The iFIND project, known as intelligent Fetal Imaging and Diagnosis, has released an ultrasound of a woman living in the UK who is 20 weeks pregnant. The Telegraph has reported that the ultrasound is the clearest ultrasound to date. According to iFIND’s website, the iFIND project hopes that with improved technology and by “passing sound waves into the body to create pictures from their reflections,” abnormalities in the baby’s development can be spotted more easily and any problems or complications can be treated before the baby's birth.
Below, the ultrasound shows the baby at 20 weeks stretching and moving inside the womb. Normally it is difficult to get a clear picture of a 20 week-old baby in the womb due to the fact they are still developing and are extremely small. A member of the iFIND project, Dr. David Lloyd, explained to The Telegraph that, “The fetal heart, for example, with all its tiny chambers and valves, is only about 15mm long: less than the size of a penny.”
This ultrasound by the iFIND project could greatly influence the abortion debate in the United States and around the world. It is hard to deny that what is shown in the ultrasound is a child. This is not an emotional appeal but simply a matter of observation. If what is shown in the ultrasound is not a human child, what is it? Furthermore, I find it interesting that the researchers of the iFIND project find it worthwhile to identify and treat abnormalities while the baby develops. If what is in the womb is simply a fetus, not a human, and not a baby, why correct for those abnormalities? By putting an emphasis on this type of research, should this not signal to people that the baby developing in the womb has an inherent value and this value should not be arbitrarily assigned?
In an article written by the International Business Times last November, a graphic created by the Guttmacher Institute was used to show that 13 states do not allow abortions at 20 weeks or beyond. The other 37 states allow abortion from 21 weeks to 27 weeks. 7 of those states (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont) have no restrictions on when an abortion can take place. That, to me, is appalling.
The difference between the states’ laws on abortion, according to the graphic, is determined by the state’s view of when a baby is deemed to be “viable.” If a baby can be shown to survive outside of the womb at any point of gestation, the abortion laws should change regardless of the percentage of babies that survive outside of the womb at that point in the pregnancy. Why not try to save a baby’s life earlier in gestation if you were simply going to abort him or her in the first place?
Pro-life groups should certainly push for abortion restrictions at 20 weeks and beyond. It may not be "banning" abortion, but that is okay. The goal is to save innocent lives and any step in that direction is a correct step and a step that should be taken. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) took some heat for voting on abortion legislation that did not go as far as Conservatives wanted it too. But during his campaign for President, Senator Rubio explained that any restriction on abortion, no matter how big or how small, was making a difference and protecting an innocent life. Pro-lifers should keep that mentality and keep fighting for any positive change they can get. My hope is that this ultrasound will help contribute to moving America back to a pro-life position and a position that respects and protects the life in the womb.
