Several states have laws mandating that abortionists offer mothers planning to abort the option of viewing ultrasounds of their babies. South Carolina legislators are considering legislation that would require abortionists to review ultrasounds with mothers about to abort. Or, as ABC News said, this law "would force women seeking abortions to view an ultrasound image of their fetus."
The abortion industry's side:
"This is just trying to bring politics between a woman and her doctor with an ultrasound that has no medical relevance whatsoever. It is nothing more than a barrier to health care, and it is completely not medically necessary in any way." ~ Christopher Hollis, SC Planned Parenthood.
The pro-life side:
"Our goal is that the women will have the latest, most up-to-date information possible. We want to show them that it's not just a blob of tissue, the baby has its own heartbeat, we want to give humanity to the living baby." ~ Tracie Carter, National Right to Life.
Focus on the Family statistics show 84% of mothers decide against abortion after seeing an ultrasound of their baby, according to LifeNews.com.
So it appears knowing the truth about their babies turns mothers away from abortion. It also appears the pro-abortion side would prefer women remain ignorant - barefoot and barren. There is no other medical procedure where informed consent is fought.
This is a 4D ultrasound of a 12-week-old preborn baby. This is the age most abortions are committed.
Well, once again, it appears that when faced with the truth everyone turns into monkeys...see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...
And then evil takes over while you're not looking.
If it is true, as so many this site claim, that the abortion industry has a woman's best interests at heart, then why would they deny them the truth and an opportunity to have full disclosure before making one of the most serious decisions in their life.
Or is it a "choice" issue...these women didn't "Choose" to see an ultrasound.
Posted by: MK
at March 17, 2007 12:44 PM
If the picture has no medical value, than the government is authoritarian. What ever happened to freedom?
You might like the Abortion Forums.Posted by: Scott Hughes at March 17, 2007 1:53 PM
I see nothing wrong with having women look at ultrasounds prior to their decision. As long as the doctor isn't feeding her information to sway her decision one way or another, there is nothing wrong in my opinion about this. If it helps a woman to make her CHOICE, then I, as a pro-choicer, have no moral qualms. We are perfectly happy to see a woman have her baby as we are to respect her choice to terminate a pregnancy. If she still decides to have an abortion after seeing the ultrasound, that again is her CHOICE. You're right, MK, women should have as much information as possible. Pro-choice people have never claimed that they WANTED women to abort pregnancies, we just want them to make their own educated decisions. If this lowers the abortion rate through giving women all the necessary information available, then so be it. We're not pushing abortion, we're pushing the OPTIONS.
I wholeheartedly agree that women should be required to know all the risks associated with abortion (and not propaganda forced by either side of the issue...this is where a kind of "bipartisan" group of pro-lifers and pro-choicers should meet to find common ground on the ACTUAL facts regarding the risks and realities of abortion). We're required to read risks and problems that might occur with any surgical procedure, or any drug that we might take...why should we not receive all the CORRECT AND UNBIASED information that we can about abortion? It's still an invasive procedure. If ultrasounds help women gain more information about what their bodies are going through, then I see no problem. My big problem with this is if doctors were to try and sway women one way or another about their decision. It should be completely HER choice, not whatever the doctor wants.Posted by: Alyssa at March 17, 2007 1:59 PM
The pro-life side seems to be becoming pro-force: force women to see the ultrasound, force women to carry the pregnancy. It seems you feel that every time a fetus is aborted the pro-choice people of the world get together in a secret underground bunker and have a party with champagne and cupcakes. We had much rather a mother choose to keep her pregnancy-- as long as that is the choice she makes because it is the right choice for her, not because she has been coerced into it by an authoritarian law. Similarly, we greatly support a woman's choosing to view her ultrasound--or not.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 17, 2007 2:02 PM
Scott, it is only the abortion industry making the ridiculous claim that these ultrasounds hold no "medical value." The ultrasounds are of that which is about to be surgically or medicinally removed from his or her mother's body. How does that not hold "medical value"?
And the "authoritarian" government regulates medicine every day, thank goodness - to protect patients.
Why do you oppose informed consent before abortions? Name another surgical/medical procedure you would oppose patients being fully informed of the benefits and risks before consenting?Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 17, 2007 2:12 PM
Samantha, it is well known that abortionists turn the ultrasound screen away from mothers. Why? Who does ignorance protect?
