baby daddy's to pay). If it's a personal decision, then it's a personal problem, not one for taxpayers to be forced to cover.
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby michael-45 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:39 pm

Re: Abortion and ultrasound
by NH Baritone » Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:03 am

This is truly asinine: Intrusive Christians who cannot accept that a woman has sufficiently considered the consequences of her actions until they have almost literally rubbed her nose in THEIR own interpretation of biology.

What's more, forcing someone to undergo any medical procedure that is not designed to diagnose or treat disease is government interference in health care and treads dangerously close to totalitarianism. It is the kind of putrid, theocratic sleaze that I rebel against with every fiber of my being.


I appreciate your candor, but there is an option to vote against it in the poll. I have heard the idea of the ultrasound being floated around, but that doesn't mean I'm for it. I personally am against "big government", as I think they have their hands in to many things already. However, that doesn't mean I am for abortion, as I am definitely opposed to it. As far as treading "dangerously close to totalitarianism", if the President has his way, the government will own health care, and it won't be dangerously close anymore, it will the here. In any case, I am against the murder of the unborn with "every fiber of my being".
michael-45
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:08 am
Location: memphis
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby whoosanightowl » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:29 pm

michael-45 wrote:Re: Abortion and ultrasound
by NH Baritone » Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:03 am

This is truly asinine: Intrusive Christians who cannot accept that a woman has sufficiently considered the consequences of her actions until they have almost literally rubbed her nose in THEIR own interpretation of biology.

What's more, forcing someone to undergo any medical procedure that is not designed to diagnose or treat disease is government interference in health care and treads dangerously close to totalitarianism. It is the kind of putrid, theocratic sleaze that I rebel against with every fiber of my being.


I appreciate your candor, but there is an option to vote against it in the poll. I have heard the idea of the ultrasound being floated around, but that doesn't mean I'm for it. I personally am against "big government", as I think they have their hands in to many things already. However, that doesn't mean I am for abortion, as I am definitely opposed to it. As far as treading "dangerously close to totalitarianism", if the President has his way, the government will own health care, and it won't be dangerously close anymore, it will the here. In any case, I am against the murder of the unborn with "every fiber of my being".

Here, here! I fully agree with you on this Michael! :D
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby Pseudonym » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:34 pm

I don't live in the United States, so of course I agree that the government should pay for all pregnant women to have ultrasounds. Not all of them, necessarily, but evidence-based medicine suggests that one or two at strategic points are the most cost-effective in discovering prenatal health problems in advance.

If those ultrasounds discover problems for which termination is one medically appropriate option, so be it.
User avatar
Pseudonym
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Affiliation: Liberal Christian

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby NH Baritone » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:08 pm

Pseudonym wrote:I don't live in the United States, so of course I agree that the government should pay for all pregnant women to have ultrasounds. Not all of them, necessarily, but evidence-based medicine suggests that one or two at strategic points are the most cost-effective in discovering prenatal health problems in advance.

If those ultrasounds discover problems for which termination is one medically appropriate option, so be it.

Interesting twist on Michael's intent. I'm certain he wasn't suggesting the government foot the bill for an ultrasound in order to help the woman decide in FAVOR of an abortion.

You and other non-Americans may not understand how this has been put forward in the US. Some state legislatures are trying to force women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, to require the view-screen to be placed in her line of sight and to have the doctor or technician point out the various functioning parts of the fetus (head, limbs, heart, etc.) prior to terminating the pregnancy. It's designed to promote guilt and enhance potential trauma should the woman still carry forth with her plans for an abortion. It's among the most anti-women bills I have ever seen written in the US since the passage of suffrage.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby whoosanightowl » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:12 pm

NH Baritone wrote:
Pseudonym wrote:I don't live in the United States, so of course I agree that the government should pay for all pregnant women to have ultrasounds. Not all of them, necessarily, but evidence-based medicine suggests that one or two at strategic points are the most cost-effective in discovering prenatal health problems in advance.

If those ultrasounds discover problems for which termination is one medically appropriate option, so be it.

Interesting twist on Michael's intent. I'm certain he wasn't suggesting the government foot the bill for an ultrasound in order to help the woman decide in FAVOR of an abortion.

You and other non-Americans may not understand how this has been put forward in the US. Some state legislatures are trying to force women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, to require the view-screen to be placed in her line of sight and to have the doctor or technician point out the various functioning parts of the fetus (head, limbs, heart, etc.) prior to terminating the pregnancy. It's designed to promote guilt and enhance potential trauma should the woman still carry forth with her plans for an abortion. It's among the most anti-women bills I have ever seen written in the US since the passage of suffrage.

NHB,
I don't know how educating women about the truth of the "blob of tissue" they are about to have destroyed is "anti-woman". You are wrong when you say that the majority of women think long and hard before making the decision to abort. In fact most abortions are performed on young women under age 25 who see abortion as their only option to an unplanned pregnancy, and many of them have no idea about the development of the fetus.
Making women aware of the physiological stage of their unborn child may cause them to rethink whether there might be another option available, but what is wrong with that? Do you really think fewer abortions would be a bad thing?! Have you ever heard about the many women who later regret their decision to abort and suffer deep depression for years afterward? A lot of them would have thought twice if they had been better informed in the first place.
Guilt is something most women will experience sooner or later after having an abortion with or without seeing pictures of a fetus beforehand. I'm all for showing women photo's of fetal development prior to them having an abortion, but the government should not be required to pay for ultrasounds---or for abortions.
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby JustJim » Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:42 am

I agree wholeheartedly with Sue here. I think an ultrasound, done by a qualified ultrasound specialist, explained to the woman by a qualified doctor in a non-judgemental way, is a good idea - for the reasons Sue mentioned. My problem is in the original question, which was not whether women should have an ultrasound or not, but whether the government should pay for it. I say they should not.

Note to Mike-45 and others who think Obama wants the government to "own" healthcare: RESEARCH! Obama's plan(s) call for a government option as one choice available to people to opt for as their source of healthcare. In no way does it call for government "ownership" of healthcare. We already have two government-managed options for healthcare in the U.S.: Medicare and Medicaid. If they're reliable indications of how well the government manages healthcare systems, then I doubt many people would opt for more of the same. Would you?

Jim
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, refuses to go away...."
User avatar
JustJim
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:30 am
Location: Ohio - USA
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheist

Re: Abortion and ultrasound

Postby michael-45 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:26 am

by JustJim » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:42 am

I agree wholeheartedly with Sue here. I think an ultrasound, done by a qualified ultrasound specialist, explained to the woman by a qualified doctor in a non-judgemental way, is a good idea - for the reasons Sue mentioned. My problem is in the original question, which was not whether women should have an ultrasound or not, but whether the government should pay for it. I say they should not.

Note to Mike-45 and others who think Obama wants the government to "own" healthcare: RESEARCH! Obama's plan(s) call for a government option as one choice available to people to opt for as their source of healthcare. In no way does it call for government "ownership" of healthcare. We already have two government-managed options for healthcare in the U.S.: Medicare and Medicaid. If they're reliable indications of how well the government manages healthcare systems, then I doubt many people would opt for more of the same. Would you?

Jim
JustJim
Senior member


Jim, Everything the government is involved in ends up costing triple what it should, as you evidently realize from your observation of Medicare and Medicaid. What I believe will happen, if the bill goes through without the proper provisions, is that employers will drop their health coverage. Most employers pay the bulk of your health insurance costs, which is of course, part of the cost of your employment even if they don't reflect it on your paycheck. If I had 100 employees and was paying x amount of dollars per month for their insurance, as part of their job benefits, it's reasonable to say I could up my profit margin by letting the employees use the government coverage. Since the insurance companies are going to lose customers, they are going to have to have a reduction in force, which will just put that many more people on the government. insurance rolls. It'll just snowball. The worst thing about it all though, is that the level of health care will go down, not up. In Canada, the average wait in the emergency room is 24 hours. I hope I don't wind up in an E/R like that if I ever have a heart attack or anything of a serious nature. Most of my post, other than the E/R wait (which I got from a documentary) is just my opinion though. I could be, and hope I am wrong. However, I work for the Federal Government and I know first hand how ridiculous they are with money. The stories about the 900 dollar hammers and such are not hard for me to believe at all, as I have seen things just about as bad. A 12 year old kid is more responsible with money than the United States government.
michael-45
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:08 am
Location: memphis
Affiliation: Christian


Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest