Mandatory ultrasounds...changing hearts and minds?

There's been a lot of discussion on mandatory ultrasounds for those seeking abortions, and I've got some mixed feelings about the effectiveness of them, and would like to have a discussion.

I'd like to take trans-vaginal ultrasounds as a mandatory process off the table, because I think there are some other issues involved there. Plus, I had one, and couldn't really see much.

So, here's my thoughts. For starters, I don't think it's the most unreasonable thing to do legally, to require an ultrasound. I know when I got my eyes lasered, back when the process was fairly new, they told me it was required to watch a video of the process. The last thing I wanted to do was see it being done, the concept really grossed me out and I thought it would make it harder to go through with it. (I watched it, but looked away at the icky parts)

But here's where I start to wonder. I'm a veteran of many pregnancy ultrasounds as a consequence of being an older mom. With one son, I had 4 or 5. The first was at 6 weeks to date the pregnancy and confirm that it was still going ok. While the image was very precious to me, because it meant that all was going well...it was honestly just a little speck. I had the more invasive type a bit later due to some complications, and didn't see much more, but the tech saw enough to assure me things were still progressing.

Then at 20 weeks I had one in which you could really see the little guy. I carried those pictures with me everywhere. He looked, well, he looked a lot like he did when he came out. Precious and wonderful, with a happy expression on his face. Ultrasounds followed every few weeks until the end, and I loved watching him move on the monitor.

With my next pregnancy, well into my 40's, they did fewer ones, so I never got the early ultrasound. Just the 20 week one and one at the end.

What I learned is that when you are anxiously awaiting the birth of a precious child, being able to catch a glimpse through an ultrasound is an amazing gift. What I also learned is that early in a pregnancy, an ultrasound doesn't look like much of anything to the untrained eye, while later in a pregnancy it looks just like a little baby.

Another thing I've noticed is that after seeing a number of pregnant mare ultrasounds, early in the pregnancy, horse fetuses look a lot like human fetuses.

So, my thoughts on the effectiveness of ultrasounds go something like this. If a person wants an abortion early in the pregnancy, there's the chance that an ultrasound could backfire, because they really don't look like a child, but more like a vibrating blip on a screen. If a significant percentage of abortions are done early in the pregnancy, I wonder how effective the early ultrasounds are.

What do you think?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"It's not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It's our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless." L.R. Knost
"Climb the mountains and get their good tidings" John Muir

Personally, effective or not, I think it invasive and unethical to make such mandatory just to deter people from having an abortion.
Trying to shame people who have already made a decision on such a sensitive matter to change their mind.

__________________
Misconception clearer upperer concerning atheists, gays, and liberals.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My experiences are somewhat similar to yours. Our early ultrasounds were happy occasions, because we learned that the child we loved was progressing normally. We loved each of those children ahead of time. On early ultrasounds (I think they were at the 8-12 week mark, but I'd have to ask my wife. If I had the opinion going in that this was a clump of cells and not a fully-human life, nothing in a first trimester ultrasound would have convinced me otherwise. I would advise against mandating early ultrasounds for prospective aborters, as I think it would just reinforce what they'd been told by proponents of abortion about their non-viable fetus. By the time the 2nd trimester rolls around, I suspect the images would start to be more effective at manipulating people's emotions in the pro-life direction.

At any date, I contend that appeals to emotion are the wrong way to go. Abortion will be defeated, if it is defeated, by making an issue of the civil rights of the child. Showing how cute babies are and how ugly abortion can be is not a strong argument.

I also recall that at a few of our early ultrasounds, even the heartbeat was undetectable. That could really backfire on the pro-lifers who advocate this method.

__________________

What do you think is invasive? I think we're talking about external ultrasounds. No serious people are suggesting vaginal ultrasounds, are they?

__________________

I'm trying to remember. In very early pregnancy it's sometimes difficult to get an ultrasound externally and so they need to do a transvaginal one instead. When my youngest was born, I think they tried to do a very early sonogram externally and it didn't work. Of course this was a little over 20 years ago, and I am sure the technology is improved. 20 years ago later sonograms only showed the baby in parts--a leg, a backbone. At 12 weeks they could capture the whole picture--later they couldn't.

I think that only licensed ultrasound techs should be able to do ultrasounds. I know of two pregnancy support centers--one won't get an ultrasound machine because they can't afford to hire an ultrasound tech. The other is getting a machine donated and is using it even though they also can't afford an ultrasound tech. I agree with the first center--it's a medical tool, and only people with medical training should interpret the results.

I think that the ultrasound techs need to be committed to honesty. If a screen showed conjoined twins or and ectopic or even extra-uterine pregnancy (which I guess would be evident in very early pregnancy, for example) it would be dishonest of the tech not to mention it--but in pregnancy support centers I don't know if a tech would mention it, because the purpose of the ultrasound in pregnancy support centers is persuasive, not medical. I think that a pregnancy support center would open itself up to lawsuits if it failed to reveal problems.

I'm kind of with hockey mom--I don't know how effective ultrasounds would be at the very early stage when most abortions are performed. I think that a reasonable percentage of women who seek out abortions may be in difficult relationships--and the announcement of a pregnancy makes things more difficult. And if you take a woman in a relationship with a controlling, coercive, perhaps abusive man and put her in a center where she is manipulated and coerced, I don't see a lot of good coming out of it. What that woman needs is a sense of personal empowerment, not more manipulation.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.