What an interesting speculation, Bricker. You mean to say, the woman has considered this decision in such a shallow and thoughtless manner, even an amorphous video blob could change her flighty little mind?
Or that an agonizing decision reached after careful consideration would be flushed away by a gush of maternal love towards an electric squiggle that looks like a special effect from the old Twilight Zone?
I think the second choice. But it’s just my speculation.
What I think - as a woman who has maybe a tad more perspective and understanding of the matter than you - is that this is intended to make a difficult decision in a woman’s life that is already heartbreaking, that much more. And that it is a deliberate decision to increase said woman’s pain and heartbreak, in the name of **maybe ** decreasing the abortion rate (a legal procedure that should not be punished). I think the legislature doesn’t give a rat’s ass if it traumatizes women who still choose to undergo the procedure, cause, you know, fuck those sluts.
That’s just speculation,. of course.
Your use of the word “terrified” bothers me. I’m pro-choice. I think this is a bad law for any number of reasons, some of them relating directly to the law itself and some in a larger slippery-slope kind of way. None of my feelings about this issue, however, could remotely accurately be described as “terror” that women would get fewer abortions. Why would that scare me? Do you just not believe all the people who say that they find abortion unpleasant and distasteful and wish there were fewer of them, but still think that they should be legal and entirely up to the woman?
Yes, this. Thank you Max. Why, Bricker, do you think that people who are pro-choice would be terrified by fewer abortions, rather than terrified of legal rights being eroded? That scares me. I hope abortion remains safe, legal and rare. Fewer abortions doesn’t “scare” me. Assholes chipping away at the right to choose scares me.
For what it’s worth, I’ve noticed that quite a few rabid “pro-lifers” seem to think that pro-choice = pro-abortion. A lot of them also seem to think that the fetus looks just like a miniature full-term baby at an incredibly early stage in the pregnancy. (For example, protest groups will sometimes hand out tiny plastic baby figures to show what the fetus supposedly looks like a x weeks of development.)
Somehow EverwonderWhy’s post way back on page 10 got lost in the shuffle, but it did provide some information about the effect of ultrasounds on women’s decision to continue with an abortion. The quotes in EverwonderWhy’s post are from a LiveScience article, but here’s the citation for the original research article:
Wiebe, E. R., & Adams, L. (2009). Women’s perceptions about seeing the ultrasound picture before an abortion. European J. of Contraception and Reproductive Healthcare, 14(2), 97-102.
While many of you probably won’t be able to access the full text, you can view the abstract for free on PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340704. I’ll quote the most relevant portion here: “None of the women changed her mind about having the abortion after having seen the US [ultrasound].”
This is of course just one study, but it’s one more than has been presented in support of the idea that mandatory ultrasounds will reduce the abortion rate by causing women to change their minds. This study indicates that most women who have abortions actually prefer to see the ultrasound, which suggests the possibility that fewer women might change their minds at the last minute if required to see the ultrasound. If this law does have the effect of reducing the abortion rate, I suspect it will be because it forced clinics out of business or complicated/delayed the process of obtaining an abortion so much that some women who did want them weren’t able to get them. That frightens me, not the prospect of a woman who doesn’t want an abortion choosing not to have one.
I daresay that even after seeing the results of the study and after having his errors in logic and in interpreting actual words pointed out ad nauseum, Bricker also will not be changing his mind.
Could estrogen be affecting his cognitive skills? He appears to be running solely on speculation and emotion. 
So this is about emotional appeals? What happened to ensuring she has all relevant medical information?
I thought it was interesting. I’d have little objection to requiring OB/GYN practitioners to have an ultrasound machine available for any woman who wants the procedure. Government stepping in and requiring the procedure, and requiring a waiting period after, is an intrusion, though.
Yes, I do. I believe you’re not terrified.
I don’t believe that’s true of others. In fact, I think the vitriol with which one responds to the very idea is a good indication of the amount of terror involved.
Why are the two goals mutually exclusive? Complete information – medical and otherwise – should support an emotional response.
Really? You really think we oppose it because we’re afraid women will change their minds? Why don’t you just take our word that we oppose it because it forces medical procedures on women that neither they nor their doctors want or need?
Sounds like affirming the consequent to me.
“If they’re terrified, they’ll have a strong negative reaction to my comments.”
“They’re having a strong negative reaction to my comments.”
“Therefore, they’re terrified.”
For the heck of it, care to pick a few names from this thread and rate their terror levels from green (low) to red (severe)? The Homeland Security Advisory System may prove useful.
What isn’t the most relevant portion this one:
Because in my experience, people who substitute furious attack and insult for argument are terrified.
Again, just my opinion.
Women have the right to change their minds- that’s part of choice. I have no problem if women change their minds, and I have no problem with women getting ultrasounds. I have a problem with women being forced to get ultrasounds that they don’t want and their doctors don’t think are necessary.
Nothing to do with any worry about changing minds. And I’ve never met anyone who opposes laws like this because they don’t want women to change their minds. “Pro-choice” actually means that women have a choice- not that women have to do one thing or the other.
I believe that readers can read, and judge, those comments without my assistance, so, no, I will decline your invitation.
Should it, as opposed to a careful consideration of options? Besides, you’re assuming that a particular emotional response will be generated (maternal bonding). That might happen for some women but not for others. I’m more concerned about your emotion (and that of other supporters) in favour of this law, and thus questioning the soundness of the thought processes behind it, as well as recognizing the possibility that if your emotions are indulged in this way, the same emotional process will prompt even worse laws in future.
LOL! Do you seriously think this supports your argument, Bricker? Read it again: “All ten interviewees recommended that this choice be offered to every woman and recommended more communication between care providers and patients at the time of the US.” Bolding mine.