Law Requires Ultrasound Before Abortion

If women have to pay for ultrasounds and abortions, I wonder how many of them will lie about the cause of their pregnancy to avoid paying for the ultra-sound and the impact of this.
 
netrox said:
Actually, it was about how we're forcing women to look at ultrasounds when they don't want to see them and some self righteous people think that they deserve the punishment, just like they do with STD's because they morally don't approve sex.
Click to expand...
Where does the Florida law require the women to look at the ultrasounds?

Isn't it good medical practice to use an ultrasound before performing an abortion to determine which stage of pregnancy the woman is in?
 
How about a law requiring men to account for each an every sperm? A registry for sperm deposits. Let's include masturbation deposits. Let's add a requirement that men must look at the little boogers swimming before a vascectomy.
 
DeafCaroline said:
If women have to pay for ultrasounds and abortions, I wonder how many of them will lie about the cause of their pregnancy to avoid paying for the ultra-sound and the impact of this.
Click to expand...


Ultrasounds are already included in your abortion. A doctor would not perform an abortion without staging the pregnancy visually and confirming that it is not a tubal pregnancy.

This law has nooothing to do with actually ensuring the health of women, and everything to do with showboating.
 
Reba said:
Where does the Florida law require the women to look at the ultrasounds?

Isn't it good medical practice to use an ultrasound before performing an abortion to determine which stage of pregnancy the woman is in?
Click to expand...

No, they are required to SHOW patients the fetus.
 
So ultrasounds were already included in the cost of an abortion but now they want women to pay more for it by making it seem like an additional expense?
 
DeafCaroline said:
So ultrasounds were already included in the cost of an abortion but now they want women to pay more for it by making it seem like an additional expense?
Click to expand...

No. ultrasounds were already includinged and will remain the same price. The law is about implying to the general public that abortion providers would otherwise not perform ultrasounds on women, or would attempt to hide the images from women.

It is strictly propaganda. Women already get ultrasounds and can see them if they wish, and that isn't changed by the law. The law is just out to make abortion providers appear like amoral inferior doctors that need to be legally pulled into "showing women their babies" so they can "make informed decisions". 100% propaganda.
 
DeafCaroline said:
One gets HIV virus from an AIDS-infected person, not AIDS.
Click to expand...

I actually did not know this until this thread brought up the difference between AIDS and HIV. What I was taught in sex-ed basically implied that AIDS was just a special, ultra-bad version of HIV. So, TIL.
 
Aleser said:
No. ultrasounds were already includinged and will remain the same price. The law is about implying to the general public that abortion providers would otherwise not perform ultrasounds on women, or would attempt to hide the images from women.

It is strictly propaganda. Women already get ultrasounds and can see them if they wish, and that isn't changed by the law. The law is just out to make abortion providers appear like amoral inferior doctors that need to be legally pulled into "showing women their babies" so they can "make informed decisions". 100% propaganda.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying...and you're right, it's propaganda and a guilt-induced scare tactic. There's a clinic in my town which is just gruesome - women have to witness the process of their abortion. Watch things get sucked through tubes and deposited into clear glass canisters. hear the sound of the vacuuming, deal with doctors roughly inserting objects inside them, nurses unsympathetic and cold. I've heard that some women have had to had these little sticks inserted horizontally to open up their insides and the doctors were very rough with this. It almost sounds like a throwback to the back alley days. All women aware of this clinic warn everyone else against it because it's just horrifying. Did it have an impact on the rate of abortions? No.
 
StSapphire said:
I actually did not know this until this thread brought up the difference between AIDS and HIV. What I was taught in sex-ed basically implied that AIDS was just a special, ultra-bad version of HIV. So, TIL.
Click to expand...

HIV infection leads to AIDS in all cases, even in long term non-progressors now that we uncovered evidence that even those who are termed non-progressors (less than 1%) eventually start to show signs of AIDS. HIV always win.

Everyone progresses differently... some progressed immediately, even just a month after HIV infection while others go for two decades without ever needing medications.

I think that people who downplay the dangers of HIV and saying it's no longer a death sentence are deluding themselves - HIV is a death sentence - even with medications, you will likely die of complications due to having HIV, if not AIDS. HIV medications accelerate aging by as much as 20 years. HIV is STILL a death sentence, it's just that it's being delayed. The cure is still far away but there's no question that the treatments will become less toxic and more manageable than ever.
 
