Should a woman who wants an abortion be forced to get an ultrasound?

Contributor: Bodhi Bodhi
No. The whole concept behind it is twisted, it's a humiliating attempted guilt trip from what i've heard.
06/05/2012
Contributor: Stinkytofu10 Stinkytofu10
Quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide
Any ultrasound, invasive or not. This is the question circulating our legislators right now, thanks to the GOP.
No. Especially not the invasive type.
06/08/2012
Contributor: Sir Sir
Most certainly not. No one should be forced to do anything.
06/08/2012
Contributor: sweetpea12 sweetpea12
Quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide
Any ultrasound, invasive or not. This is the question circulating our legislators right now, thanks to the GOP.
Absolutely not
06/11/2012
Contributor: amazon amazon
I'm disappointed in my gender for not supporting womens' rights more strongly. I'm even more disappointed that people use religion as an excuse to stick their nose in other people's business. Funny how many of the same want government "out of their business". Damn hypocrites!
06/11/2012
Contributor: Roz W Roz W
why is the government in the exam room get it out get it out
06/26/2012
Contributor: kitty1949 kitty1949
no. an ultrasound to make sure the woman is, in fact, pregnant? sure. making her see the screen? absolutely fucking not.
06/26/2012
Contributor: BoobCopter BoobCopter
No. Definitely not.
07/01/2012
Contributor: Lilith Bealove Lilith Bealove
Okayy, I am so not getting into the abortion part of this. But when I was pregnant they did a vaginal ultrasound and found out that I had complete placenta previa. Idk how placenta previa could effect an abortion, but I imagine if the woman is a good bit along and has placenta previa and gets an abortion it could cause some problems. If it weren't for the vaginal ultrasound that wouldn't have been able to see how bad the previa was. They may have let me go into labor, thus killing me and my child because without doing a vaginal they wouldn't have known it was completely covering my cervix. So, vaginal ultrasounds aren't outdated, and could possibly aid making an abortion safe.

*Sorry if I'm rambling, or not making much sense. I really don't like these kinds of debates.
07/03/2012
Contributor: P'Gell P'Gell
Quote:
Originally posted by kitty1949
no. an ultrasound to make sure the woman is, in fact, pregnant? sure. making her see the screen? absolutely fucking not.
There are urine and blood tests that can confirm a pregnancy 100%. There is NEVER a need for an Intravaginal Ultrasound before an abortion.
07/03/2012
Contributor: P'Gell P'Gell
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilith Bealove
Okayy, I am so not getting into the abortion part of this. But when I was pregnant they did a vaginal ultrasound and found out that I had complete placenta previa. Idk how placenta previa could effect an abortion, but I imagine if the woman is a good ... more
4D Ultrasounds that are not invasive and even Doppler "stethoscopes" can tell the doctor where the placenta is. Intravaginal Ultrasounds have been replaced with more updated, less invasive procedures that are actually more accurate.

Also, early in pregnancy (when 97% of all abortions are done) the placenta is small and not a problem as with childbirth. They are rarely large enough nor in the way enough to cause problems during dilation before the procedure.
07/03/2012
Contributor: Nora29714 Nora29714
no. but they may need to. She just shouldn't be forced to look at it if she doesn't want to...
07/03/2012
Contributor: P'Gell P'Gell
Quote:
Originally posted by Nora29714
no. but they may need to. She just shouldn't be forced to look at it if she doesn't want to...
I think the discussions on this thread has enough medical fact to make it clear that is it NEVER "necessary" to use an Intravaginal Ultrasound before an abortion. That's what the thread is about.
07/03/2012
Contributor: KRD KRD
It's absolutely absurd that women's health is still such a huge issue to politicians. Let us be and make our own damn decisions. If a girl wants an abortion, have at it. It's her CHOICE and her RIGHT to choose. gah
07/07/2012
Contributor: Experiment Experiment
It's a form of intimidation. They're hoping to shame these women into keeping children. It's sick
07/28/2012
Contributor: Billie Bones Billie Bones
Women (and other female bodied folks who have the potential of becoming pregnant) need to have autonomy over their bodies. The government needs to leave vaginas alone.
07/28/2012
Contributor: ToyGeek ToyGeek
It's government sanctioned assault for the purposes of punishing a woman for something the GOP believes violates its religious beliefs. It's barbaric, cruel, unconstitutional, and a waste of money.
08/03/2012
Contributor: snowyslut snowyslut
Quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide
Any ultrasound, invasive or not. This is the question circulating our legislators right now, thanks to the GOP.
Absolutely not. If a person doesn't need that -- or anything else -- in order to receive their needed health care, then it absolutely should not be forced on them. The state has no business violating people's rights.
08/07/2012
Contributor: bettle590 bettle590
no no no no no! there is no reason for it at all except to shame the person into changing their mind! it's manipulative and condescending and just terrible.
10/31/2012
Contributor: travelnurse travelnurse
That is not cool, I would call it emotional abuse!
11/02/2012
Contributor: damnbul12 damnbul12
Quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide
Any ultrasound, invasive or not. This is the question circulating our legislators right now, thanks to the GOP.
nope
11/02/2012
Contributor: Nyx (Under the Covers) Nyx (Under the Covers)
No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

I just had a transvaginal ultrasound for medical reasons, which I consented to. I felt bruised and sore for three days after, but accepted it as the price for the medical diagnosis I was seeking. Having that done to me non-consensually, however, would be assault.
11/13/2012
Contributor: thebest thebest
no!
11/21/2012
Contributor: VanillaFreeSex VanillaFreeSex
Quote:
Originally posted by badk1tty
link

This. Exactly this.
that was powerful...she always is.
11/21/2012
Contributor: Stagger13 Stagger13
Quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide
Any ultrasound, invasive or not. This is the question circulating our legislators right now, thanks to the GOP.
Absolutely Not.
11/28/2012
Contributor: Experiment Experiment
It's only person is to hopefully guilt a woman into keeping the child. It adds unnecessary strain to an already emotionally draining situation.
12/05/2012
Contributor: wildshores wildshores
no, no, and hell no. just a blatant attempt to try and intimidate and hurt women.
12/05/2012
Contributor: RedKyuubi RedKyuubi
I said yes. Because it should be confirmed she is pregnant. A pee test can have false positives. It should be done so she doesnt get an abortion when she has no child. That is unethical.

The MD should also know what is going on and have a good idea. So basically anytime the doctor wants an ultrasound it should happen.

But there should not be an ultrasound to guilt the woman or make or feel bad or for any other reason than it being medically necessary.

**I will say I am unsure if an ultrasound is medically necessary.
12/05/2012
Contributor: RavenInChains RavenInChains
Absolutely not. Ever. Vaginal ultrasounds are no better than rape. Forcing a woman to let you put something in her vagina is rape, period. And that is what they are legislating, legal rape. Any pregnancy that is so early as to need a vaginal ultrasound instead of a regular one is able to be terminated chemically, with a pill. That woman will not have to have anything put inside her for the abortion procedure and she should be forced to have something put inside of her so that politicians can try to make her feel violated and guily about her choice.
12/12/2012
Contributor: VeenaJae VeenaJae
No. There should be no question of it.
12/13/2012