WARNING: Graphic. And Necessary.
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.
Oh dear God in heaven. I never really knew how the procedure was performed. Don't think I really wanted to know. Now that I have read this, and cried, it is even more a sickening practice that simply MUST be stopped.
How anyone could have that knowledge and not agree that it is murder is beyond me.
I have ultrasound pictures of my daughter sucking her thumb and she continued to suck her thumb when she was tired or upset until she was 6.
I was hoping that the article would have some pictures.
I skipped over that part because I've read about it before and it never becomes less disturbing.
It's sad...I agree...the more informed we are ...the better we can fight for these little people!
WARNING: Graphic. And Necessary.
The knowledge of that ghastly procedure is exactly what it took to move me from wishy-washy pro-choice to hard core-pro life. The more people that are exposed to this crime against God and nature, the closer we will be to overturning Roe v. Wade.
This horrible procedure contains all the features of a live birth and is actually more invasive than delivery because of the suctioning (and possibly the forceps)
This means that normal birth at that point holds NO GREATER RISK TO LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER than the procedure involved.
Thus there is no threat to a mother's life or heakth that could possibly demand this horrible procedure.
This should be brought up in court.
Here are some great pics!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
If partial birth abortion is needed to save a womans life, why do ambulances take Pregnant women to hospitals and not abortion clinics?
Freeper's wife says:
I first felt my twins move 9 weeks after conception, a week after an ultrasound at our first dr.'s appointment told us we were having twins. We had ultrasounds at every appointment after that, but the one that I remember most was when I had amniocentesis at 18 weeks.
The process involves poking the woman's tummy with a big needle. To make sure the baby isn't pricked, they do a simultanous ultrasound so the doctor can find a safe place to poke.
The lower twin sat pretty still, with her butt pointing down, and the process went quickly with her. We'd been discussing names for several weeks, one of which was Gabriella. Well, my husband watched the screen and said, "that's Gabby! the quiet one."
The upper twin was not only active, but aggressive. She moved all over the place, and when the nurse found a 'safe' place and pushed her finger into my tummy as a marker for the doctor's needle, the twin moved over to it and seemed to push back. She was definitely a feisty little thing, pushing back fiercely for some minutes. Finally the nurse managed to find another spot far enough away that the doctor could finish the procedure before the twin moved in.
Their personalities are still the same. Gabby is calm, relaxed, and Teresa is feisty and prone to tremendous tandrums. She is my most spirited child.
I don't know when life begins, but I do know Teresa was who she is long before she was born, and certainly before 18 weeks after conception.
PS: the Freeper, a stay-at-home-Dad and evening karate instructor, says "raising twins is a man's job!" and I agree.
Bump for life.
"If partial birth abortion is needed to save a womans life, why do ambulances take Pregnant women to hospitals and not abortion clinics?"
...why do fathers drive them to the hospitals and not abortion clinics?
I hope this technology spreads quickly even down to rural regional hospitals. A 'full discolosure' law might include one of these 3-D tapes or still images for the carrying mother to consider overnight (24 hour waiting period) before making a final decision. If we can't topple Roe (and I think we can), then force them to face the real facts.
When I was in college, I had two friends who had abortions. I even took one to get the procedure, though earlier than this. I was a pro-choice person in my youth. Your perspective changes with age and wisdom, in many cases. Being a mother myself was when I became sure about my pro-life stance.
I try not to preach to others, fearing sounding like a hypocrit to those who know my past feelings, but people can and do change their minds about things.
Of those I know, they will never be the same now that they have grown older and have had a chance to consider what those actions of long ago have done to their mental well-being.
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
from Roe v. Wade
I think ultrasound establishes that an unborn baby is a "person." Unfortunately it took a war to convince the "South" that African Americans were "persons", and it took another war to convince the Germans that Jews were "persons." We now in a war to convince radical moslems that christians are "persons." What will it take to convince the American Left that the unborn are "persons."
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The language to me suggests that there are "persons" other than those "born or naturalized." Would not that imply that the unborn was one of those "persons?"
I would sooner die myself anyway, than do this to my unborn child.
BTTT
Makes you wonder what kind of "doctors" these are...
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.