The SD law is a poorly implemented attempt at informed consent to a medical procedure. The fact that abortionists would want to keep information from patients is simly a testament to the monstrous minds of those who favor abortion in absolute right terms. Utilitarian minds are eventually totalitarian minds.

No, it's an attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces. The statement that the doctor is required to read to the patient is not medical fact or neutral information, but moral judgment, religious belief, and/or ideological conclusion. Not everyone agrees that a fetus is a person, or at what point the fetus becomes a person. The doctor reading the statement may not believe that the fetus is a person, but is required to state that it is. The doctor should be required to inform the patient of all the medical risks associated with the procedure, but the doctor should not be required by the state to make religious or moral statements that he or she does not agree with.

"Informed Consent" usually means that a doctor is conveying factual information about a procedure or treatment that a patient is about to undergo. Saletan has done an admirable job of showing that South Dakota's law offers little in the way of facts, instead compelling doctors to spew political statements before rendering medical services.

Kit,

Note what I said, "...a poorly implemented attempt at informed consent to a medical procedure..."

I think the doctor should be required to inform the mother about the developmental facts of the fetus for the period of gestation in question. I think the doctor should be required to offer alternatives to abortion (i.e. adoption). I also think that the mother should be required to view a sonogram of the fetus. I think the fetus should be anesthesized before rendering it into pieces when after a certain developmental stage and I think the mother should be made aware of why the anesthesia is being applied.

And then "informed" take three days to confirm her decision.

Would you disagree with any of this? Why?

Sevumar,

Note what I said, "...a poorly implemented attempt at informed consent to a medical procedure..."

I think the doctor should be required to inform the mother about the developmental facts of the fetus for the period of gestation in question. I think the doctor should be required to offer alternatives to abortion (i.e. adoption). I also think that the mother should be required to view a sonogram of the fetus. I think the fetus should be anesthesized before rendering it into pieces when after a certain developmental stage and I think the mother should be made aware of why the anesthesia is being applied - the fetus feels pain.

And then "informed" take three days to confirm her decision.

Would you disagree with any of this? Why?

spiker:

I think the doctor should be required to offer alternatives to abortion (i.e. adoption).

I think you should need a prescription to buy a condom. And I think the prescribing doctor should have to inform you that there are alternatives to intercourse. He could tell you to masturbate. Except God doesn't like that. OK, he could tell you to take a cold shower. And while you're at it, when you go to the drugstore to buy those condoms with your prescription, someone might just bomb the place. Or shoot the pharmacist. Or throw blood on you. You're the one who wants some pussy: accept the consequences, brother.

Your continual presentations of what would be illuminating counter-examples in your eyes are .... ha ha... a word simply does not exist to explain it. Oh well.

If you think informed consent somehow should apply to condoms and their use is a reasonable counter point as to what should be required in pursuit of an abortive procedure.... well... I guess the word does exist - stupid.

I don't think I'd agree to this, as it would impose quite a bit of hardship on people seeking medical help. No one is forced to hear about non-medical alternatives to other medical procedures.

A woman who is seeking an abortion has probably already thought about her actions. She's made a decision and it's incredibly paternalistic to force her to endure even more propaganda before she receives the services she's seeking. If she agrees to hear/view such material, that's one thing, but I don't think we do anyone a service by forcing this.

On the issue of anesthesia, is this something theoretical or has it actually been suggested? To my knowledge, we currently don't have a way to anesthetize a fetus without the drug also affecting the mother. I've heard of some concerns about drugs working their way into the fetal blood system when prescribed for the mother. What makes you think it might not work the other way around?

It's certainly unreasonable to ask a mother to wait three days before receiving a procedure. Many women must already travel long distances to a clinic and cannot afford to take the time off work to endure an extended stay. It's cruel and unnecessary.

You don't think people should be informed about the consequences of sexual intercourse? That's um, how should I say it? Ah yes. "Stupid".

Now please just go jerk off and kill a few million potential human lives.

So pain inflicted on a fetus is inconsequential?

Do you support PETA or are you a moral vegetarian?

Even if you aren't either of those I hope some day you understand the rather monstrous connotations of every last word in this post of yours.

To say it is unreasonable to require a three day waiting period for someone to seriously consider the moral and ethical ramifications of an abortion trivializes the worth of all life. You act as if people should be shielded from the truth of their actions. That in the light of them they might not choose what you would have them choose and so take away the truth. Soften the blow.

Every last requirement I would put on seeking an abortion that I listed has a secular moral aspect that can be completely divorced from any parochial views.

I beg you to use the mind that God gave you and see beyond the limited scope you've shown in this venue so far.

spiker:

I think the doctor should be required to offer alternatives to abortion (i.e. adoption).

Planned parenthood certainly does do this. They also spend a lot of time and money on family planning in an attempt to prevent abortions as well.

spiker:

I also think that the mother should be required to view a sonogram of the fetus.

90% of all abortions are done before this would show anything. Also, who is going to pay for it? The women having the abortion? Chances are that she has little money and little medical coverage.

spiker:

And then "informed" take three days to confirm her decision.

This is especially silly. If a woman decides to have an abortion, the sooner it occurs in the pregnancy the better. Not to mention that many of the women who need abortions do not have the time to take two days off of work, and might have a tremendous problem getting to the clinic twice.

What do you feel guilty of?

I think that women should be informed of all the possible medical side effects to the procedure. I don't see the medical value of a waiting period or a forced sonogram, nor of the woman being advised of the alternatives, such as adoption (aside from the question of who pays for the sonogram and the hardship that a waiting period may impose on women who have to travel long distances or take time off of work to visit a clinic). That "information" is not relevant to her making an informed decision about whether or not to have an abortion. It is designed solely to pressure her to change her mind for non-medical reasons, and therefore I don't think that doctors or medical personnel should be required to supply it. Perhaps she could be told that there is counseling available, should she have any questions or concerns about having an abortion that are not medical in nature. The state should not be in the business of turning doctors into instruments for the advancement of political ideas.

Spiker, you say that your requirements all have a secular moral aspect, but not why doctors should be *required* to participate in advancing that particular moral agenda.

It is funny that the brain washing you have experienced on the topic of abortion does not let you see how very reasonable these informed consent requirements would be.

Planned Parenthood, like any other business, has become a factory setting for abortion where efficiency is valued far more than the welfare of a mother and her child. Deny the reality of the corporate culture of PP and you deny the truth.