Why We Shouldn't Look Twice

             In the blog post “Why Not Give it a Second Look,” the author writes that the sonogram law is appropriate because it could save the life of the fetus. She relies heavily on the opinion of the author who’s article she wrote about, agreeing with many of her opinions.  I disagree with the author’s sentiment that a woman should be forced to view a sonogram of a fetus before terminating her pregnancy for a few reasons, and I disagree with the arguments provided  by both my colleague and the original author.

                The main reason that I disagree with the sonogram law is that it violates Doctor patient confidentiality and the Hippocratic Oath that doctors are sworn to uphold. This law forces our government to make a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor. If a doctor does not feel the need to prescribe a sonogram for his patient then he or she should not be forced to do so. If they feel that it would be more harmful to their patient, and are forced to prescribe it anyway, that is causing them to violate their Hippocratic Oath.

                I also dislike the methods both the original author and my colleague use to argue their points. The main issue I have, is that instead of using factual evidence or even moral guidance as a talking point, they chose to use guilt to influence the reader.  Using phrases such as, “Asking “mom” to sacrifice 24 hours is a lot less of an imposition than asking the fetus to sacrifice his or her life,” does nothing but make the reader feel like this is an obvious choice and they should feel guilty for thinking otherwise. This statement neglects to factor the mental and physical health issues that may result from this waiting period.  Perhaps a mother to be who feels guilty after seeing the fetus will keep the child even though it means accepting her own death and, if you are killing one to allow another to survive, you have defeated the purpose of the law. Many pregnant women may also experience severe emotional trauma which could have been avoided if they had not been forced to view the sonogram.  We have to assume that a doctor, who has taken an oath to do no harm to their patient, best understands what their patients’ needs are.  This is not a decision that our government should weasel its way into for the sole purpose of forcing a pro-life agenda.  They are hurting more people than they are helping.

                Another argument that both my colleague and the original author used was that we must take into account all of the wonderful things that are in our world because of children who had not been aborted.  The example that they used was Steve Jobs, whose mother decided to have him despite the hardships this would cause in her life.  The article does not mention whether or not Mr. Jobs biological mother ever even considered an abortion, which would be pretty important to their argument, and instead chooses to point out all of the wonderful things we may be without had he “ended up as an abortion.”  The problem with this argument is that it is so easy to reverse.  For instance, what if Hitler’s mother had decided that she was not ready for a child and aborted him as a fetus.  Would that have potentially saved the life of the 2 million Jewish people that he slaughtered and perhaps have prevented WWII? An argument that can be flipped so easily should be left out of such an important debate.

                The article that my colleague reviewed also implied that adoption was a prevalent alternative but that option is not without its trials.  America’s foster care system is overrun with children of all ages who are waiting to be adopted.  Many of them were turned over at birth only to be turned out on the street at the age of 18 with no training and no family to turn to.  For those interested in adoption, the process is rigorous and expensive, taking much longer than 9 months to complete.  This complicated process makes adoption a much harder trial than the author makes it seem.

I would like to see everyone picketing at an abortion clinic show that they mean what they say and adopt an abandoned child that a mother chose to have.  Unfortunately, what is more likely to happen, is that the unwanted child a mother was forced, or persuaded by guilt, into having, will grow up resented, unloved and not taken care of, or, be abandoned into an already overcrowded, state run, underfunded foster care system.

Besides the fact that the law is an invasion of doctor patient confidentiality, or that it goes against a women’s right to choose what to do with her body, there are many other factors that have to be considered in this debate. I would caution my colleague to talk to people on both sides of the argument and understand the consequences of both decisions. In all reality, no matter what we think, it is not up to us to decide what a woman chooses to do with her body and it is definitely not the government’s place.