"The Fetus is Squirming, and So Are We"

William Saletan has an article at Slate (here) about how the ultrasound is changing the abortion debate. Some state legislatures are dealing with bills that require an ultrasound before a woman proceeds with an abortion. He writes:

Pro-lifers are often caricatured as stupid creationists who just want to put women back in their place. Science and free inquiry are supposed to help them get over their "love affair with the fetus." But science hasn't cooperated. Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn't want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we.

. . .

Critics complain that these bills seek to "bias," "coerce," and "guilt-trip" women. Come on. Women aren't too weak to face the truth. If you don't want to look at the video, you don't have to. But you should look at it, and so should the guy who got you pregnant, because the decision you're about to make is as grave as it gets.

Now, Saletan is no prolifer himself. He writes: "The clash between ultrasound and the partial-birth ban is ultimately a choice between information and prohibition. To trust the ultrasound, you have to trust the woman.” In other words, he's all all for requiring an ultrasound before a woman can go through with an abortion because it assists with the ‘informed’ side of ‘informed consent,’ but she should be permitted to consent to the killing.

By the way, did anyone think one of his closing lines odd? He suggested some tongue-in-cheek amendments to the bill, including, “the woman should also be offered a six-hour videotape of a screaming 1-year-old.” An attempt at humor? Probably. But a comparison that makes the skin crawl. Apparently, he was saying, "Yes, show the mother the ultrasound and let her see that it is a human life she's thinking about aborting, but also show her how mind-numbing the next few years of her life will be if she decides to have this kid. Then she'll have all the facts she needs to make this decision." (Shudder)

HT: Albert Mohler, who also pointed out that this Slate article appeared again in the Washington Post, but with a significant change: the designation “pro-lifers” was changed to “abortion opponents.” It's an annoyance that most media outlets allow abortion advocates their prefered designation--"prochoice." But abortion opponents are denied their prefered title: "prolife."