Skip to comments.
Images of smiling babies in the womb have pro-abortion activists screeching
Union Leader ^
| September 23, 2003
| Michelle Malkin
Posted on 09/23/2003 2:19:56 AM PDT by sarcasm
ALL OF BRITAIN was buzzing last week after a tabloid published highly controversial photos not of a topless supermodel or two female pop singers kissing or Prince William in a grass skirt, but of angelic babies smiling in the womb.
The ultrasound images, taken between 26 and 34 weeks after conception, were released by Professor Stuart Campbell and widely circulated on the Internet via the Drudge Report. Campbells an obstetrician at the privately run Create Health Centre in London. For the past two years, the medical facility has offered state-of-the-art 3-D/4-D scanning equipment services to expectant parents. Campbell performs an average of 30 scans a week. His outspoken enthusiasm for this blessed technology is refreshing. Parents love them, he told the Mirror. I hear so many couples laughing when they see the pictures its wonderful.
Campbells high-tech window to the womb also shows the babies moving their limbs at 8 weeks, leaping and turning by 12 weeks, curling their toes and fingers at 15 weeks, and yawning at 20 weeks. The clients reactions are overwhelming, Campbell said, especially with fathers, who rarely get involved. Before, they sat in the corner. Now, they really show emotion. I enjoy scanning and looking at babies. It is so informative about babies and behavior. Every scan is an adventure.
How have pro-abortion activists abroad reacted after seeing the happy, grinning photos of these unborn babies? With reflexive scowls and dour grimaces, naturally.
Anne Karpf, a commentator for the British-based Guardian who bills herself as a medical sociologist, says the photos are deeply disquieting and ridicules the anti-abortion lobby for being intoxicated with evidence of a fetus humanity. (God forbid this cold woman ever be exposed to a pregnant mommy experiencing the undiluted joy of a baby kicking inside her for the first time.) Australian Birth Control Services medical director Geoff Brodie complained that the photos will be picked up by those groups that use anything and everything to stop terminations but ignore the fact that women have a right to choice.
Here in America, the pro-abortion lobby is having the same toxic reaction. It was bad enough when conventional, 2-D sonograms revealed unborn hearts beating and blurry hands waving, but the abortionists are absolutely aghast over rapidly spreading access to 3-D/4-D ultrasound technology. When General Electric began running incredibly moving ads last year celebrating the companys new innovations in sonography, a writer for the liberal American Prospect complained the commercials were a milieu of clever illusion that blur(red) the distinction between a fetus and a newborn infant.
This from the masters of deception who gave us the infamous euphemisms fetal matter and uterine tissue, which have successfully blurred the distinction between human life and disposable Kleenex for more than three decades.
Similarly, pro-abortion advocates have attacked legislation in Congress, introduced by Florida Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, which would guarantee free ultrasound screenings to any woman who visits a non-profit crisis pregnancy center that receives subsidies for sonogram equipment. Kathryn Allen, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, griped, With all the problems going on in our world, I cant imagine that Congress would spend its time and energy on ultrasound for anyone.
Allison Herwitt, director of government relations for NARAL Pro-Choice America in Washington, also attacked pro-life supporters of the bill. They dont want women to go to Planned Parenthood, where theyll get their full range of options, said Alison Herwitt. They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at taxpayers expense.
Liberals in America are all for the government giving away any health services for free except if its a service that has the ability to persuade a wavering patient to preserve a life instead of end it.
These amazing advances in golden-hued ultrasound have illuminated an insurmountable truth: No amount of NARAL money or National Organization for Women screeching can overcome the persuasive power of an unborn childs beaming face.
Michelle Malkin is author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (Regnery).
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 3dultrasound; 4d; abortion; michellemalkin; pregnancy; prolife; righttolife; smilingbabies; ultrasound
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-108 next last
To: Calpernia
A single ping, Lady.
81
posted on
09/23/2003 10:53:47 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: EternalVigilance
I saw some on another thread a couple of weeks ago (I think it was the same thing); it was amazing.
82
posted on
09/23/2003 10:58:31 PM PDT
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
("Mary, help!" - General Wesley Clark, presidential candidate)
To: Thinkin' Gal
I had a similar experience with babies 1 and 3 (with my second and third babies I used a midwife, so did not get an ultrasound). My first baby was sitting back with his hand on his head, just relaxing.
My third actually was looking right at the ultrasound instrument and kept smacking his lips. He looked like he was talking.
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
It really, truly is. Nothing can even come close...
84
posted on
09/23/2003 11:03:54 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness....)
