Ultrasound Before an Abortion?

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:07 pm

Anyone who knows me, knows I am fiercely pro-life. I make no excuses about it. I believe life begins at conception and anything done to that life after that is murder.

I see on the news where they have legislation to make a woman have an ultrasound before having an abortion. They gone on to say that the mother doesn't have to view it.......so my question.....even being as pro-life as I am is.......what is the use of this?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:14 pm

Shaming the woman into carrying an unwanted child to term.

I'm very pro-choice and I can say from experience that a 6 week old fetus isn't recognizable as a human.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:31 pm

SnoozeAgain;1385612 wrote: Shaming the woman into carrying an unwanted child to term.

I'm very pro-choice and I can say from experience that a 6 week old fetus isn't recognizable as a human.

I watched a discussion on this today and it appears that you're right. I wonder who thought this one up...it beggars belief.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:36 pm

I was raised Catholic and my mother was the queen of guilt trips... I can honestly say that nothing annoys me more than someone trying to manipulate me through guilt.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:20 am

Hope6;1385604 wrote: Anyone who knows me, knows I am fiercely pro-life. I make no excuses about it. I believe life begins at conception and anything done to that life after that is murder.

I see on the news where they have legislation to make a woman have an ultrasound before having an abortion. They gone on to say that the mother doesn't have to view it.......so my question.....even being as pro-life as I am is.......what is the use of this?

It's about religious extremists imposing their will on everybody. The logical next step is to ban contraceptives as being against god's will.

Rachel Maddow Show

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:43 am

gmc;1385640 wrote: It's about religious extremists imposing their will on everybody. The logical next step is to ban contraceptives as being against god's will.

Rachel Maddow Show

You mean the Catholics don't do that already - I must have misunderstood the Papal Bulls on the subject :p

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:52 am

What the Virginia Legislature wanted to pass was a law that required these women to endure an ultra sound which was done with an invasive vaginal probe. However, the republican governor, who supported the original bill, and who is considered to be high on the list of vice presidential possibilities changed his mind at the last moment and requested the legislation be changed to its current form.

Would anyone here been supportive of the original bill?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:59 am

Ahso!;1385643 wrote: What the Virginia Legislature wanted to pass was a law that required these women to endure an ultra sound which was done with an invasive vaginal probe. However, the republican governor, who supported the original bill, and who is considered to be high on the list of vice presidential possibilities changed his mind at the last moment and requested the legislation be changed to its current form.

Would anyone here been supportive of the original bill?

I wouldn't support either. Who pays for these procedures?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:00 am

YZGI;1385644 wrote: I wouldn't support either. Who pays for these procedures?

The one who insists on having it done surely?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:56 pm

SnoozeAgain;1385612 wrote: Shaming the woman into carrying an unwanted child to term.

I'm very pro-choice and I can say from experience that a 6 week old fetus isn't recognizable as a human.
Neither is a burn victim, sometimes. This is purely a political move to pander to the conservative base. If there was some kind of statistical rationale or something showing some kind of new knowledge or accidental abuse, then I might give the idea a moment of consideration, but as far as I can tell it's a straight-up cowardly cheat to the system rather than a real effort to change anything.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:18 pm

Being reading up on this, and following some of the news uproar.

I am also, "Pro-Life" in that I don't think women should have abortions, but I am also "Pro-Choice" in that I don't believe that the government should be the ones to tell women what they can, or cannot do when they have an unwanted pregnancy.

The latest moves by the right-wing are ridiculous.

It astounds me that these ninnies are up in arms about over how the gummint will be meddling in their health-care business, and yet don't seem to get the irony of them wanting to allow gummint to meddle in a woman's health care.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:37 pm

I am also, "Pro-Life" in that I don't think women should have abortions, but I am also "Pro-Choice" in that I don't believe that the government should be the ones to tell women what they can, or cannot do when they have an unwanted pregnancy.

