Wednesday, May 05, 2010

"The View" on pre-abortion ultrasound

Whoopi Goldberg Frets Fewer Abortions Would Mean More Parents Kill Kids Later

Yeah. We've heard that song before. Carl Tyler of the Centers for Disease Control testified before Congress around 1970, trying to get them to legalize abortion on demand. He admitted that this would increase maternal deaths, but felt it would be totally worth it because "it will totally eliminate child abuse in a single generation."

Fifty million aborted babies later and we still have child abuse, more than ever. What went wrong? Did we kill the wrong fifty million? Or was fifty million not enough?

Goldberg argued that it's pointless to show the woman the ultrasound -- far better to keep her in the dark. "There's not a woman that goes, there's not a woman out there who makes a decision to have an abortion lightly. It is a tough, a tough, but to have someone compound what you are already carrying, you are already going in there with that pain because maybe you didn't want to have an abortion, maybe you can't have a baby. .... What difference does it make if you're going to bring a baby in and you can't feed it and you can't take care of it and then people end up killing their kids? I hate it!"

First of all, the reason that ultrasounds tend to dissuade women from abortions isn't purely an informational sort of thing. It's awakening the maternal bonding. Once she sees the baby, she bonds with it. And bonded mothers, by and large, are not the ones that kill their babies. But Goldberg prefers to cling to the same disproved theory Carl Tyler espoused. Just keep doing more and more and more and more abortions, and sooner or later you'll preemptively kill the babies whose mothers would have just killed them later anyway, right?

Second of all, how patronizing is it to withhold information on the grounds that it might be distressing? This "Don't worry her pretty little head" approach is embraced by the abortion lobby and by many legal abortion supporters, but it's hardly respectful of women. If she's not going to cope well with the knowledge that the abortion she's considering will destroy a baby, how will she cope with learning later that the abortion she already consented to killed a baby? If the news will be so distressing, it's far better to get the information in advance, before an irreversible decision is made. But again, the abortion lobby and many abortion supporters like to pretend that all will be well, of only we can destroy this troubling fetus before Mom gets attached to it.

Goldberg even dismissed her co-host Sherri Shepherd (who has admitted to multiple abortions). Shepherd said that had she seen an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion, "the guilt probably would have made me say I don't want to kill my baby."

"I don't believe that. I don't believe you, Sherri. I don't believe that," Goldberg responded. Yup, dismiss all evidence contrary to your pet theory, even when it comes from somebody one your own side. I guess "Trust Women" excludes not only prolife women, but prochoice women who don't toe the line.

Joy Behar leaped on the "back alley" bandwagon -- which is so throughly broken down that I hate to dignify it by mentioning it. I'll just refer interested readers to:

  • The unmistakable, undeniable, clear impact of legalized abortion on maternal mortality
  • The Bad Old Days of Abortion
  • Lysol douche ads -- These are for real!
  • Coathanger abortions

    Of course, there is also the standard banter about how anything that stands between a woman and an immediate, no-questions-asked abortion is "telling a woman what to do with her body."

    First of all, an ultrasound is a standard part of abortion. If she's going in for an abortion, she has already made the choice to undergo an ultrasound, just as somebody going in for a root canal is also making the choice to undergo the dental x-rays that are part of that. All the law does is give her the chance to see the ultrasound. Only in the twisted logic of abortion advocacy is offering to show somebody their pre-procedure diagnostic imaging "controlling" what they do with their bodies.

    Second of all, abortion is something that a woman is choosing to do to somebody else's body. Just as the law dictates that you can't use your body to rape or strangle somebody, or to torch a building, or chug beer behind the wheel of a car, the law can very well dictate that you can't use your body to have somebody else's body pulled into bloody chunks at your behest. Be a grown-up, for crying out loud!

    And clearly these women are clueless about ultrasounds, since Behar characterizes is as "put a camera up your vagina". The law allows the abortionist to choose whatever ultrasound TRANSDUCER he prefers. It in no way involves CAMERAS. And again, any competent abortionist is going to do the ultrasound anyway. The law just means he has to offer to show it to the woman and to describe what it shows, since it can be difficult for a layman to make out exactly what an ultrasound is showing.

