Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

68 Responses

  1. Hawise
    Hawise April 30, 2007 at 4:04 pm |

    What I love is how they totally ignore the fact that one of the things that an ultrasound can show is that the fetus is non-viable in the first place. This would allow an early abortion and minimize the risk of infertility later, but no, that just doesn’t enter the picture for these wingmuts. For them ultrasound= picture of baby on a blanket, all smiley and cooing. Mine looked like curdled oatmeal, but he’s cute now.

  2. sidewriter
    sidewriter April 30, 2007 at 4:17 pm |

    “The same people who scream that women must always be told ‘all their options,’ including abortion, balk at allowing women to see whom it is whose life they are about to take,” says Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC’s state legislative director. “They are petrified that women will change their minds after seeing their babies.”

    No… I balk at forcing women to see the ultrasound. I trust women to decide whether or not they want an abortion and also whether or not they want to see an ultrasound before the procedure.

  3. blucas!
    blucas! April 30, 2007 at 4:20 pm |

    I was just gonna say the same thing sidewriter. Of course, anti-women’s rights advocates often have trouble figuring out what “forced” means.

  4. Sarah
    Sarah April 30, 2007 at 4:23 pm |

    *headdesk*

    What part of “require” don’t they get? We say women shouldn’t be forced to view ultrasounds and they inform us that women should, in fact, be allowed to see ultrasounds if they want. *blink*

    Does not compute!!

  5. Terry C - Hates Anti-Choicers
    Terry C - Hates Anti-Choicers April 30, 2007 at 4:33 pm |

    They are petrified that women will change their minds after seeing their babies.”

    They’re not seeing babies, you farking moron.

    Blastocysts are not babies.

  6. pseudonymous in nc
    pseudonymous in nc April 30, 2007 at 4:45 pm |

    While Saletan’s at it, why doesn’t he argue that women be forced to see pictures of cute fuzzy kittens that may — or may not! — be put to sleep if they consent to an abortion? Because if you’re for legally-mandated emotional blackmail, you might as well go hog-effing-wild.

  7. Jeff Fecke
    Jeff Fecke April 30, 2007 at 4:47 pm |

    I trust a woman to get an ultrasound–if she feels she needs one.

    If there were laws preventing women from seeing ultrasounds, I’d be opposed to that. But of course, there aren’t.

    Will Saletan is an idiot.

  8. Incertus
    Incertus April 30, 2007 at 4:48 pm |

    Florida’s House just passed a waiting period/ultrasound bill, which is expected to be defeated in the state Senate, and my first question is “who’s gonna pay for that?” At least clinics in Florida are plentiful, unlike in our neighboring states.

    And has Lord Saletan ever actually seen an ultrasound? I have, and I’ll be damned if I know what the hell anything in that picture is.

  9. Ralph Kramden
    Ralph Kramden April 30, 2007 at 4:50 pm |

    So will a blind woman, who cannot look at the ultrasound, be allowed to have an abortion?

  10. pbg
    pbg April 30, 2007 at 4:53 pm |

    “EEEW! THAT’S what it looks like? It’s like that thing from ’2001!’ Abort it, quick!”

  11. Christine Andersen
    Christine Andersen April 30, 2007 at 4:58 pm |

    “Pro-life” is to the anti-choice establishment as “‘partial-birth’ abortion” is to the legitimate medical establishment. Neither exists.

  12. lisa
    lisa April 30, 2007 at 5:03 pm |

    Thank god I’m post-menopausal and won’t have to deal with this bullshit personally.

  13. Jeff Fecke
    Jeff Fecke April 30, 2007 at 5:15 pm |

    So will a blind woman, who cannot look at the ultrasound, be allowed to have an abortion?

    Only if a sighted, Christian person describes what it looks like to her.

  14. Tapetum
    Tapetum April 30, 2007 at 5:19 pm |

    Based on the evidence of my first ultrasound, I should have given birth to a giant shrimp. After all, my fetus was the spitting image of something most often seen done scampi-style. Somehow I fail to see how this would have been enlightening one way or another had I desired an abortion. (I didn’t, and somehow he came out human anyway.)

  15. preying mantis
    preying mantis April 30, 2007 at 5:22 pm |

    “Of course, anti-women’s rights advocates often have trouble figuring out what “forced” means.”

