Sunday, March 20, 2005
Images of Unborn Babies Don't Aren't Intented To But Continue To Hurt Pro-Choicers
Why yes. It is truly staggering to see that there are still a large number of people whose consciences can still be reached by the truth of the pictures they are seeing.
But the good doctor is not quite there yet.
Oh, he's wrestling with his conscience. Trying to do enough to assuage his guilt while still staying pro-choice.
Oddly enough, you never hear any viability arguments anymore, do you? At least in Britain, this pro-choicer has enough of a clue to realize that the baby should be protected at an earlier date in the womb.
Extraordinary pictures of a 12-week-old unborn baby wriggling his legs in the "stepping" motion characteristic of newborns triggered a debate on the ethics of abortion which no one predicted would take centre stage at a general election.
Prof Stuart Campbell, the ultrasound pioneer who captured the images, said yesterday he was "truly staggered" by their impact.
Why yes. It is truly staggering to see that there are still a large number of people whose consciences can still be reached by the truth of the pictures they are seeing.
"I just wanted to educate couples about the development of a baby," he told The Daily Telegraph. The images were compiled for his book "Watch Me Grow!" for would-be parents. "It never entered my head that these pictures would have this effect, engendering a national debate on abortion, but seeing an 11-week-old foetus doing quite sophisticated things opened my own eyes to the fact that we did not know how rapidly the foetus developed," he said.
But the good doctor is not quite there yet.
Prof Campbell, former head of obstetrics at King's College Hospital who now works at a private practice, Create Health, in Harley Street, said the pictures had altered his views of abortion but it was important to separate those who had abortions because their baby was very severely deformed from those who chose a termination for so-called ''social'' reasons.
"My own viewpoint is that the foetus is its own advocate and we should reduce the time limit for 'social' abortions from the present 24 weeks to 18. Maybe 12 in the future," he said. Women wanting abortions before 12 weeks should have much easier access to them, without the need for two signatures from a doctor, he said.
"But we should have a different time limit where an abortion is considered because the baby has a severe abnormality, because sometimes that abnormality is not diagnosed until the baby is 20 weeks old. If you have a deadline very soon after 20 weeks you might be rushing doctors to reach a conclusion and more mistakes would be made.
"I would probably keep the limit in these cases at 24, maybe reduce it to 23."
Oh, he's wrestling with his conscience. Trying to do enough to assuage his guilt while still staying pro-choice.
Oddly enough, you never hear any viability arguments anymore, do you? At least in Britain, this pro-choicer has enough of a clue to realize that the baby should be protected at an earlier date in the womb.
