Wisconsin lawmakers approve bill requ...

Wisconsin lawmakers approve bill requiring ultrasound before abortion

There are 174 comments on the Fox News story from Jun 14, 2013, titled Wisconsin lawmakers approve bill requiring ultrasound before abortion. In it, Fox News reports that:

The state Assembly has approved a Republican bill that would require women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound of the fetus.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

zef

Los Angeles, CA

#111 Jun 28, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Motherhood IS an option, zeffy, which any woman can REJECT if she decides she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves.
A woman who DOESN'T want to be a mother, EVER, can do her best to prevent the unwanted outcome of pregnancy by using reliable contraception regularly, or she can have a tubal ligation done. Of course, having a tubal done depends on a doctor who is willing to do the procedure. Many doctors aren't, even when a woman has asked the doctor more than once to perform it.
In any case, if a woman has no children and has had an abortion to terminate a pregnancy, she is NOT a mother, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required.
Motherhood is a state of being. Motherhood is not an option. Motherhood is never any ones decision. An individual either is a mother or isn't. There is no choice in the matter. Choosing to kill a baby with an abortion has nothing to do with who is or isn't a mother. A mother that kills her baby with an abortion is simply the mother of a dead baby.
Broseph

Newark, DE

#112 Jun 28, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Motherhood is a state of being. Motherhood is not an option. Motherhood is never any ones decision. An individual either is a mother or isn't. There is no choice in the matter. Choosing to kill a baby with an abortion has nothing to do with who is or isn't a mother. A mother that kills her baby with an abortion is simply the mother of a dead baby.
Are you against a woman's right to choose regardless of her condition?
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#113 Jun 28, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you against a woman's right to choose regardless of her condition?
I am not sure what you mean by that. However, I am against misandry, which seems to be the only indication of your question.
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces. To say one is pro-choice or anti-choice, or has the right to choose etc. makes absolutely no sense. For how can one be for, or against, or have the right to something that is impossible to control? Simply put, one cannot. Only the actions or options that we choose can be controlled, the choices themselves cannot be controlled. The English term 'mental process' means (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents. A theory of ironic processes of mental control is proposed to account for the intentional and counter intentional effects that result from efforts at self-control of mental states. The theory holds that an attempt to control the mind introduces two processes: an operating process that promotes the intended change by searching for mental contents consistent with the intended state and a monitoring process that tests whether the operating process is needed by searching for mental contents inconsistent with the intended state. The operating process requires greater cognitive capacity and normally has more pronounced cognitive effects than the monitoring process, and the two working together thus promote whatever degree of mental control is enjoyed. Under conditions that reduce capacity, however, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and thus enhance the person's sensitivity to mental contents that are the ironic opposite of those that are intended. The phenomenon has been identified through thought suppression studies in experimental psychology. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues first studied thought suppression in a laboratory setting in 1987 by instructing participants to avoid all thoughts of a white bear. The typical finding in such experiments is that suppressing thoughts of a white bear causes the frequent return of such thoughts, sometimes even yielding a tendency to obsess about the very thought that is being suppressed. The implications for these findings have since been applied in clinical settings where thought suppression is quite common e.g., trying not to think of one's problems or other anxiety-producing or depressing thoughts.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#114 Jun 29, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure what you mean by that. However, I am against misandry, which seems to be the only indication of your question.
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces. To say one is pro-choice or anti-choice, or has the right to choose etc. makes absolutely no sense. For how can one be for, or against, or have the right to something that is impossible to control? Simply put, one cannot. Only the actions or options that we choose can be controlled, the choices themselves cannot be controlled. The English term 'mental process' means (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents. A theory of ironic processes of mental control is proposed to account for the intentional and counter intentional effects that result from efforts at self-control of mental states. The theory holds that an attempt to control the mind introduces two processes: an operating process that promotes the intended change by searching for mental contents consistent with the intended state and a monitoring process that tests whether the operating process is needed by searching for mental contents inconsistent with the intended state. The operating process requires greater cognitive capacity and normally has more pronounced cognitive effects than the monitoring process, and the two working together thus promote whatever degree of mental control is
enjoyed. Under conditions that reduce capacity, however, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and thus enhance the person's sensitivity to mental contents that are the ironic opposite of those that are intended. The phenomenon has been identified through thought suppression studies in experimental psychology. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues first studied thought suppression in a
laboratory setting in 1987 by instructing participants to avoid all thoughts of a white bear. The typical finding in such experiments is that suppressing thoughts of a white bear causes the frequent return of such thoughts, sometimes even yielding a tendency to obsess about the very thought that is being suppressed. The implications for these findings have since been applied in clinical settings where thought suppression is quite common e.g., trying not to think of one's problems or other anxiety-producing or depressing thoughts.
Whether or not a woman chooses to get an abortion almost never has to deal with hating men. It almost always has to do with a woman, looking at her position in life and the circumstances of the conception, and evaluating if giving birth to the baby would be best for her, the baby itself, and the people around her. Now again, try to answer my question.

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#115 Jun 29, 2013
"Broseph"
Whether or not a woman chooses to get an abortion almost never has to deal with hating men. It almost always has to do with a woman, looking at her position in life and the circumstances of the conception, and evaluating if giving birth to the baby would be best for her, the baby itself, and the people around her.

but the fetus worshipping anti choicers don't care,they want the woman to be forced to have the child regardless,a punishment basically
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#116 Jun 29, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether or not a woman chooses to get an abortion almost never has to deal with hating men. It almost always has to do with a woman, looking at her position in life and the circumstances of the conception, and evaluating if giving birth to the baby would be best for her, the baby itself, and the people around her. Now again, try to answer my question.
Even if there were such a thing as a right to choose, which there isn't. Your suggestion that only women have that right suggests misandry, which I refuse to be a party of.
Killing innocent people simply because that is something someone wants to do is never acceptable behavior in any civilized society. Even if the killers are women, or their victims happen to be young. Elevating women to the position of tyrant might benefit her and her legion of ageist sycophants. Elevating women to the position of tyrant, however, does not benefit the babies they choose to kill, or society in any way. Although enlightened societies should allow for gyneolatry. Enlightened societies should not allow gyneolatry cults to practice the human sacrifices that you suggest.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#117 Jun 29, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if there were such a thing as a right to choose, which there isn't. Your suggestion that only women have that right suggests misandry, which I refuse to be a party of.
Killing innocent people simply because that is something someone wants to do is never acceptable behavior in any civilized society. Even if the killers are women, or their victims happen to be young. Elevating women to the position of tyrant might benefit her and her legion of ageist sycophants. Elevating women to the position of tyrant, however, does not benefit the babies they choose to kill, or society in any way. Although enlightened societies should allow for gyneolatry. Enlightened societies should not allow gyneolatry cults to practice the human sacrifices that you suggest.
A woman does have a right to choose, for it is her body. If were to go out that down that route, I can say that you saying she has no choice and no control over how she uses it, regardless of the situation, tells me you're being a bit misanthropic. I also feel your analogy is flawed. I don't think a zygote, or fetus hasn't entered later in the 2nd trimester, can truly be seen as human when they don't have connections to the people around them or even the ability to feel pleasure or pain. Also, I don't think that's fair to call women "tyrants" because they're placed in a bad position and know they can't survive or take care of the child in the way that it should be taken care of. The woman is the one who is being impacted, and for at least 18 years of her life. To not consider her in a decision that effects her so deeply and so long and on so many levels doesn't seem fair at all.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#118 Jun 29, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
A woman does have a right to choose, for it is her body. If were to go out that down that route, I can say that you saying she has no choice and no control over how she uses it, regardless of the situation, tells me you're being a bit misanthropic. I also feel your analogy is flawed. I don't think a zygote, or fetus hasn't entered later in the 2nd trimester, can truly be seen as human when they don't have connections to the people around them or even the ability to feel pleasure or pain. Also, I don't think that's fair to call women "tyrants" because they're placed in a bad position and know they can't survive or take care of the child in the way that it should be taken care of. The woman is the one who is being impacted, and for at least 18 years of her life. To not consider her in a decision that effects her so deeply and so long and on so many levels doesn't seem fair at all.

There is no such thing as a right to choose. Your crass ageist hatemongering is vulgar and obtuse. It is the babies and their bodies killed with abortion that are impacted by their senseless deaths. The physiology of young people does not give you or anyone else the right to kill anybody. How someone else feels or doesn't feel in no way gives you the right to kill anybody. Pregnancy does not last 18 years, pregnancy lasts less than 1 year. To not consider the fact that abortion is a crime against humanity that affects society so deeply, and so long, and on so many levels doesn't seem fair at all.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#119 Jun 29, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a right to choose. Your crass ageist hatemongering is vulgar and obtuse. It is the babies and their bodies killed with abortion that are impacted by their senseless deaths. The physiology of young people does not give you or anyone else the right to kill anybody. How someone else feels or doesn't feel in no way gives you the right to kill anybody. Pregnancy does not last 18 years, pregnancy lasts less than 1 year. To not consider the fact that abortion is a crime against humanity that affects society so deeply, and so long, and on so many levels doesn't seem fair at all.
Most babies perceive,feel,and think. A fetus doesn't even register pain til later into the second trimester. Also, has it ever registered within you that the mother gets an abortion because she is actually a responsible person, and not because of how she is a "tyrant"? What about when she conceives it from rape? Would it be good to give birth, even though PTSD symptoms are extremely exacerbated during the actual giving of birth, how in many cases the mother projects her own negative feelings on to the kids, and how by giving it life, you expose many kids to the same fate of their mothers? Most rapes happen from spouses, friends, and family. How about women that are too young or too poor to take a kid in? Pregnant women are heavily discriminated against by employers,they go through all kinds of debilitating biological changes that halt them from getting work, and most women in America get terrible maternity leave,only a few weeks an without pay. And no sh*t a pregnancy doesn't last for 18 years.The baby doesn't just go up in smoke. The woman ends up becoming the primary caretaker of it, and that is by no means an easy task for anyone, let alone someone who is young or poor. The average cost of a child today is over $200,000, and this is just considering basics, like food and water. All of this, and yet we haven't gotten into kids that end up showing they have genetic defects in the womb. Do their moms have to spend immense amounts of money, taking care of their medical needs, while these kids still end up outcast in their communities and schools? How is it ethical to place a woman, and the child she ends up having, in any of these terrible positions? Would you suggest that she give it up for adoption, placed in a system where it will most likely be abused for the first formative weeks of its life, thus causing irreversible harm? What if she has other kids? Will they all have to suffer tremendously, just so you can stop mommy's tyranny? Will you pay out of pocket to help these kids, so it never comes to that, or are people that are actually outside of a woman's body none of your concern? Look, I understand your feelings, but this issue is complex. You really need to give this more thought.
Ocean56

AOL

#120 Jun 30, 2013
zef wrote:
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces.
Nonsense, of course it can. A woman who CHOOSES not to be a mother can avoid the unwanted outcome of pregnancy in a number of ways:

1. She can use reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy to the best of her ability. Remember, NO contraceptive is 100% guaranteed against pregnancy.

2. If her birth control method fails for any reason and a pregnancy happens, she can CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy.

In both cases, a woman can CHOOSE not to be a mother. So again, motherhood IS optional, no matter how many times you foolishly claim it isn't.
Ocean56

AOL

#121 Jun 30, 2013
zef wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to choose.
Sure there is. A woman has the same right to choose NOT to have children as she does to become a mother.

