The Ultrasound as a Weapon?

An executive director of a Community Pregnancy Center named Candice Keller said in the Middletown Journal that she believed that having an ultrasound machine on-site may keep many women from having an abortion.

That's far from shocking but the number she put to it was.

She said 85 percent of expecting mothers who are considering an abortion change their minds if they hear their baby’s heart beat.
That's startling.

And it's why Big Abortion is attempting to close down crisis pregnancy centers. In Maryland they're pushing the government to place all sorts of restrictions on them so that abortion-minded women won't mistakenly hear their baby's heart in a crisis pregnancy center.

Liberal pro-aborts say they embrace science while us backwards Christianista types want to haul women back to the Dark ages. How come we're the ones using the latest in science while they continue with their "ain't nuthin in the womb but a blob of tissue" defense?

Who's the scientific one when we're the ones who state that human life begins at conception and back it up with the fact that at the moment of conception a unique DNA code comes into existence while pro-aborts just insist that every woman has to make up her own mind when life begins. Does that sound like science?

Remember that Planned Parenthood worker saying that babies in the womb at ten weeks don't have heart beats they only have "heart tones?" Is that science?

Currently, I believe 12 states have some form of mandatory ultrasound laws. Pro-aborts hate that because they're not actually for informed choice. Because they know that most women who hear their baby's heart may not go through with the procedure.

Columbia Law Professor Carol Sanger, called the ultrasound laws "another weapon in the arsenal of anti-abortion forces." A weapon? Really? They're for killing the babies in utero and we're for having the mother look or listen to what they're killing. And they accuse us of using "weapons?" Yeah, that makes sense.

But we're the non-thinking anti-science types.

Comments

  1. "heart tones" is still a heart . . . and only a LIVING thing (person or creature) can possess an heart.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice one Sarah. Good point. Often analysing the language people use uncovers basic subterfuge. This, after all, what propoganda is, the abuse of truth through distorted language.

    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  3. Random:
    On Maafa21, a preacher at the end of the video calls the abortion suction device the real "weapon of mass destruction" (esp of his Afr. Am. community).

    gbm3

    ReplyDelete
  4. They know that they're being nonsensical. It's not about honest discussion, sincere exchange or good faith debate. It's about what will stick or what can be used in law or simply to throw to the liberal media as propaganda - no matter how illogical or absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How come they don't have field trips for 7th graders to witness an ultra sound?

    It's not that I'm against ultra sounds, but at the point a woman is already pregnant and is possibly opting for an abortion, there is alot of pressure from her support groupm namely the father and her family to sway her in one direction or the other. If your support system abandons you, it's very hard not to follow suit if there are threats of emotional/social rejection of the pregnant mother. The thing is a woman of lower socio-economic position may be more likely to keep a baby, then let's say an young woman living in an affluent suburb. One thing to have your college age daughter have a baby, but having to turn to welfare and charity because you abandon her is another.

    It's totally messed up when married women with children have abortions, the threat of divorce if she has the baby is so troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Renee: That is an excellent idea. I'll suggest it to my kids schools whenever I get the chance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The year Kerry ran for Pres, NARAL called the ultrasound a weapon. True - truth is a weapon to defeat lies.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment