Is a fetus any more viable, and accordingly less likely to be aborted, just because the expectant mother sees it on an ultrasound? This is what regular Washington Post Op-Ed contributor Kathleen Parker would lead us to believe. I have much respect for Ms. Parker…her opinions are well thought out and moderate. However, I don’t follow her logic on this one.
In the Washington Post opinion piece, Images of Choice, dated May 2, 2010, she describes herself has “both pro-life and pro-choice” noting that “Once a pregnancy is viewed as a human life in formation, rather than a ‘blob of cells,’ it is less easy to terminate the contents of one’s vessel. I ponder the description of a woman’s uterus as a “vessel” but that is really not the issue for me.
According to the article, “Oklahoma passed a law….that would require women to have an ultrasound, though,…they are not required to view the images.” Apparently they have to “…hear the doctor’s description of the images.” Murder of humans and killing of animals goes on daily. Surely in the majority of those murders and killings the murders and killers are looking at what they are killing realizing that they are sentient beings not “blobs of cells.” You are either taking a life or you are not taking a life.
I honestly can’t think any women, or pregnant teens, who are so stupid that they don’t realize they are taking or preventing a life, even in the first trimester. I believe that most women will have an abortion based on financial, emotional, and mental factors rather than the picture of a fetus or “blob of cells.” The option seems too traumatic to think that forcing one to have an ultrasound really makes a difference in the decision making process.
I’ll never know though… However, a woman should have the right to make the choice without the interference of the state or federal governments.