It's a Secret!

Recently we invited some young couples over for dinner. After the meal we got into a lively debate about whether it is advisable to find out the sex of your baby while pregnant. One of the wives was pregnant and already knew the sex of their baby—they were going to have a little girl. Another of the wives had done the test and they were waiting for the results (in the end they didn't find out as the results cost more than they had anticipated!) The other couple felt that they would rather wait for the surprise. 

Everyone was having their say. We knew each other well, so we debated with fervor. I managed to get in my spiel in between the interjections and these were my arguments:

1.     THE BABY IS TO BE CREATED IN SECRET

When the Bible speaks about the baby in utero in Psalms 139:15 it says:  I was made in secret."

I believe the Word of God is the foundation for our values and God intends the baby to be formed in secret. So if that's God's plan, I think it should be ours too, don't you? Some other translations say:

GNB: "When my bones were being formed, carefully put together in my mother's womb, when I was growing there in secret you knew that I was there . . . “

NEB: "I was secretly kneaded into shape."

NIV: "I was made in the secret place."

JERUSALEM: "You know me through and through, for having watched my bones take shape when I was being formed in secret, knitted together in the limbo of the womb."

What is a secret? It is something that nobody else is supposed to know until the appointed time. The dictionary says, "hidden, concealed, unseen." Why are we so impatient that we cannot wait until God's time? Have we become so conformed to this modern age that we have to have everything and know everything right now?

2. GOD WANTS IT TO BE A SUPRISE

When you already know the sex of your baby, you miss out on the wonderful surprise at the time of birth. It is always an exciting moment when you find out whether it's a boy or a girl. Although I was spoilt with one of our births and got one of each at the same time! I am sure God is also so excited as His secret is declared to us at the glorious moment of birth. Just as we parents love to give our children surprises, I am sure God the Father loves to bless us with surprises too. 

3. IT IS AN UNNECESSARY EXPENSE

4. THE DIAGNOSIS IS NOT ALWAYS CORRECT

I have heard of a number of couples who have had an ultrasound and have been told they were having a boy only to find out they had a girl and vice versa. Why add expense and risk for and doubtful diagnosis? Even more serious, there have been many women who have been told that their baby was malformed and offered an abortion. These mothers refused and gave birth to perfectly healthy babies! How many other babies have been aborted because of a wrong diagnosis?

Robin Blatt in her book, Prenatal Tests, tells of a woman whose baby was diagnosed with spinal bifida. The couple decided to abort. During the pre-abortion ultrasound, the technician, not knowing the purpose of the scan said, "Everything looks fine." Others were called in to read the ultrasound and all agreed that everything seemed fine. The woman changed her mind and carried the baby to term and gave birth to a healthy baby!

Even professionals who use scans routinely to determine the size of the baby and the location of the placenta cannot always make a perfect diagnosis. The picture of the uterus taken through the amniotic fluid is difficult to read; its clarity depends on the quality of the equipment, the position of the baby, and numerous other factors.

For example, a study done in Finland (Saari-Kemppainen et al, 1990) on 4,000 women who were scanned at 16-20 weeks, diagnosed 250 women as having placenta previa. However, when it came to delivery, there were only four placenta previas, and one of these had not been diagnosed. So, 247 women had been worried unnecessarily that they may need a cesarean section!

5. ULTRASOUND HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVED TO BE POSITIVELY SAFE

To me this is a very important point. I am amazed at how glibly women subject themselves to that which is not yet proven. I think it is paramount that we research before we expose our bodies, and especially our unborn children, to technology that has not been proven over time.

Many times we don't see the effects until many years later. Regarding ultrasound, the Health and Human Services publication says that "Latent periods easily could be as long as 20 years in the case of cancer development, or the effect may not be seen for another generation..."

The HHS report concluded, "It is not clear at this time whether ultrasound fetal monitoring is beneficial to the mother or fetus in terms of pregnancy outcome . . . If there is no generally acknowledged benefit to the monitoring, there is no reason to expose patients to increased costs and possible risks . . . the question of benefit has not yet been resolved . . . and the potential for delayed effects has been virtually ignored."

The effect on future generations has not yet been determined. Are they going to be a generation of irradiated children and adults? Doris Haire, President of American Foundation for Maternal and Child Health says, "It will be 20 to 30 years before we will know whether ultrasound will be the DES of the next generation . . .  The implications of premature ovulation after ovarian ultrasonography are disturbing. If ultrasound can affect the adult ovary, what then is the effect of ultrasound on the ova of unborn baby girls?" 

Will they have trouble conceiving when they are ready to have children? Such effects might not be discovered for years to come.

An interesting five-year study was performed in Australia at Perth's King Edward Memorial Hospital on 3,000 expectant women. It was headed up by Professor John Newham who set out to prove that ultrasound tests improved the health of newborns, but this extensive study proved the opposite. In 1993 he revealed that excessive ultrasound testing reduces the weight of newborn babies by an average of 30g, leading to possible stunted growth. Although Professor Newham still advocates ultrasound for medical reasons, he now cautions mothers against using ultrasounds for "social" reasons such as determining the sex of the child. Reduced birth weight has also been confirmed by several other studies.

A frightening piece of information comes from Alice Stewart, a British epidemiologist who heads the Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancers. She declared that children exposed in the womb to sonograms (diagnostic ultrasounds) appear to be developing leukemia and other cancers in higher numbers than unexposed children. 

There is also evidence in laboratory animals that exposure within the period of organogenesis (organ formation) can result in congenital malformations. Research by Stark evaluated school-age children for possible effects of ultrasound. They observed an increased incidence of dyslexia in exposed children. 

Dr. Liebeskind and fellow researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York have led research into possible effects of ultrasound on the cellular level. The results of one study became the subject of a cable news network film that shows normal cells with smooth edges moving in a clear direction. After ultrasound exposure, 100% of the cells became frantic and distorted. The film also shows normal cells growing apart from each other but after exposure the cells became a tangled mess.

Liebeskind cautions that after a single exposure to ultrasound, there are some long-lived effects on the DNA of the cells, on the behavior of the cells, and on the cell growth, which persist through 10 succeeding cell generations. When Libeskind was asked what problems from ultrasound should be looked for in human studies, she answered, "Subtle ones. I'd look for possible behavioral changes - in reflexes, IQ, attention span."  

The late Robert S. Mendelsohn, MD says, "Thus, ultrasound represents the latest in a series of medical technologies applied to mass population without any scientific proof of benefit and with considerable evidence of risk." 

One of the most intuitive powers of a mother is the protection of her baby. These powerful feelings start during pregnancy. I believe the mother should protect her baby from excess radiation. Ultrasound is now becoming routine during pregnancy examinations but let’s not become victims of modern technology to the detriment of our God-given protective mother's heart. Let's research and use wisdom before we subject our unborn babies to unnecessary radiation.

NANCY CAMPBELL