Texas Sonogram Law And The Power of Truth

Rick Perry, governor of the Great State of Texas – and I’ll admit I’m a bit partial – is about to sign a bill into law that will require women considering abortion to receive a sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure. According to the New York Times, “Though the woman can choose not to view the images and hear the heartbeat, the doctor must describe what the sonogram shows, including the existence of legs, arms and internal organs.”

This law will save lives.

Sonogram laws are a powerful victory against abortion because sonograms provide a window into the hidden world of the womb. In other words, sonograms tell the truth. Because the abortion industry subsists on secrecy and lies, the greatest weapon against abortion is truth.

Based on personal experience, it is my firm belief that most people who support abortion don’t know what it is they’re supporting, and most women who have abortions don’t truly understand what abortion is.

I was pro-choice until November of 2006, when a pro-life friend had a Conversation with me. I capitalize it because it was a Conversation that changed my life forever. I began it with the firmly held belief that being pro-choice was the enlightened, humane way to be; pro-choice was on the side of human rights, caring about women, and just generally being an intelligent, ethical person. When I saw pro-life bumper stickers on my friend’s car, I scoffed openly. “You’ve gone a little too far, don’t you think?” I said to her. She was calm and polite when, later that night, I brought it up again.

“How can you possibly be pro-life?” I asked her.

She explained the issue to me with clarity and reason, and told me that photos had played a large part in convincing her of the inherent wrong of abortion. Towards the end of the Conversation, almost (but not quite) persuaded against my will, I asked to see the photos. When I was done looking at them, I was pro-life. And not only was I pro-life, I was an activist, and have remained one.

There is a lot of debate in the pro-life community about whether graphic images are a good idea. I looked at graphic photos a million times as a pro-choicer, and all I saw was something to anger me at pro-lifers. It didn’t register to me that I was looking at a dead baby. It was simply one more thing about which to get angry and indignant at the anti-choice wackos. However, when a person is ready to see them, to really see them, as I was after that Conversation, they are the most powerful tool we have against the ignorance that is the calling card of the pro-choice base.

Most people think, as I did, in terms of “tissue,” “clumps of cells,” “the products of pregnancy,” all the euphemisms Planned Parenthood and the entire anti-life front use to dehumanize an unborn child. An image of an aborted baby says in one second what even the most well-informed and eloquent pro-life crusader could not say in two hours. It says: “This is a human being, and it is dead.” A picture of an abortion does not show you a terminated pregnancy or some discarded tissue. It shows you, clearly and finally, a child that has been killed. Legally.

Most people, almost all people, have a conscience, which means most people have a visceral reaction to such photos if they have been prepared to see them. Something in them says, “That is wrong.”

The sonogram image is the most powerful visual tool in the pro-life arsenal. It is far more effective and powerful to the woman considering abortion than even the most horrifying photo of an aborted baby, because the child is alive and the child is hers.

Women who go to abortion clinics are bombarded with the aforementioned euphemisms: tissue, clump of cells, product of pregnancy. But a moving image of the child inside her, in some cases fully formed and active, its strong little heart beating away: this belies the euphemisms. It negates the propaganda. It is the truth, in front of her eyes, and it is the most powerful weapon we have to fight the people who would kill that child and collect their fee.

Planned Parenthood and their many allies and supporters are furious about the sonogram bill in Texas and others like it all over the country. They are angry because they are not concerned with helping women make an informed decision. They are concerned with the money they make committing abortions.

Sonogram laws are devastating to the abortion industry. The last thing in the world they want is for the woman to think about the living child inside her as a living child. After all, then she might act on her instinct to protect it and, God forbid, leave with her body, soul, and baby intact, and her money in her pocket.

As usual, organizations like NARAL clamor that the law is “designed to shame women.” This is ludicrous and condescending. If abortion is the empowering act organizations like NARAL would have us believe, they would shrug off sonogram law. If abortion is the nonchalant casting-off of useless tissue anti-lifers would have us believe, a woman could look unflinchingly at the “clump of cells” on the sonogram and say to the abortionist, “Go for it.” But NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and their ilk know that the woman is going to see a baby. And to NARAL I say, if it is shame that makes her decide not to kill it, then so be it.

