Friday, March 23, 2007

There's something I think you should know.


Fresh out of graduation from Steve Janke Boy Detective Community College, "Biebs" lets us in on some really, really disturbing news (emphasis added):

"Lawmakers Propose Ultrasounds Before Abortions"

Rep. Greg Delleney (R-Chester and York Counties), said, "I'm just trying to save lives and protect people from regret and inform women with the most accurate non-judgemental information that can be provided."

I think this is a great idea. Too many girls have an abortion because they are naive to the realities of the consequences of that decision. Abortion is final and therefore should require full and complete disclosure of all of the facts before it is allowed.

Check back next week when Biebs breathlessly fills us in on where babies really come from, and it has nothing to do with that stork thingy.

SLIGHTLY TASTELESS AFTERSNARK
: I'm amused by sanctimonious "pro-lifers" who think pregnant women should be forced to somehow confront their fetuses before committing to have an abortion.

Using that same logic, I could suggest that legislators pushing for additional funding for military action should first spend a few seconds contemplating, on their desktops, the remains of a broken, dismembered child killed by heavy artillery.

What's good for the goose and all that.

16 comments:

pretty shaved ape said...

from biebs little article in support of emotionally traumatizing women making the most difficult of decisions:

"Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life what is wrong with making decisions based on all prudent facts. What is wrong with providing mothers with all of the facts and details of their decision and the ramifications? If abortion is sound policy then pro-choicers should have nothing to worry about. They should support this proposal to ensure that when abortions do occur they are just and warranted.
What is wrong with fact based decisions?"

and now, rewritten"

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life what is wrong with making decisions based on all prudent facts of birth control. What is wrong with providing people with all of the facts and details of their decision and the ramifications? If abstinence is sound policy then no-choicers should have nothing to worry about. They should support this proposal to ensure that when pregnancies occurs they are just and warranted.
What is wrong with fact based decisions?

indeed.

Dean P said...

Pretty Shaved Ape, you're full of it. "Fact based decisions" is such specious nonsense. Do you think a single woman going in for an abortion doesn't know exactly what's going on? Do you think that they're just walking in, willy nilly, oh, having an abortion is just like having a check up or like going for a walk or something? What on earth do you think forcing women to have an ultrasound would add? What additional facts do they get?

What additional facts do they need?

That sort of ridiculous stupidity is what you get from old white straight men.

CC said...

Um ... Dean? I think you might want to take another swing at that. Seriously.

sooey said...

a better question is:

what's wrong with a canadian woman choosing to have a legal medical procedure without any input from anyone other than the medical personnel required to perform it?

Niles said...

I think Dean exceeded the speed limit on reading comprehension of PSA's sarcasm.

Other than that, Sooey, I think the legislators are trying to force it into the lap of the medical personnel required to perform it. The onus is on them to make the women watch the ultrasound or whatever. What if one of them were caught just using the slated time to discuss the weather? Would they be charged with falsely invoicing for a service? Does it affect malpractise? Will a morality officer be present to make certain the viewing is done in a properly chastizing manner? Who bears the cost of the extra clinical time, ultrasound, etc? The woman who is likely paying fully for the service already? The legislators forcing the new restriction? HMOs?

Glad to be Canadian here and kindly unfu** the idiot fawning over the forced childbirth advocacy.

Dean P said...

oops. sorry. he he (blushing). Hey, it's been a long day. And I have a hangover.

Dave said...

Using that same logic, I could suggest that legislators pushing for additional funding for military action should first spend a few seconds contemplating, on their desktops, the remains of a broken, dismembered child killed by heavy artillery.

Or... less traumatizing, but effective: Stand next to a figure 11 target on the rifle range and trust the soldier with the weapon to be possessed of good aim and know what he/she's doing.

Q said...

Yeah, you could use that same logic if the sole intention of using heavy artillery was to kill those children.

Logic, apparently, is not your strong suit.

Adam C said...

That's true, q. When heavy artillery is used in civilian areas and children get killed, it's a surprise every time...

Beatrice Divina said...

The new rule is clearly written by someone who doesn't understand fetal development.
Prior to...oh, about the fifteenth week of pregnancy(that's four months, give or take a week or two), there's really nothing to see on an ultrasound. I say this as a woman who has treasured her little ultrasound printouts of a grey blob on a black background, printouts that seemed to indicate that I was expecting a jellybean. Or possibly a tadpole. Prior to about seven weeks, you may not even see a blob. Or that largely-discussed "heartbeat." You'll see a gestational sack with a yolk, which looks nothing like a fetus.
The worst part of this? A woman who has to take time off work or find a babysitter now has to take MORE time in order to go through a totally unnecessary and *invasive* procedure that serves no purpose.

q said...

And logic, it seems, is not adam c's strong suit either.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, if loony anti-choicers want to frame abortion as a procedure designed solely to kill children, then the rest us have to be free to frame war as that as well.

Quid pro quo. Or do you believe logic and reason are only available to one side of the debate? Because that's illogical.

q said...

What else does abortion do, tiggy? Use all the euphemisms you wish, the end result is a dead baby. Or do you think that human females are pregnant with something else? Puppies, perhaps?

Quid pro quo, indeed. If you actually used logic, you would not be able to deny, by use of euphemism, that dead babies are the sole result of abortion.

pretty shaved ape said...

indeed q, war is far less discrimate than abortion. war kills babies and boys and girls and men and women with equal abandon. war kills victor and vanquished, combattants and saints. sometimes war's destructions aren't fatal. wars break families and bodies, ruins lives, loves and futures and in war's havoc we are all reduced.

yet we recognize that some wars must be fought. some wars are just, regardless of cost. though we should damned well be sure that there is no other possible recourse, before a soldier's gun is raised.

abortion is a difficult and painful decision to take. we have your opinion, here's mine. abortion, as legally performed in canada, does not kill babies. abortion removes embryos. in the first trimester, the embryonic tissue is not individuated. it is the blood and cells of the woman, it is of her body, it is her body. a baby in potential only. an embryo is not an autonomous being, a woman is. the impact of a pregnancy on her life and her health is a serious matter. it is ultimately her choice, what to do with her own body and whether to carry the embryo to term. at which point there is a baby.

i hope i have been sufficiently free of euphemism for you. what you call your logic, is an appeal to emotion. you spit it out with all of the condescension you can muster, as though your notions were self evident truth. they are not. wars do kill babies, lots of them. abortions prevent babies. both are terrible and sometimes necessary eventualities.

you are welcome to your opinions and your own smug, self righteous attitude. that's the beauty of freedom. you are not, however, entitled to inflict your opinions and attitudes upon the lives and bodies of anyone else. you are not welcome to encroach on the freedom and autonomy of another individual. for you, the solution is simple. don't have an abortion. don't make that choice. or, if you are a boy q, don't impregnate a woman unless it is mutually intentional. and if that christmas party indiscretion comes back to haunt you in january, do the right thing and support that baby, even if you don't form a lasting bond with the mother.

as for your puppies, asshole, war kills puppies. and kittens too.

Adam C said...

Hey, q: no, you're stupid! Ha, ha! I showed you!

Weasel said...

Using that same logic, I could suggest that legislators pushing for additional funding for military action should first spend a few seconds contemplating, on their desktops, the remains of a broken, dismembered child killed by heavy artillery.

Or they could spend six weeks scrubbing bedpans at Walter Reed and see the end result of their "just war".

It's a win-win either way.... if you could call it that. =/