Motherhood IS optional, which means a woman can reject it for any reason(s). Your being against a woman's right to choose doesn't invalidate that right.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#122 Jun 30, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Most babies perceive,feel,and think. A fetus doesn't even register pain til later into the second trimester. Also, has it ever registered within you that the mother gets an abortion because she is actually a responsible person, and not because of how she is a "tyrant"? What about when she conceives it from rape? Would it be good to give birth, even though PTSD symptoms are extremely exacerbated during the actual giving of birth, how in many cases the mother projects her own negative feelings on to the kids, and how by giving it life, you expose many kids to the same fate of their mothers? Most rapes happen from spouses, friends, and family. How about women that are too young or too poor to take a kid in? Pregnant women are heavily discriminated against by employers,they go through all kinds of debilitating biological changes that halt them from getting work, and most women in America get terrible maternity leave,only a few weeks an without pay. And no sh*t a pregnancy doesn't last for 18 years.The baby doesn't just go up in smoke. The woman ends up becoming the primary caretaker of it, and that is by no means an easy task for anyone, let alone someone who is young or poor. The average cost of a child today is over $200,000, and this is just considering basics, like food and water. All of this, and yet we haven't gotten into kids that end up showing they have genetic defects in the womb. Do their moms have to spend immense amounts of money, taking care of their medical needs, while these kids still end up outcast in their communities and schools? How is it ethical to place a woman, and the child she ends up having, in any of these terrible positions? Would you suggest that she give it up for adoption, placed in a system where it will most likely be abused for the first formative weeks of its life, thus causing irreversible harm? What if she has other kids? Will they all have to suffer tremendously, just so you can stop mommy's tyranny? Will you pay out of pocket to help these kids, so it never comes to that, or are people that are actually outside of a woman's body none of your concern? Look, I understand your feelings, but this issue is complex. You really need to give this more thought.
If you're having fun debating, that's fine :) But just so you know, this poster you're engaging is insane, will misunderstand what you are saying, and will post long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with your statements. THEN after all that, they will begin to accuse you of making death threats at them. AND will post delusional stuff about the gov't (and sometimes posters on here) forcing "colon restriction devices" on them, not letting them wear sunglasses, and being forced to look at men's naked feet. The upshot is that they are only worth engaging if you happen to be bored for a moment, while waiting for responses from sane people, lol.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#123 Jun 30, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're having fun debating, that's fine :) But just so you know, this poster you're engaging is insane, will misunderstand what you are saying, and will post long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with your statements. THEN after all that, they will begin to accuse you of making death threats at them. AND will post delusional stuff about the gov't (and sometimes posters on here) forcing "colon restriction devices" on them, not letting them wear sunglasses, and being forced to look at men's naked feet. The upshot is that they are only worth engaging if you happen to be bored for a moment, while waiting for responses from sane people, lol.
Alright. Thank you.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#124 Jun 30, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense, of course it can. A woman who CHOOSES not to be a mother can avoid the unwanted outcome of pregnancy in a number of ways:
1. She can use reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy to the best of her ability. Remember, NO contraceptive is 100% guaranteed against pregnancy.
2. If her birth control method fails for any reason and a pregnancy happens, she can CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy.
In both cases, a woman can CHOOSE not to be a mother. So again, motherhood IS optional, no matter how many times you foolishly claim it isn't.
Motherhood is a state of being, or simply what one is. Anyone can choose to do anything, that might alter their state of being, however no one can choose their state of being. Motherhood is not an option, motherhood is a state of being. Now, if the 'to be' of a thing could be conceived apart from that which exists, it should be represented in our mind by some note distinct from the concept of the thing itself .... In point of fact, it is not so. There is nothing we can add to a concept in order to make it represent the object as existing; what happens if we add anything to it is that it represents something else.
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces. To say one is pro-choice or anti-choice, or has the right to choose etc. makes absolutely no sense. For how can one be for, or against, or have the right to something that is impossible to control? Simply put, one cannot. Only the actions or options that we choose can be controlled, the choices themselves cannot be controlled. The English term 'mental process' means (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents. A theory of ironic processes of mental control is proposed to account for the intentional and counter intentional effects that result from efforts at self-control of mental states. The theory holds that an attempt to control the mind introduces two processes: an operating process that promotes the intended change by searching for mental contents consistent with the intended state and a monitoring process that tests whether the operating process is needed by searching for mental contents inconsistent with the intended state. The operating process requires greater cognitive capacity and normally has more pronounced cognitive effects than the monitoring process, and the two working together thus promote whatever degree of mental control is enjoyed. Under conditions that reduce capacity, however, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and thus enhance the person's sensitivity to mental contents that are the ironic opposite of those that are intended. The phenomenon has been identified through thought suppression studies in experimental psychology. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues first studied thought suppression in a laboratory setting in 1987 by instructing participants to avoid all thoughts of a white bear. The typical finding in such experiments is that suppressing thoughts of a white bear causes the frequent return of such thoughts, sometimes even yielding a tendency to obsess about the very thought that is being suppressed. The implications for these findings have since been applied in clinical settings where thought suppression is quite common (e.g., trying not to think of one's problems or other anxiety-producing or depressing thoughts).
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#125 Jun 30, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're having fun debating, that's fine :) But just so you know, this poster you're engaging is insane, will misunderstand what you are saying, and will post long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with your statements. THEN after all that, they will begin to accuse you of making death threats at them. AND will post delusional stuff about the gov't (and sometimes posters on here) forcing "colon restriction devices" on them, not letting them wear sunglasses, and being forced to look at men's naked feet. The upshot is that they are only worth engaging if you happen to be bored for a moment, while waiting for responses from sane people, lol.
I didn't say anything about sunglasses. They have however threaten to commit mayhem, torture me to death, and or cripple me with spinal taps, for choosing to wear protective eyewear, which doesn't harm anyone. All the while insisting they be allowed to kill babies with abortion.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/N...
Ocean56

AOL

#126 Jul 1, 2013
zef wrote:
Motherhood is a state of being, or simply what one is. Anyone can choose to do anything, that might alter their state of being, however no one can choose their state of being. Motherhood is not an option, motherhood is a state of being.
Wrong again, zeffy. Motherhood IS optional, and a woman can choose to REJECT motherhood if she decides she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Yes, I know you can't deal with the fact that a woman can choose NOT to be a mother. Not my problem.

You can believe whatever NONSENSE you want, whether it's about motherhood or anything else. Thankfully, I don't have to do the same.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#127 Jul 1, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, zeffy. Motherhood IS optional, and a woman can choose to REJECT motherhood if she decides she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Yes, I know you can't deal with the fact that a woman can choose NOT to be a mother. Not my problem.
You can believe whatever NONSENSE you want, whether it's about motherhood or anything else. Thankfully, I don't have to do the same.
Choosing or choice is mental process. Mental processes cannot be controlled by external forces. Anyone can choose anything always, only the ability to act upon, or obtain those choices can be controlled, the choice itself cannot be controlled by anyone other than the one doing the choosing.
Motherhood is a state of being, or simply what one is. Anyone can choose to do anything, that might alter their state of being, however no one can choose their state of being. Motherhood is not an option, motherhood is a state of being. Now, if the 'to be' of a thing could be conceived apart from that which exists, it should be represented in our mind by some note distinct from the concept of the thing itself .... In point of fact, it is not so. There is nothing we can add to a concept in order to make it represent the object as existing; what happens if we add anything to it is that it represents something else.
Ocean56

AOL

#128 Jul 1, 2013
zef wrote:
Choosing or choice is mental process. Mental processes cannot be controlled by external forces. Anyone can choose anything always, only the ability to act upon, or obtain those choices can be controlled, the choice itself cannot be controlled by anyone other than the one doing the choosing.
Motherhood is a state of being, or simply what one is. Anyone can choose to do anything, that might alter their state of being, however no one can choose their state of being. Motherhood is not an option, motherhood is a state of being. Now, if the 'to be' of a thing could be conceived apart from that which exists, it should be represented in our mind by some note distinct from the concept of the thing itself .... In point of fact, it is not so. There is nothing we can add to a concept in order to make it represent the object as existing; what happens if we add anything to it is that it represents something else.
Babble on about nonsense all you want, zeffy. Motherhood IS still optional, which means a woman can reject it for any reason.

Bottom line; no woman has to be a mother -- or have more kids if she's already a mother -- unless she WANTS to. Don't like it? Too bleeping bad.
Ocean56

AOL

#129 Jul 1, 2013
zef wrote:
Motherhood is a state of being, or simply what one is. Anyone can choose to do anything, that might alter their state of being, however no one can choose their state of being. Motherhood is not an option, motherhood is a state of being.
Too many girls/women are PRESSURED into having children by family members and/or religious community, and purposely aren't told just how very HARD motherhood is until AFTER they have had a baby. I think it is high time that changed. Some of the hardships mothers of all ages will face once a baby arrives include -- but are not limited to -- the following:

1. Loss of freedom
2. Loss of sleep
3. Loss of money
4. Loss of education and job/career opportunities
5. Loss of mobility
6. Loss of private time
7. Dealing with colic

There is no escaping the fact that becoming a mother makes a girl’s/woman's life much HARDER and she loses most, if not all, of the benefits and comforts she had before she got pregnant.

Girls and young women who have no children now need to know about these hardships long before a pregnancy ever happens, so they can PREVENT unwanted pregnancy to the best of their ability. If some girls/women decide they never want to struggle with the hardships of motherhood, that is fine too. The choice for a woman to be childfree is just as valid and respectable as the choice to be a mother.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130 Jul 1, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say anything about sunglasses. They have however threaten to commit mayhem, torture me to death, and or cripple me with spinal taps, for choosing to wear protective eyewear, which doesn't harm anyone. All the while insisting they be allowed to kill babies with abortion.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/N...
No one on here has done any of these. You are insane.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Smokers crossing state line to light up (Jun '07) 1 min Whats up chuck 783
News New strategies to quit smoking and end bad habits 2 hr Caroline 1
News Vaccine Didn't Cause Girl's 'Autism-Like' Illness 3 hr creative diagnostics 46
Dr shivani sachdev Gour: Surrogacy centre India... (May '13) 3 hr kishor 4
News Simple intervention can moderate anti-vaccinati... 6 hr Friend 6
News Liquor Makers Accused of Adding Viagra to Booze... 7 hr WTSleuth 1
News How to convince skeptical parents that vaccines... 9 hr NO COMPENSATION 1
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) Mon Ayden12 6,440
More from around the web