Good question over at the VoteYesForLife.com blog:
If a woman’s belly were transparent, would abortion still be legal?
ÐH www.dakotavoice.com /2008/09/if-womans-belly-were-transparent.html C:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/if-womans-belly-were-transparent.html delayed www.dakotavoice.com / \sck.c92 x ^O[I ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈ Ø/y gQ OK text/html UTF-8 gzip (à gQ ÿÿÿÿ J}/y Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:15:23 GMT "d535d317-f59f-44fb-a962-f2fd2b83e6af" {2 Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98) en, en, * [O[I ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ‡l gQ
2 comments:
I don't see the point. If your point is that seeing a fetus would lower the rate of abortion, don't most clinics do something like an ultrasound to make sure a baby's actually there before they kill it?
If pretzels were radioactive, would people still eat them? I'd guess not, but they aren't, so it's a moot discussion point.
That's a good point, East Coast Liberal, but it sounds like you may not have much experience with abortion clinics, etc.
Abortionists avoid showing the woman ultrasound like the plague--because statistics show that when a woman DOES get an ultrasound and sees that what is inside her isn't just an inanimate piece of tissue, but a living child, most women won't go through with the abortion.
Which is really the point of the brief comment. If most people were faced with the reality of what they're actually doing with an abortion, most people would choose life.
But since the child is hidden from view inside the body, it's easier to pretend it isn't what it really is: a child.
Post a Comment