Punitive and controlling. It couldn't be any more clear.

I haven't read in a few days and the weight of the last 10 posts is crushing. This world is fucked up and it makes me really sad and angry.

I wonder if any of these legislators has actually seen a first trimester ultrasound. There really isin't a whole lot to see there. The fetus shows up as a little black dot on a field a grey. There are no discernable features to make it look even remotely like a tiny baby. In fact, most people wouldn't even be able to pick out which part of the image is the fetus without the ultrasound technician pointing it out. I understand this bill is meant to shame women into not having the abortion, but in reality, there is not much to see on the ultrasound image. Yep. That's my dot.

On another note, this bill can further limit abortions for low income women. In addition to coming up with the money for the abortion procedure, she now also has to come up with the money for an ultrasound procedure. It just adds another hoop for women to jump through.

Surely you must understand that those who passed this believe abortion is murdering a human being. You disagree that it is a human being. But if you had the chance to stop a murder by showing the potential killer a picture of the victim to try and humanize them to him/her, you would do it in a second.

Oh, we've all heard that line before. Problem is, they are using religion and belief in legislation. 100% inappropriate.

There are many things about SC that I miss, compared to the Northeast, but at least up here I have more reproductive rights.

The rationale behind not advocating abortion for rape victims is that Godbags are convinced that these babies are somehow gifts from god, and how dare a woman not allow her body to be used for such a higher purpose.

No they are not. Many non religious people are anti abortion. Since there is no way to determine when a fetus becomes a human being, everyone's belief on both sides of the discussion is arbitrary as to when they decide abortion is ok. As someone who is against abortion, I completely understand that others believe this is not a human being and therefor their actions in pushing an agenda that is 100% women's health oriented makes sense. I therefor do not take each action they take (as others who are antiabortion often do) and assign murder intent to it because that is clearly no your intent if you do not believe this is a human being. I simply am pointing out that assigning anti-woman intent and abuse toward women to people who believe they are protecting a life is intellectually dishonest.

The fetus shows up as a little black dot on a field a grey. There are no discernable features to make it look even remotely like a tiny baby.

Seriously, it can be hard to tell which part is the baby and which part is the contents of your bowel to the untrained eye.

My best friend just had a baby. She showed me the ultrasound from the very last prenatal appointment. I couldn't tell where the baby was.

It skeeves me out...where do these records go? To the state? Where they could be leaked?

When retailers started doing digital signature stuff at POS, I'd always sign my name as Johnny Thunders. South Carolina women should sign their names as Fuck Off.

So, here's a thought.

When I had an ultrasound at 7 weeks, they had to use a vaginal ultrasound probe in order to visualize the embryo. I didn't mind, because for me, the exam was voluntary.

Are they planning (or permitted) to use vaginal ultrasound probes, and if so, what is the practical difference between forcing a medical procedure on an unwilling woman and state sponsored rape/assault?

Buffy, I understand your point in that it is hard for either side to see things from the other's point of view. This causes people on both sides of the debate to demonize the other and assume bad motives. Fair point.

However, I don't think it's valid to compare forcing an ultrasound viewing on a woman before an abortion with forcing a murderer to look at a picture of his/her victim before the murder would take place. First of all, murder is not a legal medical procedure performed by professionals in a clinical setting. Second, an abortion could never be characterized as a "crime of passion" or be a random act of violence. Trying to compare the two is a bit disingenuous.

Your analogy doesn't work, Buffy. You seem to presuppose that right-wingers feel so very much more passionately about their views than we do about ours that it justifies their interfering in medical practice. But you don't see feminists agitating for a law requring that everybody who opts out of the HPV vaccine be forced to view photos of a woman with genital warts or a woman dying of cervical cancer. Anti-feminists think that abortion is murder? That's their problem. It doesn't justify inflicting an unnecessary procedure on women whether they want it or not.

What also bugs me about this is how the anti-choice legislation is all designed to make women think extra hard about whether they really want an abortion. Like an unwanted pregnancy isn't something the woman has been thinking about long enough.

The next thing on the agenda will be to require the woman to think of a name so they can have something to write on the death certificate.

Buffy,

the issue, as I said, is belief as well as religion.

See, what this presupposes is the belief that the fetus, in it's parasitical status, overrules the rights of the host. This is a fundamentally inhumane and shortsighted belief. Nowhere else in our system would we allow such a belief.

You disagree that it is a human being.

Actually, we don't. Human beings don't give birth to squid, you know. They give birth to other human beings.

I personally acknowledge that an abortion ends a potential life. But so does miscarriage, which occurs when a woman's body recognizes something is wrong with the pregnancy and terminates it.
In my book, a woman who has an abortion because she doesn't want/can't afford to care for an(other) infant is performing a similar act. The only difference is she is doing so in response to external (rather than internal) circumstances which make a continued pregnancy unfeasible, for whatever reason.

Why should it be okay for a woman's body to determine "I'm not up to carrying this baby to term" but the woman herself can't decide, "my body may be capable of having this baby, but I can't afford to pay the medical bills/support a child/etc."?

If the anti-choicers really want to decrease the number of abortions, they should stop trying to pass laws to punish women for having them and start trying to pass laws that make pregnancy a more affordable (and appreciated) option. But that's not really what they're about. They don't believe in life, they believe in punishing the dirty sluts who don't know their place.

“…assigning anti-woman intent and abuse toward women to people who believe they are protecting a life is intellectually dishonest.�

The net effect is more important than the intent in this case. Especially for legally binding legislation. And the net effect here is that women seeking a legal medical procedure are forced to do something they don’t want to do.

Look at Akeeyu’s comment, with a vaginal probe required to conduct an ultrasound. This should be tolerated as a requirement?

Just because someone’s intent may (in their own eyes) be pure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t blast them all the same.

"Surely you must understand that those who passed this believe abortion is murdering a human being. You disagree that it is a human being. But if you had the chance to stop a murder by showing the potential killer a picture of the victim to try and humanize them to him/her, you would do it in a second."

For a long time, I thought that was a valid argument and believed in it myself. It's very easy to say you have one opinion but you respect this other opinion because this that and the other thing, and because they believe in it so earnestly and feel so strongly. And then you can feel good about yourself and your opinions because you can say, "Well, I support women's rights, but, gosh, I'm no baby-murderer, you know!" It's very easy, and it's very wrong, and it does nothing but lend credence to woman-hating, deluded ideas. Because why should we have sympathy for them just because they happen to be really, really thoroughly convinced of their incorrect stance? Or highly emotional about it?

I don't think a fetus is a human being in any philosophical sense, and I think it's ridiculous to say otherwise, but in the end, it doesn't matter, because even if it is a human being, no human being has the right to violate the health, body, or free will of another human being's body. Women are human beings, too; no amount of crying out "Baby murder!" is going to change that.

"They don't believe in life, they believe in punishing the dirty sluts who don't know their place."

I totally agree with you on that one. If the right wing conservatives really wanted to end abortion, then they would be pushing for "real" sex education classes that teach young people the facts about sex, reproduction and birth control. If they really wanted to get rid of abortion, they would make birth control more easily accessible to young men and women so as to prevent those unwanted pregnancies.

VT has a point, in a first trimester ultrasound, it doesn't look like much. Shoot, when I had a second trimester ultrasound the tech had to point out the body parts that I was seeing. But, what you can usually see on a first trimester ultrasound is a heartbeat and I think that is what they are going for. I think that they believe that if women find out that it has a heartbeat that they will get all sentimental.

This is getting to be an even scarier world to live in if you are a woman. It is almost to the point where it doesn't matter if Roe V Wade were overturned because not enough people are getting pissed about the controlling laws that are being put into place which are quickly chipping away at women's rights. In my state, Michigan, you have to complete "counseling" which consists of watching a slide show about abortion and babies, not too surprising that it was created by an anti choice group.

“But you don't see feminists agitating for a law requring that everybody who opts out of the HPV vaccine be forced to view photos of a woman with genital warts or a woman dying of cervical cancer.� Hey that’s pretty brilliant! It almost makes me want to do just that! Or at least show up in front of high schools with a bunch of some such pictures.

"what this presupposes is the belief that the fetus, in it's parasitical status, overrules the rights of the host. This is a fundamentally inhumane and shortsighted belief. Nowhere else in our system would we allow such a belief."

Of course it's a belief, just don't pretend your opinion is not also a belief. And how exactly is abortion not premeditated? Again, I'm not trying to get in an I'm right/you're wrong conversation here. I'm simply pointing out that the underlying difference is when is it a human. At any point at which we all decide it is a human we fully protect it. All of us, every one. So people taking strong measures to protect the human in the equation makes sense and is nbot evil in intent form either side of the debatre. We can disagree without assigning stupidity, heartlessness, and illogic to the other opinion. It's the only way compromise can happen.

buffy, last time i checked, women were human. and as long as thats true i dont understand why when the zygote is human matters.

I'd say, fine, show me the little twerp so I can see what I won't have after you give me this abortion. Or "You can watch the ultrasound, I'm taking a nap."

These are the same people that say abortion is psychologically damaging, yeah? Tell me how it's LESS damaging to force a woman to stare at her fetus before she gets an abortion than trusting that MAYBE she already has made the responsible decision as to whether or not she can have a child and making the whole procedure as painless as possible.

buffy, I understand that it's easy to feel ambivalent about abortion. It's not fun to think about. But, frankly, I think that the women who have to make the decision for themselves know what the best decision for them is. For some it's abortion, for some it's adoption, and I don't think anyone not involved in making or raising the potential child should have a say. If you want to prevent abortions, support easily available emergency contraception, which doesn't cause an abortion but only prevents pregnancy. Support real sex education, not abstinence only teaching that has been proven to be almost useless and inaccurate. I think if we had those things in this country, we'd see the rate of abortions go down drastically.

But if you had the chance to stop a murder by showing the potential killer a picture of the victim to try and humanize them to him/her, you would do it in a second.

buffy,that's naive.

What about murders like the BTK Killer and Jeffery Dahmer who knew, touched and even talked to their victims? The BTK Killer allowed one woman to drink a glass of water she'd asked for before strangling her. How nice of him. But he still killed her.

You can show as many photos as possible but if someone has their mind made up there's nothing you can do about it. A killer will kill and a woman is going to have an abortion if that's what she truly wants by any means necessary, just like the back alley abortions before Roe V. Wade prove.

A blurry photo of a dot isn't going to change a woman's mind it's only going to feed into the fact that these people want her to feel ashamed for having sex in the first place, whether or not it was voluntary.

rilee morgan, brilliantly put! That's PRECISELY how I feel about it (having also believed a fetus was human for a long time, and also having been anti-abortion for a long time).

Buffy, you may well be correct about the “intent�, as far as what is going on in the minds of many anti-choicers. I do believe that many of them believe they have pure motives.

But the problem is that “pure intent� might be the most dangerous aspect of anti-choice dogma, which is the reason it needs to be held up in the light. The Army of God believes its intentions are pure and that killing specific doctors is an admirable thing. Good intent? They sure think so.

Legislating with “good intent� can go wrong, our nation has a long history of flawed laws passed by people with good intent. Good intent (in your own mind) doesn’t get you off the hook for a bad law.

