EDIT: Apparently the title of the original article was “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea that a Fetus is a Person.” They’ve since renamed the article. This just goes to prove what sick lengths leftists go to push an anti-science, anti-human life agenda.
— F. Bill McMorris (@FBillMcMorris) January 24, 2017
Seeing an ultrasound is a huge milestone in a woman’s pregnancy. Once she hears the heartbeat, the pregnancy becomes more real to her. The Atlantic? The same “pro-science when it comes to climate change” writers find the ultrasound problematic. What with all the science it exposes. Namely that an unborn human looks (and sounds) like an unborn human. And an unborn human having all the appearances of humanity gets in the way of abortions. And assuaging the guilt of the women who have them performed on their unborn children.
Today, the kinds of photographs that stunned the readers of Life in 1966 have become commonplace. Every rom-com involving an unplanned pregnancy—from Knocked Up and Juno to Bridget Jones’s Baby—seems to include an obligatory scene in which the reluctant mother is shown an ultrasound and decides to keep her child. Celebrity ultrasounds have become their own subgenre of tabloid “baby bump” stories.
In many ways, social media have heightened the social reality of the unborn. Expecting parents post ultrasound photos on Facebook and Instagram; they go to “Keepsake Ultrasound” chains in order to buy DVDs of 3-D and 4-D images; which in turn sustain an entire cottage industry on Etsy.
Right off the bat, let’s dispel the erroneous notion that leftists are “pro-choice.” They’re not. It’s abortion or nothing at all (see 9th Circuit Court FORCES Pro-Life Centers to Advertise Abortion and Pro-Abortion Salon: ‘Stop Showing THOSE Mean, Scientifically Accurate Pictures!’). Because even considering another choice which doesn’t involve chopping up and vacuuming out one’s baby is clearly an issue with the writer of this article…
Twenty other states require a doctor to at least offer to show a woman seeking an abortion ultrasound.
These measures are based on two assumptions: First, that an ultrasound image has an obvious meaning. Second, that any pregnant woman who sees an ultrasound will recognize this meaning. Science does not bear either assumption out.’
Yes, an ultrasound does have an obvious meaning: it shows an unborn baby for exactly what it is. Gosh… I think I’ve typed that already. Secondly, pregnant women who see their baby generally recognize it’s their baby. Hence Moira Weigel’s (the writer) hatred of ultrasounds. She then has the gall to write “science does not bear either assumption out.”
In fairness, it’s hard to quantify, in scientific terms or mathematical ones, how a woman feels when she witnesses her baby moving on a screen. It’s also hard to quantify, scientifically or mathematically, the mother’s emotional response when she hears her baby’s heartbeat. Similarly, it’s difficult for me to quantify the absolute depravity of a woman like Moira Weigel who tries to blame a medical device for women deciding to allow their children to grow inside them. Rather than chop shopping them, as Planned Parenthood, and feminists, are wont to do.
Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a “fetus” until nine weeks into pregnancy.* Yet, the current debate shows how effectively politicians have used visual technology to redefine what counts as “life.”
… Just think about that pull quote for a second.
“A rapidly dividing cell mass.” There’s a centuries-long cliche that’s been going around suggesting women are the compassionate, nurturing gender. The feminists have long loathed it. Congratulations, Moira. You’ve single-handily proven a new stereotype: third-wave SJW feminists are but monsters who despise both the reproductive capacities of women and how a woman might actually love and nurture a child she’s giving life. If ever you wondered why more and more women are breaking feminist ranks, re-read the passage you pecked above.
Incidentally “fetus” is the latin term for “little one.” Suck on that, child-haters.
Look, I’m going to spare you the rest of the infuriating diatribe from Madam Moira the Maleficent. If you want to put yourself through the mental torture, I’m not going to stop you from reading her essay. But what Moira Weigel has written is more proof the left despises science. Leftists love proclaiming their admiration of science, but it’s but a ruse. And not a clever one. Science and technology have long been the enemies of leftism, whose base tenets depend on ignorance of facts pertaining to science, biology, and reality. The ultrasound is a window into the womb. It shows what is actively growing inside a woman. This “rapidly dividing cell mass” isn’t a tumor or the Ebola virus. Yet pro-choice “feminists” like Moira Weigel try to paint it as such.
An ultrasound shows a mother’s child. You can call it a fetus, an embryo, a zygote or even “rapidly dividing cell mass.” But a rose by any other name is still a rose. An unborn child by any other name or insult is still an unborn child. It deserves to be born into our world, even if feminist hatebags like Moira Weigel and The Atlantic are butthurt there’s technology which proves they’re advocating for the slaughter of unborn children.
Becuase that’s what all this ultrasound hatred comes down to. It’s hard to quantify, both scientifically and mathematically, the guilt a post-abortive woman might feel after she’s chosen to have her baby aborted. We know women suffer greatly. They cannot escape reality or what their “choice” has done to them and unborn children. They cannot escape the images of ultrasounds, which Moira Weigel despises, in pop culture, Facebook walls, Instagram posts, or RomCom scenes. Therefore Moira deems the ultrasound “political.” She’s attempting to brand the piece of medical equipment as bias, divisive, “intrusive” into a woman’s private “choice.”
No. I won’t stand for it. Moira is doing a disservice to post-abortive women plagued with debilitating grief. She’s doing a disservice to women who’ve yet come to terms with their guilt and grief. She’s doing a disservice to women who are or might one day be faced with a “crisis” pregnancy. Furthermore, she’s undermining the advances of medical technology, simply passing it off as a political tool.
This is your pro-choice feminist face, America.
Incidentally, if you or someone you know and love is coping with post-abortion syndrome, consider getting in touch with groups like Project Rachel.