Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
Violation by Ultrasound: Not Just Physical
While there has been much fury recently over Virginia’s recently proposed transvaginal ultrasound bill, other states’ anti-choice lawmakers have chosen the equally unacceptable route of psychological—rather than physical—violation of women.
In Michigan, House Bill 4433 would expand the state’s already-present requirements for pre-abortion ultrasounds. If passed (a likely outcome in Michigan’s strongly anti-choice state government) the law will require pre-abortion ultrasounds to be conducted with the “most technologically advanced ultrasound equipment available,” further defined as the equipment which “is capable of providing the most visibly clear image of the gross anatomical development of the fetus and the most audible fetal heartbeat.” While the bill states that a woman be given the “option” to view the ultrasound or not, it also mandates that the monitors must be turned toward the woman, so that her only way of not viewing the image is to close her eyes or turn her head away. The bill also requires that the professional performing the ultrasound give a detailed description of the fetus’ current developmental stage, and must offer the woman a printed ultrasound image.
Clearly, even if reasonable arguments could be made in favor of medical benefits to a physician viewing a more detailed ultrasound image before performing an abortion, there is no medical benefit to be gained by forcing the patient to view such images. It would be impossible to read this bill as anything other than a transparent attempt to convince women not to go through with abortions. And it aims to enact such coercion by relying on an essentialist view of women and “motherhood:” the notion that women will be emotionally moved to continue a pregnancy if they are forced to see the fetus and hear a detailed report of its development.
Women who have made the choice to obtain an abortion are well aware of the choice they have made. They are not naïve to the fact that they are choosing to abort a developing fetus. Whether the decision has been an easy or a difficult one, it has not been made in ignorance of what “abortion” entails. And it is not the place of the state to patronize women by insisting that they be forced to view ultrasound images in order to fully understand their actions.
Requiring transvaginal ultrasounds would violate women by invading their bodies. Turning an ultrasound monitor toward a woman and attempting to force her to view the images even if she does not want to see them is an act of emotional and psychological violation. Both are medically unnecessary and needlessly cruel and patronizing. And neither should ever be mandated by a state’s government.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
53 Comments so far
Show AllI found myself sharing in Rachel Maddow's enthusiasm the other night when she called the Virginia governor, "governor vaginal probe" about 20 times.
Too bad young males aren't shown ultrasounds and told about the responsibilities of parenthood before they are allowed to have sex.
A suitable backlash to laws like this could be women viewing ultrasounds and deciding to only abort "male" fetuses.
How about if we pass a law that mandates that all "pro-life" politicians be forced to view films of the results of forcing birth on women. Things like the dead woman who childbirth kills. Or the women who have to take care of those kids by themselves with NO help from the man who fathered the kid in the first place. Or things like how single motherhood forces women into poverty that they frequently never get out of.
These laws are mean spirited, arrogant, misogynistic, and insulting as hell to women who are the ones who have to live with this decision. For these politicians to stick their faces into women's lives like this shows that their "smaller government" nonsense is just that, NONSENSE. These are hypocrites of the highest order and should be driven from office with torches and pitchforks, if needed. These people are NOT good Americans at all, they are fascist types who want to rule over others with an iron fist. I say we give them that fist right back.
To these films on the results of forcing birth on women, their response would be that if women "knew their place, and kept it, men wouldn't be leaving them to care for their children alone;" and single women, in their minds, "whores," should not be allowed to be having babies, in their minds, "bastards." Remember when some of them in Congress was pushing to restore those labels to unmarried mothers and their offspring? Was either in the Bush 1, or Clinton years. I believe it was during the last half of the Clinton years.
This all-out attack on women is in tandem with the whole issue of "freedom of religion" thing as a way to push the door all the way open to allow religion to take over every aspect of our lives. GW opened that door a crack with the Faith Based Initiative. And Obama opened the crack wider by increasing what Bush had put in place. Look at the whole picture, and think about exactly where this freedom to practice their religion would be kept from if the supreme court gets it in their hands and decides on it - nowhere. And that is the plan. Women just happen to be the absolute best way for them to accomplish their goals, because, unfortuately, the majority of women still seem to believe they are inferior.
