New foetal scans clouded debate on late abortion
Here’s an interesting Times article that I missed earlier in the week:
Sophisticated ultrasound scans that show foetuses as early as 12 weeks appearing to “walk” in the womb have had a dangerous impact on the public debate over abortion, leading doctors and scientists said yesterday.
The emotive photographs, taken with new fourdimensional imaging technology, have created a misleading impression that foetuses become viable and potentially self-aware at a much earlier stage than is actually the case, according to experts on foetal development.
The 4-D scanning technique, developed by Stuart Campbell, of the Create Health Clinic in London, has helped to revive abortion as a political issue since he published his first images two years ago.
We knew that these images were providing spurious cover for an anti-all-abortion agenda, but it’s nice to see it acknowledged publicly.
I cannot believe what I am reading! How can you site at your PC and cast doubt on these finding without feeling any shame for your remarks. Why do you hate the unborn so much?
You can always be relied on to miss the point, C4, can’t you? I’m not casting doubt on any findings; the point the authors of the article are making is that pictures of the foetus in the womb are fantastic, and an advance in the science of taking pictures of the foetus in the womb - important in itself. They should not be misused as evidence in a debate about abortion.
Antonia, I can’t see how you can draw from what is in the article your last line about your the agenda or the cover being “acknowledged publicly”…people have genuine concerns and some, yes, would want all abortions stopped but it does not follow that all people with the former view want the later. And why is it spurious…the word spurious doesn’t seem to describe the point you are trying to get across…
RichardH,
I’ve posted on this here and here, and am a member of Abortion Rights, so kept well up to date with the latest trends in anti-abortion propaganda and tactics, hence my comment. If you’re not a regular reader or are new to pro-choice activism, appreciate it may not have been clear. However, many people who want all abortions stopped - e.g. Cardinal Cormac-Murphy O’Connor, the campaign group LIFE - have started to use these photos and other tactics to argue for a tighter time restriction, hiding their true agenda which is that the time restriction should be total and no abortions should be allowed. And it’s spurious because whether or not we can take better photographs of foetuses has no connection with the when during a pregnancy abortion is allowed.
Antonia. Someone who insults or who physically assaults a gay person is called homophobic. What is the word for someone who advocates extreme violence against the unborn child, lethal violence in fact? Here’s the word - pro-choice.
How can a photo be “emotive”? To be honest the extent to which a foetus/unborn child can feel or sense things is irrelevant to the debate.
The only difference between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer is that a pro-lifer wants to treat the foetus with the same respect he or she was given when in the womb while a pro-choicer does not. Abortion rights is a contradiction in terms. Abortion is a negation of the most important human right of all - the one those of us lucky to enough to get out of the womb intact most cherish. In other words, live and let live.
By the way, Dr Campbell is pro-abortion so he is hardly an impartial observer.
Tom,
“The only difference between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer is that a pro-lifer wants to treat the foetus with the same respect he or she was given when in the womb while a pro-choicer does not.”
Cor. I didn’t realise it was that simple all along. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Yes, lets just forget that there are any other kinds of rights. Why isn’t everything as straightforward as this?
I find it an interesting paradox that the same sort of people who will fight for the rights of a fox dont have the same respect for the unborn human..
But, being a libertarian type, I will let em decide as they wish!
Tom,
Pro-choice means choice for women, something that we have been fighting for for many years - the choice as to when and if we have children.
There is no such thing as the right to life. If you are alive you are alive, if you are dead you are dead. If I get run over by a bus tomorrow and killed then what can I do about it? Stand up and say, no I will not allow this to happen, I have a right to life? It is nonsense.
“If I get run over by a bus tomorrow and killed then what can I do about it? Stand up and say, no I will not allow this to happen, I have a right to life? It is nonsense.”
Hmm. I’m not sure about rights, but I’m not sure about this argument either. I mean, for it to be a fair analogy, you would have to include the fact that the bus driver ran you over on purpose. Sure, nothing you can do, you’re dead, but society wouldn’t say they were “pro-choice for bus drivers” and forget about it.
Paul Evans:
In one sense, it is that simple. If a foetus is a person, abortion is automatically murder, and there can be no consideration of a woman’s rights. You don’t get to kill someone to make your life easier, and you don’t get to kill someone because you think the rest of his life might not be very good.
If a foetus isn’t a person, then you can start to have discussions about a woman’s right to control her own body, about how cruel particular methods of abortion are and about how far into a pregnancy it might be reasonable to allow abortion.
Within this domain, someone may be pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-some kind of compromise, but everyone can have a sensible discussion (even if they don’t agree). If one of the parties to the discussion thinks that a foetus is a person, all of this goes out of the window. There can’t ever be a “sensible” discussion, because for one of the perties, the question is “when is it acceptable to murder a child”, which has a rather straightforward answer.
I disagree that if a foetus is a person then there is no question that the woman must sacrifice her body for it to live. If a person desperately needs my kidney to live for example and would die without it it would still be considered unethical and wrong for me to be forced into handing it over. This is my body and in this society we recognise that the state, church, NHS, nobody should be give the power to force another to donate their body or any part of it to keep another person alive. It is only because we have ideas about women as mothers being some kind of “natural” state and those that reject it as being unnatural, selfish or just immoral that a woman is expected to give her body over to the life of a foetus/baby.
And where has this “right to life” come from? There are many incidences in which killing another is legal. Rights are things that we exercise, they are about our freedom to act free from state control, such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to organise and protest.