Comments

  • Let me start off by saying that I am a republican and believe in smaller government. Having said that, when my son was 8 months old and I was 6 weeks pregnant with my daughter, my ex husband walked out on us. I was 20 years old. He wanted me to abort the baby. My response to that was that the baby didn't deserve to die for whatever we were going through. I had several hard years after that with two little ones.
    So my question is this, what exactly is the difference between me deciding to abort her when I was pregnant with her and killing her when she was an infant because my life was so difficult? I see no difference. She had a heartbeat. Killing a person, is killing a person whether in utero or out.
    By the way, she is 17 now and a lovely young lady. I sometimes think about that conversation with my ex husband and what my life would be missing if I had aborted her.

    January 11, 2011 at 8:34 a.m.
  • Here is my rebuke to State Rep. Morrison’s Abortion bill.

    http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...

    January 4, 2011 at 2:32 a.m.
  • Well said Grandpa.....if only people exercised common sense, life would be better for all.

    January 3, 2011 at 4:26 p.m.
  • I agree Jared, and understand what you are saying....life,liberty and pursuit of happiness....my point is when ANYONE starts taking one right away here and another right away there....what will we be left with?

    January 3, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.
  • I think there has been points made here where we each can examine our concience and be advocates for life, truth, and justice. Sometimes our mind lets us say (or print) words that do not reflect what is in our hearts. If we work together for what binds us, instead of arguing, we may be able to find solutions that stops the murdering of the innocent. We were all young at one time of our lives when we thought the world should cater to our youthful expectations. How about we use our experience to help educate our young people of what abortion really is so that they may make better choices before unwanted pregnancy. What are we teaching them when they are told at a very young age that they may end a human life at their own will to fit their "convenience"?

    I do not believe that this problem will be solved by hard and fast laws that forbid or prohibit abortion. I think that there is area for compromise to agree to help educate our young people. The government is stuck in the middle because they have no birth certificate to establish life outside the womb. Even pro-life folks agree that abortion should remain a (legal) option in some extreme circumstances.

    I agree that the responsibility should extend to the father of the unborn child. I believe this is one area that warrants extensive emphasis in helping young men understand the potential hardship and life-threatening results of their actions (to both mother and child). I don't think this means handing out condoms in school, but it does mean allowing them to see the cold, hard truth about what abortion is, and the potential consequences of their actions.

    January 3, 2011 at 7:07 a.m.
  • And speaking of addicted babies, aside from the pain that they endure from birth on, think about how much it costs to care for the, I think it was something to the tune of $250-500K (thousand dollars) per baby.....how many addicts do YOU know that have that kind of money. Who do you think is picking up the tab, Mr. Ialwayscomplainabouttaxes?

    January 2, 2011 at 9:35 p.m.
  • N45, I live in SA, I don't have to watch nationakl news, I read the paper, turn on the morning news, or I hear from friends who work at a hospital about how many CPS cases they have going on at the NICU.

    Express-News recently did a huge write up about babies being born addicted to methadone...there are a large % of them born here.....the numbers surprised me & I'm not living on Fantasy Island like you.

    January 2, 2011 at 9:25 p.m.
  • slart, my infant lived quite fine on her own outside my womb...geez could you imagine carrying a 5 yr old around in your uterus? I'm not a kangaroo......

    January 2, 2011 at 9:21 p.m.
  • victorianbyBIRTH - ...the latter being able to live outside the womb & has sensory developement & emotional developement

    maybe we should extend the abortion age to maybe 4 or 5 yrs old? Because an infant CANNOT live outside the womb on it's own. only at about 4 or 5 could the child walk on it's own to the neighbors to beg for parents that won't murder it.

    i'm ashamed to live in the same city as some of you.

    January 2, 2011 at 8:07 p.m.
  • She must not be that Catholic as there is such a thing as Confession. Confessing & repenting for sins is a common practice in the Catholic Church, if you ask for forgiveness & repent you will be forgiven. It is then up to you to change the wickedness of your ways. Maybe that was too many Hail Mary sandwiches for her to swallow.