Thanks for your post, shadre!
Yes, if women only knew their place!
I agree! -- and, most people have forgotten that Jimmy Carter doesn't believe in choice for women. Amy Goodman, in an interview, actually posed the question and he admitted it, and followed up saying that he didn't want to talk about it. She didn't ask any further questions on the subject.
And, you're absolutely correct -- Obama opened the door wider and today, the Faith-Based Initiatives Office has been expanded.
And, yes, they love to label us, don't they?
Recently, I read that Santorum's funder, the billionaire Friess, said, "Gals used to put Aspirin between their knees for contraception."
I can remember hearing this kind of nonsense when I was a kid growing up in a small, very conservative and religious community in southwest Iowa. Today, Steve King represents my district. Do I need say anymore? I won't go on -- I already posted a long comment on this issue/subject.
You were onto something, Shadre, until this:
"And that is the plan. Women just happen to be the absolute best way for them to accomplish their goals, because, unfortuately, the majority of women still seem to believe they are inferior."
That's a disgusting and insidious way to blame victims. The U.S. has more Christians than any other religious demographic. It's my view that unstable times make many people fearful and fear turns millions towards religion. There, the faithful flocks are told (more like conditioned) that if they obey the RULES that men--standing in as self-proclaimed ambassadors for God--tell them are mandatory, their lives will be blessed... or at least protected from harm.
MILLIONS of children are sent to church or Sunday school way before they've developed a capacity for independent, critical thought. Therefore the vast majority becomes INDOCTRINATED. Where I live, in the Bible Belt, sometimes the Baptist churches place hundreds of crosses on their front lawns. The spectacle is there to symbolize all the dead (aborted) fetuses. They openly use the threat of hell and the soul's eternal damnation to scare the living bee-Jesus out of kids. Most go along out of sheer terror!
This type of CONDITIONING stays stuck inside the minds of even those few strong enough to fly over the Cuckoo's Nest. And to Christianity, and any fundamentalist, patriarchal religion, women are TAUGHT to obey their fathers, their husbands, the father god, etc. It is an insidious, very deep conditioning. They are TAUGHT that they must submit to the male authority... (this crap goes back CENTURIES.)
So for you to blithely state that women believe they ARE inferior is both ignorant and insensitive. It reminds me of the forum's reliable few, always on hand, whatever the abysmal policy decision taken by elites that day, to blame the "stupid American people" for voting for it. As if. Or the other forum counterfeits who tell us the Left is dead or Feminism is Dead, etc. It's either dishonest or the product of right-wing reasoning... on a par with blaming Acorn for the financial crisis of 2008, or Mexican farmers for the employment crisis.
Siouxrose - I wish I had just blithely stated that women seem to believe they are inferior. I've wished for many years that women would wake up and see the truth - that we're far superior to the idea of what a woman is that we've been subjected to our whole lives. I've come across very few women from nearly every walk of life throughout my seventy-four years who've managed to slip out of the bonds that shackle us, and you've actually stated very well the conditioning we are put through from birth, and the deep-seated reasons why so many women, while they don't necessarily like the position they're in, are incapable of doing anything to change it. At the root of it all, I also believe, is the Bible that put women in this position, and their fear of going against God.
Women should be overwhelming the polls; and in the thousands protesting these bills being passed, or leaving their husbands beds - whatever it takes to stop the madness. While some are doing whatever they can, the numbers, in relation to our total numbers is so small. Women should be voting women into politics, but they don't. It's the first thing I do on a ballot - I vote for the women running, unless they're so over the top I don't want them any where near my future.
I made the statement that I believe is the truth - these men know that women aren't going to stop them, and that other men won't either.
To your credit, you seem so much younger than 74! And I genuinely appreciate your response. Please... don't reinforce the meme that women are inferior, or think themselves inferior. Due to the conditioning both of us recognize, some women end up emerging from the "factory" identifying with the patriarchal systems. These are selfish women, more aligned with the Mars rules me-first axiom than the typical nurturer type of female who thinks in terms of what will benefit everyone sitting at the table (or beyond it). I'm talking about ladies like Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Ann Coulter, etc. So unfortunately, it's not the matter of voting necessarily for a woman, as many have co-opted to find their "place in the race," or position within the existing hierarchy. It's rather teaching the inherent worth of women as Divine Partner to the male (side of The Force).
