:::: MENU ::::

What a 2-Inch Baby Looks Like

Sidewalk Counseling Ministry

What a 2-Inch Baby Looks Like

Share post

One of our sidewalk counselors is pregnant and recently shared this amazing ultrasound of her unborn baby with us. Call it what you will, but this “fetus” is sucking its thumb! The counselor told us that they watched her baby on the 4-D ultrasound for 5 minutes or so and kept seeing the little baby reach up to suck its thumb, and then it’d fidget around for a minute but always come back to this serene position.


The amazing thing to me is that this child is only 12 weeks old and only 2-inches long! It is at this stage, between 8 and 13 weeks, that a quarter of all abortions happen to babies. How can this be?

As a side note, this is the exact type of ultrasound that we offer to families outside the Louisville abortion clinic. We want people to see and cherish their unborn babies as much as we rejoice in our own. No matter what the circumstances are that bring people to the point of abortion, this is what’s at stake.


  1. Ken

    This is glorious, and gracful and beautiful.

    And it is also what makes sidewalk counsoling so cruel and spiteful and ineffectual in ways that you refuse to see.

    That blip isn’t tissue. It is their baby, their defensless, needy, helpless baby. And they live in a world where the best thing for their family, for THAT baby, is to not let it be born into their world.

    I am SO glad you don’t live there.

    I am glad, a little bit, that you live in a world where you think you can change that.

    But they don’t. And you can’t.

    Twenty women a day, five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. That’s 5200 babies, AND mommas every year. At one clinic, in one small city, in one marginal state.

    Do you REALLY think you can support all of them?

    If so, I suggest you turm your energy toward the 500,000 orphins already alive and struggling in foster care and group homes, in Kentucky, RIGHT now!


    • Brandy

      Hey Ken,
      Thanks again for your comments. We really appreciate you sharing your side on these posts and I know it helps everyone to see interaction with your point of view as well as our own.

      I know that you and I have talked this through before on the sidewalks, so I love that you’ve shared it here too. I do believe that you hold to the most consistent worldview of any the escorts I know. Anyone who denies that these unborn babies are human beings is simply ignoring accepted medical evidence or lying to themselves, so I appreciate that you are honest in recognizing this truth.

      In the same vein, though, this also makes your worldview one of the most cruel and terrifying points of view a person can hold to. If I understand you correctly, your basic premise is: 1. The unborn are human beings, 2. Abortion is murder to those human beings, and 3. There are times when murdering another human being is justifiable, and 4. You trust women to be the judge of the circumstances when murder is acceptable (with no accountability for those reasons).

      I understand where you get your fool-proof evidence that the unborn are human persons, but I don’t understand where you get your rationale that murdering them is acceptable. You and I both know that we encounter women with a huge range of reasons for having abortions. There is no consistent answer, so it follows that there is no consistent reason that people have abortions. But in the midst of this, you completely trust the life and death of a human person to the subjective decisions of women you’ve never met.

      So my question is this, what makes these women inherently capable of deciding the life and death of their unborn babies; and what is inherently lacking in the unborn that denies them the right to be protected from this fate? They are both human persons, but you put all the value on the mother and none on the child. This is where we view sidewalk counseling as merciful. We are out to protect and aid all the lives at stake, with no preference for one over the other. Mothers, fathers, and babies are all equally valuable to us because they were all created by God with inherent value.

      And as for your argument about the 5,200 less people that we have in our city to take care of… Well, while I know that may seem like a huge number for us to stand up and take care of, I have to wonder… would you take back the Holocaust? And if so, how would you take care for the 6 million Jews murdered in its wake? Or how about the genocide in Rwanda? Is that third world country better off to have 850,000 less mouths to feed? No! These are tragedies that we long to have prevented! I think that in our city of Louisville with its 1.2 million inhabitants, we could sure have made room for these little ones as well!

      Beyond even that, please just don’t assume that all we do is sidewalk counsel. Our hearts are truly for all those affected by abortion… the whole families. God’s church has been called to care for the weak and helpless and we are doing so in more ways that you know. I’ll address that more in one of your other comments. But yes, Ken, we want to take care of those 5,200 babies and their mommas and their dads. We can’t do that if they are murdered though. That’s why part of my time is spent trying to help save lives and then we can help raise and support them day to day.

      There are a lot more points to make about this issue, but I’ve written enough for now. Let’s keep talking!

  2. Ken

    I want to reiterate that I honestly believe most sidewalk counselors ARE motivated by love, compassion and understanding. I do believe you are devoted to the cause for which you stand. I whole-heartedly feel you are there to do what you feel is the right and best thing. But intent and perception are very, very different things. But we can get into that in the “What sidewalk Counselors Do” thread…

    I will apologize up front because what I am about to say will most likely deeply offend you and your readers’ sense of morality, decency, and most definitely your spirituality.

    Women get to decide when, if, and how often they will be mothers quite simply because they can. Unborn babies do not have an inherent right to life because they are dependent on their mothers for that life and as I stated, women can decide to terminate that pregnancy whenever they want. Is it contradictory that we do not allow mothers to “terminate” their two or three year olds? Yes, it is. But which side of the contradiction needs correcting?

