This post recounts some stories of women who decided to take the prolifers up on their offer of a free ultrasound, and as a result rejected abortion.
One young woman at first was adamant that she wanted an abortion. She started to have second thoughts, but her mother was standing firm. Then they decided to go for the free ultrasound. THIS is the actual ultrasound:
Both Mom and Grandma decided, after seeing the baby, to embrace and welcome him or her.
And really, folks, ought not every woman considering an abortion actually SEE -- granted, on ultrasound, since we're technologically limited -- exactly WHO it is that she's making a decision for? She is, after all, making a decision to end that unborn child's life, sight unseen. Even if you don't consider the embryo or fetus "a child" yet personally, shouldn't the woman have a chance to really KNOW?
"Oh, it will just add distress to her and make her choice harder!" If seeing the ultrasound before the abortion will cause her great distress at the thought that she is about to destroy the organism that she's seeing on the screen, how much more distressed will she be when she encounters that information later? When she sees, say, a friend's ultrasound or a sister's ultrasound, of an unborn child the same age her baby was when she aborted it. Shouldn't ultrasounds be a way to screen out women at high risk of anguish and regret later? The woman who can see the entity on the ultrasound and say "Yes. I am certain I want that thing killed. Fire up the machine," isn't likely to regret it later. The woman who, on seeing the ultrasound, will cry and say, "I don't want to do this" is another matter.
FYI- The Colson Center used you as their feature blog today on Twitter and Facebook.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those things that demonstrates the fallacy of the term "pro-choice" and why "pro-abortion" really is more appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIf one is really in favor of women making choices, then one should want them to be fully informed in order to make a choice that she won't regret.
While requiring ultrasounds isn't a complete solution, it certainly shows some promise.
For an idea of how main-stream fetal pictures are-- there's been three different folks who posted "first baby pictures" up, and one is trying to figure out how to put up the video she got.
ReplyDeleteCool, Billy! Thanks for the heads' up!
ReplyDeleteI think women who want to see their sonograms should see them, and women who don't, should not.
ReplyDeleteAn ultrasound is part of informed consent. Hence the word "informed."
ReplyDeleteActually, SegaMon, "informed" in the context of "informed consent" means you know how the procedure AFFECTS YOU. What you will suffer, and how you will benefit.
ReplyDelete"Informed consent" has never meant seeing x-rays, or radiology, or sonograms. You don't have to see an ultrasound (or any other pic) of your bowel in order to give informed consent for a resection.
(Didn't you say you are a member of a health-care profession??? If yes, why are you so confused about what "informed consent" means? You should have learned it several times over during your training.)
If I might step in, "informed consent" presumes a certain minimum standard of knowledge of what will take place and that the patient has all the relevant facts as to what will happen and the consequences of the procedure. In the case of abortion the ultrasound and other scans would serve as the minimum knowledge base afforded to a patient who needs the relevant facts. What else would demonstrate the minimum knowledge needed?
ReplyDeleteSo, yes informed consent would require scans of some sort to demonstrate the reality of the baby in her womb.
OC, deliberately withholding information that commonly leads patients to reject a procedure is inexcusable. Over 80% of women who view an ultrasound of their fetus reject abortion. Because the ultrasound is therefore a proven factor in the decision making process, responsible informed consent would include viewing the ultrasound.
ReplyDelete