    Hasselbeck does note that offering to let the woman see the ultrasound is akin to a computer program responding to a file deletion command with "This file may contain important data. Are you sure you want to delete it?"

    I'd go further than Hasselbeck. We're not talking about computer files here. We're talking about human beings. If you want to have one destroyed at your request, but you'd better be willing to look at that person and sign a form saying, "Yes. I want that person to die." Anything less is evading your own role in that person's death.

    Anonymous said...

    An 'agonizing choice' that Goldberg has herself made six times. See if this sounds familiar:

    "MOST women don't regret their abortions!"

    "Abortion is an agonizing personal decision!"

    But "fetuses aren't really human beings."

    Is it any wonder these folks are confused? Or should I say willfully ignorant. Proaborts hate ultrasound because the humanity of the unborn is clearly shown by them. But, in the hands of an abortionist, they become just another killing tool. Abortion is 'just another medical procedure' unless they want to play the victim card. Then, suddenly, they have agonized over it. When women testify to hurting after abortion, the feminazis call them liars. Prochoice is morally and spiritually bankrupt

    Annie Jeffries said...

    Very glad I found you at Christine's site. Excellent reading. I'll be back for more exploration of your blog.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    I think women should decide for themselves whether or not to look at their ultrasounds.

    Cecilia said...

    But Operation Counterstrrike: Many clinics won't give them that choice. Many clinics refuse to let the woman see the ultrasound, even if she asks to. The reason is because they know that many women will change their mind about the abortion and go running out of the clinic. How's that for controlling their choice?
    The law in Oklahoma will only give women the choice to see it or not, tell clinics they can't forbid women from viewing the ultrasound. This will lead to a lot fewer abortions as women decide to choose life in droves. It will also greatly decrease profits for the abortion industry. This is the real reason the abortion industry is agianst the new law, not because the law will hurt women, or because they care so much for women, but because they want the profits abortion brings.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    I agree with you that patients should have the option to view their sonograms. In fact most patients don't care much either way, if you show them they'll look and politely pretend to be interested, and if you don't, they don't usually ask to see them.

    RE: "many women will change their mind about the abortion and go running out of the clinic. "

    No, most women who see their ultrasounds do not change their minds about getting the abortion; the idea that they do is a right-to-lifist fantasy. The very large majority of abortion patients are very sure that they want their abortions before they arrive at the clinic. If they have difficulty with the decision, they tend to work out their difficulties before the get to the clinic. This idea that women come to the clinic but aren't sure whether they want the abortion, ready to have their minds changed, is out of touch with reality. Sure it happens occasionally (EVERYTHING happens occasionally) but only very seldom.

    Most patients generally (not just abortion) have no interest at all in seeing their radiology. Some educated but non-medical people (like Christina) have a fantasy that patients want stuff explained to them. You learn how wrong that is on your first day on the wards. Patients wanna know two things: what's gonna happen and what should they do. The rest you can keep to yourself. Being a doctor is very very different from being a teacher.

    Anonymous said...

    The law allows the abortionist to choose whatever ultrasound TRANSDUCER he prefers

    You are incorrect here. The law states:
    Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;

    The doctor MUST choose the transducer that creates the best image, and because most abortions are in early pregnancy when a vaginal transducer will always yield a better image, the vaginal transducer is mandated by law in a majority of cases. The doctor doesn't get to choose; the patient doesn't get to choose. Even if an abdominal transducer gives the doctor all the information needed to do the abortion, a vaginal transducer must be used.

    If a doctor refuses to use a vaginal transducer on a patient when it can be shown it would provide a clearer image, he/she is liable for damages as well as up to $100,000 in fines for each case. Doctors in violation of this law could also have their medical license suspended or revoked. To paraphrase, the law penalizes doctors for not performing a medical procedure that there's no medical need for.