An executive director of a Community Pregnancy Center named Candice Keller said in the Middletown Journal that she believed that having an ultrasound machine on-site may keep many women from having an abortion.I've reproduced his entire piece, but the source is here.
That's far from shocking but the number she put to it was.
She said 85 percent of expecting mothers who are considering an abortion change their minds if they hear their baby’s heart beat.
And it's why Big Abortion is attempting to close down crisis pregnancy centers. In Maryland they're pushing the government to place all sorts of restrictions on them so that abortion-minded women won't mistakenly hear their baby's heart in a crisis pregnancy center.
Liberal pro-aborts say they embrace science while us backwards Christianista types want to haul women back to the Dark ages. How come we're the ones using the latest in science while they continue with their "ain't nuthin in the womb but a blob of tissue" defense?
Who's the scientific one when we're the ones who state that human life begins at conception and back it up with the fact that at the moment of conception a unique DNA code comes into existence while pro-aborts just insist that every woman has to make up her own mind when life begins. Does that sound like science?
Remember that Planned Parenthood worker saying that babies in the womb at ten weeks don't have heart beats they only have "heart tones?" Is that science?
Currently, I believe 12 states have some form of mandatory ultrasound laws. Pro-aborts hate that because they're not actually for informed choice. Because they know that most women who hear their baby's heart may not go through with the procedure.
Columbia Law Professor Carol Sanger, called the ultrasound laws "another weapon in the arsenal of anti-abortion forces." A weapon? Really? They're for killing the babies in utero and we're for having the mother look or listen to what they're killing. And they accuse us of using "weapons?" Yeah, that makes sense.
But we're the non-thinking anti-science types.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Who's for science?
Matthew Archbold makes it perfectly clear: