North Carolina ultrasound abortion law ruled illegal by judge


#1

North Carolina ultrasound abortion law ruled illegal by judge

news.yahoo.com/north-carolina-ultrasound-abortion-law-ruled-illegal-judge-020759448–finance.html


#2

It was a handpicked judge; the first win almost always goes to plaintiffs. If you don’t believe me, read his decision: it’s riddled with pro-abortion motifs. So I’m not exceptionally worried at the moment. But we should still pray that it concludes with a positive decision for the children.


#3

In the immortal words of Ryle S. Laster, “DOPE!” :mad:


#4

Of course informing women that they are actually pregnant with a human being would be illegal. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


#5

I have trouble visualizing any judge finding this law legal. It does violate free speech IMO. Abortion is wrong but not everything that seeks to eradicate/decrease it is right either. What if the government passed a law mandating what a priest must say at Mass, or what a parent must say at the dinner table?


#6

Check this out.


#7

A Texas sonogram law was upheld by an appeals court:

The law requires doctors to show women images from sonograms, play fetal heartbeats aloud and describe the features of fetuses at least 24 hours before abortions. There are exceptions in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity and for women who travel great distances to a doctor.

foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/us-judge-says-cant-block-texas-sonogram-law

How does this differ largely from the North Carolina law?


#8

That’s a really false analogy. Having a medical procedure explained in detail is part of our medical care system. Have you ever had a medical procedure? A surgery? Have you SEEN the kind of disclosure required and permission documents signed for something relatively minor incomparison to opening up a woman’s cervix and extracting a living human fetus?

If the docter were forced to provide religious or political statements…“Do you understand you are killing your own baby…” that would be over the line. But to explain the process, to explain the stage of development of the baby, to explain the potential complications is S.O.P in the medical field. Heck you can’t get a prescription for anti-biotics without a consult from a pharmacist in this state.

It amazes me that pro aborts do NOT want women to have all of the facts prior to THIS procedure but if you want to get a pedicure or tan you have to be apprised of the risks involved…:shrug:

Oh and here is a REAL objection to those NC laws:

North Carolina has some of the country’s toughest requirements for clinics performing abortions, **including a requirement doctors be present when abortions are performed. **

A doctor present? Wow what a concept when performing an invasive and potentially life threatening procedure for the woman (and always fatal for the baby).

I wonder if the pro aborts know how ridiculous they sound

Lisa
PS do not infer YOU are a pro abort


#9

The two aren’t even remotely similar.

We need to remember that a human baby in the womb has the right to live, and that includes the right to be seen and noticed.


#10

Free speech violation? Seriously. If anything informed consent should apply since bottom line this is all about allowing people to deny the reality that they are killing their baby.


#11

I am not as worried of the decision as I am the various comments to the story.


#12

This is what is so interesting to watch. The people who are typically for abortion are for all manner of ‘big government’. Particularly they are for government provided or mandated health care services. They have no problem with the many regulations of the health care business that mandate what a health care provider must do. They have no problem with people of faith being forced by law to purchase insurance that includes abortion coverage. But when it comes to something that might decrease the occurrence of abortion suddenly they are radical libertarians. Being charitable, I view that as being deeply unprincipled.


#13

I don’t disagree that a baby has rights, however, the law limits those rights. Our job is to get those rights respected again - and stepping on the rights of others, IMO, is not the way to do it.

It is possible to have the right to life fully respected simultaneously with other lesser rights not being infringed. I believe this because God would not set us an impossible task, and respecting all rights of all people (born and unborn) is the task of life.


#14

So in preventing a woman from killing her baby we are stepping on her rights? :confused:

I would not presume to outguess God but from my human point of view, the right of the baby to LIVE has precedence over the women who may wish not to be inconvenienced by a pregnancy.

What say you?

Lisa


#15

I don’t see how it is a false analogy at all. The law wants to step in and dictate to a trained professional the nitty-gritty of what to say to a patient. How is that different from dictating the nitty-gritty of any job or role?

The law (and medical ethics) already requires patients to be fully informed of the details of procedures, but no doctor is forced to dictate the ultrasound appearance of a patient’s liver or an MRI of their brain, unless the patient requests it, so I don’t get this special requirement.

We need to be frank here. The attempt is to get women to see the truth about abortion: that it takes an actual life - by forcing the doctor to tell her so. Well, barring some mass eradication of free will, I don’t see a feasible way to make that happen without infringing doctors’ right to free speech and inserting lawmakers as de facto medical practitioners.

People go to hell because they voluntarily reject God - does He force them to accept Him? He warns us of the consequences, He even lets us experience things which should send us running to Him…however, force (short-circuiting our free will) is never an option.


#16

That’s because you’re comparing a human being to an unthinking organ. Maybe you should seriously rethink the paradigm that you apply to these situations, 'cause it’s completely off-base.


#17

I say that as long as the law of the land permits her and the doctor to take that baby’s life, the only choice we have is to convince them against it. Trying to force anyone to do or not do any legal thing against that person’s will, simply will backfire by creating more intransigence - which is exactly what is happening today.


#18

No, I’m comparing similar procedures. The doctor is in the business of offering procedures, no? I’m completely on target.

As I see it right now, the medical profession is in a fight to control the procedures that they do - I don’t really see them engaged in a public debate over the human life of the baby, do you? It’s all about they insisting on doing certain things and some people opposing or supporting them. Perhaps the debate could be about the other patient’s human identity, we would make some progress…


#19

No, you’re just taking the humanity of the baby right out of the picture. Sewing a sweater and cooking a meal are both procedures in a loose sense, but we’re talking about much more specific ideas.

So, you’re completely off-base.


#20

I’m the one taking the humanity of the baby out of the picture? Not the woman and the doctor in the office? :confused:

I’ve learned in life to start with people where they are - not where I want them to be.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.