Posted on 09/15/2003 10:35:24 AM PDT by miltonim
Images published for the first time yesterday suggesting unborn babies smile, blink and cry months before they leave the womb have renewed calls for abortion to be outlawed.
The pictures, published in London, show foetuses at 26 weeks exhibiting facial expressions. The images were captured by state-of-the-art scanning equipment.
Anti-abortion groups seized on the revelation, saying the images confirmed what they had argued all along: that a foetus was a human being with human characteristics.
The technology, known as a 3-D/4-D ultrasound, also reveals limb movements at eight weeks, leaping, turning and jumping at 11 to 12 weeks, intricate finger movements at 15 weeks and yawning at 20 weeks.
Whether the facial expressions are an emotional response or merely physical reflex is likely to be debated.
An obstetrician who has been using the Austrian-developed equipment at a private London health clinic for two years, Stuart Campbell, said: "It is remarkable that a newborn baby does not smile for about six weeks after birth. But before birth, most babies smile frequently. This may indicate the baby's trouble-free existence in the womb and the relatively traumatic first few weeks after birth when the baby is reacting to a strange environment."
In Australia yesterday, anti-abortionist Senator Brian Harradine said governments had a responsibility to at least look at the new information to emerge from London. Similar evidence pointing to activity in the womb had existed for several years, but had largely been ignored, he said. "The photos show abortion is actually killing these unborn children. It really is time the massacre stopped."
A Victorian Government spokesman said abortion laws were based on years of scientific research and while the Government was interested in all new medical developments and theories, any major policy review on abortion was a long way off.
Pro-Life Victoria secretary Denise Cameron said she was not surprised by the photographs. The information would bolster the campaign for a review of abortion laws.
"It is very, very exciting news for us... that babies at 26 weeks are smiling and laughing in utero," said Ms Cameron, speaking from the Freedom To Be Born rally at Treasury Gardens yesterday.
"No longer can you deny that what is in the womb is a living being. We have always known that every abortion is killing a baby."
Australian Doctors Who Represent Human Life president Kevin Hume, said pro-life groups had believed for years that a foetus had human characteristics. The images would allow them to say, "I told you so."
"If evidence of human features, smiling and so forth, appear at an early age it means we should look again at... abortion that is carried out in the first and second trimesters," he said. "We're looking at recognisable human beings."
Melbourne's Catholic vicar-general, Monsignor Les Tomlinson, said he expected the images would ignite further debate on abortion. He backed a review of abortion laws.
"The Catholic Church's position has always been that we would regard human life from the moment of conception. So this would certainly be scientific evidence of the correctness of our belief," he said. "Any revisiting of the legislation would be welcomed by us."
Australian Birth Control Services medical director Geoff Brodie said he doubted the pictures would have much impact on the abortion laws.
"I think they are clutching at straws," he said. "No doubt it 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."
The 3-D/4-D ultrasound reveals more detailed and life-like scans of a foetus than the common 2-D ultrasound that concentrates largely on the internal organs.
Obstetrician Professor Campbell said he believed the new technology meant there were many questions that could now be investigated. "Do babies with genetic problems such as Down syndrome have the same pattern of activity as normal babies? Does the foetus smile because it is happy or cry because it has been disturbed by some event in the womb? Why does a baby blink when we assume it is dark inside the uterus?" Professor Campbell said.
A spokeswoman for the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne said scientific evidence still maintained that babies in the womb did not smile.
Dr Brodie, of Australian Birth Control Services, said it was still unknown if smiles, or other facial movements, were the result of neurological reflexes or emotional development.
The $A290,000 scanner that makes the images possible costs two to three times more than conventional equipment. The machine develops ultrasound so that it can be transformed and shaded to produce detailed surface features from the foetus that move in real time. It is already improving diagnosis of abnormalities such as cleft lip and palate.
The alternative pregnancy volunteer groups are trying to put together enough money for a network of the fabulous new ultrasound machines--which show the baby 3D instead of the more widely used ultrasounds. Once a mother sees, she seldom aborts. NY tried to shut down such a clinic.
If that's the criterion then why is Helen Thomas still alive?
"I think they are clutching at straws," he said. "No doubt it 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."
Unless it's the woman in the ultrasound picture. She has no choice whatsoever.
The hypocracy of the pro-abortion crowd can turn your stomach.
Shalom.
I disagree. Right now, "minds and hearts" are governed by a desire to ignore the possibility of sexual sin. Men who force their pregnant toys to have abortions aren't concerned about those toys at all, just about the possible child support payments that might last 18 years or more. When your purpose in having sex is having fun, there's no room for having a baby.
If women could just pop the baby out and put it in an artificial womb, with less pain than abortion, we would still have abortions.
The pro-aborts only care about themselves.
Shalom.
That cannot be true. Inanimate objects don't yawn.
Here's my baby girl @ 31 weeks. We have the video. I counted 3 smiles, and one flipping-the-bird!
To anyone expecting, I say go for the more expensive 3D/4D ultrasounds. WELL worth the money!!
You pose a question.
You posit an assumption.
In a godless sort of way, liberals raise theirselves to the level of diety and refuse to admit anything that would chip away at their self-aggrandizement, including changing brehavior when shown clearly that they are supporting the serialized killing of alive, unborn fellow human beings.
Now, these same people have become comfortable with admitting the children killed in the wombs are real, alive fellow human beings, but these ghouls assert a woman must have the right to hire such killings! Put another way, the mantra they've spit at us for so long--'a woman's right to choose'--has been proven a wrongheaded assertion that was based on the thing being killed as not yet a human being, so now they must adopt a ghoulish stance to continue defending their previous wrongheadedness! It is insane ... and quite deadly for unborn little ones! And the democrat party is solidly working to keep this evil at the heart of that party, as if the killing is a gift to women in order to get them to vote blindly for the democrat candidate.
Our nation may not survive this evil onslaught since it has taken this horrific turn now affirming the notion that the child is real, really alive, and a woman must have the right to kill it at will. Cannibalizing the embryonic age of newly conceived fellow humans is the next step along thedenegration road the democrats and some pubbies support. No compromise on that extreme will be tolerated or entertained by the democrat ghouls.
They always say, "you don't know what a woman goes through. You don't know how hard it is." If it's not a human life then why should they struggle with the decision at all? If abortion isn't wrong and nothing to be ashamed of, then why even hesitate?
The fact is, they know it's wrong but they simply won't admit it. They have to stick by their lie.
The pro-abortion argument has undergone a variety of modifications over the years, which is generally an indicator of a failed position. First was the "it's-not-alive" gambit, but of course science and logic put the lie to that one. Then came the dehumanization tack, the "yes-it's-alive-but-not-human" canard. Logic blows that one away (if it's not human, what is it, an alien?). The most recent grasp at straws was the non-personhood obfuscation, which anyone with half a brain can see as simply an exercise in newspeak. Now most pro-aborts I talk to kind of (shamefully) admit that that what they are advocating is simply that women have the right to kill an innocent person and have no moral imperative to justify such a decision, and no one else has the moral authority to question it. How that is different from the Nazi position of being justified in exterminating a whole people simply because someone says they can do so goes unanswered.
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.