It’s a Baby! It Always Was. But Now We Can See It.

How can anyone say that an unborn baby is not a human being?

I don’t know, even though I once did it myself. Based on my memory of myself at that time in my life, I would guess that people who say this are focused on what they see as the welfare of the pregnant young woman to the exclusion of the life of the child.

Even though they say that the baby is not a human being, what they really mean is that the human being who is standing right in front of them seems more important than the human being who is largely a hypothetical to them. It’s easy to be pro choice, or pro abortion, when you focus exclusively on the pregnant woman.

On the other hand, it’s easy to be anti-abortion (as opposed to pro life) if you focus entirely on the unborn child.

True pro life people can not ignore the welfare and lives of either one of them. That is our task.

The task of recognizing the humanity of the baby gets easier every day, thanks to technological advances which allow us to see this child for what he or she really is — a fellow human being. We can look into the womb and see the unborn child in ways that were unimaginable when the abortion movement began.

Back in those days, what we knew of human embryology was based largely on a study of the embryos of animals, or even insects. Human embryos simply weren’t available for wide scale study. The only way to peer into the womb was surgery.

Thanks to advances in ultra sounds and 3d scans, that is no longer true. New advances in this technology have just raised the bar even higher for those who want to deny the humanity of the unborn child.

I am going to link to an article from Mail Online which has some incredible photos and a video of an unborn baby taken using this new technology. Please go there and look at all these photos. You’ll be oohing and aahing over this baby just like I was.

Hello baby! Incredible 3D scans allow

parents to see foetus SMILING and

MOVING in stunning detail

  • The state-of-the-art software adds extra detail to 3D ultrasound scans
  • Software developed by Dr Bernard Benoit to help detect malformations
  • Expectant parents can see unborn baby smiling and kicking in the womb

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 06:23 EST, 29 March 2013 | UPDATED: 12:39 EST, 29 March 2013

A blurry blob on a hospital screen is the first view most expectant parents get of their child.

But new state-of-the-art imaging software is now able to map a foetus in incredible detail.

The software takes a conventional 3D ultrasound scan and adds colour, skin texture, lighting and shadows.

Scroll down to watch video

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2300983/Incredible-3D-scans-allow-parents-foetus-SMILING-MOVING-stunning-detail.html#ixzz2PPzQTrvf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  • pagansister

    Unavailable at the time I had my 2 children, the new technology is indeed great stuff! Our son emailed the pictures of our now 3 year old grandson each time one was taken, so we got a sneak peek of what he looked like pre-birth. :-)

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Its amazing how much they look like themselves after they are born, if that makes sense. One thing that struck me is that I could sense their personalities — by the way they kicked and turned — before they were born, as well. It’s awesome how when you’re baby is born you feel like saying “Hello, I already know you.”

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      I hope looking at the pictures of your grandchild now makes you pro-life. :)

      • pagansister

        I know you want me to say it made me change my mind, Manny, but I still believe women should have a choice—-which means just what is says—choice. I would sincerely hope that the choice would be not to terminate, and use an alternative—adoption, or help from others if she keeps it. I am not “pro-abortion” which I think those who totally oppose it call those of us who feel women have a choice. There is, IMO, a huge difference between the words “pro-choice- and ” pro-abortion”. Personally I don’t think anyone is “pro-abortion”.

        • Ted Seeber

          The biggest weapon we have against abortion, , even the death penalty and war- is charity.

          If we are stuck with a disordered definition of liberty that allows evil, making good choices more available is always a good thing.

          Sadly, I have met many people who ARE pro-abortion. They’re usually also pro-contraceptive, and pro-forced-sterilization, and they’re radical malthusians.

          They would simply not agree with Mother Theresa that saying there are too many children in the world is like saying there are too many flowers in the world. They believe they know better than the universe itself what the environment needs, and the one thing they think the environment needs, is no more human beings.

          • pagansister

            Ted, I am, as you have probably guessed, pro-contraception. However, I’m most certainly not for forced sterilization.

  • Bill S

    It is natural to find babies adorable. Without this instinct, our ancestors may have neglected newborns thus increasing infant mortality. Since the only purpose of our existence that nature has provided is to pass on our genes, we are naturally inclined to cherish and nurture our young.

    Humans can give their lives other meaning and purpose and are under no obligation to pass on their genes. So, as brutal as abortion may be, it can be an essential part of a woman fulfilling the meaning and purpose that she has chosen for her life. It is well within her rights to abort her child if she does not want to let it grow in her body or if she is unable or unwilling to support it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Question: Can anyone tell me which of the so-called “new atheists” Bill is quoting here?

      • Theodore Seeber

        Richard Dawkins. And like Richard Dawkins, he completely fails to notice that for the thestic evolutionist, there is no difference between “Survival of the Species” and “God’s Will”- for God wishes the human species to survive.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      Oh I guess when it’s inconvenient human life is worhtless. Let’s kill the little thing since he’s so powerless to resist and voiceless to object. Why should someone be burdened with children? How disgusting.

  • Bill S

    Richard Dawkins. “The Selfish Gene”

    Thank you for not deleting me.

    • Theodore Seeber

      A question Bill- and please don’t take this the wrong way, but:
      Did it ever occur to you that maybe Richard Dawkins is not a genius and isn’t worth your time to listen to?

      I mean, come on, your average 10 year old Catholic school student knows that there is no difference between God’s Will and Theistic Evolution that can be discovered by human beings, yet atheists such as Dawkins persist in the error that they can divine the undivinable and proclaim God doesn’t exist merely by identifying God’s handiwork.

      This isn’t worth my time or yours to debate. If _The Selfish Gene_ and _The God Delusion_ are the cause of your jump to atheism, well, it leaves much to be desired from most reasonable standpoints, which is why Dawkins keeps losing debates.

    • Theodore Seeber

      A good place to start might be Ed Freser’s _The Last Superstition_
      http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/

      Ted, your link to that book didn’t work. Here is another one.

  • http://theontologicallapsometer.blogspot.com/ jmalcolm

    Gosh Bill S, I would sort of think after Rebecca “pantsed’ you for that tired, raggedy boiler plate of a comment you posted you would kind of hope she would delete you.

  • http://reluctantliberal.wordpress.com Reluctant Liberal

    My wife I and struggled for a while to come up with a name for what is normally called the “prolife movement.” We flatly refuse to call prolife someone who supports the death penalty, preemptive war, and recognizes no obligation to the least of these. We settled on pro-birth, since we didn’t want to stick the “prolife movement” with the “anti” of antiabortion. You (and others like you such as Mark Shea), however, I have no problem calling prolife.

    Pax tecum

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I am honored.

  • Theodore Seeber

    “True pro life people can not ignore the welfare and lives of either one of them. That is our task.”

    This is why I argue for, in pro-life circles, triage conscience protection for doctors. Conscience protection was what was missing when abortion became legal, and still today does much harm to good pro-life people who work in the medical field. IF we ever succeed at getting personhood for the unborn, standard triage rules NEED to apply for first responders and emergency room personnel. No medical professional should ever be punished for saving the life he is able to save, at the expense of the life he is not.

    But note, this isn’t choice, and this is completely within keeping with standard medical treatment of adults today- triage happens every day in emergency rooms around the world. You save the ones you are able to save. You take them in order of greatest need, greatest injury to least life threatening injury. Thus I don’t see how such an exception would harm the concept of personhood, or conversely, how granting personhood to the unborn fetus would necessitate getting rid of triage.

  • Peg

    Wow amazing technology! Makes me wonder…

    Even though I might have once had this, I struggle to understand the disconnect especially from mothers.

    How can we ooh and ahh at these pictures and those of our own children in the womb and also support the violent taking of these precious lives from other women even if by a mothers “choice”.

