New ultrasound technology shows 12-week-old unborn child 'walking' in womb (Photo: BBC News).
Posted on 07/04/2005 6:52:59 AM PDT by Mikey
When the British Medical Association met last week, Prof. Stuart Campbell had reason to be optimistic doctors would vote to change the upper limit for abortions due to social reasons from 24 to 20 weeks – after all, stunning 4-D ultrasound images created from a technique he pioneered, showing fetuses stretching, kicking and leaping at 12 weeks, had spawned that debate.
But 77 percent of BMA members voted to continue aborting babies at 24 weeks, a position Campbell believes goes "against British public opinion."
New ultrasound technology shows 12-week-old unborn child 'walking' in womb (Photo: BBC News).
"I was particularly surprised because of the huge success of the [television] program Life Before Birth, which of course used my ultrasound images," Campbell tells the Glasgow Sunday Herald. "So many people told me that they felt very emotional about it.
"Then there was another program, In The Womb, by National Geographic, which was watched all over Europe and America. Because of the response to these programs and the images they contain, I had thought there was a growing movement towards the recognition of humanity in the womb.
"But despite all the evidence and the explosion of information, the BMA has voted in a way that I would describe as counter-intuitive, to say the least."
Campbell, a London obstetrician, pioneered the new ultrasound techniques at the Create Health Centre for Reproduction and Advanced Technology. The professor has compiled the images in a book titled "Watch Me Grow."
As reported by WorldNetDaily, his images show at 12 weeks, an unborn child can stretch, kick and leap around the womb long before the mother can feel movement.
While most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks, Campbell's pictures show the baby open its eyes from 18 weeks.
New technology reveals behavior of unborn (Courtesy Sky News)
A whole range of typical baby behavior and moods can be observed beginning at 26 weeks, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccuping and sucking.
Smiling was believed to not start until six weeks after birth.
"After 18 weeks, you are beginning to see such an advanced state of development," says Campbell. "In fact parents, when I show them the images at that stage, tend to say, 'Wow, it looks like a baby.' It's a shock to them and they are overwhelmed by it."
Following publication of Campbell's pictures last year, even the 1967 Abortion Act's author called for the termination cutoff to be set at 22 weeks. A motion in the House of Commons noted the images "illustrate even more compellingly the humanity of the unborn child."
But Anne Quesney, director of Abortion Rights, dismisses Campbell's images and praises the BMA's "compassionate" vote.
"It's clear the BMA wanted a provision for women to be able to access abortion between 20 and 24 weeks," she says. "What's really encouraging is that doctors overwhelmingly voted to retain the upper limit, and this was supported by the Royal College of Nursing.
"I don't think British public opinion is of [Campbell's] ilk. We have seen since 1967 extremely strong support for women's right to choose. Fetuses are not developing any faster now than they did 2000 years ago and I think the use of emotive images is not very helpful."
Campbell, who supports late abortion in the rare case of severe fetal abnormalities, is not seeking to outlaw abortion, but he would like to see it more closely regulated.
"Obviously it's an unfortunate occurrence, all too common, and we have to allow women to terminate an unwanted child," agrees Campbell. "That's part of the law and I accept it, but only up to 18 weeks.
"To terminate above 18 weeks of gestation," he says, "when the fetus is showing facial expressions, complex behavioral activity – behaving very much like a baby – I think is really quite barbaric."
He concludes: "I am very sad that the BMA went this way and I hope the issue will be revisited."
Related articles:
Unborn babies 'smile' for the camera
How do abotionists determine the
age of the fetus?
How do they know that 20.000 weeks
is not 20.035 weeks?
What did you think we were killing, blobs of tissue?
Yes, indeed it is! Seeing is believing. They still haven't figured out that a baby being aborted before 18 weeks is just as barbaric. The ignorance about fetal development can be attributed to Panned Barrenhood propaganda and the drivel "taught" in public schools.
"After 18 weeks, you are beginning to see such an advanced state of development," says Campbell. "In fact parents, when I show them the images at that stage, tend to say, 'Wow, it looks like a baby.' It's a shock to them and they are overwhelmed by it."
-vs.-
"I don't think British public opinion is of [Campbell's] ilk. We have seen since 1967 extremely strong support for women's right to choose. Fetuses are not developing any faster now than they did 2000 years ago and I think the use of emotive images is not very helpful."
Abortion doctors dont worry about life when they cash that check they just got for doing what they do best.
Well, what did they think it would look like? A sofa? A table? A giraffe?
A women does have the right to choose what she'd do with her body,. There is no dispute there, but when she has another human being's body growing within her then she has no right over that body.
The women of the world (an especially in this Country) get over it. Your the woman and your the ones who get pregnant. If you don't want to have a child then do something about it. Take precautions.
I've heard ALL the BS arguments before. 'Its my body bla bla bla.', 'I have the right to choose over what I can do with my body.' 'What about rape, why should I have to carry that unwanted fetus bla bla bla.'
First off the use of the word fetus instead of a baby is a nice little way of avoiding the reality of what your really doing and that is committing murder. I'd say from the moment of conception to delivery, the chances are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% or better what will be delivered will be a human being and not a goat, bear, or an alien from space and for anyone to terminate that delivery is committing murder. Simple, cut and dry.
'Well why should I have to take all the precautions?' YOUR THE ONE THAT GETS PREGNANT. I guess its easier to commit murder against an innocent then to take a pill or get a shot under the arm every couple of months.
Women who would rather murder an innocent that take precautions are (IMO) P's OS and they should be aborted out of the category of a human being. Only a monster would murder an innocent.
All this means is that Prof. Campbell needs to do a bit more PR, and keep pushing. A shift in public perception, not a vote of the BMA, is what has to happen first.
A women does have the right to choose what she'd do with her body,. There is no dispute there, but when she has another human being's body growing within her then she has no right over that body.
The women of the world (an especially in this Country) get over it. Your the woman and your the ones who get pregnant. If you don't want to have a child then do something about it. Take precautions.
I've heard ALL the BS arguments before. 'Its my body bla bla bla.', 'I have the right to choose over what I can do with my body.' 'What about rape, why should I have to carry that unwanted fetus bla bla bla.'
First off the use of the word fetus instead of a baby is a nice little way of avoiding the reality of what your really doing and that is committing murder. I'd say from the moment of conception to delivery, the chances are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% or better what will be delivered will be a human being and not a goat, bear, or an alien from space and for anyone to terminate that delivery is committing murder. Simple, cut and dry.
'Well why should I have to take all the precautions?' YOUR THE ONE THAT GETS PREGNANT. I guess its easier to commit murder against an innocent then to take a pill or get a shot under the arm every couple of months.
Women who would rather murder an innocent that take precautions are (IMO) P's OS and they should be aborted out of the category of a human being. Only a monster would murder an innocent.
Whoops. Sorry for the double post.
Their brains gloss over reality quite easily. The repeat the mantra of a "woman's right to choose" and make a living human being into a political abstraction in the blink of an eye.
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.