Civil Liberties: On Mandated Transvaginal Ultrasound?

[specsaregood]

No, I'm talking about work to change the legality of abortion period.
Not piling on a bunch of laws to try to get someone to decide not to have one. I don't feel that is government's role.

edited to add: Well, let me ask this, what other instances are there of people being forced by the government to undergo one procedure in order to have another procedure? I'm asking this not snarkily, but honestly, because I really don't know. What can this be compared to? Are there other instances where a procedure is forced on a person, before another procedure is to be performed, for the sole purpose of making that person more informed about the medical choice they're about to make? Does anyone know?

I'd argue that this seems like a reasonable enough compromise concerning a difficult issue.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Arguing over a flawed premise. The government should not be involved in the relationship between your doctor and you. And it certainly has no right to put a gun to everyone's head and steal money to enforce this provision, nor does it have the right to put a gun to our heads again to pay for these procedures.

Government mandates are wrong. I oppose them.

I should note that I believe the question Ron answered was about a Texas bill, and Ron said something like "it always should have been a state issue".

 

[eduardo89]

Arguing over a flawed premise. The government should not be involved in the relationship between your doctor and you. And it certainly has no right to put a gun to everyone's head and steal money to enforce this provision, nor does it have the right to put a gun to our heads again to pay for these procedures.

Government mandates are wrong. I oppose them.

I should note that I believe the question Ron answered was about a Texas bill, and Ron said something like "it always should have been a state issue".

The government does have a mandate to protect life and if this "mandate" saves but one life, I'm fine with it. No one if forcing a woman to get an abortion, if they want to kil their child it should be as excruciatingly difficult and painful (both physically and emotionally) as possible.

Personally I think abortion should be banned outright and there should be the death penalty for all abortion providers.

 

[Massachusetts]

The government does have a mandate to protect life and if this "mandate" saves but one life, I'm fine with it. No one if forcing a woman to get an abortion, if they want to kil their child it should be as excruciatingly difficult and painful (both physically and emotionally) as possible.

Personally I think abortion should be banned outright and there should be the death penalty for all abortion providers.

How righteous of you.

Anyways, if the compromise here is that this a state issue, I'm fine with leaving it to the states.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The government does have a mandate to protect life

death penalty

You should probably square that circle.

Also, you have stated that you agree with abortion if the mother's life is threatened. You're going to need to square that one, too. Can't kill doctors who would perform that, and how are you going to prove that her health wasn't at risk without a massive police force that investigates ALL pregnancies and abortions, as well as laws that decide what is a health risk and what isn't? No chance of corruption or government take over of medicine there. That would also be insanely expensive, and brings it back to my earlier point: you have no right to have someone point a gun in my face and steal money to act on things you wish to have done.

Abortion is never going to be solved by government; the only thing that will happen is more abortions, and greater loss of liberty and wealth.

 

[eduardo89]

The death penalty is completely consistent with a pro-life position. I think some of you should look deeper into the issue before you judge that.

 

[tod evans]

If the feds are out of the equation then any legislation the state adopts should be much closer to the will of the people.

By out of the equation I mean legally and financially.

 

[Massachusetts]

The death penalty is completely consistent with a pro-life position. I think some of you should look deeper into the issue before you judge that.

So you would subject professionally qualified doctors that performed abortions to the death penalty, to protect the life of somebody who has yet to even be born yet. What is the net gain to society?

 

[specsaregood]

So you would subject professionally qualified doctors that performed abortions to the death penalty, to protect the life of somebody who has yet to even be born yet. What is the net gain to society?

Implied in your question is if there is a "net gain for society" then it is somehow acceptable to kill... The life that "has yet to be born" may have been the life that came up with a revolutionary replacement for fossil fuels; and your "professionally qualified doctor" might end up killing somebody in a drunk driving accident years later.

 

[Massachusetts]

Implied in your question is if there is a "net gain for society" then it is somehow acceptable to kill... The life that "has yet to be born" may have been the life that came up with a revolutionary replacement for fossil fuels; and your "professionally qualified doctor" might end up killing somebody in a drunk driving accident years later.

It's not acceptable to kill obviously..but it's acceptable to kill the doctor?

 

[specsaregood]

It's not acceptable to kill obviously..but it's acceptable to kill the doctor?

I didn't say that. You implied that it would be ok if there was a "net gain for society". you straight up said that one life is worth more than another.

 

[Massachusetts]

I didn't say that. You implied that it would be ok if there was a "net gain for society". you straight up said that one life is worth more than another.