And if the industry knows most mothers seeing ultrasounds will choose against the procedure it makes its living from, how likely do you think it will objectively "offer" a mother to see an ultrasound without being compelled?
What other multi-billion $ industry do you trust so?Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 17, 2007 2:17 PM
The doctor does not usually perform the ultrasound; that is usually performed by a technician before the procedure takes place. Have you ever been in an abortion clinic? Or spoken with a mother who has just terminated her pregnancy? They often are quite traumatized as it is, and visualizing the embryo will only add to this. Do you fight for children who are already born as tirelessly as for those who arent?
"What other multi-billion $ industry do you trust so?"
The pharmaceutical, dairy, automobile, and airline industries, to name a few.
I think we've reached common ground, Jill. Informed consent and CHOICE is the issue...I'm all for women receiving ACCURATE information, though. Not propaganda. I was told all the risks before surgery and shown x-rays and all that jazz, in an effort to fully inform me about all that might go wrong and the realities of any internal procedure. If ultrasounds are available to women to allow them to make their most informed CHOICE, then I see nothing wrong with them. Either way, if a woman still decides to have an abortion after the ultrasound, it's still her choice. If it does cut back on abortions, then so be it. If it doesn't, so be it as well. This is the beauty of choice...allowing women to make the decision best for them based on all the true facts available, and not facts made up by any side with an agenda other than her personal comfort. As long as doctors don't force their moral opinions on anyone during the viewing of the ultrasounds, then I'm alright with them occurring.Posted by: Alyssa at March 17, 2007 2:28 PM
Samantha, mothers repeatedly say the screen was turned away, as do workers coming out of the industry.
You acknowledge mothers are traumatized by abortion. If you know 80% would change their minds and avoid being traumatized by seeing ultrasounds of their babies, why would you oppose it?
Alyssa, yes, it appears we agree. As for "moral opinions," don't forget the doctors we're speaking of are abortionists or their agents showing ultrasounds to mothers right before they abort. I would, therefore, also agree we disallow them from forcing their "moral opinions" upon mothers viewing ultrasounds.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 17, 2007 3:17 PM
I think we've reached common ground, Jill.
See what happens when people treat each the way they would like to be treated. And look, there weren't even any casualties.
It made me smile to hear you say this, because sometimes it seems like people (I won't mention any names, Samantha) would disagree with anything that the pro-life side said simply because it was the pro-life side that said it. I felt like a proud mother. Not because you agree, but because you were mature enough to say so.
And the bottom line is that even though we don't see eye to eye on everything, you, Jill and I can agree that we truly do not want to see women hurt.
Or lied to.
If the fact was that 84% of women who enter an abortion clinic would change their mind upon seeing the ultrasound, yes, I think this bill would be very worthwhile. However, if you read the study from Focus on the Family, the statistic is in reference to women who are given an ultrasound in a setting other than an abortion clinic. For this reason I feel that the pro-life legislators are pushing their agenda onto women who are already in a very fragile state.
MK, please do not act as though my opinion is not just as relevant as yours. The articles on this website are pro-life, and I am pro-choice. I dont see why you would logically expect me to agree. However, if you truly dont want to see women hurt, then you should ask women how they would have felt about seeing the fetus they were about to abort. If they say they would have changed their decision, then your case is proven. The ones who I have heard discussing this bill express the same opinion I have shown here.
I'm sorry. That was unkind of me. It's just that sometimes you rattle things off and they come across as abrasive. It leads me to wonder if you are really interested in discussion (because I am) or just making waves. I guess I thought if I pushed hard enough we could bring this out in the open. You're right, that remark was rather snide. I apologize.
I apologize for coming across as abrasive. I am rude and hostile at times to people I percieve as attacking me and understand that I am very hard to take sometimes. I do wish that this debate could be discussed more in terms of logic and science rather than religion because so few people who are affected by this topic share the same views religiously.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 17, 2007 5:39 PM
I know. Mary has said the same thing. I'm trying. When I talk to Alyssa I bring the faith into it more, but I try not to with you. It's hard because my faith is part of who I am. I came from a very wild background and I know the "hell" that I left. Not an hour goes by that I don't thank Him for pulling me out of that lifestyle. So if I slip every once in while, forgive me.
The other reason I bring up the faith is that they have so beautifully reasoned it out and put it on paper, and I could never explain it as well. I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel, you know?
Anyway, truce, and let's both try harder.
You're okay Sam(antha). You're passionate and you're here which means you are willing to hear both sides even if it is a case of know thine enemy.
I give you and Alyssa and Leah and et al much credit. It take a lot, and I mean a lot of guts to go into enemy territory knowing that we are against you even before you open your mouth.
You're really quite brave. Wish you were on our team. We could use fighters like you.
Samantha, 4:39p, said, "the statistic is in reference to women who are given an ultrasound in a setting other than an abortion clinic. For this reason I feel that the pro-life legislators are pushing their agenda onto women who are already in a very fragile state."
The 84% were abortion-minded, however. The setting was not in an abortion clinic because an abortion clinic would never agree to participate in such a study.
I agree women coming to an abortion clinic are in a "very fragile state." I agree with what you said previously, that they are "quite traumatized."
You also said previously, "We had much rather a mother choose to keep her pregnancy-- as long as that is the choice she makes because it is the right choice for her."
You lamented to MK that you wish this debate "could be discussed more in terms of logic and science."
I'm applying logic with studies and statistics. I'm advocating the use of science to make an informed medical consent.
Yet you still resist. How can this be?
I can come to no other conclusion than you're driven by an ideology sans logic, Samantha.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 17, 2007 7:33 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that these beautiful 4-D sonograms were taken using ultra-fancy, ultra-expensive equipment. A more typical obstetric ultrasound consists of a few smears of light on a screen like an oscilliscope screen, and requires a trained professional to say which smears of light correspond to which parts of the fetus.
I think if this law passes, right-to-lifers will be disappointed in the outcome.
If the patient wants to see her sonograms, she can ask.Posted by: SpiritofMartinGardner at March 17, 2007 9:43 PM
The third time is a charm. I do not object to the hope that the women will change their decision to have an abortion. I object to the idea that a bill will *force* them to view an ultrasound. I am pro-choice. It seems to me that this is a pretty self-explanatory objection.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 17, 2007 10:08 PM
Just a question, Samantha. When I have a baby, and I choose not to have my baby vaccinated with the standard shots, I am required by law to read a piece of paper explaining the benefits of those shots, and then sign to say that I still choose not to give them to my child.
Is that a violation of my right to choose whether or not to vaccinate?Posted by: Michelle Potter at March 17, 2007 11:14 PM
If they had used a 4D ultrasound prior to proceeding with the Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion.
They might have detected that she was carrying "twins".
Besides this I can see other benefits to making the process standard proceedure....some pending complications might be detected before they start...making the proceedure safer.
I took my kids to the museum of Science and Industry yesterday.
The first thing we did was go to the fetal display on the upper floor. Why they place this amazing display, at a time where it is needed more than ever, in a spot that you need a jungle guide to find it, I'll never know, but...
For those of you who have never seen it, it is a display containing 20 or so glass cases that contain the remains of babies that were lost through miscarraiges. On the lower floor the you will find the "Body Work II" exhibit and you need to pay an extra fee to see it, but the fetal exhibit is free.
It has been there since I was a small child. Long before Roe v Wade so you can't accuse the pro-life movement of propaganda. No "doctoring" of photos to fit the agenda.
It shows babies from 26 days old up to 40 weeks.
It shows them in a way that no ultrasound could.
They speak for themselves; perhaps the only voice they have. As I looked at them, I kept picturing them butchered, in pieces, decapitated...
I urge any of you that live in the Chicago Area to go and see this display. Then get back to me and let me know if these are still just "blobs of tissue"...
If I had enough money, I'd buy the exhibit and take it around the country showing it to everyone willing to look. For all you "science only" buffs out there, this would be "solid evidence" and I'd love to hear you refute it.
http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/ boomframe.jsp?query= museum+of+science+and+industry+ fetal+display&page=1&offset=1& result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3 Dwebsearch%26requestId%3 D5cee52de6e314624%26clicked ItemRank%3D6%26userQuery%3 Dmuseum%2Bof%2Bscience%2Band %2Bindustry%2Bfetal%2Bdisplay %26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A %252F%252Fwww.aboutabortions. com%252FEmbFetal.htm%26invocationType%3D- %26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest %3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. aboutabortions.com%2FEmbFetal.htmPosted by: MK at March 18, 2007 8:01 AM
Posted by: MK at March 18, 2007 8:08 AM
SOMG, 3/17, 9:43p, said: "One thing to keep in mind is that these beautiful 4-D sonograms were taken using ultra-fancy, ultra-expensive equipment. A more typical obstetric ultrasound consists of a few smears of light on a screen...."
