Your friendly “women’s rights advocates” would never want women to actually see what, or dare I say who, they are aborting. No. That would infringe on a woman’s right to be kept in the dark. Apparently information is not power, it’s patronizing.
I’m talking about this on Byline, Sun TV, tonight.
by 
Julie Culshaw says
June 16, 2011 at 6:59 amCongrats on your appearance on Byline. I caught some of it, but I was watching on the computer and it wasn’t feeding very well, so I didn’t get it all. My husband said “who is that smart woman talking?”
Andrea Mrozek says
June 16, 2011 at 1:06 pmThanks, Julie. That’s all I wanted to say but my own system here is declaring my comments “too short.” So thank you very much, Julie! Andrea 🙂
Suricou Raven says
June 17, 2011 at 2:25 amPro-choicers consider ultrasounds a form of emotional manipulation. A rejection of logic and argument in favor of appealing to animal instinct. They also know that this is exactly the type of approach that works, in all issues – a good emotional appeal is worth far more than any amount of reasoned persuasion. That is why they can’t stand these ultrasound laws. The same reason they hate the ‘black genocide conspiracy theory’ – because they know it’s a method that is incredibly dumb, emotionally manipulative, underhanded, cheating… and that it works.
Heather P. says
June 17, 2011 at 7:22 amSuricou: How is seeing what actually exists “emotionally manipulative”? I thought it was, ya know, a little clump of cells. Seeing an x-ray of my shoulder didn’t make me emotionally attached to it when I had to undergo reconstructive surgery. From the prochoice standpoint: ‘What’s in the uterus is not a baby!’ then it shouldn’t emotionally impact anyone…since it’s just a parasitic clump of non-sentient cells.
The only reason anyone would be hurt by this, upset by this, or would feel that it is an attack is if *they* believe that what they is in the uterus is a baby.
Truth hurts.
Suricou Raven says
June 17, 2011 at 12:18 pm“I thought it was, ya know, a little clump of cells.”
Even pro-choicers only make that argument about the embryo stage. Well, usually. Once it’s a fetus… well, it’s debateable how much it counts as human for moral purposes (That is really what the whole abortion debate is over), but it certainly *looks* like a baby on the outside, albeit a slightly oddly shaped one. This is espicially true for 3d/4d ultrasounds. The pro-choicers usually don’t care that much what the embryo-fetus-baby-thing looks like, they care about how it functions, and so regard an attempt to give it value based only on how much it looks like a baby to be shallow and manipulative. After all, we don’t consider it ok to kill severely disfigured people just because they don’t look human any more. So why does the EFBT get to be considered human for moral purposes just because it looks like one? A definition should be based upon cognitive ability, not the shape of the skeleton and skin.
Ed says
June 17, 2011 at 2:54 pmSouricou,
The use of the term “pro-choice” is emotional manipulation. If you think something should be legal and anyone who wants to do it should be allowed to, you are pro “it”. This applies to people who are pro marijuana, hand guns, slavery and all kinds of things. I’m sure no one believes I should be forced to smoke pot, or own a handgun; and 150 years ago no one felt my great-grandfather should have been forced to own slaves. You pro-abortion people just don’t want to admit it; you’d rather use emotional manipulation.
You are right when you say the abortion debate is about whether what is being killed is a human being. That’s really what the American Civil War was about; are slaves people. I believe you pro-abortion people are on the wrong side of history.
Heather P. says
June 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm“After all, we don’t consider it ok to kill severely disfigured people just because they don’t look human any more. So why does the EFBT get to be considered human for moral purposes just because it looks like one? A definition should be based upon cognitive ability, not the shape of the skeleton and skin.”
Ohhh Suricou…you are halfway down the slippery slope already, aren’t you?
You don’t believe that we should base abortions on looks, which is why we don’t kill deformed people. You do however believe we should base abortions on cognitive ability (which is just oh so clearcut and non-emotional, of course)…which if we follow your argument, would mean you support killing those members of our population who are cognitively disabled?
Please, PLEASE continue to label youself as Pro-Choice and preach your message long and loud… we need people to know who they are aligning themselves with when they call themselves pro-choice…