Smiling babies in the womb have pro-abortion activists screeching

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Michelle Malkin
The Manchester Union Leader

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.
 
B

Bean

Guest
I am glad for the pictures, if it will prevent another abortion and promote sexual responsibility, then I think that is a wonderful thing. These pro choicers can scowl all they want, women do have a choice, and abortion is not the only one. They have the choice of abstinence, responsible sexuality, or adoption, and yet I see none of them out there advocating any of the aforementioned alternatives.
 
Upvote 0

Force

GO NOLES!!!!!!! 16 58
Sep 23, 2002
890
13
42
In Vegas at the moment....
Visit site
✟8,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Thats funny because a co-worker of mine just came in with some of those taken of her grandbaby, she said its even more realistic and detailed in real life than in the pictures she showed us....He was smiling for the first set and by the last one he was frowning like stop poking me....Way ugly but cute at the same time.
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
1. I know no one who is pro-abortion. This is a BS characterization.

2. Anyone who ever had a baby knows plain and simple that a newborn smiles, but not smiles of pleasure. Unfortunately it is reflexive, not responsive until the baby is 6 to 8-weeks old. So what exactly this whole smile controversy has to do with anything I have no idea.
 
Upvote 0

feral

Dostoyevsky was right
Jan 8, 2003
3,368
344
✟12,716.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I oppose abortion after the first trimester and normally before that as well, but seeing pictures of smiles or movement have no impact on that. Just because something takes on a facial expression you associate with intelligence doesn't mean it's so. Puppy dogs smile too. I see no difference.
 
Upvote 0

Force

GO NOLES!!!!!!! 16 58
Sep 23, 2002
890
13
42
In Vegas at the moment....
Visit site
✟8,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
feral said:
I oppose abortion after the first trimester and normally before that as well, but seeing pictures of smiles or movement have no impact on that. Just because something takes on a facial expression you associate with intelligence doesn't mean it's so. Puppy dogs smile too. I see no difference.
Are you saying puppy dogs have no right to life and or no feeling or sense of being?
 
Upvote 0

kdet

God lives in us
Jul 12, 2003
7,541
256
61
TX
Visit site
✟16,807.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Firscherscherling said:
1. I know no one who is pro-abortion. This is a BS characterization.

2. Anyone who ever had a baby knows plain and simple that a newborn smiles, but not smiles of pleasure. Unfortunately it is reflexive, not responsive until the baby is 6 to 8-weeks old. So what exactly this whole smile controversy has to do with anything I have no idea.

If you are pro-choice you are pro-abortion...you certainly aren't against abortion.
 
Upvote 0

Force

GO NOLES!!!!!!! 16 58
Sep 23, 2002
890
13
42
In Vegas at the moment....
Visit site
✟8,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Firscherscherling said:
2. Anyone who ever had a baby knows plain and simple that a newborn smiles, but not smiles of pleasure. Unfortunately it is reflexive, not responsive until the baby is 6 to 8-weeks old. So what exactly this whole smile controversy has to do with anything I have no idea.
How can you honestly know what because of or why a baby smiles? And the fact that the baby frowned after a while, I mean Im sure he was just trying out all those muscles right?

Give me a freaking break, if I slug you upside the head and say "but I didnt do it hard", does that mean you didnt feel it or it didnt hurt? Thats the rationalization of a little kid.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
sweetkitty said:

If you are pro-choice you are pro-abortion...you certainly aren't against abortion.
No. One can be against abortion but also realize that the decision is not ones own but for those involved.

It's the same with inappropriate contentography. One can be against pronography but also realize that others have the right to view it.

It's not a difficult disctinction to tell the difference between what one personally is for an against but also realize that others have fights too.

Understanding the difference is part of becoming an enlightened person. Failing to understand the difference is a throwback to a less enlightened system of ethics.
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
Force said:
How can you honestly know what because of or why a baby smiles? And the fact that the baby frowned after a while, I mean Im sure he was just trying out all those muscles right?

Give me a freaking break, if I slug you upside the head and say "but I didnt do it hard", does that mean you didnt feel it or it didnt hurt? Thats the rationalization of a little kid.
I suggest you get some books on babies and do a little reading before you start spouting off. You aren't allowed a 'freaking break' until you are studied enough to know what you are talking about. Knee jerk reactions based on lack of knowledge are not an argument.
 
Upvote 0

burrow_owl

Senior Contributor
Aug 17, 2003
8,561
381
47
Visit site
✟25,726.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Interesting article. The pro-abortion folks have one point here that I found reasonably compelling: it seems kind of wasteful to spend money on free sonograms, which arent' medically necessary, but serve only as a tactic in a political battle. Shouldn't we use the limited public funds on somwhat-decent health care for the already-born children that aren't covered by insurance, rather than spending it on trying to convince people to forego a legal procedure?