The Focus on the Family study used 2D ultrasound. Most pregnancy care centers as well as abortion clinics still use 2D.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 18, 2007 8:09 AM
I do not understand how you compare reading a piece of paper about a vaccination to an ultrasound of a fetus. I do not think abortions should be taken lightly, and I do not believe that most women arrive at their decision to have one without considerable anguish. I think a more analagous situation would be if you were forced, after choosing not to have your baby vaccinated, to watch a video of live children who suffer from complications that could have been prevented by the vaccine. Pregnant women are bombarded with images of fetal development, and a good many women who choose to have an abortion cant make it to the clinic door without being "enlightened" by a pro-life advocate. I think they have been traumatized enough.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 18, 2007 8:39 AM
I love the idea of showing women what can happen if they don't get their children vaccinated. A movie on polio (especially since polio is mostly a thing of the past) would not only encourage us to continue to vaccinate against it, but also remind us of how grateful we should be that it's gone.
They all need to be 4D for the first trimester to be seen clearly enough...They should be required to replace the old ones....They make plenty of money.Posted by: Bruce at March 18, 2007 8:47 AM
Thanks, MK. I appreciate your respect. The feeling is mutual.
Jill, I'm glad we agree on something. However, I feel that you're still pushing the issue that all abortion clinics force women into having an abortion because of the "amazing amounts of money" they make. Believe me, compared to other medical procedures, abortion is quite cheap. Much more money is made doing knee surgery (I compared the cost of my outpatient knee surgery to a normal abortion fee- I researched this on the internet extensively...I will give you links if you'd like?). Going through birth is also MUCH MUCH more expensive, what with the hospital stay and the many doctors often involved with pre- and post-birth care. Not to mention the cost of epidurals and who knows what else, especially if a labor is long. So if you think that "abortionists" are just guiding women into an abortion for the money, I have a problem believing that...especially when I know someone who went through one. Her account of the procedure was very unlike the one you envision. The clinic had her look at her ultrasound, offered no opinion on the subject (only telling her the facts), and continually asked her throughout the process if she still wanted to continue the procedure. They assured her that if she felt insecure or uncomfortable at any time that she'd have the utmost freedom to not go through with the procedure. She still did, and they never pushed her. They told her she could leave, no questions asked, if she so chose. No forced payment there. That is what I mean about "no propaganda". She still made the choice with all the facts given to her. I specifically asked her about it to make sure she wasn't pressured into anything, because first and foremost, my friend's comfort was the most important thing to me. I love her, and would never want to see her hurt.
We're not all monsters, Jill. We don't want women to be forced into abortions, just like we don't want women to be forced into pregnancy. I'd be just as against a doctor who provides abortions trying to make money over the comfort of a woman, and feeding her inaccurate information...just as I'd be against a pro-life clinic giving false information to make a woman keep her pregnancy. Both are wrong.
But thank you for posting something that even pro-choicers can agree with...that women need to know ALL the TRUE facts, not propaganda. And if ultrasounds help with conveying true facts, then I'm all for it. :)
*Lyss*Posted by: Alyssa at March 18, 2007 9:51 AM
*Lyss*....Here's something for you....enjoy
Bruce.Posted by: Bruce at March 18, 2007 10:42 AM
It seems you feel that every time a fetus is aborted the pro-choice people of the world get together in a secret underground bunker and have a party with champagne and cupcakes.
I think you're confusing pro-choice with pro-abortion. A pro-choice person wouldn't care one way or the other as long as the prospective mother was able to make a choice.
The pro-abortion people on the other hand seem to want to see as many abortions happen as possible. This is the only reason I can see for opposing an ultrasound before an abortion, or opposing a "choose life" license plate.
Just let me say that I've been in favor of this sort of thing for a long time. However in addition to making sonograms mandatory before an abortion, I'd allow the woman to opt-out if she really didn't want to look at the ultrasound.
The ultrasound would still have to be taken, placed in the patient's record, but the woman could sign a form saying she didn't want to see it.
Thank you for the link, Bruce. I'll explore it later and take it with a grain of salt...it's a very obviously pro-life site.
I'd like to post something here later regarding an interesting question raised by two of us, myself and a pro-life man (someone I highly respect and would do well for your cause...) that raises the question of if a woman could abort an early-term fetus alive, and if we had the technology to allow it to develop within an artificial womb, would you support that? It would restore a woman's bodily autonomy if she did not desire to carry the fetus, and it would allow the fetus to develop into a full-fledged baby. Would this satisfy both sides of the argument of abortion? (Of course, women who desire to go through natural gestation and childbirth would be more than within their rights!!)
I'll post that here later. Cheers and have a great rest of the weekend!
We can do that now with late term abortions but the women don't do it.
The whole point of this particular website is that while Jill was working at Christ Hospital, a child that was being aborted was actually born alive. But they placed it in a utility room to die. This was the protocol. This is why Jill started this site.
I would have no problem with keeping a baby alive through artificial means if you could ensure an extremely high sucess rate. I'd rather see women refrain from having sex until they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions, but hey, at least lives wouldn't be lost.
But many of these woman, even at the point of viability, won't give their babies up for adoption.
They would rather kill them. So I don't see why they would do it any earlier than later.
And this still doesn't address the issue of "choice". Pro-choicers refuse to acknowledge that their rights are no greater than the life they created and treat them as so much garbage. I just don't see them giving up this right.
MKPosted by: MK at March 18, 2007 4:49 PM
Sorry, MK, I should have specified. I was referring to early-term abortions, the vast majority of them. More on that later...Posted by: Alyssa at March 18, 2007 7:15 PM
Revealing statements made by former abortion industry personnel.
These are direct quotes from men and women who worked in abortion facilities.
Tony I dont think you will find a single pro-choice advocate who opposes an ultrasound. In fact, they are given to all women who want an abortion as they are neccessary to determine the gestational age of the embryo/fetus. I personally oppose, one last time, the idea of FORCING women to view that ultrasound. If you have never had an abortion, you probably cant understand the mental anguish that a woman already endures and the additional pain that she would go through by seeing something she didnt want to see.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 18, 2007 8:52 PM
So murder is ok if you close you eyes when you pull the trigger....
RE: (the mental anguish that a woman already endures).......
The mental anguish people feel is due to the fact that they know full well what they do is WRONG.................Posted by: Bruce at March 18, 2007 9:44 PM
I concede that you feel that abortion is wrong. However, you have neither the right nor the ability to judge people whose circumstances you know nothing about. What would you say to a suicidal woman suffering from bipolar disease and borderline personality disorder who takes 320 mg of Geodon a day just to function in society? That she must carry to term because it is her punishment for having sex? And then who is to blame when she jumps off a bridge, resulting in the loss of two lives rather than one?
The bottom line is that legally, a fetus is not a person. Therefore, legally, a fetus cannot be murdered. Therefore, legally, abortion is not murder. Therefore, abortion is legal.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 19, 2007 9:55 AM
I personally oppose, one last time, the idea of FORCING women to view that ultrasound.
Samantha, I think we're on the same page with this. I'm mandating the offer to the prospective mother of the ultrasound, with absolutely no political pressure one way or the other. The prospective mother could opt-out of viewing the ultrasound by signing a form that will prove that the ultrasound was offered and was refused. Kind of like in the pharmacy where they have two likes to sign, one where you want to talk to the pharmacist, and the other where you don't.Posted by: Tony at March 19, 2007 10:01 AM
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.
This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.
If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison (or worse) for killing the unborn (and rightfully so)
then shouldn't the unborn have equil consideration in relation to abortion..?
Is a fetus earmarked for abortion of any less value to a fetus killed by violence...?
Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same...?
I think it's not ethical to protect one without the other.....
they're one and the same........
I like the ultra sound.I was gone for a few.I'ts nice to see that nobody is name calling anymore.I will try not to either.Posted by: momof3 at March 19, 2007 8:35 PM
"Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same...?"
Bruce I understand that you value the life of the unborn child. However, I believe that the cause for this law is the fact that the only person who has the right to terminate the pregnancy is the mother. If anyone does so without her consent, that would be a reason for murder. Once again, I would also like to point out that women do not want to kill fetuses. They want to end unwanted pregnancies. If you could provide another way of safely doing so, Im sure they would take it.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 19, 2007 8:45 PM
Quote of the Day...
I was just listening to Jason Evert speak on Catholic Answers Live on the audio archives from 3-16-07 and at the end of his talk he stated...
If women had a sun-roof on their womb, abortion would be abolished overnight.
