Welcome to Gaia! ::

The horror! OH NO! WOMEN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE OF THEM! We can't lie to them any longer? WHAT SHALL WE DO? I know, let's paint these centers as pits of despair and torture so that women won't go in and see what's growing inside of them!

I believed that until I got to the ultrasound part.

Then she lost her credibility.

She's got an obvious agenda, if she doesn't want women to see ultrasounds. She calls it a weapon.

I've seen CPCs before that are nothing like this, it took me aback a bit. I just don't trust her now.

Even doing that, if she can refer to an sonographer the way she does, I don't put much stock in anything else. Most CPCs are Christian run, have Christian literature, and show the studies that say birth control/abortion is dangerous, because they are basing it off studies. Some of them have been correct, there is a link between certain types of oral birth control and cancer. That's why my doctor doesn't want me to take it anymore. Condoms do not always work, but using a condom with another form of birth control is pretty safe, because even if it breaks, you've got a backup. At the time, there were studies out that showed a link to breast cancer, even though the studies were full of s**t, they weren't proven to be full of s**t until recently. She was reading too far into things. By the way, I'd like her to go to women with PAS and tell them it isn't real.

As for the abstinence, people can ignore that if they want. They aren't saying, you'll burn in hell if you don't, you little slut!

I highly doubt it's as bad as she makes it out to be, since she's making things like ultrasounds seem evil and trivializing the pain of thousands of women who admittedly suffer negative affects from their abortions.

She's the sort of person who cares more about abortions being done than women being fully informed on all sides.

Calling an ultrasound a weapon is pretty damn telling.

Firstly, Scribbles she was focusing on the sonogram so there was no need to bring up the other stuff. If she agreed with the other stuff in the article, she would have posted that.

The woman who wrote this article is being completely ridiculous in suggesting that these sonograms are a bad thing. It's a ******** medical tool and if people are CHOOSING not to have an abortion after seeing their child then why does this woman have a problem with it? She shouldn't unless there's a different agenda here, the fact that it's not all about choice, abortion providers want as many women as possible to have abortions because it increases their revenue.

If a woman is so moved by looking at an image of her child, that she doesn't abort, what do you think the effect of an abortion on her, would have been? Sooner or later she would see SOMEWHERE the picture of a fetus or of a sonogram, or maybe even get pregnant again and then see it with that child. Do you think that if that would have changed her mind about abortion, she would really be able to handle looking at that picture knowing she'd ALREADY had an abortion?

And lastly, I love how "NOW" is one of her sources. She definately doesn't seem to be a biased reporter on these centres, at all.

I can't wait until the 3D ultrasounds become more predominant, the choicers are going to throw an HUGE b***h fit over that one. Considering that you can actually see everything down to your childs facial features.

Yup, thee youth group I used to attend back in my old highschool hada lecture on secondary verginity. At the time we had an influx of students from public schools or who simply had troubled lives. Many of whom had lost their verginity and felt it was the worst desision they made. No one was forced to sit and listen. Any one in theyouth goup is free to leave at any time. Those who stayed (my self included) learned about a "second chance" (this was before i personly lost of physicle verginity). Basicly, all that was taught was "yeah, condoms are some what effective, and even more so with the pill (the one they refered to was one like Yasmine, desighned to keep eggs from dropping, etcetera). Its estimated that a condom and a pill, taken regularly wiht out fail, is about 85 to 90% effective, but there is still that 15 to 10% left over. Secondary verginity, choosing to obstain from another mistake that you've already felt youve made, IE, abstenince, is 100% effective"

No one in that lecture said they did make a mistake. If the people felt they made a mistake, they were told how they could avoid doing it again. Talks of sex and protection were not scewed with fluff and love. We were told hard, proven facts. Not fed riligious ideals.

Reading articles liek this makes me want to fulfill my dream all the more. To create a 3D ultrasound that is easy to reproduce and sell at a lower cost. My life goal is to dosomethign in medicine. More and more I thin about prenatal care and medicine.

OMGTEHEMOS! LOLBBQ RIDE THE HIGH WAY DUN CROSS TEH ROAD! LOLLERSKATES! blaugh

The original Logic Bot broke when I told it, "The following sentence is false. The previous sentence is true."

The expert's pretty dead on. He was a former abortionist and a founder of NARAL. He helped with the Roe v. Wade victory and performed thousands of abortions. Though I doubt it was a cry of pain, the very least that can be said is it moved reflexively away from the instrument that was hurting it.

The only reason he stopped being prochoice was because he saw what was going on once the ultrasound technology came. I can see pretty clearly what's what in the video, but I'm more used to looking at ultrasounds than I probably should be.