    It’s not force if an anti-choicer is using it. Seriously, though, they go to great lengths to not ever consider measures they propose as force. Using the police power of the state to keep women from availing themselves of medical procedures and drugs that are, in some cases, older than the people making the laws? Totally not force. Putting them through all sorts of fucked up bullshit because if you can’t take legally abortion away, you’re sure as hell going to make the bitch suffer to get it? Also totally not force.

    Of course, try codifying this into some other situation, and the same people would lose their shit. Though really, it would almost be worth it to see someone try to, say, require an extra-long waiting period for heart surgery and mandate misleading counseling about how heart surgery is going to completely fuck up your life, and you don’t really need it because your heart might not kill you for another few years, etc, if the patient hasn’t been taking their meds or following their diet.

    The collective outrage about the dangers of allowing a minority to impose their ascetic personal morality on normal Americans, take the management of personal medical situations out of the hands of the people directly affected by them, and make vital treatment hinge on anything but the needs of the patient (and their ability to pay) would probably be enough to warm my cold, black heart.

  16. darrelplant
    darrelplant April 30, 2007 at 5:30 pm |

    I wonder if by the same reasoning war supporters could be “required” to look at pictures of dead Iraqi children, women, and men? And maybe some flag-draped coffins?

  17. Jennifer
    Jennifer April 30, 2007 at 5:39 pm |

    The war on abortion will end the day someone wins a class-action suit against government for deficit spending or corporate America for pollution.

    If a fetus’ rights outweigh those of the woman carrying it, who is in many if not most cases an adult citizen with the right to vote, then we have a lot of laws to amend.

    Somehow I don’t think the anti-choicers will be so pro-fetus when fetal rights (such as the right to be born without crushing debt or a polluted environment) start getting in the way of their “lifestyles”. Their basic argument is that the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of at least certain of those of us who are already here, a position that has never been embraced by any culture or society in human history.

    I’d like to at least see this idea of theirs carried to its logical conclusion before a judge.

  18. Scorpio
    Scorpio April 30, 2007 at 5:41 pm |

    You mean … you mean they’re not puppies?

  19. evil fizz
    evil fizz April 30, 2007 at 5:42 pm | *

    I’ll be over here consoling Scorpio. *thanks*, zuzu. sheesh. humorless feminists ruining everything again!

  20. Avedon
    Avedon April 30, 2007 at 5:45 pm |

    I kinda liked the suggestion that if they passed the requirement to show the ultrasound, they should also require watching a six-hour videotape of a screaming child.

    But he also says the government should foot the bill for any of these “educational” requirements. That’s not going to happen. What will really happen is that you will be charged for the ultrasound and it will cost an extra few hundred bucks.

  21. Lorelei
    Lorelei April 30, 2007 at 5:46 pm |

    Ultrasound dissolves this distinction. It offers to make every fetus and every abortion visible.

    I hate this ‘ohhh look at the pretty babyyyy!’ shit. Fuck if I care if a fetus rubs its eyes and yawns in utero (thank you, 3D ultrasounds) — I rub my eyes and yawn all the goddamn time, and no-one gives a flying fuck about me.

    (btw, what the hell is a 4D ultrasound? It also shows the fetus’ impact on spacetime, or what?)

  22. DAS
    DAS April 30, 2007 at 5:49 pm |

    Mine looked like curdled oatmeal, but he’s cute now.

    Are you implying curdled oatmeal’s not cute?

    my first question is “who’s gonna pay for that?”

    That’s the, if you’ll pardon the pun, $64 question, ain’t it? Especially given the “gummint shouldn’t pay for nothin’” views of your typical right-winger (and pro-lifers tend to be right-wingers) … will women be stopped from having abortions ’cause they can’t pay for ultrasounds? Meanwhile, when we pro-choicers oppose this bill, the Lord Saletan-like mentality that infects the body politic does cause them to view us as wacked out moonbats … this is strategery from so-called pro-lifers pure and simple.

    Meanwhile, to repeat which point others have raised elsewhere: what about those “abortion alternatives” places that put out fake ultrasounds?

  23. Frumious B
    Frumious B April 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm |

    Just how far along do you have to be before you can a fetus in an ultrasound? Are we going to force women to wait that long before they can have an abortion?

  24. R. Porrofatto
    R. Porrofatto April 30, 2007 at 5:58 pm |

    Excellent. What Saletan also doesn’t mention is that, after being forced to view the ultrasound, most, if not all, women will probably still proceed with the abortion. (Like most of this bogus crap, no one seems to have any actual data on this.) Extremists will then invent some other intrusive “test of pro-choice sincerity,” and impose still more obstacles of delay, cost, availability, etc.—an unending cycle to frustrate and impede women from exercising their constitutional rights. The ultimate goal isn’t to inform, or even to just make the process difficult, it’s to make it impossible. To anyone familiar with the history of say, minorities and voting, this game is nothing new.

  25. Cooper
    Cooper April 30, 2007 at 6:08 pm |

    And why on earth should “the guy who got you pregnant” need to view the ultrasound? Presumably so that he can draw from his infinite white-guy Expert store of knowledge and inform his hysterical baby-mama that hey, that’s a human! fetus! and if you kill my baby, I’ll never speak to you again!!! like our good friend anonymous a few posts down.

  26. Denise
    Denise April 30, 2007 at 6:09 pm |

    What has always amazed me is the religious rationale that they use.
    Are these the same people that would recreate the Holy Wars if their freedom of choice was taken from then? And, I agree with Fruminous-the longer it takes to see the fetus, the better chance they have of prolonging the procedure until it really does become a health issue for women. But hey, we’re just incubators without shoes anyway, right?

  27. liberal
    liberal April 30, 2007 at 6:11 pm |

    But science hasn’t cooperated. Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn’t want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we.

    Really? The ultrasound can tell whether the thalamus and cortex have been wired up together? Do tell!

  28. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe April 30, 2007 at 6:33 pm |

    I am so sick of attempts to “compromise” on the abortion issue. There is no compromise. Either you believe it’s appropriate to force women to bear children against their will, or you fight against that.

  29. wyomeg
    wyomeg April 30, 2007 at 6:43 pm |

    I had to wait until 9 weeks past my last period before they would do the ultrasound on my wanted pregnancy. That makes it about 7 weeks past conception, or about 5 weeks after I knew I was pregnant. It seemed like a long damn time to wait, and this was a wanted pregnancy. This ultrasound pic resembled a gummy bear. Made me want to eat a gummy bear, not start gushing at my beautiful fetus. You could see a heartbeat, which I guess could potentially sway a woman who was on the fence, but it did not look like a baby.

  30. Anatolia
    Anatolia April 30, 2007 at 7:07 pm |

    Do born Iraqi children squirm when their bodies are bloodied and mutilated by another bombing campaign? Do they scream? Perhaps we need video. Do soldiers scream when they lose an arm or half their face? Video please. These people should know what they are undertaking.

    Forget videos of 3-year-olds throwing a temper tantrum. Where are the videos of ruptured uteruses? Infected surgical wounds? Daily puking? Diabetic shock? Dead women in the morgue?

    Where are the civil suit awards for the emotional and physical damages done to a woman who did not consent to be impregnated by a careless man’s sperm? Where are the criminal convictions?

  31. Astraea
    Astraea April 30, 2007 at 7:10 pm |

    I have to come out of lurkdom to say, how fucked up is it that many of these pro-lifers are the same people who think it’s a totally unfair burden to make them go through a couple steps to buy a GUN?

  32. brendan
    brendan April 30, 2007 at 7:14 pm |

    OK, that’s it. I’ve had it with this kind of condescending, patronizing nonsense, as if women aren’t aware of what they’re doing when they choose abortion. “Why if the poor dear only knew…”

    Fuck you, Will Saletan. Fuck you in the dick with a pickle fork.
    I DARE you to come to Philadelphia, you smarmy bastard, because if I EVER hear you’re in my city’s limits, I will personally come and kick your fucking ass. I mean it. I will kick Will Saletan’s ass. I will do to your hands what Pinochet’s thugs did to Victor Jarra’s and then i will make you EAT your words: I will literally print out every single post you do at “Slate” and cram them down your throat with my foot until you choke to death.
    Fucking asshole.

  33. Jamais Vu
    Jamais Vu April 30, 2007 at 7:14 pm |

    Anyone’s who’s seen an early ultrasound knows that this will generally backfire on the pro-lifers. It’s pretty much reassurance to the clueless that there’s no adorable baby in there, yet. I think it would make many feel more comfortable with their choice, not less.

  34. slythwolf
    slythwolf April 30, 2007 at 7:30 pm |

    I am here to give my personal guarantee that in the event I ever need an abortion in a state that requires me to view an ultrasound, if that thing moves, I will start screaming at the top of my lungs, “OH MY GOD GET IT OUT OF ME GET IT OUT GET IT OUT GET IT OUT!”

  35. Sniper
    Sniper April 30, 2007 at 7:41 pm |

    Fuck you, Will Saletan. Fuck you in the dick with a pickle fork.

    I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  36. tzs
    tzs April 30, 2007 at 7:58 pm |

    Hmm. I interpreted Saletan’s article in a completely different way, in as much I thought it one long extended piece of snark.

  37. Kat
    Kat April 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm |

    my father’s being full of advice about the use of the microwave that everyone else in the house had already been using for 10 years before he deigned to figure out how to turn it on.

    but he did teach us about the similarities between gravel and ball bearings… and thanks to him I can load a dishwasher more efficiently than anyone I know….

  38. Feministe » Requiring Women to See “The Truth”

    [...] iny
    About Zuzu
    Vintage
    Advertise
    SHOP

    « Wi [...]

  39. bleat my little fanatic bleat
    bleat my little fanatic bleat April 30, 2007 at 8:24 pm |

    Freaks like that should be dropped in the middle of Sadr City, right after morning prayers. He can then come back and give us a report on life… and conception.

  40. s9
    s9 April 30, 2007 at 8:29 pm |

    If you think Saletan is being an asshole, wait until you get a good look at what Jay Sekulow and his knuckle-draggers at ACLJ.Org are saying. Yes, they quite openly insist that forcing women to pay for an ultrasound and spend a few days cogitating on its results is a method for converting women seeking abortions into pro-life activists. Saletan is just regurgitating the same talking points I heard on Jay Sekulow Live this morning (gee— I wonder why they sound so similar…), so if you want to know where this is going: tune into the ACLJ feed. Forced ultrasound (“informed consent” in ACLJ-speak) is only the beginning. Read Sekulow’s analysis and try not to despair. The mf’ers really did get just about everything they asked for, and they’re going to start asking for a whole lot more now.

  41. Amanda
    Amanda April 30, 2007 at 8:30 pm |

    Based on the evidence of my first ultrasound, I should have given birth to a giant shrimp. After all, my fetus was the spitting image of something most often seen done scampi-style.

    My boyfriend read Saletan’s article to me over the weekend and my first reaction was, “Why an ultrasound? Don’t they kind of look like tadpoles at first?”

    I interpreted Saletan’s article in a completely different way, in as much I thought it one long extended piece of snark.

    This is the way aforementioned boyfriend read the piece.

  42. Vanessa
    Vanessa April 30, 2007 at 8:43 pm |

    Fetuses move?

    Seriously, when I had the ultrasound for my first pregnancy (that ended in miscarriage) it looked like a blinking ball of tv static.

    And I remember when I first thought I might be pregnant, I googled some images of what an embryo might look like at that stage and was so freaked out by the thought that there was a *thing* *alive* *inside me* that I immediate threw up.

    So no, I don’t think forcing women to pay for ultrasounds would really do the trick.

  43. Godless SOB
    Godless SOB April 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm |

    Hey, send the wimmen folk to Texas and they can get $500 for having their baby – at least if that law gets passed…

    Maybe we can get the christian right to pay for the raising of the baby, provide a home, child care so mom can work, health care in the case of a poor mother, and on and on and on. Since they’re christians, they’ll certainly line up with loads of cash to take care of mom and baby! And they’ll all sing hymns to the baby every night to lull him (preferred, of course) to sleep!

    Well, now I feel a lot better about this. Being male, I now feel empowered to tell women that abortion is an abomination and an insult to God(tm), and like homosexuals and adulterers, women who have abortions should be stoned to death. Just like the Bible says (Well it does say that about gays and adulterers. I don’t really know if it says women who get abortions should be stoned.)

    Yeah, for sure. Women should just do what men say. The Bible tells us so. Hey! That reminds me of a song I learned as a kid!

  44. Julie
    Julie April 30, 2007 at 9:00 pm |

    Oh hell, when I was viewing my my third child’s ultrasound the sonographer pointed out to me that he was 1.67 cm long. It was a very much wanted pregnancy and while I was very much filled with happiness seeing his little heartbeat, I couldn’t help but think “Seriously? 1.67 cm? This is what people are so up in arms about?” I am one of the most sentimental people I know (especially when it comes to my pregnancies) and seeing an early ultrasound made me less anti-abortion, not more. I could possibly see the presence of a heartbeat swaying the occasonal person who didn’t really want to have an abortion anyway, but in the long run I don’t see it changing many minds.

  45. Atrios
    Atrios April 30, 2007 at 9:31 pm |

    I would like to see an ultrasound of Will Saletan’s dick after it has been fucked with a pickle fork.

  46. philosophizer
    philosophizer April 30, 2007 at 9:36 pm |

    i was given the option to see my ultrasound at PP (afaik, they had to do it to be allowed to give me RU-486 so early along to confirm that it was attached). don’t get how anyone could think that seeing something that looks like a deflated balloon would’ve stopped me getting it the hell out of there.
    under other circumstances, it would’ve been pretty neat, but then I love seeing inside-the-body-cams.

  47. Raincitygirl
    Raincitygirl April 30, 2007 at 11:49 pm |

    Hey, I had a freaking kidney ultrasound once that got WEIRD. The technician had done some of the requested scans and left the room to get something else, so I’m lying there with cold goop on my belly and an up close and personal look at what I’m told is my kidneys, although it looks like a TV screen full of static.

    The receptionist pops her head in the door looking for the tech and as soon as she sees the picture, she starts cooing about how she can see the cute Widdle Baybee. Look, it’s right there, she says, pointing at some random section of the screen. Took me quite a while to quit laughing.

    It was funny as hell, but also a little disturbing, so I mentioned it to the tech (also, didn’t much appreciate her barging into my exam room and then using her vast medical knowledge to “diagnose” me. I mentioned it to the tech and he rolled his eyes and indicated that I was not the first patient to mention something similar. She was holiday cover, and the whole place was waiting for the regular receptionist to come back.

    At the time I put it down to her just being officious and incompetent, but I wonder in retrospect if she was a pro-forced-pregnancy fanatic as well as officious and incompetent. I mean, young middle-class white girl, reading a university textbook in the waiting room, obviously in a prime demographic category to consider abortion. If I had been pregnant, that is.

  48. Paddy Mac
    Paddy Mac April 30, 2007 at 11:58 pm |

    And not a word about Thomas Aquinas, and his reasoning on allowing abortion before “quickening”, hereafter called “pre-ultrasound viability test.” I mean, for centuries (at least) men — actual men– have spent their high-salaried time deciding what’s good for women. Where’s the gratitude?

    OK, you’re right, the best way to show gratitude is with a pickle fork…

  49. Lorelei
    Lorelei May 1, 2007 at 12:56 am |

    I am here to give my personal guarantee that in the event I ever need an abortion in a state that requires me to view an ultrasound, if that thing moves, I will start screaming at the top of my lungs, “OH MY GOD GET IT OUT OF ME GET IT OUT GET IT OUT GET IT OUT!”

    FUCK YESSSSSSSS :D

  50. Mac
    Mac May 1, 2007 at 1:04 am |

    I think this law doesn’t go far enough.

    We should also force a doctor to stand behind the woman and make “goo goo, gaa gaa” noises.

    For the sake of informed consent, of course.

  51. chris
    chris May 1, 2007 at 1:04 am |

    uh, you guys are being way too hard on saletan. he’s basically on your side already.

  52. micheyd
    micheyd May 1, 2007 at 7:04 am |

    I wouldn’t have half as much as a problem with the forced ultrasounds (though I’d still have a huge problem with it) if it wasn’t accompanied by insidious lies about abortion and women’s health.

  53. Lisa in Bama
    Lisa in Bama May 1, 2007 at 8:29 am |

    In the Earth Mother demographic, there is a lot of concern about the safety of ultrasounds. We don’t really know what the effect is on the fetus. I had ultrasounds with both my kids, as well as amniocentesis because of family history. So I’m not saying they’re bad, but I am saying that the government should not be forcing any woman to undergo a medical procedure, and ultrasound is a medical procedure.