The problem with using "good intent" as a criterion is that everyone thinks they have good intent. Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks to him or herself "Today I shall do my utmost to promote evil and misery, cause harm to others, and generally promote the dark side of the force." Everybody thinks that they're the good guys. So, really, who cares? They really, really, really believe that they're helping to save the lives of the innocent baybeez? So what? The effect is extraordinarily detrimental to women, no matter what their intentions are, and it reveals a host of sexist assumptions about how women make decisions and why.

There have to be some First Amendment issues here, don't there? The patient is being compelled to perform certain expressive acts ("looking at" an ultrasound) that have no relation to a medical procedure.

EG said:
Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks to him or herself "Today I shall do my utmost to promote evil and misery, cause harm to others, and generally promote the dark side of the force."

Absolutely hilarious, EG! And absolutely dead-on. The thing that always bewilders me in the "abortion debate" is how a woman's rights get subsumed under the unborn fetus' rights (or zygote's rights, whatever). To state that a cluster of cells has a greater claim than a fully-formed woman is not only absurd, it's perverted.

I live in SC and I am so angry about this that I can't even see straight. I will be making some angry phone calls to my senators, that's for damn sure.

A similar bill passed in Mississippi this week.

It was a multi-bill that requires the sonogram, a fetal heartbeat screening (I suppose if it's 22 weeks or more, that's not spelled out in the bill), plus tighter restrictions on minors seeking abortions (MUST have parental consent, or the judge's permission ... yes, that's an interesting one), and the trump card, should Roe be overturned, MS criminilizes anyone who performs an abortion with a fine and up to 10 years. It's absurd and ridiculous, but despite many efforts by a few groups in the area, it passed easily.

Interestingly, the woman who has the abortion has to sign a form that states she had a sonogram, further punishing women by formally recording their names and information. This measure is supposedly to "track" abortions in the state and the bill is very (intentionally) vague about how and where these records will be kept.

I am completely outraged and feel utterly powerless. I just moved to MS from Alabama, and am not impressed, in fact, I'm ashamed.

EG - To answer your question "Who cares" -everyone should. Because if no-one cares then everyone loses. What gets abortion doctors killed? Nut jobs on the right saying "Who cares that their intent is to help women. They are murderers so take them out." See the problem? It's easy to argue it from one side, but if you practice it, they practice it, we all practice it we end up here. Which is ridiculous and counterproductive. Again, the disagreement is not well defined. You can't say life begins at x and neither can they. So you both pick out of your butts what feels comfrotable for you and then act like the other side has ill intent for not having the same butt or picking system you do. Pretty stupid and infantile.

nausicaa, interesting point.

Also -- does this mean blind women are prohibited from having abortions? How can they testify that they've "seen" the ultrasound if they are physically unable to see anything??

You can't say life begins at x and neither can they.

If it's my body that's being use, then why can't I? If I personally believe that what's growing inside me is a clump of cells that I don't want there, then how does any anti-choicer have the right to force me to look at a sonogram to try and prove otherwise? Which is what they're doing. THey're trying to make women look at these pictures hoping against hope that something in their brain will go "I can't do this," and they won't have an abortion.

What they aren't doing is realizing that women who have abortions have done NOTHING but think about what's going on in their bodies and they're treating women like children who can't grasp the concept of what pregnancy means.

It's like shoving a dog's nose in shit after the dog has already realized what it did and then hitting him with a newspaper to further emphasize what a naughty, naughty dog it's been.

And then you photograph the shit and make the dog look at it one more time for good measure.

I don't doubt that the cluster of cells that an early-term pregnancy would, if properly nourished, mature into a human being. But if abortion is murder, it is very nearly always committed in self-defense. A fetus is a living thing, but it's a parasite in the physical and scientific sense until it's born, and puts tremendous strain on a woman's physical, emotional, and economic resources even after it is physically separate from her. Even if she is giving it up for adoption.

I doubt many (aside from a few fanatical anti-population-growth individuals) are in favor of abortion, but I really like what Vervain said in comparing surgical vs. spontaneous abortions. It's sometimes the best decision, and one the individual should have the right to make without suffering through regulations like this that have the effect of a public shaming for her private decision.

The point of the fetus being a parasite in a host is problematic for me. After a baby is born it is not a biologically autonomous being as in, if no one is there to feed it, provide necessary functions for it, it will die. Yes, I understand parasites and hosts in the technical sense are actually physically connected. However, I don't feel the "parasitic" nature of pregnancy is a feature of entitlement for terminating the fetus. Rather, I find the way the fetus develops is very in tune with the concept of life which the female body is naturally supporting (miscarriages as I see as a decision made by the body and to be respected). The way the food is passed through, the extra embryonic tissues that develop to help nourish and support the being--I don’t see this as some philosophical entity that the female body is sort of suspending "to have/not to have"--is not the question. And, I find this notion of “my body, leave it alone!� is more anti-body rhetoric than anything and promotes a disconnect/detachment from one of the natural processes that is a unique and powerful ability inherent in all females.
For instance, the following comment unnerves me:
“I'd say, fine, show me the little twerp so I can see what I won't have after you give me this abortion. Or "You can watch the ultrasound, I'm taking a nap."

I don't agree with abortion. I don't agree with abstinence-only education. I think there should be pregnancy clinics safe and affordable for women in various socioeconomic situations--that don't push religious agendas. I think men should have to pay half of all fees and costs associated with the reproductive health of a woman pregnant by their sperm (b/c I don't believe this is required of them for abortions and that's ridiculous). When a woman says “but you are taking away my right! My right to abortion doesn’t end your rights�—no it doesn’t but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a vested interest in the way our government protects the life of others. There are lots of things I fight for that, at the end of the day, probably don’t affect me directly. But that’s where I think feminism has lost me in the abortion debate. Sometimes it’s not about you—and I find our body’s reaction to a fertilized egg as the first indication.