Behaviors deeply set take time to alter. My daughters are independent thinkers and their daughters will follow that arc. In fact, precisely because society began to move in a more egalitarian direction did the strong waves of backlash begin. And no where are they stronger than within the religious movements, for to the naive, who can argue with the alleged will of God?
When I was a young child and my father went off to work, I was taken care of by a Black Southern Baptist maid. She always had the radio set to a station where I can still recall the sound of fire and brimstone in the way of "Hell and damnation!" The church is probably the originator of terror, for these are terrifying beliefs to drum into young, vulnerable minds.
Another behavior mod tactic was seen in the TV shows which worked like lotteries pouring prizes out to the very lucky few among the hordes of the downtrodden. I was very young when "Queen for a Day" was the big show... and the audience would register its affinity with one of several women admitting their serious troubles on network TV. In other shows, people did ridiculously humiliating things for points.
What child doesn't like sweets? I learned to con my younger sister out of the cookie that I gulped down faster than she did... by offering her points. I was pretty good at it until one day my father overheard my Bob Barker Rap and brought it to a close tout suite. Moral of the story? My sister is a millionaire who bought into the corporate world, and I would not be surprised if the early exercise of my "robbing her" of her booty through the ingenious use of nefarious points exchanged, didn't sharpen her wit for business in adult life.
Thank you for taking my critique gently. I am sensitive to the way society repeats lies until most march lockstep with their dead beats. The disheartening results of this imbalance are all around us. Here on CD we speak about them as our daily food for thought...
Thanks, Siouxrose. It's only my body that's 74. My mind and my spirit will always be young. I had a challenging childhood, was married at sixteen, and by the time I was 22, felt like 100. I married into a Baptist family, and learned how women are regarded by the church. I never fell into the trap, because I knew better. It wasn't until my divorce in my 30's that I began to feel young for the first time, and I don't intend to ever feel old again, at least not in this lifetime.
My kids were my life, and because their father chose a life that kept him away from us for long periods, I was the parent who imprinted the most on them. I pretty much grew up with them, and we spent a lot of time together having group conversations, which were fantastic. Whatever was on their minds they could talk about and know I wouldn't get mad, or put them down, or repeat anything they'd said to anyone. I've always been a free thinker, and wanted them to know how to think for themselves. They still talk to me about anything and have all told me those conversations when they were growing up were the greatest gift I could have given them.
Inside myself I always felt I was strong, independent, and that I could do anything I put my mind to. It was only other people who tried to make me into something I wasn't. So I taught all of my children to be all they could be, to not depend on anyone else, and to treat everyone as they wanted to be treated. My daughters were and still are self-sufficient, and their daughters follow their lead. And I'm very proud of them and my sons, who're great guys, and live as examples to others instead of trying to force others to live according to their beliefs.
As for women, I've been posting here and elsewhere for some time how women need to come together and work together for a better society. My heroines have always been Bodicca, and then the courageous women who got us the vote.
You sound like a blessing to your children, and vice versa. Thank you for sharing key facets of your story. I raised daughters, for the most part, on my own. Long story... sometimes I bless the challenges and sometimes not. Lately I am suffused with feelings of grief for the knowledge that so many miraculous living things are coming apart, and still, the warriors march on upping the ante on the carnage. I call it living in a state of paradox, to on the one hand, be grateful for time at the computer, today's rain, 2 loving dogs, and my little espresso machine producing the half cup of morning java that I've grown accustomed to from the years spent in the Caribbean. And then, there's the news of war, and the methane levels, and the latest graft on the part of sociopathic politicians and one feels for all the unnecessary pain being cast on so many. Then, too... there are the grandchildren, and what kind of world will be left for them? Only selfish or superficial people can look past the parade of horrors to focus on "personal happiness." The premise comes too eerily close to probably my favorite Twilight Zone episode...l I think it was entitled, "The Transformation."
I'm logging off for the night. Sweet dreams... and Sisterhood is STILL powerful.
They want to punish women for being 'wanton' and forcing men to eat those apples. We are about a year away from witch burning. Unfortunately, from what i have experienced with teenage girls in the past several years, they have been fairly successful in turning back the clock.
readytotransform -- Scary, isn't it?
HOLY INQUISTION -- DECEMBER 5, 1484 (the Papal Bull) – POPE INNOCENT VIII
The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witches Hammer):
“Women are feebler in mind and body than men, [women] are intellectually like children; have slippery tongues; are more credulous; have weak memories; it is a natural [female] vice not to be disciplined; but to follow their own impulses without any sense of what is due; [women] are inferior in understanding spiritual things; are vain and are more subject to carnal lust, which in women, is insatiable. Three general vices appear to have special dominion over wicked women, namely, infidelity, ambition and lust…when a woman thinks alone…she thinks evil.”
You are so right! It's all about those apples!
Recently, I did some additional research on Martin Luther. (I grew up attending the Lutheran Church.) When I was discussing the issue of 9 million women having been murdered during the witch hunts after the "Witches Hammer" was issued, I realized that I had never run across any information about where Martin Luther stood on the subject of witchcraft. And, he lived in Germany when the witch hunts were in full swing. YIKES!
I discovered that Martin Luther, himself, was responsible for the murders of at least 4 women in Wittenberg. Martin Luther taught that witchcraft was a sin against the 2nd commandment. He recommended the death penalty. In addition, he BELIEVED that with the help of the devil, a witch could "steal milk by thinking of a cow."
Doctor Luther said “One should show no mercy to these [women]; I would burn them myself, for we read in the Law that the priests were the ones to begin the stoning of criminals.”
My minister failed to teach these truths in our Catechism classes. Of course, I'm writing this with sarcasm in mind!
Thank you, WJM. You get it!
I think all young people should be forced to view graphic images of children being murdered and dead bodies resulting from drone bombs, plus dead and wounded soldiers no matter what the conditions of their bodies-- before enlisting in the military.
WJM,
1) why do you insert pro-life in inverted commas? Do you not believe that protecting the unborn is pro-life?
2) "..."pro-life" politicians be forced to view films of the results of forcing birth on women..." Forcing? Does a woman no longer have the right to say ..."No"? and what are these results of "forcing"? Is carrying a baby for nine months until birth and adoption too much to ask to save the child's life and grant happiness to a childless couple?
3) "like the dead woman who childbirth kills". An irrelevant argument. Abortion has long been allowed where the mother's safety is in jeopardy.
4) "Or the women who have to take care of those kids..." A "kid" is a young goat. We are talking about children here.
5) "...by themselves with NO help ..." Is there no such thing as adoption in your country?
6) "...from the man who fathered the kid in the first place." Well I don't know about your country. In mine, a man is forced through the taxation system to contribute, and the mother who chooses to keep her child receives a single mothers pension.
7) "These laws are mean spirited..." if you mean by saving the lives of countless children, yes I suppose they are.
8) "misogynistic" Oh? How? By the way, do you know that "Roe" (the woman in "Roe v. Wade") is working tirelessly to reverse pro-abortion laws? She deeply regrets her role in legalising abortion for convenience.
9) "...politicians to stick their faces into [people's] lives ..." I suppose that could be said about every law that says "No" . If you are against it, that is.
Your final paragraph displays your own violent nature, and you clearly don't understand what a fascist state is. If you live in America though, you very soon will.
New law should be enacted that would force men to have an anal probe while wathching porn, to see if an erection can be acheived, before they are prescribed Viagra
Thanks for the chuckle, Time Biter. I earnestly hope that Trylon will sign up first... he'd make the perfect Guinea Pig for this one!
Female fingers, please.
Little mentioned . . . this seemingly sets the medical profession -- doctors and their invasive tools -- against women and reproductive freedom. What medical professionals will do this dirty work for the fanatically anti-female and pro-fetus politicians?
I guess the same "professionals" who are now so anti-female that they are prepared to invade a woman's body to tear her child apart in her womb.
You may rest assured, however that their will be (as there are even now) professionals who care enough to refuse to kill unborn children, and doubtless they will lose their careers for standing by the courage of their convictions.
