Comments on: Pre-abortion ultrasounds used to intimidate women http://www.bloggernews.net/19083 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:38:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: mmm http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-1335279 mmm Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:59:00 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-1335279 Baby killers! Baby killers!

]]> By: Mark http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-1234141 Mark Tue, 19 May 2009 03:29:23 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-1234141 Not only should the ultrasound viewing be required, but if the mother is married, the husband should be required to sign also. I know I am going to ruffle the feathers of the "it her body" crowd but, Its his baby also. I am speaking from living it. My wife chose to have one and the minute she got home from her "day of shopping" I discovered what happened. Thats when she told me that if she had seen the ultrasound it probably wouldnt have happened. That has been 12 years ago and she believes today that husbands should be required to be notified. Yes she regrets whats happened and believes it was wrong. She told me that she asked to look at it but was told it was for the doctor. If the clinics are really there to "help" then they should give the women all the fact instead of just what is good for sales. Not only should the ultrasound viewing be required, but if the mother is married, the husband should be required to sign also. I know I am going to ruffle the feathers of the “it her body” crowd but, Its his baby also. I am speaking from living it. My wife chose to have one and the minute she got home from her “day of shopping” I discovered what happened. Thats when she told me that if she had seen the ultrasound it probably wouldnt have happened. That has been 12 years ago and she believes today that husbands should be required to be notified. Yes she regrets whats happened and believes it was wrong. She told me that she asked to look at it but was told it was for the doctor. If the clinics are really there to “help” then they should give the women all the fact instead of just what is good for sales.

]]> By: C Baker http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-941080 C Baker Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:19:42 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-941080 We hope that it not make her feel guilty as much as it is a chance to reconsider what she is about to do. We hope that she will think about it as "This is my baby I'm going to kill". Yes, she should think twice before she considers such a thing. This will follow her everyday of her life. God can and will forgive you if you sincerely ask him from your heart, but you have to forgive yourself, that is the toughest thing to do. Don't deny your baby a life and a family,YOUR baby could be a future doctor or lawyer., Don't deny that baby his or her chance. I wish that women not think of an untrasound picture as being forced on them, but consider it a chance to reconsider taking a life. Let God make that decision. We hope that it not make her feel guilty as much as it is a chance to reconsider what she is about to do. We hope that she will think about it as “This is my baby I’m going to kill”. Yes, she should think twice before she considers such a thing. This will follow her everyday of her life. God can and will forgive you if you sincerely ask him from your heart, but you have to forgive yourself, that is the toughest thing to do. Don’t deny your baby a life and a family,YOUR baby could be a future doctor or lawyer., Don’t deny that baby
his or her chance. I wish that women not think of an untrasound picture as being forced on them, but consider it a chance to reconsider taking a life. Let God make that decision.

]]> By: T Ardrey http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-756526 T Ardrey Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:37:08 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-756526 I suggest that the "father" of the fetus also be required to listen to the heartbeat, as well as see the sonogram. This is his child that is to be considered for abortion! I suggest that the “father” of the fetus also be required to listen to the heartbeat, as well as see the sonogram. This is his child that is to be considered for abortion!

]]> By: caleb http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-739522 caleb Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:27:12 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-739522 abortion is just like killing a baby. Its murder. abortion is just like killing a baby. Its murder.

]]> By: caleb http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-739520 caleb Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:25:46 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-739520 abortion is not right abortion is not right

]]> By: Peggy Loonan http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-70863 Peggy Loonan Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:25:09 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-70863 It's one thing to OFFER a woman a look at an ultrasound picture it is another thing to FORCE that upon her as South Carolina is attempting to do. That isn't what this country is all about any more than it is about forcing women by law to have an abortion. These legislators talk like they have a right to be our fathers, that they know what's best for us, the potential life we carry, and our families none of whom they know and they have no such right. It is indeed paternalistic and insulting. Who do they think they are? They aren't our conscience - we have one and we are good moral human beings who can make good moral decisions for ourselves thank you. And sometimes that is indeed having an abortion. These legislators should be doing more about preventing unintended pregnancies than trying to guilt women using their own religious and moral belief system. Women must make their own decisions about an unintended pregnancy based on their own THEIR OWN set of religious and moral values not those of anti-abortion legislators and these legislators must respect their right to do so. You understand that if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. Where will the invasion of women's wombs by religious and moral do-gooders end? These are the same states that have or shortly will move to put abortion bans into their state laws just waiting for Roe to go down. Then what? -- How do you prove a woman has had an illegal abortion? You'll need that evidence to convict an illegal abortion provider of "murder" or a woman herself if she self-aborts or convict the woman of solicitation of "murder." Yep - the state will employ a doctor and she'll have to spread for him. And what about her medical records? Will there be any more doctor/patient privilege? Gone and gone for good. What about her testimony at trial? Fodder not just for newspapers anymore but for Court TV and the Internet. And when these states add hormonal contraceptives and IUD to the law how will you find out if a woman or teenage girl is using an illegal contraceptive? It's not only wrong and immoral to force women to see an ultrasound to guilt them into not having an abortion because some believe it is wrong - it is a slippery slope to which even men should resist. Real men will resist it. Guilting women into not having an abortion will have untold repurcussions for them, their families, and the child they are guilted into having. Peggy Loonan, founder and executive director, Life and Liberty for Women www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org It’s one thing to OFFER a woman a look at an ultrasound picture it is another thing to FORCE that upon her as South Carolina is attempting to do. That isn’t what this country is all about any more than it is about forcing women by law to have an abortion.

