Home » Pro: New sonogram bill empowers women » Unverified Comments

Comments

  • Maybe the women should realise that when they chose to live a sexualy, irresponsible & permiscues life style they then must accept the fact that they have already excercised there rights & choices & must now submit to other authorities because other life forms are now in harms way due to the bad decisions of both the father & mother.

    Again whats the ansere??? A WEDDING RING

    June 20, 2011 at 6:23 p.m.
  • Put. Think about this in a different light. It applies only to women. It is done without any crime having been commited. It has nothing to do with a trial or a job termination. It has everything to do with a woman's right to decide what may and may not be done to HER body. Why didn't they make the law apply to ALL women with an unborn baby?

    June 20, 2011 at 1:14 p.m.
  • Since the act of being pregnant can be dangerous, or even deathly, to some women, why should a woman be required to carry a fetus that could kill her?
    Granted, the dangers are small compared to the magnitude of women getting pregnant, but the mortality rate is nothing to close one's eyes to.
    Now, take women who truly do not want to give birth. Is there a law on the books that forces them to get prenatal care, eat right, abstain from smoking and drinking, or taking drugs?
    Basically, this new law requires something that could put the health and mental health of many innocent children born to mothers that did not want them, didn't care enough about them to get prenatal care, and to do what was necessary to make sure they had a healthy baby, up to fate.
    Who exactly wins here?

    June 20, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.
  • vet, body rights are given up to the state all the time... drug testing...court ordered dna test and the like

    June 20, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.
  • yes consider the act done between 2 consenting adults....and of course the man cannot carry the child... however that leads to possibility #2.......if child was made in a test tube.......and before implantation... the father says no but the mother wants the zygote implanted.... who desides?

    June 20, 2011 at 12:10 p.m.
  • The key word here is "requires" ( meaning "forces") a woman to have a sonogram. I honestly cannot for an instant believe that any one is really Pro-Abortion. But there is so much wrong with a law that removes a persons right to their body and gives it to the state.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:49 a.m.
  • Put, was the act that caused the pregnancy between two consenting adults? AND is the man carrying the child?

    June 20, 2011 at 11:48 a.m.
  • ok playing the devils advocate I pose this question.... if a woman has the right to chose whether she has a child or not.....since biologically the child is half the fathers.....does the father have the right to terminate the said pregnancy? After all half the DNA does belong to the father.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:34 a.m.
  • kyle,
    what other reason for not wanting to hear? Its called disassociation to the whole process. There should be some guilt for ending a life.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 a.m.
  • And...every woman should be able to make her own decisions when it comes to her body - nobody else owns it - maybe men's bodies need to become a political issue too - um...what could we do here? Are Patrick or Morrison going to take care of these children - it is an anti-abortion billl - should women resort to having their own abortions? These so-called politicians seem so far-removed from reality - they are ignorant men/women passing so-called bills - and a woman so ignorant she can't even get it straight on what university should exist in Victoria - she's dumb, period. Who elected her?

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 a.m.
  • What's to stop the woman from wearing earplugs and/or closing her eyes.
    Is there language in the bill to stop a woman from doing that?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 a.m.
  • Jason, if he's like me, he will wear the patches AND chew the gum while posting. =P

    June 20, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
  • "Killing without having to feel guilt."

    Candidate for most clueless opinion of the day thus far.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.
  • How is hearing the heart beat such a bad thing? They know they are taking a life.....what could it hurt? Their feelings? Come on then you have to really get to the core of the issue....Killing without having to feel guilt.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:45 a.m.
  • Hang in there Kyle, I think they are coming out with a patch to help control the urge to post an opinion.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.
  • @putGodfirst...yes a "sonogram CAN be performed without the needle placement in the vagina" HOWEVER if it is early in the pregnancy they are not effective and you are unable to see/hear anything so a vaginal sonogram is necessary.

    @VISDMom I could not agree with you more.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:33 a.m.
  • I agree, mom.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:24 a.m.
  • This is such a dividing topic, not just among the citizens of Victoria, but among the nation.

    I would consider myself a conservative by nature and by voting; however, it most certainly is not my place to tell any woman she should or should not get an abortion. Those against abortion make an automatic assumption that the woman has made the decision lightly, with no thought to the consequences or that she is actually carrying a child. While that may very well be in a minority of cases, I would venture a guess that the majority of cases it is done with a great deal of thought and agony over the decision.

    This bill stands right up there with the disgusting billboards showing an aborted fetus that periodically show up on the side of the road. Once a woman's physician or clinic of choice has given her ALL the information necessary (and I do mean all), then it is her decision. If, as many people feel, it goes against Christianity, then that is between the woman and her Maker. Not between the woman, her Maker, the state and national government, and everyone else who may have a prurient interest in what she is doing.

    I would not choose to have an abortion; however, FORCING a woman to have a sonogram for the sole purpose of forcing her to hear the heartbeat of a child is reprehensible. It is my opinion that abortion will continue to be legal. It cannot be legislated by government, except for disallowing partial-birth abortions (which should have never been allowed in the first place), and disallowing tax dollars to fund them.

    It is time that politicians get down to the business of actually running this state and this country, and stop all of this catering to special interest groups, regardless of the special interest involved. Our government is responsible for keeping the state and nation safe and solvent, neither of which is being done. Solve those problems and many of the other so-called societal ills will self-correct.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:12 a.m.
  • ...Trying...to...resist....

    June 20, 2011 at 8:44 a.m.
  • sonograms can be performed without the needle placement in the vagina.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:03 a.m.
  • EA, I do think it is presumptuous to think every woman knows who is growing and developing inside a woman's womb. I worked for a crisis pregnancy center a couple of years ago and this was the case. Remember, a few 40 years ago, women were told it is "just a clump of cells" which has been proved contrary by medicine. We as a culture treat pregnancy as a disease rather than something as the transmission of new life and a new person.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:52 a.m.
  • So you have no problem with some person inserting an object into a woman's vagina, probably against her will? That is the definition of sexual assault. So I can figure that you're okay with sexual assault.

    No doubt there are many women who have second thoughts about the abortion they've had, but to assume that this bill is going to lessen that is ridiculous, foolish and faulty.

    But--I'm done. Maryann, Kyle and the usual cast of characters on this topic will be here soon. I'm going to work.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:47 a.m.
  • EdithAnn,
    you say: "Republican men have a long history of difficulty staying out of vaginas that don't belong to them, and this is nothing more than another attempt at government intrusion into the area of the doctor-patient relationship. "

    I am a republican, but do not force my beliefs on anyone. If anything it is the liberal men and women for that fact that wants to regulate peoples lives. I point you to health care bill etc. I think anytime anyone wants to terminate any lives, they need to see the full scope of what they are doing. If a woman has her mind completely made up she will abort the child anyway. If she doesnt , well it gives her a moment to reflect on the gravity of what she is doing. Regret is a horrible thing to live with. I know plenty of women that have regretted their decission to exercize their "right" to terminate a life.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:36 a.m.
  • Advocate, your picture and information are misleading--it is a transvaginal sonogram or ultrasound which is where a PROBE is inserted into the woman's vagina. You show a different type, and you don't mention that it is transvaginal.

    This bill provides no new information for the woman. Do you think she doesn't know what she doing? Do you think she doesn't know it's a baby?

    Republican men have a long history of difficulty staying out of vaginas that don't belong to them, and this is nothing more than another attempt at government intrusion into the area of the doctor-patient relationship.

    Get out and stay out!

    June 20, 2011 at 7:21 a.m.
  • Empowers women?
    By what
    Stealing the rights to their body away
    ThIs bill is so anti abortion biased it's not funny
    Where is the money to pay the sonogram staff for every abortion in Texas coming from?

    June 20, 2011 at 7:05 a.m.
  • Anything that may save innocent lives is a good thing.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:01 a.m.