We save puppies, whales , deer in high water . We can save babies too !
South Dakota enacted new legislation last month in an effort to further its pro-life campaign and to stop abortions. That measure incorporates ultrasound technology that, according to pro-life activists, plays a major role in many women changing their mind and sparing the life of their baby.
National Right to Life recently reported that South Dakota joined the ranks of 11 other states by passing a Senate Bill requiring abortion facilities to give a woman seeking an abortion an opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child and to hear the heartbeat, if possible, before going through with the abortion procedure. South Dakota is the 12th state to enact this legislation; other states include Mississippi, Idaho, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Louisiana.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=74789
The National Right to Life (NRL) press release says the bill is "reflective of a national trend that recognizes the ability of ultrasound technology to provide mothers with the opportunity to see the development of their unborn child in real-time." It also notes that, because abortion is a permanent act, women deserve to be thoroughly informed about all aspects of their decision before making it, including a chance to see their baby.
'Amazing window to the womb'
South Dakota's newly enacted bill is nearly identical to the bill Mississippi passed almost a year ago. According to another NRL press release, Mississippi was the eighth state to enact the legislation. It also mentions giving women all the facts before they make a life-or-death decision like abortion, noting that ultrasound technology gives women an "amazing window to the womb." MS Senate Bill 2391 states that, before a qualified physician performs an abortion procedure, he or she is required by law to:
Perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing abortion;
Offer to provide the patient with an opportunity to view the active ultrasound image of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible;
Offer to provide the patient with a physical picture of the ultrasound image of the unborn child; and
Obtain the patient's signature on a certification form stating that the patient has been given the opportunity to view the active ultrasound image and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible, and that she has been offered a physical picture of the ultrasound image.
The patient does not have to look at the ultrasound, but it must be performed. And the clinic must have written consent about whether she chooses to view the ultrasound.
Making the technology available
In 2004, during Sanctity of Human Life month, Focus on the Family (FOTF) and Heartlink.org created the Operation Ultrasound Program (OUP). In his January newsletter that year, Dr. James Dobson, CEO of FOTF, said he felt God calling him to help strengthen pregnancy resource centers (PRC) nationwide because the abortion industry "has treated preborn babies like non-persons whose lives mean nothing in the eyes of the law" for the past 31 years.
OUP will provide ultrasound machines to examining rooms at PRCs across the U.S. "Our board of directors has authorized us to help provide ultrasound equipment to as many centers as possible and help shepherd them through the training and implementation process .... Each of those children is worth more than the possessions of the entire world and is imbued with an eternal soul that will live forever in the world to come," Dr. Dobson cites as his reason for helping.
Statistics* show that 89 percent of women who see their unborn children in an ultrasound when seeking an abortion opt out of it and keep the baby. Women with this option are far less likely to seek abortions than those without access to such an option.
Dobson notes the heartbreaking statistic that, in 2004, nearly 45 million babies had been sacrificed since Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973. The number is bound to have increased since then, thus his reason for developing OUP. OUP exists to better equip PRCs to function as medical clinics by offering ultrasound services.
In order to qualify for OUP, a PRC completes a series of applications. Once the applications are approved by the FOTF board, the executive director of the PRC, along with a board member, attends a regional meeting to gather more information about OUP. After attending the meeting, an OUP representative will assess the requesting PRC and spend time helping them to meet the necessary requirements to get their ultrasound machine. The representative will then come to the clinic for over two days of on-site training. FOTF covers 80 percent of the cost of the ultrasound machine and sonography training. The PRC must pay the other 20 percent.
http://www.silentscream.org/
Here ya go if you want to watch a baby killin'. Pretty gruesome.
Could get expensive for the PRC - not sure where they get their funds from, maybe somebody here knows?
I have to wonder who would have adopted all those 45 million babies they say were aborted. And I wonder who will adopt the unborn babieds now. My guess is it won't be fatbabe.
Abortion done in the first trimester should be allowed - it is the woman's body, her choise. The fetus could not survive outside the womb in the first trimester, so it is not a viable life. Just a couple of months post menses. After the third month, I do not think women should abort. But many women don't even know they are pregnant until that third month or later, and I can't see what good can come of expecting a 15 year old girl to give birth whether to keep it or put it up for adoption. Unless of course, all you pro-lifers are already standing in line ready to adopt (but of course, you won't be). Mailmanchuck - how many of these babies have YOU adopted?
They have not asked me to adopt them. They are from overseas , the husband finally has a good job , when I took them in he was unemployed.
I am interviewing this week another International student who is un - employed at present. I might breakt Toledo's occupancy law and take him and his family into my home too .
Is that a good enough example for you ?
There are waiting lists of families to take in babies , so say my friends at the local www.pregancycenter.org
I would take one too if I had a wife , and it is actually difficult to get a baby , the list is so long of adoptive parents, and few are put up for adoption.
I am a respite care-giver for foster parents , have been doing that for years.
So this is not really about me , it is about our culture . We are affluent enough to save puppies , but too selfish to own up to consequences of our sexual activity. I say 'our' , abortion has victimized my family too .
There are more studies coming out each year of the psychological and health consequences of our abortive culture. http://www.abortionfacts.com/effects/effects.asp
so, the fetus is a life three months after conception? after three months the fetus should not be aborted? why not, if it's ok before 3 months, than why not up to delivery? it is a womans body, her choice.
if people were not having unprotected sex out of wedlock, then there would not be an issue.
Statistically speaking, that's surprisingly not true.
One of the largest demographic groups who have abortions are married, middle-aged women who aren't ready/willing to have another child.
(I just saw a news article recently which discussed the demographics...I think it might have been an article discussing birth control options for older women. If I can find the link again, I'll come back and post it.)
Statistically speaking, that's surprisingly not true.
One of the largest demographic groups who have abortions are married, middle-aged women who aren't ready/willing to have another child.
In other words, for convenience sake.
for what choices she makes in regards to her body and her reproduction is none of your buisness Billy, or anyone elses for that matter.
It amazes me how few people actually KNOW what the Roe v. Wade decision actually says.
Here is part of JUSTICE BLACKMUN's majority opinion.
"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization)."
i.e. Even the original Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade says that abortion CAN AND SHOULD BE REGULATED.
maybe abortion laws in the U.S. will eventually mirror those in, say, Nicaragua
It is just my opinion about the fetus/first trimester - because, as I said, the fetus can not survive outside the womb at three months or less. Probably not in the forth or fifth month either, but at three or less months, it is so small, it could miscarry in a toilet with little fanfare. (I've miscarried under three months & didn't feel a thing, just a 'blip' in the toilet, non-recognisable). But again, just my opinion.
mailmanchuck - taking a family in is a nice thing to do, but it is not the same as adopting somebody's unwanted baby. Being single may hinder you getting a baby, but there are a lot of little kids that need homes. That said - I am not judging you for not adopting somebodys baby. Babies are expensive & a lot of committment & work. My point was that few of the pro-life people do adopt these unwanted babies, and they are quick to push that pro-life agenda, and lay guilt on women who choose to abort. Talk a lot of talk, but few walk the walk.
littlered - I'm not getting into a debate of when life begins. We could argue for years & not agree. I won't even say that the fetus isn't 'life' at under three months - it is a fetus however, unformed, and cannot survive outside the womb, and is so small it can miscarry in the toilet without incidence. By the 4th month, it is larger, more developed, and I think a woman should figure out what her plans are about that pregnancy before the 4th month - by mid 3rd month, she usually knows she is pregant
by adoption, and thanks for your kind words .
But the fact is there are far more people that want these babies than there are babies to adopt. There are more abortions than adoptions .
Your assertion of pro-life people is off too, at least of those I
have known . Again , the waiting list to adopt is full .
That's a shame, because I know 2 children in Lucas County who are in need of a home. Biological siblings - boy and a girl. Beautiful, bright, well-behaved children.
Seems like if there are people so desperate to adopt, then these 2 toddlers should not be in such a precarious situation without a permanent home. (But, of course, they aren't infants. God forbid someone supposedly want a child so bad, but only on the condition that the child is an infant.)
I never got the whole “when life begins” discussion…
You have the sperm from the man, something that we have been flushing down the toilet and into tube socks since we’re 12 or 13.
You have the egg from the woman, something her own body destroys every month since the age of 12 or 13.
Put the two together and you have instant life? Seems silly…
I believe that abortion should be legal, available and government funded for any female who wants one. In the first trimester, no questions need to be asked or answered. It is her body and she can do as she likes. That includes girls under the age of 18 - that's right, all you mums and daddies out there can find out about your little girl's abortion after the fact, if at all. As for the middle aged woman who wants an abortion because it's convenient, fine. It's no one's business but hers.
By the third trimester, I think that abortion is completely acceptable in the case of extenuating circumstances, such as the health of the mother being threatened.
This is my own opinion, and having read the abortion arguments many times I can safely say that it is extremely unlikely that any of you will have anything to say that will cause me to change my mind. Feel free to try, though, and if you succeed I'll even tell you about it.