:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Monday, April 05, 2004 ::

How valuable are sonograms in the abortion arena?

"Evidence that ultrasound helps to persuade women not to abort came in an unpublished study by Eric Keroack, medical director of A Woman's Concern, a CPC in Boston. Keroack compared two 18-month periods in the crisis pregnancy center's history and kept data only on women who expressed interest in abortion. Without a sonogram, about 60 percent of 366 tracked women had abortions. But with a sonogram, 25 percent of 434 tracked women aborted. He estimated that 125 babies were born who would otherwise have been aborted.

Keroack concluded, 'Ultrasound is an amazing reality check.

Some will see their unborn children and abort anyway for whatever reason. This does not mean the tool is not valuable. If you were not aborted because your mom saw a picture of you, how important would ultrasound be to you?

Ultrasound doesn't save all women/children/families from abortion, but what does? And what is most effective in sparing hearts and lives? With ultrasound, reported rates are positively significant.

Some critics say that ultrasound may be risky to the baby's health. Hello, what is more risky to a baby's health than abortion? I'd rather have a left-handed living child than a no-handed dead child.

Abortion supporters say that ultrasound is deceptive:

"The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (now known as naral Pro-Choice America) publishes a booklet titled 'Unmasking Fake Clinics.' It warns that crisis pregnancy centers are buying ultrasound machines as part of a 'new agenda' to deceive pregnant women."

How do you deceive a woman by showing her a photo of her child? They argue that a fact is a lie, but this comes as no shock from people who assert that the malevolence of abortion is benevolence, that it is a kindness to mutillate and kill a child because such a thing is somehow necessary or good for mother, for child, for both, for us all. The anti-abortion advocate shows a woman a picture of her child while the abortion advocate hides that same picture. Why? The abortion industry makes huge financial gains off of aborting children, not generating positive alternatives. The anti-abortion movement does not stand to profit; it is a volunteer movement. Rhetoric or evidence, hiding or divulging, profiteer or volunteer... which do you trust? Which has the most potential for deception? It's common sense.

At my local CPC the numbers went up dramatically after they got their first sonogram machine. Folks, the sonogram is one of the best things to ever happen to the anti-abortion movement, because it offers proof where otherwise faith is required. The old saying, "out of sight, out of mind," is so very true in the circumstance of a crisis pregnancy.

Ultrasounds offer the truth, and this is very effective for pregnant moms who base their personal acceptance of abortion on the false idea that one can be only a "little bit pregnant", that a growing child with a beating heart is just a blob of cells or nothing at all.

Some people are so thoroughly steeped in denial that they find themselves in bathroom stalls birthing unacknowledged babies into toilets at the prom. Some people are so terribly sick that getting well is the only thing that seems to matter. Sonograms might not be as beneficial for them. Still, many others find it difficult to argue with the image of their child's beating heart.

In individual cases, ultrasound saves the world.

:: ashli 11:05 AM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?