But it is possible, and I like to believe probable, that it is a higher emotion that will cause a woman to keep her baby upon viewing a sonogram. I think it might even be appropriate to call it something very silly, like love.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Kristen Walker is Vice President of New Wave Feminists for Life. Her personal blog can be found here.

64 thoughts on “Texas Sonogram Law And The Power of Truth

  1. The truth brings life, lies bring death. God Bless Texas (never thought i’d say that).

    Reply

  2. Woh!! Great article! A hardcore pro-abortion choicer can read this without getting too emotional, since the argument here is not at all emotional nor philosophical, but purely just, leading to where the evidence is. It’s great.
    And it’s great that sonograms be used. We can just simply say, “Oh, we’re surely pro-choice! We want women to make the best choice for them, that is, an informed choice.”
    And very true indeed. If this clump of cells is just that, and science is on their side, then how come they’re scared about it?
    It’s like being scared of someone examining Christian beliefs from a philosophical point of view. Go ahead. We already got tons of philosophers who’ve done this: Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Anslem, Chesterton, Lewis, Kreeft, Wojtyla, Hilderband. The list goes on.

    Reply

  3. “A picture of an
    abortion does not show you a terminated pregnancy or some discarded
    tissue. It shows you, clearly and finally, a child that has been killed.
    Legally.” WELL SAID.

    Reply

    1. Legally!  Yay, you summed it up perfectly.  It’s legal.  So why does anyone care?  Take it back to the SCOTUS or STFU!  Tell these stupid republican politicians to stop using this as an issue to garner votes.  They’ve had the majority in the SCOTUS for how long now?  And why haven’t they done anything about ROE v Wade?  They sure as hell worked quickly on Citizen’s United.  Shows you where their priorities are you sheep!!! It’s not on your morals it’s on keeping their Money while using your MORALS to get YOUR VOTES to help keep their MONEY!  

      Reply

      1. lots of things used to be legal that make us shudder today. 

        Reply

        1. Yes, but you cannot legislate every single thing that makes “you,” an individual, shudder. A) It’s impossible B) It’s not economically feasible C) Your rights end where another’s begin.

          Reply

          1. “C) Your rights end where another’s begin.”
            That’d be conception!

          2. Nope, not according to ROE v WADE.  And I wouldn’t hold my breath for the Republitards to turn it over either.  Not unless every woman incorporates their uterus.  That’s where the money’s at.  Argue it ’til you are blue in the face, but common-law is law.

          3. “Not according to Roe V Wade” is correct, but it will be overturned soon enough. Natural Selection and Gods ways both support the Pro-Life movement! It is just a matter of time. 

  4. Very good article! Well thought out, especially the ending! What are they so scared of?? Aren’t they trying to help women? And help them make an informed decision like they claim?? But contrary to their claims they are all about deception and lies, and keeping women in the dark! They are afraid of being exposed by truth and the light! Thanks!

    Reply

    1. you cannot be serious.  this is government intrusion.  a woman going to an abortion clinic is aware of what is inside of her.  to assume that she is in the dark about her decision and needs to see the fetus is to assume a woman’s ignorance and stupidity (thus perpetuating your own).  the education people are pushing for needs to come in the form of birth control, prevention of unwanted pregnancy.  a sonogram before an abortion is not an education.  it’s a cruel form of punishment.  not to mention, who will be paying for these mandatory sonograms?  and doesn’t a patient have the right to refuse any treatments or procedures?     

      Reply

  5. View an ultrasound and then you can kill your baby flies in the face of God’s 6th commandment, “Thou shall not murder.” The commandment does not say, “Thou shall not murder unless you jump through hoops first.” It says, “Thou shall not murder.” PERIOD!

    Think of it this way. If abortion were illegal, pro-life Christians would oppose this bill. A bad bill is a bad bill regardless of the circumstances. We are not to do evil that good may come of it.

    Reply

    1. Had this bill been in place 2 years ago it would most likely have saved my child. This bill does not say it is okay to kill, it just tightens the laws to save more children until proper laws are in place for Personhood. I’ll remind god during judgement that my child did not mean anything to you, because for you it was all or nothing, so my child was expendable to you.

