Is it okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound

[seekerz]

Doctors are refusing to show ultrasounds? They should be disciplined and that’s what medical boards are for. Let’s be real honest here - there is no need for a law except to coerce people into doing something they don’t want to do and I have seen no evidence that forcing women or their docs to discuss pre-abortion ultrasounds is in any way helpful to advancing the pro-life cause. People need to find a productive way to vent their frustrations over abortion and not engage in strategies that bring ridicule on the cause.

 

[He_Man]

Would you be okay with a woman being forced to be vaginally penetrated before she gets married? Would it be okay to force a woman to be vaginally penetrated before she is allowed to exercise any right?

I like how think progress calls it a rape law. Hyperbole much?

Not arguing for or against transvaginal versus external ultrasounds, but you are doing the same hyperbolic nonsense in your post. I am not OBGYN, but I suspect if the woman is pregnant, she has already been penetrated vaginally…

 

[He_Man]

Difference = choice

Let;s be honest. The people objecting don’t want any impediment to free abortions. You can hide behind the cloud of “trasnvaginal ultrasonic rape”, but no one believes for a second that’s the main objection.

 

[seekerz]

Let;s be honest. The people objecting don’t want any impediment to free abortions. You can hide behind the cloud of “trasnvaginal ultrasonic rape”, but no one believes for a second that’s the main objection.

I think you are right - the people objecting want free access to abortion on demand. At present, the law is on their side, so its not surprising that they would fight to preserve the status quo.I also think that it really makes no difference what a woman freely consents to, how many times or for what reasons, if she’s made to submit to or witness a procedure that she’d rather forgo, it’s still coercion.

 

[CMatt25]

You two both seem to think that conservatives think there is no role for the government. This is not true. Conservatives believe there is a role for the government, and that the government in the US has overstepped the bounds in some areas and negelected its duties in other areas.

Correct. Many conservatives seem to give the impression they want less government intrusion into people’s lives when it comes to things like taxation or for instance they advocate a lesser role for government alongside individuals and faith based groups in helping to provide for the least among us. Yet want big brother government watching over us and intruding into people’s personal private lives on issues related to what happens in their bedrooms, or on matters regarding sexual orientation, or on matters regarding women’s bodies or a woman’s personal beliefs on such matters as life and personhood. They for instance cry afoul over things like “Obamacare” and mandates, yet are fully willing for government to stand over women and their doctors and force ultrasounds.

 

[Rafaela]

Ultrasound is hardly a rape; not even the transvaginal one. I have had to have that three times during 12weeks of pregnancy, simply because it gives better image of the baby at the 1st trimester. Its normally even not done that often, but I had a missed miscarriage in my previous pregnancy. Pap smere definitely hurts more.

Bet the real argument here is that pro-aborts know as well as pro-lifers that mother cannot bond with something they can’t feel or see, but once you show the woman an ultrasound many will change their minds and keep the baby. :twocents:

 

[He_Man]

Correct. Many conservatives seem to give the impression they want less government intrusion into people’s lives when it comes to things like taxation or for instance they advocate a lesser role for government alongside individuals and faith based groups in helping to provide for the least among us. Yet want big brother government watching over us and intruding into people’s personal private lives on issues related to what happens in their bedrooms, or on matters regarding sexual orientation, or on matters regarding women’s bodies or a woman’s personal beliefs on such matters as life and personhood. They for instance cry afoul over things like “Obamacare” and mandates, yet are fully willing for government to stand over women and their doctors and force ultrasounds.

Likewise,one could argue liberals want the government to intervene in areas of taxation, gun ownership, prayer in schools, and social programs, yet want the government to remain completely isolated from other areas such as morality and ethics, and areas they want freedom to do as they want with no one to tell them otherwise. Neither is an exactly accurate description.

 

[seekerz]

but once you show the woman an ultrasound many will change their minds and keep the baby. :twocents:

Mind giving some evidence to back up that opinion?

 

[He_Man]

Mind giving some evidence to back up that opinion?

I didn’t give that opinion, but I did a quick search, and here’s one:

paprolife.org/LifeFacts–Ultrasounds%20save%20lives.pdf

It stands to reason that the number of women who will change their behind is greater than 0 but less than 100%. Certainly some have and will, but not all will. Don’t see how it could be a bad thing whatsoever to mandate ultrasounds, assuming you actually oppose abortion, of course.

 

[Corki]

Mind giving some evidence to back up that opinion?

I can give you some. We had the 40 days for life speaker at Mass today. The vast majority of women who stop at the bus to get the free ultrasound change their minds. On the first day of 40 Days for life this year, 14 women stopped at the bus and all changed their minds.

Of course, not all the women going to PP will even come to the bus. But 14 babies saved in a single day is awesome!

 

[vera_dicere]

Ultrasounds are part of good medical care, especially for women having an abortion. It is required to rule out ectopic pregnancy, to discover the gestational age of the embryo/foetus - so the murd… ah… abortionist knows what method to use, it is to determine twins et al.

How is an ultrasound more invasive than having dilating rods inserted up the vagina, and into the cervix? How is it more invasive than having a suction cannula inserted to remove teh foetus? How it it more invasive than having other instruments inserted?

These absolute idiots are making a moutain out of a mole hill, building a strawman with the intent of pushign their baby killing agenda.

As it stands, you can have a non-vaginal ultrasound. They do external abdo ultrasounds all the time.

 

[CMatt25]

Its not charitable of me to say so, but really, those pro-aborts are the dumbest sacks of dog leavings I’ve ever read about.

I agree it’s probably not the most charitable thing to say especially since not everyone who opposes forcing this upon women and their drs are “pro-aborts”.

 

[CMatt25]

Bet the real argument here is that pro-aborts know as well as pro-lifers that mother cannot bond with something they can’t feel or see, but once you show the woman an ultrasound many will change their minds and keep the baby. :twocents:

Women when they learn they are pregnant know what they could bond with following various stages of development of the fetus over the course of the 9 mo period if they do not choose to terminate the pregnancy. They don’t need an ultrasound forced upon them to know that.

 

[He_Man]

Women when they learn they are pregnant know what they could bond with following various stages of development of the fetus over the course of the 9 mo period if they do not choose to terminate the pregnancy. They don’t need an ultrasound forced upon them to know that.

So why do a good percentage change their mind after an ultyraspund?

 

[seekerz]

I didn’t give that opinion, but I did a quick search, and here’s one:

paprolife.org/LifeFacts–Ultrasounds%20save%20lives.pdf

It stands to reason that the number of women who will change their behind is greater than 0 but less than 100%. Certainly some have and will, but not all will. Don’t see how it could be a bad thing whatsoever to mandate ultrasounds, assuming you actually oppose abortion, of course.

1. That report doesn’t seem like a statistically sound study to me, but if one is available, I would like to see it and to find out if the 83% of women voluntarily accepted an ultrasound or if they had it forced on them. If not, the findings do not apply.
2. I could be wrong but I would imagine that a woman visiting a crisis pregnancy center is already torn between having the baby and keeping it, and the ultrasound helps her make up her mind. That does not seem a comparable situation to that of a woman who visits an abortion clinic. So again, some scientifically sound studies to back up mandated ultrasounds would be nice…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

1. That report doesn’t seem like a statistically sound study to me, but if one is available, I would like to see it and to find out if the 83% of women voluntarily accepted an ultrasound or if they had it forced on them. If not, the findings do not apply.
2. I could be wrong but I would imagine that a woman visiting a crisis pregnancy center is already torn between having the baby and keeping it, and the ultrasound helps her make up her mind. That does not seem a comparable situation to that of a woman who visits an abortion clinic. So again, some scientifically sound studies to back up mandated ultrasounds would be nice…

You are arguing about that which you have zero experience in - being pregnant. I think you should stop now. Every woman who goes to an abortion clinic is torn in one way or another. There is confusion, doubt, fear, as well as joy and excitement because of the pregnancy. There is dread along with happiness. Our bodies start to change from the moment the egg is fertilized. A whole miraculous process begins and is already quite far along by the time the woman even knows that she is pregnant. Abortion cuts off this process with a traumatic surgical procedure, much like an amputation. Of course the woman has consequences. Of course even a transvaginal ultrasound given by a cruel technician is NOTHING compared to the true rape of an abortion, that kills a baby and throws a woman’s body into shock and recovery.

