Posted on 11/11/2004 1:16:35 PM PST by Caleb1411
A few weeks ago, I went to lunch at a diner 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 v. 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 millions 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.
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 millions 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.
worth a look
Googled ultrasound, 30 weeks
http://images.google.com/images?q=ultrasound%2C+30+weeks&hl=en
My daughter was just born 2 weeks ago tomorrow. At 14 weeks, it had arms, legs, head, etc... It moved too.
I'm sorry, but how anyone can knowingly end a life in any stage for any other reason than medical, is beyond me.
Yes, a baby photographed in the womb smiling should be the poster used instead of dead fetuses that many abortion protesters use.
You just used "my daughter" and "it" in the same thread.
thanks for this post. We had a stillborn child years ago.
Having seen a 6 month old fetus, I don't know how people can say it's not a baby, or for that matter, not care.
I meant "it" sort of in a past tense manner, since at 14 weeks we still didn't know it was a "her". ;)
Ah, OK. I misunderstood.
Babies just like her are murdered every day. It's all just so sick.
Yes, but to be blunt, you never convince the hard core abortionists, you must concentrate on the people in the "middle".
Showing them pictures of hope and potential is much more effective than showing them pictures of dismembered corpses.
It worked for me.
Ok, but I still think that people need to be awakened to this tragedy, and after years and years of ultrasound, it doesn't seem people have been.
Rape, incest or life of momma ONLY.
I'm going to sound like an extremist, but I'm going to bring it up anyway.
Rape: Killing the child for the crimes of his or her father is not the answer. What if mother had a normal sex life with her husband and had been raped? What if they didn't know until the child was born who was the real father? Would it be OK to kill the child at 2 weeks old if it was determined that the rapist was the father? Why is it OK to kill the child earlier than that?
Incest: See Rape. Same deal.
Live of the Mother: What mother would not give up her own life to save her son or daughter? Who is to say with 100% accuracy that if a child is not aborted that the mother will die? What if the mother was dying and needed a vital organ that only her 1-year-old child could give her to save her life? Would it be OK to kill the child and take the organ to save the mother? Why is it OK to kill the unborn child to save the mother?
That being said, over 95% of all abortions committed in America are for matters of convenience - not rape, incest, or life of the mother. I'd be absolutely thrilled if we could eliminate that 95% - then we'll talk about the other 5% and whether those are a good idea or not.
Ultra sounds have come a long, long way. It provides a window into the womb. Statistics prove that if a woman considering an abortion sees her baby in an ultra sound that she will decide against an abortion(in most cases).Praise God for this.
Genesis 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Psalm 106:38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
and Incest? Why is this listed separately? When incest isn't rape, does the woman deserve some kind of special 'favor'?
Nice post.
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.