Then who should be the ones to tell women they shouldn't abort? Demonstrators in front of offices where abortions are performed? If you call yourself "pro-life" do you think anyone should?

It astounds me that these ninnies are up in arms about over how the gummint will be meddling in their health-care business, and yet don't seem to get the irony of them wanting to allow gummint to meddle in a woman's health care.
I don't think the ninnies consider women "problems" to be health care. Should be private, unlike douching commercials. She wants it, she can pay for it.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:27 pm

AnneBoleyn;1385687 wrote: Then who should be the ones to tell women they shouldn't abort? Demonstrators in front of offices where abortions are performed? If you call yourself "pro-life" do you think anyone should?

It is a personal decision, involving the woman and her family. It should be based on the moral/religious beliefs held by the woman and her family, and not based upon any social or political beliefs of people who have nothing to do with the family.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:39 am

It is a personal decision, involving the woman and her family. It should be based on the moral/religious beliefs held by the woman and her family, and not based upon any social or political beliefs of people who have nothing to do with the family.
With this opinion, LarsMac, you are defining "pro-choice". However, you wish to be identified as "pro-choice BUT.....". This reminds me of the old-day Catholic politician, i.e. Mario Cuomo, who used to say "While I'm PERSONALLY against abortion, I govern as pro-choice". What does that mean? That people are afraid to be pro-choice without a disclaimer?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:56 am

AnneBoleyn;1385729 wrote: With this opinion, LarsMac, you are defining "pro-choice". However, you wish to be identified as "pro-choice BUT.....". This reminds me of the old-day Catholic politician, i.e. Mario Cuomo, who used to say "While I'm PERSONALLY against abortion, I govern as pro-choice". What does that mean? That people are afraid to be pro-choice without a disclaimer?

Let me say this. If it were up to me, all pregnancies would end with a child born, and the parents and family would work out how to care for, and raise the child.

I am saddened when I know that someone has chosen to abort a pregnancy.

When someone in my family brings news of a pregnancy, I counsel for carrying the baby to term, and then figuring out how to provide for the child.

I am, however a realist. I know that not every family feels that way.

I also know that what other families do in such a situation is NOT my business, and they probably won't be asking me what I think they should do.

And I don't think the Government has any more right to help them make such a decision than do I.

The government should butt out, and leave the family alone on this matter.

As for Cuomo, since the law allowed for choice, he was wise enough to follow the Law, rather than inject his own feelings into the enforcement of the Law.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:09 am

Exactly. You are Pro-Choice.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:11 pm

An ultrasound is required in Canada. Not to humiliate anyone but to verify that it is, indeed, a pregnancy not an ovarian cyst or false positive.

I'm against abortion because I had one at a time when it would have been "disastrous" for me to have another baby. The pregnancy occurred despite having used precautions and I couldn't wait to get rid of the damned thing. I realised too late that I would never be able to forgive myself. I don't let anything haunt me but I'm damned sure that if I'd been forced to fully face what my decision meant I'd have two children right now and my life would have been better for it.

That being said, I don't think humiliation is the key to stopping abortions. I think showing them what they are killing is far more effective. Not a picture of an alien attached to a womb. A presentation on the joy children bring to your life and the regrets they'll have if they want one later and find they can't carry to term anymore.

That being said... the crime rates have gone down since abortion became legal.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:13 am

I'm very disappointed to learn that an ultrasound is required in Canada. Is that true for all provinces? An ultrasound is not necessary to establish pregnancy. Early pregnancy might not show on standard ultrasound, that is when the intervaginal ultrasound is used--the method under dispute in the state of Virginia. Is that method also required by law in Canada?

Crime rates have gone down here too, & it is speculated abortion may be part of that phenomenon. When your life really is not wanted from the very start, chances of a happy, productive life become awfully slim. Potential child abuse, which breeds cruelty toward others in the child, is prevented from ever happening.

I'm against abortion because I had one at a time when it would have been "disastrous" for me to have another baby.....

Koan, do those words mean you are against another female having an abortion? Or, are you just speaking for your own life and what you might advise your daughter?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:41 am

AnneBoleyn;1385787 wrote: Crime rates have gone down here too, & it is speculated abortion may be part of that phenomenon. When your life really is not wanted from the very start, chances of a happy, productive life become awfully slim. Potential child abuse, which breeds cruelty toward others in the child, is prevented from ever happening.
It's also speculated that it's because minority children are aborted in numbers disproportionate to white children. Neither speculation comes remotely close to justifying taking a life.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:54 am

Bryn Mawr;1385642 wrote: You mean the Catholics don't do that already - I must have misunderstood the Papal Bulls on the subject :p

If you're a catholic you are supposed to follow their rules or face eternal damnation. This is about a group of religionists wanting to impose their beliefs on everybody regardless of whether they are of the same faith or not. If you believe life begins at conception logically the use of contraceptives that prevent contraception is also murder - if logic and religion can be used in the same sentence - certainly the morning after pill is a big no no.

It seems to be mainly the evangelical protestant churches that are pushing this in the states no doubt they will turn on the Catholics soon enough if they get a grip on power. The danger in this country is that it is beginning to get to the point you can't take the piss out of religion. Bet this wouldn't get air time nowadays

Billy Connolly -The Crucifixion Part1 - see you Judas, Your getting oan ma tits - YouTube

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:00 am

It's also speculated that it's because minority children are aborted in numbers disproportionate to white children.
While percentage wise you might be right, in actual numbers more white women abort. An unwanted child is an unwanted child, no matter the home.

Neither speculation comes remotely close to justifying taking a life.
That is your opinion which I don't agree with. In my view, as a female, I support abortion on demand without apologies or excuses to you or anyone else.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:00 pm

AnneBoleyn;1385787 wrote:

Koan, do those words mean you are against another female having an abortion? Or, are you just speaking for your own life and what you might advise your daughter?
It means that, though I wouldn't prevent someone else from having an abortion, I'd do everything I could to talk them out of it. I consider it legalized murder and I think it should be recognized as such because I think the psychological effect upon women who have an abortion is the same as having killed an enemy in battle. You don't just walk away unchanged but women go into it thinking its brave, logical, their social right... whatever they have to tell themselves to make it okay.

I didn't have an opinion on abortion prior to my experience. I'm not saying my personal experience is like anyone elses, just that it gave me an informed opinion. Not a judgemental opinion, I know that the mind is a powerful thing and in times of crises a person can convince themselves of anything if they feel it's necessary. The mind will also shield itself after traumatic experiences, up to and including blocking memories. My eyes are wide open on this subject.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:31 pm

Hi koan-

I used to hear "My body, My choice". The current political climate may bring it back in style. We can dispute "how far should that go?" or "are her reasons good enough (for Me?)?" At the heart of these arguments, imo, is a main issue that consists of: how far will I go to impose my will on others? How far am I on the highway to myway?

Sometimes we must allow the people in our lives to live their lives, to give them the respect of effing up. Shoulda woulda couda is what leads us to ourselves & only exists in hindsight. My experience differs from yours in that I rarely have met a woman who regrets her abortion. It might have something to do with our locations, people we know, our differing age groups, etc.

My only hope is that emotional feelings don't affect the laws, don't affect the rights of others in at least having dominion over their own person. To sum up, a human woman is not a brood mare.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:40 pm

Unborn children are the nameless faceless dead written off as "collateral damage" in the battleground of surviving the culture we've created. You can't blame a woman for being part of that culture. No single person made a decision that made collateral damage morally acceptable.

I will always believe that there are masses of women with PTSD from the mountains of baby corpses. Some actively know it, some don't.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:59 pm

Unborn children are the nameless faceless dead written off as "collateral damage" in the battleground of surviving the culture we've created. You can't blame a woman for being part of that culture. No single person made a decision that made collateral damage morally acceptable.

I respectfully disagree. My only focus is: would your views cause you to outlaw abortion? or is your view so powerful that you would legally deny others? We all have challenges in our lives we face, how far does that influence decision making on a broad scale?

I will always believe that there are masses of women with PTSD from the mountains of baby corpses. Some actively know it, some don't.
Actually, every clinical study has found that not to be the case.

National Abortion Federation: Abortion Myths

10 Worst Abortion Myths–and How to Refute Them : Ms Magazine Blog

You are certainly entitled to your life's experience & what you've learnt from it. My only concern is the legal infliction of this will on others.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:46 pm

Ms Magazine doesn't do a very good job refuting a few of those points. eg) she's not selfish, she's just aware of the burden a family can be and wants to wait until she is in a better position. lol

Look, I am not spouting a myth. I wasn't even aware that the PTSD/war comparison had ever been made before. I came to that conclusion independently. I'm conveying a factual story. You know people who have been quite happy with their choice to abort, I know people who are very not okay. No, I have no time to be a vigilante and I'm more concerned with helping people recover from trauma than telling them how to be perfect little GodChildren. Nobody's perfect. We just do the best we can.

The problem with sussing out the emotional damage is that... people don't admit things, people shove feelings away and then don't actually know they are there, people sometimes convince themselves they enjoy things to make it more psychologically digestible that it happened to them.

So... you can't really get stats on that.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:14 pm

No, I have no time to be a vigilante and I'm more concerned with helping people recover from trauma than telling them how to be perfect little GodChildren. Nobody's perfect. We just do the best we can.
:yh_peace

Now that's an outlook that makes me :yh_smiley

The problem with sussing out the emotional damage is that... people don't admit things, people shove feelings away and then don't actually know they are there, people sometimes convince themselves they enjoy things to make it more psychologically digestible that it happened to them.
Sometimes we assume that because we know something is true in ourselves does not make that true for others, I think it's not productive to invade another's thought processes, unless (of course) invited to enter. It's futile anyway in many instances; that doesn't mean you shouldn't try if you are involved with the person.

In the cases of strangers harrassing strangers who want to abort is where a line is surely crossed.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:37 pm

I have no idea why a woman would feel harassed or bothered over getting an ultrasound. If she's decided what she wants to do and is completely comfortable with it an ultrasound shouldn't feel invasive. The abortion is pretty darn invasive. If she's gonna do that, the ultrasound is a piece of cake. I didn't think twice about getting the ultrasound. It was like preparation for the next visit when I'd let them suck part of my insides out. People get ultrasounds all the time. It's useful for a number of things. It's a common procedure. What bothered me was having to wait a minimum number of weeks before they could do the procedure.

Invading another's thought processes? When the thought processes are what is under scrutiny... it's not invasion, it's discussion. Hopefully one with honesty. I'll see if I can find info on suppression etc. In the fetish community it's openly acknowledged that traumatic experiences become fetishes and sources of pleasure. I'm not telling anyone what they think I'm reminding people they have a subconscious and don't always do things for the reasons they think they're doing them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:54 pm

AnneBoleyn;1385791 wrote: While percentage wise you might be right, in actual numbers more white women abort. An unwanted child is an unwanted child, no matter the home.

That is your opinion which I don't agree with. In my view, as a female, I support abortion on demand without apologies or excuses to you or anyone else.

Here's my opinion that I posted elsewhere. I post it only to clarify my stance on this issue.

I was in a conversation with a coworker and very close friend and the issue of abortion came up. Now, I want you to understand that I know - more than believe - that a human being is a human being long before (s)he is born, draws breath, or has a discernible heartbeat. A zygote is a human by scientific definition, with DNA identifiably unique from other humans. This human has two parents, a father and a mother, both of whom have equal responsibility for producing him/her, and ought to have equal say in any decisions about him/her.