      Reply

  6. Here’s the thing, I’m not really up in arms about this issue, simply because it will not dissuade most women in their decision. Evidence indicates that women overwhelmingly make their final decision before they arrive at an abortion facility.[ http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3771-can-ultrasound-change-minds-and-hearts-in-abortion-deabate ]

    My only qualms with this are that it is medically unnecessary, and it casts doubt on a woman’s ability to make her own informed decision. I mean, it’s not like women are ignorant to what a fetus looks like. Yes, she knows it is alive, that’s why she is wanting an abortion. And yes, she knows that it’s hers… who else’s would it be? Come on. But I say, let’s just go all out. If we’re gonna have unnecessary ultrasounds for abortion procedures, let’s broaden the provision to include most LEGAL office-based medical procedures, like for muscles or joints or the eye for that matter – just like the democratic legislators did in Illinois.

    Furthermore, both doctors and women will find a way to eek around it, just like they have with other anti-choice measures; instead of meeting face to face with a doctor, women listen to a pre-recorded message describing the fetus. But go ahead, keep pushing up roadblocks to a constitutionally protected service – it’s just one more symbolic law that will end up covered in dust in the annals of the U.S. Anyway, I guess I will spare you going in depth about the obvious point that Texas leads the nation in executions, so this “sanctity of life” schtick is a glaring double standard.

    Reply

    1. The “sanctity of LIfe” “schtick” is not a double standard. It is the taking of an innocent life (murder–in this case of a pre-born baby) vs. punishment for a heinous crime (the death
      penalty) to serve justice and deter others from the same crime. The two things are in no way related, and the death penalty affirms the “sanctity of life”…i.e. the life of the victim of a heinous crime.

      penalty

      Reply

      1. So, you believe that a woman who has an abortion (a heinous crime) should be executed?

        Reply

        1.  They can’t and won’t answer that, because they are too stuck in their absolutes as all anti-choice people are, but certainly not.  

          Reply

        2. Can you please provide proof of a woman being executed for abortion prior to Roe v. Wade?

          Reply

          1. I’m not aware of such an case happening.  But if one believes that it is just to execute someone for committing a “heinous crime,” then the only reason to not execute women for having abortions is that abortion is not a heinous crime.  That, to me, doesn’t square with the claim that abortion is the murder of an innocent infant. 

            I realize that I’m oversimplifying somewhat and that some pro-life people believe that abortion is a heinous crime for which women should not be punished because they lack the mental capacity to be responsible for their actions, or some such thing, but I don’t have quite the same disdain for women’s decision-making abilities. 

            That being said, I don’t believe that many pro-lifers truly believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a child, given the rock-star treatment given to people who leave the abortion industry, like Abby Johnson and Carol Everett.  Sure, they’ve seen the error of their ways, but so has Andrea Yates, and no one’s throwing money at her. 

          2. @LY112:disqus Here is the thing – at least for me:  I DO believe abortion is killing.  I don’t believe that each and every female who will have/has had an abortion has been given all the information they need to make an informed decision.  I worked with a pregnancy center who offered ultrasounds for abortion minded women – 85% of those that saw the sonogram changed their minds.  I think abortion is indication that we as society have failed women .

          3.      It’s not as simple as saying either women who abort should be tried for murder or else it’s not a heinous crime.  If the unborn are human beings that means an innocent human being has been killed, that alone makes it a heinous crime.  The punishment for such a crime should be determined by those in the Justice System. 
                 There are different levels of homicide, i.e. 1st degree, 2nd degree.  I’m not sure how to criminalize abortion cuz I’m not  a lawmaker.  That should be for them to decide but it is clear that abortion kills an innocent human being and we cannot allow this to happen because of thre logistics of making it illegal.   

    2. When other doctors start hiding the facts and propagating lies about what they do, I will fully agree that other areas might need informed consent laws, other medical industries have managed to do a fairly good job of self regulating this on their own.

      Constitutionally protected right? Please explain!

      I was a biology major and I can tell you I was even in the dark about most human fetal development milestones, out of curiosity I looked back in my college textbook, and that information was really light and in the second to last chapter of a 500 page book. Animal development was right towards the front, I do not think this was accidental.

      The phone call you describe lasted 30 seconds if that, and informed my fiancee of nothing useful but where to get more information; if she was a court reporter she might have had a chance of getting the information down in time.

      Were you there when she found out the truth on development? I can tell you it did not go over well and has caused her a lot of pain. I can clearly see that most pro-choice people only want the choice of other women to be death for their child, they do not women to have the truth.

