Recently, Dr. Stuart Campbell of a private health center in London published some ultrasound images of unborn babies between 26 and 34 weeks. The smiles of the babies in the pictures greatly shocked the public and were widely circulated on the Internet.
For the past two years, the doctor has used the medical facility in the center and has offered state-of-the-art 3-D/4-D scanning services to expectant parents. He performs an average of 30 scans a week. His outspoken enthusiasm for this blessed technology is refreshing. “Parents love them,” he said. “I hear so many couples laughing when they see the pictures—it’s wonderful.”
How have pro-abortion activists reacted after seeing the happy, grinning photos of these unborn babies?
Anne Carp, a commentator for the Guardian who bills herself as a “medical sociologist,” says the photos are simply misleading, and ridicules the anti-abortion lobby for being “intoxicated with evidence of a fetus’ humanity.” Australian Birth Control Services medical director Geoff Brodie complained that the photos “will be picked up by those groups that use anything and everything to stop abortions but ignore the fact that women have a right to choice.”
In America, the pro-abortion lobby is having the same hostile reaction. It was bad enough when conventional 2-D sonograms revealed unborn hearts beating and blurry hands waving, but the abortionists are absolutely aghast over rapidly spreading access to 3-D/4-D ultrasound technology. A writer for the liberal American Prospect said that the new technology “blurred the distinction between a fetus and a newborn infant.”
Despite these strong reactions from the pro-abortionists, the right of life takes precedence over a woman’s right to choice. After all, nothing can be more persuasive than an unborn child’s beaming face.
What is the author’s attitude toward abortion?