Frightening photos
South Carolina’s ultrasound bill, which we’ve been discussing, will be heard in Senate committee today. It passed in the House last week 91-23.
Here is an op ed SC Citizens for Life executive director Holly Gatling submitted to several newspapers late last night:
In my 13 years as a pro-life lobbyist, I have not witnessed an unprecedented attack on right-to-life legislation such as occurred last week. Eleven militant pro-abortion organizations spent tens of thousands of dollars on full-page newspaper ads all over South Carolina opposing the ultrasound law currently before the State Senate….
The Ultrasound Bill requires an abortionist or a qualified staffer to perform an ultrasound on a woman and review the image with the woman before the abortion. Ultrasound is the best, medically accurate, non-judgmental information a woman can have about her unborn child and her “choice.” She has the legal right to know.
The big lie pro-aborts are spreading is that the legislation forces a woman to look at the ultrasound. Anyone who has read the bill even once knows this is not the case.
Pretend for a moment you are an abortionist who has to comply with the ultrasound law. How would you handle the situation to your advatage? You’d say, “Ms. Jones, I have the ultrasound image here showing the fetus is 12 weeks gestational age. I am required by law to review the image with you. You are not required to look at it. All you have to do is sign this Informed Consent statement verifying I have reviewed the ultrasound image with you.”
If she says she want to see the image, she has the right to see it. She also has the right not to look. Chances are better than 80 percent that if she looks at the ultrasound, she will cancel the abortion and give birth….
The abortion industry’s militant opposition to the SC Ultrasound Bill is an indication the pro-aborts are terrified of any discussion of the humanity of the unborn child. When a pregnant woman chooses life, the abortionist loses money.
Back to the original question. What’s wrong with the ultrasound picture? Nothing – unless you are an abortionist who is afraid to give a woman the best available scientific, accurate, non-judgmental information on which she can make a truly informed decision about abortion or giving birth. The ultrasound image may be the only picture she will have of her child or it could happily be the first picture in the baby’s scrapbook.
Holly also reported Planned Parenthood has activated two college campuses, USC and College of Charleston, to attend today’s hearing.
There is no other explanation for the abortion industry’s opposition to this bill than it wants to keep women dumb and blind.
[Ultrasound photos are of seven- and 11-week-old preborn babies, respectively.]
Like the old saying goes, People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. Pro-aborts have something to hide, which is why they hate the idea of this ultrasound bill. They hate truth.
I find the hypocrisy of the pro-abort crowd to be staggering. In one breath, they crow about fetuses being merely lumps of insignificant tissue (like a tumor) and not babies. However, when pro-lifers suggest that “mothers” who decide to abort should see the fetus before or after the procedure, pro-aborts wail about the cruelty of it.
Perhaps the pro-abort crowd could suggest that showing someone a cancerous tumor that was removed from their body is also cruel and unusual punishment.
HYPOCRISY!
It reminds me of those pro-abort politicians who say that their goal is to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. I ask them: if there’s nothing inherently wrong with abortion, why make it a goal to reduce the frequency of it?
I would love for one of the pro-aborts on this blog to tell me (with 100% certainty) when human life begins and is worthy of the most basic human rights.
They used science when this all started.
Science advanced.
They now want science to go away.
Sounds like a temper tantrum to me.
Also to add to what Jeremy just said;Let’s just say that we could all agree to keep abortion safe,legal and rare.Do you really think that will happen? 3500-4000 abortions done each day.Who is receiving them? Are 3500 women raped every day? Are 3500 women’s lives on the line every day? Sorry,I’m not buying this! It’s all because the meaning of the word CHOICE has been twisted. Twisted to suit the needs and wants of irresponsible people.
Last I heard, momof3, the majority of abortions are preformed on women who were using other forms of contraception at the time. Hardly irresponsable, wouldn’t you say? As they have already indicated that having a child is NOT something they desire, please tell me why these women should be forced to have the child? And the any arguments making use of the Bible will be discounted: religion is not acceptable in a debate that would take bodily rights away from all females in the United States, and as all these females do not believe as you do. All arguments not based on facts will be discounted, as again: this argument has the potential to take away rights from all females in the United States.
Jeremy, if the woman has the CHOICE to see the fetus or the sonogram, that’s great. If she CHOOSES to see either or, that’s great as well. FORCING the woman to see either is certainly not acceptable.
As to why abortions should be safe, legal, and rare: I cannot speak for all pro-choice women, but I espouse that ideal because I understand that having an unwanted pregnancy is a disturbing experience. We could reduce the amount of these pregnancies quite a bit if we could simply educate better on safe sex; if we could inform women of options regarding insurance and how said insurance would help pay the cost of birth. I would never wish an unwanted pregnancy upon anyone: for that reason, I believe all people should be educated, and that insurance options should be more widely available.
No Lee.I don’t agree.Most women are not using any protection. They just don’t care.Hey,they always have the abortion clinic to run to.
As they have already indicated that having a child is NOT something they desire, please tell me why these women should be forced to have the child?
Less, if you’ve read anything in our previous posts, you already have your answer. Asking the same question again and again gets tiring and just plain annoying.
OOps-my post was for Less.
“Most women are not using any protection. They just don’t care.Hey,they always have the abortion clinic to run to.”
I would like to see some information to back up this claim.
Well Less,I know plenty of women who have had abortions.I can only tell you what they told me. Nope,no protection at all. “What for?”asked one woman.”If I get pregnant,I’ll just have an abortion.”How about the lady I know that had 7 of them Less? She was 38 years old at the time of her last abortion.Abortion WAS her BC.She wont ever have another one.She had her uterus removed.The hospital told her that they had to do it, because of the damage done to her uterus from the abortions.
Last post was for Joy.
Sorry, I should have specified. STATISTICAL information from a reliable source, not anecdotal information from your own experiences.
I happen to know a lot of people with green eyes. I wouldn’t then make the claim that “Most people have green eyes.”
Perhaps you just worded your post wrong and meant “Most women I know…” I’d hate to think you were lying, so I’ll just go with that.
Another pro-choicer in confusion:
Posted by: Less at April 4, 2007 10:51 AM
“the majority of abortions are preformed on women who were using other forms of contraception at the time. ”
and then….
“We could reduce the amount of these pregnancies quite a bit if we could simply educate better on safe sex; ”
umm… which is it? Are they educated and using contraception or do they still need education on safe sex even though they are already using contraception?
Unfortunately, contraception has a higher failure rate when used incorrectly. Also within the catagory of contraception is natural family planning, which most women do NOT use correctly, and “pulling out,” which has an incredibly high failure rate. I have all the statistics regarding “typical” use for contraceptives and “perfect” use here in front of me: 25% of those who use family planning typically are expecting within the first year.
Better education would help women to realize that such methods are extremely risky, as well as educating women about how to properly use more realistic contraception, such as the pill or condoms. I know that I had no idea how to put on a condom until I dug for it online: even then, I had trouble finding it. If this information was made more readily avilable, perhaps the rate of unintended pregnancies would drop.
From Guttmacher: Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.
If people were educated on what correct use was, perhaps those statistics woudl be different.
Sorry, woudl should be would.
Also, momof3, you never explained to me how this wouldn’t be forcing the woman to have the child? I’m afraid you just questioned another part of those, and as I have no provide statistics that support my statement, I would like you to please answer the question.
Just had a thought,
since PP will eventually get public-money. Instead of a block amount (or lump sum) shouldn’t these monies be tied to the actual services provided? shouldn’t a good portion of these political contributions be targeted to upgrading these machines to 4M?
Also, momof3, you never explained to me how this wouldn’t be forcing the woman to have the child? I’m afraid you just questioned another part of those, and as I have no provide statistics that support my statement, I would like you to please answer the question.
That’s the most ridiculous question. I just wonder in amazement every time I hear it.
This next question may seem ludicrous to you (but after that kind of question, what isn’t)?
What if a girl decided she did not want to go through puberty, Less? What if she considered that to be a huge inconvenience in her life, because she doesn’t want to have kids anyway, she doesn’t want to grow up having to deal with periods, breasts, etc. What if?
If this were the case, would we be “forcing” her to go through puberty if we didn’t surgically alter her body to prevent her from going through puberty?
Oh, my God, Bethany…
How can you even draw parallels between pregnancy and puberty? The last time I looked, puberty doesn’t involve another being usurping another’s body. There is no parallel. That’s the worst analogy I have ever seen.
Forcing a woman to undergo nine months of a potentially life-threatening event, then labor and delivery, is forced servitude to a fetus that she might not want living inside her, using her nutrients and life-sustaining capabilities.
Puberty occurs due to her own body making the decisions, pregnancy occurs when an embryo makes the instinctual motion to implant in the uterus OWNED by the woman. The embryo then sends out its signals to the woman’s body to force it to support its growth…in this case, the woman’s body isn’t the sole decision-maker. It’s being controlled by something else. The last time I checked, having your body be controlled by another being without your permission is slavery.
I think it’s a great analogy. It’s an example of the body doing something that the girl would find “inconvenient”. The changes that occur during pregnancy are completely natural, but unwanted by the girl. No, a human being is not inside during puberty, but there are hormonal changes which are uninvited, there is acne, there are breasts, there are sometimes painful periods, water weight, depression, etc, that comes along with puberty. Who are we to judge? Maybe some girl really doesn’t want to go through all that misery and we should do something to stop it. Maybe a girl shouldn’t have to suffer in that way. Maybe we’re being cruel to force them to have to go through something natural like puberty. It’s not their fault that this happens. They didn’t ask for the puberty to happen. Right?
Bethany, that’s a really bad analogy. Puberty happens to everyone eventually. Pregnancy does not (just look at all the women who don’t want children). Alyssa summed it up quite nicely.
Also, I have no problem with the bill if the mother is not required it look at the ultrasound.
If she doesn’t want to look, she doesn’t want to look. End of question.
What do they mean by “review” the ultrasound with the mother?
Again, Bethany, we’re back to the ‘natural=safe’ line of thought. Puberty isn’t potentially life-threatening, and it doesn’t impede other bodily functions, which pregnancy often does. Puberty doesn’t put a woman at risk of pre-eclampsia and other things of the like. A pregnancy isn’t just “inconvenience”, it’s a major change that puts a woman’s health at risk.
Again, you’re ignoring that puberty occurs under only a woman’s body saying it should happen…pregnancy occurs when an embryo forces a woman to support it. Different? Duh.
Again, you’re ignoring that puberty occurs under only a woman’s body saying it should happen…pregnancy occurs when an embryo forces a woman to support it. Different? Duh.
An embryo does not force anything on anyone. In most cases, it was the willful act of the woman which caused the embryo to be formed. The embryo did not ask to enter the woman’s body.
In rare cases, it was the act of a man forcing himself on a woman which causes the embryo to be formed.
In either case, it is not the embryo’s fault that it is placed in the woman’s body.
In this way, I agree that my idea is not completely analogous to pregnancy (because pregnancy is a human life within the womb, and not a stage of development in a woman)….however, the question that you pose is equally ridiculous as the one I posed, which is one reason it parallels.
Yes, but you cannot deny the fetus STILL takes over a woman’s body and FORCES it to support its development. The woman’s body isn’t the one making the decision about what happens to it, the fetus is, whether or not it’s conscious of doing so. Even if it is a human life, a person, whatever, even if the woman contributed to putting it there, she STILL can deny it the right to her nutrients and her uterus. If I willingly get into a car and cause a an accident that I obviously didn’t intend, I am not obligated to save anyone I hit by giving them a kidney, even if they will die without it. I can choose to do so, but no one will fault me for denying them the right to my kidney because I never intended to put them in that position in the first place.
My prediction: this act, if it ever becomes law, will make very little difference to anyone.
Right-to-lifers will be disappointed with the outcome.
I don’t honestly understand why so much $ is being spent to oppose it. There are much more important issues for pro-choicers to spend their political money on. Your pro-choice political-charity dollar would make a greater difference for abortion rights if you gave it to Medical Students for Choice than if you spent it opposing this bill.
Posted by: Less at April 4, 2007 01:47 PM
“Unfortunately, contraception has a higher failure rate when used incorrectly”
“as well as educating women about how to properly use more realistic contraception, such as the pill or condoms. ”
With the exception of the condom where do you think women get the contraception? The majority and most popular; the pill, diaphram, IUD’s, etc all come from a Doctor. Don’t you think that the doctor educate their patients about how to use them properly? Also, they all come with pamplets on the proper way to use them. How much more education do they need?
Bethany – I agree with you. I liked the analogy. But if you consider the embryo a parasite, I guess it just won’t make sense.
SOMG – I am about to faint. I don’t know if I can do this. I don’t think my fingers will type it out correctly. But I’ll try. * I agree with you. * {sniff, sniff} I’m afraid the world is coming to an end now. {whimper}
“Bethany – I agree with you. I liked the analogy. But if you consider the embryo a parasite, I guess it just won’t make sense.”
Thank you, Valerie. :) I appreciate that.
Speaking of embryos being compared to parasites, here’s something I found online that might be interesting to think about:
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
Why a Human Embryo or Fetus is Not
a Parasite
1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism — coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg — the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote — the first cell of the new human being.
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host’s tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother’s uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, “The Embryo as a Transplant” (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast — the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo — blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host’s capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
John the money that the government gives PP is designated specifically to go into programs such as sex ed…specifically designated *not* for abortion.
Valerie, just an FYI–no, I dont think doctor’s offices or health departments tell women how to use their bc correctly. When I went on the pill, my doctor called the med into my pharmacy and they gave me the pills. I think doctors feel like women can read the istructions on the pack.
I second SamathaT’s comment. I got the pills and that was it: I’m really weird about instructions, so I read every single word in/on that package. I am, however, the only one I know who did.
Unfortunately, even with perfect use, the pills occasionally fail. I’m the only one of my sibligs who was planned. Two of my brothers were the result of the pill failing with perfect use, and the other one was the result of a misdiagnosis.
Unfortunately, contraception has a higher failure rate when used incorrectly. Also within the catagory of contraception is natural family planning, which most women do NOT use correctly, and “pulling out,” which has an incredibly high failure rate. I have all the statistics regarding “typical” use for contraceptives and “perfect” use here in front of me: 25% of those who use family planning typically are expecting within the first year.
Better education would help women to realize that such methods are extremely risky, as well as educating women about how to properly use more realistic contraception, such as the pill or condoms. I know that I had no idea how to put on a condom until I dug for it online: even then, I had trouble finding it. If this information was made more readily avilable, perhaps the rate of unintended pregnancies would drop.
From Guttmacher: Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.
If people were educated on what correct use was, perhaps those statistics woudl be different.
Unfortunately, even with perfect use, the pills occasionally fail. I’m the only one of my sibligs who was planned. Two of my brothers were the result of the pill failing with perfect use, and the other one was the result of a misdiagnosis.
How is sex education supposed to help the problem, if (by your own admission) even with perfect knowledge of sex, of how your body works, of different methods of birth control, even if you take every precaution, and even if you have perfect use of your birth control methods, you can still get pregnant? And aren’t the chances like 1 in 100 that you will most certainly get pregnant, even while using contraception perfectly?
I would love to have someone explain to me how they figure sex education (which is already being taught) will help, since nowadays we are more educated about sex than we were 30 years ago, and there are many more “unwanted” pregnancies now then there were back then. And many more teen pregnancies too.
In my opinion, kids know WAY too much about sex, their heads are filled with sex at school, either from sex ed, or from their buddies, and then when they come home, their heads are filled with sex from sitcoms and even cartoons! Sex, Sex, Sex…they are overstimulated with sexual pictures, sexual jokes, and when they go to buy clothes, even clothes for young children (like 5 to 8 years old) is made “sexy” in style…you’ll see “sweet” or “juicy” written on children’s butts. I wonder what kind of parent puts that kind of clothing on their children, knowing there are perverts out there looking? And you say we don’t know enough about sex…look around you. Kids know more about sex than you ever did when you were a kid. Go ahead, pull a kid off the street and ask them what they know about sex. Ask them if they know what a condom is and how to use it. Ask them if they know what birth control is. They might boggle your mind with the stuff they know. In fact, they’ll probably look at you like you’re dumb for even asking. (“like, duh, of course I know that stuff… you think I’m an idiot or something?”)
And it’s sickening when you read that Teenwire.com site, to see the stuff PLanned Parenthood promotes for kids to do, saying it’s healthy.
I think the sex education is much of the problem causing MORE sex, and MORE teen pregnancies. Not the other way around, and I’d like someone to explain to me how they figure it should be decreasing pregnancies as opposed to increasing them. Where is the research that proves it has decreased since sex education started happening more? I don’t believe there is any, because if there was any that stated such, it would easily be proven untrue.