    These babies are just as wonderful unique human and alive as ours. They are total innocents who can’t help it if they are not wanted or came into being by violence. Should violence beget more violence? Or convenience beget violence?

    It makes me very sad to hear women say we need a safe place for women to go to participate in the violent action of abortion. Friends and family and counselors can pull alongside these women to help them through a difficult time and save a life through adoption…but these children should also have a safe haven in the womb and an equal right to life.

    After seeing the miracle of life and experiencing it under positive circumstances, it’s a struggle to understand the taking of life under all but situations except those thoughtfully considered by the Church.

  • pagansister

    Peg, the reason women say we need a safe place for women to go to to have an abortion is because it is true. Most certainly I would prefer no woman opt for that procedure and chose an alternative instead. A better choice would be the use of contraceptives to prevent STD’s as well as an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. (obviously some of those fail) . Fortunately I have never been faced with having to make that choice, but I know 3 women who did have to make it, and chose to terminate. Outlawing abortions wouldn’t put a stop to them, only put them underground as they were before Roe V. Wade.

    • Theodore Seeber

      The trouble being that abortion is inherently unsafe; rarely for both patients but always for one.

    • Guest

      The tired meme of butcher back alley abortions again. 1) They didn’t happen nearly as often as abortion protectors would like us to believe and 2) that was back when there was actually a lot of scandal attached to having an out-of-wedlock child and very little support.

      There is virtually no scandal today, there is abundant public and private financing available to help a woman keep a child, and there are tons of parents with empty arms who would bend over backwards to adopt an infant and pay for medical/living costs. There would be precious little incentive for any woman to subject herself to a ‘back-alley” abortion today.

      What you would (will) find out when abortion is illegal again or at least extremely rare is that women and men will have started exercising their choice where it should be exercised – before having sex.

      • pagansister

        Obviously Guest, men and women have a choice to engage in sexual activity or not. Should they choose to do so, then they should have enough sense to have birth control handy to lessen the chance of pregnancy as well as STD’s. I don’t think that making abortion illegal again will stop too many from having sex. And yes, “unwed” mothers are not a cause for scandal in most cases anymore, but that doesn’t mean that a girl/woman wants to be have a child. Personally, I’m not sure there is a shortage of babies for adoption. There are older children in foster care that need adopting—because many unwanted “babies” grew up mistreated until the “mother” finally had the child taken away and put into the foster system—but many folks want ‘babies, not the older children. The reason that there are those that want to adopt babies is true—-but is that a reason for a woman to go thru a pregnancy?

        • Ted Seeber

          Isn’t a huge part of the problem with that the social meme of unwanted children in and of itself? Maybe it is time to admit to ourselves that *all children are wanted*- if by nobody else, by the child herself.

        • Guest

          “The reason that there are those that want to adopt babies is true—-but is that a reason for a woman to go thru a pregnancy?”

          Yes and I’ll give you just 2 very good reasons:
          1) not murdering her defenseless child
          2) taking responsibility for the consequences of exercising her choice to have sex when she knew she wasn’t willing to accept a pregnancy and knowing full well it could happen despite efforts to the contrary.

          Please don’t bring rape and incest and harm to the mother into it because those are an infinitesmal percentage of total abortions – the ‘rare’ part of the lie of argument for abortion. The vast majority of abortions are obtained by healthy women with healthy pregnancies seeking a convenient path out of responsibility for a choice they freely made.

          If you try and apply a rational for ending another human being’s life to any other negative consequence for a freely made choice it fails utterly. Abortion is the only instance where people are allowed to get away with it.

          Like I pointed out to you before – you can’t even decide you don’t want your healthy pet anymore and then kill it without facing criminal charges in this country. Even if it was a bad choice made in a moment of ecstatic attraction that is just ruining your life now! And to answer your ridiculous “and?” from that thread – since when did we start equating animals with humans? Are you a member PETA perhaps?

          • pagansister

            Answer to PETA question, Guest, is no. I have no pets at all.

  • Shelah

    To all those who talk about the “wonders” of modern technologywhich allows us to see the child in the womb:
    This technology was available and extant on the world when abortion became legal in NY and California as far back as 1968 and published in Life Magazine in full color in 1969–long before the Supreme Court gave us abortion on demand up until birth in 1973! We have seen the unborn child
    for all these years and still deny them life and peace of mind to women.

  • FW Ken

    Pagansister -

    About what other form of murder would you make those arguments?

  • Peg

    Pagansister I know a lot of folks share your opinion as I did somewhat as well, but to me it means it’s not thought through enough. Not from prolife folks like me when we can’t explain it well enough or charitably. Not from pro choice folks when they can rationalize away the taking of a life by particularly brutal means.

    The whole choice argument can easily fall away for many angles. Say I’m pregnant and I choose to take crack cocaine everyday because it’s my body. If I bring that child to term I am negligent for the damage and rightly so, but it’s legal if I terminate. If I choose to sell my body I can be arrested for prostitution. We are all liable for the choices we make, if not legally than ethically or morally.

    I’ve known women who have made that choice too and one who had it forced on her by her husband. Most have suffered serious anguish and regret. One was militant and proud. She is one of the most unhappiest people I’ve ever met. Safe, legal and rare is only legal.

    If we really think it through deeply enough and in a Christians case prayerfully, that trajectory will go past choice to the deeper reality of what is really happening… wanted maybe but not needed, not for the good of the woman or child.
    Peace

    • pagansister

      Peg, you make a lot of good points, and I appreciate the polite way you stated them. I’m old enough to remember way before Roe V. Wade. Yes, as with anything in life, each individual is responsible for their choices in life and have to live with their decisions. In my case, of the 3 family members, one was forced by her then husband, who we found out later, was abusing her. Fortunately she finally had the courage to leave him. One contracted an illness early in the pregnancy that guaranteed the fetus would be severely damaged, and the other had circumstances that didn’t make continuing a pregnancy even a possibility. All have had no regrets over their choice, or are they unhappy women. Blessings.

  • pagansister

    First, I would have to consider it “murder”, so I do not have an answer to your question. IMO, a woman has the choice of what to do with her body. IMO, the first 3 months should be the time limit—-as a woman should be able to make up her mind before that. Just my non-medical opinion. I do not expect agreement. This is totally a personal opinion. Mother Nature tends to terminate in that time limit. As I have stated many times, I would wish women would always keep a pregnancy—and that situations would never arise where women felt they had to make a choice. Life isn’t that easy for some. I expect you know that there are life threatening situations that arise during pregnancies so we won’t go into that here. Just a question for you—do you think that pregnancies due to rape/incest should be brought to term?

    • Ted Seeber

      The fact that it is “totally a personal opinion” is the real issue. An immature human being is killed and buried in a landfill. That being exists, it is a FACT, not a “personal opinion”, and cannot be denied.

      YES, I am absolutely sure that no child should be given the death penalty merely because their father committed rape or incest. Do we also put a child in jail whose father is a bank robber? Not to mention the fact that products of rape and incest often become amazing people in their own right.

      I understand that life isn’t easy. Life isn’t meant to be. We should *always* have conscience protections in the law for triage, and we should work hard to increase our charity so that no mother has to choose between feeding the four children she has and bringing a fifth into this world.

      But premeditated murder- no matter how premeditated- cannot be allowed to be the answer. Ever. Choice abused becomes evil. If it means we have to give up liberty to prevent that, so be it.

  • pagansister

    One more thing, FWKen, I do not consider the 3 family members (over many, many past years) who chose to terminate murderers. Those 3 women thought long and hard and weighed their options before their abortions. They did not commit murder.

