The Sonogram Bill

This is my critique of this article by Gypsy King. I am responding to a few of her arguments concerning the Sonogram Bill.

1: The State cannot tell a woman what to do with her own body

This is true. But we are talking about two bodies here, two completely genetically unique bodies. The state imposes many regulations on what we can and can’t do to someone else’s body.  

2: There are legitimate reasons why people get abortions; these people should not have to go through a sonogram

Less than 10% of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother, or due to rape/incest, or anything like that. The overwhelming majority of abortions are convenience abortions. If we decide that the 10% should be allowed to have abortions with no restrictions, does that mean the 90% should be allowed to as well? Should we overturn a law because there are exceptions to it? If we did that, we would have to overturn every law because there are always exceptions to every law.

3: The Sonogram law is unnecessary because women walking into an abortion clinic already know what they’re doing.

Do they really know what they’re doing? Then why do many women change their minds after seeing a sonogram? And what exactly do they see that makes them change their minds? What is your opinion about those women?

4: Your word choices

You said that having an abortion is a “traumatic” experience. If abortion is not the taking of an innocent life, why should it be “traumatic?” You also said that “Forcing doctors to give a description of what the embryo/fetus looks like and turn up the volume so they can hear the fetal heartbeat is disgraceful and unnecessary.” What about a woman hearing her child’s heartbeat is disgraceful? Would you be opposed to this same procedure if the woman was not seeking an abortion?

My critique comes down to this: Why should women not be informed about what is in their bodies? Why should they not see a sonogram? What are you afraid that they might see?