blog.bioethics.net

I, too, have a hard time believing that a woman who is now lying on the table at a doctors office or clinic, about to have an abortion would somehow have a change of heart by seeing the moving picture of her unborn baby. It's a poor tactic at the hands of legislature because the child obviously wasn't wanted prior to the picture and so will having the picture somehow change that? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe in abortion but somehow feel that this is immoral as well. I can't help but think of the unborn child in this...later in life is this woman going to tell her child that I was lying on a table waiting to rid my body of you when all of the sudden I saw your little heart beating and all of those feelings melted away and I knew from that moment I was meant to be your mother? I doubt it. There are a multitude of reasons women give for having abortions, but whatever the reason, I don't think pictures will change them.
Dana

- by Dana on Mar 23, 2007 at 6:17 PM | link

I think the motivations you ascribe to this bill are accurate, but I'm not sure if your description of the bill is accurate. My understanding is that the law would require clinics to offer to show the ultrasound, but that the patient could refuse. A policy of not allowing the patient the right to view these images (the way it is now?) could be construed as a restriction on the patient's autonomy. On the other hand, even offering to show the images might be coercive for some individuals.

- by AMiller on Mar 23, 2007 at 7:02 PM | link

"Are we going to have outstanding health care, job retraining, free and good state-sponsored child-sitting services?"
Women are forced to kill their babies if they don't get these things? Seriously, what is the relevance? It's amazing that the human race survived all these millenia without state-sponsored daycare. Maybe we've evolved past our niche.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Mar 23, 2007 at 9:25 PM | link

On the other hand, Kelly, why not?
What, exactly, do you mean by "vulnerable"?
It's not enough to say that seeing the fetus will cause emotional stress or trauma. She's bound to see an US of a fetus someday - either in a movie, a TV show or during her own or someone else's prenatal care for a future pregnancy - and just as likely to compare that US to the aborted fetus. If the US leads to emotional damage before the abortion, it's just as likely to cause emotional trauma after the abortion.
As you said, the US and the counseling are already necessary - and they should be, since improved staging and positioning will improve the care for the woman, herself. Why not use the US for the counseling while you're at it?
It's true that the pregnancy assistance centers ("anti-abortion" groups who counsel women against abortion and provide various resources related to pregnancy and motherhood) report that the women who see their fetus by US are more likely to decide against abortion. But these are women and girls who are already contemplating not aborting.
The same may or may not be true of the general population.
But if it is, then it seems to me an argument in favor of, not against, showing her the US, unless you find abortion inherently preferable to continuing the pregnancy.
The economic and social consequences are very real concerns, but should be a separate issue from the benefits of informed consent for the procedure of abortion.

- by Beverly Nuckols on Mar 23, 2007 at 11:20 PM | link

Isn't this really a case of the state trying to persuade based on images. Images are often misleading--they often fail to portray facts because humans associate the images with particular notions, accurate or not. In the case of abortion, the image of a partially developed fetus may resemble the outline of a newborn child. But that fact alone does not mean that it is a newborn child. Yet for many, including many under-educated, images may conjure notions that do not portray fact.

- by Dave on Mar 24, 2007 at 1:26 AM | link

Dave, what's wrong with persuasion in favor of life, using a tool that's being used concurrently for the benefit of the health of the mother? The state uses the image of police cars, the shields of law enforcement officers and courts, not to mention all the traffic signs on the roads to persuade in favor of certain behavior, all the time.
You have made some interesting distinctions, Dan: between the newborn child and the fetus who looks just like him and the under-educated vs. I won't presume to guess "Whom"? It sure would be easy to read Kelly's post and yours and as implying that poor, under-educated mothers are easily swayed when contemplating abortion.
Maybe y'all ought to talk to Senator Dan (pay 'em to adopt, not abort") Patrick from Texas.

- by Beverly Nuckols on Mar 24, 2007 at 5:04 PM | link

AMiller:
As I understand and have read (and maybe we just need to find a copy of the bill itself), the law moves the optional ultrasound viewing to becoming a mandatory part of the process. It's being removed as a choice, and becoming a forced requirement.
Beverly - I'm not ignoring you, I'm just too tired to respond to more than the basics right now. I'll reply when I'm not traveling!

