Option Ultrasound

[HelioPrime]

Heartlink.org

Well the link is busy for now..But it came from a article on Rudy and his abortion stance.

OUP provides grants to participating pregnancy resource centers for 80% of the cost of a new ultrasound machine or sonography training for your medical personnel. -Focus on the Family's Option Ultrasound Program™ places only new ultrasound machines in pregnancy resource centers due to warranty and service issues. -Centers that have old ultrasound machines or analog machines are eligible to receive a replacement from Option Ultrasound. -If your center has an ultrasound machine, but there are no trained personnel to perform scans, Option Ultrasound will provide a grant paying 80 percent of training costs.

Do they demand anything in return? Well yes. As part of the application for pregnancy centers they must recommend the ultrasound, and advise that abortion is not the only option. They do not require that applicants stop abortion, just offer it as not the only solution.

Reasoning behind this: studies find women who see their baby in an ultrasound are far less likely to opt for an abortion.

Seems to me to be a religious idea that has smartened up. After all their not supporting any values here, just showing women their babies. Deceptive and secretive agenda here but it doesn't border illegal. And what is anyone to do to stop this after all? Offer money to not use ultrasound machines?


Use the search feature. You can find locations near you that are affiliated.

[B1NKS]

Why would anyone want to stop women from receiving an ultrasound imagine?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: B1NKS Why would anyone want to stop women from receiving an ultrasound imagine?

Because statistics at least as far as these people think show women are less likely to have an abortion after an ultrasound.

Less likely to want an abortion? Or feeling to guilty to have one now?

I think its the fact that a religiously affiliated group is promoting this that will offend free choice proponents. I guess you could argue should women be given ultrasounds? Or just deal with the unwanted fetus asap.

[B1NKS]

I think ultrasounds show that 'the thing in the womb' is a human being.

[Jack]

It's doing no service to women in this situation to attempt to trump reason with emotion. However, it's not inconsistent with most religions to employ guilt as a means of accomplishing their ends, considering reason to be antithetical to their purposes.

[B1NKS]

The fetus in the mother's womb is clearly a human being, that's pretty obvious, and not even any abortionist would disagree.

The real question is what value we place on that human life.

An emotional person might say that human life is priceless, while an emotionless person might do a quick cost-benefit-analysis before reaching an 'objective' judgment about the 'worth' about the fetus in question.

[The Bacon Guy]

Nothing illegal about what they're doing. I would however say it's morally questionable to be trying to manipulate the emotions of the mother during a vulnerable time in her life, simply in order to promote their agenda.

[Chaossaber314]

Two Thoughts -

-If it's before a certain point, they can't even perform an ultrasound so this shouldn't affect women unless they're considering a later term abortion.

Or... is it possible to perform one earlier and doctors just typically choose not to do it? If the reasoning is that there's nothing to see at that point, what's the point of even doing the ultrasound?

-If it's truly an option, what's the difference? How many women are actually going to want to see the fetus if they had already decided to get an abortion? I know I wouldn't.

[Jack]

The fetus in the mother's womb is clearly a human being, that's pretty obvious, and not even any abortionist would disagree.

Granted, it's not a lizard. But is it a viable human being? Does the woman have no say what happens to the product of her body? If the answers to those questions were so clear cut, there wouldn't be a national debate on the topic.

[B1NKS]

Who are you to say which humans are viable and which ones are not? Sounds like a slippery slope to me...

[Jack]

Who is anyone to say? That's another part of the debate. My only stake in the matter is believing in a woman's (or any sentient being's) right to determine what happens with her own body. I do believe viability can be medically determined.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Two Thoughts - -If it's before a certain point, they can't even perform an ultrasound so this shouldn't affect women unless they're considering a later term abortion. Or... is it possible to perform one earlier and doctors just typically choose not to do it? If the reasoning is that there's nothing to see at that point, what's the point of even doing the ultrasound? -If it's truly an option, what's the difference? How many women are actually going to want to see the fetus if they had already decided to get an abortion? I know I wouldn't.

Perhaps late stage abortions then? I think the main target for these would be poor non white regions where they might not know their pregnant until months in. I notice the centers we have in CT are located in poor regions mostly(poor by CT standards)

An ultrasound could just be used to check up on the female, like a mandatory pre abortion checkup, then show her the image. Aww you really want to kill that?

[B1NKS]

[quote=Isherwood;456864I do believe viability can be medically determined.[/QUOTE]

The Nazis would have agreed.