  54. Steve
    Steve May 1, 2007 at 8:33 am |

    The problem is that an ultrasound is a diagnostic tool, not a fun way to make a Polaroid picture.

    If a woman decides not to go ahead with the abortion, she may very well assume that everything must be ok with the baby, not realizing that a diagnostic ultrasound is something different from what she received. That’s not good.

  55. Jersey Tomato
    Jersey Tomato May 1, 2007 at 8:37 am |

    But here’s the thing…suppose the ultrasound reveals a fetus that is hopelessly deformed, and won’t survive outside the woman’s body after birth because, say, it has only part of a brain. Thanks to the “partial birth abortion” decision, a woman who is horrified by the prospect of giving birth to such a child can no longer do anything to prevent it. Ain’t technology grand? C’mon ladies, step right up and take your punishment for having had sex, and maybe enjoying it.

  56. Peanutcat
    Peanutcat May 1, 2007 at 8:39 am |

    I’ve asked this question several times before about the anti-abortion movement, and have never gotten an answer:

    If these anti-abortion people don’t trust a woman to be able to make decsions like that about her life, how the hell can they trust her to actually raise children?

    Can anyone tell me the logic behind that? Anyone?

  57. Chris
    Chris May 1, 2007 at 9:29 am |

    I wonder if by the same reasoning war supporters could be “required” to look at pictures of dead Iraqi children, women, and men? And maybe some flag-draped coffins?

    Good idea, but you’re not going far enough. No closed caskets. Make them look at (and smell) the actual remains, even (especially) the ones normally hidden in a closed casket. That’s informed consent to war.

    P.S. Am I the only one bothered by the death threats? Didn’t we just have a huge internet firestorm about death threats and people who condone or dismiss them? Sure, the guy has some very unsavory opinions which he expresses in an offensively arrogant way, but that’s no reason to kill him, or mutilate him, or threaten to do either of those things. Seeing people agree with a death threat reminds me uncomfortably of places like LGF.

  58. DAS
    DAS May 1, 2007 at 9:45 am |

    Made me want to eat a gummy bear, not start gushing at my beautiful fetus. You could see a heartbeat – wyomeg

    Which is why all those anti-choice billboards informing us that “a baby’s heart starts beating at 18 days” (and I thought it was more like 21, but what’s three days between friends?) show us pictures of a 13 week fetus rather than an 18 day embryo. I never knew being purposefully misleading was a “Christian” value … oh wait, didn’t Paul say “we are deceivers”?

    Anyway, Chris, the reason we’re being so hard on Saletan has been discussed at length already (Atrios has recently reposted Pollit’s (?) response to Saletan which gets at why): but the short reason is that Saletan’s position is seen as a “reasonable” way to “reach out to the unwashed masses” with a pro-choice position that respects people’s discomfort with icky medical procedures that kill purty little fetuses. However, it’s a very silly position that tends to lead to compromises that not only allow anti-choicers to stick their feet in the door but also bans abortion procedures that, by any reasonable consideration of morality, are the most moral procedures around (see, Partial Birth Abortion, so-called, ban on): i.e. because it’s somehow considered a “reasonable” compromise, women with massively infected fetuses inside them cannot have those fetuses removed intact in the safest way possible.

    That’s why we dislike Saletan so. That and he’s being so smug and condescending.

  59. mac
    mac May 1, 2007 at 10:24 am |

    Chris,

    I’m with you on the tone of some of these posts. Disturbing. Here I thought we were supposed to be the good guys.

    Come on everybody, we’re better than that.

  60. SunlessNick
    SunlessNick May 1, 2007 at 10:40 am |

    Well it does say that about gays and adulterers. I don’t really know if it says women who get abortions should be stoned. - Godless SOB

    It doesn’t really mention them as such, but it is pretty clear that a foetus isn’t a person:

    “And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

    That doesn’t go far in considering women people either, but it clearly removes a foetus from consideration of injury done to a person.

    [From this page, conveniently titled "Why abortion is Biblical"]

  61. Mandos
    Mandos May 1, 2007 at 10:46 am |

    If these anti-abortion people don’t trust a woman to be able to make decsions like that about her life, how the hell can they trust her to actually raise children?

    Can anyone tell me the logic behind that? Anyone?

    Oh, this part’s easy. The answer is the Appeal to Maternal Instinct. Raising a child is supposed to be a process that takes cognitive place in a woman’s cerebellum or brainstem.

  62. Interrobang
    Interrobang May 1, 2007 at 12:51 pm |

    Can anyone tell me the logic behind that?

    Yeah, actually. They don’t really believe in bodily autonomy. They honestly don’t believe that people own their own bodies. You know how right-wingers basically believe that they’re born into a huge web of social obligations, so there’s only really one right way to live, which is the way enforced by their particular culture? Well, if you take that to its logical conclusion, you have to come to the realisation that they don’t believe people own their own bodies.

    It’s the only premise that makes parsimonious sense of being simultaneously antiabortion, anticontraception, antifeminist, and pro-war, pro-executions, and pro-conscription. See, if nobody actually owns their own bodies, the people in power have literal control over who is born and who isn’t, who lives, and who dies. And they really get off on that kind of thing. You could call them the objectively-pro-slavery crowd…

  63. Chris
    Chris May 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm |

    Oh, I agree with disliking him; I thought I made that clear with words like “offensively arrogant”.

    I just don’t agree with threatening death or mutilation toward anyone except murderers and rapists (actual ones, not rhetorical). And even then I have second thoughts – maybe it would be better to just lock them up somewhere, in order to avoid descending to their level.

  64. Kat
    Kat May 1, 2007 at 10:31 pm |

    Several years ago, after finding out I was pregnant (a major surprise), I went in to start prenatal care. I was anxious about the pregnancy, being a single mother with a flaky boyfriend. I had been high-risk with my son so I got an ultrasound very early (i think around 8 weeks). It turned out I was carrying twins. I had crazy mixed feelings… on one hand, that was just great but the reality of my then circumstances was that two more children was going to be so overwhelming to my already fragile circumstances. I was doing just fine as a single mother to one, but to three? My son had also just been diagnosed with a disability, which sort of complicated everything. I thought on it for a couple weeks. I had the pictures in hand (I still have the pictures, not sure why). In the end, I terminated the pregnancy because no matter what those pictures showed I was still in way over my head.

    Had I known from the beginning that I was going to terminate the pregnancy, I would not have had that ultrasound. Because I did look at that picture and see two little humans. But seeing the pictures didn’t change the circumstances I was in… didn’t bring in extra money or extra emotional support from my boyfriend, didn’t change that I needed to put all my attention on my living child with his new diagnosis, didn’t change that what made me high-risk in my previous pregnancy would be even a bigger risk with this more complicated pregnancy. I spent hours at work not working but instead crunching numbers in a spreadsheet trying to figure out how I could afford three daycare payments and still pay the rent. Its too bad we aren’t all living in a Lifetime movie, but we’re not. So I terminated and I felt really bad about it, probably worse than I would have if I had not had the ultrasound, but I still did what I had to do at that time.

    I guess my point is that you can show these ultrasound pictures to women, and you can make them feel sad and guilty and maybe even make a lot of them change their minds. Or you can just put one too many obstacles in the way of their choice. But in the end you have a lot of women who have babies who don’t have the circumstances to support these babies and so you end up with big social problems.

  65. Jess
    Jess May 2, 2007 at 1:56 am |

    Surely if a woman “has” to see the “reality” of a pregnancy, she should also have to see the reality she’s going to have to face if she goes ahead with motherhood.

    You know, things like lack of childcare, the way society treats and views mothers, the isolation, postnatal depression, the financial costs, and the less cute and sentimental realities of it all. And how both Mum and kid’s mental health fare with those issues in their paths.

  66. Steve
    Steve May 2, 2007 at 7:41 am |

    Hey, there’s a lot to this. Why not make everyone who makes a purchase at the liquor store view movies of alcoholics puking and drunk drivers killing people before they buy a bottle? Why not make everyone who buys a doughnut look at movies of obese people with diabetes and heart failure before they get that doughnut? Why not make car buyers look at movies of dead crash victims before they buy that car? Why not make gun purchasers look at movies of dead gunshot victims before they make their buys? Shouldn’t everyone be fully informed before they do anything?

Comments are closed.