Science firmly on the side of the pro-life cause

I still haven't finished part II of my earlier blog, entitled, "Who Do You Work For, Good Or Evil? And How to Tell..." But if you've read that far, you know that I've said your first test is whether or not you are telling the truth. Good has nothing to hide; evil always does. So, telling the truth is the best indicator of who you're working for.

As the title of this weblog indicates, my objective here is to find scientific support for beliefs, conduct, moral values, etc., that are considered to be purely "religious." And I maintain that one need only look for the truth to find this support. Science should be firmly on the side of truth.

In matters of life - and abortion - it is.

The more people who find out the scientific truths about conception, pregnancy, gestation and fetal development in the womb, the more they reject the lies that the death advocates pump into the public consciousness. They refer to themselves as "pro-choice," but like everything else, this is demonstrably untrue; they systematically and categorically oppose any and all efforts to get more information into the hands of pregnant women considering abortion. But truth never sleeps, and science marches on.

In that vein, let's get some good news out on the table right away. There is a news article in the BBC today about a new ultrasound scanning technique that shows elaborate three-dimensional images of unborn babies in the womb.

Here is the link to the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm


As a follow-up, if you'd like to see some of these images, here is another BBC link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm

These photos show quite clearly that unborn babies in the first trimester have what the story called "complex behaviors": they yawn, stretch, swim, "walk." Weeks earlier than doctors originally thought, we now know that babies in utero can open their eyes. Doctors have believed that infants could not smile until weeks after birth, and yet the photos produced by the London researcher show babies smiling in the womb.

Widespread access to this technology would - and WILL - have a dramatic impact on women considering abortion, especially those who continue to believe the lie that it's "just a clump of tissue" or "a mass of cells." (Ok, who ISN'T a 'mass of cells'?)

Abortion advocates will oppose the access to this technology. Indeed, with their characteristic deceit, they already have. Alison Herwitt, the Director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in response to a proposed bill that would distribute these "4D Ultrasound" machines to crisis pregnancy centers all over the country, was quoted as saying, "They don't want women to go to Planned Parenthood, where they'll get their full range of options. They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at taxpayers' expense."

Fascinating. A curette, a suction vacuum tube, a pair of Metzenbaum scissors are just "choices." But a picture of a baby sucking her thumb in utero is a "weapon"?

Well, if the truth is a "weapon," then so be it.

Let's face it. Abortion advocates cannot tell the truth. They have to lie, dissemble, obfuscate, and (when all of that fails) scream obscenities to deflect attention away from what abortion really is. The callous and gruesome testimony [much more on this later] of abortion "doctors" in the recent federal cases challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Act stands as the best evidence of what they are really doing - butchering tiny human beings by the millions, not only in that particular procedure, but in all abortions. Which is precisely what they are afraid the public will find out.

So they lie. Here are just a few examples ...

The "pro-choice" movement says that the PBA Act is unlawful because it gets in the way of a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor. Their first line of attack has been to say that the procedure is sometimes "medically necessary."

Lie.

Members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have testified before Congress and in federal cases that this procedure is never "medically necessary."

Then, they argue that so-called "partial-birth abortions" (the official name is "dilation and extraction") are "safer."

This is not exactly a lie. But it nevertheless begs the question: safer than what? This is a harder question to find the answer to, because they don't want you to know. They never tell you. Unless, of course, they are asked under oath and forced by Congress or a judge to answer.

The answer is, "safer" than the usual methods of abortion at that stage. The usual methods of dilation and curettage involve dilating the cervix and ripping the unborn baby's body to pieces with a sharp curved blade called a curette.

In the second trimester and later, the baby's body is more fully developed - the cartilege, bones and tendons are tougher to cut, and in addition to the butchery of the unborn child that is going on during this procedure, there are apparently risks of (amongst other things) perforation of the woman's uterus from bone fragments, and infection from piece of the baby's body that could be left behind - a real risk, since the doctors cannot really "see" what they are doing.

Obviously, this is not a problem if the doctor pulls the baby's body nearly completely out of the woman's body, pierces its skull with a pair of Metzenbaum scissors, vacuum suctions out its brains, crushes its skull and then pulls the dead baby all the way out. Much safer. Unless, of course, you're on the receiving end of the scissors.

More lies.

The "pro-choice" advocates scream about the Partial-Birth Abortion Act that its advocates are simply maneuvering to "take all abortion away from women." But what they are really afraid of is that by virtue of the testimony in the cases they themselves filed, women will find out what goes on in the other abortion procedures; in the abortion procedures in the first and early second trimesters.

Because as soon as women find this out, they may not make the choice for abortion.

If you consider yourself pro-choice, don't you find it curious that the so-called "pro-choice" movement doesn't want you to have any information about abortion except for its availability? Don't they have any confidence in your ability to make an informed choice? If they are all in favor of choice, why do they oppose informed choices? If truth is on their side, why are they so afraid of it?

(1) Doctors - even "pro-choice" doctors - have demonostrated a link between abortion and breast cancer. Lawmakers try to pass laws requiring doctors to inform their patients about these risks. "Pro-choice" advocates oppose this.

(2) Lawmakers attempt to pass laws requiring a minimal waiting period, so that women will consider the decision they are making, which is permanent, irreversable, and fatal. Thounsands of women attest to the regrets they have about their abortions. Who could oppose taking 24 hours to consider taking the life of your unborn child? "Pro-choice" advocates, who say, "women don't need any more time."

(3) If "every child should be a wanted child," as "pro-choice" advocates claim, then there should be punishment for killing a wanted child, should there not? And yet, when Congress was endeavoring to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Connor's Law"), "pro-choice" advocates opposed it.

So, the "pro-choice" advocates oppose any and all information, laws or technologies that might provide women with:

(a) information about what their unborn children really are, can do, look like in the womb;

(b) facts about what is really being done to these children in the name of "choice";

(c) time to consider the decision to take the lives of their unborn children

(d) punishment for those who commit acts of domestic or random violence that take the life of their unborn child.

And these people claim they're for "choice"? As I said above, demonstrably untrue.

Oh, but this latest technology will throw an even bigger wrench into their works. If you go to this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/03/special/politics/sp_politics_herwitt060503.htm

You will be able to read the transcipt of an online interview with Alison Herwitt of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In this discussion, she says, "When considering this debate, it's important to remember that most abortions happen very early in pregnancy. Ninety-nine percent take place before the 20th week."

The 20th week is halfway through the pregnancy, and two months into the second trimester. These are the abortions that Herwitt and others want the public to believe are less troublesome than the nasty, gory, bloody, ugly partial-birth abortion that is the subject of so much debate at present.

But, as I indicated, it is precisely because the advocates of death do NOT want anyone to know what happens during any abortion that they dissemble on these issues. "Dilation and extraction almost never happens," they say (as if that somehow makes it acceptable). "It's dilation and curettage that is used 99% of the time."

So - go take a look at the 4D Ultrasound pictures in the BBC article above. Then ask yourself - is it any less bloody, gory, gruesome, monstrous or murderous to take a curved blade to those tiny babies in utero and cut them apart limb from limb?

Of course not. But you don't have to take my word for it. The proof is right there before your eyes. And that's the scientific truth.