Oh, how true if woman could see their baby in the womb through a sunroof (or 4D) moving around 24/7, Abortion Would Be Over!!!
MikePosted by: Mike at March 19, 2007 10:09 PM
I want you to read your post very carefully and try to see the discrepencies in your logic.
"However, I believe that the cause for this law is the fact that the only person who has the right to terminate the pregnancy is the mother. If anyone does so without her consent, that would be a reason for murder.
You have just admitted that killing a "fetus" is murder. Granted you said that it could only be called murder if someone besides the mother did the killing, but nonetheless you admitted that it is murder.
Do you see? In what other circumstances could the act of killing a human being by one person be considered murder, but the same act on the same human being, performed by a different person not be considered murder?
It's almost as if your subconscious slipped out and your thoughts echoed what your heart knows.
Then you say: Once again, I would also like to point out that women do not want to kill fetuses. They want to end unwanted pregnancies. If you could provide another way of safely doing so, Im sure they would take it.
Again you admit that you are killing something. You still refer to it as a fetus, but at least you admit that you are "killing" it. I understand, all of us understand, that the goal is to end an unwanted pregnancy, but you have finally admitted, whether you realize it or not, that to end said pregnancy, you would have to "kill" the fetus.
If there was another way, I would also be thrilled. But since there isn't and until there is, don't you think that the "choice" has already been made.
MKPosted by: MK at March 20, 2007 5:34 AM
Samantha T. I think that you will eventually have a change of heart down the road. I am not convinced that you really stand as firmly behind 'CHOICE' You have already said in a prior post that you have had an abortion.I'm here to tell you that the damage has been done,but it's okay.It doesn't make you a bad person.As MK said earlier,it's too bad that you and Alyssa aren't on our side,because both of you could be a great voice for the pro life side.However,I will not press that issue.Posted by: momof3 at March 20, 2007 8:16 AM
momof3 I think you are confusing me with someone else. I havent had an abortion.
MK I firmly believe that the only person who has the right to terminate her pregancy is the mother. If there were no repercussions for anyone else's ending the pregnancy, fathers could punch the mother in the stomach and take away her right to raise that child if she chooses. The only reason the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy is because the fetus has invaded her body. If just anybody can make this decision for her, abortions become forced and not a matter of choice.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 20, 2007 9:07 AM
Samantha T. I apologize to you. I thought it was you-but it doesn't really matter.The point is that some of my closest friends have had abortions,and even though I don't agree with it,I don't hate them. I hate abortion. I even had a friend that admitted to 7 abortions.Yes,7.We are not in touch anymore,but she surely was a tormented soul.Unfortunately,she ended up having a hysterectomy, due to the abortions.She does have 1 living child.It didn't take any kind of diploma or degree to figure out that all of her repeat abortions were out of total lack of self esteem.This is where I believe PAS comes into play.Call it what you will.After her hysterectomy,she attempted suicide and to this day[from what I hear]drinks heavily.She beats herself up for her past.All I am saying is that the abortion industry is bad medicine.Posted by: momof3 at March 20, 2007 9:25 AM
I understand what you are saying (forced abortion/chosen abortion).
I was just pointing out that by your own words, when a mother chooses to kill her baby you call it "terminating a pregnancy" but when an outsider chooses to kill her baby, you called it murder.
This is what I meant by your subconsious slipping through.
I'm not referring to the crime against the woman, but the crime against the child. No one would argue that punching a woman in the stomach to kill her unborn baby (or any reason for that matter) is anything but horrible.
No, I just found it telling that you described the same act (taking the life of a child) with two different terms (terminating a pregnancy/murder) without changing the final outcome of the child.
From the babies point of view, it wouldn't much matter if he died from a kick in the stomach or a vaccum cleaner hose.
mKPosted by: MK at March 20, 2007 9:37 AM
You're doing a great job!!!
MKPosted by: MK at March 20, 2007 9:38 AM
Here are more 3D/4D Ultrasound Pictures...
MikePosted by: Mike at March 20, 2007 9:41 AM
Thanks MK and Mike. Mike,beautiful pics.I love looking at them due to the fact that I am currently pregnant with my 3rd child-[mom of 3 screen name]It's hard for me to believe that at 8 1/2 months of pregnancy,I could legally obtain an abortion.I shudder at the thought.Anyway,if my posts seem to ramble,please note that I am fighting a migraine today.Posted by: momof3 at March 20, 2007 10:21 AM
Momof3, I'm extremely happy for you. Congratulations. Hope that migraine goes away soon.