These legislators talk like they have a right to be our fathers, that they know what’s best for us, the potential life we carry, and our families none of whom they know and they have no such right. It is indeed paternalistic and insulting.

Who do they think they are? They aren’t our conscience - we have one and we are good moral human beings who can make good moral decisions for ourselves thank you. And sometimes that is indeed having an abortion. These legislators should be doing more about preventing unintended pregnancies than trying to guilt women using their own religious and moral belief system. Women must make their own decisions about an unintended pregnancy based on their own THEIR OWN set of religious and moral values not those of anti-abortion legislators and these legislators must respect their right to do so.

You understand that if you give them an inch they’ll take a mile. Where will the invasion of women’s wombs by religious and moral do-gooders end? These are the same states that have or shortly will move to put abortion bans into their state laws just waiting for Roe to go down. Then what? — How do you prove a woman has had an illegal abortion? You’ll need that evidence to convict an illegal abortion provider of “murder” or a woman herself if she self-aborts or convict the woman of solicitation of “murder.” Yep - the state will employ a doctor and she’ll have to spread for him.

And what about her medical records? Will there be any more doctor/patient privilege? Gone and gone for good.

What about her testimony at trial? Fodder not just for newspapers anymore but for Court TV and the Internet.

And when these states add hormonal contraceptives and IUD to the law how will you find out if a woman or teenage girl is using an illegal contraceptive?

It’s not only wrong and immoral to force women to see an ultrasound to guilt them into not having an abortion because some believe it is wrong - it is a slippery slope to which even men should resist. Real men will resist it.

Guilting women into not having an abortion will have untold repurcussions for them, their families, and the child they are guilted into having.

Peggy Loonan, founder and executive director, Life and Liberty for Women
http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org
peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org

]]> By: Valerie Jane http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-69486 Valerie Jane Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:46:04 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-69486 Did you ever stop to think why these laws were even considered? It was because woman who wanted to see an ultra sound picture were told they couldn't. Also, please let me know what "medically unnecessary test" you are talking about? If the abortionist isn't a quack, s/he will be doing an ultra sound to obtain the correct gestational age. It the abortionist didn't do this it would definatlely be a "barrier to health care". In 1998, Abortionist Mi Kim said a patient of hers was 8 weeks pregnant. If she had bothered to do the "medically unnecessary test" she would have discovered that her patient was over 26 weeks pregnant. This patient would not have had to go to the emergency room for an emergency C-section. That is just one of many examples. Ultra sounds should be done and are being done before an abortion, what does it hurt to let the woman see the picture if she wants to? And what does it hurt to tell the abortionist that they cannot refuse to show the picture to a woman who requests it? Did you ever stop to think why these laws were even considered? It was because woman who wanted to see an ultra sound picture were told they couldn’t. Also, please let me know what “medically unnecessary test” you are talking about? If the abortionist isn’t a quack, s/he will be doing an ultra sound to obtain the correct gestational age. It the abortionist didn’t do this it would definatlely be a “barrier to health care”. In 1998, Abortionist Mi Kim said a patient of hers was 8 weeks pregnant. If she had bothered to do the “medically unnecessary test” she would have discovered that her patient was over 26 weeks pregnant. This patient would not have had to go to the emergency room for an emergency C-section. That is just one of many examples. Ultra sounds should be done and are being done before an abortion, what does it hurt to let the woman see the picture if she wants to? And what does it hurt to tell the abortionist that they cannot refuse to show the picture to a woman who requests it?

]]> By: Steven Ertelt http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-69354 Steven Ertelt Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:34:41 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/19083#comment-69354 So much for being pro-choice. It's clear you would rather leave women in the dark about the development of their baby rather than provide them the facts. Why are you so scared to trust women? Afraid they're going to choose a better option than abortion? So much for being pro-choice. It’s clear you would rather leave women in the dark about the development of their baby rather than provide them the facts. Why are you so scared to trust women? Afraid they’re going to choose a better option than abortion?

]]>