But nature doesn't work that way. Nature assigns definite and different roles regarding the early development of a child that can't be ignored.

Sparing you the details of how I came to this decision, here is the crux:

Given:

Parents are legally responsible for making the decision of whether to keep a child on life support or to turn the machine off. When the life support is provided by a man-made machine, that decision is and should be borne equally by both parents.

Given:

A human is dependent upon life support provided by the mother. The baby/zygote/fetus/whatever cannot survive without the apparatus, and the apparatus cannot function outside of the mother.

Therefore:

The decision of whether the new human remains on the natural life support provided by the womb can only be made by the mother.

Any other option is a violation of liberty resulting in what can only be described as slavery, which is illegal.

It sucks. It bites. It shouldn't be that way. But there it is. Research in the transplanting of a human, removing him/her from the womb of a woman who does not want him/her and placing him/her in the womb of a willing mother, is therefore the most important research that should be done today, and the only research I personally would support my tax dollar going to.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:54 pm

I have no idea why a woman would feel harassed or bothered over getting an ultrasound.
I do. It's unneccessary for the procedure and why should a citizen "committing" a legal privilege-abortion IS legal as we all know, submit to procedures by law when there is no good reason to? Is it uniquely American to feel this way about personal privacy? Hope not. I pity a nation that rolls over without argument to laws that invade one's personal space. I am so very saddened by this bit of Canadian news. I have deep feelings for Canada.

Invading another's thought processes? When the thought processes are what is under scrutiny... it's not invasion, it's discussion.
I agree, it's a discussion when it is on a discussion board, or if one is asked personally for advice. If not, it's invasion. Our lives are not generally open to discussion by strangers; our personal decisions, when legal, are nobody's business but our own.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:58 pm

That just astounds me.

The only reason I can see for being upset about it is if the person isn't truly comfortable with what they are doing. It seems insane to worry about a simple ultrasound when you're about to have your innards sucked out.

The hypersensitivity towards protecting a woman from having to discuss motives, feelings, consequences... seems like you don't really believe it's doing no harm.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:59 pm

Accountable:

It sucks. It bites. It shouldn't be that way. But there it is. Research in the transplanting of a human, removing him/her from the womb of a woman who does not want him/her and placing him/her in the womb of a willing mother, is therefore the most important research that should be done today, and the only research I personally would support my tax dollar going to.
Oy vay! That's nuts! Sorry for the Ad Hom.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:04 pm

it seems like you don't really believe it's doing no harm.
No, koan. It seems to me that I respect the rights of others to make their own decisions. As I believe you do too.

PS-your innards are not being sucked out.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:36 pm

I respect the right of others to make informed decisions. Just spent the last 20 minutes reading story after story of women who assert they had no idea what they were doing when they chose to abort. I had vacuum aspiration. Yes, part of my innards were sucked out.

My clinic experience was much like this other woman's:

We agreed that I would have an abortion, but I was unprepared for how I would feel about my baby, and about how I would be treated at the clinic. There were about 20 of us in at the same time, and we were herded about like cattle. It was horrible.

I had a general anaesthetic, but when I came round I was lying on a recliner chair surrounded by the other girls in the waiting room, many of them sobbing hysterically. It was like a scene from hell. There was pop music blasting out from the office, and the staff were chatting loudly, ignoring us. All I could think was: "Get me out of here."

Read more: What WE think of abortion - by the women who had them... | Mail Online

I am convinced that women who claim to be actually happy afterwards are describing a temporary state of relief. After that, if they're still literally happy about their actions... not just content but actually "happy"... they are trying to suppress their pain through advocacy. They have the right to suppress (their own feelings) but not to prevent other women from understanding what the choice to abort really involves.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:42 pm

AnneBoleyn;1385732 wrote: Exactly. You are Pro-Choice.
When it comes to the legal aspect, and what role the government should play, yes, I am "Pro-Choice"

I would do anything in my power to convince a young woman (or even a not-so-young woman) to find another alternative, but I stand against the the moral "majority" who want the government to make a criminal out of her if she decides that is her only option.

