■ 07 February 2012 | 5:00 AM
Compelling an informed decision
RE 'PRE-ABORTION ULTRASOUND: Too invasive,' front page, Feb. 3: The state Senate approved SB484, requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion. The requirement of an ultrasound does not force the mother to look at it; rather, it gives her the opportunity to see what is in her womb and then make a truly 'informed' decision. The decision is still hers to make no freedom of choice was taken away from her.
The public outcry against SB484 has been very vocal. On Friday, The Pilot carried three articles, all with negative connotations (using words such as 'invasive' and 'restrictive'). The editorial referred to the possible use of a probe as an 'invasion' of a woman's body. However, the invasion of the woman's body took place weeks before the ultrasound. That, too, was a choice.
Unless it was forcible rape, the 'invasion' would have been consensual. The issue now is whether the parties involved will be responsible with their 'choice.' The product of their union is not responsible for his presence; the parents are.
It's easy to avoid responsibility when you don't see the consequences of your choices.
I would prefer that both mother and father see the ultrasound, because they will see a child, not a blob of tissue. Having seen the child, it would be wonderful if they acknowledged that they had brought a life into the world and need to be responsible for his care. However, it is still their choice.
Randall R. Childress
Virginia Beach
Commenting on this article is open to verified users only | Learn how to become verified here
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Responsibility is the issue
And if a couple decides that having a child is bad for them and the child for any number of reasons, the responsible thing to do is to end the pregnancy as early as possible.
Poverty, health issues, family size and medical histories are just a few of the issues families must consider.
Add to that the multitude of genetic tests that point to severe abnormalities that will cause a lifetime of pain for the child and great expense for the family.
Responsibility affecting the family and the future of the child rests only with the mother, perhaps her husband, and her doctor.
Not the state, the church or the next door neighbor.
If responsibility for that decision is taken away from the mother, then, by default, it rests with the state.
Is that where we want our most intimate family decisions to be made?
And here we go again...
...Another man telling women that we're too stupid and immoral to know what pregnancy involves without having an invasive - and that's EXACTLY what it is - and unnecessary procedure forced upon us. Oh, and that if a woman gets pregnant it's her own fault because she dared to have sex in the first place (even if she was "responsible" enough to use birth control that failed, because heaven knows married people NEVER have sex unless they want babies).
Here's a fun fact: EVERY SINGLE WOMAN who seeks out an abortion KNOWS what pregnancy means. She KNOWS that she is carrying a "child". And she KNOWS that for whatever reason - financial, emotional, physical, nobody's business - that she CANNOT be pregnant at that time. That decision should rest with her and ONLY her, since she is the one who will have to turn over her body to the service of another...not the "father" and certainly not the anti-choicers who argue that babies are "precious gifts" in one breath and "consequences" in another.
You know, no one says, "It's your fault you got lung cancer because you smoked; accept the consequences of your choice and die" or "You made the choice to eat bacon cheeseburgers and get heart disease, so no medicine for you." Why do some people think women are the only ones who should have to deal with "consequences"?
Q & A
Q: Why do some people think women are the only ones who should have to deal with "consequences?"
A: Because "some people" think that women - like blacks and hispanics and homosexuals - are second-class citizens. "Some people" being the hypocritical intrusive government anti-progress so-called "constitutionalists" types.
Look over there, to your right.