"Of course it's a belief, just don't pretend your opinion is not also a belief. ... So people taking strong measures to protect the human in the equation makes sense and is nbot evil in intent form either side of the debatre. We can disagree without assigning stupidity, heartlessness, and illogic to the other opinion. It's the only way compromise can happen."

No, it's not the only way "compromise" can happen. The integrity of a woman's right to control of her reproductive rights can be compromised in a wide variety of ways. We are not looking for compromise; there is no compromise when it comes to acknowledging that women are intelligent human beings in possession of their own bodies and with rights to integrity and self-determination.

Our opinions are not mere "beliefs" to be pushed aside in a fluffy world of a high school philosophy debate where no one is wrong and everyone can feel happy and smart. When the opposition is ignorant and their views are rooted, fundamentally, in hatred of women, I don't think we can disagree without assigning ignorance, foolishness, or illogical thought patterns to opposition, though sometimes we may diplomatically decline to voice these judgments. People do not need to be aware of the roots of hatred to draw on it, or the implications of hatred to cause or intend them.

"And how exactly is abortion not premeditated? Again, I'm not trying to get in an I'm right/you're wrong conversation here. I'm simply pointing out that the underlying difference is when is it a human. At any point at which we all decide it is a human we fully protect it. All of us, every one."

I responded to this "is it human" bit last time you posted this argument, but maybe you didn't read it the first time? Others have also addressed this in their comments:

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a human being (not just human, but a human being, i.e., an entity); even if it is a human being, it does not have rights that entitle it to overtake the rights of other human beings. No human being has a right to parasitism, to destroy or occupy another human being's body against their will.

Don't forget that as women we are still and irrevocably human beings ourselves.

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a human being (not just human, but a human being, i.e., an entity); even if it is a human being, it does not have rights that entitle it to overtake the rights of other human beings. No human being has a right to parasitism, to destroy or occupy another human being's body against their will.

rilee, yup. MEN, of course, get protection just for their HOUSES, let alone their bodies (women do, too, but only incidentally since they figured out, huh, we can't deny women Constitutional rights anymore). The Third Amendment ensures that citizens can't be co-opted into having their homes inhabited by soldiers. Soldiers aren't even parasites; they're walking, talking people who provide incredibly valuable services to our society. And yet our Constitution says that our rights to autonomy and liberty are SO IMPORTANT that we cannot be forced to even SHARE a home with soldiers who, hell, under the right circumstances might die without shelter. If PROPERTY is important enough to kick another human being to the curb, then surely BODILY INTEGRITY'S gotta somewhere at least close?

Buffy-
That is actually NOT the disagreement. Most of us have taken the prerequisite high school biology courses and know that a single cell is life. I do not dispute that a clump of cells in a woman’s body (zygote, embryo, fetus) is life; it is living matter. But so is a wart, so is cancer, so are any number of growths on/in a person’s body. I, as a woman and a person, have the right to remove a wart or a cancer from my body without being forced to examine the minute details/compositions of these clumps of cells.

But this all gets thrown out the window when a woman becomes pregnant. It is insulting that others think they know better than my medical practitioners and I do when it comes time to make medical decisions about my body. And that is what abortion is – a medical decision. And, as with most medical decisions, the patient doesn’t proceed in a vacuum. The patient usually gives quite a bit of thought to the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the procedure. The person choosing to have the procedure is given written and/or verbal details about the procedure. The side effects/risks/possible outcomes are discussed.

What is so infuriating is that, with this specific procedure – abortion - a mentally capable patient is FORCED to submit to UNNECESSARY medical testing AGAINST HER WILL. An ultrasound is absolutely medically unnecessary is this instance. It is being used as either a punishment or to insinuate that a pregnant woman is mentally incompetent in regards to making medical decisions about her body.

Forcing medically unnecessary testing on a woman against her will is a gross abuse of power by people who think that if the woman just hears the heartbeat and can count the limbs, then she will be so overcome with her female emotions that she would never choose to proceed with the procedure. I know what is growing in my body. I am not an idiot.

miscarriages as I see as a decision made by the body and to be respected.

Why is this decision "to be respected" when your body makes it, but not when your mind does, based on practical circumstances?
Body: I can't support a pregnancy.
Mind: I can't afford a pregnancy.
Difference? Physical capability vs. emotional, psychological, or financial capability. Do you think a woman who's severely mentally handicapped or unstable should be forced to have a baby she can't care for alone? What about one in jail, or in an abusive relationship she can't escape? Those sound to me like pretty good reasons not to carry a pregnancy to term--better than, say, catching malaria (which can cause a miscarriage.) Is insufficient progesterone really a better, more "respectable" reason to abort than insufficient funds? At least in the case of an abortion, the woman has consciously chosen not to have the baby--a lot of women who miscarry really want the babies they lose. I'm sorry, but I have to wonder about anyone who considers miscarriage sacrosanct, but abortion as evil or immoral. Because it seems to go back to the old "punish the sluts" theme.
Miscarriage = grief, therefore Good.
Abortion = relief, therefore Bad.
So, what, it's okay as long as the woman is unhappy?

If it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human being than it doesn't matter if a woman is a human being. If it matters that either are human beings then it matters that both are human beings.

Compromise is clearly not a goal of either side. Sorry for trying to understand your points and not call you murderers. Guess we'll go back to the rhetoric.

Compromise is clearly not a goal of either side.

Actually, I think this is untrue. We're not advocating forcing women to have abortions they don't want. But they are advocating forcing women to bear children they don't want.
So which side is really unwilling to compromise?

If it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human being than it doesn't matter if a woman is a human being. If it matters that either are human beings then it matters that both are human beings.

buffy, this is way too simplistic. Life presents us with all kinds of choices where one person's life is in the hands of another, and we allow the person with the power to make the decision.

If I'm a match to give someone my kidney, and they will die tomorrow if I don't give it to them, NO ONE CAN FORCE ME TO GIVE UP MY KIDNEY -- even though doing so would save another human being's life.

The only difference here is that I didn't have to have sex to get a healthy kidney. So, really, I guess it's just my own damn fault for being so slutty as to actually do what 99.9% of all humans do and have sex.

Moreover, a fetus does not have thoughts, feelings, aspirations or emotions. A woman does.

After a baby is born it is not a biologically autonomous being as in, if no one is there to feed it, provide necessary functions for it, it will die.

Right. But if the woman who bore it doesn't want to do those things, she doesn't have to. That's what adoption is. Why should she be forced to provide far more intimate and draining care to a far less developed being?

Yes, I understand parasites and hosts in the technical sense are actually physically connected. However, I don't feel the "parasitic" nature of pregnancy is a feature of entitlement for terminating the fetus.

You don't? Because I don't think that physical takeover of my body by another being is something to be written off. It is the essence of pregnancy. Without that physical connection, there is no pregnancy. That is exactly where the crux of the matter lies, in my opinion.

Rather, I find the way the fetus develops is very in tune with the concept of life which the female body is naturally supporting (miscarriages as I see as a decision made by the body and to be respected).

You know, my body is not some mystical, magical, all-knowing entity that can do no wrong. My body has stupid or bad reactions all the time, from asthma attacks in response to cold air, to watery eyes in response to dried flowers, to depression in response to winter (and that's not even touching on eye and knee problems). Why do my body's decisions get accorded such respect, and mine do not? Further, if you examine the physical experience of pregnancy, it may be a lovely deal for the fetus, but for the woman? Not so much with the flowers-and-in-tune-with-nature experience.

And, I find this notion of “my body, leave it alone!� is more anti-body rhetoric than anything and promotes a disconnect/detachment from one of the natural processes that is a unique and powerful ability inherent in all females.

Well, as I'm sure you know, this is not a powerful ability inherent in all females; plenty of females can't support pregnancy or childbirth. (And its not unique either, given how many can.) But why do you think the phrase "I don't want to go through pregnancy and have a baby now" is some kind of anti-body statement? Is it anti-body to override every impulse my body has? I veto many such impulses for a variety of reasons.

For instance, the following comment unnerves me:
“I'd say, fine, show me the little twerp so I can see what I won't have after you give me this abortion. Or "You can watch the ultrasound, I'm taking a nap."

So, being brought face to face with the fact that not every woman considers an embryo to be a bundle of overwhelming cuteness unnerves you? How is that even relevant? That's exactly what the makers of this law can't wrap their minds around: that many women don't care about the embryo or fetus. Your being unnerved is so dire that it's appropriate to force women to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their will so that the paradigm of women-as-natural-mothers isn't shattered? I don't get that--your emotional discomfort is more important than nine months of my life?

Nut jobs on the right saying "Who cares that their intent is to help women. They are murderers so take them out." See the problem? It's easy to argue it from one side, but if you practice it, they practice it, we all practice it we end up here.

Except we don't all practice it. I say "Who cares if they think they have good intentions? What they do is simply horrible," and I work for abortion rights. They say "Who cares that this doctor is actually helping people live their lives," and they shoot him. Do you see how these two things are not at all equivalent? I maintain: everyone thinks their intentions are good. Everyone: segreationists, hawks, doves, etc. It's a given. So what? It's a fairly meaningless element in a political argument.

And, I find this notion of “my body, leave it alone!� is more anti-body rhetoric than anything and promotes a disconnect/detachment from one of the natural processes that is a unique and powerful ability inherent in all females.

So is menstruation, and I suppose you're a woman who doesn't ever discard of her menstruation, as it is so important to the nature of what naturally would have been had you just had sex in time that you can't bear to throw/flush it away.

I can't roll my eyes far enough into the back of my head for that one. There are so many things that are "inherent" to the human body that to single out one trait just because the other sex doesn't have it is ridiculous. Protruding breasts are also unique to women and having them is a natural process so by your logic if a women has breast cancer it would be anti-body of her to have them removed to save her life.

Let's also not forget the many women who are in physically demanding jobs, from ballet dancers to home health aides, who just might describe the special capabilities of their bodies to be something other than pregnancy. Is it anti-body to value your body's ability to dance Swan Lake over its ability to give birth?

"I maintain: everyone thinks their intentions are good. Everyone: segreationists, hawks, doves, etc. It's a given. So what? It's a fairly meaningless element in a political argument."

Exactly right.

EG: "But if the woman who bore it doesn't want to do those things, she doesn't have to. That's what adoption is. Why should she be forced to provide far more intimate and draining care to a far less developed being?"

By me stating there is a biological necessity post-birth, that does not mean I don't recognize those functions could be carried out by an adopted mother.

EGL "Because I don't think that physical takeover of my body by another being is something to be written off. It is the essence of pregnancy. Without that physical connection, there is no pregnancy. That is exactly where the crux of the matter lies, in my opinion."
Without a man/sperm, there is no baby and, as stated in my post, I don't see them held financially responsible for these abortions.
The essence of pregnancy is that the baby is connected to you? Wow, and here I thinking it was continuation of the species. I was way off.

EG: "My body has stupid or bad reactions all the time, from asthma attacks in response to cold air, to watery eyes in response to dried flowers, to depression in response to winter (and that's not even touching on eye and knee problems). Why do my body's decisions get accorded such respect, and mine do not?"

