![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The Ultrasound Debate
Sep. 21st, 2007 | 11:36 am
Feministing links to this article today, reporting on Sen. Brownback's bill that would require women to get ultrasounds before getting an abortion.
Jessica is irascible over the bill because "the rhetoric surrounding it suggests that women are dolts who have no idea what a pregnancy means".
While I am rooting for the bill, obviously, I'm not absolutely gung-ho about it. But it's definitely a step in the right direction. Do I think it will pass? No.
But Jessica's interpretation of the bill is obviously—and I would guess intentionally—flawed. She, along with many other pro-choicers I've talked to, seem to think that all women know what the development of their fetus is. So if we think that women are automatically "dolts", she and her lady-friends over at Feministing must automatically think that all women are fetalogists. Perhaps she, who devotes her life to "protecting choice", knows about fetal development, but I have talked to several woman, and have read countless others, who had no clue about the development of the baby and, indeed, were told that it's just a "blob of tissue". I have seen this kind of thing with young, teenage women especially.
It's as if pro-choicers think that a 17 year-old who doesn't want her parents to know that she's pregnant (and that's OK!) is going to go to the library one day and research fetalogy to make sure this is what she wants to do. No. She is going to find her way to the nearest Planned Parenthood or CPC to 1) schedule an abortion (most likely) or 2) find out about all of her options. The Planned Parenthood will not give her information as to her the development of her child, and, judging by their abortion vs. adoption referral rate, she will most likely be killing her baby. (In 2004, their referal rate was 138 abortions for every 1 adoption. This last year, they didn't report a single adoption referral.)
What pro-lifers seek with the law is informed consent, just like people should with any other "medical procedure". But Jessica even says, "Using language like 'informed consent' and talking about women needing to see the fetus. As if otherwise we would have no idea that it was there." Well, besides the fact that a lot girls don't know about the development of their 10 week-old baby, what would be the harm?
I'll tell you what the harm is: Women do know what they are doing. They may not know the development or specifics about the baby they are about to kill, but they do know that they are killing their baby. And this is why the pro-choicers will do anything to stop such a bill: If a woman sees this, she may change her mind. (Click here for effect.)
Jessica is irascible over the bill because "the rhetoric surrounding it suggests that women are dolts who have no idea what a pregnancy means".
While I am rooting for the bill, obviously, I'm not absolutely gung-ho about it. But it's definitely a step in the right direction. Do I think it will pass? No.
But Jessica's interpretation of the bill is obviously—and I would guess intentionally—flawed. She, along with many other pro-choicers I've talked to, seem to think that all women know what the development of their fetus is. So if we think that women are automatically "dolts", she and her lady-friends over at Feministing must automatically think that all women are fetalogists. Perhaps she, who devotes her life to "protecting choice", knows about fetal development, but I have talked to several woman, and have read countless others, who had no clue about the development of the baby and, indeed, were told that it's just a "blob of tissue". I have seen this kind of thing with young, teenage women especially.
It's as if pro-choicers think that a 17 year-old who doesn't want her parents to know that she's pregnant (and that's OK!) is going to go to the library one day and research fetalogy to make sure this is what she wants to do. No. She is going to find her way to the nearest Planned Parenthood or CPC to 1) schedule an abortion (most likely) or 2) find out about all of her options. The Planned Parenthood will not give her information as to her the development of her child, and, judging by their abortion vs. adoption referral rate, she will most likely be killing her baby. (In 2004, their referal rate was 138 abortions for every 1 adoption. This last year, they didn't report a single adoption referral.)
What pro-lifers seek with the law is informed consent, just like people should with any other "medical procedure". But Jessica even says, "Using language like 'informed consent' and talking about women needing to see the fetus. As if otherwise we would have no idea that it was there." Well, besides the fact that a lot girls don't know about the development of their 10 week-old baby, what would be the harm?
I'll tell you what the harm is: Women do know what they are doing. They may not know the development or specifics about the baby they are about to kill, but they do know that they are killing their baby. And this is why the pro-choicers will do anything to stop such a bill: If a woman sees this, she may change her mind. (Click here for effect.)