I suppose this would make things such as dentists telling you that you have cavities requiring root canal when ones teeth are perfectly healthy. The patient should know better?
I think you’re right. I’ve never been comfortable with showing pictures of aborted babies for all the reasons discussed in the thread on the subject, but with decisions like this one it’s essential. Women should see what/who they are aborting.
But who is going to show them those pictures? Certainly not the abortionists!
As many posters have pointed out, if your daughter has a headache in school, the school nurse cannot give her an asprin without your permission. But if she is pregnant, she can be whisked to an abortionist without your knowledge.
Yep, I’ve definitely changed my mind on this–someone has to be truthful. We know it won’t be the abortionists or their supporters.
I can’t even begin to understand the mindset that feels that this is acceptable. It’s so far into the realm of the absurd for me that I just don’t get it. What scares me is that people buy into the notion that parents don’t need to be involved in their daughters’ lives at their most critical time of need.
And what else would it be? Reptilian? Canine? Feline perhaps? Of course it is human!!!
I’m afraid I do understand it.
You know, this reminds me of those mafia movies where they get the young gangster to commit a serious crime. Then the gang holds the crime over his head and eventually the the young thug becomes a willing participant in later more serious crimes.
Yes, in this day and age if a woman seeking an abortion doesn’t know that she’s pregnant with a human child, then she’s got more problems than just an unplanned pregnancy.
So basically what she was wanting from the doctor with her question, "Is there a “baby in there”? was for him to determine the humanity of the child she was considering aborting?
Oh thanks for reminding me. I’ve been meaning to ask Vern what 4-d is for months now. And I keep on forgetting.Er, did you mean 3-D sonogram?Peace,Dante