      Reply

      1. “Constitutionally protected right? Please explain!” That’s what Roe v Wade held. The right is rooted in the due process clause of the 14th amendment.The “Roe” court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.Also, if you were a biology major that didn’t understand fetal milestones, you either weren’t paying attention, or you have be done a severe disservice by your school. We discussed fetal development in depth in my high school Anatomy and Physiology class – it’s no big secret. Lastly, when you are getting an abortion, you are free at any time to either ask a nurse or a doctor any questions, or seek answers on your own. And by the way, no one advocates abortion for other women or for themselves, they advocate choice, and feel it should be between a woman and her family, and the doctor.

        Reply

        1. Read the 14th amendment, there is no right to privacy. There is a right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Applying abortion rights from the 14th amendment is a total stretch. Yes, the court decided to rule the way they did trying to justify it with the 14th amendment, but that same amendment could also be used to strike down “Roe”. So basically, my point is there is no firm constitutional amendment to support abortion rights, a decision of the courts is an interpretation and opinion not the constitution itself. A court ruling is subject to change when the opinion of the courts change, courts generally try not to touch judicial precedents, but with this one it is a matter of time.

          You live in idealized fluffy world if you think people are not pushing and selling abortion, and intentionally misleading people. There are so many people that believe that at 12 weeks it still resembles a blob of tissue because of misinformation. What they forget to mention is the blob of tissue has a heart beat, brain cells, and all major organs are formed. You also must ignore how many women are pressured into abortion by husbands and families, sometimes at gunpoint as we have seen in the news recently.

          I had basic human fetal development in high school, they went over things in the trimesters on a very basic level, I have no doubt this is part of an agenda.

          Reply

          1. @GuBEE:disqus
            What the constitution and the 14th amendment does say, is that you must be BORN to receive the title of citizen, thereby the benefits of equal protection under the law:

            “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.”

            It’s not so much of a stretch. I don’t live in a “fluffy, idealized world,” I daresay you live in a paranoid, conspiracy theory laden world, where propaganda is gobbled up without question. There is no secret agenda to commit “genocide” upon the unborn, as Live Action would have you believe. There are women, who are scared and unprepared to be mothers, women who have multiple children already, women who know that children born into poverty or a single parent home are 50% more likely to become criminals – these are the women who seek abortions. They are not heartless, they are not ignorant, they are not coerced. They just don’t want to bring one more unwanted child into the world, when orphanages are filled to capacity, when the government wants to slash social service funding, and when there are so few jobs to be had.

            Abortion dates back to ancient times, and isn’t going anywhere, The only way to lessen its occurrence is through comprehensive sex education and contraception, which pro-life groups often fail to acknowledge. Because time and time again, abstinence only education has been shown not to work.

          2. Secret agenda? It is out in the open, and not against the unborn but against the disabled, poor, and minorities, the fact that they are unborn makes them an easy target. Your ‘50% more likely’ statistic just goes to show the information you have been fed to justify the agenda. If we kill all the humans there will be a 100% reduction in crime afterwards. The logic as of late is to eliminate the problem, not solve it.

            I have met plenty of women who were heartless, ignorant, and coerced in regards to abortion, I know quite a few of them closely. When was the last time anybody saw an orphanage? Children are being imported from Russia and China to meet the demand for babies, and women are having their stomachs cut open so that babies can be stolen. Oh, I bet you mean the older kids in foster care who have roofs over their heads and food on the table.

            I have met MANY high quality individuals I know that came out of orphanages in the older generation, many of them have been doctors or have worked in the intelligence community.

            Murder and crime date back to ancient times, so we should just stop enforcing laws all together, right?

            I do agree condoms are a good solution for birth control, and I would not mind paying higher taxes for those that do not want children to have tubal ligation, vasectomy, or the essure device for free. I refuse to support any organization which performs or refers for abortion. Murder of the unborn child is not ethical even in the absence of religion, and though many children may be born into bad circumstances they will still have the CHOICE to change their lives in a positive direction.

            I would like to see this society with abstinence education with birth control as the safety net. When a kid still happens, either grow up and take care of the kid, or put it up for adoption.

            Currently birth control is taught with a safety net of killing the unborn.

