Abortion--"A better healthy choice"?

TIME recently ran a piece on the abortion debate, focusing primarily on the rise and work of crisis pregnancy centers (for a good commentary on this article go here) One of the objections against crisis pregnancy centers brought up in the article by the vice president of Planned Parenthood is,

The movement toward "medicalizing" the centers particularly concerns groups like Planned Parenthood that define their mission as offering the most accurate information about the most complete range of reproductive options. The motive behind offering free ultrasounds, which would typically cost at least $100, is
more emotional than medical, critics argue, and having them performed by people with limited training and moral agendas poses all kinds of hazards. "What is really tragic to me is that a woman goes into a center looking for information, looking to be able to make a better, healthy choice, and she doesn't get all the facts," argues Christopher Hollis, Planned Parenthood's vice president for governmental and political affairs in North Carolina. "That's taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it.

Notice, as Dr. Mohler points out, "the effort to disguise abortion as "a better, healthy choice." The only reason a woman would choose not to abort, some pro-abortion advocates seem to say, is that she didn't "get all the facts." What are the "facts" that they may be missing? Notice some "facts" that this quote gives:

1)"The motive behind offering free ultrasounds, which would typically cost at least $100, is more emotional than medical..."

2)"...having them performed by people with limited training and moral agendas poses all kinds of hazards."

3)The information, or lack thereof, that these crisis pregnancy centers are giving amounts to "taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."

Three is rather interesting to me since I think that Planned Parenthood is more guilty of this than the crisis pregnancy centers, and worse; for Planned Parenthood's failure to give all the facts (the fetus is a human being) amounts to "taking someone's life."

In regards to two, I am not sure how performing an ultrasound, even with limited training, poses a health hazard. I suppose I need more information on this.

One, I am sure, is quite irrelevant.

Now, the inspiration for me to even introduce this article is for the following reason: Recently my wife and I discovered that our son, which my wife is carrying in her womb right now, has a 0% chance of surviving outside of the womb. He has a severe form of skeletal displaysia (current diagnosis: Osteogenesis Imperfecta, level 2). We have spent countless hours talking with various doctors, specialists, geneticists, etc. And, initially, the consensus of the experts was that we needed to abort our baby (interestingly, these specialists had no problem referring to the 'fetus' as: baby, child, son, human being).

I must admit, we did take into consideration what they were telling us. Namely, abortion appears to be the best option. However, after considering all the facts, my wife and I decided that the moral choice here was to keep the baby--not for reasons that some people would give (I am sure)--for the simple 'fact' that our child is a human being. Here, I think, is a counterexample to Planned Parenthood's argument. That is to say, we have all the facts, we even considered abortion as an option, and in light of those facts we made a reasoned decision to keep the baby because we believe that not keeping the baby would amount to "taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."