Pro-Choice and Ultrasounds
In my conversations about abortion, I've heard a number of times that the government won't ever have to get rid of abortion, because science will do it for them. Ultrasounds.
Ultrasounds are so sensitive these days they can show up in color and 3D. The baby's sex can be determined earlier and earlier. Lots of things that used to be issues can be seen ahead of time, planned for, and risks eliminated.
This is all good and well if you want to have a baby. But if you don't ... you'd rather not know what's going on inside you.
Via Slate:
Yes, because we would much rather these women lie to themselves about what they are doing than actually own up to the realization that yes, human life is forming within your womb, and yes, you will be stopping it from growing.
I don't like judges and governments acting like they know more than anyone. And I don't like intrusive laws that are written for the lowest common denominators among us. So do I like that Oklahoma is forcing women to have ultrasounds and that South Dakota is making doctors tell their patients that abortions have been known to increased thoughts of suicide? No, not really.
But I also don't like the pro-choice method of closing your eyes and looking the other way at what's naturally taking place inside a womans body.
I also don't like abortions of convenience, women who are 18 - 30 who can't be bothered with a baby "right now" because it doesn't fit into their plan. And increasingly, as I become aware of women who have made these decisions and yes, some of them are my friends, I think that a majority of abortions performed in this country are not adult women who have been raped, either by incest or what have you, or need abortions to save their own lives. I think a majority of abortions performed in this country are teenage girls who don't want to tell their parents and are scared of the other options available to them (if any have even been poised) and adult women who simply can't be inconvenienced.
And women who can't be inconvenienced don't want to have to look at what it is they are doing. They'd rather not know and not think about it.
Note: if my state had these things on the ballot like Colorado and South Dakota do, I'm not entirely sure how I would vote. Colorado's amendment would say "any human being from the moment of fertilization," and I'm concerned about additional legal ramifications if this is done. Do i think we should say human life starts at fertilization? Yes. But it's a different stage of life than being human. But to me it is life. I'm just not sure where the law and this comes together yet. South Dakota's is a bit easier for me, I would vote against it. Seems hypocritical to you? Maybe. But to me this is a social issue where we campaign for hearts and minds and education, and not legislation. Does not change the fact that I abhor the practice.
Ultrasounds are so sensitive these days they can show up in color and 3D. The baby's sex can be determined earlier and earlier. Lots of things that used to be issues can be seen ahead of time, planned for, and risks eliminated.
This is all good and well if you want to have a baby. But if you don't ... you'd rather not know what's going on inside you.
Via Slate:
But if you're pregnant and don't want to be and are considering an abortion, an ultrasound image could be an object of dread. It might force you to think about the fetus as having a separate identity or as the baby it could become.
Yes, because we would much rather these women lie to themselves about what they are doing than actually own up to the realization that yes, human life is forming within your womb, and yes, you will be stopping it from growing.
I don't like judges and governments acting like they know more than anyone. And I don't like intrusive laws that are written for the lowest common denominators among us. So do I like that Oklahoma is forcing women to have ultrasounds and that South Dakota is making doctors tell their patients that abortions have been known to increased thoughts of suicide? No, not really.
But I also don't like the pro-choice method of closing your eyes and looking the other way at what's naturally taking place inside a womans body.
I also don't like abortions of convenience, women who are 18 - 30 who can't be bothered with a baby "right now" because it doesn't fit into their plan. And increasingly, as I become aware of women who have made these decisions and yes, some of them are my friends, I think that a majority of abortions performed in this country are not adult women who have been raped, either by incest or what have you, or need abortions to save their own lives. I think a majority of abortions performed in this country are teenage girls who don't want to tell their parents and are scared of the other options available to them (if any have even been poised) and adult women who simply can't be inconvenienced.
And women who can't be inconvenienced don't want to have to look at what it is they are doing. They'd rather not know and not think about it.
Note: if my state had these things on the ballot like Colorado and South Dakota do, I'm not entirely sure how I would vote. Colorado's amendment would say "any human being from the moment of fertilization," and I'm concerned about additional legal ramifications if this is done. Do i think we should say human life starts at fertilization? Yes. But it's a different stage of life than being human. But to me it is life. I'm just not sure where the law and this comes together yet. South Dakota's is a bit easier for me, I would vote against it. Seems hypocritical to you? Maybe. But to me this is a social issue where we campaign for hearts and minds and education, and not legislation. Does not change the fact that I abhor the practice.
Comments