I understand the thrust of the technology, and by all means this nefty technology should be used, but not in a way that diverts money from an already cash-strapped system that's overburdened by the uninsured.

Overburdened? you say. That's right. I had to spend 8 hours - 8 hours!! - in an emergency room yesterday before a doctor would see me (since the hospital had swelled with the ranks of the uninsured). Even if the argument from human rights isn't compelling (which I go back and forth on, myself), certainly the argument from productivity is quite compelling (for me, missing a full day of work just to get some antibiotics).
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
sweetkitty said:

If you are pro-choice you are pro-abortion...you certainly aren't against abortion.
Nope. Wrong again, Kitty.

Someone who is pro-aortion would be fighting for people to have abortions. Folks who beliven the right to choose are, with few exceptions, of the opinion that if there were a way to eliminate all of the reasons people have abortions, they would want that. Unfortuntely, there are a lot of very unfortunate but valid reasons to have one. It is never a pleasurable or desirable thing to have an abortion. It is never a pro issue.
 
Upvote 0

Force

GO NOLES!!!!!!! 16 58
Sep 23, 2002
890
13
42
In Vegas at the moment....
Visit site
✟8,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Firscherscherling said:
I suggest you get some books on babies and do a little reading before you start spouting off. You aren't allowed a 'freaking break' until you are studied enough to know what you are talking about. Knee jerk reactions based on lack of knowledge are not an argument.
And Im telling you I dont care, I know enough to point out that you cant for certain say the baby wasnt smiling for pleasure...your not the dang baby.

Like I am going to believe some book that tells me that life doesnt begin at conception, when I know thats not true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

water_ripple

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,254
18
45
Visit site
✟1,561.00
Faith
Christian
burrow_owl said:
Interesting article. The pro-abortion folks have one point here that I found reasonably compelling: it seems kind of wasteful to spend money on free sonograms, which arent' medically necessary, but serve only as a tactic in a political battle. Shouldn't we use the limited public funds on somwhat-decent health care for the already-born children that aren't covered by insurance, rather than spending it on trying to convince people to forego a legal procedure?
Wasteful to spend money on free sonograms? Well my sonograms were used for the purpose to make sure the baby was not developing complications. They were used to make sure the baby's arms and legs were in the right positions, to make sure the umbilical cord was in the proper place (after birth where the navel is located), to make sure the heart was functioning properly, etc..I have no need for a political battle to decide if my fetuses were human or not. Both of my children were caught on sonogram sucking their thumbs. Sonograms are part of a diagnostic procedure in medical science. If an abnormality is found the doctors work to prepare the patient for what is to come. Some doctors have been using new techniques doing surgery on a fetus before it is born to give the child a better chance for a normal life, and hopefully to eliminate further trama from sugery later in life.
burrow_owl said:
I understand the thrust of the technology, and by all means this nefty technology should be used, but not in a way that diverts money from an already cash-strapped system that's overburdened by the uninsured.
I live in a small town, and in this town companies rarely if ever offer insurance. I am not rich. My husband works ungodly hours to make ends meet. We are uninsured. He is working so hard so that I don't have to. He is bringing in one income so we can raise our children without putting them in daycare. We feel that it is our responsibility to raise our kids ourselves and not the people in daycare. (this does not mean I think people who do this are any less of a parent) I am going to finish my college education after my children are in shcool, and then seek gainful employment. In our eyes our family comes before our own personal desires. My husband is a forman. Same thing as a manager. Employers in this county rarely offer benifits, but one still has to live. We do get medical assistance for our youngest daughter. That does not mean that we live off the system. We work hard. I apologize that we have to make sacrafices for the things we need. I apologize if I have burdend the insured with sonograms to make sure my children were developing normally. Does this make me unworthy to recieve medical care b/c I cannot afford it? Does this make my children unworthy to recieve medical care b/c we cannot afford it?
burrow_owl said:
Overburdened? you say. That's right. I had to spend 8 hours - 8 hours!! - in an emergency room yesterday before a doctor would see me (since the hospital had swelled with the ranks of the uninsured). Even if the argument from human rights isn't compelling (which I go back and forth on, myself), certainly the argument from productivity is quite compelling (for me, missing a full day of work just to get some antibiotics).
I am sorry that your problems are so much bigger than mine. I apologize that I am or my children have a medical need that have inconvienenced you. I am sorry that we do not have the resources to completely afford medical care.
 
Upvote 0

water_ripple

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,254
18
45
Visit site
✟1,561.00
Faith
Christian
water_ripple said:
Sad to see that the humanity of a child is viewd as a weapon.:(
I apologize that I did not clarify to what I was responding:
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.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums