Should women have to view ultrasound before getting abortion?

Looks like a coercive, Big-Brother type proposal to me. I'm curious how you reconcile your support for this bill with your stated opposition to "nanny-state" type laws.

Fair comment. Here's how I reconcile it in my mind: In a previous blog, I said "I oppose nanny legislation, unnecessary laws that require people to do things that they should be able to decide on their own." But I don't think abortion is right (even though it's legal), except in the case of rape. I think if more people were faced with proof of the living person inside of them, they might rethink their decision to end that life.

Two minutes ago, I viewed my cousin's 4-D images of the baby boy he and his wife are expecting. They are incredible pictures. We live in a society where we throw everything away. Nothing is for keeps. If more people could see the wonders of an unborn baby before throwing it away like the trash, they would be at least making a more informed decision. Better yet, though, let's start teaching our youth about making poor decisions that land them in these predicaments in the first place.

I think the idea of such a bill is wonderful. These days it seems that human life is disposable and merely a blob of tissue. (It is staggering to me that it is legal to kill a baby through abortion, yet construction projects must come to a halt if a kit fox or fairy shrimp is spotted. But that argument is for another day.) Ultrasounds give "blobs of tissue" arms, legs, heart beats, spinal cords. If, after viewing an ultrasound, the mother can at least agree to carry the baby to birth and send it to a loving family via adoption and ONE life is saved, the world will be a better place.

Don't want to be faced with the abortion decision? Practice abstinence - it's guaranteed the best birth control around.

I feel this is just more concealed legislation by the anti-abortion people to incrementally get rid of the right of choice for women. Their strategy is to just nibble away in any way they can. Women genally love their children, and abortion is always a horrendous choice for them, based on the child's welfare in most cases! Perhaps an abusive father, poverty, drugs in the home. Whatever. Why make them suffer more? America would be far different without Roe. V. Wade. With about 1 million abortions a year, we would have 40 million more children plus their progency, all UNWANTED. As noted in Freakanics, perhaps the drop in crime is the abortion of these unwanted children. The global view favors abortion or at least choice. (Faced with a possibly deformed child, my wife and I chose against abortion; but it was our choice. The child now has her UC Ph.D.)

Ya gotta wonder about the the liberal mind-set! In every other endeavor, they want openness and availability of information to the nth degree; For example, today's Congressional subpoenas seeking to pry into every bit of information from the Executive branch -- breaking the confidentiality of internal White House discussions. But, when it comes to LIFE, the life or death of an unborn child, they want to hide every bit of pertinent information so that the liberal, feminist, pro-abortion crowd won't be offended. Is that the ultimate hypocritical political correctness or what?

Phil: I'm having real trouble with some of your statements. I have rarely come across such callous indifference towards life.

How presumptuous on your part to even suggest that the 40 million already abortion infants would have be UNWANTED! How do you know this? You don't! Hundreds of thousands if not millions of couples and singles across America desperately want to adopt.

Surely you are not suggesting ("perhaps the drop in crime is the abortion of these unwanted children") that the answer to the crime problem is killing infants? You can't possibly mean that do you? You must have misspoken. Nobody is that unfeeling!

I remember another individual who felt that way. He felt that the answer to societies' problems was to eliminate the infirm, the handicapped, those that polluted his Aryan race, the Jewish populace. His name was Hitler.

Since abortion, in this country, affects mainly minorities, can we say that abortion is basically bigotry? I can't think of a more racist act!

i'll reserve my opinion on abortion for another time, the far more serious issue is the misuse of ultasound technology,first developed to monitor high-risk pregnancies, the insurance companies soon saw it as a way to increase their profits on EVERY pregnancy. no long term testing was ever done,your children are the experiment,and one result we know for sure,is the chronic ear infections that were rarely seen before multiple ultrasound images,(of a fetus writhing in pain), was common.much has been written about the "american way of birth" it is unique in the world, and nobody in the world considers it as a model....in my mind it more closely resembles an intervention...my 3 children were born at home and we were delighted to find out their sex at the moment of birth. hospitals are a good place to go if you're sick or have an emergency,birth is not a medical emergency.

Mr. Morgan, are you truly unable to see the distinction between making information available (which no liberal is opposing), and compelling people to view it?

What could possibly be wrong with giving a mom-to-be all pertinent information? I thought even libs wanted informed consent? Evidently not! Legally, "informed consent" is a condition "whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of an action."

We provide massive amounts of information for such things as food, appliances, cars and other products, tobacco, medicines (seen a PDR recently?), politicians, etc. In many of these instances, information is force-fed to young minds in our schools. In some instances teacher are "compelled" by the law to teach in a certain direction. Libs don't seem to mind that type of forced indoctrination!

I agree that sometimes too much information or the wrong release of information can be bad; Information, for instance that compromises national security, information that would betray a weapons system to a terrorist state, confidential and protected correspondence, graphic sex information for small children, etc., but in many instances information is good and beneficial. The life of a unborn child is important event even when libs don't think so!

BTW, libs do routinely withhold information as a matter of policy. Look at what has been withheld in our schools pertaining to the creationist - evolutionist debate. Have both sides of the global warming debate been allowed to speak their piece? Some libs are so worried about accurate information on global warming getting out that they are willing to follow the suggestion of an environmental webzine writer by the name of David Roberts who recently proposed that global warming skeptics be put on trial like Nazi war criminals. "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming . . . we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg." I repeat, for the most part libs want information out only when it is to their advantage. Otherwise, censorship is their policy. Libs are the totalitarian silencers of debate.

I read your whole anti-liberal rant, but didn't see any answer to my question, T.C.

OK, Mike: No, I do not belong to a cult requiring crucifixion of cats over a fiery pyre on Saturday nights - that's what you wondering right? And BTW, I am a member of the VRWC (Vast right-wing conspiracy) and I am unmedicated - if that's what you are wondering. What was the question?

TC's comments are of interest. He talks of aborted children being wanted by adoptive parents. I once figured out how many adoptions would have to be made for each church advocating Pro-Life. It would be hundreds per year. Let's have Northwest, People's Church stand up and take 200-300 children a year, or maybe 4-5 a week. Over 20 years, that would mean 4,000-5,000 for each congregation. That would make children wanted. I rarely see minority children in the ProLife churches, yet many of the aborted children are minorities, reflecting our society. Fresno is "majority minority."

The question here is not unborn babies or love or what a pregnant woman should do. The question is Should a woman have the same right to make decisions over her own body as a man does? Should the to be father of this unborn fetus also be required to view it? Should he be required to get up at night to feed the infant and bathe it and change its dirty diaper? Should the man be required to give up his job to stay home with the infant? This question is not about babies at all. It is "can we use this method to keep women down, keep them in their place, to keep them enslaved for that is what being a mother can be. Come on men. How many vote for turning the tables

Obviously, responsibility by both parents is absolutely critical. Responsibility and accountability is not just about the mother - it is definitely about the father. "Keeping a woman down...."? I don't know anyone at all who thinks that way any more! That's a feminist myth. The ONLY issue in the whole abortion controversy is: Will a young life be callously snuffed out or will that infant be allowed to continue? That's it, period! There are no other issues!

Several years ago, I posed a question to a young mother of two, expecting a third and considering abortion: "Would you kill your 5 year old?" She was horrified that I would suggest such a thing. Then I proceeded to ask her, "What about if he were 4 years old, ..... three years old, ...... two years old, ..... one year old, .... one day old." The answer was always "No." Then I asked her, "What about killing your child one day before delivery, ..... one week before delivery, ..... three weeks before delivery, ..... two months before delivery?" She got the point ..... that, that baby which was conceived in her is always, from the moment of conception, at every time, a human being. Thankfully, she chose not to abort!

I've had people ask me, "when does life begin?" I always answer, "It must begin at conception for the simple reason that it can begin at no other point!"

I don't see the issue as whether abortion is or is not legal. Not even is it murder or not. The issue I see at this point is whether the woman must be forced to view the ultrasound. FORCED. The rhetoric about liberals wanting or demanding full information is off point. The information, the ultrasound, IS available. It just isn't forced upon anyone except those who choose to view. The statements about all the required documentation for most anything we buy today is off point. Just how much of that available information do you sincerely read? To a woman considering an abortion, she has available to her a wealth of information - not forced but available should she choose to view it. As much as the comments tying liberals to choosing how much & what information they view, yes that is probably true but do the conservatives really & truly want to replace choice in life with forced actions? This bill is forcing a citizen to view an ultrasound (actually, it forces a citizen to sign an oath the ultrasound had been viewed). This sounds wonderful to the conservatives since the proposed action fits into their mindset. BUT what if the planned forced action was against their mindset? Would they be so quick to force citizens into action? And I thought the conservatives wanted less government intrusion in the lives of American citizens.

This abortion issue must be a sensitive subject.Look at all the letters compared to other topics.All written by folks whose parents chose life. Maybe Hallmark can come up with a card that says "Thanks Mom and Dad- I'm enjoying this Life thing".I think T.C. misunderstood Phil. I too have read Freakonomics and while I do not advocate abortion to reduce crime, the author through statistics makes a compelling argument that the reduction in crime coincides with the Roe vs. Wade decision. There are also other eye opening stats like which is more dangerous-a gun or a swimming pool? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? etc.. A lot of the garbage we are served by the media is not supported by anything tangible.

We have just returned from French Polynesia. The original natives there believed that life began with the first breath, allowing some horrendous practices that no civilized person would condone. However, it is interesting that there are different views of when life begins. The common law view is that life begins when there is a viable fetus, as I recall at 6 months of term. Not a bad compromise.

I am currently doing a research paper explaining the pros and cons of this topic. I am only fifteen but nevertheless i still believe that women should not be required to view an ultrasound of the fetus before an abortion is performed. Personally i believe that abortion is wrong and immoral and murder which may seem interesting to most people since i said that i don't think that women should be required to view an ultrasound before an abortion. I think this simply because it would not alter their decision to have an abortiion at all. Whoever is passing this law must think that women are simply dumb, this is basically an insult to women because if you think about it women already know what the ultrasound is going to look like they know what they are doing when they decided to have an abortion. Forcing them to view the ultrasound is a waste of time and money. If a women is going ot have an abortion then she is going to have an abortion that is her decision, just because some people may think that abortion is wrong, as i do, does not mean that they should force women who think that abortion is okay to view an ultra sound.

sorry if none of this made sense

im only fifteen what do i know?