Pro-choicers face reality of ultrasound pix

NY Daily News ^ | Nov. 7, 2004 | Zev Chafets

[conservativecorner]

A few weeks ago, I went to lunch at a diner in Mount Vernon with Rick Marino, a moral philosopher disguised as a home renovation contractor. The subject turned to pregnancy and ultrasound. A decade ago, when I was having my last crop of kids, the pictures came out fuzzy. The doctor would point - "These are the fingers" or "There is the head" - and I'd nod. In truth, I couldn't make much of the blurry images.

Today's ultrasound photos come in 3-D and color. At 18 weeks you can easily discern fingers and facial features. At seven months, you have a fully recognizable human baby. It's so clear that even a man can see it.

For a couple of hundred bucks a pregnant woman can go to the mall nowadays and have a picture taken of her baby. Or even a video with a musical soundtrack.

Rick and I were marveling over this when we were interrupted by the waitress. "You guys talking about ultrasounds?" she asked. At first I missed the edge in her voice.

"Amazing, aren't they?" I asked.

"They're going to be used against women," the waitress snapped. She was obviously ready to sacrifice a tip to make a point.

She was right, of course. Ultrasound images are already changing the perception of abortion. Once, the idea of fetal humanity was a matter of religious conviction. Now, it is an observable fact. If you don't believe me, go to Google Images on the Internet and type in: Ultrasound, 30 weeks.

The implications are both political and philosophical.

In the new Bush administration, abortion is going to become the hottest of hot buttons. The President will probably appoint three or four Supreme Court justices. At the very least, a Bush-leaning court would probably reverse previous rulings that outlaw a federal ban on third-term abortion. Ultimately, Roe vs. Wade itself may be in danger.

Obviously this is a crisis for the abortion-rights movement. It is also a problem for the Democrats. Most Americans are already queasy about third-term abortions. As ultrasound imagery improves, abortion-righters may find themselves without significant support in their own party.

Dogmatic orthodoxy on abortion is also a philosophical problem for the left. In the great moral debates of our time, they have rested their case on science, not blind belief. Lately they have taken to calling themselves "reality-based," in somewhat sneering contrast to presumably simpleminded "faith-based" conservatives. The problem is, this time they are on the wrong side of science.

It is true that millions of opponents of abortion arrived at their position without the need for photographic evidence. They have always believed that human life begins at conception. But there are million of others, neither reactionary nor religious, who have now concluded - or are in the process of concluding - that at some point, before birth, fetuses become babies, deserving of protection.

Finding that point will be the crux of the coming debate. If the abortion-rights movement wants the support of the middle-aged, socially liberal guys in the diners of America, it had better find a more convincing tone than anger - and an argument that doesn't require us to deny, on doctrinal grounds, the evidence of our own eyes.

[CaptainVictory]

Strictly speaking, all biological phenomena are on a continuum. Our need for discrete terminology doesn't trump the laws of physics. So, of course you are wrong.

Well, strictly speaking, it's impossible to cross an infinite number of points in a finite period of time, so motion is thus impossible.

Come on. Are you telling me there's no way to tell the difference between (1) a sperm and an egg; and (2) a human life with human DNA? If so, then of course you are clueless.

Not to throw labels around indiscriminately, but you are thinking like a liberal. You seem inclined to apply complex answers to simple questions.

[wideminded]

It's so clear that even a man can see it.

I have an 8-month old son. During his mother's pregnancy I had a chance to view a very large number of ultrasound pictures from a variety of machines. I could hardly ever make out anything in them even though it all seemed to be clear to everyone else.

[madison10]

"(Our objective is) unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children... (Women must have the right) to live... to love... to be lazy... to be an unmarried mother... to create... to destroy... The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order. The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthhood,The Woman Rebel Volume 1, Number 1.

That is totally disgusting.

[gitmo]

Actually, this is a lot like the move that first outlawed abortions in the US. Medical doctors began doing serious studies of fetal development, and came to the startling conclusion that these were real, live people inside the womb. Physicians began the petitions to the states to outlaw abortions.