    January 2, 2011 at 10:33 a.m.
  • Jared, nobody is claiming it is "good"...there is nothing good about it. What is being argued is that it is an option that should not be taken off the table. Life does begin at conception but there is a huge difference between an embryo, a fetus & an infant....the latter being able to live outside the womb & has sensory developement & emotional developement, whereas an embryo & fetus do not to the same extent. Being that you are a loving father, look at your children & imagine a life for them where they are not wanted & are reminded about that daily, beaten, abused, starved & neglected. Would you want that for them, religious views aside? Would you want your daughter to be sexually abused by a string of moms boyfriends? If you could honestly say that that life would be better than none at all, I would have to wonder how selfish you are. Nothing, IMO, trumps the well being of the child. They don't ask to be born, they shouldn't be forced to suffer for the sins of their fathers & mothers, that is what the abortion debate boils down to to me, punishing the innocent for the sins of the parents.

    January 2, 2011 at 10:25 a.m.
  • About 15 years ago, when I was still living in Houston, I returned to work after a vacation and one of the young single women with whom I worked told me she was pregnant. During the conversation, the subject of abortion came up an she said she couldn't have an abortion because she was catholic and that solution was considered by the church to be a sin. I asked for clarification. I said I wasn't catholic, but my understanding was that the church considered the activity that caused a young single woman to get pregnant to be sinful as well. I asked if that was no longer the case. She said one sin was worse than the other. Since she was the catholic in the conversation, I took her at her word.

    January 2, 2011 at 10:24 a.m.
  • Jared, in the bible disobeying your parents could get you stoned to death. I don't agree with that, honor killings, or Singer. I don't think a sane person would follow his logic.

    January 2, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
  • It's a black and white issue to us, as we are blessed enough to be discussing it on an online forum, instead of with a geneticist or a rape counselor.

    Jared, you are a good example of someone who can discuss different opinions with others in a kind way. If you are like that in real life, you may be the person that someone seeks out if they are in a situation where they need to make the choice. That's where the argument is most effective. How many people are so harsh, that they eliminate themselves as an influence?

    I have known people who have had to make the decision against some terrifying and gut-wrenching odds and I would never judge them.

    January 2, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
  • The argument will always come down to this: does life begin at conception? If life begins at conception, then it is killing an innocent child when it is directly performed. If this is the case, then the action is always wrong regardless of the circumstances surrounding the issue. The personal accountability may be mitigated depending on a number of factors, but the action would never be good.

    If it up to the mother to decide when life begins, then why is birth so important? Why not kill a child post-womb due to health reasons of the child or mother, fatherlessness, gang-activity, etc. This is where I find Peter Singer raising the question. I find him totally wrong, but he asks "If deciding the beginning of is subjectice, then choosing birth as its beginning is arbitrary. If it is arbitrary why not say it is later than birth, dependent on mental stability, or some other circumstances. He in fact teaches this. The last I heard, he still says a parent should be able to kill a child throughout infancy and perhaps even later depending on the child's development. Does this make sense?

    January 2, 2011 at 8:52 a.m.
  • VBB.

    Ouch.....!!!!!!!! "Well, most of his comments are brain abortions". Again Ouch !!!!!!

    January 2, 2011 at 5:03 a.m.
  • LOL....don't beat yourself up...I just noticed in my clarification I wrote barin instead of brain

    January 1, 2011 at 9 p.m.
  • Arrrrrgh! I just noticed that I wrote "You're post..." instead of "Your post". That's the kind of thing that's like fingernails across a blackboard to me and I did it. I do know better and am sorry. I'll try to not let it happen again.

    January 1, 2011 at 8:54 p.m.
  • N4, you dished it out, I'm glad you can take it. Enjoy your game.

    January 1, 2011 at 7:56 p.m.
  • How can you possibly understand a uterus when you converse via an anus?

    January 1, 2011 at 6:59 p.m.
  • When I was in college I was PRO CHOICE. When I found out that I was preggers, I went to one of those clinics. It was while sitting in a counselor's office and hearing her remind me, "You can't raise a baby on your own. You aren't married. You don't have a job. You don't even have a degree." that I decided, "I think I'm going to have a baby." Something about someone reminding me why I shouldn't do something made my mind counter with all the reasons why I should. Now, that's not a story to make a case for any side of the issue, but it is a story to show that hearts and minds aren't always turned in the way we expect. Her arguments had the opposite effect on me. I'm not saying that we should all live in "reverse psychology" mode... maybe I'm saying that we don't always have to try so hard to be an external conscience?

    January 1, 2011 at 6:57 p.m.
  • Exactly Rebecca & he will never be faced with a decision like that because he has a penis instead of a uterus. He can talk a good game because that is all it is to him....it will never be a reality.

    January 1, 2011 at 6:27 p.m.
  • Ok ok, I had a thought (I know, stop the press). I consider myself pro-life, because I've made that choice, but I've never had to make that choice when faced with risking my own life to carry full term. I never had to make the choice with a fear of rejection or raising a baby on my own... Who has really had to make that choice against those odds? Who is really pro-life? Does jumping in and fighting about one side of an issue make you "pro-life?" Or does that make you a fighter? Have you had to choose? or is it just rhetoric to you?

    January 1, 2011 at 6:09 p.m.
  • It's as if, N4, you take your frustrations with society out on people who are just trying to discuss the topic.

    January 1, 2011 at 6:02 p.m.
  • I'm sorry, barin cell abortions....

    January 1, 2011 at 6:02 p.m.
  • So it's okay for the guy to cut & run.....and it would be better for you for people to breed like feral cats & then raise the children in the same fashion? You are a walking contradiction...you moan & groan about all the thugs, gangbangers & irresponsible people on one hand yet you are advocating a society where they would be reproducing willy nilly. I think you hate women & look for any reason to bash us & make us solely responsible for all of the ills of society.

    January 1, 2011 at 5:57 p.m.
  • Well, most of his comments are brain abortions.

    January 1, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.
  • N4, we are having a discussion here, not abortions.

    January 1, 2011 at 5:49 p.m.
  • Oh. I had to scroll back. Darn uterus.

    January 1, 2011 at 5:44 p.m.
  • I dove in last night...you were there silly!

    January 1, 2011 at 5:25 p.m.
  • VBB, good posts! Where were you last night when I was looking for some action? I mean comment action. =P Nothing but the sound of crickets over here. Am I the only one who did NOTHING for the new year?

    January 1, 2011 at 5:10 p.m.
  • Wow, this may be a better year than I hoped for!

    January 1, 2011 at 4:12 p.m.
  • VBB.

    I am beginning to like you.

    January 1, 2011 at 3:47 p.m.
  • N45, what do you have to say about the men who walk away from their responsibility, it happens on a daily basis. Men who father children, abandon them & the mothers & never look back? Men who destroy the lives of children in the blink of an eye, out of sheer convenience? I am not saying that the children of divorce should have been aborted, but you are on this "responsibility" kick, so I'm curious as to your feelings about those men. Throw in the fact that on "womens issues" you are short on tolerance, much less understanding, I'm curious if you hold your fellow men to the same standards you seem to hold us women.

    I am a believer that you judge others by yourself. Lacking experience in a given situation, I will attempt to put myself in the situation to see how I may react. That is why I believe that most women don't make the choice lightly & I do believe the majority believe they are doing the responsible thing. Responsibility is making oneself make the right choice, not the easiest choice. I believe it is "easier" to have the child than not, of course that is my opinion only. It is easier to do nothing than to take action & make difficult choices, not to mention the pain, humilation & guilt associated with abortion. It is a choice the women have to live with for the rest of their lives, who are we to judge?

    January 1, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.
  • Excellent post, VBB.

    January 1, 2011 at 3:32 p.m.
  • N45BA,

    For you to get an idea of the why's and such, medical records would have to be made public. Doctors took the hippocratic oath, so they cannot tell. A patients records are private, so how is anyone going to know?
    Do you want open medical records, or not?

    January 1, 2011 at 3:05 p.m.
  • Victoriabybirth.

    Your comment is the best so far on this.

    January 1, 2011 at 2:51 p.m.
  • VBB...You're post is quite simply the best argument I've EVER read on this painful subject.

    January 1, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
  • N45, I would venture to guess that many women who are seeking this service have thought long & hard, weighed all the options, etc before deciding this is their only choice. I like how you are blaming women fully for all abortions & think we are all so selfish. It takes a male, won't say man since there is a difference, to impregnate a female......I seriously doubt many abortions are performed on happy couples who are in long term committed relationships or where there is happy dad in the waiting room. The only 100% effective birth control is abstinance....barring that, all birth control fails. Unfortunately, many in this day & age are still participating in risky behavior & having unprotected sex. You are screaming about responsibility, etc...yet these people are NOT being responsible, so then in turn you want these irresponsible people who are leading promiscuous, high risk lifestyles to raise children they didn't want? Why? So they can raise MORE irresponsible high risk people to continue on the same irresponsible path? That is asssuming they don't beat, abandon, kill the children in the process. Because YOU think it is wrong, immoral, etc you would expose an innocent baby to all that is WRONG in this world? To me, that thought process is immoral & selfish. I wish that all babies brought into this world were wanted & loved, unfortunately that is not reality. I believe that it is more humane to end the life before it begins than to have a child raised in a home of abuse & neglect. That is a nightnmare that never ends & will most likely repeat itself in future generations. Bottom line is though, it is a choice a woman has to make, it is between her & her God, her conscience, the father of the child (if he's still around) because ultimately the child will be HER responsibility.

    You say my uterUs has affected my judgement....I say your lack of a uterus has affected your compassion & your ability to empathize with the plight of others. I will take my ovaries over your testicles any day.

    January 1, 2011 at 2 p.m.
  • N45BA,
    I think Rebecca and VBB's point is that no one else can judge why a woman is seeking a abortion. That is between her, her doctor, and God.
    It could be medical-related, rape, mental issues, or any number of other reasons. Medical records are private and not subject to scrutiny by anyone else. Unless, you are advocating that a womans medical records be open to the public? That would open up a whole new can of worms.

    January 1, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
  • "Lets take it back to the source - I hope this paves the way for a law that requires every male to be shown pictures of dead and discarded spermatozoa prior to masturbation"

    You have to add oral sex and gay sex to that list too

    January 1, 2011 at 11 a.m.
  • Lets take it back to the source - I hope this paves the way for a law that requires every male to be shown pictures of dead and discarded spermatozoa prior to masturbation.

    Remember, as Monty Python told us, every sperm is sacred.

    January 1, 2011 at 10:52 a.m.
  • "I'm sad to hear your uteris has blocked you from being able to tell right from wrong. Pity!"

    When a male shares an opinion on this issue, an opinion that you assume opposes your own, what do you blame as blocking their ability to tell "right from wrong?" or do you not argue with males?

    January 1, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
  • Maybe attached to this bill, should be a bill that forces every man that had sex with a woman to have a DNA test to determine who gets stuck with the child support, or who has to step up and take the child once the mother has a baby that she didn't want. Lets put some of the responsibility back in the court of the other half of this equasion.

    January 1, 2011 at 10:11 a.m.
  • How about leaving it an issue between a woman and her doctor.

    January 1, 2011 at 10:07 a.m.
  • N45BA...Uhhh, I don't HAVE a "uteris" to affect my judgement in any way.

    I would suggest that the number of abortion havers who raise gang members is relatively low. They were responsible enough to know they didn't want a child at that particular time.

    What SCOTUS got wrong was making abortion federal. They should have left it to the individual states. Other than that...

    January 1, 2011 at 10:04 a.m.
  • I don't think it has to be explained that the act of unprotected sex (male-female) is an acknowledged and physically natural way to initiate a growing human life. The act, that is followed by conception represents the choice that was made (although some may consider such an event as an accident).

    Initiating that human life should come with responsibility in protecting that life, not allowing it to be snuffed out or "yanked out" like if the child were just an inconvenient or intrusive mass of tissue attached to a woman's body. In this sense, I can relate to the intent of providing every opportunity for a pregnant mother who is considering abortion to fully conciously and emotionally understand that their decision to abort is the taking of a human life. Different terms are often used to soften or justify a reason or reasons for doing so, but the physical results of the abortion are evident, in that a life is being ended.

    I have tried to view abortion from the angle others do, as expressed in this forum, but I cannot help but to see it as a moral, ethical, and yes, legal issue. We rely on laws and the justice system to protect the innocent. In this case the innocent is a living child, inside the child's mother. not a predetermined gang member, or predetermined wart of society.

    God help us when we as a society accept the murder of an innocent child, yet to be born, as a simple choice of anyone. We all make choices in lfe that lead to consequences. It is up to each of us to accept how we will be held accountable, in this life or in the next.

    January 1, 2011 at 1:11 a.m.
  • Cheers Rebecca...Happy New Year to you & your uterus!

    January 1, 2011 at 12:26 a.m.
  • Mazel Tov, VBB. You were the first person to post a comment in the year 2011!!! And you have a UTERUS. ;) ;)

    January 1, 2011 at 12:16 a.m.
  • Unwanted children are often abused, neglected & murdered by their parents.......I do believe that fate is far worse. I am female, I am a conservative, I have given birth and I still do not think the option to choose should be taken off the table. I will restate that 9 out of 10 women are smart enough to know what they are doing & why. I can't imagine it is an easy decision to make, FORCING them to view a sonogram & listen to the heartbeat, IMO, is cruel. It is NOBODYS business except the woman & the man, if he even cares. Unless you have a uterus, your opinion on this issue matters very little to me.

    January 1, 2011 at 12:05 a.m.
  • It seems strange that you men are arguing about something you will never have to experience.

    December 31, 2010 at 7:21 p.m.
  • What I have to say is there is a vast difference between the genocide of Hitler's nazi Germany against the Jewish people and abortion. If you can't see that, then there's no hope of having a discussion.

    About once or twice a month lately, there have been horror stories about gangs in the area and the grief they cause with their aggrevated assaults and murders. I would say to you that society would be far better off today if those little misunderstood darlin's had been aborted rather than brought to term and allowed to grow up to commit their mayhem. I don't particularly mind when it's someone from gang A taking out someone from gang B, but all too often, they take out the innocent -- a store clerk or someone who just happened to be in the path of a bullet that missed it's intended target. We've all heard and read that some of the gang's initiations include committing felony crimes. These misunderstood little darlin's who were spawned so somebody could prove the equipment works, are beyond redemption. They are ruined from about the time they learned to talk. The prisons are full of them and it is we taxpayers who bear the burden of feeding and clothing these thugs. Yeah, an abortion when their mommas were about six weeks gone would have been a good thing for society.

    Now, before you say it, let me say that of course not all abortions prevent gang members, but if the mother doesn't want a child to the extent that she will abort it, there's probably not much hope for a warm, loving successful home life in the kid's future.

    December 31, 2010 at 6:41 p.m.
  • adoption has everything to do with this discussion. the availablity of abortions to women who want them is the underlying theme. adoption is one option that the pro-life side often use as a way to say that abortion can be avoided.

    so, i ask, how many orphans are you currently taking care of? i love my daughter and can't imagine my life without her. however, i can also be sympathetic to women who choose abortion.

    using a holocaust survior in a discussion about abortion is sad. you're exploiting a genocide to further a cause that is totally unrelated. people don't choose abortion because they hate the idea of a child living.

    December 31, 2010 at 6:24 p.m.
  • @holein1, I don't know what adoption has to do with this discussion. I thought the article was about sonograms for women before they have an abortion. Can you tell me what adoption has to do with it?

    December 31, 2010 at 4:40 p.m.
  • It would be better for people to stop saying things than to have these things attributed to their names. Being unwanted is apparently an offense worth a death sentence. It's appalling that you don't even pretend to argue that they're not human til they're born. You openly acknowledge that they are just unwanted kids.

    December 31, 2010 at 4:37 p.m.
  • Miriam Kor, a twin who survived the worst of the holocaust had this to say - "No matter how difficult your lives are, they could not be as difficult as mine was. I didn't give up and I don't want you to give up. Not on yourself and not on your dreams because if you do not give up on yourself and your dreams everything good in life is possible"

    Waywardwind and Will, what do you have to say about this? Why don't we round up all the unwanted kids and "yank em out"? How about you two personally end these lives that are such an inconvenient drain on society. There are some kids I know living in a hotel here in Victoria you can start with. I'm fairly certain they are likely to drop out of school, rob a gas station, go to jail, or GOD FORBID BE UNWANTED!

    I am so sickened by the idea

    December 31, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.
  • The line to adopt the unwanted children starts over there. Right behind Slart and their broken heart.

    Slart, please share with us the blessed stories you have about the untold number of adopted and foster children that you have helped over the years. I'm sure it is very, very long.

    December 31, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
  • Will, I hope you meet a miracle survivor of the holocaust you so heartlessly speak of. You are saying that people that do those things don't deserve to live. The fact that survivors of the Nazi holocaust were happy to be alive afterwards invalidates every mocking sob story about a life worse than being murdered in the womb. I don't have an ounce of concern for being a REAL REPUBLICAN. And your heart is black. To be able to use the term "yank em out" in reference to a human being is utter blackness. The simple fact is if abortion didn't happen, there is a chance (however slim EVEN .01%) that that child could love and be loved. I am sickened and appalled beyond words by this. I fully believe you could look into a child's eyes and take it's life. Abortion, especially with a sonogram, is only a small step away. I am heartbroken for the unborn children.

    December 31, 2010 at 4:04 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    December 31, 2010 at 3:56 p.m.
  • I wonder how many children Geanie, Dan Patrick or any of those DBs who hang out on the corner with their awesome signs, have adopted over the years? How about you Jarod? How many have you taken in?

    I don't know which is funnier, the fact that they are claiming that it's really about making sure the women are informed of the risks or the claim that this is a priority issue.

    I agree that the wording is confusing, "mandatory for women to be given the choice to see the sonogram." Some women are not being allowed to view the sonogram if they want to? I doubt it.

    I wish the Republican party would just tell the Christian Coalition to take a hike. Agreed that it goes against the conservative message of small government and keep government out of our lives. Funny how that works.

    December 31, 2010 at 3:53 p.m.
  • The right to life is the first right, all other rights come from this right of personhood.

    December 31, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
  • We all live in a country with so many freedoms...freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc etc...The problem that I have with government stepping in and banning abortion or setting requirements for abortion is the fact that someone is TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS!! Many Americans have died for our rights to live as we wish...so why do we keep letting the government determine what is morally correct or incorrect? Personally--I do not agree with abortion unless it puts a mother or baby's health at risk, but who am I to impose my beliefs on anyone else? Ethically? I am not perfect so I do not have the right to preach to someone what they should or shouldn't do and I am not God so I dont have the right to limit someone else's rights. God has given us free will to make our own decisions...everyone will have to deal with the decisions they make...but why should I or anyone else have the right to take away someone else's rights? Also, mandatory sonograms sounds ridiculous in itself (to me)---really, what purpose does it serve?? By the time an embryo is formed enough to tell its a baby, then the abortion really IS taking that life ...since most people have abortions before the baby is even formed enough to see the baby, I believe the sonogram is a waste of time and money. What good is a sonogram really going to do? Are they expecting a life changing moment when a woman sees a pea-size dot on a screen? To me, when all there is a pea-sized dot--it would be at this point that an abortion would be most acceptable...not that I agree with abortion because there are many people out there who would LOVE to have babies but cant...but as I previously said its not my choice and its NOT YOURS either. I dont feel like its my place to limit or take away someone elses freedoms...just saying.

    December 31, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.
  • Will...I agree. Kids should be born to people who both WANT them AND can care for them properly. Abortion is not a good form of birth control, but, if birth control wasn't used or failed and an unwanted pregnancy results, abortion should remain a viable solution for the woman. The state of Texas should keep its' nose out of a woman's womb.

    December 31, 2010 at noon
  • Maybe YOUR GOD will help you. I do not beleive in the opiate of the masses. Yank 'em out before they are born unwanted, drop out of school, rob a gas station and burden the taxpayer's for 50 years of jail TIME. A REAL REPUBLICAN beleives in a smaller, less intrusive public servants, Not those that play the emotion card. This is a grab for headlines and sympathy.

    December 31, 2010 at 11:18 a.m.
  • I find it ironic that there are 2 commentors whose alias directly references the fact that someone didn't decide to terminate their life before they were born. Victorianbybirth and born2bBem, as all of us who were born, are fortunate that we weren't concieved in a time when this particular choice was so 'protected'. I am deeply saddened to think of the amazing people that could have been in this world. And even more saddened to think that now they may be viewed by a sonogram before being snuffed out. God help us.

    December 31, 2010 at 9:24 a.m.
  • I'm glad to see that the women will be given a choice to view the sonogram. At least I think that's what I read.
    "Sonograms are already being done, but the legislation makes it mandatory for women to be given the choice to see the sonogram."
    It sounds confusing to me,though. Mandatory choice sounds strange. But the most important thing is that women still have a choice.
    Patrick Barnes

    December 31, 2010 at 7:01 a.m.
  • I fully support this type of legislation. Unborn children should be given the same protections that a born one has. The only difference between the unborn and born is a change in address. I do think this deals with morals and so do laws against murder, stealing, prostitution, etc.

    December 31, 2010 at 6:17 a.m.
  • Next will be a forced taste test. Perhaps a forced shock test. And if your lucky, required to jump up and down 50 times.

    December 31, 2010 at 5:17 a.m.
  • I believe any person looking for that service is very well aware of what the sonogram will show.....these politicians are looking for the knee jerk emotional reaction.....that is not their place. Is Ms. Morrison willing to personally foot the bill for these sonograms? Last I heard, Texas is broke, why are we digging the hole deeper?

    Children are a blessing, not everyone deserves to be blessed.

    December 30, 2010 at 10:31 p.m.
  • Riverboat..."If a sonogram is a waste of time, then so are X-rays and MRIs."

    Uhhh, no. X-rays and MRIs are diagnostic tools used to determine the problem. In this case, we already know the problem. The problem is the woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be for whatever reason and that reason is hers -- and the government should have no say in the matter.

    Born2Bme...There's no difference and the government shouldn't be involved in either case.

    December 30, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.
  • and how is this different that what Palin referred to as "death panels"?
    Mandatory consultation with a doctor who has to "explain" things concerning a pregnancy as apposed to consultation with a doctor over choices of your last wishes.
    Where one was called intrusion, this is not?

    December 30, 2010 at 4:59 p.m.
  • What a waste of Time. I thought these people were for less government and waste. There is no such thing as a free sonogram. Someone has to bear the cost. So someone has to make two trips to the Doctor's office.
    Ms. Morrison is not a very honest when she talks about being
    conservitive. She need not talk about morals as she was not elected to decide mine.

    December 30, 2010 at 1:33 p.m.