IT really makes sense that a sonogram would be part of the medical exam, but the legal "hurdle" these people want to put up seems ludicrous.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:11 pm

It would be a lot easier to talk through the decision if people kept religion out of it.

As far as the pain that follows a woman who aborts, Nicki Minaj was fearless enough to sing about it on her track "Autobiography" and sums it up pretty fairly

As far as having an ultrasound before aborting goes... if you can't get the ultrasound without feeling guilty you shouldn't be getting an abortion. I never once considered my ultrasound to be a pro-life measure. I chose a medical procedure, they told me the procedure and I did it. The hard part was being forced to wait until I was 6 weeks pregnant, it was mentally exhausting. I convinced myself that the baby was evil. Created a whole storyline in my head picturing him/her as Satan spawn so I could maintain my willingness to kill him/her. Next to that... the ultrasound was commonplace. It never crossed my mind that it was an emotional test.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:17 pm

I have not read the whole thread, i am just adding my 2 cents worth.

If you are aborting a baby you have to be aware of the consequences of how you might feel afterwards and be at least semi prepared to accept them. If you are irresponsible enough to get pregnant and then terminate without being at least semi aware of what you may feel afterwards you should not have been having sex.

The exception to this would of course be rape, how you come to terms with a baby from that scenario is beyond me.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:00 pm

Telling women who are trying to decide whether to abort or not that they shouldn't feel any remorse because it's their right is just as bad as telling them that they should feel immoral if they choose to do it.

My concern here is for the millions of women who are struggling with emotional grief afterwards either because they didn't realize what choice they were making or because they felt pressured to have the abortion by a spouse or parent... or simply due to financial fears.

Maybe there are some advocates who have had abortions and are happy but I seriously doubt they can honestly call it a highlight of their life so far. It's not something you look back on with fond memories unless you are severely twisted. No one should make a choice this big without being fully informed of the stress and grief they will likely face.

Ban abortion? No. Increase the information part of "informed choice"? Abso-****ing-lutely. Increase the support available for post-abortion trauma? Please!! Put religion and politics aside and look seriously at why so many women feel they have to choose abortion. It's not freedom of choice when you feel no other option is viable.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:26 pm

HUh !! I must be twisted then. The older I get the less it concerns me. No use crying over spilt milk. And quite frankly I much prefer abortion over baby farming ......there is much much more pain in that .

When a woman is considering an abortion everyone should shut their mouths and leave it to her, and if a woman wants to have a baby, again ...everyone should shut their mouths and leave it to her.

I remember being told I was too young to have a child....ironically now I'm being told I'm too old .......AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:37 pm

Having it not concern you is very different than being actively happy about it.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:49 pm

But what do you mean by "happy" ...happy as in lets throw an abortion party ? or happy with relief because the consequences of not going through with it would be worse than death?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:54 pm

Happy as in it empowered them like getting a good boob job. Happy as in they left the clinic not just feeling okay but feeling better about themselves.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:59 pm

Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS) - Does It Exist? | Psychology Today

There are a number of message boards created to help the millions of women struggling with Post Abortion Syndrome.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:14 pm

I can't believe any proper clinic would perform an abortion without an ultrasound. I can't believe this isn't obviously necessary.

