Ultrasounds
Once again I find myself disagreeing with Cynthia Tucker the journalist turned professor now in Georgia. I once worked with her mother, a Pennsylvania political character famous for wearing fun hats for about a month when she had a little lobbying outfit in the Watergate so find her intriguing- her mother use to tell me that she had a daughter named Cynthia so she took a liking to me.
Ms. Tucker is outraged that a state would require an ultrasound prior to an abortion, something that the Virginia legislature is now considering. Battling the
pro life guest on Chris Matthews' hardball Tucker argued the invasion principle.
But the pro life guest had a point and it is or should be this: if some doctor is going to insert his tools into your private area to extract piece by piece the living entity we call human inside you, you shouldn't be too upset with first having the opportunity to see what is inside you on informed consent grounds. Otherwise your choice isn't really an informed decision. It is likely to be a coerced one. It is far less invasive than the abortion procedure to undergo an ultrasound, even transvaginally. You thought abortions were not done transvaginally? Should the state be in the busineses of enforced ignorance where no one gets to see an ultrasound? You get to know what the x ray looks like when they take out a tooth, why don't you want to know what is growing inside you?
Me thinks she doth protest too much.
It is more of the same business of people defending the abortion industry- what could be wrong about being offered a chance to see what is growing inside you?
It should be national legislation. Transvaginal or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment