Posted on 11/12/2004 4:57:53 PM PST by Hotdog
Technology makes start of life clear
By Juanita Thouin
Published: Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Since the 1973 passage of Roe v. Wade, one pivotal issue has fueled the continuing abortion debate - the origin of life. Some said, and still say, life begins at conception. Others claim it begins at birth.
Through the 1970s and 80s, many of us accepted or at least acquiesced to a pro-choice philosophy - myself included. After all, the womb was a mysterious place where few ventured.
Yes, some of us had seen the amazing 1965 photos Lennart Nilsson took, via an endoscope, of a fetus still in the womb. But those were still shots. And still pictures of a translucent form with finger buds just didn't stack up against a woman's reproductive right.
In the late '70s a new technology arrived on the obstetrical scene - one I was privileged to see first hand. Just weeks before the birth of our daughter in 1980, my husband and I marveled over a Polaroid-type picture that looked more like a mass of gray and black shadows, than baby. It was an ultrasonic "photo" of our expected child.
While this technology caused me to think a little harder about the pro-choice issue, I still acquiesced to the logic that a woman should be able to choose what happens inside her body.
In the early '90s, pro-life groups began decrying partial birth abortion. Most of us had never heard of such a thing. However, in 1996 when Brenda Pratt Shafer, a former abortion clinic nurse, testified about the procedure before a congressional judiciary committee hearing, we not only heard about it, we were shocked. Shafer said the following:
"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startled reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out."
After her testimony, support for abortion on demand dwindled. In a 1992 Gallup poll, 34 percent of Americans - the highest percent for any Gallup poll - favored abortion under any circumstance. In 1997, after Shafer's testimony, Gallup found only 22 percent felt that way.
With the turn of the century, another scientific breakthrough shook the abortion battle clear down to its roots - that of 3-D ultrasound. And once again I've been privileged to experience this technology first hand.
Two years ago my daughter became pregnant with her first child. Because the pregnancy proved to be high-risk, for four months she had weekly ultrasounds - some of which were 3-D. What an amazing scientific feat. No longer are the photos gray and black shadows; they show a whole baby in living color.
Those ultrasounds revealed something very interesting about the fetus living inside my daughter. More often than not, the pictures captured the unborn little girl pulling on her ear. Today, Emma Grace, though a bit small due to her premature birth, is a happy and healthy 21-month-old. Today, she also pulls on her ear whenever she is tired.
Last month my daughter gave birth to her second child, a son. Though this pregnancy was normal, the doctor performed several precautionary ultrasounds. During these "photo sessions," we discovered Noah liked to keep his right hand in front of his face. Today Noah is a darling four-week-old who, when sleeping, puts his right hand up to his face.
In October of last year, Gallup again conducted a poll on abortion. Only 26 percent of Americans said abortion should be legal in all circumstances.
Earlier this year, Dr. Stuart Campbell of London, England released his research on activities of intra-uterine babies - research conducted via 4-D ultrasounds. Campbell discovered that babies at just eight-weeks gestation move their limbs. At 11- to 12-weeks gestation they leap, turn and jump.
It's been said the results of this year's election were a mandate on moral values. Perhaps they were. More than that though, I believe they were a mandate on the issue of life.
As more and more parents and grandparents see their pre-born children and grandchildren jumping or pulling on their ear while in the womb, more and more will start saying life does begin at conception.
And with that knowledge, the argument that has fueled the abortion debate will naturally fade away.
Juanita Thouin is a senior journalism major and can be reached at jlt3e@mtsu.edu.
Thanks for the info...and for the restraint, LOL.
Baby bump
Thanks for the ping!
And one more thing...if, at that late stage of pregnancy, the mother's life really is in jeopardy, why not just delivery the baby anyway? I know that if it were me, I at least would want to say good-bye, if it were truly done to save my life. (Although I am not sure I would have labor induced under those circumstances, anyway)
Obviously, this argument holds very little water with me.
The truly shocking thing is ... an entire political party has chosen to defend this heinous atrocity! Worse still, the people who've elected the most ardent defenders of this serial killing atrocity continue to re-elect the same Boxer, Harkin, Kennedy, Feinstein, Makulski, Lutenburg, and clintons knowing that they are defending this evil! That alive children are slaughtered takes second seat to the lust for power ... it's why many of us reiterate that the current leadership of the democrat party have blood of the innocent up to their armpits to stay in power.
BTW, the atrocity takes two to three days to perform because the woman's cervix is dilated with a seaweed chord until there is room to reach up inside of her with the forceps! IT IS NEVER AN EMERGENCY medical procedure, but the democrat defenders claim it must not be banned because women need this 'emergency' option.
I'm so sorry for your family's loss...I have been blessed with successful pregnancies (so far!) and cannot imagine the pain that must have caused.
Thanks for the congrats! This pg wasn't planned, but I love my little monkeys, and I am glad my youngest (just 4.5 months) will have a running buddy of his own. I'm actually terrified of the thought of a little girl, LOL. I think I could content myself with my nieces! I won't find out for quite awhile, as I am only about 9 weeks along.
Your MIL must have had the patience of a saint and the constitution of an ox! Bless her heart. Boys are fun though, don't you think? LOL
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
WTH is a seaweed chord? I would think they would use something like artificial prostaglandin (pig's semen, btw) to start the dilation.
Two to three days...my God, do the people that undergo this disgusting spectacle have informed consent? Do they know what they are subjecting themselves and their babies to?!? How can any thinking person consent to something so VILE??
How can any thinking person (doctors, nurses) DO something so VILE? It defies comprehension.
"Do they know what they are subjecting themselves and their babies to?" They've hired someone to slaughter their unborn child so what do you think?
Look at Kate Michelman, president of Naral. She had an abortion. Her actions and statements as Naral president tell me that she feels a profound guilt over her abortion, although she won't admit it even to herself, and that she is trying to decrease the intensity of the guilt she feels by encouraging as many other women as possible to have abortions (Reasoning: It can't be that bad! All those other women did it!). I think if she would face the reality of what she did, instead of submerging herself in extreme pro-abortionism to try to smother her guilt, she and many other women would be far better off.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Thank you for the link and the picture.
Thanks for the information....
That is the reason the pro-abortion do not want the true details of this horrible practice to come to light. No reasonable human being could see, hear about, or read about such a procedure and conclude that it is anything other than outright murder.
My wife is a Labor & Delivery Nurse, they DO NOT practice this procedure ( or any other abortions ) at her hospital. But in Fairfax County, one of the most sought after hospitals (for birthing) does this - and worse - all the time. She used to work at the hospital in Fairfax, and they called the wing where these procedures were performed the "Dark Side". Any Christian or Pro-Life Nurses had to sign a statement that they refused to participate in these practices - and they were severely ridiculed for it by their peers, doctors, and admin staff. "It's just a procedure" they were told.
Oh, are you shocked? You thought that abortions are done in some hidden clinic only? WRONG. Your local hospital's Labor & delivery ward is being used as an abortion clinic. Right next to the woman who carried and loved her Downs baby for nine months is a woman who upon hearing test results decided to kill her baby.
We need to work as hard as we did to elect President Bush to create a culture of Life in this country.
The only women I know of who could potentially justify THEMSELVES having an abortion are those with chronic medical problems...one is epileptic and the meds she takes cannot be taken during pregnancy. This one is a rabid pro-choicer and plans to stay "child free by choice" and IMO is using her epilepsy as an excuse to abort if they have an "oops." Makes me livid, but that tells me that deep down she KNOWS it's wrong.
The other is a very "brittle" type 1 diabetic and while she can have children, it requires careful control of her illness BEFORE conception. She has been trying for years with her doctor to control her illness and has been told that at this point an unplanned pregnancy will genuinely threaten her life. She and her husband use multiple methods of birth control in the hopes that they'd never have to make that awful decision.
The other pro-choicers I know claim that "well, I would never have one for myself...but I want others to have the CHOICE." Sure, honey - if it's not good enough for you, why is it good enough for other women? Doesn't sound so feminist to me!
Exactly! That is the scientific proof if that is what anyone is looking for. The thrust of this article was on technology which is distinct from science. Technology is a product of science, not science.
The author has realized that opinions have changed thanks to technology. The reason opinions have changed is as emotion-based as the pro-choice position of "a mother's choice-privacy-body (what have you)." I am glad minds have changed in favor of life but it is a shame that rationality has taken a back seat to emotion for so long. Secularists claim the rational/scientific high-ground stance but it is obvious that they have no real fealty to rationality or science if it obstructs their agenda.
Which begs the question...what is the agenda of pro-choice secularists? We can eliminate several basis for their agenda in order to answer that; it's not reason, it's not compassion, it's not reverence for life, it's not "privacy" and it sure as heck fire has nothing whatsoever to do with "government in the "bedroom"." Abortions don't occur in the bedroom and sex isn't regulated by law. Lastly, it certainly isn't about a "woman's body" since science and reason clearly agree that the body being killed is a distinctly separate and unique organism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.