Images of smiling babies in the womb have pro-abortion activists screeching

Union Leader ^ | September 23, 2003 | Michelle Malkin

[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. Campbell’s 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 — it’s wonderful.”

Campbell’s 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 company’s 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 can’t 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 don’t want women to go to Planned Parenthood, where they’ll 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 it’s 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 child’s beaming face.

Michelle Malkin is author of “Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores” (Regnery).

[MHGinTN]

A single ping, Lady.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I saw some on another thread a couple of weeks ago (I think it was the same thing); it was amazing.

[HungarianGypsy]

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.

[EternalVigilance]

It really, truly is. Nothing can even come close...

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

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.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Please site your source on those statistics.

The Centers For Disease Control.

Snidely

[Skooz]

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.

[Skooz]

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.

[Calpernia]

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.

[Calpernia]

[Calpernia]

Come back and see my post #90.

[Calpernia]

Come see my post #90.

[sasafras]

Im with ya !!!

[ArrogantBustard]

Gotta be an Army Brat!

[EternalVigilance]

Indescribably awesome!

[JavaTheHutt]

bookmarking for later reading

[Coleus]

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.

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

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"?????

[Hotdog]

Thought I would add my 2 cent's worth...
Check this out...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/638293/posts

[GSWarrior]

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.