    • Ted Seeber

      All that means is that they committed PREMEDITATED murder. Thinking long and hard on it doesn’t change whether it is murder or not, only that you talked yourself into it, usually for very superficial reasons.

      • pagansister

        Absolutely disagree with what you wrote above, Ted.

  • jakki

    Had I seen my baby like this in 1981 I would not have aborted her.

  • FW Ken

    I’m sure your opinions are important to you, PS, but it’s been a long time since we were talking about first trimester abortions. We are now debating “post-birth abortion”, aka infanticide.

    In any case, the issue is whether the unborn (or born these days) is human. If he/she is, then it’s murder. If it’s not, then no harm, and no reason for restrictions. There was a time when one could make the case for first trimester abortions, but science is making that viewpoint obsolete. At this point, it’s the law (not your opinion or mine, and certainly not science) that determines the child’s humanity. That is a hideous, decadent situation killing women as well as their babies.

    • pagansister

      FWKen, As I stated above, I feel a woman should know before 3 months is complete if she is continuing a pregnancy or not. I’m not in favor of terminations after that—-as I think was clear in my previous comment. Those in my family who had to make that very hard decision did so in that 3 month period. And as I also stated—they are not murderers.

      • Ted Seeber

        You were clear- but all that “very hard decision” changes is making the murder premeditated.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          This is getting a little unkind. You’ve made your point Ted. No reason to keep pounding it.

  • Peg

    Not sure whom the question was for and I didn’t see it answered but the consisten life answer would be that the willfull taking of an innocent life is intrinsically evil regardless of circumstances of birth, including rape or incest. The person or persons participating in the act may have various situations or levels of culpability but I would leave that up to God to judge. That decision can be a very sad and heavy burden for a woman and can cause great physical, psychological and spiritual suffering.

    It is alway painful and terminal for the child. I know of no other criminal situations where we would suggest approval for murdering a child of the perpetrator.

    Because I know God is real and the author of life, love and mercy, I would always hope any woman who has made that decision would take the opportunity to reconcile herself to God in this life. He can take the worst of experiences and turn it into something beautiful and meaningful if only we’d let Him.

  • pagansister

    Peg, I think I had aimed my rape/incest question at Guest. I must disagree with you that a child/woman should have no choice but to continue a pregnancy caused by incest or rape. Options should be offered, but under the horrific circumstances that caused the pregnancy, IMO she should always have that option to not carry to term.

    • Ted Seeber

      So children deserve the death penalty because of the sins of their parents? How far do you take that?

  • FW Ken

    PS. –

    The argument you want to make, then, is that abortions (at least in the first three months) is not murder, not that “Outlawing abortions wouldn’t put a stop to them”. Of course it won’t, although it might put the abortion factories where women are dying out of business, and return it to the doctor’s offices and “abortion parlors” (such as the famous one in Portland), whose practitioners were vested in not calling attention to themselves, thus taking care of their patients. Or at least argue that it’s justifiable homicide, as Margaret Sanger did.

    The situation today is dead women and live babies on the table allowed to die, or overtly killed. The current project is to make us all pay for this carnage. Once human life ceases to be sacred, all bets are off.

    And you asked me if I believe a child of rape or incest should be brought to term. The question is dishonest on the face of it, since that involves a small percentage of cases and hard cases always make bad law. But to answer your question, this seems to me a case where the sins of the parents (or one parent in the case of a rape) are visited upon the child. Do you think that’s right? Do you think the child should die because his father did an evil act? What if, instead, we gave the mother support and love through the pregnancy? Of course, pregnancy assistance has become the new target of the abortion trade, but think in human terms? I’ve seen single mothers receive support and care through trying pregnancies. That strikes me as human. Killing the baby? not human.

  • pagansister

    FWKen, As stated above, I would wish alternatives would always be given to those women who are seeking abortions—-and in the cases of rape and incest also. Think my opinions have been stated clearly, for what they are worth.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X