I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

 

[specsaregood]

I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

Well I figure he'd say something about "eye for an eye". Personally, I don't think killing is really acceptable in either case; but in this situation the only life that is completely innocent is the fetus.

 

[Wags]

Might I suggest we not get on the topic of abortion? I noticed there are already several existing threads on it. We should focus on the issue of the mandate, and on what Ron Paul's stance on that is. If you want to relate views of abortion to the mandate, I see no problems with that. Just don't derail off if you can help it.

Arguing over a flawed premise. The government should not be involved in the relationship between your doctor and you. And it certainly has no right to put a gun to everyone's head and steal money to enforce this provision, nor does it have the right to put a gun to our heads again to pay for these procedures.

Government mandates are wrong. I oppose them.

I should note that I believe the question Ron answered was about a Texas bill, and Ron said something like "it always should have been a state issue".

Well, here's the quote from washingtonpost so that we're clear:

WEST COLUMBIA, South Carolina — When GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked today about Tuesday’s federal court ruling upholding an aggressive new sonogram law in his home state of Texas, the congressman said the requirement that women seeking an abortion first get a sonogram “should always have been a Texas state position.’’

This is why I have a problem. They never used the word transvaginal to describe the sonogram, and all other sources are derived from the washingtonpost site... and those other sources are a lot more biased than that site, trying to perpetuate an image of someone who is allowing his religious beliefs to override what he'd actually do as president. I know that's definitely not the case. To me, it's difficult to tell what's going on without seeing an actual video of him speaking his views. If we are to believe that he is consistent, then I believe he only meant an abdominal ultrasound should be required. But again, it's difficult to tell. They asked him this question in January, around when Texas and Virginia were deliberating on the transvaginal ultrasound to be required for patients seeking abortions.

So even if legislation on the transvaginal ultrasound is left to the states to deal with... that's still government mandating something invasive, is it not? It's just smaller, localized government. I suppose that's the best way to handle it for now... if the people are upset, they can act to overturn it just as soon. Moral issues are left to the states, but I have a hard time dealing with Ron Paul possibly supporting the mandate in his own state. As I said, it would just pile one crime on another. I don't see it as the proper method to discourage women from killing their unborn children. There are better ways to go about that which don't violate someone else's rights.

 

[specsaregood]

and those other sources are a lot more biased than that site, trying to perpetuate an image of someone who is allowing his religious beliefs to override what he'd actually do as president. I know that's definitely not the case.

I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

 

[eduardo89]

I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

Well I figure he'd say something about "eye for an eye". Personally, I don't think killing is really acceptable in either case; but in this situation the only life that is completely innocent is the fetus.

"eye for an eye" I see as vengeance, which I disapprove of. I do believe in justice, however. I believe that those who premeditatively take an innocent life, as is the case in abortion have lost the right to live. The Bible gives civil authorities (Romans 13) the authority to impose punishment on those who commit evil.

The fact that I believe in the death penalty doesn't mean I take it lightly. I believe in its just and equitable application and, unfortunately, many times that has not been the case. I believe that life is sacred, and that when a person, wantonly and premeditatedly takes the life of another person, they have forfeited their right to continued life. And when they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, they should be executed.

We also are told, in Romans 13:4, that the civil magistrate bears not the sword in vain. In the original Greek language the word used there for “sword” is the same word used for the type of sword used to execute Roman citizens who were found guilty of capital crimes. Clearly, the Apostle Paul, inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, is granting to the civil magistrate the use of lethal force as one of the options available to punish those who do evil--in the case of domestic criminals, the police force, and in war, the military.

Obviously ultimate justice will came after death, but that does not mean imperfect justice should not be doled out on earth.

 

[eduardo89]

I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

That's right.

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

-Ron Paul

 

[Wags]

I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

Let me reword that then. His religious views are not imposing upon his political beliefs, because his political beliefs primarily reflect the constitution. I understand that his beliefs influence his character, but that's not what I was referring to. Whether he believes in evolution or not is irrelevant to what he'd do as president, and you'll never see him pushing his personal beliefs on others. To give a contrast, Santorum wants to ban abortion on the federal level due to his religious beliefs. Though he has to admit that the states deal with moral issues, he is not willing to concede that abortion be handled by the states. He wants a federal ban; states have no say. His religious beliefs would be imposing on his legislation. This is not the same case with Ron Paul.

Straight from the man himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL6CKrIpyTs&feature=related