For most mothers-to-be, the first ultrasound photo of their baby is a memento to be treasured.
But the grainy sonogram images are being used in America as an emotional weapon in the war raging over abortion.
Under a closely-watched new law imposed in one state last week, pregnant women must be shown ultrasound pictures of their unborn babies before they are allowed to go ahead with an abortion.
If the tearful patients look away from the sonogram screen, abortion doctors are also mandated to give a detailed oral description of the embryo or fetus at least one hour before the planned termination.
The controversial law caused an outcry when it was passed last week in Oklahoma.
Although the new law exempts women who need abortions for medical reasons, it does not allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest.
>it does not allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest.
I think it is a good idea. It might dawn on some people how serious abortions are and should make them actually use condoms or some other form of contraception so they don't end up getting accidentally pregnant again.
Wanting an abortion but not being able to face up to this smacks of the same mentality as "I want to buy this item, but I don't want to know the harsh reality of how it is made, I want to continue my comfortably ignorant life".
That's rather specious and one sided. You're just coming from the point of view that from the point of fertilisation it is instantly a baby. Many people believe it's not a living entity till birth, or till a certain point in the pregnancy. This point of view is basically saying that a baby is a baby and if you want an abortion you're a murderer. It's emotional blackmail.
>>24067 >That's rather specious and one sided.
I'll admit it is one sided, but I'm aggrieved by the number of unwanted pregnancies just because people are too ignorant to use birth control. Abortion should not be viewed as another form of contraception.
I'm pro-choice (although I'd rather there was justification for it other than "I didn't bother using a condom LOL"), but the viewpoint that a foetus is not a living entity is retarded to me and sounds like something someone in denial would say to justify their actions. However, I can see why pro-choice people would say this try and reinforce their stance.
>>24068 My view is similar. My views on abortion hardened the minute I first saw both of my two kids on an ultrasound screen at 10 weeks. Given the preponderance of geeks here, well used to forming emotional attachments with things on a screen, I defy anyone here to not form a similar attachment with the "parasite" at that stage. Come the day, you will.
I'm all for giving women the right to murder their unborn children, but that's what they are, unborn children. I see no problem with the law as defined in the OP; I'd obviously wish there were better exceptions for rape/incest.
>>24066 >Apart from
> >it does not allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest.
The trouble is that the quoted part belies the motivation for this law: it's not a pro-choice rule put in place to make women realise what they are doing, it's a religiously motivated pro-life rule that pushed as far as it could get.
The result is distasteful enough — yes, some women use abortions like "contraception" but a great many don't — but the motivation makes my skin crawl. It's about as creepy as those freaks who camp outside abortion clinics and harass all those who enter.
If people wish to pay approximately 1000-1500% of the price of pills or condoms for contraception, I see no problem.
This law is literally just emotional blackmail. If people want to abort the baby, let them: it's not like we need more fucking humans. More people need to read Roe v. Wade and look into the effects of children. Seriously, what the fuck is the point in people having a child if it's going to have a terrible life due to the economic situation of the parents. This is where the "its your fault for not using protection" falls down - this is too serious an issue to simply be left to simply fulfill the blame game.