To: EternalVigilance
Yes, breathtaking - and I can see how viewing this could quickly change the mind of a woman seeking an abortion. This is the sort of thing that could have a real impact on hearts and minds, and it's bizarre and sickening that anyone would consider its availability some kind of threat.
85
posted on
09/23/2003 11:32:30 PM PDT
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
("Mary, help!" - General Wesley Clark, presidential candidate)
To: Fledermaus
Please site your source on those statistics. The Centers For Disease Control.
Snidely
To: Snidely Whiplash
Year Annual Number of Abortions
1973 744,600
1974 898,600
1975 1,034,200
1976 1,179,300
1977 1,316,700
1978 1,409,600
1979 1,497,700
1980 1,553,900
1981 1,577,300
1982 1,573,900
1983 1,575,000
1984 1,577,200
1985 1,588,600
1986 1,574,000
1987 1,559,100
1988 1,590,800
1989 1,566,900
1990 1,608,600
1991 1,556,500
1992 1,528,900
1993 1,500,000 estimated
1994 1,435,000 *
1995 1,210,000 **
1996 1,200,000 estimated
1997 1,200,000 estimated
subtotal 35,056,400
+1,402,256 (4% underreporting)
GRAND TOTAL 36,458,656 abortions, 1973-1997
Source for statistics for 1973 through 1992: Stanley K. Henshaw, et al.,"Abortions Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992," Family Planning Perspectives, vol.26, no.3 (May/June 1994), p.101
* 1994 Statistics reported in USA Today, August 14, 1996, p. A17, attributed to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
** 1995 Statistics provided by the Centers for Disease Control reported in "Abortion Rate Falls Because Contraceptives Used More, CDC Says," July 2, 1998 Bloomberg News service.
87
posted on
09/24/2003 7:02:54 AM PDT
by
Skooz
(All Hail the Mighty Kansas City Chiefs)
To: Snidely Whiplash
From Florida Right to Life (frtl.org):
For the most part, two organizations compile national data on abortions: the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). The more detailed, but definitely not unbiased, source is the AGI. The AGI is a "special affiliate" of Planned Parenthood, which, in turn, is the country's largest provider of abortion and its most vocal advocate. Even though the CDC collects data annually, the reason the AGI's figures are more useful is that the AGI actively solicits numbers from all possible abortion providers; there were 3,156 on its list in 1993. The CDC, on the other hand, relies on state health departments and other agencies to voluntarily send in abortion data. Thus, because of the essentially passive way the CDC collects data, it generally reports 200,000 to 300,000 fewer abortions than does the AGI.
88
posted on
09/24/2003 7:07:37 AM PDT
by
Skooz
(All Hail the Mighty Kansas City Chiefs)
To: MHGinTN
I have still shots of all my children in the womb. You would think no one has had ultra sounds before from the way they are acting.
89
posted on
09/24/2003 7:54:46 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: MHGinTN
90
posted on
09/24/2003 8:06:46 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: EternalVigilance
Come back and see my post #90.
91
posted on
09/24/2003 8:07:40 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: Coleus
Come see my post #90.
92
posted on
09/24/2003 8:08:10 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: jaykay
Im with ya !!!
93
posted on
09/24/2003 8:08:26 AM PDT
by
sasafras
(sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
To: BlueLancer
Gotta be an Army Brat!
To: Calpernia
Indescribably awesome!
95
posted on
09/24/2003 8:22:12 AM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness....)
To: JavaTheHutt
bookmarking for later reading
96
posted on
09/24/2003 11:34:53 AM PDT
by
JavaTheHutt
( Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tiennimen Square.)
To: Calpernia
Thanks, great pic, how can someone say that's a blob of protoplasm or protein soup. I think with images like this, we will soon be able to convince more people, including politicains, judges and expectant moms that a living baby is in there. Laws should be passed that each mother going in for an abortion see a sonagram like that.
97
posted on
09/25/2003 12:52:24 PM PDT
by
Coleus
(Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.)
To: sarcasm
Not to get off the subject of Legalized Murder, er Abortion...
I'll admit to being ignorant. I know what 2-D and 3-D is, but what in the heck is "4-D"?????
98
posted on
09/25/2003 1:02:51 PM PDT
by
cuz_it_aint_their_money
(I'm out of my mind...... But feel free to leave a message.)
To: sarcasm
99
posted on
09/25/2003 1:04:55 PM PDT
by
Hotdog
To: sarcasm
Whether one worships Jesus Christ, Krishna, Gaia or mother nature, I can't see how one could rationalize abortions except under extreme circumstances. It can't be a good thing, whether one has deep-seeded religious beliefs or not.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-108 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson