It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

After Less Than A Week Of GOP Control, Kentucky Passes 20-Week Abortion Ban

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

If she says I changed my mind, I am not having an abortion.




posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
I don't get what the problem is.

You guys say we need to be more like Europe all the time.

20 weeks is still light years behind a lot of those countries who set their limits at 12 weeks.


It looks like most all the countries allow abortions past 12 weeks if the woman's life is in danger OR if the child has major fetal impairment.


But that's not the US. You guys want it for any reason whatsoever all the time.


So are "you guys" okay with an abortion at 20 weeks if the woman's physical or emotional health is at risk or the fetus has some type of major impairment?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Right, becasue we all use clinical terms in everyday lives, right Homo-sapien with possible offspring?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
I don't get what the problem is.

You guys say we need to be more like Europe all the time.

20 weeks is still light years behind a lot of those countries who set their limits at 12 weeks.


It looks like most all the countries allow abortions past 12 weeks if the woman's life is in danger OR if the child has major fetal impairment.


But that's not the US. You guys want it for any reason whatsoever all the time.


No. We want you to stop messing around with Roe V Wade, chipping away at women's rights.

Roe V Wade isn't broken. There is no need to try and fix it!



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Personally, I find nothing wrong with this law as a woman. Many women in prenatal care have have a transvaginal ultra sound done around 6-8 weeks to detect a heartbeat, 12-16 weeks an ultrasound provides many with a nice image and what gender their baby is, and most defects and or anonomalies are usually detected via ultrasounds 18-20 week gestation. Plus, at 20 weeks, that child actually can scratch an itch! To me, that says, it will feel pain.

My own daughter did consider abortion when she became pregnant, I was supportive of her decision. She still kept putting off the actual procedure until she reached 12 weeks. After her first ultrasound, and seeing she had a child growing and not some cold medical term (fetus), she could not go through with it.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Please understand that this particular legislation doesn't have anything to do with medicine, and this forced procedure isn't being used as a medical tool. All women seeking an abortion, for whatever reason, must have this special ultrasound done for "INFORMED CONSENT" only.

I think it's great that your daughter decided not to have an abortion. But, was that decision made after she made a choice to terminate, then changed her mind after going through the forced procedure, in order for the state to gain her consent, or was her ultrasound done during a regular doctor's appointment, before she had made any concrete choice?


Sincere question.....

edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I agree with you, your story and writing say it much better than my stumbling attempts.

Thank you for your story.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CynConcepts

Please understand that this particular legislation doesn't have anything to do with medicine, and this forced procedure isn't being used as a medical tool. All women seeking an abortion, for whatever reason, must have this special ultrasound done for "INFORMED CONSENT" only.

I think it's great that your daughter decided not to have an abortion. But, was that decision made after she made a choice to terminate, then changed her mind after going through the forced procedure, in order for the state to gain her consent, or was her ultrasound done during a regular doctor's appointment, before she had made any concrete choice?


Sincere question.....


Quite honestly, she had her appointment finalized, and I asked her to have the ultrasound done since she waited this long already. I told her she is making a permanent decision and needed to make it with all the facts. I told her, if she still wanted to go through with it at that point I would still support her choice.

The abortion clinic had her believing that she had a simple blood clot like deformity as far as she understood. Simple procedure...as soon as she seen the ultrasound...she could not do it.
Fetal sizing chart 12 weeks to 20 weeks image

Wasn't able to post image. I am curious as to why pro-abortionist who say they are for a woman's choice would take exception to women making a choice based on all of the facts. What is wrong with the fact that some women may change their mind after actually seeing the child within?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I'm glad that your daughter had the freedom to make her own choice. And, I'm glad that you were there to be supportive of her, whatever her choice, and that you made sure that her choice wasn't influenced by pseudo science and coercion.

You're a good mother!

When I was 17 and pregnant, in the 1970's my parents disapproved of my boyfriend and kicked me out of the house because I chose NOT to have an abortion. My holy roller church "excommunicated me" after the deacons sat me down, trying to convince me to abort because, bringing a child into this world that would surely die in the tribulation or go to hell, because of what a bad mom I'd be, is sinful, in and of itself. NO JOKE!

Then the State harassed me, shaming me, calling me a slut, warning me I'd have no future, and how inept I would be as a mother, etc., etc., (I had to turn to the State, because I had no where else to go).......until I was 5 months along, and past viability.

Thank GOD for Roe V Wade, that enforced MY CHOICE and prevented my parents effort to force me to abort and the state from doing forced sterilizations on any woman.



edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

So, sorry that your family was not more supportive. Admittedly, I was encouraging abortion early on...but that was because I had an early miscarriage at 6-8 weeks. It seemed a viable solution for her. After, having the child she did struggle financially and emotionally. She was working 12 hour night shifts and returned to live in our home. I assisted with caring for my grandson the first 2 years of his life.

I realize not everyone has support on both sides of the aisle of decision-making. Many though are like my daughter. She was not on the best terms with me, rebellious and wanting to be independent. Thankfully, motherhood has matured her and made her more responsible. Though, she still feels emotionally guilty to this day, that she ever considered abortion. It makes her vulnerable to spoiling him, more than she should. Ha..,but who am I...just Grandma.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: seasonal

I live in Kentucky and am pro-choice. I have no problem with the 20 week cut off point. In my former state of residence the cut off point was 12 weeks and I feel that is ample time. As far as the ultrasound goes, I disagree with it as the women do not have to actually SEE the ultrasound- it is just being required to make it financially harder (because they have to PAY for the ultrasound in addition to the cost of the abortion) to discourage women from being able to afford it- which is horse crap!




Actually, the requisite ultrasound can also show that the pregnancy is less than 8 weeks along and qualifies (in KY) for a Mifepristone (RU-486 pill) abortion. This would prevent a woman from having an invasive surgical abortion.

I am ok with the ultrasound for that reason.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

they're like x rays in that they should be used unless there is a need for them!




Evaluating the risks

When ultrasound was first developed researchers suggested that "the possibility of hazard should be kept under constant review" (Donald, 1980), and they said that it would never be used on babies under three months. However, as soon as vaginal probe ultrasound was developed, which could get good pictures in early pregnancies (and get nearer to the baby giving it a bigger dose), this initial caution was ignored.

Research by Lieberskind revealed "the persistence of abnormal behaviour . . . in cells exposed to a single dose diagnostic ultrasound ten generations after insonation." She concluded, "If germ cells were . . . involved, the effects might not become apparent until the next generation" (Lieberskind, 1979). When asked what problems should be looked for in human studies, she suggested: "Subtle ones. I’d look for possible behavioural changes, in reflexes, IQ, attention span" (Bolsen, 1982).

Because ultrasound has been developed rapidly without proper evaluation it is extremely difficult to prove that ultrasound exposure causes subtle effects. After all, it took over ten years to prove that the gross abnormalities found in some newborn babies were caused by thalidomide. However, there are a number of ultrasound studies which raise serious questions that still have to be addressed.

The first evidence we saw of possible damage to humans came in 1984 when American obstetricians published a follow-up study of children, aged seven to twelve years born in three different hospitals in Florida and Denver, who had been exposed to ultrasound in the womb (Stark et al., 1984). Compared with a control group of children who had not been exposed they were more likely to have dyslexia and to have been admitted to hospital during their childhood, but no other differences were found.

In 1993 a study in Calgary, Alberta which examined the antenatal records of seventy-two children with delayed speech of unknown cause were compared with those of 142 controls who were similar in sex, date of birth and birth order within the family. The children were similar in social class, birthweight and length of pregnancy. The children with speech problems were twice as likely as controls to have been exposed to ultrasound in the womb. Sixty-one percent of cases and only 37 percent of controls had had at least one exposure.

A Norwegian study (Salvesen, 1993) showed an increase in left handedness, but no increase in dyslexia. While the increase in left handedness was not large, it does suggest that ultrasound has an effect on the development of the brain. It should be noted, however, that the scanners used in this study emitted very low doses of ultrasound–lower than exposures from many machines nowadays–the women had only two exposures, and it was real time, not Doppler, a more powerful form of ultrasound.

www.midwiferytoday.com...


they're as safe as those great body scanners in the airports...

they also pose a risk of infection for the mother also..




In many countries, Low Level Disinfection (LLD) of covered transvaginal ultrasound probes is recommended between patients' examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of LLD under routine conditions on a range of microorganisms.
Materials and Methods

Samples were taken over a six month period in a private French Radiology Center. 300 specimens derived from endovaginal ultrasound probes were analyzed after disinfection of the probe with wipes impregnated with a quaternary ammonium compound and chlorhexidine. Human papillomavirus (HPV) was sought in the first set of s100 samples, Chlamydia trachomatis and mycoplasmas were searched in the second set of 100 samples, bacteria and fungi in the third 100 set samples. HPV, C. trachomatis and mycoplasmas were detected by PCR amplification. PCR positive samples were subjected to a nuclease treatment before an additional PCR assay to assess the likely viable microorganisms. Bacteria and fungi were investigated by conventional methods.
Results

A substantial persistence of microorganisms was observed on the disinfected probes: HPV DNA was found on 13% of the samples and 7% in nuclease-resistant form. C. trachomatis DNA was detected on 20% of the probes by primary PCR but only 2% after nuclease treatment, while mycoplasma DNA was amplified in 8% and 4%, respectively. Commensal and/or environmental bacterial flora was present on 86% of the probes, occasionally in mixed culture, and at various levels (10->3000 CFU/probe); Staphylococcus aureus was cultured from 4% of the probes (10-560 CFU/probe). No fungi were isolated.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Don't you think that there is a NEED to use an ultrasound if the mother is wanting to abort the fetus? Obviously, if she is wanting to abort the baby...possible side effects are probably not going to be a major concern at that point. Especially, as MME pointed out above, she may be able to simply take a pill and avoid any invasive procedure.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

well, when it comes to abortion, the only relevant fact in all that I posted concerned the part about infection..

why don't you think I posted the other part?? I've had three kids, all delivered by the same doctor. I was asked about a sonogram in the first pregnancy if I wanted one done. I had two questions for the doctor...
was there a reason why he wanted one done? and if there was any risk. I also talked to my pediatrician I had lined up to care for the baby and asked her the same questions.
both said that as long as the pregnancy seemed to be going well there was no need.. my ob just said he thought I might want to know the sex, or have a picture of him...
the ob said that no, there was probably wasn't not risk but I got a slightly different answer from the pediatrician who said that there may be. so I told my ob that as long as he didn't see a need for one, I didn't want one.
these were not transvaginal sonagrams we are talking about here, by the way.
I put that first part in there because it seems that they are just an accepted part of pregnancy now.. required for a healthy pregnancy or something. they're not in many cases they are not needed and they do pose risks...



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: dawnstar

Don't you think that there is a NEED to use an ultrasound if the mother is wanting to abort the fetus? Obviously, if she is wanting to abort the baby...possible side effects are probably not going to be a major concern at that point. Especially, as MME pointed out above, she may be able to simply take a pill and avoid any invasive procedure.



Shouldn't that be up to the doctor to prescribe, not the state? Vaginal ultrasounds are most often used and found to be necessary AFTER the abortion, to make sure everything has been evacuated and there are no complications.

Women should be trusted to know what they're doing when going in for an abortion, and shouldn't have to be subject to a bunch of up close and personal probes and pictures, for lawmakers to make sure they know!




edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

My point was that in regards to this abortion topic, infection due to the trans-vaginal ultrasound is nullified due to many more risks to the mother due to having the actual abortion.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

unless of course, one of those other risks, is there because of a problem with their immune system....

legislatures with no medical training aren't qualified to determine what is the best methods when it comes to healthcare. each patient is different, unique, there isn't a one size fits all deal.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: dawnstar

Don't you think that there is a NEED to use an ultrasound if the mother is wanting to abort the fetus? Obviously, if she is wanting to abort the baby...possible side effects are probably not going to be a major concern at that point. Especially, as MME pointed out above, she may be able to simply take a pill and avoid any invasive procedure.



Shouldn't that be up to the doctor to prescribe, not the state? Vaginal ultrasounds are most often used and found to be necessary AFTER the abortion, to make sure everything has been evacuated and there are no complications.

Women should be trusted to know what they're doing when going in for an abortion, and shouldn't have to be subject to a bunch of up close and personal probes and pictures, for lawmakers to make sure they know!





I can only comment on my experience. The abortion clinic had my daughter believing that she had an inhuman blob within her uterus. She didn't have ALL of the facts to make a legitimate decision until she seen what was really inside of her. She was misinformed based on the bias of the clinic.

I would think that this supports women in making an informed decision rather than a blind one. No blinders, just real facts, to make a difficult personal decision.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
can anyone find the actual wording of either of these bills...
I've been looking for the wording but as of yet, can't find it...

www.kftc.org...

not even on this site



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
This is a good thing
Maybe the people who always get fooled and vote for GOP candidates will finally learn....

Just wait until they get power with Trump in office and he stacks the supreme court then goodbye abortion

goodbye civil rights

good bye all unions

goodbye LGBT rights

GOODBYE ALL RIGHTS

The GOP just like they did when they had full power under Bush will destroy the country in no time flat

remember 2007-8

remember 2001---911


people forgot



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join