          3. @GuBEE:disqus
            “When was the last time anyone saw an orphanage?” … Really? They still exist. Sometimes they are called “group homes,” “youth treatment centers,” or “children’s homes.” I have met several children through volunteer work who have grown up in those places, and there is a difference, most notably poverty and a high incidence of psychiatric problems.

            Children are adopted from other countries for various reasons, one major reason is the high cost of adoption and the amount of paperwork and time it takes to adopt.

            Foster care? I guess they should feel lucky that they have a home and food, but then again that’s just something that should be guaranteed to a child anyway. But foster care is a temporary solution. And unwanted babies grow up to be unwanted children, many of whom go into foster care. So let’s talk about the effects of foster care: higher rates of suicide, higher rates of childhood mortality, 7 to 8 times more likely to be victims of child abuse, higher rates of future homelessness and incarceration, higher rates of poverty, four times as likely to be sexually abused, poor academic performance, and much higher rates of psychiatric problems.

            There is no panacea to the problem of unwanted children. It isn’t adoption, just like it isn’t abortion. Even if we could prevent unwanted pregnancies, there would still be the problem of when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or even rape or incest. Still, if abortion were ever outlawed, it would still take place.. it just would be unregulated and unsafe, except for middle and upper class females, who could afford to go to another country or pay a doctor for a safer service. Abortion will always exist in some form.

          4. If the authors of the Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment meant for fetuses to be considered persons, why didn’t they include them in the census count?

          5. The constitution gives the judicial branch its power and the judicial branch decided roe v. wade… There you go Mr. Technifuckingcality.  SGFY

          6. Maybe they didn’t mention it because they didn’t anticipate a law like roe v. wade being passed one day.

          7. Jdollar: Roe v. Wade is not a law, but rather a court decision on the interpretation of the Constitution.  It doesn’t have anything to do with my point, which is that the authors of the Constitution addressed the issue of personhood in the creation of the census, and it does not appear that it even crossed anyone’s mind that a fetus would be considered a person.

          8. Oh okay, I see what you’re saying.  I don’t think the authors of the Constitution’s stance on personhood is so
              clear-cut based on the census.  This was more about establishing the census in a practical way then it was defining personhood.  Keep in mind when the census was created they also did not count homeless people, but  it’s safe to say no one actually thought the homeless weren’t people.  The logistics of counting the unborn may have been the reason for that. 
             Considering that abortion was illegal at the time it seems more likely the authors simply didn’t see the need to mention that the unborn were human, it would be a bigger assumption to assume that they thought the unborn weren’t persons.
             

             
             

          9. court decisions are indeed LAW! They are common-law.  Common law makes up a large and KEY part of our legal system. 

          10. Sorry, fetuses are not persons.  Your precious Republicans are not concerned about fetuses; they are only concerned about Corporations.  Corporations are granted personhood rights by the 14th amendment, but not fetuses, yet all of you pro-life people love them anyway because of these empty promises they make you.  They just want your votes.  They only care about big-business. If they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, they could have.  They’ve had the justices on the SCOTUS for a while now, but they were moer concerned about election funding laws, and Corporate personhood via Citizens United.  Gotta love it.  If you want to prevent abortion, vote Democrat.  Democrats openly support birth control, reproductive education, and family planning, which prevents unwanted pregnancies, the ONLY WAY to prevent ABORTION!

          11. Roe V Wade was almost overturned with Casey V PP, it hinged on one vote, it is just a matter of time now. The Republicans have made good on many promises this year with Pro-Life legislation, the most that has ever been seen. I am social Libertarian anyways, not Republican. It is kind of funny but the Democrats were the original Pro-Life party, Republicans stole the religious right and Pro-Lifers away in order to increase their numbers. While I am not opposed to many options to prevent pregnancy, and agree with most of them, abortion is not an option. If you want taxpayer funded tubal ligation and vasectomy clinics, then that’ll get my approval.

    3. “Medical necessity” is a term used by
      insurance companies to differentiate between procedures they will pay for and
      those they will not. The application of
      this term typically varies across insurance companies. Regardless of insurance coverage, doctors and
      their patients rely on the ultrasound tool to validate diagnoses and to
      determine a best course of action. Why
      should women considering abortion be discriminated against and denied this
      important diagnostic tool? It is ironic
      that Planned Parenthood who frames the abortion argument as an attack on
      women’s healthcare rights would work so hard to deny women the right to use
      this tool to help them make a better informed decision about abortion. Your point about doctors finding a way to eek
      around the Texas law is a very good one.
      Planned Parenthood and the abortionists that work for them cannot be
      trusted to ensure that women considering abortion have equal access to the same
      diagnostic tools at the disposal of other women. That is why the State of Texas needed to step
      in.

      Reply

      1. you realize that they aren’t being granted access to this “important diagnostic tool”, they’re being forced to use it against their will.  if a woman seeking an abortion asks to see a sonogram so that she may make her final decision, fine, but a woman being forced to is view one is another story.  Lesgf8 is right about most women making their decision before arriving at the clinic.  this law will accomplish nothing but to further traumatize women during an already extremely difficult time.  i can’t wait to see it overturned.   

        Reply

    4. It may seem obvious to you that due to executions, Texas has a double standard – but you are forgetting one huge, glaring truth:  Those people being executed are being punished for something they have done – an unborn child is being killed because it exists.  We allow this for no other “thing”.  THAT is the glaring double standard of America!

      Reply

      1. @MommaQuigs:disqus 

        And you are forgetting one huge, glaring truth: innocent people have been, and always will be, put to death. Since 1989, 270 people have been exonerated after being convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. This number does not include the likely dozens or even hundreds that have been executed. 

        Reply

        1. @dc7ccc52c0d55e039f7f98f6bf3aa3c0:disqus 
          I’m not forgetting the innocent people who have been mistakenly put to death.  But at least those people had an opportunity to defend themselves.  And while 270 people in 22 years is not an acceptable number, neither is the 40+ million innocent babies who never had ANY defense.

          Reply

          1. If they were poor, no, they DID not have an opportunity to defend themselves.  They had the opportunity to the poorly funded, state-provided defense.  This does not provide for a fair trial, and this is PRECISELY why so many innocents are wrongly convicted or even executed.

  7. MST wrote:
    A former Facebook friend who unfriended” me on account of her “pro-choice” stance, wrote the following to me in a private message (in excerpt): “a wise person told me, the human soul can NOT connect to the infant’s body until the time of birth….therefore, one is just getting rid of the building blocks/tissue that will create a human life, not killing a soul…..so, that is a big difference.” My response, is, WOW! Here is an otherly intelligent lady who is believes what a so called “wise person” told her, that a infant (or offspring) of Mother doesn’t have a soul “connected” to his or her body until AFTER the baby is born, “so therefore abortion isn’t really killing??” Whoah! She writes: “the human soul can NOT connect to the infant’s body until the time of birth….therefore, one is just getting rid of the building blocks/tissue.” MST defines herself as pro-choice, pro-baby, pro-child, and is a mother, grandmother, school teacher, and “spiritual seeker”(?) who believes that abortion doesn’t kill a person, since, according to her, the offspring of Mother pre-born (pre-partum verses post partum), is “Just the building blocks of a person” and not really a human being until after the baby is born.” Whoah! Any comments?

    Reply

    1. I think the Pro-Choicers ignore the science more than the Pro-Lifers.

      Reply

      1. GuBEE: The soul is not a scientifically measurable entity, so this has nothing to do with science.

        Holly, your former friend’s “wise man” may be a rabbi. While Jewish thought on abortion varies, Jewish tradition is that the fetus is not fully a human soul until birth, or until it takes its first breath. Adam became a living soul when God breathed life into him.

        References:

        http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=16&year=carr

        http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_abortion_religion.html

        http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

        Reply

      2. The soul is not measurable, but brain activity is!

        As your post below indicates, presence of the soul in the body can vary by religion. Even without brain or soul, is it right to kill someone under anesthesia, they will never notice the difference?

        Reply

        1. “As your post below indicates, presence of the soul in the body can vary by religion.”

          My post did not say that the presence of a soul varies by religion. That seems like a rather absurd concept theologically; by that logic an evangelical Christian’s fertilized ovum would have a soul but a Reform Jew’s eight-month fetus would not.

          Theology aside, the soul is not a medical concept, as medicine is practiced in the US, and beliefs about the soul should not be the basis of legislation on abortion. People who feel strongly that it should be might be more comfortable living in Tehran.

          Reply

          1. I think you know what I meant *belief in the presence of the soul…*

            I agree the soul is not a medical concept and should not play a part in legislation, other than a society should give some caution to the possibility and the possible implications in the sense that a philosopher might.