Will patriarchy ever end? I wish I believed that it was "just" Republicans who are pushing these bills. There are so many blue-dogs who are as harmful in their approach to issues relating to women and work within their states to also curtail privacy and the medical rights of women. Capitalism and patriarchy are twins! At this time, both patriarchy and capitalism are raging in the extremes. They are NOT female friendly, either. Nor are they friendly to humanity in general. Many "good Christian" churches across this country continue to teach and preach "submission of women." Even if we aren't lined up to go to church on Sundays, we are still effected by the power wielded by those who preach from the pulpit, and those who stand on the shoulders of the prevailing hierarchies!
A few years ago, I began writing to many of my female friends, relating that contraception was going to become a serious issue for women -- AGAIN! Already, at that time, stories were popping up in the alternative press, and even sometimes, in the M$M, the corporate press -- Women had their prescriptions in hand, went to their pharmacies, and the pharmacists, mostly white males, refused to fill their contraception prescriptions, citing their religious beliefs. In some cases, the pharmacy was the only one in the town. In those cases, where else was a woman supposed to go? This issue, to me, always underpinned the issue of abortion as the real goal. Chipping, and chipping, and chipping away, and here we are!
All of this discussion and the surrounding political events that are unfolding reminded me:
"Princess" Diana had to be checked by a gynecologist to guarantee that she was a virgin before the royals would allow Prince Charles to marry her. And, the whole world had to wait for the results from the doctor as "all the news that was fit to print" waited, too. The headlines read...
Of course, that was 1981, or so.
Old ideas die hard, if, in fact, they die at all.
I'm also reminded of what William Blake wrote in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790-1793):
No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings.
Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of religion.
Joys impregnate. Sorrows bring forth.
Always be ready to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn of the crow.
Expect poison from the standing water.
Damn braces. Bless relaxes.
If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.
For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.
The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & he breeds reptiles of the mind.
Beautiful comment Kay.
Excellent comment (11:49 AM), Kay Johnson. I hope the forum's obfuscators who show up to argue that there's no problem obtaining contraceptives will read your post. And learn something.
BTW: I had a similar take on this issue (as per the role of patriarchy) and posted before reading your comment. Nonetheless, it's helpful when more than one female poster expresses a truth that many men entirely miss because it's never factored into their experience. For too many, that means it doesn't exist at all.
Enlightenment Happens!
I'd also mention that while the overall concept may be that this is simply anti-female/anti-abortion .... we shouldn't ignore the loss of civil rights with the War on Drugs fakery and mandatory urine testing -- and collection of DNA which is happening in general. Plus the collection fo "social/personal" information ongoing vs internet facebook and twitter, etal.
I agree that civil liberties are being snatched away from all of us, and your list of civil liberties is worthy of articles and serious discussion. It's just that the article, which this thread follows, is about an invasive procedure that will effect females directly. It is meant to humiliate and to put/keep women in their place!
I certainly don't mean to diminish any losses of any civil liberties!
OCCUPY EVERYWHERE whenever you can!
Wise response to Conscience, Kay. It is important to note that Civil Liberties ARE vanishing everywhere, but let's face it--which is more intimate, a probe inside your body/vaginal canal or a gum-shoe listening in on your cell phone call?
"which is more intimate, a probe inside your body/vaginal canal or a gum-shoe listening in on your cell phone call?" -- Sioux Rose
I know the answer to your question -- and it's NOT the gumshoe!
What is more intimate, an ultrasound probe in your vagina, or forceps thrust through your vagina into your very womb, tearing at your unborn child to kill him or her?
Bear in mind that the first insertion is only going to happen to a woman who is planning on the second insertion anyway! Sheeeeesh!
You have gone way past the boundary of logic, Kay and Sioux Rose, losing your credibility in the realm of emotionalism and kitchen sink argument! This is the way of pro-abortionists because they have no logical way of justifying the killing of a child born or unborn, or even differentiating the status of the born against the unborn. There IS no logical means to do so, except one you can see, and the other you can't see; and THAT is why this whole business of the ultrasound video has raised such a ruckus.
Kay,
Ultrasound during pregnancy is now about as regular a procedure as there is. Women gladly have one just to discover the gender of their child! Yet now it is to be used to make a woman more fully aware of the impact of their decision to kill, you call it an "...invasive procedure that will effect females directly ... meant to humiliate and to put/keep women in their place!"
Is this an example of "feminine logic"?
1. If they really wanted to put an end to unwanted pregnancies, the ones that lead to abortion, they'd mandate vasectomies for all males over the age of 12 which they could apply to have reversed upon reaching the age of 35.
2. And just whose insurance company is going to be willing to pay, or able to pay if the patient has no insurance, for the latest technology, and what does it mean by "available?" Would that be in the nearest location or anywhere in the state of Michigan, in the entire USA or world?
3. Imagine how these extra graphic ultrasounds could end up being a new, pre-birth form of child pornography. Maybe that's a way to put an stop to all this.
Who pays for this mandated procedure? Maybe someone will bring a class action suit against Michigan to force the state to pay for all the ultrasounds. That would end the law faster than any political debate.
".....Maybe someone will bring a class action suit against Michigan to force the state to pay for all the ultrasounds....."
EXCELLENT idea.
No one has yet even touched on the pure 1984-Orwellian aspects of this medical procdure. Will the next step inlcude clampung the woman's head down in the direction of the ultrasound screen and forcing the eyes open?
WhaT new word will we give to this: shall we call it a "ideologicorrective procedure"? What is next - politicocorrective sugery?
THIS IS MADNESS!
"the pure 1984-Orwellian aspects of this medical procdure"
1984 was about controlling people, their thoughts and actions, and its authorities have no compunction over taking life from even a mental non-conformist! The proposed law under discussion is about helping women to make properly informed decisions about taking the life of their own child. I see no comparison at all!
If women were indeed properly informed about...
1) The fact that it is a real life they were about to snuff out, a moving, feeling, heart-beating human-being, rather than the "its simply a piece of tissue" comments designed to desensitize, and
2) the actual procedures used to chemically burn the baby, or the tearing apart of it, limb from limb and the accompanying agomnies as their child goes through its death throes, and
3) The terrible depression and guilt suffered by many women (perhaps the majority) after they have snuffed out their child's life,
Then I doubt such educational ultrasounds would be needed.
But alas, dishonesty rules while abortion clinics actually pressure women into choosing abortion above other options such as adoption, and couples who dearly want, but can't have their own children are forced to go without.
This article is a fitting sequel, or complement, to a previous one: "The Hypocrisy of 'Informed Consent' Abortion Laws"*, in which the author persuasively argued that the state's rationales for imposing onerous conditions upon women seeking to safely and legally terminate a pregnancy amount to "a thinly veiled attempt at shaming women who seek abortion, a shaming made all the more hypocritical when carried out in the supposed name of women’s health and safety."
Of course, all of the onerous authoritarian obstacles put in place to discourage legal abortion are blithely rationalized by compulsory-childbirth zealots as reasonable checks and balances pursuant to the pretext of safeguarding public health and promoting personal and civic responsibility.
When inflamed moral sensibility and cynical political demagoguery combine to ratchet up the compulsion to control, it results in the kind of self-righteous bumptiousness that declares that since abortion, after all, is really about Taking a (Sacred) Life, it's eminently reasonable to insist that presumptively dissolute women check their selfish homicidal impulses long enough to take a long, hard look at what they're really doing.
Thus, reactionary, male-dominated political demagogues, embodying a traditional authoritarian, patriarchal superego, mandate procedures that force a woman seeking an abortion to effectively first "examine her conscience", like a Roman Catholic penitent participating in the sacrament of Penance.
But such crypto-sacralized medical care is at best an onerous, abominable attempt to impose discriminatory, quasi-religious strictures upon a designated class of patients.
At least religious sacraments are consensual and must presumptively be entered into freely. Not so in the secular legislative domain, where Elected Misrepresentatives routinize a compulsory micro-Inquisition for each patient, willy-nilly.
After all, what's a little therapeutic arm-twisting for the purpose of reviving a dormant or vitiated conscience compared to the prospect of twisting a Sacred Fetus to bits?
I'm surprised that one of these sexist Pharisees hasn't proposed requiring women who seek or get abortions to perform "community service" in nurseries or day care centers, before and after the evil deed is done.
Whoops, I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas!
__________________
* http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/15-9
Before every vote to appropriate money for war, Congress should have to view images of dead children killed by american weapons.
I haven't read the comments before posting.
Imagine if every male rapist, perpetrator of incest, or child molester (including those inside the folds of the almighty church) had to watch films of similar depictions like scenes taken straight out of "A Clockwork Orange." How 'bout some behavior mod for these offenders?
What is so upsetting about all this emphasis on vulnerable pregnant (likely single) females is that the time, $, and legal battles aimed at control of women's wombs take similar energy away from investing in the type of society and work opportunities that would make far fewer women need to seek out abortions in the first place. Right now all the protective agencies are being defunded... which will make it more difficult for those with low incomes to support children. Then, too, as climate chaos begins to ensue, is it wise to insist upon artificially inflated child-bearing numbers? Let's keep in mind that evidence suggests the same ones aiming at abortion now, plan on blocking access to birth control, as well.
The unborn fetus has become the totem of a culture that's lost its capacity to respect life anywhere else. From the teeming carnage to nature, to the foreign wars, from policies that indulge the rich while robbing the poor, to tainted food and big pharma's traces in our waterways, where is any respect for life seen?
In this disgrace to life itself, the fetus must become the fetish that makes all these unwholesome acts somehow mollified... like reciting so many Hosanas to theoretically purge a sin.
The more a society identifies with fascism, the more it enacts laws based on the control of female "Reproductive Resources."
Torture is in vogue, porn viewing is off the charts, citizens are routinely spied upon, government officials carelessly violate international (and national) laws, but the fetus must be placed atop a moral throne and there worshipped as penance for the collective society's many martial sins.
Sicko!
Sioux Rose said "the fetus must be placed atop a moral throne and there worshipped as penance for the collective society's many martial sins."
No. Not "worshipped", simply afforded its own opportunity to live, rather than being chemically burned to death, or ripped limb from limb.
You make a number of salient points, but none have any bearing on the rights of the unborn or partially born child lined up for an agonising and premature death.
Notborn, i wonder what your gender might be? But alas, there is no way to prove it , is there? I assume you are anti war and against the death penalty? Have you been hitting the streets to protest renditions? Just curious.
readytotransform,
Why does my gender interest you? I'm a male, but does the right of the unborn child somehow hinge on my gender? Do you really admit to thinking that my male gender should cut me out of the discussion?
Please, before you use some irrelevant term such as "misogynist" read my response to Siouxrose above.
Could you please answer the other questions, which are just as important. I am referring to war and torture and the death penalty. Thank you.
Readytotransform,
It is not my usual practice to abuse a column or thread by debating issues that are entirely irrelevant TO THAT THREAD. Many suggestions have been made in here re: forcing different sectors of the community to watch different videos, and there is virtue in them, even although those suggestions are made more in a spirit of disdain. But they do nothing either for, or against the issue in this column. Likewise, many worthy causes like yours have been raised, but there are many places where those issues are debated and this isn't one.
However, if it will help you past some mental block, and given that so many are directing the discussion in this direction, just briefly:
War: There is no "just" war. The only "just" involvement in any war, imho is defense, and if all nations abided by that principle there would be no war.
Renditions: If Common Law Trial by Jury were revived, this iniquity would be resolved, because under CLTBJ the jury, NOT a corrupt "judge" judges both the accused and the fairness of the law under which he has been brought. It is the great leveler (given to us by Magna Carta, but stolen by stealth from us by wicked governments) that subjects EVERYONE, even the monarch to the same law. No-one is above the law - unlike today. There is a growing movement to restore CLTBJ. Google it.
Torture: Ditto.
Death Penalty: In principle I agree, but until nations display the knowledge and responsibility to implement penalties justly (genuine CLTBJ is probably the only mechanism) I cannot support it. Too many innocents have been incarcerated and murdered by corrupt rulers.
It is the practice of allowing government to do things in secret that has led to the stripping of human rights. The "two-party" principle has aided and abetted this iniquitous situation. Vote for independents - even if he is the only one and you don't like him, for only he has to answer to The People, rather than his Party.
Now, will YOU answer MY questions:
1)"Why does my gender interest you? "
2) "I'm a male, but does the right of the unborn child somehow hinge on my gender?"
2) "Do you really admit to thinking that my male gender should cut me out of the discussion?"
I am interested to see where real democracy sits in your reply.
In your next life, as a woman, perhaps you'll get the part about "feminine logic." I don't argue with men who think they have a right to decide this for others... many fertilized eggs abort on their own. Where's your umbrage for the nuclear power plant accident that means lots more unborn fetuses will abort spontaneously? Where are you on war, capital punishment, and extending financial assistance to very low income families, especially those headed by single Mothers?
Most fanatics who make the fetus their lifelong mission care little about the quality of life for so many ALREADY living beings.
Good night, and good luck!
Siouxrose,
"In your next life, as a woman...".
I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with gender, because the unborn (of both genders) cannot speak for themselves. Are you aware of the deep regret of "Row" (the woman in "Row v. Wade") for her role in normalising abortion for convenience? Do you know she nopw works tirelssly to have those laws reversed?
There is a big difference between foetuses self aborting and being forced to abort.
I post frequently on all the other issues you raise, but not in a column that is about killing the unborn or partially born! Neither do I post on abortion in a forum that is about war, capital punishment etc.
There are folks who fight all kinds of causes. Each could, I suppose be criticised for under-resourcing other causes, but what does that accomplish in your mind?
By the way, you asked, "Where's your umbrage for the nuclear power plant accident that means lots more unborn fetuses will abort spontaneously?"
Don't worry, I have plenty of ..."umbridge"... for the devastation that has been and will be caused by nuclear power stations and corporate/govt greed and dishonesty. However, it is LAW that has enabled the genocide of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of unborn and partially born children.
I want all meat eaters to have to watch a video of animals being slaughtered prior to ordering in a restaurant.
Michigan Bill 4433, provides the "most technologically advanced... equipment available," not to grow the number of 'desired children', but to grow the state's quorum of shame and regret. Well said, puritans!
Because a girl in a haze of alcohol and hormones should feel the ultimate shame for opting to have children she actually wants, instead of children she'll not-so-subtly regret for the rest of their lives. Now, lets hear it from the God-sprinkled corner: 'there is no such thing as an unwanted child." Reality? They are, frankly, everywhere, daily vomiting up their unhappiness for all to see: drug addicts, prostitutes, homeless, our prisons are full of them. Or, and here's where it really gets sick: Republicans.
>>From the article:
If passed (a likely outcome in Michigan’s strongly anti-choice state government) the law will require pre-abortion ultrasounds to be conducted with the “most technologically advanced ultrasound equipment available,” further defined as the equipment which “is capable of providing the most visibly clear image of the gross anatomical development of the fetus and the most audible fetal heartbeat.”<<
While we are at it, how about laws for the following:
(1) Detailed videos (with audio) and photographs of war casualties to be shown to potential military recruits and their families. Casualties of US soldiers as well as the "enemies" and "collateral damage" to be shown.
(2) Statistics regarding the sons and daughters of elected representatives in the military, in comparison with those of the general public to be displayed at all recruiting stations, including at "outreach" events and locations.
(3) Detailed videos and photographs of slaughterhouse operations to be displayed on all supermarkets and restaurants selling meat products.
This article raises questions that go to the root and reason of our being as humans. First, it lays to rest, the question of when life begins, Second, our personal and social responsibility to life is placed squarely before us and we must decide the place and time where life is dispensable. Life is precious in all living beings whether we abide with or consume it. Our belief system is challenged by the finite realites posed in this article and the burden it imposes on the human will. In the end, I can only see Life as a Gift, stored within the DNA of all living things. The power of Man/Woman to take life at any level of being or development must be constrained wherever possible.
Thanks for the link to the Michigan Bill. Following it, I learned to my surprise that my state representative is one of the bill's sponsors. Whoa!
I have his email address and intend to use it soon to dismantle the Bill line by line - - as I did many years ago with =Veritatis Splendor= by John Paul II. I =take on= popes, no different than people here. Legerdemain is legerdemain.
Trylon