A Sea Of Red

http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... 2120214007

I am as pro-life as anyone here, but I dont see how this will prevent abortions and why does it have to be this type of ultrasound? Really, Virginia?

Yeah that's sorta weird. The less invasive would give you a picture. I think it should be required since the fetus doesn't actually get a vote in the procedure and it would be good for the other decision maker to have the whole picture as it were. But this seems a tad much

Im with you Haize.....

I like the idea of showing the women the child, but this procedure doesnt pass the medical test to me.

I believe this same thing was introduced in NC but the courts overturned it. We will see what happens in VA

Well here's my take. Since pro-abortion people say that it's not killing a human baby, wouldn't you like to know if it was a kangaroo? Or a lion? Or a cat? Since obviously it's not a human life?

In all seriousness, I don't think it will do much good, but I'm all for this in all ways possible. A person who I work with was considering an abortion, and after seeing and feeling the baby, she decided against it. I don't know how many lives it will save, but hopefully it will.

Let's not kid ourselves though. We all know this isn't about medical procedure. It's about showing the woman the life she is about to kill.

jbock,

this isnt about an ultrasound....this is about the probe style ultrasound. You dont have to be probed to have an ultrasound. We all like the idea but VA is going for the Bazooka on the ant

Somewhere Rick Santorum is doing a jig!

I am sure there are plenty of our folks who are loving this bill

jmdickens wrote:I am sure there are plenty of our folks who are loving this bill

I think I saw a pic of the group early today

jmdickens wrote:jbock,

this isnt about an ultrasound....this is about the probe style ultrasound. You dont have to be probed to have an ultrasound. We all like the idea but VA is going for the Bazooka on the ant

I know that politicians are not always the brightest people, but one would have to assume there is a reason behind this.

My wife and I just had our first child and the first "ultrasound" we had was the invasive procedure. According to the doctor, the reason for this was that through the first trimester and early parts of the 2nd, the baby is much too small for the external ultrasound to cut through the body parts to get a clear view of the baby. If a woman is given the option, obviously they choose the non-invasive procedure, which likely won't bring back a result and have the intended effect that was the reason for the bill being passed in the first place.

If you call yourself 'pro-life', how could you not support something like this? Far too often women go in to have these abortion procedures and they trivialize it as though it's a normal procedure to remove some worthless body part such as the appendix or something. At least this will give them some pause and help them to understand that it's not just some 'fetus' in there...

Once the women sees the baby. It would go a long way in decreasing the chances she kills it.

Yeah, I've got 3 kids and they always do that style early in the pregnancy. You know, the time when most people are getting abortions. I don't get why you're so excited to jump all over conservatives. As if no thought went into this and lawmakers are just champing at the bit to have these women be probed.

ummm my wife just had a baby and the first ultrasound had to be done like this.

we only had 1 ultrasound for each kid and it was the standard goopy thingy on the belly method. i assume my wife was poked and prodded during other visits so i'm not sure what the bid dealio is either.

I will claim ignorance on pregnancy ultrasounds. And I will refrain from saying 'if they are pregnant haven't they already been probed' or any other such joke
So I may be unnecessarily appalled by this and will deappall myself!

Purple Haize wrote:I will claim ignorance on pregnancy ultrasounds. And I will refrain from saying 'if they are pregnant haven't they already been probed' or any other such joke
So I may be unnecessarily appalled by this and will deappall myself!

Yeah Haize - it was hard not to laugh listening to Steve Newman talk about the law this morning on 105.9

I'm just going to say I am for any legislation that will reduce the number of abortions.

RubberMallet wrote:we only had 1 ultrasound for each kid and it was the standard goopy thingy on the belly method. i assume my wife was poked and prodded during other visits so i'm not sure what the bid dealio is either.

We had one ultrasound and it was the belly method.

ATrain wrote:I'm just going to say I am for any legislation that will reduce the number of abortions.

I am too. I favor we allow VA to outlaw all abortions. No exceptions. Yes, I am serious

jmdickens wrote:

ATrain wrote:I'm just going to say I am for any legislation that will reduce the number of abortions.

I am too. I favor we all VA to outlaw all abortions. No exceptions. Yes, I am serious

I think there should be exceptions. I'm not sure it's the Government's role to tell a husband he will have let his wife die to have a child. Who by the way will grow up motherless.

Purple Haize wrote:

jmdickens wrote:

ATrain wrote:I'm just going to say I am for any legislation that will reduce the number of abortions.

I am too. I favor we allow VA to outlaw all abortions. No exceptions. Yes, I am serious

I think there should be exceptions. I'm not sure it's the Government's role to tell a husband he will have let his wife die to have a child. Who by the way will grow up motherless.

the government's role is to protect life and liberty....On a personal level I believe in those exceptions, but the states have the constitutional authority to ban abortions in their state bc it is so easy for anyone to go to a neighboring state to have the abortion.

Purple Haize wrote:

jmdickens wrote:

ATrain wrote:I'm just going to say I am for any legislation that will reduce the number of abortions.

I am too. I favor we all VA to outlaw all abortions. No exceptions. Yes, I am serious

I think there should be exceptions. I'm not sure it's the Government's role to tell a husband he will have let his wife die to have a child. Who by the way will grow up motherless.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this, but since my wife works in this arena, she knows more than most. The above argument is one that many abortion proponents use, but almost never is something that happens in reality. Don't trust me... ask a pro. Not taking a stand in opposition to what you say...

Another interesting bill in VA is the "personhood" bill; it is poorly written and in its current form, somewhat invalidates many VA laws.

I agree that it is rare, but that exception allows doctors to perform. Legitimate medical procedure as opposed to an extreme birth control procedure.

Purple Haize wrote:I agree that it is rare, but that exception allows doctors to perform. Legitimate medical procedure as opposed to an extreme birth control procedure.

There are medications used at times, but surgery could be required. Those pregnancies that are in the first trimester usually end up as miscarriages. I just think that it is interesting that abortion proponents care so much about the health of the mother, when on the other hand, they rally for reproductive rights. I did note that one of the leading causes of death in pregnancy is improper/unsanitary abortion procedures. So really, their argument is that it has to be legal or pregnant women will die because they will have an abortion, no matter what.

just one miscarriage turned our neighbors from staunch pro choicers to pro lifers.

Well, they killed the bill.

I hope our civil liberty invading Republicans are happy. They want to dictate how we should live, and then don't even have the nuts to stand up and protect life. Sick. Absolutely sick.