    I do not hold human life to be precious. If anything, I think we as a society, are a parasite on the planet. Seven BILLION and counting?!?!? The fact is, life – all life, not just human life – would be much better served if half to two-thirds of human life were not sucking up all the resources and choking off all other life. Are you aware that there are less than 3000 bengal tigers left in the “wild”? Less than 25000 polar bears? And these are just the big cuddley animals we tend to care about. Do you know what is going to happen to food production in this country when we kill off the last of the honey bees by the year 2050?

    As for The Holocaust, World Wars, and genocide – if we controled our population so that resources were not in such short supply (or didn’t allow the powerful to lock away the resources and extort us into laboring for them), none of these horrors would have been visited by human beings onto others.

    Our meat based diet kills more people every year than abortion. Be it by fat induced heart attacks or starving grain-based people to feed cows – it takes six pounds of grain protein to produce one pound of meat protein – what you eat has more to do with the demise of this planet than anything Dr. Marshall has ever done.

    But I am not out at KFC screaming at people to go vegetarian for the sake of life on this planet.

    By your reasoning, that your faith compels you to convert , through shame, condemnation, conviction, harassment, turmoil and whatever difficulty concoctable, that is what I ought to be doing.

    I am sure this has devolved into absurdity for you and your readers.

    “Is he really comparing chickens to children? Pandas to people? Tigers to toddlers?”

    And this may be the most offensive thing of all of this to you folks:

    I’m not only comparing them, my deeply rooted, long studied, daily professed and practiced faith holds those forms of LIFE more precious because they are endangered of becoming extinct.

    • Brandy

      Well, yes Ken I do find your post appalling, but again I am glad you spoke it clearly. I think people need to recognize the ultimate end to pro-choice thinking. Pro-choice thinking devalues human life and allows essentially arbitrary philosophies to decide which lives to enhance and which to eliminate. There is no standard except what is most beneficial to the person making the decision.

      In my Christian faith, I trust that the Creator of life has set the standard value for it, and I adhere to His authority. In your faith, you take on the role of god and decide who gets to live or die. I wonder where you get this authority though? And how is it that you, a regular guy from Kentucky, are able to determine what is best for our whole planet, or at least the 3.5 Billion people that you wish you could stop from “sucking up resources”? That’s a pretty hefty statement, Ken. Why do you want 3.5 Billion people to die? And how can that possibly ever be a morally justifiable position?

      Also keep in mind that abortions do not help save the pandas. Can you prove that the 53 million+ abortions over the last 3 decades have revived any endangered species? Have you considered how abortions can actually harm the economic balance and prevent societies from focusing on environmental issues like what you’ve listed? Take for instance China. They are looking at a demographic crisis where there are a disproportionate number of young men and women. Because of their 1 child policy thousands of men will never marry, because so many baby girls were aborted in their generation. They are also facing a generation gap between the elderly and the young. Eventually as length of life increases, but the population decreases, the youth will not be able to replace the vacant positions left by the retired or sustain the needs of the elderly in their society. How can they help save the whales when they are facing such daunting economic imbalances left from the affects of abortion?

      I also find it counterintuitive to want to cherish life by killing life. Shouldn’t we value all of life and find solutions that work within those parameters? And if you have a soft spot for endangered lives, consider the number of african american babies aborted every year. Here’s a great link for you: http://www.toomanyaborted.com/. They argue that black babies are endangered b/c they are so frequently killed.

      Ultimately, I plead with you to see how grotesque your view of humanity is, Ken. You want to help some people and slaughter others. You value animals more than toddlers. Ken, this should not be. I hope some day you don’t encounter someone of your same “faith” who deems you the less convenient life. You wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

      I also beg of you to see the beauty of the worldview of the Bible. God does care about the endangered pandas and tigers.. He designed their glorious features and delights in them. But He also created men and women, but with the surpassing honor of creating us “in His image” and for that we are of far greater inherent value. We are cherished by our Creator and given a purpose to live out and enjoy with Him. We have the chance to know our Creator and learn to live out life with the values and joys He’s designed us to revel in. Don’t ignore your Creator, Ken. You were created to know Him and be reconciled to Him… and you need Him to give you a consistent and honorable worldview!

  3. Ken

    Oh Brandy! You argue so beautifully! I think you and your hubby ought to moive in next door and we could create a fabulous new reality show – The New REAL Honeymooners of Jefferson County! It’d be a gold mine.

    Now back to the fight.

    Pro-choice does not devalue human life. It places that value on those already living, And you are correct. Those able to make that decision get to make that decision. I trust Women. I trust them to know what is best for their families, their bodies, their health, their lives.

    I probably overstated my position about the planet being better off with, say, 2.5 billion people as opposed to 7. But I’m not about to go out and start shooting two out of three people I meet. All I am advocating is that we stop mass producing.

    Some of your points regarding China are correct. But they are short sighted and accentuate the problems with NOT controlling the population sooner rather than the long term good of keeping us in check.

    Abortions not only save pandas, they save your personal property. Read Freakonomics. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubnar use basic math and scientific proof to show that the legalization of abortion in 1973 led to reduced crime in 1995.

    These are not beliefs.
    These aren;t faith based ideals.


    And I really hope you and I can get to that distinction: The difference between Truth and Truths, what is real and what is based on belief.

    These are important lines we need to recognize.

    I am not saying that your beliefs are any less real to you. But they are yours and unlike, say, gravity, they are not shared by everyone.

    • Brandy

      Thanks for the compliment, Ken. I’m glad we have some place aside from the sidewalks where we can talk through our various viewpoints. It is so helpful for me to get to understand where you are coming from and also have my own convictions challenged. I hope you aren’t discouraged by our continual disagreements. Ultimately, I think it is very healthy to have our beliefs put to the test and even let others join us in this analysis.

      As you’ve said, let’s get back to it.

      I have to point out your contradiction that Pro-Choice places value “on those already living.” In your previous comments you acknowledge that the unborn is a baby, and therefore already living. Honestly, this is probably the crux of the issue between us. Abortion does not prevent life. Abortion takes a life that was already living. If you want to argue for abortion, you have to address it in those terms or you are totally contradicting what you know to be true.

      I am not against birth control, but abortion is not birth control. Even most pro-choice advocates would frown upon women using abortion for that purpose, don’t you agree? And yet that is how you are presenting your argument. You are against “mass producing” but the issue is that those babies have already been produced. If you have already agreed that these are babies, I don’t see how your solution to “mass producing” is anything but mass genocide. You’re advocating the “termination”- more literally the “extermination” of the defenseless and dependant portion of our population. And to be honest Ken, I don’t see how that is anything less than the devaluing of those human lives.

      I’ll have to check out Freakonomics. I haven’t read that yet, but I appreciate you bringing it up so I can read it. And I do welcome a discussion about the FACTS. Honestly, I think your position is based more on your personal “beliefs” than my own. So this is a great direction for us to go in!

      Let me know if you agree with these basic facts too:

      1. It is immoral to wilfully take an innocent human life.
      2. The unborn is an innocent human life.

      I know that you have already agreed with #2, and I suspect that #1 is our real area of disagreement. If so, please let me know by what facts you base your belief that it is okay to take innocent human life. I agree with #1 based on the generally accepted moral law that we see practiced across the majority of civilized countries in the world. Obviously, my beliefs concur with that moral law as well, but for your sake I’ll argue strictly from that evidence. In general, I regard societies where innocent people are acceptably killed as barbaric. Do you agree?

      Ultimately, your answer for why abortion is okay, is based on your beliefs. My beliefs are different from yours, but we are still both relying on some form of them to guide our stances. Don’t pin “faith” just on me when we both are guided by that very thing. You just seem to think your beliefs are the only acceptable ones. Maybe our next discussion can be on the evidence for our opposing faiths that guide our principles. I hope to show that the Christian faith has a lot more credibility than you think.

      I’m sorry this response has felt all over the place, but I hope it at least gives us more to talk about. Let me know your thoughts!

  4. Ken

    Oh Miss B,

    Yes, you are all over the place but I am too and that is all okay. These are deep, instinctual issues. We are polar opposites in our belief structure. It is a God granted miracle that we are even able to construct language to talk to each other about these things.

    As I said before, the fetus is a living human being. But it is dependent on the mother for that life and if momma says no, momma says no. Greater medical, legal and religious minds than ours have decided that this is the way it ought to be, so I yield to their knowledge and wisedom. Also, as I previously offended, human life just ain’t precious to me.

    And in the case of terminating pregnancy, NO, I do not agree with your point number 1.

    But none of that really matters.

    The decision of when, if, and how often to become a mother is a deeply personal issue into which, according to the laws of the land, religion, social construct, and governement should not tread unless invited by the individuals.

    And you, against the wishes of those folks, insert yourself into their very personal journey.

    I don’t know that abortion is OK. But it is a choice that those in that situation sometimes make. And I am going to continue to support those that choose that path because I trust that they can make their own decisions. I trust these women to know what is best for their health, their future and their families.

    And I know you’ll keep doing what you believe you have to do. Just do it from two feet away from the clients and companions, okay?

    • Brandy

      I agree that the government should not dictate the circumstances of motherhood. My issue is that abortion takes place after a woman already is a mother. The baby is already alive, already conceived- this is not birth control it is killing a baby (as you’ve previously agreed with). It is against my wishes that any child be murdered by its mother. And I do think the government has a responsibility to guard its people against abuse and injustice. If “all men are created equal” and have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” then it would seem it should be our government’s duty to ensure that for all its living human constituents, regardless of size, contribution to society or perceived value by others. I see this inconsistency in our “laws of the land” and am working to change them.

  5. Kelly


    Can you tell me what activities and charities you participate in to help babies every day who are born into foster care or born to families in poverty?

    Ensuring that pregnant women know that they have support once they have a baby is the next step that needs to be done in order to reduce the number of abortions that occur.

    Much Love,


Leave a comment

Are you ready to Speak? Learn How