- by Kelly on Mar 25, 2007 at 4:07 AM | link

To Laura:
Yes, I suppose you're right. Women have evolved beyond their niche, and (most) men have evolved to accept this: After all, a women's "niche" (i.e., PLACE) is married by 18, pregnant by 19, and popping out babies while making sure dinner is on the table by 6pm for her hardworking husband.
Give me a break.
These laws have nothing to do with the health and well-being of the mother, or her baby for that matter. If they did, then we would have some form of subsidized or universal health care and daycare in this country. These people don't care about taking care of people that need it - they simply care about pushing their moral values and agendas on the rest of society, all the while turning their backs on the neediest members. This is hardly promoting Christ's agenda.
On a final and only somewhat related note - my mother was sitting in the waiting room of an abortion clinic a couple months after she discovered she was pregnant with me, and she walked out. She didn't need to have an ultrasound or see the fetus to be convinced, because the feeling was intrinsic. This law is just another step in the direction of humiliating women for making an already gut-wrenching decision.

- by irisira on Mar 25, 2007 at 11:56 AM | link

I agree with the comment above from AMiller - your summary of the bill is not accurate.
The requirement is only that the patient be OFFERED a view of the u/s .. not that the patient be required to see it. This is an important discinction. While I agree that the motivation for the bill raises some concern, I would suggest that it is very likely that all providers of such services ALREADY DO offer this to patients. I know that this is standard process for the services offered in our region, and I would be surprised if this is different from other practices.
The bill is therefore "ho-hum" to me - as it mandates what is already standard practice. Aside from the handwaving going on from both sides of this issue - I'm confused about why this story is getting so much attention.

- by Jacob Reider, MD on Mar 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM | link

I have mixed opinions on this topic. This might be a good idea and decrease the number of abortions, but would it also persuade someone to keep a baby that they really are not able to take care of. After seeing the baby, they may feel more obligated to keep him/her. In cases of rape/incest, I do not think it would be right to have the mother see the ultrasound unless she demands it.

- by Vanessa Nolf on Mar 25, 2007 at 4:01 PM | link

"After all, a women's "niche" (i.e., PLACE) is married by 18, pregnant by 19, and popping out babies while making sure dinner is on the table by 6pm for her hardworking husband."
No, it's not. But it certainly isn't having babies with the expectation that other people provide for them with their taxes. After all, what are those other people doing to provide for their own kids? For a woman to say that she has to abort her child because I won't give her free daycare amounts to extortion.
Never since the last couple of microseconds of human history has the assumption been that women (families) cannot provide for their own and should not be expected to.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Mar 25, 2007 at 5:51 PM | link

From what I understand of this article, women getting an abortion are going to be REQUIRED to view the US prior to abortion. While this may not change their minds about the present decision of abortion, it may deter them from becoming pregnant and using abortion as a method of birth control in the future.

- by R. Phipps RN on Mar 25, 2007 at 7:13 PM | link

This is and will be an ongoing battle in the world for the rest of our existence. Abortion vs. no abortion. I have nothing against the "option" of the mother viewing the ultra sounds of the unborn child if they choose to do so. Making it a law that they HAVE to view the ultra sound images to me is rediculous. I am sure that thier long thought and decision prior to going forward with the abortion is not going to be hindered by an image. If it does hinder their decision it is more than likely going to be because of hitting them with guilt by an image at a vulnerable time. No one will suffer in the end but the child being brought into an unstale environment.

- by Scot Guidash on Mar 25, 2007 at 7:24 PM | link

This is an issue that faces a lot of controversey across the U.S. today. I have mixed emotions about the whole subject but I do feel that the choice should be in the one carrying the child. What is a picture from and Ultrasound really going to do? I agree with an above comment, in that a person who can not physically or mentally take care of a baby sees this image and just has a complete change of emotions and wants to keep the child. On the other hand, someone may have been raped and don't want to have this child and by seeing the ultrasound, may choose to have the baby and give it life but then put the babe up for adoption. I feel there is a lot of good and bad in this one.

- by coleman on Mar 25, 2007 at 9:59 PM | link

I don't think it should be a law. I do think that if a women were to see that it is actually a life inside of them there is a chance it could influence their decision.

- by MaryBeth Logan on Mar 26, 2007 at 12:36 AM | link

The bill text is available here
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3355.htm

- by Beverly Nuckols on Mar 26, 2007 at 1:46 AM | link

Abortion is a difficult and personal decision.It would not be one I would choose for myself. I have a close friend who when she was younger was in an abusive relationship both physically and emotionaly. Despite birth control she became pregnant. At that time and in that situation she chose to have an abortion rather than be connected to this man for the rest of her life. She is now married and has 2 children, but the one she aborted weighs on her mind. It was not a choice she made easily or without thought. I am offended that legislator's imply that women have put no thought or take lightly the decision they have made. After all she did not create this child on her own, yet she bears the brunt of the decision. I agree that an ultrasound may bring home what she has chose to do. I would venture to say most women realize that the child inside of them is alive, please do not insult their intelligence.

- by R Fultz on Mar 26, 2007 at 2:05 AM | link

I would strongly disagree in the chance that they would make a rape or incest victim look at the US. I just don't think it would change the set mind of a woman if she was all for it. It may, but it shouldn't be to make this mother decide to keep it. It may be beneficial for the chance to give it up for adoption They have good intentions but I think it is getting in the way of women's rights if they change it now after all this time.

- by Diane Kot on Mar 26, 2007 at 3:58 AM | link

This is a hot topic, one that often gets bounced around alot and never decided! This is an interesting aproach to this situation, one i've never seen before, but do you really think they will miraculously change their minds1 And if so, do we have more room in the world for neglected, abused, misfortunate children! We need to be proactive before pregnancy, not reactive because of!
respectfully, eric

- by egroce,rn on Mar 26, 2007 at 10:01 PM | link

How sad. It would appear to be just another case of attacking a problem at the feet. I agree with the majority of my post-mates, it's highly unlikely that counseling or warm, fuzzy ultrasound pictures would compel someone intent on abortion to change their mind. Over here in the city, they actively picket, accost you if you come within a couple feet of the clinic and thrust color-plated literature in your hands depicting the most grizzly pictures of a mangled aborted fetus vacuumed out of the sanction of a womb. If that's not enough to make someone turn around, nothing will. Unfortunately, for some, abortion has become a form of birth control. These young women are ill-informed as to the health consequences & havoc abortions wreak on their body. Social constructs are now in place that circumvent a fertile woman from over-populating for just plain ole baby-having purposes. I applaud it. I think much of this behavior comes from ignorance and a diffuse sense of uncaring generated by hopelessness. Social advocacy may be the answer, not ultrasounds.

- by D Watson on Mar 26, 2007 at 10:26 PM | link

I guess I am in the moral minority; I don't believe abortion is right in any instance. If showing a woman the ultrasound of her fetus makes it sink into her head what she is doing, I'm all for it (whether she changes her mind or not). Frankly, I don't care why a woman decides to have an abortion; excuses abound. A comment was made that we should not insult the intelligence of women who get abortions because "most...realize that the child inside of them is alive." Oh, really....? Knowingly taking someone's life, whether that person is unborn or 100 years old is still MURDER! The time for a woman to consider whether or not a woman is ready to have a child is not after she becomes pregnant, but before. A woman's irresponsible behavior is not the fault of the child that is conceived. Most cases of rape do not result in pregnancy, but I am sure it would be heartwrenching for those that do become pregnant as a result of rape. However, it is not unheard of for a rape victim to carry the pregnancy to term and then either keep the child or give him/her up for adoption. I actually know a woman who was raped and kept her child. And no, she does not see her rapist's face every time she looks at her child...she just sees her daughter.

- by Karen Mikita on Mar 27, 2007 at 3:25 AM | link

I personally don't see the harm in trying to preserve the life of a child. It amazes me how society thinks. Everyone is so hurt and feels so bad when they hear of a someone who kills their baby after they deliver it. Why are you sad when it is delivered but don't care when the child is in the uterus. It makes no sense. What do people think is going on during an abortion? What I think the state needs to enforce is not only a ultra sound before the abortion but make you watch an ultra sound while a baby is being aborted. Trust me that would freak people out. That would scare me straight. We can cut all of that garbage about the mothers body.I think the state is doing a good thing. Make these woman believe that they have life inside of them. I am sure we already aborted the future scientist who would have cured AIDS.

- by Melissa S on Mar 28, 2007 at 7:27 PM | link

I can understand the necessity of an ultrasound being done prior to an abortion but why does the expecting mother have to view it if she doesn't want to? I'm sure for that person to come to the decision to abort her unborn baby was hard enough and then to be forced to watch the ultrasound being performed would probably make it all the worse. I think it is a terrible and pointless idea to force these mothers to look at the unborn fetus they are about to abort. It is their decision and their's only and I'm sure a very hard one at that to make with out anyone elses input.

- by Samantha on Mar 29, 2007 at 3:40 PM | link

Beverly - thanks so much for taking the time to track down the text of the bill, I appreciate it.
For those of you who are arguing that this is not a required viewing of the ultrasound, I suggest you read the link Beverly posted. If you do, you will see, right under "Bill", the following text:
THE PHYSICIAN WHO IS TO PERFORM THE ABORTION MUST VERIFY THE PROBABLE GESTATIONAL AGE OF THE EMBRYO OR FETUS BY USING AN OBSTETRIC ULTRASOUND, TO PROVIDE THAT THE IMAGES USED TO VERIFY THE PROBABLE GESTATIONAL AGE MUST BE REVIEWED WITH THE WOMAN SEEKING THE ABORTION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE WOMAN SEEKING THE ABORTION MUST CERTIFY IN WRITING BEFORE THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED THAT SHE HAS REVIEWED THE ULTRASOUND IMAGES.
A woman must certify in writing that she has viewed an ultrasound, prior to receiving an abortion. This is not voluntary, this is mandatory.
Beverly - I'm aware of the crisis pregnancy center statistics (in fact, Time's lasted issue has 'em on the cover in hard to miss graphics), and I do agree that they're skewed because the women are already contemplating not aborting. Why do I find it problematic that women who're not contemplating a choice be forced to view these images? Because I think it's a form of emotional blackmail/terror - it's a way of trying to guilt someone into doing something that, by all reports, is a difficult choice for anyone to make. (While people like to sound off on the "omg people use abortion as birth control" tangent, there's absolutely no data that backs up this as a major lifestyle choice - just the occasional sad story that is not representative of the average person seeking an abortion.) I think that if woman have reached the point where they've decided abortion is the right decision for them, we should not be trying to emotionally blackmail them to change their mind.
It's not any fetal ultrasound, it's the ultrasound of what's going on inside of you - I'm not sure, to be honest, how you can see this as anything other than an effort at emotional blackmail of the vulnerable.
I think that economics is something that can't be swept away from this issue. The Guttmacher Institute's data shows that 3/4th of the women contemplating abortion do so because of economic reasons. I don't think it's a "poor, uneducated woman" issue as much as it's just a "poor women" issue - babies are expensive, and these crisis pregnancy centers, while free enough with spotting money on the short term, don't help solve the underlying economic reasons that drive women to abort.
Karen-
What, so if a woman has no interest in being a mother, she should never have sex? Sex and procreation should be forever linked together?
That, I believe, is the provencial attitude irisira was angrily commenting on earlier in the thread.

- by Kelly on Mar 31, 2007 at 4:13 AM | link

"Sex and procreation should be forever linked together?"
Kelly - recommend you go back and revisit your basic biology class.
Of course women can have sex without wanting a baby each time. Birth control is available today as never before, more options, more choice, safer, more effective. It will occasionally fail. I don't see a problem telling a woman who absolutely CANNOT HAVE or DOES NOT WANT a baby not to have sex. We join the rest of the animal kingdom by reproducing that way.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Apr 1, 2007 at 1:37 AM | link

Kelly, any and every woman should have all the information available to her that her doctor has. Signing that she received informed consent is not an "undue burden."
My husband - the pawn broker who even skipped biology in high school - had a hip replacement in December and just went to his final checkup, without me. Without mentioning our conversation here, I asked him what he would have thought if his doctor had not automatically thrown up the hip X-Ray for him to review at each visit. You can imagine his indignation at the very idea.
Blackmail is only possible if there is leverage and of course, in the case of an elective interventional abortion, there is quite a bit of emotional leverage for any woman or girl capable of consent. The emotional context of the abortion doesn't end when the abortion itself is over. She will see other ultrasounds, she probably will have other pregnancies. She should never doubt that she had every bit of information available when she made her choice. (I have heard women testify at the State legislature that they were denied when they asked to view their ultrasound.)
The local pregnancy assistance center is the only one I am familiar with. At ours, the classes and resources go beyond diapers and layettes, with classes in coping and parenting skills augmented by the underlying lesson that growth, education and options exist. And that other people care enough to make sure there are real choices available - it's not all or nothing, it's where do we go from here with what we've got?

- by Beverly Nuckols on Apr 1, 2007 at 8:01 AM | link

Beverly -
I think there is a difference, however, between healing from an injury (such as in your husband's example) and someone voluntarily seeking out a procedure for a non-life threatening issue. Prior to the mandate that the woman must view the ultrasound and must sign, the woman was asked if she would like to see the ultrasound and given the choice, yes or no. That, I think, is fine - she has the ability to decide what level of involvement she wants in her decision. If you want to abstract out to other medical examples, I would think the removal of my osteochondroma some years back is slightly better. After trial and error, we figured out why I couldn't walk, scheduled the surgery, and the doc asked me if I would like to remain conscious and able to view the surgery as they were doing it. He knew I was interested in medicine and thought I might enjoy seeing a dental drill taken to my bone, and then a chisel.
Now, as strong a stomach as I have, and as interested as I am in all things medicine, this was an option I passed on. I appreciated him asking and giving me a choice, but I am equally grateful it was not something I was required to do, and I had an out.
I find the emotional context of abortion to be, frankly, a rather tired trope. Yes, some women do suffer lingering effects from an abortion, be they physical or emotional. But just as equally, there are women who are not - and they get ignored and brushed under the rug because they ruin the myth that abortion is always a terrible thing that does terrible things to a woman.
Sure, there are some women who will see ultrasounds post-abortion and get upset. Just like there are those who will not - but that doesn't make it alright to emotionally browbeat her during the process, simply because she will not be traumatized after.
Laura -
We're not animals. And personally, I prefer not to be sexist. Telling a woman she should never have sex if she doesn't want to be pregnant is blatantly sexist, simply because it's not an issue a guy has to deal with. A guy can go around and have sex til the cows come home, he's never going to have to deal with the emotional decisions attached to an unwanted pregnancy.
We are not sheep (unless other researchers have their way). We have augmented and changed ourselves far beyond our "natural" origins (and nevermind the fact that our natural origins appear to include birth control and abortion for a lot longer than most people acknowledge).
We unlinked sex and procreation long ago, prior even to modern fertility awareness methods. Saying that a woman shouldn't be sexually active if she doesn't want a child is, well, boggling, to be honest. I'd thought we'd moved beyond the general belief that a woman must be a mother, and if she's not interested in that, she'd just best not have a sex life.

- by Kelly on Apr 2, 2007 at 1:07 AM | link

Kelly, if it's no big deal, what's the big deal? Are there emotional consequences or aren't there? Will they or do they only arise from viewing the US? If the woman or girl doesn't know what she's doing, she should be informed, if she does know what she's doing, then where's the "browbeating"?
I'm one of those who fought for natural birth, the right to breastfeed without my child's blood being drawn to convince me that he was anemic at every single pedi visit, and the right to meet my doctor clothed before the pelvic. My mother's generation was castrated without question as to the long term effects. The US review is the competent woman's right as part of a full, informed consent. It's more patronizing to hide the screen than not. (I'm sure we'll hear variable definitions of "review" over the next few years.)
In the case of a live, real-time procedure such as an ultrasound, the woman should have all of the accessible clinical data available. In most cases, neither the US nor the abortion will be conducted under sedation. The US isn't developed in another room, it's right there at her side.
I do wonder how many women are given the same choice and consent process that you were given by your ENT. It's my understanding that most first trimester abortions are done with little anesthesia other than a tranquilizer, if at all. I know it's not an option for medical abortions or for all of the dilation time for those using laminaria or labor induction in later abortions. Looking at the US is nothing compared to a suction canula in the undilated cervix or a few centimeters dilation over a period of days.
As you said, we are not sheep - or cows. We do understand the consequences of our actions.
Sure, it's not fair that the double standard is alive and well and that men never have to worry about getting pregnant. Biology is not fate, but it is a factor to be dealt with.
You make it sound as though the only choice in unplanned pregnancies is how to carry out the inevitable abortion.

- by Beverly on Apr 2, 2007 at 4:06 AM | link

I got off the fence about abortion after the brouhaha over a bill board in California. It showed a photo of an adult hand holding an aborted fetus so just his tiny feet were showing. The billboard said, "Aborted: Ten weeks into life."
The news interviewed the director of the local abortion clinic, who said, "We've been getting hundreds of angry calls from women wanting to know why they weren't given that information before their abortions. We want that billboard down!" This taught me that what had happened to my friend -- she'd been lied to about what was in her uterus, slated for destruction -- wasn't an isolated, flukey incident. It was part of a pattern of keeping women in the dark, denying them information, and then claiming that you're doing it in the name of "choice."
What's with the "Don't worry her pretty little head" attitude? If women are so strong, then they can handle the truth, and they can look at the fetus they're thinking of destroying and say, "Yes, I do want it to die," or, "No, now that I've seen it I've changed my mind." The very fact that women do change their minds when given this information shows that it is indeed relevant.
Sounds to me like the prochoice stand here is "Women are pathetic, fragile little creatures who need to be kept as ignorant as possible, because they're just so totally incapable of coping with reality." Quit being so patronizing!

- by Christina on Apr 2, 2007 at 6:32 AM | link

I want to say that abortation - it is always bad. We must stop it.Poland for example abortation is a crime!

- by johny on Apr 2, 2007 at 1:18 PM | link

"I think it is a terrible and pointless idea to force these mothers to look at the unborn fetus they are about to abort."
Why? You think people shouldn't have to look at the baby they are about to kill because they might feel bad about killing the baby? Cry me a river! Maybe it will make women think twice before killing the baby, and not have to suffer a lifetime of guilt and remorse.

- by JacqueFromTexas on Apr 2, 2007 at 1:34 PM | link

I do not think that by looking at an ultrasound it is going to sway a woman thought process. Also I think that this legislature is quite contradicting. If South Carolina is so pro life, why would a rape or incest victim have be exempt from looking. Life is life and it has not biases. It is unfortunate that those two occur but adoption is an option.
Further more, if a woman has had to face the choice of abortion, she will most likely not be swayed. I don't know what it is like to be faced with that decision, but it is huge and when it is made, it is for keeps. No one takes it lightly (it is life altering for both mother and fetus)and the decision going into the clinic would probably be final. It think that with proper counseling and alternatives to abortion, women will be able to make a pro life decision.
Lastly, another idea is that the decision for pro life is based highly from religion and familial morals/values. It is hard for the legislature to put a picture in front of a woman and expect her to make a pro life choice when she has little to none of the above mentioned.

- by T. Przybysz on Apr 2, 2007 at 6:40 PM | link

"We unlinked sex and procreation long ago, prior even to modern fertility awareness methods."
You are kidding, right?

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Apr 3, 2007 at 1:35 AM | link

Laura wonders:
I suggest that you learn about the history of midwifery and obstetrics. Medical (i.e. non-surgical) abortions were around well before RU-486. They weren't particularly safe or reliable, but they existed. (The Catholic Church allowed abortion well into the 19th century.) People have been trying to cheat the consequences of having sex for millennia now.
That's not the point, though. The point is a well-meaning state government figuring out ways to dissuade women from having abortions.
Jacque:
No, the stance is that women are capable of making their own decisions, without interference from the government. I prefer to take responsibility for my own health and consent to procedures without having my state legislature force me to look at any monitor that I don't want to. I barely trust my own state legislature with the reins of government, let alone my health care decisions.
Presumably, most adult (or even adolescent) women have seen a biology textbook. Despite what many people think, abortions are not easy to come by in most of the USA; a woman seeking one out has already been through enough.
The government proposes emotional manipulation of women who have already made the wrenching decision to have an abortion. Having done so, presumably the same state government should consider itself responsible for making sure that these "unwanted" children do not grow up in poverty and/or neglect, either through encouraging open or sealed adoption, or supporting women whose partners have abandoned them after learning about the pregnancy.
Finally, Beverly said:
Without family-friendly workplaces, affordable childcare, or a supportive partner, that is indeed the choice many women do make. Perhaps if open adoption were a more widespread practice, since giving up a live baby to never hear from it again can be as traumatic experience to the mother as abortion.

- by M.J. Fournier on Apr 3, 2007 at 5:58 AM | link

Haven't had a chance to check this in a few days ...
Laura - to your first response to me:
"it certainly isn't having babies with the expectation that other people provide for them with their taxes. After all, what are those other people doing to provide for their own kids? For a woman to say that she has to abort her child because I won't give her free daycare amounts to extortion."
It's not extortion. What should these women do? Bring children into the world that they can't take care of? Turn into *gasp* welfare mothers? It's just a perfect example of people not giving a crap about life after birth.
Oh, and let's not forget about the people who feel forced to have a child and then can't stand the sight of that child and abuse it - mentally, physically, sexually, what have you.
Is this right? No, it's disgusting and it makes me sick. EVERY child should be wanted and loved. however, a reality is that not everyone "steps up" to motherhood.
Anti-abortionists love to paint pro-choicers as heartless because we advocate killing babies. That's simply not true. A woman should be informed of all of her options - abortion, adoption, keeping the child, not necessarily prioritized in that order (I picked it because it's alphabetical) - upon pregnancy. We're not saying she shouldn't be informed. We're saying that she shouldn't be judged for the decision she makes.
My point is, if this woman has this child, are you going to take care of it? By saying, "It's not MY responsibility to take care of HER actions," then you underline my point: that unless you are willing to take care of the child yourself, you really have zero right to decide whether the woman carries the child to term or not.
And, your last comment, Laura: sex and fertility are linked, yes, but not as much as sex and love are. Actually, Christians can't quite make up their minds on that one - when it comes to men and women engaging in sexual relations for other than the purposes of procreation, that's bad. Yet in the next breath, we're reminded that we are not rutting animals, that we know right from wrong, and that sex has a deeper meaning for humans than it does for animals.

- by irisira on Apr 3, 2007 at 9:58 AM | link

A woman's right to choose---perhaps South Carolina is attempting to exert undue influence in what is supposed to be a woman's right.
Counseling maybe, but forcing to view an ultrasound is wrong. Will this really cause someone to change their mind because they can see a grainy image but can't tell the difference between a fetus or other body parts? We think not.

- by stacy on Apr 3, 2007 at 1:27 PM | link

"Christians can't quite make up their minds on that one - when it comes to men and women engaging in sexual relations for other than the purposes of procreation, that's bad."
You are confusing "Christian" with "Catholic", a subset of Christians. I have no problem with people having sex and using birth control. If the birth control fails, I have a problem with them killing their offspring. Yes, abortion has been around forever. So has infanticide, exposure of children who aren't up to spec or whatever. Tragically, there has always been the murder of little babies and children. That doesn't make it ever right.
As to me taking care of people's kids, I don't have to. There are people who cry themselves to sleep every night because they can't have babies. There's a long, LONG waiting list of people who want to adopt infants, so long that many people give up and adopt overseas. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby.
Well-meaning governments should always try to dissuade women and men from killing their children. They won't always succeed, but they should still try.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Apr 3, 2007 at 10:06 PM | link

Let's just say this ridiculous bill passes. Let's also say these women change their minds and don't abort. What happens to all the children who are later neglected, abused and abandoned? Who is going to care for these poor children? There are enough children in this world who are in need of good parents, why increase that number by blackmailing mothers into not aborting.

- by maberg on Apr 7, 2007 at 1:44 AM | link

I would have to say I approve of this bill, but it would be nice to see the whole bill and not just someone's interpretation. If a woman saw the child she was carrying she might change her mind. If not she might remember the images to pass on to her other children, if these were not aborted. Kelly, where would you be if you mother had aborted you? I am against abortion, people have been given an easy way out for a stupid decision they made(having unprotected sex). This is not directed at those individuals who have suffered rape, but to those who had a choice in their decision. If appears they put their pleasure before their thinking and do not want to face the consequences because it does not fit into their lifestyle. If these individuals would use the money spent on abortions, drugs, and parties they might have the money to properly raise the child; DO YOU THINK?

- by V K Rhoads on Apr 7, 2007 at 9:59 PM | link

"...an inconvenient unnecessary part of her body and an abortion fits her circumstances at the time"? Well, I guess we can see the neutral position that inspired this legislation! To assume that any pregnant woman, regardless of the circumstances, would automatically take this view of her unborn fetus is bad form. (Especially from a legislator, who is being paid to represent ALL of his constituents.) Who is paying for these ultrasounds? And, if after viewing the ultrasound, the patient changes her mind about the abortion, is the state of South Carolina ready to support this pregnancy with more free healthcare? And then to support this child and mother after birth? The idea of an ultrasound of every pregnancy is not necessarily a bad one, but forcing the patient to view it when she wishes otherwise takes all of the good out of it. Couldn't they just OFFER as view to the mother?

- by Holly James on Apr 8, 2007 at 11:25 PM | link