By Mark Rhoads -
This writer is a man who underwent an ultrasound examination in 2008. Before the bad jokes fly at my expense, it was not of course for the usual reason that a woman might have one but rather to get a better picture of a male health problem than could be obtained by other imaging devices. Many men have such exams.
But let's be honest, groups that describe themselves as "pro-choice" would oppose any measure to increase the options for the informed consent of young mothers, invasive or not, prior to an abortion because their unchanging doctrine over 35 years has always been the same.
A pastor said with a straight face on CNN last night, "President Obama is not for abortion, he is for a woman's right to choose." Right. Notice how they never finish that sentence to tell you the right to choose what exactly --the word is just left blank at the end of their mindless slogan. President Obama is for a woman's unlimited right to choose to take the life of another innocent unborn human being for any reason at any time because the abortion industry wants to invent some mythical higher moral plane from which to defend the indefensible infanticide of tens of millions of the most defenseless and innocent human lives since 1973. The abortion industry is profitable and the leaders of that industry who traffic in infanticide want to protect their immoral profits. They fear any measure that would increase information for the mother prior to consent because they realize the ultrasound images humanize the personhood of the unborn child in an emotional way and their profits only remain safe as long as they can dehumanize and depersonalize the procedure and make mothers think all they are doing is simply getting rid of a mass of unwanted cells just as if they were having an infected kidney removed. Kidneys do not have hands and feet and a head and they do not playfully move around the ultrasound screen as they react to outside stimuli such as human voices in a room. That is why the abortion industry is so terrified of ultrasound images. When mothers fully, completely, intellectually,and emotionally understand that the life of a new defenseless human being will be imorally taken from the child in a senseless and cruel act of random homocide without due process of law, the superficial argument that a woman's "right to control her own body" must always be supreme starts to break down when the young mother herself understands the body and life of a new and different human being is also at stake.
The duplicitous sophistry of former President Bill Clinton was at no time more on display than when he used to repeat his mindless mantra that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." But the illusive goal of "rare" always took a back seat to any other consideration. Because of ultrasounds and other advances in medical technology, public opinions about the barbarian epidemic of mass infanticide promoted by the abortion insustry are gradually starting to change. Texas resident Norma McCovey, who was the original "Jane Roe" plaintiff in Roe v. Wade in 1973, joined the ranks of active pro-life advocates in 1995 after her conversion to Christianity. If she can change, then there is hope for millions of others to become educated to the inhumanity of this monstrously barbaric practice.
More than 160 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court refused to protect the life and freedom of Rockford resident Dred Scott on the false grounds that he was not a person under the Constitution only because his skin was black and his slave master or "property owner" was not required to grant his liberty. It took a bloody civil war to reverse that court decision and hopefully some day future generations will look back on this age of infant holocuast with equal horror. Just as
Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe helped to change opinions in the north to energize the abolutionist argument that blacks were human beings, maybe ultrasounds will help change opinions to buttress the argument than unborn children are also fully human beings in an earlier stage of development who deserve to have their right to life protected by state governments and Constitutionally recognized at the federal level.
