When I went to the doctor when I discovered I was pregnant, the first thing she did was perform an ultrasound. From the moment I heard the heartbeat, there was no doubt in my mind that a living, breathing human being was inside of me. And that’s exactly why the pro-abortion movement must now claim the fetal heartbeat as junk science.
Rep. [score]Steve King[/score] (R-IA) recently introduced a bill in Congress that would require doctors to “check for a fetal heartbeat” before continuing with an abortion. If the ultrasound detects one, the new law would ban doctors from moving forward with the procedure.
The Atlantic quickly produced an article to convince their readers that there is no such thing as a fetal heartbeat. To do so, they tried to delegitimize the ultrasound.
“Since the mid-1990s, opponents of abortion have deployed ultrasound in their attempts to restrict abortion access. Five states have enacted “informed consent” laws, which require doctors to show their patients ultrasound images, and in some cases to describe the images, before performing an abortion. Two of those laws have been struck down by state courts. Twenty other states require a doctor to at least offer to show a woman seeking an abortion ultrasound.
“These measures are based on two assumptions: First, that an ultrasound image has an obvious meaning. Second, that any pregnant woman who sees an ultrasound will recognize this meaning. Science does not bear either assumption out.”
After recounting the history of the ultrasound, author Moira Weigel concludes it is not valid for the fetus. Apparently, since it first detected ships in the water, we aren’t really seeing what we are seeing. The ultrasound is, in The Atlantic’s opinion, distorting the glob of tissues to make you think you are seeing a baby.
Weigel also cites a 1965 Life spread that included fetal ultrasound photographs by Lennart Nilsson. His powerful pictures influenced a generation regarding the humanity of the fetus. But Weigel dismissed it all because:
“Later, Nilsson admitted that he staged his photographs using aborted material; this was how he had been able to manipulate the position and lighting of the embryos to such dramatic effect.”
But in her hurry to completely dismiss Nilsson, she overlooked an interesting fact. Nilsson may have staged the pictures, but he used aborted material. He didn’t use plastic models he designed. He used real fetuses taken straight from the womb. So even though the pictures were staged, real fetuses convinced the public that it truly was a baby in the womb, not a glob like Weigel maintains.
At 20 weeks, test results concluded that our baby was at a high risk of Downs Syndrome. This was mostly due to my age. We quickly scheduled a more extensive ultrasound to see if our little one was ok and prepare us if she wasn’t. The doctor looked at a series of markers, such as finger length, toes, eyes and other various tell-tale signs.
I will never forget the moment my daughter’s facial profile came up on the screen. She was a beautiful, healthily little girl. From that moment on, I knew my daughter. The second she was born, I recognized her immediately because she looked EXACTLY like her ultrasound.
The depths the baby killers will go to slaughter children is beyond my understanding. If you question a computer model that somehow predicts devastating weather patterns 100 years from now, you’re a science denier. Yet you can look at another computer screen, see your baby in your womb in real time, listen to her heartbeat, believe she is alive and human, and still, you’re the science denier.
So once again the left is trying to promote science by denying science. They are covering their eyes and telling the rest of us to, “Move along. Nothing to see here.”
In wrapping up The Atlantic article, Weigel makes this interesting conclusion: (emphasis mine)
“New “informed consent” laws and the Congressional “heartbeat bill” follow the same logic that The Silent Scream did. Their sponsors act as if ultrasound images “prove” that a fetus is equivalent to a “baby,” and that pregnant women only have to be shown ultrasound images in order to draw the same conclusion. But the “heartbeat” made visible via ultrasound does not actually demonstrate any decisive change of state in the cell mass that might become a fetus.”
I may only be a Middle American housewife with a degree in Mathematics, but observational evidence proves something to me. If it looks like a baby, sounds like a baby and moves like a baby, then it’s a baby. But who am I to use actual science on such an important social issue?
I encourage all pro-lifers to Tweet, Facebook and share as much as you can regarding the 2017 March for Life in Washington D.C. occurring January 27th. Include pictures, stories, reminders, and prayers about the event. Make your presence known on social media because you know the media won’t do it. As Townhall.com reports:
“According to the Media Research Center’s analysis, the networks covered the Women’s March on Washington 129 times more than 2016’s March for Life.”
We have to let them know that the America people still believe in life, even if the “scientists” deny it every step of the way.
But that’s just my 2 cents.