[Dustbunny]

a Bush-leaning court would probably reverse previous rulings

I really resent that statement. The courts should follow the 'Constitution' then we would not have so many unmoral laws.

[wardaddy]

worst holocaust ever committed by far and no excuse for it.

there will be a reckoning.

[Dustbunny]

I keep wondering how of those murdered babies would have become researchers that just might have found a cure for many of the genetic and/or other serious diseases.

[Alouette]

The ultrasound scans already making a change in our culture.

Last week I went shopping for a layette for my daughter who is expecting her first child in 2 weeks. Even though she has had scans, she told the technician she didn't want to know the gender of the child she is carrying until it is born.

Many others, however, don't feel that way. I had a tough time finding layette items in gender-neutral colors like yellow and white. It is almost all blue or pink now. It seems as though every expectant mother knows the child's gender in advance and chooses the "appropriate" color.

20 years ago the images were too lo-res. I always asked the techs but they said the images weren't clear enough. Amniocentesis could accurately determine gender but it was not a common procedure.

BTW does anyone know the origin of the custom of dressing baby boys in blue and baby girls in pink? It seems to be a modern innovation. In previous centuries all infants were all swaddled in white.

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel ping list.

WARNING: This is a high volume ping list

[Dustbunny]

Abortion is a very lucrative business. Not only do the abortionists make a very good income aborting babies, they also sell 'fetal tissue'. They are so disgusting it is a wonder they can sleep at night.

[jocon307]

'Abortion rights' is a concept that can only exist when the whole thing is kept out of sight.

Atomic, you sound just like my mom!

[Alouette]

ping

[jocon307]

"That is when it will hit them, that they have no kind loving children to take care of them. There might be a lot of crying and gnashing of teeth."

And think, many have no husbands, so there will be crying, gnashing of teeth, and hands stuck out along with demands that "society" do "more" for them.

[muawiyah]

As I said, they derive much pleasure from their activity.

[Yaelle]

You are qualified to adopt from MANY countries. It is true that overseas adoptions often cost $15-20 K, but there are kids who need you. Look into it, if you are really interested. There are tax breaks of about $10,000 and other ways to get help.

[jocon307]

"Today they are regular people with kids, jobs and bills. I have THREE grandchildren!!!"

That's a great story, but, but, YOU MADE ME CRY!

[oldbrowser]

Why does everybody call them pro-choicers?
Call them what they are PRO-ABORTIONISTS.

[jocon307]

You make a good point. The job is not to win over the unrepentant baby killers at Planned Parenthood, the job is to win over the hearts and MINDS of child bearing age women and put PP out of business.

What if they opened an abortion mill, and nobody came?

[jocon307]

"I really resent that statement."

DB, I think you take offense unnecessarily (why is THAT such a hard word to spell? needlessly difficult!). Sometimes they screw up and decisions need to be reversed. They're human, they screw up, it happens. Let's not make the Judges into demi-gods like the Leftists like to.

No lawyer worth his or her law degree thinks Roe v. Wade is anything but a garbage decision, the left knows in time it will go down.

We really do have to keep Spector out of that "chair".

[maine-iac7]

Pro-choicers don't want to know the truth. They can't handle the truth.

True - but there are many who are simply ignorant - particularly about what "late term abortion" really entails. I can guarantee that tens of thousands would be horrified if they saw photos of that gruesome, murderous procedure.

But that is what is needed.

It's beyond what I can fathom - any medical people who can perpetrate this horror...The reason we loose ground to the pro-choicers is our inability to accept one step at a time. We want the whole ball of wax at once.

we WONT get it.

We must accept that our first victory is much more attainable by educating people to the realities of what "partial birth abortion" is - we can win that fight...and that's the elephant in the living room.

THEN we expand...

[SJackson]

You buy half blue and half pink, and return half before your daughter comes home from the hospital. I thought everyone knew that.