Next Question
RSS
I think so. Unless they have something to hide. They disclose to you if you have a tumor, they show you an X-ray of your broken bone before they fix it. Even a dentist takes an X-ray of your teeth and they don't hide it from you so why hide whatever it is that is growing in a woman's belly?
Permalink | Report
The showing of an ultra-sound purpose is just masked coercion - trying to induce guilt & fear in the woman seeking abortion (who might be doing this for whatever reasons,e.g. ridding herself of the product of rape).
It is a tough decision as it is, no need to make it harder & scarier. The protests outside clinics, and showing the ultra-sound is intimidation tactics.
A person (in this case a woman), has a right to her body and life. Period.
The anti-abortionists (I would never call them "pro-life", as they neglect to take into account the life of the woman carrying the child) should not have their way in this.
The only proper measure to reduce frivolous abortions is education.
Education at school and for & by the parents.
Helpful Answer?
(7)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
buddawiggi
"To that end, should an abortion provider be required to show an ultrasound to a woman..."
Unless a law is or has been broke, no one should be *required* to do anything. Freedom means that we have a choice.
It could be required that a Doctor *ask* the patient if she would like to see the ultrasound. This would ensure that the patient was informed that the ultrasound image was available. This may also help Doctors to remain unbiased while making all of the information available to the patient.
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
By providing women (and men) with proper sexual education, and specially by stimulating the economy and protect the poor so they don't have to make these choices, many women could be able to chose to keep the child.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$2
May 19, 2009 01:33 PM
Should an abortion provider be required to show an ultrasound to a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy?
President Obama, who is pro-choice and was endorsed by Planned Parenthood, has said that our goal in the abortion issue should be to "reduce the number of abortions" and to "provide the resources to allow a women to make the choice to keep the child." To that end, should an abortion provider be required to show an ultrasound to a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy, since doctors believe such requirements would indeed reduce abortions (source)?
- In Abortion |
- Tags: ultrasound, abortion |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| May 19, 2009 03:42 PM |
| Asker's Rating: |
• I don't think this question was adequately explored, but your point stays with me the most. You are right that when I have had surgeries, the doctors have always shown ultrasounds or X-rays of the problems they are doing surgery for, so why should abortion be any different? Great point!
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (4)
May 19, 2009 01:55 PM
In short, NO. The showing of an ultra-sound purpose is just masked coercion - trying to induce guilt & fear in the woman seeking abortion (who might be doing this for whatever reasons,e.g. ridding herself of the product of rape).
It is a tough decision as it is, no need to make it harder & scarier. The protests outside clinics, and showing the ultra-sound is intimidation tactics.
A person (in this case a woman), has a right to her body and life. Period.
The anti-abortionists (I would never call them "pro-life", as they neglect to take into account the life of the woman carrying the child) should not have their way in this.
The only proper measure to reduce frivolous abortions is education.
Education at school and for & by the parents.
Helpful Answer?
(7)
(0)
Helpful: mattb4rd, buddawiggi, rickg, jeffhoard, morriss003, beast1oh1, demanda
Tip cyberlina for this answer
Reply
buddawiggi
May 19, 2009 02:04 PM
Tough to beat this answer. I could not agree more. A+.
Tip buddawiggi for this comment
Report
May 19, 2009 02:11 PM
I agree with cyberlina about the ultrasound thing, it would be inappropriate.
However, the woman carrying the child arguably had her way when she opted to have unprotected intercourse, unless of course she was raped. Abortion as a form of post-facto contraception is simply abhorrent given the availability and effectiveness of contraceptives.
Pro-choice doesn't mean that you can choose which choices you make don't have consequences. If you're raped, however, all bets are off.
Report
However, the woman carrying the child arguably had her way when she opted to have unprotected intercourse, unless of course she was raped. Abortion as a form of post-facto contraception is simply abhorrent given the availability and effectiveness of contraceptives.
Pro-choice doesn't mean that you can choose which choices you make don't have consequences. If you're raped, however, all bets are off.
May 21, 2009 03:12 AM
According to one doctor, "Abortion performed to 'save' a mother's life almost never -- if ever -- is necessary," and "a group of Ireland's top obstetricians concluded that 'there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child'" (source). An interesting point in that article is that Ireland constitutionally protects the lives of unborn children and has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. So the life of the mother argument, like the rare abortion-because-of-rape argument, is merely a red herring.
If a woman thinks that there is nothing wrong with having an abortion, why would showing her what is to be removed induce "guilt and fear"? And what is she fearing? Wouldn't using technology to educate her be helping her make an informed choice? Many doctors require a waiting period before performing a vasectomy (WebMD), so making a patient seriously consider a big decision is not without precedent.
Report
If a woman thinks that there is nothing wrong with having an abortion, why would showing her what is to be removed induce "guilt and fear"? And what is she fearing? Wouldn't using technology to educate her be helping her make an informed choice? Many doctors require a waiting period before performing a vasectomy (WebMD), so making a patient seriously consider a big decision is not without precedent.
May 21, 2009 02:40 PM
Merely clarifying:
When I talk about a woman's life, I don't mean her life as in life/death (as srgothard seems to have interpreted).
I mean her life, as in what she wants to make of her "life" and what she wants to pursue (or not) in her "life".
Consequences:
Even if not the victim of a rape (or accident), but rather of her own error, she still pays a price. An abortion is an intrusive procedure and a psychologically/emotionally difficult choice (e.g. there's always a chance she may regret it in the future...another consequence).
Abortion used as contraception for me is utterly silly rather than morally reprehensible. That's why, on this point, education is so needed.
Report
When I talk about a woman's life, I don't mean her life as in life/death (as srgothard seems to have interpreted).
I mean her life, as in what she wants to make of her "life" and what she wants to pursue (or not) in her "life".
Consequences:
Even if not the victim of a rape (or accident), but rather of her own error, she still pays a price. An abortion is an intrusive procedure and a psychologically/emotionally difficult choice (e.g. there's always a chance she may regret it in the future...another consequence).
Abortion used as contraception for me is utterly silly rather than morally reprehensible. That's why, on this point, education is so needed.
May 21, 2009 04:48 PM
@cyberlina, so instead of pro-"life," would you be all right with calling anti-abortionists pro-"actual, physical life" proponents as apposed to pro-"business, social life" proponents? It intrigues me that you don't consider someone who is for saving the life of a child at the possible expense of a woman's ambitions as pro-life.
Report
June 03, 2009 03:00 PM
Coming back after the tragic death of Dr Tiller http://www.mahalo.com/george-tiller.
I hope this may shock some people who do not frown upon intimidation as means to their "pro-life" agenta.
And yes, I consider ambition=life.
Life is not just a physical thing. If we don't give it meaning with our "ambition" and creativity, life is meaningless.
Report
I hope this may shock some people who do not frown upon intimidation as means to their "pro-life" agenta.
And yes, I consider ambition=life.
Life is not just a physical thing. If we don't give it meaning with our "ambition" and creativity, life is meaningless.
June 04, 2009 12:46 PM
@cyberlina, do you view the murder of Dr. Tiller (which was morally wrong and offensive to all who believe in justice) as on the same plane as someone being robbed of ambition? Are you are saying that a mother who has to give birth might as well be dead? What if killing someone is your life's ambition? Does being denied that make you dead?
Guess what: no one thinks that destroying a life because it gets in the way of your ambition is okay. If we did, Susan Smith would not be in jail today. That's why anti-abortionists are against murdering an abortion doctor even if he is performing immoral procedures. I realize there are wackos out there, but no anti-abortion group stands behind a vigilante terrorist. I couldn't be friends with a terrorist like Bill Ayers who bombed federal buildings for his ambition or the man who shot Dr. Tiller. You don't have the right to do whatever you want because otherwise your life might not turn out how you hoped. We have the rule of law to prevent mindsets like yours.
Report
Guess what: no one thinks that destroying a life because it gets in the way of your ambition is okay. If we did, Susan Smith would not be in jail today. That's why anti-abortionists are against murdering an abortion doctor even if he is performing immoral procedures. I realize there are wackos out there, but no anti-abortion group stands behind a vigilante terrorist. I couldn't be friends with a terrorist like Bill Ayers who bombed federal buildings for his ambition or the man who shot Dr. Tiller. You don't have the right to do whatever you want because otherwise your life might not turn out how you hoped. We have the rule of law to prevent mindsets like yours.
May 19, 2009 02:14 PM
The problem lies in the "required" part of the question. "To that end, should an abortion provider be required to show an ultrasound to a woman..."
Unless a law is or has been broke, no one should be *required* to do anything. Freedom means that we have a choice.
It could be required that a Doctor *ask* the patient if she would like to see the ultrasound. This would ensure that the patient was informed that the ultrasound image was available. This may also help Doctors to remain unbiased while making all of the information available to the patient.
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Helpful: mattb4rd, buddawiggi, srgothard, jeffhoard, morriss003
Tip robbrown for this answer
Reply
May 19, 2009 03:49 PM
You're nitpicking language rather than the merit of the idea. The idea itself is so fundamentally flawed and dishonest to begin with (see cyberlina's answer) that spending effort to pick apart the language presented here lends undeserved validity to the proposal.
As far as revising the language goes, it would contribute nothing. A woman owns her own medical records already, and it is already the doctor's responsibility to provide access to any and all information that can help their patient make an informed decision (including an ultrasound). Even with your revised language, a law like this is redundant at best, and dishonestly motivated and cruel at worst.
Report
As far as revising the language goes, it would contribute nothing. A woman owns her own medical records already, and it is already the doctor's responsibility to provide access to any and all information that can help their patient make an informed decision (including an ultrasound). Even with your revised language, a law like this is redundant at best, and dishonestly motivated and cruel at worst.
May 19, 2009 03:57 PM
Please understand that I'm not nitpicking language.
I think that a Doctor should be unbiased and above all else, ensure that the patient has all of the information to make an informed decision based on his or her own personal beliefs and values.
Report
I think that a Doctor should be unbiased and above all else, ensure that the patient has all of the information to make an informed decision based on his or her own personal beliefs and values.
May 19, 2009 04:25 PM
@unin5pired You seem to be assuming that the default motivation for offering the sonagram/ultrasound is coercion, which, if made a requirement, it would seem to be.
However, if the motive is to provide the pregnant woman with information so as to make a more informed decision, then would it not be justifiable?
Required no, available and optional yes.
Report
However, if the motive is to provide the pregnant woman with information so as to make a more informed decision, then would it not be justifiable?
Required no, available and optional yes.
May 19, 2009 06:03 PM
Excellent answer. @srgothard, almost all of us are not only sympathetic to the potential life that is being lost, we morn the loss of that potential. We just are unwilling to allow the government to regulate our lives to that extent.
Report
May 19, 2009 06:04 PM
@mattb4rd said "However, if the motive is to provide the pregnant woman with information so as to make a more informed decision, then would it not be justifiable?"
My point is that a woman seeking an abortion already owns that sonogram, and that the doctor is already required to provide it to her if she wants to see it, or if it will provide her with useful and relevant information.
The scenario "required no, available and optional yes" already exists.
A law that REQUIRES the doctor to show said sonogram is COERCIVE.
A law which DOES NOT REQUIRE the doctor to show the sonogram is REDUNDANT.
(Caps are not intended to be yelling - I just can't figure out how to italicize, and wanted to add emphasis)
Report
My point is that a woman seeking an abortion already owns that sonogram, and that the doctor is already required to provide it to her if she wants to see it, or if it will provide her with useful and relevant information.
The scenario "required no, available and optional yes" already exists.
A law that REQUIRES the doctor to show said sonogram is COERCIVE.
A law which DOES NOT REQUIRE the doctor to show the sonogram is REDUNDANT.
(Caps are not intended to be yelling - I just can't figure out how to italicize, and wanted to add emphasis)
May 19, 2009 06:32 PM
@unin5pired: I think that there is a difference between making the results of a diagnostic tool such as an ultrasound available and being required to ask if the patient would like to see it.
Report
May 21, 2009 02:38 AM
The laws being referred to in the article allow the woman to refuse to look, but the doctor has to turn the monitor in such a way that it is easily visible for her. It seems that if both sides agree on attempting to reduce the number of abortions that a new law is appropriate.
@morriss003, It is not intrusive for the government to enact laws to prevent the destruction of human life. It is actual the purpose of government: to protect us from each other (related Mahalo question). A good legal system punishes injuries against other people and their property.
Note: I tend to pick well-thought-out answers that don't sound reactionary. @robbrown's answer is a good example of rational thinking. You don't have to agree with me if you use good reasoning and logic. Anyone else what to take a crack at this before I pick best answer?
Report
@morriss003, It is not intrusive for the government to enact laws to prevent the destruction of human life. It is actual the purpose of government: to protect us from each other (related Mahalo question). A good legal system punishes injuries against other people and their property.
Note: I tend to pick well-thought-out answers that don't sound reactionary. @robbrown's answer is a good example of rational thinking. You don't have to agree with me if you use good reasoning and logic. Anyone else what to take a crack at this before I pick best answer?
May 19, 2009 02:26 PM
I think President Obama by saying "provide the resources to allow a women to make the choice to keep the child" meant that the government should make sure women don't have to make this choice because they can't afford another son or are not properly educated about it. By providing women (and men) with proper sexual education, and specially by stimulating the economy and protect the poor so they don't have to make these choices, many women could be able to chose to keep the child.
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 21, 2009 02:26 AM
Sometimes when people talk about reducing abortions through education, they mean reducing conceptions by women considered to be unfit mothers. Once conception occurs however, there is still time to educate a mother on her alternatives. Showing a woman an ultrasound of what is to be removed educates her, via technology, about her decision. That way, her choice is an informed choice. And if she is afraid of coercion, the law does not prevent her from looking away. We could additionally educate her on the fact that she can have adoptive parents pay her medical bills and that the cost of adoption is on the parents taking the child. If education failed to prevent conception, it may still be used to prevent unnecessary abortions.
Report
May 21, 2009 02:42 AM
Can you expand on your point more? For instance, why it would be bad for a woman's decision to be hard and what would be the negative consequences? or What makes it hard to go to the clinic? Can you relate a story of someone you know who went and found it difficult?
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- syedmustafaelja..., December 11, 2009 02:00 PM
- williamnardone, December 11, 2009 02:00 PM
- nerosoftware, December 11, 2009 01:53 PM
- gleysen, December 11, 2009 01:52 PM
- ayumisakura, December 11, 2009 01:43 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