When a woman has herself steeled to have an abortion, we term her “abortion-minded.” This does not mean that she has freely CHOSEN to have the abortion, far from it. It is never her free choice. When a woman like this chooses instead to come and see her baby on a monitor (external US), she doesn’t know what to expect, usually. Many times PP will have told her that her pregnancy is nothing more than “a clump of cells” or a “bit of tissue.” And then she sees her baby, in recognizable form, with tiny hands, feet, and a beating heart. It is the best weapon against abortion that we have to this point, and abortionists know it. That is why they are screaming so loudly and so impotently against it.

 

[seekerz]

I cannot beleive how utterly assinine the pro-abortion movement is. Well, I can beleive it, but this just reeks of blatant stupidity.

Ultrasounds are part of good medical care, especially for women having an abortion. It is required to rule out ectopic pregnancy, to discover the gestational age of the embryo/foetus - so the murd… ah… abortionist knows what method to use, it is to determine twins et al.

How is an ultrasound more invasive than having dilating rods inserted up the vagina, and into the cervix? How is it more invasive than having a suction cannula inserted to remove teh foetus? How it it more invasive than having other instruments inserted?

These absolute idiots are making a moutain out of a mole hill, building a strawman with the intent of pushign their baby killing agenda.

As it stands, you can have a non-vaginal ultrasound. They do external abdo ultrasounds all the time.

Its not charitable of me to say so, but really, those pro-aborts are the dumbest sacks of dog leavings I’ve ever read about.

Very helpful comment ya think…insulting people must be the new way of getting them to do what we want - oh, of course, silly me - we have the law for making them do what we want, so why care if they perceive hatred and return in kind?

You can’t really believe that women having invasive procedures (most with some form of mind-altering substance, I might add) is equivalent to being forced by the state to have a vaginal ultrasound…but then again, silly me - that is exactly what you seem to be saying. Of course in the days when wives had no right to ever say no, and women of ill-repute had no standing to complain when forced, those views would have fit right in…

 

[seekerz]

You are arguing about that which you have zero experience in - being pregnant. I think you should stop now. Every woman who goes to an abortion clinic is torn in one way or another. There is confusion, doubt, fear, as well as joy and excitement because of the pregnancy. There is dread along with happiness. Our bodies start to change from the moment the egg is fertilized. A whole miraculous process begins and is already quite far along by the time the woman even knows that she is pregnant. Abortion cuts off this process with a traumatic surgical procedure, much like an amputation. Of course the woman has consequences. Of course even a transvaginal ultrasound given by a cruel technician is NOTHING compared to the true rape of an abortion, that kills a baby and throws a woman’s body into shock and recovery.

When a woman has herself steeled to have an abortion, we term her “abortion-minded.” This does not mean that she has freely CHOSEN to have the abortion, far from it. It is never her free choice. When a woman like this chooses instead to come and see her baby on a monitor (external US), she doesn’t know what to expect, usually. Many times PP will have told her that her pregnancy is nothing more than “a clump of cells” or a “bit of tissue.” And then she sees her baby, in recognizable form, with tiny hands, feet, and a beating heart. It is the best weapon against abortion that we have to this point, and abortionists know it. That is why they are screaming so loudly and so impotently against it.

If I’ve never been pregnant what does that make my offspring? Or have I been seeing illusions all this time. You make assumptions which have no basis in reality, but it is interesting that you seek to silence someone you think to be a man, when men are the only ones considered to have a valuable opinion on the matter by some of our esteemed legislators.

Nevertheless, your words do absolutely nothing to address my criticism of the tenuous ‘evidence’ - if you can call it that - on which this legislation was based.

 

[seekerz]

So why do a good percentage change their mind after an ultyraspund?

A ‘good’ percentage of those forced to have an ultrasound change their minds? I’ll repeat my earlier question: where’s the data? But I’ll go further, one of the central tenets of Catholic belief is that the ends do not justify the means. In light of that, and since I am an adherent both of faith and of science, I’d like to see a theologian’s justification for forcing ultrasounds (of any type) on women who don’t freely choose to have them.

 

[Cristiano]

All these discussions are quite interesting. They make me think of how during the few days before Ash Wednesday here in Texas people were subjected to mandatory blood removal if they refused to subject to a breathalyzer test when considered suspects of driving intoxicated. It looks like that the government is fine with sticking needles in the arm of a person considered innocent without have any warrant issued.