Yes well asthma and depression becoming analogous to the bodily reactions of a pregnancy. Nothing like reiterating my "anti-body" statement for me. I think my main point is this: why does the female get the final say? Has the father been consulted? Has the baby? Has your body?--which is putting a great deal of effort into maintaining the health and growth of the fetus. This me, me, me sentiment is selfish.

"Well, as I'm sure you know, this is not a powerful ability inherent in all females; plenty of females can't support pregnancy or childbirth. (And its not unique either, given how many can.)"
Yes but the power to continue life is not lost just because other females may not possess it. Or that so many can. The power is in the result—not numbers.

EG: "But why do you think the phrase "I don't want to go through pregnancy and have a baby now" is some kind of anti-body statement? Is it anti-body to override every impulse my body has? " "
No-did I say that? And I would hardly call the reformation your tubular junctions undergo an "impulse." I find this anti-body because I think pro-choice many times pits women against what is part of their design. We get pregnant. It's a big deal but even in saying that, I want to mention: get over it. I can't help looking at this debate without seeing *Both!* sides playing power games with each other. Right wings clinging to God and guilt. Women clinging to their ability to become pregnant as the reason they get all say so (in a concept that really involves two other beings) but then when they get the power reducing the meaning of pregnancy all together. Totally self-serving.

EG: "So, being brought face to face with the fact that not every woman considers an embryo to be a bundle of overwhelming cuteness unnerves you? How is that even relevant?"
It's the message that concerns me. This blog deals daily with messages sent to people. Messages have meanings and typically we only recognize the ones that aggrandize our position. My point has never been a bundle of cuteness. I found the comment very indicative of the commodifying nature of the pro-choice debate. That something inside someone else is automatically a “twerp� and whose proven existence is something to “nap� to when that being has done nothing to deserve such negligence—totally, again, disturbing.
In fact I read that comment to a woman I know who works at an abortion clinic and is very pro-choice and she said “I know no one would say that—sounds like pro-lifers trying to give us a bad name.� But I will inform her otherwise.

EG: “Your being unnerved is so dire that it's appropriate to force women to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their will so that the paradigm of women-as-natural-mothers isn't shattered? I don't get that--your emotional discomfort is more important than nine months of my life?�
Nine months of your life is worth the entirety of another’s?
But really, this isn’t about me. It’s about the other side of the equation I think gets no voice for logistical reasons and pro-choicers exploit that on a daily basis. I don’t know/care if there is a God or afterlife or any religion fervor to add to this but I cant help looking at the design of pregnancy without thinking there is more than me involved and until pro-choicers get over themselves I will continue to disagree, whole-heartedly, with abortion.

Ultra: "So is menstruation, and I suppose you're a woman who doesn't ever discard of her menstruation, as it is so important to the nature of what naturally would have been had you just had sex in time that you can't bear to throw/flush it away."

While I do see menstruation as a unique process to females I don't hold it to the standard of producing another life, in the sense that, a zygote has far greater capabilities than untouched eggs dropping onto cotton every month.
But I won't lie that if we put the amount of effort and money into improving the sex education system as we do ensuring new BC pills can nearly eliminate the presence of a period that this whole debacle could be helped drastically.
"There are so many things that are "inherent" to the human body that to single out one trait just because the other sex doesn't have it is ridiculous"
Surely there are many things inherent and, once again, bearing life is going to always get more heavily weighted in my estimation.

"Protruding breasts are also unique to women and having them is a natural process so by your logic if a women has breast cancer it would be anti-body of her to have them removed to save her life."
My logic of wanting to respect life? I don’t follow. Surely you understand my point has never been that natural processes was the end all be all—it was a supporting argument. The final point is another’s life. Cutting off breasts to save a life is not really tantamount to cutting off another’s life so I can better pay my bills (and yes: I KNOW there are other reasons for abortion—no tangents please)
My mentioning “processes unique to women� has really spawned some aberrant discussion. I bring it up because I feel those processes’ meaning have been reduced in the Age of “oh goodie, here comes another right for ME.� Pregnancy is important but only, apparently, when a woman says so-- nothing gets its own inherent value and I think it’s downright selfish (ignorant) for a woman to believe that. My point is, regardless of how much you want that baby it has worth. The presence of an umbilical cord does not make us puppet-masters of life value.

A number of SC bloggers are speaking out against this legislation--if you're interested, check out http://postscripts.typepad.com/lowcountryblogs/2007/03/thursday_politi.html or http://postscripts.typepad.com/lowcountryblogs/2007/03/more_ultrasound.html.

"Pregnancy is important but only, apparently, when a woman says so-- nothing gets its own inherent value"

BINGO! That's absolutely correct. A fetus has no inherent value. The value (up to a certain point) is entirely dependent on what the pregnant woman wants. If it's a wanted future child, then the pregnancy should be protected by society and the law. If it's an unwanted fetus, then it's her right to abort.

"BINGO! That's absolutely correct. A fetus has no inherent value. The value (up to a certain point) is entirely dependent on what the pregnant woman wants. If it's a wanted future child, then the pregnancy should be protected by society and the law. If it's an unwanted fetus, then it's her right to abort."

What a blatant flippancy for life: The value of ANOTHER is dependent only on MY *opinion* (do all wanted pregnancies have the same value? If one woman only kind of wants it but another *really* wants it has the inherent value gone up for the latter?? Let’s really dissect your logic)—naussicaa, the closest thing I can attune to this mindset is the militant approach of the patriarchy. Men’s opinions overruled because men decided their opinions mattered more. But on what basis?
On what basis have you decided you have the end say over another? A woman has no pregnancy without a man and a woman has no pregnancy without a fetus. A fetus has one function: to become a baby to eventually grow outside of you. Pregnancy is one of the only (perhaps only) external forces to enter our body that our bodies *embrace* and work to keep inside to fully develop. So by my estimation a woman’s opinion, while obviously important, is 1/3rd of the pie. If you are going to say “yeah but without a woman’s body there’d be no place to have the pregnancy (sans test tube babies, I suppose)�—I have to say, yes, of course we carry the child—but how does that automatically make our “opinions!� connected to the carrying of that child? Those are exclusive of each other. If the umbilical cord ran up to the brain and upon the brain saying “You know, this really isn’t the time� the fetus terminated, you would have a point.
But it doesn’t. Inherent means (Merriam) “belonging by nature.� If nature puts it inside you, if nature is trying to keep it inside you, if the only way to end it is to bring in medical people to externally force its intrinsic processes to cease then that speaks way more volumes about the fetuses inherent value over “yeah—but I don’t want it.�

“A fetus has no value�—what ass did you pick that lint from?

Are they planning (or permitted) to use vaginal ultrasound probes, and if so, what is the practical difference between forcing a medical procedure on an unwilling woman and state sponsored rape/assault?

I would agree with you, but the abortion procedure kinda involves having all sorts of medical instruments shoved up one's vagina. There is no fundamental difference.

If you truly believe abortion to be murder, what are your options in today's society? I don't condone or ignore murder because it hasn't happened to anyone I know, so the "Against abortion? Don't have one" argument fails. People who believe this to be murder - like those who would believe that throwing a newborn in a Dumpster is murder - have an obligation to act accordingly.

If an ultrasound makes women MORE informed about what they are doing, who cares? At the very least, such legislation is neutral when it comes to feminist principles. Informed consent, IMHO, is a necessary component of a medical procedure.

because even if it is a human being, no human being has the right to violate the health, body, or free will of another human being's body.

Funny. One would think that the logical outcome of that is that NO WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL HER BABY. Abortion certainly violates the health, body, and free will of that child.

Anything you say about the body of the woman applies to the baby.

when did this board get taken over by the insane? just once i'd like to see an article about abortion-- which is, despite all efforts STILL LEGAL-- without having some nut tell me that approximately 1/4 of all american women (my best friend included) are "baby murderers" and then have to audacity to tell us that WE'RE heartless. notice how the anti-choicers are always claiming that we lack the ability to have a civil argument, and yet WE are being called one of the most horrible things imaginable.

i seriously think that it's time to stop feeding the trolls. on this post and on every other post where they try to start shit.

Why do they always complain about the men? In my experience, men defer to the woman, because she is the one whose body experiences the pregnancy. Perhaps I only associate with men who have respect for women's decisions.

So if I consulted my boyfriend about my pregnancy, this would happen: "It's up to you, but I don't want you having a baby when you're still in school and struggling with depression." And the fetus? It doesn't talk. It doesn't HAVE an opinion.

I'll have a baby when I'm ready, can take care of it, and can give it enough attention to make sure that it doesn't grow to be someone so self-absorbed and narrow-minded that (s)he dares to think that it's ok to call someone a murderer for exercising her legal right to a medical procedure, when banning said procedure would result in the deaths of countless women and children.

Some men view "having respect for women's decisions" as mandating abortion. Studies show that if women had the support of their boyfriends or husbands, many of them would not abort.

It's not pro-choice if she's being forced (either by violence or by lack of support) into an abortion.

Yeah, I've dated guys who "support a woman's right to choose." I vividly recall one of them who pumped his fist in the air and said, "Abortion! Abortion!" in regards to an ex-girlfriend's pregnancy scare. Oh, yeah, that's supportive. (Rolls eyes.)

Men love abortion! Sex without consequences; no child support; heck, as some women on these boards will attest, they don't even have to wear condoms!

The last line of your post, prairlielily, is beyond ironic.

oenophile,

As a student of research, I would appreciate it if you would please provide the sources of information that you used to come to this conclusion:

"Some men view "having respect for women's decisions" as mandating abortion. Studies show that if women had the support of their boyfriends or husbands, many of them would not abort."

Anyone can claim that a study said something, so I would like to see a reputable source and not some propoganda put out by the anti-choice side, or some anecdotal evidence.

"Some men view "having respect for women's decisions" as mandating abortion

So, some men are selfish jackasses, and that somehow means that abortion is bad? I...don't get the connection. Men want consequences-free sex? Well, who doesn't, really? Before abortion was legal, all a man had to do to get consequence-free sex was to walk away afterwards. Abortion allows women to have heterosexual sex without the terror of having to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

This might sound a little crazy, but I wonder if this would actually help some women?

Most of the images of aborted fetuses that I have seen are those horrible images that prolifers spread around - usually of 6 month olds.

But a first trimester fetus looks little like a person - the reality of seeing that it is just an unconscious ball of cells might be helpful.

Obviously the mandatory aspect of the law is horrible, but I wonder if there has ever been a study of what things a doctor can do to minimize the negative aspects of the abortion experience.

" 'A fetus has no value'—what ass did you pick that lint from?"

With all due respect, pisaquari, go away. That's not what I said, and if you're not going to engage me on what I actually wrote, then there's no use arguing with you.

"It's not pro-choice if she's being forced (either by violence or by lack of support) into an abortion."

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Obviously, nobody here is in favor of women being violently forced to have an abortion. But lack of partner support (or an otherwise crappy relationship with the father) is certainly one of the reasons that abortion needs to be kept legal -- it's just another way to say that a woman isn't in the right time or place or relationship to have a child. When I had my abortion, the *primary* reason was that the father was an unsupportive jerk with whom I did not care to reproduce. Sad - yes. But crappy relationships happen, and that's why we need abortion rights.