  8. The more we know the more empowered we are. Information cannot hurt us, but the the lack there of can.

    A sonogram is either showing a woman something she does not know and desperately needs to know (education), or it is confirming what she already knows but is too afraid to accept (reality). Either way, we as a whole become stronger when we are informed.

    Women have always been oppressed through ignorance. That’s nothing new. In the past though it was something we fought against, and not for.

    ~D.
    http://www.newwavefeminists.com/

    Reply

  9. I personally know of 3 children whose mothers were at the abortion clinic ready to have the “procedure” when they heard the babies heartbeats for the first time. These mothers decided at that moment to go home and have those babies. All three children are now grown and happy, healthy and productive adults. These children’s lives were saved by the truth.

    Reply

  10. Debate the science all you want. At some point you have to make judgement as to what defines the beginning of life, whether that is the presence of a heartbeat, or brain activity, or conception, or birth. Regardless of what mainstream science or your religion indicate, there are going to be a variety of views, on this. It is the most personal decision a woman can make, and government really should not be involved in it.

    I think more women would carry a child to term if they knew there was a safety net that would help support that child. Many European countries offer a full year of government funded maternity leave. American family values are a joke in comparison. If a woman has an abortion you call it murder. If she has the baby she gets called a welfare queen.

    Texas has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the country, and some of the worst sex education. Why is that?

    Pro-life? I am waiting to Rick Perry start a campaign to force politicians and soldiers to host a foreign exchange student for a semester and then send them back home before they can decide to bomb that child’s city in the name of defending America’s freedom.

    Reply

  11. Cool, I get to hear it before I get rid of it because I got raped and I don’t want it.  Now you republican fanatics get to foot the bill for my mental healthcare as well and probably disability because of said mental health…keep it coming Dicktater Perry…these ideas are WUNDERBAR!WUNDERBAR!

    Reply

    1. “Now you republican fanatics get to foot the bill for my mental
      healthcare as well and probably disability because of said mental health”

      I think you are really overestimating the degree to which the Texas GOP cares about mental health.  But don’t worry–if you develop a drug problem while pregnant, they’ll have a jail cell ready for you.

      Reply

      1. Yes, but remember disability comes at both the state AND federal level, either/or or even BOTH…one way or  another, a rape victim forced to listen to her sonogram before aborting would qualify for disability because of severe mental anguish, with a decent attorney, and we’d all pay for it to some degree. Hell my old downstairs neighbor qualified for it because of seasonal affective disorder, and this was when I lived IN Texas. Thanks Perry.  Stupid things like this ruin entitlements.  I’m sure they would have a jail cell ready for me, probably prison.  I’m sure 99% of the people on here would automatically assume a rape victim WOULD automatically develop a drug addiction while pregnant.  Why not? She was obviously doing something wrong in order to get raped.  She brought it on herself. I wonder how much each of their little Texan for-profit prisons make per incarceration…  I wonder if a pregnant women counts as 1 or 2, or maybe 1 and a half.  I forgot how Texas believes in punishment, not rehabilitation.  I forgot how in Texas, petty offenders enter jails or short stays in prison and leave hardened criminals only to commit extremely heinous crimes and enter for profit prison to start rendering that cold hard cash for some well-deserving Randian Corporation.  Criminals, set up to fail by the system, are such a drain on society and must perish.  Love thyself first!  It’s God’s way!  Texas is such a walking contradiction.  It’s hilarious.

        Reply

  12. It just goes to show how a picture can make such a big difference.  It’s easy to make pro-choice arguments when you can’t see the baby involved.  It’s just a stray thought in your mind that a woman can rationalize.  Once you see a sonogram or hear a doctor’s description, then you have to face the fact that you are dealing with a human being.  This law will make a big difference.

    Reply

  13. “Based on personal experience, it is my firm belief that most people who support abortion don’t know what it is they’re supporting, and most women who have abortions don’t truly understand what abortion is”  Dude, the experience you’ cite is that you looked at some pictures, and now you feel you know enought to decide for other people too?.

    Reply

  14. So according to you, pregnant women are too stupid to know what they are doing. Speak for yourself! Most women know quite a lot about their bodies and pregnancy, and have thought long and hard about their abortions. You’re just another Big-Government Conservative that want to rule the bodies of American women.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *