Last Tuesday, West Australian Member of Parliament, Peter Abetz, proposed that women seeking an abortion should be required to view an ultrasound picture of their unborn child.

No other medical procedure is done without obtaining informed consent based on provision of the maximum possible amount of available relevant information.

Seeing a 3D colour ultrasound of the baby could be a big forward step in letting mothers know who and what exactly is the nature of the candidate for termination.

* * *

Anyway, WA Premier, Mr Barnett , opposes the idea and has ruled out any support for what he calls “such drastic measures”.

A spokeslady for Marie Stopes International, worldwide abortion-provider organisation which does abortions in 40 countries, described the suggestion as “dangerous for women” and “impeding women’s choices”.

Yet figures quoted by Mr Abetz show that, in the USA, when women who requesting abortions were shown a 3D colour ultrasound of what was actually in their womb, 89 percent changed their minds and decided against being aborted.

Mr Abetz says, “Once you see the little heartbeat and the tiny little fingers and feet . . . the reality that this is life really hits home.”

* * *

The argument has been raised repeatedly that babies unplanned are likely to be mistreated when born and would be better off killed, so as to avoid becoming victims of child abuse.

As though killing them in the womb is not abuse . . . .

If we can kill unborn babies to prevent them being abused after birth, perhaps we might consider preventing abuse of 5-year olds by killing them at the age of 3.

* * *

The idea that a human life is sacred only when he/she is wanted is not sustainable. Yet many politicians and abortion lobby activists still try it on.

Difficulties associated with unplanned pregnancies are real enough. But our society is morally obliged to find responses better than killing.