Jeez, you're gonna drag this out when I bring home a date, right?
Posted on 02/03/2006 7:22:56 PM PST by paltz
I guess you only have you have a "choice" when you want an abortion.
I'm a genuine pro-life guy, but I find this a little creepy.
Looks like a Polaroid sort of snap.
so it's okay to abort a "fetus," but not take a picture of one because this might cause the "fetus" harm... sounds like "liberal logic" to me...
When I was pregnant I looked into doing this. The website for the local office made it very clear that these were ultrasounds done just for keepsakes and not for medical purposes. The pregnancy turned out to be very high risk and I ended up have so many sonograms from the doctor's office that I can wallpaper my son's room with them. No need for the cutesy keepsake ones.
We've had ultrasound pics for our last three. My ob-gyn is now handing out CDs with pics of baby at 11 weeks. Now that I'm thinking about it, our seventh child was breach a few weeks before birth, so I was sent to a problem pregnancy doctor. He gave me pics of baby two weeks before she was born. You could see her dimples and other facial features. The pics we have from ultrasounds are nothing I frame or anything. They are from around 11 weeks gestation.
For that matter, we had babies born in 1997 and 1999 and I recall sitting through ultrasounds with Mrs. B. both times and I'm sure the tech gave us hard copies of the pictures.
Sounds like a turf war to me.
Jeez, you're gonna drag this out when I bring home a date, right?
The difference is in your cases it was the tech or OB. The complaint here is anyone with the machine setting up shop and doing ultrasounds just to make a buck, like it was Glamour Shots or something.
I think the doctors have a legitimate concern that unqualified people are giving ultrasounds for no good reason.
my wife and I have pics of our twins litterally almost from the moment of conception, since we did IVF.
Aw geez mom!
Baby ultrasounds done at the Mall are tacky and ripe for abuse.
It's certainly a turf war. Docs hate anyone not of their fold doing procedures they think of as theirs, and letting too much information fall into the hands of mere patients.
But it's also a religious war. The problem is that pro-life centers have been using ultrasounds to show expectant mothers their babies in utero. In some states, the pro-abortion lobbies have tried to get laws passed prohibiting anyone not an MD from showing a woman an ultrasound, just to prevent this.
The abortionist religion decrees that unborn babies aren't human until the abortionists say they are. The problem for abortionists is that this technology functions like the little boy at the parade at the end of The Emperor's New Clothes who yells, "The Emperor is naked!"
The ultrasounds (and "the stones themselves") cry out, "It's a baby!"
With our seventh, there were quite a few ultrasounds done. I never once heard a warning that doing a bunch of ultrasounds was dangerous to the baby. If I had, I probably would have said, "We'll just hope for the best." Are these glamour shots of babies in utero being used for clinical purposes?
Rather than misleading information, I have a gut feel that this is what this outcry is all about. 3 babies had "misleading info?" This is a turf war, and the new ultrasounds are so fantastic that it kills the ol' "glob of tissue" argument.
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.