Aleser said:
No. ultrasounds were already includinged and will remain the same price. The law is about implying to the general public that abortion providers would otherwise not perform ultrasounds on women, or would attempt to hide the images from women.

It is strictly propaganda. Women already get ultrasounds and can see them if they wish, and that isn't changed by the law. The law is just out to make abortion providers appear like amoral inferior doctors that need to be legally pulled into "showing women their babies" so they can "make informed decisions". 100% propaganda.
Click to expand...
The original stated:

"Most abortions already include an ultrasound, but Weber said many of the women she helps aren't allowed to see it."
 
netrox said:
HIV infection leads to AIDS in all cases, even in long term non-progressors now that we uncovered evidence that even those who are termed non-progressors (less than 1%) eventually start to show signs of AIDS. HIV always win.

Everyone progresses differently... some progressed immediately, even just a month after HIV infection while others go for two decades without ever needing medications.

I think that people who downplay the dangers of HIV and saying it's no longer a death sentence are deluding themselves - HIV is a death sentence - even with medications, you will likely die of complications due to having HIV, if not AIDS. HIV medications accelerate aging by as much as 20 years. HIV is STILL a death sentence, it's just that it's being delayed. The cure is still far away but there's no question that the treatments will become less toxic and more manageable than ever.
Click to expand...

You're kind of off the mark here, though. HIV is still probably greatly life shortening for people who contracted it in the past, but we have absolutely no idea how long people diagnosed tomorrow or two years from now will live. Given the fact that HIV survival has literally skyrocketed in the decade and a half we've had real treatments for HIV, it is certainly possible that people diagnosed tomorrow will largely never progress to having AIDS at all.

Long term projections about survival (like saying HIV is still a killer, or saying it isn't for that matter) really cannot be made because we do not have long term data about HIV patients on newer treatments.
 
Reba said:
The original stated:

"Most abortions already include an ultrasound, but Weber said many of the women she helps aren't allowed to see it."
Click to expand...

Weber is part of a pro-life propaganda service which will of course attempt to smear the name of abortion providers and act as though women are refused access to their ultrasound pics.

That is not, however, the -actual reality-.
 
Aleser said:
Weber is part of a pro-life propaganda service which will of course attempt to smear the name of abortion providers and act as though women are refused access to their ultrasound pics.

That is not, however, the -actual reality-.
Click to expand...
Please show me the proof of what you call the reality.
 
Aleser said:
You're kind of off the mark here, though. HIV is still probably greatly life shortening for people who contracted it in the past, but we have absolutely no idea how long people diagnosed tomorrow or two years from now will live. Given the fact that HIV survival has literally skyrocketed in the decade and a half we've had real treatments for HIV, it is certainly possible that people diagnosed tomorrow will largely never progress to having AIDS at all.
Click to expand...

HIV, assuming that the person does not take meds or have premature death not related to HIV (cancer, accidents, suicide, etc), will lead to AIDS.

Even with HAART, a lot of people died of complications due to HAART toxic side effects. It also accelerates aging by as much as 20 years.

Everyone should take HAART no matter what because if they don't take HAART, they will end up having AIDS. Taking HAART reduces the risk of developing AIDS significantly and prolongs life by more than a decade but after that, deaths usually result from toxic side effects of HAART.

"“We believe that these HIV drugs accelerate the rate at which these errors build up,” Payne told the website ScienceDaily. “So over the space of, say, 10 years, a person’s mitochondrial DNA may have accumulated the same amount of errors as a person who has naturally aged 20 or 30 years.”"

AIDSmeds - Top Stories : Older HIV Drugs Accelerated Aging Effects in Muscle Cells

I've seen HIV+ people that look pretty old for their age.

More than half of HIV+ in their 50's have symptoms usually found in 80's.

Accelerated Aging Tied to HIV/AIDS - Middle-aged sufferers have symptoms of HIV-negative 80-year-olds

I did end saying that newer drugs may be less toxic and more managable than ever but it's still going to kill them prematurely.
 
Mrs Bucket said:
Wirelessly posted



Sorry to say this- the day you are able to naturally conceive and carry a child to full term which is 40 weeks, that's the day you can form an opinion about how wrong it is for women to have abortions. You are a man. You will not be able to experience the shock of an unwanted pregnancy, the pain of an abortion procedure and suffer the loss of an infant from a decision to have an abortion. Short to say, some men need to zip it up. Up here and down there.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Back
Top