:)Posted by: Alyssa at March 20, 2007 1:39 PM
I once talked to a bus-driver-lady who was also very repulsed by being legally-forced to do anything opposed to her female-identity. So I asked if then she had trouble being legally-forced to follow the green & red traffic lights.
The traffic law code is a small part of our laws. The 'forcing' might be only to insure a thorough understanding of the abortion event before the dismemberment of a child takes place.
This is common cause both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. They could raise money so that the best possible imaging is available .... what say you? And to those too distressed would a form of trauma counseling, with support for women and babies be approved?Posted by: John McDonell at March 20, 2007 2:13 PM
just got this - http://www.newstarget.com/021719.html
hope you can use this info .........Posted by: John McDonell at March 20, 2007 2:30 PM
Thank you both Alyssa and John. Yes John,I can use this. Thanks again.Posted by: momof3 at March 20, 2007 3:53 PM
Momof3, I bet you can't wait the for the next two weeks to be up. :) That's exciting...will you be "breaking the tie", as my mom refers to it? (As in you already have a boy and a girl?) :)
Posted by: Alyssa
at March 20, 2007 4:17 PM
Yes,Alyssa.I am having a girl.I have one of each.I am ready to get it done!Posted by: momof3 at March 20, 2007 7:15 PM
I'm all for offering ultrasounds to mothers if they want to see it. The problem I have with this bill is that even if the women do not want to look at the ultrasound, they will be FORCED to. The women for the most part have probably agonized over making a huge decision like this and know full well what they are doing. To force her to look at something she does not want to is wrong.
And really quickly...
You can legally obtain an abortion at 8.5 months, but not just for any old reason. I believe you have to have a dire medical reason (as in, mother's life is in danger) before you can obtain one. THis is my understanding from what I have read. If I have said something incorrect, please let me know.
With that said, my congratulations with your child.Posted by: Stephanie at March 20, 2007 8:19 PM
name? due date? come on...give with the details girl...
How appropriate that while we are all sitting around discussing the pros and cons of killing babies,
we are also sitting around waiting for yours to be born...
tick, tick, tick, tock...
Maybe she'll be an Easter baby!
Or is that way too far past the due date?
OOOOoohhhhhhh, I'm soooooooo excited!
You can recieve an abortion up until birth for any reason due to the health exception law.
What was the Casey decision?
In June 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court decided "Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania vs. Casey." In it the Court reversed some of its earlier decisions. It ruled that certain reasonable regulations of abortion could be enacted. These included parental notification of a minor daughter’s scheduled abortion, in-formed consent, a 24-hour waiting period and confidential reporting. It struck down a spousal notification clause. It clearly reaffirmed "Roe vs. Wade" however. In doing so, it rejected Roe’s trimester scheme and spoke to a dividing line at viability. It essentially rejected the right of privacy as its justification and adopted a new "liberty" standard.
The above restrictions would not apply if they "unduly burdened" her right to abortion. The original definition of "health" remained, and so abortion remained legal until birth. U.S. Supreme Court, June 29, 1992 Planned Parenthood of S.E. PA vs. Casey No. 91-744 and 91-902
Jill probably can give you more info but basically, if you want an abortion at 81/2 months, and can find a doctor willing to do it, you can have your abortion.
This is what the partial birth abortion debate is about.
Stephanie, 3/20, 8:19p, queried: "You can legally obtain an abortion at 8.5 months, but not just for any old reason. I believe you have to have a dire medical reason (as in, mother's life is in danger) before you can obtain one. THis is my understanding from what I have read. If I have said something incorrect, please let me know."
Answer: The Supreme Court determined abortion for "health of the mother": "may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient."
This amounts to abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy up to and during delivery.
