Posted on 06/28/2004 1:31:10 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Scans uncover secrets of the womb
Baby 'walking' in the womb A new type of ultrasound scan has produced the vivid pictures of a 12 week-old foetus "walking" in the womb. The new images also show foetuses apparently yawning and rubbing its eyes.
The scans, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell at London's Create Health Clinic, are much more detailed than conventional ultrasound.
Professor Campbell has previously released images of unborn babies appearing to smile.
He has compiled a book of the images called Watch Me Grow.
Conventional ultrasound, usually offered to mothers at 12 and 20 weeks, produces 2D images of the developing foetus.
These are very useful for helping doctors to measure and assess the growth of the foetus, but convey very little information about behaviour.
Complex behaviour
More pictures of developing foetuses Professor Campbell has perfected a technique which not only produces detailed 3D images, but records foetal movement in real time.
He says his work has been able to show for the first time that the unborn baby engages in complex behaviour from an early stage of its development.
Professor Campbell told the BBC: "This is a new science for understanding and mapping out the behaviour of the baby.
"Maybe in the future it will help us understand and diagnose genetic disease, maybe even conditions like cerebral palsy which puzzles the medical profession as to why it occurs."
The images have shown:
From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around the womb - well before the mother can feel movement
From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks
From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccoughing, and sucking. Until recently it was thought that smiling did not start until six weeks after birth.
An hour long session using the new technology, which is not yet available on the NHS, costs £275.
Pro-lifie bump!
Although Cesarean births are necessary some times, a baby is better off being squeezed through the birth canal. This process does something to form his body and head correctly.
Not that a C-section kid will have problems cause he/she didn't get the "big squeeze."
But the reason for my post is because of the comment that the kid comes out cross.
First of all, I imagine it is just a flippant comment, but it is amazing the difference between my two son's gestation and births.
The first one was always moving and kicking keeping busy. It was quite difficult for my wife.
When he came out he was a little drugged because of the pain relief his Mother decided to use.
But it wasn't long before he started getting mobile.
When he was just a few months old, and we didn't expect him to be able to move across the bed he did...and landed on the floor!
Needless to say he was a very curious and busy boy.
My second son during gestation was very mellow, and didn't move much. Smooth pregnancy for his mother.
He was born at home (a cabin in the Santa Cruz Mountains) with an ob/gyn and his wife a nutritionist in attendance.
I got a little anxious, as I could see the kids hair when they arrived!
I could have handled it if I had to , I had been at about 3 births before that with no doctors or midwifes in attendance.
Well to wrap it up, this second son...when he came out...he was mellow and quiet and smiling.
Quite a contrast.
Now my daughter's birth...LOL just kidding, I won't go into that one now...
I don't expect to see this in any of the major media here. They will have to answer for this some day.
ping..........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032076/
Dear God, the video is so beautiful!
Even the BBC reporter had to close by saying, "this will reopen the debate regarding abortion."
Please forward the above link to as many people as possible!
(Make sure you tell people that they'll have to sit through a 15 second "Red Zone" deodorant commercial before the video begins, which seems sacrilegious, to say the least).
It's not true, because they steal our children away from us in the government reeducation centers.
I'm sure Michael Moore will bankroll a film exposing this grave injustice. Can't you picture him chasing abortionists to their cars waving a portable DVD player in their faces showing this video? OK, maybe not.
Mel Gibson on the other hand... Mel, are you out there?
And how many women in that class have gone on to have abortions, partly due to that teacher's actions? Tragic. Hopefully, he'll see the video and repent.
We have been led to believe that at 12 weeks, the unborn child is nothing but a blob of uninterpretable flesh. Guess what, scientists can be wrong.
I talked to a doctor who did 3D ultrasounds for a crisis pregnancy center. He said 85% of the women who see their babies choose not to abort them, compared to 15% of the women who receive simple counseling alone.
4D ultrasounds will undoubtedly boost those numbers, and word is sure to get out on the street. But CPC's need money to buy this equipment...
Mel Gibson on the other hand... Mel, are you out there?
Someone needs to give the abortion industry the Michael Moore treatment. They are scum from their polished talking heads to their money-grubbing butchers. I hope Mel or someone equally enterprising will do such a big-screen expose. The small screen tends to get gauzed in sanitized terms and sensivity filtering.
I would be just as happy if this doctor didn't get a clear view of his prey.
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/11493605?source=Evening%20Standard&preview=null
The teacher was an e-lite she. Thank God I went to a small school, so she couldn't corrupt too many kids for the years she was there. But I was ridiculed for my belief that every life was special and deserved a chance.
To All:
This is a well-thought-out response, so please, no flames. Any flames will be ignored, because I have no desire to fight.
I have previously posted on FR (and been roundly spanked for it) that it was my belief that abortion should be outlawed beyond the point of fetal viability. Meaning, that once the baby has a 50% chance of surviving on its own outside the womb, that abortion should be illegal.
Many folks posted to me that my stance was unreasonable, because, "Why was the baby any less a baby one day before my magical time limit?" They also asked if that time limit should be moved backward as medical technology progressed to where we could save younger and younger babies (I said "yes" to that).
I thought that it was a reasonable compromise that would have the immediate effect of preventing at least some abortions.
Okay, now to the point ...
After seeing these pictures, I cannot justify my previous position. These babies are much younger than anything that current medical technology could save, yet, they're clearly babies.
If these pictures can change my mind, they can change other minds. Maybe just living in the world we live in will make abortion unacceptable, whether illegal or not.
It's unacceptable for me now, in any case. Y'all were right and I was wrong.
Flame me all you want for my past beliefs, but I won't respond.
This article is surely bogus. Everybody knows it is just a mass of cells and such until 9 months and one minute have passed. It's not alive until it is completely out of the mother. Everybody knows that dumby ! </sarcasm>
You know, God has ways of reaching people. I am so glad you were able to see these precious babies.
Thank you.
I guess I really shouldn't respond to positive posts, either. I wasn't trying to attract attention to myself - I just wanted to do the right thing and admit to those folks that I argued with that I was wrong.
So, no more responding at all.
Did you see this? Beautiful!
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.