Pro-lifers like me love science and technology. Yup. We’re like science geeks without the comic books. And we’ve got girlfriend and wives.
For years, religious people have been called backward and anti-science while pro-lifers actually couldn’t wait for scientific and technological breakthroughs so we could all get a better look inside the womb and understand better what it is to be human. I think everyone must remember the first time they saw a 4-d ultrasound. It changes you. It’s changed lots of people.
The moment America saw the delicate, beautiful, and strong hand, the human features, the smiles, the thumbsucking of a 20-week-old baby in the womb much of America reconsidered everything we took for granted. When we see five beautiful fingers that only a loving God would take the time to create reach out, it changed everything.
Poll numbers in recent years have taken a decidedly pro-life turn and while part of that is simply that pro-lifers have more children another aspect that shouldn’t be dismissed is that the more we see inside the womb the more difficult it is to believe the lies of abortionists who say it’s a blob of tissue.
The unspoken message of the ultrasound is clear to all with an open heart: “I’m human—just like you.”
It was the same message of Harriet Beecher Stowe whose novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” made the horrors of slavery impossible to ignore. It was the message of Rosa Parks who awakened a slumbering country to the evils of racism by the simple act of sitting down. It is the message of the victims and the oppressed throughout our history: “”I’m human—just like you.”
That moment when a woman sees an ultrasound will encourage millions to reconsider where they stand on the issue of when life begins. And that’s why pro-aborts are fighting to keep women in the dark as to what/who is growing inside them.
I have great faith that science is on our side simply because truth is on our side. And the recent spate of ultrasound laws, I think, are a great thing. And I think before the country is willing to listen to a pro-lifer saying “don’t” they might just listen to pro-lifers saying “look.”
May 1, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Amy just spews lies. AMY you make me sick . You do realize that SOCIAL Spending grew faster under Bush than Clinton. Conservative types give more money and time than you sick ill people. Then after we give you tax us ..then you claim we don't support these kids after they are born. YOU LIAR.
Go kill your baby – you make me sick . You lie like the typical pro-abort type. Just sickening.
May 1, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Unless I'm reading it wrong, Amy seems to be saying that she's in favour of killing humans in the womb because awful people are in favour of killing them once they are out of it (positing the assumption that pro-life people are generally awful, which seems more than a little judgemental). Logic does not appear to be Amy's strength.
May 1, 2010 at 4:49 pm
And countless women decide NOT to abort once they see a beating heartbeat in their womb. Women who would abort based on gender or anomaly would do so after a Chorionic Villus Sampling or an Amniocentesis as well, the latter being MUCH more dangerous to the unborn child than a 4D ultrasound possibly could. Your assertion that 4D ultrasounds increase temperatures at a cellular level are true, what you DIDN'T say is that they have NOT been proven UNSAFE.
To say that ultrasound is the Hitler of abortion is absolutely ridiculous, and ignorant. Don't throw around the name of a monster so casually. Ultrasounds have changed the entire abortion dialogue. Pro aborts can no longer claim that an unborn child is just a "clump of tissue." Thanks be to God.
May 1, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Amy, I am happy you are reading this blog. Unfortunately, many persons who are incredibly frustrated and tired by the long battle to defend life allow their frustration to turn uncharitable. I hope that their sharp remarks have not caused you to stop asking questions and inquire into the dignity of life and the richness of Catholicism. One of the most trying tasks as a Catholic is to constantly be charitable in an often hostile modern world–we all have to stay vigilant and take confidence in prayer.
If I understand you properly, I actually commend your comment–I suppose you are hinting towards a discrepancy in Conservative America. On the one hand they defend life, on the other they seem to squirm at social welfare initiatives of the government and take a cut-throat 'laissez-faire' attitude towards the poor. The reasons for this discrepancy are deep seated in American culture and too complex to discuss here–however here's a brief go at it: Firstly, many American conservatives and Catholics do not subscribe to this dichotomy and truly take their motivation from the lives of the humble and ever-charitable Saints. However, there are many who are wrapped up in a conservative ideology that has attempted to glue together pieces of individualist-based economic models applied to all of life AND orthodox Catholic social thought. On a theoretical and practical level, this never works out well. Nevertheless, because America operates on a compartmentalized culture of 'public' vs. 'private' spheres(intellectually inherited from the UK), charitable acts, help for the poor, immigrant aid etc., tends to be managed accordingly. That is to say, by the state OR by private individual contributions. In a different era, no one would blink at the attempt to turn to the state for such care–this is, of course, the older model of the Christian state. However, we live in a very different day in which the state no longer legitimizes its natural existence in St. Thomas Aquinas' formula, but has been bolstered by a progressive socialist theory, actively hostile to the spiritual condition of man. Therefore, conservatives have instinctively mistrusted the state and, in America, have no other choice often but to remain active in the private sphere, whilst criticizing the public. It certainly is not a good model, but its the one we are stuck with. I hope my attempt at least provides some explanation as to the origin of this rift in conservatism while at the same time demonstrates that care for life at all stages can be and is indeed carried out by committed Catholics, even in the distorted cultural scheme of public v. private that is so often passed off as a given.
If I have misunderstood you–I'm terribly sorry to have gone on so long.
-As to the article, it resounds Pope Benedict's comments in the Regensburg address that faith and reason are indeed complementary. Hurray for science in the service of Truth!
May 1, 2010 at 9:40 pm
The idea for this pro-life site started several months ago, just launched last night to see what kind of interest it might generate, and couldn't have been better timed with this blog post. I welcome you to visit http://sweetultrasound.com
Peace to you.
May 2, 2010 at 12:48 am
Who can ever forget this image of Samuel's spina bifida corrective surgical procedure which resulted in this image.
http://www.michaelclancy.com/
Great post!