Home > Opinion > Bonnie Erbe > Antiabortion Fanatics' New Invasive Attack: the Forced Ultrasound

Antiabortion Fanatics' New Invasive Attack: the Forced Ultrasound

Reader Comments
Back to blog

A critically important topic, yet another understated headline. "Abortion Fanatics"? Try, "Elected Republican Officials"... The people moving this forward are elected officials. Calling them "fanatics" trivializes what is happening in our government right now and further obscures what the Tea Party movement was really all about.

TexRex96 of CA 1:12AM February 16, 2012

If we are "antiabortion fanatics" because we strongly desire the safety of the unborn, what does that make the other side? Blood thirsty baby killers?
Seriously, do you cheer that more babies can be killed?

John of FL 7:18AM April 30, 2010

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...."
"Born or naturalized ..." No rights are guaranteed to the unborn by the constitution. If we choose to make abortion a crime after a certain time during the pregnancy, that's our perogative. But there are no constitutional rights.

Victor Purinton of MA 1:49PM February 27, 2009

"I think I need to understand the goal of condemnation. What is the goal of condemning abortion and those that participate?...No matter the hypothetical situation, I assert that the best course of action is prevention of wrongs vs. condemning these wrongs after the fact."
-- which is why pro-lifers seek to enact legal protection for the unborn, just as we do for every other group that's ever been threatened (Native Americans, homosexuals, the homeless). Pointing out that something is wrong is designed to lead to fewer people doing it in the future.

Brian Gillin of PA 10:42PM February 19, 2009

Brian Gillin of PA:
I'm glad to hear that we agree adoption is neither pathetic nor pointless.
I think I need to understand the goal of condemnation. What is the goal of condemning abortion and those that participate?
No matter the hypothetical situation, I assert that the best course of action is prevention of wrongs vs. condemning these wrongs after the fact.
Of course not everyone can open their home to an adopted child. I do think it's more compassionate to direct any resources first to promote adoption, then second to condemnation.
It is disingenuous to hold the belief that every unwanted child should be adopted, but fail to first support adoption of those children when the mother does not plan to raise the child.

SE of TX 10:03PM February 19, 2009

SE of TX: "Your example of battery is not equal to the situation of an aborted fetus. The battery victim has already been harmed - it's too late to change that. Condemnation of the woman and/or doctor after the abortion does not prevent the death of the fetus."
Condemning someone who kills a four-year-old doesn't prevent the four-year-old's death, either. Is that an argument against condemning the killer, or for legalizing the killing of the four-year-old?
My analogy is entirely appropriate. Those who oppose the killing of unborn children need not adopt all of those unborn children who would otherwise be killed, just as those who believe that DV should be a crime need not adopt all women, men, and children who are trapped in an abusive relationship.
"How is offering adoption pathetic or pointless?"
Straw argument. No one suggested that offering adoption is "pathetic or pointless." Both born children and children in the embryonic stage can and should be adopted. But one's inability to house every would-be-abortee doesn't require that person to hold her/his tongue.

Brian Gillin of PA 5:44PM February 19, 2009

Who doesn't have access to birth control? The easiest way is to keep your "pants up and you skirts down." Everyone knows the consequences of having sex. If you don't want to have babies, quit having sex until you're ready.

Jen06 of OH 5:38PM February 19, 2009

This is a prime example of the drippingly condescending tone of the ueber left. You say, "Few, if any, women use abortion as birth control, although the religious right would have us believe otherwise." Do you have anything besides your opinion to back this up? yWhy not be truly "informed" before undergoing any procedure? Sounds like you are afraid that if a woman actually sees life through an ultrasound, she might change her mind. What would be wrong with that? Are you pushing abortions?
"Read my lips: Elections have consequences. You lost. Go away." Ummm, just how old are you anyway? I taught junior high for years and this sounds like something from about that level.

Jen06 of OH 5:33PM February 19, 2009

Gee, Ms. Erbe: we wouldn't want anything so invasive as being actually informed about the "procedure" women sign up for, which has real risks to her body, not to mention psyche, now, would we??? Could it be that in the rush to get that 600 bucks in 15 min. and keep it coming, abortionists just don't want to lose the $$$$$ from the abortion production line? Better to let the woman suffer emotionally, alone and far from the scene of the act, when she eventually finds out how a fetus of the age of her aborted one, looks so much like a "real baby"...Don't let the cat out of the bag by something so horribly reactionary like actually knowing more about the facts!!!!!!

Denny of WI 1:03PM February 19, 2009

It takes two to tangle, so to speak. Society has excused men from their responsibility when it comes to child-rearing and glorify single moms. Let's not forget the celebrities that have opted to raise kids (with help from nannies) all on their own as well as wellfare picking up the tab. Heck, look at the octuplet mom who was on disability and, by the way, who paid for the invetro-procedure? Look who is getting their 15 min. of fame and big $. But where is the father??
Really, it is okay for women to say "no". This goes equally so with men, though they do not have to stick around. Throughout history, they have been the proverbial gate-keepers for the simple biological fact that sex can lead to pregnancies. I don't believe in the lack of access to birth control as a reason for an abortion. As a taxpayer, I don't appreciate the fact that I have to help pay for for someone else's lack of responsibility.
If you cannot afford to have a child or to be bothered with the consequences with having child, then don't have sex. It is a very simple choice. But it means taking responsibility for ones actions. In the end, it is sad to see people choosing to kill an innocent life for the sake of being inconvenienced, especially at taxpayers' expense.

Jim of WA 4:08AM February 19, 2009