Now, if what you're trying to say is that all woman and children should be provided with comprehensive health care, day care, and other social welfare support so that they don't need to depend only on the father -- then perhaps that's the kind of abortion-reducing policy I could get behind.

"And the fetus? It doesn't talk. It doesn't HAVE an opinion."

bad reasoning on that one. So mutes or mentally handicapped (to the point of not having speech) have no opinions?

I think becoming pregnant in a situation that does not favor having a child, is stressful enough. Why force a woman to look at the picture?

Should we force people to look at DUI wrecks and disfigured bodies everytime they buy a drink?

Or more relational, should we force people to view emphasima(sp?) and cancerous lungs every time they buy a pack cigarettes? Why not? it may make a difference, for their own good(in our eyes anyways, who cares about their own?)

Then after we see the differences it makes in preventing smoking and abortions, lets notch it up a bit.

Want a can of coca-cola? Lets force pictures of obese or diabetic persons on the would be purchaser.

Want that cheap, mass produced, 10$ skirt? Lets force some pics of sweatshops on the purchaser.

Point is - people can take responsibility for their own actions.

For god's fucking sake, if we are mature enough to have a child, what would make you assume I wasnt mature enough to choose abortion? If Im not mature and sensible enough to make an informed decision on abortion,

THEN WHY THE FUCK WOULD TRY TO PERSUADE ME TO HAVE A CHILD?????

Cutting off breasts to save a life is not really tantamount to cutting off another’s life so I can better pay my bills (and yes: I KNOW there are other reasons for abortion—no tangents please)

What about the bills to feed, clothe and house the child when it's born? Or the prenatal care to ensure it's born healthy? What if a women who can't afford those things becomes pregnant? I understand you feel life is sacred, and thus the fetus deserves to live, but I personally believe every child born deserves not only life, but the best possible life its mother can provide it. I'd rather see a tiny zygote removed from its mother's body, ending its potential life, than condemn a living, breathing child to an existence of crushing poverty, starvation, abuse or worse, with no future and no hope. I'm opposed to actual, existing children (not potential or hypothetical ones) starving, suffering, or being abused. It's not enough for me that a child merely be allowed to live. I think they deserve more than just life--they deserve lives worth living.

I have to say, yes, of course we carry the child—but how does that automatically make our “opinions!� connected to the carrying of that child?

Because it's using our bodies as its life support system. It can't do that without our consent. And you can't have my kidney either, even if you'll die without it. It's my kidney, not yours. Sorry.
As for the rights of the father, if he wants the baby but I don't want to carry it, he's welcome to carry it himself.
Oh, he can't? Well, there you go.

Men love abortion! Sex without consequences; no child support; heck, as some women on these boards will attest, they don't even have to wear condoms!

Wait, weren't we just bemoaning men's lack of say in this decision, and how they might really really want that baby the woman they've impregnanted is selfishly aborting without consulting them? I guess that never happens after all. Well, I'm glad that's settled.

"Are they planning (or permitted) to use vaginal ultrasound probes, and if so, what is the practical difference between forcing a medical procedure on an unwilling woman and state sponsored rape/assault?"

I would agree with you, but the abortion procedure kinda involves having all sorts of medical instruments shoved up one's vagina. There is no fundamental difference.

If abortions were required by law, this argument could be considered be valid. Since they're not, it's dreck. An abortion (and the vaginal probing that accompanies it) is a procedure the woman voluntarily consents to undergo, whereas this law compels a woman to endure an ultrasound (and the vaginal probing that accompanies it) whether she consents to it or not. See, it's not the vaginal penetration part that makes it rape--it's the lack of uncoerced consent on the part of the woman. One procedure is consensual and voluntary. The other is not. I'd call that a pretty fundamental difference.

*puts away the Troll Chow*
Funny how no one's touching my miscarriage argument. Hmmm...

"And the fetus? It doesn't talk. It doesn't HAVE an opinion."

bad reasoning on that one. So mutes or mentally handicapped (to the point of not having speech) have no opinions?

Actually, good reasoning, bad phrasing. A better statement would be:
"And the fetus? It doesn't HAVE an opinion, because it's not SENTIENT."

Otherwise excellent points, Scilian.

Vervain, you rock.

Jessica,
Could you please explain to everyone how Republicans shooting down a amendment sponsored by a Democrat to provide rape and incest exceptions provides any evidence this legislation is about punishing women? Wouldn't it work the other way?

I think this post is evidence of the perils of creating evil motives for your opponents.

The latest news on this case: Senator Bryant, who proposed the bill, was so encouraged by how quickly it was approved by the House that he's planning to add an amendment requiring that women not only view the ultrasound, but view it at a crisis pregnancy center.

And because South Carolina is the most backward, sexist state in the nation, this amendment will probably pass, as well.

I can't believe I live here.

"I can't believe I live here."

Really Jivin? You can't believe you live where, exactly? In a country that values human life? You mean THAT kind of country?

Abortion ends a life for the sake of convenience. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

My comment was for Alison, not Jivin.

hi, mr/ms troll! what's life like underneath that bridge?

i certainly hope that no one is going to dignify this comment with a real response. please. just don't.

You're so full of shit "fantasy." And you're also the kind of so-called feminist that gives feminism a bad name.

Abortion ends a human life for the sake of convenience. If you'd like to attempt to disprove this fact, then by all means give it a shot Thelma. Or are you Louise?

Abortion ends a human life for the sake of convenience. If you'd like to attempt to disprove this fact, then by all means give it a shot Thelma. Or are you Louise?