I have personally spoken with a nurse who worked for a FL late term abortionist. She finally quit in disgust after hearing him many times coach women 40 weeks pregnant (full-term) to tell him they were suicidal so he could legally abort them. You can read more of what she said in my column, "Biohazard bags and buckets."Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 21, 2007 6:24 AM
Jill,I went to Biohazard bags and buckets and I got as far as doctor X.I couldn't read anymore. It made my heart sick!!What are we doing to these poor souls? OUR children.WHY??God's beautiful art work.God's beautiful creation.All because the devil is a thief!!He is a liar! Jill,you said that you saw abortions performed.What were the reactions of the mother's? I just don't understand this at all.I assure you all I have a very strong stomach,but this is just too much.Posted by: momof3 at March 21, 2007 11:38 AM
To all of you that congratulated me,thank you so very much.I went to the doc. today.1cm dilated.Having some Braxton Hicks.On my way.Baby name- Madison.I didn't want to make this about me, but there you have it.Thanks to all of you!!Posted by: momof3 at March 21, 2007 11:49 AM
Mom, congrats! Wow, we'll track your labor and delivery on the blog! As for your 11:38a post, I have never seen an abortion, but I have been in D&Cs of miscarriages. The procedure is the same.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 21, 2007 12:10 PM
Sorry Jill,I saw that you had witnessed the abortion at Christ Hospital, and I assumed you had seen more.Thank you as well for your kindness.Posted by: momof3 at March 21, 2007 12:31 PM
Abortion is not a choice. It's an absolute abomination!Posted by: momof3 at March 21, 2007 12:32 PM
Mom, no I didn't witness an abortion at Christ Hospital either. I held a live aborted baby 45 min. until he died.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 21, 2007 1:15 PM
OMG,Jill.Sorry again! Oh that poor child.I'm so glad you were there to hold him.Posted by: momof3 at March 21, 2007 1:21 PM
Hey momof3, do you have a middle name picked out? :)Posted by: Alyssa at March 21, 2007 1:51 PM
Alyssa,not at this moment.Any ideas? I must tell you that I am 35 weeks, and my contractions have not subsided. I was asked to come in to the hospital.I am worried.This is it!I'm told that the baby's lungs could be premature[should I deliver]My pain tolerance is ok @ present so I must go and pack a bag.I want to say once more that I didn't intend to make this about myself.I was just letting you all know.Please those of you that can/will-pray for me,the baby and continue to pray for the unborn.Posted by: momof3 at March 21, 2007 4:22 PM
You're probably gone already, but I had braxton hicks for my last three and those contractions were worse than the real ones.
A nurse told me to drink 3 or 4 glasses of water. If they didn't subside then it was probably real.
If there is still time, try it. And you better let us know what happens. Madison will be fine. I know it. She's your daughter so I'm sure she is a fighter.
Middle name? I vote for Hope. After all, isn't that what this website is all about?
God be with you,
Oh boy, yeah, premature lungs is always the big issue...isn't the problem the lack of surfactant within the lungs that prevents collapse? I assume your baby is well past the point where it's VERY risky if she came early (my cousin's first baby was delivered at just barely 8 months because the weirdest thing happened...the placenta detached from the uterine wall and both she and the baby were completely healthy and fine afterward). I think with today's technology Madison will be completely fine. I think she's just itchin' to come out and say hi to everyone. You think those are Braxton-Hicks contractions? Nah, she's just excited to be gettin' on out and seeing the world. Hehehe.Posted by: Alyssa at March 21, 2007 9:21 PM
Hi,back on the boards all.Thanks MK and Alyssa.False alarm.I was very anxiety ridden.MK did drink lots of H2o.Was aware that BH contractions could be due to dehydration.Funny Alyssa,before I even read your post I laughed to myself that it was the same thing you said above.This kid wants OUT! Did go to hospital.Was evaluated.All is okay.Posted by: momof3 at March 22, 2007 3:55 PM
That's great, momof3!! Haha, I was the opposite...I didn't wanna come out...my poor mom. I put her through so much hell during her pregnancy, then the labor was horrific. I wouldn't come out. And I was a small baby...just barely 6 pounds.
Damn, I wreaked havoc on my mom....she gained 60 pounds with me because the only thing she could stomach without throwing up was bread, chocolate, and spaghetti (even late into her pregnancy, because her body just didn't handle it well). Empty carbs. She just looked fat instead of pregnant (I've seen pictures). I still feel overwhelmingly guilty.
It's kinda funny, though...because all those foods she ate during pregnancy are my favorite foods. Although it kinda helped having an Italian grandma who'd stuff me full of bread and spaghetti when I was little. :)
Posted by: Alyssa
at March 22, 2007 4:15 PM
PS...I like MK's suggestion of Hope for a middle name...I think it's pretty. It's prolly a little too early (I'm only 19), but I already have baby names pick out (and I don't plan on having kids for another 10 years...hehehe).