From the site of a clinic that provides abortions:

Although you will have had a positive pregnancy test, your pregnancy may be so early that we cannot see it on the ultrasound scan. This is most common when the pregnancy is less than 5 weeks. If we cannot see the pregnancy on ultrasound, it means that we cannot be sure the pregnancy is developing inside the uterus. Rarely this may indicate an ectopic pregnancy (where the pregnancy grows outside of the womb). Read our client leaflet on ectopic pregnancy. To treat you we need to be able to see the pregnancy on the ultrasound scan and make sure it is growing in the uterus. We may need to ask you to return for a repeat scan in a week when the pregnancy should be visible on the ultra sound scan or refer you for evaluation in the NHS.
Abortion Questions & Answers

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:57 pm

I think this issue has a propensity to use "the definition of life" as a scapegoat to an issue that goes far beyond that. It's an issue about a society that continuously attempts to control how individuals think and in turn persuades people into the false notion that what society demands is what's best for the individual. In truth society is better suited for the people when the people are the ones that have a powerful voice, it's just equally as hard to escape from those groups of people that tend to think it's in their best interest to allow society to dictate what it is they think. All of this having the recipe that makes it incredibly easy to avoid it yet it seems to be the "dark matter" of the immense void between micro- and macro-sociology. Sadly, when ignorance becomes the sole answer then we have an unending and tiresome conclusion that will probably never be reached.

It's not about "pro-life" and "pro-choice", it's about ya neighbor trying to tell you what to do because it makes up for his lack of sense of self and ya other neighbor who's too ignorant to take a side so they go with the loudest voice. The fluctuations that follow is no doubt the plague of society. Good luck

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:02 pm

actually, it's about needing an ultrasound to be sure the method of abortion is safe and a bunch of people deciding the ultrasound is for the purpose of humiliation.

aside from that, it's about whether or not informing women of potential trauma from an abortion means you don't want them to have a choice.

I'm interested in knowing whether or not pro-choice advocates also apply their logic to drug use. I'm against abortion but pro-choice. I'm also against drug use but pro-legalization. How far do you go? Are you really pro-choice on principle or are you limiting your pro-choice to the ability of a woman to kill a baby?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:16 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1385882 wrote: HUh !! I must be twisted then. The older I get the less it concerns me. No use crying over spilt milk. And quite frankly I much prefer abortion over baby farming ......there is much much more pain in that .As compared to what?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:07 am

koan;1385895 wrote: actually, it's about needing an ultrasound to be sure the method of abortion is safe and a bunch of people deciding the ultrasound is for the purpose of humiliation.

aside from that, it's about whether or not informing women of potential trauma from an abortion means you don't want them to have a choice.

I'm interested in knowing whether or not pro-choice advocates also apply their logic to drug use. I'm against abortion but pro-choice. I'm also against drug use but pro-legalization. How far do you go? Are you really pro-choice on principle or are you limiting your pro-choice to the ability of a woman to kill a baby?Sorry, I was responding to about 90% of everyone else who'd turned the thread in to "pro-life" and "pro-choice"...

In any case I do see an ultrasound as the "reality" factor when one is aborting a child and it logically follows that if the ultrasound brings about more guilt then they most certainly need to rethink their decision to abort. Pretending that one is not pregnant in order to "justify" an abortion is absurd and will only lead to more grief regardless of an ultrasound or not.

It is the right of people to choose but it's also societies right to ensure the healthiest of options are available. I think what's left is for proof that ultrasounds legitimately discern whether or not a woman is pregnant...

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:25 am

Ultrasound is unnecessary. Literally MILLIONS of abortions were done without it, successfully performed & completed. You are being sold a bill of goods. Someone is making a ton of dough from this trend. In the USA, this recent move toward it has a political/religious agenda. I don't know how other countries explain the need, but 40 years of legal abortion since Roe have shown it is needless.

Pretending that one is not pregnant in order to "justify" an abortion is absurd and will only lead to more grief regardless of an ultrasound or not.
In the long run, various insanities of some people should not control the situation. It is individual.

It is the right of people to choose but it's also societies right to ensure the healthiest of options are available.
Society's right. Think over that choice of words, kev.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:07 pm

It's not individual. Millions of women get abortions who would rather keep their child but are pressured into it by family, their partner, or financial concerns.

Society crafted the bill of rights and it starts "We The People" Society took the right to craft laws and to enforce them. If society hadn't exercised that right you wouldn't have a bill of rights at all.