Is it okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound

[seekerz]

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.

Driving under the influence is against the law, so you could say that the state is investigating a possible crime. Besides, in this case there is an alternative to that needle, which simply consists of exhaling - something we do naturally several times per minute. In addition to all that, the breathalyzer test and the blood test are both backed up by scientific evidence that they are reliable in detecting the blood alcohol content of a person.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

My assumption that you were male is evidently in error. However, the rest of my post stands.

How do you justify the fact that abortion clinics already do ultrasounds, just don’t show them to the mothers? How can a woman freely chose or refuse an ultrasound if she never has the choice to view it in the first place? This legislation is not FORCING anything on the mother, only giving her a true option to see it.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

There, I took out the first part. Now respond to the rest.

 

[Cristiano]

Driving under the influence is against the law, so you could say that the state is investigating a possible crime. Besides, in this case there is an alternative to that needle, which simply consists of exhaling - something we do naturally several times per minute. In addition to all that, the breathalyzer test and the blood test are both backed up by scientific evidence that they are reliable in detecting the blood alcohol content of a person.

So you are saying that is fine to physically intrude a body without warrant!
I agree with you that the science of ultrasounds is well proven and that the screening is not as invasive as a needle in a vein.

 

[seekerz]

My assumption that you were male is evidently in error. However, the rest of my post stands.

How do you justify the fact that abortion clinics already do ultrasounds, just don’t show them to the mothers? How can a woman freely chose or refuse an ultrasound if she never has the choice to view it in the first place? This legislation is not FORCING anything on the mother, only giving her a true option to see it.

Do you have evidence that women are not being allowed to see their ultrasounds? In my experience they are indeed not offered the opportunity to view them but there is no excuse for not showing them if the mother requests it. So what is needed is for women to be informed of their rights; then let them exercise those rights accordingly.

I would be all for legislation that requires all providers to offer the mother the option of watching and discussing her ultrasound (maybe a signed, printed information sheet) - what I am not for is the type of legislation that seeks to force doctors or women to perform or watch ultrasounds.

 

[seekerz]

So you are saying that is fine to physically intrude a body without warrant!
I agree with you that the science of ultrasounds is well proven and that the screening is not as invasive as a needle in a vein.

You are comparing a suspected crime to a doctor’s visit for legal services: apples and oranges.

Mandating medically unnecessary procedures of any kind, by definition, has no basis in science. If there is a scientific basis for administering mandatory, pre-abortion ultrasound, someone would have directed me to the studies by now since I have repeatedly asked to be directed to them.

 

[Cristiano]

You are comparing a suspected crime to a doctor’s visit for legal services: apples and oranges.

Mandating medically unnecessary procedures of any kind, by definition, has no basis in science. If there is a scientific basis for administering mandatory, pre-abortion ultrasound, someone would have directed me to the studies by now since I have repeatedly asked to be directed to them.

So you are saying that anyone suspect of a possible misdemeanor can be subjected to arbitrary physical intrusion without the need for a warrant and without the evidence of a victim?

So you are saying that a doctor can go in and perform an abortion without any use of ultrasound?

Please give your definition of necessary medical procedure, not an example.

 

[seekerz]

There, I took out the first part. Now respond to the rest.

If you really want a detailed rebuttal, I’m happy to oblige. The mistake you seem to be making is projecting your feelings about pregnancy onto every pregnant woman. The same way some people assume that everyone must value their own lives and should be able to relate to feelings like: life is precious. Personally, everything about pregnancy and life is precious to me but I don’t make the mistake of assuming that everyone feels the way I do.

In my mind, it is a more helpful approach to accept that there are some who do not see life (their own or that of others) as invaluable and that there are some who freely choose to end a pregnancy, as well as those who feel forced into it by circumstances. From that starting point, the root problem to tackle (rather than targeting fickle emotions) is how to get people to the point where they do indeed value life - if that seems a tall order, at least we can aim to avoid that which acts against them valuing life. Experience tells me that people learn to value life when they feel valued by others, which is why I strongly oppose forcing ultrasounds on women as, in my opinion (which many in the pro-choice movement seem to validate), it devalues them.

 

[seekerz]

So you are saying that anyone suspect of a possible misdemeanor can be subjected to arbitrary physical intrusion without the need for a warrant and without the evidence of a victim?

So you are saying that a doctor can go in and perform an abortion without any use of ultrasound?

Please give your definition of necessary medical procedure, not an example.

Not sure why you insist on discussing behavior that is against the laws of the land, but whatever makes you happy, I suppose.

I’m not saying anything about what a doctor can do, since I’m not in a position to dictate medical practice. There are professional bodies which sift the scientific evidence and formulate medical guidelines. There are also professional bodies which grant or withdraw medical licenses when practice falls substantially outside those guidelines. The need for an ultrasound before abortion rests upon their deliberations and courts of law take those professionals’ opinions into account when there is a question of malpractice. I believe that is, in general, how medical practice is regulated - not by untrained individuals debating matters they have no expertise in.

 

[Cristiano]

Not sure why you insist on discussing behavior that is against the laws of the land, but whatever makes you happy, I suppose.

I’m not saying anything about what a doctor can do, since I’m not in a position to dictate medical practice. There are professional bodies which sift the scientific evidence and formulate medical guidelines. There are also professional bodies which grant or withdraw medical licenses when practice falls substantially outside those guidelines. The need for an ultrasound before abortion rests upon their deliberations and courts of law take those professionals’ opinions into account when there is a question of malpractice. I believe that is in general, how medical practice is regulated - not by untrained individuals debating matters they have no expertise in.

It is your prerogative to avoid addressing my points and I will not ask you to address them anymore.

I see that you consider yourself totally incompetent to discuss the issue of when and if using ultra-sound screening. I accept your take that you are incompetent on the subject and that your opinion on the topic does not matter. I also accept your statement than a non medical governmental branch ((judiciary, legislative etc.) can make and independent decision (e.g. malpractice) after looking into medical information. It looks like that because of that we then agree that the legislative body of a state has a right to pass mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound test after looking into the medical information.

 

[seekerz]

It is your prerogative to avoid addressing my points and I will not ask you to address them anymore.

I see that you consider yourself totally incompetent to discuss the issue of when and if using ultra-sound screening. I accept your take that you are incompetent on the subject and that your opinion on the topic does not matter. I also accept your statement than a non medical governmental branch ((judiciary, legislative etc.) can make and independent decision (e.g. malpractice) after looking into medical information. It looks like that because of that we then agree that the legislative body of a state has a right to pass mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound test after looking into the medical information.

You seem to have totally lost me there. I said nothing about ‘looking into medical information’. I was very specific: ‘professional bodies’, ‘medical guidelines’, ‘scientific evidence’ are all involved in the regulation of medical practice. Anyone who can turn the pages of a book is not necessarily qualified to dictate medical practice and if you regard this lack of qualification as incompetence then so be it. I don’t suppose you might want to pick up a scalpel anytime soon, so no danger…

 

[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…

Another account of a woman who changed her mind after her baby was shown on an ultrasound (an abdominal, the usual kind). She had come to the mega death center PP here in Houston.

*Stories from the street

Today, a teen mom who had an appointment at Planned Parenthood, decided to have a free ultrasound in our mobile center after speaking to a sidewalk counselor on the street.

She told us that her boyfriend was in jail and as we spoke to her we realized that her unborn child was in danger of abortion. But, as we have been doing, we decided to perform the ultrasound before we continued our counseling.

This young mom had probably the strongest reaction to seeing her unborn child we have seen. She is 13 weeks pregnant and the baby was very clearly seen. She burst into simultaneous tears and laughter that continued for quite a while!

Needless to say she is going to continue her pregnancy. We connected her to the help she needs and will stay in touch with her, please remember her in your prayers.

 

[seekerz]

Today, a teen mom who had an appointment at Planned Parenthood, decided to have a free ultrasound in our mobile center after speaking to a sidewalk counselor on the street.

(emphasis mine)

Your post says it all. Anecdotal reports such as this are heartening however, this particular one fails to address the question in the OP. Your post also fails to address the lack of statistical data to back up the legislation which was proposed.

 

[TraderTif]

If the law can mandate that the doctor must perform the abortion in a sterile hospital environment, then why can’t the law mandate an ultrasound beforehand? It’s all the same thing - all part of the procedure…

Whenever you choose surgery, you get poked, prodded, needled, and tested beforehand. How is this different???

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If the law can mandate that the doctor must perform the abortion in a sterile hospital environment, then why can’t the law mandate an ultrasound beforehand? It’s all the same thing - all part of the procedure…

Whenever you choose surgery, you get poked, prodded, needled, and tested beforehand. How is this different???

It’s different in that another life is being destroyed. A tumor, an aneurysm, etc. - those are not a living person within another person’s body. I know you realize it. If tests, x-rays and ultrasounds are required for any other surgery, then they should be even MORE required in order to destroy another human being’s life, before he or she is even born.

 

[TraderTif]

It’s different in that another life is being destroyed. A tumor, an aneurysm, etc. - those are not a living person within another person’s body. I know you realize it. If tests, x-rays and ultrasounds are required for any other surgery, then they should be even MORE required in order to destroy another human being’s life, before he or she is even born.

 

[seekerz]

If the law can mandate that the doctor must perform the abortion in a sterile hospital environment, then why can’t the law mandate an ultrasound beforehand? It’s all the same thing - all part of the procedure…

Whenever you choose surgery, you get poked, prodded, needled, and tested beforehand. How is this different???

The law mandating sterile hospital environments has a scientific basis. What I keep requesting is the scientific basis for pre-abortion ultrasounds. What is their purpose and what evidence shows they contribute to that purpose? Laws regulating scientific disciplines (or any other sphere for that matter) should not be arbitrary or based on emotion.

 

[seekerz]

It’s different in that another life is being destroyed. A tumor, an aneurysm, etc. - those are not a living person within another person’s body. I know you realize it. If tests, x-rays and ultrasounds are required for any other surgery, then they should be even MORE required in order to destroy another human being’s life, before he or she is even born.

Another life is at risk, granted. How does the law purport to protect that life? Where is the evidence that pre-abortion ultrasounds protect unborn life?

 

[Bookcat]

Stepping aside from the original question (I am sure after so many responses it has been address in various ways)

It is so seriously disconcerting when news and talkshow pundents get bent out of shape saying even the transvaginal one was “invasive”…when we are talking about a *very invasive thing *called --abortion where they go in with deadly things to murder a child…

Culture of death on overtime.

More vision loss…

 

[seekerz]

Stepping aside from the original question (I am sure after so many responses it has been address in various ways)

It is so seriously disconcerting when news and talkshow pundents get bent out of shape saying even the transvaginal one was “invasive”…when we are talking about a *very invasive thing *called --abortion where they go in with deadly things to murder a child…

Culture of death on overtime.

More vision loss…

This has also been addressed multiple times on the thread - I know it’s long. “Invasive” is a relative term when you are comparing a procedure done on a conscious woman to one done on a sedated woman. Granted, the abortion is more ‘invasive’ to the baby.