Pro-death supporters don't care for ultrasound images

Pro-Abortion Movement Finds Ultrasound Images Threatening

LifeNews:  The pro-abortion movement finds itself once again between a rock and a hard place as technology advancements shed greater light on the humanity of the unborn child.
From the advent of 4-D ultrasounds to Facebook allowing parents to list their unborn child as a family member on their profiles, technology has only aided the pro-life cause. The latest trend to give voice to the voiceless child in the womb is the Photoshopping of sonogram images onto a picture of the mother’s belly.
According to The Daily, “Shelly Kuhn, a family portrait photographer from Tonawanda, N.Y., has Photoshopped clients’ sonogram images onto their maternity shoots several times, and sees it as an artistic portrayal of pregnancy.
“Clients have asked me for it. Women love seeing what their children look like on their belly, they find it intriguing,” Kuhn told The Daily. “I would love to do more of these. But there is a debate over whether it’s morbid and disgusting or beautiful.”
It should come as no surprise that the pro-abortion movement ardently opposes the images. An editor of the Tumblr “STFU Parents”  said parents are “doing it because they’re a little obsessive. There’s something inherently narcissistic about taking the time to create this ‘art.’
Andrea White, a client of photographer Shelly Kuhn, says, “These photos are something I really cherish, I thought it was so neat,” said White. “As for the people that think it’s creepy, I can’t say I really understand where they are coming from, but to each their own, I guess.”
The outrage from the pro-abortion movement has little to do with artistic preferences but more to do with what they view as a threat to their political agenda. 
Allison Benedikt from Slate wrote that the images “got us thinking about how the more we treat fetuses like people—including them in our family photo shoots, tagging them on our Facebook walls, giving them their own Twitter accounts—the harder it will be to deny that they are people when the next, say, personhood amendment comes up, with legislators and activists arguing that “the unborn child” inside a pregnant woman’s womb should have the same rights as the living among us.”
The headline of the Slate article reads: “Photoshopping a sonogram onto your pregnant stomach isn’t just tacky, it’s bad for women.” When they say “bad for women,” they really just mean bad for the agenda of the pro-abortion movement. It’s as if abortion advocates know life exists long before birth but are making a deliberate effort to hide that inconvenient fact.
This Allison woman makes me sick.  Wonder if she’s ever had a discussion with her mom to determine when her mom considered her a person? 

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Notify of

What is morbid or bad for a woman about photoshopping your sonogram onto your stomach? If the baby were deceased , then I would say yeah, that’s morbid. But this is a living being, who is dependent on that mother to sustain her or him, until he is ready to breathe air. Right now the oxygen comes from the mother’s blood, and that is a viable human being, not a blob of tissue. So I say go for it mommies.


Isn’t it ridiculous how after just a positive pregnancy test, that life is “the baby” when wanted—–but just “tissue” and dispensible when not wanted. To think that this determines the “human factor” for people is beyond understanding.