A state judge in Oklahoma this week blocked enforcement of a law that would have required doctors to give a woman an ultrasound and describe the unborn baby to her in detail before performing an abortion.
Attorney Mary Balch believes the judge's decision will not stand. She said, "We fully expect that the case will be appealed and the ultimate outcome will be a victory for mothers and their children. Ultrasound is a window to the womb which provides mothers with the opportunity to accurately see their unborn children moving, kicking and very much alive." Balch continued, "Ultrasound laws save lives. According to a 2011 Quinnipiac University study, ultrasound requirement laws reduce the odds of a woman having an abortion quite substantially."
According to National Right to Life, there are 23 states that already have legislation concerning ultrasounds before abortions, and the legislation is pending in another 11 states according to the Washington Post. These laws make a lot of sense because they provide visual confirmation for women concerning their unborn babies.
As the debate over abortion rages on, I have yet to hear of one abortion proponent who opposes the use of ultrasound images in the diagnosis and battle against various tumors. Not even so much as a peep. No one in their right mind would oppose using this technology in battling disease. That goes for people on both sides of the abortion issue.
Why then are abortion proponents so opposed to a woman having the freedom and the choice to view an ultrasound of her unborn child? After all, they consider a "fetus" to be as expendable as a tumor, if not as dangerous. So what's the difference? They claim to be "pro-choice" and for women's rights. As it turns out, they are only for choice when it comes to ultrasounds for tumors, but not when the ultrasound involves an unborn child. On that one, they act like they know better than the mother what is good for her and the unborn child.
Could it be that they are not primarily interested in women's rights after all? Could it be that they merely use that argument to fight for greater control over women and their unborn babies? It all seems to boil down to wanting to control women and especially the unborn.
Even all of the ultrasound evidence which technology provides today isn't enough to persuade them to let go of their obsession with promoting abortion. If they really wanted free choice, then why all the opposition to the ultrasound images for pregnant mothers? Their inconsistent approach is extremely revealing as to their true motives and agenda. Their actions speak much louder than their words.
Ultrasound images clearly display the life which God has created in the womb. The child will continue growing, just like tumors often continue to grow. A child is alive. A malignant tumor is an agent of death. A child is a gift of God. A tumor is an example of the sickness and disease which sin brought into the world. A child is to be cherished. A malignant tumor is to be aggressively attacked. Abortion proponents view unwanted pregnancies in the same way they view a tumor. Get rid of it if you feel like it. They say that is your right.
But no one should have the right to kill an innocent and helpless child. A baby's heart begins to beat 18 days after conception. Tumors do not have a heartbeat. By 9 weeks after conception, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning. Tumors do not feel pain. By 11 weeks after conception, a baby can swallow. Tumors do not swallow. There is a world of difference between a tumor and a child.
Abortion proponents do not mind if women view an ultrasound image of their tumor. They only get agitated and try to control it if a woman is being given the right to view an image of her unborn child. Go figure. It is not a consistent position of choice for women at all. But then again, who ever said the abortion agenda was logical or consistent with the rest of our commonly practiced medical procedures?