“Valerie, just an FYI–no, I dont think doctor’s offices or health departments tell women how to use their bc correctly. When I went on the pill, my doctor called the med into my pharmacy and they gave me the pills. I think doctors feel like women can read the istructions on the pack.”
Please do not take any offense to this, but that is the woman’s problem if they don’t know how to use prescription contraception. Do you really think if they can’t :
1. Ask the Dr questions
2. Ask the pharmacist questions
3. Read the pamplet
That they will listen if they get sex ed? huh? 3 opportunities! count them. one, two, three!
If they are not asking a Dr. question in the privacy of a Dr’s office I don’t believe they will ask question in a classroom full of their peers.
I agree with Bethany. Sex is everywhere. I have shown that we have been screaming education, knowledge, tolerance etc, for over 100 years. Everytime we give more education, more knowledge etc. abortion increased, teenage pregnancy increased etc.
Jeremy,
I find the hypocrisy of the pro-abort crowd to be staggering. In one breath, they crow about fetuses being merely lumps of insignificant tissue (like a tumor) and not babies. However, when pro-lifers suggest that “mothers” who decide to abort should see the fetus before or after the procedure, pro-aborts wail about the cruelty of it.
YOU GO!!!!!!
mk
Less,
We could reduce the amount of these pregnancies quite a bit if we could simply educate better on safe sex;
we could reduce them to zero is we could simply educate better on abstinence.
Contraception does not work if it isn’t used appropriately. Abstinence doesn’t work if it is not used at all.
But contraception can give you the “Illusion” that you are safe even if you are not using it faithfully.
Abstinence gives you no false “illusion” because it is impossible to use it ineffectively. If you use it, you don’t get pregnant. EVER.
mk
Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method
What were the other 46% doing?
Not using anything do you suppose?
Mom may have been incorrect when she said most women don’t use contraceptives, but she was only off by 6%…
mk
Alyssa,
Puberty occurs due to her own body making the decisions, pregnancy occurs when an embryo makes the instinctual motion to implant in the uterus OWNED by the woman.
Pregnancy occurs when a man and a woman make the “CHOICE” to have sex, thereby allowing an embryo to implant in the uterus of the same woman who made the “CHOICE” to perform an action that resulted in the embyo.
You see, choice works both ways. You have no choice about puberty, true. But you DO have a choice about copulating.
mk
I am not obligated to save anyone I hit by giving them a kidney,
What is with you guys and this obsession with kidneys?
mk
SOMG,
I don’t honestly understand why so much $ is being spent to oppose it.
You never understand why so much money is spent on anything when it could just as easily be going into your pocket.
If I give you a dollar will you go away?
mk
Valerie,
SOMG – I am about to faint. I don’t know if I can do this. I don’t think my fingers will type it out correctly. But I’ll try. * I agree with you. * {sniff, sniff} I’m afraid the world is coming to an end now. {whimper}
Fear not, my little one, this too shall pass.
mk
So, MK, I am obligated to be abstinant with my husband if we decide we do not want children? Abstinance is all well and good if that’s what you want to do, but why should the rest of us practice it simply because that’s what you want us to do? Teaching abstinance-only sex ed is doing a great diservice to our youth:
– Youth who take virginty pledges are 1/3 less likely to use contraception when they do have sex. They have the same rate of STDs as their peers who do not take the pledge, and are less likely to seek treatment, thereby increasing transmission. However, in communities where 20% of the youth had taken virginity pledges, the STD rate was 8.9%: a similar community with fewer pledges had only a 5.5% STD rate.
-In Texas after abstinance only sex ed was introduced, sexual activity actually increased among teens: prior to participation in the program, 23% of ninth grade girls were not virgins, whereas afterwards, this jumped to 29%. Among tenth grade boys, this jumped from 24% to 39%.
http://www.siecus.org/policy/research_says.pdf
Clearly, abstinance only is not working, not helpful, and worst of all, it is doing a great disservice to those students who eventually DO have sex.
MK, I’m here,I’m here! I’ll give him a buck too.Please go away SOMG.
kidney relief stones http://kidney-stones.beeplog.de >stones get kidney